COMMENTS ON "PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE ASHLAND 1 AND ASHLAND 2 SITES,
TONAWANDA, NEW YORK, NOVEMBER 1997, FINAL, USACE/OR/21950-1029"
James M. Rauch January 20, 1998
Opening Comments
1) We believe the environmental review process for the Tonawanda Site
is flawed and raises serious questions that need to be thoroughly and
objectively addressed and resolved. See Environmental Review Section
and remaining comments.
2) Why are the EPA and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
not involved in the environmental review process? As far as we know,
there has been no NRC involvement in the process. Other than as
described in comment 35, we know of no involvement by EPA. We believe
NRC oversight of this process is necessary.
(See U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Is the Authorized Regulator
section and comments 14, 16, 18, 19, and 20)
3) We have made repeated requests of the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) to explain the FUSRAP program. To date, we have not been
informed of the legal authority pursuant to which FUSRAP was
established. Was FUSRAP established by the Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC) or by DOE? Was FUSRAP established by Act of Congress? If so,
which Act? Please cite to specific section and/or subsection. Was
FUSRAP established under authority granted by the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA)? If so, please cite the specific section and/or subsection of
the AEA. Was FUSRAP established under authority granted by the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA)? If so, please
cite the specific section and/or subsection of UMTRCA. Was FUSRAP
established under authority granted by any other statute, regulation
or any other legal authority? If so, please cite such authority by
title, section and/or subsection.
4) What statute(s) and/or regulations authorize the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) to continue the integrated NEPA/CERCLA EIS
environmental review process commenced by DOE in 1988 at the Tonawanda
Site? Please cite specific statute(s) and/or regulations and sections
thereof.
b) What statute(s) and/or regulations authorize USACE to conduct
cleanup activities, including but not limited to investigations,
removals or remediations or other responses, involving the MED/AEC
11.e.(2) byproduct materials present at the FUSRAP Tonawanda Site?
Please cite specific sections and/or subsections of applicable
authority.
5) Former DOE Assistant Secretary Thomas Grumbly made a commitment to
the community to provide a sitewide final cleanup plan by the
end of 1996 for the entire Tonawanda Site. This was not done. This
revised Proposed Plan released by USACE presents final remediation
alternatives that address only the Ashland 1 property (now
including Area D of the Seaway property) and Ashland 2 property. Why
has a sitewide final cleanup plan not been presented? Please provide
a thorough, objective explanation. (See comment 14)
6) The notice issuing this revised Proposed Plan for public comment
(11-13-97 Buffalo News) refers to a DOE policy change
("Secretarial Policy on the National Environmental Policy Act, June
1994") and states that USACE will follow the same policy. USACE
appears to share the DOE view that community-identified NEPA issues
(see comment 21 and Administrative Record) can be avoided simply by
issuing a non-promulgated policy statement. Was any rulemaking done
by either agency to validate these changes? If so, please describe
and provide documentation of same. Does USACE believe NEPA review is
not applicable to final remediation decision-making at the Tonawanda
Site? If so, please explain fully, citing specific statute(s) and/or
regulations and section(s) thereof.
(See Environmental Review Process section, comment 33).
7) a) This revised Proposed Plan presents limited (to Ashland 1 and 2)
versions of the draft RI/FS-EIS's sitewide alternatives 2, 3 and 6,
and a new alternative, 2A, that is not analyzed in the 1993 draft
RI/FS-EIS. The rudimentary information and analysis given in the
revised PP for these limited alternatives is insufficient to satisfy
the public review requirements of NEPA and CERCLA (see comments 12,
14, 16 to 18, 21 to 32, and 36).
b) The draft RI/FS-EIS itself is deficient in certain respects
regarding NEPA and CERCLA requirements (see comments 12, 13, 15, 17,
21, 23, 26 to 32, 37 and 38).
c) The draft RI/FS-EIS is geared to an analysis of sitewide
alternatives and lacks the breakdown of information and analysis (e.g.
costs) necessary to compare the non-sitewide, limited alternatives of
this PP to each other or to the sitewide alternatives in the
meaningful way provided for by the NEPA and CERCLA public review
processes (see comments 14, 16, 18, and 27).
d) The narrowed scope of the PP alternatives also raises issues of
segmentation of the review process (see comments 14, 16, 26 and 17).
e) A supplement to the draft RI/FS-EIS to correct these obvious
deficiencies must be prepared and subjected to public review.
8) Our review of the Administrative Record shows it to be incomplete.
We request that all documents listed as references in the 1993 draft
RI/BRA/FS/PP-EIS documents and those documents' references be made
part of the Administrative Record, whether they are physically placed
in the record or incorporated by reference. We also request that the
documents described in the attached list of reference documents to
these comments be incorporated into the Administrative Record.
According to staff at the Tonawanda Public Information Center,
DOE/USACE has no record of much of the correspondence on this list.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Is the Authorized Regulator
9) We think the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the
agency responsible for regulating the management and disposition of
all the MED/AEC 11.e.(2) byproduct materials present at the Tonawanda
Site properties. Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), which amends the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (AEA), specifically directs the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) to control the management of any 11.e.(2) byproduct
materials. This includes such materials located at inactive uranium
mill tailings sites such as the Tonawanda Site.
10) To implement the requirements of UMTRCA, NRC modified its Title
10 Part 40 regulations "Domestic Licensing of Source Material",
including sections 40.2a, 40.3, and 40.21. What persons are currently
authorized to receive, possess, use, transfer, provide for long-term
care, deliver, and/or dispose of the byproduct materials located at
each of the five FUSRAP Tonawanda Site properties: Linde, Ashland 1,
Ashland 2, Seaway, and the Town of Tonawanda Landfill? In each case,
please identify the specific license granting such authority and the
name and address of the authorized person.
