PB96-964114
EPA/ROD/R05-96/311
December 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Feed Materials Production Center,
(USDOE) Operable Unit 3,
aka Fernald Environmental Management
Project, Fernald, OH
9/24/1996
-------
-------
OPERABLE UNIT 3
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR FINAL REMEDIAL ACTION
FERNALD ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT
FERNALD, OHIO
AUGUST 1996
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
FERNALD AREA OFFICE
FINAL
-------
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
SITE NAME AMD LOCATION
Fernald Environmental Management Project
-------
In addition to the selected remedy, this ROD also:
Incorporates the decisions provided in the tROD so as to provide for an integrated implementation
of the respective decisions;
* Adopts the procedures and disposition decisions of Removal Action 9 to continue disposition of
the products, residues, and nuclear materials generated during site operations; and
* Adopts prior decisions made for management of Safe Shutdown (Removal Action 12),
management of asbestos abatement (Removal Action 26^r and management of debris {Removal
Action 17},
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy ts protective, of human health and the environment, complies with federal and
state requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate (ARAR) to the remedial action {or
justifies a CERCLA waiver}, and is cost effective. A waiver by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (ULS* EPA} is required for State of Ohio solid waste disposal requirements to allow
waste disposal over a high-yield sole-source aquifer, A waiver is granted pursuant to CERCLA
121{d}{4HD} that allows a waiver of an ARARif "the remedial action selected will attain a standard
of performance that is equivalent to that required under the otherwise applicable standard,
requirement, criteria, or limitation, through the use of another method or approach*" The Justification
for this waiver is provided in this ROD and is supported by the administrative record for OU3. By
signing this ROD, the U.S. EPA grants the waiver required to implement the on-s§te disposal element
of the OU3 final remedial action.
The QU3 selected remedy uses permanent solutions arid alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. Ttoe selected remedy, coupled with the OU3 |ROD arid on-going
programmatic removal actions, fully addresses the remediation of OU3 and satisfies the statutory
preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduces contamJnanttaxidty, mobility, or volume
as a principal element.
Because tilts remedy will result in contaminants remaining ornsite in an= engineered disposal facility,
a review will be conducted no Jess tfean five years after commencement of the remedial actions to
ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protECtfor* of human health and the
environment. The results of eacti five-year evaluation wilf be provided to the U.S. EPA and the public
for review and comment.
Wifliam E. Muno
Director, Stiperfund^Qi
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
If"
J. Phil Harnric 9* Date
Manager, Ohio Reid Office
U.S. Department of Energy
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) i August 1996
OPERABLE UNIT 3
RECORD OF DECISION FOR FINAL REMEDIAL ACTION
FINAL
AUGUST 1996
CONTENTS OF DECISION SUMMARY
Page
Table of Contents i
List of Tables ii
List of Figures ii
List of Appendices ii
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations in
1.0 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY 1
1.1 Site Location and Description 1
1.2 History of Site 5
1.3 History of Operable Unit 3 7
1.3.1 Interim Remedial Action 7
1.3.2 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report and Proposed Plan .... 8
2.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF FINAL REMEDIAL ACTION 8
2.1 Integration of the Interim and Final Remedial Actions 9
2.2 Integration of Operable Unit 3 Removal Actions 9
2.3 Integration with Other Operable Unit Remedial Actions 11
3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 11
4.0 SUMMARY OF OPERABLE UNIT 3 CHARACTERISTICS 14
4.1 Known or Suspected Sources of Contamination 14
4.1,1 Material Types/Categories 14
4.1.2 Material Volume Estimates 14
4.2 Contamination Characteristics 17
4.2.1 Radiological Characteristics 17
4.2.2 Chemical Characteristics 18
5.0 SUMMARY OF OPERABLE UNIT 3 RISKS 19
6.0 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 19
6.1 Alternative 1 - No Further Action 20
6.2 Alternative 2 - Selected Material Treatment, On-Property Disposal, and Off-Site
Disposition 20
6.2.1 Unrestricted Release and Recycling 22
6.2.2 Restricted Recycling 23
6.2.3 Treatment 23
6.2.4 Off-Site Disposal 23
6.2.5 On-Site Disposal 23
6.3 Alternative 3 - Selected Material Treatment and Off-Site Disposal 24
7.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 24
7.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 25
7.2 Compliance with ARARs 27
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) ii August 1996
7.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 27
7.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 27
7.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 28
7.6 Implementability 28
7.7 Cost 28
7.8 State Acceptance 29
7.9 Community Acceptance 29
8.0 SELECTED REMEDY 30
8.1 Key Components '. 30
8.1.1 Adoption of Previous OU3 Decisions 31
8.1.2 Alternatives to Disposal . . 32
8.1.3 Treatment 32
8.1.4 Off-Site Disposal 33
8.1.5 On-Property Disposal 33
8.2 Remediation Goals 35
8.3 Future Public Involvement 35
9.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 35
9.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 36
9.2 Compliance with ARARs 36
9.2.1. Waiver of State of Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Facility Requirements . . 37
9.2.2. Equivalent Standard of Performance 38
9.3 Cost Effectiveness 41
9.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable 41
9.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element 42
9.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 42
REFERENCES '. 45
LIST OF TABLES
4-1 OU3 RI/FS Characterization Study Analyte List 15
4-2 OU3 Material Categories/Descriptions 16
4-3 Summary of OU3 Waste Volumes Estimated by Category 17
6-1 Alternative 2 Estimated Material Disposition Quantities (in cubic feet) 22
7-1 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives 26
7-2 Summary Costs for Alternatives 2 and 3 29
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 FEMP FACILITY LOCATION MAP 2
1-2 FEMP SITE MAP 3
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Operable Unit 3 Responsiveness Summary
APPENDIX B ARARs for Operable Unit 3
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final)
in
August 1996
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACM asbestos-containing material
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
D&D decontamination and dismantlement
DOE United States Department of Energy
FEMP Fernald Environmental Management Project
FFCA Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement
FRESH Fernald Residents for Environmental Safety and Health
FS feasibility study
IROD Record of Decision for Interim Remedial Action
Kd coefficient of adsorption/desorption
LDR land disposal restriction
LLW low-level radioactive waste
MCL maximum contaminant level
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NTS Nevada Test Site
OAC Ohio Administrative Code
Ohio EPA State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
ORC Ohio Revised Code
OSDF On-Site Disposal Facility
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD/RA remedial design/remedial action
Rl - remedial investigation
RAO remedial action objective
ROD record of decision
S.R. State Route
SWIFTS Sitewide Waste Inventory Forecasting and Tracking System
Tc technetium
TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
WAC waste acceptance criteria
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) iv August 1996
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 1 August 1996
1.0 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
This Record of Decision (ROD) documents the planned final remedial activities for Operable
Unit 3 (OU3) at the Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP) site. The site,
formerly known as the Feed Materials Production Center, is owned by the United States
Department of Energy (DOE) and produced high-purity uranium and thorium products between
1951 and 1989. OU3 addresses the structures (e.g., process buildings, storage pads,
warehouses, and above-grade storage tanks), remaining product, and equipment that were
contaminated by FEMP production activities and waste management practices.
1.1 Site Location and Description
The FEMP is a 1,050-acre site in a rural, agricultural area approximately 18 miles northwest
of downtown Cincinnati, Ohio. The site, shown in Figure 1-1, is near the villages of Fernald,
New Baltimore, New Haven, Ross, and Shandon, Ohio, and located west and south of Ohio
State Routes (S.R.) 128 and 126, respectively. The street address of the FEMP is 7400
Willey Road, Fernald, Ohio, 45030.
Site surface and subsurface features that are a result of human activity are shown in
Figure 1 -2, which is an oblique view of OU3 structures located mostly in the 136-acre former
Production Area near the center of the FEMP site. Various other subsurface structures, such
as the effluent line and groundwater monitoring wells, are also located in the former
Production Area. Most of the buildings on-site are generally steel framed with transite siding,
concrete block, or pre-engineered with metal siding and roofing.
Most of the facilities and structures rest on a relatively flat plain approximately 580 feet above
mean sea level. The site elevation slopes slightly toward Paddys Run, a small intermittent
stream on the west side of the site. Natural drainage at the FEMP generally flows from east
to west, with the exception of the extreme northeast corner, which drains east toward the
Great Miami River. The western portion of the FEMP property lies within the north-south
corridor of the 100- and 500-year floodplain of Paddys Run. On-property surface waters are
confined to Paddys Run and its unnamed tributaries and total approximately 8.9 acres.
Results from a site-wide wetlands delineation indicate a total of 35.9 acres of freshwater
wetlands on the site.
The Great Miami Aquifer is the principal aquifer within the FEMP study area and has been
designated as a sole-source aquifer under the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The
Great Miami Aquifer has been the primary source of water for local residences and businesses.
Until recently, to protect public health, DOE provided bottled water to those whose private
wells were impacted by contamination of the Great Miami Aquifer from the FEMP. DOE, in
conjunction with local stakeholders, recently completed the installation of alternate drinking
water supply lines to permanently replace the affected wells.
The area around the FEMP remains predominantly undeveloped and agricultural, as was the
site itself before construction of the production facilities in 1951. Residences, many of them
farmsteads, are scattered around the area. Due to the long history of intensive agriculture,
there is no nearby land where a natural environment remains intact.
According to the 1990 United States census, the five-mile radius around the FEMP contains
an estimated 23,000 people while the eight-county Cincinnati consolidated metropolitan
statistical area has a population of more than 1.7 million and a labor force of approximately
920,000. Scattered residences and several villages are located near the FEMP property.
Residential units are concentrated in Ross to the northeast, in a trailer park to the east, and
-------
-------
§
Cincinnati
International
Airport
2'
I
§'
S'
FIGURE 1-1 FEMP FACILITY LOCATION MAP
i
to
CD
Co
O)
-------
-------
AFERNALD
Fnvirnnmontal Manaapmpnt Prniprt
Environmental Management Project
Building Identification
2 SSBSi
i
» wsrawjwa a ssiax
.. _ . --------- .-^-E'SSSn !« SSTirtoJ'SSSX.sw !" SSSScSlw'lJS1"' £ SS^SSL?*"" *» vmami^criimritii, vs n^ic^x^
lE^r^'l^rr l^6"- IS!Stealil&ar HB&-
^I^H^ST "° SvSS.»S1.iv*i»=«w.H^>, 5, SSiTSrsJ.moijiD^ SS KS«!?^^ ssajisrrs
S5£.coESS»s5Ke.
sch'SsS'S"
M!5-1S*
sj^?;jK^8um.B^w s ssliiissS,,
? S^ssT^T^.
I ^S5""1
1 SlSSSwj-.
a SlwSS^
| &
1 Pgr,
:r, r.^^s
o. Jl« !8 ~"-'
il^JSK
- i-j.:----; s. s-r^-ii^r - Si SSSSSISlSi^-x
3» ^a,^MTS«na.M Mb Dn^i^^i^. ^ S^jj^gZT^
I ^gf*^ i ^^^^« I ^T1^'
111 wH^scMHMM K! ' SRfoSa'lmrati Urii Mom " SSTSwI^wSSiiuM
ES5!SSi?S£0lM°
SSfHsJSW
MMMngtmecn
FIGURE 1-2 FEMP SITE MAP
-------
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 5 August 1996
in New Baltimore farther to the southeast. No sensitive sub-populations occur within one mile
of the FEMP except for 29 children who live in the area. Six schools that enroll approximately
3,300 students, two daycare centers that enroll an estimated 160 children, and residences
that house approximately 8,100 children are within five miles of the FEMP. Recreational
facilities are centered in the Miami Whitewater Forest to the south. Two youth camps
operated in the area, but were recently closed.
Commercial activity is generally greatest in the village of Ross, approximately three miles to
the northeast. Industrial use concentrations near the FEMP include a small industrial park to
the south along S.R. 128, industries located in the village of Fernald, and industries located
along the site's western boundary.
1.2 History of Site
In January 1951, the New York Operations Office of the Atomic Energy Commission selected
a 1,050 acre site near Fernald, Ohio to construct a facility to produce uranium products.
Construction operations were initiated in May 1951. The facility was designated the Feed
Materials Production Center prior to initiation of on-property pilot operations in October 1951.
Production operations began in 1952 and continued until July 1989, at which time operations
were placed on standby to focus on environmental compliance and waste management
initiatives. Following appropriate congressional authorizations, the facility was formally closed
in June 1991. To reflect a new site mission focused on environmental restoration, the name
of the facility was Changed to the FEMP in August 1991.
In 1985, the United States Environmental Protection Agency {U.S. EPA) issued a Notice of
Noncompliance to DOE, identifying its concerns over potential environmental impacts
associated with the FEMP's production activities, which included the release of uranium and
other substances to the air, surface soil, and water. In addition, large quantities of low-level
radioactive waste and hazardous wastes were (and continue to be) in storage at the site.
Conferences were subsequently held between DOE and U.S. EPA to discuss the conditions
at the FEMP and to identify the steps proposed by DOE to achieve and maintain compliance
with environmental regulations and standards. These steps are documented in a Federal
Facilities Compliance Agreement (FFCA), signed by DOE and U.S. EPA on July 18, 1986.
Pursuant to the FFCA, a site-wide remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) was
initiated in July 1986 pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (hereinafter jointly referred to as CERCLA).
In 1988, DOE entered into a Consent Decree with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA) that provided for the management of water pollution and hazardous wastes. This
decree was amended in 1993 by the Stipulated Amendment to the Consent Decree (Ohio
1993).
A series of technical discussions was held with the U.S. EPA and the Ohio EPA, which led to
the development of an RI/FS Work Plan (DOE 1988). This document identified 27 units of the
FEMP to be investigated during the RI/FS. Several modifications eventually increased the total
to 39 units. In the course of the investigation, it became apparent that, for technical and
program management purposes, these 39 units needed to be categorized and grouped
accordingly. The FEMP was subsequently divided into five operable units to promote a more
structured and expedient cleanup. The final RI/FS Work Plan was approved in May 1988.
In November 1989, the FEMP was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL), a list of sites
identified by the U.S. EPA for possible long-term remedial action under CERCLA. The NPL
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 6 August 1996
listing was considered appropriate because of the federal government's concern over the real
or potential impacts to human health and the environment associated with the documented
past releases of hazardous substances from the facility.
In conformance with the statutory requirements of CERCLA, the DOE entered into a Consent
Agreement with the U.S. EPA in 1990. The Consent Agreement established the procedural
and schedule requirements for investigating the FEMP site, using the CERCLA-defined RI/FS
process, to determine the most prudent cleanup actions that would address identified
environmental concerns at the facility. The Consent Agreement also formally identified the
FEMP operable units. The Consent Agreement was subsequently amended in 1991,
modifying some of the schedules for completing the RI/FS and significantly revising the OU3
definition to include the structures at the site. The Amended Consent Agreement (EPA
1991 a) established that separate RI/FS documentation, including Rl and FS Reports, Proposed
Plans, and RODs, were to be prepared for each operable unit. The operable unit concept is
in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (EPA 1990)
and is used in U.S. EPA's RI/FS guidance (EPA 1988) to define logical, physical groupings of
environmental areas of concern at a site.
As noted, the division of the Fernald site into five operable units in 1988 was done in a
manner that promoted an expedient evaluation and selection of appropriate remedial actions.
The five operable units were formed based on logical groupings of facilities, waste areas, or
environmental media. Except for OU3, which is defined in Section 1.0, the definitions of the
other operable units at the FEMP are provided below:
Operable Unit 1 (OU1) addresses the Clearwell, burn pit, and six waste pits, plus
the berms, liners, and soil (approximately three feet deep) beneath them;
Operable Unit 2 (OU2) addresses the solid waste landfill, lime sludge ponds,
flyash piles and other South Field disposal areas, and the berms, liners, and soil
within the unit's boundary;
Operable Unit 4 (OU4) addresses Silos 1, 2, 3, and 4, their berms and underlying
soil and decant sump tank system; and
Operable Unit 5 (OU5) addresses the environmental media that includes soil,
surface water and sediment, groundwater and perched water, and flora and
fauna.
The existing site strategy for cleanup is the remediation of each individual operable unit with
integration among the operable units with respect to treatment, disposition options, and land
use. The selected final remedial action for OU3 represents a significant portion of the
remedial action for the site as a whole. Five RODs have been finalized for the FEMP; the date
when each operable-unit ROD was signed by the U.S. EPA is as follows:
OU3 ROD for Interim Remedial Action signed by U.S. EPA on July 22, 1994;
OU4 ROD signed by U.S. EPA on December 7, 1994;
OU1 ROD signed by U.S. EPA on March 1, 1995;
OU2 ROD signed by U.S. EPA on June 8, 1995; and
OU5 ROD signed by U.S. EPA on January 31, 1996.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action {Final) 7 August 1996
1.3 History of Operable Unit 3
OU3 addresses the above- and below-grade improvements on the FEMP property not covered
by the other operable units. The remediation of OU3 does not include the soil and
groundwater beneath the various facilities; the remediation of these environmental media is
being conducted as part of OU5.
Following the formal cessation of the production mission in August 1991, the FEMP was
formally closed and the mission of the facility was officially redirected towards environmental
restoration. Many of the production facilities (process lines, drumming stations, etc.) and
equipment still contained quantities of raw, intermediate, and finished production-related
products, which were termed "holdup materials." The Safe Shutdown program was initiated
as a removal action (Removal Action 1 2) to remove and properly disposition all nuclear
product and in-process residue materials, excess supplies, chemicals, and associated process
equipment that were abandoned in place when the FEMP stopped production in 1989.
Subsequent to removal, the materials have been, and continue to be, transported to the DOE
Nevada Test Site (NTS) for disposal.
The Safe Shutdown program also provides for the isolation and de-energizing of former
production-related equipment and utilities. For a given building, safe shutdown is to be
completed prior to the start of decontamination and dismantlement (D&D) activities for that
building. On a programmatic basis, the Safe Shutdown program is being incorporated into the
OU3 final remedial action. For more information on the Safe Shutdown program and other
programmatic removal actions, see Section 2.2.
1.3.1 Interim Remedial Action
The former production buildings are at or beyond their design lives and no future mission
exists for the buildings and structures. These facts led to the decision, documented in the
OU3 Record of Decision for Interim Remedial Action (IROD) (DOE 1994) for the D&D of all
above- and below-grade buildings and facilities. The IROD also provided that the ROD for the
OU3 final remedial action would establish the strategy for the final disposition of the materials
generated from the interim remedial action. The specific activities associated with the interim
remedial action are:
Decontamination of more than 200 structures by removing loose contamination;
Dismantlement of the above-grade structures;
Removal of foundations, storage pads, ponds, basins, and underground utilities
and other at- and below-grade structures;
Off-site disposal of no more than ten percent, by volume, of the nonrecoverable
or nonrecyclable waste and debris generated from structural D&D until the
issuance of the OU3 final remedial action ROD; and
Interim storage of the remaining waste and debris until a final decision is reached
for treatment and/or disposition.
As referenced in the first bullet, all OU3 buildings and structures will first be decontaminated
and then dismantled. The sequence and schedule by which the above-grade portions of all
OU3 structures will undergo D&D were initially outlined in the OU3 Remedial Design
Prioritization and Sequencing Report (PSR) (DOE 1995a). A revised D&D sequence and
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 8 August 1996
schedule for implementation plan submittals were provided to U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA on
May 17, 1996 and were approved. At- and below-grade remediation of OU3 structures,
storage pads, etc. will be integrated with soil remediation and will be sequenced and
scheduled as part of the OU5 remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) process.
As stated in the fourth bullet above, the IROD allowed for the disposition of OU3 materials
prior to the issuance of the OU3 final remedial action ROD, but imposed a ten percent limit.
As of August 1 996, the only materials generated during the OU3 interim remedial action that
have been dispositioned off-site are 20 Sea/Land containers of non-recoverable materials
(primarily process-related equipment) from Building 4A that were shipped to NTS. This
equates to approximately 10,800 cubic feet (unbulked) or 0.14 percent of OU3 materials, by
volume, which is well below the IROD allowance.
1.3.2 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report and Proposed Plan
The OU3 RI/FS Report (DOE 1996a) described the nature of the chemical and radiological
contamination of OU3 materials and the development and evaluation of alternatives for the
final disposition of material generated during the OU3 interim remedial action. The RI/FS
process supported the development of quantity estimates, based upon material types and
contamination levels, for contaminated facilities and structures that will be dismantled during
the interim remedial action. The Proposed Plan for the Operable Unit 3 Final Remedial Action
(DOE 1996b), which identified the preferred remedial alternative and invited public comment,
was issued on April 3, 1996.
2.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF FINAL REMEDIAL ACTION
The scope of the OU3 final remedial action addresses the final disposition of materials
generated by the OU3 interim remedial action. The purpose of the final remedial action is to
prevent unacceptable current and future exposure to residual contamination remaining on the
OU3 materials and to mitigate potential releases of hazardous substances to the environment.
The adopted FEMP site-wide remedy incorporates a balanced approach to waste disposition
that recognizes the technical and economic impracticality of removing and disposing of all
contaminated FEMP materials at an off-site disposal facility. Materials contaminated with
relatively higher levels of radiological and chemical contaminants (e.g., OU1 waste pit
materials, OU3 "legacy wastes," OU4 silo wastes, etc.), deemed to represent the principal
threat at the FEMP, will be treated, if required, and shipped off-site for disposal. Secondary
threat materials, exhibiting relatively lower concentrations of contaminants, will be
permanently dispositioned at the FEMP.
The OU3 final remedial action will address the principal threat associated with OU3 by
incorporating the activities associated with the four programmatic removal actions discussed
in Section 2.2 of this document. As presented in the OU3 RI/FS Report, materials deemed
to be the principal threats for OU3, consisting primarily of legacy wastes, are scheduled for
off-site disposal under Removal Action 9. Likewise, materials generated by safe shutdown
activities (Removal Action 12) will be dispositioned off-site.
One of the primary programmatic objectives of the OU3 final remedial action is the integration
of ongoing OU3 removal actions, the OU3 interim remedial action, and remedial actions being
conducted by Operable Units 1, 2, 4, and 5. The integration of each of these remediation
activities is necessary to ensure the continuity and concerted approach towards achieving
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 9 August 1996
site-wide remediation goals. The key aspects of integrating these actions with the OU3 final
remedial action are discussed in the following subsections.
2.1 Integration of the Interim and Final Remedial Actions
The scope of the OU3 interim remedial action consists primarily of structural D&D and interim
storage of, and limited off-site disposal of, two material categories: nonrecoverable and
nonrecyclable materials, and recyclable or reusable materials. Materials in the first category
would either be stored on an interim basis or transported directly to a disposal facility.
Materials in the second category would be released to certain facilities that are able to recycle
or reuse those materials, or be placed in interim storage. The IROD specifies that only ten
percent of the total volume of materials generated from the D&D of OU3 facilities could be
dispositioned off-site prior to the issuance of the OU3 final remedial action ROD.
Requirements specifically related to the selected final remedy, as documented in this ROD, will
be integrated with the OU3 interim remedial action to allow effective segregation of materials
in order to meet the requirements of the selected treatment and/or disposition options.
This ROD incorporates, by reference, the decisions provided in the IROD so as to provide for
an integrated implementation of the respective decisions. To ensure the proper integration
of the OU3 interim and final remedial actions, the OU3 Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work
Plan for Interim Remedial Action (DOE 1995b) will be superseded by a work plan that
combines existing and updated implementation strategies for the OU3 interim remedial action
with strategies developed for implementing the OU3 final remedial action. This OU3
integrated RD/RA work plan will be submitted to U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA within 60 days
following the issuance of this final remedial action ROD.
2.2 Integration of Operable Unit 3 Removal Actions
Since production operations were halted in 1989, 30 removal actions have been identified and
used to address immediate threats from the facilities, structures, and contaminants. These
actions have been implemented as interim measures until the interim and final remedial actions
can fully address the threats to human health and the environment. The scope of four
programmatic removal actions will be integrated with the OU3 final remedial action. The four
removal actions are as follows:
Removal Action 9 - Removal of Waste Inventories;
Removal Action 12 - Safe Shutdown;
Removal Action 17 - Improved Storage of Soil and Debris; and
Removal Action 26 - Asbestos Abatement.
These four removal actions and their coordination with the interim remedial action were
introduced in the OU3 Proposed Plan/Environmental Assessment for Interim Remedial Action
(DOE 1993a) and were further detailed in the OU3 RD/RA Work Plan for Interim Remedial
Action. By reference in this ROD, the scope of each of these removal actions (including
decisions, planning, and procedures) will be incorporated into the OU3 final remedial action.
The general scope of each of these removal actions, and generally how each one will be
integrated into the scope of the OU3 final remedial action, is discussed below.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 10 August 1996
Removal Action 9 - Removal of Waste Inventories
Removal Action 9 involves the safe, off-site disposal of existing waste inventories. It was
initiated in August 1985 to provide for the transfer of inventoried and newly generated waste
to the NTS. The program is defined by various procedures which include the characterization,
treatment, packaging, and transportation of waste in a manner that ensures full compliance
with DOE Orders, Department of Transportation shipping requirements, and NTS waste
acceptance criteria (WAC). As of June 21, 1996, approximately 4,550,000 cubic feet or
61 5,000 drum equivalents have been transferred from the FEMP to the NTS for disposal. The
FEMP currently has an inventory of low-level waste, mixed waste, and polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) wastes generated as a result of production operations, facility maintenance,
upgrades, and cleanup activities. These materials are actively undergoing disposition to off-
site disposal locations. Mixed waste will be treated in accordance with the Site Treatment
Plan (DOE 1995c) as specified in the FFCA. The procedures and disposition decisions of
Removal Action 9 are being adopted by this final remedial action ROD and will be incorporated
by reference into the OU3 integrated RD/RA work plan for continued implementation during
the OU3 final remedial action.
Removal Action 12 - Safe Shutdown
Removal Action 12 was created to provide the planning, engineering, and program control for
the removal and proper disposition of in-process residue materials, excess supplies, chemicals,
and associated process equipment that remained when the FEMP stopped production in 1 989.
The primary goal of this removal action is to reduce the overall risks posed by the production
related materials remaining in the facilities. Residue materials removed are transported to NTS
under Removal Action 9. As of August 1996, approximately 21,000 cubic feet or 2,700
drum equivalents of residual materials generated under Removal Action 12 have been shipped
to NTS for disposal. This removal action also provides for the isolation and de-energizing of
former production-related equipment and utilities and provides for the identification of
customers for Fernald equipment and nuclear products. For most buildings, on an individual
basis, safe shutdown will be completed prior to the start of D&D activities for the building.
On a programmatic basis, the scope, planning, and procedures that comprise this removal
action are being adopted by this ROD and will be incorporated by reference into the OU3
integrated RD/RA work plan for continued implementation during the OU3 final remedial
action.
Removal Action 17 - Improved Storage of Soil and Debris
Removal Action 17 was initiated to provide controlled storage of excess contaminated soil and
debris generated during maintenance, construction, removal, and remedial actions at the FEMP
through a soil and debris management plan. This removal action establishes framework and
procedures for the management and storage of soil and debris that will be generated during
site-wide remedial activities. Revision 3 of the Removal Action 17 Work Plan (DOE 1995d),
along with an addendum submitted to U.S. EPA on May 23, 1996, provide the detail
necessary for management of debris during the OU3 interim and final remedial action.
On a programmatic basis, the scope, planning, and procedures that comprise this removal
action are being adopted by this ROD and will be incorporated into the OU3 final remedial
action. The Removal Action 17 Work Plan will be incorporated by reference into the OU3
integrated RD/RA work plan to provide the direction necessary for interim storage and staging
of OU3 materials during the OU3 interim and final remedial actions.
Removal Action 26 - Asbestos Removal
Removal Action 26 was established as a specialized maintenance related activity used to
mitigate potential asbestos release and migration. Asbestos abatement activities within this
program includes in situ repair, encasement, encapsulation, and removal of asbestos-
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 11 August 1996
containing materials (ACM), and are a necessary step prior to initiating D&D activities.
Transite (wall and roof sheeting made of a mixture of asbestos and cement), other non-friable
(fixed) ACM, and undamaged friable (loose) asbestos are not specifically covered under this
removal action but will be addressed under performance specifications during D&D
subcontracting. Currently, only non-friable asbestos is accepted for disposal at NTS under
Removal Action 9; friable asbestos is retained in interim storage and managed under
requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) pending final disposition under the
OU3 final remedial action as documented by this ROD. This ROD adopts prior decisions made
for management of this removal action. Details regarding the integration of asbestos removal
procedures into the OU3 final remedial action will be provided in the OU3 integrated RD/RA
work plan.
2.3 Integration with Other Operable Unit Remedial Actions
The OU3 final remedial action will be integrated with other remediation activities at the FEMP
and will contribute towards meeting the site-wide remedial strategy for the FEMP. The site-
wide remedial strategy, as presented in the OU5 ROD, sets remediation goals necessary to
attain long-term (minimum of 200 years, with a goal of 1,000 years) protection of the
environment. The site-wide remedy incorporates the selected or preferred alternatives for
each operable unit, as appropriate. The intent of the strategy is to progressively monitor the
interfaces among the operable units to ensure that the final adopted site-wide remedy is well
reasoned, cost-effective, and would ensure the long-term protection of human health and the
environment. In general, the site-wide remedy incorporates a balanced approach to waste
disposition that recognizes the technical and economic impracticality of removing and
disposing of all contaminated FEMP materials at an off-site disposal facility. Under the site-
wide remedy, materials with higher levels of contamination, deemed to represent the principal
threat at the site, would be treated, if required, and shipped off-site for disposal. Material
exhibiting lower contaminant concentrations distributed over a larger volume, termed a
secondary threat, would be permanently dispositioned at the Fernald site in one central
engineered disposal facility. The OU3 selected remedy has been developed in a manner
consistent with this site-wide strategy.
Integration of the six remedial actions is also concerned with coordination of activities that
have or could have some impact on the operations of one or more of the other operable units.
For example, the RODs for Operable Units 1, 2, and 4 and the IROD for OU3 defer the final
disposition of any soil and perched groundwater that may be generated during the remedial
actions to OU5 remedy decisions. The RODs for Operable Units 1, 2, 4, and 5 and the ROD
for the OU3 interim remedial action defer the final disposition of structural debris that will be
generated during those remedial actions to the OU3 final remedial action. The sequencing of
disposal facility preparation, D&D, and the final soil and groundwater remediation will be
closely coordinated among all operable units through the remedial design and remedial action
phases of the site cleanup.
3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
In 1985, DOE initiated a community relations program to provide information about Fernald
site operations and activities to local stakeholders. A variety of forums were used to inform
the community, including newsletters, fact sheets, community meetings, workshops, and
roundtables, news releases, Speakers Bureau engagements, site tours, and open houses. In
1989, DOE established the Administrative Record which contains an official file of all
information used or considered during the RI/FS process to determine the remedial decision
for each of Fernald's operable units. To provide convenient public access to this information,
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 12 August 1996
DOE relocated the Administrative Record and information repository (public reading room) to
its present location at the Public Environmental Information Center (PEIC), 10845 Hamilton-
Cleves Highway (S.R. 128), about one mile from the Fernald site. A copy of the
Administrative Record is also maintained at U.S. EPA Region V offices in Chicago, Illinois, 77
W. Jackson Boulevard.
In an effort to move from one-way, non-participatory communication to two-way
communication with stakeholder involvement in the decision process, DOE implemented a
public involvement program in 1993. The program includes increased emphasis on
involvement of Fernald management, person-to-person communications, and maintaining a
strong public information approach. DOE's new emphasis on shared decision making,
combined *vith the community relations activities required under CERCLA, have effectively
involved interested parties in the decision-making process at the site, resulting in five signed
RODs prior to the preparation of this ROD.
