EPA/ROD/R05-99/110
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
MOUND PLANT (USDOE)
EPA ID: OH6890008984
OU11
MIAMISBURG, OH
07/22/1999
-------
Record of Decision for Release Block H,
Mound Plant, Miamisburg, Ohio
FINAL
June 1999
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS iv
1.0 DECLARATION 1
1.1 Site Name and Location 1
1.2 Basis and Purpose 1
1.3 Site Assessment 2
1.4 Description of Selected Remedy 2
1.5 Statutory Determinations 2
1.6 ROD Data Certification Checklist 3
1.7 Authorizing Signatures and Support Agency Acceptance 4
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY 5
2.1 Site Description 5
2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities 5
2.3 Community Participation 9
2.4 Scope and Role of RB H 9
2.5 Site Characteristics 10
2.5.1 Geologic Setting 10
2.5.2 Hydrogeologic Setting 10
2.5.3 Available Data for Release Block H 11
2.5.3.1 Background Data 11
2.5.3.2 Groundwater Contaminant Data 13
2.5.3.3 Soil Contaminant Data 13
2.6 Potential Future Uses for Mound 17
2.7 Summary of Site Risks 17
2.7.1 Identification of Contaminants 19
2.7.2 Exposure Assessment 19
2.7.3 Toxicity Assessment 19
2.7.4 Risk Characterization 21
2.7.5 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Risks 21
2.7.6 Ecological Risk Assessment 22
2.8 Remediation Objectives 22
2.9 Description of Alternatives 24
2.9.1 No Action 24
2.9.2 Institutional Controls 24
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page i of v
-------
2.10 Selected Remedy 25
2.10.1 Description 25
2.10.2 Estimated Costs 26
2.10.3 Decisive Factors 26
2.10.3.1 THRESHOLD CRITERIA 26
2.10.3.2 BALANCING CRITERIA 28
2.10.3.3 MODIFYING CRITERIA 29
2.11 Statutory Determinations 30
2.12 Documentation of Significant Changes 30
3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 30
4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE REFERENCES 44
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant June 1999
Final Pageiiofv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Regional Context of the Mound Plant 6
Figure 2-2. Location of Release Block H 7
Figure 2-3. Location of PRS within RB H 12
Figure 2-4. Exposure Pathways for the Mound Site Conceptual Model 20
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Public Comment Periods for Release Block H Documents 9
Table 2-2. Release Block H PRS and Core Team Conclusions 13
Table 2-3. Current Mound Plant Groundwater Contaminants of Concern
Based on the Plant Water Supply 14
Table 2-4. Future Mound Plant Groundwater Contaminants of
Concern 15
Table 2-5. Soil Contaminants of Concern for RB H 18
Table 2-6. Current and Future Residual Risks for Release Block H 23
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Quitclaim Deed for RB H A-1
APPENDIX B Legal Description of RB H B-1
APPENDIX C Mound Plant Operations and Maintenance Plan for the
Implementation of Institutional Controls C-1
APPENDIX D Applicable Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
For RB H D-1
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page iii of v
-------
ACRONYMS
AOC Area of Concern
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
BDP Building Data Package
BVA Buried Valley Aquifer
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation & Liability Act
COC Chemical of Concern
DOE Department of Energy
FFA Federal Facilities Agreement
FOD Frequency of Detection
GV Guideline Value
HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Table
HI Hazard Index
HQ Hazard Quotient
I DM Investigative Derived Material
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
MEMP Miamisburg Environmental Management Project
MMCIC Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation
NCP National Contingency Plan
NFA No Further Assessment
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page iv of v
-------
NPL
National Priority List
ACRONYMS (continued)
OAC Ohio Administrative Code
ODH Ohio Department of Health
OEPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
O&M Operations and Maintenance
ORC Ohio Revised Code
OSC On-Scene Coordinator
OU Operable Unit
pci picocurie
PAH Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PETREX (trade name for a type of soil sampling)
PRS Potential Release Site
RB Release Block
RD/RA Remedial Design/Remedial Action
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
RRE Residual Risk Evaluation
RREM Residual Risk Evaluation Methodology
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SCM Site Conceptual Model
SM/PP Special Metallurgical/Plutonium Processing
US DOE United States Department of Energy
US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UTL Upper Tolerance Limit
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page v of v
-------
Record of Decision (ROD) for Release Block H,
Mound Plant, Miamisburg, Ohio
This Record of Decision (ROD) documents the remedy selected for Release Block
H of the Mound Plant, Miamisburg, Ohio. The ROD is organized in three sections:
a declaration, a decision summary, and a responsiveness summary.
1.0 DECLARATION
This section summarizes the information presented in the ROD and includes the data
certification sheet and authorizing signature page.
1.1 Site Name and Location
The U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE) Mound Plant (CERCLIS ID No. 04935)
is located within the City of Miamisburg, in southern Montgomery County, Ohio. The
Plant is approximately ten (10) miles southwest of Dayton and 45 miles north of
Cincinnati. This ROD addresses Release Block (RB) H which is located in the
northeast corner of the developed area of the plant.
1.2 Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedy for Release Block H (RB H)
of the Mound Plant. The remedy was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and to the extent
practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Information used to select the
remedy is contained in the Administrative Record file. The file is available for review
at the Mound CERCLA Reading Room, Miamisburg Senior Adult Center, 305 Central
Avenue, Miamisburg, Ohio.
The State of Ohio concurs with the selected remedy.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 1 of 45
-------
1.3 Site Assessment
As documented in the Residual Risk Evaluation (RRE) for RB H and the Technical
Position Report in Support of the RB H RRE, the risks from carcinogens and
noncarcinogens to current and future occupants of RB H were evaluated. In those
analyses, the type of occupant was limited to an industrial use scenario and was
represented by a construction worker and a site employee (office employee). Based
on the RRE, the risks for current industrial use are within the acceptable range.
However, in order to ensure that future use of the site conforms to the RRE
assumptions, it was necessary to consider a remedy that would prevent the site from
being used for non-industrial purposes.
As described below, the remedy will protect future occupants of RB H from the threat
of contaminants in the groundwater, and will ensure that RB H soils are appropriately
evaluated prior to any removal of RB H soils from the Mound Plant National Priority
List (NPL) facility boundary.
1.4 Description of Selected Remedy
The selected remedy for RB H is institutional controls in the form of deed restrictions
on future land use. DOE or its successors, as the lead agency for this ROD, has the
responsibility to monitor, maintain and enforce these institutional controls. In order
to maintain protection of human health and the environment at RB H in the future, the
institutional controls to be adopted will:
~ Ensure that industrial land use is maintained;
~ Prohibit the use of bedrock ground water;
~ Provide site access for federal and state agencies for the purpose of
taking response actions, including sampling and monitoring; and
~ Prohibit removal of RB H soils from the DOE Mound property (as
owned in 1998) boundary without approval from the Ohio Department
of Health (ODH) and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA), or their successor agencies.
A copy of the deed is attached in Appendix A.
1.5 Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy for RB H is protective of human health and the environment,
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 2 of 45
-------
complies with Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate (ARAR), is cost-effective, and utilizes a permanent solution to the
maximum extent practicable. Because this remedy will result in hazardous
substances remaining in Release Block H above levels that allow for unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure, DOE, in consultation with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA), OEPA and ODH, will review the remedial action each
year to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the
remedial action being implemented. DOE reserves the right to petition the US EPA,
OEPA, and ODH for a modification to the frequency established for conducting the
effectiveness reviews.
1.6 ROD Data Certification Checklist
Based on a commitment made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA) to the General Accounting Office, RODs must contain a checklist which
certifies that key information regarding the selection of the remedy has been
included in the ROD. Therefore, note that the following information is located in the
Decision Summary (Section 2) of this ROD. Additional information on any of these
topics can be found in the Administrative Record for Mound.
chemicals of concern (COCs) and their respective concentrations,
guideline levels for the COCs;
risks represented by the COCs;
current and future land and groundwater use assumptions used in the risk
assessment and ROD;
land and groundwater uses that will be available at the site as a result of the
remedy;
estimated cost of the remedy; and the
decisive factor(s) that led to the selection of the remedy.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 3 of 45
-------
1.7 Authorizing Signatures and Support Agency Acceptance
This Record of Decision for Release Block H of the Mound Plant has been prepared
by the DOE. Approval of the US EPA and OEPA is required and has been secured
as documented below.
This ROD is authorized for implementation.
Lean Dever
Ohio Field Office Manager,
U. S. Department of Energy
Date
William E. Muno
Director, Superfund Division,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
y/y??
Date
7/V?7
Christopher J<^nes fj Date
Director,
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 4 of 45
-------
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY
This section provides an overview of the site and the alternatives evaluated. The
selected remedy, and the basis for its selection, are also described.
2.1 Site Description
The DOE Mound Plant (CERCLIS ID No. 04935) is located within the city limits of
Miamisburg, in southern Montgomery County, Ohio (Figure 2-1). The Site is
approximately ten (10) miles south-southwest of Dayton and 45 miles north of Cincinnati.
Miamisburg is predominantly a residential community with supportive commercial
facilities and industrial development. The adjacent upland areas are used primarily for
residences and agriculture or are unused open spaces.
The Mound property is divided into nineteen "release blocks," which are contiguous tracts
of property designated for transfer of ownership. These nineteen release blocks may be
reconfigured to accommodate transfer of Mound property for economic development.
This ROD addresses Release Block (1313) H (Figure 2-2) which is located in the
northeast corner of the developed area of the plant. The legal description of RB H is
reproduced in Appendix B. RB H is generally bound to the south by the main plant
entrance, to the east by an offsite community golf course, to the north by off-site
residents, and to the west by a fenced parking lot.
There are no structures in RB H.
2.2. Site History and Enforcement Activities
As a result of historic disposal practices and contaminant releases to the environment,
the Mound Plant was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) on November 21,1989.
DOE signed a Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) Section 120 Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) with US EPA, effective
October 1990. In 1993, this agreement was modified and expanded to include OEPA.
