DOE, Regulators in Dispute Over Planned Mercury Treatment Facility
WC Monitor
3/27/2015
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and the Environmental Protection Agency are in dispute with the Department of Energy over the design of the proposed water-treatment facility at Y-12’s Outfall 200, where much of the plant’s mercury runoff and discharges reach the East Fork Poplar Creek. DOE reportedly initiated the dispute. Mike Koentop, executive officer of DOE’s Office of Environmental Management in Oak Ridge, said there wasn’t much he could say at this time. “We are continuing to work on the project, and have scheduled a late April meeting with EPA and TDEC to discuss the formal dispute,” Koentop said. “We all share the common goal of constructing the mercury treatment facility at Y-12, and we are confident that we will work through our differences and develop a path forward for the project. The formal dispute is primarily related to how robust a facility we will construct.”
According to documents associated with the dispute, DOE is requesting a waiver from the Tennessee Ambient Water Quality Criteria standard for mercury for the treatment facility. DOE said the waiver would be “consistent with the existing remedial action objectives” under the previously agreed upon Record of Decision for the Upper East Fork. Meanwhile, other issues in dispute include an informal dispute regarding documents associated with the “Zone 1” Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at the East Tennessee Technology Park as well as the issues tied to the 2013 Remedial Effectiveness Report at the site.
Also, the state of Tennessee is in dispute with DOE’s Oak Ridge office on the Site Treatment Plan regarding disposal of transuranic waste in interim storage in Trench 12 in Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Solid Waste Storage Area-5. According to information from the state, “DOE invoked the dispute when TDEC rejected DOE’s preferred option for management of TRU waste. TDEC rejected the option because it did not meet objectives of the Sept. 15, 2000 Dispute Resolution Agreement . . .”