To involve stakeholders in the decision process for OU3 remediation issues, the following
public involvement activities were performed:
Notice of Availability was placed in the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Hamilton Journal-
News, and the Harrison Press on September 27, 1995, to announce the submittal
of the OU3 RI/FS Report and the OU3 Proposed Plan to U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA.
For several months prior to the opening of the public comment period for the OU3
Proposed Plan, updates were provided on a regular basis in the Fernald Report,
a monthly newsletter which is distributed to more than 1,000 stakeholders on the
community mailing list, to inform the public of upcoming opportunities for
involvement in OU3 cleanup decisions.
Notice of Availability was placed in the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Hamilton Journal-
News, and the Harrison Press on April 3, 1996 announcing the availability of the
OU3 Proposed Plan for public review and comment during the 30-day public
comment period.
Display advertisements announcing the April 23,1996 public meeting on the OU3
Proposed Plan were published in three local newspapers: the Cincinnati Enquirer
on April 11, 1996; the Hamilton Journal-News on April 11, 1996; and the
Harrison Press on April 10, 1996.
OU3 technical personnel briefed Fernald envoys (i.e., individuals who are
employed at the FEMP who inform groups or opinion leaders about site activities,
solicit feedback, and deliver that feedback to Fernald decision-makers) at the
March and April 1996 monthly envoy meetings to inform them of upcoming OU3
public involvement opportunities. The envoys then communicated this
information to their respective stakeholder groups.
Prior to the public comment period, advance copies of the OU3 Proposed Plan
were hand delivered to Fernald envoys, the Fernald Residents for Environmental
Safety and Health (FRESH), the Fernald Citizens Task Force members, and to the
NTS Community Advisory Board. Copies were also placed in the PEIC for the
general public.
A post card announcing the public comment period and public meeting was
mailed to approximately 1,000 stakeholders, including local residents and
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 13 August 1996
merchants, elected officials, public interest groups, and the Fernald Citizens Task
Force.
The OU3 Proposed Plan was issued for a 30-day public comment period from
April 3, 1996 to May 2, 1996. Copies of the OU3 Proposed Plan were available
to the public in the PEIC.
On April 19, 1996 DOE issued a news release titled: "DOE to Hold Public Meeting
on the Proposed Plan for the Permanent Disposition of Fernald Building Materials,"
to local media announcing the public meeting and opportunity for public
involvement in the decision process. Articles written about the meeting were
published in the April 20, 1996 issue of the Hamilton Journal-News titled: "DOE
to Explain Fernald Cleanup Plan at Open Meeting Tuesday/1 and the April 21,
1996 issue of the Cincinnati Enquirer titled: "Fernald to be Discussed. "
Ohio EPA hosted its own public meeting on April 11, 1996, with local
stakeholders to discuss the OU3 Proposed Plan.
DOE hosted a public meeting on April 23, 1996, to discuss OU3 remedial action
alternatives, including the preferred alternative, and to accept written and oral
comments on the OU3 Proposed Plan. Over 50 people attended the meeting,
including local stakeholders, regulators, and Fernald employees. Prior to the
meeting, DOE and FERMCO staff were available to meet individually with
interested stakeholders to discuss the preferred alternative and answer questions.
A detailed story-board on the proposed remedial alternatives for OU3, with
pictures of visible cleanup progress, was displayed at the back of the room for
meeting attendees to study during the evening. A copy of the meeting transcript
was placed in the PEIC.
On April 24,1996. the Cincinnati Enquirer published an article titled: "Fernald Site
Cleanup Plans Meet with Little Resistance/1 and on April 26, 1996, the Hamilton
Journal-News published an article titled: "A/o Resistance Voiced to Fernald
Disposal Plans."
In direct response to requests by several local stakeholders during the April 23,
1996 public meeting, DOE conducted a separate public workshop on June 11,
1996 to address specific questions on recycling, reuse, and free-release of
structural steel and other Fernald materials. Display advertisements announcing
the workshop were placed in the three local papers on May 29, 1996 and post
card invitations were sent to the community mailing list two weeks prior to the
workshop.
Responses to comments received on the OU3 Proposed Plan during the public comment period
are included in the Responsiveness Summary, Appendix A of this ROD. As mentioned above,
all background information used in the selection of the OU3 remedy is contained in Fernald's
Administrative Record which is located in the PEIC. The Administrative Record contains a
complete history of all documents pertaining to OU3, including the IROD, removal actions,
RD/RA activities under the IROD, the OU3 RI/FS Report and Proposed Plan, public comments,
transcripts of public meetings, and other documents that support the development of this
ROD. The Administrative Record will continue to be updated throughout OU3 remediation.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 14 August 1996
DOE is committed to continue to offer opportunities for public involvement throughout the
RD/RA process. Future public involvement is considered a key component of the OU3 final
remedial action and is discussed further in Section 8.3.
4.0 SUMMARY OF OPERABLE UNIT 3 CHARACTERISTICS
Section 4 presents a summary of characterization data regarding contaminants associated
with OU3 materials. The information presented in this section builds on the general overview
of OU3 presented in Section 1 of this document and was summarized from Section 3 and
Appendices A, B, and L of the OU3 RI/FS Report. The sampling approach during the OU3 Rl
involved the analysis of intrusive samples from major media (concrete, asphalt, acid brick,
masonry, transite, and steel coatings) and loose samples from supplemental media (residues,
floor sweepings, sediment, sludges, etc.) for the analytes listed in Table 4-1.
4.1 Known or Suspected Sources of Contamination
The sources of contamination within OU3 consist of the various types of materials that make
up the physical structures of the former process areas at the FEMP. As discussed in
Section 1.3.1 of this document, the former process structures will undergo D&D during the
OU3 interim remedial action. Additionally, the former process residues and wastes, which are
defined as the "principal threat" materials for OU3, will be dispositioned off-site under
Removal Action 9, which has been incorporated into this ROD. The following subsections
present a summary of pertinent information from the OU3 RI/FS Report regarding the types
and amounts of OU3 materials and the contamination associated with them.
4.1.1 Material Types/Categories
The construction materials that make up the buildings, structures, and associated facilities in
OU3 have been classified into ten distinct material categories based on similar or inherent
properties and configuration. These categories are shown in Table 4-2.
4.1.2 Material Volume Estimates
As detailed in Appendix B of the OU3 RI/FS Report, an inventory of volumes and weights
associated with OU3 materials has been compiled into the Sitewide Waste Inventory
Forecasting and Tracking System (SWIFTS) database. To summarize the quantity of OU3
materials, Table 4-3 provides SWIFTS unbulked volume estimates for OU3 materials by
category and contaminant classifications, the latter of which is discussed in Section 4.2.
In total, OU3 is estimated to contain approximately 9.3 million cubic feet of unbulked material.
A significant amount of. the material associated with OU3 is the principal threat materials
(listed as "Product, Residues, and Special Materials" in Table 4-3). As mentioned above,
these materials are being dispositioned by ongoing, approved programs and are therefore not
addressed by the decision-making process in this ROD.
The total unbulked volume of OU3 materials addressed by this ROD is the aforementioned
total amount less the volume of those materials. The net volume of materials to be
dispositioned pursuant to decisions made in this ROD is equal to approximately 7.54 million
unbulked cubic feet (approximately 377,000 tons).
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final)
15
August 1996
TABLE 4-1 OU3 RI/FS Characterization Study Analyte List
Radionuclides
Alpha/Beta Screening
AmerJcium-241
Cesium-137
Isotopic thorium
Isotopic uranium
Isotopic plutonium
Lead-210
Neptunium-237
Plutonium-241
Polonium-210
Radium-226 and 228.
Strontium-90
Technetium-99
TAL Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
TCL Semi-Volatile
Organics
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Nitroanilene
2-Nitrophenol
2/2-Oxybis-{ 1 -chloropropane)
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
3-Nitroaniline
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
4-Bromophenyl-phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl-phenyl ether
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbazoie
Chryzene
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Diethylphthalate
Dimethyiphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyciopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Idenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Napthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitroso-di-n-
dipropylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
TCL PCBs
Arochlor-1016
Arochlor-1221
Arochlor-1232
Arochlor-1242
Arochlor-1248
Arochlor-1254
Arochlor-1260
TCL Volatile Organics
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 , 1 , 1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
(total)
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
TCLP Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
TCLP Semi-Volatile
Organics
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
m-Cresol
Nitrobenzene
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
Pentachlorophenol
Pyridine
TCLP Volatile Organics
1 , 1 -Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
-------
TABLE 4-2
Category A
Accessible
Metals
Structural and
Miscellaneous
Steel
OU3 Material Categories/Descriptions
Category B
Inaccessible
Metals
Doors
Conduit/Wire/Cable
Tray
Electrical Wiring and
Fixtures
Electrical
Transformers
Miscellaneous
Electrical Items
Electrical Equipment
HVAC Equipment
Material Handling
Equipment
Process Equipment
Miscellaneous
Equipment
Piping
Category C Category D
Process-Related Painted Light-
Metals Gauge Metals
Electrical Ductwork
Equipment
Lead Flashing
HVAC Equipment
Louvers
Material Handling
Equipment Metal Wall and
Roof Panels
Process
Equipment
Miscellaneous
Equipment
Process Piping
Category G Category H
Category E Category F Non-Regulated Regulated
Concrete Brick ACM ACM
Asphalt Acid Brick Ceiling Demo. Ductwork
Insulation
Slabs Feeder Cable
Piping
Columns Fire Brick Insulation
Beams Floor Tile Personal
Protective
Foundations Transite Wall Equipment
and Roof Panels
Walls Copper Scrap
Metal Pile
Masonry
Clay Piping
Category 1
Miscellaneous
Materials
PVC Conduit
Basin Liners
Fabric
Drywall
Building
Insulation
Miscellaneous
Debris
Personal
Protective
Equipment
PVC Piping
Roofing Build-Up
Process Trailers
Non-Process
Trailers
Windows
Wood
Category J
Product, Residues, and
Special Materials
Coal Pile
Gravel Pile
Hazardous/Mixed Waste
Low-Level Waste
Marketable Nuclear
Material
Outside Equipment
Storage Area
Rock Salt Pile
Sand Piles
Soil Piles
Thorium Inventory
Scrap Metal Pile
0
8
o
CD
>
s
20
3
9,
*^
o
c*
:a
^
1
c£
5
CO
CO
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final)
17
August 1996
TABLE 4-3 Summary of OU3 Waste Volumes as Estimated by Category (in cubic feet)
Potentially
Hazardous/
OU3 Material Category Mixed Waste
Accessible Metals
Inaccessible Metals
Process-Related Metals
Painted Light-Gauge Metals
Concrete
Brick
Non-Regulated Asbestos-Containing
Materials
Regulated Asbestos-Containing
Materials
Miscellaneous Materials
Product, Residues, and
Special Materials
Total
0
0
0
49
0
5,280
0
0
0
56,000
61,300
Regulated
PCBs
(TSCA)
0
14,900
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,900
Low -Level
Radioactive
Waste
63,400
1,730,000
151,000
7,100
541,000
15,400
71,300
80,200
1 63,000
1,670,000
4,490,000
Below
Baseline Total
0
0
0
0
4,160,000
0
0
0
541,000
105
4,700,000
63,400
1 ,740,000
151,000
7,150
4,700,000
20,700
71,300
80,200
704,000
1,730,000
9,270,000
4.2 Contamination Characteristics
Based on the results of the OU3 RI/FS process, the material categories presented in Table 4-2
were further subdivided into segregation categories based on regulatory status (mixed waste,
PCB waste, low-level waste, and below baseline) to evaluate treatment and disposal options.
Table 4-3 provides a summary of data which was detailed in the OU3 Proposed Plan showing
the estimated volumes of OU3 materials by segregation category and contaminant category.
Among the contaminant categories, "below baseline" represents materials that have levels of
contamination, either radiological or chemical, below an estimated concentration that
represents a background level for an analyte in a material based on OU3 RI/FS sampling data
and literature values. A brief discussion of both radiological and chemical characteristics that
resulted in the distribution of materials shown in Table 4-3 is provided below.
4.2.1 Radiological Characteristics
Detailed radiological analytical results for OU3 are presented in Appendices A and L of the
OU3 RI/FS Report and are summarized in Section 3 of that document. Consistent with the
production history at the FEMP, the most common (and highest level of) radionuclide
contaminants found within OU3 major media are uranium-238 and its decay products
(uranium-234, thorium-230, and radium-226), uranium-235 and its primary decay product
(actinium-227), and thorium-232 and its decay products (radium-228 and thorium-228). The
highest levels and most extensive of these is, by far, uranium. The highest levels of uranium
are associated with residual material remaining in piping and equipment. Overall, sampling
results indicate that the majority of uranium handled at the FEMP was either natural or
depleted uranium. Only a small fraction of the total quantity of uranium that passed through
processes at the FEMP was enriched in uranium-234 and uranium-235.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 18 August 1996
As shown in Table 4-3, 89 percent of concrete, the single largest material type in OU3, does
not exhibit radiological contamination above baseline concentrations. Contamination within
other materials ranges from minimal levels, in many administrative and support facilities and
at lower depths in most facilities, to high levels, in former production and process-related
areas.
The most significant radiological contamination includes elemental uranium, isotopic uranium
(-234, -235/-2S6, and -238), technetium-99 (Tc-99), and thorium-230. Uranium and isotopic
uranium is significant due to its total mass, or "source term", within OU3 materials and
potential impact on disposition alternatives. Thorium-230 (an impurity in ores and ore
concentrates processed at the site) is significant because it presents a potential inhalation risk
during remedial activities due to its prevalence in non-regulated ACM within process buildings.
Tc-99 (a trace impurity in recycled uranium) is a concern because it was detected in over 75
percent of all samples and is relatively mobile in the environment. Treatability studies
performed during the OU3 Rl program demonstrated the leachability of Tc-99 from concrete.
As noted above, OU3 RI/FS sampling data reveals that the most significant radiological
contamination in OU3 is associated with the process buildings. The eight structures in which
most processing occurred include the Ore Refinery Plant (2A), the Green Salt Plant (4A), the
Metals Production Plant (5A), the Metals Fabrication Plant (6A), the Recovery Plant (8A), the
Special Products Plant (9A), the Pilot Wet Side (13A), and the Laboratory (15A). These
structures constitute 85 percent of the total volume of materials having Tc-99, thorium-230,
and/or uranium that exceeded their respective baseline concentrations. The sampling data
identified that concrete below a depth of one inch from both the Metals Fabrication Plant and
the Laboratory contribute 29 percent and 12 percent, respectively, to the total volume of
concrete that exceeded baseline concentrations. Combined, they contribute nearly 11 percent
of a total of 3.0 million cubic feet above baseline, excluding product, residues, and special
materials to be dispositioned under Removal Action 9.
4.2.2 Chemical Characteristics
The most common inorganic chemical contaminants found within OU3 major media and
having the highest levels are barium, chromium, cadmium, lead, and mercury. Although most
inorganic analytes shown in Table 4-1 are found in varying amounts in OU3 materials, these
five inorganics are considered more significant in comparison to others since a significant
number of sample results revealed their presence at levels that exceeded 20 times Toxicity
Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) limits. Furthermore, a significant percent of
detected results for barium, chromium, cadmium, and mercury exceeded their respective
Part B Soil Screening Levels, indicating a potential concern for direct contact. Most significant
is the finding that a limited amount of OU3 materials (61,300 cubic feet) is potentially mixed
waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Whereas the majority of
that volume is associated with current inventory (drummed waste to be removed under
Removal Action 9), 5,330 cubic feet of that total volume is associated with acid brick and
lead flashing that will be generated during dismantlement of OU3 structures. It is important
to note that all other media types that were associated with inorganic results greater than 20
times TCLP limits are not considered potential hazardous or mixed wastes because, as
discussed in Appendix A.III.2.6.2 of the OU3 RI/FS Report, the volumes of those materials
associated with samples (contaminated portion) represent only very small fractions of the total
volume of those materials and do not represent the characterization of the entire volumes.
The most common organic chemical contaminants in OU3 materials and having the highest
concentrations are 1,4-dichlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene, nitrobenzene, and
tetrachloroethene. Although some of the transite was found to have one or more of these
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 19 August 1996
contaminants at levels exceeding Part B Soil Screening Levels and TCLP limits, as stated in
Appendix II.7 of the OU3 RI/FS Report, it is not expected to be hazardous since the samples
only represent a small fraction of the entire volume of transite, most of which does not exhibit
these contaminants.
Of the samples analyzed for pesticides/PCBs, 27 exceeded the Part B reference criteria;
however, none of the samples analyzed exceeded the 50 parts per million TSCA limit for PCBs
established by 40 CFR 761. The estimated volume of 14,900 cubic feet of PCS waste listed
in Table 4-3 is attributed to a large number of electrical transformers that are assumed to
contain PCBs, although no samples were taken.
5.0 SUMMARY OF OPERABLE UNIT 3 RISKS
It was noted in the OU3 RI/FS Work Plan Addendum (DOE 1993b) that the implementation
of the OU3 interim remedial action (removal of all structures associated with the former
Production Area) would limit the range of remedial alternatives in the feasibility study. The
requirement for a final remedial action for OU3 was inherent in the IROD. Since the Sitewide
Characterization Report (DOE 1993c) already sufficiently documented the general level of risk
from the current condition of OU3, a baseline risk assessment was not conducted. In
addition, because the information was not needed to support decisions in this ROD, no
assessment was made of long-term risks associated with interim storage.
However, OU3 Rl results clearly show that a significant amount of contamination found in
some OU3 materials is below the material surface and as a result will remain in the materials
following D&D, since the OU3 interim remedial action generally provides for only in situ
surface decontamination of materials. Furthermore, surface decontamination will not remove
all surface contamination. Consequently, some materials will still exhibit contamination
characteristics that could possibly present unacceptable risks for human contact or
environmental release over time, should those materials remain on-site in interim storage. If
contaminated materials were to remain in interim storage, the potential routes for contaminant
migration would be surface water, soil, groundwater, air, and direct contact. Potential
receptors would include remediation and non-remediation workers (in the short-term) and the
off-site public. These considerations formed the basis for DOE's and U.S. EPA's agreement
that OU3 materials generated during the interim remedial action would not remain in interim
storage for an indefinite period, an agreement that was stated in the IROD.
The need to conduct a final remedial action which deals with disposition of OU3 wastes is
based on potential future risks to human health and the environment. On the basis of
contamination found during the OU3 RI/FS process, and risks associated with such
contamination, final disposition of OU3 materials is justified.
6.0 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
One goal of CERCLA is to select remedial actions, or an appropriate combination of actions,
that protect human health and the environment, that maintain protection over time, and that
minimize the amount of untreated waste. This goal reflects the preference for treatment over
engineering and/or institutional controls to reduce toxicity and/or mobility of COCs whenever
practical to ensure that material remaining on-property can be reliably controlled over time.
However, for secondary threat materials, or wastes that pose a relatively low long-term
threat, U.S. EPA expects that engineering controls or a combination of engineering and
institutional controls will be used where appropriate.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 20 August 1996
Extensive surface decontamination of buildings and structures will be performed during the
interim remedial action. Based on the projected residual contamination of remediation
materials following D&D activities, and the results of treatment technology evaluation, the
OU3 final remedial action would provide for further treatment on a supplemental basis only
to ensure protectiveness during the final remedial phase.
The three remedial alternatives identified in the RI/FS were developed based on technology
types and process options that were identified to achieve remedial action objectives. The
primary focus of the alternative development was disposition rather than treatment, since
treatment of materials is linked predominantly to land disposal restrictions (LDRs) for RCRA
hazardous wastes. Therefore, institutional and engineering controls were the primary bases
on which alternatives were developed. Engineering controls for the on-site disposal
facility (OSDF) will be determined through the OU2 remedial design process pursuant to the
OU2 ROD (DOE 1995e). Institutional controls for the FEMP have been established in the OU5
ROD (DOE 1996c).
6.1 Alternative 1 - No Further Action
Alternative 1 assumes that the interim remedial action proceeds to completion and places all
generated materials within a hypothetical interim storage area. The interim storage area
would contain uncovered piles of accessible metals, inaccessible metals, concrete, and
transite. All other materials would be staged in containers. At the completion of the interim
remedial action, maintenance of the interim storage area would be terminated. Thus,
materials would be exposed to the environment with potential releases of contamination to
environmental media. Within an unmaintained area, no mechanisms would be employed to
prevent trespassers from entering the area. Because of commitments to the public by DOE
and U.S. EPAf the IROD specifically commits to performing a final remedial action that
involves the disposition of OU3 materials. However, Alternative 1 is required by CERCLA and
the NCR to be retained as a baseline against which the effectiveness of other alternatives may
be compared.
6.2 Alternative 2 - Selected Material Treatment, On-Property Disposal, and Off-Site
Disposition
As stated in Section 4, most OU3 remediation materials contain low levels of contaminants
and are therefore not a principal threat. For these materials, utilization of the OSDF for
disposal is consistent with the balanced approach employed for the FEMP operable units.
Only materials exceeding the OSDF WAC or administratively identified for off-site disposition
or eligible for alternative disposition (i.e. recycling or free release) would be dispositioned off-
site.
The OSDF WAC for OU3 were based on the OU2 and OU5 feasibility study modeling, and
then adjusted to apply to OUS-specific materials. Of the OU3 RI/FS analytes (listed in
Table 4-1), only uranium and Tc-99 were identified as having the potential to exceed
acceptable groundwater levels beneath the OSDF. Experimental lab studies were conducted
to determine uranium and Tc-99 leachability from various construction materials. For
conservativeness, samples of OU3 materials with highest Tc-99 and uranium concentrations
were used. The results of the studies demonstrated that uranium that leached from all test
samples had concentrations that were well below acceptable levels for on-property disposal.
Conservative modeling also showed that the small volume of OU3 materials that was not
tested for uranium leachability was also acceptable for on-property disposal. Therefore, all
uranium-contaminated materials, with the exception of highly contaminated process materials,
can be safely disposed of in the OSDF.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 21 August 1996
On the other hand, the studies showed that Tc-99 has the potential to leach at levels that
could impact groundwater. Modeling was then used to determine that a safe level of Tc-99
within the OSDF is 105 grams. This modeling used the conservative assumption that Tc-99
would completely leach out of the OSDF over a 70-year span (which is considered by U.S.
EPA to be an average human lifespan). Therefore, an allowable mass of 105 grams was
adopted as the OU3 on-property WAC for Tc-99. Specific details on the development of the
OSDF WAC are provided in Appendix G of the OU3 RI/FS Report.
The OU3 RI/FS process estimated that the total amount of Tc-99 in OU3 materials is
approximately 1 27 grams. However, leachability study data, supplemented with conservative
modeling assumptions, showed that the maximum amount of Tc-99 for OU3 materials that
could safely be stored in the OSDF is 105 grams. In order to not exceed this 105-gram limit
for the OSDF, those materials that have the highest amounts of Tc-99 will be packaged and
transported to NTS or an off-site commercial disposal facility.
Process-related metals, acid brick, product, residues, and special materials generally have high
concentrations of several contaminants, including Tc-99. By administratively deciding to
disposition these materials off-site, the Tc-99 source term remaining in materials considered
for on-property disposal is 116 grams. Of all materials contributing to this source term, the
most significant contributor is concrete (and concrete-like materials) with a total 102 grams.
In order to further reduce the amount of Tc-99 going into the OSDF, Alternative 2 includes
scabbling the top inch of the three most contaminated concrete areas within OU3: the
enriched uranium casting area in Plant 9; the uranium machining area in Plant 9; and the
muffle furnace area in Plant 8. Additionally, due to inherent chemical and radiological
contamination in the Pilot Plant, the top half inch of concrete in the southern extraction area
would also be scabbled. The removal and off-site disposition of the scabbled concrete from
these four process areas would reduce the total amount of Tc-99 going into the OSDF to less
than 59 grams, which is 44 percent below the 105-gram allowable mass limit.
In addition to the Tc-99 mass-based WAC, initial physical size criteria for debris to be
dispositioned to the OSDF were developed in the OU3 RI/FS Report. The Impacted Materials
Placement Plan for the On-Site Disposal Facility (DOE 1996d) will provide final physical
acceptance criteria, based on OSDF design parameters and transportation and handling
considerations. The final WAC for OU3 materials will be adopted by the OU3 integrated
RD/RA work plan and/or subsequent D&D implementation plans.
Under Alternative 2, most of the OU3 materials could be permanently dispositioned in the
OSDF, which would be designed and constructed in accordance with the relevant
requirements of RCRA, the Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Control Act, TSCA (for PCB
disposal), and the Clean Air Act (for ACM disposal). As described in the OU2 ROD, the
facility would feature a multi-layer capping system, including a vegetative soil layer, a filter
layer, a biotic barrier, a drainage layer, and an infiltration barrier. The disposal facility would
also feature a multi-layer liner that would include a leachate collection system, primary and
secondary liners separated by a leak detection system, and a low-permeability compacted clay
layer. The layers of both the cap and liner would be separated by geotextile fabrics and high-
density polyethylene and bentonite composites for added protection. The disposal facility
would prevent contaminant migration to the air and surface water and is modeled to protect
groundwater for a 200- to 1,000-year performance period.
Key elements of Alternative 2 are summarized below:
Provides for unrestricted/restricted release of materials, as economically feasible,
for recycling, reuse, or disposal;
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final)
22
August 1996
Permits treatment of materials to meet the on-site disposal facility (OSDF) and/or
off-site disposal facility waste acceptance criteria (WAC);
Requires off-site disposal of process residues, product materials, and process-
related metals;
Requires off-site disposition of acid brick and concrete from specific locations and
any other materials exceeding the OSDF WAC;
Permits disposal of remaining OU3 wastes in the OSDF;
Imposes administrative controls through deed restrictions and access controls;
and
Incorporates post-remediation activities that includes long-term monitoring and
maintenance of the OSDF and operation of a groundwater monitoring network to
evaluate the performance of the OSDF.
Table 6-1 represents assumptions made in the OU3 RI/FS Report about most likely disposition
routes for the OU3 materials. Note that product, residues, and special materials are not
included in this table, since those materials are currently being dispositioned under Removal
Action 9.
TABLE 6-1 Alternative 2 Estimated Material Disposition Quantities (in cubic feet)
OU3 Material Category
Accessible Metals
Inaccessible Metals
Process-Related Metals
Painted, Light-Gauge Metals
Concrete
Brick
Non-Regulated ACM
Regulated ACM
Miscellaneous Materials
Total
On-Property
Disposal
62,600
1,740,000
0
7,150
4,700,000
0
71,300
80,200
396,000
7,060,000
Unrestricted
Release
835
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
308,000
309,000
Off-Site
Disposal
0
0
151,000
0
2,400
20,700
0
0
0
1 74,000
Total
63,400
1,740,000
151,000
7,150
4,700,000
20,700
71,300
80,200
704,000
7,540,000
6.2.1 Unrestricted Release and Recycling
One of the alternatives to disposal of OU3 materials is unrestricted release. Certain categories
of materials in OU3 (generally those which are non-porous and have only surface
contamination) are suitable for consideration for decontamination and release under DOE Order
5400.5. Materials that are no longer considered radiologically contaminated and are released
are the most valuable for recycling. The OU3 RI/FS Report identified 308,000 cubic feet of
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 23 August 1996
miscellaneous materials and 835 cubic feet of structural steel associated with administrative
facilities at the FEMP that would be particularly amenable to decontamination and release.
6.2.2 Restricted Recycling
Although not specifically estimated by the OU3 RI/FS Report, restricted recycling (recycling
of contaminated materials without decontamination for release) is one alternative to disposal
for OU3 metals that will be considered. DOE is currently evaluating the use of contaminated
metals to make contaminated waste disposal containers for use within DOE. The results of
these evaluations will determine whether significant quantities of OU3 metals are recycled in
this manner. DOE will continue over the life of the D&D of the Former Production Area to
aggressively evaluate existing and emerging recycling technologies and markets to identify
opportunities for cost-competitive application at the FEMP. The DOE strives to maintain
recycling and reuse as disposition options to be considered for each material at the time of
its intended generation, and will continue to evaluate recycling and reuse on a case-by-case
basis within each D&D complex implementation plan.
6.2.3 Treatment
Much of the treatment of OU3 materials is accomplished during the Safe Shutdown program
and building D&D processes. Additional treatment of OU3 materials would primarily be
envisioned as a means to meet on-site or off-site WAC, such as treating to remove RCRA
hazardous characteristic. For example, lead sheeting from OU3 structures will be segregated
from materials collected for OSDF disposal and could be subject to macro-encapsulation to
achieve LDR treatment standards. Decontamination to allow for unrestricted recycling of lead
sheeting and other materials is another potential treatment.
6.2.4 Off-Site Disposal
Disposal of certain materials at off-site locations has been administratively determined as a
means to remain consistent with the "balanced approach" for FEMP waste disposition.
Application of this principle results in retention of the larger volume of materials that have
lower levels of contamination at the FEMP, while the smaller volumes of more highly
contaminated materials are dispositioned off-site to locations with respectively higher
protectiveness. For OU3, process-related metals (Category C), products/residues, acid brick
(Category F), and technetium-contaminated concrete (Category E) from specific locations are
designated for off-site dispositioning.
6.2.5 On-Site Disposal
The OU3 RI/FS Report estimated that approximately 7 million cubic feet of OU3 materials
would be disposed in the OSDF (without accounting for pursuit of recycling, reuse, and
release alternatives to disposal). As a result of the IROD D&D activities, some of the materials
to be dispositioned to the OSDF under this alternative will be stored in containers and in bulk
for an interim period until disposition can occur. Alternative 2 includes the movement of
those materials, as well as receipt of materials directly from ongoing D&D on a just-in-time
basis. Movement of materials from storage is estimated to require up to three years after the
OSDF is open for OU3 wastes.
In order to comply with State of Ohio requirements and public preference that characteristic
hazardous waste streams are not disposed in the OSDF, acid brick and lead sheeting will be
segregated from materials that are destined for the OSDF. In order to minimize materials that
are destined for the OSDF, alternatives to disposal will be evaluated for each of the OU3 D&D
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 24 August 1996
complexes during respective remedial design activities. A methodology for this evaluation will
be adopted as part of the OU3 integrated RD/RA work plan, ensuring significant levels of
public involvement are practicable. This alternative in no way permits the disposal of wastes
not associated with the FEMP. A specific prohibition of the disposal of off-site generated
wastes in the OSDF, except for secondary wastes associated with off-site processing of FEMP
materials (which must also meet applicable WAC), has been included in the OU2 ROD.
6.3 Alternative 3 - Selected Material Treatment and Off-Site Disposal
The primary difference between Alternatives 2 and 3 is the disposal location for OU3
materials. Under this alternative, all remediation materials would be dispositioned at an off-
site disposal facility. Key elements of the alternative are summarized below:
Permits the unrestricted release of materials for recycling, reuse, or disposal at
a commercial landfill when release criteria can be readily met and demonstrated;
Permits restricted recycling and/or reuse of materials as practicable to reduce the
volume of waste requiring disposal;
Requires off:site disposal of all remaining remediation materials at a commercial
disposal facility; and
Requires treatment of materials, where needed, to meet the off-site disposal
facility WAC.
