PB95-964111
EPA/ROD/R05-95/286
February 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Feed Materials Production Center,
(USDOE), Operable Unit 1, Fernald, OH
3/1/1995
-------
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS AT
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FERNALD ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT
FERNALD, OHIO
JANUARY 1995
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
FERNALD FIELD OFFICE
-------
DECLARATION
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
DECLARATION STATEMENT
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP) Site — Operable Unit 1,
Hamilton and Butler Counties, Ohio
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for Operable Unit 1 of the FEMP, site in
Hamilton and Butler Counties, Ohio. Operable Unit 1 consists of Waste Pits 1 through 6, the Burn
Pit, the Clearwell, and associated environmental media (excluding groundwater).
This remedial action was selected hi accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (SARA) (hereinafter jointly referred to as CERCLA), and to the extent practicable, the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.
In making this decision, the Department of Energy (DOE) integrated the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) values into the CERCLA remedial process. Through DOE's integration, the
Feasibility Study and the Proposed Plan also comprised DOE's Environmental Assessment. However,
it is not the intent of DOE to make a statement about the legal applicability of NEPA to CERCLA
actions.
The decision is based on the information available hi the administrative record for this site. .
The State of Ohio concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from Operable Unit 1, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected hi this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am D-i
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
Operable Unit 1 is the second of five operable units at the site for which remedies will be selected in
individual Records of Decision. The purpose of this remedy is to address the above-named waste pits
of the FEMP site, known as Operable Unit 1. Operable Unit 2 will focus on remediation of other
waste units, including the flyash piles, lime sludge ponds, solid waste landfill, and South Field
disposal areas. Operable Unit 3 includes the former production area and associated facilities.
Operable Unit 4 includes remediation of the concrete storage silos and their contents in the site waste
storage area. Operable Unit 5 focuses on environmental media, including groundwater and soil not
remediated in Operable Units 1 through 4. If needed, a sixth operable unit will address any residual
issues that remain after remediation of Operable Units 1 through 5.
The Operable Unit 1 remedy is: removal, treatment, and off-site disposal at a permitted commercial
disposal facility.
The Operable Unit 1 remedy consists of the following key components:
• Construction of waste processing and loading facilities and equipment.
• Removal of water from open waste pits for treatment at the site's wastewater treatment
facility.
• • Removal of waste pit contents, caps and liners, and excavation of surrounding
contaminated soil.
• Confirmation sampling of waste pit excavations to verify achievement of remediation
levels.
• Pretreatment (sorting/crushing/shredding) of waste.
• Treatment of the waste by thermal drying as required to meet the waste acceptance
criteria of the disposal facility.
• Waste sampling and analysis prior to shipment to ensure that the waste acceptance
criteria of the disposal facility are met.
FER/OUlROD/BJ'H/01/24/95 7:21am D-ii
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
• Off-site shipment of waste for disposal at a permitted commercial waste disposal
facility. It is estimated that over 600,000 cubic yards of waste material will be
excavated and disposed as low-level radioactive waste.
• As a contingency, shipment of any waste that fails (due to radiological concentrations)
to meet the waste acceptance criteria of the permitted commercial waste disposal facility
(up to 10 percent of the total waste volume) for disposal at the Nevada Test Site.
• Decommissioning and removal of the drying treatment unit and associated facilities, as
well as miscellaneous structures and facilities within the operable unit. Oversized
material that is amenable to the selected alternative for Operable Unit 3 would be
segregated from Operable Unit 1 waste, decontaminated, and forwarded to Operable
Unit 3 to be managed as construction rubble.
• Disposition of remaining Operable Unit 1 residual contaminated soils, as amenable,
consistent with selected remedies for contaminated process area soils as documented in
the Operable Unit 5 Record of Decision. Any materials not consistent with the
Operable Unit 5 remedy will be disposed as waste pit materials (i.e., shipped off-site).
• Placement of backfill into excavations and construction of cover system.
This remedy addresses the principal threats posed by Operable Unit 1 by removing waste materials
and contaminated soils to health-based levels, and treating waste materials and soils to facilitate waste
handling. These actions reduce the potential for contaminant migration and will ensure disposal
facility waste acceptance criteria are met. The waste will then be disposed at a permitted off-site
disposal facility in accordance with applicable requirements. By implementing this remedy, the waste
material will not be available for direct human or ecological contact or for migration into the
underlying Great Miami Aquifer.
The health-based cleanup levels established in this Record of Decision are protective of human health
and the environment assuming continued Federal ownership of the site. However, the remediation
levels will be reviewed by the Operable Unit 5 Feasibility Study and Record of Decision, based upon
available Operable Unit 5 Feasibility Study conclusions, recommendations concerning future land use
from the Fernald Citizens Task Force, and further public comment. If found to be necessary, the
Operable Unit 5 Record of Decision will modify the Operable Unit 1 remediation levels downward to
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/24/95 7:22am D-1U
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
further ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment. The Operable Unit 5 Record of
Decision will be finalized prior to waste pit excavation at Operable Unit 1.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal and
State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is
cost effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource
recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and satisfies the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment that reduces contaminant toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal
element.
In accordance with CERCLA 121(c) and Section XXX of the Amended Consent Agreement between
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy, EPA will review
mis remedial action, from a site-wide perspective, no less often than each five years after the
implementation of final remedial actions to assure that human health and the environment are being
protected by the remedial actions.
FER/OU1ROD/B1H/01/24/95 7:40un
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 199S
Of:Phfl Hamric,
Manager, Ohio Field Office,
U.S. Department of Energy
Regional Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Projection Agency Region V
Dat6
D-v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iv
List of Acronyms v
1.0 Site Location and Description 1-1
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 Location and Description 1-1
1.3 Topography and Surface Water Hydrology 1-3
1.4 Geology and Hydrogeology • 1-7
1.5 Ecology 1-8
2.0 Site and Operable Unit 1 History and Enforcement Activities 2-1
2.1 FEMP History and Enforcement Activities 2-1
2.2 Operable Unit 1 History . . . 2-3
2.3 Operable Unit 1 Response Actions 2-8
3.0 Community Participation 3-1
4.0 Scope and Role of Operable Unit 1 Remedial Action 4-1
5.0 Summary of Operable Unit 1 Characteristics 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Known or Suspected Sources of Contamination 5-1
5.3 Overview of the Nature and Extent of Contamination 5-6
5.4 Potential Migration Pathways 5-11
6.0 Summary of Operable Unit 1 Risks 6-1
6.1 Overview of the Baseline Assessment Risk to Human Health 6-1
6.2 Overview of the Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment 6-17
6.3 Conclusion 6-22
7.0 Description of Alternatives 7-1
7.1 ARARs 7-2
7.2 Alternatives Summary '. 7-3
8.0 Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 8-1
8.1 Evaluation Criteria 8-1
8.2 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives .• • • • 8-2
FER/OU1ROD/BIH/01/24/9S 7:44am
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
9.0 Selected Remedy 9-1
9.1 Key Components 9-1
9.2 Soil Cleanup Criteria 9-4
9.3 Measures to Minimize Environmental Impacts 9-9
10.0 Statutory Determinations 10-1
10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 10-1
10.2 Compliance with ARARs 10-2
10.3 Cost Effectiveness 10-4
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable 10-4
10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element 10-7
10.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 10-8
References R-l
Appendix A Responsiveness Summary A-l
Appendix B ARARs Analysis B-l
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/24/95 7:24am U
-------
LIST OF TABLES
2-1 Waste Unit Characteristics 2-4
5-1 Pit Waste Concentration Ranges for Environmental Media Contaminants of Concern ... 5-4
6-1 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk Summary Current Land Use, Current Source Term . . 6-6
6-2 Hazard Index Summary Current Land Use, Current Source Term 6-7
6-3 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk Summary Current Land Use, Future Source Term . . 6-9
6-4 Hazard Index Summary Current Land Use, Future Source Term 6-10
6-5 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk Summary Future Land Use (Government Reserve)
Future Source Term 6-11
6-6 Hazard Index Summary Future Land Use (Government Reserve) Future Source Term . . 6-12
6-7 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk Summary Future Land Use (Agricultural Use)
Future Source Term 6^13
6-8 Hazard Index Summary Future Land Use (Agricultural Use) 6-14
6-9 Operable Unit 1 Constituents of Concern for Environmental Media 6-15
6-10 Uncertainties Associated with Estimated Risks from Operable Unit 1 6-18
8-1 Operable Unit 1 Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives 8-3
9-1 Operable Unit 1 Cost Estimate for Alternative 5B: Removal, Treatment, and Off-Site
Disposal at a Representative Commercial Disposal Facility 9-3
9-2 Remediation Levels in Surface Soils 9-5
9-3 Operable Unit 1 Pit Subsurface Soil Remedial Levels Based on Groundwater
Modeling 9-6
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 111
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 FEMP FacUity Location Map 1-2
1-2 Location of Operable Unit 1 Within the FEMP 1-4
1-3 Waste Storage Area 1-5
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am IV
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AEC Atomic Energy Commission
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
AWWT Advanced Waste Water Treatment (facility)
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended
CIS Characterization Investigation Study
COC Constituents of Concern
CPC Constituents of Potential Concern
CT central tendency
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETF Experimental Treatment Facility
FEMP Fernald Environmental Management Project
FFCA Federal Facility Compliance Agreement
FMPC Feed Materials Production Center
FRESH Fernald Residents for Environmental Safety and Health
HWMU Hazardous Waste Management Unit
HI Hazard Index
HQ Hazard Quotient
ILCR incremental lifetime cancer risk
Mg/L micrograms per liter
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
mg milligram
mg/L milligrams per liter
mrem millirem
mrem/yr millirem equivalent man per year
MSL mean sea level
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
FER/OU1R0D/BIH/01/23/9S 10:15am V
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
(Continued)
NTS . Nevada Test Site
O&M operation and maintenance
OAC Ohio Administrative Code
Ohio EPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
pCi/L picoCuries per liter
pCi/g picoCuries per gram
PRG proposed remediation goals
RCRA Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
as amended
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RME reasonable maximum exposure
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
S.R. State Route
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TCA 1,1, 1-trichloroethane
TBC to be considered
UAP uranyl ammonium phosphate
WAC . waste acceptance criteria
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am
VI
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This document is the Record of Decision for remediating Operable Unit 1 of the Fernald
Environmental Management Project (FEMP) site. It is prepared in accordance with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance on preparing remedial action decision documents
(EPA 1992a). The FEMP site, formerly known as the Feed Materials Production Center, is owned
by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and was operated from 1952 until 1989. While in
operation, the uranium ore processing facility provided high-purity uranium metal products in support
of the nation's defense program. Operable Unit 1 is located within the Waste Storage Area, where
wastes generated during production operations are stored.
1.2 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The 425-hectare (1,050-acre) FEMP site is located hi southwestern Ohio, about 29 kilometers (18
miles) northwest of the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, and is situated on the boundary between Hamilton
and Butler counties (Figure 1-1). Former uranium processing operations at the FEMP were limited to
a fenced, 55-hectare (136-acre) tract, closed to public access, known as the former Production Area.
The remaining FEMP site areas consist of forest and pasture lands, a portion of which is leased for
grazing livestock.
The western portion of the FEMP property lies within the north-south corridor of the 100- and 500-
year Paddys Run floodplain. On-site surface waters are confined to Paddys Run and its unnamed
tributaries, and total approximately 3.6 hectares (8.9 acres). Results from a site-wide wetlands
delineation indicate a total of 14.5 hectares (35.9 acres) of freshwater wetlands on-site. The Great
Miami Aquifer is the principal aquifer within the FEMP study area and has been designated a sole-
source aquifer by the EPA, under provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The land adjacent to the FEMP is primarily devoted to agriculture and recreation. There is some
commercial activity hi close proximity to the site, such as a panel truss company and several plant
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 1-1
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
—m Ross
Shandon
Fern'aTd ^,.
New Baltimore*
Cincinnati - S>
Northern Kentucky ,^T';
International jit-
Airport
GnpMe* 12801.2 8/94
FIGURE 1-1 FEMP Facility Location Map
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/10/25/94 9:44am
1-2
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
nursery suppliers. However, the majority of commercial activity is generally restricted to the Village
of Ross, approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) northeast of the facility, and along State Route (S.R.)
128 south of Ross. Industrial usage is concentrated in the areas south of the FEMP, along Paddys
Run, in Fernald, and in a small industrial park on S.R. 128 between Willey Road and New Haven
Road. Open acreage on the FEMP is currently being leased for livestock grazing, but there are no
areas within the FEMP boundaries considered to be prune farmland under the Farmland Policy
Protection Act of 1981 (DOE 1994b).
Concentrations of residential units are situated northeast of the FEMP in Ross and directly east hi a
trailer park adjacent to the intersection of Willey Road and S.R. 128. Other residences are scattered
around the area, generally in association with farmsteads. An estimated 23,000 residents live within
an 8.1-kilometer (5-mile) radius of the FEMP.
Operable Unit 1 is a well-defined, 15.3-hectare (37.7-acre) area located hi the northwest quadrant of
the FEMP site (depicted in Figure 1-2). Large quantities of liquid and solid wastes were generated
by various chemical and metallurgical processing operations and these wastes were stored or disposed
in six waste pits and the Clearwell, or burned hi the Burn Pit. These pits are located in a portion of
the FEMP Waste Storage Area and are contained within the boundaries of Operable Unit 1 (See
Figure 1-3). A detailed discussion of each pit's construction, contents, and volume of waste material
is provided hi the Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 (DOE 1994b). Relevant
information is summarized in Section 2 of this Record of Decision.
1.3 TOPOGRAPHY AND SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
The former Production Area, including the Waste Storage Area, rests on a relatively level plain
approximately 177 meters (580 feet) above mean sea level (MSL). The plain slopes from 183 meters
(600 feet) above MSL along the eastern boundary of the FEMP site to 178 meters (585 feet) above
MSL at the center of the Waste Storage Area, then drops off toward Paddys Run to an elevation of
168 meters (550 feet) above MSL. Drainage, including surface water, on the FEMP site is generally
from west to east toward the Great Miami River. Operable Unit 1, however, slopes from east to west
toward Paddys Run.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 1-3
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
r-OPERABLE
V UNIT 1
\
INCINERATOR I
AND SEWAGE .
TREATMENT •
PLANT 11
PRODUCTION I
AREA ji!
MANHOLE-// •
175 / I
LIME —
SLUDGE
PONDS
RUNNING
TRACK/
FIRING
RANGE
•••' '•'• \ \ «
-;. \ \ e
OPERABLE UMT 1
OPERABLE UMT 2
OPERABLE UMT 4
FENCE LINE
ORAMAGE WAY
CSX RAL LME
OPERABLE UMT 1 OUTLINE
FEUP PROPERTr BOUNOARt
1 OPERABLE UMT 3 INCLUDES ALL 8ULDNGS.
PIPELINES. AND ABOVE-GROUND STRUCTURES
H THE PRODUCTION AREA. OPERABLE UMT
S MCLUOES GROUND*ATER. SURFACE WATER
SOLS. FLORA AND FAUNA, M T>€ REGIONAL
AREA AS WELL AS THE PRODUCTION AREA.
FIGURE 1-2 Location of Operable Unit 1 Within the FEMP
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/10/25/94 10:05im
1-4
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
SANITARY I
LANDFILL
10-OEN1TRIFICATION
GE LAGOON
^JUi^,";
!f%!
S§
ii
II
a«
li
COVERED PITS
FENCE L»C
CSX RAB. Lt4E
PAVED ROADWAY
GRAVEL ROADWAY
— — — OPERABLE UMT OUTLINE
SCALE:
350 FEET
FIGURE 1-3 Waste Storage Area
FER.OUIROD/JLM/10/25/94 10:06am
1-5
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Surface waters found on and adjacent to die FEMP site include the Storm Sewer Outfall Ditch,
Paddys Run, and the Great Miami River. The Storm Sewer Outfall Ditch originates within the FEMP
site and flows into an unnamed tributary toward the southwest where it enters Paddys Run, a tributary
of the Great Miami River. The ditch historically has conveyed surface water runoff from the former
Production Area directly into Paddys Run during periods of heavy precipitation, when the pumping
capacity of the FEMP storm sewer lift station was exceeded.
Paddys Run originates north of the FEMP site, flows southward along the western boundary of the
facility and Operable Unit 1 (see Figure 1-2), and enters the Great Miami River approximately 2.4
kilometers (1.5 miles) south of the southwest corner of the FEMP property. The stream is
approximately 14 kilometers (8.8 miles) long and drams an area of approximately 40.9 square
kilometers (15.8 square miles). Due to the highly permeable channel bottom, the stream loses water
to the underlying Great Miami Aquifer. The stream is intermittent and is generally dry during the
summer months. Paddys Run is a steep-sided stream, and its banks erode severely during high flow
periods. In 1961 and 1962, the course of the stream was altered to prevent erosion into the Waste
Storage Area (of which Operable Unit 1 is a component).
The Great Miami River is the main surface water feature in the vicinity of the FEMP site and is the
receiving water body for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES>pennitted
discharge from the FEMP site. The river flows generally toward the southwest; however, near the
FEMP site it flows to the east and south. It has a drainage area of approximately 8,702 square
kilometers (3,360 square miles) at the Hamilton gauge, located about 16.1 kilometers (10 miles)
upstream from the FEMP site NPDES discharge outfall. The river meanders with sharp directional
changes over distances of less man 900 meters (2,952 feet). Directly east of the FEMP site, the river
passes through a ISO-degree curve known as the Big Bend. A 90-degree bend hi the river also occurs
near New Baltimore, approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) downstream from the FEMP site
discharge outfall.
FER/OUlROD/BIH/01/23/95 10:15an 1-6 •
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
1.4 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The FEMP overlies a 3.2- to 4.8-kilometer (2- to 3-mile) wide buried Pleistocene valley known as the
New Haven Trough. This valley was formed (eroded) by the ancestral Ohio River during the
Pleistocene period and was subsequently filled with glacial outwash materials that were, in turn,
covered by glacial overburden as glaciers retreated across the area. The glacial overburden unit is
largely clay-dominated till with variable portions of discontinuous coarse-grained fluvial and lacustrine
strata. The glacial outwash deposits under the FEMP are a part of the Great Miami Aquifer, which is
a widely distributed buried valley aquifer. In addition to surface water, the valley fill aquifer system
is the major source of drinking water in the southwestern Ohio area.
Since the last retreat of continental glaciers, the streams in the area have removed much of the glacial
overburden through natural erosion. Consequently, many streams are now in direct contact with the
glaciofluvial outwash deposits that comprise the Great Miami Aquifer. Paddys Run is in contact with
these deposits hi its lower reaches. Streams in direct contact with the upper portion of the Great
Miami Aquifer reaches allow surface water leakage directly to the aquifer.
The buried valley of the Great Miami Aquifer is about 0.8 to 3.2 kilometers (0.5 to 2 miles) wide and
is U-shaped, having a broad, relatively flat bottom and steep valley walls. Contained within the sand
and gravel that underlies much of the FEMP property is a relatively continuous, low-permeability clay
interbed, about 1.5 to 4.5 meters (5 to 15 feet) thick. Where present, the interbed divides the aquifer
into upper and lower sand and gravel units, referred to as the Upper Great Miami Aquifer and the
Lower Great Miami Aquifer.
The glacial overburden that overlies the Great Miami Aquifer is comprised of a sequence of lacustrine
and till strata, mostly clays and silts with some discontinuous coarse grained materials. Prior to
construction of the waste pits, the in situ glacial overburden was comprised entirely of till; lacustrine
strata was not deposited in the Waste Storage Area, although it is present under most of the FEMP
site. The waste pits were constructed above and below the original grade of the dissected landscape.
The material that was used to make the above-grade additions was obtained from excavations in the
Waste Storage Area or elsewhere at the FEMP.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 1-7
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
The glacial overburden exposed at the surface has a relatively low permeability. Therefore, most of
the precipitation that falls on it is lost to evaporation and surface water runoff. Heterogeneous and
asymmetric pockets of silty sand and gravel within the glacial overburden contain zones of perched
groundwater. Perched groundwater is separated from the underlying aquifer by the surrounding,
relatively impermeable clay/silt components of the overburden. These low-permeable units behave as
an aquitard that can store groundwater but transmit it slowly downward from one more porous
saturated zone to another. Depth to perched groundwater at the FEMP site ranges from 0.3 to 4.5
meters (1 to IS feet) below the land surface. This measurement can fluctuate seasonally by up to 3
meters (10 feet) at a single location. The highest water levels occur during the early spring and the
lowest during the late fall. Based on the conceptual model for groundwater flow, perched
groundwater is likely discharging westward to the bank of Paddys Run and southward hi the east-west
drainageway.
1.5 ECOLOGY
Ecological communities on the FEMP site consist of grazed and ungrazed pastures, two pine
plantations, deciduous woodlands, riparian woodlands, and the "reclaimed flyash pile area." The
reclaimed flyash area coincides approximately with the South Field and die inactive Flyash Pile,
which is considered to be a distinct habitat due to the unique plant and annual species composition. A
total of 47 species of trees and shrubs, 190 species of herbaceous plants, 22 mammal species, 98 bird
species, 10 species of amphibians and reptiles, 19 species of fish, 47 families of benthic
macroinvertebrates, and 132 families of terrestrial invertebrates inhabit the FEMP site.
Typical grasses found on the FEMP site are red fescue, Kentucky bluegrass, timothy, and red top.
Herbs include teasel, red and white clovers, and goldenrod. The dominant tree species in the pine
plantations are the white and Austrian pine, with an occasional Norway spruce. Common trees in the
deciduous woodlands are white ash, American elm, shagbark hickory, and slippery elm. Dominant
tree species hi the riparian woodlands are eastern cottonwood, hackberry, American elm, and box
elder. The reclaimed flyash pile area is dominated by American elm, eastern cottonwood, and black
locust.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 1-g
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Mammal species observed on the FEMP site include white-tailed deer, coyote, red fox, opossum,
raccoon, groundhog, eastern cottontail, fox squirrel, and several species of bats. Common small
mammals are the white-footed mouse, short-tailed shrew, meadow vole, meadow jumping mouse, and
eastern chipmunk.
The most common birds breeding on the site include the mourning dove, American robin, blue jay,
American crow, American goldfinch, northern bobwhite, and common grackle. Species occurring in
the.greatest density are the goldfinch, song sparrow, and robin. Raptor species observed on-site are
the red-shouldered hawk, Cooper's hawk, red-tailed hawk, and American kestrel. In addition, the
eastern screech owl and great horned owl have been observed hi the vicinity of the FEMP site.
Amphibians and reptiles that occur on the FEMP site include the American toad, spring peeper,
eastern box turtle, and snapping turtle. Several species of snakes also occur on property, including
the eastern garter snake, Butler's garter snake, black rat snake, northern water snake, and the queen
snake.
Fish species hi Paddys Run are stonerollers, bluntnosed minnows, and orange throat darters.
Approximately 130 insect families from IS orders are represented hi FEMP site habitats. Leaf
hoppers are abundant in all FEMP site habitats. Less abundant groups include short-horned
grasshoppers, leaf beetles, springtails, fruit flies, dark-winged fungus gnats, ants, bees, and wasps.
Operable Unit 1 is a previously disturbed area with extremely limited ecology, consisting primarily of
introduced grassland.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 KhlSam 1-9
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
2.0 SITE AND OPERABLE UNIT 1 HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.1 FEMP HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
In May 1951, the Atomic Energy Commission, predecessor to the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), initiated construction operations at die Feed Materials Production Center (FMPC). Full-scale
production was initiated after pilot operations began in 1952 and continued until July 1989.
Production peaked in 1960 at approximately 12,000 metric tons (13,288 tons) of uranium per year. A
decline in product demand began in 1964 and reached a low in 1975 of about 1,230 metric tons
(1,355 tons). In the early 1980's, production increased significantly, resulting in a major facilities
restoration program. Production ceased in the summer of 1989 and plant resources were directed
toward environmental remediation activities. The facility was formally closed by congressional
authorization hi June 1991. To identify the environmental nature of the site's new mission, the name
of the facility was changed to the Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP).
On March 9, 1985, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Notice of Noncompli-
ance to the FMPC, identifying EPA's concerns about environmental impacts associated with the
facility's past and ongoing operations. On July 18, 1986, a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement
(FFCA) was approved, detailing the actions to be taken by the FMPC to assess and investigate the
environmental impacts. As required by the FFCA, a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) was initiated in July 1986, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9601 et. seq., to meet Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) requirements.
Production operations were halted hi 1989, due to a declining defense demand for uranium. •
Available resources were redirected to focus on environmental restoration of the facility. Potential
impacts from past releases and continued releases resulting from the accumulation of a large inventory
of uranium process materials and mixed wastes at the FEMP prompted concern relative to potential
impacts on human health and the environment.
In November 1989, the EPA placed the FEMP on the National Priorities List (NPL). Inclusion on
the NPL reflects the relative importance placed by the federal government on ensuring the expedient
FER/OU1RQD/BJH/01/23/9S 10:lSam 2-1
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
completion of the remedial investigations and resulting cleanup actions. On April 9, 1990, die EPA
and the DOE entered into a Consent Agreement that became effective on June 29, 1990; the Consent
Agreement identified five operable units for response actions and revised the deadlines for the RI/FS.
Hie Consent Agreement between the EPA and the DOE called for cleanup actions to address the
identified concerns at the FEMP. The Consent Agreement, as amended on September 20, 1991 and
effective December 19, 1991 (Amended Consent Agreement), among other things, further revised the
schedules for the operable units.
The term "operable unit" identifies a grouping of environmental issues at a cleanup site. The FEMP
Operable Units, for which discrete studies and reports are being completed, are defined as follows:
• Operable Unit 1 - Waste Pits 1 through 6, the Burn Pit, the Cleanvell, and berms,
liners, and soil within the operable unit boundary.
• Operable Unit 2 - Two flyash piles, other South Field disposal areas, two lime sludge
ponds, solid waste landfill, berms, liners, and soil within the operable unit boundary.
• Operable Unit 3 - Former Production Area and production associated facilities and
equipment (includes all above- and below-grade improvements) including, but not
limited to, all structures, equipment, utilities, drums, tanks, solid waste, waste,
product, thorium, effluent lines, the K-65 transfer line, wastewater treatment facilities,
fire training facilities, scrap metal piles, feedstocks, and coal pile.
• Operable Unit 4 - Concrete Storage Silos 1 through 4, berms, decant tank system, and
soil within the operable unit boundary.
• Operable Unit 5 - Environmental media, including groundwater, surface water, and
soil not included in Operable Units 1 through 4.
Remediation of the FEMP is being conducted under CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/24/95 7:2So> 2-2
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Following the issuance of the Record of Decision for the last of the five operable units, the Amended
Consent Agreement provides for a Comprehensive Site-Wide Operable Unit (Operable Unit 6). If
needed, Operable Unit 6 will be created to perform a final assessment from a site-wide perspective to
ensure that ongoing or planned remedial actions identified in the Records of Decision for the five
operable units will provide a comprehensive remedy for the FEMP site which is protective of human
health and the environment. If it is determined that the remedial actions specified in the Record of
Decisions for Operable Units 1 through 5 are not protective from a site-wide perspective, a feasibility
study would be initiated. The Record of Decision for the Comprehensive Site-Wide Operable Unit
would be issued following the Record of Decision for the last of the other five operable units.
2.2 OPERABLE UNIT 1 HISTORY
2.2.1 Description of Operable Unit 1 Components
Beginning in 1952, the waste pits were constructed to store slurried or dry residuals resulting from
various stages of uranium processing. Historically, the wastes generated at the FEMP facility, as well
as some wastes shipped from other DOE facilities, were disposed on the property. Table 2-1
provides a summary of the physical features and operating periods of the Waste Storage Area, while a
summary of waste pit information is provided below.
Waste Pit 1
Waste Pit 1 was constructed in 1952 and is considered a dry pit, since the waste slurries other than
effluent from the general sump were filtered or calcined to remove water before they were placed in
the pit. This waste pit received primarily depleted magnesium fluoride slag, and depleted residues
with smaller amounts of trailer cake, uranyl ammonium phosphate (UAP) filtrate, graphite/ceramics,
and general sump sludge. It was, however, used as a clearwell for liquids removed from Waste Pit 2
in 1958 and 1959. Waste Pit 1 was closed and covered with clean fill in 1959, and is currently
classified as a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Solid Waste Management Unit
(SWMU).
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 2-3
-------
g
TABLE 2-1
WASTE UNIT CHARACTERISTICS
a
w
'*.
1
s
Waste Unit
Pit 1
Pit 2
Pit3
Pit 4
Pit5
Pit 6
Burn Pit
Clearwell
Operation
Period
1952-1959
1957-1964
1958-1977
1960-1986
1968-1983
1979-1985
1957-1968
1959-1987
Cover Type
Soil
Soil
Soil
RCRA Cap
Water
Water
Soil
Water
RCRA
Status
SWMU"
SWMU"
SWMU"
HWMU"
HWMUd
SWMU"
SWMU"
SWMUb
Liner Type
Clayc
Clay0
Clay'
Clayc
EPDMe
EPDMe
None
Clayc
Est. Waste'
Volume
(CY)
48,500
24,200
204,100
55,100
97,900
9,600
30,300
3,700
Est. Total8
Volume
(CY)
68,400
37,400
307,500
72,800
97,900
9,600
30,300
4,300
Approx.
Depth (feet)
29.5
23.5
42
32
29
20
26
12
Surface Area
(acre)
2.11
0.90
5.00
1.50
3.74
0.74
0.50
0.65
' From Section 1.0 of the Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 (DOE 1994b)
b RCRA Solid Waste Management Unit
c Native clay liner
d RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Unit
c 60-mil thick Royal Seal ethylene propylene diene monomer elaslomeric membrane
SOURCE: Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 (DOE 1994b).
<-. O
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Waste Pit 2
In 1957, Waste Pit 2 was constructed northeast of Waste Pit 1. Waste Pit 2 is also considered a dry
pit and received primarily trailer cake and general sump sludge with smaller amounts of UAP filtrate,
raffinate, depleted residues and graphite/ceramics. Waste Pit 2 was also used as a settling basin for
neutralized raffinate during 1958 and 1959, prior to completion of Waste Pit 3, because the drying
equipment available at that time could not process all of the raffinate produced by plant operations.
Waste Pit 2 was closed and covered with clean fill in 1964, and is currently classified as a RCRA
SWMU.
Waste Pit 3
Waste Pit 3 was placed hi service hi December 1958, and was the first waste pit built specifically for
settling solids from liquid waste streams. Primarily, lime-neutralized raffinate slurries, as well as
contaminated storm water from the Burn Pit, were pumped to Waste Pit 3. After Waste Pit 2 was
filled, Waste Pit 3 received general sump sludge, raffinate, trailer cake and slag leach with lesser
fc
amounts of water treatment sludge, and thorium wastes. Starting hi December 1958, lime sludge
from the Water Treatment Plant was added to supplement the lime used for raffinate neutralization.
Also, large quantities of neutralized residues from acid leaching of uranium-bearing magnesium
fluoride slag were pumped to Waste Pit 3 during the late 1960s, prior to completion of Waste Pit 5.
In 1973, fill material, including filter cake, slag leach residue, lime sludge, and flyash, was placed hi
Waste Pit 3, and construction activities were initiated to cover this waste pit with soil. Waste Pit 3
covering activities were completed hi 1977; it is currently classified as a RCRA SWMU.
Waste Pit 4
Waste Pit 4 was constructed hi 1960 and received solid wastes that included trailer cake, depleted
slag, and depleted residues, with lesser amounts of thorium wastes and graphite/ceramics, as well as
unknown quantities of noncombustible wastes. The process residues included filter sludges,
rafftnates, graphite, magnesium fluoride slag, and pyrophoric uranium-bearing materials. Thorium
metal and residues were hauled to the waste pits hi drums and were placed hi Waste Pit 4, when
additional metal recovery was not economically feasible. At least 100 drums were deposited on the
west side of this waste pit. Waste Pit 4 also received noncombustible trash, including cans, concrete,
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/9S 10:15am 2-5
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
asbestos, and construction rubble. Lime was occasionally added to standing water within Waste Pit 4
for uranium precipitation prior to the transfer of liquids to Waste Pit 5 for settling and discharge.
Barium chloride-contaminated floor sweepings were also disposed in-Waste Pit 4 from 1980 to 1983.
Disposal activities in Waste Pit 4 were terminated in 1985. Waste Pit 4 is currently classified as a
RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Unit (HWMU) and has undergone interim closure. Waste Pit
4 was classified as a HWMU in 1984 because, at that time, it was believed that the pit contained
characteristic barium waste, since this waste pit was used to dispose of barium chloride salts from
May 1981 to April 1983.
The waste pit was closed in 1986 and cover activities started. During interim closure, the pit was
covered will fill material, clay, and a polyethylene liner. Final closure documentation of Waste Pit 4
will be completed in conjunction with remedial actions under CERCLA.
Waste Pit 5
. . i
Waste Pit 5 was constructed and placed into service hi 1968. Waste Pit 5 served as a settling basin
for slurries in the form of general sump sludge, raffinate, slag leach, water treatment sludge, and
thorium waste. Lime sludge was added to this waste pit to supplement the lime used to neutralize the
raffinate and heat treatment quench water was discharged directly to Waste Pit 5. The supernatant
and sludges produced by the co-precipitation of thorium wastes with barium carbonate and aluminum
sulfate, and by the precipitation of uranium with calcium oxide, were deposited hi Waste Pit 5. The
discharge of slurried waste materials into Waste Pit 5 was stopped hi 1983 and use of this waste pit as
a settling basin was discontinued in 1987. Waste Pit 5 is currently covered by water, and is classified
as a RCRA HWMU.
Waste Pit 5 was declared a HWMU in 1991 because, at that time, it was believed that it had received
wastewater containing solvent concentrations in excess of 25 ppm spent 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA),
an F-listed hazardous waste under RCRA. This designation was re-evaluated, and it was found that
discharged spent TCA concentrations were less than 25 ppm, thus qualifying Waste Pit 5 for the
wastewater exemption under State of Ohio regulations. Accordingly, the designation of Waste Pit 5
as a HWMU, managing listed wastes, has been withdrawn. It is still being formally considered a
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 2-6
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
HWMU, based on the possibility that it contains a characteristic hazardous waste. Waste Pit 5
material will be sampled and analyzed after treatment to ensure compliance with disposal facility
waste acceptance criteria. A final characterization of the waste will be completed at that time.
Waste Pit 6
Waste Pit 6 was constructed from September 1978 to June 1979, and received only depleted wastes in
the form of depleted slag and depleted residues. Extrusion residue and heat treatment quench water
were also deposited in Waste Pit 6. Use of Waste Pit 6 ceased in 1985. Waste Pit 6 is currently
covered by water, and is classified as a RCRA SWMU.
Burn Pit
The clay used to line Waste Pits 1 and 2 during their construction was obtained from an area
immediately northeast of Waste Pit 2, which at that time was called the clay pit. A gravel dumping
pad was eventually built up on the north end of the resulting excavation so that trucks could back into
the deepest part of the waste pit to dump combustible wastes. Thus, the waste pit became known as
the Burn Pit. Although records were not kept on all of the materials or amounts deposited, it is
known that the Burn Pit was used primarily to burn combustible materials such as laboratory
chemicals; pyrophoric and reactive chemicals; oils; low-level contaminated combustible material, such
as pallets and skids; and cafeteria debris. In addition, several materials were deposited directly into
the Burn Pit, including cans, bottles, general refuse, and laboratory glassware. The Burn Pit was
filled in 1968 during the construction of Waste Pit 5, and is currently classified as a RCRA SWMU.
Clearwell
The Clearwell was constructed in 1959 during Waste Pit 3 construction activities and received surface
water runoff from the waste pits and surface liquid (supernatant) from Waste Pits 3 and 5. It acted as
a final settling basin prior to periodic discharge to the Great Miami River. The Clearwell is currently
classified as a RCRA SWMU.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 2-7
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
2.2.2 Investigative Studies
Environmental monitoring and sampling of the waste pits and soil, surface and groundwater,
sediment, and air associated with Operable Unit 1 occurred in several programs beginning in 1984.
These investigations include the Characterization Investigation Study in 1986-1988, the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study in 1991 and 1992, the ongoing FEMP Environmental Monitoring
Program, the site's RCRA Groundwater Study that began in 1985, and other special site programs
undertaken to characterize the physical, chemical, and radiological properties of the site. These
programs are discussed in detail in Section 2 of the Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable
Unit 1 and itemized hi Table 2-1 of that report.
In addition, operating records, waste inventories, drawings, other site documentation, and information
obtained from long-tune plant employees, were thoroughly reviewed to learn more about waste pit
contents and to provide a basis for comparing the results of the sampling programs.
2.3 OPERABLE UNIT 1 RESPONSE ACTIONS
2.3.1 Removal Actions
The Amended Consent Agreement also provided for the implementation of removal actions intended
to address site conditions that pose an imminent threat to public health and welfare or the environ-
ment. These actions were initiated to accelerate cleanup activities prior to final remedial actions.
The following five removal actions have been conducted within Operable Unit 1:
Removal Action No. 2: Waste Pit Area Runoff Control
Removal Action No. 6: Control of Exposed Material in Pit 6
Removal Action No. 11: Waste Pit 5 Experimental Treatment Facility
Removal Action No. 18: Control of Exposed Material in Pit 5
Removal Action No. 22: Waste Pit Area Containment Improvement
Removal Action No. 2: Waste Pit Area Runoff Control
This removal action can be broadly defined as management of radioactively-contaminated stormwater
runoff from Operable Unit 1. Runoff from the concrete storage silos in Operable Unit 4 also was
included in this removal action. The eight-phase removal action was completed in mid-1992. This
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 2-8
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
removal action continues to provide runoff control and collection. The potentially contaminated storm
water runoff is collected and pumped to the BioSurge Lagoon and the effluent treatment system before
discharge to the Great Miami River. Thus, the potential for release of contaminants to the
environment has been reduced.
Removal Action No. 6: Control of Exposed Material in Pit 6
This removal action involved redistributing exposed soil and waste material such that all solids are
below the water level in Waste Pit 6 to reduce paniculate emissions to the environment. Field
activities for the removal action were completed on December 19, 1990. A procedure was jointly
agreed to by DOE and EPA to ensure that none of the material will be exposed. This ongoing
procedure provides that the water level on the waste pit will be maintained (i.e., lowered after heavy
rainfall or increased to compensate for losses, such as those due to evaporation).
Removal Action No. 11: Waste Pit 5 Experimental Treatment Facility
Built hi 1984, the Experimental Treatment Facility (ETF) was designed to test the feasibility of solar
drying sludge material. However, in 1988, high winds removed the plastic roof from the facility and
caused some sludge to be deposited on the surrounding soils. This removal action involved
dismantling the ETF, removing the surrounding soils to prevent any potential spread of contamination
beyond the immediate area, and packaging the waste materials generated during the removal action
for storage pending final disposition. Field activities were completed in March 1992. All potentially-
contaminated material was packaged and stored temporarily, pending final disposition. The
demolished site has been backfilled and capped with clay.
Removal Action No. 18: Control of Exposed Material in Pit 5
This removal action involved moving the exposed soil and waste material, built up in the east end of
the pit, to below the waterline to prevent the release of airborne contaminants. The dredged materials
were moved to the west end of the pit and redistributed. Activities for this removal action were
completed in December 1992.
FER/OU1ROD/BIH/01/23/95 10:15sun 2-9
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Removal Action No. 22: Waste Pit Area Containment Improvement
This removal action involved minimizing the potential for wind and water erosion of contaminated
materials by seeding exposed and stressed surfaces in the Operable Unit 1 study area. Field activities
for this removal action were completed on June 30, 1993.
t
2.3.2 Waste Pit 4 Interim Closure
Waste Pit 4 underwent interim RCRA closure, as certified by the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency in 1989, with final closure deferred to the CERCLA program. Interim closure activities
included covering the waste pit with soil and rocks overlaid with 0.6 meters (2 feet) of clay,
compacted to 1 x 10~7 centimeters per second (4 x 10~8 inches per second) permeability, and covered
with a 45- millimeter (1/8-inch) thick reinforced Hypalon liner. During this interim closure period,
Waste Pit 4 is monitored with groundwater wells and weekly inspections. There is a maintenance
plan to repair deficiencies noted during inspections. Final closure of Waste Pit 4 will be completed in
conjunction with remedial actions under CERCLA.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/9S 10:15*m 2-10
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE OPERABLE UNIT 1 RI/FS
The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) community relations program, when initiated hi 1985,
focused on public information activities. A variety of forums were used to provide information to the
community, including a periodic newsletter, regular community meetings, and other availability
sessions. Other activities included site tours, open houses, a speakers bureau, and development of
fact sheets about the Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP) site. Several reading
rooms, which later were consolidated into one facility located near the FEMP site, were opened, and
contain information about all aspects of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. In 1990,
DOE established an Administrative Record for the site; it is located at the Public Environmental
Information Center, in the JAMTEK Building at 10845 Hamilton-Cleves Highway, Harrison, Ohio,
45030. A copy of the Administrative Record also is maintained at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Region V offices in Chicago at 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
DOE has implemented a public participation program at the FEMP site, which aims to involve
community members and other interested parties in decision making at the site. This public
involvement program consists of three elements:
1. Public information activities
2. Management involvement
3. Person-to-person communication
These efforts, in conceit with the community relations activities required by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), reflect DOE's intent to fully
involve the community in decision making.
As part of community involvement at FEMP site, Operable Unit 1 managers decided to provide the
public with maximum opportunities for commenting on proposed actions relating to the remediation of
FER/OU1ROD/BIH/01/23/95 10:15am 3-1
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
the Waste Pit Area. The strategy consisted of a combination of written information and public
workshops to solicit public input.
The first workshop was held December 7, 1993, to follow up on the October 1993 submittal of the
Draft Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 to EPA and Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (Ohio EPA). The workshop focused on these issues:
• What is in the waste pits?
• What are the contaminants, and where are they going?
• What are the cleanup options being considered?
• How can the public become involved in decision making?
The second informational workshop was held March 29, 1994, several weeks after the March 4, 1994
submittal of the Draft Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 1 to EPA and Ohio
EPA. The topics addressed hi this workshop included:
• How does DOE propose to clean up the waste pits and how did DOE arrive at its
recommendation?
• What are die risks of this proposed action?
• How can die public become involved in decision making?
At the informational workshop held on March 29, 1994, members of the public focused their
questions and concerns on transportation issues. Therefore, DOE offered a separate workshop on
August 9, 1994, to address transportation issues. An advertisement to announce die workshop was
published hi the Harrison Press newspaper on August 3, 1994, and hi die Cincinnati Enquirer and the
Journal News newspapers on August 7, 1994. Additionally, flyers publicizing die August 9 workshop
were mailed to approximately 300 members of the public listed on the Fernald mailing list. Topics
addressed in the August 9 workshop included:
• What are the transportation alternatives?
• What are the routes and logistics?
• What emergency response/notification plans are in place?
• How can the public become involved in the decision-making?
FER/OU1RDD/BJH/01/24/95 7:40nm 3-2
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
At the August 9 workshop, stakeholders requested an opportunity to discuss their transportation
concerns with representatives from CSX, a railway transport company. Therefore, a public
availability session was held on August 16, 1994. Again, approximately 300 members of the public
were mailed invitation letters.
In addition to the public workshops sponsored by the DOE, Ohio EPA held a local availability session
on August 17, 1994. Members of the Femald Citizens Task Force and representatives from the local
citizens group, Fernald Residents for Environmental Safety and Health (FRESH) were invited to
attend this session to ask questions about the proposed plan for the cleanup of Operable Unit 1.
Representatives from EPA and Ohio EPA were available to answer questions and address concerns
from approximately 12 people who attended the session. Announcements about this availability
session were made at the prior public workshops sponsored by the DOE, the monthly FRESH
meeting, and the monthly Fernald Citizens Task Force meeting.
The Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1, the Final Feasibility Study for Operable
Unit 1, and the Proposed Plan are available to the public in the Administrative Record locations at
EPA Region V offices hi Chicago and at the Public Environmental Information Center. The notice of
availability for public inspection of the Draft Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 was
published October 20, 1993, hi the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Journal News, and the Harrison Press.
The Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 was published hi August 1994. The
notice of availability for the Draft Feasibility Study and the Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 1 was
published March 9, 1994, in the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Journal News, and the Harrison Press. The
Final Proposed Plan was published in August 1994; the notice of availability was published August
10, 1994, hi the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Journal News and the Harrison Press. The Final Feasibility
Study for Operable Unit 1 was published hi October 1994.
A 30-day public comment period was held from August 10, 1994, to September 8, 1994, inclusive.
In addition, a public meeting was held on August 23, 1994. At this meeting, representatives from
DOE, EPA and Ohio EPA answered questions about the remedial alternatives under consideration for
Operable Unit 1. A response to comments received during this period is included hi the
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 3-3
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this Record of Decision. This decision document presents
the selected remedial action for Operable Unit 1 at the Fernald Environmental Management Project in
Fernald, Ohio, chosen hi accordance with CERCLA and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.
The Proposed Plan was submitted to the Tooele County, Utah, commissioners and to the State of
Utah (the state where the representative permitted commercial disposal facility is located). The
Proposed Plan also was distributed to the Nevada public including the State of Nevada and the local
steering committee through the DOE Nevada organization. No comments were received.
In addition to traditional public involvement activities, DOE assisted in the development of the
Fernald Citizens Task Force, an independent, site-specific advisory board, in August 1993. The
mission of the Task Force is to advise DOE, EPA, and Ohio EPA on environmental restoration and
waste management issues at the FEMP site. Specifically, the group will consider, and make
recommendations on, the following environmental issues:
• Future use of the site
• Cleanup objectives
• Waste disposal options
• Cleanup priorities
The Task Force determined at an early stage that it would address future land use of the FEMP site as
its first priority. Representatives of DOE, EPA, and Ohio EPA sit on the Task Force as ex officio
members; all three agencies have agreed to carefully consider the Task Force's recommendations hi
their decision-making process and to incorporate Task Force recommendations where practicable.
DOE shall continue to offer opportunities for public involvement throughout the Remedial Design and
Remedial Action phases of the cleanup at the FEMP.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/24/95 7:29>m 3-4
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 1 REMEDIAL ACTION
The primary focus of remedial action for Operable Unit 1 is the permanent disposition of
contaminated contents of the six waste pits, the Clearwell, and the Burn Pit. The purpose of the
remedial action is to prevent unacceptable current or future exposure to the contaminated materials of
Operable Unit 1 and to mitigate the release of hazardous substances into the environment. The
selected remedy addresses the principal threats associated with the contaminated materials in Operable
Unit 1. However, the remedial action fits into a broader, more comprehensive scheme of remediation
for the site as a whole. As previously discussed hi Section 2.1, the Fernald Environmental
Management Project (FEMP) site and associated environmental issues have been segmented into five
operable units. The operable unit concept at the FEMP site involves grouping waste areas or related
environmental concerns in a manner that will expedite completion of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act remediation process. The five FEMP .,
operable units are:
Operable Unit 1 - Waste Pit Area
Operable Unit 2 - Other Waste Units
Operable Unit 3 - Production Area
Operable Unit 4 - Silos 1 through 4
Operable Unit 5 - Environmental Media
Separate Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study documentation and Records of Decision are being
issued for Operable Units 1 through 5. A sixth operable unit, known as the Comprehensive Site-
Wide Operable Unit, may be created pursuant to the provisions of the Amended Consent Agreement.
If needed, Operable Unit 6 will be created to perform a final assessment from a site-wide perspective
to ensure mat ongoing or planned remedial actions identified hi the Records of Decision for the five
operable units will provide a comprehensive remedy for the FEMP site which is protective of human
health and the environment. If it is determined that the remedial actions specified hi the Record of
Decisions for Operable Units 1 through 5 are not protective from a site-wide perspective, a feasibility
study will be initiated. If deemed appropriate, the Record of Decision for the Comprehensive Site-
Wide Operable Unit will be issued following the Record of Decision for the last of the other five
operable units.
FER/OUIROD/BJH/01/24/95 7:3l«m 4-1
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
The schedule for submittal of Draft Records of Decision to the EPA for each operable unit is as
follows:
• Operable Unit 3 Interim Record of Decision: July 22, 1994 (actual signature
date)
• Operable Unit 4: August 8, 1994
• Operable Unit 1: November 4, 1994
• Operable Unit 2: January 5, 1995
• Operable Unit 5: July 3, 1995
• Operable Unit 3 Final Record of Decision: April 2, 1997
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/24/95 7:3 Urn 4-2
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
5.0 SUMMARY OF OPERABLE UNIT 1 CHARACTERISTICS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 5 summarizes characterization data regarding contaminants within the waste units of Operable
Unit 1. Contaminant sources considered in this section include Waste Pits 1 through 6, the Burn Pit,
and the Clearwell. This discussion builds on the general overview of Operable Unit 1, presented in
Sections 1 and 2. "Overview" information to this discussion includes:
• Section 1.1, which includes geographical information, including natural resource use,
adjacent land use, location hi a floodplain, and distance to nearby populations.
• Section 1.2, which includes topographical information and general surface and
subsurface features.
• Section 2.2, which describes and provides a history of each waste pit included in
Operable Unit 1.
5.2 KNOWN OR SUSPECTED SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION
The principal source of contamination within Operable Unit 1 is the contents of the waste pits, the
Clearwell, and the Burn Pit. As discussed hi Section 2 of this Record of Decision and below, these
waste units contain radiological, organic, and inorganic contaminants associated with the wastes that
were placed in the waste pits during production.
5.2.1 Waste Pit Contents
The waste pits in Operable Unit 1 were used to store the following materials:
• Waste Pit 1 primarily received depleted magnesium fluoride slag and depleted
residues, with smaller amounts of trailer cake, uranyl ammonium phosphate (UAP)
filtrate, graphite/ceramics, and general sump sludge.
• Waste Pit 2 primarily received trailer cake and general sump sludge, with smaller
amounts of UAP filtrate, raffinate, depleted residues, and graphite/ceramics. Waste
Pit 2 was also used as a settling basin for neutralized raffinate prior to the completion
of Waste Pit 3.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/24/95 7:3lorn 5-1
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
• Waste Pit 3 primarily received lime-neutralized raffinate slurries, as well as
contaminated storm water from the general sump sludge, trailer cake, slag leach with
lesser amounts of water treatment sludge, and thorium wastes.
• Waste Pit 4 primarily received solid waste that included trailer cake, depleted slag and
depleted residues with lesser amounts of thorium wastes, and graphite/ceramics; as
well as process residues including filter sludges, raffinates, graphite, magnesium
fluoride slag; and pyrophoric uranium-bearing materials. Waste Pit 4 also received
noncombustible trash, including cans, concrete, asbestos, and construction nibble.
• Waste Pit 5 primarily received raffinate, slag leach, water treatment sludge, thorium
waste, supernatant and sludges produced by the co-precipitation of thorium waste with
barium carbonate and aluminum sulfate, and the precipitation of uranium with calcium
oxide.
• Waste Pit 6 received depleted wastes hi the form of depleted slag and depleted
residues. Extrusion residue and heat treatment quench water were also deposited in
Waste Pit 6.
• The Clearwell primarily received surface water runoff from the waste pits and surface
liquid supernatant from Waste Pits 3 and 5.