DOE serves as the lead agency for CERCLA-related activities at Mound.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 5 of 45
-------
Figure 2-1. Regional Context of the Mound Plant
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 6 of 45
-------
Figure 2-2. Location of Release Block H
Release Block H
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 7 of 45
-------
DOE, US EPA, and OEPA had originally planned to address the Plant's environmental
restoration issues under a set of Operable Units (OUs), each of which would include a
number of Potential Release Sites (PRSs). For each OU, the site would follow the
traditional CERCLA process: a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS),
followed by a Record of Decision (ROD), followed by Remedial Design/Remedial Action
(RD/RA). After initiating remedial investigations for several OUs, DOE and its regulators
realized during a strategic review in 1995 that, for Mound, the OU approach was
inefficient. DOE and its regulators agreed that it would be more appropriate to evaluate
each PRS or building separately, use removal action authority to remediate them as
needed, and establish a goal for no additional remediation other than institutional controls
for the final remedy. To evaluate any residual risk after all removals have been
completed, a residual risk evaluation is conducted to ensure the block or parcel is
protective of human health for industrial reuse. This process was named the Mound 2000
process. DOE and its regulators pursued this approach with the understanding that US
EPA and OEPA reserve all rights to enforce all provisions of the FFA and participation
in the Mound 2000 process does not constitute a waiver of US EPA and OEPA rights to
enforce the FFA.
The Mound 2000 process established a "core team" consisting of representatives of the
Miamisburg Environmental Management Project (MEMP) of DOE, US EPA, and OEPA.
The Core Team evaluates each of the potential contamination problems and
recommends the appropriate response. The Core Team uses process knowledge, site
visits, and existing data to determine whether or not any action is warranted concerning
the possible problem area. If a decision cannot be made, the Core Team identifies
specific information needed to make a decision (e.g., data collection, investigations). The
Core Team also receives input from technical experts as well as the general public
and/or public interest groups. Thus, all stakeholders have the opportunity to express their
opinions or suggestions involving each potential problem area. The details of this process
are explained in the "Workplan for Environmental Restoration at the Mound Plant, The
Mound 2000 Approach," December 1998.
"The Mound 2000 Residual Risk Evaluation Methodology (RREM), Mound Plant, Final,
Revision , January 6,1997" was developed as a framework for evaluating human health
risks associated with residual levels of contamination. The RREM is applied to a release
block once necessary remediation has been completed, and the remaining PRSs or
buildings in the release block have been designated as No Further Assessment (NFA).
Once these environmental concerns have been adequately addressed by the Core
Team, a residual risk evaluation (RRE) is performed. The RRE forms part of the basis
for determining what restrictions should be placed on the site.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 8 of 45
-------
2.3 Community Participation
Opportunities to comment on the No Further Assessment (NFA) decision for PRS 93 and
the residual risk documents for RB H were provided. A listing of those opportunities is
shown in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Public Comment Periods for Release Block H Documents
DOCUMENT
(PRS/BUILDING)
COMMENT PERIOD
(BEGIN)
COMMENT PERIOD
(END)
93
3/18/96
4/1/96
RB H Residual Risk Evaluation
4/30/97
6/16/97
Technical Position Report in
Support of the Release Block H
Residual Risk Evaluation
5/599
6/5/99
The Proposed Plan for RB H was made available to the public on May 5,1999. Copies
were distributed to stakeholders and were placed in the Administrative Record file in the
CERCLA Public Reading Room, Miamisburg Senior Adult Center, 305 Central Avenue,
Miamisburg, Ohio. The notice of the availability of the Plan was published in the
Miamisburg News on May 5, 1999. A public comment period was held from May 5,
1999 through June 5, 1999. In addition, a public meeting was held on May 18, 1999 to
present the Proposed Plan. Representatives of DOE, US EPA, and the OEPA were
present at the public meeting to answer questions regarding the proposed remedy.
Responses to comments received during the comment period and public meeting are
included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is Section 3 of this ROD.
2.4 Scope and Role of RB H
RB H lies within what was once called Operable Unit 2 (OU2). RB H includes one
Potential Release Site (PRS) that has undergone previous investigation. Before transfer
of a release block can be completed, all buildings and PRSs must be evaluated for
protectiveness to human health and the environment for industrial reuse or remediated
to be protective. Any residual risks associated with remaining
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 9 of 45
-------
contamination in RB H have been evaluated and presented in the RB H Residual Risk
Evaluation (RRE) (August, 1997) and its supplement "Technical Position Report in
Support of the Release Block H Residual Risk Evaluation, April, 1999."
The PRS in RB H was identified on the basis of actual measurements of contaminants.
The location of the PRS within RB H is shown in Figure 2-3; its description appears in
Table 2-2. As shown in Table 2-2, the PRS was determined by the Core Team to require
no further assessment, although sampling and monitoring of the seep at PRS 93 will
continue.
2.5 Site Characteristics
2.5.1 Geologic Setting
The bedrock section beneath Mound Plant consists of thin, nearly flat-lying beds of
alternating shale and limestone of the Richmond Stage of the Cincinnati Group (Upper
Ordovician - about 450 million years ago). The Cincinnati Group is present at the surface
at Mound Plant and underlies RB H. The limestone beds range from 2 to 6 inches in
thickness and the shale layers are commonly 5 to 8 feet thick.
Pleistocene age (less than about 2 million years old) glacial deposits at Mound Plant
include both till and outwash deposits. The till in the area of Mound Plant is composed
of an unsorted, unstratified mixture of clay, silt, sand, and coarser material. Water-lain
deposits consist of outwash composed of well-sorted sand and gravel. The sand and
gravel is horizontally layered, and commonly cross-bedded. The outwash in the vicinity
of Mound Plant occurs as restricted valley-train deposits that were formed by the
aggregation of glacial meltwater streams. The outwash deposited in the Miami River
Valley and the associated tributary valley forms the Buried Valley Aquifer (BVA) and
contiguous deposits. A general discussion of the geology is presented in the "Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, Operable Unit 9, Site-Wide Work Plan, Final, May 1992."
2.5.2 Hydrogeologic Setting
There are two hydrogeologic regimes at Mound Plant: flow through the bedrock beneath
the Main Hill and the Special Metallurgical/Plutonium Processing (SM/PP) Hill, and flow
within the unconsolidated glacial deposits and alluvium associated with the BVA in the
Great Miami River Valley and the tributary valley between the Main Hill
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 10 of 45
-------
and SM/PP Hill. The BVA is a US EPA-designated sole source aquifer. The bedrock
system, an interbedded sequence of shale and limestone, is dominated by fracture flow
especially in the upper portions of the bedrock. Groundwater movement within the till and
sand and gravel, within the buried valley, is through porous media. Groundwater flow
from Mound Plant is generally to the west and southwest toward the BVA of the Great
Miami River Valley. A discussion of the hydrogeology of Mound is presented in the OU9
Work Plan and the "Operable Unit 9; Hydrogeologic Investigation: Buried Valley Aquifer
Report, Technical Memorandum, Revision 1 (September 1994)" and "Operable Unit 9
Hydrogeologic Investigation: Bedrock Report, Technical Memorandum, Revision
(January 1994)."
2.5.3 Available Data for Release Block H
The PRS within RB H has been evaluated by the Core Team. The following sections
discuss the data relevant to RB H that are available from the general source documents
and the Potential Release Site package.
2.5.3.1 Background Data
Soils. Background concentrations measure the amount of a chemical that is
naturally occurring (like metals) or anthropogenic (man-made but, for purposes of
evaluating background, originating from sources other than the Mound Plant).
Background concentrations are used as a screening tool to determine which
contaminants should be carried through a risk evaluation as described in Section
2.7 of the ROD. Regional background concentrations in soil were determined
during investigations conducted in September 1994 and August 1995 and are
documented in reports titled "Operable Unit 9 Background Soils Investigation Soil
Chemistry Report" and "Operable Unit 9, Regional Soils Investigation Report."
Groundwater. Background concentrations for groundwater were developed from
two sources of data. For the Buried Valley Aquifer, background values were
reported in the April 1995 "OU9 Hydrologic Investigation: Groundwater Sweeps
Report." Background concentrations for bedrock groundwater' were reported in
the April 1995 "OU5 New Property Remedial Investigation Report."
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 11 of 45
-------
Figure 2-3. Location of PRS within RB H
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 12 of 45
-------
Table 2-2. Release Block H PRS and Core Team Conclusions
PRS/
BLDG
Reason for Identification
Core Team Decision
Close Out of PRS/BDP
93
Main Hill Seep #0603
Binned for No further
Assessment
Recommendation for NFA with
continued monitoring signed by Core
Team on 3/4/96.
2.5.3.2 Groundwater Contaminant Data
Groundwater data consist of water analyses of the Mound production wells
screened within the Buried Valley Aquifer, and analyses of groundwater
from monitoring wells screened in the bedrock aquifer on the Mound
property. These wells are sampled as part of the site-wide groundwater
monitoring network. Section 2.2.2 of the RRE for RB H documents the
specific groundwater data used to evaluate the current and future
groundwater profile for RB H. Summaries of the contaminants detected in
Mound Plant groundwater, and those projected to be present in Mound
Plant groundwater in the future, are shown in Tables 2-3 and 2-4,
respectively.
2.5.3.3 Soil Contaminant Data
Soil data can be divided into three types: (1) data obtained through
commercial analytical laboratory analysis; (2) data obtained through
"screening" techniques conducted in a DOE laboratory; and, (3) data
obtained through screening techniques conducted in the field. Analytical
laboratory data are obtained using strict methods and are subjected to
exacting quality control procedures. These data are of the highest quality,
and are quantitative. The laboratory screening data are considered to be of
lower quality because sample preparation does not occur, and the
measuring instruments are less precise. The field screening techniques are
the least accurate due to instrument limitations and the effects of ambient
conditions on field measurements. Due to these limitations, field screening
data were not used for any calculations in the RRE for RB H.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 13 of 45
-------
Table 2-3. Current Mound Plant Groundwater Contaminants of Concern
Based on the Plant Water Supply
Groundwater Constituent
Maximum
concentration
Screening Concentration
(either background or
G.V.)
Organics (mg/L)
1,1-Dichloroethene
0.0017
—
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
0.0018
0.00074
1,1,2,-T richloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane
0.0087
—
INORGANICS (mg/L)
Cadmium
0.0077
0.0512
Copper
0.593
0.00124
Lead
0.040
0.01014
RADIONUCLIDES(pCI/L)
Actinium-227
0.335
0.263
Bismuth-210
0.39
—
Plutonium-239/240
2.0
0.1254
Thorium-228
2.17
0.693
Tritium
7200
14854
Uranium-234
8.14
0.7924
Uranium-238
8.25
0.6884
1- Guideline values (Gvs) are decision-making tools for the Core Team. Gvs help the Core Team determine if
contaminants are present at levels that warrant evaluation.