11) Over the last 10 years the NRC has developed a program for
remediation of problematic contaminated sites, the definition of
problematic including sites with large volumes of contaminated soils.
Known since 1991 as the Sites Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP),
this program oversees the cleanup of both licensed and unlicensed
sites. The program is described in NRC report NUREG-1444 and several
other reports including the April 1992 SDMP Action Plan (57 FR 13389).
For a site to be listed in the program it must meet one or more of
five qualifying criteria. Though all the Tonawanda Site properties
do meet many of these qualifying criteria, none of the
properties has been listed in the SDMP program. We believe this
represents a significant oversight by NRC. Almost two years ago, we
asked NRC to assume its statutory responsibilities at one of the
Tonawanda Site properties, i.e. to regulate the release of radon gas
from a controversial active gas extraction/cogenerator system being
installed at the Niagara Landfill on the Seaway property (see
references 56 to 66 and FOI list 1). We made this request after
learning that New York State's failure to implement the necessary
regulations and program on the state level, as specified by UMTRCA,
had resulted in the State's loss of authority over 11.e.(2) byproduct
materials no later than November 8, 1981 (see references 18 to 19, 59,
and 70), which authority and jurisdiction then reverted to NRC. Over
this same time period, we have notified NRC, by copy of correspondence
to NYS and DOE, of problems with the interim actions at Linde (see
comments 19, and 20).
12) We believe that the cleanup guidelines used by NRC in its SDMP
program are applicable guidelines, under Sec. 84.a.(1) of UMTRCA, to
remediation of the Tonawanda Site. The April 1992 SDMP Action Plan
lists the cleanup criteria for SDMP sites; these criteria have been
consistently applied to cleanup of listed SDMP sites. The action plan
list includes the "Branch Technical Position (BTP) on Disposal or
Onsite Storage of Thorium or Uranium Wastes from Past Operations"
(46 FR 52061), the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards'
Policy and Guidance Directive FC 83-23, and EPA's Interim National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR Part 141). Since the
Tonawanda Site properties meet many of of the SDMP's qualifying
criteria, there is no reason that these cleanup guidelines should not
be included in the environmental review. The SDMP guidelines are the
best available guidelines for a site of this type, even if the site
has not been listed in the program. In addition to these guidelines,
Sec. 84.a(2) of UMTRCA requires that NRC management of all 11.e.(2)
byproduct material at Title II uranium byproduct material sites such
as Tonawanda conform to 40 CFR Part 192 sections 192.30 to 192.34, as
well as the regulations prescribed therein. Also, the SWDA/RCRA
requirements specified in Sec. 84.a.(3) of UMTRCA must be met.
13) With respect to 40 CFR 192 Sec. 192.33 "Corrective action programs,"
in my comments on the draft RI/FS-EIS (see comment 31, reference 3), I
said that water from well B29W09D at Linde contained radium-226 in
concentrations exceeding the EPA drinking water standard of 5
picoCuries/liter [pCi/g] (draft RI pp 4-216, 4-217, 7-18) and I called for
further evaluation of groundwater impacts and the identification of
potential remediation techniques. In response, DOE maintained that, since
groundwater in the area is not currently used for drinking water, drinking
water guidelines are not applicable. However, according to NYS DEC,
"(a)ll fresh groundwater in the State is classified as GA, with an
intended best usage as a source of drinking water ... regardless of its
current use." (see pp 24 and 25 of enclosure to reference 4) Section
192.33 requires that a corrective action program "be put into operation as
soon as is practicable, and in no event later than eighteen (18) months
after a finding of exceedance." To our knowledge, no such action has been
taken. Why not?
Segmentation of Review Process
14) a) This revised PP proposes a final remediation plan. In view of
its location between the Ashland properties, we believe the exclusion
of the Seaway property from review and remediation concurrently with
the Ashland properties is a clear violation of the NEPA prohibition
against segmentation of the review process: there are obvious cost
economies of scale to be had in performing remediation of all three
properties together; and groundwater impacts should be addressed in a
sitewide manner (see comments 13 and 15). What is USACE's current
plan for final remediation of this property? If there is none, why
not?
b) A provision of the August 6, 1996 agreement between Congressman
LaFalce (and the CANiT politicians) and DOE, to which other
stakeholders including F.A.C.T.S. were not party (see references 45 to
47, 15 to 17, 20, 21, and 77), is to leave the "access-restricted"
wastes in Areas B and C of the Seaway property. Leaving 11.e.(2)
wastes (25,900 cubic yards, by draft FS-EIS generic guidelines) in a
biogas-generating municipal landfill is unacceptable according to
current waste management practices (e.g. see section IV 6.d.(c) of DOE
Order 5400.5). Is this USACE's intention?
c) Via our FOIA requests, we have discovered what we believe is
evidence of a possible indemnification arrangement between DOE and
Browning-Ferris Industries, operator of the Niagara Landfill at the
Seaway property. We are concerned that such an arrangement, if
consummated, may be behind DOE's agreement with the CANiT politicians
not to excavate Seaway Areas B and C. Information which may confirm
this possibility is one of the matters currently the subject of
F.A.C.T.S.' litigation (see attached FOI list 1b). What is USACE's
knowledge of this matter, if any? This is a matter requiring
investigation and resolution prior to the remediation decision.
15) The issue of groundwater impacts must be addressed on a sitewide
basis rather than a property-specific basis. NEPA requires that
cumulative impacts be addressed together; NEPA prohibits segmentation
of the review process. The analyses used in all draft BRA exposure
scenarios (p B-2), and in the "Radionuclide Cleanup Guideline
Derivation for Ashland 1, Ashland 2, and Seaway, Tonawanda, New York,
September 1997" (p 16 of reference 80) incorrectly ruled out
groundwater as an exposure pathway - see comment 13 above. Also, in
the "Derivation of Uranium Residual Radioactive Material Guideline for
the Ashland 1 and 2 Sites, August 1988", the perched groundwater
system was ruled out (p 5), even though this unit is capable of
useable flow rates. Accordingly, these analyses should be revised.