Like Alternative 2, approximately 309,000 cubic feet of miscellaneous materials and structural
steel, which are not contaminated, could be released or disposed of in a commercial landfill.
The remaining material (7.23 million cubic feet) would be disposed of at NTS or an off-site
disposal facility. Implementation of Alternative 3 would rely on coordination with other FEMP
remedial actions to provide for certain elements, including the waste shipment facilities, and
the fencing and security prescribed under institutional controls. For this alternative, the off-
site transport of OU3 materials would be coordinated with the shipments scheduled to occur
for OU1 remediation wastes.
7.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 7.0 profiles the basis for evaluating the relative performance of the alternatives with
respect to the nine NCP evaluation criteria, noting how the preferred alternative compares to
the other alternatives under consideration. The following are the NCP evaluation criteria:
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment addresses whether or not
a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through
each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment
engineering controls or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all of the
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of Federal and State
environmental statutes and/or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to the magnitude of residual risk
and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the
environment over time once cleanup goals have been met.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 25 August 1996
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment is the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies that may be employed in a remedy.
5. Short-Term Effectiveness refers to the speed with which the remedy achieves
protection, as well as the remedy's potential to create adverse impacts on human
health and the environment that may result during the construction and
implementation period.
6. Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy,
including the availability of materials and services needed to implement the
chosen solution.
7. Cost includes capital and operation and maintenance costs.
8. State Acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the OU3 RI/FS Report
and Proposed Plan, the State concurs with or opposes the preferred remedial
alternative.
9. Community Acceptance is assessed in this ROD based on public comments
received on the OU3 Proposed Plan.
The nine evaluation criteria are categorized into three groups: threshold criteria; primary
balancing criteria; and modifying criteria. The first two criteria are "threshold" criteria,
meaning that they must be attained if the alternative is to be considered further in the
evaluation and selection process. The one notable exception is that waivers to ARARs can
be obtained in accordance with 40 CFR 300.430 (f)(1)(ii)(C), as long as protectiveness of
human health and the environment can still be demonstrated. The next five criteria form the
basis for the comparative analysis of viable remedial alternatives. These five are called
"primary balancing" criteria because they are used to evaluate the relative tradeoffs among
the alternatives that pass the threshold criteria. The last two criteria are "modifying" criteria
because DOE and U.S. EPA may modify the preferred alternative or select another response
action based on comments received during the public comment period.
The following subsections summarize the information which was presented in Section 6 of
the OU3 RI/FS Report regarding the comparison of alternatives. Table 7-1 provides a
summary of the comparative analysis for OU3 alternatives for the threshold and primary
balancing criteria.
7.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This criterion addresses the means by which a potential remedy would reduce, eliminate, or
control the risks posed by OU3 materials to human health and the environment. The methods
used to achieve an adequate level of protection may include engineering controls, waste
treatment techniques, or other controls such as restriction on the future use of the site. Total
elimination of risk is often impossible; however, a remedy must minimize risk to ensure human
health and the environment are protected.
Under Alternative 1, all OU3 materials at the site would be stored without continued
maintenance. Over the long-term, exposure of these materials to the weather would lead to
unacceptable releases to the environment. This alternative would not protect human health
or the environment. Alternative 2 would employ conservative design considerations from
other engineered disposal facilities, including Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Control Act
standards and RCRA regulations, to ensure the long-term performance of the disposal facility.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final)
26
August 1996
TABLE 7-1 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives
Evaluation Criteria
Alternative 1
No Further Action
Alternative 2
Selected Material Treatment,
On-Property and Off-Site Disposal
Alternative 3
Selected Material Treatment
and Off-Site Disposal
Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection
of Human Health
and the
Environment
Compliance with
ARARs
Not protective of human
health and the
environment.
Not compliant because no
further action would likely
result in exposures to the
public and releases to the
environment.
Primary Balancing Criteria
Long-Term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Reduction in
Toxicity, Mobility,
or Volume Through
Treatment
Short-Term
Effectiveness
Implementability
Current year (1995)
cost (in millions)
Present worth cost
(in millions)
Not protective in the long-
term. Would result in
unacceptable long-term
risks to the public.
Due to unmaintained
storage of dismantled
debris, contaminant
mobility is expected to
increase.
No short-term risks since
no action would be taken.
Easier to implement than
Alternatives 2 or 3
because no action occurs.
$0
$0
Provides overall protection of
human health and the environment.
Meets the requirements for a U.S.
EPA waiver of the State of Ohio
solid waste disposal facility siting
requirements and complies with all
other ARARs.
Is protective of human health and
the environment through site
geology, engineering, and
administrative controls. However,
Alternative 2 is less effective and
permanent in the long-term than
Alternative 3 due to residual risk
associated with materials remaining
on-site in the OSDF.
Potentially treats 5,280 cubic feet
of material to meet LDRs for off-
site disposal and 50 cubic feet of
material to meet criteria for on-
property disposal.
All radiological and chemical
exposures are estimated to be
within acceptable limits. This
alternative presents lower short-
term risks associated with
mechanical hazards than
Alternative 3.
Easier to implement than
Alternative 3 because this
alternative requires placement of
most OU3 materials into the OSDF,
which is already being constructed
for OU2 and OU5 materials.
$95
$71
Provides overall protection of
human health and the
environment.
Compliant with all ARARs.
Is the most effective and
permanent since ail
contaminated material would
be removed from Fernald with
no long-term requirements for
continued administrative
controls, surveillance, or
maintenance activities.
Potentially treats 5,330 cubic
feet of material to meet LDRs
for off-site disposal.
All radiological and chemical
exposures are estimated to be
within acceptable limits.
Greater mechanical hazards
than Alternative 2 due to
injuries from transporting all
materials to off-site disposal
facilities.
Most difficult to implement
because it is dependent on
agreements with off-site
disposal facilities to accept
OU3 materials. Considerably
more coordination would be
required with state and local
authorities along the
transportation routes then for
Alternative 2. The volume of
material would also require a
longer time period to complete
shipments than for
Alternative 2.
$190
$150
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 27 August 1996
These standards would require the use of multilayered capping and lining systems, the
development of contaminant- and material-specific WAC, and the use of a design which
ensures protectiveness for 200 to 1,000 years. These design considerations would
supplement the natural containment capabilities of the existing site geology to ensure the
long-term performance of the disposal system. Alternative 3 would also protect human health
and the environment because all OU3 materials would be removed from Fernald and
dispositioned off-site.
7.2 Compliance with ARARs
This criterion determines whether a selected remedy will meet all related federal, state, and
local requirements. These requirements may specify maximum concentrations of chemicals
that can remain at a site, specify design or performance requirements for treatment
technologies, and impose restrictions that may limit potential remedial activities at a site
because of its location.
Because of anticipated releases from ongoing storage, Alternative 1 would not comply with
ARARs. Alternative 2 would comply with all identified ARARs or meet the requirements of
an ARAR waiver of the State of Ohio solid waste (disposal facility siting requirements [OAC
3745-27-07(H)(2)(c)and(d)]. To be granted the waiver, the DOE would be required to adopt
an engineering design for the facility which, when coupled with existing site geologic
conditions, would attain a standard of performance that is equivalent to that required under
State of Ohio solid waste disposal facility siting requirements. Alternative 3 would comply
with all ARARs.
7.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This criterion evaluates the ability of a potential remedy to reliably protect human health and
the environment over a long period of time after the remedial goals have been accomplished.
Alternative 1 would present an unacceptable magnitude of risk remaining at Fernald and would
provide the most limited amount of reliability and permanence. Long-term risks to potential
trespassers from uncontrolled storage of contaminated materials would exceed acceptable risk
levels. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 achieve high levels of protectiveness and permanence. The
implementation of Alternative 2 would rely on engineering and administrative controls to
ensure the long-term performance of the remedy and maintain the protection of human health
and the environment over time. Long-term monitoring activities are currently proposed by
other approved remedial actions and would continue for OU3. For Alternative 3, the removal
of all materials to off-site disposal locations would ensure the long-term protection of human
health and the environment at Fernald. Under Alternative 3, no long-term requirements for
continued administrative controls, surveillance, or maintenance would be necessary for OU3.
7.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
This criterion assesses how effectively a proposed remedy will address the contamination
problem. Factors considered include the nature of the treatment process, the amount of
hazardous materials that will be destroyed by the treatment process, how effectively the
process reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of waste, and the type and quantity of
contamination that will remain after treatment.
Alternative 1 would provide no reduction in contaminant toxicity, mobility, or volume.
Furthermore, by placing all materials into storage without continued maintenance,
contaminants would eventually be released to the environment. For Alternatives 2 and 3,
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 28 August 1996
mixed wastes would be treated through solidification or encapsulation to meet LDRs and
would thereby reduce the contaminant mobility. Because the same quantity of material would
be treated, the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume would be the same for Alternatives 2
and 3.
7.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
This criterion evaluates the potential impacts of the alternative to workers, the public, and the
environment.
Alternative 1 presents no short-term impacts since no worker action would occur. Risks from
radiological and chemical exposures from both Alternatives 2 and 3 are within acceptable
levels. The most significant element of the short-term effectiveness of Alternatives 2 and 3
is the risk associated with projected injuries related to mechanical hazards. These risks are
greater for Alternative 3 than Alternative 2 due to the greater number of manhours associated
with weighing, certifying, and loading containers for off-site shipment. Additionally, the
increased number of shipments off-site associated with Alternative 3 raises the risk for
potential accidents.
7.6 Implementability
This criterion addresses the relative ease or difficulty with which a remedy can be put in
place. Factors affecting implementability include materials and services.
Alternative 1 is the most readily implementable, since it requires no additional action beyond
the implementation of the OU3 IROD. Because of the approval and construction of the OSDF
for OU2 and OU5 materials, Alternative 2 would be easier to implement than Alternative 3.
The construction of the OSDF is considered readily implementable through the use of existing
technologies and construction methods. Furthermore, under Alternative 2, a small portion of
the OU3 materials would be dispositioned off-site, and would thus require truck
transportation. For Alternative 3, implementation would require coordination with OU1 to
transport OU3 material to the representative off-site disposal facility. This quantity to be
transported off-site currently exceeds Fernald's shipping capacity. Considerable coordination
would be required between DOE and various states and municipalities to facilitate the
transportation of such large quantities of materials. Due to the large quantity of material to
be disposed and the extended duration of the project, the available capacity for off-site
disposal at current facilities or facilities yet to be constructed is unclear. For these reasons,
Alternative 3 is considered less implementable than Alternative 2.
7.7 Cost
This criterion includes capital costs for design and construction as well as projected long-term
maintenance costs. The cost is considered and compared to the benefit that will result from
implementing the remedy.
Two methods are used to present costs associated with implementing each of the
alternatives. The first method illustrates the costs in 1995 constant dollars. In other words,
if the entire cost of the alternative was paid in 1995, then that cost would be considered to
be in 1 995 constant dollars. However, because of inflation, work performed in the future will
undoubtedly cost more than work performed today.
To account for this and the time value (or investment potential) of money, a second cost
estimating approach is used, called present worth analysis. Present worth analysis calculates
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final)
29
August 1996
the amount of money that would have to be invested today to pay for the cleanup over the
years of implementation. The real interest rate applied in the present worth analysis is
determined by the Federal Government's Office of Management and Budget to be 4.8 percent,
based on an investment interest rate minus the rate of inflation.
No additional cost is associated with Alternative 1 since no additional action would be
required.
Current estimates, as detailed in Appendix E of the OU3 RI/FS Report, indicate that
Alternative 2 would cost $95 million in constant year dollars, which is equivalent to a present
worth cost of $71 million. The Alternative 2 estimates include OUS's contribution to the
OSDF. The unit cost of $3.05 per cubic foot for on-property disposal includes costs for
engineering, construction (cap and liner), material placement, construction management,
radiological safety, engineering support during construction, equipment for material placement,
equipment maintenance, and air and radon monitoring. The operation and maintenance cost
of $1.20 million per year is based on maintenance and monitoring activities for the entire
OSDF over a 30-year period; this corresponds to a unit cost of $1.17 per cubic foot for OU3
materials. These rates were based on the cost estimates presented in the OU2 Feasibility
Study and subsequent OSDF design documentation.
Due to the higher costs associated with off-site transportation and disposal, the cost of
Alternative 3 is estimated to be $190 million in constant year dollars. This equates to a
present worth cost of $150 million.
Table 7-2 summarizes the costs (in 1995 constant dollars) associated with Alternatives 2
and 3 and also contains the corresponding present worth costs
TABLE 7-2 Summary Costs for Alternatives 2 and 3
Cost Item
Alternative 2 Costs
Alternative 3 Costs
Capital Costs
Staffing and Management
Operation and Maintenance 1
Risk Budget
Total Cost (in 1 995 dollars)
Present Worth Cost
$ 59,000,000
$ 9,600,000
$ 7,900,000
$ 18,000,000
$ 95,000,000
$ 71,000,000
$ 139,000,000
$ 14,000,000
$0
$ 37,000,000
$ 190,000,000
$150,000,000
Operation and maintenance costs for Alternative 2 include costs associated with post-remediation.
7.8 State Acceptance
The State of Ohio supports DOE's selected remedy; a letter detailing Ohio EPA's support is
shown in Appendix A.
7.9 Community Acceptance
Based on public comments received during the formal comment period, the public accepted
the proposed remedy. Public comments focused on how the remedy should be implemented
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 30 August 1996
instead of whether it should be implemented. All stakeholder comments received are
identified and responded to in the Responsiveness Summary (Appendix A).
8.0 SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the results of the detailed analysis
of alternatives using the nine criteria, and stakeholder comments, DOE and the U.S. EPA have
determined that Alternative 2 is the most appropriate remedy for OU3. Therefore,
Alternative 2 is the selected remedy.
The selected remedy provides for the protection of existing and future human and
environmental receptors through the implementation of remedial actions involving the potential
additional treatment of materials generated by D&D activities during the OU3 interim remedial
action, the final disposition of most D&D materials in the OSDF, and the final disposition of
those D&D materials that exceed the OSDF WAC at off-site disposal facilities. The selected
remedy also adopts the long-term monitoring and security measures to be implemented
pursuant to the OU5 ROD.
This ROD provides for the disposition of materials generated by the OU3 interim remedial
action D&D activities. The materials, which may exhibit residual contamination subsequent
to the D&D efforts, consist of accessible metals, inaccessible metals, painted light-gauge
metals, concrete, non-regulated ACM, regulated ACM, and miscellaneous materials. The
placement of any waste generated off of the FEMP site in the OSDF is prohibited under the
selected remedy. Specifically excluded from this prohibition are laboratory wastes generated
at off-site facilities resulting directly from the chemical, radiological, and engineering analysis
of the FEMP waste materials/contaminated media, or wastes generated at off-site facilities
during the conduct of treatability or demonstration-type studies of FEMP materials.
8.1 Key Components
Section 6.2 identified the key components of the selected remedy. The following includes the
key components of the selected remedy and incorporates the components of prior OU3
decisions to form a complete, integrated remedy for OU3:
Adoption of Previous OU3 Decisions
Incorporates the decisions provided in the IROD so as to provide for an integrated
implementation of the respective decisions;
Adopts the procedures and disposition decisions of Removal Action 9 to continue
disposition of the products, residues, and nuclear materials generated during site
operations;
Adopts prior decisions made for management of Safe Shutdown (Removal
Action 12), management of asbestos abatement (Removal Action 26), and
management of debris (Removal Action 17);
Alternatives to Disposal
Permits the unrestricted/restricted release of materials, as economically feasible,
for recycling, reuse, or disposal;
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 31 August 1996
Treatment
Permits treatment of materials to meet the OSDF WAC and/or off-site disposal
facility WAC;
Off-Site Disposal
Requires off-site disposal of process residues, product materials, and process-
related metals;
Requires off-site disposition of acid brick and concrete from specific locations
(identified in Section 6.2) and any other materials exceeding the OSDF WAC;
On-Propertv Disposal
Permits disposal of remaining OU3 wastes in the OSDF;
Imposes administrative controls through deed restrictions and access controls;
and
Incorporates post-remediation activities that includes long-term monitoring and
maintenance of the OSDF and operation of a groundwater monitoring network to
evaluate the performance of the OSDF.
The following subsections further discuss the selected remedy, its appropriateness for
addressing OU3, and its integration with other operable unit remedies and issues at the FEMP.
8.1.1 Adoption of Previous OU3 Decisions
During the development of the OU3 final decision, a number of early decisions were made to
accelerate remedial actions in OU3. Those decisions include several program level removal
actions and a ROD for interim remedial action. Each of the decision-making activities under
the removal actions and IROD were developed in anticipation of a flexible final remedy. Each
of the decisions focused on addressing a specific threat and has undergone appropriate
approvals under CERCLA. These decisions are currently being implemented and an
assumption was made in the development of this remedy that these actions would continue
to completion. Therefore, these prior decisions have not been reevaluated. Discussions of
the interim remedial action and the OU3 programmatic removal actions are provided in
Sections 2.1 and 2.2, respectively.
To ensure the proper integration of the OU3 interim and final remedial actions, the OU3
RD/RA Work Plan for Interim Remedial Action will be superseded by a work plan that
combines existing and updated implementation strategies for the OU3 interim remedial action
with strategies developed for implementing the OU3 final remedial action. This OU3
integrated RD/RA work plan will be submitted to U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA within 60 days
following the issuance of this final remedial action ROD.
The combination of the existing programmatic removal actions, the remedy selected for the
interim remedial action in the IROD, and the selected remedy for disposition of the OU3
materials represents a complete remedy for OU3, as defined by the Amended Consent
Agreement. The integrated remedial action for OU3 will commence upon U.S. EPA approval
of the OU3 integrated RD/RA work plan.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 32 August 1996
8.1.2 Alternatives to Disposal
The selected remedy represents a flexible disposition decision, which permits detailed
disposition decision-making during the planning of individual D&D activities. This flexibility
allows planning and design of recycling, reuse, and waste minimization activities to coincide
with that of D&D. Public preference for recycling, reuse, and waste minimization was
expressed during the OU3 formal public comment period. As a means to assure public input
to final decision-making with regard to the disposition of OU3 materials, the draft Decision
Methodology for Fernald Scrap Metal Disposition Alternatives (DOE 1996e) has been
developed to provide a methodology to evaluate alternate disposition options. This
methodology will be used as a tool, with public review, to evaluate disposition options for
Building 4A structural steel. If successful, the use of the methodology may be expanded to
include materials other than structural steel. The implementation of the methodology will also
permit new and evolving technologies to be incorporated into the remediation strategies of
OU3. The methodology, as amended by public comment, will be adopted by the OU3
integrated RD/RA work plan.
As shown in Table 6-1, an estimated 309,000 cubic feet of Accessible Metals (Category A)
and Miscellaneous Materials (Category I) associated primarily with administrative structures
have contamination concentrations that are below baseline and could potentially be released
for unrestricted reuse, recycling, or disposal in a commercial sanitary landfill. .These
unrestricted release materials must be in compliance with the surface contamination guidelines
found in DOE Order 5400.5.
Additionally, over 1.8 million cubic feet of Accessible Metals (Category A), Inaccessible Metals
(Category B), and Painted, Light-Gauge Metals (Category D) represent a grouping of materials
which have the potential for recycling. If these metals cannot meet the unrestricted release
guidelines set forth in DOE Order 5400.5, they could be recycled and formed into disposal
containers, shield blocks, etc. Specific decisions regarding recycling and other alternatives
to disposal will be made based on the results of the methodology discussed above. Those
decisions will be incorporated into implementation plans resulting from the remedial design
process for each D&D project.
8.1.3 Treatment
During the D&D of OU3 structures, a number of activities involving the removal of
contaminants occur. These treatment activities include the removal of process residues from
equipment, piping, and ductwork under the Safe Shutdown program and the washdown of
structures and equipment during dismantlement under the interim remedial action. Consistent
with the balanced approach concept for waste disposition, these treatment activities
substantially limit the mass of contaminants which could be disposed in the OSDF under this
remedy in favor of more protective disposal of a smaller amount of material. These activities
also provide a mechanism to prepare materials for unrestricted release, reuse, or recycling,
when practicable, and, overall, reduce the mass of materials considered too contaminated for
disposal in the OSDF (by removing significant contamination). Because final disposition
decisions impact the methods used for decontamination and material handling during the D&D
actions, these treatment activities are governed primarily by this final remedy.
In addition to decontamination, OU3 materials exhibiting RCRA characteristic properties will
receive treatment to achieve waste acceptance criteria, consistent with the FEMP Site
Treatment Plan. In the OU3 RI/FS Report, two OU3 materials were determined to exhibit
characteristic hazardous properties under RCRA: lead sheeting (formed as flashing, window
sills, and door moldings) and acid brick. Both materials will be subject to treatment to meet
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 33 August 1996
TCLP criteria of the LDRs. Treatment selection decisions for these materials will be
documented in the respective implementation plans for each D&D complex.
Due to the mobility of Tc-99, a limit of 105 grams of Tc-99 is imposed for all OU3 materials
dispositioned in the OSDF. Removal of surface concrete is required to meet this limit.
Mechanical removal or scabbling will be used as a form of treatment to separate the more
contaminated materials for off-site disposition (balanced approach). The specific locations for
concrete scabbling are identified in Section 6.2.
8.1.4 Off-Site Disposal
The selected remedy includes the off-site disposal of primary threat materials, namely process
residues, product materials, and equipment containing process residues. Also, to ensure that
the mass-based Tc-99 WAC for on-property disposal is attained, the selected remedy includes
the off-site disposition of those materials with the highest concentrations of Tc-99.
Therefore, as discussed in Section 6.2, the top surfaces of concrete in four process areas will
be scabbled and dispositioned off-site. Acid brick is also designated for off-site disposition
due to its inherent concentrations of several RCRA constituents. As shown in Table 6-1,
these three material types have been estimated to have a combined volume of 174,000 cubic
feet, representing the approximate quantity of OU3 remediation materials that will be shipped
to either a commercial disposal facility or the NTS facility over the duration of the OU3 final
remedial action.
Materials designated for off-site shipment will be containerized and shipped either by truck or
rail. Estimates contained in the OU3 RI/FS Report conclude that approximately 590 truck
shipments are needed for the off-site disposition of OU3 materials. Through coordinated
efforts with OU1, the off-site shipment of OU3 materials to a representative commercial
disposal facility could potentially be combined with the off-site rail shipment of OU1
remediation materials. The details of these coordinated efforts are currently being developed
in the OU1 remedial design effort.
8,1.5 On-Propertv Disposal
A general description of the OSDF design is provided in the Design Criteria Package for the
On-Site Disposal Facility Design (DOE 1996f). The FEMP OSDF will be designed as an
above-grade unit to provide permanent disposal for affected soil, wastes, and materials
generated by site remedial actions, including the OU3 interim remedial action. Containment
of materials in the facility will minimize the potential for direct contact or incidental
ingestion/inhalation of residual contaminants. It will also minimize migration of contaminants
to air and surface water and will protect groundwater for a minimum period of 200 to 1,000
years. Because the FEMP is situated over the Great Miami Aquifer, which is a sole-source
drinking water aquifer, the placement of OU3 materials in the OSDF will require a U.S. EPA
waiver of State of Ohio solid waste disposal facility siting requirements [OAC 3745-27-
07(H)(2)(c)and(d)]. The specific requirements of this waiver are presented in Section 9.2 of
this document. By signing this ROD, U.S. EPA grants the waiver required to implement the
on-site disposal element of the OU3 final remedial action.
The OSDF is designed for 2.5 million unbulked cubic yards, approximately 90 percent of
which will be excavated soil and wastes from OU2 and OU5, with a small amount of low-level
radioactive material and soil expected from OU1 and OU4. The facility will occupy an area
of approximately 800 feet by 3,700 feet. It will have a multilayer composite cover and a
multilayer composite liner with a leachate detection/collection system. Leachate collected by
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 34 August 1996
the leachate collection system will be transferred to the Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Facility for treatment prior to discharge to the Great Miami River.
The OSDF will be secured by fences and guards during the remediation period. OSDF remedial
action planning documents will govern: air monitoring for the OSDF; post-closure institutional
controls (e.g., site ownership, access controls and restrictions, deed restrictions, and land use
restrictions); and long-term monitoring of the OSDF.
The OSDF WAC are comprised of three elements: chemical/radiological-specific limits; material
prohibitions; and physical size criteria. As discussed in Section 6.2, the only
chemical/radiological-specific WAC for OU3 materials is Tc-99, which is limited to a total of
105 grams from OU3 materials in the OSDF.
The following items are specifically prohibited from disposal in the OSDF:
impacted material from any off-site source, including any other DOE site, except
as provided in the OU5 ROD;
pressurizable gas cylinders;
process-related metals (Category C materials);
lead sheeting that has not been treated to meet LDR treatment standards;
product, residues, and other special materials (Category J materials);
materials containing free liquids;
intact drums (i.e., drums must be empty and crushed);
acid brick (Category F materials);
transformers which have not been either crushed or had their void spaces filled
with grout (or other acceptable materials);
scrap tires;
used oils; and
materials not accompanied by an applicable transportation manifest.
Physical size criteria for the OU3 debris are being determined during the design of the OSDF
and will be specified in the Impacted Materials Placement Plan for the OSDF. These physical
size criteria, once finalized, will be incorporated into the OU3 integrated RD/RA work plan
and/or subsequent project-specific implementation plans.
The OU3 RI/FS Report estimated that almost 98 percent of materials governed under this ROD
will meet the WAC for on-property disposal. Of these materials, approximately 309,000 cubic
feet are associated with non-process administrative structures and are expected to meet the
unrestricted release guidelines of DOE Order 5400.5. This leaves an estimated seven million
cubic feet of OU3 D&D material that could either be decontaminated (where practical) to meet
DOE Order 5400.5 unrestricted release limits or be dispositioned in the OSDF.
-------
OU3 ROD fordinal Remedial Action (Final) 35 August 1996
8.2 Remediation Goals
As detailed in Section 4.1 of the OU3 RI/FS Report, remedial action objectives (RAOs) were
developed in accordance with the NCP and U.S. EPA guidance with the intention of setting
goals to ensure the protection of human health and the environment. The objectives were
designed to mitigate the potential adverse effects of any residual contaminants present on
materials following D&D.
For OU3, the OU3 IROD dictates that the final remedial action provide for dispositioning
material resulting from the D&D of OU3 structures. Because none of the OU3 material will
remain "in place," preliminary remediation goals, which are typically established to determine
the extent cj remediation required to meet RAOs, were not required (and would not have been
meaningful). The RAOs are appropriate to support the decision to remediate the materials
placed in interim storage by the interim remedial action and to guide the final disposition of
these materials. Section 4.1 of the OU3 Rl/FS Report identified the RAOs that serve both of
these purposes.
The OU3 RAOs stipulate the dispositioning of all materials remaining from the OU3 interim
remedial action in a manner that confines risks to human health and the environment to
acceptable limits. These RAOs, the ARARs identified for the selected remedy, and the
potential post-remediation land use objectives discussed in the OU5 ROD will result in a final,
site-wide remedy that is protective of human health and the environment.
8.3 Future Public Involvement
DOE will continue to offer opportunities for public involvement throughout the RD/RA phases
of the FEMP cleanup consistent with the Fernald Community Relations Plan (1995f). Although
the requirements for public involvement during the RD/RA phases are limited, DOE is
committed to providing opportunities for public involvement and input into the decision
process beyond those required by law. One example, as discussed in the response to
stakeholder comments on recycling, reuse, and free-release of OU3 materials (see
Appendix A), involves the draft Decision Methodology for Fernald Scrap Metal Disposition
Alternatives. This methodology will be used as a tool, with public review, to evaluate
disposition options for certain materials, such as structural steel. The methodology, as
amended by public comment, will be adopted by the OU3 integrated RD/RA work plan.
Additional details regarding future public involvement during RD/RA will also be outlined in the
OU3 integrated RD/RA work plan.
9.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
In accordance with the statutory requirements of Section 121 of the CERCLA, remedial
actions taken pursuant to Sections 104 and 106 must satisfy the following criteria:
Be protective of human health and the environment;
Comply with all ARARs established under federal and state environmental laws
(or justify a waiver);
Be cost-effective;
Utilize permanent solutions and alternative technologies or recovery technologies
to the maximum extent practicable; and
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 36 August 1996
Satisfy the statutory preference for.remedies that utilize treatment and also
significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of the hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants (or justify why this preference cannot be
satisfied).
In addition, CERCLA requires five year reviews to determine if adequate protection of human
health and the environment is being maintained where remedial actions result in hazardous
substances remaining on-property above health-based levels. The following sections
demonstrate how the selected response actions for OU3 satisfy these statutory requirements.
9.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy achieves the requirement of being protective of human health and the
environment by:
dictating the removal of potential residual contamination sources to achieve the
WAC for on-property disposal;
treating, when necessary, materials pursuant to LDRs and the FEMP Site
Treatment Plan;
dispositioning the majority of OU3 materials in an engineered OSDF, thereby
reducing potential risks to potential human and environmental receptors to
acceptable levels;
dispositioning the remaining materials at off-site locations, depending on the
nature of the materials; and
reducing the potential short-term risks associated with the packaging and
transport of materials through the use of engineering and administrative controls
that will be specified in the OU3 integrated RD/RA work plan and project-specific
implementation plans.
Once the OSDF is available to accept OU3 materials, the OU3 D&D materials that were placed
into interim storage will be transferred to the OSDF. Any contaminated soil generated by OU3
remediation activities will also be removed and disposed in a manner consistent with the OU5
ROD. None of the OU3 disposition options (i.e., on-property disposal, off-site disposal,
recycling, etc.) results in unacceptable risks to human health or the environment. At the
completion of the OU3 interim and final remedial actions, no materials will be left in place;
therefore, there will not be any residual risks associated with OU3.
9.2 Compliance with ARARs
Under Section 1 21 (d)(1) of CERCLA, remedial actions must attain standards, requirements,
or criteria that are "applicable or relevant and appropriate11 (i.e., ARARs) under the
circumstances of the release at a site. All ARARs will be met upon completion of the selected
remedy, with the exception of two Ohio EPA solid waste disposal facility siting criteria
(contained in OAC 3745-27-07 and -20) that restrict the siting of a disposal facility over a
high yield and/or a sole-source aquifer regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. A waiver
to the OAC 3745-27-07 and -20 solid waste disposal facility siting requirements is necessary
in order to locate the OSDF over the Great Miami Aquifer.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 37 August 1996
A definitive list of the ARARs and TBC criteria that will be attained by the selected remedy
is provided in Appendix B, organized by chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific
requirements. The justification supporting the issuance of an ARAR waiver to the OAC 3745-
27-07 and -20 solid waste disposal facility siting requirements is provided in Section 9.2.1.
The U.S. EPA grants the waiver and concurs with DOE that the selected remedy will attain
a standard of performance equivalent to that required by the ARAR being waived, in
accordance with the ARAR waiver provisions provided by the NCR (40 CFR 300.430).