2- Hazard Quotient for ingestion, dermal and inhalation. Decision made on O.lxGV.
3- GV corresponds to a total risk of 10"6for ingestion only.
4- Background value. When adequate numbers of measurements are available,
background values are based on the 95th % upper tolerance limit.
Refernece: "Technical Position Report in Support of the Release Block H Residual Evaluation", Public Review
Draft Rev 2, April 1999
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 14 of 45
-------
Table 2-4. Future Mound Plant Groundwater Contaminants of Concern
Groundwater Constituent
Estimated
Maximum
concentration
Screening Concentration
(either backgound or G.V.)
ORGANICS (mg/L)
1,1-Dichloroethene
0.0017
...
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
0.0065
0.00074
1,1,2-T richloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane
0.0087
—
INORGANICS (mg/L)
Beryllium
0.0001
0.0000665
Bismuth
0.0016
...
Cadmium
0.0077
0.0512
Chromium
0.4961
0.00614
Cobalt
0.0039
—
Copper
0.5964
0.00124
Lead
0.040
0.0104
Molybdenum
0.0096
0.00564
RADIONUCLIDES (pCi/L)
Actinium-227
0.355
0.263
Bismuth-210
0.39
—
Plutonium-239/240
2.02
0.1254
Thorium-228
2.17
0.693
Tritium
10427
14854
Uranium-234
8.14
0.7924
Uranium-238
8.25
0.6884
1- Guideline value (Gvs) are decision-making tools for the Core Team. Gvs help the Core Team determine if
containments are present at levels that warrant evaluation.
2- Hazard Quotient for ingestion, dermal and inhalation. Decision made on O.lxGV.
3- GV corresponds to a total risk of 10"6 for ingestion only.
4- Background value. When adequate numbers of measurements are available, background values are based
on the 95th% upper tolerance limit.
5- Total Risk 10"6 for ingestion, dermal and inhalation
Reference: "Technical Position in Support o f the Release Block H Residual H Residual Risk Evaluation",
Public Review Draft Rev 2, April, 1999.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 15 of 45
-------
Soil contaminant data for RB H collected prior to the Mound 2000 process are
documented in a number of DOE reports. These references include:
• Other Soils Characterization Report, Volume I - Text. Final, Revision O. May
1, 1995 (results of systematic sampling),
• OU-5 Operational Area Phase I Investigation Non-AOC Field Reports, Volume
I - Text. Final, Revision O. June 1, 1995 (results of systematic sampling in
southern area of site, gives general overview of soils not thought to be
contaminated),
• OU-9 Regional Soils Investigation Report, Revision 2. August 1, 1995
(purpose was to give a regional soil description away from impacts of Mound
operations),
• OU-3 Miscellaneous Sites Limited Field Investigation Report, Volumes 1, 2,
and 3. Final, Revision O. July 1, 1993 (purpose was to address areas noted in
previous surveys; but, not thought to endanger human health or environment),
• OU-9 Site Scoping Report, Volume. 3 - Radiological Site Survey, Final, June
1, 1993 (a compendium of existing data), and
• Soil Gas Confirmation Sampling. Revision 0. April 1, 1996 (results of a study
following up on a prior qualitative study).
In the Mound 2000 process, radionuclide and chemical contaminants were
studied on a PRS basis. There is one PRS within RB H, PRS 93. PRS 93 was
identified as a PRS because it is the site of Seep 0603 and other seeps showed
elevated concentrations of tritium. Tritium was detected at PRS 93 at low
concentrations, i.e., in the range of 1000-3000 pCi/L.
Soil was sampled at PRS 93. All radionuclide and other contaminant
concentrations were in the range of background.
A summary of the contaminants detected in RB H soils is shown in Table 2-5.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 16 of 45
-------
2.6 Potential Future Uses for Mound
The Mound Plant will remain in industrial use into the future. This future use has
been determined based upon agreement among DOE, US EPA, OEPA, and
interested stakeholders. This land use is reflected in the Mound Comprehensive
Reuse Plan of the Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation
(MMCIC) and is currently codified in the City of Miamisburg Zoning Ordinance for
industrial use.
2.7 Summary of Site Risks
The human health risks for RB H were evaluated using the Residual Risk
Evaluation Methodology (RREM) document developed for Mound. A residual risk
evaluation (RRE) is a five-step process:
(1) identification of contaminants,
(2) exposure assessment,
(3) toxicity assessment,
(4) risk characterization, and
(5) evaluation of potential cumulative risks.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 17 of 45
-------
Table 2-5. Soil Contaminants of Concern for RB H
Soil Constituent
Maximum
concentration
Any Depth
Maximum
concentration
Shallow (<2' deep)
_
Screening s
Concentration
(either Bkgd or G.V.)'
ORGANICS (mg/kg)
Acenaphtene
0.18
0.18
Acenaphthylene
0.7
0.7
Aldrin
0.0031
0.0031
Benzo(a)pyrene
1.115
1.115
0.412
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
1.0625
1.0625
delta-BHC
0.00025
0.00025
Carbazole
0.5875
0.5875
alpha Chlordane
0.01
0.01
gamma Chlordane
0.0074
0.0074
4-chloro-3-methyl phenol
0.047
0.047
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
0.78
0.78
0.412
Dibenzofuran
1.035
1.035
Fluorene
1.45
1.45
Heptachlor epoxide
0.0022
0.0022
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.92
0.92
Naphthalene
2.625
2.625
Phenanthrene
3.75
3.75
1,1,2-T richloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane
0.002
0.002
INORGANICS (mg/kg)
Arsenic (total)
10.9
10.9
CO
CD
CO
Bismuth
58.6
58.6
Copper (total)
26.4
22.1
CO
CD
CN
Lead (total)
163
163
CO
CO
Lithium
40.2
19
CO
CD
CN
RADIONUCLIDES (pCi/g)
Cesium-137
1.9
1.9
0.424
Plutonium-238
56
56
0.133
Plutonium-242
0.0143
0.0143
Potassium-40
45.4
21
373
Radium-226
3.15
3.15
0.134
Note: Blanks indicate background or Guideline Value not available. The more restrictive GV was used to determine
which contaminants were carried through the RRE.
1- Guideline values (GVs) are decision-making tools for the Core Team. GVs help the Core Team determine
if contaminants are present at levels that warrant evaluation.
2- GV corresponds to a total risk of 10"6 for the ingestion pathway.
3- Background Value. When adequate numbers of measurements are available, background values are based
on the 95% upper tolerance limit.
4- GV corresponds to a total risk 10"6 for the ingestion, inhalation and external pathways.
Reference: "Technical Position Report in Support of the Release Block H Residual Risk Evaluation", Public
Review Draft Rev 2, April, 1999.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 18 of 45
-------
2.7.1 Identification of Contaminants
The contaminants of concern (COCs) for RB H were identified by reviewing all of the
sampling data for the release block. Based on that review, contaminants were
eliminated for further evaluation based on criteria established in the RREM.
Specifically, only contaminants exceeding (1) background, (2) a base level of
potential health concern, and (3) certain frequency of detection (FOD) criteria were
carried through the RRE. The COCs established for RB H are listed in Tables 2-3,
2-4, and. 2-5.
2.7.2 Exposure Assessment
The Site Conceptual Model (SCM) for Mound provides the basis for evaluating
human exposure scenarios. Because DOE and its regulators and stakeholders agree
that the future use of Release Block H will be industrial in nature, two receptor
scenarios from the Mound SCM apply: a construction worker and a site employee.
The routes of exposure applicable to these two receptors are shown in Figure 2-4.
The significant pathways for RB H include ingestion of soil and groundwater.
Using equations developed to support the SCM, exposures to specific
concentrations of COCs are evaluated based on assuming intake rates for soil and
groundwater. Once the intakes are estimated, the human health implications of those
intakes are evaluated by reviewing toxicological data for the COCs.
For the special case of groundwater, the possible exposures to current and future
COCs are evaluated. This approach ensures that the cumulative and long-term
impacts of the COCs are adequately characterized.
2.7.3 Toxicity Assessment
The toxicological properties of each COC for RB H were evaluated by reviewing the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and/or Health Effects Assessment
Summary Table (HEAST) data for the COC. IRIS files provide no-observable effect
levels and slope factors (for translating intake into cancer risk) for many of the
chemicals encountered at Mound. HEAST provides slope factors for many of the
radionuclides encountered at Mound. Based on the information collected from IRIS
and HEAST, an adequate understanding of the toxicology of the RB H COCs has
been developed.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 19 of 45
-------
Figure 2-4. Exposure Pathways for the Mound Site Conceptual Model
SOURCE
RELEASE
MECHANISM
SECONDARY
SOURCE
EXPOSURE
POINT
EXPOSURE
ROUrE(S)
HUMAN
RECEPTOR
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 20 of 45
-------
2.7.4 Risk Characterization
Pursuant to the RREM, risks are quantified for both carcinogenic and
non-carcinogenic contaminants. The risk associated with the intake of a known or
suspected carcinogen is reported in terms of the incremental lifetime cancer risk
presented by that COC, as estimated using the appropriate slope factor and the
amount of material ingested. Potential human health hazards from exposure to
non-carcinogenic contaminants are evaluated by using a Hazard Quotient (HQ). The
HQ is determined by the ratio of the intake of a COC to a reference dose or
concentration for the COC that is believed to represent a no-observable effect level.
The COC-specific HQs are then summed to provide an overall Hazard Index (HI).
US EPA guidance sets a limit of 1.0 for the Comprehensive HI.
The risks and hazards associated with residual concentrations of COCs in RB H are
shown in Table 2-6. As shown in the table, the overall risk values are in the
acceptable range of 10~4 to 10~6. The His for the future groundwater scenarios,
however, are near or above the 1.0-limit. This is based on the bedrock groundwater
contaminants flowing directly to the BVA that supplies drinking water for the plant.
As a result, the selected remedy prohibits the use of bedrock groundwater. This
institutional control, in the form of a deed restriction, will ensure that the residual
risks associated with RB H remain acceptable.
Because the scope of the RRE was limited to industrial use, the soils within RB H
have not been evaluated for unrestricted release (e.g., residential use). Disposition
of RB H soils without proper handling, sampling and management could create an
unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.
