CHAPTER 6 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE ALTERNATIVES
Chapter 6 describes the environmental compliance requirements for implementing the Proposed Action and Alternatives. These include mention of applicable Federal and State laws as well as identification of agencies with regulatory purview over actions that would result from the Department's Record of Decision that will follow the completion of this EIS.
6.1 Introduction and Purpose
This chapter provides information concerning the environmental standards and statutory requirements that relate to continuing operations at Pantex Plant. It presents some of the more important regulatory requirements associated with the Proposed Action by identifying the applicable environmental statutes, regulations, and approval requirements. The requirements are found in Federal and State statutes, regulations, permits, approvals, and consultations, as well as in the Executive and DOE orders, Consent orders, Federal Facility Agreements, Federal Facility Compliance Agreements, and Agreements-in-Principle. The status of consultations required by some statutes is documented, and potential new permits required by the Proposed Action are listed. In addition, this chapter provides historical background on environmental protection at Pantex Plant and alternative sites, identifies potential new permits that may be required, and explains the concept of shared Federal and State enforcement.
6.2 Background
Since Pantex Plant was constructed during the 1940's and 1950's, before the advent of current environmental and worker health requirements, operational safety and national security requirements were the dominant factors in the design and operation of its facilities. With the emergence of environmental and health-related issues and the enactment of environmental and worker health programs, DOE shifted many of its resources into programs designed to achieve compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local requirements. Today, many government agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels have regulatory authority over Pantex Plant operations due to compliance agreements between DOE and regulators.
6.3 Environmental Requirements
Section 6.3.1 discusses the major Federal and State statutes, regulations, and orders associated with this EIS. Section 6.3.2 summarizes consultations that have taken place. Finally, section 6.3.3 identifies existing permits obtained for Pantex Plant operations and highlights potential permits in support of certain projects at Pantex Plant during the EIS timeframe.
6.3.1 Environmental Statutes, Orders, and Agreements
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2 ) authorized the Atomic Energy Commission to establish standards to protect health and minimize dangers to life or property. As a successor agency to the AEC, DOE has inherited these responsibilities. Other Federal environmental statutes and regulations have been established to protect the environment and to control the generation, handling, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste substances. Table 6.3.1-1 (all tables are presented at the end of this chapter) lists the Federal environmental statutes, regulations, and Executive orders applicable to Pantex Plant. It also identifies the associated permit, approval, and consultation requirements generally required to site, construct, or operate the facilities discussed in this EIS. DOE is committed to fully complying with all applicable environmental statutes, regulatory requirements, and Executive and internal orders; many of these requirements and standards are established through DOE orders. Table 6.3.1-2 lists selected DOE orders that apply to all sites; however, they may affect each site differently.
DOE has entered into agreements with some regulatory agencies on behalf of Pantex Plant facilities. These agreements normally establish a schedule for achieving full compliance with regulations at Pantex Plant. Table 6.3.1-3 lists Texas State environmental statutes, regulations, and orders.
6.3.2 Environmental Consultations
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the proponent to involve a number of Federal, State, and local agencies with jurisdiction over various aspects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives to be consulted. The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531) and National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470) require consultation in regard to endangered species, critical habitat, and prehistoric and historic resources. Chapter 9 lists Federal and State agencies that have been offered an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS. Appendix J contains letters pertaining to Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act consultations, together with others providing comments on the Draft EIS.
6.3.3 Environmental Permits
Pantex Plant has applied for various air, solid waste, and water permits in accordance with the Federal and State regulatory requirements outlined in Tables 6.3.1-1 and 6.3.1-3. Section 6.4 summarizes the status of permits and other important regulatory issues at Pantex Plant Site. The status of regulatory issues at alternative interim pit storage sites is briefly summarized in section 6.5.
6.4 Environmental Regulatory Setting at Pantex Plant
In 1989, the Secretary of Energy invited the host State of each DOE facility to independently determine and verify any impacts of plant operations to the environment. In response to this initiative, DOE entered into an Agreement-in-Principle with the State of Texas to focus on waste management, emergency response, and environmental monitoring. DOE provides required information to the State of Texas, and the State conducts sampling and research activities. DOE also issued a Grant-in-Aid for the hydrogeologic characterization studies at Pantex Plant. The plant provides office space for TNRCC officials who are assigned to this site.
Generally, Pantex Plant operations are currently in full compliance with applicable Federal and State regulations. However, since this facility existed prior to the promulgation of many current environmental laws and regulations, both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of Texas have allowed DOE to continue operations while taking actions to achieve full compliance with all applicable environmental regulatory requirements.
On May 31, 1994, EPA announced in the Federal Register that, effective June 30, 1994, Pantex Plant would be listed on the National Priorities List as a Superfund site pursuant to the provision of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (59 FR 27989). This determination was based on the presence of contamination due to past practices. Pantex Plant officials, TNRCC, and EPA Region 6 are in the process of developing a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement to address Pantex Plant Superfund issues (Pantex 1995a:15-4).
Section 107 of CERCLA provides for the designation of Federal and State trustees who are responsible for assessing damages for injury to, destruction of, and loss of natural resources. As Pantex Plant's primary Federal Natural Resource Trustee, DOE has participated with various Federal and State Trustees including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, TNRCC, and the Texas General Land Office (DOE 1996f:12). As completion of the Federal Facility Agreement for the Pantex Plant approaches, consultation will increase.