9.2.1. Waiver of State of Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Facility Requirements
OU3 remediation materials that meet the WAC for the OSDF and placed in thereupon as part
of the selected remedy are considered by the Ohio EPA to be solid wastes. The Ohio EPA
disposal facility siting criteria from the Ohio solid waste disposal facility siting regulations are
pertinent ARARs for on-property disposal. OAC 3745-27-07 and -20 list the following areas
where a solid waste disposal facility may not be located:
In surface and subsurface areas surrounding a public water supply well through
which contaminants may move toward and may reach the public water supply
well within a period of five years;
Above an aquifer declared by the Federal government under the Safe Drinking
Water Act to be a sole-source aquifer;
. Above an unconsolidated aquifer capable of sustaining a yield of 100 gallons per
minute for a 24-hour period to a water supply well located within 1,000 feet of
the limits of solid waste placement;
In a regulatory floodplain;
Within 1,000 feet of a water supply well or developed spring;
Within 300 feet of the facility's property line;
Within 1,000 feet of a domicile whose owner has not consented in writing to the
location of the facility;
Within 200 feet of a stream, lake, or natural wetland; and
The isolation distance between the uppermost aquifer system and the bottom of
the recompacted soil liner of the disposal facility cannot be less than 15 feet of
in situ or added geologic material.
The proposed feasible location of the OSDF is on the eastern side of the FEMP which is not
in a floodplain; near a stream, lake, or wetland; within 1,000 feet of an existing water supply
well or developed spring nor near enough to a public water supply well so that contaminants
may reach the well within a period of five years. The facility would not be placed within 300
feet of the FEMP property line or within 1,000 feet of an existing residence. The isolation
distance between the uppermost aquifer system and the bottom of the recompacted soil liner
will be greater than 15 feet.
The remaining two siting requirements (bullets two and three) cannot be met because of the
FEMP's location over a sole-source aquifer that is capable of sustaining a yield of 100 gallons
per minute for a 24-hour period. Ohio EPA has established two specific criteria (GD202.101
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 38 August 1996
and GD202.102) that identify conditions that would be acceptable to allow an exemption to
the siting criteria. While these policies state that several factors will be considered in
evaluation of an exemption, the specific factors identified indicate that the protection of
human health and the environment should be provided solely by the existing hydrogeologic
conditions. This has been reaffirmed by the Ohio EPA in several meetings.
The primary hydrogeologic standards established by these policies are:
Significant thickness of low-permeable material between the disposal facility and
the aquifer;
Lack of inter-connection between the sole-source aquifer and any significant
zones of saturation;
Significant amount of sediment [soil] between the disposal facility and the high-
yield aquifer to prevent leachate from migrating to the high-yield aquifer during
the life of the landfill and the post-closure care period. The post-closure care
period for a solid waste is a minimum of 30 years [OAC 3745-17-14(A)].
It has been determined, based on existing hydrogeologic information, that the existing
hydrogeologic conditions at the FEMP do not fully meet these conditions. This is based on
the possibility that some granular soil are interbedded in the till and the need to protect the
aquifer for significantly longer that 30 years (at least 200 years; an ARAB under 40 CFR 1 92).
Because the aquifer underlies the entire site, a waiver was requested to locate the OSDF on
the FEMP. The waiver request was based on the ability of the selected remedial action,
through the use of another method or approach, to attain a standard of performance that is
equivalent to that required by the ARARs. The criteria used to determine ARAR equivalency
per 40 CFR 300.430(f)(1 )(ii)(C)(4) include degree of protection, level of performance, reliability
into the future, and time required for results.
9.2.2. Equivalent Standard of Performance
The preamble in the NCP to 40 CFR 300.430(f)(1 )(ii)(C)(4) states that when an ARAR waiver
is for the use of alternative but equivalent technologies and comparison based on risk, such
a waiver is only permitted where the original standard is risk-based. The Ohio exemption
guidance, with its focus on geological conditions, is for the most part analogous to a
technology standard but also appears to be, with respect to level of performance, risk- and
technology-based. Therefore, the following analysis of CERCLA waiver criteria uses a
technology-based comparison, except for level of performance, which is a risk-based
comparison. The circumstances of the selected remedy are considered equivalent to the Ohio
EPA requirements and thereby warrant the granting of a CERCLA ARAR waiver. The basis
for equivalency is identified below for each of the identified criteria.
Degree of protection:
Ohio EPA Standard - The justification to allow a solid waste landfill over a high-
yield sole-source aquifer is that the existing hydrogeology will provide adequate
protection to the high-yield sole-source aquifer from the effects of a release of
leachate and thereby protect the aquifer from contamination. The approach
spelled out by the pertinent policies is to prevent leachate from reaching the
aquifer during the active life of the landfill and the post closure period of 30
years. The active life of the OSDF for OU3 wastes is estimated to be seven years
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 39 August 1996
under the FY-96 Baseline. It should be noted that if future funding does not
support this schedule, the impact to resources (i.e., manpower) would extend the
maximum active life to approximately 27 years pursuant to the original OU3
schedule.
Equivalent Standard - The combination of engineering controls and existing
hydrogeology provided by the selected remedy will provide the same degree of
protection to the aquifer as the hydrogeologic conditions described in the Ohio
EPA policy. Modeling with the combined controls shows that the leachate will
not reach the aquifer during the active life of the landfill and a post-closure period
of 30 years. It should be noted that the modeling performed for the OU5 FS
Report (Appendix F) used a period of 1,000 years and assumed that the liner
system and man-made materials (e.g., leachate collection, leak detection and
synthetic liners) of the OSDF would fail. This modeling shows that with the
enhanced cap to reduce infiltration and the existing hydrogeology, leachate that
may eventually reach the aquifer would not cause the constituent concentrations
in the aquifer to exceed the promulgated and proposed maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs).
Level of performance (method-based):
Ohio EPA Standard - Significant thickness of low permeable material between the
disposal facility and the aquifer.
Equivalent Standard - Decisions for on-property disposal of OU3 materials have
been based on a combination of 20 feet of gray clay, geochemical parameters in
gray clay, OU3 specific leaching potential, and conservative leaching assumptions
to achieve equivalent protective requirements. An approach similar to OU2 and
OU5 was followed for development of protective WAC for OU3 materials. Two
parameters in the engineering model were updated for OU3 WAC development
to reflect site-specific information. The OSDF dimensions were based on the OU2
Disposal Facility Pre-Design Geotechnical Investigation Soil Investigation Data
Report (DOE 1995g) which identified the best hydrogeology for placement of the
OSDF. An additional modification increased the Tc-99 Kd (the coefficient of
adsorption/desorption) based on site sampling within the area overlying the OSDF
location as determined within the OU2 pre-design report. Based on these
changes, modeling under the EPA 70-year rule has shown that a contribution by
OU3 of less than or equal to 105 grams of Tc-99 to the OSDF will not exceed a
10'5 risk level at the boundary of the OSDF.
Ohio EPA Standard - Lack of interconnection between the sole-source aquifer and
any significant zones of saturation.
Equivalent Standard - Any interconnections will be minimized by: 1) locating the
OSDF in an area with the greatest thickness of gray clay and the least occurrence
of interbedded granular material; and/or 2) providing an increase in the engineered
controls to compensate for any reduction of protection due to interbedded
granular material; and/or 3) providing engineering control of lateral movement of
water in an area of interbedded granular material by removing the granular
material affecting the geologic protection of the aquifer or by preventing the
movement of water from these areas to the aquifer.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 40 August 1996
Ohio EPA Standard - Significant amount of sediment [soil] between the disposal
facility and the high-yield aquifer to prevent leachate from migrating to the high-
yield aquifer during the life of the landfill and the post-closure care period. The
post-closure care period for a solid waste landfill is a minimum of 30 years [OAC
3745-27-14(A)].
Equivalent Standard - At a minimum, a total of four additional layers will be added
to the standard solid waste cap and liner [OAC 3745-27-08(C)]. These layers are
a sand filter, biotic barrier, and bentonite geocomposite layers in the cap to
reduce infiltration and to protect the integrity of the cap. A leak-detection layer
will be provided in the liner to monitor the integrity of the containment system
and to provide early warning to allow corrective action prior to any adverse
impact to the aquifer. These additional engineering controls together with the
natural hydrogeology will prevent leachate from reaching the aquifer during the
post-closure care period.
Level of performance (risk-based):
Ohio EPA Standard - Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3734.02(0) allows exemptions of
Ohio EPA regulations if a remedy is unlikely to adversely affect the public health
or safety or the environment. The pertinent policies mirror this requirement using
an approach which requires existing hydrogeologic conditions to provide this
protection. Ohio EPA does not propose a specific definition for the protection of
human health and the environment. However, OAC 3745-27-10(F)(7)(a)-(d),
which specifies solid waste landfill operating requirements, sets forth
concentration levels for constituents detected in the groundwater for which a
corrective action is required. This standard provides an appropriate framework
for risk analysis in this case because the waiver concerns the establishment of a
solid waste disposal unit. These levels are concentrations that are at a
statistically significant level to be protective of human health and the
environment, and the promulgated MCL, or background concentrations for
constituents that do not have a promulgated MCL, or alternative groundwater
protection standard (for a known or suspected carcinogen, concentration levels
that represent a cumulative excess upper-bound lifetime cancer risk to an
individual within the 1 x 10"4to 1 x 10~6 range).
Equivalent Standard - This same definition has been used as a threshold criteria
in evaluating alternatives in the CERCLA decision-making process at the FEMP
and specifically in the OU5 FS with the addition that constituents in groundwater
should not be higher than the proposed MCLs. The selected remedy meets this
threshold criteria. Protection of human health has been determined through the
risk assessment process based on contaminant transport modeling and the NCP
acceptable incremental lifetime cancer risk range of 1x10~4 to 1x10~6 and in
compliance with promulgated and proposed MCLs.
Reliability into the future:
The combination of hydrogeologic and engineering controls (including additional controls
beyond the requirements for a solid waste disposal facility) provides increased reliability into
the future because of the following:
The biotic barrier in the cap will prevent burrowing animals or vegetative roots
from compromising the integrity of the cap and thereby increasing the infiltration.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 41 August 1996
Leak detection monitoring will provide an early warning of any problem in leachate
containment and allow corrective measures to be undertaken prior to adverse
impact to the aquifer.
Time required for results:
Construction of a disposal facility with additional engineering controls will not take
significantly longer than the time required for a disposal facility that strictly meets the Ohio
Solid Waste Disposal Regulations.
A CERCLA ARAB waiver of the Ohio EPA prohibition of siting a disposal facility over a high-
yield, sole-source aquifer is justified based on an equivalent standard of performance [40 CFR
300.430(f)(1)(ii)(C)(4)] to the Ohio EPA policies allowing an exemption to the siting
requirements. This waiver is applicable only to OU3 on-property remediation materials.
The disposal facility location and design will be subject to review and approval during the OU2
remedial design phase. DOE intends to construct only one disposal facility at the FEMP.
Therefore, since on-property disposal has been selected for additional FEMP operable units,
the disposal facility capacity and location will be adjusted accordingly during the OU2 remedial
design process.
9.3 Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost-effective because it has been determined to provide overall
effectiveness proportional to its costs, the net present-worth value being $71 million and an
estimated total cost of $95 million. Overall the selected remedy achieves the remedial action
objectives established for OU3 for the least cost.
The selected remedy is estimated to be one-half the total cost and one-half the present-worth
cost of transporting all OU3 remediation materials to off-site facilities for final disposal
(Alternative 3). Alternative 3 would have an estimated present-worth cost of $150 million
and an estimated total cost of $190 million. Alternative 3 is not considered proportionally
cost effective relative to differences in protectiveness provided.
9.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or Resource
Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
Of those alternatives that are protective of human health and the environment and comply
with ARARs, the selected remedy for OU3 provides the best balance of trade-offs among the
alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria; it provides a remedy which is reliable over
the long term, is less costly, and is readily implementable. The selected remedy represents
the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be utilized
in a cost-effective manner for OU3.
The selected remedy provides adequate short-term effectiveness and is readily implementable.
Because the majority of the waste material will remain on-site during remediation, there is very
little opportunity for public exposure to the contaminants. The exposure potential to
remediation workers will be managed in accordance with a health and safety plan and is,
therefore, considered acceptable. The on-site disposal alternative is considered to provide
more short-term effectiveness and is more implementable than off-site disposal. The selected
remedy is half the cost of off-site disposal.
The State of Ohio and the public were provided the opportunity to review the proposed
remedy for OU3. Their comments and concerns were fully considered in determining the
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 42 August 1996
selected remedy. The responses to the comments that were provided can be found in the
Responsiveness Summary (Appendix A). The State of Ohio and the public support the
selected remedy.
The selected remedy will result in the final disposition of OU3 materials generated during the
D&D of former Production Area structures. Those materials that either are considered to be
principal threat materials, do not meet the OSDF WAC, or meet unrestricted release criteria
will be permanently removed from the Fernald site for off-site disposition at an approved
location. Treatment will be performed as needed to meet the appropriate disposal facility
WAC. Alternative treatment technologies will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will
be documented in the project-specific D&D implementation plans.
9.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The NCP [40 CFR 300.430 (a)(iii)(A) and (B)] in part states that "EPA expects to use
treatment to address the principal threats posed by a site, wherever practicable..." and "EPA
expects to use engineering controls, such as containment, for waste that poses a relatively
low long-term threat or where treatment is impracticable." OU3 materials considered to be
principal threat at the FEMP generally consist of the "legacy wastes." Legacy wastes are
defined as the inventory of waste that was generated during the FEMP production period.
Legacy wastes include containerized low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, mixed
waste, and PCB wastes. These materials will be treated, as required, in accordance with the
FEMP Site Treatment Plan and the FFCA, and dispositioned under existing removal actions.
The "legacy wastes" that do not require treatment will also be dispositioned off-site. The
materials to be generated during the interim remedial action and dispositioned under the final
remedial action constitute low-threat materials relative to the "legacy wastes."
This approach is consistent with the adopted site-wide remedy, which incorporates a
balanced approach to waste disposition that recognizes the technical and economic
impracticality of removing and disposing of all contaminated FEMP materials at an off-site
disposal facility. Materials contaminated with relatively higher radiological and chemical
concentrations (e.g., OU1 waste pit materials and OU4 silo wastes), deemed to represent the
principal threat at the FEMP, would be treated, if required, and shipped off-site for disposal.
Secondary threat materials, exhibiting relatively lesser concentrations, would be permanently
disposed of at the FEMP. Consistent with this approach, the OU1 and the OU4 remediation
wastes are considered principal threat materials because of the nature and concentration of
their constituents; treatment and off-site disposal has been selected as the remedy for these
operable units. Also in accordance with this approach, relatively low concentration wastes
and soil associated with OU2 and OU5 are being considered for on-property disposal.
For OU3, the interim remedial action, as prescribed in the IROD, satisfies the statutory
preference for treatment of OU3 materials through the application of in situ gross
decontamination methods. Based on the projected residual contamination levels on
remediation materials following the in situ treatment and D&D of OU3 structures, the role of
further treatment during the OU3 final remedial action will be on a supplemental basis to
ensure protectiveness during the final disposition activities and to meet WAC for the off-site
commercial disposal facility.
9.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
Natural resources will be permanently committed as a result of implementing the selected
remedy over a period of ten years. These commitments not only include the resources and
land, but the services they provide as well.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 43 August 1996
The selected remedy will result in the permanent commitment of land at the off-site disposal
facilities. Up to 0.4 acres of land could be committed at the commercial disposal facility due
to the disposition of OU3 materials that exceed the OSDF WAC. Up to 2.5 acres of land
could be required at the NTS due to the disposition of OU3 materials that exceed both the
OSDF WAC and the commercial disposal facility WAC. Terrestrial habitat at the commercial
disposal facility is sparse, resulting in minimal displacement of species. Habitat for the Desert
Tortoise at NTS is not expected to be impacted. Additionally, up to 13 acres of land could
be required at a local sanitary landfill for the dispositioning of OU3 materials that meet the
unrestricted release criteria. In addition to off-site land commitments, on-property disposition
of OU3 materials could utilize up to 10 percent (or 6.8 acres) of the OSDF.
Consumptive use of petroleum products (e.g., diesel fuel and gasoline) will be required for
construction of final action support facilities, material transport, and on-property disposal
activities. These materials will be available at the FEMP. Additional fuel use will result from
off-site transport of the materials. However, adequate supplies are available without affecting
local requirements for these products. Potential additional treatment processes for the
selected action alternative will require consumptive use of materials (i.e., polymers) and
energy.
-------
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 45 August 1996
REFERENCES
State of Ohio vs. U.S. Department of Energy, et al, Ohio 1993, "Stipulated Amendment of
Consent Decree Entered December 2, 1988," as amended on January 22, 1993.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1988, "Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan
for the Feed Materials Production Center," Revision 3, DOE, Oak Ridge Operations Office, Oak
Ridge, TN.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1993a, "Operable Unit 3 Proposed Plan/Environmental
Assessment for Interim Remedial Action," Final, DOE, Fernald Field Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1993b, "Operable Unit 3 RI/FS Work Plan Addendum," DOE,
Fernald Field Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1993cf "Sitewide Characterization Report," DOE, Fernald
Field Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1994, "Operable Unit 3 Record of Decision for Interim
Remedial Action and Responsiveness Summary," Final, DOE, Fernald Field Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1995a, "Operable Unit 3 Remedial Design Prioritization and
Sequencing Report," Final, DOE, Fernald Area Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1995b, "Operable Unit 3 Remedial Design/Remedial Action
Work Plan for Interim Remedial Action," Final, DOE, Fernald Field Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1995c, "Proposed Site Treatment Plan," Revision 1.1, DOE,
Fernald Field Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1995d, "Removal Action 17 Work Plan," Revision 3, DOE,
Fernald Field Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1995e, "Record of Decision for Remedial Actions at
Operable Unit 2," DOE, Fernald Area Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1995f, "Fernald Community Relations Plan," Final, DOE,
Fernald Area Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1995g, "Predesign Investigation and Site Selection Report
for the On-Site Disposal Facility," Draft, DOE, Fernald Area Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1996a, "Operable Unit 3 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study Report," Final, DOE, Fernald Area Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1996b, "Proposed Plan for the Operable Unit 3 Final
Remedial Action," Final, DOE, Fernald Area Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1996c, "Record of Decision for Remedial Actions at
Operable Unit 5," Final, DOE, Fernald Area Office, Fernald, OH.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) 46 August 1996
REFERENCES (CONTINUED)
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1996d, "Impacted Materials Placement Plan for the On-Site
Disposal Facility," Draft, DOE, Fernald Area Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1996e, "Decision Methodology for Fernald Scrap Metal
Disposition Alternatives," Draft, DOE, Fernald Area Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, DOE 1996f, "Design Criteria Package for the On-Site Disposal
Facility Design," Pre-Final, DOE, Fernald Area Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 1988, "Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA," EPA 540/G-89.004, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 1990, "National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan," Final Rule (40 CFR 300), Federal Register. 55(46):8666-8865.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 1991 a, "Consent Agreement as Amended under
CERCLA Sections 120 and 106(a) in the Matter of: U.S. Department of Energy Feed Materials
Production Center, Fernald, Ohio," Administrative Docket No. V-W-90-C-052, Region V,
Chicago, Illinois, September 18.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 1991b, "Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund, Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based
Preliminary Remediation Goals)," 9285.7-01 B, EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, DC.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) August 1996
APPENDIX A
OPERABLE UNIT 3 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) August 1996
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-i August 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A.1 INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION A-1
A. 1.1 Finding DOE's Response to a Summary Comment Topic A-4
A.1.2 Finding DOE's Response to a Stakeholder Comment A-4
A.2 SUMMARY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES A-5
A.3 ORIGINAL COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY STAKEHOLDERS A-32
Lisa Crawford A-33
Vicky Dastillung A-35
Pamela Dunn A-38
Nevada Test Site Community Advisory Board A-40
Gary Storer A-45
John Throckmorton A-46
Edwa Yocum A-47
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency A-48
LIST OF TABLES
A-1 Crosswalk Between Stakeholder Comments and DOE Responses A-2
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-ii August 1996
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
OU&ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-1 August 1996
A.1 INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION
This Responsiveness Summary documents formal public comments on the Proposed Plan for
the Operable Unit 3 Final Remedial Action (April 1996) made during the OU3 Public Meeting
at The Plantation in Harrison, Ohio on April 23, 1996 and those comments submitted in
writing during the formal public comment period. It also presents the DOE's responses to all
comments received.
Based on the evaluation of alternative remedial actions in the OU3 Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study Report (February 1996) and on stakeholder comments recorded in this
Responsiveness Summary, the preferred alternative of "Selected Material Treatment, On-
Property Disposal, and Off-Site Disposition," as identified in the Proposed Plan, has been
selected in the Record of Decision (ROD).
As stated in U.S. EPA's Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents (January
1992, Preliminary Draft), this Responsiveness Summary serves three important purposes.
First, it provides the DOE, U.S. EPA, and Ohio EPA with information about community
concerns with the site and preferences regarding the proposed remedial alternative. Second,
it demonstrates to stakeholders how stakeholder comments were integrated into the decision-
making process. Thrrd, it allows DOE to formally respond to stakeholder comments.
This Responsiveness Summary has been prepared pursuant to the terms of the 1991
Amended Consent Agreement between DOE and the U.S. EPA, as well as other requirements,
including:
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act, 42
United States Code, Sections 9601, et. seq.;
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 300;
Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook, January 1992,
EPA/540/R-9 2/009;
Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: The Proposed Plan, The
Record of Decision, Explanation of Significant Differences, The Record of
Decision Amendment, Interim Final, July 1989, EPA/540/G-89/007; and
Fernald Community Relations Plan, Revision 4, January 1995, PL-3045.
As stated above, this Responsiveness Summary documents the DOE's responses to all
comments received. After reviewing the transcripts of verbal comments and written
comments, DOE grouped comments together according to common issue areas. These issue
areas are listed in the comment/response crosswalk, Table A-1. For each issue identified,
DOE has summarized all individual comments into summary comments and prepared a
response to each summary comment. After the response, the individual comments are
quoted. Summary comments, responses, and individual comments are provided in
Section A.2.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final)
A-2
August 1996
TABLE A-1 Crosswalk Between Stakeholder Comments and DOE Responses
1.
1a
2.
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
2g
2h
Summary Comments and Numbers
SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED REMEDY
Support for the Proposed Remedy
REMEDIAL ACTION IMPLEMENTATION
Recycling, Reuse, and Free Release
Non-FEMP Waste Prohibition for On-Property
Disposal
On-Property Disposal WAC for OU3 Materials
OSDF Restriction of OU3 Characteristic Hazardous
Waste
Off-Site Transportation and Disposal
Incorporating Waste Minimization and Pollution
Prevention Strategies in Remedial Action Activities
Preference for Implementing New and/or Evolving
Technologies
Environmental Monitoring
Commentor
Lisa Crawford
Vicky Dastillung
Pamela Dunn
NTS CAB
John Throckmorton
Edwa Yocum
Ohio EPA
Lisa Crawford
Vicky Dastillung
Pamela Dunn
Gary Storer
Edwa Yocum
Ohio EPA
Lisa Crawford
Vicky Dastiilung
Pamela Dunn
Edwa Yocum
Ohio EPA
Lisa Crawford
Pamela Dunn
»
NTS CAB
Ohio EPA
Lisa Crawford
Ohio EPA
NTS CAB
Lisa Crawford
Vicky Dastillung
Pamela Dunn
Ohio EPA
Lisa Crawford
Vicky Dastillung
Pamela Dunn
Ohio EPA
Lisa Crawford
Vicky Dastillung
Pamela Dunn
Ohio EPA
Comment Response
Page No. Page No.
A-33 A-6
A-35
A-38
A-43
A-46
A-47
A-48
A-33 A-9
A-34
A-35
A-39
A-45
A-47
A-48
A-49
A-33 A-1 2
A-35
A-38
A-39
A-47
A-48
A-49
A-50
A-33 A-1 4
A-38
A-39
A-43
A-48
A-33 A-1 6
A-48
A-42 A-1 6
A-43
A-44
A-34 A-1 9
A-35
A-36
A-39
A-49
A-33 A-20
A-36
A-38
A-49
A-34 A-22
A-37
A-39
A-49
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final)
A-3
August 1996
TABLE A-1 Crosswalk Between Stakeholder Comments and DOE Responses (Continued)
3.
3a
3b
3c
4.
4a
4b
4c
5.
5a
5b
5c
5d
5e
5f
Summary Comments and Numbers
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND NOTIFICATION
Addressing Public Comments in the ROD
Continuing Public Involvement
Future Reviews and/or Revisions to the OU3 ROD
COMMENTS NOT DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE OU3
Design and Construction of the OSDF
Future Land Use
Posting of Accessible Remediated Areas
Commentor
NTS CAB
Lisa Crawford
Vicky Dastillung
Pamela Dunn
Ohio EPA
Vicky Dastillung
DECISION
Vicky Dastillung
Lisa Crawford
Pamela Dunn
Ohio EPA
Vicky Dastillung
SPECIFIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS REGARDING THE OU3 RI/FS REPORT
Integration of CERCLA and NEPA
EPA Evaluation Criteria
Cost
State Acceptance
Transportation Routes
Distinction Between OU3 Interim and Final
NTS CAB
NTS CAB
NTS CAB
NTS CAB
NTS CAB
NTS CAB
Comment Response
Page No. Page No.
A-42
A-44
A-34
A-37
A-38
A-49
A-35
A-36
A-37
A-36
A-34
A-39
A-49
A-37
AND PROPOSED
A-42
A-43
A-44
A-44
A-44
A-44
A-24
A-25
A-25
A-27
A-28
A-28
PLAN
A-29
A-30
A-30
A-30
A-31
A-31
Remedial Actions
-------
ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-4 August 1996
Section A.3 contains the transcript of the formal comment portion of the April 23, 1996
public meeting and copies of all written comments submitted during the public comment
period. Verbal and written comments submitted formally are presented verbatim, bracketed,
and identified by a number that corresponds to the number assigned to each issue.
This appendix is organized so that commentors can find their comments and DOE's response
to their comments in several ways. The subsequent subsections provide directions for either
finding DOE's response to a summary comment topic by using Table A-1 or finding DOE's
response to an individual oral or written comment in the public meeting transcript presented
in Section A.3.
A. 1.1 Finding DOE's Response to a Summary Comment Topic
DOE's response to comments made in a particular topic area can be found using Table A-1
as follows:
1. Turn to Table A-1.
2. Select an issue of interest from the list in the second column from the left.
Summary comment topics are organized by larger issue areas that include:
1. Selection of the Proposed Remedy
2. Remedial Action Implementation
3. Community Involvement and Notification
4. Comments Not Directly Applicable to the OU3 Decision
5. Specific Comments and Questions Regarding the OU3 RI/FS Report and
Proposed Plan
3. Follow the row to the right from the topic to the last column on the right. This
column lists the page number of where the summary comment and DOE
response can be found. The column titled "Commentor" on Table A-1 lists the
name of all the commentors who provided comments on the same issue.
4. Turn to the page number listed in the right-hand column. The referenced page
will be in Section A.2 of this Responsiveness Summary.
A. 1.2 Finding DOE's Response to a Stakeholder Comment
Stakeholder comments submitted during the public comment period are presented
alphabetically (by the last name of the commentor) in Section A.3. DOE's responses to these
comments are presented in Section A.2 as summary comment responses and can be located
as follows:
1. Find an oral or written comment in Section A.3.
2. Find the issue number assigned to the comment on a bracket in the right-hand
margin of the page.
3. Turn to Table A-1 and find the topic that corresponds to that issue number.
Issue numbers are listed in the left-hand column of the table.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-35 August 1996
Vicky Dastillunq, Written Comments. Page 1
05..-03. 96 18:37 FERNALD PEIC * 513 64S3075 - MO.489 P001/Q03
Comments on the Proposed Plan for OU 3 at the FEMP
As a nearby resident, let me once again state up front that
my preference would be for a total cleanup of the site that
would return the site to background levels and leave no
waste on site. However, since technological, political, ana
practical considerations must also come into play, I realize
that this is probably not going to happen.
* The ROD should state that DOE will follow a sort of
ALARA-prlnciple in designing and executing the remediation.
The remediation levels shoutd be as close to background as
possible given the technological, risk, and cost
constraints. If an additional process or activity could get
1a
2b
3c
2b
The rest of my comments are aimed at bringing up concerns
and suggestions relative to the Proposed Plan for OU 3.
The ROD for OU 3 should clearly deal with or state the
folIowi ng:
* No off-site waste will be brought onto FEMP property
for storage or disposal, t Define off-site waste as anything
not currently on the site, except' for samples that were sent
off-site for characterization or treatabillty studies) Also,
if there is a change in the type or quantities of waste from
OU 3 that DOE will want to place in the cell, the ROD should
be reopened and a formal comment period for the public
should occur.
* Any waiver given so that a disposal cell can be
built, must include wording to keep all off-site waste from
entering the FEMP for storage or disposal. It must also be
so site-specific that it does not create a precedent for .
future federal or commercial disposal sites in the vicinity
of the FEMP.
* The reuse and recycling parts of the ROD should
provide room for the community's input. Apparently there is
a draft policy now. The public should be allowed to review
and comment on it. The certification program should also be
explained to the public and the public should be allowed to
provide input. While recycling and reuse are important
goals, we want to make sure that there are no exposures to
the public because of it. Also the term "economically "
feasible" needs to be defined, with public input. Perhaps a
Roundtable or other meeting format could begin the dialogue
on these issues.'
* The use of a commercial solid waste landfill needs to
be explained to the public carefully, both the advantages
and the disadvantages.
2f
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-36 August 1996
Vicky Dastillunq, Written Comments. Page 2
05/93/96 IS: 33 FERNALD PEIC -» 513 6433075 NO. 489 PQ02/Q03
us substantially closer to background at a reasonable cost
and risk, this should be pursued. The goal should be
background levels, not Just stay Ing within a remediation
level. zt
* When the disposal cell is built, it should be placed
over the best geology on the site.
* When the disposal cell is built, there should be
constant oversight by an Independent expert as the
engineering, construction and filling are performed to
ensure that they are done properly. Reports from the
Independent expert should be part of the public record.
4a
* When the disposal cell is built, it should be built
In such a way that the contents can be accessed for future
remediation efforts if needed. This does not mean It must
be in containers in neat rows, but be stored in a way that
heavy machinery could get to it without lotting it in the
air or increasing the risks to workers, community or the
environment unnecessarily. .
* The 5 year reviews of the ROD for effectiveness
should include an analysis of the then current technologies'
ability to pursue further remediation. If at a future time
a technology would allow for a way to truly deactivate the
radioactivity or hazardous chemicals or for a way to greatly 2g
enhance the long-term storage of the material, we would want
to be able to evaluate if it was desirable to pursue further
action. This process would also call attention to the
technology research needs of the DOE.
* Copies of the annual reports and the 5 year reviews
should be mailed to:
i, Ross, Crosby, and Morgan Townships
2. Butler and Hamilton Counties
3. OEPA, USEPA, ODH
4, Congressional and State Reps that have the FEMP
in their district
5. Any resident, group or agency that wishes to be
on the mai1 ing Iist
* DOE will be responsible for requesting proper levels ~
of funding for remediation and 0 & M (including future
repairs). If Congress does not provide adequate funding,
letters of Inadequate funding should go out to those on the
above mailing list. Defining "inadequate funding" should be
worked out with the stakeholders. If at some time in the
future another agency takes over the remediation and 0 &. M
functions of the site, It must accept the responsibilities
in the RODs as wel1.
* DOE should commit to detailing the 0 8» M process
within its Administrative orders so that future DOE decision
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-37 August 1996
Vicky Dastillung, Written Comments. Page 3
85. 93 "9b 13:38 FERNALE:- PEIC - 513 6483875 NO. 489 P803/QQ3
makers will be clear about the importance of this ongoing
task.