2.7.5 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Risks
For purposes of the RREM, risks resulting from contaminants that originate outside
the release block under consideration are called cumulative risks. In general,
cumulative risks are possible via air, surface water, and ground water. For Mound,
cumulative risks from surface waters are not expected because, other than storm
water drainage, there are no surface water bodies flowing through RB H from other
release blocks. Groundwater and air are therefore the media of concern for
cumulative risks.
Current groundwater. The Mound RREM accounts for cumulative groundwater
risks by evaluating current and future groundwater contamination. Since all
groundwater currently used at Mound is drawn from the production wells located
onsite, the risk
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 21 of 45
-------
posed by current groundwater contamination is equal to the risk resulting from
exposure to contaminants found in the production wells. This risk is identical for all
release blocks and represents the cumulative risk from contaminants that migrate
to the production wells from all release blocks.
Future groundwater. The future risk from groundwater was estimated for RB H
based on the assumption that contaminants found in bedrock will eventually migrate
to the Mound Plant production well located in the BVA. A simple and extremely
conservative flow model was used to estimate the concentrations as a function of
time. These concentration estimates were reported in Table 2-4.
Air. The Mound RREM accounts for cumulative residual risk via the air pathway by
using data collected in 1994 from the Mound Plant perimeter air sampling stations
to bound the concentrations and therefore the risks from inhalation of radionuclides
present in ambient air. These values are reported in the "Technical Position Report
in Support of the Release Block H Residual Risk Evaluation" and are included in
Table 2-6.
The HI and risk values presented in Table 2-6 for the current groundwater, future
groundwater, and air scenarios are therefore believed to adequately bound the
potential cumulative risk for RB H. The potential cumulative risk can be added to the
risks from exposures to contaminants within the release block to provide a measure
of overall risk. The risk values presented in Table 2-6 labeled "Sum of Soil, Air and
Groundwater" are therefore believed to adequately bound the potential overall risk.
2.7.6 Ecological Risk Assessment
Based on the results of an ecological characterization of the Mound Plant (OU-9
Ecological Characterization, March, 1994) there are no endangered species or
critical habitats of endangered species on RB H. In addition, RB H is composed
entirely of a parking lot, roads, and mowed lawns. There are no wetlands or surface
waters located in RB H and no sensitive habitats. Therefore, DOE has determined,
with concurrence from US EPA and OEPA, that an ecological assessment for RB H
is not necessary.
2.8 Remediation Objectives
The primary remediation objective for RB H is to ensure the residual risk associated
with the release block is acceptable for the defined use scenario of industrial
occupants.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 22 of 45
-------
Table 2-6. Current and Future Residual Risks for Release Block H
Construction Worker
Soil
Air
Groundwater
Current
Groundwater
Future
Sum of Soil, Air
and
Groundwater
Current
Sum of Soil, Air
and
Groundwater
Future
Non-carcinogenic
Hazard Index
for Organics &
Inorganics
4.0E-02
N/A
3.7E-02
1.6E+00
HI =
7.7E-02
HI =
1.7E+00
Carcinogenic Risks
for Organics &
Inorganics
4.7E-06
N/A
N/A
N/A
Risk =
4.7E-06
Risk =
4.7E-06
Carcinogenic Risks
for Radionuclides
1.7E-05
2.0E-07
2.5E-06
2.9E-06
Risk =
2.0E-05
Risk =
2.3E-05
Construction Worker
Overall HI =
Overall Risk =
7.7E-02 1.7E + 00
2.5E-05 2.8E-05
Site Employee
Soil
Air
Groundwater
Current
Groundwater
Future
Sum of Soil, Air
and
Groundwater
Current
Sum of Soil, Air
and
Groundwater
Future
Non-carcinogenic
Hazard Index
for Organics &
Inorganics
4.0E-03
N/A
3.7E-02
1.6E+00
HI =
4.1 E-02
HI =
1.6E+00
Carcinogenic Risks
for Organics &
Inorganics
2.0E-06
N/A
N/A
N/A
Risk =
2.0E-06
Risk =
2.0E-06
Carcinogenic Risks
for Radionuclides
1.8E-05
9.9E-07
1.3E-05
1.4E-05
Risk =
3.2E-05
Risk =
4.6E-05
Site Employee
Overall HI = 4.1 E-02 1.6E+00
Overall Risk = 3.4E-05 4.8E-05
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 23 of 45
-------
2.9 Description of Alternatives
As documented in Section 2.7, the risk from both carcinogens and non-carcinogens
from RB H is within the acceptable range for the current industrial use. In light of the
planned exit of DOE from the site, and the residual levels of contaminants in the soil
and groundwater in RB H, a remedy must be implemented to protect human heath
and the environment into the future. Two alternatives were considered for RB H; they
are described below.
2.9.1 No Action
Regulations governing the Superfund program require that the "no action" alternative
be evaluated at each site to establish a baseline for comparison. Under this
alternative, DOE would take no action to prevent exposure to soil and groundwater
contamination associated with RB H.
2.9.2 Institutional Controls
In this alternative, institutional controls in the form of deed restrictions on future land
use would be placed on RB H. The objective of these institutional controls would be
to prevent an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment by restricting
the use of RB H, including RB H soils, to that which is consistent with assumptions
in the RB H RRE. DOE or its successors would retain the right and responsibility to
monitor, maintain, and enforce these institutional controls. In order to maintain
protection for human health and the environment at RB H in the future, the
institutional controls to be adopted would:
~ Ensure that industrial land use is maintained;
~ Prohibit the use of bedrock ground water;
~ Provide site access for federal and state agencies for the purpose of taking
response actions, including sampling and monitoring; and
~ Prohibit removal of RB H soils from the DOE Mound property (as owned in
1998) boundary without approval from ODH and OEPA , or their successor
agencies.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 24 of 45
-------
2.10 Selected Remedy
2.10.1 Description
The selected remedy for RB H is institutional controls in the form of deed restrictions
on future land use. The specific restrictions to be adopted are provided in the deed
attached to this ROD as Appendix A. The objective of these restrictions is to:
~ Ensure that industrial land use is maintained;
~ Prohibit the use of bedrock ground water;
~ Provide site access for federal and state agencies for the purpose of taking
response actions including sampling and monitoring; and
~ Prohibit removal of RB H soils from the DOE Mound property (as owned in
1998) boundary without approval from ODH and OEPA , or their successor
agencies.
DOE or its successors, as the lead agency for this ROD, has the responsibility to
monitor, maintain and enforce these institutional controls. This responsibility includes
the duty to conduct annual assessments of compliance with the deed restrictions and
the duty to enforce the deed restrictions if any non-compliance is detected. The
assessment and enforcement processes are outlined in Appendix C, which is
intended to serve as a framework for implementation of operation and maintenance
activities for the selected remedy. Within ninety (90) days of the date on which this
ROD is signed, DOE shall submit to US EPA and Ohio EPA for their approval a
formal proposal regarding operation and maintenance of the institutional controls.
This proposal and the annual compliance assessments shall be considered primary
documents under the Federal Facility Agreement. If DOE, US EPA and OEPA agree,
the frequency of the compliance assessments can be changed at any time.
The soils within RB H have not been evaluated for any use other than on-site
industrial use. Any off-site disposition of the RB H soil without proper handling,
sampling, and management could create an unacceptable risk to off-site receptors.
An objective of the preferred alternative is to prevent residual exposure to soils from
RB H.
A copy of the deed is attached in Appendix A; this represents the remedy for RB H.
DOE will develop an Operation and Maintenance Plan for the remedy. US EPA and
OEPA have approval authority for this plan.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 25 of 45
-------
2.10.2 Estimated Costs
The initial costs associated with these deed restrictions are those associated with the
writing and recording of the restrictions with the deed. The costs associated with
monitoring and enforcing the land use and property deed restrictions are estimated to be
$5,000 per year.
2.10.3 Decisive Factors
The US EPA has developed threshold, balancing and modifying criteria to aid in the
selection of the remedy. There are two (2) threshold criteria, five (5) balancing criteria
and two (2) modifying criteria. Each is described below.
2.10.3.1 THRESHOLD CRITERIA - Must be met for an alternative to be eligible for
selection:
(1) Overall protection of human health and the environment
This criterion addresses whether an alternative provides adequate
protection of human health and the environment. The "no action" alternative
does not meet this criterion in that the level of risk to human health posed
by the site was found to be acceptable only for an industrial scenario. No
evaluation was made of the risks posed by unrestricted use of the property.
Deed restrictions are required as a mechanism to ensure the continued
future use of RB H is limited to industrial purposes.
(2) Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements
Section 121 (d) of CERCLA requires that remedial actions at CERCLA
sites attain legally applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and State
requirements, standards, criteria, and limitations which are collectively
referred to as "ARARs," unless such ARARs are waived under CERCLA
Section 121 (d)(4).
Applicable Requirements are those substantive environmental protection
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State
law that specifically address hazardous substances, the remedial action to
be implemented at the site, the location of the site, or other circumstances
present at the site. Relevant and Appropriate
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 26 of 45
-------
Requirements are those substantive environmental protection
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State
law which, while not applicable to the hazardous materials found at the site,
the remedial action itself, the site location, or other circumstances at the
site, nevertheless address problems or situations sufficiently similar to
those encountered at the site that their use is well-suited to the site.
Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a remedy will meet all the
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of other Federal and
State environmental statutes or provides the basis for invoking a waiver.
ARARs are of several types: chemical-specific, location-specific, and
action-specific. Chemical-specific ARARs are usually health- or risk-based
numerical values or methodologies which, when applied to site-specific
conditions, result in the establishment of numerical values. These values
establish the acceptable amount or concentration of a chemical that may
be found in, or discharged to, the ambient environment. For RB H,
"Maximum Contaminant Levels" or "MCLs" established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act constitute chemical-specific ARARs and are listed in
Appendix D. They apply to the bedrock ground water beneath RB H. No
evidence of any contamination above MCLs has been found in this ground
water. Consequently, ARARs with respect to ground water are deemed to
have been met.
Location-specific ARARs are restrictions placed on the concentration of
hazardous substances or the conduct of activities solely because they are
located in specific locations, e.g., flood plains, wetlands, historic places,
etc. For RB H, Ohio has identified two statutory provisions that describe
site conditions that would prompt certain response actions. (See Appendix
D). These provisions are similar to location-specific ARARs. The selected
remedy meets both of these requirements.