• The Burn Pit was used to burn combustible materials such as laboratory chemicals;
pyrophoric and reactive chemicals; oils; low-level contaminated combustible material
such as pallets and skids; and cafeteria debris. Cans, bottles, general refuse, and
laboratory glassware were also deposited directly into the Burn Pit.
The volume of waste in the pits and the total volume of waste pit material (including covers, liners,
etc.) are presented in Table 2-1 of this Record of Decision.
The majority of the hazardous constituents identified during characterization of Operable Unit 1 were
introduced to the plant in feed materials during the refining process. These materials were raw
feedstock from which uranium metal and thorium products were separated in plant operations.
The Characterization Investigation Study (CIS) and the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) programs sampled the contents of the waste pits to identify the radiological and chemical
constituents in the waste pits. An examination of the waste pit contents, derived from process
knowledge and discussed in Section 1 of the Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1,
indicates consistency between process knowledge and sampling among the types of metal constituents
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/24/95 7:3 lam 5-2
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
found in the waste pits. The sampling results provide a pit-by-pit "profile" of contaminants, (Refer
to Figure 1-2 hi this Record of Decision for a map of Operable Unit 1 and to Section 4 of the Final
Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 for a thorough discussion of these results.)
5.2.2 Radiological Characteristics
Radiological contaminants are presented hi Table 5-1 of the Record of Decision. (All contaminants
that were later identified to be Constituents of Concern (COCs) hi environmental media are identified
hi Table 5-1.) Detailed CIS and RI/FS radiological analytical results are presented in Appendices A
and B of the Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 and are summarized hi Section
4 of mat report.
The predominant radiological contaminants hi all waste pits are uranium-238, uranium-234, and
thorium-230, all of which are part of the uranium-238 decay series. Technetium-99 and strontium-90
are also present, although to a lesser extent. Results of both sampling programs indicate that depleted
and natural uranium are present hi the waste pits. This is consistent with process knowledge; very
limited quantities of enriched uranium were produced at the FEMP.
5.2.3 Chemical Characteristics
Inorganic metal and organic chemicals were identified hi waste pit samples. Table 5-1 presents data
on selected metal contaminants—antimony, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, manganese, mercury,
molybdenum, nickel, silver, thallium, uranium, and vanadium. Waste Pits 3, 4, and 5, and the
Clearwell contain the highest concentrations of inorganic constituents. Although not shown on Table
5-1, all of the waste pits contain high levels of magnesium, consistent with the disposal of large
quantities of magnesium fluoride slag. One of the primary sources of metals found hi the waste pits
is raffinates, a residual product from processing concentrated ores.
The presence of all organic chemicals is considered to be waste-related. Organic contaminants,
identified hi Table 5-1, include dioxins, furans, several semivolatile organic compounds,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), tetrachloroethene, and vinyl chloride. These constituents are not
normally present hi the soils, groundwater, or surface water; there are, therefore, no background
FER/OUlRQD/BJH/01/23/95 KhlSam 5-3
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
TABLE 5-1
PIT WASTE CONCENTRATION RANGES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN^
fYmtaminflnt
Radionudides
Cesium-137
Neptunium-237
Plutonium-238
Plutonium-239/240
Radium-228
Strontium-90
Technetium-99
Thorium-230
Thorium-232
Uranium-234
Uranium-235/236
Uranium-238
Inorganics
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Silver
Background
Concentration
pCi/g
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.25
0.5
<0.9
1.85
1.24
0.94
0.13
0.92
mg/kg
6.7
0.62
0.59
19
922
0.29
2.7
28.5
2.2
Waste Pits
Concentration
pCi/g
Background to 450
Background to 46
Background to 4.4
Background to 15
Background to 440
Background to 140
Background to 3,000
Background to 12,000
Background to 840
Background to 18,000
Background to 8,800
Background to 42,000
mg/kg
Background to 320
Background to 27
Background to 39
Background to 1,500
Background to 20,000
Background to 5.1
Background to 1,400
Background to 1,700
Background to 760
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 3:41pm
5-4
-------
TABLE 5-1
(Continued)
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 199S
.Contaminant
Background
Concentration
Waste Pits
Concentration
Inorganics (Continued)
mg/kg
mg/kg
Thallium
Total Uranium
Vanadium
0.43
3.68
36:9
Background to 110
Background to 120,000
Background to 9,700
Organics
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chyrsene
Dioxins
Furans
Indeno( 1,2, 3-cd)pyrene
PCBs
Tetrachoroethene
Vinyl chloride
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Undetected to 130,000
Undetected to 120,000
Undetected to 130,000
Undetected to 75,000
Undetected to 100,000"
Undetected to 45.9b
Undetected to 14"
Undetected to 46,000
Undetected to 13,000
Undetected to 29,000
Undetected to 1,900
1 Only concentration ranges for chemicals determined to be Contaminants of Concern in environmental media are shown on this
table.
b Concentration range is for individual chemicals or congeners.
N/A - Not Applicable
SOURCE: Tables 4-1.1A to 4-1.8C, Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1, (DOE, 1994b).
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 3:41pm
5-5
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 199S
concentrations for these constituents. Organic contamination is discussed in Section 4 of the Final
Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1.
PCBs are generally distributed throughout the waste pits, but are present only in small concentrations
in Waste Pit 6 and the Clearwell. Low concentrations of polychlorinated benzo-p-dioxins (dioxins)
and dibenzofurans (furans) were identified in Waste Pits 2, 3, and 4; they are the by-products of high-
temperature processes such as oxidation of PCB-contaminated oil. Waste Pits 5 and 6 and the
Clearwell were not analyzed for dibenzofurans. Tetrachloroethene was found in Waste Pits 1, 2, 3,
4, 6, and the Burn Pit, while vinyl chloride was identified hi Waste Pits 2 and 4, and the Burn Pit;
these constituents were found hi low concentrations.
5.3 OVERVIEW OF THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
This section summarizes the nature and extent of contamination within environmental media hi
Operable Unit 1. These environmental media include surface and vadose zone soil, groundwater,
surface water and sediment, and air. This section also contains an overview of the levels of direct
radiation associated with the current conditions within Operable Unit 1. Additional detail on these
conditions is provided hi Section 4 of the Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1,
which the public is encouraged to review.
5.3.1 Surface and Vadose Zone Soil
Radiological analyses of surface soil show that uranium is the predominant radionuclide contaminant
hi Operable Unit 1 surface soils. Uranium-238 was present at above-background (higher than
naturally occurring) concentrations at all sample locations. The highest noted uranium-238 activity
concentration was 1,500 picoCuries per gram, found at a sample point located south of Waste Pit 6
and east of Waste Pit 4. An area east of Waste Pit 2 yielded uranium-238 activity concentrations La
the range of 25 to 750 picoCuries per gram.
Chemical analyses of surface soil indicate that cadmium, chromium, manganese, molybdenum, and
silver are the principal inorganic contaminants. Organics analyses revealed elevated concentrations of
pesticides and PCBs hi those samples within the boundaries of Operable Unit 1. These contaminants
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15un 5-6
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
correspond to the characteristics of waste material contained in the adjacent waste pits. Pesticides and
herbicides were used throughout the lifetime of the waste pits for insect control (principally those
waste pits with surface water present, Waste Pits 5 and 6) and weed/grass control. Because of the
pesticide and herbicide use, their presence in the waste pits was anticipated. One sample exhibited a
high concentration of polyaromatic hydrocarbons.
Subsurface soil from four geologic zones was analyzed: (1) glacial overburden; (2) upper saturated
sand and gravel layer; (3) lower saturated sand and gravel layer; and (4) the deep saturated sand and
gravel layer. Principal radiological constituents found within the glacial overburden include uranium-
238 and its progeny products (uranium-234, thorium-230, and radon-226). In the upper saturated
sand and gravel layers, radionuclide activity concentrations were significantly lower man those found
hi the glacial overburden. One sample, obtained at a depth of 20.27 meters (66.5 feet), showed levels
of uranium-234 and strontium-90 slightly above background (i.e., levels of a chemical or radionuclide
found in areas near the FEMP not affected by the site). No radiological constituents exceeded
background levels in samples from either the lower or deep saturated sand-and-gravel layer.
5.3.2 Groundwater
As previously indicated, groundwater, including perched water, is being investigated as part of
Operable Unit 5. To provide an overview, however, a- discussion of Operable Unit 1 groundwater
contamination is presented here. Additional information can be found in Section 4 of the Final
Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 (DOE 1994b).
Radionuclide Contamination
All Operable Unit 1 1000-series monitoring wells, which are screened within the glacial overburden
(see Section 4.4 of the Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 for well locations)
showed elevated concentrations of uranium isotopes. RI/FS program samples indicate that the pattern
of elevated uranium concentrations within Operable Unit 1 perched groundwater appears to be
centered primarily hi the vicinity of Waste Pit 1. An elevated uranium concentration was detected at
Well 1073, located within or near the border of Waste Pit 1. However, Well 1073 may intersect
waste pit material, thereby affecting groundwater sample contaminant concentrations.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 5-7
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
In the upper sand and gravel layer of the Great Miami Aquifer (GMA), radionuclide contamination
appears to be localized around Waste Pit 4 and the Burn Pit. In this interval, groundwater flows from
west to east; consequently, wells located west of Waste Pit 4 and the Burn Pit contained significantly
lower concentrations of radionuclides. It appears that these two source areas are the primary
contributors to radionuclide contamination of the groundwater at this level.
Elevated uranium concentrations were detected in all but one 3000-series well, which are located in
the northwest comer of Operable Unit 1, upgradient of the Waste Pit Area. The 3000-series wells
monitor the lower saturated sand and gravel layer of the Great Miami Aquifer. The highest levels of
total uranium occurred in wells located in the northeast part of Operable Unit 1. Due to the limited
amount of data on the 4000-series monitoring wells, which monitor the lowest portion of the Great
Miami Aquifer, the extent of radiological contamination has not been fully characterized at this time.
The Great Miami Aquifer will be fully characterized as part of the Operable Unit 5 RI, which
includes environmental media such as groundwater. From these data, it appears that Operable Unit.l
is contributing radiological constituents to perched zones and to the upper and lower saturated sand-
and-gravel layers of the Great Miami Aquifer.
Inorganic Contamination
Twenty-six inorganic contaminants were detected at above-background levels in the 1000-series wells,
mostly correlating to those contaminants detected hi the pit waste material and leachate samples. The
more significant contaminants, elevated hi both the perched groundwater and waste material leachate
samples, are: beryllium, cadmium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, and vanadium.
Fifteen inorganic contaminants were detected at above-background concentrations in at least one
sample collected from the 2000-series wells. The three wells that consistently showed elevated levels
of these constituents are located in the northeast section of Operable Unit 1. Since regional
groundwater, in the area of the waste pits, flows from west to east, it appears that the waste pits are a
source of inorganic contamination to the Great Miami Aquifer.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 5-8
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
I
Nine inorganic constituents were detected at above-background concentrations in at least one sample
collected from the 3000-series wells. The most significant contaminants include: manganese,
mercury, and vanadium. Similar to the 2000-series well characterization, it appears that the majority
of the inorganic chemical contamination in the 3000-series horizon is located hi the northeast portion
of the site, possibly indicating Waste Pit 3 as a source.
Only five inorganic constituents were detected at above-background concentrations in the 4000-series
wells.
Organic Contamination
The presence of organic constituents in the 1000-series monitoring wells is limited. A well located
southwest of Waste Pit 1 was the only well to identify significant organic constituents in the glacial
overburden. The volatile organic compound and COC, tetrachloroethene, was detected in this well.
The majority of the organic constituents in the perched zones are likely waste-related.
Ten organic constituents were-detected hi the 2000-series wells; none were determined to be COCs.
Wells located hi the vicinity of the Burn Pit and Waste Pit 4, and located east of the Clearwell, have
detected concentrations of two to four organic constituents each.
The 3000-series wells had very limited organic chemical detections. No COCs were detected.
There is no indication of significant organic contamination of the deep saturated sand and gravel layer
of the Great Miami Aquifer in the vicinity of Operable Unit 1. Only four organic constituents were
detected hi the 4000-series wells samples; all detections were at low levels. Two common laboratory
contaminants also were detected hi the 4000-series wells during the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) program. Operable Unit 1 does appear to be a minor contributor to organic
contamination hi the deep saturated sand-and-gravel layer of the Great Miami Aquifer.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 5-9
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 199S
i
5.3.3 Surface Water and Sediment
A review of data from site studies shows a high degree of variability in the surface water contamina-
tion concentration pattern. The reasons for variations in the data could be attributed to the amount of
rainfall runoff during the time of sampling, topography that would affect flow from the area, the
settling of contaminated suspended solids, and the existence of a contaminant source upgradient of the
sampling location.
The highest concentration of contaminants in surface water was detected in drainageways that received
surface runoff from Waste Pits 3, 4, 5, and 6. The predominant contaminant is uranium. The two
drainageways running east-west between Waste Pits 3, 4, and 5 were found to be contaminated along
their entire lengths. Another drainageway, running southeast and turning southwest between Waste
Pits 4 and 6, contained water with elevated uranium concentrations. The drainageways in the north
part of Operable Unit 1 were found to be the least contaminated. However, these drainageways were
significantly modified to re-route runoff, as part of the Storm Water Control Removal Action, which
included removal of some contaminated soils in these areas.
Sediments were sampled along drainageways that are downstream of potential sources of releases
within Operable Unit 1. The highest levels of contaminants were detected at locations downgradient
from Waste Pit 4. The predominant contaminant was depleted uranium. The drainageway located
south of Waste Pits 4 and 6 revealed elevated levels of uranium along its entire length. Another
drainageway between Waste Pits 4 and 5 showed elevated uranium concentrations.
5.3.4 Air and Direct Radiation
Airborne radon measurements are routinely collected both on and off the FEMP property, as part of
the ongoing environmental monitoring program. The FEMP monitors radon concentrations at 21
locations along the FEMP perimeter fence. The average annual radon concentration along the FEMP
fenceline for 1989 through 1992 was 0.74 picoCurie per liter in 1989, 0.74 picoCurie per liter hi
1990, 0.90 picoCurie per liter in 1991 and 0.57 picoCurie per liter in 1992. The maximum annual
radon concentration recorded during this period was 1.5 picoCuries per liter observed at the radon
monitoring station located at the northeast corner of the site. During this period, none of the
FER/OU1ROD/BIH/01/23/9S 10:15am 5-10
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
observed radon concentrations exceeded either the DOE guideline of 3.0 picoCuries per liter above
background levels, or the EPA limit of 4.0 picoCuries per liter for indoor radon concentrations.
The FEMP operates nine on-site air monitoring stations to measure the concentration of airborne
radioactive particulates along the site perimeter. The average annual concentration of airborne
uranium at each fence line monitoring station was well below the DOE guideline of 0.1 picoCurie per
cubic meter during the period 1989 through 1992. Each year, since production operations ceased in
1989, data have shown a general decrease in airborne uranium concentrations along the FEMP .fence
line.
Direct radiation measurements were taken throughout Operable Unit 1 as part of a worker health and
safety assessment, and to identify appropriate soil sampling locations. Localized areas had elevated
exposure rates greater than 3 millirad per hour. The highest dose rate, 35 millirad per hour, was
located near the southwest perimeter of Waste Pit 6. Radiological analyses of soil samples revealed
that uranium-238 and short-lived progeny are the principal contaminants causing elevated dose rates.
5.4 POTENTIAL MIGRATION PATHWAYS
Contaminant transport from Operable Unit 1 may occur via the following pathways:
• Surface water runoff
Erosion of contaminated soils into Paddys Run from the vicinity of the waste pits
• Groundwater transport
Leaching of contaminants from the waste pits through the vadose (unsaturated) zone
to underlying groundwater.
Infiltration of contaminated surface water from Paddys Run to the Great Miami
Aquifer
• Air emissions
Volatilization of organic compounds, wind erosion of contaminated paniculate matter,
and the direct release of radon gas
Each of these potential contaminant transport pathways is discussed below. Refer to Appendix D of
the Final Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1, and the Baseline Risk Assessment (Appendix E,
which is summarized in Section 6 of the Final Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation Report for
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/24/95 7:32am 5-11
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Operable Unit 1) for detailed information about each pathway, its associated transport mechanisms,
and its impact on environmental media and receptors.
5.4.1 Surface Water Pathway
Surface water runoff is a viable contaminant transport pathway for Operable Unit 1. During a rainfall
event, soil particles are dislodged by the impact of raindrops and the flow of runoff across the soil
surface. The amount of soil erosion depends on rainfall intensity, slope length, slope steepness,
vegetative cover, and erosion control practices. Contaminants adsorbed onto soil surface particles can
also be desorbed and transported into the receiving surface water. Each contaminant can be present
in the runoff water in two forms:
• Adsorbed to the soil particles
• Dissolved and transported in the water
In recognition of this pathway, Removal Action No. 2, Waste Pit Area Runoff Control, was
undertaken to control and collect runoff (See Section 2.3.1 for a discussion of this removal action).
5.4.2 Groundwater Pathway
Rainfall and surface water runoff can infiltrate through the surface of the waste pits and percolate
through the waste and through the soil that overlies the groundwater aquifer. The FEMP is situated
above the Great Miami Aquifer, which serves as a principal source of domestic, municipal, and
industrial water throughout the region. The Great Miami Aquifer is considered the primary pathway
by which contaminants released from Operable Unit 1 could be transported to a human receptor. The
four controlling mechanisms for this migration pathway are:
• The leaching of contaminants from the waste or soil matrix into the dissolved
phase,
• The percolation of the contaminated leachate to the underlying aquifer through
soil layers and/or leaking wells,
•
• The infiltration of contaminated surface water from Paddys Run to the Great
Miami Aquifer, and
FER/OU1ROD/BIH/01/24/95 7:32un 5-12
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
• Movement of water in the Great Miami Aquifer carrying dissolved contaminants
and, potentially, contaminants adsorbed to colloidal particles of up to 2 microns.
The contaminant concentrations in leachate that reach groundwater depend on the precipitation
infiltration rate, the initial contaminant concentrations, contaminant mass, solubility of the
contaminants, degradation rates, soil textures, soil hydraulic conductivities, depth to the groundwater,
and a number of other chemical- and soil-specific factors. Predicted contaminant concentrations in
the Great Miami Aquifer were used as the basis for the assessment of human exposure by water
intake and exposure pathways as discussed in the Baseline Risk Assessment.
5.4.3 Air Pathway
Air emissions associated with Operable Unit 1 may involve different types of release mechanisms. If
organic compounds are present within the surface soil or exposed pit materials, then volatilization of
these compounds may occur. The Operable Unit 1 area may also involve the direct release of radon
gas, which is generated as a result of radioactive decay of radium-226 and uranium-238. Finally,
during periods of turbulent wind conditions, particles of contaminated surface soil can become
suspended in the air and potentially may be subject to inhalation by on-site or off-site human
receptors. Should the waste materials within the waste pits become uncovered, the transport of these
materials via wind erosion may also become a concern. The amount of material that may be suspend-
ed depends on wind speed and other site conditions such as soil moisture, particle size, and vegetative
cover. Concentrations of these airborne contaminants at on-site and off-site receptor locations form
the basis for the assessment of human exposure by the air pathways, as discussed in Section 6 of the
Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1.
FER/OU1ROD/BIH/01/23/95 10:15*m 5-13
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
6.0 SUMMARY OF OPERABLE UNIT 1 RISKS
6.1 OVERVIEW OF THE BASELINE ASSESSMENT RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH
During the Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation, an analysis was conducted to estimate the human
health risks that could result from exposure to Operable Unit 1 waste if no remediation is performed
beyond that accomplished to date. This analysis is referred to as a Baseline Risk Assessment.
The Baseline Risk Assessment consists of five primary steps. First, chemical and radiological
constituents that might cause adverse health effects are determined; this process is called Constituent
of Potential Concern (CPC) determination and is discussed hi Section 6.1.1. The second step defines
how the land will be used, how exposure to contaminants might occur and how receptors
(hypothetical inhabitants and visitors to the site) would be exposed; this is called exposure assessment
and is discussed in Section 6.1.2. In the third step, the hazardous effects of all CPCs are
characterized; this step is termed toxicity assessment and is discussed in Section 6.1.3. The next step
of the Baseline Risk Assessment is the hazard assessment where results of the first three steps are
combined to determine health hazards for all receptors. This step is summarized in Section 6.1.4. A
semi-quantitative analysis of uncertainties and the effect of these uncertainties on the baseline risk
assessment is the next step of the Baseline Risk Assessment, and is presented in Section 6.1.5. The
public is encouraged to review Section 6 and Appendix E of the Final Remedial Investigation Report
for Operable Unit 1 (DOE, 1994a) for detailed information on risks associated with Operable Unit 1.
6.1.1 Developing GOCs from CPCs
Section 5 of this Record of Decision presents a summary of the results of the chemical analysis for
the waste pits of Operable Unit 1. The summary described the inorganic and organic chemicals, as
well as the radionuclides, considered to be a concern for Operable Unit 1 and the media in which they
were found. This section describes how the list of contaminants initially identified is pared down to a
list of constituents of possible concern (COPC), how further evaluation produces the list of CPC,
which are further evaluated in the risk assessment to produce the final list of Constituents of Concerns
(COCs). This evaluation process identifies and retains those chemicals capable of producing an
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 6-1
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
unwanted or adverse health effect at the exposure level considered and removes those chemicals not
considered to be serious health threats to receptors.
Briefly, the on-site chemicals identified as those most likely to be present as a result of Fernald's
production activities and subsequently identified by chemical analysis are called Constituents of
Possible Concern. This list is further evaluated to determine those chemical toxins that are a possible
risk to human health and the environment. Those chemicals on the list that are normally present in
the environment, are produced as artifacts during chemical analysis, or are known not to produce
unwanted toxic effects at the levels found on site, are removed from the list. This new list of
chemicals is called contaminants of potential concern, known as CPCs. The Baseline Risk
Assessment is performed based on this list of CPCs, and the resulting quantitative assessment reveals
the COCs.
Three categories of CPCs were found: radionuclides, inorganic chemicals and organic compounds.
Most of the 13 radioactive CPCs retained were of the uranium and thorium decay series. Inorganic
CPCs included silver, arsenic, lead, copper and cyanide. Organic chemicals retained in the CPC list
include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins, furans and
various organic solvents used on-site. (Refer to Appendix E of the Final Remedial Investigation
Report for Operable Unit 1 [DOE, 1994a], Section E.2 for a complete listing of CPCs.)
6.1.2 Exposure Assessment
The exposure assessment identifies the sources and pathways of exposure and possible receptors under
different land-use scenarios. First, sources of exposure, or source terms, were identified as being the
waste pit materials in Waste Pits 1 through 6, the Burn Pit, and the Clearwell; surface water in Waste
Pits 5 and 6 and the Clearwell; and surface soil within the Operable Unit 1 study area.
Two source term configurations were considered: the current and future source terms. The current
source-term configuration considers the Waste Storage Area as it exists today.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15«m 6-2
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
The future source-term assumes that all maintenance activities within Operable Unit 1 were
discontinued. As a result, the cap over Waste Pit 3 was assumed to partially fail, allowing direct
exposure to pit contents in 30 percent of the waste pit surface area. Caps and covers on Waste Pits 1,
2, and 4, and the Burn Pit remained intact. Water in Waste Pits 5 and 6 was assumed to evaporate,
exposing waste pit contents over half of the surface area of each waste pit. The Clearwell was
assumed to have remained filled with water. The surface-water-runoff-control system was assumed
nonfunctional under the future source-term scenario as maintenance ceases.
Land use scenarios addressed in the Operable Unit 1 Baseline Risk Assessment are: (1) current land
use with access controls; (2) current land use without access controls; (3) future land use with access
controls and; (4) future land use without access controls.
Under the first scenario (current land use with access controls), the site access restrictions historically
provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) were maintained and no further remedial actions
were taken other than those completed to date. The scenario further assumes that no members of the
public are allowed access to the site; the integrity of the Waste Storage Area is maintained by
inspections, and barriers repairs, when necessary. Potential receptors for this scenario are: a
groundskeeper, an off-property farmer, and an off-property child.
The next land use scenario was current land use without access controls. Under this scenario, strict
access controls were relaxed increasing the likelihood of public trespass and livestock grazing on-site.
This scenario is considered for both the current and future source term as described in the previous
section. Receptors considered under this scenario for the current source term are the trespasser and
the off-property user of meat and milk products. Receptors considered under this land use scenario
for the future source term are: the off-property farmer, the off-property child, the Great Miami River
user, the off-property user of meat and milk products, and the groundskeeper.
Two future land use scenarios are considered: future land use with and without access controls. For
future land use with access controls, the government retains ownership of the site, but site
FER/OUlROD/Bm/01/23/95 10:15am 6-3
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
maintenance and strict access controls are relaxed. Two receptors were evaluated under this scenario:
the "expanded trespasser" and the "groundskeeper."
If the government were to relinquish all control over the site, unrestricted use of the site could permit
exposure routes associated with development of residences, such as a home and farm, within the
boundaries of Operable Unit 1. Access controls are assumed to be absent and no additional remedial
actions were assumed. Receptors considered under this scenario are the reasonable maximum
exposure (RME) resident fanner and child, the central tendency (CT) resident fanner, the off-
property resident farmer and child, the home builder and the off-property user of meat and milk
products.
6.1.3 Toxicity Assessment
Two human health hazards were addressed in the toxicity assessment for Operable Unit 1: cancer
induction and non-carcinogenic toxicity. Cancer may be induced by exposure to a chemical
carcinogen or from ionizing radiation from a radionuclide. Non-carcinogenic toxicity refers to organ
tissue effects. These effects are numerous and range from systemic effects such as kidney or liver
damage to localized effects such as skin or eye irritation.
Cancer risk is quantified by Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks (ILCR) and is expressed in terms of
the probability that a given receptor will develop cancer due to estimated exposures. For example, if
the receptor has an additional one chance in 10,000 of contracting cancer due to these exposures, the
probability is expressed as a 1 x 10"4 risk. Chemical intakes calculated in the exposure assessment are
used in conjunction with the cancer slope factor to determine the ILCR. The target risk range for
Superfund sites is 10"* to 10~*.
In the evaluation of potential exposures for the noncarcinogenic assessment, it was assumed that a
dose threshold exists below which no toxic effect will occur. This threshold is used to develop an
acceptable intake level. To determine if Operable Unit 1 constituents may cause toxic effects, the
estimated intake (calculated from the exposure assessment) was divided by the acceptable intake. This
ratio is called the hazard quotient (HQ). When HQs for multiple CPCs are summed for a particular
FER/OUlROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 6-4
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
pathway, the resultant value is the hazard index (HI). If the ratio of estimated intake to the acceptable
intake is greater than one, the site-related intake is assumed to have a potential of inducing non-
carcinogenic toxic effects.
6.1.4 Risk Characterization Results
Summary results of the baseline risk assessment by land use are presented in this section. These
results may be compared to the ranges of generally acceptable risk under CERCLA, which are an
incremental lifetime cancer risk of one in one million (10"6) to one in ten thousand (10") or a Hazard
Index equal to or less than one. Based on the baseline risk assessment results, chemicals that
contribute an ILCR greater than one in one million (IxlO"7) or a hazard quotient greater than 0.1 were
identified. These chemicals were designated as COCs for the Final Feasibility Study for Operable
Unit 1 (1994c); they are presented in Table 6-9.
6.1.4.1 Current Land Use
Current Land Use With Access Controls
Three of the hypothetical receptors listed in Tables 6-1 and 6-2, the groundskeeper, the off-property
farmer, and the off-property child, were evaluated under the assumption that both active maintenance
and access controls continue. The maximally exposed individual in this case is the groundskeeper,
with ILCR approaching one in ten thousand (10"4) (Table 6-2). These risks are dominated by
radiation exposures from isotopes of uranium, thorium, and radium in pit contents and surface soil.
The hazard index of systemic toxic effects for the groundskeeper is less than one. Calculated risks to
the off-property fanner are just over one in one million (10'*), while calculated risks to the resident
child are well below one in one million (10"*). The HI for both the fanner and child are less than
one, so no increase in impact of non-carcinogenic toxic effects is expected.
Current Land Use Without Access Controls
If access controls are relaxed, two additional hypothetical receptors are assumed to become plausible -
the trespassing youth, and the off-property user of meat and milk. The greatest health effects are
expected to occur to the off-property user of meat and milk products. Most of the total calculated
risks to this receptor (about one in one thousand [10"3]) are from the uptake of PCBs by grazing
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:lSam 6-5
-------
TABLE 6-1
f, 11-tV^lVlMVlIM'* 1/\L> Liiriiil UVlUi V«/*J^Vxl!
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
TABLE 6-2
HAZARD INDEX SUMMARY
CURRENT LAND USE, CURRENT SOURCE
Media
Air
Surface Soil
On-propeny
Surface Water
Sum All Media
Off-property
Off -property Off-property Trespassing User of Meat and
Groundskeeper Fanner Child Youth Milk Products
O.OE+00 2.7E-04 1.3E-03 O.OE-rOO NA
3.0E-01 NA ' NA 4.9E-01 2.7E+00
NA NA NA NA 2.3E-01
3.0E-01 2.7E-04 1.3E-03 4.9E-01 2.9E+00
NA - Not applicable. Exposure route not evaluated for receptor.
SOURCE - Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 (DOE, 1994b)
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/10/25/94 10:38am
6-7
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
cattle. Radionuclides contribute risks on the order of one in ten thousand (10~*). The HI for this
receptor exceeds 1.0 (2.9), due primarily to antimony, cadmium, and uranium uptake by cattle.
Impacts on the hypothetical trespassing youth are much lower (ILCR = 5.4 x 10~5 and HI ~ 0.49),
so no increase in impact of non-carcinogenic toxic effects is expected.
Current Land Use Without Access Controls (Future Source Term)
Tables 6-3 and 6-4 present the ILCRs and His for the hypothetical trespassing youth and the Great
Miami River user evaluated under this exposure scenario. The trespassing youth incurs a ILCR of
3.3 hi ten thousand (10*4) and HI of 1.9, but impacts to the Great Miami River user were minimal.
6.1.4.2 Future Land Use
Future Land Use With Access Controls (Government Reserve!
Summaries of cancer risks and hazard indices for hypothetical receptors evaluated under future land
use with access controls are summarized in Tables 6-5 and 6-6. The groundskeeper was projected to
incur cancer risks in the order of one in one thousand (10*3). Hazard Indices for the groundskeeper
and expanded trespasser were 2.2 and 4.0 respectively, both primarily due to contact with exposed pit
material.
Future Land Use Without Access Controls
Summaries of cancer risks and hazard indices for hypothetical receptors evaluated under future land
use without access controls are summarized in Tables 6-7 and 6-8. All receptors were calculated to
incur risks in excess of one in ten thousand (10"4). The greatest calculated risks are incurred by the
hypothetical on-property farmer using perched water (ILCR = 1.5 x 10°). If domestic use of perched
groundwater is included in the analysis, the risks approach one. The risks to this receptor are due
primarily to uranium and arsenic in groundwater. Similarly, predicted exposures to all receptors
produce His exceeding 1. The highest HI (6,100) is produced when the on-property farmer uses
perched water. If this potential source is discounted, the highest HI (1,600) is incurred by the
resident child using groundwater from beneath the operable unit. Risks to the off-property fanner
and child in the future land use scenario are the same as for the current scenario. Under this
scenario, the total ILCR for children is 1.7 x 10~*, while the corresponding total HI is 90.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15«m 6-8
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
TABLE 6-3
INCREMENTAL LIFETIME CANCER RISK SUMMARY
CURRENT LAND USE, FUTURE SOURCE TERM
Medium
Air
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Total:1
Surface Soil
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Total*
Buried Pit Material
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Total:*
Paddys Run Surface Water
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Total:*
Paddys Run Sediment
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Total:*
Great Miami River
Surface Water
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
a
Total:
All Media
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Total:*
Trespassing
Youth
8.5E-05
4.3E-05
1.3E-04
1.1E-04
7.4E-05
1.8E-04
7.2E-06
NA
7.2E-06
6.6E-08
5.7E-08
1.2E-07
3.5E-06
9.5E-06
1.3E-05
NA
NA
NA
2.0E-04
1.3E-04
3.3E-04
Great Miami
River User
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.5E-07
2.8E-08
2.8E-07
2.5E-07
2.8E-08
2.8E-07
NA - Not Applicable. Exposure route not evaluated for this receptor.
» Radiocarcinogenic risk and chemocarcinogenic risk are not truly additive.
A total is provided for reference only.
SOURCE - Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 (DOE, 1994b)
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/10/23/94 10:38am
6-9
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
TABLE 6-4
HAZARD INDEX SUMMARY
CURRENT LAND USE, SORUCE TERM
Medium Trespassing Great Miami
Youth River User
Air 2.5E-01 NA
Surface Soil 1.5E+00 NA
Paddys Run Surface Water 3.9E-02 NA
Paddys Run Sediment 1.1E-01 NA
Great Miami River Surface NA 4.2E-03
Water
All Media 1.9E+00 4.2E-03
NA = Not Applicable. Exposure route not evaluated for this receptor.
SOURCE: Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 (DOE, 1994b)
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/24/95 7:58am 6-10
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
TABLE 6-5
INCREMENTAL LIFETIME CANCER RISK SUMMARY
FUTURE LAND USE (GOVERNMENT RESERVE)
FUTURE SOURCE TERM
Medium
Air
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Total*
Surface Soil/Exposed Pit Material
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Total:
Buried Pit Material
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Total:"
Paddys Run Surface Water
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
a
Total:
Paddys Run Sediment
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
a
Total:
All Media
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Total*
On-property
GroundskeeDer
7.2E-04
2.2E-04
9.4E-04
4.4E-04
2.1E-04
6.6E-04
4.7E-05
NA
4.7E-05
' NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.2E-03
4.3E-04
1.6E-03
Expanded
Trespasser
1.3E-04
6.0E-05
1.9E-04
2.5E-04
2.0E-04
4.5E-04
2.6E-05
NA
2.6E-05
6.6E-08
5.7E-08
1.2E-07
3.5E-06
9.5E-06
1.3E-05
4.1E-04
2.7E-04
6.8E-04
NA - Not Applicable. Exposure route not evaluated for this receptor.
* Radiocarcinogenic risk and chemocarcinogeaic risk are not truly additive.
A total is provided for reference only.
SOURCE - Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 (DOE, 1994b)
FER/OU1ROD/BIH/10/25/94 I0:38am
6-11
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 199S
TABLE 6-6
HAZARD INDEX SUMMARY
FUTURE LAND USE (GOVERNMENT RESERVE)
FUTURE SOURCE TERM
Medium
Air
Surface Soil/Exposed Pit Material
Paddys Run Surface Water
Paddys Run Sediment
All Media
Groundskeeper
6.2E-01
1.6E+00
NA
NA
2.2E+00
Expanded
Trespasser
2.9E-01
3.5E+00
3.9E-02
1.1E-01
4.0E+00
NA = Not Applicable. Exposure route not evaluated for this receptor.
SOURCE: Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 (DOE, 1994b)
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/24/95 8:00am
6-12
-------
TATTLE 6-7
o
1
U)
INCREMENTAL LIFETIME CANCER RISK SUMMARY
FUTURE LAND USE (AGRICULTURAL USE)
FUTURE SOURCE TERM
Media
Air
Rndiocorcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
a
Total:
Exposed Waste Pit Materials
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Total: *
Surface Soil
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Total: *
Buried Pit Material
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Total:8
On-property Surface Water
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Total: *
Ground water
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Total: *
All Media
Radiocarcinogenic Risk
Chcmicul Carcinogenic Risk
Total:8
On-property
RME Farmer
4.8E-03
4.8E-03
9.6R-03
2.3E-02
9.5E-03
3.3E-02
6.7E-04
1.IE-03
1.8E-03
1.2E-03
NA
1.2E-03
2.5E-04
6.2E-06
2.6B-04
2.3E-02
4.0E-02
6.3R-02
5.3E-02
5.5I--02
1.1E-01
On-property
RME Farmer
(User of
Perched OW)
4.8E-03
4.8E-03
9.6E-03
2.3E-02
9.5E-03
3.3E-02
6.7E-04
I.IE-03
I.8E-03
I.2E-03
NA
I.2E-03
2.5E-04
6.2E-06
2.6R-04
5.2E-OI
9.IE-OI
9.6E-OI
5.5E-OI
9.3E-OI
I.5E+00
On-property
CT Farmer
3.SE-04
3.2E-04
6.7E-04
2.2E-03
5.8E-04
2.8E-03
3.9E-05
6.4E-05
l.OE-04
1.6E-04
NA
1.6E-04
I.5E-05
4.1E-07
1.5E-05
I.6R-03
2.8E-03
4.4E-03
4.4E-03
3.8E-03
8.2E-03
On-property
Young Child
9.2E-05
1.2E-03
I.3E-03
1.7E-03
3.8E-03
5.5E-03
9.9E-05
5.3E-04
6.3E-04
2.5E-07
NA
2.5E-07
4.2E-05
1.4E-06
4.3E-05
I.2E-03
9.5I--03
I.IE-02
3.1E-03
I.5H-02
I.8E-02
OlT-propcrly
Fanner
2.1E-04
2.9E-04
5.0E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ,
NA
NA
NA
NA
I.7E-03 '
O.OliiOO
I.7E-03
1.9E-03
2. 91 • -04
2.2E-03
OfT-property
Young Child
4.2E-06
7.4E-05
7.8E-05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.IR-05
O.OIM-00
9. IE-OS
9.5E-OS
7.41 '-OS
I.7E-04
1 lomchuilder
1.4E-04
4.5E-05
I.9E-04
7.3E-05
I.7E-04
2.4E-04
NA
NA
NA
6.8E-09
NA
6.8E-09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.II--04
2. 21 MM
4.3E-04
OfT-property
User of Meal uiul
Milk Products
I.3E-05
7.7E-04
7.8E-04
NA
NA
NA
S.IE-04
8.8E-04
I.4E-03
NA
NA
NA
.'
2.5E-04
6.2E-06
2.6R-04
NA
NA
. NA
7.7E-04
I.7I--03
2.5E-03
NA - Not upplicuhlc. Exposure route not evaluated for receptor.
u Radiocarcinogenic and chcmocarcinogcnic risks arc not truly additive. A total is provided for reference only.
SOURCE - Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 (DOE, 1994b)
I
-------
TABLE 6-8
I
£
8
r
HAZARD INDEX SUMMARY
FUTURE LAND USE (AGRICULTURAL USE)
On-property
RME Farmer Off-property
On-property (User of On-property On-properly Off-property OIT-propcrly User of Meal an
Media RME Farmer Perched GW) CT Farmer Young Child Farmer Young Child Homebiiikler Milk Products
Air
8.4E+00 8.4E-HH) 4.3E+00 2.8E+OI 5.2E-OI I.7EHK) 6..JEKW 1.91-1(10
Exposed Waste Pit Materials 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 9.9E+00 9.8E+01
NA
NA
5.4E+01
NA
Surface Soil
5.3E+00 5.3E+00 2.6E+00 2.7E+01
NA
NA
NA
2.7E+00
On-property Surface Water 3.3E-OI 2.4E-OI 1.5E-OI 2.7E+00
NA
NA
NA
3.3E-OI
Groundwater
5.0E+02 5.1E+03 2.7E+02 1.4E+03 3.IE+OI 8.8E+01
NA
NA
All Media
5.4E+02 6.1E+03 2.9E+02 I.6E+03 3.2E+01 9.0E+OI 6.0E+OI 4-.9E+00
a
NA - Not applicable. Exposure route not evaluated for receptor.
SOURCE - Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 (DOE, 1994b)
8
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
TABLE 6-9
OPERABLE UNIT 1
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA4
RADIOLOGICAL COCs
Cs-137
Np-237
Pu-238
Pu-239/240
Ra-228 + 1 dtr
Sr-90 + 1 dtr
Tc-99
Th-230
Th-232 + 10 dtr
U-234
U-235 + dtr
U-238 + 2 dtr
INORGANICS
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Uranium
Vanadium
Sediment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Air
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface
Soil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Groundwater
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Perched
Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface
Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 3:48pm
6-15
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
TABLE 6-9
(Continued)
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dioxins
Furans
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
PCBs
Tetrachloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Sediment
Air
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface
Soil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Groundwater
X
•
X
X
X
Perched
Water
X
Surface
Water
X
' The criteria for selection was 10'7 for ILCR and 0.1 for the HI.
SOURCE: Final Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1 (DOE, 1994a)
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 3:48pm
6-16
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
,1
6.1.5 Summary of Uncertainties
It is generally recognized that uncertainty is inherent in quantitative risk assessment. The objective of
the uncertainty analysis is to identify key site-related variables that contribute most to uncertainty, and
to characterize the nature and magnitude of impact of these uncertainties on the conclusions of the
risk assessment.
Table 6-10 summarizes the semi-quantitative evaluation of uncertainty for the Operable Unit 1
Baseline Risk Assessment. Sources of uncertainty were identified for all steps of the risk assessment
process: selection of CPCs, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment and risk characterization. The
majority of uncertainties tended toward increased conservatism of the risk evaluation. Taken
together, the uncertainties identified with site data, exposure parameters, fate and transport
particularly with respect to groundwater modeling, toxicity assessment and risk characterization were
judged high and could overestimate risk by two or more orders of magnitude.
6.2 OVERVIEW OF THE BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
The purpose of the ecological risk assessment, which was completed as a companion to the
preliminary site-wide baseline risk assessment in the Site-Wide Characterization Report, was to
estimate the potential and future baseline risks of FEMP contaminants to ecological receptors.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE have agreed in the Amended Consent
Agreement (September 1991) that the Site-Wide Ecological Risk Assessment in the Remedial
Investigation for Operable Unit 5 will quantify and assess the possible risks from current
concentrations of site contaminants to ecological receptors inhabiting on-property and off-site areas
not presently targeted for remediation based on human-health concerns. Discussion on the Risk
Assessment and Ecological Risk issues specific to Operable Unit 1 can be found in the Final Operable
Unit 1 Proposed Plan.
The ecological receptors potentially exposed to FEMP contaminants include all organisms, exclusive
to humans and domestic animals. The ecological risk assessment focused on a group of indicator
species selected to represent a variety of exposure pathways and trophic positions. Terrestrial
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 6-17
-------
g
00
TABLE 6-10
UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH ESTIMATED RISKS FROM OPERABLE UNIT 1
I
Op
Source of Uncertainty
Selection of CPCs:
• Adequacy of database
Magnitude'
Low to
Moderate
Expected Direction11
Increases or decreases
conservatism
Remark
CPCs may be underestimated. Principal constituents were
identified.
Exposure Assessment:
• Calculated exposure point concentrations
- positive bias in sampling
- conservative modeling assumptions
• Determination of land uses
- current scenario
- future scenario
• Assumptions for source terms
- current source term
- future source term
• Selection of receptors
- current scenario
- future scenario
• Determination of exposure factors
Moderate Increases .conservatism Source concentrations based on 95% UCL or maximum.
Sampling was biased for radiological CPCs.
High Increases conservatism Modeled concentrations were conservative.
Low Increases conservatism Scenario based on current environmental setting.
High Increases conservatism Worst case scenario assumed.
Low Increases or decreases Current source term assumes waste pits covered and
conservatism surface water runoff treated.
Moderate Increases conservatism Future source term assumes failure of Waste Pit 3 cap.
Low Increases conservatism Scenario based on current environmental setting.
High Increases conservatism Worst case scenario assumed.
Low to moderate Increases conservatism Receptor and exposure pathway specific.
i
-------
TABLE 6-10
(Continued)
§
Source of Uncertainty
Magnitude*
Expected Direction6
Remark
Toxicity Assessment:
• Dose-response assessment
- chemical CPCs
- radiological CPCs
internal
external
• Other OU1 CPCs
- dose-response for PAHs
- dose-response for PCBs
- dose-response for dioxins/furans
- dose-response for Rn-222 (indoors)
High
Increases conservatism Dose-response based on animal data.
Low Increases conservatism Dose-response based on human data.
Moderate to high Increases conservatism Conservative assumptions made for external exposure.
Low
Low
Low
Low to moderate
Increases conservatism PAHs pose low risk.
Increases conservatism PCBs pose relatively low risk.
Increases conservatism Furans/dioxins relatively low risk.
Increases conservatism Assumptions for indoor Rn-222 differ from those made
for the CSF.
v3 Risk Characterization:
• Additivity
• Effect of tentatively identified
compounds (TICs)
• Failure to consider antagonism
• Failure to consider synergism
• Failure to consider segregation of His
Low to moderate
Low
Unknown
Unknown
Low
Increases conservatism Health effects dominated from few CPCs and exposure
pathways.
Decrease conservatism Relatively few TICs.
Increases conservatism Data unknown.
Data unknown.
His dominated by few CPCs and exposure pathways.
Decreases
conservatism
Increases conservatism
High
Increases conservatism High uncertainty from combining low, moderate, and
highly uncertain parameters.
* Magnitude is assessed qualitatively based on professional judgment and includes the following:
Low-impact risk by a factor of 10 or less.
Moderate-impact risk by a factor of 10 to 100.
High-impact risk by a factor of 100 or more.
b Direction is assessed qualitatively where an increased conservatism increases final health effects calculated in risk assessment.
SOURCE: Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 (DOE, 1994b)
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
vegetation was represented by a generic plant species. Terrestrial wildlife species to be evaluated
were selected based on species abundance on the FEMP site, trophic level position, and habitat
requirements. The species evaluated were the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), white-footed
mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), raccoon (Procyon lotof), red fox (Vulpes fidva), muskrat (Ondatra
zibethica), American robin (Turdus migratorius), and red-tailed hawk (Buesto jamaicensis).
The assessment examined risks to terrestrial organisms associated with contaminants in two
environmental media — surface soils, summarized for the entire site, and surface water hi Paddys Run
from the northern boundary of the FEMP site to the confluence with the storm sewer outfall ditch.
Risks to aquatic organisms were evaluated for exposure to contaminants in Paddys Run, the Great
Miami River, and in runoff into the storm sewer outfall ditch. All nonradioactive and radioactive
constituents of greatest human health risk were considered to be of concern for the ecological risk
assessment. Estimated ecological risks associated with exposure to FEMP site COCs are primarily
due to nonradioactive inorganic chemicals in soils, rather than to organic chemicals or radionuclides.
This is true for both terrestrial and aquatic organisms and for plants as well as wildlife. In particular,
estimated intakes of arsenic, cobalt, lead, and silver from FEMP soils were all higher than the
estimated No Observed Effect Levels for at least six of the seven indicator species selected for this
assessment. The relative hazards to individual species varied, but the white-footed mouse consistently
had the highest indices of these chemicals. This can be attributed to the assumed intake by the mouse
of insects (using earthworms as surrogates), which in turn were assumed to assimilate chemicals from
soil with a transfer coefficient of 1.0.
Estimated hazards to terrestrial organisms of exposure to COCs in FEMP surface waters were
relatively low, with His greater than one only for arsenic, lead, molybdenum, and silver. These
chemicals presented hazards of two, five, four, and three to species, respectively, and the highest HI
estimated was for lead intake by the mouse.
Estimated doses to terrestrial organisms at the FEMP site, originating from soil uptake by plants and
earthworms, were below levels expected to cause detectable effects. However, as with inorganic
chemicals, this conclusion is sensitive to assumptions about muscle-to-muscle transfer of
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15un 6-20
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
radionuclides. If perfect transfer or biomagnification of uranium occurs (i.e., transfer factor equals
1.0), it could expose terrestrial wildlife at the FEMP to potentially harmful radiation levels.
However, if more realistic muscle-to-muscle transfer coefficient were assumed (i.e., 0.1), the
estimated radiation doses would fall below the range likely to result in harmful effects. Radiation
doses due to water intake were insignificant.
Exposure to radiological contaminants does not appear to pose a significant risk to aquatic organisms
at the measured concentrations in the surface waters and sediments impacted by the FEMP site.
However, modeled concentrations of radionuclides in runoff from the FEMP site into surface water
would cause estimated exposures to exceed the upper limit of 1 rad/day. A chronic dose rate of 1
rad/day or 3.65 x 10+i mrad/year or less to the maximally exposed member of a population of aquatic
organisms would ensure that there were no deleterious effects from radiation on the population. The
most affected organisms would be aquatic plants, receiving a total dose from internal and external
exposure of about 140 rad/day. The total dose to fish is minimally over the limit, at 1.6 rad/day, and
the total dose to benthic macroinvertebrates is about 14 rad/day. The maximum concentrations
calculated hi the storm sewer outfall ditch were used hi source runoff calculations. Doses to aquatic
organisms in the storm sewer outfall ditch may exceed the limit of 1 rad/day. Doses hi Paddys Run
and the Great Miami River would be lower than that indicated hi the storm sewer outfall ditch and
would be well below 1 rad/day. The measured concentrations of cadmium in Paddys Run and the
Great Miami River, copper in the Great Miami River, mercury in Paddys Run, the Great Miami
River, and the storm sewer outfall ditch, and silver in Paddys Run water exceeded chronic toxicity
criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms.
Field studies on the impact of the FEMP site on terrestrial and aquatic communities do not indicate
any effects consistent with contaminant impacts except for above-background levels of arsenic and
mercury recorded in RI/FS plant samples. In addition, although potential impacts at the individual
level were predicted for wildlife species, detrimental or adverse impacts have not been observed in
the field. This indicates that the predicted potential effects have not occurred and that the risk model
is sufficiently conservative. A comparison of the concentrations of inorganic chemical concentrations
in FEMP soils to regional background values indicate the mean FEMP concentrations may be similar
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 6-21
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
to the upper 95 percent confidence levels of background values. This indication suggests that
ecological risks estimated using background values of inorganics would be comparable to those
estimated for the FEMP site, and emphasizes conservative nature of the method used.
6.3 CONCLUSION
In summary, actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from Operable Unit 1, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected hi this Record of Decision, may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment. Although
radionuclides are the most ubiquitous contaminants at the FEMP, estimated ecological risks to both
terrestrial and aquatic organisms are primarily associated with nonradioactive inorganic chemicals.
Although estimated risks are substantial in some instances, they are based on soil inorganic chemical
concentrations comparable to background levels, and deleterious effects have not been observed in the
field. This suggests that current FEMP site-specific ecological risks are low. However, remedial
actions are appropriate to address contaminants which have potential to cause harm in the future.
FER/OU1ROD/BIH/01/23/95 10:15mm 6-22
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The remedial alternatives which underwent detailed analysis in the Final Feasibility Study for
Operable Unit 1 (DOE 1994a) are described in this section of the Record of Decision.
• Alternative 1 - No Action
• Alternative 4 - Removal, Treatment, and On-Property Disposal
- Alternative 4A - Removal, Treatment (Vitrification), and On-Property Disposal
- Alternative 4B - Removal, Treatment (Cementation), and On-Property Disposal
• Alternative 5 - Removal, Treatment, and Off-Site Disposal
- Alternative SA - Removal, Treatment (Thermal Drying), and Off-Site Disposal at the
Nevada Test Site (NTS)
- Alternative 5B - Removal, Treatment (Thermal Drying), and Off-Site Disposal at a
Permitted Commercial Waste Disposal Facility
Section 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) requires that remedial action be protective of human health and the environment, and
attain a level or standard of control that is consistent with federal or state environmental laws or state
facility siting regulations, which are termed Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs). ARARs can pertain to all aspects of a remedial action, including the establishment of
cleanup levels, the operation and performance of treatment systems, and the design of disposal
facilities. This section presents a brief summary of each of the alternatives that underwent detailed
analysis, followed by a discussion of how each complies with the statutory requirements referenced
above.