6.4.1 Air
The Burning Ground is the term used to describe 17 thermal treatment units. These units are used to treat, demilitarize, and sanitize explosives, explosive components, and explosive materials. The Burning Ground is operated under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 6901) interim status and a written grant of authority from TNRCC.
6.4.2 Water
Since 1980, pursuant to the Texas Water Code, TNRCC has permitted the plant to discharge its wastewater under a Wastewater No Discharge Permit (Permit Number 02296), which allows wastewater discharges not going to "Waters of the State." In 1980, the State did not consider playas to be "Waters of the State," and, on December 26, 1990, DOE filed a permit application to modify its permit. The permit application was resubmitted in May 1992, at the request of TNRCC, to change the permit from a No Discharge to a Discharge Permit. EPA Region 6 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. TX-0107107 and TNRCC Permit 02296, as amended, authorize the plant to discharge to the waters of the United States and Texas, under specified effluent limitations and monitoring requirements.
6.4.3 Land
Pantex Plant currently operates RCRA units under its Hazardous Waste Permit and under Interim Status. On April 25, 1991, TNRCC and EPA issued a permit to Pantex Plant to store containers and tanks and to treat hazardous waste in tanks and containers. The permit specifically excluded 17 RCRA units at the Burning Ground, but continued Interim Status of those units. Explosive waste and explosive-contaminated waste are thermally treated at the Burning Ground, which operates as a RCRA Interim Status unit and under a written Grant of Authority from TNRCC. In November 1991, DOE formally submitted a request to TNRCC for a Class 3 Modification to add the units at the Burning Ground to the permit. Pursuant to the public notice published on October 31, 1991, interested parties requested a hearing before a hearing examiner on the permit. On May 31, 1992, the TNRCC Office of Air Quality recommended draft hazardous waste permit provisions for the Burning Ground. TNRCC, DOE, and parties to the hearing process are continuing discussions on terms of the proposed permit modification.
EPA issued DOE a draft RCRA Administrative Order of Consent in September 1989 requiring Pantex Plant to conduct a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) to identify, assess, and correct actual and potential threats to human health or the environment resulting from the release of hazardous wastes or constituents at 144 solid waste management units (SWMUs) (Pantex 1996:15). In 1991, the RFI was incorporated into the hazardous waste permits (TWC 1991:Attachments C-G). The RFI has completed the initial investigation for 70 percent of the SWMUs (PC 1995r; DOE 1994x). Based on RFI results and recommendations, corrective measures will be evaluated and conducted at certain SWMU sites following the necessary approval. A Pantex Plant citizens advisory board has been created to provide stakeholders with information on environmental restoration activities, and also to serve as a forum to address their environmental concerns.
On October 3, 1995, TNRCC approved the Pantex Plant Site Treatment Plan-Compliance Plan and Agreed Order pursuant to the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 6961) (FFCA) (DOE 1995x). The Agreed Order and Site Treatment Plan-Compliance Plan establish schedules for development of treatment technologies for low-level mixed waste subject to Land Disposal Restrictions.
6.5 Pit Storage Sites
Tables 6.5-1 through 6.5-4 identify selected environmental statutes, regulations, and orders for states in which the four candidate sites for pit storage are located. Most of the candidate sites' operations are currently in compliance with applicable Federal and State regulations. Since many of the sites' facilities existed prior to the promulgation of many current environmental laws and regulations, EPA and the respective states have allowed DOE to continue most operations while taking actions to achieve full compliance with all applicable environmental regulatory requirements.
Kirtland Air Force Base (KAFB) is the only alternative storage site candidate that has RCRA Part B Permits issued to non-DOE agencies. The New Mexico Environment Department and EPA Region 6 have issued RCRA Part B Permits to the 377th Air Base Wing (the host Air Force element), in addition to those issued to DOE's Kirtland Area Office and Sandia National Laboratories. If DOE selects KAFB's Manzano Weapons Storage Area as a pit storage site, a decision would have to be made on whether to use KAFB, Sandia National Laboratories, or another DOE organization to handle hazardous, mixed, or radioactive wastes associated with the Pit Storage Relocation Alternative. New permits, or permit modifications, could be required. A Memorandum of Understanding (in consultation with regulators) would presumably be developed to address interagency environmental and other issues.
The final decision to issue a new permit or modify existing permits rests primarily with the New Mexico Environment Department. DOE expects at a minimum, language changes modifying existing RCRA Part B permits and identification of responsible parties in areas of site ownership, on-going solid waste management unit investigations and clean-ups, and waste management operations. Since no additional RCRA storage, treatment, or disposal facilities would be required to manage less than 1 cubic meter (1.3 cubic yards) per year of mixed waste and hazardous waste, the modifications are expected to be considered Class 1 as defined by 40 CFR 270 criteria.
Since the Hanford Site, Savannah River Site, Nevada Test Site, and Sandia National Laboratories each manage low-level mixed waste and hazardous waste, no impacts to the current waste management operations are expected from the small volumes routinely generated during pit storage activities (DOE 1995). Low-level mixed wastes would be managed in accordance with site-specific FFCA Site Treatment Plan-Compliance Plan and Site Agreed Order.
Table 6.3.1-2.--Selected DOE Environment, Safety, and Health Orders (.pdf)
Table 6.3.1-3.--Texas State Environmental Statutes, Regulations, and Orders (.pdf)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