* * The RODs should be enforceable with fines and
lawsuits if necessary.
* A mechanism for the stakeholders to initiate a
request for future review and possible amendment of the ROD
should be included in the ROD.
* If for some reason, the ROD for OU 3 can't be
implemented fully, the ROD should be reopened with full
public participation.
* Air monitoring data during D &'D and transporting
waste to its disposal site will be extremely important to
the community and workers. The best available devices and
techniques should be used to'give the workers and community
a clear picture of air emissions. Action levels should be
developed (with the community) so that work can be halted if
they occur.
* Developing accurate real-time monitoring should be a
DOE priority!
* Because the annual Environmental Monitoring report is
issued so long after the monitoring is actually done, the
public deserves to see the environmental monitoring results
often, perhaps monthly, so they can be assured that the OU 3
ROD activities are not affecting the community's air, water,
or environmental quality.
* Also, the monitoring done specifically for the ROD
should be made easily available to the public* An update at
community meetings would be nice. Fast turnaround on
analyzing samples is important so that any problems will be
detected promptly enough for mitigating measures to be
taken.
* A commitment to continue the public involvement
process that has been developed over the years should be
stated clearly in the ROD. This should extend through
design, remediation, and out into the 0 & M years.
* Also, once cleanup is considered complete, all areas
where the public will have access and that are above
background (even if they are below the cleanup criteria)
should be posted so that the public can make informed
choices as to any exposures they might incur.
Submitted by Vicky Dastillung
5/2/96
2h
3b
4c
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-38 August 1996
Pamela Dunn. Written Comments. Page 1
F1 D U N N _
313,382293
May 02, 1996
Mr, Gary Stegner
Director, Public Information
U.S* DOE Fernald Office
P.O. Box 538705
Cincinnati, Ohio 45253-R705
RE: Comments on the Proposed Plan for Remediation of OU 3
Dear Mr. Stegner,
The purpose of this letter is to submit comments on OU 3 ' s Proposed
Plan. 1 support the decision to seek a balanced approach in the
remediation efforts for Fernald, with higher concentrations of
waste shipped off-site and lower concentrations of waste remaining
on-site in an engineered disposal facility. I can accept the
preferred alternative if the following issues are addressed and
implemented in the final OU 3 ROD.
1. Meaningful public involvement beyond the ROD and throughout
the RD/RA process. DOE's commitment to this involvement is
essential due to the implications of this alternative and must
be included in the ROD.
2. Continued efforts in technology development should proceed in
an attempt to discover more effective methods for treatment
and disposal of the waste streams designated for the disposal
cell. Efforts should continue to develop technology that may
one day have the ability to remove additional contamination
from the soils without total destruction of the existing eco-
system present on the site.
3. The implementation of the waste acceptance criteria (WAC)
established per ALARA for Tc-99, and air other contaminants,
must be adhered to and stated in the OU 3 ROD. No averaging
or 'dilution of contaminants will be permitted in meeting the
WAC.
4. Waste generated from outside the FEMP will not be allowed to
be disposed of or stored within the FEMP boundaries under any
circumstances. This includes, but is not limited to hazardous,
toxic, radioactive, and any and all waste/contaminates which
were not a result of on-site activities.
5. Criteria for the disposal of building materials and other
solid materials other than soil must be established and
included in the OU 3 ROD. In addition, the ratio of these
forms of solid materials to soil slated for the on-site
disposal facility must be developed, adopted and included in
the OU 3 ROD to ensure the integrity of the cell is not
compromised by their inclusion.
1a
3b
2g
2c
2b
2c
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-39 August 1396
Pamela Dunn. Written Comments, Pag*
D U N N
- 1 3 T 3 3 2 2 9 3
Page -2-
OU 3 Comments
6. Additional discharges of contaminates during the remediation
of OU 3 should be avoided when possible. Methods to achieve | 2f
minimal releases during remediation should be conducted
throughout the RD/TRA process.
7, Real time monitoring and other monitoring activities should be
implemented during remediation and for the period for which
the materials contained within the disposal cell pose a threat
and risk to human health and the environment. These monitoring
activities should be conducted on a regular and frequent basis
with the results provided to the public in a timely manner.
8. The DOE or how it may evolve in the future under another
name and the federal government must retain ownership of the
FEMP property. This is necessary to provide adequate
institutional controls to protect the site and limit future
land use so as to not allow discharges of the contaminants 4b
left in the soils. These restrictions must be defined and
fully disclosed in the OU 3 ROD and included in the deed to
the land.
9. ALARA principles must be utilized during the RD process. I
10. A USEPA waiver of the Ohio solid waste siting criteria should
only be granted if the DOE abides by the WAG upper limit
stipulations has described in comment #3 and #4 above, the
waiver specifically states that there will be no off-site
waste disposed of on the FEMP property and no on-site waste
will be capped and left in place. DOE s commitment to abide
by these stipulations must be included in the OU 3 ROD.
11. The provision for unrestricted release of materials associated
with OU 3 must be defined and presented to the public for
input and acceptance before final adoption of this provision.
The criteria for this "unrestricted release" must be
developed, with public involvement, and included in the final
OU 3 ROD.
Should you have any questions or comments please feel free to
contact me.
Submitted by,
Pamela Dunn
7781 New Haven Rd.
Harrison, Ohio 45030
cc:file
2f
^
2b
~
-------
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final)
A-40
August 1996
Nevada Test Site Community Advisory Board, Written Comments, Page 1
COMMUM ADVISORY BO AM)
FOR NEVADA TEST SITE PROGRAMS
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND VASTE MANAGEMENT
May 15, 1996
Mr. Gary Stegner
Public Information Director
DOE Fernald Area Office
The Department of Energy
P.O. Box 538705
Cincinnati, Ohio 45253-9985
Subject: COMMENTS FROM THE NEVADA TEST SITE COMMUNITY
ADVISORY BOARD ON THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE OPERABLE
UNIT 3 FINAL REMEDIAL ACTION
Dear Mr. Stegner:
Attached are comments from the Nevada Test Site (NTS), Community Advisory Board (CAB)
on the Proposed Plan for the Operable Unit 3 Final Remedial Action.
The CAB is, of course, extremely interested in all facets of the remediation work taking place
at Fernald. Since the NTS will be the recipient of an extensive amount of Fernald's waste we
obviously have a stake in decisions being considered at Fernald. We appreciate your Board's
consideration to our comments from previous operable units.
Operable Unit 3 is, of course, one of a series of operable units that are undergoing remediation
at the Fernald site. We are concerned about the potential cumulative affects from activities such
as the shipment of the waste. While the proposed number of shipments from OU-3 is relatively
low (over 500 containers of waste), the total number of shipments from the Fernald facility to
the NTS will be considerably greater. It is important, therefore, that the cumulative effect of
transportation impacts be characterized comprehensively in the ROD. Further elaboration on
the transportation issue is provided in our comments.
The Board has previously commented on the recommendations being considered for Operable
Units 2, 4 and 5. As we have noted in our responses to the recommendations for remediation
from the other Operable Units we are supportive of the efforts at Fernald and at other sites to
consider, where feasible, on-site storage options. Given the significant amounts of waste present
at Fernald and other locations throughout the nation, it is of course important to remediate,
1QSO EAST FLAMINGO, SUITE 347
(Chair) Dale Schutte; (Members) Richard Arnold, Dennis Bechtel, Chris Brown, Diane Cravotta, Marilynn Hall, James Henderson, Stephanie Lawton, Lathia McDaniels,
Richard Nocffla, Mary O'Brien, Paul Richitt, Stanley Sims, Connie Simkins, Joanne Stockffl, Bill Vasconi; (Ex Offuao) Joe Fiore, Dave Bedsun, Paul Uebendorfer,
Frank Tussing
-------
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-41 August 1996
Nevada Test Site Community Advisory Board. Written Comments, Page 2
Gary Stegner letter
Page 2
May 15, 1996
wherever possible, potential health and safety risks to the public. Reducing the amounts of
waste that need to be transported is also important in reducing the total potential for risk to the
public from the cleanup efforts at Operable Unit 3 and other sites.
While we appreciate the opportunity to provide input to the final remedial action for Operable
Unit 3 members of the Nevada Test Site Community Advisory Board are concerned that we are
not receiving the documents in sufficient time to perform more than a cursory review, and
general comments. The OU-3 document, for example, is dated February 1996. The CAB,
however, was only informed of the proposed action in late April. There should have been more
than ample time for its early distribution. Since the NTS is being recommended for some of the
proposed actions more lead time is obviously needed to comprehensively assess potential
impacts.
The CAB looks forward to your consideration of our comments and concerns with respect to
remediation decisions at Operable Unit 3 and a written response to the issues raised.
If you have questions or "require clarification of our comments please contact the CAB. The
CAB also urges DOE to notify the CAB as early as possible on other cleanup efforts at Fernald
potentially affecting the NTS and surrounding communities to enable the Board to adequately
determine potential impacts.
Sincerely,
ale Schutte, Chairperson
Nevada Test Site Community Advisory Board
Attachment
fernald.ou3
cc: CAB Members
Ex officio Members
Kevin Rohrer, DOE/NV
Earle Dixon, UNLV/HRC
Administrative record
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-42 August 1996
Nevada Test Site Community Advisory Board, Written Comments, Page 3
NEVADA TEST SITE (NTS), COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD (CAB)
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE REMEDIATION OF
FERNALD, OHIO OPERABLE UNIT 3
General Comments, Questions and Concerns (relating generally to items in the
Summary Document except where noted)
1. Where do the recommendations from the proposed remedial action plan fit into the NEPA ^3 5a
process? Since this is a "Final" document how will the comments and recommendations from I 3a
the public, NTS CAB, and others be considered in the IROD/ROD? '
:*2: How will the potential effects to the public and the environreisnfc from the remediation of
Operable Unit 3, be considered cumulatively with those from the other Operable Units?
The transportation of the waste to the NTS, for example, is an issue of concern to Nevadans.
Appendix J, while mentioning transportation and the total number of shipments to the NTS (Page
J-15), essentially performs no analysis on the cumulative impacts of the shipments to Las Vegas
(through* which the shipments will be transported as noted on J-16), or other rapidly growing
areas of Southern Nevada (the Pahrump area of Nye County as an example). The issue
becomes more important because the NTS is being considered for the storage, treatment or
disposal of radioactive and mixed waste from a number of other DOE sites currently undergoing
remediation.
The analyses in Appendix J (and in Appendix H the Risk section) are totally inadequate in
determining actual risk to the public in Southern Nevada, or for that matter, anywhere else along
the route. To more accurately consider true risk (either by RADTRAN as described in
Appendix H,or another measure) local conditions need to be analyzed. Given the total number
of shipments being contemplated more accidents will occur (e.g. an accident of course took place
last year in Southern Missouri involving a radioactive waste truck from Fernald).
The Nevada Test Site DOE released a draft Environmental Impact Statement in March of this
year. Incorporated as part of the EIS was a Transportation Study that examined ten routing
options to transport rad waste to the NTS. Eight of the routes consider the shipment of the
waste through urbanized Clark County. The primary and secondary routes (so named although
the routes were not noted as recommended) would carry, if implemented, thousands of shipments
of waste either through downtown Las Vegas (primary), or through what has essentially become
a residential and commercial area (secondary).
A carefiil analysis would avoid potential problem areas throughout the nation. Appendix J falls
far short of the mark. The analysis should include coordination with local officials in Southern
Nevada and elsewhere to ensure that potential accident locations and other areas of high risk can
be avoided.
2e
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-43 August 1996
Nevada Test Site Community Advisory Board. Written Comments. Page 4
2c
1a
2c
3. It is still unclear why the site has a 105 gram safety limit on Technetium-99 allowable mass?
If this is the case the discussion in Alternative 2 (the preferred alternative) in the summary
document does not make a compelling case for why concrete needs to be transported off-site to
reduce the on-site level to 59 grams (and thereby raise the level of risk, if there is a risk,
elsewhere).
4. Of the three alternatives presented, Alternative 2 is an obvious middle-ground between
Alternative 1, which does not protect the public, and Alternative 3 which proposes to transport
all of the waste to the NTS, or to another facility and move the risk elsewhere.
Why couldn't another option be considered that would be to keep all the waste on-site in a
facility that would protect the public? The Plan notes that OU-3 wastes are secondary wastes,
or, "...wastes that pose a relatively low longrterm threat," and that, "USEPA allows the use of
engineering controls or a combination of engineering controls (mechanical means like barriers),
or administrative controls (e.g. management)" (Page 9). This would avoid the real uncertainty
of transporting the waste thousands of miles with an enhanced potential for accident and release
of material.
5. Throughout the analyses of Alternatives 2 and 3 (Section 6) impacts to the public are said
to be "minor," "minimal," "are not expected to be adversely impacted" and similar, yet there
does not seem to be a strong analytical basis to conclude that this necessarily will be the case.
Likewise, the range of socioeconomic impacts goes well beyond impacts on available resources,
and labor costs (Pages 6-12, and 6-15).
For example, the Socioeconomic and Land Use section of Alternative 2 (Page 6-12) does not
consider die potential impacts from the transportation of the waste, conceivably through Las
Vegas. A whole range of potential affects have been documented from other sources including
potential transportation affects on property values (See Komis v. The City of Santa Fe) to studies
of possible affects on tourism from accidents involving radioactive materials (which is of interest
to Nevada's tourist-based economy).
The communities and citizens that are on the receiving end can't assume that the affects will be
minor, minimal or will not adversely affect our economy, quality of life, or property values.
Specific Comments, Questions and Concerns (Page numbers refer to those in the
brief Summary Document)
Page 12 (EPA Evaluation Criteria). What is the source for the specific regulations to which I 5b
this table refers?
Page 13 (Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment) The conclusion about
protecting human health while undoubtedly protecting human health at Fernald under Alternative ' ^e
2e
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-44 August 1996
Nevada Test Site Community Advisory Board, Written Comments. Page 5
3, ignores potential health affects as a result of the transport of the waste, or at the final disposal
site. The health affects in these two areas need to be described.
Page 14 (Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence) Last Sentence. The conclusion reached
for Alternative 3 [no long-term requirements for continued administrative controls...] seems to
ignore the fact that this material will impact another area (presumably the NTS). There would
be a cost for this.
Page 5-8 (5.3.2- Integration of the Interim and Final Remedial Actions). It is unclear what
the difference is between the Interim and Final Remedial Actions for Alternative 2. Is the
material that will remain at Fernald under an interim action being stored temporarily, or is
Fernald the final disposal site? Could the Final Remedial Action ultimately mean the transport
of this material to the NTS or another off-site location?
Section 6
Page 6-4 (State and Community Acceptance) State and Community acceptance are noted as
criteria to be included in the evaluation of alternatives addressed within the responsiveness
summary of the ROD. As noted the consideration of these criteria are not addressed within
Alternatives 2 and 3 in Section 6. Since these decisions will affect both the source and the
recipient communities (the latter being communities in Nevada and Utah) this should be noted
in the ROD. A key issue with respect to community acceptance, particularly in the Las Vegas
Valley is the transportation of the waste.
2e
Page 14 (Cost). In Alternative 2 what would the cost be if the material proposed for , -
transport/treatment/disposal to Utah/Nevada would remain on-property at Fernald? _J
Page 15 (State Acceptance). Does this include acceptance by the State of Nevada and local I 5d
Nevada communities as well as Ohio? I
Page 15 (Health Effects: General Public). What were the transportation routes considered in i ge
the health effects analyses? _J
Page 17 (Environmental Effects). The preferred alternative does not discuss potential i 2e
environment effects at the disposal sites (the NTS, and Envirocare in Utah) _J
Other Comments, Questions and Concerns (Volume 1)
Section 5
5f
3a
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final)
A-45
August 1996
Gary Storer, Written Comments
COMMENT SHEET
DOE is interested in your comments on the cleanup alternatives being considered in the
Operable Unit 3 Proposed Plan, including the preferred alternative. Please use the space
provided below to write your comments, then fold, staple or tape, and mail this form.
DOE must receive your comments on or before the close of the public comment period
on May 2, 1996. If you have questions about the comment period, please contact Gary
Stegner, the DOE Fernald Area Office Public Information Director, at (513) 648-3153.
A/ erf*
L
c >W
uc^
Name:
C?
Address:.
City:.
Phone:
MAILING LIST ADDITIONS:
Please add my name to the Fernaid Mailing List to receive additional information on the
cleanup progress at the Fernald Environmental Management Project:
YES
NO
2a
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final)
A-46
August 1996
John Throckmorton, Written Comments
COMMENT SHEET
DOE is interested in your comments on the cleanup alternatives being considered in the
Operable Unit 3 Proposed Plan, including the preferred alternative. Please use the space
provided below to write your comments, then fold, staple or tape, and mail this form.
DOE must receive your comments on or before the close of the public comment period
on May 2, 1996. If you have questions about the comment period, please contact Gary
Stegner, the DOE Fernald Area Office Public Information Director, at (513) 648-3153.
flACSl- CCSl
'-?
Name:
Address: to
oity:_
Phone:
State/Zip:
MAILING LIST ADDITIONS:
Please add my name to the Fernald Mailing List to receive additional information on the
cleanup progress at the Fernald Environmental Management Project:
YES
NO
1a
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final)
A-47
August 1996
Edwa Yocum, Written Comments
COMMENT SHEET
DOE is interested in your comments on the cleanup alternatives being considered in the
Operable Unit 3 Proposed Plan, including the preferred alternative. Please use the space
provided below to write your comments, then fold, staple or tape, and mail this form.
DOE must receive your comments on or before the close of the public comment period
on May 2, 1996. If you have questions about the comment period, please contact Gary
Stegner, the DOE Fernald Area Office Public Information Director, at (513) 648-3153.
5) i
^z
id
K&AYXO-^'A
rfr&jL^y
_k.
Name:
Ad
City:
State/Zip:
MAILING LIST ADDITIONS:
Please add my name to the Fernald Mailing List to receive additional information on the
cleanup progress at the Fernald Environmental Management Project:
YES
NO
1a
2b
2a
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-48 August 1996
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Written Comments. Page 1
SENT BY:OEPA : 4-30-95 ; KSSPM ; SOUTHWEST OFFICE- 513 733 5550;* i
Post-ir Fax Note 7671 l^» i/rf
Stile of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Southwest District Offlca
401 g«*t Fifth Strwt
Dayton, Ohio 464O2-2911
(513)285-6367
FAX (513) 285-6249
T°
Ca/Dept.
/oinovich
April 30, 1996 RE: DOE FEMP
HAMILTON COUNTY
OU3 PROPOSED PLAN.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
I
Mr. Gary Stegncr
Director, Public Information
U.S. DOE Feniald Area Office
P.O. Box 538705
Cincinnati, OH 45253-8705 !
Dear Mr. Stegner: I
The purpose of this letter is to provide Ohio EPA's official comments on the Operable Unit 3
Proposed Plan during the public comment period. Ohio EPA's comments are as follows:
i
i. The OU3 Proposed Plan is the culmination of efforts by U.S. DOE, Ohio EPA, and U.S.
EPA to understand and develop a plan for mitigating releases to the environment from
OU3. Ohio EPA believes the alternative selected in the Proposed Plan is protective of
tinman health and the environment. Ohio EPA believes the preferred alternative is the
appropriate one, when considered in the context of overall site cleanup. Ohio EPA 1 a
supports the concept of a balanced approach where the low volume, high concentration
wastes go off-site for disposal and high volume, lower concentration wastes are disposed
of in an engineered facility on-site. We believe that this approach provides the most
impiementable and protective strategy for remediation of the FEMP site.
2. The Operable Unit 3 Record of Decision (ROD) should clearly place restrictions on the
use of the engineered on-site disposal facility, Ohio EPA understands the need to allow
flexibility for incorporation of other operable units but also feels the following
restrictions must be made in the ROD: j
a) No disposal or long-term storage of off-site waste in the proposed engineered
disposal facility or any other facility on the FEMP site;
b) DOE must commit to implementing the AlLARA mass based WAC for Tc-99
of 59 grams. The goal should be met through; scabbling and other efforts to
reduce Tc-99 loading to the disposal facility;;
c) No characteristic hazardous waste should be disposed of in the facility. '
i -i 2a
3. DOE should commit to developing a policy defining :criteria for implementing recycling '
C:\TAS\OU3\PPFINAL.CMT ,:
2'b
2c
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-49 August 1996
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Written Comments. Page 2
SENT BY:OE?A ; 4-30-95 ; rsepw ; SOUTHWEST OFFICE^ 513 733 5550;$ 2
Mr. Stegner
April 30,1996
Page 2
of materials rather than disposing of them as waste. Ill addition, a commitment to
allowing public and regulatory review and comment on such a policy should be included
intheOU3ROD.
4. DOE should include a commitment to reuse of materials on-site to the extent practical as
well as encouraging other facilities to reuse Femald materials. Examples of such on-site
reuse could include crushed concrete as road base or reuse of equipment in remediation
facilities. !
2g
2h
5. DOE should commit to being open to consider new technologies which may reduce the
volume, toxicity or mobility of wastes being disposed! of on-site. Ohio EPA is simply
requesting that DOE remain open to the idea of additional technologies which may result
in a safer waste form for on-site disposal.
6. DOE should commit to including and/or developing real-time monitoring for discharges
to the environment resulting from remedial actions. QOE should attempt to incorporate
any new developments in real-time monitoring from the DOE Office of Science and
Technology as well as the private sector. Data obtained from real-time monitors and any
additional monitoring activities should be provided tojthe Ohio EPA and public in a
timely manner.
7. DOE should attempt to incorporate pollution prevention activities whenever possible
during the design and operation of the OU3 Remedial iction systems. All available
methods to reduce or eliminate discharges and releases from the demolition and disposal
activities should be considered during the design of remedial activities.
8. DOE must ensure the public that their involvement wiill not be diminished during
Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA). DOE should commit within the
Record of Decision for OU3 to maintaining the exceptional on-going public involvement
program during RD/RA.
! -i
9, DOE must provide commitments to ensure the land-use employed to develop the cleanup
standards is maintained into the future. DOE ownership is essential to maintaining
Institutional controls and limiting land-use to ensure protectiveness of the site.
10. With regard to the request for a USEPA waiver of the Ohio solid waste siting criteria,
Ohio EPA supports this waiver only in that it allows for a remedy more protective than
capping in place and more implemejitable than off-site shipment. Since the DOE FEMP
is a CERCLA site and its location would not allow issuance of an Ohio EPA exemption
C:\TAS\OU3\PPFINAL.CMT j
2f
3b
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final)
A-50
August 1996
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Written Comments. Page 3
SENT BY'OEPA
; 4-30-96 ; K57PM ; SOUTHWEST OFFICE-*
513 738 5650;* 3
Mr. Stegner
April 30, 1996
Page3
of the criteria. Ohio EPA believes a waiver is the appropriate mechanism to support the
preferred alternative. Ohio EPA's support of the waiver is inherently tied to the
restrictions described in comment #2 above. !
|
If you have any questions concerning these comments please contact me at (513) 285-6466.
i
Sincerely, ]
2b
Thomas A. Schneider
Fernaid Project Manager
Office of Federal Facilities Oversight
cc: Terry Finn, Ohio AG
Jim Saric, USEPA
Terry Hagen, FERMCO
Dave Ward, Geotrans
Sharon McLeUan, PRC
Manager TPSS, OEPA/DERR
Jeff Hurdley, OEPA/Legal
Ruth Vandegrift, ODH
C:\TAS\OU3\PPFTNAL.CMT
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) August 1996
APPENDIX B
ARARS FOR OPERABLE UNIT 3
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) August 1996
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) B-i August 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES B-i
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS B-ii
B.1 THE ARARS TABLES B-1
LIST OF TABLES
B-1 Chemical-Specific ARARs B-3
B-2 Location-Specific ARARs B-6
B-3 Action-Specific ARARs B-10
B-4 Other Requirements B-17
B-5 Expanded Discussion B-18
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Act/on (Final)
B-ii
August 1996
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AEA Atomic Energy Act
ARAB Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
CAA Clean Air Act, as amended
COC Constituent of Concern
CAMU corrective action management unit
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWA Clean Water Act, as amended
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
FS feasibility study
HMR Hazardous Materials Regulations
ILCR incremental lifetime cancer risk
LDR land disposal restriction
MCLs maximum contaminant levels
MCLG maximum contaminant level goal
MTR Minimum Technological Requirements
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
OAC Ohio Administrative Code
ORC Ohio Revised Code
OSDF on-site disposal facility
OU operable unit
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended
ROD Record of Decision
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
TBC to be considered
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TU temporary units
UMTRCA Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
USC United States Code
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-5 August 1996
4. Follow the row to the right from the topic to the last column on the right. This
column lists the page number where the summary comment and DOE response
can be found.
5. Turn to the page number listed in the right-hand column. The page will be in
Section A.2 of this Responsiveness Summary.
Steps 3 and 4 may be omitted by turning directly to Section A.2 after finding the issue
number assigned to the comment in the margin of the letter. Section A.2 is organized
numerically by issue number with lowercase letters identifying subtopics within an issue.
A.2 SUMMARY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This section presents summary comments and DOE responses to these summary comments,
followed by individual comments quoted from meeting transcripts and letters submitted by
stakeholders during the formal public comment period. Summary comments have been
grouped into the following four categories:
1. Selection of the Proposed Remedy
2. Remedial Action Implementation
3. Community Involvement and Notification
4. Comments Not Directly Applicable to the OU3 Decision
Additionally, a fifth category (entitled Specific Comments and Questions Regarding the OU3
RI/FS Report and Proposed Plan) was included to address several specific comments raised
by the Nevada Test Site (NTS) Community Advisory Board (CAB) related to the contents of
the support documents. These comments were not grouped with others into summary
comments, but were addressed individually.
Under the summary comment headings, logical groupings of issues were developed to reflect
individual comments received. Summary comments are identified by the heading category
number and a lower-case letter. DOE has addressed all stakeholder comments under one of
the summary comments identified below. In parentheses is the number of commentors who
commented on the particular issue.
1. Selection of the Proposed Remedy
1 a Support for the Proposed Remedy (7 commentors)
2. Remedial Action Implementation
2a Recycling, Reuse, and Free Release (6 commentors)
2b Non-FEMP Waste Prohibition for On-Property Disposal (5 commentors)
2c On-Property Disposal WAC for OU3 Materials (4 commentors)
2d OSDF Restriction of OU3 Characteristic Hazardous Waste (2 commentors)
2e Off-Site Transportation and Disposal (1 commentor)
2f Incorporating Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Strategies in Remedial
Action Activities (4 commentors)
2g Preference for Implementing New and/or Evolving Technologies (4 commentors)
2h Environmental Monitoring (4 commentors)
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-6 August 1996
3. Community Involvement and Notification
3a Addressing Public Comments in the ROD (1 commentor)
3b Continuing Public Involvement (4 commentors)
3c Future Reviews and/or Revisions to the OU3 ROD (1 commentor)
4. Comments Not Directly Applicable to the OU3 Decision
4a Design and Construction of the OSDF (1 commentor)
4b Future Land Use (3 commentors)
4c Posting of Accessible Remediated Areas (1 commentor)
5. Specific Comments and Questions Regarding the OU3 RI/FS Report and Proposed
Plan
5a Integration of CERCLA and NEPA {1 commentor)
5b EPA Evaluation Criteria (1 commentor)
5c Cost (1 commentor)
5d State Acceptance (1 commentor)
5e Transportation Routes (1 commentor)
5f Distinction Between OU3 Interim and Final Remedial Actions (1 commentor)
Table A-1 provides the page number of the transcript or letter where each original stakeholder
comment appears. Public meeting transcripts and written comments can be found in
Sections A.3.1 and A.3.2, respectively, cross referenced to summary comments and DOE
responses by the numbers identified above. All oral and written comments are part of the
Administrative Record for Final Remedial Action at Operable Unit 3.
. SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED REMEDY
SUMMARY COMMENT #1a - Support for the Proposed Remedy
Several members of the public and the Ohio EPA expressed support for the remedy proposed
by the OU3 Proposed Plan.
DOE RESPONSE #1 a
The Proposed Plan summarized information from the OU3 RI/FS Report and identified DOE's
proposed remedy of Selected Material Treatment, On-Property Disposal, and Off-Site
Disposition. In the FS, the alternatives were evaluated against seven of the nine evaluation
criteria required under the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan (40 CFR
300). The remaining two criteria, state acceptance and community acceptance, have now
been evaluated based on comments received during the formal public comment period. Based
on all nine criteria, the Preferred Alternative identified in the OU3 Proposed Plan has been
modified and identified as the Selected Remedy in the OU3 ROD.
In addition to the specific comments below supporting the proposed remedy, one comment
indicated some opposition to the proposed remedy. DOE understands that some members of
the community near the FEMP site want all contamination removed from the site and shipped
to an off-site location. The site-wide remedial approach, of which OU3 is a component,
involves balancing the off-site disposal of the FEMP's inventory of highly contaminated wastes
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-7 August 1996
with on-property disposal of less contaminated soil and rubble. This "balanced approach" was
used in developing the RODs for Operable Units 1,2,4, and 5, and has been reflected in the
OU3 decision process as well.
The majority of comments received were related to how to safely implement the proposed
remedy rather than questioning its selection. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that the public
and the State of Ohio are supportive of making the proposed remedy (as amended by
stakeholder inputs) the Selected Remedy. DOE will continue to work with the community
throughout the remedial design and remedial action phases to expand further upon the details
of the design and cleanup process, and to ensure that concerns are addressed in the remedial
design.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #1 a1
Lisa Crawford; Written Comments
7 believe that the selected alternative is the appropriate one. I also believe that the
balanced approach - low volume, high concentration wastes go off-site for disposal and
high volume, lower contamination wastes are disposed of in an engineered facility on-site.
I believe that this is the best strategy for remediation of the FEMP facility. "
Vicky Dastillung; Written Comments
"As a nearby resident let me once again state up front that my preference would be for
a total cleanup of the site that would return the site to background levels and leave no
waste on site. However, since technological, political, and practical considerations must
also come into play, I realize that this is probably not going to happen. "
Pamela Dunn: Written Comments
7 support the decision to seek a balanced approach in the remediation efforts for Fernald,
with higher concentrations of waste shipped off-site and lower concentrations of waste
remaining on-site in an engineered disposal facility. I can accept the preferred alternative
if the following issues [see pages A-44 and A-45 for Ms. Dunn's entire comment] are
addressed and implemented in the final OU3 ROD. "
NTS Community Advisory Board: Written Comments
"Of the three alternatives presented, Alternative 2 is an obvious middle-ground between
Alternative 1, which does not protect the public, and Alternative 3 which proposes to
transport all of the waste to the NTS, or to another facility and move the risk elsewhere. "
John Throckmorton: Written Comments
7 endorse the selection of Alternative 2, Selected Material Treatment, On-Property
Disposal, and Off-Site Disposition for the following reason:
Quotations are presented exactly as they were received in writing during the public comment period.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-8 August 1996
Utilizes the balancedapproach to disposition highly contaminated materials off-site with
the remaining materials at low levels of contamination remaining on-site;
Uses the ex/sting on-site disposal facility (OSDF) under OU2 and OU5;
Promotes recycle and reuse of materials and cost effective basis;
Provides long term protect/on of human health and the environment;
Meets all required ARARs with receipt of the waiver; and
Is the most cost effective alternative.