Appendix D of the Final Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1 (DOE 1994a) documents assessment of
residual and short-term risk associated with each of the four alternatives considered for detailed
analysis. This quantitative assessment concluded that the residual and short-term risks associated with
FER/OU1ROD/BIH/01/24/9S 7:33am 7-1
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
each alternative fall within a range considered to be protective as established in the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
7.1 ARARs
Except for the No-Action Alternative, all other alternatives (4A, 4B, SA, SB) would either attain
pertinent ARARs or could potentially requires a waiver of one or more ARAR(s). (References to
"action alternatives" will mean all alternatives except the No-Action Alternative). Appendix F of the
Final Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1 includes a comprehensive identification of the potential
ARARs and the To Be Considered (TBC) criteria relative to remediation of Operable Unit 1. Also
included is an assessment of each alternative's ability to comply with identified ARARs and TBCs.
Major requirements are discussed below. Section 10.2 of this Record of Decision provides a
description of the following types of ARARs, as they pertain to the selected alternative: chemical-
specific, location-specific, and action-specific.
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Each action alternative would meet the chemical-specific ARARs associated with potential releases to
groundwater, air, and surface water. Included among the chemical-specific ARARs are standards for
chemicals discharged to surface water (Ohio Administrative Code [OAC] 3745-1), inorganic and
organic chemicals in drinking water (40 CFR 141/OAC 3745-81), and radionuclides in surface and
drinking water (40 CFR 141/OAC 3745-81 and U.S. Department of Energy [DOE] Order 5400.5).
Location-Specific ARARs
Among the location-specific ARARs for the site is the Ohio Solid Waste Siting Criteria (OAC 3745-
27-07). However, the selected remedial alternative does not include on-site disposal; therefore, it is
not an ARAR for Operable Unit 1. OAC 3745-27-07(B)(5) prohibits construction of new solid waste
disposal facilities over sole-source aquifers. The Great Miami Aquifer has been designated a sole-
source aquifer under the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. An exemption or CERCLA
waiver from this ARAR would be required in order to implement any on-site disposal alternatives.
Location-specific ARARs include the requirements associated with the discharge of dredged and
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:lSun 7-2
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
excavated material into "Waters of the United States," protection of wetlands, floodplains, and
endangered species during the on-site management of materials.
Action-Specific ARARs
All action alternatives would comply with action-specific ARARs. For Alternatives 4A and 4B, the
above-grade disposal cell would incorporate design requirements for the disposal of uranium mill
tailings (40 CFR 192), and hazardous waste under RCRA (i.e., treatment, storage, and disposal
facility requirements). The design of the on-site disposal cell design would also include appropriate
engineering features that satisfy the requirements of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR Parts 104 and
125), the Ohio Water Quality Standards, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40
CFR Parts 262 and 264).
For Alternatives 5A and SB, hazardous materials transport requirements would be complied with by
following the appropriate U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) shipping standards in 49 CFR
Parts 172 and 173.
7.2 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
Except for the No-Action Alternative, the alternatives being considered for Operable Unit 1 include a
number of common components. Each alternative involves removal of more than 700,000 cubic
yards of pit waste, soil, caps, liners, etc., some form of treatment (vitrification, drying, or cement
stabilization), and disposal of Operable Unit 1 wastes. Oversize structural-type debris is expected to
be encountered during excavation of the waste pit contents. Such material not readily amenable to
size reduction in the Operable Unit 1 remedial process will be decontaminated and forwarded to
Operable Unit 3 for management hi the same manner as debris and nibble generated from the
demolition of the process area buildings. In addition to the pit wastes and associated material
discussed above, other contaminated soils are present within Operable Unit 1. Specifically, surface
soils adjacent to the waste pits and soils beneath the waste pits exhibit varying degrees of
contamination These soils will be excavated to health-based levels (see Section 9.2 of this Record of
Decision) that will result in a residual risk that is within the acceptable range, as established in the
NCP. If amenable to the remedy selected in the Operable Unit 5 Record of Decision, surface soils,
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 IChlStm 7-3
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
contaminated soils from beneath the excavated pits and some cover soils, as appropriate, will be
forwarded to Operable Unit 5 for disposition. If not amenable to the Operable Unit 5 remedy, these
materials will be managed in the same fashion as the pit waste.
Additionally, groundwater remediation will be addressed by Operable Unit 5. All action alternatives
incorporate institutional controls that include continued federal ownership and maintenance of fencing
and signs.
7.2.1 Alternative 1 - No-Action Alternative
Capital Cost $ 0
Present Worth (PW) $0
Months to Implement 0
The No-Action Alternative for Operable Unit 1 provides a baseline for comparison with the other
alternatives per the NCP. Under the No-Action Alternative, designated as Alternative 1, the
contaminated materials within the Operable Unit would remain unchanged without any further waste
removal, treatment, containment, or mitigating activities. The No-Action Alternative would not
decrease the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants through treatment or reduce public health
or environmental risks.
7.2.2 Alternative 4A - Removal. Treatment (Vitrification), and On-Property Disposal
Capital Cost $654,852,965
Present Worth (PW) $457,740,000
Months of Operation 120
Alternative 4A requires the excavation of Waste Pits 1 through 6, the Burn Pit, and the Clearwell,
including the waste, covers, surface soils outside the capped areas, liners and soils below the liners to
health-based limits. Excavated material would be dried and treated by vitrification (a process that
transforms the waste into a glassified material). Due to the heterogenous nature of the waste in the
pits, size reduction, homogenization, and blending would be required for uniform drying. Minimum
treatment standards would be implemented to produce a waste form that will resist contaminant
leaching and meets or exceeds regulatory standards. Treatment to meet these minimum standards, in
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15un 7-4
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
the context of waste solidification technologies, is discussed in detail in Section 2.4.6.2 of the
Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study. The treated material would be disposed on site in an engineered
waste disposal cell. Long-term risk mitigation would be provided by the combination of waste
treatment which reduces waste mobility, and placement hi the engineered disposal facility, which
precludes human and ecological contact, and unacceptable impacts to the Great Miami Aquifer. The
waste pits would be backfilled and covered with an infiltration-limiting multilayer cover. The areas
where surface soil is excavated would be graded and vegetated. Topsoil would be used to support
vegetative growth, where required. This alternative would incorporate institutional controls
(continued federal ownership with fencing) and monitoring measures. The on-site Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) cost for Alternative 4A is approximately $280,796. O&M, including
maintenance and repair, surveillance, and monitoring, is estimated based on 30 years of O&M
following remediation. O&M is included hi the present worth value.
Active waste processing will take approximately 10 years. The vitrification alternative takes almost
twice as long as the other alternatives because it includes almost all the steps that make up the other
alternatives, plus the additional time required to vitrify the waste.
7.2.3 Alternative 4B - Removal. Treatment (Cement Solidification), and On-Property Disposal
Capital Cost $525,063,363
Present Worth (PW) $404,903,000
Months of Operation 60
Alternative 4B includes the same remedial action components as Alternative 4A with the exception of
the treatment process used. In this alternative, cement solidification would be used instead of
vitrification. As with alternative 4A, the heterogenous nature of the waste hi the pits will require size
reduction, homogenization, and blending to allow uniform drying. Minimum treatment standards
would be implemented to produce a waste form that will resist contaminant leaching and meets or
exceeds regulatory standards. Treatment to meet these minimum standards, hi the context of waste
solidification technologies, is discussed in detail hi Section 2.4.6.2 of the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility
Study. The volume of the treated material would be more than vitrified material, which hi turn
would increase the size of the site disposal cell. Long-term risk mitigation is provided by the
FER/OUlROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 7-5
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
combination of waste treatment which reduces waste mobility and placement in the engineered
disposal facility, which precludes human and ecological contact, and unacceptable impacts to the
Great Miami Aquifer. The excavated material would be processed in about 5 years,
yieldingapproximately 1.3 million cubic yards of cement-solidified waste. Remedial action
components of drying within Alternative 4B which are identical to Alternative 4A include site
preparation, excavation, drying and treatment, on-property disposal in an above-grade cell (the cell
would be larger), site restoration, access control measures and monitoring. The on-site O&M cost for
Alternative 4B is approximately $280,796. O&M, including maintenance and repair, .surveillance,
and monitoring is estimated based on 30 years of O&M following remediation. O&M is included in
the present worth value.
7.2.4 Alternative 5A - Removal. Treatment (Thermal Drying), and Off-Site Disposal at the
NTS
Capital Cost $856,102,282
Present Worth (PW) $645,870,000
Months of Operation 60
Alternative 5A is identical to Alternative 4A except that the vitrification is eliminated and, instead of
on-site disposal, off-site disposal will be at the NTS. The NTS is a DOE-owned facility that currently
accepts low-level radioactive waste from DOE facilities for disposal. It is located approximately
3,219 kilometers (2,000 miles) from the FEMP site in an arid environment far from any population
centers. For this alternative, the excavation rate would be limited by the capacity of the dryers. It is
estimated that active waste processing would require approximately 5 years.
Off-site disposal at the NTS involves drying and packaging the treated waste in sealed containers that
comply with DOE and DOT requirements. The wastes would then be transported in accordance with
all DOT requirements.
For this alternative, the waste would be processed and treated by thermal drying to meet the waste
acceptance criteria for disposal at the NTS. The dried waste would be sampled prior to shipment.
Based on available data in the Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1 and NTS
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 7-6
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Waste Acceptance Criteria, Operable Unit 1 pit wastes can meet NTS disposal requirements.
However, due to the extreme heterogeneity of the pit wastes, it is possible that isolated pockets of
waste could be encountered that would not meet NTS waste acceptance criteria, potentially including
mixed wastes. As a contingency, wastes that do not meet the NTS waste acceptance criteria, up to 10
percent of the total waste by volume, may be disposed at a permitted commercial waste disposal
facility.
It is possible that localized areas of RCRA characteristic wastes for metals and/or volatile organics
could be encountered during remediation and, therefore, not meet NTS waste acceptance criteria
(WAC). In the event RCRA characteristic wastes are encountered during waste acceptance criteria
sampling, treatment options could be employed. Waste drying will be designed such that it will
thermally desorb volatile organics in the waste. Simple modifications to the water treatment process,
such as lime addition during the crushing phase of the process, would be undertaken to immobilize
metals encountered. If a waste is treated such that it no longer demonstrates a hazardous
characteristic, then it is no longer a RCRA hazardous waste. Therefore, any RCRA characteristic
wastes that are identified during WAC sampling could be treated such that they are no longer RCRA
regulated, leaving only a radiological concern. Since the wastes of Operable Unit 1 are considered
low-level radiological wastes which are acceptable for disposal at the NTS, and since they can be
treated for RCRA characteristics as noted above, it is anticipated that all waste could meet NTS waste
acceptance criteria.
The on-site O&M cost for Alternatives SA and SB is approximately $63,722 for each. O&M,
including maintenance and repair, surveillance, and monitoring, is estimated based on 30 years of
O&M following remediation. O&M is included in the present worth value.
7.2.5 Alternative SB - Removal. Treatment (Thermal Drying'), and Off-Site Disposal at Permitted
Commercial Facility
Capital Cost $513,050,560
Present Worth (PW) $389,509,000
Months of Operation 60
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 IChlSam 7-7
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Alternative SB is identical to Alternative SA except that the treated waste would be shipped in bulk
directly to a permitted commercial waste disposal facility. Under this alternative, the excavation and
drying rate would be the same as Alternative SA. At this rate, active waste processing would require
approximately 5 years.
For this alternative, the waste would be processed and treated by thermal drying to meet the waste
/
acceptance criteria of the disposal facility. Due to the heterogenous nature of the waste hi the pits,
size reduction, homogenization, and blending would be required for uniform drying. The dried waste
would be sampled prior to being loaded into the rail cars. Any waste determined by sampling to be
RCRA waste would be packaged separately and then shipped to the commercial disposal facility. Any
RCRA characteristic wastes that are identified during WAC sampling could be treated such that they
are no longer RCRA regulated, leaving only radiological concerns for the WAC. As a contingency,
if any isolated pockets of waste are ready for disposal that do not meet the waste acceptance criteria
of the permitted commercial waste disposal facility, it could be disposed at the NTS as long as it
meets the NTS waste acceptance criteria. Such alternative disposal would be allowed for up to 10
percent of the total waste volume.
It is possible that localized areas of RCRA characteristic wastes for metals and/or volatile organics
could be encountered during remediation and, therefore, not meet the NTS waste acceptance criteria.
In the event RCRA characteristic wastes are encountered during waste acceptance criteria sampling,
treatment options could be employed. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are removed from the
waste through thermal desorption during drying and do not return. Simple modifications to the water
treatment process, such as lime addition during the crushing phase of the process, would be
undertaken to immobilize metals encountered. If a characteristic waste is treated such that it no
longer demonstrates a hazardous characteristic, then it is no longer a RCRA hazardous waste.
Therefore, any RCRA characteristic wastes that are identified during WAC sampling could be treated
such that they are no longer RCRA-regulated, leaving only a radiological concern. Since the wastes
of Operable Unit 1 are considered low-level radiological wastes that are acceptable for disposal at
NTS, and since they can be treated for RCRA characteristics as noted above, it is anticipated that all
waste could meet NTS waste acceptance criteria, if necessary.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/93 10:15am 7-8
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
8.0 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
8.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA
Specific legal requirements for remedial actions are established under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Section 121. These
requirements include protection of human health and the environment, compliance with Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) (unless a waiver is obtained), a preference for
permanent solutions which use treatment as a principal element (to the maximum extent possible), and
cost effectiveness. To determine whether alternatives meet the requirements, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency CEP A) has identified nine criteria in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan that must be evaluated for each alternative selected for detailed analysis.
These criteria are as follows:
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment: Examines whether a remedy
would provide adequate overall protection to human health and the environment in the
short- and long-term. Evaluates how risks would .be eliminated, reduced, or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls included in the alternative.
2. Compliance with ARARs: Addresses whether the alternative attains compliance with
federal and state environmental laws and requirements, unless a waiver of an ARAR is
obtained.
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence: Evaluates the permanence of the remedy,
long term effectiveness and likelihood that the remedy will be successful.
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment: Reviews the anticipated
treatment technologies to reduce the hazards of, prevent the movement of, or reduce the
quantity of waste materials.
5. Short-term effectiveness: Evaluates the ability of a remedy to achieve protection of
workers, the public, and the environment during construction and implementation of the
remedial action.
6. Implementability: Examines the ease or difficulty of implementing a remedy, including
the availability of materials and services needed during implementation of the remedial
action.
7. Cost: Reviews both estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs of the remedy.
Costs are presented as present worth costs. "Present worth" is defined as the amount of
money that, if invested in the first year of implementing a remedy and paid out as needed,
would be sufficient to cover all costs associated with the remedy over its planned life.
FER/OU1ROD/BIH/01/23/95 10:15am 8-1
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Present worth costs allow remedies that would occur over different time periods to be
compared on an even basis.
8. State Acceptance: Evaluates the technical and administrative issues and concerns that the
state(s) may have regarding each of the alternatives; and the state comments on ARARs or
proposed use of waivers.
9. Community Acceptance: Evaluates the issues and concerns the public may have
regarding each of the alternatives, including which parts of the alternatives are supported
or opposed.
The first two criteria are considered threshold criteria and must be met by the final remedial action
alternatives for the Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP) site. The next five criteria
are considered primary balancing criteria and are considered together to identify and evaluate the
balance of tradeoffs among the alternatives. The last two are considered modifying criteria which are
considered after comments on the Proposed Plan are received.
8.2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 8-1 provides an overview of the analysis of the five alternatives. A brief discussion of the nine
criteria with respect to the five alternatives follows.
8.2.1 Overall Protectiveness
Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative, would not protect human health or the environment, since
no remedial activities would be conducted and Operable Unit 1 currently presents unacceptable risks
to human health and the environment. The other four alternatives, collectively referred to as the
"action alternatives," would provide removal, treatment, and disposal of the waste pit material and
contaminated soils to levels that would protect human health and the environment. (Alternatives 4A
and 4B provide for on-property disposal, while Alternatives SA and 56 provide for off-site disposal.)
Once remediation is complete, the total calculated residual risk (incremental lifetime cancer risk) for
Alternatives SA and SB, assuming continued use of the land as a government reserve, is 2.9 x 10~7
with a corresponding Hazard Index of 0.1. Under this scenario, the off-property farm family and the
expanded trespasser are the hypothetical receptors. For a more detailed discussion of residual risk,
see Appendix D, Section 7, in the Final Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1 .
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15*m 8-2
-------
e
I
I
TABLE 8-1
OPERABLE UNIT 1
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
1 - No Action
4A - Removal, Treatment, (Vit),
and On-Property Disposal
4B - Removal, Treatment (Cem)
and On-Property Disposal
5A - Removal, Treatment
(Drying), and Off-Site Disposal
at NTS
5B - Removal, Treatment
(Drying), and Off-Site Disposal
at a Permitted Commercial
Disposal Facility
Overall Protection
of Human Health
and Environment
Not protective
Protective"
Protective*
Protective'
Protective"
Compliance with
ARARs
Does not meet all
ARARs
Complies with all
ARARs"
Complies with all
ARARs"
Complies with all
ARARs
Complies with all
ARARs
Long-Term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Not effective or .
permanent
Effective
Effective
Highly Effective
Highly Effective
Reduction of
Toxicity, Mobility
or Volume
Through Treatment
No treatment
Reduces toxicity,
mobility, and
volume
Reduces mobility,
but increases
volume
Does not affect
toxicity or
mobility, but
slightly decreases
volume
Does not affect
toxicity or
mobility, but
slightly decreases
volume
Short-Term
Effectiveness
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Implementability
Easy
Innovative
Technology;
Difficult
More Reliable
Technology;
Difficult
Reliable
Technology;
Moderately
Difficult
Reliable
Technology;
Moderately
Difficult
Present
Worth
Cost
Very Low
Moderately
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
U)
" Assessment of protectiveness assumes the use of continued federal government ownership and evaluates risk to the off-property farmer.
b Assumes substantive technical requirements for Ohio disposal facility siting are met sufficiently to obtain a waiver from the ARAR.
SOURCE - Final Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1 (DOE, 1994a)
VO
VO
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 199S
8.2.2 Compliance with ARARs
All action alternatives would either attain pertinent ARARs or justify that a waiver of an ARAR(s)
may be appropriate. A comprehensive list of potential ARARs is presented in Appendix F of the
Final Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1 for both on-site and off-site disposal alternatives. Key
requirements are discussed in Section 10.
8:2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 1, No-Action, would not be effective in the long term, since the Baseline Risk Assessment
indicates that the current site conditions would not, in the long term, be protective of human health
and the environment and no remedial activities would be conducted on Operable Unit 1 under this
alternative.
The four action alternatives (Alternatives 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B), if they perform as designed, are
expected to be effective in the long term and provide permanent solutions. Alternatives 4A and 4B
provide excavation, treatment, on-property disposal in an on-site engineered disposal facility, designed
for a 1,000-year life with minimal maintenance, as well as capping of residual contamination These
alternatives would be approximately equal in effectiveness at reducing the residual risks to potential
receptors. Long-term environmental impacts associated with construction of the on-property disposal
cell and the probable maximum flood (PMF) channel for Alternatives 4A and 4B include permanent
disruption of up to 47.3 hectares (116.9 acres) of land. No significant long-term impacts are expected
for water quality and hydrology, air quality, socioeconomics, or cultural resources. The construction
of an on-property disposal cell for Operable Unit 1 remediation waste would permanently disrupt 0.5
hectare (1.3 acres) of drainage ditch/swale wetlands. The 100- and 500-year floodplains would not be
permanently altered by regrading and revegetation activities.
Alternatives 5A and 5B would provide excavation, treatment, off-property disposal, and capping of
residual contamination. Approximately 1.89 hectare (4.67 acres) of wetlands would be impaired by
various equipment traffic and soil removal, resulting in physical disturbance and filling of wetland
areas. The 100- and 500-year floodplains would not be permanently altered by regrading and
revegetation activities. These two alternatives would be equally effective at reducing residual risks to
potential receptors. The long-term effectiveness of these alternatives is judged to be more certain than
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15«m 8-4
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
for Alternatives 4A and 4B, since the pit waste material, a potential contaminant source, would be
removed from the site. As discussed in the following paragraphs, the two potential off-site disposal
locations are in a very dry climatic region with no surface water in the vicinity, no usable
groundwater and no human populations within many miles. The FEMP site, however, overlies a
sole-source aquifer and is in a relatively populated area. In the event waste treatment and/or
engineering and institutional controls fail, there is a greater potential for human health and the
environment to be impacted at the FEMP site then at either of the two off-site locations.
There are no long-term environmental impacts at the FEMP pertaining to the removal and treatment
processes as a result of implementing mitigative measures. Long-term environmental impacts off-site
(e.g., acquisition of borrow material) and on site (2.8 hectares [7 acres] north and adjacent to the
waste pit area) would include some permanent disturbance of soils associated with backfilled cover or
disposal activities. No significant long-term impacts from off-site disposal would be expected for ,
water quality and hydrology, air quality, biotic resources, socioeconomics and land use, or cultural
resources.
The Nevada Test Site (NTS) disposal facility (Alternative 5A) is located in a sparsely populated, arid
environment with minimal potential for leachate generation and contaminant migration. Because the
NTS is owned and maintained by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and utilized for the disposal of
selected low-level wastes from other DOE sites, the uncertainties associated with institutional controls
are low. As the result of a low average annual precipitation and very deep groundwater, impacts to
human health and the environment would be effectively mitigated in the event engineering and
institutional controls fail.
Similar to the NTS, the representative permitted commercial waste disposal facility in Utah
(Alternative B), is located in a sparsely populated, arid environment with insignificant potential for
leachate generation and contamination migration. A combination of the high evapotranspiration rate,
dry-dense soil bodies, highly mineralized and unusable groundwater, and lack of surface waters in the
area make the facility physically conducive for the disposal of treated waste. As a result of the arid
climate and the distance from population centers, impacts to human health and the environment would
be effectively mitigated in the event engineering and institutional controls fail.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15«m 8-5
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 199S
8.2.4 Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative, does not include treatment and would not result in a
reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume. The treatment process for the on-property disposal
Alternatives 4A and 4B consists of vitrification and cement solidification respectively. For
Alternatives SA and SB, the wastes would be treated by drying to meet the waste acceptance criteria
of the off-site disposal facilities.
The treatment associated with Alternatives 4A (vitrification, which physically binds the constituents
into a glass-like matrix) and 4B (cement solidification, which physically binds constituents into a
cement mixture) would reduce the mobility of contaminants. In addition, the high temperatures
associated with vitrification would destroy any residual organics remaining hi the waste after drying.
After drying, cement solidification would significantly increase the overall waste volume while
vitrification would very slightly reduce it.
Alternatives SA and SB would not provide any treatment that significantly alters toxicity, mobility, or
volume of contaminants. They, employ treatment of the waste by drying. The drying technology has
limited ability to irreversibly treat waste. Volatile organic compounds are removed from the waste
through thermal desorption during drying and do not return. In addition, drying and size reduction
would slightly reduce the volume of material by reducing the moisture content and void ratio. Upon
treatment, it is anticipated that the material would meet the waste acceptance criteria of the off-she
disposal facilities. Appendix J of the Final Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1 presents the criteria
for both facilities and documents DOE's capability to meet those criteria.
8.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative 1, No Action, would be very effective in the short term, relative to adverse impacts
during construction since there would be no remedial activities. Therefore, there would be no
additional risk to workers or the community near the FEMP site due to implementation of the No-
Action Alternative.
The four action alternatives involve remedial activities and therefore all pose some risk to workers
and the community. However, all four of the action alternatives would protect human health and the
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 8-6
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
environment in the long term. Remediation workers, non-remediation workers, and the community
would be subject to minimal chemical and radiological exposures. In addition, remediation workers
would be subject to occupational hazards while performing remedial activities. Appendix D of the
Final Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1 documents assessment of these risks.
The short-term risks (excluding transportation) to remediation workers would be approximately the
same for Alternatives 4A and 4B, with Alternative 4B having a slightly higher potential for accidents
than Alternative 4A. The short-term risks for Alternatives 5A and SB (excluding transportation and
waste container handling) would be equal to, and somewhat lower than, Alternatives 4A and 4B, due
to the higher potential for accidents associated with on-property disposal. However, there would be
the potential for exposures and accidents associated with transportation and waste container handling.
Taking these risks into account, Alternative SA would have higher dose equivalents and potential
accidents for remediation workers than any of the other action alternatives. Alternative SB, with less
waste handling required by bulk waste shipment, would have the potential for significantly fewer
accidents and exposures than the other alternatives, even after adding risks associated with transporta-
tion.
The short-term risks (excluding transportation) to off-site individuals and non-remediation workers
would be approximately the same for all four action alternatives. During transportation of waste
materials, Alternative SA would result in slightly higher risks to communities along the transportation
route than Alternative SB because of the double handling of waste sent to NTS. No transportation
risks are associated with Alternatives 4A and 4B.
The active waste processing and disposal periods for Alternatives 4B, SA, and SB are all
approximately 5 years. That period is approximately 10 years for Alternative 4A.
During remediation, all four action alternatives would protect the community and workers through the
use of engineered and institutional controls. Short-term risks to the community (not including
transportation) and to non-remediation workers would be approximately equal and within acceptable
risk limits for all four action alternatives.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/9S 10:15am 8-7
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Short-term impacts associated with the action alternatives would include temporary disruption of
approximately 2.8 hectares (7 acres) of land at the FEMP site as a result of borrow areas and
approximately 6.1 hectares (15 acres) of land for construction of the support facilities. Potential
impacts associated with increased fugitive dust emissions during excavation activities and minor
impacts to biota and wetlands (up to 42 hectares [98 acres]) exist. However, appropriate engineering
controls would minimize these potential short-term impacts. All transportation to off-site facilities
would be in compliance with DOT regulations and DOE orders and guidelines.
Since both Alternatives 4A and 4B involve site preparation and construction for a treatment facility
and an on-site disposal cell, they would result in an additional temporary disruption of 5.3 hectares
(13 acres) from equipment movement during on-site disposal cell construction. The nature and extent
of impacts to biota from implementing Alternatives 4A and 4B would be similar. Potential
environmental impacts .associated with implementing Alternatives 4A and 4B include the permanent
loss of some on-site habitats. Short-term impacts include the temporary loss of habitats at the FEMP
site and possible impacts of accidental spills of construction and operational materials. Long- and
short-term impacts include potential threatened or endangered (federal or state) species habitat.
Mitigative measures and engineering controls would be employed to minimize these short-term
impacts and risks.
8.2.6 Implementability
The technical implementability for the selected alternative (Alternative SB) is judged to be better than
for the alternatives involving additional treatment and on-site disposal. The technologies associated
with waste excavation, handling, drying, containerization and off-site transportation are commonly
applied throughout various industries. Further, the heterogeneity of the waste pit contents is not
likely to adversely affect the implementability of any of these technologies. In contrast, the waste
heterogeneity does impact the ability to treat the wastes using cement solidification or vitrification
(Alternatives 4A and 4B, respectively). The impacts of waste heterogeneity are discussed further in
the technical feasibility discussion.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 8-8
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
8.2.6.1 Technical Feasibility
Alternative 1 would be easy to implement because there would be no removal, treatment or disposal
actions required.
For the action alternatives (Alternatives 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B), removal and disposal activities would
be very similar. All could be implemented using standard equipment, procedures, and readily
available resources. Dry and wet excavation methods would be implemented with careful excavation
planning. The disposal cell size for Alternative 4B, although still readily implementable, would be
approximately double the size of the Alternative 4A cell due to the 100 percent increase in volume
produced by cement solidification used in Alternative 4B. Variations in treatment options employed
by these alternatives have varying degrees of technical feasibility. The vitrification process used in
Alternative 4A would be considered to be marginally less difficult to implement generically for all
types of waste material encountered at Operable Unit 1. Vitrification process equipment would be
more complex to construct and operate than that of the cement solidification process, yet the extreme
heterogeneity of the waste would make successful cement/waste mix formulation and quality control
extremely difficult. A full-scale facility for vitrification of hazardous or radioactive waste similar to
the waste at Operable Unit 1 has not yet been constructed elsewhere, and thus the start-up of a first-
of-its-kind facility is expected to be difficult. Cement solidification has been previously applied to
similar low-level wastes with varying degrees of success. The construction of either the vitrification
facility or the cement solidification facility is expected to be straightforward. Vitrification technology
is not as widely available as the cement solidification technology. The complexity of off-gas
treatment for gases emitting during vitrification is also an additional complexity where difficulties
could occur. However, operational experience is being gained as part of the structured treatability
studies and vitrification pilot facility planning currently in progress.
The cement solidification facility would be difficult to operate due to the heterogenous nature of the
waste in the pits. The mix would need constant testing to ensure that the solidified waste would meet
performance requirements. However, EPA considers cement solidification a demonstrated treatment
technology and has approved its use in the final remedy for many National Priorities List sites. The
cement solidification process would require large quantities of cement and other additives which
increases the volume of the treated waste.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 8-9
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 199S
The technical feasibility of Alternatives SA and 56 are dependent upon meeting the waste acceptance
criteria of the disposal site and off-site transportation requirements. Based on the evaluation of the
waste material, it is expected that the treated waste would meet the waste acceptance criteria at both
the representative permitted commercial waste disposal facility and the NTS. It is possible that
localized areas of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) characteristic wastes for metals
and/or volatile organics could be encountered during remediation and, therefore, not meet NTS waste
acceptance criteria. In the event RCRA characteristic wastes are encountered during waste acceptance
criteria sampling, treatment options could be employed. Waste drying will be designed such that it
will thermally desorb volatile organics in the waste. Simple modifications to the waste treatment
process, such as lime addition during the crushing phase of the process, would be undertaken to
immobilize metals encountered. It should be noted that if a characteristic waste is treated such that it
no longer demonstrates a hazardous characteristic, then it is no longer a RCRA hazardous waste.
Therefore, any RCRA characteristic wastes that are identified during waste acceptance criteria
sampling could be treated such that they are no longer RCRA regulated, leaving only radiological
concerns for waste acceptance criteria. Since the wastes of Operable Unit 1 are considered low-level
radiological wastes which are acceptable for disposal at NTS and since they can be treated for RCRA
characteristics as noted above, it is anticipated that all wastes could meet NTS waste acceptance
criteria, if necessary.
Off-site transportation is technically feasible for both alternatives as further discussed under
administrative implementability. Nevertheless, logistics issues associated with transporting large
volumes of material would make implementation moderately difficult for both Alternatives 5A and
SB. Both the NTS and the representative permitted commercial waste disposal facility have the
capacity to accept wastes from Operable Unit 1. Appendix J of the Final Feasibility Study for
Operable Unit 1 discusses the ability of Alternatives 5A and SB to meet the respective waste
acceptance criteria.
8.2.6.2 Administrative Feasibility
Alternatives 4A and 4B would be conducted entirely on site and would not require issuance of any
permits. The only known administrative barrier to implementing Alternatives 4A and 4B is the need
to obtain a waiver of the ARAR prohibition against building a disposal facility over a sole-source
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:lS«m 8-10
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
aquifer. Specifically, a waiver from the Ohio ARAR would be required to implement these
alternatives.
Off-site disposal Alternatives 5A and SB consist of on-site and off-site activities. The excavation,
material handling and processing of the wastes will occur entirely on site. For these portions of the
remedial alternative the administrative feasibility analysis presented above would apply, i.e., no
permit is required for on-site remediation. However, the off-site transportation and disposal of the
wastes would have to comply with applicable permitting requirements.
The Off-Site Rule (58 FR 49200) provides that a facility used for off-site management of wastes
generated from CERCLA response actions must be in physical compliance with RCRA, and/or other
applicable Federal and State laws. In addition, the following criteria must be met:
Units receiving CERCLA waste at RCRA Subtitle C facilities must not be releasing any
hazardous wastes, hazardous constituents, or hazardous substances.
Receiving units at Subtitle C land disposal facilities must meet minimum technology
requirements.
All releases from non-receiving units at land disposal facilities must be addressed by a
corrective action program prior to using any unit at the facility.
Environmentally significant releases from non-receiving units at Subtitle C treatment
and storage facilities, and from all units at other-than-Subtitle C facilities, must also
be addressed by a corrective action program prior to using any unit at the facility for
the management of CERCLA wastes.
EPA makes the final determination as to whether potential receiving facilities can receive CERCLA
waste, with the respective state hi which the receiving facility is located, being an active participant in
the decision-making process. In addition, the distinction between criteria for CERCLA wastes
resulting from pre- and post-SARA decision documents has been removed.
DOE will conduct an audit of the disposal facility prior to shipping Operable Unit 1 waste to confirm
the facility's status and compliance history. The review will be conducted annually throughout the
term of the remediation project. In the event the compliance status of the disposal facility would
change, DOE would temporarily suspend waste shipments until the actions/requirements for regaining
FER/OUlROD/BIH/01/23/95 10:15am 8-11 -
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
acceptability status under the policy were implemented and the facility becomes designated as
acceptable.
Review of applicable DOT regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-173) indicates there are currently no
provisions that would prohibit shipments of the Operable Unit 1 waste from the site to the NTS or a
permitted commercial waste disposal facility using either trucks or rail. In addition, there are no
known transit state or local regulations that would categorically prohibit waste shipment.
For Alternative SB, which proposes off-site disposal at a permitted commercial waste disposal facility,
it is noted that DOE Order 5820.2A currently prohibits use of commercial disposal facilities for
disposal of low-level radioactive wastes of the type present hi Operable Unit 1; but the order does
have an exemption provision. An exemption request to DOE Order 5820.2A has been approved by
DOE Headquarters, Office of Waste Management, so that Operable Unit 1 pit wastes can be disposed
at a permitted commercial waste disposal facility (DOE 1994d).
In summary, the on-site disposal alternatives (4A and 4B) would require a waiver of the State of Ohio
prohibition against disposal over a sole-source aquifer [OAC 374S-27-07(B)(5)]; this regulation is an
ARAR. The administrative feasibility of the off-site disposal alternatives (SA and SB) are moderately
difficult because of the transportation of wastes through a number of states and municipalities. There
is no administration involved with the No-Action Alternative.
8.2.7 Cost
The selected alternative, with disposal at a permitted commercial waste disposal facility, has a very
slight cost advantage compared to Alternative 4B. There is a larger cost advantage compared to
Alternative 4A. The most costly alternative is for off-site disposal at the Nevada Test Site. Cost
calculations are provided in Appendix E of the Final Feasibility Study Report.
8.2.8 State Acceptance
The State of Ohio supports DOE's selected remedy; a letter detailing Ohio support is shown hi
Appendix A.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/9S 10:15tm 8-12
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Copies of the Proposed Plan were distributed to the State of Utah and to the State of Nevada. No
comments were received.
8.2.9 Community Acceptance
Based on public comment received during the formal public comment period, the public generally
accepted the selected remedy. Public comments focused on how the remedy should be implemented,
instead of whether it should be implemented. All comments received are identified and responded to
in the Responsiveness Summary (Appendix A).
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 8-13
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), the detailed analysis of the alternatives using the nine criteria, and public
and State comments, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) have determined that Alternative 5B is the most appropriate remedy for Operable Unit
1 at the Femald Environmental Management Project (FEMP).
The primary components of the selected remedy (Alternative SB) include the excavation of the waste
pit contents, waste processing and treatment by thermal drying, and off-site disposal at a permitted
commercial disposal facility. All key components of the selected remedy are summarized below.
9.1 KEY COMPONENTS
The selected remedy consists of the following key components:
• Construction of waste processing and loading facilities and equipment.
• Removal of water from open waste pits for treatment at the site's wastewater
treatment facility.
• Removal of waste pit contents, caps and liners, and excavation of surrounding
contaminated soil.
• Confirmation sampling of waste pit excavations to verify achievement of remediation
levels.
• Pretreatment (sorting/crushing/shredding) of waste.
• Treatment of the waste by thermal drying as required to meet the waste acceptance
criteria of the disposal facility.
• Waste sampling and analysis prior to shipment to ensure that the waste acceptance
criteria (WAC) of the disposal facility are met.
• Off-site shipment of waste for disposal at a permitted commercial waste disposal
facility. It is estimated that over 600,000 cubic yards of waste material will be
excavated and disposed as low-level radioactive waste.
• As a contingency, shipment of any waste that fails (due to radiological concentrations)
to meet the waste acceptance criteria of the permitted commercial waste disposal
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 9-1
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
facility (up to 10 percent of the total waste volume) for disposal at the Nevada Test
Site(NTS).
• Decommissioning and removal of the drying treatment unit and associated facilities, as
well as miscellaneous structures and facilities within the operable unit. Oversized
material mat is amenable to the selected alternative for Operable Unit 3 would be
segregated from Operable Unit 1 waste, decontaminated, and forwarded to Operable
Unit 3 to be managed as construction rubble.
• Disposition of remaining Operable Unit 1 residual contaminated soils consistent with
selected remedies for contaminated process area soils as documented in the Operable
Unit 5 Record of Decision. Any materials not amenable to the Operable Unit 5
remedy will be disposed as waste materials (i.e., shipped off site).
• Placement of backfill into excavations and construction of cover system.
Table 9-1 summarizes the total capital cost associated with each major cost element of the selected
remedy, including the estimated annual maintenance costs after the completion of active remedial
action. The total net present value cost of the selected remedy is estimated at $389,509,000.
The selected remedial alternative offers a reduction of the potential risk to human health associated
with the site as it currently exists. Results of the Baseline Risk Assessment, performed as part of the
Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation Report, indicated that the potential risk to human health
associated with the "no further action" alternative was unacceptably high.
According to Table D.6-1 of the Final Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1, the total dose equivalent
to remediation workers during implementation of Alternative SB is 100 millirem. The mechanical
hazard risk to remediation workers is quantified for Alternative SB as 25 potential occurrences for
injuries and 0.36 potential occurrences for fatalities during implementation of the remedial alternative.
As shown in Table D.6-3 of the Final Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1, the total radiological and
chemical cancer risk to nonremediation workers during implementation of remedial Alternative SB is
5.2 x 10~5. The total radiological and chemical risk to off-site individuals during implementation of
the remedial alternative is 2.9 x 10"*. Finally, the transportation risk for Alternative SB is 4.6 x 10~5.
For more detailed discussion of risks during remediation, see Appendix D, Section 6.0, of the Final
Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1.
FER/OU1KOD/BIH/01/23/95 10:lSim 9-2
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD-FINAL
January 26, 1995
TABLE 9-1
OPERABLE UNIT 1
COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE SB:
REMOVAL, TREATMENT, AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL AT
A REPRESENTATIVE COMMERCIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY
Item Cost (SMillion)
Capital Cost
Ancillary Facilities ' 10
Waste Pit Excavation (5 years) 63
Waste Pit Backfill (5 years) 12
Pretreatment Facility 14
Rail Sidings . 6
Rotary Drying (5 years) 78
D&D Off-Site Disposal 8
Shipping and Disposal (Commercial) 322
Total Capital Cost - 513
Post-Remediation O&M Cost* 2
515
a Post-Remediation O&M Cost would continue for 30 years (Cost estimating purposes only) at an annual
cost of approximately 0.06 million dollars per year.
SOURCE - Final Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1 (DOE, 1994a)
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/01/23/95 3:47pm 9-3
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Once remediation is complete, the total calculated residual risk (incremental lifetime cancer risk) for
Alternative 5A and 56 assuming continued use of the land as a government reserve is 2 x 10~7.
Under this scenario, the off-property farm family and the expanded trespasser are the hypothetical
receptors. For a more detailed discussion of residual risk, see Appendix D, Section 7.0 of the Final
Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1.
As discussed in Section 7 of this Record of Decision, the selected remedy attains all Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.
9.2 SOIL CLEANUP CRITERIA
The Remedial Investigation, including the Baseline Risk Assessment, has documented that the waste
pit contents are significantly contaminated and require remediation. There are varying degrees of
contamination of the surface soil within Operable Unit 1, which are not associated with the waste pit
contents. There is also expected to be varying degrees of contamination in the soils beneath the waste
pits.
Accordingly, remediation levels have been established for both surface soils and the soils beneath the
waste pits. Remediation levels are presented in Table 9-2 (for surface soils) and Table 9-3 (for
subsurface soils beneath the waste pits). These levels are protective of human health and the
environment, assuming continued Federal ownership of the site as provided in the selected remedy.
No remediation levels are presented for waste pit materials since this material will be removed as part
of the Remedial Action. Additionally, only COCs for which remediation was determined to be
needed are shown on Tables 9-2 and 9-3.
The Operable Unit 1 remediation levels in this Record of Decision will be re-examined by the
Operable Unit 5 Feasibility Study and Record of Decision, based upon available Operable Unit 5
Feasibility Study conclusions, recommendations from the Fernald Citizens Advisory Task Force, and
public comment. Specifically, the risk assessment for the Operable Unit 5 Feasibility Study will
include additional trespassing scenarios as well as recreational exposure scenarios, which will be fully
developed on a site-wide basis, in the Operable Unit 5 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. A
full array of trespassing and recreational scenarios, ranging from no trespassing through full
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 9-4
-------
o
g
I
TABLE 9-2
REMEDIATION LEVELS IN SURFACE SOILS
Constituent
of
Concern
Expanded
Trespasser
HI = 1
PRO
Expanded
Trespasser
106 ILCR
PRO
Background
(95th
percentile)
ARAR
Target
•
Max. Detected
Soil
Concentration
Surface
Sub
surface
Remediation
Levels'
HI to Receptors
from
Remediation
Levels
Expanded
Trespasser
Risk to
Receptors from
Remediation
Level
Expanded
Trespasser6
Radionuclides (pCi/g)
Cs-137
+ 1 progeny
Th-230
U-235
U-238
+ 2 progeny
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.1
900
9.2
55
0.71
2.0
0.15
1.2
None
None
None
None
6
972
51
1500
<0.2
3.5
3.9
104
1.8
902
9.3
56
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.6x10*
IxlO6
< 1x10 6
1.9xl06
Chemical (mg/kg)
Beryllium
Uranium
130
380
2.1
N/A
0.6
3.6
None
None
0.77
2100
NA
309
2.1
190C
<0.01
0.5
2.5xlO'5
N/A
' This column is formatted in bold print for ease of reference only.
b Includes the direct radiation, soil ingestion, and inhalation pathways.
c 0.5 times the PRG, to protect against multiple chemicals.
NA = Not Available.
N/A= Not Applicable.
SOURCE - Final Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1 (DOE, 1994a)
— o
s a
JJ
*o ^
-------
I
s
w
a
TABLE 9-3
OPERABLE UNIT 1
PIT SUBSURFACE SOIL REMEDIAL LEVELS
BASED ON GROUNDWATER MODELING
I/I
1
VO
AN
Constituent of
Concern
Radionuclides
Tc-99
U-238 +2d
Off-Property
User
PRO
(pCi/g)
2.5E+00
1.3E+04
Waste
On-Property
User
PRO
2.2E-01
1.9E+02
Pit 1
Pit Waste
Cone.
(95% UCL)
O.OE+00
1.6E+04
Remedial
Level1*
Off-Property
User
PRO
NR
1.3E+04
5.5E+00
3.1E+04
Waste
On-Property
User
PRO
3.3E-01
4.0E+02
Pit 2
Pit Waste Remedial
Cone. Level1*
(95% UCL)
Off-
Property
User
PRO
6.2E+02 5.5E+00
1.8E+04 NR
7.5E-01
2.2E+03
Waste
On-
Property
User
PRO
7.7E-02
4.6E+01
Pit 3
Pit Waste Remedial
Cone. Level1*
(95% UCL)
1.1E+03 7.5E-01
1.7E+03 NR
Chemical (mg/kg)
PCBsc
7.8E-01
4.8E-03
4.6E+00
7.8E-01
NC
NC
O.OE+00 NR
NC
NC
O.OE+00 NR
10
o\
-------
TABLE 9-3
(Continued)
Constituent Off-Property
User
PRO
Waste
On-Property
User
PRO
Pit 4
Pit Waste
Cone.
(95% UCL)
Remedial
Level"'b
Off-property
User
PRO
Waste
On-Property
User
PRO
Pit5
Pit Waste
Cone.
(95% UCL)
Remedial
Level1'1"
Off-
property
User
PRO
Waste
On-Property
User
PRO
Pit 6
Pit Waste
Cone.
(95% UCL)
Remedial
Level'-"
Radionuclides (pCi/g)
Tc-99 2.6E-01
U-238+2d 1.1E+04
2.0E-01
1.9E+02
2.3E+02
4.2E+04
2.6E-01
1.1E+04
1.4E+00
4.7E+03
9.5E-02
6.4E+01
3.0E+03
1.5E+03
1.4E+00
NR
7.3E+00
4.1E+04
4.2E-01
4.8E+02
1.6E+02
2.3E+04
7.3E+00
NR
Chemicals (mg/kg)
PCBsc NC
NC
O.OE+00
NR
NC
NC
O.OE+00
NR
NC
NC
O.OE+00
NR
8
o
1
S
I
-------
o
§
D
TABLE 9-3
(Continued)
Burn Pit
Constituent of
Concern
Off-Property
User
PRO
On-Property
User
PRO
Pit Waste
Cone.
(95% UCL)
Remedial
Level"'b
Clearwell
Off-Property
User
PRO
On-Property
User
PRO
Pit Waste
Cone:
(95% UCL)
Remedial
Level1'6
Tc-99
U-238 +2d
1.4E+01
8.4E+04
2.9E-01
3.6E+02
6.4E+01
2.0E+03
1.4E+01
. NR
9.9E+00
5.9E+04
5.9E-01
7.1E+02
7.0E+02
1.6E+03
9.9E+00
NR
Chemicals (mg/kg)
PCBsc
NC
NC
O.OE+00
NR
NC
NC
O.OE+00
NR
* Type is boldfaced to highlight remediation levels.
b Where calculated remedial levels are lower than background, the COC will be cleaned to established background levels.
^ c PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)include all Aroclor congeners.
oo NC = Not calculated
. NR = No Remediation Required
SOURCE - Final Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1 (DOE, 1994a)
I
O\
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
recreational use of the site will be developed. If found to be necessary, the Operable Unit 5 Record
of Decision will modify the Operable Unit 1 remediation levels downward to ensure protectiveness of
human health and the environment. The Operable Unit 5 Record of Decision will be finalized prior
to excavation at Operable Unit 1. As noted previously, groundwater remediation will be addressed by
Operable Unit 5.
The remediation levels for soil cleanup, presented in this Record of Decision, were developed for an
expanded trespasser receptor under a future land use with continued federal ownership. The future
land use with continued federal ownership scenario represents a government reserve which remains
under government control with no future development intended. Active access controls currently in
place at the FEMP site would be discontinued, but the federal government would exercise the right to
preclude site development through deed restrictions. This land use scenario was not included in the
Baseline Risk Assessment, but it was developed in a part of the .Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1
to facilitate evaluation of long-term risks with continued land use restrictions. In addition to deed and
land development restrictions, fences will be erected and equipped with signs posted to prohibit
trespassing.
The expanded trespasser receptor was developed to represent an adult and/or child that visits the site
despite restrictions imposed under continued federal ownership. The possible activities of this
hypothetical receptor include hiking, roaming, bird watching, and other similar activities.
9.3 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
All practical measures would be employed at the FEMP site to minimize environmental impacts
during the implementation of the Operable Unit 1 Remedial Action. DOE has factored environmental
impacts into the decision making process for the Operable Unit 1 Remedial Action.
Measures to minimize environmental impacts to on-property natural resources (e.g., wildlife and
wildlife habitat, wetlands, floodplains, surface water, groundwater) have been identified in the Final
Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1 and the Proposed Plan and will be factored into die Remedial
Design and Remedial Action. Operable Unit 1 remedial activities would not significantly impact
floodplain areas at the FEMP. The implementation of engineering controls (e.g., expeditious
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 9-9
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
backfilling, silt fences, and hay bales) will minimize indirect impacts such as runoff and sediment
deposition to the floodplain. All physically disturbed areas of the floodplain would be regraded to
near original contours, resulting in no change to flood elevations.
The temporary disturbance of on-property vegetation and wildlife habitat would result from
excavation of pit waste and residual soil, utilization of the on-property borrow area, and construction
of support facilities. Approximately 5.37 hectares (13.27 acres) of riparian habitat supporting
potential habitat of threatened and endangered species and a wide variety of other flora and fauna
would be impacted. Potential habitat of threatened and endangered species to be impacted include the
Federally-endangered Indiana bat, and the state endangered slender fingergrass and mountain
bindweed. Actual habitat of the state threatened Sloan's crayfish would also be impacted from
increased sediment load into Paddys Run.
Impacts to biotic resources from Operable Unit 1 Remedial Action activities would be offset by
implementing mitigative measures in consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies. The
riparian habitat could be restored by planting riparian tree species such as sycamores and cottonwoods
upon completion of remedial activities. Shagbark hickories, which provide optional roosting habitat
for the Indiana bats, would also be planted. Shrub species could also be planted in the Operable
Unit 1 area to assist in the secondary successional process and wildlife boxes could be installed to re-
establish mammal and bird populations. To mitigate the loss of Indiana bat habitat, snags
(transplanted dead trees) could be placed along Paddys Run, upstream of the Waste Storage Area.
Slender fingergrass and mountain bindweed could be relocated to suitable habitat elsewhere in the
State of Ohio.
Sloan's crayfish populations in Paddys Run would be impacted from increased sediment load as a
result of remedial activities. Mitigation of these impacts include runoff control measures (silt fences,
hay bales) to minimize sediment deposition. To further minimize impacts to Sloan's crayfish,
regrading activities near Paddys Run should occur hi the dry season, when the presence of Sloan's
crayfish is primarily in the northern section of Paddys Run, under the railroad trestle. If necessary
Sloan's crayfish would be relocated further upstream of remedial activities hi pooled sections of
Paddys Run.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/24/95 7:36*m 9-10
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
A total of approximately 1.89 hectares (4.67 acres) of wetlands would be impacted as a result of
implementation of the Operable Unit 1 Remedial Action. Mitigation for wetland impacts would be
determined using the 404 (b)(l) guidelines of the Clean Water Act.
Regrading and excavation activities would result in the potential for increased sediment loads to
Paddys Run. Sediment deposition would be minimized through appropriate engineering controls such
as vegetative cover, silt fences, and hay bales. In addition, gaseous emissions from the shredding and
drying processes would pass through a combination quencher/scrubber equipped with High Efficiency
Particulate Air (HEPA) filters to remove regulated pollutants and particulates, reducing emissions to
the ambient air to acceptable levels.
To avoid impacts on cultural resources, an archeological survey will be performed at the FEMP to
determine the presence of Historic and Pre-Historic (archaeological) sites eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. However, since most areas of Operable Unit 1 have been previously
disturbed, and because of associated safety hazards, cultural resource surveys associated with
Operable Unit 1 will be limited. If an undertaking is found to have an adverse impact, consultation
with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Office would
be required under the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process. If an adverse impact to
a cultural resource cannot be avoided, a Memorandum -of Agreement, Programmatic Agreement, or
Understanding of Agreement must be adhered to by the Advisory Council, State Historic Preservation
Office, and DOE.