(See comments 7, 17)
16) We have criticized the decontamination of buildings at the Linde
property as being wasteful, particularly in view of the radium cleanup
criteria issue (see comment 19), compared to the less costly
demolition of the buildings prescribed by the community-supported
draft FS-EIS's Alternative 2 (all four buildings were to be demolished
at a direct cost of approximately $1.5 million [lines 2a, 2b, and 2c
on p G-29]). So far, approximately $8 million has been spent on
building decontamination (see reference 42). We have asked USACE for
an updated total of building decontamination costs. Please supply the
evaluation referred to in response 8 of enclosure to reference 21.
Since "too-high" cost has been frequently cited by DOE as a reason for
not employing more stringent cleanup guidelines, we believe these
excessive interim action costs are prejudicing the final sitewide
remedy selection process, and therefore, represent segmentation of the
review process (see comments 14, and 26).
17) The proposed action is the final remediation of Tonawanda Site
properties identified as being contaminated with MED/AEC wastes.
However, the full extent of MED/AEC contamination has not been
determined and included in the review process. The NEPA/CERCLA
process requires an objective assessment of the cumulative impacts of
a proposed action. The draft RI states (p 7-38) that two vicinity
properties, the Conrail property to the northeast of Linde and the
Niagara Mohawk property adjacent to Seaway, are contaminated and will
require designation into the Tonawanda RI/FS-EIS review process and
that additional properties, R. P. Adams and the Town of Tonawanda
landfill will require further investigation. The extent of major
underground contamination at Linde associated with the injection wells
has not been adequately addressed (see comment 13). The streambed of
Twomile Creek, the G. K. Hambleton property and the Benson Development
Co. property adjacent to Ashland 2 may also be contaminated. There
may be others. The Town of Tonawanda landfill is said to contain over
15,000 cubic yards of contamination (EMAB, see reference 2) resulting
from the deposition of sediments dredged from Twomile Creek. This
property contains material with the highest average radium
concentration (68 pCi/g) and total activity of any of the properties
(EMAB). We have been told that the Town of Tonawanda landfill was
designated into the remediation process in December 1992. But it was
not included in the draft RI/BRA/FS analyses, nor were any of these
other properties with the exception of the Niagara Mohawk property (pp
4-1, 4-2 of the draft FS). Have any of these properties or any other
vicinity properties been designated for cleanup? Please supply
information documenting why or why not in each case.
Volumes of Contaminated Soils/Sediments
18) This revised Proposed Plan's alternatives cover only the Ashland
1 property, including Seaway Area D, and Ashland 2 property. The
revised PP does not give contaminated volume figures for any of the
alternatives (see comment 7a). The contaminated volumes ("of soils")
for Alternative 2 and Alternative 2A were given by USACE in a handout
(see reference 78) at the December 17, 1997 public hearing only. The
contaminated volume given in the handout for the limited version of
the draft FS-EIS's Alternative 2 is 85,000 cubic yards. We question
the validity of this volume. This volume is much less than half that
determined by the draft RI/FS-EIS (a $6 million dollar study) for
these properties: 172,300 cubic yards. This is a discrepancy of
more than 87,000 cubic yards. [See details in brackets below]
We find this to be incredible. It suggests to us that assumption of
the environmental review process by NRC may be necessary (see comment
9). A supplement to the draft FS is required. Does the revised PP
volume include contaminated sediments? According to the draft FS,
these total 10,150 cubic yards. Please provide a detailed explanation
of the method(s), e.g. computer model(s), used to calculate the
volumes for the draft FS and the revised PP, and fully describe all
differences. The method(s) employed must be acceptable to NRC, with
regard to 11.e.(2) material, and NYS/EPA, with regard to non-
radiological MED/AEC contamination (chemical COCs).
[The description of the contaminated soil and sediment volumes in the
draft FS (pp 4-4, 4-7, and 4-8) provides no property-specific
breakdown (it was prepared assuming uniform sitewide cleanup): it
lists 310,000 cubic yards (cy) of accessible soils, 31,300 cy of
"access-restricted" soils and 10,150 cy of sediments; for a total of
352,300 cy. However, EMAB previously reported (reference 2) property-
specific volumes for the draft FS's Alternative 2 (determined using
the same draft FS Table 3-1 generic guidelines used in the draft FS:
5/15 pCi/g for Ra-226 and Th-230, and a Tonawanda site-specific
guideline of 28.4 pCi/g for U-238). The EMAB volumes are 120,200 cy
for Ashland 1, 52,100 cy for Ashland 2, and 117,000 cy for Seaway
(with no breakdown by area, however, Areas A and D together contain
91,000 cy [NYSDEC]). The EMAB sitewide totals are consistent with the
draft FS totals if the 15,200 cy EMAB lists for the Town of Tonawanda
landfill are included in the draft FS total although the draft FS
makes no such statement (see comment 7b). Therefore, not
including Seaway area D, the draft FS Alternative 2 total for
Ashland 1 and 2 is 172,300 cubic yards. Using the same generic
guidelines as the draft FS-EIS, USACE now lists a contaminated soil
volume of 85,000 cubic yards for Ashland 1 (including Seaway Area
D) and Ashland 2.]