Action-specific ARARs are usually technology- or activity-based
requirements or limitations on actions taken with respect to hazardous
wastes. These requirements are triggered by the particular remedial
activities that are selected to accomplish a remedy. In this case, the
remedy is an institutional control - deed restrictions. The ARARs are
applicable State requirements concerning the recording of deeds. (See
Appendix D). The selected remedy will comply with these requirements.
It should be noted that any onsite management of RB H soils, not
associated
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 27 of 45
-------
with a CERCLA response action, in a manner inconsistent with State law
or any disposition of RB H soils away from the Mound Superfund Site
would be subject to applicable Ohio regulations, which are independently
enforceable from CERCLA.
2.10.3.2 BALANCING CRITERIA - used to weigh major trade-offs among
alternatives:
(1) Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to expected residual risk
and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health
and the environment over time, once clean-up levels have been met. This
criterion includes the consideration of residual risk and the adequacy and
reliability of controls. Only Alternative 2, Institutional Controls, provides
some degree of long-term protectiveness. The implementation of
institutional controls in the form of land use restrictions is necessary to
ensure that future use remains compatible with the evaluated residual risk
associated with RB H.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining in the
RB H above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure,
an annual review and report will be submitted toOEPA, ODH, and US EPA
(pursuant to CERCLA) determining whether or not the remedy is in effect
and being complied with to ensure that it is adequately protective of human
health and the environment.
DOE reserves the right to petition the US EPA, OEPA, and ODH for a
modification to the frequency established for conducting the effectiveness
reviews.
(2) Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment
Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment refers to the
anticipated performance of the treatment technologies that may be included
as part of the remedy.
Since neither of the alternatives includes treatment, this criterion does not
require further evaluation.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 28 of 45
-------
(3) Short-term effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to
implement the remedy and any adverse impacts that may be posed to
workers and the community during construction and operation of the
remedy until clean-up goals are achieved.
Alternative 1, No Action, would not provide short-term effectiveness
because there is no assurance of protection of human health and the
environment after the property is transferred. Alternative 2, Institutional
Controls, provides this assurance.
(4) Implementability
Implementability addresses the technical and administrative feasibility
of a remedy from design through construction and operation. Factors
such as availability of services and materials, administrative feasibility,
and coordination with other governmental entities are also considered.
Since Alternative 1 involves no action, there is no time or cost required
for implementation. Alternative 2, Institutional Controls, is expected to
require approximately one month and minimal cost to implement.
(5) Cost
The range of costs is zero dollars ($0) for Alternative 1, No Action, to
approximately $5,000 annually for the maintenance of the deed
restrictions for Alternative 2, Institutional Controls.
2.10.3.3 MODIFYING CRITERIA - to be considered after public comment is
received on the Proposed Plan and of equal importance to the
balancing
criteria:
(1) State/Support Agency Acceptance
Both US EPA and the State do not believe that Alternative 1, No Action,
provides adequate protection of human health and the environment in
the future. However, both agencies support the selected remedy,
Alternative 2, Institutional Controls.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 29 of 45
-------
(2) Community Acceptance
Based on input received during the public comment period and the
public hearing, the community accepts and supports the selected
remedy.
2.11 Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy for RB H is protective of human health and the environment,
complies with Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and
appeopriate (ARAR), is cost-effective, and utilizes a permanent solution to the
maximum extent practicable. Because this remedy will result in hazardous
substances remaining in Release Block H above levels that allow for unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure, DOE in consultation with US EPA, Ohio EPA and ODH
will review the remedial action each year to assure that human health and the
environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented.
DOE reserves the right to petition the US EPA, OEPA, and ODH for a modification
to the frequency established for conducting the effectiveness reviews.
2.12 Documentation of Significant Changes
Although this ROD has been signed, new information may be received or generated
that could affect the implementation of the remedy. DOE, as the lead agency for this
ROD, has the responsibility to evaluate the significance of any such new information.
The type of documentation required for a post-ROD change depends on the nature
of the change. Three categories of changes are recognized by the US EPA: non-
significant, significant, and fundamental. Non-significant post-ROD changes may be
documented using a memo to the Administrative Record file. Changes that
significantly affect the ROD must be evaluated pursuant to CERCLA Section 117
and the NCP at 40 CFR 300.435(c)(2)(l). Fundamental changes typically require a
revised Proposed Plan and an amendment to the ROD. Significant or fundamental
changes to the ROD for Release Block H are not anticipated.
3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
This section of the ROD presents stakeholder concerns about RB H and explains
how those concerns were addressed prior to issuance of the ROD.
During the public meeting on the Proposed Plan, one stakeholder provided a formal
comment. During the public review period for the Proposed Plan, other stakeholders
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 30 of 45
-------
provided additional comments. The Core Team responded to stakeholders by letter.
The comments and responses are also presented here.
Comments Received during the Public Meeting held on the Proposed
Plan for Release Block H
Comment:
My name is Jeff Fischer. I see that there's an update on risk factors from IRIS. That's
a good thing. There are several chemicals as well as radionuclides that have
updated factors. That brings up the question, what impact does this have on earlier
work that's been done in terms of calculations? Has this been looked at for other
release blocks?
Response:
The impact of revised risk factors from IRIS and HEAST on earlier work has been
evaluated. Release Block D was the only release block affected because it was the
only release block with a completed residual risk evaluation. The "Technical Position
Report in Support of the Release Block D Residual Risk Evaluation" (January, 1999)
documented the impact of revisions in risk factors that occurred after the Residual
Risk Evaluation was complete (December, 1996).
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 31 of 45
-------
Comments on the Technical Position Report in Support of the Release
Block H Residual Risk Evaluation and the Proposed Plan for Release
Block H
Comment:
Add RfD) (Table 2-1) to the Acronym List.
Response:
RfD will be added to the Acronym List on the final TPR.
Comment:
Note that the daughter product of Thorium 232 is Radium 228, rather than Radium
226 (page 6 and page 8). Likewise, the eventual daughter product of Uranium 238
is Radium 226.
Response:
The original RRE incorrectly stated that radium-226 was the daughter of thorium-
232. This was one of the drivers for using the TPR to document the risks from
radium-226 and its daughters. Radium-226 risks are therefore accounted for in the
risk values presented in the ROD. The final edition of the TPR has been reworded
to clarify this point.
Comment:
It is my thinking that the risk factors (for radionuclides) from inhalation, ingestion, and
external exposure should be totaled for a more accurate risk figure. Also, in the face
of the additional risk from hazardous chemicals - does each of the two categories
not enhance the effect of the other?
Response:
The risk factors for radionuclides have been totaled for all pathways (see for
example Tables 3-1 a and 3-1 b of the TPR). Overall cancer risks for radionuclides
and chemicals have also been totaled (see for example Tables 6.1 and 6.2 of the
Proposed Plan). The overall cancer risk and the overall hazard index (for chemicals
that are not carcinogens), however, have not been totaled; there is no consensus
method available for summing these different figures-of-merit which represent very
different types of potential health effects. Similarly, there is no consensus method
available for estimating the synergistic effects possibly associated with exposure to
both radionuclides and chemicals.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 32 of 45
-------
Comment:
Genetic effects were not included in the risk calculations, as far as I could see.
These may have been ruled out due to the two categories of persons considered in
the calculations. However, should a genetic defect appear in any of their families,
this is a painful experience should it happen within future generation.
Response:
The comment is correct in noting that genetic effects are not accounted for in the
HEAST slope factors used to translate intake of, or external exposure to,
radionuclides into risk. The slope factors account solely for the additional cancer risk
potentially associated with ingestion, inhalation, or external exposure using a linear,
non-threshold dose-response model. The IRIS slope factors used for chemical
carcinogens are also subject to this limitation.
Comment:
The "Core Team" of representatives from DOE, US EPA, and OEPA evaluated the
potential contamination problems and recommended "the appropriate response." My
question is: were any citizens involved in determining that response? Would a
meeting for those persons interested in reviewing the contamination problems and
recommendations be feasible? A simple explanation of how the calculations were
made would be helpful to me.
Response:
The Core Team welcomes the opportunity to meet with citizens and discuss the
Mound 2000 process and its results. The community was an active participant in
developing this process (Mound 2000) and helped determine points of direct
involvement. The Residual Risk Evaluation Methodology and the Residual Risk
Evaluation for Release Block H have gone through a public comment cycle and
copies are in the CERCLA Public Reading Room. The process requires comments
from the public on the PRS recommendations be responded to or incorporated as
part of the remedy evaluation. DOE believes all comments have been resolved with
the commenter and the documents, comments, and responses have been placed in
the CERCLA Public Reading Room.
Comment:
Before considering the transfer of more parcels, I would like to know if any historical
records or deeds were searched to determine whether or not some record exists
which would encourage us to honor the Miami Indian culture in some way.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 33 of 45
-------
Response:
Archeological field surveys have been performed. In 1987, Wright State University
conducted archeological survey of the acceptable portions of the South Property (RB
A & B). Based on the results of the field work and a review of applicable literature,
the survey team concluded that the South Property did not have the research
potential to make it eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Subsequent correspondence from the Ohio Historic Preservation office reaffirmed
that conclusion. A follow-up survey conducted in 1991 examined areas immediately
adjacent to, but not including the South Property. Four historic sites were noted: a
segment of the Miami-Erie Canal, a bridge remnant, a bridge, and a city well. None
of these sites were judged to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Comment:
The estimate of $5000 as a fund to be used for the future monitoring of Parcel H
seems to me to be an underestimation, since the cost of lab tests, etc., is
substantial.
Response:
The referenced estimate of $5000 per year is the anticipated annual cost of
maintaining deed restrictions and performing effectiveness reviews for USEPA and
OEPA as described in the Proposed Plan. Any required future monitoring within this
RB would be funded separately.
Comment:
The party which purchases Release Block H should commit, as well, when he/she
transfers the site to another owner, to the transfer of all existing environmental
reports provided by DOE. In addition, to the succeeding owners, all records should
be filed with the City of Miamisburg Records of Deeds Office, the County Zoning
Board, and the Ohio Records Offices and federal agencies so designated.
Response:
We share your concern for long term retention and dissemination of information
about the site. The Federal Facility Agreement addresses document retention for at
least 10 years after termination of the FFA. As the Mound project continues and
approaches completion, we will revisit the issue of long term retention and
dissemination of information to succeeding owners.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 34 of 45
-------
Comment:
We understand that a professional property survey has been completed for Release
Block H. Will the complete legal description of Release Block H, with a thorough
description of the property boundaries, be included in the Release Block H Record
of Decision?
