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 30 of the FFA was included to insure that no uses inconsistent with the selected remedy would be conducted at the site, whether or not those uses are specifically prohibited in the LTS&M Plan. The remedy for the Site as selected in the 1993 Chemical Plant Area ROD and the institutional controls selected in the 2005 ESD specifically contemplated having the disposal cell be readily accessible to the public. Public access enhances the recreational and educational experience that is part of the strategy to xxxxxx community participation, institutional memory and the long-term commitment necessary to maintain the remedy. The Site has been designed to allow for public access and any additional wear and tear or vandalism that might occur is easily repaired and of negligible consequence to the performance of the remedy. Comment: “I would also comment that the ICs not being 100% completed almost 4 years after the engineered disposal cell was capped off in June 2004 is totally unacceptable.” Response: Final institutional controls were selected for the Site in the 2005 ESD. A plan for implementing these institutional controls was incorporated into the LTS&M Plan which was approved in July 2005. Implementation of the LTS&M Plan is one of the primary requirements of the FFA, so adopting the FFA should help insure prompt implementation of any outstanding institutional controls. Even if all of the selected institutional controls may not have been implemented at this time, the Site should be protective of human health and the environment because the selected remedies were based upon current land use at the time of the decision and land use has not changed appreciably over time. The purpose of the additional institutional controls is to protect against potential future land use changes that are inconsistent with the remedies. Implementation of the additional ICs was undertaken following finalization of the LTS&M Plan in July 2005 and is expected to be complete in 2007. Negotiating easements, changing regulations and revising an inter-agency Memorandum of Understanding are all potentially lengthy processes and, because they involve other parties, the schedules are not entirely within the control of DOE, EPA and MDNR. Comment: “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.” Response:
Appears in 1 contract
Samples: www.lm.doe.gov
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 Busch 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 30 of the FFA was included to insure that no uses inconsistent with the selected remedy would be conducted at the site, whether or not those uses are specifically prohibited in the LTS&M Plan. The remedy for the Site as selected in the 1993 Chemical Plant Area ROD and the institutional controls selected in the 2005 ESD specifically contemplated having the disposal cell be readily accessible to the public. Public access enhances the recreational and educational experience that is part of the strategy to xxxxxx community participation, institutional memory and the long-term commitment necessary to maintain the remedy. The Site has been designed to allow for public access and any additional wear and tear or vandalism that might occur is easily repaired and of negligible consequence to the performance of the remedy. Comment: “I would also comment that the ICs not being 100% completed almost 4 years after the engineered disposal cell was capped off in June 2004 is totally unacceptable.” Response: Final institutional controls were selected for the Site in the 2005 ESD. A plan for implementing these institutional controls was incorporated into the LTS&M Plan which was approved in July 2005. Implementation of the LTS&M Plan is one of the primary requirements of the FFA, so adopting the FFA should help insure prompt implementation of any outstanding institutional controls. Even if all of the selected institutional controls may not have been implemented at this time, the Site should be protective of human health and the environment because the selected remedies were based upon current land use at the time of the decision and land use has not changed appreciably over time. The purpose of the additional institutional controls is to protect against potential future land use changes that are inconsistent with the remedies. Implementation of the additional ICs was undertaken following finalization of the LTS&M Plan in July 2005 and is expected to be complete in 2007. Negotiating easements, changing regulations and revising an inter-agency Memorandum of Understanding are all potentially lengthy processes and, because they involve other parties, the schedules are not entirely within the control of DOE, EPA and MDNR. Comment: “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.” Response:
Appears in 1 contract
Samples: lmpublicsearch.lm.doe.gov
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 Busch 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 30 of the FFA was included to insure that no uses inconsistent with the selected remedy would be conducted at the site, whether or not those uses are specifically prohibited in the LTS&M Plan. The remedy for the Site as selected in the 1993 Chemical Plant Area ROD and the institutional controls selected in the 2005 ESD specifically contemplated having the disposal cell be readily accessible to the public. Public access enhances the recreational and educational experience that is part of the strategy to xxxxxx community participation, institutional memory and the long-term commitment necessary to maintain the remedy. The Site has been designed to allow for public access and any additional wear and tear or vandalism that might occur is easily repaired and of negligible consequence to the performance of the remedy. Comment: “I would also comment that the ICs not being 100% completed almost 4 years after the engineered disposal cell was capped off in June 2004 is totally unacceptable.” Response: Final institutional controls were selected for the Site in the 2005 ESD. A plan for implementing these institutional controls was incorporated into the LTS&M Plan which was approved in July 2005. Implementation of the LTS&M Plan is one of the primary requirements of the FFA, so adopting the FFA should help insure prompt implementation of any outstanding institutional controls. Even if all of the selected institutional controls may not have been implemented at this time, the Site should be protective of human health and the environment because the selected remedies were based upon current land use at the time of the decision and land use has not changed appreciably over time. The purpose of the additional institutional controls is to protect against potential future land use changes that are inconsistent with the remedies. Implementation of the additional ICs was undertaken following finalization of the LTS&M Plan in July 2005 and is expected to be complete in 2007. Negotiating easements, changing regulations and revising an inter-agency Memorandum of Understanding are all potentially lengthy processes and, because they involve other parties, the schedules are not entirely within the control of DOE, EPA and MDNR. Comment: “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.” Response:
Appears in 1 contract
Samples: lmpublicsearch.lm.doe.gov
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 30 of the FFA was included to insure that no uses inconsistent with the selected remedy would be conducted at the site, whether or not those uses are specifically prohibited in the LTS&M Plan. The remedy for the Site as selected in the 1993 Chemical Plant Area ROD and the institutional controls selected in the 2005 ESD specifically contemplated having the disposal cell be readily accessible to the public. Public access enhances the recreational and educational experience that is part of the strategy to xxxxxx community participation, institutional memory and the long-term commitment necessary to maintain the remedy. The Site has been designed to allow for public access and any additional wear and tear or vandalism that might occur is easily repaired and of negligible consequence to the performance of the remedy. Comment: “I would also comment that the ICs not being 100% completed almost 4 years after the engineered disposal cell was capped off in June 2004 is totally unacceptable.” Response: Final institutional controls were selected for the Site in the 2005 ESD. A plan for implementing these institutional controls was incorporated into the LTS&M Plan which was approved in July 2005. Implementation of the LTS&M Plan is one of the primary requirements of the FFA, so adopting the FFA should help insure prompt implementation of any outstanding institutional controls. Even if all of the selected institutional controls may not have been implemented at this time, the Site should be protective of human health and the environment because the selected remedies were based upon current land use at the time of the decision and land use has not changed appreciably over time. The purpose of the additional institutional controls is to protect against potential future land use changes that are inconsistent with the remedies. Implementation of the additional ICs was undertaken following finalization of the LTS&M Plan in July 2005 and is expected to be complete in 2007. Negotiating easements, changing regulations and revising an inter-agency Memorandum of Understanding are all potentially lengthy processes and, because they involve other parties, the schedules are not entirely within the control of DOE, EPA and MDNR. Comment: “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.” Response:
Appears in 1 contract
Samples: www.lm.doe.gov