The selected remedy for Operable Unit 1 includes the removal of contaminated surface soil from the
entire Operable Unit 1 Area and replacement with fill material. The primary pathways of concern for
ecological receptor contact with Operable Unit 1 include surface soil and runoff of surface soil to
surface water bodies. Therefore, ecological receptors would have minimal contact with residual
contaminants and residual contamination would not pose a risk to ecological receptors within Operable
Unitl.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am 9-11
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
In accordance with the requirements of Section 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), remedial actions taken pursuant to Sections 104 and 106
must satisfy the following:
• Be protective of human health and the environment.
• Comply with all Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (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.
• 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.
In addition, the Amended Consent Agreement requires five-year reviews to determine if adequate
protection of human health and the environment is being maintained when remedial actions result in
hazardous substances remaining on site above health-based levels. The first review takes place five
years after remedial action initiation. The health-based cleanup levels established in this Record of
Decision are protective of human health and the environment assuming continued Federal ownership
of the site. However, the remediation levels will be reviewed by the Operable Unit 5 Feasibility
Study and Record of Decision, based upon available Operable Unit 5 Feasibility Study conclusions,
recommendations concerning future land use from the Fernald Citizens Task Force, and further public
comment. If found to be necessary, the Operable Unit 5 Record of Decision will modify the
Operable Unit 1 remediation levels downward to further ensure protectiveness of human health and
the environment. The Operable Unit 5 Record of Decision will be finalized prior to waste pit
excavation at Operable Unit 1.
10.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment by: 1) removing the sources
of contamination to health-based levels, 2) treating (by thermal drying) the materials causing the
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 ll:02am 10-1
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
principal threats from Operable Unit 1, 3) disposing of treated materials at an off-site location which
provides the appropriate level of long-term protectiveness, and 4) remediating residual contaminated
soils to levels which are protective. The waste pit contents, contaminated liners, and grossly
contaminated cover materials and residual soils as required will be excavated, treated by thermal
drying and disposed off site at a permitted commercial disposal facility. Thermal drying will facilitate
material handling for disposal, allow compliance with waste acceptance criteria at the disposal facility,
thermally desorb volatile organic contaminates in the wastes, and inhibit contaminant migration after
disposal by removing the large volume of contaminated leachate currently available in the wastes.
Contaminated surface soil, contaminated soil beneath the pits and cover soils, as appropriate, will be
excavated and managed hi a manner consistent with the remedy selected in the Operable Unit 5
Record of Decision, as related to the process area soils. If it is not possible to excavate or manage
the soils in a manner consistent with the Operable Unit 5 remedy, these materials will be managed as
pit wastes. Baseline cancer risks from current conditions exceed the 1 x 10"* to 1 x 10"* (1 in 10,000
to 1 in 1,000,000) acceptable cancer risk range established by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Under the future land use scenario of continued federal ownership and the expanded
trespasser receptor, the residual cancer risk associated with Operable Unit 1 will be reduced to levels
within the acceptable target risk range. Non-carcinogenic risks would be reduced to acceptable levels
as well. Short-term threats associated with the remedy would be managed through appropriate
engineering controls.
10.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs
The selected remedy will comply with all ARARs and To Be Considered (TBCs) and will be
performed in accordance with all pertinent U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Orders. The ARARs
associated with the selected remedy are summarized below according to type of ARAR: location-
specific, action-specific, and chemical-specific.
10.2.1 Location-Specific ARARs
Location-specific ARARs are restrictions placed on the concentration of hazardous substances or the
conduct of activities solely because they are in a specific location. Remedial actions associated with
Operable Unit 1 will invoke compliance with various requirements under Executive Orders, EPA
regulations, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) regulations, and DOE orders that are
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:S9un 10-2
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
related to location-specific actions. The laws generally protect resources, and contain some
substantive requirements, but the majority of the requirements are administrative. Off-site CERCLA
actions are required to meet administrative requirements, but on-site CERCLA actions need only
comply with substantive requirements.
The analysis of location-specific ARARs is presented in Appendix B. Each requirement includes an
explanation of how compliance with the requirement will be achieved.
10.2.2 Chemical-Specific ARARs
Chemical-specific ARARs are health- or risk- based numerical values that establish the acceptable
amount or concentration of a chemical that may be found in or discharged to the environment.
Chemical-specific ARARs were analyzed to identify each environmental law or regulation pertinent to
the types of contaminants that will be encountered during the remedial action. The analysis of
compliance with chemical-specific ARARs and TBCs is presented in Appendix B.
10.2.3 Action-Specific ARARs
Action-specific ARARs are technology- or activity-based requirements or limitations on actions taken
that are triggered by the particular remedial activities selected to accomplish the remedy. The
analysis of action-specific ARARs addressed the following tasks for the selected alternative:
Excavation: Removal of pit wastes, liners, and adjacent soils from the waste pit area
Sorting and size reduction
Treatment: Thermal drying of excavated material
Waste Transportation
Disposal: Disposing treated material at a permitted commercial disposal facility.
The analysis of action-specific ARARs and TBCs is presented hi Appendix B.
10.2.4 To Be Considered Criteria
TBCs are non-promulgated advisories or guidance that become enforceable cleanup standards under
CERCLA when included in the Record of Decision. Examples of TBCs include RCRA Closure
Guidance documents, DOE Orders, and Permitting Guidance Manuals. TBC criteria will be
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:59mm 10-3
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
considered during the Remedial Design and Remedial Action phases as appropriate. TBCs for
chemical- and action-specific standards appear in Appendix B.
10.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS
The selected remedy has been determined to be protective of human health and the environment and is
cost effective. The total estimated capital cost for this remedy is $513,050,560. The estimated net
present value of the remedy is $389,509,000.
The selected remedy had the lowest cost among those alternatives considered to be protective of
human health and the environment. The selected remedy is significantly less expensive than the
alternative involving off-site disposal at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) primarily due to the fact that
wastes can be shipped hi bulk via rail directly to the evaluated permitted commercial disposal facility.
Direct rail shipment is not available to NTS, resulting in higher estimated transportation and
containerization costs. The costs associated with both cementation and vitrification, and of
constructing an on-site disposal facility, are higher than the cost of transporting and disposing the
waste at the evaluated permitted commercial disposal facility. All other cost elements were common
to each of the action alternatives that were subjected to detailed analysis in the Final Feasibility Study
for Operable Unit 1. As discussed in Section 8 of this Record of Decision, the selected remedy
provides a greater degree of certainty of protectiveness and long-term effectiveness and permanence.
This, coupled with the fact that the selected remedy has the lowest estimated cost of the alternatives
considered hi detail, has lead to the conclusion that it is the most cost effective remedy of those
considered.
10.4 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES OR RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PRACTICABLE
EPA and DOE have determined that the selected remedy for Operable Unit 1 represents a permanent
solution and the maximum extent to which treatment technologies can be utilized hi a cost-effective
manner. Of the action alternatives, all of which are protective of human health and the environment
and comply with ARARs (or could potentially justify a waiver), EPA and DOE have determined that
this selected remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs among the alternatives hi terms of long-
term effectiveness and permanence, reduction hi toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment,
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:S9im 10-4
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
short-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost. The selected remedy also meets the statutory
preference for treatment, by thermal drying. Further, the State of Ohio also accepts mis remedy.
Community acceptance is documented in the responsiveness summary, which is part of this Record of
Decision.
Excavating the waste pit contents, treating them by thermal drying, and disposing of the waste at a
permitted commercial disposal facility will provide a permanent solution to the threats posed by the
subject contaminated materials. Treatment by thermal drying as required to meet waste acceptance
criteria would accomplish several objectives. First, there is the potential that a slight volume decrease
would be realized by removal of excess interstitial pore water hi the wastes. More importantly, this
would remove a large volume of contaminated leachate from the wastes that might otherwise migrate
from the disposed wastes. The treatment will thermally desorb volatile organic contaminants present
in the waste. Finally, the thermal drying facilitates more efficient material handling through the
remediation process, as well as more economical shipment of the waste. In addition, waste must be
dried to the optimum moisture content specified by the waste acceptance criteria at the permanent
disposal facility. Permanent disposal of the waste will occur at a facility appropriately cited and
permitted for such land use.
As indicated above, the selected remedy was determined based on an evaluation of tradeoffs among
the action alternatives related to the five primary balancing criteria. The criteria of implementability,
long-term effectiveness and permanence, and cost were the most decisive criteria hi the selection
decision.
The technical implementability of this alternative is judged to be better than for the alternatives
involving additional treatment and on-site disposal. The technologies associated with waste
excavation, handling, drying, containerization and off-site transportation are commonly applied
throughout various industries. The heterogeneity of the waste pit contents is not likely to significantly
affect the implementability of any of these technologies. The waste heterogeneity does impact the
ability to treat the wastes using cement solidification or vitrification, because the effectiveness of both
vitrification and cement solidification depends on use of the appropriate reagent or additive ratios
which, in turn, is dependent on the waste form and type. The waste heterogeneity of Operable Unit 1
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/9S 10:S9>m 10-5
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
would make operational field control of the appropriate reagent or additive ratio difficult.
Additionally, vitrification has never been implemented at the scale that would be required for even a
portion of Operable Unit 1 wastes, thereby further increasing uncertainties associated with application.
of that technology.
The long-term effectiveness of the selected alternative is judged to be more certain than for the
alternatives involving additional treatment and on-site disposal. It is recognized that, if successfully
implemented, the additional treatment of cement solidification or vitrification can significantly reduce
the contaminant mobility, thereby increasing the long-term effectiveness and permanence of the
alternative. A combination of three factors, however, results in a determination that the long-term
effectiveness of the selected alternative is more certain.
• The first factor is that over the long term, despite treatment and placement in an on-
site engineered disposal facility, releases from the disposed waste are possible. This
. . statement takes into account the uncertainties discussed above that are associated with
technical implementation of cement solidification and vitrification.
• The second factor is the location of the Great Miami Aquifer beneath the Fernald
Environmental Management Project (FEMP), designated as a sole-source aquifer by
EPA under the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. A release from Operable
Unit 1 wastes could have significant impacts on this valuable resource.1
• The third factor is the fact that, at the NTS and at the representative permitted
commercial waste disposal facility, there are no usable groundwater resources, surface
water resources or residences within many miles of the disposal location. Because of
these factors, the potential impacts of a release at the NTS or the representative
permitted commercial waste disposal facility are considered to be less significant than
for a similar scenario with on-site disposal. This statement considers the presence of
the sole-source Great Miami Aquifer beneath the FEMP and the relatively large
number of potential human and ecological receptors in the vicinity of the FEMP. It is
also noted that, due to area demographics, there is a greater long-term potential for
intrusion into an on-site disposal cell. In the future event that facility institutional
Since the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study/Proposed Plan have been approved by the U.S. EPA, there have been
other efforts at the FEMP to site an on-site disposal cell. OEPA indicated that the maximum on-site disposal facility Waste
Acceptance Criteria for U-238 should be a maximum of 360 picoCuries per gram (for Operable Unit 2 material), as presented
in the Operable Unit 2 Feasibility Study and as discussed in the OEPA letter dated December 13, 1994. Hie average U-238
activity for all Operable Unit 1 waste pits exceeds this limit, in some cases by an order of magnitude or more. Thus, the higher
concentrations of U-238 in Operable Unit 1 waste material render Operable Unit 1 waste unacceptable for disposal in an on-site
disposal cell (as compared to on site contaminated soils and structural material). It is noted, however, that soils beneath the
waste that meet the on-site Waste Acceptance Criteria may be disposed of on site. In addition, the heterogeneity has high
uncertainty with respect to treatment of Operable Unit 1 waste and as such would preclude on-site disposal.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:S9mm 10-6
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
controls broke down, the FEMP would be attractive for various uses, including
agriculture. This is not the case for the potential off-site disposal locations.
The selected alternative, with disposal at a permitted commercial disposal facility, has a slight cost
advantage compared to cement solidification and on-site disposal. As stated above, there is a larger
cost advantage compared to vitrification and on-site disposal and also compared to disposal at NTS.
Cost is the major difference between the off-site disposal alternatives. It is the cost advantage of
disposal at a permitted commercial facility which led to the identification of the selected alternative
over use of NTS.
Short-term effectiveness of the action alternatives was approximately equal so this criterion did not
factor into the remedy selection significantly. Reduction of mobility, toxicity, and volume through
treatment is actually greater for the alternatives involving vitrification and cement solidification. This
advantage was offset, however, by the advantages of the selected alternative relative to
implementability, long-term effectiveness and permanence and cost.
The State of Ohio concurs with this selected alternative, thus satisfying the requirements for state
acceptance. As discussed in Section 3, the community has been informed of progress and involved in
decisions affecting the selection of the selected alternative. Community comments indicate the
community believes the remedy should be implemented. Most public comments received focused on
implementation of the remedy, not selection. Only two comments questioned the selection. All
comments received during the public comment period are provided and responded to in the
Responsiveness Summary (Appendix A).
10.5 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
The selected remedy utilizes treatment by thermal drying as a principal element. As discussed above,
this treatment satisfies several objectives. It has the potential to achieve a slight waste volume
reduction by removal of excess interstitial pore water. This remedy also reduces the potential of
contaminant migration from a disposal facility by removing contaminated leachate that would
otherwise be available for migration. The treatment thermally desorbs volatile organic contaminants
present in the waste and, thereby, reduces the toxicity of the wastes themselves. Finally, thermal
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:S9mn 10-7
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
drying facilitates more efficient waste handling through the remedial process and facilitates meeting
disposal facility waste acceptance criteria.
10.6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
Natural resources and associated services would be permanently committed as a result of
implementing the selected remedy. These commitments not only include the resources and land, but
the services they provide as well.
Implementing the selected remedy would permanently commit 4.7 hectares (11.6 acres) of land at the
representative permitted commercial disposal facility for disposal.
Approximately 5.37 hectares (13.2 acres) of riparian habitat and associated species along Paddys Run
at the FEMP property would be permanently disturbed during excavation and regrading activities. An
example of mitigation activities that could restore the riparian habitat includes planting native riparian
riparian tree species, such as sycamores and cottonwoods, upon completion of remedial activities.
Wildlife boxes could also be installed to re-establish mammal and bird populations.
Potential habitats for several threatened and endangered species would also be permanently disturbed,
including potential habitat for the Indiana bat, slender fingergrass and mountain bindweed.
Additionally, aquatic species, including the state threatened Sloan's crayfish, which was identified in
Paddys Run, and aquatic habitat would be impacted by excavation activities. Examples of mitigation
activities for the Indiana bat include erecting snags (transplanted dead trees) along Paddys Run
upstream from the Waste Storage Areas. Slender fingergrass and mountain bindweed could be
relocated to other suitable habitat in southwestern Ohio or re-established within the restored riparian
area. The Sloan's crayfish could be relocated to neighboring streams where suitable habitat exists.
The selected remedy would impact a total of 1.89 hectares (4.67 acres) of wetlands from remedial
activities. These wetland areas include 0.72 hectares (1.77 acres) of isolated scrub-shrub/persistent
emergent wetlands west of the waste pits and 0.08 hectares (0.21 acres) of drainage ditch/swale
wetlands east of the waste pits. Approximately 1.09 hectares (2.7 acres) of drainage ditch/swale
would be lost due to the borrow area. Mitigation for wetlands impacts would be determined using the
t
FER/OU1ROD/BIH/01/23/95 10:59un 10-8
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
404 (b)(l) guidelines of the Clean Water Act. No wetlands or floodplains are present at the
representative commercial disposal facility or the Nevada Test Site.
Consumptive use of geological resources (e.g., quarried rock, sand, and gravel) and petroleum
products (e.g., diesel fuel and gasoline) would be required for removal, construction, and disposal
activities. Supplies of these materials would be provided by the construction contractor. Additional
fuel use would result from off-site transport of the materials. However, adequate supplies are
available without affecting local requirements for these products.
The thermal drying treatment process would require consumptive use of natural gas, which can be
obtained from the local utility.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:S9am 10-9
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
REFERENCES
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), August 31, 1991, "Some
Aspects of Strontium Radiobiology," NCRP Report No. 110. National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurement, Bethesda, MD.
Paustenbach, D.J., 1989, "The Risk Assessment of Environmental Hazards," p. 95, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY.
U.S. Department of Energy, 1992, "Risk Assessment Work Plan Addendum," prepared for Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study, Fernald Environmental Management Project, DOE, Fernald Field
Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, 1993, "Site-Wide Characterization Report, FEMP, Fernald, Ohio,
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, Draft," DOE, Fernald Field Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, 1994a, "Final Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1," Fernald
Environmental Management Project, DOE, Fernald Field Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, 1994b, "Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit 1,"
Fernald Environmental Management Project, DOE, Fernald Field Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, 1994c, "Final Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 1," Fernald
Environmental Management Project, DOE, Fernald Field Office, Fernald, OH.
U.S. Department of Energy, 1994d, Memorandum from Jill E. Lytle, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Waste Management, to John E. Baublitz, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Restoration, Subject: Approval for disposal of Fernald low-level radioactive waste from Operable
Unit 1 at a commercial disposal facility, dated November 8, 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989, "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human
Health Manual, Part A, Interim Final," EPA/540/1-89/002. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992a, "Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision
Documents, Preliminary Draft," U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992b, "Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, Annual
Update FY 1993," including Suppl. A, March 1993, prepared by the Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH, for the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, DC.
»
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993, "Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)" computer
database, EPA, Washington, DC.
FER/OU1ROD/BJH/01/23/95 10:15am R-l
-------
APPENDIX A
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR
PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED
ON THE OPERABLE UNIT 1
PROPOSED PLAN
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Responsiveness Summary A-l-1
A.I Introduction A-l-1
A.I.I Finding DOE's Response to a Topic of Concern . . . . A-l-3
A. 1.2 Finding DOE's Response to a Comment by the Commentor's Name . A-l-3
A. 1.3 Finding DOE's Response to Comments Found in the Public
Meeting Transcripts A-l-4
A. 1.4 Finding DOE's Response to a Written Comment A-l-4
A.2 Summary Comments and Responses , A-2-1
1 Selection of Preferred Alternative A-2-3
la Support for the Preferred Alternative A-2-3
Ib Opposition to the Preferred Alternative A-2-5
Ic Request for More Specific Implementation Information in
the Proposed Plan A-2-7
Id Exemption from DOE Order 5820.2A A-2-9
le Alternate Remedial Strategy A-2-10
If Preferred Alternative Effectiveness A-2-12
Ig Cost Estimates in the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study .... A-2-14
Ih On-Site Disposal Issues A-2-16
li Conflict of Interest A-2-18
2 Remedial Action Implementation A-2-19
2a Real-Time Monitoring A-2-19
2b Controlling Contaminant Release During Remediation A-2-21
2c Proposed Soil Remediation Levels A-2-22
2d Contingency Planning A-2-24
3 Transportation A-2-26
3a Track Conditions in Ohio and Indiana A-2-26
3b Track Inspections A-2-31
3c Train Speed Limit A-2-34
3d Train Lighting A-2-36
3e DOE Use of Shandon Switchyard A-2-37
3f Track Access Control A-2-38
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/FUBCOM.TXT/01/24/95 7:45am
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
3g Additional Track at Morgan-Ross Road Crossing A-2-39
3h Transportation Risk and Safety ... — .... A-2-40
3i Runoff/Drainage A-2-42
3j Pre-Shipment Radiation Monitoring Along Railroad
(FEMP to Cottage Grove, Indiana) A-2-44
3k Private Property Issues: Structures/Barriers Surrounding
Tracks A-2-45
31 Liability in the Event of an Accident A-2-47
3m Railroad Safety Records A-2-48
3n Cost Sharing with Other Industries on Local Rail A-2-49
3o Preference for Containerized Waste A-2-50
4 Post-Remedial Action A-2-50
4a Preference for Continued Technology Development -
Post-Remedial Action Periodic Reviews of Current
Remedial Technologies . . A-2-50 •
5 Community Involvement and Notification A-2-52
5a General Impacts of the FEMP A-2-52
5b Continuing Public Involvement A-2-53
5c Revise the Community Relations Plan A-2-55
5d Community and Emergency Personnel Notification A-2-57
5e Emergency Response A-2-58
A.3 Original Comments A-3-1
A.3.1 Public Meeting Transcripts A-3-2
Darryl Huff A-3-4
Mildred Ramsey A-3-11
Eugene Ramsey A-3-12
Carol Schwab A-3-14
Nick Schwab A-3-14
Irene Lewis A-3-18
Steve Schulte A-3-22
Norma Nungester A-3-22
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/24/9S 7:46m a-il
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Rita Janssen A-3-24
A.3.2 Written Comments Submitted by the Public on the Operable Unit 1
Proposed Plan A-3-28
Wanda Bruck A-3-28
Sandy Butterfield . A-3-30
Lisa Crawford A-3-31
Vicky Dastillung A-3-34
Pamela Dunn A-3-37
John Francis A-3-38
Alan Herrmann A-3-39
Rita Janssen A-3-40
William Lewis Jr A-3-41
Betty McKay A-3-42
Morgan Township Board of Trustees A-3-43
Norma Nungester A-3-44
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency A-3-45
Carol Schwab A-3-48
Nick Schwab A-3-50
Gene Willeke A-3-58
Edwa Yocum A-3-59
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm a-Ul
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
A. 1.1 OU1 ROD Comments Tracking Table A-l-6
A.2.1 Required Track Inspection Schedule A-2-32
A.2.2 Train Speed Limits A-2-35
FER/OU1ROD/JIM/FUBCOM.TXT/01/24/95 7:47«m a-lV
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
A.1 INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION
This Responsiveness Summary documents formal public comments on the Operable Unit 1 Proposed
Plan made during the Operable Unit 1 Public Meeting at the Meadowbrook Inn, in Ross, Ohio, on
August 23, 1994, and those comments submitted in writing during the 30-day public comment period
that commenced on August 10, 1994, and ended September 8, 1994. It also presents the United
States Department of Energy's (DOE's) response to all comments received.
Based on the evaluation of alternative remedial actions in the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study, and
on public comments recorded in this Responsiveness Summary, the Preferred Alternative of removal,
treatment (thermal drying), and off-site disposal at a permitted commercial waste disposal facility, as
identified in the Operable Unit 1 Proposed Plan, has been selected in the Record of Decision.
As stated hi Environmental Protection Agency Guidance on preparing Superfund Decision Documents
(EPA 1989b), .this Responsiveness Summary serves three important purposes. First, it provides the
DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency with information about community concerns with the
site and preferences regarding the proposed remedial alternative. Second, it demonstrates how public
comments were integrated into the decision-making process. Third, it allows DOE to formally
respond to public comments.
This Responsiveness Summary has been prepared pursuant to the terms of the 1991 Amended Consent
Agreement between DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other requirements,
including:
• The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 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 1992c, EPA/540/R-
92/009
FER/OUlROD/nj*PUBCOM.TXT/01/24/95 7:47«m A-l-1
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 199S
• 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 1989b, EPA/S40/G-89/007.
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 presented in the
Comment Tracking Table (Table A.I.I.). 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 summarized hi summary comment are quoted. Summary
comments, responses, and individual comments are provided hi Section A.2.
Section A.3 contains the transcript of the August 23, 1994 public meeting formal comment period and
copies of all written comments submitted during the public comment period which began August 10,
1994 and ended September 8, 1994. Verbal and written comments submitted formally are presented
exactly as received, 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 hi several ways. The subsequent subsections provide directions for the following:
• Finding DOE's response to a topic of concern by using Table A. 1.1
• Finding DOE's response to a comment by using the name of the commentor
• Finding DOE's response to an individual verbal comment hi the public meeting
transcript presented hi Section A.3.1
• Finding DOE's response to an individual written comment hi the letters presented hi
Sections A.3.2
FER/OU1RQD/JLM/FUBCOM.TXT/01/24/95 7:48nn A-1-2
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
A.I.I Finding DOE's Response to a Topic of Concern
DOE's response to comments made in a particular topic area can be found using Table A. 1.1 as
follows:
Step 1 - Turn to Table A. 1.1, The Comment/Response Cross Reference Table, on Page A-1-6.
Step 2 - Select an issue of interest from the list hi the second column from the left. Topics are
organized by larger issue areas that include:
1. Identification of Preferred Alternative
2. Remedial Action Implementation
3. Transportation Concerns
4. Post-Remedial Action
5. Community Involvement and Notification
Step 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. 1.1 lists the last name and first initial of all the
commentors who provided comments on the same issue. After DOE's response, the
individual comments referred to in the summary comment are quoted in italics. The name
of the commentor appears before each quote.
Step 4 - Turn to the page number listed in the right-hand column. The referenced page will- be hi
Section A.2 of this Responsiveness Summary.
A.1.2 Finding DOE's Response to a Comment bv the Commentor's Name
DOE's response to a comment made in a particular topic area can be found by the name of the
commentor by following the steps outlined below. Because one commentor often submitted comments
on several topics, it is easiest to use Table A. 1.1 to find a comment by the commentor's name. Table
A. 1.1 lists the page number of the summary comment and DOE's Response as well as the page
number where the actual comment can be found.
Step 1 - Turn to Table A. 1.1, the Comment Tracking Table, on page A-l-6.
Step 2 - Select a topic of interest, then the name of the commentor or scan the column headed
"Commentor" for the name of interest.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-l-3
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Step 3 - Follow the row across to the right from the commentors' name to find the page number of
the actual comment in the forth column and/or the page number of the summary comment
and DOE's response in the far right column.
Step 4 - Turn to the page number listed for either the actual comment (Section A.3) or the DOE
response (Section A.2).
A. 1.3 Finding DOE's Response to Comments found in the Public Meeting Transcript
Section A.3.1 presents the transcript of the public meeting held at the Meadowbrook Inn in Ross,
Ohio. Only those verbal comments made during the formal comment segment of this' meeting
received a formal response from DOE. The DOE response to these comments are presented in
Section A.2 and can be located as follows:
Step 1 - Find a comment in the transcript presented in Section A.3.1.
Step 2 - Find the issue number assigned to the comment on a bracket in the right-hand margin of
the page. The number identifies the issue and a lower case letter identifies a subtopic
within the broader issue area.
Step 3 - Turn to Table A. 1.1 and find the topic that corresponds to that issue number. Issue
numbers are listed in the left-hand column.
Step 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.
Step 5 - Turn to the page number listed in the right-hand column. The page will be in Section A.2
of the 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 transcript. Section A.2 is organized numerically by
issue number with lowercase letters identifying subtopics within an issue.
A. 1.4 Finding DOE's Response to a Written Comment
Written comments submitted during the public comment period are presented alphabetically by
commentor last name in Section A.3.2 of this Appendix. DOE's responses to these comments are
presented in Section A.2 and can be located as follows:
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-l-4
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Step 1 - Find a written comment in Section A.3.2.
Step 2 - Find the issue number assigned to the comment on a bracket in the right-hand
margin of the page.
Step 3 - Turn to Table A. 1.1 and find the topic that corresponds to that issue number.
Issue numbers are listed in the left-hand column of the table.
Step 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.
Step 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.
FER/OU1ROD/JLKVPUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-l-5
-------
e
i
TABLE A.1.1
GUI ROD COMMENTS TRACKING TABLE
Issue
No.
"t ;-
la
Ib
Ic
Id
le
If
lg
Topic
, . \ : L;; 1 1 j A,\ ~xi' Wix^A*t6f Ptlti
Support for the Preferred Alternative
Opposition to the Perferred Alternative
Request for More Specific Implementation
Information in the Proposed Plan
Exemption from DOE Order 5820.2A
An Alternate Remedial Strategy
Preferred Alternative Effectiveness
Cost Estimates in the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility
Study
Commentor
PBijipf*. -vtt TB'iiitfA.'M'^ftfc
D. Huff
L. Crawford
V. Dastillung
P. Dunn
Morgan Twp. Trustees
N. Nungester
Ohio EPA
E. Yocum
W. Lewis Jr.
I. Lewis
L. Crawford
P. Dunn
Ohio EPA
G. Willeke
W. Lewis Jr.
B. McKay
W. Lewis Jr.
Page # of
Original
Comment0
*••' f
A-3-4
A-3-5
A-3-6
A-3-32
A-3-34
A-3-37
A-3-43
A-3-44
A-3-45
A-3-59
A-3-41
A-3-18
A-3-19
A-3-32
A-3-37
A-3-45
A-3-58
A-3-41
- A-3-42
A-3-41
Page # of DOE
Response
\ %%\*- -?^ ^\V-% ^ v&s
s ^Vs "• ^"-x1"- •• \ % %vsi:;;
A-2-3
A-2-6
A-2-8
A-2-9
A-2-10
A-2-12
A-2-14
-------
TABLE A.1.1
(Continued)
§
Issue
No.
Ih
li
",:"v, "^*,
2a
2b
2c
2d
Topic
On-Site Disposal Issues
Conflict of Interest
Commentor
D. Huff
V. Dastillung
P. Dunn
N. Nungester
W. Lewis Jr.
!/l*K"J{~\:- \;;& -iiiiOTiM, A^ * *"
Real-Time Monitoring
Controlling Contaminant Release During Remediation
Proposed Soil Remediation Levels
Contingency Planning
L. Crawford
V. Dastillung
B. McKay
N. Nungester
Ohio EPA
E. Yocum
L. Crawford
P. Dunn
Ohio EPA
V. Dastillung
N. Nungester
C. Schwab
N. Schwab
V. Dastillung
Page # of
Original
Comment8
A-3-10
A-3-11
A-3-36
A-3-37
A-3-44
A-3-41
\ ~.\
A-3-31
A-3-35
A-3-42
A-3-44
A-3-46
A-3-59
A-3-31
A-3-37
A-3-46
A-3-34
A-3-35
A-3-44.
A-3-14
A-3-15
A-3-16
A-3-51
A-3-36
Page # of DOE
Response
A-2-17
A-2-18
•• * %% " '
A-2-19
A-2-21
A-2-23
A-2-24
K)
O\
-------
TABLE A.1.1
(Continued)
o
I
Issue
No.
-\\ ,V,
3a
3b
3c
3d
Topic
^^%." „ >\ ; * ^ ^TK^£Q
Track Conditions in Ohio and Indiana
I
Track Inspections
Train Speed Limit
Train Lighting
Commentor
ItTATION '"
D. Huff
M. Ramsey
E. Ramsey
N. Schwab
W. Bruck
L. Crawford
A. Herrmann
Morgan Twp. Trustees
Ohio EPA
D. Huff
N. Schwab
N. Nungester
D. Huff
L. Crawford
E. Yocum
C. Schwab
Page # of
Original
Comment8
* - :^ V ;s
A-3-7
A-3-9
A-3-12
A-3-12
A-3-13
A-3-16
A-3-17
A-3-18
A-3-51
A-3-52
A-3-28
A-3-29
A-3-31
A-3-39
A-3-43
A-3-45
A-3-8
A-3-17
A-3-18
A-3-23
A-3-44
A-3-7
A-3-8
A-3-31
A-3-59
A-3-48
A-3-49
Page # of DOE
Response
> ^x ^ JA ,- % .. -^
A-2-26
A-2-31
A-2-34
A-2-36
-------
TABLE A.1.1
(Continued)
Issue
No.
3e
3f
3g
3h
3i
3j
3k
31
3m
Topic
DOE Use of Shandon Switchyard
Track Access Control
Additional Track at Morgan-Ross Road Crossing
Transportation Risk and Safety
Runoff/Drainage
Pre-shipment Radiation Monitoring Along Railroad
(FEMP to Cottage Grove, Indiana)
Private Property Issues: Structures/Barriers
Surrounding Tracks
Liability in the Event of an Accident
Railroad Safety Records
Commentor
D. Huff
L. Crawford
Morgan Twp. Trustees
E. Yocum
D. Huff
S. Butterfield
S. Butterfield
I. Lewis
W. Bruck
L. Crawford
P. Dunn
E. Ramsey
J. Francis
D. Huff
S. Schulte
D. Huff
N. Schwab
A. Herrmann
D. Huff
N. Schwab
W. Bruck
Page # of
Original
Comment8
A-3-9
A-3-31
A-3-43
A-3-59
A-3-9
A-3-30
A-3-30
A-3-18
A-3-28
A-3-29
A-3-31
A-3-37
A-3-13
A-3-38
A-3-6
A-3-22
A-3-8
A-3-17
A-3-50
A-3-51
A-3-39
A-3-9
A-3-10
A-3-16
A-3-29
Page # of DOE
Response
A-2-37
A-2-38
A-2-40
A-2-40
A-2-42
A-2-44
A-2-45
A-2-47
A-2-48
B ?
1§
iS
-------
TABLE A.1.1
(Continued)
Issue
No.
3n
3o
, $ liy'
4a
»»W**
5a
5b
5c
5d
^t_
Topic
Cost Sharing with Other Industries on Local Rail
Preference for Containerized Waste
/v/i; /:>V*1Z: "^\&w&£tom
Preference for Continued Technology Development -
Post-Remedial Action Periodic Reviews of Current
Remedial Technologies
; -::- M * ' ; : „ r& €b^tei^M^w»i
General Impacts of the FEMP
Continuing Public Involvement
Revise the Community Relations Plan
Community and Emergency Personnel Notification
Commentor
N. Nungester
N. Schwab
^\A&N&&S r V^~\,
V. Dastillung
P. Dunn
P*T W> N6^toTlON *
D. Huff
M. Ramsey
N. Schwab
D. Huff
L. Crawford
V. Dastillung
P. Dunn
B. McKay
N. Nungester
Ohio EPA
E. Yocum
L. Crawford
Ohio EPA
I. Lewis
R. Janssen
Page # of
Original
Comment9
A-3-23
A-3-44
A-3-18
-. \ "i •• "• •-
•, *• ^ "•"•
A-3-34
A-3-37
-, s _^ X
A-3-11
A-3-11
A-3-14
A-3-10
A-3-31
A-3-35
A-3-36
A-3-37
A-3-42
A-3-44
A-3-46 '
A-3-59
A-3-31
A-3-46
A-3-19
A-3-24
A-3-40
A-3-61
Page ff of DOE
Response
A-2-49
A-2-50
r^^t^^^
A-2-51
/Tv^';L?"^J
A-2-52
A-2-53
1
A-2-56
A-2-57
-------
TABLE A.1.1
(Continued)
§
§
Issue
No.
5e
Topic
Emergency Response
Commentor
I. Lewis
L. Crawford
Ohio EPA
N. Schwab
Page # of
Original
Comment8
A-3-19
A-3-20
A-3-31
A-3-46
A-3-15
A-3-52
Page ft of DOE
Response
A-2-59
8 Page number in Section A.3.1 or A.3.2.
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
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. Written and formal oral
comments accepted during the 30-day public comment period have been grouped by issue. The
categories are:
1. Selection of the Preferred Alternative
2. Remedial Action Implementation
3. Transportation
4. Post-Remedial Action
5. Community Involvement and Notification
Comments were further broken down under these categories into individual issues specifically raised
in public comments. The issues are identified by the number of the general topic category and a
lower case letter. DOE has addressed all public comments under one of the topics identified below.
In parenthesis is the number of comments received on the particular issue.
1. Selection of Preferred Alternative
la Support for the Preferred Alternative (8 commentors)
Ib Opposition to the Preferred Alternative (1 commentor)
Ic Request for More Specific Implementation Information in the Proposed Plan
(1 commentor)
Id Exemption from DOE Order 5820.2A (3 commentors)
le Alternate Remedial Strategy (1 commentor)
If Preferred Alternative Effectiveness (2 commentors)
ig Cost Estimates in the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study (1 commentor)
Ih On-Site Disposal Issues (3 commentors)
li Conflict of Interest (1 commentor)
2. Remedial Action Implementation
2a Real-Time Monitoring (6 commentors)
2b Controlling Contaminant Release During Remediation (3 commentors)
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-1
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
2c ' Proposed Soil Remediation Levels (2 commentors)
2d Contingency Planning (4 commentors)
3. Transportation ~
3a Track-Conditions in Ohio and Indiana (11 commentors)
3b Track Inspections (5 commentors)
3c Train Speed Limit (3 commentors)
3d Train Lighting (1 commentor)
3e DOE Use of Shandon Switchyard (4 commentors)
3f Track Access Control (3 commentors)
3g Additional Track at Morgan-Ross Road Crossing (1 commentor)
3h Transportation Risk and Safety (4 commentors)
3i Runoff/Drainage (2 commentors)
3j Pre-shipment Radiation Monitoring Along Railroad (FEMP to Cottage Grove,
Indiana) (2 commentors)
3k Private Property Issues: Structures/Barriers Surrounding Tracks (4 commentors)
31 Liability in the Event of an Accident (1 commentor)
3m Railroad Safety Records (1 commentor)
3n Cost Sharing with Other Industries on Local Rail (1 commentor)
3o Preference for Containerized Waste (1 commentor)
4. Post-Remedial Action
4a Preference for Continued Technology Development - Post-Remedial Action Periodic
Reviews of Current Remedial Technologies (2 commentors)
5. Community Involvement and Notification
5a General Impacts of the FEMP (3 commentors)
5b Continuing Public Involvement (7 commentors)
5c Revise the Community Relations Plan (2 commentors)
3d Community and Emergency Personnel Notification (4 commentors)
5e Emergency Response (4 commentors)
Table A. 1.1 provides the page number of the transcript or letter where each original comment
appears. Public meeting transcripts can be found in Section A.3.1, cross referenced to summary
FER/OUlROD/JIJrf/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-2
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
comments and DOE responses by the numbers identified above, and written comments can be found
in Section A.3.2 also cross referenced to the summary comments and DOE responses above by the
number of the topic category and the letter of the specific issue raised. All verbal and written
comments are part of the Administrative Record for Remedial Action at Operable Unit 1.
1. SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
SUMMARY COMMENT #la Support for the Preferred Alternative
Several members of the public and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency expressed support for
the Preferred Alternative and the proposed method of transportation.
DOE RESPONSE #la
The Proposed Plan summarized information from the Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation/Baseline
Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study; and identified the Operable Unit 1 Preferred Alternative of
Removal, Treatment (Thermal Drying), and Off-Site Disposal at a Permitted Commercial Waste
Disposal Facility. In the Feasibility Study, the Preferred Alternative was 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
been evaluated based on comments received during the public comment period. Based on all nine
criteria, the Preferred Alternative identified in the Proposed Plan has been selected in the Record of
Decision.
In addition to the specific comments below supporting the preferred remedial alternative, there were
only two comments that questioned the appropriateness of the Preferred Alternative. The vast
majority of comments received were related to how to safely implement the Preferred Alternative
rather than questioning its selection. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that, in general, the public
and the State of Ohio accepts the Selected Remedy. DOE will continue to work with the community
FHVOU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-3
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
throughout the remedial design and remedial action phases to expand further upon the details of the
design and cleanup process, and to ensure incorporation of concerns into the remedial design.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #la'
Darrvl Huff: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 66. lines 19-24. and page 67. lines
"/ would first like to say that I generally support the Unit 1 Proposed Theory — Plan
in theory. Although there are serious short-term risks associated with transporting the
waste pit materials off-site, the risks are outweighed by the very real long-term threat
that these unidentified wastes located in unplanned, ad hoc disposal pits at Fernald
pose to the Great Miami aquifer.
*
Far too long, people have been short-sighted when it comes to the subject of safety at
Fernald. We can be short-sighted no longer. Thus, I favor DOE's plan to thermally
dry the waste and to ship the waste to a commercial disposal facility, namely
Envirocare.
Envirocare was designed and permitted to receive these types of waste, and since that
pan of Utah gets so little rain, the threat of contaminants leaching into the
groundwater there is far less than it is here.
Also, Envirocare is not located over a sole source aquifer. Envirocare is a privately
owned facility located in sparsely populated area that is in the business of waste
disposal. It contributes to the tax base of the surrounding area that specifically zoned
that land for that use.
As for the method of shipment, I again favor DOE's plan, which is to transport the
waste from Fernald by rail to Utah. While there are and will be many problems
associated with train transport, the alternative to that, transport by truck, clearly is
not feasible for an operation of this magnitude and duration. The waste must leave
somehow, and train is safer and more, efficient than truck."
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"With the above concerns being addressed (seepage A-3-93 for Ms. Crawford's entire
comment) I support DOE's selection of Alternative 5B as long as the above concerns
are addressed. I look forward to receiving your responses with regard to my
concerns/questions."
1 Quotations are presented exactly as they were recorded by transcriptionist at the U.S. DOE Operable Unit 1 Public
Meeting, held at the Meadowbrook Inn, Ross, Ohio, August 23, 1994, and as received in writing during the public
comment period.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/OJ/23/95 3:27pm A-2-4
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Vicky Dastillung; Written Comments
"While I would have liked to see a plan that would have brought all contaminants
back down to natural background levels, Alternative 5B is probably a reasonable plan
given the costs and risks that we face."
Pamela Dunn: Written Comments
"The purpose of this letter is to submit commit [sic] on OU 1's Proposed Plan. While
I agree in principle with the alternative selected for OU 1 's remediation I would like a
response to the following concerns pertaining to the OU 1 ROD."
Morgan Township Board of Trustees. Written Comments
"We have no objection to transportation by rail of these waste materials through
Morgan Township as we believe this to be the safest mode of transportation."
Norma Nungester: Written Comments
"The proposed Alternative SB-Treatment (Thermal Drying), and Off-Site Disposal at
Permitted Commercial Facility seems to be the best alternative of those offered."
Ohio EPA: Written Comments
"The OU1 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 OU1. Ohio EPA believes the alternative selected in the Proposed Plan is the
most protective alternative with regard to human health and the environment. Ohio
EPA supports DOE's selection of Alternative SB and looks forward to its expeditious
implementation.".
Edwa Yocum: Written Comments
"I recommend the OU1 alternative (Preferred Remedial) SB - Removal, Treatment and
Off Site Disposal at a Permitted Commercial facility."
SUMMARY COMMENT #lb Opposition to the Preferred Alternative
One commentor stated opposition to moving the waste off site after drying, expressing concern that
DOE was simply moving a problem from one place to another. The commentor preferred
vitrification and on-site disposal for at least part of the waste and suggested that drying was
comparable in cost to vitrification.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-5
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
DOE RESPONSE #lb
Various alternatives were evaluated in the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study. One of these,
Alternative 4a, included vitrification and on-site disposal. A combination of several factors favor the
selection of disposal at a permitted commercial disposal facility. At the FEMP, the Operable Unit 1
waste is currently located above a Safe Drinking Water Act-designated sole-source aquifer and would
continue to be located above a sole-source aquifer if on-site disposal were part of the Preferred
Alternative. As discussed in the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study, this increases the uncertainty of
long-term protectiveness due to the fact that if, over the long term, any releases of Operable Unit' 1
waste from an on-site disposal cell were to occur, the valuable Great Miami Aquifer could be
adversely impacted. In addition, on-site disposal would require application to the Environmental
Protection Agency for a waiver from the State of Ohio applicable requirement that prohibits siting
hazardous waste facilities over sole-source aquifers. Through detailed and continuous interaction with
the State of Ohio, it has become clear the State does not believe a waiver for the on-site disposal of
Operable Unit 1 wastes would be appropriate and the State would not support such a waiver. It is
important to note that the State of Ohio concern is specific to Operable Unit 1 wastes and should not
be construed to mean that the State of Ohio would not support on-site disposal of other FEMP wastes.
Other FEMP wastes may contain lower levels of radiological and hazardous contamination.
The FEMP is located hi a populated region heavily utilized for agriculture. Conversely, the
representative permitted commercial disposal facility that could receive waste from Operable Unit 1
under the Preferred Alternative is located in an arid region where there are no residents within 40
miles, no surface water, and no usable groundwater. Moreover, the disposal facility lies within a 10
mile x 10 mile area specifically zoned by the State of Utah for hazardous and radiological waste
treatment and disposal. These factors contributed heavily in the licensing and permitting process for
the representative facility.
Also, again as described in the Operable Unit 1 Proposed Plan, DOE believes the technical
implementability of the Selected Remedy is significantly more certain than for on-site disposal, which
involves additional forms of treatment. Technologies such as vitrification and cementation are
technically more difficult to implement due to the extreme heterogeneity of wastes found in the waste
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-6
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
pits. Extreme heterogeneity makes operational control of the waste stream feed during processing
difficult. Such control is important to successful implementation of vitrification. For these reasons, '
the vitrification alternative was eliminated from further consideration in the Operable Unit 1
Feasibility Study. DOE emphasizes that vitrification may be an appropriate remedial technology for
other FEMP waste streams that are more uniform in character (less heterogeneous) than Operable
Unit 1 waste. Additional discussion of the possible use of vitrification for Operable Unit 1 wastes can
be found in the DOE response to Comment le. Waste heterogeneity has less effect on robust
technologies such as drying.
Relative to the concern about the cost of melting (i.e., vitrification) compared to drying, the cost of
vitrification versus drying was evaluated in the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study. Vitrification was
determined to be more expensive because, in part, the cost of vitrifying the waste must be added to
the cost of drying the waste, because drying is required before vitrification.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #lb
William Lewis Jr.: Written Comments
"/ am deeply concerned about the direction that the FERNALD remedial effort is
taking. The decision to excavate, dry, and ship the wastes from the pits is not
remediation, but simply moving a problem from one area to another...."
"...To simply dig up and move a waste material (after drying-which can't cost much
less than melting) represents an environmentally irresponsible, profit driven and short
sighted solution to long term problem."
SUMMARY COMMENT #lc Request for More Specific Implementation
Information in the Proposed Plan
One commentor requested additional information be added to the Operable Unit 1 Proposed Plan that
would specify activities to be taken to implement the Preferred Alternative.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/9S 3:27pm .A-2-7
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
DOE RESPONSE #lc
The purpose of the Proposed Plan is to facilitate public participation in the remedy selection process.
The Proposed Plan summarizes essential information for the Operable Unit 1 Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study; identifies the decision-making process leading to DOE's selection of
the Preferred Alternative, including all key components of the proposed remedy; and solicits public
comment on the Preferred Alternative. The level of detail concerning the Preferred Alternative in the
Proposed Plan and the Selected Remedy in the Record of Decision is consistent with guidance
published by the Environmental Protection Agency. Specific details concerning implementation of the
Selected Remedy are a product of the remedial design and remedial action phases of the project.
Implementation-related details will be documented in the Final Remedial Design package2, inclusive
of operational planning documents.
The DOE has committed to keeping the community informed about the progress of the remedial
design process through a variety of mechanisms, potentially including fact sheets, workshops, and
public review sessions, which will occur periodically throughout the remedial design process. The
purpose of these public sessions will be to solicit public comment on the design progress and to
enable public concerns to be incorporated into remedial design. The Remedial Design Work Plan,
which will be available for public inspection shortly after the Record of Decision is signed, will
include more specific plans and schedules for the implementation of all remedial design activities.
Following completion of the final remedial design package, DOE will distribute to the community and
other interested persons a fact sheet about the final engineering design. The fact sheet will inform the
public about activities related to the final design, including: the schedule for implementing the
Remedial Action; the site's appearance during construction; the roles of DOE and the Environmental
2 The design phase of the remedial action at Operable Unit 1 includes development of a detailed graphic and verbal
description of the elements that comprise the selected remedial action. A design, or design package, consists of
drawings, calculations, plans, specifications, and cost estimates. Design calculations present quantities of all items
required to perform remedial action—everything from pipe in a certain diameter and hoses to rotary dryers, sheet
metal, and more. From these drawings and calculations, specifications will be drafted. Specifications are written
statements prescribing materials, dimensions, and workmanship for something to be constructed.
»
After the Record of Decision for Operable Unit 1 is signed, DOE will initiate the preparation of the remedial design
package. This design will be reviewed and revised, as needed, for final certification.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm Ar2-8
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Protection Agency; the contingency plan, and any potential inconveniences to local residents and on-
site employees resulting from remedial activities.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Irene Lewis: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 80. line 24. and page 81. lines 1-8
"/ think these are some of the things that we really want to look at is how did you
come to this decision, and that's throughout here. So my comment is that I would like
to see more specifics go into this plan. You know, a law is one thing, how it's
implemented is another.
I would like to see the implementation steps spelled out. How you 're going to do
this."
SUMMARY COMMENT #ld Exemption from DOE Order 5820.2A
Members of the public and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency expressed concern that DOE's
Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 1 identified a commercial disposal facility as part of the Preferred
Alternative; yet, DOE Order 5820.2A does not allow for disposal of DOE waste at a commercial
disposal facility.
DOE RESPONSE lid
An exemption request to DOE Order 5820.2A has been approved by DOE Headquarters, Office of
Waste Management, so that Operable Unit 1 pit wastes can be disposed at a permitted commercial
waste disposal facility.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #ld
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"With regard to DOE developing a Proposed Plan calling for disposal of the O. U.I
waste at a commercial facility and yet DOE has yet not addressed the issue of DOE
Order 5380.2A [sic]. We understand that a waiver of this order has been requested,
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-9
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
but that DOE headquarters has not yet acted on it. This issue needs to be resolved and
written in stone prior to the finalizing of the Operable Unit 1 ROD."
Pamela Dunn: Written Comments
"The preferred alternative is for disposal at a commercial facility. What is the status
of the request for a waiver to DOE Order 5280.2A [sic] which prohibits disposal at a
commercial facility ?"
Ohio EPA: Written Comments, dated August 24. 1994
"Ohio EPA is concerned that DOE has developed a Proposed Plan calling for
disposal of the OU1 waste at a commercial facility, yet DOE Order 5280.2A [sic]
precludes disposal at a commercial facility. Ohio EPA understands that a waiver of
this Order has been requested, but DOE Headquarters has failed to act upon it. DOE
HQ must address the need for a waiver of this Order. Ohio EPA expressed concerns
with DOE's failure to address this issue during the development of the OU3 Interim
Record of Decision and Proposed Plan. At that time DOE committed to addressing
issues precluding disposal at Envirocare within OU1. To date DOE has not met this
commitment. Ohio EPA believes that DOE must complete the waiver of this Order
and address other issues precluding disposal at Envirocare prior to finalizing the OU1
ROD. The need for DOE to take action on its own waiver is especially relevant
considering DOE is asking USEPA to waive Ohio's Solid Waste Siting Criteria for on-
site disposal of other operable unit wastes. Ohio EPA's support of such a waiver
could only be considered once DOE has fulfilled the commitment to waiving 5280.2A
[sic]."
SUMMARY COMMENT #le Alternate Remedial Strategy
One commentor suggested dividing Operable Unit 1 into two units. The commentor felt that doing so
would support two different remedial strategies: one strategy for more highly radioactive wastes and
another strategy for less radioactive/hazardous waste. The commentor thought this division could
reduce the need for material to be placed in an off-site disposal facility.
DOE RESPONSE lie
The Operable Unit 2 Feasibility Study (which OEPA has conditionally approved), indicated that the
maximum acceptable Waste Acceptance Criteria for uranium-238 would be 360 pCi/g (Letter from
FER/OUIROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-10
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Thomas A. Schneider, Ohio EPA to Gary Stegner, DOE, dated December 13, 1994). As reported in
the Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation Report, the average uranium-238 concentration in Waste
Pit 1 is 3900 pCi/g; for Waste Pit 3, 978 pCi/g; and for Waste Pit 5, 809 pCi/g. Using the proposed
uranium-238 Waste Acceptance Criterion as a guide, it is clear this number is less than the average
uranium-238 concentrations found in the waste pits.