Interim Removal Actions
19) a) It is our understanding that interim actions must meet all
applicable guidelines (see reference 71). We raised the issue of criteria
applicable to the building decontamination interim actions at Linde in our
December 20, 1996 comments (reference 68) on the November 1996 interim
action "EE/CA for Building 30 at Praxair." Subsequently, we learned the
surface decontamination criteria for radium were recommended by Oak Ridge
National Laboratories (ORNL) for the decontamination of the Linde
buildings based on findings contained in the May 1978 ORNL survey report
for Linde (see first enclosure to reference 18). These radium criteria
are fifty times more stringent that the uranium criteria selected by DOE,
We asked both DOE and NYS Department of Labor to address this issue. NYS
DOL responded that they had no jurisdiction over the matter (see
references 18 to 21, and FOI list 2). DOE evaded the issue. Neither
DOE nor USACE has issued a response to comments on this EE/CA. The work
continues using the fiftyfold less stringent uranium criteria (see
references 50, 51). Why?
b) The revised PP (p 1) states that there will be no further review of
the buildings at Linde following completion of the interim actions
because "remediation of the Linde buildings has been addressed
separately using Engineering Evaluations/Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
documentation and public reviews." This implies that these interim
actions constitute final remediation. When recently confronted on
this issue, USACE (Bechtel) responded that other information was
available contradicting the findings of ORNL. We asked for that
information; no such information has been provided. If any such
information exists, we ask that it be provided. We have no reason to
believe either the ORNL experts' findings or recommendation to be
incorrect, and so, we must conclude that DOE/USACE are willfully
failing to employ appropriate radium decontamination criteria
necessary for unrestricted release of these buildings. We believe
this will result in workers being exposed to higher doses than would
be the case if NRC were fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities at
the Tonawanda Site.
20) Since the mismanagement of R-10 residues at the Niagara Falls Storage
Site (see pp 1 to 8 of reference 5), we have been concerned that soil
cleanup will not be performed properly at the Tonawanda Site. Regarding
the soil pile at Linde (12,000 cubic yards), we raised this issue in our
comments on the January 1996 "EE/CA for Praxair Interim Actions" and
subsequently we repeated our concerns (see references 66, 15, and 20). It
is unclear to us, just how the removal of the pile to Building 30 and the
segregation of contaminated material from "clean" material was done. Our
understanding is that only contaminated materials went into the pile.
What guidelines and process were used to separate "clean" material from
the 3700 cubic yards of material reported as being shipped to Envirocare?
Are the guidelines used as protective as the NRC's SDMP program
guidelines? What has been done with the material not shipped? Please
explain in detail. In addition, we wonder why NYSDEC, has continued to
act as if it has regulatory authority over these 11.e.(2) wastes, after
being informed by NRC that it lacked jurisdiction over these materials
(see comment 11 and Administrative Record). We wonder why DOE and now
USACE are willing to participate in this chicanery.
Long-term Protectiveness
21) None of the alternatives provides sufficient long-term
protectiveness. From the outset of the review process, long-term
health risks have been identified by the community as a primary issue.
NEPA requires all relevant and cumulative impacts be objectively
addressed. The 11.e.(2) materials are very long-lived radioactive
wastes; they will remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years.
The CERCLA-based 1000 year timeframe employed in the guideline
derivation and risk analysis is far too short time period to fairly
apprise the public of peak doses and long-term adverse health impacts
resulting from ingrowth of radium from the guideline level of thorium
proposed to be left behind at the properties. We think a minimum
10,000 year timeframe is appropriate, as is used for other long-lived
radioactive wastes (see reference 79 and comment 43 of reference 3).
We suspect the main reason DOE, and now USACE, seek to use only the
CERCLA review process is to avoid this NEPA issue. (See comments 6,
25, and 26) We suggest that an objective study be done to estimate
the sitewide, long-term (at least 10,000 years) cumulative morbidity
and mortality costs associated with Alternative 1 using a limited
resident farmer scenario (see comments 15 and 23).
22) The site-specific thorium guideline of 40 pCi/g (see comment 36)
was chosen because it represents the greatest concentration of thorium
that can be left behind that will not result in exceedance of EPA's 15
pCi/g subsurface radium guideline (40 CFR Part 192) for the next 1000
years (due to radium ingrowth from thorium [pp ES-3 to ES-5 of
reference 80]). What is not said is the fact that ongoing radium
ingrowth will result in a radium concentration peak of almost 40 pCi/g
approximately 8000 years beyond the CERCLA timeframe modeled. Please
provide peak doses and the associated risks resulting from radium
ingrowth from the site-specific guideline levels of thorium and
uranium for all proposed alternatives. The future date of occurrence
of the dose peaks also should be presented (see comments 7a, 7b, 7e,
25, and 26).
Future Land Use
23) Cleanup guidelines should be adjusted to protect future site
users. It is unlikely, but certainly not inconceivable, that a
resident farmer use could occur on these properties at some time in
the future. The land is certainly capable of supporting such use as
evidenced by early town history. The Ashland 2 property is re-
vegetating nicely and is increasingly attractive to recreationists and
wildlife, including deer. We think it is very reasonable to expect
that future land uses for these waterfront properties will include
various residential occupancy styles, including single family, with or
without basement, duplexes, condominiums, etc. Some of these
residences are likely to have home vegetable gardens. Simply because
the existing use is a less intensive use and the current Town Master
Plan does not currently contemplate residential uses in certain areas
is no reason to believe such use patterns will not change. Therefore,
a resident scenario that includes limited food and water ingestion
pathways is a reasonable future use and environmental review should
include such a use (see comment 21).
24) The revised PP's thorium guideline is not sufficiently protective
of such expected future residential users. Under the modeled urban
resident use scenario, which assumes no food or water pathways and no
clean cover, the proposed site-specific 40 pCi/G Th-230 cleanup
guideline (Approach 2) is estimated to result in a dose, not including
radon inhalation (see comment 25), of 86 millirems/yr. This dose is
roughly 9 times the NYSDEC TAGM - 4003 dose guideline of 10
millirems/yr, and certainly not an ALARA (as low as reasonably
achievable) dose. With 8 inches of clean soil cover, the dose is
reduced to an estimated 13 millirems/yr, still in excess of the TAGM;
however, ensuring that the cover remains undisturbed requires
institutional controls (deed restrictions). We have little confidence
in the long-term effectiveness of such controls (for even hundreds of
years, when the duration of the radioactive hazard is hundreds of
thousands of years). (Also see comment 25)
Radon Doses
25) a) Radon doses attributable to the 11.e.(2) material should be
calculated and included in the total doses reported to the public.