"Furthermore, I endorse the use of a commercial Subtitle D solid waste landfill to the
maximum extent for the permanent disposal of materials from the Administrative Area.
In order to facilitate and accelerate the overall remediation of the site, it is imperative to
remove .the existing structures to allow soil and perched groundwater remediation to
occur. Therefore, DOE should attempt to prioritize funding for the D&D of the OU3
structures."
Edwa Yocum; Written Comments
7 agree with the Alternative 2 for OU3 - Selected Material Treatment On-Property
Disposal and Off-Site Disposition. "
Ohio EPA; Written Comments
"The OU3 Proposed Plan is the culmination of efforts by U.S. DOE, Ohio EPA, and U.S.
EPA to understand and develop a plan for mitigating releases to the environment from
OU3. Ohio EPA believes the alternative selected in the Proposed Plan is protective of
human health and the environment. Ohio EPA believes the preferred alternative is the
appropriate one, when considered in the context of overall site cleanup. Ohio EPA
supports the concept of a balanced approach where the low volume, high concentration
wastes go off-site for disposal and high volume, lower concentration wastes are disposed
kof in an engineered facility on-site. We believe that this approach provides the most
implementable and protective strategy for remediation of the FEMP site. "
2. REMEDIAL ACTION IMPLEMENTATION
SUMMARY COMMENT #2a - Recycling, Reuse, and Free Release
Based on comments received, stakeholders seem uncomfortable with notion of "free-
releasing" scrap metals and other items from the FEMP. Some confusion exists regarding
FEMP policies and plans for material decontamination, free-release recycling, restricted release
recycling, on-site reuse, and off-site reuse. Stakeholders wish to learn more about these
issues, preferably through a community workshop/roundtable forum. After these policies,
plans, and criteria are better defined (with public involvement), they should be included in the
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action and supporting remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA)
documents.
Stakeholders also expressed interest in maintaining review and comment rights for FEMP
policies, programs, and criteria regarding recycling, reuse, and free-release. In particular,
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-9 August 1996
stakeholders are interested in seeing the draft FEMP "policy" for evaluating recycling versus
disposal issues. Stakeholder comments indicated support for recycling over disposal, but not
if the cost is too high, if it adversely impacts safety, or if it takes too long. They want to
review the policy to make sure these issues are adequately considered. Furthermore,
stakeholders want to see a "recycling program" at the FEMP which will draw upon extensive
public input to steer its activities.
DOE RESPONSE #2a
Issues related to recycling, reuse, and free-release were discussed at length in a community
roundtable held June 14, 1994 at The Plantation. Since then, community input has been
received through many other public meetings. In response to stakeholders' requests for
additional information on recycling, reuse, and free-release of FEMP materials, a workshop
was held on June 11, 1996 to further solicit public input and address methodologies and
strategies that are currently being developed. Existing regulations and requirements pertinent
to these issues were discussed in addition to future opportunities for public input during the
OU3 remedial design process. DOE-FN and FERMCO personnel active in recycling, free-
release, reuse, waste minimization planning, radiological compliance, environmental
compliance, and property management were on hand to discuss site initiatives, identify
additional opportunities for public involvement, and answer questions.
The draft Decision Methodology for Fernald Scrap Metal Disposition Alternatives was
distributed to stakeholders at the June 11, 1996 workshop. Stakeholders were invited to
comment on the approach. This document is intended to be used as a guide to facilitate the
evaluation of competing disposition options for OU3 materials generated during
decontamination and dismantlement (D&D) projects. Initial use of this process will be an
evaluation of disposition options for Building 4A structural steel, which will include a public
review session to determine the success of the application following the action. The
methodology takes into account both quantitative and qualitative factors, including short term
and long term economics, public and worker safety, and environmental protection. The
methodology, as amended based on public comment, will be incorporated into the OU3
integrated RD/RA work plan and, through the remedial design process, additional opportunities
for public involvement will exist. Through this approach, DOE has made a public commitment
to continue to evaluate alternatives to disposal. Implementation plans for OU3 D&D actions
will incorporate the decisions for material disposition determined as a result of the
methodology. These implementation plans will be made available to the public for review
upon submittal to the regulatory agencies.
At the June 11,1996 workshop, DOE identified a wide variety of recycling studies performed
to date on materials including structural steel, scrap steel, and lead sheeting. The FEMP is
also currently recycling lead acid batteries, fluorescent lights, used oil, used tires, aluminum
cans, paper, toner cartridges, polystyrene packing material, etc. One study to support
disposition of copper motor windings is now under contract. While not all-inclusive, this list
of examples provides the highlights of recycling projects and activities which have been
completed or are in progress. These studies have generally been performed to gather
additional cost and performance data to support responsible decision-making. Based on
lessons learned from these studies, future recycling initiatives will be performed expeditiously
with minimal on-site temporary storage. The methodology identified above will utilize these
data to determine "economic feasibility." Economic feasibility, in this sense, refers to the
political economy aspect which includes not only costs, but also socioeconomic factors and
stakeholder preferences.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-10 August 1996
One alternative to recycling, currently employed extensively by DOE, is reuse. DOE attempts
to maximize the use of existing equipment and minimize the purchase of new items by
identifying equipment which can be reused at the FEMP, reused within the DOE complex, or
sold or donated for reuse within the community. If equipment is determined to be low-level
radioactively contaminated through process knowledge and/or radiological surveying, the
equipment is screened to ascertain reuse opportunities either at the FEMP, within the DOE
complex, or a licensed radiological facility.
Several success stories have resulted from the effort to reuse low-level contaminated
equipment which has allowed DOE-FN to lower costs. For example, a chiller unit previously
located outside of the Pilot Plant is now being used to support the OU4 Vitrification Pilot Plant
project, an unused compressor previously located outside Building 4A is being reused for grit
blasting operations in Building 78 (the Material Release Facility), and a tugger located in
Building 4A with minor exterior surface contamination was decontaminated and is now being
reused in the FEMP's on-site transportation program. In addition, several pieces of
contaminated equipment have been transferred for use at other DOE sites. For example, the
Mound Plant has requested several of the FEMP's excess radiation detection panels, Paducah
requested the transfer of the enriched uranium fuel rod storage bins previously located in
Building 1 A, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories requested a plasma spray system from
Building 37, and Oak Ridge has requested the Plant 5 air handling equipment.
If the equipment is determined to be non-contaminated through process knowledge (e.g.,
uninstalled/unused equipment, administratively determined) and/or meets the DOE
Order 5400.5 criteria for unrestricted release, the equipment is not regarded as contaminated
material and is free to be dispositioned without restriction. Unrestricted release, also known
as free-release, is the typical route taken for recycling, since material released as clean truly
has value to the commercial industry. Restricted recycling of radioactively contaminated
metal is most suited to support DOE's waste container needs and national programs are being
developed to implement evaluations of this option. Several hundred computers which have
passed free-release criteria have been donated to local schools, and the Liquid Nitrogen
system previously located outside of Building 4A has been excessed and is planned to be sold
through an auctioneer.
For materials which pass free-release criteria but are not reusable or recyclable, the option to
use a commercial landfill has been included in the ROD. This option reflects a desire to
minimize the size of the OSDF to the extent practical. The use of a commercial solid waste
landfill would be based also upon current estimates that indicate it may cost less overall than
the OSDF per cubic foot of debris. Again, only materials which meet the free-release criteria
of DOE Order 5400.5 would be eligible.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #2a
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"DOE should commit themselves to developing a policy for defining criteria for
implementing recycling of materials, rather than disposing of them as waste. Along with
this commitment DOE should allow the public to review and comment on this policy with
regard to OU3."
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-11 August 1996
"DOE should commit to reuse any materials on-site to the extent possible as well as
encouraging other DOE facilities to reuse Fernald materials."
"With regard to the issue of "free-release", I believe that there should be a public
workshop held to have a further discussion regarding this specific issue. A commitment
should be made to the public to assure them that items of any kind that leave the FEMP
site will be used in a responsible manner and not just sold and lost into unknown and
unsuspecting hands."
"While I agree with free release for recycling, again this is an issue that needs to be
discussed further. Releasing items such as metals/steel/etc, for recycling metal boxes that
will then ship wastes is a satisfactory way of releasing these contaminated items. For
other more public purposes, this is not acceptable."
"DOE should commit to the public that they will create a "recycling program " and have full
public input into this process. This would eliminate what is unsatisfactory and what is
satisfactory to the public at large. "
Vicky Dastillung; Written Comments
"The reuse and recycling parts of the ROD should provide room for the community's input.
Apparently there is a draft policy now. The public should be allowed to review and
comment on it. The certification program should also be explained to the public and the
public should be allowed to provide input. While recycling and reuse are important goals,
we want to make sure that there are no exposures to the public because of it. Also the
term "economically feasible " needs to be defined, with public input. Perhaps a Roundtable
or other meeting format could begin the dialogue on these issues. "
"The use of a commercial solid waste landfill needs to be explained to the public carefully,
both the advantages and the disadvantages. "
Pamela Dunn: Written Comments
"The provision for unrestricted release of materials associated with OU3 must be defined
and presented to the public for input and acceptance before final adoption of this
provision. The criteria for this "unrestricted release" must be developed, with public
involvement, and included in the final Oil3 ROD. "
Gary Storer: Written Comments
"/ am concerned about the long time element involved in determining whether or not the
building metal (Cu & Fe) can be economically decontaminated for release and sold to
recyclers. It should not take over 2 yrs. "
Edwa Yocum; Written Comments
"DOE to have a policy and standards for the reuse material.
DOE remain responsible for recycled, reuse material."
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-12 August 1996
Ohio EPA: Written Comments
"DOE should commit to developing a policy defining criteria for implementing recycling of
materials rather than disposing of them as waste. In addition, a commitment to allowing
public and regulatory review and comment on such a policy should be included in the OU3
ROD."
"DOE should include a commitment to reuse of materials on-site to the extent practical as
well as encouraging other facilities to reuse Fernald materials. Examples of such on-site
reuse could include crushed concrete as road base or reuse of equipment in remediation
facilities."
SUMMARY COMMENT #2b - Non-FEMP Waste Prohibition for On-Property Disposal
Several commentors noted that the ARARs waiver from the Ohio EPA siting criteria contained
in this ROD (or the ROD itself) should include stipulations that no wastes initially generated
off the FEMP site are to be disposed of in the OSDF.
DOE RESPONSE #2b
Commitments were made in the EPA-approved RODs for both OU2 and OU5, which addressed
the construction of the OSDF, that no wastes generated off-site would be accepted for
disposal in the OSDF. This ROD also incorporates that commitment, as stated in Section 8.0.
To address the public's concern for "storage" of off-site wastes in the OSDF, the OSDF will
not be used for storing any wastes since it will serve only as a permanent "disposal" facility
for on-site wastes. However, under the Site Treatment Plan issued in accordance with the
requirements of the Federal Facilities Compliance Act, there exists the potential for wastes
from other DOE sites to be brought to the FEMP for treatment. Equity discussions with other
States may result in additional DOE sites identifying the FEMP for treatment of mixed wastes
in the future. Acceptance of waste from off-site may impact current treatment schedules by
requiring issuance of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit for mixed
waste treatment and would require a revision to the approved Site Treatment Plan. In
addition, the FEMP has not established waste acceptance criteria for receipt of off-site waste
streams. Any such criteria will include provisions to assure that this waste is not commingled
with waste generated at the FEMP and that it is returned to the site of origin for ultimate
disposition. The FEMP will continue to discuss these issues with stakeholders as they arise.
Additionally, it is important to note that, as stated in their comment, Ohio EPA supports the
waiver of State of Ohio siting requirements needed to implement the Selected Remedy,
providing the on-site disposal restrictions discussed in Comments #2b, #2c, and #2d are met.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #2b
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"The following restrictions should be placed on the OU3 ROD:
a) No disposal or long-term storage of off-site waste in the proposed engineered disposal
facility or any other facility located on the FEMP property;... "
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-13 August 1996
Vicky Dastillunq; Written Comments
"No off-site waste will be brought onto FEMP property for storage or disposal. (Define off-
site waste as anything not currently on the site, except for samples that were sent off-site
for characterization or treatability studies.)"
"Any waiver given so that a disposal cell can be built must include wording to keep all off-
site waste from entering the FEMP for storage or disposal. It must also be so site-specific
that it does not create a precedent for future federal or commercial disposal sites in the
vicinity of the FEMP.
Pamela Dunn: Written Comments
"Waste generated from outside the FEMP will not be allowed to be disposed of or stored
within the FEMP boundaries under any circumstances. This includes, but is not limited to
hazardous, toxic, radioactive, and any and all waste/contaminants which were not a result
of on-site activities."
"A USEPA waiver of the Ohio solid waste siting criteria should only be granted if... the
waiver specifically states that there will be no off-site waste disposed of on the FEMP
property and no on-site waste will be capped and left in place. DOE's commitment to
abide by these stipulations must be included in the OU3 ROD. "
Edwa Yocum: Written Comments
"Only Fernald waste disposed in cell - No off-site hazardous or mixed waste brought into
Fernald for interim storage or disposal. "
Ohio EPA: Written Comments
"The Operable Unit 3 Record of Decision (ROD) should clearly place restrictions on the use
of the engineered on-site disposal facility. Ohio EPA understands the need to allow
flexibility for incorporation of other operable units but also feels the following restrictions
must be made in the ROD:
a) No disposal or long-term storage of off-site waste in the proposed engineered disposal
facility or any other facility on the FEMP site;... "
"With regard to the request for a USEPA waiver of the Ohio solid waste siting criteria,
Ohio EPA supports this waiver only in that it allows for a remedy more protective than
capping in place and more implementable than off-site shipment. Since the DOE FEMP is
a CERCLA site and its location would not allow issuance of an Ohio EPA exemption of
criteria, Ohio EPA believes a waiver is the appropriate mechanism to support the preferred
alternative. Ohio EPA's support of the waiver is inherently tied to the restrictions
described fin Comment 2b, 2c, and 2dJ. "
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-14 August 1996
SUMMARY COMMENT #2c - On-Property Disposal WAC for OU3 Materials
Several individuals commented on the criteria for disposal of OU3 wastes in the OSDF and
noted that DOE must commit in the ROD to the Tc-99 WAC for on-site disposal of OU3
materials.
DOE RESPONSE #2c
As explained in the OU3 RI/FS Report (referenced in the discussion in the OU3 Proposed Plan),
studies indicated that Tc-99 is the only contaminant in OU3 materials that may potentially
exceed groundwater criteria due to its inherent solubility. The allowable mass of 105 grams
for Tc-99 ip OU3 materials disposed of in the OSDF was established using a teachability study
and the EPA 70-year rule. Although the 105-gram limit in the OSDF is considered protective,
a best management practice of additional concrete scabbling will be used to ensure that the
Tc-99 source term entering the OSDF will be well below the waste acceptance criterion
shown above. Specifically, the concrete in the enriched uranium casting area in Plant 9, the
uranium machining area in Plant 9, and the muffle furnace area in Plant 8 will be scabbled to
a depth of one inch and the southern extraction area in the Pilot Plant will be scabbled to a
depth of one-half inch to collectively remove a calculated 57 grams of Tc-99 from OU3 debris
to reduce the quantity of Tc-99 to be placed in the OSDF to 59-grams. Disposition of the
scabbled concrete will be in accordance with the established WAC for the off-site facility to
ensure protection of public health and the environment at that location. This discussion is
included in Section 6.2 of the ROD. The removal of the 57 grams of Tc-99 from OU3
materials being considered for disposal in the OSDF is considered to be consistent with the
balanced approach philosophy which identifies that relatively small volumes of more highly
contaminated materials be-dispositioned to locations more suitable than the FEMP site. As
a conservative measure, certain engineering controls were not allowed to be considered in the
development of the OSDF WAC. As a result, no additional amount of contaminants would
be considered acceptable in the OSDF, regardless of additional controls employed.
In addition to the Tc-99 chemical-based WAC; initial physical size criteria for debris to be
dispositioned to the OSDF were developed in the OU3 RI/FS Report. The Impacted Materials
Placement Plan for the On-Site Disposal Facility will provide final physical acceptance criteria,
based on OSDF design parameters and transportation and handling considerations. The final
WAC for OU3 materials will be incorporated into the OU3 integrated RD/RA work plan and
subsequent D&D implementation plans. Criteria for the actual placement of OU3 wastes and
non-OUS wastes (e.g., soils) into the OSDF are addressed in the Impacted Materials
Placement Plan for the On-Site Disposal Facility under a section titled, "Special Placement
Requirements."
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #2c
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"The following restrictions should be placed on the OU3 ROD:...
b) DOE must commit to the ALARA mass-based WAC for Tc-99 of 59 grams;..."
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-15 August 1996
Pamela Dunn; Written Comments
"The implementation of the waste acceptance criteria (WAC) established per ALARA for
Tc-99, and a/I other contaminants, must be adhered to and stated in the OU3 ROD. No
averaging or dilution of contaminants will be permitted in meeting the WAC. "
"Criteria for the disposal of building materials and other solid materials other than soil must
be established and included in the OU3 ROD. In addition, the ratio of these forms of solid
materials to soil slated for the on-site disposal facility must be developed, adopted, and
included in the OU3 ROD to ensure the integrity of the cell is not compromised by their
inclusion."
"A USEPA waiver of the Ohio solid waste siting criteria should only be granted if the DOE
abides by the WAC upper limit stipulations as described in Comments #3 and #4 above...
[see pages A-44 and A-45 for Ms. Dunn's original comments]. "
NTS Community Advisory Board: Written Comments
"It is still unclear why the site has a 105 gram safety limit on Technetium-99 allowable
mass? If this is the case the discussion in Alternative 2 (the preferred alternative) in the
summary document does not make a compelling case for why concrete needs to be
transported off-site to reduce the on-site level to 59 grams (and thereby raise the level of
risk, if there is a risk elsewhere).
"Why couldn't another option be considered that would be to keep all the waste on-site
in a facility that would protect the public? The plan notes the OU-3 wastes are secondary
wastes, or, "...wastes that pose a relatively low long-term threat," and that, "USEPA
allows the use of engineering controls or a combination of engineering controls or a
combination of engineering controls (mechanical means like barriers), or administrative
controls (e.g. management)" (Page 9). This would avoid the real uncertainty of
transporting the waste thousands of miles with an enhanced potential for accident and
release of material.
Ohio EPA: Written Comments
"The Operable Unit 3 Record of Decision (ROD) should clearly place restrictions on the use
of the engineered on-site disposal facility. Ohio EPA understands the need to allow
flexibility for incorporation of other operable units but also feels the following restrictions
must be made in the ROD:...
b) DOE must commit to implementing the ALARA mass based WAC for Tc-99 of
59 grams. The goal should be met through scabbling and other efforts to reduce Tc-99
loading to the disposal facility;... "
SUMMARY COMMENT #2d - OSDF Restriction of OU3 Characteristic Hazardous Waste
Several commentors noted that the ARARs waiver from the Ohio EPA siting criteria contained
in this ROD (or the ROD itself) should include stipulations that no characteristic hazardous
wastes are to be disposed of in the OSDF.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-16 August 1996
DOE RESPONSE #2d
In development of the OU3 RI/FS Report and Proposed Plan, Ohio EPA had required that DOE
evaluate OU3 materials and identify characteristic hazardous wastes to be segregated from
the bulk D&D debris for separate handling. In that process, the lead sheeting that exists on
a number of FEMP buildings was identified to be removed from the D&D debris stream for
treatment and disposal or decontamination and recycling. The commitment to remove and
segregate this material is made in Sections 6.2 and 8.1.3 of the ROD.
No other characteristic hazardous wastes exist among the remaining OU3 material categories
which are eligible for disposal in the OSDF.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #2d
Lisa Crawford; Written Comments
"The following restrictions should be placed on the OU3 ROD:...
c) No characteristic hazardous waste should be disposed of in this facility."
Ohio EPA: Written Comments
"The Operable Unit 3 Record of Decision (ROD) should clearly place restrictions on the use
of the engineered on-site disposal facility. Ohio EPA understands the need to allow
flexibility for incorporation of other operable units but also feels the following restrictions
must be made in the ROD:...
c) No characteristic hazardous waste should be disposed of in the facility. "
SUMMARY COMMENT #2e - Off-Site Transportation and Disposal
One commentor expressed numerous concerns regarding shipment of waste from Fernald to
NTS. These concerns addressed cumulative impacts of OU3 materials combined with
remediation wastes from other FEMP operable units and other sites destined for disposal at
NTS, risks from transportation, and socioeconomic impacts.
DOE RESPONSE #2e
The OU3 final remedy addresses treatment and final disposition of the materials and wastes
resulting from performance of the interim remedial action. It reflects the balanced approach
being used for disposal of FEMP wastes - material with higher levels of contamination,
deemed to represent the principal threat at the site, will be treated (if required) and shipped
off-site for disposal; material exhibiting lower contaminant concentrations distributed over a
larger volume, termed a secondary threat, will be permanently disposed of at the Fernald site
in one central engineered disposal facility. This approach has been generally accepted by
stakeholders, including other impacted states, in the selected remedies of the other FEMP
operable units.
The cumulative impact analysis (as discussed in Appendix J of the OU3 RI/FS Report)
addresses impacts resulting from the concurrent implementation of the preferred alternatives
from each operable unit. This analysis focuses on how the potential impacts for Operable
Units 1, 2, 4, and 5 relate to the potential impacts of OU3. Efforts have been made
throughout the cumulative impact analysis to quantify to the extent possible impacts at the
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-17 August 1996
Fernald site and impacts occurring from Fernald activities in conjunction with other regional
and national actions.
The analysis of waste transportation (as discussed in Appendix H of the OU3 RI/FS Report)
quantifies exposure risks to workers and the public. The transportation evaluation does not
quantify exposure risks associated with Fernald waste shipments and all other shipments of
waste on a local, regional, or national level. It is the position of DOE-FN that the amount of
waste material transported from Fernald to NTS is not of a magnitude that necessitates a
detailed quantitative evaluation of risks and impacts. Since the amount of low-level waste
from the OU3 final remedial action that is proposed for shipment to NTS is significantly less
than the volume of Fernald waste already being disposed there, it is DOE's position that the
waste transported from Fernald is within acceptable risk ranges to workers and the public.
An additional quantitative evaluation of human health risks through an area like Las Vegas
would be extensive and difficult given the amount of radioactive and hazardous material
transported to and from NTS that pass through the area. Such an evaluation would be more
appropriate in the NTS Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), where existing data could be
used to assess cumulative impacts. Including such an evaluation in this ROD would not be
justified based on the amount of material being transported from Fernald.
Potential human health risks from disposal of low-level waste at NTS are specifically dealt
with in performance assessments conducted under applicable -. DOE Orders. These
performance assessments are conducted to ensure that waste disposal practices and
allowable source terms fall within acceptable risk limits.
It appears to DOE-FN that socioeconomic variables such as property values and tourism would
be within the scope of the NTS EIS. These are legitimate issues and concerns which are
regional and must be considered on a macro-level such as the NTS EIS. These socioeconomic
concerns are inclusive of all waste material transported to and from NTS that is permitted to
pass through Las Vegas which can be controlled through city ordinances. Given the quantity
of Fernald material which will be transported to NTS within acceptable risk ranges, these
evaluations of regional issues are more appropriately determined by regional evaluations. This
is also true from the perspective that NTS is only one of several off-site disposal options
currently available for OU3 wastes.
It is correctly noted in the specific comments that there will be potential impacts and
associated costs for materials that will be dispositioned elsewhere. However, the evaluation
criterion of long-term effectiveness and permanence specifically relates to long-term
requirements for continued administrative controls, surveillance, or maintenance at the original
contaminated site that required remediation. Off-site disposal facility(ies) needs are addressed
through the appropriate procedures, permits/approvals, WACs, and costs.
Because the Fernald site is one of the larger generators of waste disposed of at the NTS, a
very active liaison has been and continues to be maintained with the NTS and the NTS
Community Advisory Board. Through these close interactions DOE is aware of the preferred
routes designated for transport of wastes to the NTS. Similar liaisons are maintained with
other off-site disposal locations.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-18 August 1996
SPECIFIC COMMENT #2e
NTS Community Advisory Board
"How will the potential effects to the public and the environment from the remediation of
Operable Unit 3, be considered cumulatively with those from the other Operable Units?
"The transportation of the waste to the NTS, for example, is an issue of concern to
Nevadans. Appendix J, while mentioning transportation and the total number of
shipments to the NTS (Page J-15), essentially performs no analysis on the cumulative
impacts of the shipments to Las Vegas (through which the shipments will be transported
as noted on J-16), or other rapidly growing areas of Southern Nevada (the Pahrump area
of Nye County as an example). The issue becomes more important because the NTS is
being considered for the storage, treatment or disposal of radioactive and mixed waste
from a number of other DOE sites currently undergoing remediation.
"The analyses in Appendix J (and in Appendix H the Risk section) are totally inadequate
in determining actual risk to the public in Southern Nevada, or for the matter, anywhere
else along the route. To more accurately consider true risk (either by RADTRAN as
described in Appendix H, or another measure) local conditions need to be analyzed. Given
the total number of shipments being contemplated more accidents will occur (e.g. an
accident of course took place last year in Southern Missouri involving a radioactive waste
truck from Fernald).
"The Nevada Test Site DOE released a draft Environmental Impact Statement in March of
this year. Incorporated as part of the EIS was a Transportation Study that examined ten
routing options to transport rad waste to the NTS. Eight of the routes consider the
shipmen t of the waste through urbanized Clark Coun ty. The primary and secondary routes
(so named although the routes were not noted as recommended) would carry, if
implemented, thousands of shipments of waste either through downtown Las Vegas
(primary), or through what has essentially become a residential and commercial area
(secondary).
"A careful analysis would avoid potential problem areas throughout the nation.
Appendix J falls short of the mark. The analysis should include coordination with local
officials in Southern Nevada and elsewhere to ensure that potential accident locations and
other areas of high risk can be avoided.
"Throughout the analyses of Alternative 2 and 3 (Section 6) impacts to the public are said
to be "minor," "minimal," "are not expected to be adversely impacted" and similar, yet
there does not seem to be a strong analytical basis to conclude that this necessarily will
be the case. Likewise, the range of socioeconomic impacts goes well beyond impacts on
available resources, and labor costs (Pages 6-12, and 6-15).
"For example, the Socioeconomic and Land Use section of Alternative 2 (Page 6-12) does
not consider the potential impacts from the transportation of the waste, conceivably
through Las Vegas. A whole range of potential affects have been documented from other
sources including potential transportation affects on property values (See Komios v. The
City of Santa Fe) to studies of possible affects on tourism from accidents involving
radioactive materials (which is of interest to Nevada's tourist-based economy).
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-19 August 1996
"The communities and citizens that are on the receiving end can't assume that the affects
will be minor, minimal or will not adversely affect our economy, quality of life, or property
values."
"The conclusion about protecting human health while undoubtedly protecting human health
at Fernald under Alternative 3, ignores potential health affects as a result of the transport
of the waste, or at the final disposal site. The health affects in these two areas need to
be described."
"The conclusion reached for Alternative 3 (no long-term requirements for continued
administrative controls...) seems to ignore the fact that this material will impact another
area (presumably the NTS). There would be a cost for this. "
"The preferred alternative does not discuss potential environment effects at the disposal
sites (the NTS, and Envirocare in Utah). "
SUMMARY COMMENT #2f - Incorporating Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention
Strategies in Remedial Action Activities
Several members of the public and Ohio EPA expressed that the OU3 remedial design process
should incorporate as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principles by specifying methods
that will minimize or prevent environmental releases during OU3 remedial activities. It was
stressed by one individual that remediation levels should be as close to background as
possible rather than just meet a regulatory limit.
DOE RESPONSE #2f
In accordance with Executive Order 12856, DOE policy is to apply waste minimization and
pollution prevention (WM/PP) principles to the design gnd operation of its facilities. This
policy applies to the design and implementation of the OU3 final remedial action just as it is
also applied to the OU3 interim remedial action (Section 3.4.3 of the OU3 RD/RA Work Plan
for Interim Remedial Action). As stated in Section 8.1.2, the DOE is committed to employing
all practical methods and administrative and engineering controls consistent with ALARA
principles during the integrated OU3 remedial action to minimize waste and/or eliminate
discharges from activities.
Although measures for WM/PP were incorporated into generic performance specifications for
each D&D project under the OU3 interim remedial action, the OU3 final remedial action will
include among initial design/planning tasks the review and, if necessary, revision of existing
performance specifications to ensure that each project employs the most effective methods
for meeting or exceeding WM/PP goals. One such performance specification governs removal
or fixing of contamination; key provisions of this specification state that the remediation
subcontractor must minimize the generation of wastes and use decontamination methods that
will not generate excessive secondary waste. Remediation subcontractors methods are
subject to review and approval by DOE prior to implementation. Under the site WM/PP policy,
DOE will approve those methods that will be used to minimize releases to the environment and
maximize decontamination of OU3 materials, thus striving towards levels closest to
background as reasonably achievable (i.e., ALARA).
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-2Q August 1996
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #2f
Lisa Crawford; Written Comments
"DOE should attempt to use pollution prevention activities when possible and all available
methods to reduce or eliminate discharges and releases from the demolition and disposal
activities should be considered during the design of remedial activities. "
Vicky Dastillung; Written Comments
"The HOP should state that DOE will follow a sort of ALARA-principle in designing and
executing the remediation. The remediation levels should be as close to background as
possible given the technological, risk, and cost constraints. If an additional process or
activity could get us substantially closer to background at a reasonable cost and riskf this
should be pursued. The goal should be background levels, not just staying within a
remediation level."
Pamela Dunn: Written Comments
"Additional discharges of contaminants during the remediation of OU3 should be avoided
when possible. Methods to achieve minimal releases during remediation should be
conducted throughout the RD/RA process. "
"ALARA principles must be utilized during the RD process. "
Ohio EPA: Written Comments
"DOE should attempt to incorporate pollution prevention activities whenever possible
during the design and operation of the OU3 remedial action systems. All available
methods to reduce or eliminate discharges and releases from the demolition and disposal
activities should be considered during the design of remedial activities. "
SUMMARY COMMENT #2g - Preference for Implementing New and/or Evolving Technologies
Several comments were received which suggested that DOE remain open to ideas for and
evaluate new and improved technologies that would reduce volume, toxicity, and mobility of
waste being disposed on-site.
DOE RESPONSE #2g
Both the IROD and the OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action reflect a recognition that through
the course of the OU3 remedial actions (D&D for IROD and disposition for final remedial action
ROD), there may be improvements in technology or practice which would enhance the
remedial action in any of a number of ways, including reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume
of contaminants, safety of workers, safety for the public, and improved cost performance.
Both RODs are structured to allow flexibility for the detailed remedial action planning to adopt
the best balance of inputs available at the time to implement the ROD decision.
In addition, because the OU3 remedial actions are planned and implemented one D&D project
at a time, the designs of subsequent D&D projects benefit from lessons learned on the earlier
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-21 August 1996
designs and advancement of the state-of-the-art technologies can and will be incorporated into
planning. The first several D&D actions in OU3 are good examples of this principle in action.