It is also important to consider that state acceptance of disposal of waste materials from the pits on
site would require an exemption from OEPA or a waiver from U.S. EPA of the regulation that.
prohibits disposal facilities located above sole-source aquifers. As discussed hi Comment #lb, Ohio
has indicated that it would not support such a waiver for Operable Unit 1 waste pit material.
On-site disposal of portions of waste would still result in a large volume of material over the Great
Miami Aquifer, which could be adversely impacted in the long term in the event of releases. No
such concern exists at the representative permitted commercial disposal facility, where there is no
usable groundwater resource and no surface water or nearby residential populations. Moreover, the
disposal facility lies within a 10 mile x 10 mile area specifically zoned by the State of Utah for waste
disposal. This permit has been publicly reviewed. Thus, to the extent that Operable Unit 1 meets the
waste acceptance criteria of that facility, the public has already agreed with the determination that that
site would be used to dispose of low-level radioactive wastes. Accordingly, the certainty that long-
term protectiveness will be maintained is greater for the Selected Remedy than for alternatives in
which all or a portion of the wastes are disposed on site.
As discussed in DOE's response to Comment Ib, the implementability of vitrification is adversely
impacted by the extreme heterogeneity of the waste pit contents, which makes operational control of
waste processing very difficult. The preference for off-site disposal for all Operable Unit 1 wastes
was not based on a conclusion that vitrification would not be effective, but rather that the
uncertainties associated with vitrification and on-site disposal are greater than the uncertainties
associated with the Preferred Alternative. This statement applies to all Operable Unit 1 waste. It is
again emphasized that DOE's concern with vitrification is very specific to the extremely
heterogeneous Operable Unit 1 wastes. It is also noted that the State of Ohio prohibition on
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-11
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
construction of hazardous waste landfill facilities over a sole-source aquifer would still apply if only a
portion of the wastes were to be disposed on site. While the State of Ohio has indicated that they
believe on-site disposal of some FEMP wastes may be appropriate, they have consistently maintained
that all Operable Unit 1 wastes should be disposed off site.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #le
Gene Willeke: Written Comments
"/ continue to think OU1 should be divided into two parts: Pits 2, 4, 6 which have
high uranium levels and Pits 1, 3, 5 -with lower levels of uranium. With such a
division, I believe less material would need to be placed in a disposal facility. There
is justifiable concern that moving all this material to Utah & Nevada will generate
enough adverse reaction from the public that it will make it more difficult to dispose of
wastes at these facilities from other DOE facilities.
Such a division ofOUl into 2 pans may well support some vitrification and on-site
disposal, although it isn 't obvious."
SUMMARY COMMENT #lf Preferred Alternative Effectiveness
Several commentors expressed concern, that the Preferred Alternative should provide long-term
effectiveness and permanence; and reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume by a greater degree of
treatment. These comments document public concern for long-term protection of human health and
the environment in the nearby surrounding community, as well in the more distant communities that
may be affected by implementation of the Preferred Alternative.
DOE RESPONSE #lf
Drying is considered physical treatment in the National Contingency Plan. Accordingly, DOE
concluded that additional treatment, beyond drying, would not substantively contribute to further
long-term permanence or protectiveness. DOE believes the Preferred Alternative is a permanent and
cost-effective remedy and is protective of human health and the environment. The Preferred
Alternative would be effective at reducing risks to potential receptors because the alternative removes
the pit materials from the FEMP to a site that has been specifically designated for disposal of
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-12
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
radiological waste. As discussed in the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study, the representative
permitted commercial disposal facility will be protective against exposure to the pit waste materials as
well as migration of contaminants and materials, because the waste would be placed in an engineered
disposal facility, designed to function over the long term. Additionally, there are no residences
within 40 miles of the facility. Also, there is no usable groundwater resource at the facility and there
is no surface water at the facility. Even if a release from the waste disposal facility occurred in the
future, the potential impacts to human health and the environment would be minimal, due to a lack of
probable receptors.
Additional treatment does not affect the ability of the waste to meet waste acceptance criteria at the
representative permitted commercial disposal facility. The quantitative transportation risk assessment,
presented hi Appendix D of the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study, concluded that the risks associated
with transportation were in a range considered acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency.
hi light of this, additional treatment for off-site disposal would not be cost-effective, which is a
requirement of Section 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act. The uncertainties associated with additional treatment and on-site disposal are discussed
in DOE's response to Comments Ib, Opposition to the Selected Alternative, and le, An Alternate
Remedial Strategy.
With respect to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
mandate for reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume, the Selected Remedy does utilize thermal
treatment by drying, which reduces the toxicity and mobility of the contaminated waste. Waste
toxicity is reduced as volatile organic compounds are removed from the waste through thermal
desorption during drying and do not return. Most important, drying reduces contaminant mobility by
removing a large volume of contaminated leachate that would otherwise be available for migration
after disposal.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-13
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #lf
William Lewis Jr.: Written Comments
"CERCLA mandates that remedial activities result in a reduction in "toxicity, mobility,
and volume" of contaminated materials. The technology exists to do this with these
wastes, in an economically competitive way.
Betty McKav: Written Comments
"Need long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume by treatment."
SUMMARY COMMENT #lg Cost Estimates in the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility
Study
One commentor expressed concern that the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study cost estimates were
biased in such a way that advanced technologies other than drying would not appear as attractive and
would be screened out of the selection process unfairly.
DOE RESPONSE #lg
Within the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study for Operable Unit 1, DOE evaluated advanced
technologies for potential selection (see Sections 2 and 3). Vitrification, an example of an advanced
technology, was evaluated extensively within the Feasibility Study, particularly within Chapter 4. A
detailed cost analysis of all elements in each alternative is presented in Appendix E of the Operable
Unit 1 Feasibility Study. The estimates hi the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study for Vitrification
were not based on pilot-scale vitrification runs; none has been performed for the Operable Unit 1
waste. In addition, the data used to support the estimate were obtained from a 1992 Conceptual
Design Report for the Remediation of Waste Pit Area, Removal, Treatment, and On-site Disposal
prepared for FERMCO by Ralph M. Parsons, Corporation, as well as from catalog data, verbal
vendor quotations, current contract and FERMCO labor rates, conventional cost estimating guides,
and generic unit costs.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-14
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Vitrification of Operable Unit 1 waste was not eliminated out solely on the basis of cost. DOE has
implemented and is implementing treatability studies to support feasibility studies for Operable Units
1,4, and 5. In all cases, the appropriate technology came out of the screening.,
Cost estimators and engineers responsible for the conceptual design were aware of the vitrification
demonstration facilities considered for use and operating at DOE's Savannah River, Hanford, West
Valley, and Oak Ridge sites. Treatability studies considering vitrification were performed as an
adjunct to the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study process and a report of the results are attached to the
Feasibility Study (see Appendix C of the Feasibility Study).- However, a full-scale facility for
vitrification of radioactive wastes similar to those of Operable Unit 1 has not yet been constructed.
Thus, there is no comparable base of operating and design data on which to base conceptual designs
and associated cost estimates; the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study cost estimates are necessarily
heavily based on the judgement and experience of the engineers and cost estimating staff.
All of the Feasibility Study cost estimates, including those for the use of vitrification at Operable
Unit 1, were extensively reviewed by DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency. One reason
that the cost of vitrification appears to be high is that size reduction and waste drying are required
before vitrification can proceed.
Cost estimates in the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study are used to eliminate remedial alternatives that
are significantly more expensive than competing alternatives, but do not offer commensurate
performance or health protectiveness. Estimates in the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study are
considered to be order-of-magnitude, because of the uncertainties in the information used to develop
the estimates. Specifically, the cost estimates were developed with an intended accuracy range of
.-307+50.percent as prescribed by the Environmental Protection Agency guidance. DOE believes that
the cost estimates in the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study fall within this range of accuracy and
thereby are appropriate for their intended use.
Finally, an analysis of the implementability of vitrification for the (approximately) 640,000 cubic
yards of (in place) waste requiring remediation within Operable Unit 1 was made (see the analysis for
FHVOU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/9S 3:27pm A-2-15
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Alternative 4A). When evaluating each alternative against the criteria prescribed by Environmental
Protection Agency guidance, the Preferred Alternative (waste drying and off-site disposal at a
permitted commercial disposal facility) was_ determined to. be effective at reducing risks to potential
receptors and determined to be technically implementable for the expenditure required.
Soil washing was not retained for detailed analysis for Operable Unit 1. A discussion of soil washing
is included hi Subsection 2.4.6.4 of the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study, under the subheading,
Chemical Treatment Technologies.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #lg
William Lewis Jr.: Written Comments
"FERMCO has steadfastly maintained the position of not using advanced technologies
for remediation. The cost and time estimates for this construction type of remediation
•were crafted to make other technologies look less attractive. These estimates, as well
as the engineering back up, should be challenged and closely evaluated as to
adequacy, validity, and fairness...
... Technologies such as soil washing and vitrification offer significant volume
reductions, durable waste forms, and significantly reduced containerization,
transportation, and disposal costs (not to mention a reduced risk for exposure during
an accident scenario). These savings have not been fairly evaluated or publicized.
Cost estimates used in the OU1 FSfor vitrification do not appear to be anywhere near
realistic. Were these estimates based on actual pilot scale vitrification runs? If not,
•what type of data were used to develop these estimates, and how old was the data?"
SUMMARY COMMENT #lh On-Site Disposal Issues
Although the Preferred Alternative does not include on-site disposal, portions of some comments
referred to the possibility of on-site disposal of Operable Unit 1 wastes. In the event the Preferred
Alternative could not be implemented, the commentors did not want on-site disposal of Operable
Unit 1 pit material to be considered and expressed the need to review alternative plans. Another
commentor inquired about possible integration of a single on-site disposal cell versus a disposal cell
for each operable unit. Commentors were generally opposed to on-site disposal of Operable Unit 1
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-16 ,
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
waste and opposed to a waiver of the State of Ohio prohibition against siting a waste disposal facility
over the sole-source drinking water aquifer which underlies the FEMP.
DOE RESPONSE #lh
DOE acknowledges the commentors' opposition to on-site disposal alternatives and to waiving the
prohibitions against siting a hazardous waste facility over a sole-source drinking water aquifer for
disposal of Operable Unit 1 waste.
hi the unlikely event new information that could adversely affect implementation of the Preferred
Alternative is discovered after the Operable Unit 1 Record of Decision is approved, another
alternative could be selected. Changing the current Operable Unit 1 Preferred Alternative would be
considered a fundamental change under the National Contingency Plan. When a fundamental change
is proposed, the lead agency (in this case, DOE) is required to develop a Record of Decision
Amendment and to hold a new public comment period and prepare a new Responsiveness Summary.
The Selected Remedy does not include provisions for on-site disposal of the Operable Unit 1 pit waste
material, itself. The Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study evaluated alternatives that include on-site
disposal, specifically an on-site cell for disposal of pit waste, as a component of the remedial action.
The on-site disposal cell considered in the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study was for Operable Unit 1
only. This was because of uncertainties associated with mixing materials from other operable units
and the need to provide a uniform basis of comparison among alternatives in the Operable Unit 1
Feasibility Study. The preferred alternative in the Operable Unit 2 Proposed Plan includes designing
and locating an on-site disposal facility that will be used for disposal of Operable Unit 2 materials that
will remain at the FEMP. This on-site cell, however, will not include pit waste materials from
Operable Unit 1. Some residual soils could be disposed of in this cell, as described in the Preferred
Alternative.
FE1VOU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-17
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #lh
Darrvl Huff: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 72. line 24. and
"For example, what would happen jfthose^unknown waste.pit materials-failed
Envirocare's acceptance requirements and the Nevada Test Site had previously closed
it's [sic] doors to incoming waste? Finalizing an alternative plan would require
public acceptance, but there is no mechanism for that that the public can see in
writing."
Vicky Dastillune: Written Comments
"Iffor some reason the 5b alternative can't be executed, the public needs to be able to
comment on a new plan. In particular, I am opposed to on-site disposal of this OU's
waste and I would not like to see EPA grant a waiver for it. The Great Miami aquifer
has already been contaminated with FEMP wastes. Our drinking water quality is too
valuable a resource to be at risk from OU1 waste."
Pamela Dunn: Written Comments
"The alternatives listed with on-site disposal discuss the design and engineering of an
on-site disposal cell. Is this cell in addition to or an expansion of the disposal cell
planned for OU 2?"
SUMMARY COMMENT #li Conflict of Interest
One commentor was concerned about conflict of interest situations between teaming partners
supporting FERMCO and the representative permitted commercial waste disposal facility.
DOE RESPONSE #li
DOE is not aware of any individual or team member within the FERMCO team with specific interests
in, or current contracts with, the representative permitted commercial disposal facility.
Envirocare has been presented in the Operable Unit Feasibility Study as a representative permitted
commercial disposal facility in order to prepare appropriate estimates for evaluation of transportation
risk, representative disposal fees, and environmental impacts. This does not mean that Envirocare
will be the selected facility; the government procurement process will be utilized to obtain disposal
capacity. Once the Record of Decision is effective, DOE will seek competitive bids for contractors to
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-18
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
perform various aspects of the Preferred Alternative. All disposal facilities would be invited to bid in
a published Request For Proposals or Bids. All facilities responsive to the specification described in
the Request for Proposals would be evaluated, and the most technically responsive bidder will be
chosen. After that choice is made, DOE will evaluate the issue of Organizational Conflict of Interest
involving the successful bidder. The company would be required to disclose to the DOE all current
contracts and all investments or companies it owns or is owned by, to determine if award of the
disposal contract would give it an opportunity to gain an unfair advantage over other firms of its kind.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
William Lewis Jr.: Written Comments
"I also believe that one of the teaming partners has been involved (and may still be
involved) with the disposal facility (ENVIROCARE). Could this be construed as
conflict of interest?"
2, REMEDIAL ACTION IMPLEMENTATION
SUMMARY COMMENT #2a Real-Time Monitoring
Many members of the public and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency requested that DOE
commit to real-time environmental monitoring during remedial activities. Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency requested that DOE attempt to incorporate new developments in real-time
monitoring from the DOE's Office of Technology Development and requested that data obtained from
real-time monitors and any additional monitoring activities be provided to the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency and the public in a timely manner.
DOE RESPONSE #2a
The maximum, practical use of real-time monitoring is an integral part of DOE's process to ensure
• that remediation facilities are constructed and operated in a manner that is safe and in compliance with
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, as well as DOE orders. Real-time monitoring
provides data on emissions immediately so that decisions and public notification can be made quickly,
FER/OU1ROD/JLNVPUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-19
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
as opposed to sampling that requires laboratory analysis, where results are not available to facility
operations for several weeks. Real-time monitoring data will be made available to the public through
the Public Environmental Information Center.
DOE acknowledges commentors' stated preferences for computerized monitors and portable monitors,
an independent entity to implement monitoring, and incorporation of new developments in monitoring
technology as they are identified. DOE plans for incorporating real-time monitoring will be
communicated in future public involvement activities (i.e., public workshops and fact sheets).
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"DOE should commit to real-time monitoring during the remediation ofO.U. 1 and
this should include any treatment systems. The results of the real-time monitoring
should be reported to the public in a timely manner.
DOE should check into the cost of portable/permanent real-time monitors, with checks
& balances and using real people (not averages or scenarios)."
Vicky Dastillung: Written Comments
"Air monitoring during excavation, drying, and transport will be extremely important
to the community and workers. Unless there are constraints that I am currently
unaware of,. I would like to see real time monitoring both in the vicinity of OU1 and
at the site boundaries. There should be a constant analysis of the data, so shut-down
of work can occur immediately if elevated levels of contaminants in the air should
occur. Action levels should be developed and shared with the community, as should
the data as it is accumulated. This should include monitoring for the appropriate
radioactive, & chemical contaminants, as well as for asbestos. If cost or
technological constraints will be a factor, this should be explained to the public."
Betty McKav: Written Comments
"Need some one who is capable and independent and reliable for the monitoring and
to keep a log on the information found and report to the public."
Norma Nungester: Written Comments
"We need real-time monitoring of any and all emissions. The current system does not
give you an alarm when emissions go up. We also need to have monitoring every
day."
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TJCT/01/23/9S 3:27pm A-2-20
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Ohio EPA: Written Comments
"DOE should commit to including and/or developing real-time monitoring for
discharges to the environment resulting from remedial actions including any treatment
system. DOE should attempt to incorporate any new developments in real time-
monitoring from the Office of Technology Development. Data obtained from real-time
monitors and any additional monitoring activities should be provided to the Ohio EPA
and public in a timely manner."
Edwa Yocum: Written Comments
"Real time monitoring during clean up of site. Procedure to be connected to a
computer or a communication line to check the reading (print out)."
SUMMARY COMMENT #2b Controlling Contaminant Release During
Remediation
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and two members of the public requested that DOE
implement pollution prevention and control measures during the remediation of the site.
DOE RESPONSE #2b
It is DOE policy, in accordance with Executive Order 12856, to apply pollution prevention and waste
minimization principles into the design and operation of all its facilities. The DOE is committed to
employing all available methods and techniques to minimize waste and/or eliminate discharges from
remedial treatment systems in a manner protective of human health and the environment.
All available contaminant control measures will be considered in the remedial design phase. For
example, the potential for fugitive dust and blowing dust-carrying contamination during excavation of
the pits, sizing operations, and drying can be controlled through the use of several techniques. These
include: wetting down waste and soil using fogging or misting nozzles, spreading plastic or foam on
exposed pit walls and floors, paving some areas, constructing enclosures, using negative ventilation
around the crushing and drying operations, and implementing treatment and filtering of process gas
from the dryers. Other technologies for contaminant control include revegetation to stabilize soil, and
the use of berms and sumps to control water running on or off the exposed waste pit excavation face.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.-TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-21
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Expeditious backfilling of the excavation may be used to control fugitive dust. The details of design
will be finalized in the final Remedial Design Package.
Although it is not appropriate to develop this level of design detail before the Record of Decision is
signed, pollution control measures will be included in the remedial design. The remedial design
package will be available for review by the Environmental Protection Agency and Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency. DOE plans for incorporating pollution prevention activities will be
communicated through future public workshops and fact sheets.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #2b
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"DOE should commit to use pollution prevention activities whenever possible during
the design & operation of the O. U. 1 remedial action system. All available methods
to reduce discharges from the treatment system should be considered."
Pamela Dunn: Written Comments
"Additional discharges of contaminates [sic] has a result of the remediation of OU1
should be significantly reduced and lor avoided. Measures to accomplish this should
be incorporated into the RD/RA of OU1."
Ohio EPA: Written Comments
"DOE should attempt to incorporate pollution prevention activities whenever possible
during the design and operation of the OU1 remedial action system. All available
methods to reduce or eliminate discharges from the treatment system should be
considered during the design of the system."
SUMMARY COMMENT #2c Proposed Soil Remediation Levels
Two commentors expressed concern about the proposed soil remediation levels for Operable Unit 1,
and discussed the need to follow an as-low-as-reasonably-acbievable principle in designing and
implementing remedial actions. One commentor expressed a concern that the levels have been so
leniently established so as not to preclude using the site to store waste if Ohio grants a waiver of its
requirements prohibiting disposal of solid waste over a sole-source aquifer.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/9S 3:27pm A-2-22
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
DOE RESPONSE #2c
The Operable Unit 1 soil remediation levels presented in the Record of Decision are for a future land
use scenario involving an on-site expanded trespasser and an off-site residential fanner. A final
decision on future land use has not been made. However, the soil remediation levels presented in the
Record of Decision are accompanied by the assumption and reflect the fact that DOE has committed
to perpetual ownership and maintenance of the Fernald property.
The as-low-as-reasonably-achievable principle is applied to soil remediation levels throughout the
entire Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study process, and is inherent in the Record of Decision when
alternatives are evaluated against the evaluation criteria set forth in the National Contingency Plan. In
addition, it is DOE's policy, as stated in DOE Order 5480.11, to maintain radiation exposures of
workers and the public as far below acceptable maximum exposure limits as is reasonably achievable
during implementation of the remedial action. Specific measures will be included in the final
Remedial Design package and associated operational planning documents.
Soil remediation levels are protective of human health and the environment, assuming continued
federal ownership of the site, as provided in the Selected Remedy. Additional input from the Fernald
Citizens Task Force and the public is necessary before making final recommendations on land use
from a site-wide perspective. The Operable Unit 1 remediation levels in the Record of Decision will
be re-examined by the Operable Unit 5 Feasibility Study Report and Record of Decision, based upon
available Operable Unit 5 Feasibility Study conclusions, recommendations from the Fernald Citizens
Task Force, and public comment. Specifically, the risk assessment for the Operable Unit 5
Feasibility Study will include additional trespassing scenarios as well as recreational exposure
scenarios, which will be fully developed on a site-wide basis, in the Operable Unit 5 Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study. A full array of trespassing and recreational scenarios from no
trespassing through full recreational use of the site will be developed. If found to be necessary, the
Operable Unit 5 Record of Decision will modify the Operable Unit 1 proposed remediation levels
downward to ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment. The Operable Unit 5
Record of Decision will be finalized prior to excavation at Operable Unit 1.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-23
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
It is emphasized that establishment of the soil remediation levels for Operable Unit 1 based on the
expanded trespasser use scenario is in no way intended to support possible on-site disposal of
Operable Unit 1 wastes,
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #2c
Vicky Dastillune: Written Comments
"I am not totally comfortable with the initial proposed soil remediation levels. I
realize that the land uses chosen for the site will affect the levels as well. I would like
to see a strong statement in the ROD stating that DOE will follow a sort ofALARA
principle in designing and executing the remediation. The remediation levels should
be as close to background as possible given the technological and cost constraints. If
an additional process or activity could get us substantially closer to background at a
reasonable cost, this should be pursued. The goal should be background levels, not
just to stay within a remediation level."
Norma Nungester: Written Comments
"/ am concerned, however, that you have chosen only to clean up to the Expanded
Trespasser Level for Operable Unit 1 and for Operable Unit 4 (K65 Silos). Was this
done to facilitate using the site for storage of waste and in the hopes of the Waiver
being granted by the EPA for storage over a single source aquifer? I do not agree
with this line of thinking, if indeed, this is the case."
SUMMARY COMMENT #2d Contingency Planning
Several commentors expressed safety and risk concerns with respect to two contingency situations: an
unanticipated rail delay, and failure of the waste to meet the Waste Acceptance Criteria at the Nevada
Test Site or the representative permitted commercial disposal facility, thereby requiring waste to
return to Fernald.
DOE RESPONSE #2d
Before any waste leaves the FEMP, the waste will be analyzed to ensure compliance with the
receiving facility's Waste Acceptance Criteria. Through this sampling program, DOE will verify that
waste meets the disposal facility's waste acceptance criteria before it is shipped. Waste will not be
shipped if it does not meet the waste acceptance criteria. As discussed in Section 7.2.5 of the
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-24
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Operable Unit 1 Record of Decision, the possibility does exist that waste could fail to meet the waste
acceptance criteria of the disposal facility. In these cases, the waste would be immediately
repackaged and shipped to the Nevada Test Site or returned to the FEMP for determination of final
disposition. In this unlikely event, DOE is committed to implementing the same procedures required
to ensure the safe outward shipment of this waste for the return trip.
If an accident or other situation caused a stoppage of rail shipments for an extended, but temporary,
period of time, DOE would have the option of adjusting the timing of excavation and treatment to
ensure that interim storage does not take place during remediation. The excavation rate of the waste
could be modified to accommodate the stoppage. The possibility of a loaded train being stopped on a
track for an extended period of time will be addressed in the contingency plan, which is a part of the
Final Remedial Design package.
Procedures in the event of an accident will be addressed in emergency response plans that will
provide the necessary procedures to minimize risks to the public and the environment. These plans
will be drafted and emergency response training will be held to prepare first responders in the event
of an accident during transportation. See the DOE response to Comment 5e, Emergency Response.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #2d
Carol Schwab: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 76. lines 2-20
"Yes. I would like to talk about page ES11, lines 12 through 14, which is the
contingency plan for waste that fails to meet the criteria and they 're going to send it
to the Nevada Test Site.
Well, as I understand this. This would be before it leaves the Femald property they
decide where to send it [sic]. But I am concerned about if it already has left the
property and goes to Utah and they decide they don't want to accept it at Utah
because for some reason it doesn 't meet the criteria. I think that it should be sent
directly to Nevada without coming back to Ohio.
And some of the other stuff that you sent out, I know there was a case where
something came back or a contaminated car came back, and I think it should just go
directly to the other site for the more hazardous material without coming back and re-
exposing us again. Thank you."
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-25
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Nick Schwab: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 77. line 24. and page 78. lines 1-5
"Or what really concerns me since there has been so much concern about the train
sitting down in Shandon would be a contingency plan that would address a problem if
there is a stopped train on that track for some reason for an extended period of time."
Vicky Dastillung: Written Comments
"Iffor some reason the 5B alternative can't be executed, the public needs to be able
to comment on a new plan."
Nick Schwab: Written Comments
"Furthermore, any accident or stoppage of this unit train would be of a concern for
all residents living along the tracks."
3, TRANSPORTATION
SUMMARY COMMENT #3a Track Conditions in Ohio and Indiana
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and nine members of the public submitted comments
concerning the condition of the rail tracks hi Ohio and Indiana. These comments included concerns
about the effectiveness of track inspections, which are addressed specifically in Summary Comment
3c, Train Speed Limit. These comments reveal local residents' concerns about the following specific
conditions:
• Track blockages
• Whether sprayer trucks and limb cutters would be used to ensure visibility near crossings
• Tracks and culverts beneath the tracks washed out
• Tracks in bad shape with loose spikes
• Blocked culverts
• Clearing brush at unsignalized crossings
• Inspection of cross bucks and pavement markings
• Drainage problems threatening structural integrity of the track
DOE RESPONSE #3a
DOE acknowledges the public's concern that the tracks and crossings along the railroad line between
the FEMP and Cottage Grove, Indiana, are maintained and are in good repair in a condition that
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/G1/23/95 3:27pm A-2-26
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
allows for safe shipment of the wastes from Operable Unit 1. It is the responsibility of the railroad to
ensure that the tracks are in good repair; DOE does not have enforcement authority over the
railroad. It is also the railroad's responsibility to inspect the tracks it uses for DOE shipments to
ensure they are in compliance with applicable federal and state regulations.
Federal and State of Ohio regulations govern maintenance of tracks and crossings. The Federal
Railroad Administration is the federal agency with jurisdiction over the condition of rail lines and
associated matters such as inspections. Federal regulations governing track safety standards can be
found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49, Transportation, Subtitle B, Other
Regulations Relating to Transportation, Chapter II- Federal Railroad Administration, Department of
Transportation. Subpart B (49 CFR 213) contains the requirements for track safety standards for road
beds. The following section (49 CFR 213.37) is relevant to public comments made on vegetation: -
Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent to the road bed
must be controlled so that it does not:
• Become a fire hazard to track-carrying structures
• Obstruct visibility of railroad signs and signals
• Interfere with railroad employees performing normal track duties
• Prevent proper functioning of signal and communication lines
• Prevent railroad employees from visually inspecting moving equipment from
their normal duty stations
The State of Ohio also has regulations that are applicable to vegetation surrounding the tracks; these
regulations are relevant to some of the public comments made on the Operable Unit 1 Proposed Plan.
These regulations include Ohio Revised Code Title 49, Section 4959.11, which states that the
manager of the railroad is responsible for the destruction of noxious weeds and brush within the limits
of the actual railroad bed or within the limits of any right-of-way belonging to the railroad company
according to the schedule set in Section 5579.04 of the Ohio Revised Code.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TJCT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-27
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Several commentors were concerned with the condition of the track and crossties, specifically. 40
CFR 213.53 is the federal regulation that specifies the required geometry of the track. 40 CFR
213.109 is the federal relation that specifies the track safety standards for crossties. The latter
regulation spells out the number and condition of crossties placed within a length of track.
In addition, the State of Ohio public utility regulations also provide requirements for crossings that
are relevant to some of the comments made on the Operable Unit 1 Proposed Plan. The State of
Ohio Public Utilities Commission is charged with the responsibility of monitoring crossings and
continually updating its list of crossings in need of upgrade. The State of Ohio is responsible for
determining what entities shoulder the cost of repairs or upgrades of the crossings within Ohio.
DOE will forward all comments regarding specific repairs of track structures to the railroad. DOE
encourages the public to forward future comments regarding condition of the rail track to the railroad.
Additionally, DOE will require the railroad to document its compliance with regulations and laws
prior to shipment, and will require, upon request, that the railroad document its ongoing compliance.
In this way, DOE will be satisfied that the tracks and surrounding structures, such as culverts and
crossings, are in a condition suitable to support safe shipping of dried Operable Unit 1 wastes before
shipping commences.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #3a
Darrvl Huff: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 69. lines 18-22
"There have been too many track blockages in that area where residents have had to
do the cleanup for them to accept the blockage will be cleaned up before one of the
Fernald trains come to it."
Darrvl Huff: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 71. lines 1-9
"What if the States of Ohio and Indiana are unable to afford the massive crossing
upgrades that the increased rail traffic will make necessary to keep area residents
safe? Will DOE help foot the bill for those upgrades?
How often will DOE require CSX to run sprayer trucks and limb cutters along the line
to ensure visibility for both the engineers and area drivers?"
FHVOU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.-TXT/01/23/9S 3:27Fin A-2-28
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
r: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 74. lines 3-7
"So I know we've stopped a train three different times when the tracks were out when
the water washed through and different things, so we're concerned that that's all
upgraded and taken care of. Thank you."
Eugene Ramsey: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 74. lines 10-24. and page 75.
line 1 and lines 11-23
"Well, my wife pretty well covered what I was going to say except that I will add this
that Nick Schwab and I walked part of the track the other night before the CSX
meeting, and that track is in bad shape. Your spikes are loose, you can go along and
pull them up and so on. And also I know one culvert that's completely plugged.
And like my wife said we keep a close watch on that because we own ground on both
sides. We're right there at the New Kirk crossing where New Kirk used to be. There
used to be a station there. And I've had to call them because of trees blocking the
thing, blocking the tracks, culverts washed out and CSX has always cooperated and so
on and stopped the trains up at Raymond, Indiana...."
"...So we've lived there going on 29 years so we've seen a lot up and down that
tracks. And I've seen them burn stuff in the tracks in a rainstorm, what it was I don't
know. I told CSX about that the other night, of course they don't remember what it
was or anything else.
But I understand you 're talking maybe $3,000,000 to upgrade the tracks and I hope
before one car goes up through there or one train, which I understand is suppose to
be 47 cars, what they was talking the other night, I think 47 cars, that them tracks is
gone over with a fine tooth comb and really checked because they need it. Thank
you."
Nick Schwab: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 78, line 24. and page 79. lines
1-10. and page 80. lines 1-3
"Other factors that need to be considered is part of a contract with the railroad.
Number one, cutting and clearing of the brush that limits sight distances at many of
the unsignalized crossings. Mr. Woody last week I think he said it's been several
years since they cut the brush and sprayed along there. And Mr. Woody was with
CSX railroad....1'
"...Number five, the drainage problems that threaten the structural integrity of the
tracks need to be addressed in this plan."
Wanda Bruck: Written Comments
"I am writing to you concerning the route the Femald waste will take thru [sic] our
county.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 : ?7pra A-2-29
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
I know that the train has traveled thru here for yrs [sic], but not 47 cars on one train.
The tracks are not in safe conditions as they were years ago. I know of what I speak,
for my father was the section foreman at Bath for years and after that supervisor at
Perm, InandMaysville, Ky. He said 20 years ago that the tracks are not maintained
as they were years ago... Why in the world wasn 't this bridge fixed at Miamitown
year ago? I agree with Mr. Paddock when he stated, he was not impressed by your
improvement pledges. Seeing is believing, a concerned Mother, Grandma friend &
neighbor."
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"It is crucial for DOE to ensure that the railroad tracks between Fernald, Cottage
Grove, Indiana—to Hamilton, Ohio and into and out of Cincinnati are safe, well
maintained and that if a problem arises with regard to the integrity that the problem is
corrected immediately. This should be the case all the way to the final resting place
of the waste."
Alan Herrmann: Written Comments
"I'm sending a request for a drainage pipe repair at 826.32 feet south of Reify Peoria
Road marked with a -white cross tie in road bed.
The west end is deteriorated and collapsed. This has'slowed the water flow from our
fields and tile outlets. This problem has caused us to replant our crops at various
times. This is a hazard to the road bed on the CSX line which is going to haul waste
from Fernald."
Morgan Township Board of Trustees. Written Comments
"We however do expect that all track, crossings, bridges and trestles in Morgan
Township must be brought up to standards required for safety for this new and
increased flow of rail traffic in our township."
Ohio EPA: Written Comments
"In order for DOE to effectively and safely implement the preferred alternative, Ohio
EPA feels it is critical for DOE to ensure the quality and integrity of railroad line
between the site and Cottage Grove, Indiana. A number of citizen concerns have been
expressed over the past month concerning this railway. Ohio EPA expects DOE will
address all reasonable requests."
Nick Schwab: Written Comments
"Once again I would urge that any DOE contract with CSX contain language that
would assure residents along the tracks that the RR would live up to their
responsibilities under the Ohio Revised Code...."
"Other issues that need to be resolved is the cutting of brush along the right of way,
drainage problems that threaten the structural integrity of the track,..."
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-30
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
SUMMARY COMMENT #3b Track Inspections
Several comments included concerns about the effectiveness of track inspections by the railroad.
These comments reveal local residents' concerns about the following specific conditions:
Effectiveness of weekly track inspections
DOE providing track inspections
Inspection of cross bucks and pavement markings
Inspection of the North Weaver Road trestle
Request that CSX do more than a drive-by visual inspection of tracks
DOE RESPONSE #3b
The Federal Railroad Administration is the federal agency with jurisdiction over the condition of rail
lines and associated matters such as inspections. Track inspections by the railroad are conducted
under the guidelines established in 49 CFR Part 213, the U.S, Department of Transportation
regulations. Inspection frequency is governed by the following: (1) class of track and (2) tonnage
traveling over the track.
According to 49 CFR 213.233, each inspection must be made on foot or by riding over the track in a
vehicle at a speed that allows the person making the inspection to visually inspect the track structure
for compliance with this part. However, mechanical, electrical, and other track inspection devices
may be used to supplement visual inspection. If a vehicle is used for visual inspection, the speed of
the vehicle may not be more than 5 miles.per hour when passing over track crossing, highway
crossings, or switches.
Each track inspection must be made in accordance with the schedule presented hi Table A.2.1.
FER/OUlROD/JLMyPUBCOM.TXT.'01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-31
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 199S
TABLE A.2.1
REQUIRED TRACK INSPECTION SCHEDULE
Class of Track
Unclassified
1,2,3
1,2,3
4,5,6
Type of Track
All types
Main track and sidings
Other than main track and
sidings
All types
Required Frequency
Weekly with at least 3 calendar days interval
between inspections, or before use, if the
track is used less than once a week, or (see
next row)
Twice weekly with at least 1 calendar day •
interval between inspections: If the track
carries passenger trains or more than 10
million gross tons of traffic during the
preceding calendar year.
Monthly with at least 20 calendar days
interval between inspections.
Twice weekly with at least 1 calendar day
interval between inspections.
If the person making the track inspection finds a deviation from the requirements of this part,
remedial action shall be immediately initiated by the railroad.
According to 49 CFR 213.235, each switch and track crossing must be inspected on foot at least
monthly. In addition, in the case of track that is used less than once a month, each switch and track
crossing must be inspected on foot before it is used.
It is the responsibility of the railroad to ensure compliance with Federal Railroad Administration
regulations and that the tracks and related structures such as trestles used by its trains are in good
repair. It is also the responsibility of the railroad to maintain safe and sufficient crossings where a
street, lane, public road, or highway crosses the railway track. DOE does not have enforcement
authority over the railroad. However, DOE will require the railroad to document its compliance with
regulations and laws prior to shipment, and will require, upon request, that the railroad document its
ongoing compliance. In this way, DOE will be satisfied that the tracks and surrounding structures,
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm
A-2-32
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
such as culverts and crossings, are in a condition suitable to support safe shipping of dried Operable
Unit 1 wastes before shipping commences.
DOE encourages the public to forward comments regarding conditions of the rail track directly to the
railroad.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #3b
Darrvl Huff: Verbal Comment. Public Meeting Transcript, page 70. lines 8-18
"This issue leads me straight into another one, which is the effectiveness of the weekly
track inspections CSX conducts. With the stories I have heard from area residents
concerning blockages they have removed from the track themselves, I have to think
that these must be somewhat ineffective.
Perhaps DOE needs to supplement these with their own personnel or perhaps more
frequent inspections should be negotiated into DOE's contract with CSX."
Nick Schwab: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcripts, page 79-80
"The number two, the regular inspection and maintenance of all cross bucks and
pavement markings on the-spur line.
Six, a complete & through inspection of the North Weaver Road trestle"
Norma Nungester: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 85. lines 2-9
"And I think that CSX should do more than a visual inspection of those railroad tracks
once a week. Somebody needs to get down there and actually see, you know, what's
• happening. A visual inspection as you're driving by you don't see all that much.
Maybe they have better eyes than I do, but I don't think they can see any real damage
that might be there."
Norma Nungester: Written Comments
"Also needed is better inspection of the railroad tracks. Eyeballing tracks as you ride
the train is one thing (probably o.k. for normal freight shipment) and real hands-on or
physical inspection for hazardous, nuclear waste, and chemical is another."
Nick Schwab: Written Comments
"...a complete and through [sic] inspection of the North Weaver Road trussel [sic]..."
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-33
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
SUMMARY COMMENT #3c Train Speed Limit
Three commentors voiced concern that upgrading the track would change the track classification
from a Class 2 to a Class 3 track. This could result hi the permissible speed of the trains on the track
changing from 25 miles per hour to 35 miles per hour. One commentor asked that if an increase to
35 miles an hours was proposed, he would like to see at the very least a comparison of stopping
distances for a loaded 47-car unit train. It was his opinion that maintaining the 25 miles per hour
speed limit would mean the train would be able to come to a complete stop using less track, giving
the engineer more tune to react to any problem such as track blockages:
DOE RESPONSE #3c
The Fernald-Cottage Grove branch line is, and shall remain, Class 2 track. None of the
improvements that may be deemed necessary to support shipments of pit waste by rail would be
responsible for track classification increases or speed limit increases on tracks between the FEMP
and: (1) Cottage Grove, Indiana; (2) Hamilton, Ohio; and (3) Cincinnati. The improvements to the
on-property spur that may be required are necessary to accommodate increased activity on the on-
property rail spur. Any upgrades to tracks in the local area would be structural upgrades required to
accommodate increased activity and maintain safety on-the railroad track. These activities will not be
utilized as the basis to seek upgrades to the official classification of the railroad track that determines
allowable speed limits.
DOE agrees that at 25 miles per hour, a train would need less track to stop, and the engineer-would
have more tune to react to emergencies. DOE is not proposing to increase the train speed limit by
making structural upgrades to the track. DOE does not anticipate that its actions on behalf of greater
safety on the track would result hi an increase of the speed limit locally or on distant rail segments.
Since DOE has not proposed an increase in the train speed limit along any length of track, DOE has
not compiled a study of comparative train stopping distances.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/9S 3:27pm A-2-34
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Federal Regulation 49 CFR 213.9 describes the classes of track and the operating speed limits on
those tracks. Table A.2.2 presents the speed limits allowed for different classes of tracks.
TABLE A.2.2
FREIGHT TRAIN SPEED LIMITS (IN MILES PER HOUR)
49 CFR 213.9
Track Classification
Class 1 Track
Class 2 Track
Class 3 Track
Class 4 Track
Class 5 Track
Class 6 Track
Maximum Allowable
Operating Speed for
Freight Trains
10
25
40
60
80
110
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #3c
Darrvl Huff: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 69. lines 11-17
"Another issue concerning track conditions is ascertaining -what the impact would be
of the proposed upgrade. If this upgrade were sufficient to boost the track
classification from Class 2 to Class 3, then the speed limit for the trains would
increase from 25 miles per hour to 35 miles per hour. That concerns many
residents."
Darrvl Huff: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 69. lines 23-24. and page 70. lines
iiZ
"Maintaining the 25 miles per hour speed limit would mean the train would be able to
come to a complete stop using less track, thus giving the engineers more time to react
to any accidents or blockages on this branch line.
At very least I would like to see some figures on stopping distances for a loaded 47
car unit train going 35 miles per hour versus the same train going 25 miles per hour."
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"Loaded rail cars cannot travel over 25 mph along residents [sic] land and within
cities between Fernald and Cottage Grove, IN and then back into Butler Co. and on
into the Cincinnati area."
FER/OUIROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/Oi;23/95 3:27pm
A-2-35
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Edwa Yocum: Written Comments
"Recommend a 25 mph of unit train when passing communities.
SUMMARY COMMENT #3d Train Lighting
The commentor suggested reconfiguring train lighting to improve rail safety.
DOE RESPONSE #3d
Testing, promoting, and approving innovative lighting schemes on vehicles and determining official
transportation markings are outside the jurisdiction of the DOE. This suggestion will be forwarded to
the railroad for consideration. DOE encourages the public to forward comments regarding train
safety directly to the railroad.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #3d
Carol Schwab: Written Comments
"/ am very concerned about the safety of the unit trains that will be going through my
farm on their way from Fernald to Utah. The recent deaths that occurred on the
Cottage Grove line makes me wonder about the lights on the locomotive & the cars.
We have changed the lights on automobiles to make them safer, but train lights have
remained the same for years. In addition to the single headlight on the engine, why
• not borrow an idea from teenagers & outline the front of the engine with chasing
lights. This would enable a person at the crossing to see the shape of the engine on
the tracks as well as the headlight.
Reflective tape could be put ori the train cars at different levels to reflect the
automobile headlights no matter how high or low the crossing may be. Because of the
break between cars, this tape would give the appearance of flashing lights to
automobiles approaching unmarked crossings.
These two ideas might be a great way to run the entire rail system, however, the unit
trains from Fernald would be a wonderful way to test the idea. Since the cars &
engines will only be used for that purpose the cost would be minimal and we might be
able to avoid the one or two train wrecks that statistics predict will occur in that
number of miles.''
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-36
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
SUMMARY COMMENT #3e DOE Use of Shandon Switchyard
Commentors expressed concern about and opposition to the possible use of Shandon Switchyard to
store cars containing hazardous materials from the FEMP. Part of the concern revolved around
adequate security and safety in a location not under DOE control. Another part of the concern
revolved around whether off-site storage would shift responsibility for the material from DOE to
another party.
DOE RESPONSE #3e
DOE acknowledges public concern with regard to storing loaded rail cars at the Shandon Switchyard.
In response to that concern, the DOE completed a comparative analysis of track requirements to
manage railroad car logistic hi support of remediation activities in Operable Unit 1 (OU1). This
analysis looked at options ranging from: full unrestricted use of the Shandon Switchyard; thru, no use
of the Shandon Switchyard with necessary support trackage totally located on current site property
within the boundary of the security perimeter fence, to receive and store rail cars.
This analysis clearly identified that the on-site option is technically implementable, and more
favorable from a cost standpoint and has less unforeseen complications than the using of Shandon
Switchyard. As such, the DOE will pursue operation of a FEMP rail system using existing, upgraded
and new track, totally located on current site property within the boundary of the security perimeter
fence, to receive and store rail cars.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #3e
Darrvl Huff: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 71. lines 10-15
"Another issue of concern is the possible use of the Shandon switchyard to store empty
cars that have not been decontaminated and also loaded cars waiting to depart for
Utah. DOE needs to consider extending the fence line and building track on-site to
store the trains."
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-37
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"Loaded railroad cars cannot sit along the tracks outside of DOE's fenceline or in the
Shandon Switching Station. Rail cars must be loaded within the fenceline property
(on-site) and then move the train out all at once without sitting or stopping along the
tracks. All DOT regulations should be followed and adhered to strictly."
Morgan Township Board of Trustees. Written Comments
"That the Morgan Township Board of Trustees send a letter to FERMCO and DOE
stating that the Trustees will not tolerate the storage of any material from the
FERNALD SITE in Morgan Township. Our reasons for rejecting the proposal to
reactivate Shandon Switching Yard is due to the concern of security, and safety of
storage of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials off site may remove the
burden of responsibility from the DOE and FERMCO. We believe DOE and
FERMCO to be the proper authority, and the authority should not be shifted to some
other party such as CSX, who we feel may not be the proper responsible party."
Edwa Yocum: Written Comments
"Unit trains loaded or unloaded be layover on site not on spurs outside ofFernald
site."
SUMMARY COMMENT #3f Track Access Control
Several commentors stated their preference for a fence or an upgraded fence around the tracks
including, but not limited to, those at Shandon Switchyard that may be used to transport waste from
Operable Unit 1 or for the maneuvering of empty cars. The commentors indicated that a fence
would: keep children and animals off the tracks; facilitate cleanup; provide greater security;
discourage vandalism; and isolate contaminated cars from the public.
DOE RESPONSE #3f
POE agrees that fences would provide some degree of security. All areas where rail cars will be
loaded and stored pending formation of a complete unit train will be fenced and provided with an
appropriate level of security and lighting. Options for staging rail cars and the actual location of
fences on FEMP property during the remediation of Operable Unit 1 will be developed in the design
phase.
FER/OUlROD/JLM.'PUBCOM.TXT.01/23/95 3:2?pm A-2-38
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #3f
Darryl Huff: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 71. lines 16-20
"Jf there were an accident, cleanup would be facilitated by having everything within
the fence line. Security to prevent vandals and curiosity seekers from getting to the
cars would be easier to arrange as well."
Sandy Butterfield: Written Comments
"The area where the train track comes out of the FEMP crosses Morgan-Ross Rd. and
continues along the south side of our property until it joins the main track of the CSX
railroad. The property adjacent to ours, through which this spur track travels, is
owned by the United States Government and controlled by D. O.E. We are concerned
because the entire area is not fenced and is open to the public at large. If train cars
filled with this disposable material are left sitting on this spur track waiting for pick-
up on the main line, they will become an exposure possibility to the entire community.
Children will have access to them as will any of the people who seem to hang out
around train tracks as is evident by the cans and garbage left behind.
We asked a year ago that this area be mowed and cleaned up. We were told that the
D.O.E. was letting it go back to a wildlife area and they would see what they could
do about mowing it. It's now a year later and nothing has been done yet. Weeds and
grass have.grown up around the track and right in the track to a height of three feet
or so.
Realizing that OU1 is just the tip of the iceberg, we need to have this area addressed
before many more loads are scheduled to be taken across it. When it leaves the
fenceline of the plant, it also becomes public responsibility (i.e., neighbors, Morgan
Twp. fire dept., public officials, etc.)."
SUMMARY COMMENT #3g Additional Track at Morgan-Ross Road Crossing
One commentor stated opposition to converting the rail spur that leaves the FEMP at the Morgan-
Ross Road crossing into a holding area for rail cars. The commentor also stated that she opposed the
construction of additional track hi this area.
FER/OU1RDD/ILM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/24/95 7:49im A-2-39
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
DOE RESPONSE #3g
At this time, no decision has been made regarding the use of the track where it leaves the FEMP and
crosses Morgan-Ross Road as an area for staging rail cars. DOE will include the public in future
decisions regarding transportation of Operable Unit 1 waste from the FEMP.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #3g
Sandy Butterfield: Written Comments
"We do not want this spur to be used as a holding area, waiting sometimes days to be
picked up by a train on the main track. We also do not want additional track put in
this area thus making it into a rail yard. Rail cars should be kept inside the plant
until they are scheduled for pick up and only be brought out at that time. "
SUMMARY COMMENT #3h Transportation Risk and Safety
Five commentors expressed concern about railroad safety and the risk associated with transportation
of the waste from FEMP to the representative permitted disposal facility and to Nevada Test Site.
Concern focused on the completeness of the analysis of accidents involving rail transportation.
Commentors also expressed concern about the physical risk of transporting wastes over local roads
and the cancer risk associated with rail cars sitting for periods of time on local track sidings and
spurs.
DOE RESPONSE #3h
A transportation risk assessment comparing the risks of Operable Unit 1 remedial alternatives is
provided in Appendix D of the Operable Unit 1 Feasibility Study; conclusions are presented hi D.6.2.
The risk assessment assessed the direct radiation and the transportation risk impacts associated with
transporting the waste. Risk associated with routine delays, such as mechanical repairs and engine
and car switching, are included in the assessment. The risk assessment also evaluated potential risks
associated with accident-free waste transportation and the risks associated with an accident scenario.
FER/OU1ROD/J1M/KJBCOM.TXT/01/24/95 7:49un A-2-40
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
The calculated excess cancer risk to members of the general public for routine, accident-free waste
transportation is 1.2 x 10*10 (or 12 in 1 billion). This estimated risk is well below the range
considered to be acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency. The calculated excess cancer
risk to members of the general public for the accident scenario is 4.6 x 10'5 (or 46 hi 100,000), which
is within the range considered to be acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is noted
that, while this assessment did include consideration of routine delays as described above, the
assessment did not consider extended delays. Since the waste will be shipped in unit trams, which
have priority over regularly scheduled freight trains, and because the waste will be confirmed as
acceptable to the receiving site prior to shipment, no long-term transportation delays are expected.
Adding further to this expectation is the fact that per 49 CFR 174, Subpart A, loaded rail car layovers
are limited to 48 hours (Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays excluded).
In the unlikely event of an extended delay, it is noted that per 49 CFR 174, Subpart K, there are
limits on the amount of external radiation that can emanate from the rail cars. These radiation limits
are health-designed to protect human health. All rail cars will be monitored for external radiation
prior to leaving the FEMP to ensure compliance with these requirements. DOE is committed to
making this information available to the public in a timely manner. Additional protection would be
provided by waste containment in the form of the liner within and a hard cover fastened over each
gondola rail car.
DOE is committed to shipping waste safely in accordance with all applicable requirements.
Department of Transportation requirements will be strictly adhered to by the railroad and detailed
emergency response plans will be developed to assure that accidents are responded to effectively.
Cleanup of any resultant contamination will be rapid and complete to background levels.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #3h ,
Irene Lewis: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 80. lines 18-23
'For instance, will DOE look at the potential risk if the train sits in a rail yard for
days. Says DOE did consider the potential risk of having cars, and they were
assessed and concluded that there was no risk. What went into this discussion to
bring you to this conclusion?"
FER/OU1ROD/IUCTUBCOM.TXT/01/24/95 7:49m» A-2-41
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
Januaiy 26, 1995
Wanda Bruck: Written Comments
"My concern is cancer risk in all the people on the route. We have a high rate of
cancer in Union Co. & Franklin Co. where I live.
My grandson died of leukemia 14 yrs ago. The young man next door to him died also
of leukemia. They both lived 1/4 mile from the tracks. My father-in-law died of
cancer, he too lived a 1/2 mile from the tracks. I could go on and name a half a
dozen more afflicted with this disease and all living within 1/2 mile of the tracks.