The 40 pCi/g Th-230 cleanup level allows radon doses from the 11.e.(2)
material that are too great. Inhalation of radon gas from uranium
mill tailings is the major component of the total dose at sites such
as the Tonawanda Site, yet it has been DOE policy, adopted now by
USACE, not to include radon doses attributable to the tailings in
determining compliance with the basic dose guideline. This policy
does not meet the NEPA requirement that all relevant impacts be
objectively reviewed. Instead, an exercise is done to demonstrate
compliance with EPA's 4 pCi/l guideline for radon in indoor air.
According to the industrial worker exposure scenario used for the
Ashland properties, an industrial worker exposed to EPA's guideline
concentration will receive approximately 200 millirems/yr of dose from
radon. At 1000 years, we believe a major portion of this dose will
come from the 11.e.(2) waste material left behind following cleanup
(to the 40 pCi/g Th-230 Approach 1 cleanup level). For the
residential scenario, the radon dose will be approximately 500 to 800
millirems/yr, again with a major portion of the dosen coming from the
11.e.(2) material. For each of these scenarios, at the end of the
1000 year time period modeled, what are USACE's conservative estimates
of the portion of these radon doses originating from the 11.e.(2)
materials? In addition, without radon mitigation measures, the EPA
guideline may be exceeded after 1000 years due to radium ingrowth from
the 40 pCi/g residual thorium level. What are the peak indoor radon
concentrations estimated to be under both Approach 1 and Approach 2
for the urban resident scenario? When will these peak concentrations
occur?
b) We believe NRC's approach to this radon problem as embodied in the
SDMP program's BTP guidelines to be more rational. The BTP presents
two choices for managing uranium wastes such as those at the Tonawanda
Site. Option 1 allows unrestricted use following cleanup by requiring
that residual levels of Ra-226, Th-230, and U-238 (members of the
natural uranium decay chain) be reduced to no more than 5 pCi/g.
Option 2 allows residual levels of these decay chain members up to 20
pCi/g (based on limiting radon exposure to approximately the EPA limit
of 4 pCi/l) but requires four feet of clean cover soil. Option 2 is
only applicable to properties zoned for industrial use. A covenant
identifying the radioactive materials present and specifying that the
land may not be used for residential building must run with the land.
(See comment 24)
Costs
26) We are aware of no efforts on the part of DOE to identify
potentially responsible parties at the Tonawanda Site (see comment
32). Since such an issue has been made of "too-high" cost by
DOE/USACE with respect to thorough, sitewide cleanup, we believe
identification of PRPs prior to any cleanup decision is necessary to
avoid the public perception that cost was the overriding factor in the
decision. To put the cleanup cost issue in perspective, we have often
pointed out the cost of implementing sitewide Alternative 2 is roughly
half the cost of a single space shuttle mission (see reference 16).
27) The revised PP provides no breakdown of cost components for the
implementation of each alternative, as was done in the November 1993
draft RI/FS-EIS. The validity of the cost data presented in the draft
FS-EIS were the subject of intense criticism by the community (e.g.
see comments by George Melrose). The main components cited as being
significantly inflated were unit transportation costs, unit disposal
costs, management overhead, and unreasonably large contingency
allowances. An objective, updated RI/FS-EIS supplement providing
revised cost components should be prepared and subjected to public
review. (See comment 7)
28) We believe the $270/cubic yard disposal cost given for the Nevada
Test Site (p 3-13 of reference 54) is artificially inflated and does
not reflect the actual cost of disposal. This same report gives a
figure of $94/cy disposal cost for a hypothetical DOE disposal
facility (p 4-3 to 4-7). We believe this figure contains components
not applicable to NTS, an operating, federally-owned facility. We
request a realistic evaluation of NTS disposal costs be performed by
an independent agency such as GAO prior to the remedy decision. We
expect actual disposal costs at NTS to be both significantly less than
$94/cy and significantly less than Envirocare's current charge. (Also
see comments 30 and 31).
29) The commercial disposal cost (for Envirocare, Clive, Utah) was
given in the draft RI/FS-EIS as $216/cubic yard. Why should a private
disposal firm which collects large profits, above and beyond actual
disposal costs, be used for disposal when, after the operation closes
down in a relatively short while, responsibility for the site will
revert to the public sector anyway, either the state or federal
government? It makes no sense to the taxpayer. What is Envirocare's
current disposal charge?
Offsite Storage Location
30) For us, the selection of the most physically suitable long-term
storage site for the Tonawanda Site wastes is an essential part of the
review process. We raised this issue often at meetings of CANiT and
reiterated it in a letter to DOE's James Owendoff (see references 15 and
16). Not all disposal facilities licensed to accept 11.e.(2) material
are equivalent in this respect. The best physical location will provide
the longest duration of waste isolation and avoid most (if not all) costs
of active maintenance (see pp 8, 9 of reference 5). We believe the
playas of the Nevada Test Site to be at least equivalent to Envirocare's
Clive, Utah location in these respects. Does USACE agree? If not, please
explain why not. (Also see comment 28)
31) DOE has designated Tonawanda Site wastes as "non-defense" wastes
which are not eligible for storage at NTS under DOE's current regime.
This makes no sense to us or the National Academy of Science's
National Research Council (see p 36 of reference 69), especially in
view of the fact that the Linde uranium refinery operated under
MED/AEC contracts to produce uranium destined for atomic bombs. What
is USACE's opinion on this matter? What can be done about this
situation?