Response:
The complete legal description of Release Block H will be included in the Record of
Decision as an Appendix.
Comment:
We wish to clarify the term "industrial use" or "industrial land use" as it appears in
the Proposed Plan. The first sentence of Section 3.0, Exposure Assessment, of the
Release Block H Residual Risk Evaluation (RRE) states that "[DOE], Ohio EPA, U.S.
EPA, and the Mound Facility stakeholders have agreed that the future use of the
Mound Plant property will be commercial/industrial use." The section then goes on
to describe the two commercial/industrial exposure scenarios utilized in the RRE and
defined in the Mound 2000 Residual Risk Evaluation Methodology as 1) a
construction worker assumed to work on the property eight hours per day for 250
days per year over a five-year period, and 2) a site employee assumed to work for
eight hours per day for 250 days per year over a 25-year period and who does not
shower in water from a well on the property.
We assume, therefore, based on the foregoing scenarios, that the use of the term
"industrial" in the Release Block H Proposed Plan refers to the risk exposure
scenario evaluated for this property and is not restricted solely to the industrial land
use category, but incorporates both commercial and industrial land uses. Are our
assumptions correct?
Response:
Yes, your assumptions are correct. "Industrial" refers to the risk exposure scenario
evaluated for the property. This incorporates both commercial and industrial land
uses that are consistent with the restrictions placed on the deed and as described
in the ROD.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 35 of 45
-------
Comment:
The fourth sentence of the second paragraph of Page 3 should read something line
"Before transfer of a release block can be completed, all buildings and PRSs must be
evaluated for protectiveness to human health and the environment for Industrial
reuse or be remediated to be protective." The word protectiveness is not defined at a
previous point in the text.
Response:
This language has been incorporated into the appropriate section (2.4 Scope and Role
of RB H) of the Record of Decision.
Comment:
A wedge of Release Block H property lies outside (east of) the Mound facility fence line
along Mound Road, between the Mound entrance driveway and Mound Road itself, and
one corner of property lies to the east of Mound Road. (Refer to Attachment A for a map
of the wedge of Release Block H property and to Attachment B for a legal description.)
MMCIC believes that the Miamisburg community would receive a benefit from an
exclusion from the soil removal restriction for this wedge of property as described below.
Once MMCIC completes its proposed improvement along the section of Mound Road
that includes this wedge of Block H property, MMCIC plans to dedicate the road to the
City of Miamisburg. Any maintenance or improvements required for the road after that
time will become the responsibility of the City. A soil removal restriction for this wedge
of property along Mound Road will be extremely difficult to police once the road is
dedicated to the City.
Historical information described in the Release Block H Proposed Plan confirms that no
industrial, commercial, or research activities associated with the Mound facility
operations ever took place on this portion of Release Block H.
In addition, MMCIC has reviewed the soil sample analytical data for the described wedge
of property. The analytical data, which for the most part result from laboratory analyses
for radionuclides, indicate concentrations that are either equal to the method detection
limits (i.e., non-detects) or within the 10-5 Guideline Values for a residential scenario
established for the respective compounds at the Mound facility. There are two exceptions
to these observations: Cesium-137 detected at 0.6 pCi/g and Plutonium-238 detected
26 pCi/g.
MMCIC there requests that, if necessary, a focused residential residual risk evaluation
be performed to support an exclusion from the soil removal restriction for the described
wedge of property in Release Block H.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 36 of 45
-------
ATTACHMENT A
A* oo'sa-iB- -
K-3SO.OO'
L-SJO'
T-3.05'
C h'BJO'
Ch Brg'HIZ'm'OQ"W
aS'QT'19
ft.323.62'
l-{30.93'
r-6$,sr
Cb'SlO.BZ'
Cb arg-HQrS0'4Z"V
r—te.zr
/s89*5e,£S»e
/1 mou pjh
^f»iFOUMD »
SECTON a
secroK'io
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 37 of 45
-------
ATTACHMENT B
DESCRIPTION FOR SOIL EXCLUSION AREA
6.604 ACRES
Situate in the County of Montgomery, in the State of Ohio and in the City of
Miamisburg, part of Section 25, Town 1, Range 6 MRs and part of Section 30, Town
2, Range 5 MRs and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing
at an iron pin found on the southerly projection of the centerline of Mound Road, said
point also being the northeast corner of a 164.13 Acre tract of land as described in
Deed Book 1246, Page 45 of the Deed Records of Montgomery County and being
the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,
thence South 06° 38' 48" West, 100.00 feet to an iron pin found; thence South 84°
42' 56" East, 193.40 feet to an iron pin found; thence South 05° 33' 53" West, 571.98
feet to a point on the centerline of Mound Road; thence due West, 72.93 feet to a
point; thence South 51° 28' 10" West, 9.97 feet to a point on the proposed westerly
right-of-way of Mound Road; thence along the proposed westerly right-of-way of
Mound Road, North 06° 34' 20" West, 299.85 feet to a point; thence North 04° 05'
41" West, 185.03 feet to a point; thence along the proposed westerly right-of-way of
Mound Road, North 06° 34' 20" West, 75.76 feet to a point; thence along the
proposed westerly right-of-way of Mound Road, on a curve to the right for a distance
of 130.93 feet with a radius of 923.62 feet and a central angle of 08° 07' 19" and a
chord distance of 130.82 feet and a chord bearing of North 02° 30' 42" West to a
point; thence along the existing westerly right-of-way of Mound Road, on a
non-tangent curve to the right for a distance of 6.10 feet with a radius of 360.00 feet
and a central angle of 00° 58' 18" and a chord distance of 6.10 feet and a chord
bearing of North 12° 20' 00" West to a point; thence South 89° 52' 28" East, 18.27
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 287,684.98 square feet, 6.604 acres more or less, and subject to all legal
highways, easements, and agreements of record.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 38 of 45
-------
Response:
To respond to this comment, it was necessary to review the soil data for the
referenced "wedge". Based on that review, two contaminants of concern (COCs)
were identified. A risk analysis was then performed using those two COCs. The
analysis bounded the risks from the uncontrolled release of the"wedge" soil by
assuming the soils were relocated to a residential area. The risk results were used
to determine if the deed restriction was required to protect human health and the
environment. Results and conclusions are summarized below.
Contaminants of concern. The data review confirmed that the plutonium-238
value of 26 pCi/g was the highest Pu-238 result reported in and around the "wedge".
It is important to note that the value was generated using soil screening instruments
that have a plutonium-238 detection limit of about 25 pCi/g. Therefore, actual Pu-238
concentrations in the area, as documented by measurements made with more
sensitive instruments, were much lower (< 3.9 pCi/g). However, in the interest of
conservatism, the 26-pCi/g result was used to evaluate the residual risks potentially
associated with exposure to Pu-238 in the soil. (Note that a 95% upper confidence
level was not calculated as fewer than 20 Pu-238 results were available.)
The cesium-137 value of 0.6 pCi/g was also found to be an appropriate bounding
concentration. The highest measured Cs-137 concentration was outside, but in
proximity to, the boundaries of the wedge. For cesium, a 95% upper confidence level
was not calculated as fewer than 20 cesium-131 results were available.
All other radionuclide results were at or below their respective background levels.
Specifically, isotopes of radium, thorium, and uranium were detected, but in
concentrations that did not warrant inclusion in this analysis.