The Plant 1 D&D Large Scale Technology Demonstration is also a good example. DOE is
investing in direct improvements to the technologies needed for OU3 D&D through the
demonstration project. Several currently proposed technology demonstrations are designed
to improve worker safety, reduce the amount of contamination on materials that could go to
the OSDF, and improve characterization of the structure. DOE is also investing in D&D at
other DOE sites. There will potentially be results from those demonstrations, as well, that
may apply to D&D at Fernald. DOE is thoroughly committed to the review and improve
philosophy that is presented by the commentors and will continue to invest in technology
advancement to benefit its remediation projects. Specific approaches to assuring
incorporation of best practices will be detailed in the OU3 integrated RD/RA work plan.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #2g
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"DOE should commit to being open to considering new technologies that will reduce
volume, toxicity, and mobility of wastes being disposed of on-site. I believe that DOE
should remain open to new technologies which could render the on-site waste safer. "
Vicky Dastillung; Written Comments
"The 5 year reviews of the ROD for effectiveness should include an analysis of the then
current technologies' ability to pursue further remediation. If at a future time a technology
would allow for a way to truly deactivate the radioactivity or hazardous chemicals or for
a way to greatly enhance the long-term storage of the material, we would want to be able
to evaluate if it was desirable to pursue further action. This process would also call
attention to the technology research needs of the DOE. "
Pamela Dunn: Written Comments
"Continued efforts in technology development should proceed in an attempt to discover
more effective methods for treatment and disposal of the waste streams designated for
the disposal cell. Efforts should continue to develop technology that may one day have
the ability to remove additional contamination from the soils without total destruction of
the existing eco-system present on the site. "
Ohio EPA: Written Comments
"DOE should commit to being open to consider new technologies which may reduce the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of wastes being disposed of on-site. Ohio EPA is simply
requesting the DOE remain open to the idea of additional technologies which may result
in a safer waste form for on-site disposal. "
SUMMARY COMMENT #2h - Environmental Monitoring
Several members of the public and the Ohio EPA requested that DOE commit to real-time
monitoring for discharges to the environment during remedial action. Ohio EPA requested that
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-22 August 1996
DOE attempt to incorporate new developments in real-time monitoring from the DOE's Office
of Science and Technology and requested that data obtained from real-time monitors and any
additional information be provided to the Ohio EPA and the public in a timely manner.
DOE RESPONSE #2h
DOE is committed to continually pursuing and supporting the development of real-time
environmental monitoring technology that could be used during OU3 remediation activities.
Unfortunately, at this time, a reliable real-time environmental monitoring technology does not
exist that is compatible with background conditions at the FEMP. The FEMP's inability to use
available real-time monitoring is due to naturally occurring and/or process generated radon and
thoron (short-lived) daughters that are present in ambient air. These short-lived daughters
have been found to interfere with measurements for long-lived uranium and thorium when
utilizing state-of-the-art alpha spectroscopy continuous air monitors. Nevertheless, DOE will
continue to evaluate new and innovative environmental air monitoring technologies that could
be used to provide more reliable real-time results.
Despite the limitations imposed by the relatively higher radon background concentrations at
the FEMP, it is important to note that air monitoring performed in the work area for
occupational safety purposes does provide a form of real-time monitoring by use of general
area continuous samplers which have alarms that are set to activate if pre-determined
radioactivity action levels are reached on the sample media. This type of sampling ensures
airborne radioactivity levels are maintained below levels of concern. Should an occupational
monitor alarm sound, work practices are halted until causes are determined and corrective
measures are implemented. By conducting work in this manner, any significant release within
a work environment is minimized and limited to the work area. These activities are currently
managed under the OU3 RD/RA Work Plan for Interim Remedial Action and respective D&D
implementation plans.
Since most OU3 remediation work that could produce any significant emissions to the
environment will be contained within an enclosure (e.g., sealed building), significant emissions
will be prevented from being released to the environment. Since materials will have been
treated in place by removing or fixing contamination, material handling, storage, and disposal
activities will result in minimal releases to air and water resources. Material placement
activities for the OSDF will also be conducted in a manner to minimize possibilities of airborne
radioactivity impacts. Air monitoring will be an integral part of all actions which have the
potential to significantly impact airborne radioactivity concentrations. Respective
environmental documents for each of the OU3 D&D projects include air monitoring plans and
opportunities for stakeholder input.
Currently, a variety of action levels exist depending upon the monitoring location. Each
sampling result, whether site perimeter, job boundary, local area, or breathing zone, is
assessed versus its applicable action level and corrective action is taken. For example, if
airborne contaminants are detected inside OU3 structures above guidelines, corrective actions
could include construction of an enclosure around the offending task, removal of contaminants
prior to completion of the task, and/or selection of an alternate tool for the task.
The Integrated Environmental Monitoring Plan, upon approval from U.S. EPA, will provide for
reporting of all environmental data pertaining to projects at the FEMP on a quarterly basis.
DOE will provide a copy of the plan to Ohio EPA and place a copy in the Public Environmental
Information Center immediately upon publication. Quarterly reporting consists of the results
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-23 August 1996
of sampling at established project-specific air monitors over a three-month period and a
reference to both the background and action levels during those weeks. Graphic illustrations
will be included for "viewing" results at both background and downwind sample locations
during the sample period. To ensure that engineering controls are adequate, and to take
prompt mitigative action if necessary, preliminary results of weekly sampling from the active
D&D projects are evaluated by the project manager and project engineer soon after they are
made available from the laboratory to support the fastest possible identification of problems
and implementation of corrective actions.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #2h
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"DOE should commit to including and/or developing real-time monitoring for discharges to
the environment coming from remedial actions. Data obtained from real-time monitoring
and any additional monitoring should be provided to the public in a timely manner. "
Vicky Dastillung: Written Comments
"Air monitoring data during D&D and transporting waste to its disposal site will be
extremely important to the community and workers. The best available devices and
techniques should be used to give the workers and community a clear picture of air
emissions. Action levels should be developed (with the community) so that work can be
halted if they occur. "
"Developing accurate real-time monitoring should be a DOE priority!"
"Because the annual Environment Monitoring report is issued so long after the monitoring
is actually done, the public deserves to see the environmental monitoring results often,
perhaps monthly, so they can be assured that the OU3 ROD activities are not affecting the
community's air, water, or environmental quality. "
"Also, the monitoring done specifically for the ROD should be made available to the public.
An update at community meetings would be nice. Fast turnaround on analyzing samples
is important so that any problems will be detected promptly enough for mitigating
measures to be taken. "
Pamela Dunn: Written Comments
"Real time monitoring and other monitoring activities should be implemented during
remediation and for the period for which the materials contained within the disposal cell
pose a threat and risk to human health and the environment. These monitoring activities
should be conducted on a regular and frequent basis with the results provided to the public
in a timely manner. "
Ohio EPA: Written Comments
"DOE should commit to including and/or developing real-time monitoring for discharges to
the environment resulting from remedial actions. DOE should attempt to incorporate any
new developments in real-time monitoring from the DOE Office of Science and Technology
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-24 August 1996
as well as the private sector Data obtained from real-time monitors and any additional
monitoring activities should be provided to the Ohio EPA and public in a timely manner. "
3. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND NOTIFICATION
SUMMARY COMMENT #3a - Addressing Public Comments in the ROD
One commentor asked how stakeholder comments and recommendations were considered in
the development of the ROD.
DOE RESPONSE #3a
As part of the CERCLA process, U.S. EPA has identified nine criteria in the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan that must be evaluated for each alternative
identified in the Feasibility Study (FS). The first seven criteria are used during the
development of the Proposed Plan to assess and compare the alternatives and to arrive at a
"preferred" alternative (also referred to as the proposed remedy).
The eighth and ninth criteria are State Acceptance and Community Acceptance, respectively.
These criteria are assessed based on comments received on the Proposed Plan. Interested
stakeholders could have either submitted written comments on the OU3 Proposed Plan during
the 30-day public comment period (April 3 through May 2, 1996) or submitted them orally at
the April 23, 1996 public meeting. All comments received (provided in Section A.3) are
assessed in this Responsiveness Summary to determine if the state and community accept
the OU3 proposed remedy and/or if modifications to the proposed remedy are necessary.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #3a
NTS Community Advisory Board: Written Comments
"Since this is a "Final" document how will the comments and recommendations from the
public, NTS CAB, and others be considered in the IROD/ROD?"
"Sect/on 6 [of the OU3 RI/FS Report], Page 6-4 (State and Community Acceptance) State
and Community acceptance are noted as criteria to be included in the evaluation of
alternatives addressed within the responsiveness summary of the ROD. As noted the
consideration of these criteria are not addressed within Alternatives 2 and 3 in Section 6.
Since these decisions will affect both the source and the recipient communities (the latter
being communities,in Nevada and Utah) this should be noted in the ROD. A key issue with
respect to community acceptance, particularly in the Las Vegas Valley is the transportation
of the waste."
SUMMARY COMMENT #3b - Continuing Public Involvement
Several stakeholders requested that DOE's commitment to continued public involvement be
stated in the OU3 ROD.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-25 August 1996
DOE RESPONSE #3b
DOE is committed to continuing the active public involvement program currently in place at
the FEMP throughout the duration of remedial activities at the site. This issue has been
discussed at several public meetings including a topical roundtable. The Community Relations
Plan addresses DOE's commitment to continued public involvement during the RD/RA process.
Additionally, language has been added to Section 8.3 of this ROD to formalize this
commitment for the OU3 RD/RA process.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #3b
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"DOE must make a commitment to the public that their involvement will not be lessened
during the RD/RA. DOE should commit in the ROD for OU3 to having on-going public
involvement during the RD/RA. "
Vicky Dastillung; Written Comments
"A commitment to continue the public involvement process that has been developed over
the years should be stated clearly in the ROD. This should extend through design,
remediation, and out into the O&M years. "
Pamela Dunn; Written Comments
"Meaningful public involvement beyond the ROD and throughout the RD/RA process.
DOE's commitment to this involvement is essential due to the implications of this
alternative and must be included in the ROD. "
Ohio EPA: Written Comments
"DOE must ensure the public that their involvement will not be diminished during Remedial
Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA). DOE should commit within the Record of Decision
for OU3 to maintaining the exceptional on-going public involvement program during
RD/RA."
SUMMARY COMMENT #3c - Future Reviews and/or Revisions to the OU3 ROD
One commentor suggested that the ROD should be reopened with a formal comment period
if there is a change in the type or quantities of OU3 waste that will be placed in the OSDF.
There were other recommendations made by the same commentor on conditions for reopening
the ROD and regarding future funding requests to support the activities to be undertaken
pursuant to this ROD.
DOE RESPONSE #3c
Because material is remaining on-site, CERCLA mandates that the remedy be reviewed five
years after commencement of remedial action to ensure it is still protective of human health
and the environment. This statement is included in the Declaration Statement. Additionally,
changes to the remedy that occur during remedial design and remedial action require at least
some level of notification/review. Under the regulations which comprise CERCLA, individuals
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-26 August 1996
and organizations have specific legal rights which are guaranteed without need for specific
addition of those claims into individual RODs. Some examples follow:
Minor changes that require differences to be documented in the post-ROD file; these
would be changes such as refined cost or material quantity estimates that do not
significantly affect the scope, performance, or cost of the selected remedy.
Significant changes that modify or replace a component of the selected remedy require
development of an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD); an ESD requires that
public notice be given. An ESD does not alter the overall approach that the remedy
represents.
Fundamental changes that revise the scope (overall approach) or performance of the
selected remedy require the development of a ROD amendment; a full public comment
period would occur through publication of a revised Proposed Plan and formal
amendment to the ROD.
DOE will follow these requirements as appropriate (as will any successor agency since
acceptance of ownership or authority for a CERCLA remediation site includes the responsibility
for the legally binding remediation and/or the post-remediation operation and maintenance of
the site). Additionally, the public will be encouraged and afforded opportunity to participate
in the RD and RA phases of the actions and to provide input on proposed changes through
available mechanisms such as community meetings, news releases, notices of availability, and
direct mailings to any resident, group, or agency that wishes to be on the mailing list.
DOE is further committed to seeking the funding required to support the accelerated
remediation scenario. DOE has committed to seeking stakeholder input into annual priorities
to support budget requests. DOE recognizes that each ROD is enforceable, and the budget
requests will reflect this.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #3c
Vicky Dastillunq: Written Comments
"Also, if there is a change in the type or quant/ties of waste from OU3 that DOE will want
to place in the cell, the ROD should be reopened and a formal comment period for the
public should occur."
"Copies of the annual reports and the 5 year reviews should be mailed to:
a. Ross, Crosby, and. Morgan Townships
b. Butler and Hamilton Counties
c. OEPA, USEPA, ODH
d. Congressional and State Reps that have the FEMP in their district
e. Any resident, group, or agency that wishes to be on the mailing list "
"DOE will be responsible for requesting proper levels of funding for remediation and O&M
(including future repairs). If Congress does not provide adequate funding, letters of
inadequate funding should go out to those on the above mailing list. Defining "inadequate
funding" should be worked out with the stakeholders. If at some time in the future
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-27 August 1996
another agency takes over the remediation and O&M functions of the site, it must accept
the responsibilities in the RODs as well."
"DOE should commit to detailing the O&M process within its administrative orders so that
future DOE decision makers will be clear about the importance of this ongoing task. "
"The RODs should be enforceable with fines and lawsuits if necessary."
"A mechanism for the stakeholders to initiate a request for future review and possible
amendment of the ROD should be included in the ROD."
"If for some reason, the ROD for Oil3 can't be implemented fully, the ROD should be
reopened with full public participation. "
4. COMMENTS NOT DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE OU3 DECISION
SUMMARY COMMENT #4a - Design and Construction of the OSDF
One commentor made several requests regarding the design and construction of the OSDF.
These requests were that the OSDF be placed over the best site geology, have constant
oversight by an independent expert, and be constructed to allow for future access if needed.
DOE RESPONSE #4a
DOE concurs, and has addressed these issues in the OU2 ROD and OU5 ROD, the documents
which establish the basis for construction of the OSDF. The OU3 ROD for Final Remedial
Action allows certain materials from the D&D of site structures to be disposed of in the
existing OSDF. To ensure consideration of public comments regarding the OSDF, public
meetings and/or workshops on the OSDF design have been and will continue to be offered,
as necessary, based on stakeholder interest.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #4a
Vicky Dastillung; Written Comments
"When the disposal cell is built it should be placed over the best geology on the site."
"When the disposal cell is built, there should be constant oversight by an independent
expert as the engineering, construction, and filling are performed to ensure that they are
done properly. Reports from the independent expert should be part of the public record. "
"When the disposal cell is built, it should be built in such a way that the contents can be
accessed for future remediation efforts if needed. This does not mean it must be in
containers in neat rows, but be stored in a way that heavy machinery could get to it
without letting it in the air or increasing the risks to workers, community or the
environment unnecessarily."
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-28 August 1996
SUMMARY COMMENT #4b - Future Land Use
Several comments were received stating that DOE must retain ownership of the Fernald site
and maintain institutional controls to ensure that the site is protective of human health and
the environment.
DOE RESPONSE #4b
The OU3 decision on final disposition of materials from the D&D of site structures is being
made based on the assumption that there will be no OU3 materials remaining in place after
the final remediation is complete. Continued federal ownership is committed to by the OU2
and OU5 RODs. Final site land use will be determined based on recommendations from the
Fernald Citizens Task Force, the Fernald Community Reuse Organization, and other
stakeholders.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #4b
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"DOE must make firm commitments that the land-use used to develop the clean-up
standards is maintained into the future. DOE must and will retain ownership and maintain
institutional controls and limited land use to ensure protectiveness of the FEMP site."
Pamela Dunn; Written Comments
"The DOE or how it may evolve in the future under another name and the federal
government must retain ownership of the FEMP property. This is necessary to provide
adequate institutional controls to protect the site and limit future land use so as to not
allow discharges of the contaminants left in the soils. These restrictions must be defined
and fully disclosed in the OU3 ROD and included in the deed to the land. "
Ohio EPA; Written Comments
"DOE must provide commitments to ensure the land-use employed to develop the cleanup
standards is maintained into the future. DOE ownership is essential to maintaining
institutional controls and limiting land-use to ensure protectiveness of the site. "
SUMMARY COMMENT #4c - Posting of Accessible Remediated Areas
One comment was received concerning the posting of remediated areas that would be made
accessible to the public.
DOE RESPONSE #4c
The OU3 decision on final disposition of materials from the D&D of site structures is being
made based on the assumption that there will be no OU3 materials remaining in place after
the final remediation is complete. The comment noted here is more directly related to
remediation of environmental media, and more appropriately should be, and has been,
addressed in Section 9.1.7 of the OU5 ROD. Specifically, Section 9.1.7 of the OU5 ROD
states DOE's commitment to institutional and access controls, deed restrictions, buffer zones,
and continued Federal ownership of the site. Since all of the components of OU3 will have
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-29 August 1996
been completely removed upon completion of remediation, there will not be a need for OU3-
specific access or institutional controls.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #4c
Vicky Dastillung; Written Comments
"Also, once cleanup is considered complete, all areas where the public will have access
and that are above background (even if they are below the cleanup criteria) should be
posted so that the public can make informed choices as to any exposures they might
incur."
5. SPECIFIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS REGARDING
THE OU3 RI/FS REPORT AND PROPOSED PLAN
SPECIFIC COMMENT #5a (NTS Community Advisory Board; Written Comments)
"Where do the recommendations from the proposed remedial action plan fit into the NEPA
process?"
DOE RESPONSE #5a
On June 13, 1994, DOE issued a revised policy for NEPA Compliance. The revised policy
entitled "Secretarial Policy Statement of National Environmental Policy Act/' allows for the
substantive aspects of NEPA to be integrated into CERCLA evaluations while relying on the
CERCLA' process to meet the procedural requirements of NEPA consistent with U.S. EPA's
own policies. The OU3 RI/FS Report and Proposed Plan represent an integrated
GERCLA/NEPA evaluation that tiers from the "lead" operable unit FS/PP-EIS (i.e., OU4).
The integrated OU4 FS/PP-EIS followed all procedural and substantive requirements of a NEPA
EIS and was written as the lead document to contain cumulative impacts from the leading
remedial alternatives for Operable Units 1-5 based on available data. Each operable unit
feasibility study that followed was tiered from the OU4 EIS and contains an evaluation of the
operable unit-specific alternatives and an updated NEPA cumulative impact analysis for the
entire Fernald remedial action.
It should be noted that the NTS Community Advisory Board reviewed and provided written
comments on the Fernald OU4 FS/PP-EIS.
SPECIFIC COMMENT #5b (NTS Community Advisory Board; Written Comments)
"Page 12 [of OU3 Proposed Plan] (EPA Evaluation Criteria). What is the source for the
specific regulations to which this table refers?"
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-30 August 1996
DOE RESPONSE #5b
The nine criteria for evaluation for each alternative identified in a feasibility study are
delineated in 40 CFR 300.430. The nine criteria are categorized into 3 groups: threshold
criteria (overall protection of human health and the environment; and compliance with ARARs)
which must be met for an alternative to be eligible for selection; primary balancing criteria
(long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through
treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost); and modifying criteria (state
acceptance and community acceptance). The modifying criteria are typically evaluated upon
completion of the public review period.
SPECIFIC COMMENT #5c (NTS Community Advisory Board; Written Comments)
"Page 14 [of the OU3 Proposed Plan] (Cost). In Alternative 2 what would the cost be if the
material proposed for transport/treatment/disposal to Utah/Nevada would remain on-property
at Fern a Id?"
DOE RESPONSE #5c
Since only a very small portion of the OU3 building materials is proposed for off-site disposal,
and since this material is not eligible to remain on the FEMP site, this evaluation was not
performed. There are certainly costs associated with off-site disposal; however, they are not
costs which can be avoided. The project will ultimately select the least cost disposal option
from options that are available at the time of the selection.
SPECIFIC COMMENT #5d (NTS Community Advisory Board; Written Comments)
"Page 15 [of the OU3 Proposed Plan] (State Acceptance). Does this include acceptance by
the State of Nevada and local Nevada communities as well as Ohio?"
DOE RESPONSE #5d
The OU3 RI/FS Report and Proposed Plan were prepared by DOE and approved by U.S. EPA
with concurrence from the Ohio EPA. The Proposed Plan was provided to both the State of
Nevada and the State of Utah for review and comment during the public review period.
Although neither State provided comments to DOE on the OU3 Proposed Plan, they have
previously commented on selected remedies from other operable units at the FEMP. These
comments are also being considered in the evaluation for the State Acceptance criterion.
Evaluation of public acceptance under CERCLA is intended to provide a process to ensure that
decision-making is sensitive to local desires. Strong public resistance to technically sound
approaches in early CERCLA projects identified the need for a way to address this modifying
input. For the Envirocare site in Utah, the state permit and site WAC already reflect the
technical and public acceptance aspects of the process. For the NTS, the EIS process will
result in similar balanced results. Since all stakeholders along all possible routes to a disposal
or treatment facility cannot possibly be consulted for all remedies, state authorities are relied
upon for representation of their constituents in the CERCLA evaluation process.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-31 August 1996
SPECIFIC COMMENT #5e (NTS Community Advisory Board; Written Comments)
"Page 15 [of the OU3 Proposed Plan] (Health Effects: General Public). What were the
transportation routes considered in the health effects analyses?"
DOE RESPONSE #5e
Risk modeling was used to evaluate impacts to an individual along the primary transportation
route during the transportation of OU3 materials. The primary route to NTS was used in the
model because it was determined to be the most direct route with the smallest populations
along the route. As stated on page 1 5 of the Proposed Plan, the model, which assessed the
exposure of this hypothetical individual to radiological and chemical contaminants, estimated
the risk to be below the EPA acceptable risk range of 10"4 to 10~6.
The primary transportation route to NTS used in the risk modeling is as follows: depart the
Fernald Site; S.R. 128 Southwest to Miamitown, Ohio; I-74 East to Cincinnati, Ohio; I-75
South to Walton, Kentucky; 1-71 South to Louisville, Kentucky; I-64 West to St. Louis,
Missouri; I-44 West to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; I-40 West to Kingman, Arizona; U.S.
Route 93 Northwest to Alunite, Nevada; U.S. Route 95 to Mercury, Nevada.
SPECIFIC COMMENT #5f (NTS Community Advisory Board; Written Comments)
"Sect/on 5 [of the Oil3 RI/FS Report], page 5-8 (5.3.2- Integration of the Interim and Final
Remedial Actions). It is unclear what the difference is between the Interim and Final Remedial
Actions for Alternative 2. Is the material that will remain at Fernald under an interim act/on
being stored temporarily, or is Fernald the final disposal site? Could the Final Remedial Action
ultimately mean the transport of this material to the NTS or another off-site location?"
DOE RESPONSE #5f
Because the former uranium processing facilities that comprise OU3 are at or beyond their
design life and in a state of advancing deterioration, and because of concerns regarding further
releases of hazardous substances to the environment in the event of structural collapse or
other failure mechanisms, it was decided by DOE and the U.S. EPA to divide the OU3 remedial
action into two components. The first component, known as the interim remedial action,
addressed the D&D of all above- and below-ground improvements. A Record of Decision for
the Interim Remedial Action (IROD) was signed in July 1994. According to the IROD, the
building debris and resultant waste would primarily be placed in interim storage until a final
remedial decision is made, although some limited material disposition could occur off-site.
The final remedy addresses treatment and final disposition of the materials and wastes
resulting from performance of the interim remedial action. It is the selected remedy contained
in the OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action. It reflects the balanced approach being used for
disposal of FEMP wastes; material with higher levels of contamination, deemed to represent
the principal threat at the site, would be treated (if required) and shipped off-site for disposal
and material exhibiting lower contaminant concentrations distributed over a larger volume,
termed a secondary threat, would be permanently disposed of at the Fernald site in one
central engineered disposal facility. Off-site disposal of the material with higher levels of
contamination will take place at a location that provides greater protectiveness of human
health than would on-site disposal at Fernald. This approach has been supported by
stakeholders, including other impacted states, in the selected remedies of each of the other
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-32 August 1996
four FEMP operable units. Only a small portion of the OU3 building debris will be disposed
off-site. The NTS is one potential repository for this material.
A.3 ORIGINAL COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY STAKEHOLDERS
During the OU3 formal comment period, seven letters from the public and a letter from the
Ohio EPA were received by DOE. Although there was an opportunity for stakeholders to give
verbal comments at the April 23, 1996 public meeting, no comments related to the
remediation of OU3 were given. Section A.3 presents the seven public letters alphabetically,
followed by the Ohio EPA letter. Formal comments have been bracketed with a number that
corresponds to an issue number in Section A.2. The issue number identifies the location of
DOE's response to the comment. Comments that were similar or identical were grouped
together, with one response to avoid redundancy. Comments unique to only one commentor
were addressed individually with as much weight given to the comment response as was
given to those presented by multiple commentors.
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final)
A-33
August 1996
Lisa Crawford, Written Comments, Page 1
L.CRAWFORD FRESH
P.
Xv/ 1 . 199f.
RE: DOE FF.MF - OU3 PP?
"Comments
M.i . Gary Sterner
l/.ir-.d'or-, I'ubl ic Inf orciat ion
'!.S. DOE F-rn?.ld Are* Office
?.0. F^o;-; 53*705
C^innVol , OH 45235-8705
;*-!.:> you will find :ay cors .writs on the O.U. 3 Proposed Flcin. They
<:>. * TA- f Oj lo:vS !
I bcl i.i-v-2 t'hAt thf; scicctcv a 1 1 «?r i*i = t I ve is the A
one. I also believe that the balanced approach - lor/ volume,
hi
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) A-34 August 1996
Lisa Crawford, Written Comments. Page 2
DOE -ho Mid -or.iHiit . t-r>. including ar-3/or v.o'v^lo^in? r-aa J. - t i:V. i-
- o n i t o r i n ? f o r 3 \ z .? h *L r 7 e £ t: c t h * e n v i r o n r. - n *-. c ? ?.: i n c f r o :i.
L- -:- .r. «r <* i .:.. i :. c t i o n s . Da t a obtained f r o »T. r c =. 1 - 1 i . = . * :: ,o n i t o r i n cf ;-. rid
any .=i4dit ir:-r:~ 1 rr.onit:-:. finer should be provided t.o thv. public in
TOE =hoi'Id c.t tcu.pt to use poliutior. prevention activities when
possible -snc? .ill availa-bls methods to reduce cr clizrtiri«t«
di.^char^es and rel'^.nsc-s frow the demolition .^r? the FFMP site will bs >.».*c:d in r. responsible manner
ind not j"3t sold T.nd lost into unknovn And un.turpccting hands.
While ! cigres v/ith.f roc -release- for recycling, f:cr=?in this is an
issue that r:eo«is to-be discussed further. Relc-as ? r«cf itcns such
.?,': r:?t:-.l2/c-t':-cl/etc. for recycling for metal boxes ths.t will
th«?n ship wastes i s. a r.xt isfactory way of releasing th^se
contsLP.ir.atsd items. For other more public ourposcs, this is. not
:.cc-^tzbl = .
DOE should commit to the public that they v;ili create A
"recycling program" 4tnd have full public input into this
process. This would eliminate what js nnsatisf Actsry and ;;hat
5s .*3';isfa.ctory to the public at large. This goos back io
coai-.2nt ??.
?:*A ?-: f'l-oi free to contact me if you have any questions ~&& or
cvir.ra-: n 1 5 u e c& r d i n«:f the s e c cements.
102GC- Ct-osby P-o&d
Hirrison OH 45030 r
f 513'. 73S -1^
2h
2f
3b
4b
2a
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) B-1 August 1996
B.1 THE ARARs TABLES
This appendix contains five tables that summarize the ARARs that apply to the selected
remedy. Tables B-1 through B-3 detail chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs,
respectively. Table B-4 lists other requirements pertinent to this action. Many key
discussions affecting the final disposition of materials generated during the OU3 interim
remedial action were made under RODS from other FEMP operable units; these four tables are
listings of ARARs previously identified in other operable units and are, therefore, not discussed
at length. Table B-5 discusses those ARARs/TBCs that are specifically germane to this final
disposition decision, including new issues that were not addressed in previous documents and
newly promulgated regulations. This table also includes only brief descriptive titles or
summary descriptions of the requirements; the regulation, statute, or Federal Register citation
listed on the tables should be consulted for a full description of the requirement.
All five ARAR tables use the following codes to distinguish the type of ARAR:
A - Applicable
R - Relevant and Appropriate
R/A - Relevant and Appropriate for On-Site Disposition; Applicable for Off-Site Disposal
T - To Be Considered
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final) B-2 August 1996
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
TABLE B-1 CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARABS
o
2
})
§
Source
QV3 Selected Remedy
2'
I
9.
O'
DRINKING WATER
40 CFR 141.15 to 141.16
56 FR 33050
DOE Order 5400.5
DOE Order 5480.11
OAC 3745-1
40 CFR 141.12 and .50
40 CFR 141.61
OAC 3745-81-12
40 CFR 141.11 and 141.51
40 CFR 141.62
40 CFR 143.3
OAC 3745-81-11, -15, and -16
40 CFR 257.4-3
OAC 3745-27-10(0)
40 CFR 264.94
OAC 3745-54-94
40 CFR 141.80
EPA National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Proposed Maximum Contaminant Limit (MCL) for Radiological
Contaminants (July 18, 1991)
Radiation Protection of the Public and Environment
Radiation in All Media
Ohio Water Quality Standard Chemical Discharge to Surface Water
EPA National Primary Drinking Water Standard MCLGs
EPA National Primary Drinking Water Standard
Ohio Drinking Water Regulations for Maximum Contaminant Limits
EPA National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for MCLGs and MCLs for
Inorganic and Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water
EPA National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations for MCLs
for Inorganic Chemicals in Drinking Water
Ohio Primary Drinking Water Regulations for MCLGs and MCLs for
Inorganic Chemicals in Drinking Water
Chemicals in Drinking Water (Solid Waste Disposal Facility)
Groundwater Monitoring Program Parameters for Sanitary Landfill Facilities
Chemicals in Drinking Water (Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility)
Concentration Limits for Hazardous Constituents in the Groundwater
Control of Copper and Lead
R
T
T
T
A
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Co
Co
!
CO
CO
-------
TABLE B-1 CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARABS (Continued)
O
CD
Source
O\J3 Selected Remedy
3'
§'
3'
DRINKING WATER (Continued!