Identification of Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
32) It is a requirement of CERCLA that potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) be identified and pursued for recovery of remediation
costs. As far as we know, this has not been done for any of the
Tonawanda Site properties. Congress pointedly reiterated this mandate
in the Conference Report attached to the FY 1998 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, saying "the Corps of Engineers is
expected to immediately pursue cost recovery from the responsible
parties at FUSRAP sites either through a negotiated settlement or a
court action." What are USACE's results in this regard? We expect
this fundamental requirement will be met before any decision is made.
Information provided under Freedom of Information (FOI) requests
reveals the following:
With regard to Ashland 1, information we received from the General
Services Administration via FOIA request shows that the Ashland Oil
Company did know of the MED/AEC contamination when they purchased the
Haist property at GSA auction through quitclaim deed in 1960 (contrary
to DOE's Authority Review document, reference 72, part of FOI list 1),
and that before purchasing the property Ashland sought assurance that
it would not be held liable for any subsequent decontamination of the
property (see reference 73 and FOI list 3). We also note that
according to various DOE documents (see references 52, 53) the wastes
when deposited in the forties contained approximately 0.54% uranium.
Possession of such materials containing 0.05% or more of uranium, by
weight, required a license from AEC. We are awaiting receipt via FOIA
to DOE Oak Ridge of the 1958 AEC radiological survey report which
reportedly formed the basis for free release of the property (see FOI
list 4). Presumably this report will help establish if there were
licensable concentrations of uranium present at the time of the sale.
If so, does AEC's failure to license the transfer of the MED/AEC
wastes to Ashland Oil as required under the applicable 10 CFR Part 40
regulations establish some portion of federal liability for the cost
of remediation of this property?
With regard to Ashland 2, Ashland Oil Co. transferred wastes from
Ashland 1 to both Seaway and Ashland 2 between 1974 and 1982. New
York State was the responsible regulator, federal licensing authority
over these materials having been delegated by AEC to the state through
the 10-15-62 State Agreement (see reference 70). The NYS Department
of Labor reportedly established control over the Ashland MED/AEC
wastes by letter dated 9-11-78 (see reference 74, part of FOI list 1).
However, transfer of wastes from Ashland 1 to Ashland 2 continued into
1982, according to DOE (draft BRA p 1-10). Does New York's failure to
exercise license control over the Ashland 1 materials, thereby
allowing Ashland to transfer portions thereof to both the Seaway
property and Ashland 2, establish some portion of state liability for
the cost of remediation of these properties? We note that NYS
regulatory authority over these materials apparently reverted to NRC
no later than November 8, 1981 (see comment 11), possibly before the
transfers to Ashland 2 and Seaway ceased.
With regard to Linde, we have requested via FOIA to DOE Oak Ridge the
MED/AEC uranium production contracts with Linde (as they are
identified on page 127 of reference 54) and documentation of the
decontamination and decommissioning activities performed prior to
release of the MED/AEC uranium refinery operations to Linde (see FOI
list 5). As with Ashland 1, presumably this information (contract
conditions governing wastes and radiological surveys done before AEC
vacated the premises) will help establish the extent of federal
liability for remediation at this property, if any. We note that
documents uncovered in the course of a New York State Assembly
investigation in 1981 seem to indicate federal government liability
for radioactive effluent injected into onsite wells and released to
surface waters and storm and sanitary sewers (see reference 55).
Environmental Review Process
33) In issuing the 1988 Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement to evaluate alternative remedial actions for the
long-term management of Tonawanda Site wastes, DOE determined that "an
EIS is the appropriate level of NEPA review necessary to adequately
inform decision-makers and the public of reasonable alternatives for
minimizing any adverse impacts of the proposed action" (p 1-5 of the
draft RI). Public scoping identified long-term health impacts as a
primary issue. DOE then prepared and released for public comment in
1993 an environmental review package called a Draft RI/BRA/FS/PP-EIS.
In its comments, the community adamantly and overwhelmingly rejected
the DOE-preferred Alternative 5, a common theme being this alternative
was not sufficiently protective in the long-term (see comment 21).
Instead, the community supported Alternative 2, identified in the
original Proposed Plan as "Complete Excavation with Offsite Disposal".
DOE then "suspended" this integrated NEPA/CERCLA EIS environmental
review process in April 1994, saying that NEPA review was not being
terminated at the Tonawanda Site, the policy in future would be to
"incorporate NEPA values into CERCLA documentation" (see references 5
to 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 43 to 48). In practice, this has not happened
(see comment 7). DOE has a record of blatantly ignoring NEPA
requirements at the Niagara Falls Storage Site (see pp 1 to 8 of
reference 5); the resulting mess there is now USACE's problem. What
will it take to ensure that the remediation of these sites is
objectively addressed?
34) In announcing the "suspension" of the integrated NEPA/CERCLA EIS
public review process in April 1994 and on many subsequent occasions,
DOE henceforth committed to provide fully informed participation to
all interested members of the public in an open decisionmaking process
to select a sitewide remediation plan. However, DOE ceased public
work plan meetings after the 2-28-95 meeting, and thereafter dealt
almost exclusively with the CANiT politicians (see references 43, 44,
1, 5 to 17, 20, 21, and 22 to 36). A second self-serving DOE TAP
grant was awarded to CANiT (see references 22 to 34). There were no
public meetings from the time of the public meeting on 6-18-96 until
the CANiT meeting on 7-1-97 (see references 37 to 42, 45 to 49 and
77). During this period of time, the current proposal was secretly
negotiated with the CANiT politicians. Neither F.A.C.T.S. nor other
interested members of the community had access to this decisionmaking
process. During this period we filed a complaint against DOE in
federal district court in an attempt to obtain information responsive
to several of our FOIA requests (see reference FOI lists). With the
exception of Praxair, representatives of the property-owner
stakeholders have not participated at the public meetings (see
comments 14 and 32). DOE's failure to adhere to its 1994 commitment
has kept F.A.C.T.S. and the interested public at a substantial
informational disadvantage. Because of this situation, we requested
an indefinite extension of the comment period until this information
gap and lag-time could be corrected (see *reference 76*). It is our
understanding that a minimum 30 day extension of the comment period is
provided for upon timely request. An eight day (from date of proper
notice) extension only was granted.