Risk analysis. The analysis assumed an individual would incidentally consume and
ingest soils from the wedge. The same individual was assumed to receive external
exposure from the soil and to ingest additional radioactivity via transfer of the
contaminants from the soil to produce grown in a home garden. The results of the
risk analysis are shown in the following two tables.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 39 of 45
-------
Table 1. Release Block "H" Wedge Risk Analysis for Pu-238
Risk Calculations for Pu-238 Soil Inhalation, Soil Ingestion, External Exposure, and
Consumption of Produce from a Home Garden
(Ref: Equation and parameter values from Risk-Based Guideline Values, March 1997)
Maximum Pu-238 Soil Concentration
26 pCi/g Concentration (Location SCR974 - in the center of the RB H "wedge")
Slope Factors
2.95E-10 risk/pCi ingested
2.74E-08 risk/pCi inhaled
1.94E-11 risk/yr/pCi/g
Risk: Residential Soil Ingestion
Risk = CS * EF * [(lRc*EDc)+(JRa*EDa)] * ING SF
OS = 26 pCi/g (CS = concentration in soil)
EF = 350 days/year (EF = exposure frequency)
IRc = 0.2 g/day ([Rc = child ingestion rate)
EDc = 6 years (EDc = child exposure duration)
IRa = 0.1 g/day {[Ra = adult ingestion rate)
IB? ocr «rr- years (EDa = adult exposure duration)
ING SF = 2.95E-10 risk/pCi ingested
Risk = 9.66E-06
Risk: Residential Soil Inhalation
Risk = CS * EF * ED MR * (1/PER * INH SF * 1000 g/kg
CS = 26 pCi/g (CS = concentration in soil)
EF - 350 days/year (EF = exposure frequency)
ED - 30 years (ED = exposure duration)
IR - 20 mA3/day (IR = inhalation rate)
Sop _ V78|+09 mA3% (PEF = particulate emission factor)
INH SF = 2.74E-08 nsk/pCi inhaled
Risk = 3.50E-08
Risk: Residential External Exposure ¦
Risk = CS * ED * (1-SE) * TE *EXT SF
CS = 26 pCi/g
15 ~ 30 yr (ED = exposure duration)
f 11 A 0-2 unrtless fSE = gamma shielding factor)
pyt cc _ i nPc If unitless (TE = gamma exposure time factor)
EXT SF - 1 94E-11 nsk/yr/pCi/g (EXT SF = external slope factor)
Risk = 4.54E-09
Risk: Residential Home Garden
Risk = CS * BV * IR * Fl * EF * ED * ING SF
= 26 pCi/g (CS = concentration in soil)
PpV_ u9.rtles/?iBV = soil-to-plant concentration factor for plutonium)
Sr 340 g/day (IR = produce ingestion rate)
pL _ 0.36 unrtless (Fl = fraction of produce from home garden^
EF - 350 days/year (EF = exposure frequency)
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 40 of 45
-------
ED =
ING SF =
Risk =
_ 30 years (ED = exposure duration)
2.95E-10 risk/pCi ingested (ING SF = ingestion slope factor)
4.93E-06
Pu-238 Risk Summary for Residential Use of RB H Wedge Soil
Soil ingestion
Soil inhalation
External exposure
Home-grown produce
Total
Risk
9.66E-06
3.50E-08
4.54E-09
4.93E-06
1.46E-05
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 41 of 45
-------
Table 2. Release Block "H" Wedge Risk Analysis for Cs-137
Risk Calculations for Cs-137+D Soil Inhalation, Soil Ingestion, External Exposure, and
Consumption of Produce from a Home Garden
(Ref: Equation and parameter values from Risk-Based Guideline Values
March 1997)
Cs-137 Soil Concentration
, 0-6 pCi/g Maximum concentration (Location S0219 - just outside the RB H "wedge")
1.02 pCi/g Total concentration (including background value of 0.42 pCi/g)
Slope Factors
3.16E-11 risk/pCi ingested
1.91E-11 risk/pCi inhaled
2.09E-06 risk/yr/pCi/g
Risk: Residential Soil Ingestion
Risk = CS * EF " ~
o —
ING SF =
CS =
EF =
IRc =
EDc =
IRa =
EDa =
Risk =
4.06E-08
Risk: Residential Soil Inhalation ¦
Risk = CS * EF * ED * IR * (1/PEF) * INH SF * 1000 g/kg
- 1.02 pCi/g (CS = concentration in si
EF- 350 days/year (EF = exposure freq
Risk = 9.56E-13
Risk: Residential External Exposure
Risk = CS * ED
(1-SE) * TE *EXT SF
1.02 pCi/g
CS =
ED =
SE =
TE =
EXT SF =
Risk =
1.92E-05
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 42 of 45
-------
Risk: Residential Home Garden
Risk = CS * BV * IR * Fl * EF * ED * ING SF
CS = 1.02 pCi/g (CS = concentration in soil)
BV = 4.0E-02 unitless (BV = soil-to-plant concentration factor for cesium)
IR = 340 g/day (IF? = produce ingestion rate)
Fl = 0.36 unitless (Fl = fraction of produce from home garden)
EF = 350 days/year (EF = exposure frequency)
ED = 30 years (ED = exposure duration)
ING SF = 3.16E-11 risk/pCi ingested (ING SF = ingestion slope factor)
Risk 1.66E-06
Cs-137 Risk Summary for Residential Use of RB H Wedge Soil
Rjgfc
Soil ingestion 4.06E-08
Soil inhalation 9.56E-13
External exposure 1.92E-05
Home-arown produce 1 .ggE-Qg
Total 2.09E-05
Results and conclusions. Based on the conservative exposure scenarios detailed
above, the absence of a restriction on the movement of RB H "wedge" soils would
not present an unacceptable risk to a member of the public. In addition, the RB H
"wedge" was not used as a process area, is located outside the controlled (security
fence) area, has had no reported releases, and has no anomalous locations
identified by qualitative field instrumentation. Therefore, the DOE and the US and
Ohio EPAs concur with the request from MMCIC to lift the restriction and the
appropriate notations appear elsewhere in this ROD, however, OEPA and ODH
recommend that any surplus soils from this area be uses or kept on the Mound
property to eliminate any future concerns regarding disposition of soil.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 43 of 45
-------
4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE REFERENCES
Information used to select the remedy is contained in the Administrative Record file.
The file is available for review at the Mound CERCLA Reading Room, Miamisburg
Senior Adult Center, 305 Central Avenue, Miamisburg, Ohio. The Administrative
Record File references for RB H includes the following:
An Archaeological Survey of Portions ot the Mound Facility, Montgomery County,
Ohio, Public Archaeology Report No. 18, Laboratory of Anthropology, Wright State
University, December, 1987.
Literature Review Update and Archaeological Survey of the EG&G Mound Facility
and Adjacent Areas, City of Miamisburg, Miami Township, Montgomery County,
Ohio, April 16, 1991.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Operable Unit 9, Site-Wide Work Plan,
Final, May 1992.
Operable Unit 9 Site Scoping Report, Volume 3 - Radiological Site Survey, Final,
June 1, 1993.
Operable Unit 9; Hydrogeologic Investigation: Bedrock Report, Technical
Memorandum, Revision 0, January 1994.
Operable Unit 9; Ecological Characterization; Technical Memorandum, Revision 0,
March 1994.
Operable Unit 9; Hydrogeologic Investigation: Buried Valley Aquifer Report,
Technical Memorandum, Revision 1, September 1994.
Operable Unit 9 Background Soils Investigation Soil Chemistry Report, Technical
Memorandum, Revision 2, September 1994.
Operable Unit 9 Hydrogeologic Investigation: Groundwater Sweeps Report,
Technical Memorandum, April, 1995.
Other Soils Characterization Report, Volume I - Text. Final, Revision 0. May 1,1995.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 44 of 45
-------
Operable Unit 9 Regional Soils Investigation Report, Revision 2, August 1, 1995,
Potential Release Site Package, PRS #93, Final, Revision 2, November 1996.
Residual Risk Evaluation, Release Block H, August 1997.
The Mound 2000 Residual Risk Evaluation Methodology (RREM), Mound Plant,
Final, Revision 0, January 6, 1997.
Workplan for Environmental Restoration at the Mound Plant, The Mound 2000
Approach, December 1998.
Memorandum, Randolph Tormey, Deputy Chief Counsel, Ohio Field Office, US DOE
dated February 17, 1999 regarding Institutional Controls, Mound Facility,
Miamisburg, Ohio.
Letter from Mr. Timothy J. Fischer, Remedial Project Manager, US EPA to Mr. Arthur
Kleinra, US DOE dated April, 1999, RE: Ecological Risk Assessment, Release
Block H.
Letter from Mr. Brian Nickel, Mound Project Manager, Office of Federal Facilities
and Oversight, OEPA to Mr. Oba Vincent, US DOE dated April, 1999, RE: DOE
Mound Release Block H Ecological Assessment.
Technical Position Report In Support of the Release Block H Residual Risk
Evaluation, Public Review Draft, Rev 2, April 1999.
Record of Decision, Release Block H, Mound Plant
Final
June 1999
Page 45 of 45
-------
Appendix A
Quitclaim Deed for RB H
A-l
-------
QUITCLAIM DEED
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting by and through the Secretary of the
Department of Energy (hereinafter sometimes called "Grantor"), under and pursuant to the
authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 161 (g) (42 U.S.C. §2201(g), the
covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, duly paid by the
Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation, a non-profit corporation
subsisting under the laws of Ohio and recognized by the Secretary of Energy as the agent
for the community wherein the former Mound Facility is located (hereinafter sometimes
called "Grantee"), the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby QUITCLAIMS unto
Grantee its successors and assigns, subject to the reservations, covenants, and conditions
hereinafter set forth, all of its right, title and interest, together with all improvements thereon
and appurtenances thereto, in the following described premises, commonly known as
Parcel H:
Situate in the State of Ohio, County of Montgomery, being in the City of Miamisburg, being
part of Section 30, Range 5, Township 2, lying in the Miami Rivers Survey (M.R.S.), and
being part of city lots numbered 2259 within the Corporation Limits of the City of
Miamisburg, and being more particularly bounded and described with bearings referenced
to the Ohio State Coordinate System, South Zone, as follows:
Beginning at a concrete monument, being the North East comer of Section 36 and the
North West corner of Section 30, and being the point of beginning for the land herein
described, thence S 5° 47' 45" W 130.89 feet to an iron pin being the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence S 85° 03' 12" E 1023.90 feet to a concrete monument, thence N 6°
54' 59" E 231.00 feet to a concrete monument, thence S 84° 36' 50" E 30.00 feet to a iron
pin, thence S 6° 54' 54" W 100.00 feet to a iron pin, thence S 84° 36' 37" E 193.40 feet to a
concrete monument, thence S 5° 34' 19" W 571.986 feet along the center line of Mound
Road to a point, thence S 90° 0' 0" W 72.86 feet to a point, thence S 51° 28' 1.6" W 48.51
feet to a point, thence S 83° 32' 4" W 97.29 feet to a point, thence S 63° 48' 53" W 98.67
feet to a point, thence N 89° 55' 58" W 173.02 feet to a point, thence N 83° 49' 39" W
244.21 feet to a point, thence along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 360.67
feet for a distance of 353.12 feet to a point, thence N 25° 03' 02" W 214.48 feet to a point,
thence S 64° 03' 10" W 37.94 feet to a point, thence N 64° 35' 31" W 56.61 feet to a point,
thence N 25° 43' 03" W 160.76 feet to a point, thence N 65° 33' 00" E 35.05 feet to a point,
thence N 5° 31' 01" E 57.67 feet to a iron pin being the true point of beginning containing
14.29 acres more or less, and subject to all legal highways and easements of record. Prior
Deed Reference: Deed Book , Page .
RESERVING UNTO Grantor, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
and the State of Ohio, acting by and through the Director of the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (OEPA) or the Ohio Department of Health (ODH), their successors and
assigns, an easement to, upon or across the Premises in conjunction with the covenants of
A-2
-------
Grantor and/or Grantee in paragraphs numbered 1.1-1.3, 3.2 and 3.3 of this Deed and as
otherwise needed for purposes of any response action as defined under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as
amended, including but not limited to, environmental investigation or remedial action on the
Premises or on property in the vicinity thereof, including the right of access to, and use of, to
the extent permitted by applicable law, utilities at reasonable cost to Grantor. Grantee
understands that any such response action will be conducted in a manner so as to attempt
to minimize interfering with the ordinary and reasonable use of the Premises.
This Deed and conveyance is made and accepted without warranty of any kind, either
express or implied, except for the warranty in paragraph 3.3 of this Deed, and is expressly
made under and subject to all reservations, restrictions, rights, covenants, easements,
licenses, and permits, whether or not of public record, to the extent that the same affect the
Premises.
1 . The parties hereto intend the following restrictions and covenants to run with the
land and to be binding upon the Grantee and its successors, transferees, and
assigns or any other person acquiring an interest in the Premises, for the benefit of
Grantor, USEPA and the State of Ohio, acting by and through the Director of OEPA
or ODH, their successors and assigns.