50 FR 46936
SURFACE WATER
OAC 3745-1-04
OAC 3745-1-21
OAC 3745-1-07
OAC 3745-1
OAC 3701-38-15(A)(1)/ (B)
AIR
40 CFR 61 Subpart H
40 CFR 192.02(b) Subpart A
40 CFR 192.32(B)(1)(ii) Subpart D
40 CFR 61 Subpart Q
OEPA Proposed Policy January
1994
Proposed MCLs from 'Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories'
by the Office of Water, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. (May 1993)
Proposed MCLGs for Arsenic (November 13, 1989)
Ohio Water Quality Standards
(Discharge of Liquid Waste to Surface Water)
Ohio Water Quality Standards
(Use Designation of Surface)
Ohio Water Quality Standards
(Warm Water Habitat and Water Supply Criteria)
Ohio Water Quality Standard Chemical Discharge to Surface Water
Ohio General Radiation Protection Standard
National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than
Radon From DOE Facility
Health and Environmental Protection Standard for Uranium and Thorium
Mill Tailings
Health and Environmental Protection Standard for Uranium and Thorium
Mill Tailings
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Radon - 222
Emissions
Ohio De Minimis Air Emission Levels for Process Equipment
T
T
R
A
A
A
R
A
R
R
R
T
CD
i
CO
CO
Co
-------
TABLE B-1 CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC
AIR (Continued)
OAC 3545-21 -07(G)(2)
40 CFR 61. 150 -61. 155
OAC 3745-20-06(A)
OAC 3745-20-07(0
ARARS (Continued)
Source
Organic Air Emissions
National Emission Standard for Asbestos
Ohio Asbestos Handling Regulations
Ohio Regulations for Inactive Asbestos Waste Disposal Facilities (posting
methods)
OU3 Selected Remedy
A
R
A
A
0
§
^0
o
CD
^
o
>i
;ri
^'
CX)
1
1
§L
o
o'
5
1
SOILS AND CONTAMINATED MEDIA
40 CFR 192.02 Subpart A
40 CFR 192.12(a) Subpart B
40 CFR 192.20 Subpart C
40 CFR 192.21(f) to 192.22(b)
Subpart C
40 CFR 192.32(b)(2) Subpart D
40 CFR 192.40 - .42 Subpart E
US NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86
DOE Order 5820.2A
Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium
Mill Tailings
Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium
Mill Tailings
Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium
Mill Tailings
Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium
Mill Tailings
Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium
Mill Tailings
Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium
Mill Tailings
Reasonable Effort to Eliminate Residual Contamination (see Table B-5 for
additional discussion)
Radioactive Waste Management
R
R
R
R
R
R
T
T
DO
en
^
c:
«*
*-*
CO
CO
0)
-------
o
s
TABLE B-2 LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS §
Source OU3 Selected Remedy |
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES |
16 USC §1531 et seq. Endangered Species Act A §:
50 CFR 17.21, 17.31, 17.61, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants A £
17.71 and 17.94 g-
50 CFR 402.01 Interagency Cooperation - Endangered Species Act A 3.
50 CFR 402.12(a)(b) Interagency Cooperation - Endangered Species Act A ^
ORC 1513.25 Ohio Endangered Species Act A
OAC 1501:18-1 Ohio Endangered Species Act A
ORC 1518.02
oo
40 CFR 257.3-2 Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices A °>
16 USC §661 et seq. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act A
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION
16 USC §431-33 Antiquities Act of 1906 A
16 USC §461-467 Historic Sites Preservation Act A
16 USC §408{a) Archeological Recovery Act A
40 CFR 6.301 (a), (b), (c) Procedures for Implementing NEPA A
43 CFR 7.4(a) Protection of Archeological Resources A
16 USC §106 and 110 National Historic Preservation Act A
36 CFR §60, §60.4, §63, and §800 Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties A
16 USC §469, 16 USC §470 and Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act and the National Historic A ,§
§470aa et seq Preservation Act 5
2
Co
O)
-------
TABLE B-2 LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARABS (Continued)
§
g'
Source
OU3 Selected Remedy
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION (Continued)
42 USC §1996
Executive Order 1 1 593
25 USC §3001
36 CFR §65.2(c)(2)
FLOOD PLAINS AND WETLANDS
10 CFR 1022. 3(a), (b)(1),
(2),(3),(5),(6),(c), (d), (e)
10 CFR 1022.5(b),(h)
33 U.S.C. 1341(3X1), (d)
and 33 CFR §330
40 CFR 258.12
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Environment
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
National Historic Landmarks Program
DOE Compliance with Flood Plains/Wetlands Environmental Review
Requirement
DOE Compliance with Flood Plains/Wetlands Environmental Review
Requirement
Clean Water Act
Nationwide Permit Program
Protection of Wetlands
A
A
A
A
A
A
R
A
OHIO SOLID WASTE SITING CRITERIA
OAC 3745-27-05(A)
OAC 3745-27-07(H)(2)(a)
OAC 3745-27-07(H)(2)(b)
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (Solid Waste Disposal Methods)
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (Sand or Gravel Pits)
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (Limestone Quarry or Sandstone
Quarry)
A
A
A
OAC 3745-27-07(H)(1)
OAC 3745-27-07(H)(3)(a)
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (National or State Parks or
Recreation Area)
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (Location of a Facility within a
5 Year Migration Area of Influence for a Public Water Supply Well)
A
A
§'
g'
to
xj
!
CO
CO
-------
TABLE B-2 LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARABS (Continued)
o
s
:&
§
Source
O\J3 Selected Remedy
OHIO SOLID WASTE SITING CRITERIA (Continued)
OAC 3745-27-07(H)(2)(c)
Guidance Document 202.105
Guidance Document 202.101
42 USC §1424(e)
OAC 3745-27-07(H)(4)(a)
OAC 3745-27-20(0(3)
OAC 3745-27-07(H)(3)(b)
OAC 3745-27-07(H)(2)(d)
Guidance Document 202.102
OAC 3745-27-07(B)(10)
OAC 3745-27-20(0(2)
Guidance Document 202.103
OAC 3745-27-07(H)(4)(b)
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (Sole Source Aquifer)
OEPA Guidance on Solid Waste Siting Criteria (Minimum Distance from a
Public Water Supply Well)
OEPA Guidance on Solid Waste Siting Criteria (Sole Source Aquifer)
Safe Drinking Water Act (Review of Projects Constructed in Area of Sole
Source Aquifer)
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (Natural Areas)
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (Fault Limit on Solid Waste
Placement)
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (Underground Mine)
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (Allows OEPA Director to Accept
Facility Location Over a High-Yield Aquifer)
OEPA Guidance on Solid Waste Siting Criteria (100 Gallons Per Minute
Aquifer)
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (Allows OEPA Director to Accept
Facility in a Flood Plain)
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (Allows OEPA Director to Accept
Facility Location Near a Water Supply or Developed Spring)
OEPA Guidance on Solid Waste Siting Criteria (Minimum Isolation
Distances to Wells and Developed Springs)
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (Property Line Limit on Solid Waste
Placement)
A
T
T
A
A
A
A
A
§'
3'
CD
GO
s
Co
CO
O)
-------
TABLE B-2 LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARABS (Continued)
o
c:
Co
Source
OU3 Selected Remedy
OHIO SOLID WASTE SITING CRITERIA (Continued)
OAC 3745-27-07(H)(4)(c)
OAC 3745-27-07(H)(4)(d)
OAC 3745-27-07(H)(2)(e)
Guidance Document 202.104
OAC 3745-27-06
ORC 3734.02A
OTHER SITING CRITERIA
40 CFR 241.200 to .211
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (Domicile Limit on Solid Waste
Placement)
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (Lake, Stream, or Natural Wetlands
Limit on Waste Placement - Allows OEPA Director to Accept Facility
Location)
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (Allows OEPA Director to Accept
Facility Location Over Less Than 15 Feet InSitu or Added Geological
Material)
OEPA Guidance on Solid Waste Siting Criteria: Material Acceptable to the
Director
Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulation (Permit to Install)
Protection of Human Health and the Environment - Authority of the
Director to approve variance requests
On-Site Nonhazardous Waste Management Facilities (See Table B-5 for
additional discussion)
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual Section 2.7
DOE Order 5820.2A Chapter lll(7) Radioactive Waste Management (Disposal Site Selection)
Joint NRC-EPA Guidance on Siting of Mixed Low-Level Radioactive and
Hazardous Waste Units (March 13, 1987)
R
A
T
T
T
-8'
to
CO
!
CO
CO
-------
OU3 ROD for Final Remedial Action (Final)
B-10
August 1996
o
0)
E
0)
DC
o
Qj
0
0)
Q)
CO
CO
D
O
0)
0
o
0)
CC
CC
^
O
LL
O
UJ
0.
i
0
0
<
CO
CQ
UJ
_J
rn
hU
H
cc cc
Noise Control Act
Noise Pollution and Abatement Act
C7
CD
CO
0
O 5
0) CO
_j ucn un
!£ CJ CJ
5 CO CO
£ D D
UJ O CN
CD ^ ^
^
"co
o
"5
CO
V.
g
LO
CD
0
CO
H
CD
CD
C/D
CO
CO
Requirements for Recyclable Materi
discussion)
CO
CO
CN
CC
LL.
O
O
^
"co
~
"5
"O
CO
£
LO
CQ
CD
J5
CO
H
CD
CD
C/)
CO
CO
Requirements for Recyclable Materi
discussion)
CO
o
r
LO
10
CO
o
o
^
^
CM
CD
£
O
Q.
CD
c/>
o
o
CM
^r
cc "c
"- 0
00 'co
LO W
T3 0
O CO
:= ""5
Is
CO
CO CO
c >
O >
Hamilton County Earthwork Regula
Prohibits Commingling of Low Leve
ja
CO
CM
O
CO
CO
O
CC
O
$
CC
c
CO 13
T (GENERAL FACILITY STANDARD
RCRA Hazardous Waste Determina
z
UJ
5
UJ
CD
2
^
b
UJ
CO
1 -
CO *".
ID CM
1 a
tfm fi^
^T LL
N 0
$ 5
5
cc
Hazardous Waste Determination
T
CN
LO
CO
O
0
^
ff
>
m
O
CO
LL
CD
CD
0 _
C
fA
o *w
~ 3
Q 8
o "°
en co
C
« 0
Interim Status: Treatment, Storage
Standards (See Table B-5 for additi
CO
r
*
.C
05
0
*-
CO
10
CO
CM
CC
LL
O
§
^
CC
>
CO
LL
"s
CD
O -=
v^ c
co .2
O CO
CL D
CO O
'Q =1
o «.
C CO
CO C
. o
Interim Status: Treatment, Storage
Standards (See Table B-5 for additi
CO
*7
#-
JL»
^
O
5
CO
CO
LO
CO
CJ
0
^
CO
Q)
C
T3
CD
CO
CL
CD
a!
>
"o
CO
LL.
CO
CO
o
CL
CO
Q
T3
C
CO
^
Interim Status: Treatment, Storage
and Prevention
00
LO
CO
"
JC
CO
D
0
+-»
CO
LO
CO
CN
CC
LL
O
O
^
CO
CO
CD
C
T3
CD
v_
CO
QL
CD
QL
4 >
CO
LL
co
CO
o
Q.
CO
Q
TJ
C
CO
v
Interim Status: Treatment, Storage
and Prevention
p^
CO
LO
CO
f~
CO
2
0
4-'
CO
LO
CO
LO
CO
CJ
o
-------
TABLE B-3 ACTION-SPECIFIC ARABS
o
s
^0
§
s-
r
i
Q)'
o
«-*
O'
Source
OU3 Selected Remedy
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT (GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS) (Continued)
40CFR 265.51, .52, .55, .56
OAC 3745-65-51, -52, -55, -56
40 CFR 261.7
OAC 3745-51-07
40 CFR 265.171 through .174,
.176 and .177
Interim Status: Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility Contingency
Plan and Emergency Procedures
Interim Status: Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility Contingency
Plan and Emergency Procedures
RCRA Empty Containers
Empty Containers
RCRA Condition of Containers
OAC 3745-55-71 through -74, -76, Condition of Containers
and -77
40 CFR 265.175(a)-(c)
OAC 3745-55-75
40 CFR 264.1100 through 1102
40 CFR 262.20 through .33,
40 CFR 263.20
OAC 3745-53-20 through .31 and
OAC 3745-52-30 and 33
40 CFR 268.40 through .44
OAC 3745-59
40 CFR 268.2
RCRA Containment Storage Area Requirements
Containment Storage Area Requirements
RCRA Permitted Containment Building Requirements
RCRA - Preparing and Transporting Hazardous Waste Off-Site
Preparing and Transporting Hazardous Waste Off-Site
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (See Table B-5 for additional discussion)
Land Disposal Restrictions (See Table B-5 for additional discussion)
RCRA Definition of Hazardous Waste Debris (See Table B-5 for additional
discussion)
A
A
A
A
A
R
A
A
A
A
£
CO
-------
§
TABLE B-3 ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS g,
Source OU3 Selected Remedy *
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT (GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS) (Continued) |
40 CFR 268.45 RCRA Hazardous Waste Debris Land Disposal Requirements (See A 5!
Table B-5 for additional discussion) £
40 CFR 261.3 RCRA Hazardous Waste Determination (See Table B-5 for additional A §
discussion) 5.
ORC 3734.02 (i) Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste Facilities R ^
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT (GROUNDWATER MONITORING)
40 CFR 265.90 Subpart F Interim Status: Groundwater Monitoring Program R
OAC 3745-65-90 Interim Status: Groundwater Monitoring Program R
-------
o
s
I
TABLE B-3 ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS _ _ _ _ _ ^
:ji
Source OU3 Selected Remedy ^
- . j
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT (CLOSURE) (Continued) 3
5.
OAC 3745-66-1 1 Interim Status: Closure Performance Standards for HWMUs A ^
!b
40 CFR 265.1 14 Interim Status: Closure Performance Standards A
40 CFR 265.191 and .197 Interim Status: Closure of Tank Systems A
3'
OAC 3745-66-14 Interim Status: Closure Performance Standards A $:
OAC 3745-66-91 and -97 Interim Status: Closure of Tank Systems A
40 CFR 264.310 Minimum RCRA Landfill Design Requirements for Closure R
OAC 3745-68-10
to
40 CFR 265.1 16 Hazardous Waste Disposal Survey Plot Filing A ^
Co
OAC 3745-66-16 Hazardous Waste Disposal Survey Plot Filing A
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT (OTHER)
58 FR 48092 9/14/93 Contained in Policy Proposed Rule T
59 FR 10778 3/8/94 Contained in Policy, Clarification, Partial Withdrawal T
40 CFR 264.552, .553 Subpart S: Corrective Action Management Unit 58 FR 865829 (February R
16, 1993) (See Table B-5 for additional discussion)
RADIOACTIVE
40 CFR 192.02 AEA/Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA): Landfill R
Requirements
40 CFR 192.20 AEA/UMTRCA: Implementation of Standards in 40 CFR 192, Subparts A R
and B ^
<§
40 CFR 192.30 - .34 AEA/UMTRCA: Management of Uranium By-Products R S
*-*
»-A
Co
CO
§'
-------
TABLE B-3 ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS
:*>
§
Source
OU3 Selected Remedy
RADIOACTIVE (Continued)
DOE Order 5400.1
DOE Order 5400.5
10 CFR 20, Subpart D
WATER
40 CFR 122.26
OAC 3745-38
40 CFR 122.41
ORC 6111.07 a,c
OAC 3745-33-05
40 CFR 125.100
40 CFR 125.104
ORC 6111.04
OAC 3745-1-05
AIR
40 CFR 264.1030,
.1032 through .1034
OAC 3745-15-07
OAC 3745-17-07
DOE Facility Monitoring Guidance
Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment
Standards for Protection Against Radiation
Discharge of Stormwater Run-off
Discharge of Stormwater Run-off
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Wastewater
Discharges
NPDES Wastewater Discharges
Discharge of Treatment System Effluent
Clean Water Act Best Management Practices
Ohio Water Pollution Control Regulations
Antidegradation Policy
Permitted Status: Air Emission Standards for Process Vents
General Provisions on Air Pollution Control Prevention of Air Pollution
Nuisance
Control of Visible Emissions From Stationary Sources (See Table B-5 for
additional discussion)
T
T
R
A
A
A
A
R
R
A
R
A
A
i
Ji
S'
Co
s
CO
CO
0)
-------
o
s
TABLE B-3 ACTION-SPECIFIC ARABS
Source OU3 Selected Remedy *
AIR (Continued) 3
5s
OAC 3745-17-1 1 Restrictions on Particulate Emissions from Industrial Processes (See R 91
Table B-5 for additional discussion) £
^.
OAC 3745-19-04 Ohio Open-Burning Prohibition A §
$
OAC 3745-31 -05(A)(3) Permit to Install (See Table B-5 for additional discussion) R g'
OAC 3745-17-08 Restriction of Emission of Fugitive Dust A
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL - FACILITY DESIGN
OAC 3745-27-08(0, (D), (F), (G) Solid Waste Disposal Facility Design A
co
40 CFR 241 Solid Waste Disposal Facility Design Criteria R -U
Ol
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL - FACILITY OPERATIONS
OAC 3745-27-19 Requirements for Operation of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities A
OAC 3745-27-1 1(H); (O) Final Closure of Sanitary Landfill Facilities A
OAC 3745-27-14 Post-Closure Care of Sanitary Landfill Facilities A
40 CFR 258.61 Post-Closure Care of Sanitary Landfill Facilities A
ORC 3734.03 Ohio Solid Waste Disposal Regulations A
OAC 3745-27-05
OAC 3745-27-10 Groundwater Monitoring A
OAC 3745-27-1 9(E)(30)(2) Prohibits Disposal of Scrap Tires in Sanitary Landfills A
40 CFR 257.3-3 and .3-4 Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices (See A K
Table B-5 for additional discussion) <§
40 CFR 257.3-7 US EPA Solid Waste Disposal Regulations (Open Burning Prohibited) A *
S
-------
TABLE B-3 ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS
o
s
Source OU3 Selected Remedy
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL - FACtLITY OPERATIONS (Continuedl 3
9:
OAC 3745-09-10 Abandonment of Test Holes and Wells A SL
K
OAC 3745-400-04(A) Construction and Demolition Debris Facility (See Table B-5 for additional R S.
discussion) s
POLYCHLORiNATED BIPHENYLS (PCBsl |
40 CFR 761 .3 Excluded PCB Materials R
40 CFR 761 .60(a)(3), (4) PCB Disposal Requirements (See Table B-5 for additional discussion) A
40 CFR 761 .60(e) PCB Treatment (See Table B-5 for additional discussion) A
oo
40 CFR 761 .65 PCB Storage for Disposal A ^
O)
40 CFR 761.120, .125, .130 PCB Cleanup Policy (For Spills Created During Remediation) (See T
Table B-5 for additional discussion)
!
CO
CO
-------
TABLE B-4 OTHER REQUIREMENTS
o
§
^D
§
Source
QV3 Selected Remedy
8'
i
i
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
49 CFR 171-173, 177, 178
49 USC §1801-1812
10 CFR 835
DOE Order 5440.1E
DOE Order 5480.1B
DOE Order 5480.3A
DOE Order 5480.4
DOE Order 5483.1A
DOE Order 5700.6C
DOT Requirements for the Transportation of Hazardous Materials
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
Occupational Radiation Protection
NEPA Compliance Program
Environmental, Safety, and Health Program for DOE Operations
Hazardous Materials Packaging and Transportation Safety
Environmental Protection, Safety, and Health Protection Standards
Occupational Safety and Health Programs for DOE Employees at
Government Owned, Contractor Operated Facilities
Quality Assurance
00
-A
XJ
Note: In addition to ARARs, there are other requirements from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of
Transportation (DOT), and DOE Orders with which this remedial action must comply. These other requirements include standards
which the U.S. EPA has determined not to be standards for environmental protection (e.g., worker protection and off-site actions)
and are therefore not ARARs. EPA classifies worker protection, particularly OSHA's 29 CFR 1910.120, as a requirement rather than
an ARAR because it cannot be waived and it is not an environmental standard. This listing of other requirements is not an all inclusive
list of requirements. There are additional requirements which could result from off-site actions and would be required under CERCLA
Section 121 (d)(3). Under this requirement, the CERCLA Off-Site Rule, activities that occur off-site shall be at facilities that are in
compliance with RCRA, Toxic Substances Control Act, and other environmental laws and applicable state requirements.
Determinations under this rule will be made during the remedial action.
t
to
-------
TABLE B-5 EXPANDED DISCUSSION
o
s
:&
§
s-
31
g'
8.
8'
Citation
Requirement
ARAB/
TBC
Remarks
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC
US NRG Regulatory Reasonable Effort to Eliminate Residual Contamination - A
Guide 1.86 (June reasonable effort shall be made to eliminate residual
1974) contamination and to achieve the acceptable surface
contamination levels stated in the guide.
LOCATION-SPECIFIC
40CFR 241.200
ACTION-SPECIFIC
40CFR 257.3-3
and .3-4
On-Property Solid Waste Management Facilities - Design -
Standards are presented in the following citations:
241.200-2, 241.201-2, 241.203-2, 241.204-2,
241.205-2, 241.206-2, 241.207-2, 241.208-2,
241.209-2, and 241.210-2.
Surface Water (257.3-3) - Remediation activities shall not
cause a discharge of pollutants into waters of the United
States that is in violation of the requirements of the
NPDES under section 402 of the Clean Water Act. A solid
waste disposal facility or practice shall not cause non-
point source pollution of waters of the United States that
violates applicable legal requirements implementing an
area-wide or Statewide water quality management plan
that has been approved by the Administrator under
section 208 of the Clean Water Act, as amended.
Groundwater Protection (257.3-4) - A solid waste disposal
facility or practice shall not contaminate an underground
water source beyond the solid waste facility boundary.
Radiation surveys will be'performed prior to releasing
any potentially contaminated materials off-site to
demonstrate compliance with the specified
standards. This requirement is a TBC since it is a
guidance document.
Solid, non-hazardous wastes generated as a result of
remediation must be managed in accordance with
federal and state regulations. This requirement is
applicable to wastes generated by the remedial
action.
These requirements are considered applicable where
remediation wastes are managed on-site.
Additionally, the site possesses a NPDES permit.
DO
^A
Oo
CO
-------
o
TABLE B-5 EXPANDED DISCUSSION (Continued)
§
3-
3'
Citation
Requirement
ARAB/
TBC
Remarks
ACTION-SPECIFIC (Continued)
40 CFR 26^.6
OAC 3745-51-06
40 CFR Part 300
40CFR 265.13
through .16 and
OAC 3745-65-13
through -16
Requirements for Recyclable Materials - The following
recyclable materials are not subject to regulation under
parts 262 through 266 or parts 268, 270 or 124 of 40
CFR, and are not subject to the notification requirements
of section 3010 of RCRA: i) used batteries returned to a
battery manufacturer for regeneration; ii) scrap metal; iii)
used oil that exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic
that is recycled is regulated under 40 CFR 279.
The Off-Site Rule under CERCLA was finalized 58 CFR
49200 (September 22, 1993). EPA requires that remedial
actions at Federal facilities comply with the Off-Site Rule.
DOE must comply with the Off-Site Rule for all cleanups
taken using DOE's lead agency authority under CERCLA.
General facility standards require that operators of a
facility must obtain chemical and physical analysis of a
representative sample of each hazardous waste to be
treated, stored or disposed of at the facility prior to
treatment, storage or disposal. The analysis may include
existing published or documented data on the hazardous
waste or on hazardous waste generated from similar
processes. The operator of a facility must also provide
controlled access for the facility. In addition, the operator
must maintain and inspect all monitoring equipment,
safety and emergency equipment, security devices and
operating and structural equipment that are important to
preventing human health hazards. Operators must train
personnel for procedures relevant to their emergency
response training.
R/A
This requirement is considered applicable for
remediation generated materials as the site is a
regulated hazardous waste generator. Recycling of
remediation generated materials may be conducted.
The Off-Site Rule applies to all situations where DOE
is authorized under CERCLA to remediate a site and
the CERCLA wastes generated are transferred off-
site.
The requirement is relevant and appropriate where
RCRA wastes are managed on site. This
requirement is not applicable because RCRA wastes
managed on site are considered as "remediation
wastes," not as "generated wastes," under the
Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) rule.
The requirement is applicable where RCRA wastes
are sent to off-site facilities.
§
to
-«*
CO
!
CO
CO
-------
TABLE B-5 EXPANDED DISCUSSION (Continued)
o
§
20
§
Citation
Requirement
ARAB/
TBC
Remarks
3'
I
a
§
ACTION-SPECIFIC (Continued)
40 CFR 268.40
through .44 and
OAC 3745-59
40 CFR 268.2
40 CFR 268.45
40 CFR 261.3
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions - A restricted hazardous
waste may be land disposed only if: 1) an extract of the
waste or of the treatment residue of the waste does not
exceed the value shown in 40 CFR 268.41, or 2) it is
treated using a technology specified in 40 CFR 268.42(a)
or an equivalent method, or 3) the constituent
concentrations in the waste or treatment residue of the
waste do not exceed the value shown in 40 CFR 268.43.
40 CFR 268.2 - Debris means solid material exceeding 60
mm particle size that is intended for disposal and that is a
manufactured object, plant or animal matter or natural
geologic material. Hazardous debris means debris that
contains a listed hazardous waste, or that exhibits a
characteristic of hazardous waste.
40 CFR 268.45 - Hazardous debris must be treated prior
to land disposal unless the EPA determines that the debris
is no longer contaminated with hazardous waste or the
debris is treated to the waste-specific treatment standard
for the waste containing debris.
40 CFR 261.3 - Provided the debris does not exhibit a
RCRA characteristic it is not subject to regulation under
40 CFR Parts 260 to 266, 268, or 270 if: 1) the
hazardous debris has been treated using one of the
required extraction or destruction technologies specified in
40 CFR 268.45; or 2) the debris, considering the extent of
contamination, is determined to no longer be
contaminated with hazardous waste.
This requirement is applicable to those RCRA
hazardous wastes that will be disposed off-site.
Land Disposal Restrictions will not apply to on-
property disposal under the CAMU rule.
This requirement is applicable to those RCRA
hazardous wastes that will be disposed off-site.
Hazardous waste debris land disposal restrictions will
not apply to on-property disposal under the CAMU
rule.
CO
CO
-------
TABLE B-5 EXPANDED DISCUSSION (Continued)
o
s
^0
§
Citation
Requirement
ARAB/
TBC
Remarks
8'
I
I
§'
8'
ACTION-SPECIFIC (Continued)
59 FR 67390
12/29/94, as
amended 60 FR
2679605/18/95
40 CFR 262.20
through .33,
40 CFR 263.20
through .31,
OAC 3745-52-20
through -33, and
OAC 3745-53-20
through -31
Hazardous Materials Transport - The final rule
comprehensively revises the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR), 49 CFR Parts 171-173, 177, 178 with
respect to hazard communication, classification, and
packaging requirements based on the United Nations
recommendations.
Hazardous Waste Transportation Manifesting - Any
generator who transports hazardous waste for off-site
treatment, storage or disposal must originate and follow-
up the manifest for off-site shipments. Pre-transporting
requirements include appropriate packaging, labeling,
marking, and placarding.
A The Final Rule was effective October 1, 1995.
Any materials determined to be RCRA hazardous
waste destined for off-site disposal are subject to
manifest requirements. Remedial actions involving
off-site disposal of RCRA hazardous wastes will be
subject to this requirement.
40 CFR 264.552,
.553
58 FR 865829
2/16/93
Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) means an
area within a facility that is designated by the Regional
Administrator under 40 CFR 264 Subpart S, for the
purpose of implementing corrective action requirements
under Sec. 264.101 and RCRA section 3008(h). CAMUs
might be designated at the site as areas where
remediation wastes (solid, hazardous, or contaminated
media and debris) might be placed during the process of
remediation. Temporary Units (TUs) consisting of tanks
and container storage units might be used to store and
treat hazardous waste during the process of corrective
action.
This requirement is relevant and appropriate as the
remediation is not of a RCRA permitted facility. All
of the materials generated from remediation of the
site are considered remediation wastes. Some of the
waste material might exhibit a RCRA characteristic,
or otherwise be sufficiently similar to hazardous
waste to make this requirement relevant and
appropriate.
CO
CO
-------
TABLE B 5 EXPANDED DISCUSSION (Continued)
o
s
3)
§
Citation
Requirement
ARAB/
TBC
Remarks
g'
I
§'
g'
ACTION-SPECIFIC (Continued)
OAC 3745-17-07
OAC 3745-17-11
OAC 3745-31-05
OAC 3745-27-
19(E)(30)(2)
Control of Visible Particulate Emissions from Stationary
Sources - Discharge of particle emissions into ambient air
from any stack of a shade or density greater than 20
percent opacity is prohibited. Transient exceedance limits
are included in this regulation.
Restrictions on Particulate Emissions from Industrial
Processes - This requirement applies to any operation,
process, or activity which releases or may release
particulate emissions into the ambient air. Emission
restriction requirements for sources... are specified in
"Figure II11 and in "Table 1." "Figure II" relates
uncontrolled mass rate of emission (ordinate) ... specific
process (at its maximum capacity) that may result in
particulate emissions to maximum allowable mass rate of
emission.
Air Permit to Install (PTI) - The Director shall issue a PTI if
he/she determines that the installation or modification and
operation of the air contaminant source will employ the
best available technology.
Prohibition on Disposal of Scrap Tires in Sanitary Landfill -
Scrap tires from vehicles used on site cannot be disposed
in the on-site disposal facility (OSDF).
Treatment operations might result in the release of
particulate material for which this regulation would
be applicable.
Treatment operations might result in release of
particulate material for which these standards would
apply.
Although an administrative Permit to Install is not
required for treatment, the substantive requirements
of this section must be met by employing Best
Available Technology (BAT) for treating particle and
off-gas emissions.
The rule becomes effective September 30, 1996.
to
NO
NO
!
CO
CO
-------
TABLE B-5 EXPANDED DISCUSSION (Continued)
o
s
Citation
Requirement
ARAB/
TBC
Remarks
ACTION-SPECIFIC (Continued)
OAC 3745-400-
04(A)
40CFR
761.60(a)(4)
40CFR 761.60(e)
40CFR 761.75
Construction and Demolition Debris - The construction and
demolition debris generated in the deconstruction and
decommissioning of the site may be disposed of by
iandfilling, or other methods that are protective of the
environment and within the Ohio EPA's regulatory
purview.
Non-liquid PCB Disposal Requirements - Any non-liquid
PCBs at concentrations of 50 parts per million (ppm) or
greater in the form of contaminated soil, rags, or other
debris shall be disposed of: in an incinerator which
complies with 761.70, or in a chemical waste landfill
which complies with 761.75.
PCB Treatment Requirements - Any person who is
required to incinerate any PCBs and PCB items under this
Subpart and who can demonstrate that an alternative
method of destroying PCBs and PCB items exists and that
this alternative method can achieve a level of performance
equivalent to 761.70 incinerators or high efficiency
boilers.
Chemical Waste Landfills - This section specifies the
technical requirements for a chemical waste landfill used
for the disposal of PCB items.
The OSDF is not a facility solely for the disposition
of construction and demolition debris. The OSDF is
intended to manage the bulk of wastes generated
during the site decontamination and dismantlement.
The OSDF being constructed on-site is not a
"Construction and Demolition Debris Facility."
This requirement is relevant and appropriate only if
PCB contaminated or containing materials are
managed on site.
This requirement is applicable for PCB contaminated
or containing material managed off-site.
This requirement is applicable only if PCB
contaminated items (cloth, debris), or soil, are
greater than 50 ppm and are treated on property
using a method besides incineration.
This requirement is applicable only if non-liquid PCBs
at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater in the form
of contaminated soil, rags, or other debris is
disposed of on-site.
§'
2'
co
NO
Co
CO
CO
-------
o
s
§
TABLE B-5 EXPANDED DISCUSSION (Continued)
ARAR/
Citation Requirement TBC Remarks I?
O
ACTION-SPECIFIC (Continued) I
- - ^
40 CFR 761 .1 20, PCB Cleanup Policy - This policy established criteria that T This requirement is not applicable to the remediation £>
.125, and. 130 the EPA will use to determine the adequacy of the cleanup material, due to the spills occurring on or before g.
of spills resulting from the release of materials containing May 4, 1987. The requirement will be considered 5
PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater. The policy for spills which occur during remediation and when 5.
applies to spills which occur after May 4, 1 987. remediating areas where PCB contamination exists in §.
the soil.
CD
CO
-------
-------
------- |