35) The Administrative Record contains correspondence between DOE and
EPA regarding the hazard ranking system (HRS) score of the Tonawanda
Site which shows that based on that ranking the Tonawanda Site should
have been placed on the NPL. This was not done. Please explain why
the 9-24-87 DOE draft Federal Facilities Agreement was not executed,
why EPA did not assume co-lead agency status, and provide EPA's and
DOE's documentation of the rationale for why the Tonawanda Site was
not placed on the NPL. We note that the 1993 draft RI (p 7-34)
reports evidence of offsite migration of contaminated sediments and
surface water.
36) The revised Proposed Plan should contain text explaining that it
is but one part of the total NEPA/CERCLA environmental review package
on which USACE is seeking comments. This review package should
include the new document "Radionuclide Cleanup Guideline Derivation
for Ashland 1, Ashland 2, and Seaway, Tonawanda, New York, September
1997" in addition to all the draft RI/BRA/FS-EIS documents. The
information contained in the new "Radionuclide Cleanup Guideline
Derivation for Ashland 1, Ashland 2, and Seaway, Tonawanda, New York,
September 1997" is essential to an informed public review process, yet
this document was not distributed to the public along with the revised
Proposed Plan at the December 17, 1997 public hearing. Little, if
any, of this information was presented at the public hearing. This is
a serious abuse of NEPA and CERCLA public review requirements. NEPA
requires that all public comments previously made on the apparently
unmodified draft RI/BRA/FS-EIS documents be thoroughly addressed in
the final EIS, as well as all current comments on the total review
package. NEPA sets specific requirements on the form and content of
agency responses to public comments: the final review document must
contain a response to comments section in which each comment must be
individually identified and paired with a detailed response, unless
there are a large number of essentially identical comments. Also, the
title of the Proposed Plan misidentifies it as "Final". Under
NEPA/CERCLA environmental review procedures, documents made available
for public comment are identified as "draft" or "public draft". The
"final" documents are issued only following the close of the public
comment period. The "final" documents should reflect any and all
revisions made as a result of the public comments.
Background Values
37) Representative area-wide background values for the radionuclides
were determined by ORAU. These values are significantly lower than
the values from Ashland 2 South that are being used in the calculation
of contaminated volumes. We believe the Ashland 2 South values have
been biased by their historic proximity to the disposal piles at
Ashland 1 and should not be used in calculations to determine removal
volumes. The ORAU values given in the draft RI are appropriate.
Source Terms
38) Please provide estimates of the current source terms for each
Tonawanda Site property using all available soil and sediment data.
Please provide estimates of the residual source terms for each
property following cleanup to 1) the NRC SDMP guidelines, and 2) the
40 pCi/g Th-230 guideline, both approaches.
Miscellaneous Specific Comments
39) According to DOE, "(i)n general, it is FUSRAP's policy that
ownership of 11e(2) byproducts [sic] material at FUSRAP sites remains
with the property owner until custody has been transferred to the
Department of Energy (DOE)." (see reference 75 and comment 29) We
have requested via FOIA to DOE Oak Ridge the legal basis for this
policy, both in general terms and in terms specific to the Tonawanda
Site properties. This information request is currently being
litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York (see FOIA list 2). What is USACE's position on this issue? We
note that, following enactment of UMTRCA, NRC granted a general
license to receive title to 11.e.(2) byproduct material. Does this
receipt of title to 11.e.(2) material satisfy the 10 CFR Part 40
section 40.3 licensing requirement to own such material, i.e. is there
a distinction between title and ownership?
40) Regarding the August 1988 "Derivation of Uranium Residual
Radioactive Material Guideline for the Ashland 1 and 2 Sites", please
confirm that the site-specific guideline for uranium (to meet DOE's
100 millirem/yr basic dose guideline) of 60 pCi/g (28.4 pCi/g U-238)
was determined from a resident farmer exposure scenario, and provide a
complete description of the scenario's exposure parameters. The
dose/source concentration ratio for the external exposure pathway is
given as zero in Table 4 (p 9); is this only a typo? Please clarify
exactly what "takes up residence in the immediate vicinity of the
Ashland 1 and 2 sites" means (p 5). Does it mean within the
decontaminated area or outside of it? We also note that Table 3-1 of
the draft FS erroneously implies the U guideline is 60 pCi/g U-238.
41) The average radionuclide concentrations given in the draft RI for
Ashland 1 (p 4-159) and Ashland 2 (p 4-190) are considerably lower
than those given in USACE's the December 17, 1997 public hearing
handout (reference 80). Please explain.