What would happen if just one car upset and spills that dam waste?'"
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
Rail cars should be monitored prior to leaving the site to be sure that all radiation
readings are within limits and also when it has had to sit along the route for engineer
changeover or unforeseeable delays and then when it reaches it final destination.
These results should be reported to stakeholders in a timefy manner.
Pamela Dunn: Written Comments
"The transportation issues are of concern to numerous areas of the public and warrant
serious consideration and response. Safety and protection of the public, workers and
the environment along the shipping routes must be conducted throughout the project,
as with all such projects on the site, due to the nature and volumn [sic] of the
materials involved and the time required to complete the project (s)."
SUMMARY COMMENT #3i Runoff/Drainage
Two commentors expressed concern about the migration of contamination from railroad property to
adjacent property. Stonnwater runoff, inadequate maintenance of drainage ways, and train accidents
were identified as potential sources of contamination.
DOE RESPONSE #3i
DOE acknowledges land owners' concerns about the risks associated with a train accident. DOE
believes these concerns are most appropriately addressed by a combination of three factors aimed at
reducing or containing the impacts of an accident. The first is railroad compliance with Federal
Railroad Administration regulations concerning track conditions and inspection. This is discussed in
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-42
-------
EEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
detail in DOE's responses to Comments 3a, Track Conditions in Ohio and Indiana, and 3b, Track
inspections. The second factor is containerization of wastes to minimize releases in the event of an
accident. The rail car used for transporting Operable Unit 1 waste would be lined and have a
fastened hard cover. This level of containment is beyond that required by United States Department
of Transportation regulations and prevents contact between rain water and waste material. Therefore,
this would effectively eliminate the potential for contaminated runoff.
The third factor aimed at reducing the impacts of an accident is immediate response. An emergency
response plan will be developed to address responsibilities in the event of a train accident. Details of
this plan will be developed during remedial design and be available for public inspection. DOE is
committed to ensuring that any material released while in transit from the FEMP to the disposal site is
cleaned up to background levels.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #3i
Eugene Ramsey: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 75. lines 2-10
"So because there's a lot of waterways up there where these culverts go up under the
track and them waterways ends up clear down at Paddys Run Road—or Paddys Run
Crick and then on down to wherever, so if any car would ever spill up there no telling
where that would end up and I just don't want to see my property or- anybody else's
property ruined by any waste, because we have seen cars jump the tracks and
everything else up there."
John Francis: Written Comments
"My concern is over the transportation of waste material over the CSX railroad
system.
I am a farm property owner adjacent to the Shandon Yard. I feel that sometime—even
if track is laid on site—trains loaded with hazardous material will be standing on the
Shandon Yard siding. If and when this happens and we have a heavy rain the run off
breaks over the railroad ditches and flows through a thirty acre field on my farm.
I need to be assured that the railroad will clean out their side ditches of all vegetation
and reshape these ditches to divert drainage to their property."
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-43
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
SUMMARY COMMENT #3j Pre-Shipment Radiation Monitoring Along Railroad
(FEMP to Cottage Grove, Indiana)
Two commentors asked if a radiation survey would be completed along the tracks before wastes are
transported off site. The commentors indicated their preference for a pre-shipment radiation survey.
DOE RESPONSE #3j
Both DOE and the local railroad owner, CSX, believe that a limited radiation survey is a prerequisite
to waste shipment. DOE and CSX are very interested in this information because knowing what
contamination is present prior to shipment would help determine die extent of contamination in die
event a release of material occurs during transportation of Operable Unit 1 waste to a disposal
facility.
However, DOE does not own the tracks, so it is inappropriate for DOE to commit to a survey at this
time. DOE will pursue this during contractual negotiations with the railroad. Any survey conducted
would likely focus on the track from the FEMP to Cottage Grove, Indiana.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #3j
Darrvl Huff: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 68. lines 15-24. and page 69. lines
1-10
"I would like to start by addressing several issues related to track conditions. The
first of these is one that has troubled me for some time. I am concerned that no one
has any idea whether the rail lines that stretch between Fernald and Cottage Grove,
Indiana are contaminated at the moment. This is significant for several reasons.
The first of these is that people often come in contact with the track. Kids play on the
track. Hunters walk along the track. Concerned citizens remove debris from the
track. Workers will be upgrading the track. We need to know if these people are at
risk of being contaminated.
Another reason is to check for radiation is that DOE would have a number to use as a
norm for the track, so that the track can be checked in the future in case of a leaking
car or, heaven forbid, an accident. Finally, it would give area residents valuable
peace of mind."
FER/OU1ROD/JUI/PUBCOM.TJCT/OI/23/95 3:27pm A-2-44
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Steve Schulte: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 84. lines 15-19
"7 was just wondering if there is going to be an eminent [sic] condition study done
along the railroad tracks to compare figures with later on as far as the radiation
that's along the railroad tracks now?"
SUMMARY COMMENT #3k Private Property Issues: Structures/Barriers
Surrounding Tracks
Four commentors indicated concern about the quality and responsibility for maintenance and
construction of fences alongside the track. These fences would prevent animals and people from
entering the track roadbed. The comments primarily revolved around who would pay for construction
and maintenance of such fences along side the railroad tracks.
Several comments referenced the fact that Ohio law requires fences along the railroad track be
maintained by the railroad. Their comments indicate concern that this responsibility had been
neglected in the past.
One commentor requested that "No Hunting" signs be posted and that enforcement include
prosecution of violators.
DOE RESPONSE #3k
DOE acknowledges public concern about the construction and maintenance of fences along the
railroad between the FEMP and Cottage Grove, Indiana. DOE is prepared to forward all comments
regarding fences on specific private property along the transportation route to the railroad.
According to the Ohio Revised Code, Section 4959.02, in general, the company owning or operating
the railroad is responsible for constructing and maintaining in good repair on each side of the
railroad, along the line of the lands owned by the company operating the railroad, a fence sufficient
to turn livestock. State regulations along the rest of the route may vary, depending upon the
presiding states' transportation or public utility regulations. Fencing requirements were established to
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/9S 3:27pm A-2-45
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
protect the property of adjoining owners, prevent cattle and other domestic animals from endangering
themselves, and to guard the lives of passengers and workers on the train that might be endangered
by annuals getting on the track.
The railroad is responsible for taking "ordinary care and prudence" to avoiding injuring annuals. The
rail company operating the rail from the FEMP through Indiana and Ohio must comply with all laws
that apply to its operation.
Concerning the comment about posting "No Hunting" signs and associated enforcement, DOE will
forward the comment to the railroad for its consideration. Since the railroad is the current owner of
the property and DOE has no legal jurisdiction hi this area, DOE believes this is the most appropriate
action.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #3k
Darrvl Huff: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 70. lines 19-24
"Next, I have some questions about what surrounds the track, namely fences,
crossings, and vegetation. Will there by upgrades to the fences bordering the tracks
to keep animals and people off the tracks, and if so, who will pay for that?"
Nick Schwab: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 79. lines 11-24
"Three, the posting at appropriate locations along the spur line of no hunting signs
and a method of enforcement that includes prosecution of violators because of the
danger that they could leave something on the tracks that could cause a possible
derailment that would place the residents at risk.
Number four, the building and repair of farm fences along the spur line as required by
Ohio law. This has been neglected in the past by the railroad. And since DOE is
going to assure profitability of this line the railroad needs to live up to their
responsibility to the landowners along this spur line and to maintain their fences."
Alan Herrmann: Written Comments
"I am also requesting that your fence along the railroad property starting at 1089 feet
south of Reify Peoria Road and running south approximately 820 feet be replaced.
Our farm is fenced on all other sides as we pasture our cattle at various times and
this railroad fence will not hold cattle."
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/9S 3:27pm A-2-46
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Nick Schwab: Written Comments
"At DOE's Public Comment meeting on Aug 231 expressed several safety concerns
about the CSX line that runs through Reify Twp. One concern was that CSX has
neglected to maintain & repair farm fences through our township. I had expressed the
same concern at the Aug 16 meeting with CSX officials. I was told by Mr Rich
Johnson that he would research the issue of farm fences & the RR's responsibility &
be in contact with me.
Aug 24, 1994 [sic] Mr Rich Johnson told my wife by phone that the RR's lawyers
researched the question & CSX only had responsibility to maintain fences if the farm
was fenced on the other 3 sides. I then returned the call to Mr Johnson & asked for
the section of the Ohio Revised Code or the Court case on which the lawyers were
baseing their opinion. I was told I could expect a call the next day with this
information as their lawyers had just finished the search. As of this date I have yet to
receive a reply from Mr Johnson.
I am enclosing a copy of the section of the Ohio Revised Code that deals with the
RR 's responsibility to maintain fences. This was provided to me by State
Representative Gene Krebs.
I am also enclosing a copy of a letter asking for additional information from me so
that the railroad can "research your exact situation & work with you to resolve it."
I pointed out at the Aug 16 meeting with CSX that this is not just a personal problem
but rather one shared by almost all farmers in Reily Township."
SUMMARY COMMENT #31 Liability in the Event of an Accident
One commentor asked about financial responsibility for cleanup and cleanup levels in the event of a
train accident.
DOE RESPONSE #31
DOE is committed to ensuring that any material released while in transit from the FEMP to the
disposal site is cleaned up to background levels. Liability details will be contractually negotiated
between DOE and the railroad.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-47
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #31
Darrvl Huff: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 71. lines 21-24. and page 72. line
1-4
"liability in the event of an accident is another problem area. Who would pay for the
cleanup of an accident, CSX or DOE? How clean will that cleanup be? Where will
residents be able to see that in writing?
I realize that the contract between DOE and CSX cannot be negotiated until the
Record of Decision is signed, but residents need to know."
SUMMARY COMMENT #3m Railroad Safety Records
One commentor requested that DOE consider local safety records when awarding a contract for rail
transportation services.
DOE RESPONSE #3m
DOE's number one priority is safety. The railroad's safety record will be taken into consideration
when negotiating a rail transportation contract. DOE will require that the railroad comply with all
applicable regulations regarding the integrity and safety of the railroad line.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #3m
Nick Schwab: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 78. lines 6-23
"It's important that the DOE in considering a contract that the nationwide safety
record or the carrier not be considered, but rather the safety record of the railroad
along this particular spur line, the number of miles along the spur line, the number of
miles along the spur line, and more importantly the fact that only three trains a week
travel this line need to be considered in the accident rate and what remedial action
needs to be taken.
The neighbor directly north of me was killed on this spur liner [sic] at Peoria several
years ago. The neighbor directly west of me was hit by a train and had the front of
his car torn off. If you read CSX material that they passed out last week nobody alive
should know—have two neighbors injured on a little short piece of track like this."
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-48
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Wanda Bruok: Written Comments
"We 've had at least 2 wrecks east of Cottage Grove in the last 2 years. The last one
killed two young boys."
SUMMARY COMMENT #3n Cost Sharing with Other Industries on Local Rail
One commentor indicated concern that more than one company uses the local railroad spur and would
receive benefit from upgrades required for waste transported from the FEMP. The commentor felt
the other companies should share in the cost of the upgrade.
DOE RESPONSE #3n
DOE acknowledges the commentor's preference for cost sharing among the companies using the local
railroad spur, to pay for upgrades required to safely transport FEMP waste. However, DOE does not
anticipate that private industries currently using the track will be asked to share in the cost of
upgrades that their shipments do not require.
\
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #3n
Norma Nungester: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 85. lines 10-19
"Also I have a real concern about these tracks. They are currently being used by
three companies that sit—or two companies I guess it is, that sit southeast or southwest
of the Femald site, and they're using these tracks and I understand that they don't
need the upgrade to use them, but I think that somehow they should also share in the
cost of these tracks because they're going to get the benefit when they are made
better."
Norma Nungester: Written Comments
"During attendance at the workshops, etc., it was explained the DOE would be
responsible for the cost of any accidents, for the improvement of tracks and
overpasses, and the cost of adding an additional mile of railroad tracks onto the site.
I believe that although the two chemical companies South of the plant may not be
required to have track improvements, they use this railroad and should share a
portion of the cost."
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-49
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
SUMMARY COMMENT #3o Preference for Containerized Waste
One commentor asked whether the waste would be containerized and suggested that the waste would
be more secure if it were containerized in the rail car during shipment.
DOE RESPONSE #3o
According to Department of Transportation regulations, low-specific-activity material must be shipped
in strong and tight packages that permit no leakage of radioactive material under normal
transportation conditions. Operable Unit 1 waste will be containerized inside each rail car. The rail
car will have a liner and a fastened hard cover. This complies with Department of Transportation
regulations for shipping low-level radioactive waste.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #30
Nick Schwab: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 80. lines 6-10
"Alternative SB doesn 't indicate whether or not that the waste shipped by rail will be
containerized, and wouldn 't the waste be more secured if it were containerized and
placed in the rail cars. Thank you."
4. POST-REMEDIAL ACTION
SUMMARY COMMENT #4a Preference for Continued Technology Development
- Post-Remedial Action Periodic Reviews of Current
Remedial Technologies
Commentors expressed the desire for DOE to continue research in treatment and disposal technologies
for radioactive wastes; and that if such technologies would develop to a point where they should be
implemented, that DOE, as well as the disposal facilities, consider implementing such technologies in
the future.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/9S 3:27pm A-2-50
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
DOE RESPONSE #4a
DOE has identified the Preferred Alternative as the permanent disposition of Operable Unit 1 waste
material. While it is possible that more advanced technologies would become available in the future,
DOE is committed to implementing the remedy identified in the Operable Unit 1 Record of Decision.
Thus, no wording as requested in the comment will appear hi the Record of Decision.
However, DOE maintains an active, ongoing technology assessment program that identifies and
demonstrates technological advances that may be suitable for FEMP wastes in the future. Should new
developments warrant, new technologies could be applied to any Operable Unit 1 soils, or debris
remaining on site.
Operable Unit 1 waste disposed off site would be subject to the decision of the disposal facility (hi the
case of Operable Unit 1, a permitted commercial disposal facility or the Nevada Test Site) regarding
implementation of any future technologies.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #4a
Vicky Dastillung: Written Comments
"In light of the fact that SB does not allow for totally unrestricted use of the site after
remediation, I would like to see the ROD include wording stating that the periodic
reviews of the effectiveness of the action will also include an analysis of the then
current technologies' ability to pursue further remediation both at the FEMP and at
the disposal facility. If at such a future time a technology would allow for a way to
truly deactivate the radioactivity or hazardous chemicals or for away 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
TD needs of the DOE."
Pamela Dunn: Written Comments
"Continued efforts in technology development should proceed in attempting to discover
more effective methods for treatment and disposal of the waste streams present."
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-51
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
5. COMMUNHYINVOLVEMEOT AND NOTIFICATION
SUMMARY COMMENT #5a General Impacts of the FEMP
Several comments focused on long-term concern about impacts of the FEMP on the land along the
rail route and at the disposal site. Some commentors, especially those who previously lived within
the five-mile radius of the FEMP and now live along the proposed rail route, expressed frustration
about FEMP environmental issues continuing to impact their land and their families.
DOE RESPONSE #5a
DOE's acknowledgement of the public's concern is reflected in the main components of the Selected
Remedy and will be further detailed in the Remedial Design and Remedial Action work plans. It is
concern for human health and the environment—as reflected in the Environmental Protection Agency
criteria that remediation reduces the mobility of the contamination—that motivated the excavation of
the waste pit material and surrounding affected soils. The thermal drying that follows excavation
produces a waste form that can be safely packaged and shipped to a disposal site that does not impact
local populations or a regional aquifer. DOE will ensure that the Selected Remedy will comply with
all federal and state requirements regarding the shipment of waste.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #5a
Darrvl Huff: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 73. lines 8-17
"These are some of the issues that I have heard other stakeholders mention and also
ones I have considered. As a resident of the area with the trade on my property, I
cannot overemphasize the significance of this operation to my family, my community, •
and myself.
Two things will be left when I'm gone, my family and the land, I want to ensure that
both are left in the best condition possible. Thank you."
Mildred Ramsey: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 73. lines 20-24. and page 74.
lines 1-2
"I'm from Kiley Township and I was also interested in the tracks. And I think he
pretty well discussed it. I know the train runs through our farm.
We did live in the five-mile radius and we moved out and thought we got away, now
it's following us. We can't get away from it."
FER/OUlROD/JLWyPUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-52
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Nick Schwab: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 76. lines 23-24. and page 77. lines
1-12
"I'm Nick Schwab, Riley Township Trustee. And I also and my wife lived within these
five miles and hopefully moved out of it and find ourselves in the position where
they're going to bring it right through the middle of our farm. However, as a
township trustee there are certain things that I think that we need to make our
concerns—voice our concerns.
Certainly in Ohio—or yeah, in Ohio, Riley Township is the onfy township where you 're
going to send it up one side, the west side of the township, to Cottage Grove and
bring it back down through the east side of the township, so our township, is going to
see this train twice."
SUMMARY COMMENT #5b Continuing Public Involvement
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and six members of the public made comments
concerning opportunities for continued public involvement throughout the duration of the cleanup
process at Fernald. CommentorS stressed the importance of public input in the decision-making
concerning Operable Unit 1 and the site as a whole. Stakeholders also stressed the need for continued
public involvement opportunities after the Operable Unit 1 Record of Decision is signed and
throughout the duration of the Remedial Design and Remedial Action phase of the cleanup.
Commentors said DOE should commit to this in the Operable Unit 1 Record of Decision and the
(revised) site Community Relations Plan.
DOE RESPONSE #5b
DOE values public involvement in FEMP decision-making. Feedback confirms that community
members want and expect to remain involved during the design and cleanup phases of the project.
Accordingly, DOE shall continue to offer opportunities for public involvement beyond those required
by Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act regulations and
Environmental Protection Agency guidance, during the Remedial Design and Remedial Action phases
of the cleanup.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-53
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Public involvement activities for each issue or project phase shall be determined through consultation
with interested parties. In this way, the level of public involvement will meet not only the regulatory
requirements, but also the needs of the community for information about the project and opportunities
for influencing decision-making.
Section 3 of the Operable Unit 1 Record of Decision focuses on community participation. Activities
used to inform and educate the public about cleanup plans for Operable Unit 1 are highlighted in this
section. In addition, DOE has committed to involving stakeholders in decision-making in the
Remedial Design and Remedial Action phase of the cleanup. The FEMP revised Community
Relations Plan outlines public involvement activities for the entire site. Activities that can be used are
fact sheets and other publications, workshops, and community meetings. (See the DOE response to
Summary Comment 5c, Revise the Community Relations Plan, for a list of public involvement
activities.)
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #5b
Darrvl Huff: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 72. lines 5-23
"That brings me'to -what is perhaps the most important issue of all, that of continuing
public involvement after the Record of Decision is signed. Many important decisions
will be made after the Record of Decision is signed, and residents should have input
on those decisions.
The CSX contract is an excellent example. DOE has already assured the public that
there will be public review of the transportation plans before it is final and also that
residents can oversee the track upgrading.
There needs to be more official public involvement, however, all the way through
2002 when the last empty train returns from Utah. I would like to see DOE publicly
announce how the residents will be systematically be included in the decision-making
process after the Record of Decision is signed. A specific promise here and a specific
promise there is not enough."
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"DOE must insure public involvement will not be lessened during the RD/RA and
should commit in the ROD for Operable Unit 1 to continuing the on-going public
involvement during the RD/RA."
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/9S 3:27pm A-2-54
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
Vicky Dastillung: Written Comments
"Public involvement during the RD/RA phases, as well as the actual remediation, must
be continued, and tailored to the needs of the community. Public involvement has
improved dramatically in recent years, and must be sustained through remediation to
ensure that the best possible remediation occurs. Working with the stakeholders on
the details of the transportation issues will be vital as well. As the designs for the
drying of the waste and the designs for the cover system (after backfilling) are
developed. I hope the public will be able to provide some input too."
Pamela Dunn: Written Comments
"Commitment to meaningful public participation beyond the ROD and throughout the
RD/RA process. Continued public input in the decision making that affects the
remediation of the site must be maintained. This commitment should be included in
the site's Community Relations Plan and the OU1 's ROD."
Betty McKay: Written Comments
"Need more public participation before final rod. [sic]
Need public involvements after RD/RA work plan.
Need public involvement before complete remediation."
Norma Nungester: Written Comments
"We need a firm public involvement commitment between the RD/RA Work Plan and
Begin Remediation and between Begin Remediation and Complete Remediation."
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 OV1 to maintaining the exceptional on-going public
involvement during RD/RA."
Edwa Yocum; Written Comments
"Public involvement through out the whole process after ROD and Remediation."
SUMMARY COMMENT #5c Revise the Community Relations Plan
Two commentors suggested that DOE revise the Community Relations Plan for Fernald.
Commentors want the need for continued public involvement emphasized hi the revised plan. In
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-55
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
addition, mechanisms for public involvement during the Remedial Design and Remedial Action phase
of the project should be included..
DOE RESPONSE #5c
The following comprise some, but not all, of the activities undertaken by DOE to inform and involve
the public about the cleanup at Fernald. DOE anticipates modifying these public involvement
program activities as necessary on a case-by-case basis to meet the needs and desires of its
stakeholders. A few of the opportunities for public involvement include:
• Community meetings and formal public meetings
• The Fernald Envoy Program
• Regular attendance and briefings at FRESH and local township trustee and civic
meetings
• The Fernald Citizens Task Force
• Formal public comment periods
• Media relations
• Written publications such as fact sheets and news releases
• The Public Environmental Information Center
• The Fernald Visitors Bureau
• Regular mailings to interested stakeholders
• Response to public inquiries
DOE shall continue to offer opportunities for public involvement beyond those required by
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act regulations and
Environmental Protection Agency guidance, during both the Remedial Design and Remedial Action
phases of the cleanup.
Public involvement activities are stated in Fernald's Community Relations Plan, which has been
revised and was submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency and Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency on September 15, 1994. Key stakeholders, including representatives from
FER/OU1ROD/JIJWPUBCOM.TXT/01/23/9S 3:27pm A-2-56
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
FRESH, the Fernald Citizens Task Force, and local government officials, reviewed the Community
Relations Plan. The revised plan details ways in which DOE will involve the public in decisions
made at Fernald. The ultimate objective of the Community Relations Plan is to bring public interests
and project interests into alignment, thereby ensuring that project decisions reflect community values.
Upon completion and approval, the plan will be available in the Public Environmental Information
Center at 10845 Hamilton-Cleves Highway, Ross, Ohio, (513) 738-0164.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #5c
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"DOE should also revise it's Community Relations Plan to reflect the need for
continued public involvement during the RD/RA. I look forward to working with DOE
in revising this document."
Ohio EPA: Written Comments
"DOE should revise the site Community Relations Plan to address the need for
continued public involvement during the RD/RA. Ohio EPA looks forward to working
with DOE to revise this document."
SUMMARY COMMENT #5d Community and Emergency Personnel Notification
Three commentors said they would like the public and appropriate emergency response personnel
along the route by which rail cars from the FEMP will be traveling to be notified before rail
shipments leave the FEMP. In addition, stakeholders would like to know the mechanisms that will be
used to notify the public.
DOE RESPONSE #5d
DOE recognizes that members of the public are interested in Fernald rail transportation issues.
Despite the fact the Department of Transportation does not require advance notification of shipments,
DOE intends to provide advance notification to local stakeholders about the start of the rail shipment
program. Specifically, information about the time frames over which rail shipments will occur, the
number of shipments anticipated, and the quantities and types of waste to be shipped by rail will be
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-57
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
' January 26, 1995
provided to local stakeholders. The exact mechanism of how this notification will occur will be
determined at a later date.
As part of emergency response preparations, DOE will contact and work with representatives from
Ohio, Utah, and transited states prior to the first waste shipment to brief them on overall shipment
plans. This information will allow states to prepare, as necessary, for any potential emergency
response activities involving waste shipments from Fernald and to ensure that potential responders are
aware of the transport of these wastes. Additional notifications will be at the discretion of the states.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #5d
Irene Lewis: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 81. lines 8-13
"For instance, you say that the residents are going to be receiving notification, do you
mean notification or do you mean a schedule of when the trains depart? There's is
difference. Is it going to be, you know, notification like we got under the other
operation when it started."
Rita Janssen: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 86. lines 11-20
"Her comment reads as follows: Will communities along the rail route be notified when
shipments of pit waste take place, through what mechanism will this notification be made,
through community newspapers, through government agencies, or both? Will emergency
personnel along the rail shipping route be notified prior to the waste shipment through their
area?"
Edwa Yocum: Written Comments
'"Notification of all community & fire personnel when unit train pass through or
layover."
SUMMARY COMMENT #5e Emergency Response
Four commentors favored preparation of a plan addressing emergency response responsibilities and
roles. One of the commentors specifically indicated that the potential threat of release and any
resulting potential threat to the public health and welfare pointed to the need for DOE to conduct
emergency response training of fire departments along the spur line.
FHVOU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-2-58
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
DOE RESPONSE #5e
Once the Operable Unit 1 Record of Decision is signed, DOE will prepare a plan which will address
emergency response in the event of an accident, before any rail shipments are initiated. The
emergency response plan will contain procedures, a map of the route, directions for coordinating
organizations that would become involved, and will assign responsibilities should a rail incident
involving pit waste occur. DOE would immediately notify local response agencies in the event of an
accident. DOE would also participate and have resources available to assist the on-scene commander,
either through the FEMP site and/or through DOE Regional Emergency Response Centers. The
incident commander would be the authorized local first responder. DOE also plans to prepare a
contingency plan for remedial activities.
DOE holds an annual joint response exercise at the FEMP. The annual emergency response exercise
provides an opportunity to include training and mock rail accident exercises involving local first
responders (i.e., between FEMP and Cottage Grove). In addition, DOE will participate, as
requested, and as relevant to the transportation of Operable Unit 1 waste, in periodic training
programs sponsored by the railroad carrier and by organizations responsible for emergency planning
and response located in the transited states.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS #5e
Nick Schwab: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 77. lines 13-23
"In the plan ES2, lines 27 to 29, you talk about if actual threat and release of
hazardous substance and it goes on may present, I don't want to read it all, but may
present a potential threat to the public health and welfare of the environment.
Points out that the need that the plan include training of the volunteer fire
departments along the spur line to handle the specified waste, the securing of a site in
case of an accident."
Irene Lewis: Verbal Comments. Public Meeting Transcript, page 81. lines 14-24. and page 82. lines
1-24
"I would like to see a map of Butler County where the train track runs, like Nick said
it comes through his farm twice, so you know, we have concerns every place that his
train travels through. I know that there is more concerns in rural areas naturally. So
I would like to see a map of the county with the train track, the route that this takes,
that the train takes.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/9S 3:27pm A-2-59
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
/ would like to see an emergency plan, not just a basic plan like CSX gives to us and
some other people, but like Nick said some procedures, specific procedures, one, two,
three, four, five, this is what you do when this happens, the next step is this, the next
step is this, and some things realty spelled out.
Who do you consider an incident commander? Is that the people on the train crew.
You know, I think these are the things—it's too late to do something when there is an
incident and you go out there and try to decide now what was it I was supposed to do,
know that person's responsibility. You know, it's too late when you have an incident
and have to try to work out who's going to do what, so I would like to see this and
see some input.
I don't know if you 're going to stop after this September the 8th meeting or not. You
said that was the last meeting, is that September the 8th or whatever it was?
MR. LOJEK: September the 8th is the close of the comments.
MS. LEWIS: Oh, the comments, okay. Where are you going then from here, after all
the comments and so on are you going to start working on specific plans?"
MR. LOJEK: Yes. We can answer that formally.
Lisa Crawford: Written Comments
"If there's a problem or emergency—all members of the immediate community should
be notified within a reasonable amount of time. I encourage DOE to expand its
outreach activities to local first responders and this should include training,
emergency exercises, etc. All members of the local communities should be informed
about these activities and encouraged to be active participants. This should include
Indiana, also."
Ohio EPA: Written Comments
"Due to significant public concern with regard to emergency preparedness, Ohio EPA
encourages DOE to expand its outreach activities to local first responders along the
train route in Ohio and Indiana. These activities could include training, mock
exercises, etc. involving multiple agencies and fire departments. Ohio EPA would
gladly participate in these activities."
Nick Schwab: Written Comments
"...& a training program involving the volunteer fire departments along the spur line
as to the steps needed to be taken & the area that needs to be secured in case of a
derailment or an incident that would result in stopping the train for a period of time."
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/9S 3:27pm A-2-60
-------
SECTION A.3
ORIGINAL COMMENTS
-------
FEMP-OU1ROD FINAL
January 26, 1995
A.3 ORIGINAL COMMENTS
Section A.3 presents the actual comments, both verbal and written, exactly as they were received by
DOE. Formal comments have been bracketed with an issue number so that the DOE response to the
comment can be found in Section A.2 of this Responsiveness Summary by following the issue number
back to a summary comment and response. Every formal comment has been bracketed with the
exception of some transition material between speeches during the verbal comments at the Operable
Unit 1 public meeting. The informal question and answer period at the Operable Unit 1 public
meeting was recorded by the transcriber at the public meeting, but these transcripts were not included
in this Responsiveness Summary. A formal response has not been drafted by DOE to these informal
comments because a response was already made during the informal question and answer period at the
public meeting. Formal verbal comments are presented hi Section A.3.1. Written comments are
presented hi Section A.3.2 in alphabetical order. The written comments include comments made by
the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
Brackets on all formal comments contain 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. DOE did not
respond to each comment individually since there were so many comments that raised topics of
concern to a number of speakers. Comments that were similar or identical were grouped together.
Comments unique to only one commentor were addressed individually with as much weight given to
the response to the comment as was given to those presented by multiple commentors.
FER/OU1ROD/JLM/PUBCOM.TXT/01/23/95 3:27pm A-3-1
-------
SECTION A.3.1
TRANSCRIPTS FROM THE PUBLIC
MEETING HELD IN ROSS, OHIO
ON AUGUST 23, 1994
-------
64
1 So that's the format that we'll cover
2 and I'll just briefly touch on that again. Go
3 ahead, we have some refreshments here provided in
4 the room, go ahead and just kind of stretch your
5 legs and mingle for awhile and we'll reconvene in
6 about 15, 20 minutes.
7 (Brief recess.)
8 MR. LOJEK: Okay. I think What we
9 would like to do now is start back up with our
10 session here, so if you would please take your
11 seats we'll reconvene the meeting.
12 Okay. Thank you. I think that was a
13 good break. I enjoyed mingling, and talking, and .
14 meeting some people here. I enjoy that at all our
15 of meetings and sessions, just meeting somebody new
16 every chance I can.
17 It brings us this evening to our
18 acceptance of formal comments. Let's go over a few
19 of the ground rules and basically just to cover how
20 I want to move through this.
21 This is the opportunity for the
22 stakeholders to submit comments for public record
23 which will be considered and addressed in the
24 responsiveness summary for the Record of Decision.
»
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-2
-------
65
1 The way I plan on going through this
2 is basically the verbal comments, we'll receive
3 those first. I'll have a roll call one by one for
4 those who have indicated on the registration
5 sign-in sheets that they have an intention to
6 submit a verbal comment. I have a list of names
7 here, we'll move through that.
8 After that, after the roll call, I -
9 will open the floor to any others here attending
10 this evening. If anybody else would like to make a
11 verbal comment based on maybe something they've
12 heard somebody else mention, they're welcome to do
13 so at that point.
14 I would just like everybody to step
15 up to a microphone. We have one here, moved it
16 back a little bit farther in the room, just step up
17 to the microphone, speak clearly, state your name,
18 if you need to please spell your name. These
19 comments are being transcribed, so we need to get
20 them down accurately so that we can respond to them
21 in writing accurately also.
22 One thing else I just wanted to
23 mention here on the bottom of the slide here I
24 indicated written comments, I did receive one
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-3
-------
66
1 written comment here during the break.
2 If there are others that you write up
3 during our period here, please feel free just to
4 hand them to me or raise your hand and show me that
5 you have a written comment, and I'll be glad to get
6 that from you. And I will read them af-ter we go
7 through the verbal comment session.
8 I guess with that let's go ahead and
9 start the formal comment period, and the first on
10 my list is Darryl Huff.
11 MR. HUFF: Thank you. My name is
12 Darryl Huff. I'm a Morgan Township resident, and
13 the train tracks on which waste will be exported
14 from Fernald run through my backyard. I am also a
15 Fernald Citizens Task Force member and the chair of
16 the Waste Disposal Subcommittee, although tonight I
17 am speaking as an individual and not for either the
18 subcommittee or the task force.
19 I would first like to say that I
20 generally support the Unit 1 Proposed Theory --
21 Plan in theory. Although there are serious
22 short-term risks associated with transporting the
23 waste pit materials off-site, the risks are
24 outweighed by the very real long-term threat that
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-4
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
67
these unidentified wastes located in unplanned, ad
hoc disposal pits at Fernald pose to the Great
Miami aquifer.
Far too long, people have been
short-sighted when it comes to the subject of
safety at Fernald. We can be short-sighted no
longer. Thus, I favor DOE^s plan to thermally dry
the waste and to ship the waste to a commercial
disposal facility, namely Envirocare.
Envirocare was designed and permitted
to receive.these types of waste, and since that
part of Utah gets so little rain, the threat of
contaminants leaching into the gzroundwater there is
far less than it is here.
Also, Envirocare is not located over
a sole source aquifer. Envirocare is a privately
owned facility located in sparsely populated area la
that is in the business of waste disposal. It
contributes to the tax base of the surrounding area
that specifically zoned that land for that use.
As for the method of shipment, I
again favor DOE's plan, which is to transport the
waste from Fernald by rail to Utah. While there
are and will be many problems associated with train
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-5
-------
68
1 transport, the alternative to that, transport by
2 truck, clearly is not feasible for an operation of
3 this magnitude and duration. The waste must leave
4 somehow, and train is safer and more efficient than
5 truck. -
6 While I do support the Operation Unit
7 Proposed Plan in theory, I am concerned about
8 several issues related to its implementation. I
9 have listened to comments made during the public
10 meetings and I've heard valid points raised about
11 potential flaws in the plan. I will repeat some of
12 those comments to ensure they are submitted to DOE
13 for consideration and response. I also have some
14 concerns of ray own that I will voice.
15 I would like to start by addressing
16 several issues related to track conditions. The
17 first of these is one that has troubled me for some
18 time. I am concerned that no one has any idea
19 whether the rail lines that stretch between Fernald
20 and Cottage Grove, Indiana are contaminated at the
21 moment. This is significant for several reasons.
22 The first of these is that people
23 often come in contact with the track. Kids play on
24 the track. Hunters walk along the track.
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-6
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
69
Concerned citizens remove debris from the track.
Workers will be upgrading the track. We need to
know if these people are at risk of being
contaminated.
Another reason is to check for
radiation is that DOE would have a number to use ,as
a norm for the track, so that the track can be
checked in the future in case of a leaking car or,
heaven forbid, an accident. Finally, it would give
area residents valuable peace of mind.
mi
Another issue concerning track
conditions is ascertaining what the impact would be
of the proposed upgrade. If this upgrade were
sufficient to boost the track classification- from
Class 2 to Class 3, then the speed limit for the
trains would increase from 25 miles per hour to 35
miles per hour. That concerns many residents.
A
There have been too many track ~"
blockages in that area where residents have had to
do the cleanup for them to accept the blockage will
be cleaned up before one of the Fernald trains come
to it.
Maintaining the 25 miles per hour
3c
24 speed limit would mean the train would be able to _J
3j
3c
3a
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-7
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
13
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
70
come to a complete stop using less track, thus
giving the engineers more time to react to any
accidents or blockages on this branch line.
At very least I would like to see
some figures on stopping distances for a loaded 47
car unit train going 35 miles per hour versus the
same train going 25 miles per hour.
This issue leads me straight into
another one, which is the effectiveness of the
weekly track inspections CSX conducts. With the
stories I have heard from area residents concerning
blockages they have removed from the track
themselves, I have to think that these must be
somewhat ineffective.
Perhaps DOE needs to supplement these
with their own personnel or perhaps more frequent
inspections should be negotiated into DOE's
contract with CSX.
^•n
Next, I have some questions about
what surrounds the track, namely fences, crossings,
and vegetation. Will there be upgrades to the
fences bordering the tracks to keep animals and
people off the tracks, and if so, who will pay for
that?
3c
3b
3k
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-8
-------
71
1 What if the States of Ohio and
2 Indiana are unable to afford the massive crossing
3 upgrades that the increased rail traffic will make
4 necessary to keep area residents safe? Will DOE
5 help foot the bill for those upgrades? I 3a
6 How often will DOE require CSX to run
7 sprayer trucks and limb cutters along the line to
8 ensure visibility for both the engineers and area
9 drivers?
10 Another issue of concern is the
11 possible use of the Shandon switchyard to store
12 empty cars that have not been decontaminated and
3e
13 also loaded cars waiting to depart for Utah. DOE
14 needs to consider extending the fence line and
15 building track on-site to store the trains.
16 If there were an accident, cleanup
17 would be facilitated by having everything within
18 the fence line. Security to prevent vandals and
3f
19 curiosity seekers from getting to the cars would be
20 easier to arrange as well.
21 Liability in the event of an accident
22 is another problem area. Who would pay for the
; 31
23 cleanup of an accident, CSX or DOE? How clean will
24 that cleanup be? Where will residents be able to
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-9
-------
72
1 see that in writing?
2 I realize that the contract between
31
3 DOE and CSX cannot be negotiated until the Record
4 of Decision is signed, but residents need to know.
5 That brings me to what is perhaps the
6 most important issue of all, that of continuing
7 public involvement after the Record of Decision is
8 signed. Many important decisions will be made
9 after the Record of Decision is signed, and
10 residents should have input on those decisions.
11 The CSX contract is an excellent
12 example. DOE has already assured the public that
13 there will be public review of the transportation
14 plans before it is final and also that residents
15 can oversee the track upgrading.
16 There needs to be more official
17 public involvement, however, all the way through
18 2002 when the last empty train returns from Utah.
19 1 would like to see DOE publicly announce how the
20 residents will be systematically be included in the
21 decision-making process after the Record of
22 Decision is signed. A specific promise here and a
23 specific promise there is not enough. :
24 For example, what would happen if
5b
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-10
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
1 4
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
73
those unknown waste pit materials failed
Envirocare's acceptance requirements and the Nevada
Test Site had previously closed its doors to
incoming waste? Finalizing an alternative plan
would require public acceptance, but there is no
mechanism for that that the public can see in
writing.
Ih
These are some of the issues that I
have heard other stakeholders mention and also ones
I have considered. As a resident of the area with
the track on my property/ I cannot overemphasize
the significance of this operation to my family, my
community, and myself.
Two things will be left when I'm
gone, my family and the land, I want to ensure that
both are left in the best condition possible.
Thank you
MR. LOJEK: Thank you, Darryl. I
would like to call Mildred Ramsey.
MS. RAMSEY: I'm from Riley Township
and I was also interested in the tracks. And I
think he pretty well discussed it. I know the
train runs through our farm.
We did live in the five-mile radius
5a
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-11
-------
74
1 and we moved out and thought we got away, now it's
2 following us. We can't get away from it.
3 So I know we've stopped a train three
4 different times when the tracks were out when the
5 water washed through and different things, so we're
6 concerned that that's all upgraded and taken care
7 of. Thank you.
^•i
8 MR. LOJEK: Thank you, Mildred. I
9 would like to call Eugene Ramsey.
••
10 MR. RAMSEY: Well, my wife pretty
11 well covered what I was going to say except that I
12 will add this that Nick Schwab and I walked part of
13 the track the other night before the CSX meeting,
14 and that track is in bad shape. Your spikes are
15 loose, you can go along and p*ull them up and so
16 on. And also I know one culvert that's completely
17 plugged.
18 And like my wife said we keep a close
19 watch on that because we own ground on both sides.
20 We're right there at the New Kirk crossing where
21 New Kirk used to be. There used to be a station
22 there. And I've had to call them because of trees
23 blocking the thing, blocking the tracks, culverts
24 washed out and CSX has always cooperated and so on
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-12
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
75
and stopped the trains up at Raymond, Indiana.
_j
So because there's a lot of waterways
up there where these culverts go up under the track
and them waterways ends up clear down at Paddy's
Run Road-- or Paddy's Run Crick and then on down to
wherever, so if any car would ever spill up there
no telling where that would end up and I just don't
want to see my property or anybody else's property
ruined by any waste, because we have seen cars jump
the tracks and everything else up there.
•H
So we've lived there going on 29
years so we've seen a lot up and down that tracks.
And I've seen them burn stuff in the tracks in a
rainstorm, what it was I don't know. I told CSX
about that the other night, of course they don't
remember what it was or anything else.
But I understand you're talking maybe
$3,000,000 to upgrade the tracks and I hope before
one car goes up through there or one train, which I
understand is suppose to be 47 cars, what they was
talking the other night, I think 47 cars, that them
tracks is gone over with a fine tooth comb and
really checked because they need it. Thank you. _
MR. LOJEK: Thank you, Eugene. I
3a
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-13
-------
76
1 would like to call Carol Schwab.
•«
2 MS. SCHWAB: Yes. I would like to
3 talk about page ES11, lines 12 through 14, which is
4 the contingency plan for waste that fails to meet
5 the criteria and they're going to send it to the
6 Nevada Test Site.
7 Well, as I understand this this would
8 be before it leaves the Fernald property they
9 decide where to send it. But I am concerned about
10 if it already has left the property and goes to
11 Utah and they decide they don't want to accept it
12 at Utah because for some reason it doesn't meet the
13 criteria. I think that it should be sent directly
14 to Nevada without coming back to Ohio.
15 And some of the other stuff that you
16 sent out, I know there was a case where something
17 came back or a contaminated car came back, and I
18 think it should just go directly to the other site
19 for the more hazardous material without coming back
20 and re-exposing us again. Thank you. _
21 MR. LOJEK: Thank you, Carol. I
22 would like to call Nick Schwab.
23 MR. SCHWAB: I'm Nick Schwab, Riley
24 Township Trustee. And I also and my wife lived
2d
5a
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-14
-------
77
1 within these five miles and hopefully moved out of
2 it and find ourselves in the position where they're
3 going to bring it right through the middle of our
4 farm. However, as a township trustee there are
5 certain things that I think that we need to make
6 our concerns -- voice our concerns.
7 Certainly in Ohio -- or yeah, in
8 Ohio, Riley Township is the only township where
9 you're going to send it up one-side, the west side
10 of the township, to Cottage Grove and bring it back
11 down through the east side of the township, so our
12 township is going to see this train twice.
13 In the plan ES2, lines 27 to 29, you
14 talk about if actual threat and release of
15 hazardous substance and it goes on may present, I
16 don't want to read it all, but may present a
17 potential threat to the public health and welfare .
18 of the environment.
19 . Points out that the need that the
20 plan include training of the volunteer fire
21 departments along the spur line to handle the
22 specific waste, the securing of a site in case of
23 an accident.
24 Or what really concerns me since I 2d
Spanaler PS>-JOT*:-:. 7 Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 (513) 381-3342
A-3-15
-------
78
1 there has been so much concern about the train
2 sitting down in Shandon would be a contingency plan
2d
3 that would address a problem if there is a stopped
4 train on that track for some reason for an extended
5 period of time.
6 It's important that the DOE in
v
7 considering a contract that the nationwide safety
8 record or the carrier not be considered, but rather
9 the safety record of the railroad along this
10 particular spur line, the number of miles along the ~
11 spur line, the number of miles along the spur line,
12 and more importantly the fact that only three
13 trains a week travel this line need to be
14 considered in the accident rate and what remedial
15 action needs to be taken.
1 6 The neighbor directly north of me was
17 killed on this spur liner at Peoria several years
18 ago. The neighbor directly west of me was hit by a
19 train and had the front of his car torn off. If
20 you read CSX material that they passed out last
21 week nobody alive should know -- have two neighbors
22 injured on a little short piece of track like
23 this.
24 Other factors that need to be 3a
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-16
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1 4
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3a
79
considered is part of a contract with the
railroad. Number one, cutting and clearing of the
brush that limits sight distances at many of the
unsignalized crossings. Mr. Woody last week I
think he said it's been several years since they
cut the brush and sprayed along there. And Mr.
Woody was with CSX railroad.
The number two, the regular
inspection and maintenance of all cross bucks and 3b
pavement markings on the spur line.
Three, the posting at appropriate
locations along the spur line of no hunting signs
and a method of enforcement that includes
prosecution of violators because of the danger that
they could leave something on the tracks that could
cause a possible derailment that would place the
residents at risk.
Number four, the building and repair
of farm fences along the spur line as required by
Ohio law. This has been neglected in the past by
the railroad. And since DOE is going to assure
profitability of this line the railroad needs to
live up to their responsibility to the landowners
along this spur line and to maintain their fences.
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-17
-------
80
1 Number five, the drainage problems
2 that threaten the structural integrity of the 3a
3 tracks need to be addressed in this plan.
4 Six, a complete and thorough
5 inspection of the North Weaver Road trestle.
6 Alternative 5B doesn't indicate
7 whether or not that the waste shipped by rail will
8 be containerized, and wouldn't the waste be more
9 secured if it were containerized and placed in the
10 rail cars. Thank you.
11 MR. LOJEK: Thank you, Nick. Next
12 up I would like to call Irene Lewis.
.13 MS. LEWIS: Thank you so much. What
14 I'm going to say really is going to be very brief.
15 I have a problem with questions at one meeting and
16 the answer written down and brought back with no
17 specifics, just generalities.
18 For instance, will DOE look at the
19 potential risk if the train sits in a rail yard for
20 days. Says DOE did consider the potential risk of
21 having cars, and they were assessed and concluded
22 that there was no risk. What went into this
23 discussion to bring you to this conclusion?
24 I think these are some of the things J
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-18
3h
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
20
21
22
23
24
81
that we really want to look at is how did you come
to this decision, and that's throughout here. So
my comment is that I would like to see more
specifics go into this plan. You know, a law is
one thing, how it's implemented is another.
I would like to see the
implementation steps spelled out. How you're going
to do this. For instance, you say that the
residents are going to be receiving notification,
do you mean notification or do you mean a schedule
of when the trains depart? There's is difference.
Is it going to be, you know, notification like we
got under the other operation when it started.
I would like to see a map of Butler
County where the train track runs, like Nick said
it comes through his farm twice, so you know, we
have concerns every place that this train travels
through. I know that there is more concerns in
1<
5d
19 - - -
rural areas naturally. So I would like to see a
map of the county with the train track, the route
that this takes, that the train takes.
I would like to see an emergency
plan, not just a basic plan like CSX gives to us
and some other people, but like Nick said some
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-19
-------
82
1 procedures, specific procedures, one, two, three,
2 four, five, this is what you do when this happens,
3 the next step is this, the next step is this, and
4 some things really spelled out.
5 Who do you consider an incident
6 commander? Is that the people on the train crew.
7 You know, I think these are the things -- it's too
8 late to do something when there is an incident and
9 you go out there and try to decide now what was it
10 I was suppose to do, know that person's
11 responsibility. You know, it's too late when you
12 have an incident and have to try to work out who's
13 going to do what, so I would like to see this and
14 see some input.
15 .1 don't know if you're going to stop
16 after this September the 8th meeting or not. You
17 said that was the last meeting, is that September
18 the 8th or whatever it was?
19 MR. LOJEK: September the 8th is the
20 close of the comments.
21 MS. LEWIS: Oh, the comments, okay.
22 Where are you going then from here, after all the
23 comments and so on are you going to start working
24 on specific plans?
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-333Q FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-20
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
formally.
83
MR. LOJEK: Yes. We can answer that
MS. LEWIS: Right, okay. That's
really all that I have to say, but I would like to
see some of these specifics and not leave all these
general remarks hanging. And almost every question
and answer on here is general. The law says we'll
do that, you know.
But you know, we've heard for years
everything with this plan is acceptable, how many
years have we heard this people? You know. And
all of a sudden when this comes into place it's
like quoting Rush Limbaugh, shazaam, look, it's
unacceptable.all of a sudden, and this is where
we're at. We want it to be acceptable and not have
to go through all this again. Thank you, Dave.
MR. LOJEK: Thank you, Irene Lewis.
I would like to call Gene Willeke. No Gene
Willeke.
MS. CRAWFORD: I think he left.
MR. LOJEK: You think he left, okay,
thank you. I saw Willy Benson standing up in the
back there, he's in the dark and I was trying to
strain to see who that was.
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-21
-------
84
1 At this point that's the roll call
2 list that I had for people who designated
3 officially they wanted to make a verbal comment.
4 At this point I open the floor to
5 others who would like to make a verbal comment at
6 the meeting. If you would just raise your hand I
7 will go ahead and catch you and get you on the
8 microphone and state your name and speak clearly,
9 and we'll go ahead through the room.
10 Okay. I take it there are no further
11 verbal comments to be presented. Okay. We do
12 have, okay/ thank you.
13 MR. SCHULTE:. Hi, my name is Steve
14 Schulte and I also own land, a half a mile of land,
«•
15 that borders CSX railroad tracks and I was just
16 wondering if there is going to be an eminent
17 condition study done along the railroad tracks to | 3J
18 compare figures with later on as far as the
19 radiation that's along the railroad tracks now?
20 MR. LOJEK: Okay. Thank you. We
21 will respond to your concern. Do we have another
22 one here?
23 MS. NUNGESTER: I'm going to make a
24 written comment, but I have a couple of quick ones
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-22
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
85
I wanted to make.
And I think that CSX should do more
than a visual inspection of those railroad tracks
once a week. Somebody needs to get down there and
actually see, you know, what's happening. A visual
inspection as you're driving by you don't see all
that much. Maybe they have better eyes than I do,
but I don't think they can see any real damage that
might be there.
^m
Also I have a real concern about
these tracks. They are currently being used by
three companies that sit -- or two companies I
guess it is, that sit southeast or southwest of the
Fernald site, and they're using these tracks and I
understand that they don't need the upgrade to use
them, but I think that somehow they should also
share in the cost of these tracks because they're
going to get the benefit when they are made
better.
•
I didn't give my name again. Norma
Nungester, NUNGESTER, Mt. Hope Road,
Harrison, Ohio
MR. LOJEK: Thank you, Norma. Any
additional verbal comments from the open floor? I
3b
3n
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX .(513) 381-3342
A-3-23
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
86
saw Lisa, I've given her, Lisa Crawford, the eye
here expecting her to get up, but that's fine.
I did receive -- Norma you mentioned
that you have a written comment, you'll not hear
for the meeting for a later date, correct?
MS. NUNGESTER: (Nodding head.)
MR. LOJEK: Okay. I did receive one
written comment and I'll go ahead and read that
comment now. This is a comment from Rita Janson.
She's 2343 Ranch, that's in Lawrence, Kansas.
Her comment reads as follows: Will
communities along the rail route be notified when
shipments of pit waste take place, through what
mechanism will this notification be made, through
community newspapers, through government agencies,
or both? Will emergency personnel along the rail
shipping route be notified prior to the waste
shipment through their area? All right. That
concludes the written comment that I received here
at the meeting. __
What I would like to do here we'll
move to basically close up our meeting. I have a
couple of short items to close out with.
First, I would like to identify that
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-24
-------
87
1 if you have any lingering, or if you have any new
2 comments, or if you choose to pre.sent your comments
3 in writing after this meeting you can do so by
4 submitting those comments to Mr. Gary Stegner.
