Administration
Water Pollution Control
Facsimile 687-5856

Mining Regulations and Reclamation
Facsimile 684-5259

Air Quality
Water Quality Planning
Facsimile 687-6396

May 10, 2000

Carl Gertz
Environmental Management
U.S. Department of Energy
P.O. Box 98518
Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8518

RE: Hydrologic Data Collection & Funding Requirements To Support The Underground Test Area (UGTA) Sub-Project Site Investigations For The Nevada Test Site (NTS)

     The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) has reviewed the U.S. Department of Energy's Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV's) letter from Carl Gertz (DOE/NV) to Paul Liebendorfer (NDEP) dated April 13, 2000. This letter was DOE's response to a previous letter from Mr. Liebendorfer to Mr. Gertz, dated February 28, 2000. In general, NDEP's February 28th letter addressed the need for additional funding for the Corrective Action Investigation (CAI) phase of the Underground Test Area Subproject (UGTA) work on the Nevada Test Site (NTS).

     The DOE/NV letter stated that the UGTA Subproject is proceeding in accordance with the UGTA Technical Strategy -- and thus remains compliant with the Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO). In addition, it was stated that DOE/NV's current baseline "budget and planning process" cannot be revised at this time, since the process is already in progress. Your letter also points out that a meeting between DOE and NDEP was scheduled to take place on April 18, 2000 to discuss these and other issues. The referenced meeting did take place, and as a follow-up to that meeting this letter clarifies NDEP's position concerning DOE/NV's schedule for re-baselining the budget and planning process for the Underground Test Area Subproject (UGTA) work on the Nevada Test Site (NTS).

Provisions for Additional Data Collection in the FFACO:

     First it should be reiterated that the actual language in the body of the FFACO including Appendix VI (Corrective Action Strategy) does not specifically suggest, nor is intended to infer, that existing data will be sufficient for UGTA modeling. Rather, on page 19 of the FFACO the statement is made that,"...The parties recognize that current assumptions, as stated in Appendix VI, Corrective Action Strategy, are preliminary and may change as additional technical information is acquired....."

     As pointed out in NDEP's February 28th letter referenced above, in 1996 a principal assumption for developing the UGTA strategy, based on DOE's assertions, was that groundwater models could be developed with acceptable results using existing hydrogeologic information. It was based on these underlying assumptions that the strategy was negotiated and agreed upon between DOE/NV and NDEP. In 1997 (per NDEP's Letter to DOE⁽¹⁾ ) it began to became apparent that the initial assumptions might no longer be valid. Subsequently, in 1999, NDEP "approved with comments" the Pahute Mesa and  Frenchman Flat CAIPs. Contained within our conditioned approvals, NDEP specifically identified areas of insufficient data and stipulated that DOE must address the acquisition of new data to remedy the voids in the existing information.

     It is now clearly apparent, the preliminary work completed to date for the Frenchman Flat and Pahute Mesa Corrective Action Investigation(s), combined with information gained from the development of the Regional Model, have shown quite conclusively that sufficient data for the development of CAU groundwater models does not exist. While it is understood that DOE had been proceeding with a CAU investigation strategy based on the assumption that sufficient data exist, this assumption is no longer valid.

Specific Data Needs:

     Several specific examples of data deficiencies in the CAUs as recognized by NDEP are cited below. These data needs, along with those identified by the Frenchmen Flat Peer Review Group, as well as the recommendations of the Technical Work Group, and NDEP comments on the Corrective Action Investigation Plans, should provide DOE with a firm basis for developing data collection strategies for each CAU.

• Basic Hydrologic Characterization Data - Hydraulic parameter data derived from aquifer testing is lacking for all the CAUs.
  
  
• Contaminant Migration Data - Currently, there is limited information and data on contaminant migration at any of the CAUs.
  
  
• Contaminant Transport Parameters - Field data for parameters which effect the movement and availability of radionuclide contaminants are required. Most important are CAU-specific, pollutant/contaminant-specific diffusivity/dispersivity data.

April 18, 2000 Meeting:

     On April 18, 2000, the afore-mentioned meeting between DOE/NV and NDEP occurred. In that meeting, the consensus was that:

1.) The assumption that adequate data exists to reach a corrective action decision is no longer valid. Each Corrective Action Unit will require new and additional data for a Corrective Action Decision.

2.) The FFACO strategy for UGTA needs to be refined to reflect the present extent of technical information and an agreement reached concerning how to collect and integrate new data under the refined strategy.

3.) A draft flow chart revision was jointly developed by both parties reflecting the present understandings of both NDEP and DOE. The flow chart will indicate that at least two data collection events will be required for each of the CAU's.

Baseline / Budget Revision:

     As DOE is now keenly aware, these refinements to the FFACO strategy for the UGTA Subproject portion will necessitate revisions to DOE/NV's baseline (i.e., the budget and planning process). While we concur that it may be infeasible for DOE/NV to initiate a re-baselining process for FY 2000, NDEP firmly contends that a re-baselining must be undertaken for the FY 2001 time period. In any event, it goes without saying that NDEP expects the FY 2002 baseline and budget for the referenced subproject to be revised to clearly reflect revisions in the FFACO strategy. Failure by DOE to fully address the revised baseline and budget dictated by the revisions in strategy for FY 2002, will be considered as a failure to request a compliance budget and therefore a violation of the conditions of the FFACO.

Summary:

     NDEP recognizes that DOE must take several steps to move the UGTA process forward. First, DOE and NDEP must work together to formalize the necessary refinements to the UGTA portion of the Strategy in Appendix VI of the FFACO. These changes must clearly show how an assessment of CAU-related existing data will be conducted. This effort will seek to clarify and expand this task, with the focus on making allowance for the collection and assessment of additional field data for those areas that have presently been identified. Second, DOE's UGTA project managers, acting on the technical comments and guidance provided by their contractors, the Peer Review Group, the Technical Work Group, and NDEP -- must propose the collection of additional field data in the CAUs. Finally, the budgetary process for the coming years must include provisions for this work through adequate planning and budgeting (i.e., revising the baseline).

     Questions regarding these matter may be directed to me at (775) 687-4670 Ex. 3039.

PJL/cg/sj/cc/jbw/
cc:
Dave Bedsun, DTRA
Ken Hoar, DOE/EPD
Runore C. Wycoff, DOE/ERD
Patti Hall, DOE/ERD
Robert M. Bangerter, DOE/ERD
Allen Biaggi, NDEP
Mike McKinnon, NDEP/LV
Bob Loux, NWPO
Earle Dixon, CAB Technical Advisor

⁽¹⁾June 30, 1997 -- Letter from Paul Liebendorfer to Leah Dever (Assistant Manager, Environmental Management U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Nevada Operations Office). The letter address State concerns about funding for DOE's Underground Testing Area (UGTA) Program in FFY'99

---

 Federal Facilities Home Page

Site Map
NDEP Home Page