Institutional Controls a. On the Effective Date of this Settlement and thereafter, Purchaser shall comply with the land and groundwater use restrictions established in the Environmental Covenant recorded on the Site on August 30, 2014.
b. On the effective date of the FDRTC and thereafter, Purchaser shall comply with the land and groundwater use restrictions selected in the FDRTC. In selecting the land and groundwater use restrictions, EPA takes into consideration, among other things, the current and reasonably anticipated use of the property, consistent with its guidance entitled Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites, U.S. EPA OSWER 9355.0-89 (Dec. 2012).
c. In accordance with the EPA-approved CMI Work Plan schedule, or as otherwise directed by EPA, Purchaser shall submit to EPA for review and approval, in accordance with Paragraph 36, a proposal for the implementation of Institutional Controls (the “Institutional Controls Workplan”), which shall provide a plan and schedule for the implementation of all land use restrictions and/or other Institutional Controls called for in the remedy to be selected by EPA in the FDRTC for the Site, as those land use restrictions and/or other Institutional Controls relate to the Property. Upon EPA approval, and in accordance with the EPA-approved Institutional Controls Workplan and schedule, Purchaser shall institute these land use restrictions and/or other Institutional Control until such time as EPA determines that such land use restrictions and/or other Institutional Controls are no longer necessary.
Institutional Controls. IC § 455H.206 and Department rules in chapter 567 IAC 137 authorize the use of an environmental covenant as an institutional control. The purpose of this environmental covenant is to manage the risk of future exposure to existing contaminant conditions by limiting specified land use activities at this property, establishing affirmative obligations and enforcing the terms of this covenant.
Institutional Controls. It is expressly acknowledged and agreed by the parties that the Company and Pfizer may, if approved or permitted by the applicable Governmental Authority or Environmental Law, use Institutional Controls to complete a Remedial Action at or related to a Co-Located Facility. Where the use of such Institutional Controls are necessary or appropriate, the parties agree, on behalf of their respective Groups, to cooperate with the other to seek, execute and record such controls.
Institutional Controls. Institutional controls in the form of use restrictions are established in the final CAD/ROD. These controls are embodied in an environmental covenant granted by DOE to the CDPHE and are listed in Table 4. The covenant is recorded by Reception Number 2006148295 in Jefferson County, Colorado. DOE will employ administrative procedures to control all site modification, maintenance, or other activities requiring excavation within the Central OU in accordance with the institutional controls to ensure to prevent violation of the restrictions listed in Table 4. DOE shall ensure that all such site activities will not compromise the integrity or function of the remedy or result in uncontrolled releases of or exposures to subsurface contamination, in accordance with the land use restrictions in Table 4. DOE will utilize work control procedures to help maintain the use restrictions and ensure protection of the integrity of the institutional controls. These procedures derive from EPA and State of Colorado regulation and guidance and DOE Orders and guidance. The DOE Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) utilizes processes such as the job hazard analysis (XXX) to identify and mediate environmental, health and safety risks to ensure all work is done in a safe and environmentally protective manner.
Institutional Controls. Except as set forth in Schedule EA 4.1(i), to the Knowledge of Hercules, GES or HDES, no Institutional Control has been imposed or recorded in any public document with respect to any of the HAC Facilities.
Institutional Controls. This section does not provide adequate attention as to why none of the participating agencies in the FFA feel it is necessary to provide warning signage or physical access restriction such as fencing at the SED-Katy Trail crossing or Burgermeister Spring (DOE 6301). Both sites are located on heavily traveled areas (by hikers and bikers) within the MDOC Xxxxxx Spring and Xxxxx Memorial Conservation areas and land leased to MDNR for Katy Trail State Park. Neither the “historical signs” that are in place or the recently prepared MDOC brochure adequately warn the public of the real risks due to groundwater and sediment contamination by uranium, TCE, nitroaromatics and nitrosamines. The FFA needs to address this issue. At a minimum, it needs to state why the three partner agencies feel the present ICs in the Final LTS&M plan for Xxxxxx Spring site are adequate in this regard. Section XV, Data/document availability. Sections 54 and 55 on page 20 do not provide a means for the sampling data to be brought to the attention of the general public. The stance of DOE that informing the WSCC is adequate conveyance is not acceptable for several reasons: (a) the members are appointed by the County Executive, who is the Principal Investigator of a grant from DOE that funds WSCC oversight activities, and (b) only St. Xxxxxxx residents can be appointed to be commissioners. The impact of an FFA is regional. Hence WSCC is potentially conflicted in their oversight of DOE, who in turn funds their activities. It is likely that persons who might have opinions that are adverse to DOE will not be appointed to the WSCC.
Institutional Controls. The above cleanup levels are considered protective for non-food related or industrial related commercial settings. Therefore, institutional controls (e.g., deed restrictions limiting the future use of the building) will be necessary. Such restrictions on use will need to be implemented by the appropriate party. In the event that the imposition of institutional controls cannot be accomplished, cleanup to health- based levels suited to unrestricted future use of the building or demolition of building will be necessary.
Institutional Controls. On April 15, 2020, EPA signed the IROD for the BGM Site, selecting a remedial action. The IROD requires that Institutional Controls be applied to the Affected Property. Settling Parties shall cooperate with EPA’s and the State’s efforts to secure and ensure compliance with such institutional controls.
Institutional Controls. Following completion of the CAP-required cleanup construction, the Port and Ecology will develop an Institutional Controls Plan for the PTM XXX that includes environmental covenants in accordance with WAC 000-000-000 and RCW
Institutional Controls. Lessee hereby consents to the recordation of Institutional Controls, as defined in RCW 70.105D.020(15), as required by the Remedial Action and agrees to (i) subordinate this Lease to the Institutional Controls and (ii) to abide by the terms and conditions of the Institutional Controls.