5 He's Director of our public affairs group at the
6 Department of Energy, the Fernald Branch, that's
7 Post Office Box 538705. In your Proposed Plan
8 document the post office box is listed as 398705.
9 We've just recently changed our post office box and
10 if you use either post office box the mail will get
11 to us.
12 The OU1 our public comment period, we
13 started that on August 10th. The written comments
14 if you submit them need to be postmarked by the
15 closing of our public comment period which is
16 September 8th, 1994. So please make sure that
17 you — we look forward to getting any additional,
18 make sure you get them in the mail by then.
19 And I need to stress at the bottom of
20 my slide here I say this is the time to make your
21 views known. And I appreciate all the comments
22 that I do receive and all the input and concerns
23 that you have for us implementing our proposed
24 cleanup of those waste pits.
.
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-25
-------
88
1 At this point let me just mention for
2 the public affairs people there was an evaluation
3 form placed on your chair, if you would please go
4 ahead and fill that evaluation form out.
5 And I would like to thank sincerely
6 everyone for attending the meeting this evening and
7 providing verbal and any written comments and their
8 input into the meeting tonight. Thank you very
9 much — hold on a second. Okay. You're all
10 right. Okay, very good. Thank you very much for
11 attending.
1 2
13 PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 9:15 P.M.
1 4
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513 ) 381-3342
A-3-26
-------
89
1 CERTIFICATE
2 I, CONNIE DUPPS, RPR, the undersigned, a notary
3 public-court reporter, do hereby certify that at
4 the time and place stated herein, I recorded in
5 stenotypy and thereafter had transcribed with
6 computer-aided transcription the within (88),
7 eighty-eight pages, and that the foregoing
8 transcript of proceedings is a complete and
9 accurate report of my said stenotypy notes.
10
11
12
13 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: CONNIE DUPPS, RPR
14 AUGUST 13, 1997. NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF OHIO
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Spangler Reporting Services
PHONE (513) 381-3330 FAX (513) 381-3342
A-3-27
-------
SECTION A.3.2
WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED
BY THE PUBLIC ON THE
OPERABLE UNIT 1 PROPOSED PLAN
-------
09-13-1994 13:06 513 648 3073
FERNALD FIELD OFFICE
P. 02
3a
3h
A-3-28
-------
09-13-1994 13:07 513 648 3073 FERNALD FIELD OFFICE P. 03
^>.
J^-fcc
fy/Asv] SK
' .
/
.irv y-s,^ '^CVKVU*^ f * ' V — '«•" / —
3h
3in
3h
C/"«^ I
/ V
!/
S S . ._-<-."*.. X7.4-. I
3a
A-3-29
-------
09-13-1994 13:07 513 648 3073 FERNAU3 FIELD OFFICE P.04
.3 , • " "M
... . ;, .*....! Jj
September 5, 1994
• t . ••->
Comments on Operable Unit 1 Cleanup
i
My name is Sandy Butterfield. I live at 4535 Morgan-
Ross Rd. bordering the Fernald facility. The following
statement is my comment concerning the cleanup of Operable
Unit 1.
The area where the train track comes out of the FEMP
crosses Morgan-Ross Rd. and continues along the south side
of our property until it Joins the main track of the CSX
railroad. The property adjacent to ours/ through which this
spur track travels/ is owned by the United States Government
and controlled by D.O.Z. We are concerned because the
entire area is not fenced and is open to the public at
large. If train cars'filled with this disposable material
are left sitting on this spur track waiting for pick-up on
the main line/ they will become-an exposure possibility to
the entire community. Children will have access to them as
will any of the people who seem to hang, out around train | 3f
tracks as is evident by the cans and garbage left behind.
We asked a year ago that this area be mowed and cleaned
up. -We were told that the D.O.E. was letting it go back to
a wildlife area and they would see what they could do about
mowing it. It's now a year later and nothing has been done
yet. Weeds and grass have grown up around the track and
right in the track to a height of three feet or so.
Realizing that OU 1 is just the tip of the iceberg/ we
need to have this area addressed before many more loads are
scheduled to be taken across it. When it leaves the fence-
line of the plant/ it also becomes public responsibility
(i.e./ neighbors* Morgan Twp. fire dept., public officials/
etc.). We do not want this spur to be used as a holding
area/ waiting sometimes days to be picked up by. a train on
the main track. We also do not want additional track put in i 30
this area thus making it into a rail yard. Rail cars should
be kept inside the plant until they are scheduled for pick
up and only be brought out at that time.
A-3-30
-------
August 26, 1994
Mr. Gary Stegner
Director, Public Information
U.S. DOE - Fernald Area Office
P.O. Box 538705
Cincinnati, OH 45253-8705
RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR O.U. 1 PROPOSED PLAN
Dear Mr. Stegner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide my official comments on the O.U. 1 Pro-
posed Plan.
1. DOE must insure public involvement will not be lessened during the RD/RA
and should commit in the ROD for O.U. 1 to continuing the on-going public
involvement during the RD/RA. DOE should also revise it's Community Re- =
lations Plan to reflect the need for continued public involvement during
the RD/RA. I look forward to working with DOE in revising this document.
2. DOE should commit to real-time monitoring during;the remediation of O.U. 1
ana this should include any treatment systems. The results of the real-
time monitoring should be reported to the public in a timely manner.
DOE should check into the cost of portable/permanent real-time monitors,
with checks & balances and using real people (not averages or senerios/.
M
3. DOE should commit to use pollution prevention activities whenever possible
during the design & operation of the O.U. 1 remedial action system. All
available methods to reduce discharges from the treatment system should be
considered.
4. It is crucial for DOE to ensure that the railroad tracks between Fernald,
Cottage Grove, Indiana — to Hamilton, Ohio and into and out of Cincinnati
are safe, well maintained and that if a problem arises with regard to the
integrity that the problem is corrected immediatedly. This should be the
case all the way to the final resting place of the waste.
•
Loaded railroad cars cannot sit along the tracks outside of DOE's fence line
or in the Shandon Switching Station. Rail cars must be loaded within the
fencel ine property (on-site) and then .move the train out all at once with-
out sitting or stopping along the tracks. AlI DOT regulations should be
followed and adhered to strictly. • _
If there's a problem or emergency — all members of the immediate community
should be notified within a reasonable amount of time. I encourage DOE to
expand its outreach activities to local first responders and this should
include training, emergency exercises, etc. All members of the local
communities should be informed about these activities and encouraged to be
active participants. This should include Indiana, also.
Loaded rail cars cannot travel over 25 mph along residents land and within
cities between Fernald and Cottage Grove, IN ana Then back into Butler Co.
and on into the Cincinnati area.
Rail cars should be monitored prior to leaving the site to be sure that all
radiation readings are within limits and also when it has had to sit along
the route for engineer changeover or unforeseeable delays and then when \J
reaches it final destination. These results should be reported to stak'
holders in a timely manner.
A-3-31
5b
5c
2a
2t
3a
3e
5e
3c
3h
-------
(2)
RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR O.U. 1 PROPOSED PLAN
5. With regard to DOE developing a Proposed Plan calling for a disposal of the O.U.
1 waste at a commercial facility and yet DOE has yet not addressed the issue of I Id
DOE Order 5380.2A. We understand that a waiver of this Order has been requested,
but that DOE headquarters has not yet acted on it. This issue needs to be re-
solved and written in stone prior to the finalizing of the O.U. 1 ROD.
With the above concerns being addressed I support DOE's selection of Alternative 5B
as long as the above concerns are addressed. I look forward to receiving your res- I la
ponses with regard to my concerns/questions.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 738-1688. Thanks!
ely,
Crawford
President, F.R.E.S.H., Inc.
P.O. Box 129
Ross, OH 45061
(513)948-8055 (phone/fax)
LC:eac
cc: files
A-3-32
-------
500 Water Street
TRANSPORTATION JacKsonvflte. R. 32202
Sales and Marketing
August 19, 1994 .
Ms. Lisa Crawford
FRESH
10206 Crosby Road
Harrison, Ohio 45030
Dear Ms. Crawford,
I hope that our session on Tuesday night was helpful in understanding CSX
Transportation's and the Union Pacific Railroad's role in the transportation of the OU-1
materials from Femald. Both railroads are fully committed to ensuring we provide
safe, incident-free transportation of this hazardous material.
There is one issue that I'm not sure was fully communicated during our question and
answer period. There has never been any discussion between CSXT and DOE about
upgrading the classification of the Femald-Cottage Grove line to increase the speed
limit above 25 miles per hour. I believe the confusion arose because of DOE's
remarks on August 9 when they used the term "upgrade" rather liberally. The track
maintenance program that our roadmaster is requesting in his budget for next year
and thereafter is for routine maintenance; it will not result in any change in the track's
classification or the legal speed limit.
Please recognize that many issues have yet to be discussed between DOE/FERMCO
and the railroads prior to even entering the negotiating stage. Some of the ideas will
no doubt arise from public comments. But, realize that they are just ideas, some of
which may end up in the final plan while others certainly will not. DOE and FERMCO
seem to have a firm policy of public involvement, and, while I certainly cannot speak
for them, I'm sure there will be opportunities to comment on the plan.
In the event questions come up about the rail transportation aspects of the OU-1 plan,
I would encourage you to contact me directly. CSXT, the Union Pacific, and FRESH
share the goal of ensuring that the waste is moved safely.
Sincerely,
Rich Johnson
Assistant Market Manager
Government Sales & Marketing
A-3-33
-------
OU I
T
-4-
a "
+
S7 *»-> ; Jrt &n 7*-.S
t,*^
CXOLL'n
l6:L/er/<
la
_C_CL5.7h
{2_X^_.
4.- -A
-fag
-r*
/ / e-
-Z:
___£?_ ..
A-3-34
-------
a
.-.> at
7~^
. _ tfsC C.
/I
Gr
2a
_/7.
V
x^^
• n c-
lu de . .rto.oaj'J&s/jn* ,. TD
;x
-------
PfJ h I,'
n I/V)
g?
XV7
/C/? /
x
-h
.-/-.. T^A
HSL
ore
77
^ -i~h /=. X)
-------
Septenber 07, 1994
Mr. Gary Stegner
P.O. Box 538705
Cincinnati, Ohio 45253-8705
RE: Comments on the Proposed Plan for Remediation of OU 1
Dear Mr. Stegner,
The purpose of this letter is to submit commit on OU 1's Proposed Plan.
While I agree in principle with the alternative selected for OU 1's la
remediation I would like a response to the following concerns pertaining
to the OU 1 ROD.
1.Commitment to meaningful public participation' beyond the ROD and
throughout the RD/RA process. Continued public input in the decision making
that affects the remediation of the site must be maintained. This
commitment should be included in the site's Community Relations Plan
and the OU 1's ROD.
2. The transportation issues are of concern to numerous areas of the
public and warrant serious consideration and" response. Safety and protection
of the public, workers and the environment along the shipping routes
must be conducted thruoghout the project, as with all such projects on
the site, due to the nature and volumn of the materials involved and
the time required to complete the project(s).
3. Continued efforts in technology development should proceed in
attempting to discover more effective methods for treatment and disposal
of the waste streams present.
4. The alternatives listed with on-site disposal discuss the design and*
engineering of an on-site disposal cell. Is this cell in addition to or
an expansion of the disposal cell planned for OU 2?
5. The preferred alternative is for disposal at a commercial facility.
What is the status of the request for a waiver to DOE Order 5280.2A which
prohibits disposal at a commercial facility?
6. Additional discharges of contaminates has a result of the remediation -
of OU 1 should be significantly reduced and /or avoided. Measures to
accomplish this shaw&d be incorporated into the RD/RA of OU 1.
Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Ijpmitted • by.
5b
3h
Id
2b
Pamela Dunn
Officer of F.R.E.S.H., Inc.
7781 Nev Haven Rd.
Harrison, Ohio 45030
cc: file. "
A-3-37
-------
FRANCIS FARMS at SHANDONj|
-------
09-13-1994 13:08 513 648 3073
FERNALD FIELD OFFICE
P. OS
FERNALn^.
•JH^y
SEP.
1 RLE-
LIBRARY:
September- ?; "1994
Atten.,
I'm sending a request for a drainage pipe repair at
826.32 feet south of Relly Peer i a Road marked with a white
cross tie i'n road bed.
The west end is deteriorated and eoi 1 ama^d. This has
slowed the water flow from our fields and tile outlets.
This problem has caused us to replant our crops at various
times. This is a hazard to the road bed on the CSX line
which is going to haul waste from Fernald.
I am also requesting that your fence along the railroad
property starting at 1089 feet south of Kelly Peoria Road
and running -south approximately 820 feet be replaced. Our
farm is fenced on all other sides as we pasture cur cattle
at vatrlous times and this railroad fence will not hold
cattle.
_0
3a
Alan Herrmann
1400. state Line Rd.
.Oxford, Ohio 45056
(513) 756 9558
A-3-39
-------
COMMENT SHEET
DOE is interested in your comments on the .cleanup alternatives being considered in the
Feasibility Study Report/Proposed Plan - Environmental Assessment for Operable Unit 1
at the Pemald site. The preferred alternative is to remediate the Waste Pits by
excavation, treatment by thermal drying, and off-site disposal at a permitted commercial
disposal facility. Please use the space provided below to write your comments, then fold,
staple or tape, and mail this form. We must receive your comments on or before the
close of the public comment period on September 8, 1 994. If you have questions about
the comment period, please contact Gary Stegner in DOE's Public Information Office at
Fernald, at (513) 648-3153.
5d
•m
Name:
Address:
City:
Phone:
State/Zip:
% M
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
A-3-40
-------
I am deepfy concerned about the direction that the FEPfWUD rer«e
-------
COMMENT SHEET
DOE is interested in your comments on the cleanup alternatives being considered in the
Feasibility Study Report/Proposed Plan - Environmental Assessment for Operable Unit 1
at the Fernald site. The preferred alternative is to remediate the Waste Pits by
excavation, treatment by thermal drying, and off-site disposal at a permitted commercial
disposal facility. Please use the space provided below to write your comments, then fold,
staple or tape, and mail this form. We must receive your comments on or before the
close of the public comment period on September 8,1994. If you have questions about
the comment period, please contact Gary Stegner in DOE's Public Information Office at
Fernald, at (513) 648-3153.
5b
Name:
(5Bb? jfcuu-
i i i ^
Address:
Citv: H A
Phone:
hl~
-------
MORGAN TOWNbnir-
BirrLEa COUNTY
OKEANA, OHIO 45053 ?.-.*•
\RDOFTRUSTEES . CLERK
Roesrr COPBJUO) • CHARLOTTE LAHMANN
EO DtLLHOFF . - .-'•'"
ANTHONY SEARS
DOE . .
FERNALD. Department of Energy
Mr. Ray Hansen, Site Manager
P*.O. Box 3987O5
Cincinnati, Ohio 45239
August 15, 1994
Dear Sir,
The Morgan Township Board of Trustees reauested I forward a
copy of this resolution to your attention.
RESOLUTION BY: Mr. Robert Cope land SS3-94
Resolved by the Board of Trustees of Morgan Township, Butler
County, Ohio,
That the Morgan Township Board of Trustees send a letter to
FERMCO and DOE stating that the Trustees will not tolerate the
storage of any material from the FERNALD SITE in Morgan Township.
Our reasons for rejecting the proposal to reactivate the Shandon
Switching Yard is due to the concern of security, and safety of
all residents of Morgan Township. Also, we are concerned that
storage of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials off site
may remove the burden of responsibility from the DOE and FERMCO.
We believe DOE and FERMCO to be the proper authority, and the
authority should not be shifted to some other party such as CSX,
who we feel may not be the proper responsible party.
We have no objection to transportation by rail of these
waste materials through Morgan Township as we believe this to be
the safest mode of transportation.
We however do expect that all track, crossings, bridges and
trestles in Morgan Township must be brought up to standards
required for safety for this new and increased flow of rail
traffic in our township.
Mr. Sears seconded the above resolution and upon roll call,
the vote resulted as follows:
Mr. Copeland yes,
Mr. Dlllhoff yes,
Mr. Sears yes.
Motion Carried.
Adopted: August 15, 1994
Attest:
Charlotte Lahmann
3a
-------
PROPOSED PLAN FOR
REMEDIAL ACTIONS AT
OPERABLE UNIT I
DOE/EA-0938
WASTE PITS
COMMENTS BY: »u. j. i
8371 TO. V ***
&~_ ax iauo
The proposed Alternative SB-Treatment (Thermal Drying). anJ Off-Site Disposal at Permitted
Commercial Facility seems to be the best alternative of those offered. I am concerned, however,
that you have chosen only to clean up to the Expanded Trespasser Level for Operable Unit 1 and
for Operable Unit 4 (K65 Silos). Was this done to facilitate using the site for storage of waste and I -.
in the hopes of the Waiver being granted by the EPA for storage over a single source aquifer?
I do not agree with this line of thinking, if indeed, this is the case.
During attendance at the workshops, etc., it was explained the DOE would be responsible for the
cost of any accidents, for the improvement of tracks and overpasses, and the cost of adding an
additional mile of railroad tracks onto the site. I believe that although the two chemical |
companies South of the plant may not be required to have track improvements, they use this
railroad and should share a portion of the cost.
We need real-time monitoring of any and all emissions. The current system does not give you an
alarm when emissions go up. We also need to have monitoring every day.
Also needed is better inspection of the railroad tracks. Eyeballing tracks as you ride the train is
one thing (probably o.k. for normal freight shipment) and real hands-on or physical inspection for | 3b
hazardous, nuclear waste, and chemical is another.
We need a firm public involvement commitment between the RD/RA Work Plan and Begin .
Remediation and between Begin Remediation and Complete Remediation. |
A-3-44
-------
ate of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
outhwest District Office
i South Main Street
lyton. Ohio 45402-2086
13) 285-6357
IX (513) 285-6404
35
George V. Voinovich
Governor
August 24,1994
RE: DOE FEMP
HAMILTON COUNTY
OU1 PROPOSED PLAN
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Gary Stegner
Director, Public Information
U.S. DOE Femald Area Office
P.O. Box 538705
Cincinnati, OH 45253-8705
Dear Mr. Stegnen
The purpose of this letter is to provide official comments on the Operable Unit 1 Proposed Plan:
1. The OU1 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
OU1. Ohio EPA believes the alternative selected in the Proposed Plan is the most
protective alternative with regard to human health and the environment Ohio EPA
supports DOE's selection of Alternative 5B and looks forward to its expeditious
implementation.
2. Ohio EPA is concerned that DOE has developed a Proposed Plan calling for disposal of
the OU1 waste at a commercial facility, yet DOE Order 5280.2A precludes disposal at a
commercial facility. Ohio EPA understands that a waiver of this Order has been
requested, but DOE Headquarters has failed to act upon it. DOE HQ must address the
need for a waiver of this Order. Ohio EPA expressed concerns with DOE's failure to
address this issue during the development of the OU3 Interim Record of Decision and .
Proposed Plan. At that time DOE committed to addressing issues precluding disposal at
Envirocare within OU1. To date DOE has not met this commitment. Ohio EPA believes
that DOE must complete the waiver of this Order and address other issues precluding
disposal at Envirocare prior to finalizing the OU1 ROD. The need for DOE to take action
on its own waiver is especially relevant considering DOE is asking USEPA to waive
Ohio's Solid Waste Siting Criteria for on-site disposal of other operable unit wastes.
Ohio EPA's support of such a waiver could only be considered once DOE has fulfilled the
commitment to waiving 5280.2A.
3. In order for DOE to effectively and safely implement the preferred alternative, Ohio EPA
feels it is critical for DOE to ensure the quality and integrity of railroad line between the
la
Id
3a
Prinad on mcycM pap*t
-------
Mr. Stegner
August 24,1994
Page 2
site and Cottage Grove, Indiana. A number of citizen concerns have been expressed over
the past month concerning this railway. Ohio EPA expects DOE will address all 3a
reasonable requests.
4. Due to significant public concern with regard to emergency preparedness, Ohio EPA
encourages DOE to expand its outreach activities to local first responders along the train
route in Ohio and Indiana. These activities could include training, mock exercises, etc
involving multiple agencies and fire departments. Ohio EPA would gladly participate in
these activities.
5. DOE should commit to including and/or developing real-time monitoring for discharges
to the environment resulting from remedial actions including any treatment system. DOE
should attempt to incorporate any new developments in real-time monitoring from the 2a
Office of Technology Development. Data obtained from real-time monitors and any
additional monitoring activities should be provided to the Ohio EPA and public in a
timely manner.
6. DOE should attempt to incorporate pollution prevention activities whenever possible
during the design and operation of the OU1 remedial action system. All available 2b
methods to reduce or eliminate discharges from the treatment system should be
considered during the design of the system.
7. 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 OU1 to maintaining the exceptional on-going public involvement
during RD/RA.
8. DOE should revise the site Community Relations Plan to address the need for continued
public involvement during the RD/RA. Ohio EPA looks forward to working with DOE
to revise this document.
If you have any questions concerning these comments please contact me at (513) 285-6466.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Schneider
Project Manager
-------
Mr. Stegner
August 24, 1994
PageS
cc: Lisa Crawford, FRESH
Jack Van Kley, Ohio AGO
Jim Saric, USEPA
KenAlkema,FERMCO
Lisa August, Geotrans
Jean Michaels, PRC
Manger TPSU, OEP A/DERR
Jeff Hurdley, OEPA/Legal
Robert Owen, ODH
Jim Crawford, OEPA/Emergency Response
A-3-47
-------
^dasw. iM*y. (LWJL&
^LtlVity-
^-t* C&&^ ^./l^U^ A '
\\jrf~ Jb^M^r &*~ x
'•&J4l &40/X-.
-------
^^
-------
/£
/
•,£2£^- ft'JjTJ- Z7*6~
\
X
J?
2.3
3k
£-£_
A-3-50
-------
-------
JL4*us&r ..X^N-.^dx^d
^ ^
"*_-y^--
A-3-52
-------
TKAVKenvTvSI^ 5CO Water S*661
TRANSPORTATION Jacksonville. FL 32202
Sales and Marketing
August 24, 1994
Mr. and Mrs. Nick Schwab
6844 Dunwoody Road
Reily, Ohio 45056
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Schwab,
As we discussed today, Mr. Don Fette, one of our district project engineers, is the
man responsible for resolving the issue regarding your fence. His address is 1717
Dixie Highway, Suite 400, Fort Wright, KY 41011-2785. His phone number is
(606)344-8137. I spoke with him today about your situation, and he is expecting to
hear from you.
Mr. Fette asked that you send him a letter with the following information: the length of
the fence, fence construction type (barbed wire, wood, etc.), distance from either end
to one of our mileposts, and distance from the fence to the track. Based on this, he •
will research your exact situation and work with you to resolve it.
I appreciate your comments last week during the public meeting. CSX Transportation
is strongly committed to operate safely for the benefit of our neighbors and the people
we work with. The project at Fernald is one that we will watch very closely to ensure
that we provide safe, incident free transportation services.
Sincerely,
Rich Johnson
Market Manager
Government Sales & Marketing
A-3-53
-------
§ 4959.02
PUBLIC UTILITIES
434
§ 4959.02 Fences.
A company or person having control or manage-
ment of any railroad except a scenic railway shall
construct and maintain in good repair on'each-side
of such railroad, along the line of the lands of the
company owning or operating it, a fence sufficient
to turn stock. When such fence is constructed of
barbed wire, or separate lateral strands not con-
nected by interwoven wire, or cross-perpendicular
wire not more than fifteen inches apart, there shall
be securely fastened to the posts, at the top thereof,
at right angles thereto, at least one board, not less
than one and one-eighth inches thick and five
inches wide, and extending the entire length
thereof. If an owner of land abutting a scenic rail-
way requests the company or person having control
or management of the railway to construct and
maintain in good repair such a fence along the
abutting line of land of the railway, the company or
person having control or management of the rail-
way shall do so, and the cost of constructing and
maintaining the fence shall be equally shared be-
tween the railway and owner of land. As used in
this section and in section 4959.06 of the Revised
Code, "scenic railway" means a railroad eperated
not for profit and exclusively as a tourist or histori-
cal attraction.
HISTORY: RS i 3324; SleC 331; 71 v 85; 78 v 199; 88 v 295; 91
v 297; 99 v 59; GC § 8913; Bureau of Code Revision, 10-1-53; 137
v H 458. Ett 11-3-77.
Cross-References to Related Sections
Exception, RC § 4959.07.
Fence as nuisance, RC § 5571.14..
Forfeiture for not constructing and repairing fences, RC §
'4959.10.
Landowner may construct fence, RC § 4959.05.
Owner may repair fence, RC § 495S.06.
Partition fences, RC § 971.01 et seq.
Comparative Legislation
Fences: '
CA—Pub Util Code § 7626
IL—Ann Stat ch 95'/2 § 18c-7504
IN—Code § 8-4-33-1
MI—Comp Laws Ann § 466.15
NY—R R Law § 52
Text Discussion
Liability for injuries to animals. 2 Ohio Civ. Prac. § 19.05
Research Aids
Fences along railroad:
O-Jur3d: R R §§ 104, 106, 111
Am-Jur2d: R R §§ 125, 139
C.J.S.: R R § 569
Railroad to build fences to turn stock:
O-Jur3d: Agency & Ind Contr § 222
Am-Jur2d: R R § 139
C.J.S.: R R §§ 558, 566
West Key No. Reference
RR103
CASE NOTES AND OAG
INDEX
Contributory negligence of landowner, 2. 7. 17, 20, 25
Duty to fence. 32. 34
Included duties, 5, 24
Mitigation of damages. 36
Partition fence, maintenance of, 23 .
Liability of railway for failure to fence, 30
Application of statute, 4, 15
Degree of care necessary—
Burden of proof, 14. 21
Inference of negligence, 22
Ordinary care. 8.11. 28. 29. 40
Suitable fence, 6,41. 42
Liability as to persons, 3. 38. 43
Limitation of action, 13, 37
Straying animals, 18, 31
Where injury sustained. 1. 33. 39
Notice. 35
Special contract, validity and effect, 9, 10, 16, 19, 27
As to subsequent grantees. 12, 26
1. (1910) The liability of a railroad company under this
section, to respond in damages for injuries to stock in con-
sequence of its neglect to construct and maintain a suffic-
ient fence on each side of its road, is limited to loss or
injuries occurring upon its own right of way. Accordingly,
a railroad company is not liable for stock which has en-
tered upon its right of way by reason of its failure to fence;
and has crossed to the right of way of another railroad
company where such stock is killed: Hocking Val. R. Co. v.
Phillips, 81 OS 453, 55 Bull 71, 7 OLR 615, 29 LRA(NS)
573, 91 NE 118.
2. (1908) Where a railroad company is proceeding to
repair or rebuild a defective fence along the line of its
right of way and upon the line where the fence has always
been, and the adjoining landowner orders the company's
employees off the premises and notifies-the company to
stop work, claiming that the line of the old fence is not the
true line, and the adjoining proprietor continues to use his
land as pasture, knowing that the fence is defective and
dangerous, without revoking or modifying his warning to
the company or doing anything to determine the true line,
and his none is then injured by becoming entangled in the
loose barbed wire of the defective fence, he cannot recover
for the injury to the animal, because his own conduct has
proximately contributed to bring about the condition
which resulted in the injury: Baltimore & O.R. Co. v.
Mcllyar, 77 OS 391, 53 Bull 27, 5 OLR 564, 83 NE 497.
3. (1904) The fence required by this section is one suf-
ficient to turn stock; and this section does not require rail-
road companies to fence against persons: Lake Shore occ.
R. Co. v. Liidtke. 69 OS 384, 49 Bull 23, 1 OLR 753, 69
NE653.
4. (1903) This statute refers only to the road and the
right of way; and not to other real property belonging to
the railway: Ann Arbor R. Co. v. Kinz, 68 OS 210, 48 Bull
442, 1 OLR 21, 67 NE 479.
5. (1899) The duty to fence includes the duty to con-
struct adequate and suitable gates in the fence, if neces-
sary; but it does not include the duty to see that such gates
are kept closed: Megrue v. Lennox, 59 OS 479, 41 Bull 49,
52 NE 1022; see, to the same effect, Didman v. Michigan
Cent. R. Co., 7 NP 380, 5 OD 140, 31 Bull 240 (1900).
6. (1899) An averment in a petition that the railway
A-3-54
-------
fT
34
this
on*
fie-
i or
tf»
en-
«e;
oad
IV.
NS)
zto
Fits
•ays
ay's
y to
:tbe
ehis
and
igto
line,
ithe
aver
thas
ition
a v.
17.
:suf-
rail-
:&c.
3.69
ithe
ngto
I Bull
con-
leces-
ates
435
RIGHT OF WAY DRAINAGE AND FENCES
§ 4959.02
higan
))-
.ilway
corporation did not maintain a suitable fence is not sup-
ported by evidence which shows that the cattle entered the
right of way through a gate which was left open carelessly,
there being no evidence to show that such gate was con-
structed improperly or was out of repair: Megrue v. Len-
nox, 59 OS 479, 41 Bull 49. 52 NE 1022.
7. (1896) Where it is shown that the owner was bound.
by contract with the company, to maintain a gate placed
by him for his convenience in the fence dividing his land
from that of the company's right of way, and the animals
get upon the track by reason of the neglect of the owner to
perform that duty, liability on the part of the company
arises only when it is shown that the injury resulted from
the intentional act, or gross carelessness of those operating
the train: Lake Erie & W.R. Ox v. Weisel. 55 OS 155, 36
Bull 220, 44 NE 923 [approving and following Pittsburgh,
C. &c. R. Co. v. Smith, 26 OS 124].
8. (1896) If animals trespass upon the track of a railway
corporation without the fault of the owner thereof, the
railway must exercise ordinary care to avoid injuring
them: Lake Erie 2c W.R. Co. v. Weisel. 55 OS 155, 36 Bull
220, 44 NE 923; see, to the same effect, Cranston v. Cin-
cinnati. H. & D.R. Co., 12 DecRep 97, 1 H 193.
9. (1896) Where domestic animals are injured by a rail-
road train while trespassing upon the track of the com-
pany, and the owner of the animals is free from negligence
contributing to their injury, the company will be liable for
a failure on the part of those operating the train to exercise
ordinary care to avoid injury; but if the owner was bound,
by contract with the company, to maintain a gate placed
by him for his convenience in the fence dividing his land
from that of the company's right of way, and the animals
get upon the track by reason of the neglect of the owner to
perform that duty, liability on the part of the company
arises only when it is shown that the injury resulted from
the intentional act, or gross carelessness of those operating
the train: Lake Erie & W.R. Co. v. Weisel, 55 OS 155, 36
Bull 220, 44 NE 923 [approving and following Pittsburgh.
C «ce. R. Co. v. Smith, 26 OS 124J.
10. (1890) General Code § 8918 (RC § 4959.07). which
provides that "the provisions of the five preceding sections
relating to fences and private crossings shall not apply to
any case in which compensation for building a fence or
private crossing has been or may hereafter be taken into
consideration, and estimated as a part of the consideration
to be paid for the right of way, so far as the fence, or right
to private crossing, has been or may be settled or paid for,"
it was held that where stock of a third person gets upon
the track of a railroad company by reason of such fences
not being built by the landowner, the company is not, in
the absence of negligence in running its trains, liable to
the owner for injury to them. The duty of the company is,
in such case, to use ordinary care and prudence to avoid
injuring the animals: Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Wood, 47
OS 431. 28 Bull 465. 24 NE 1077.
1L (18S9) Where, in an action for damages to stock,
brought against a railroad company on the ground of neg-
ligence in failing to maintain a fence between the compa-
ny's right of way and the land of the plaintiff, the defense
interposed is that in the condemnation proceeding by
which the company's right of way was acquired, the ex-
pense of fencing was taken into account by the jury, and
included in the verdict, and the company, to sustain such
defense, gives in evidence the record of the proceeding,'
and the record is silent on the subject, no presumption
arises that the mutter of building and maintaining fences
along the line of the railroad was considered, and compen-
sation to the owner therefor awarded in the verdict: Cin-
cinnati. W. & B.R. Co. v. Hoffhines, 46 OS 643. 22 Bull
424, 22 NE 871.
12. (1888) A covenant whereby the owner of realty
agrees to maintain a fence between his land and the rail-
way does not run with the land so as to bind his grantee,
unless such grantee has notice thereof: and the fact that
the railway uses and occupies its right of way does not
amount to constructive notice of such covenant: Pitts-
burgh, C. etc. R. Co. v. Bosworth, 46 OS 81, 20 Bull 390.
2 LRA 199, 18 NE 533 [affirming Bosworth v. Pittsburgh.
C. etc. R. Co., 1 CC 69,1 CD 42).
13. (1886) An action against a railroad company to re-
cover damages for killing or injuring a domestic animal
which had strayed upon its track, and was killed or in-
jured without fault or negligence of the railroad company
in operating its train, but solely by the neglect to fence the
road as required by law, is founded upon a "liability cre-
ated by statute, other than a forfeiture or penalty," and is
barred in six years: Seymour v. Pittsburgh, C. See. R. Co.,
44 OS 12, 15 Bull 87. 4 NE 236.
14. (1885) This section is to be reasonably construed;
and where damage results from defects (occurring without
the fault or neglect of the company) in an otherwise suffic-
ient fence, there is no liability: Baltimore & O.R. Co. v.
Schultz, 43 OS 270, 13 Bull 516, 1 NE 324. 57 AmRep
805.
15. (1883) The duty of fencing and keeping fences in
repair is not limited or restricted to the protection and
benefit of the owners and occupiers of abutting land:
Pittsburgh, C ore. R. Co. v. Allen, 40 OS 206, 10 Bull
240.
16. (1883) A railway company, having sold a portion of
its right of way on its south side to a section company,
which bad bought additional right of way from the land-
owners on the same side, for the purpose of constructing
thereon a parallel railroad, and the maintenance of a
fence between the two roads becoming impracticable, a
contract was entered .into between the two companies, by
which the second company agreed to keep up and main-
tain lawful fences on the south side of the dividing line
between the two railroads; and the second company en-
tered into a contract with the owner of an abutting field.
whereby he bound himself to erect and maintain a suffic-
ient fence between said field and said parallel road. It was
held that the second company and the owner of said field
having neglected to keep up a sufficient fence to turn
stock, between said field and the railroad, the first com-
pany was not relieved from liability for injury by one of its
passing trains to animals whose owner was a stranger to
said contracts, and which, without their owner's fault,
had strayed from an adjoining pasture into said Held, and
thence through said insufficient fence upon its track: Pitts-
burgh, C. &c. R. Co. v. Allen, 40 OS 206, 10 Bull 240.
17. (1883) If by a special contract, the railway corpora-
tion is Dound to keep a fence in good condition, and such
liability is also imposed by statute, a property owner who
turns hogs into an adjoining field with full knowledge of
such defects in the fence, is not, by reason thereof, guilty
of contributory negligence; and he may recover -if such
hogs pass through such defective fence upon this right of
way and are there killed: Cleveland, C.. C & I.R. Co. v.
Scudder, 40 OS 173,9 Bull [25]iii.
IS. (1883) Where animals that are breachy or unruly
escape from an inclosed field into another field (of the
-------
§ 4959.02
PUBLIC UTILITIES
436
same farm) which abuts on a railroad, and between which
and the railroad the railroad company has neglected to
construct a fence, as required by statute, and while stray- .
Ing upon the railroad track are killed or injured by a pass--
ing train, their owner may recover from the company for
the loss or injury, provided the animals were at large with-
out his fault, and he has used that reasonable care and
precaution in restraining them, which a prudent and cau-
tious man would use who had knowledge of their breachy
or unruly character: Pittsburgh, C. Sec. R. Co. v. Howard,
40 OS 6, 9 Bull 234.
19. (1883) A landowner agreed with a railroad com-
pany to keep a line of fence in repair. The company, in
order to rebuild a bridge, removed a portion of the fence
and replaced it by a fence of a different character. The
latter was accepted by the landowner as an inclosing fence
to his fields, then, in law, it became the duty of the land-
owner to keep the same in repair, and he is without rem-
edy where his stock is killed by neglect to make such re-
pairs, unless the killing was caused by negligence in
running the train: Pittsburgh, C. ttc. R. Co. v. Heiskill, 38
OS 666, 9 Bull 137.
20. (1882) Under the present form of this statute, a rail-
road company, which has neglected to keep a fence at the
side of its track in sufficient repair, is liable to the owner of
livestock injured by reason of such neglect, notwithstand-
ing the fact that the owner pastured such livestock on ad-
jacent lands with knowledge of the insufficiency of the
fence. By the terms of the statute, the duty of maintaining
the fence in sufficient repair is imposed upon the com-
pany, and it cannot escape responsibility by showing that
it had no notice of the actual condition of the fence: Rail-
way v. Smith, 38 OS 410, 8 Bull 232; Baltimore & O.R.
Co. v. Scudder. 40 OS 173, 9 Bull [25]iii (1883). See also
Church v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 10 OApp 80, 30 OCA
44, (1918) [motion to order record certified overruled, 16
OLR 404, 63 Bull 501].
21. (1882) In an action against a railroad company to
recover damages for killing livestock, the plaintiff must
prove affirmatively that want of ordinary care on the part
of the company or its employees caused the injury: Pitts-
burgh, C. &c. R. Co. v. McMillan, 37 OS 554, 7 Bull 112.
22. (1882) The fact that an animal was killed on the
right of way of a railway corporation does not raise the
inference that such animal was killed by the negligence of
the railway corporation or its employees: Pittsburgh, C.
4cc. R. Co. v. McMillan, 37 OS 554, 7 Bull 112.
23. (1877) Where a fence, constructed by an individual
and landowner, serves as a partition fence between a rail-
road track and the inclosed fields of such individual
owner, but not so divided that each owner is charged with
maintaining in repair a distinct portion thereof, the rail-
road company and individual landowner are each under
equal obligations to keep and maintain the entire fence in
repair until so divided: Railroad v. Miami Co. Infirmary,
32 OS 566.
24. (1875) The duty to fence includes the duty to con-
struct and maintain fences within the limits of municipal
corporations as long as such fences do not obstruct the
streets, highways and other public grounds: Cleveland &
P.R. Co. v. McConnell, 26 OS 57.
25. (1871) In an action brought by a private person to
recover damages for the violation of a duty imposed upon
the defendant by statute, it is a competent and sufficient
defense to show (unless precluded from so doing by the
terms of the statute or by clear implication arising there-
from), that the plaintiff by his own negligence contributed
to the injuries complained of, and it matters not, as to
such defense, whether the contributory negligence of the
plaintiff arose from the violation of his part of a duty im-
posed upon him by statute or'a common law duty: Pitts-
burgh, Ft. W. &c. R. Co. v. Methven, 21 OS 586.
26. (1871) A covenant on the part of the railway corpo-
ration to construct and maintain fences is a covenant
which runs with the land; and the vendee of the original
owner of the realty may maintain an action thereon
against the vendee of the railway corporation. The fact
that the original railway did not build such a fence does
not prevent its vendee from being liable, since the cove-
nant was a continuing one: Huston v. Cincinnati & Z.R.
Co.. 21 OS 235.
27. (1870) Where the owner of land, by his written con-
.tract, agreed to give to a railroad company the perpetual
right of way through the same, at a stipulated price which
was paid to him, with a provision in the contract that
when the road should be completed the company should
fence the same, it was held that after the road is com-
pleted, the owner of the land cannot, upon failure to put
up the fence, eject the company from the land: Hornback
v. Cincinnati Sc Z.R. Co., 20 OS 81.
28. (1861) A railway corporation may make use of its
realty to the same extent that any other owner of realty-
might; although it must exercise due care to avoid doing
unnecessary damage to others: Central Ohio R. Co. v. La-
wrence, 13 OS 66.
29. (1860) A railway corporation is not liable for an in-
jury which does not result from its negligence; and the fact
that the injury occurred and that it was negligent does not
impose liability on it, if such injury could not have been
prevented by the use of due care: Bellefontaine or I.R. Co.
v. Bailey, 11 OS 333.
30. (1950) The provision of GC § 8913 (RC § 4859.02),
requiring railroad companies to construct and maintain
fences in good repair on each side of their roads constitutes
a general requirement, and, under such provision, liability
of a railroad company is predicated on negligence: Counts
v. Chesapeake & O.R. Co., 91 OApp 130, 48 OO 269, 107
NE2d.896.
31. (1950) A railroad company's duty to construct and
maintain fences in good repair sufficient to turn stock in-
cludes the duty.of constructing and maintaining gates in
such fences, and, where it is disclosed that cattle killed by
a locomotive were enabled to enter the railroad's right of-
way through a defectively constructed gate in such fence,
which gate was insufficient to turn stock, the railroad
company is liable: Counts v. Chesapeake & O.R. Co., 91
OApp 130, 48 OO 269, 107 NE2d 896.
32. (1938) A railroad company, by constructing a cross-
ing over its tracks for the convenience of an abutting prop-
erty owner, as required by CC § 8858 (RC § 4955.27),
does not thereby relieve itself of the duty of maintaining a
fence along its tracks, sufficient to turn stock, as required
by CC § 8913 (RC § 4959.02), or the additional duty of
providing some means, by gate or otherwise, whereby the
abutting owner may pass through the fence and ade-
quately close the passageway behind him: Davis v. Balti-
more & O.R. Co.. 60 OApp 245, 14 OO 103, 20 NE2d
381.
33. (1918) Where a railroad company neglects or refuses
to construct and maintain fences along its right of way,
under this section, its liability to respond in damages is
limited to such loss or injuries as occur upon its right of
way, and not elsewhere, and an adjoining landowner can-
not recover the cost of herding his cattle or other animals
upon abutting pasture lands, where such company has ne-
glected or refused to fence its right of way along the same;
A-3-56
-------
437
RIGHT OF WAY DRAINAGE AND FENCES
§ 4959.03
nor can he recover for loss of profits from dairy cows by
reason of their not being permitted to remain in such
abutting pasture lands during the night season: Church v.
Baltimore & O.K. Co., 10 OApp 80. 30 OCA 44 (motion
to certify record overruled. 16 OLR 404, 63 Bull 501]. See
to the same effect, Millhouse v. Chicago, St. L. ice. R.
Co., 7 CC 466. 4 CD 682 (1893) [affirmed, without opin-
ion, 55 OS 684]. . ,\ :• • •.
34. (1915) The provision of this section, thaf fences shall
be built and maintained on each side of the railway track,
does not apply to electric or interurban roads: Brindle v.
Cleveland, S. dec. R. Co., 4 OApp 135. 21 CC(NS) 552.
35. (1905) As a general rule a railway engineer is not
chargeable as a matter of law with knowledge of a break
In the fences along the line of the road through which the
cattle may stray upon the track, and where after discover-
ing that cattle are upon the track, he does all that a man
of ordinary prudence would do to avoid an accident, it
cannot be charged that the derailment which followed
and resulted in his injury and death was due to his con-
tributory negligence: Isley v. Wabash R. Co., 5 CC(NS)
669,17 CD 785.
36. (1894) If a railway corporation neglects or refuses to
build a fence, as required by statute, the owner may build
it and recover the cost thereof from such railway. If this is
a reasonable step to take in mitigating damages, it is the
duty of such owner so to do; and he cannot omit to con-'
struct such fence and recover from the railway corporation
damages for the loss of pasture during the time that such
fence was not constructed: Millhouse v. Chicago, St. L.
&c. R. Co.. 7 CC 466, 4 CD 682.
37. (1907) An action for the common law liability for
negligently killing cattle by a railroad company is barred
in four years, and an action for liability created by this
section is barred in six yean: Roice v. Cleveland, C, C.
tee. R. Co.. 5 NP(NS) 7,17 OD 505.
38. (1903) The design of the act of April 18. 1874. re-
quiring railroads to fence their roads, was not only to pro-
tect the property of adjoining owners, and prevent cattle
and other domestic animals from endangering themselves,
but also to guard the lives of passengers that would be put
in peril by animals getting upon the track: Hall v. Lake
Shore Ice. R. Co., 14 OD(NP) 74.
39. (1903) A railway corporation is liable for injuries
caused by failure to maintain adequate fences; and ac-
cordingly a railway corporation which maintains no fence
between its road and that of another corporation, whose
right of'way runs parallel to and adjoining its own, is lia- \
ble for stock which strays across the land of the adjoining
corporation, and is killed upon its tracks, although the ad-
joining corporation maintains a sufficient fence upon the
opposite side of its right of way: Hall v. Lake Shore etc. R.
"Zo., 14 OD(NP) 74.
40. (1900) Unless violation of a statutory duty is
shown, the evidence must show that the employes of the
railway corporation were guilty of negligence, in order to
render such corporation liable for injury to stock upon the
right of way: Didman v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 7 NP
380. 5 OD 140, 31 Bull 240.
4L (1900) The fact that a railway corporation has con-
structed a suitable fence relieves it from liability for injury
to stock upon its right of way, unless it was guilty of negli-
gence: Didman v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 7 N'P380, 5 OD
140, 31 Bull 240.
42. (1900) The fact that a third person injures a fence
constructed by a railway is said not to make it liable, as a
matter of law, at once for injuries caused by such defect:
Didman v. Michigan Cent R. Co., 7 NP 380, 5 OD 140
31 Bull 240.
43. (1880) As to the duty imposed upon a railway cor-
poration, with reference to* human beings in m* of the
absence of a fence, see also Devereauz [Devereuz] v.
Thornton, 4 DecRep 449, 2 OevLRep 177. 4 Bull 355
[affirmed by supreme court, without report, 10 Bull 266
(1883)].
§ 4959.03 Cattle guards and crossings.
Before operating a railroad, the company or per-
son having control or management of such railroad
shall maintain at every point where a public road,
street, lane, or highway used by the public crosses
such railroad, safe and sufficient crossings, and on
each side of such crossings cattle guards sufficient
to prevent domestic animals from going upon such
railroad. Such company or person shall be liable for
all damages sustained in person or property by rea-
son of the want or insufficiency of such fence,
crossing, or cattle guard, or neglect or carelessness
in the construction or keeping in repair of such
fence, crossing, or cattle guard.
HISTORY: RS f 3324; S&C 331; 71 v 85; 78 Y 199; 88 r 295: 91
v 297; 99 vS9; CC i 8914; Bureau of Cade RerUoo. E£f 10.1-53.
Cross-References to Related Sections
Exception, RC § 4959.07.
Forfeiture for not constructing and repairing fences, RC §
4959.10.
Landowner may construct fence, RC $ 4959.05.
Owner may repair fence, RC $ 4959.06.
Comparative Legislation
Cattle guards:
IN—Code § 8-4-32-1
KY—Rev Stat Ann § 277.330
MI—Comp Laws Ann § 466.15
NY—R R Law § 52
Text Discussion
Liability for injuries to animals. 2 Ohio Civ. Prac. J 19.05
Research Aids
Statutory obligation to. maintain cattle guards and cross-
ings:
0-Jur3d: R R §§ 106,107,208,336,388,390
Am-Jur2d: R R §§ 126,135,136
C.J.S.: R R § 560
Wat Key No. Reference
RR103
ALR
Trespassing animals, liability for personal injury or death
caused by trespassing or intruding livestock. 49 ALR-
4th 710.
CASE NOTES AND OAG
INDEX
Application, 1'3. 5. 7
Bridge, construction of. 12
Compensation for construction. 6
Construction. 4
-------
COMMENT SHEET
DOE is interested in your comments on the cleanup alternatives being considered in the
Feasibility Study Report/Proposed Plan - Environmental Assessment for Operable Unit 1
at the Fernald site. The preferred alternative is to remediate the Waste Pits by
excavation, treatment by thermal drying, and off-site disposal at a permitted commercial
disposal facility. Please use the space provided below to write your comments, then fold,
staple or tape, and mail this form. We must receive your comments on or before the
close of the public comment period on September 8,1994. If you have questions about
the comment period, please contact Gary Stegner in OOE's Public Information Office at
Fernald, at (513) 648-3153.
Name:
Address:
City:
Phone:
State/Zin:
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
le
A-3-58
-------
: COMMENT SHEET
DOE is interested In your comments on the cleanup alternatives being considered In the*
feasibility Study Report/Proposed Plan - Environmental Assessment for Operable Unit 1
at the Femald site. The preferred alternative is to remediate the Wests Pits by,»
excavation, treatment by thermal drying, and off-site disposal at a permitted commercial •
disposal facility* Please use the space provided below to writs your comments, then fold.
staple or tape, and man this form. Wo must receive your comments on or before the •
close of the public comment period on September 8,1994. If you rave questions about -
tine comment period, please contact Gary Stegner in DOE's Public Information Office at'
FemaW,at(613)648-31i3. . ,' ' d'X"
. $4JL&r*J»*-«dL
Ajtffr^ii^ JL
P* - $ iwo>«
MAILING UST ADDITIONS:
Please add my name to the Fernald Mailing List to receive additional information on the
cleanup progress at the Femald Environmental Management Project:
YES_
NO.
A-3-59
-------
APPENDIX B
ARARs ANALYSIS
-------
LIST OF TABLES
B-l Location-Specific ARARs (Applicable Requirements; Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements) B-l
B-2 Chemical-Specific ARARs (Applicable Requirements; Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements; TBCs) B-6
B-3 Action-Specific ARARs (Applicable Requirements; Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements; TBCs) B-25
-------
g
I
TABLE B-l
LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS
(APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS; RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS)
S
16 USC 1531 et. seq.. and 50 CPR 17.21. 17.31. 17.61. 17.71.
17.94. 50 CFR 402. and Endangered Species Act
All federal agencies must ensure that any action authorized,
funded or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any listed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of the constituent elements
essential to the conservation of a listed species within a defined
critical habitat. Additional requirements apply if it is determined
that a proposed activity could adversely affect these species or
their habitat.
In 1994, updated surveys at the FEMP determined the presence of summer habitat for the
federally-listed endangered Indiana bat along Paddys Run including areas adjacent to Operable
Unit 1. This area is not critical habitat. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will
determine restorative measures that may need to be taken during and after remedial actions. If
any endangered or threatened species are encountered, the additional requirements of the
referenced regulation would be applicable.
ORC 1531.25. 1518.02. and 1501: 18-1. Ohio Endangered
Species Regulations
No person shall take or possess any native species of wild animal,
or any eggs, or offspring thereof, that is endangered with state-
wide extinction.
Updated surveys in 1993-94 found state-listed threatened Sloan's crayfish populations in sections
of Paddys Run, including sections directly adjacent to Operable Unit 1 area. Appropriate
mitigation will be utilized during and after remedial activities to minimize any impacts from
runoff and siltation.
16 USC 66 et sea.. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Requires consultation with other state agencies for any activities
which might affect any body of water for the purpose of
conserving fish and wildlife resources.
Remedial actions at Operable Unit 1 may have the potential to affect wildlife and fish in Paddys
Run and the Great Miami River. Consultation with state agencies will be conducted prior to
commencing remedial activities.
16 USC 469. Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
Requires preservation of artifacts and data associated with
archaeological finds.
Historical data and artifacts are not expected to be discovered or destroyed during remedial
activities at Operable Unit 1. Nevertheless, the requirements of the law are applicable.
