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.
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.” Response: This comment, much like the prior comment, appears to be directed more at the particular institutional controls selected in the 2005 ESD, as they would be implemented in the LTS&M Plan, than it does the terms of the FFA. The LTS&M Plan currently contains no requirements for access controls or “warning” signs because the remedies are protective of public health under current uses. Residual contaminant levels at the SED and Burgermeister Spring do not present significant exposure concerns to recreational visitors at these locations. There are no water xxxxx or other mechanisms for ongoing human consumption of the contaminated groundwater under current conditions. Comment: “A second comment is that the language in section 30 on p.11 ignores the fact that leaving the engineered disposal cell totally open and unprotected by warning signs or physical barriers obviously does negate the first part, i.e., “DOE agrees to refrain from either using or allowing the use of all portions of the SITE, or such other property, under its jurisdiction, custody or control, in any manner…” by concluding that : “that would interfere with or adversely affect the implementation, integrity, or protectiveness of the remedial measures.” Obviously this “openness” and “tourism friendly” policy exposes the site to vandalism, undue wear and tear, and possible terror attacks.” Response: This comment appears to be directed more at the remedy selected for the Site in the 1993 Chemical Plant Area ROD as supplemented by the institutional controls selected in the 2005 ESD than it does the terms of the FFA. Paragraph ...
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The Parties agree that Institutional Controls, consistent with the SOW and the ROD, are appropriate for ensuring protection of public health and welfare and the environment. The Work Parties shall submit to the Department for review and approval draft Institutional Controls in accordance with the approved Institutional Controls Implementation and Assurance Plan prepared pursuant to Sections 3.4(k) and 6.6(i) of the SOW. The Department will review the Institutional Controls and either approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove them. The Department may conditionally approve or disapprove them if such a course of action is warranted in the sole discretion of the Department. Any disapproval or conditional approval of the Institutional Control shall be in writing and shall state with specificity the reasons for such disapproval or conditional approval. Within 15 days following the Department’s written approval and acceptance of the Institutional Controls, the Work Parties shall request the Trustee (or subsequent property owner) to record the Institutional Controls with the appropriate land records office at the Work Parties’ expense.
Institutional Controls. Iowa Code section 455H.206 and Department rules in chapter 567 I.A.C. 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. F. The certificate may be revoked by the director at any time in the event that contamination posing an unacceptable conditions at the site, unknown at the time of issuance of the certificate, pose a risk to human health or the environment is rediscovered on site or in the event that it is discovered that the certificate was based on information provided by the participant that was materially false, inaccurate, or misleading. Any and all claims may be pursued by the Commonwealth for liability for failure to meet a requirement of the program, criminal liability, or liability arising from future activities at the site that may cause contamination by pollutants. By issuance of the certificate the department director does not waive sovereign immunity.