1.1 Excepting those soils Commencing at an iron pin found on the southerly projection
of the centerline of Mound Road, said point also being the northeast corner of a
164.13 Acre tract of land as described in Deed Book 1246, Page 45 of the Deed
Records of Montgomery County and being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,
thence South 06° 38' 48" West, 100.00 feet to an iron pin found; thence South 84°
42' 56" East, 193.40 feet to an iron pin found; thence South 05° 33' 53 " West,
571.98 feet to a point on the centerline of Mound Road; thence due West, 72.93 feet
to a point; thence South 51 ° 28' 10" West, 9.97 feet to a point on the proposed
westerly right-of-way of Mound Road; thence along the proposed westerly
right-of-way of Mound Road, North 06° 34' 20" West, 299.85 feet to a point; thence
North 04° 05' 41" West, 185.03 feet to a point; thence along the proposed westerly
right-of-way of Mound Road, North 06° 34' 20" West, 75.76 feet to a point; thence
along the proposed westerly right-of-way of Mound Road, on a curve to the right for
a distance of 130.93 feet with a radius of 923.62 feet and a central angle of 08° 07'
19" and a chord distance of 130.82 feet and a chord bearing of North 02° 30' 42"
West to a point; thence along the existing westerly right-of-way of Mound Road, on a
non-tangent curve to the right for a distance of 6.10 feet with a radius of 360.00 feet
and a central angle of 00° 58' 18" and a chord distance of 6.10 feet and a chord
bearing of North 12° 20' 00" West to a point; thence South 89° 52' 28" East, 18.27
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 287,684.98 square feet, 6.604 acres more or less, and subject to all legal
highways, easements, and agreements of record. Grantee covenants that any soil
from the Premises shall not be placed on any property outside the boundaries of that
described in instruments recorded at Deed Book (1214, pages 10,12,15,17 and
248; Deed Book 1215, page 347; Deed Book 1246, page 45; Deed Book 1258,
pages 56 and 74; Deed Book 1256, page 179; Micro-Fiche 81-376A01; and
Micro-Fiche
A-3
-------
81-323A11) of the Deed Records of Montgomery County, Ohio (and as illustrated in the
CERCLA 120(h) Summary, Notices of Hazardous Substances Release Block H, Mound
Plant, Miamisburg, Ohio dated , 1999) without prior written approval from ODH and
OEPA, or successor agencies.
1.2 Grantee covenants not to use, or allow the use of, the Premises for any residential or
farming activities, or any other activities which could result in the chronic exposure of
children under eighteen years of age to soil or groundwater from the Premises.
Restricted uses shall include, but not be limited to:
(1)
single or multifamily dwellings or rental units;
(2)
day care facilities;
(3)
schools or other educational facilities for children under eighteen years
of age; and
(4)
community centers, playgrounds, or other recreational or religious
facilities for children under eighteen years of age.
Grantor shall be contacted to resolve any questions which may arise as to whether a
particular activity would be considered a restricted use.
1.3 Grantee covenants not to extract, consume, expose, or use in any way the
groundwater underlying the premises without the prior written approval of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (Region V) and the OEPA.
2. The Grantor hereby grants to the State of Ohio and reserves and retains for itself, its
successors and assigns an irrevocable, permanent, and continuing right to enforce
the covenants of this Quitclaim Deed through proceedings at law or in equity,
including resort to an action for specific performance, as against and at the expense
of Grantee, its successors and assigns, including reasonable legal fees, and to
prevent a violation of, or recover damages from a breach of, these covenants, or
both. Any delay or forbearance in enforcement of said restrictions and covenants
shall not be deemed to be a waiver thereof.
3. Pursuant to Section 120(h)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1930, as amended (42 U.S.C. §9620(h)(3)), the
following is notice of hazardous substances, the description of any remedial action
taken, and a covenant concerning the Premises.
3.1 Notice of Hazardous Substance Grantor has made a complete search of its files
and records concerning the Premises. Those records indicate that the hazardous
substances listed in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and made a part hereof, have been
stored for one year or more or disposed of on the Premises and the dates that such
storage/disposal took place.
3.2 Description of Remedial Action Taken:
Institutional Controls are established. The Institutional Controls are set forth as
covenants in Sections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 of this Deed.
A-4
-------
3.3 Covenant: Grantor covenants and warrants that all remedial action necessary for
the protection of human health and the environment with respect to any hazardous
substances remaining on the property has been taken, and any additional remedial
action found to be necessary after the date of this Deed regarding hazardous
substances existing prior to the date of this Deed shall be conducted by Grantor,
Provided, however, that the foregoing covenant shall not apply in any case in which
the presence of hazardous substances on the property is due to the activities of
Grantee, its successors, assigns, employees, invitees, or any other person subject to
Grantee's control or direction.
4. Unless otherwise specified, all the covenants, conditions, and restrictions to this
Deed shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of the assigns of Grantor
and the successors and assigns of Grantee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the United States of America, acting by and through its Secretary
of the Department of Energy, has caused these presents to be executed this
day of , 1999.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
WITNESSETH:
State of Ohio )
County of Montgomery ) SS.
Before me, a Notary Public in and for said State and County, appeared this day of
) 1999, , who acknowledged that she is the Manager
of the Ohio Field Office for the United States Department of Energy, with full authority to
execute the foregoing on behalf of the United States of America, and who acknowledged
the above to be her signature and her free act and deed.
SEAL
Notary Public
A-5
-------
Appendix B
Legal Description of RB H
B-l
-------
H "Wedge"
Situate in the County of Montgomery, in the State of Ohio and in the City of
Miamisburg, part of Section 25, Town 1, Range 6 MRs and part of Section 30,
Town 2, Range 5 MRs and being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron pin found on the southerly projection of the centerline of
Mound Road, said point also being the northeast corner of a 164.13 Acre tract of
land as described in Deed Book 1246, Page 45 of the Deed Records of
Montgomery County and being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,.
thence South 06N 38' 48" West, 100.00 feet to an iron pin found; thence South 84 N
42' 56" East, 193.40 feet to an iron pin found; thence South 05 N 33' 53" West,
571.98 feet to a point on the centerline of Mound Road; thence due West, 72.93
feet to a point; thence South 51N 28' 10" West, 9.97 feet to a point on the
proposed westerly right-of-way of Mound Road; thence along the proposed
westerly right-of-way of Mound Road, North 06N 34' 20" West, 299.85 feet to a
point; thence North 04N 05' 41" West, 185.03 feet to a point; thence along the
proposed westerly right-of-way of Mound Road, North 06 N 34' 20" West, 75.76
feet to a point; thence along the proposed westerly right-of-way of Mound Road,
on a curve to the right for a distance of 130.93 feet with a radius of 923.62 feet
and a central angle of 08N 07' 19" and a chord distance of 130.82 feet and a chord
bearing of North 02N 30' 42" West to a point; thence along the existing westerly
right-of-way of Mound Road, on a non-tangent curve to the right for a distance of
6.10 feet with a radius of 360.00 feet and a central angle of 00N 58' 18" and a
chord distance of 6.10 feet and a chord bearing of North 12 N 20' 00" West to a
point; thence South 89N 52' 28" East, 18.27 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 82,149.70 square feet, 1.886 acres more or less, and subject to all
legal highways, easements, and agreements of record.
B-2
-------
B-3
-------
Release Block H
Situate in the State of Ohio, County of Montgomery, being in the City of
Miamisburg, being part of Section 30, and Section 36, Range 5, Township 2, lying
in the Miami Rivers Survey (M.R.S.), and being part of city lots numbered 2258
and 2259 within the Corporation Limits of the City of Miamisburg, and being more
particularly bounded and described with bearings referenced to the Ohio State
Coordinate System, South Zone, as follows:
Beginning at a concrete monument, being the North East corner of Section 36
and the North West corner of Section 30, and being the point of beginning for the
land herein described, thence S 5N 47' 45" W 130.89 feet to an iron pin being the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S 85N 03' 12" E 1023.90 feet to a concrete
monument, thence N 6N 54' 59" E 231.00 feet to a concrete monument, thence S
84N 36' 50" E 30.00 feet to a iron pin, thence S 6N 54' 54" W 100.00 feet to a iron
pin, thence S 84N 36' 37" E 193.40 feet to a concrete monument, thence S 5N 34'
19" W 571.986 feet along the center line of Mound
Road to a point, thence S 90N 0' 0" W 72.86 feet to a point, thence S 51N 28' 1.6"
W 48.51 feet to a point, thence S 83N 32' 4" W 97.29 feet to a point, thence S 63N
48' 53" W 98.67 feet to a point, thence N 89N 55' 58" W 173.02 feet to a point,
thence N 83N 49' 39" W 244.21 feet to a point, thence along the arc of a curve to
the right having a radius of 360.67 feet for a distance of 353.12 feet to a point,
thence N 25N 03' 02" W 214.48 feet to a point, thence S 64N 03' 10" W 37.94 feet
to a point, thence N 64N 35' 31" W 56.61 feet to a point, thence N 25N 43' 03" W
160.76 feet to a point, thence N 65N 33' 00" E 35.05 feet to a point, thence N 5N
31' 01" E 57.67 feet to a iron pin being the true point of beginning containing
14.29 acres more or less, and subject to all legal highways and easements of
record.
B-4
-------
B-5
-------
Appendix C
Mound Plant Operations and Maintenance Plan
for the Implementation of Institutional Controls
C-1
-------
Perform Visual
Inspection of
Property, Discuss
with Local
Government Offices,
and Perform
Records Review
MOUND PLANT
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
YES-,
Notify
Department
of Justice and
USEPA, OEPA,
and ODH
Enforcement via
Injunction
YES
Prepare Report and
Submit to USEPA,
OEPA and ODH.
C-2
-------
Appendix D
Listing of Applicable Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
D-l
-------
Chemical Specific ARARs
OAC 3745-81-11, Maximum Contaminant Levels for Inorganic Chemicals
OAC 3745-81-12, Maximum Contaminant Levels for Organic Chemicals
OAC 3745-81 -13, Maximum Contaminant Levels for Turbidity
OAC 3745-81-15, Maximum Contaminant Levels for Radium 226, 228,
Gross Alpha
OAC 3745-81-16, Maximum Contaminant Levels for Beta Particle &
Photon Radioactivity
Location Specific ARARs
ORC 6111.03, Protection of Waters of the State
ORC 3734.20, Description of OEPA Director's power for Protection of
Public Health and the Environment
Action Specific ARARs
ORC 317.08, Criteria for County Recording of Deeds
ORC 5301.25(A), Proper Recording of Land Encumbrances
D-2
------- |