-------
TABLE A-l
(Continued)
16 USC 470 et sea.. National Historic Preservation Act
DOE must take into account the effect of an undertaking on
historic properties and accord the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. Historic
properties are described as any prehistoric or historic district,
building, site, structure, or object included in, or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. This term
includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and
located within such properties. Historic properties that are
substantially altered or demolished must be recorded for future use
and reference.
Areas adjacent to Operable Unit 1 boundaries will be surveyed pursuant to the programmatic
agreement by the DOE, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Ohio Historic
Preservation Office. The programmatic agreement will stipulates what actions are required for
compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. Historic sites listed or eligible for
listing- in the National Register of Historic Places are not present within Operable Unit 1 nor is it
expected that any will be. Nevertheless, the requirements of the law are applicable.
16 USC 470 (aa) - 470 (11). Archaeoloeical Resources Protection
Act
Requires permit for removal of any archaeological resources from
federal lands.
Operable Unit 1 is located on federal land. Although archeological resources are not expected on
the site, the requirements of the law remain applicable to Operable Unit 1 remedial activities.
16 USC 431-433 and USC 461-467. Antiquities Act and Historic
Sites Act.
Requires that no person may appropriate, excavate, injure or
destroy any historical or prehistoric ruin or monument or any
object or antiquity situated or controlled by the government of the
Unites States without an applicable permit. Also requires the
identification and preservation of cultural resources on federal
lands.
Although Operable Unit 1 is not expected to contain cultural resources or natural landmarks of
significance, it is located on federal land and the law is applicable should any cultural resources
be discovered during remedial actions on site.
25 USC 3001. Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act
Provides for return of human remains and cultural objects from
Native American graves to affiliated tribes.
Although Operable Unit 1 does not contain known American Indian burial grounds, this law
would apply should graves and human remains be discovered during excavation of the waste pits
or construction of a disposal cell.
42 USC 1996. American Indian Religious Freedom Act
Provides for tribal access by native peoples to grave sites and sites
of cultural, symbolic, or religious significance.
Although no sites of this nature have been identified at Operable Unit 1, the law is applicable to
federal lands and activities. Provisions will be included in the Remedial Action Work Plan to
comply with the law should any sites be unexpectedly encountered.
-------
o
g
§
TABLE A-l
(Continued)
The requirement is applicable to activities at Operable Unit 1. An updated inventory will be
completed prior to remedial action.
1
Executive Order 11593. Protection and Enhancement of Cultural
Environment.
Requires an inventory of site for potential historic places for
eligibility in the National Register of Historic Places.
Executive Order 11990. Protection of Wetlands
This order requires that Federal agencies take action to avoid
adversely impacting wetlands wherever possible, to minimize
wetlands destruction, to preserve the values of wetlands, and to
prescribe procedures to implement the policies and procedures of
the Executive Order.
The remedial activities taking place at the FEMP qualify as a Federal agency action. Wetlands
identification efforts indicate the presence of wetlands within and adjacent to the Operable Unit 1
boundary. The order is codified at 10 CFR 1022 (see below).
u>
Executive Order 11988. Floodplain Management
This order requires Federal agencies undertaking actions within a
floodplain to evaluate the potential the action has for adverse
impact on the floodplain. If it is determined that adverse impacts
could occur, the effects of the action must be minimized to the
extent practical.
The remedial activities taking place at the FEMP qualify as a Federal agency action. Operable
Unit 1 is in the immediate vicinity of the Paddys Run Floodplain. At a minimum, the
requirement to evaluate effects of the remedial action on the floodplain should be considered.
Preliminary engineering efforts indicate that remedial action can be undertaken while minimizing
impacts to the floodplain.
10 CFR 1022. Protection of Wetlands and Floodplain Management
10 CFR 1022 contains the DOE regulation implementing
Executive Order 11990.
40 CFR 6, Appendix A describes EPA's policy for complying
with Executive Order 11990
The remedial activities taking place at the FEMP qualify as a Federal agency action. Wetlands
identification efforts indicate the presence of wetlands within the Operable Unit 1 boundary and
others in the immediate vicinity of Operable Unit 1. Surveys have identified small areas of
emergent wetlands associated with the tributaries and ditches of Paddys Run. The remedial
activities relative to wetlands will be handled through the U.S. Corps of Engineers Nationwide "
Permit Program where possible. When not covered by .a Nationwide Permit, the action will meet
requirements mandated by individual permits per 33 CFR 323.
The floodplains of Paddys Run also fall within the boundaries of Operable Unit 1. Preliminary
engineering indicates that remedial action can be implemented while minimizing floodplain
impacts.
-------
TABLE A-l
(Continued)
33 CFR 330. Nationwide Permit Program
(33 CFR 323 and OAC 3745-32)
The U. S. Corps of Engineers can issue a Nationwide Permit as a
general permit for certain classes of actions that involve dredge or
fill activities in wetlands or navigable waters. Discharges into
wetlands may require a wetland delineation.
Waste will be excavated from the waste pits at Operable Unit 1. The waste will be handled,
treated by drying, and transported on-site before being transported for disposal off site. These
activities may require dredge and fill and construction operations that impact jurisdictional
wetlands on site-.
Nationwide Permit #38 applies to the class of dredge and fill operations associated with the
cleanup of hazardous and toxic waste. If remedial activities exceed the limitations for a
Nationwide Permit, an individual permit for the dredge and fill activities may be sought.
40 CFR 6. Appendix A
Must take action to avoid adverse impacts to wetlands. Minimize
potential harm and preserve and enhance wetlands.
Surveys have identified small amounts of wetlands within the Operable Unit 1 boundaries.
Larger wetland tracts are in the general vicinity of Operable Unit 1. CERCLA requires that the
lead agency in a CERCLA action consult with agencies expert in determining the impact on
wetlands. The Corps of Engineers has jurisdictional authority over characteristic wetlands.
Remedial design will minimize impacts to wetlands. Any unavoidable impacts will be undertaken
in accordance with 33 CFR 323 or 330.
W
40 CFR 6.302
Must protect fish and wildlife from activities affecting streams or
rivers. Contact Fish and Wildlife Service to assure protection.
CERCLA requires consultation with other expert agencies when remedial activities are off-site;
when actions are on-site, consultations are recommended but not required. Through consultation
with the Fish and Wildlife Services, DOE will determine the substantive requirements of 40 CFR
6.302 that apply to Operable Unit 1. 40 CFR 6.302 is an ARAR to remedial actions at Operable
Unit 1 because they may potentially impact Paddys Run or other tributaries of the Great Miami
River.
-------
TABLE A-l
(Continued)
Clean Water Act S 404 and 33 CPR 321
Provides standards for discharge of dredged fill material to navigable waters and
wetlands. CWA Section 401 states water quality certifications required for
activities that constitute the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands or
waters of the U.S.
CWA 404 and 33 CFR 321 are relevant and appropriate to the selected remedy
for Operable Unit 1 with regard to discharge of dredged fill material into
navigable waters. No navigable waters are found on-site; however, material such
as soil, debris and old fill material may be excavated from the waste pits at
Operable Unit 1 and discarded in an on-site landfill or shipped off-site. These
activities must comply with the requirements of th6 CWA protecting surface
waters of the State of Ohio; the water quality standards promulgated by the State
of Ohio are found in OAC 374S-1 and are promulgated in compliance with the
Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251, et seq.
Remedial activities involving the discharge of dredge or fill material in wetlands
or water of the U.S. will be conducted in accordance with the substantive
requirements of 33 CFR 323 and 330 and OAC 3745-32.
ca
-------
§
o
8
8
s
TABLE B-2
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS
(APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS; RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS; TBCs)
Media
Chemicals
Discharged to
Surface Water
OAC 3745-1 Ohio Water Quality Standards
It is the purpose of these Water Quality Standards to establish minimum
water quality requirements for all surface waters of the State, thereby
protecting public health and welfare; and to enhance, improve, and maintain
water quality as provided under the laws of the State of Ohio, and ORC
6111.041, the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.
Whenever two or more use designations apply to the same surface water,
the more stringent criteria of each use designation will apply.
These general water quality criteria are applicable to
all surface waters in the State of Ohio and no actions
are excluded. SWQL are promulgated under the laws
of the state of Ohio pursuant to Section 6111.041 of
the ORC.
State Water Quality Standards consist of designated
uses for water and criteria for pollutants set at levels
that are protective of those uses. State Water Quality
Standards are regulatory requirements, and permit
limits are established to ensure that the State use
designations and criteria are met.
Water Quality criteria do not apply where criteria are
exceeded due to natural conditions alone. This
exception does not in any way preclude abatement of
human-induced nonpoint source pollution.
These water quality standards do not apply to streams
when the flow is less than the seven-day, ten-year,
low-flow value or other critical low-flow values
dependent on low-flow augmentation or point source
augmentation.
-------
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
w
Media
Chemicals
Discharged to
Surface Water
OAC 3745-01-04 Criteria Applicable to All Waters
The following general water quality criteria shall apply to all surface waters
of the State including mixing zones. To every extent practical and possible
as determined by the director, these waters shall be:
(A) Free from suspended solids or other substances that enter the waters
as a result of human activity and that will settle to form putrescent or
otherwise objectionable sludge deposits, or that will adversely affect
aquatic life;
(B) Free from floating debris, oil, scum and other floating materials
entering the waters as a result of human activity in amounts sufficient
to be unsightly or cause degradation;
(C) Free from materials entering the waters as a result of human activity
producing color, odor or other conditions in such a degree as to create
a nuisance;
(D) Free from substances entering the waters as a result of human activity
in concentrations that are toxic or harmful to human, animal or
aquatic life and/or are rapidly lethal in the mixing zone;
(E) Free from nutrients entering the waters as a result of human activity
in concentrations that create nuisance growths of aquatic weeds and
algae.
These general water quality criteria are applicable to
all surface waters in the State of Qhio and no actions
are excluded. The criteria are promulgated under
Revised Code Chapter 119.
State Water Quality Standards consist of designated
uses for water and criteria for pollutants set at levels
that are protective of those uses. State Water Quality
Standards are regulatory requirements, and permit
limits are established to ensure that the State use
designations and criteria are met.
These general water quality criteria are applicable for
discharges and actions impacting Paddys Run and the
Clearwell because the discharges are to the Great
Miami River.
Water Quality criteria do not apply where criteria are
exceeded due to natural conditions alone. This
exception does not in any way preclude abatement of
human-induced nonpoint source pollution.
These water quality standards do not apply to streams
when the flow is less than the seven-day, ten-year,
low-flow value of other critical low-flow values
dependent on low-flow augmentation or point source
augmentation.
-------
o
I
s
1
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
oo
1 '-Mi«t*, :-
...f > jff. >.....
Chemicals
Discharged to
Surface Water
Chemicals
Discharged to
Surface Water
v : : '.\ "" ^ * ^ * ifl^Mwirt . • \
OAC 3745-1-07. Table 7-1 Numerical and Narrative Criteria for Aquatic
Life Habitat and Water Supply Use Designation
Surface Waters in the State of Ohio must comply with the maximum.
concentrations of each contaminant of concern listed in Table 1-5 and 1-6 in
Attachment I for inside and outside the mixing zones of the receiving water
to protect warm water aquatic habitats.
OAC 3745-1-07. Table 7-10. Outside Mixing Zone Maximum Criteria for
Water Hardness Dependent Parameters in Warm Water Habitats
Table 1-7 in Attachment I contains the numerical limits on cadmium,
copper, chromium, lead, and silver.
L . ' - - .- ^ihttfti- , .. - %p* i , ^ v
The water quality criteria for specific pollutants are
ARARs to remedial actions at OU1 because the
pollutants have been identified as chemicals of
concern at the site and routes of entry or discharge of
pollutants to State surface waters have been
identified. For example, the Clearwell currently
discharges water to the FEMP WWTS which
discharges to the Great Miami River.
The Great Miami River and Paddys Run have been
designated warm water aquatic habitats. Thus the
warm water habitat criteria are ARARs when
discharges of pollutants to these streams are involved.
The water quality criteria for specific pollutants are
applicable to remedial actions at OU1 because the
pollutants have been identified as chemicals of
concern at the site and routes of entry or discharge of
pollutants to State surface waters have been
identified. For example, the Clearwell currently
discharges water to the FEMP WWTS which
discharges to the Great Miami River.
The Great Miami River and Paddys Run have been
designated warm water aquatic habitats. Thus the
warm water habitat criteria are applicable when
discharges of pollutants to these streams are involved.
-------
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
Chemicals
Discharged to
Surface Waters
OAC 3745-1-07. Table 7-11 Outside Mixing Zone 30-Day Average
Criteria for Water Hardness Dependent Parameters in Warm Water Habitats
Table 1-8 in Attachment I contains the average numerical limits for
cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, and silver. .
The water quality criteria for specific pollutants are
applicable to remedial actions at OU1 because the
pollutants have been identified as chemicals of
concern at the site and routes of entry or discharge of
pollutants to State surface waters have been
identified. For example, the Clearwell currently
discharges water to the FEMP WWTS which
discharges to the Great Miami River.
The Great Miami River and Paddys Run have been
designated warm water aquatic habitats. Thus the
warm water habitat criteria apply when discharges of
pollutants to these streams are involved.
Chemicals
Discharged to
Surface Waters
OAC Table 7-12 Inside Mixing Zone Maximum Criteria for Water
Hardness Dependent Criteria in Warm Water Habitats
Table 1-8 in Attachment I contains numerical limits for cadmium, copper,
chromium, lead, and silver.
The water quality criteria for specific pollutants are
ARARs to remedial actions at OU1 because the
pollutants have been identified as chemicals of
concern at the site and routes of entry or discharge of
pollutants to State surface waters have been
identified. For example, the Clearwell currently
discharges water to the FEMP WWTS which
discharges to the Great Miami River.
The Great Miami River and Paddys Run have been
designated warm water aquatic habitats. Thus the
warm water habitat criteria apply when discharges of
pollutants to these streams are involved.
Chemicals
Discharged to
Surface Waters
OAC 3745-1-07 Outside Mixing Zone Maximum Criteria for pH
dependent Parameters in warm water Aquatic Habitats
Table MO in Attachment I contains the numerical limits for
pentachlorophenol.
OAC 3745-1-07 Inside the Mixing Zone Maximum Criteria for pH
dependent Parameters in warm water Aquatic Habitats
Table Ml in Attachment I contains the numerical limits for
pentachlorophenol.
The water quality criteria for specific pollutants are
applicable to remedial actions at OU1 because the
pollutants have been identified as chemicals of
concern at the site and routes of entry or discharge of
pollutants to State surface waters have been
identified. For example, the Clearwell currently
discharges water to the FEMP WWTS which
discharges to the Great Miami River.
The Great Miami River and Paddys Run have been
designated warm water aquatic habitats. Thus the
warm water habitat criteria apply when discharges of
pollutants to these streams are involved.
-------
00
i—•
o
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
'* "urn. - £
Chemicals
Discharged to
Surface Water
Particulates in
Air
Radionuclides in
Air
** \;i v:^: T^^^i^^^nfo ., ;. i
OAC 3745-1-07 Lower Miami River Temperature Criteria in Fahrenheit
and decrees (Celsius)
Table 1-12 in Attachment I contains the acceptable monthly temperatures for
water discharged to the Lower Great Miami River.
OAC 3745-17-07 Ohio Ambient Air Quality Standards
Visible paniculate emissions from any stack may exceed twenty per cent
opacity, as a six minute average, for not more than six consecutive minutes
in any sixty minutes, but shall not exceed sixty per cent opacity, as a six-
minute average, at any time.
40CFR61.92 EPA Regulations on National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61.90 to 61.97)
Limit airborne radionuclide emissions from the entire site to 10 mrem per
person (general public). NESHAPS for emissions other man radon from
DOE facilities. Monitoring requirements for individual sources with an
EDE of more than 0.1 mrem/yr are found at 40 CFR 61.93(b).
! : ^ ; ; M«J8inj«k ;,\;U:-^ ^
The water quality criteria for temperature in warm
water aquatic habitats may be applicable if remedial
actions at OU1 result in discharges of water at
temperatures that would impact the maximum or
average monthly temperatures in Paddys Run or the
Great Miami River.
The State standard for paniculate emissions is an
ARAR because it places a time limit on paniculate
emissions that may work in tandem with the Federal
annual average. There is the potential that a chosen
alternative at the site would contribute particulates to
the air.
40 CFR 61.92 is applicable to remedial actions taken
at OU1 because radionuclides have been identified as
chemicals of concern at OU1 and may be released to
the air as a result of actions taken at the site.
-------
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
AttaJninMt
Chemicals in
Drinking Water
40 CFR 141.51 Federal Maximum Contaminant Level Goals for Inorganic
Chemicals
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper and Compounds
Thallium
MCLG (me/L)
0.05
2
0.005
0.1
1.3
0.0005
The MCLGs for inorganic chemicals in 40 CFR
141.51 are not applicable to remedial actions at OU1
because they are not enforceable standards or levels
of control. Also, there are no drinking water systems
on the site to be directly impacted by remedial
actions.
The MCLGs at 40 CFR 141.51 are relevant and
appropriate to remedial actions at OU1 because
remedial actions could potentially contribute
contaminants to surface and/or groundwater that may
be used for drinking water. Specifically, the Great
Miami Aquifer is beneath the site and has been
identified as a sole-source aquifer. In addition, OU1
may contribute contaminants to tributaries of the
Great Miami River.
Section 121(d)(2)(A) of CERCLA requires on-site
remedial actions to obtain MCLGs under the SDWA
where they are relevant and appropriate. Under the
NCP, EPA requires that MCLGs set at levels above
zero be obtained during a CERCLA cleanup where
they are relevant and appropriate.
Note: The MCL listed in 40 CFR 141.62 is in
almost every case the same as the MCLG.
If the MCL is less stringent than or equal
to the goal, the goal becomes the standard
and the MCL is no longer an ARAR.
-------
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
w
I—»
NJ
^::j^
Radionuclides in
Drinking Water
Radionuclides in
Drinking Water
X* ; '. *f K^m*W*&®i*toW*W***^ , *
40 CFR 141.15 National Primary Drinking Water Standards. Maximum
Contaminant Levels for Radium-226. Radium-228. and Gross Alpha Particle
Radioactivity in Community Water Svstems
OAC 3745-81-15 Ohio Drinkine Water Regulations. Maximum
Contaminant Levels for Radium-226. Radium-228. and Gross Aloha Particle
Radioactivity in Community Water Systems
Maximum contaminant levels for radioactivity in community water systems
are set as follows:
• 5 Pci/L of combined radium-226 and radium-228
• 15 Pci/L of gross alpha particle activity (including radium-226, but
excluding radon and uranium)
40 CFR 141.16 National Primary Drinkine Water Standards. Maximum
Contaminant Levels for Beta Particulate and Photoradioactivitv from Man-
made Radionuclides in Community Water Svstems
OAC 3745-81-16 Ohio Drinkine Water Reeulation. Maximum
Contaminant Levels
The average annual concentration of beta particle and photon (i.e., gamma)
radioactivity from man-made radionuclides in drinking water shall not
produce an annual dose equivalent to the total body or any internal organ
greater than 4 mrem/yr.
% v •/• % "••••. v-"-^-. s
-- , ,,-- - AttatohWftt; •.„;•, \ ™C^\ J
This requirement is not applicable to activities at OU1
because there are no community drinking 'water
systems involved in this remediation.
The requirement is an ARAR to remedial action
because several radionuclides were found in elevated
concentrations on-site. Radionuclides in this operable
unit could be released such that the radioactive
materials in the waste could contribute to
radioactivity in potential water supplies.
This requirement becomes less relevant to OU1
because it excludes radon and uranium. Most of the
studies performed at the site have identified uranium
as the principal contaminant in surface water and
sediment. Ra-226 is not widespread, nor is it found
in as elevated concentrations as U-238. However,
other radionuclides such as U-234, Th-230, and Tc-
99 were found in elevated concentrations in several
areas.
This requirement is not applicable -to activities at OU1
because there are no community drinking water
systems involved in remediation. ]
The requirement is an ARAR to remedial action
because several radionuclides were found, in elevated
concentrations on-site. Radionuclides in this operable
unit could be released such that the radioactive
materials in the waste could contribute to
radioactivity in community water systems.
-------
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
Cd
Chemicals in
Drinking Water
40 CFR 141.50 Federal Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLG) for
Organic Chemicals
Chemical
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Tetrachtoroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
MCLG (me/L)
0.0005
0.005
0.002
The MCLGs for organic chemicals set in 40 CFR
141.50 are not applicable to remedial actions at OU1
because they are not enforceable standards and
because there are no drinking water systems on the
site directly impacted by remedial actions.
There are, however, surface waters, and groundwater
that could potentially be used for drinking water.
The Great Miami Aquifer lies below the site and
tributaries of the Great Miami River may have
received contaminants from OU1 or could receive
contaminants as a result of remedial action.
Section 121(d)(2)(A) of CERCLA requires on-site
remedial actions to attain MCLGs under the SDWA
where they are relevant and appropriate. Under the
NCP, EPA requires that MCLGs set at levels above
zero be attained during a CERCLA cleanup where
they are relevant and appropriate.
For the chemicals listed (Contaminants of Concern at
OU1), and because there is a potential that remedial
actions at OU1 may contaminate potential drinking
water sources, the MCLGs at 40 CFR 141.50 are
ARARs.
Note: The MCL listed in 40 CFR 141.61 for these
chemicals have been removed from the
ARARs table when the MCLG was more
stringent than or equal to the MCL. If the
MCLG is relevant and appropriate, the
MCL no longer is. However, for most of
the chemicals, the MCL and MCLG are the
same.
-------
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
Radionuclides in
Drinking Water
OAC 3745-81-16 Ohio Drinking Water Regulations. Maximum
Contaminant Levels for Beta Particle and Photon Radioactivity from Man-
made Radionuclides in Community Water Systems
Except for Tritium and Strontium, the concentration of man-made
radionuclides causing 4 mrem total body or organ dose equivalents shall be
calculated on the basis of a 2-liter per day drinking water intake using the
168-hr data listed in "Maximum Permissible Concentration of Radionuclides
in Air or Water for Occupational Exposure", NBS Handbook 69 as
amended August 1963, U.S. Department of Commerce.
If two or more radionuclides are present, the sum of their annual dose
equivalent to the total body or to any organ shall not exceed 4 mrem/year.
The average concentration of Tritium assumed to produce a total body or
organ dose of 4 mrem/year is 20,000 pCi per liter.
The average concentration of Strontium-90 assumed to produce a total body
or organ dose of 4 mrem/year is 8 pCi/liter.
This requirement is not applicable to activities at OU1
because there are no community drinking water
systems involved in remediation.
The requirement is an ARAR because Strontium-90
has been identified as a potential contaminant of
concern due to its presence in OU1.
-------
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
8
D
§
DO
Inorganic
Chemicals in
Drinking Water
40 CFR 141.62 National Primary Drinking Water Standards. Maximum
Contaminant Levels for Inorganic Chemicals
OAC 3745-81-11 Ohio Drinking Water Regulations. Maximum
Contaminant Levels for Inorganic Chemicals
Pursuant to 40 CFR 141.62, MCLs for Inorganic Contaminants in
community, non-transient non-community, and transient non-community
drinking water systems, the following MCLs are relevant and appropriate to
groundwater at Operable Unit 1:
Chemical
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium.
Chromium
Cyanide
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
MCL (me/U
0.006
0.05
2.00
0.004
0.005
0.1
0.2
0.002
0.1
0.01
0.05
Ohio (mg/L)
1.00
0.05
Pursuant to 40 CFR 141.80, Control of Copper and Lead, the action level is
exceeded for copper at 1.3 mg/L and the action level for lead is exceeded at
0.015 mg/L. Thus, although the standards are not MCLs, the action levels
for copper and lead have been added as a relevant and appropriate
regulatory requirement for drinking water.
Chemical
Copper
Lead
Action Level (mg/L)
1.3 mg/L
0.015 mg/L
Neither the Federal or State requirement is applicable
because water at OU1 is not distributed to a public
water system (as defined in 40 CFR 141).
The Federal requirement is relevant and appropriate
to protecting potential drinking water sources from
the contaminants found in the operable unit.
There is evidence that inorganic contaminants are
present. Results of inorganic chemical analyses show
that pit residues contain elevated concentrations of
aluminum, calcium, iron, and magnesium. Other
inorganics present in the samples included: arsenic,
barium, cadmium, and lead.
A possibility exists that contaminants may leach or
migrate into the underlying Great Miami Aquifer
which has been designated a sole source aquifer in
Ohio (53 FR 15876 and 53 FR 25670). Any
contaminants infiltrating into the Great Miami
Aquifer near the waste storage area would flow
easterly toward the Great Miami River and
Southwestern Ohio Water Company. Contaminants
entering the aquifer near the outfall ditch would flow
south toward the village of Fernald.
State regulation OAC 3745-81-11 is only an ARAR
for OU1 for barium, and chromium because in these
cases State MCLs are more stringent than the Federal
MCLs.
-------
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
8
D
Organic
Chemicals in
Drinking Water
Fugitive Dust
Radiation in All
Media
40 CFR 141.61 EPA National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
Maximum Contaminant Levels for Organic Contaminants
Chemical
Vinyl chloride
75-01-4
MCL (mg/L)
0.002
OAC 3745-81-12 Ohio Drinking Water Regulations Maximum
Contaminant Levels for Organic Chemicals
The following MCLs for organic chemicals are the maximum levels of a
contaminant in water which is delivered to the entry point to a distribution
system after treatment:
Chemical
Benzo(a)pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Tetrachloroethene
Vinyl chloride
PCBs
MCL (mg/L)
0:0002
0.001
0.005
0.002
0.0005
OAC 3745-17-08 Ohio Ambient Air Quality
Use water or a dust suppression chemical when demolishing buildings,
grading roads, clearing land. Applicable to the City of Cincinnati and
Hamilton County.
40 CFR 192.41 Provisions
The total amount of radioactive materials entering the environment from the
entire uranium fuel cycle, per gigawatt-year of electrical energy produced
by the fuel cycle, contains less than 50,000 curies of krypton-85, 5
millicuries of iodine-129, and 0.5 millicuries of combined plutonium-239
and other alpha-emitting transuranic radionuclides with half-lives greater
tharnane year.
The requirement is not applicable because water from >
OU1 is not distributed through a public water system
(as defined in 40 CFR 141). Sampling for these
contaminants takes place per the regulation at entry
points to the distribution system after treatment.
The standard is an ARAR to remedial actions at 01) 1
because remedial actions may cause contaminants to
migrate or leach into the underlying aquifer. The
underlying aquifer is the Great Miami Aquifer which
has been designated a sole-source aquifer in Ohio (53
PR 15876 and 53 FR 25670).
Results of an organic chemical analysis of waste
material in the pits show elevated concentrations of
PCBs. The PCBs most frequently detected were
ArocIor-1221, Aroclor-1254, Aroclor-1248, and
Aroclor-1260. Waste from the Former Production
Area were also stored in the waste pits.
The Ohio standard for fugitive dust is applicable to
remedial actions at OU1 because there is a good
possibility one or more of the remedial alternatives
involve grading or earth moving activities that will
contribute particulates to the air. The standard is ah
ARAR because it applies to the city of Cincinnati and
Hamilton County. Part of the plant falls in Hamilton
County. The other part of the plant falls in Butler
County.
40 CFR 192.41 implements standards for Uranium
Mill Tailings. Because OU1 contains large quantities
of uranium including radionuclides U-238, U-234,
and Ra-226, the standards promulgated for uranium
mill tailings are relevant to remedial actions proposed
alOUl.
-------
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
Uranium
Gamma
Ra-226
+ S daughters
Ra-228
+ daughter
Th-230
Th-232
40 CFR 192.12 Standards for Uranium Mill Tailings
Remedial Actions shall be conducted so as to provide reasonable assurance
that as a result of residual radioactive materials from any designated.
processing site:
a) The concentration of radium-226 in land averaged over any area of
100 square meters shall not exceed the background level by more
than
1) 5 pCi/g, averaged over the first 15 cm of soil below the
surface, and
2) IS pCi/g, averaged over IS cm thick layers of soil more than
IS cm below the surface.
40 CFR 192.12 Standards for Uranium Mill Tailings
Remedial Actions shall be conducted so that the level of gamma radiation
shall not exceed the background level by more than 20
microroentgens/hour.
40 CFR 192.32
40 CFR 192.41
Limit releases of radon from uranium and thorium by-product materials to
the atmosphere so as not to exceed an average release rate of 20 picoCuries
per square meter per second.
40 CFR 192.12 is relevant and appropriate for
remedial actions at OU1 because much of the waste
contained in the waste pits at OU1 contain material
similar to the uranium mill tailings and thorium mill
tailings regulated by the standard.
Pit 1 contains 114,000 Ibs of uranium
Pit 2 contains 2,653,000 Ibs of uranium
and 880 Ibs of thorium
Pit 3 contains 284,000 Ibs of uranium
and 880 Ibs of thorium
Pit 4 contains 6.6 million Ibs of uranium
and 136,000 Ibs of thorium
Pit 5 contains 111 ,000 Ibs of uranium
and 37,000 Ibs of thorium
The purpose of 40 CFR 192 includes providing for
long-term stabilization and isolation of residual
radioactive material and control of exposure to
radioactive material. This purpose is compatible with
the purpose of remedial action at OU1.
40 CFR 192.12 is relevant and appropriate to
remedial actions at OU1 because much of the waste
contained in the waste pits at OU1 is similar to the
uranium mill tailings and thorium mill tailings
regulated by the standard.
The purpose of 40 CFR 192 includes providing for
long-term stabilization and isolation of residual
radioactive material and control of exposure to
radioactive material. This purpose is compatible with
the purpose of remedial action at OU1.
40 CFR 192.32 and 40 CFR 192.41 are relevant and
appropriate to remedial actions at OU1 because
uranium and thojium are contaminants of concern at
OU1 and may be released to the atmosphere.
-------
g
s
o
8
s
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
oo
Radionuclides in
Drinking Water
Proposed MCLs from 'Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories'
by the Office of Water, U.S. EPA, Washingtion, D.C., May 1993.
Chemical
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Indeno(l ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
MCL fmg/L)
0.0001
0.0002
0.0002
0.0004
DOE Order 5400.5^Chapter II, Section l.d Radiation Protection of the
Public and Environment
Provide a level of protection for persons consuming water from a public
drinking water supply operated by the DOE so that persons consuming
water from the supply shall not receive an effective dose equivalent greater
than 4 mrem in a year.
For multiple radionuclides, the sum of the effective dose equivalents from
the radionuclides (excluding radium-226, radium-228, and radon) shall not
exceed 4 mrem in a year from drinking water.
The proposed regulations are not ARARs for
Operable Unit 1 because they are not promulgated at
this time. However, the proposed limits can be used
to establish cleanup levels for the site in the absence
of promulgated federal and state regulations. The
listed chemicals have been found to be present at
Operable Unit 1 during the Remedial Investigation.
The DOE Order 5400.5 is not promulgated; thus, it is
not an ARAR. It is, however, to-be-considered
guidance.
Note: The guidance duplicates and supplements the
State of Ohio regulations OAC 3745-81-16
and the Federal regulations at 40 CFR
141.16.
-------
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
VO
Radionuclides in
Surface or
Groundwater
DOE Order 5400.5
Environment
Radiation Protection of the Public and the
The derived concentration guides contained in this order are based on the
intake of water contaminated with the radionuclide of concern in
concentrations that would result in a committed dose equivalent of 100
mrem for the radionuclide taken in during one year.
Derived concentration guides are not release limits. The guides are used by
DOE to screen waste streams for application of best available technologies
for bringing annual averages of a contaminant below the derived
concentration guide.
Malawi ..
DOE Orders are not ARARs because they are not
promulgated. Because they document policy,
responsibilities, procedures, and/or standards
specifically at DOE facilities, they should be
considered when setting cleanup standards for
radionuclides, particularly if they give guidance
where none is available in promulgated form.
The Derived Concentration Guides are relevant to
OU1 because radioactive material is involved in the
cleanup of OU1 and because there is evidence of
contamination (uranium) in the surface water and
sediments in the immediate vicinity of the waste pits.
Although the derived concentration guides presented
in DOE Order 5400.5 apply to liquid process waste
streams, it is appropriate that these guides be
considered during cleanup at OU1 because of the
possibility of releasing liquid radioactive material to
surface waters during remedial action.
-------
o
I
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
w
Radionuclides in
Natural
Waterways
(Aquatic Species)
DOE Order 5400.5
Environment
Radiation Protection of the Public and the
To prevent buildup of radionuclide concentrations in sediment, liquid
process waste streams containing radioactive material in settle-able solids
may be released to natural waterways if the concentration of radioactive
material in the solids present in the waste stream do not exceed 5 pCi/g
above background levels of settle-able solids of alpha-emitting radionuclides
or 50 pCi/g above background level of settle-able solids for beta-gamma-
emitting radionuclides.
To protect native animal aquatic organisms, the absorbed dose to these
organisms shall not exceed 1 rad per day from exposure to the radioactive
material in liquid wastes discharged to material waterways.
DOE Orders are not ARARs because they are not
promulgated. However, they document and direct
policy, responsibilities, and procedures and/or
standards specifically at DOE facilities and should be
considered when setting cleanup standards for
radionuclides at a DOE facility. DOE Orders should
be considered if the standards give guidance where
none exists in promulgated form.
The concentration limits on radioactive solids in
liquid waste streams and on radioactive materials in
liquid waste streams discharged to material waterways
is relevant to cleanup actions at OU1 because of the
presence of uranium in concentrations above
background levels in surface water and sediment
samples taken from Pits 5 and 6, the Clearwell,
Paddys Run, and the drainage paths in the immediate
vicinity of the waste pits.
There is a possibility that remedial action at OU1 will
contribute to radioactivity in the surface water and
sediments of natural waterways in the vicinity of the
Fernald site. Thus, although DOE Order 5400.4
refers to contributions of radioactive materials from
process waste streams discharged to streams, runoff
from OU1 that contributes radionuclides to natural
streams is similar enough to the circumstances of
active waste discharge that cleanup activities at OU1
should take into consideration the limits set forth in
the Order.
-------
o
g
o
1
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
Radionuclides
Radionuclides
DOE Order 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Public and Environment
DOE Order S400.S sets desired concentration guides (DCG) for radioactive
emissions to air resulting from DOE activities. The DCG values for
internal exposure are based on a committed dose equivalent of 100 mrem
for the radionuclides taken into the body during one year. The DCGs
comply with 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H criterion of 10 mrem/year
effective dose equivalent. Compliance is demonstrated using
AIRDOS/RADDISK models as described by EPA.
The DCGs are not release limits. They are one step in the process of
controlling releases. DOE uses the guides to screen waste streams for
application of best available technologies. If the concentration of a
contaminant is above the DCG, the best available technology is applied to
bring the annual averages of the contaminant below the DCG at the point of
discharge. See Attachment I, Table 1-21.
DOE Order 5400.5
The DCGs are given for different lung retention classes (noted as D,W, or
Y, where D equals a removal half-time of 0.5 days, W equals a removal
half-time of 50 days, and Y equals a removal half-time of 500 days). The
derived concentration guides can be found in Table 1-21 in Attachment I.
The guidance presented in DOE Order 5400.5 is not
applicable or relevant and appropriate to remedial
actions at OU1 because it is not promulgated.
However, it should be considered because DOE
orders set policy and procedures at DOE facilities and
in this particular case provides guidance on how to
control releases in such a way that the regulatory
limits are met. Radionuclides are contaminants of
concern at OU1.
The guidance presented in DOE Order 5400.5 is not
an applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
because it is/not promulgated. However, it should be
considered because DOE orders set policy and
procedures at DOE facilities and in this particular
case provides guidance on how to control releases in
such a way that the regulatory limits are met.
Radionuclides are contaminants of concern at OU1.
-------
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
6
S
to
Radiation in All
Media
DOE Order 5480.11
The effective dose equivalent received by any member of the public
entering a controlled area is limited to 100 mrem per year. Limiting values
for the assessed dose from exposure of worker to radiation are as follows.
These values represent maximum limits; It is DOE policy to maintain
radiation exposures as far below these limits as is reasonably achievable.
Annual Dose*
Radiation Effect Equivalent (rem)
Stochastic effects 5
Nonstochastic effects
lens of the eye
Organ, extremity, or tissue
including skin of the whole body
Unborn child, full gestation period
'annual effective dose equivalent
15
50
0.5
DOE Order 5480.11 is to-be-considered (TBC)
guidance because it is not promulgated. However,
DOE Orders set policy and procedures on DOE
facilities and may be based on promulgated
regulations. Thus at DOE facilities, DOE Orders
should be given consideration.
B 3
-------
o
1
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
PCBs in Soil
Cs-137
+ daughter
Np-237
+ daughter
Pu-238
Pu-239/240
Ru-106
Sr-90
+ daughter
Tc-99
Th-228
+ 7 daughters
U-234
U-235
+ daughter
U-238
+ daughters
40 CFR 761.125 Requirements for PCB Spill Cleanup
PCBs at concentrations greater than SO ppm are subject to decontamination
TSCA requirements in 40 CFR 761.120(b).
PCB containers containing non-liquid PCBs, such as contaminated soil,
rags, and debris designated for disposal may be stored temporarily (up to 30
days from the date of removal) in an area that does not comply with the
storage building requirements at 40 CFR 761.65 (b).
40CFR761.125(c)
Soils in non-restricted access areas contaminated by a PCB spill will be
decontaminated to lOppm PCB by weight, provided that the soil is
excavated to a minimum depth of 10 inches. The excavated soils will be
replaced with clean soils, i.e., containing 21 ppm PCB, and the spill site will
be restored (e.g., replacement of turf) [40 CFR 761.125(c)(4)(v)]. For soils
in restricted access areas, decontaminate to 25ppm PCB by weight [40 CFR
761.125(c)(3)(v)].
DOE Order 5400.5
Residual plus natural dose limit for public exposure to residual radioactive
material are 100 mrem effective dose equivalent per year.
Guidelines for residual concentrations of radionuclides in soil shall be
derived from the basic dose limits by means of an environment pathway
analysis using specific property data where available. Procedures for these
derivations are given in DOE/CH-8901.
Residual concentrations of radioactive material in soil are defined as those
in excess of background concentrations averaged over an area of 100 square
meters.
Control and Stabilization and Administrative Control features shall be
designed to provide to the extent reasonably achievable, an effective life of
50 years with a minimum life of at least 25 years.
Groundwater shall be protected in accordance with legally applicable
Federal and State standards.
Mafanieni
Concentrations of PCBs at OU1 are expected to be
less than 50 ppm. This regulation would then be
considered guidance to be considered.
DOE Order 5400.5 presents DOE limits on residual
radionuclides in soil without specifying their source.
The order should be considered during the
remediation of OU1 because the radionuclides listed
are contaminants of concern at OU1 and may be
released to the environment during remediation or
after closure.
-------
TABLE A-2
(Continued)
Matawent
Ra-226
+ S daughters
Ra-228
+ daughter
Th-230
Th-232
DOE Order 5400.5
Residual plus natural dose limit for public use exposure to residual
radioactive material are 100 mrem effective dose equivalent per year.
Guidelines for residual concentrations are 5 pCi/g, averaged over the first
15 cm of soil below the surface; and 15 pCi/g, averaged over 15-cm-thick
layers of soil more than 15 cm below the surface.
Remedial actions at OU1 may result in residual
radioactivity in waste or soil. DOE Order 5400.5
issues limits for residual dose and concentrations for
radionuclides of concern at OU1.
-------
s
§
TABLE B-3
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS
(APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS; RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS; TBCs)
40 CFR Part 61. Suboart H (40 CFR 61.90 to 61.97)
Emissions of other radionuclides at DOE facilities are limited to a 10
mrem/yr annual dose. The rule also contains specific regulatory
procedures for EPA approvals and reporting requirements.
Any contribution by the remediation selected for Operable Unit 1 to the overall dose for
the entire site must not result in exceedance of the standard.
The engineering practices that will be implemented for controlling air emissions and
fugitive dust for excavation, drying, and handling of waste will ensure compliance with
this requirement.
40 CFR Part 61. Subpart 0
Emission of radon-222 from DOE facilities is limited to 20 pCi/mVs on an
annual average.
The FEMP has been specifically identified as a regulated entity in the regulations based on
the history of releases at this facility. The engineering practices that will be implemented
for controlling air emissions and fugitive dust for excavation, drying, and handling of
waste will ensure compliance with this requirement.
40 CFR 122.26 (OAC 3745-38) Discharge of Storm Water Runoff
Storm water runoff from landfills, construction sites, and industrial
activities must be monitored and controlled. A Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for construction activities which
result in a total land disturbance of 5 or more acres.
Required of all industrial waste sites and construction sites of greater than S acres that
discharge storm water runoff to the waters of the United States. The substantive
requirements of a SWPPP will be met prior to disturbance of the area.
ORC 3734.02(H) Digging Where Hazardous or Solid Waste was Located
Filling, grading, excavating, building, drilling, or mining on land where
hazardous waste or solid waste facility was operated is prohibited without
prior approval from the Director of the Ohio EPA.
State concurrence of the RI/FS-PP and Record of Decision will meet the requirement of
this regulation.
OAC 3745-56-51. 54 and 58: Waste Piles
Design and Operating requirements, monitoring and inspection, closure
and post-closure care.
The requirements for hazardous waste piles would be applicable to waste excavated. The
design packages for the entire OU1 waste processing facilities will address design
requirements for the feed piles as a component of the process, and monitoring and
inspection during remedial activities. Closure of the facilities will be addressed in the site
restoration plan, administrative closure requirements are not required.
OAC 3745-9-10 Ohio Water Well Standards
Abandonment of Test Holes and Wells
Upon completion of testing, a test hole or well shall be either completely filled with grout
or such material as will prevent contaminants from entering groundwater.
-------
TABLE A-3
(Continued)
OAC 3745-15-07(A) Ohio Air Pollution Control Regulations
Describes forms of air pollution nuisances and prohibits their emission or
escape.
Both excavation and waste treatment processes have the potential to generate prohibited
fugitive emissions, including smoke, ashes, dust, dirt, grime, acids, fumes, gases, vapors,
or odors in such a manner or in such amounts as to endanger health, safety, or welfare.
Fugitive and blowing dust carrying contamination would be controlled on active excavation
faces and spoil piles by wetting, fogging, or misting. Dust from inactive excavation faces
would be controlled with plastic, applied foam, shotcrete, or paving. Crushing and drying
activities would take place in enclosures.
OAC 3745-17-08 Control of Fueitive Dust
Requires the minimization or elimination of visible emissions of fugitive
dust generated during grading, loading, or construction operations and
other practices which emit fugitive dust.
The Implementation of remedial action alternatives will require the movement of dirt and
other material likely to result in fugitive dust emissions.
Fugitive and Mowing dust carrying contamination would be controlled on active excavation
faces and spoil piles by wetting, fogging, or misting. Dust from inactive excavation faces
would be controlled with plastic, applied foam, shotcrete, or paving. Crushing and drying
activities would take place in enclosures.
OAC 3745-21-02(0 and OAC 3745-21-03(D)
Ambient air quality standards and guidelines and methods of ambient air
quality measurements (for non-methane hydrocarbons).
Mean ambient concentration of non-methane hydrocarbons not to exceed
160 pg/cubic meters (0.24 ppm as carbon) between 6 and 9 a.m.; methods
for determining ambient concentration of non-methane hydrocarbons.
During drying, hydrocarbon soil contaminants may be evolved with the steam. An
uncontrolled release could lead to violations of this standard. Therefore, process off-gases
will be treated through a condenser and a scrubber during drying.
OAC 3745-21-07 (G)(2) Control of emissions of organic material from
stationary sources.
Emissions of photochemical reactive material from processes, including
drying, not to exceed 40 Ibs/day, with a peak of 8 Ibs/hour.
Data from the Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation Report indicate that VOCs do not
need to be controlled because of their low concentrations. However, Off-gases will be
treated through a condenser and scrubber during drying. Although the concentration of
organic material in the pit waste is expected to be low, the volume of the waste to be
treated could result in sufficient emissions for this standard to be violated if emissions are
uncontrolled. (It is current OEPA policy to consider all VOCs to be photochemical reactive
materials.)
OAC 3745-31-05(A)(3) Permit to Install
The director shall issue a permit to install if he determines that the
installation or modification and operation of the air contaminant source
will employ the best available technology.
Although an administrative Permit to Install is not required for alternatives involving
treatment, the substantive requirements of this section must be met by employing Best
Available Technology for treating paniculate and off-gas emissions.
-------
TABLE A-3
(Continued)
Applicable Requirements •*
Attainment,
10CFR 1021.2
DOE actions must be subjected to NEPA evaluation as outlined by CEQ
regulations in 40 CFR 1500-1508.
This requirement is applicable because the FEMP is a DOE facility, and this requirement
requires NEPA evaluation for specific actions at DOE facilities. On June 13, 1994, the
DOE issued a revised policy statement on NEPA. The new policy allows DOE, at
CERCLA sites, to rely on the CERCLA process to satisfy the procedural aspects of
NEPA. NEPA values have been incorporated into the Final Operable Unit 1 Feasibility
Study Report.
CO
K)
-------
s
I
TABLE A-3
(Continued)
40CFR61.670SubpartOOO
Stack emissions from affected facilities shall not: :
• Contain particulate matter in excess of O.OS g/dscm; or
• Exhibit greater than 7 percent opacity, unless the stack emmissions are
discharged from an affected facility using a wet scrubbing control
device.
These standards are relevant and appropriate to OU1 remedial activities since they specify
requirements for crusher and conveyor systems. The standards will be considered when
determining BAT requirements for these systems in accordance with OAC 3745-31-
05(A)(3). !
40 CFR 125.100 and 125.104 Discharge of Treatment System Effluent
Best Management Practices
Development and implement a BMP program to prevent the release of
toxic or hazardous pollutants to waters of the U.S. Development and
implementation of a sitewide BMP Program is also required as a condition
of the FEMP NPDES Permit.
All of the proposed actions have the potential for releases and runoff from the operable
unit. The requirement is not applicable because BMP under the NPDES permit program
applies only to ancillary facilities of manufacturing units that might have releases of toxic
or hazardous pollutants. The purpose of the BMP program is relevant and appropriate to
prevent releases from spills or runoff during the implementation of remedial actions. The
FEMP has an approved Best Management Practices Plan.
N>
oo
40 CFR 241 Subpart B (OAC 3745-27). RCRA Subtitle D
Solid Nonhazardous Waste Management Facilities
On-Propertv
Design standards are presented in the following citations:
241.200-2, 241.201-2, 241.202-2, 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.
Solid, nonhazardous wastes generated as a result of remediation must be managed in
accordance with Federal and State regulations. However, the selected [remedy involves
off-site shipment of Operable Unit 1 pit wastes. On-site facility design requirements do
not apply to this remedy. '
40 CFR 262.11 (OAC 3745-52-11) Hazardous Waste Determinations
Any generator of waste, must determine whether or not the waste is
hazardous.
These procedures are established to determine whether wastes are subject to the
requirements of RCRA. These procedures are relevant and appropriate to determine
whether Operable Unit 1 pit wastes exhibit the characteristics of hazardous waste, or are
otherwise similar to RCRA hazardous waste. Characterization of the treated material will
be conducted prior to off-site shipment. Characterization will be based on process
knowledge of the waste generated (as documented in the Operable Unit 1 Remedial
Investigation Report) and through sampling of waste after treatment. |
-------
§
o
8
a
3
5
TABLE A-3
(Continued)
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Attainment
Closure 40 CFR 264. Subpart G (OAC 3745-55-01-16))
Operator must close facility in a manner that:
• MinimJ7.es the need Tor further maintenance
• Minimizes post-closure escape of hazardous constituents
• Complies with specific unit type closure requirements
These requirements are relevant and appropriate because the residues are sufficiently
similar to hazardous waste and some remedial alternatives might require closure as
outlined in this standard.
40 CFR 264.1030 - 264.1036. Subpart AA Air Emission Standards for
Process Vents
No regulations have been promulgated for process vents associated with thermal drying;
however, 40 CPR 264.1030 - .0136 may be relevant and appropriate but not applicable to
air emission standards for process vents associated with thermal drying.
W
tl)
vo
Post-Closure 40 CFR 264 Subpart G
40 CFR 264.117
(OAC 3745-55-17)
40 CFR 264.119
(OAC 3745-55-19)
These requirements are relevant and appropriate because the residues are sufficiently
similar to hazardous waste and some remedial alternatives might leave residues in place.
Post-closure care and use of properly for a period as necessary to protect
human health and the environment including:
• Access controls
• Monitoring
Post-closure notices must include deed notation/use restriction.
OAC 3745-57-91 and 92. Miscellaneous Methods of Waste Treatment
Parts 91 and 92 include requirements for miscellaneous units
environmental performance standards and monitoring, analysis, inspection,
response, reporting, and corrective action.
All operating facilities within Operable Unit 1 will be located, designed, constructed,
operated, maintained, and closed in a manner that ensures protection of human health and
the environment by preventing releases that could have adverse effects due to migration of
waste constituents through ground water, surface water, wetlands, or the air. Monitoring
requirements identified as ARAR's will insure compliance with these requirements.
Corrective Action for SWMUs
40 CFR Subnart S
40 CFR 264.552..S53
Corrective Action Management Units (CAMUs) might be designed 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.
During the process of remeidation, waste materials might require temporary managment in
containment buildings, temporary units, stockpiles, or other land based units for the
purpose of staging, treating or disposing of the material. All of the material generated
from remediation of OU1 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.
-------
TABLE A-3
(Continued)
§
D
3
§
§
I
Attainment
DOE Order 5400.1 ® P. iv - 1
Since each DOE facility is unique, the need and level of effort for
monitoring programs shall be determined by the appropriate field
organization on a case-by-case basis.
Operable Unit 1 is part of a DOE facility and is subject to these orders. Monitoring
programs implemented at the facility will be based on appropriate requirements identified
through the ARARs analysis as well as DOE Orders.
DOE Order 5400.1 & iv - 9. 10
Groundwater that is or could be affected by DOE activities shall be
monitored to determine and document the effects of operations on
groundwater quality and quantity and to demonstrate compliance with
DOE requirements and applicable Federal, State, and local laws and
regulations.
Site-specific characteristics determine monitoring needs. For sites with multiple
groundwater pollutant sources, extensive groundwater pollution or other unique site
problems, groundwater monitoring programs could require more extensive information
than those specified in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265. Monitoring for radionuclides shall be
in accordance with DOE Orders in the 5400 series dealing with radiation protection of the
public and the environment. Remediation of groundwater at the facility and related
monitoring will be managed under Operable Unit 5.
DOE Order 5820.2A & 1 Radioactive Waste Management
DOE 5820.2A 1II.3H Management of Low-Level Waste. Lone-Term
Storage
Radioactive and mixed wastes shall be managed in a manner that assures
protection of the health and safety of the public, DOB and contractor
employees, and the environment.
5820.2A Ill.3h requires achieving performance objectives of DOE.
S820.2A III.3a requires records and documentation be kept for storage of
low-level waste and permits the storage of waste until disposal by
approved methods.
The generation, treatment, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of radioactive wastes,
and the other pollutants or hazardous substances they contain, will be accomplished in a
manner that minimizes the generation of such waste across program office functions and
complies with all applicable Federal, State and local environmental, safety, and health laws
and regulations, and DOE requirements.
------- |