Attachment to F.A.C.T.S.' Comments on "Proposed Plan for the Ashland 1
and Ashland 2 Sites, Tonawanda, New York, November 1997, Final":
List of reference documents to be added to the Tonawanda Site
Administrative Record
1) Proposed Tonawanda Work Plan, 10-18-94
2) EMAB Briefing on New York FUSRAP Sites, August 22-23, 1995,
Tonawanda, NY
3) Comments on RI/FS-EIS for the Tonawanda, NY FUSRAP Site, 2-10-94,
James M. Rauch
4) 9-17-96 letter from NYSDEC Deputy Commissioner David Sterman
to DOE West Valley Project Manager Dan Sullivan w/ pages 24
and 25 of enclosure
5) 8-24-94 letter from Residents Organized for Lewiston-Porter's
Environment (R.O.L.E.) to DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary
6) 10-7-94 letter in response to #5, from DOE's Richard Guimond
7) 10-31-94 letter from James Rauch, Timothy Henderson and Jean
Dickson to DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary
8) 12-7-94 letter in response to #7, from DOE's Guimond
9) 9-10-95 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary
10) 10-6-95 letter in response to #9, from DOE's James W. Wagoner
11) 10-10-95 letter from Erie County Department of Environment and
Planning Commissioner Richard Tobe to DOE Assistant Secretary
Thomas Grumbly
12) 10-25-95 letter in response to #11, from DOE's James Fiore w/
enclosure
13) 10-24-95 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to DOE's Thomas Grumbly
14) 11-13-95 letter in response to #13, from DOE's James Fiore
15) 9-28-96 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to DOE's James Owendoff
16) Cover letter for copy of #15 sent to Congressman LaFalce
17) 11-7-96 letter in response to #15, from DOE's Owendoff
18) 3-3-97 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to NYS Department of Labor
Commissioner John E. Sweeney w/ enclosures
18a) 3-17-97 letter in response to #18, from NYSDOL's John E.
Sweeney
19) 3-23-97 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to NYSDOL's Sweeney
19a) 4-10-97 letter in response to #19, from NYSDOL's Connie J.
Varcasia
20) 3-4-97 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to DOE Site Manager Dave Adler
21) 9-8-97 letter in response to #20, from DOE Site Manager James D.
Kopotic w/ enclosure
22) 8-22-95 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to DOE Site Manager Ronald E.
Kirk w/ attachment
23) 3-18-96 FOIL request letter from James Rauch to FOIL officer,
Erie County Department of Environment and Planning w/ enclosure
24) 4-18-96 letter in response to #23, from David H. Meltzer of
ECDEP w/ enclosure
25) 9-22-95 letter in response to #22, from DOE Site Manager
Ronald E. Kirk
26) 9-27-95 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to DOE's Cynthia Kelly w/
enclosures
27) 12-1-95 letter in response to #26, from DOE's Carolyn Osborne
28) 1-4-96 letter in response to #26, from DOE's James Fiore
29) 1-19-96 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to DOE Site Manager Ron Kirk
w/ enc.
30) 1-31-96 letter in response to #26, from DOE's Lester K. Price
31) 8-28-95 letter from Jim Rauch to Marvin Resnikoff,
Radioactive Waste Management Associates
32) 8-30-95 letter in response to #31, from Resnikoff
33) 8-25-92 memorandum from Michael J. Nolan, Concerned Citizens
of Maywood to County Executive Wm. "Pat" Schuber
34) June 1990 EPA pamphlet "Superfund Technical Assistance
Grants"
35) 10-16-95 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to CANiT Chairman Richard Tobe
36) "FACTS Charges CANiT with Placing Politics Above Environment"
Alt/Buffalo Alternative Press, December 1995
37) 5-2-96 letter from George B. Melrose to Congressman John J.
LaFalce
38) 7-3-96 letter in response to #37, from Congressman LaFalce w/
enclosures
39) 7-19-96 letter from George B. Melrose to Congressman John J.
LaFalce
40) 9-10-96 letter in response to #39, from DOE's Richard J.
Guimond w/ enclosure
41) F.A.C.T.S. Press releases of 8-7-95; 10-5-95; 3-6-96; 3-18-96
42) "Shoddy `Interim' DOE Cleanup Unmasked", article by Jim
Rauch, Alt/Buffalo Alternative Press, March 21 - April 5, 1997
43) 8-1-94 letter from Don Finch to DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary
44) 9-7-94 letter in response to #43, from DOE Site Manager Ron
Kirk
45) 8-15-96 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to U.S. Attorney General Janet
Reno
46) 1-7-97 letter in response to #45, from DOE's William E.
Murphie
47) 1-9-97 letter in response to #45, from EPA's Richard L. Caspe
48) 2-18-97 letter from DOE's James J. Fiore to Roger W. Tippy,
NYS Office of the Attorney General
49) 7-9-97 letter from DOE Site Manager James D. Kopotic to ECDEP's
Richard Tobe
50) Invitation to Bid No. 14501-129-SC-563, Decontamination and
Equipment Relocation of Building 14 - New York Region, Part IV,
"Scope of Work and Technical Specifications", inc. Attachment 1
51) Invitation to Bid No. 14501-129-SC-563, Decontamination and
Equipment Relocation of Building 14 - New York Region, Addendum
No. 02, November 18, 1996, Responses to Bidders' Questions, pp 1
of 9 and 3 of 9
52) "A Background Report for the Formerly Utilized Manhattan
Engineer District/AEC Sites Program", September, 1980,
DOE EV-0097, UC-70
53) "Description of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program", September, 1980, ORO-777
54) "Evaluation of Disposal Options for Wastes Generated During
Remediation of Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program Sites", September 28, 1993; Reference `SAIC 1993 b'
in Draft FS
55) Exhibits 3 through 9 from Volume II, Footnotes and Appendix,
"The Federal Connection: A History of U.S. Military
Involvement in the Toxic Contamination of Love Canal and the
Niagara Frontier Region", January 29, 1981, Interim Report to
NYS Assembly Speaker Stanley Fink, NYS Assembly Task Force on
Toxic Substances
56) 1-19-96 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to John Mitchell, NYSDEC
57) 2-29-96 letter from NYSDEC's Paul J. Merges to Craig Gordon,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
58) 3-26-96 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to Dennis Sollenberger, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, w/ enc.
59) 4-23-96 letter from NRC's Craig Z. Gordon to NYSDEC's Paul J.
Merges
60) 9-4-96 fax from F.A.C.T.S. to NRC's Sollenberger
61) 9-6-96 fax from F.A.C.T.S. to NRC's Sollenberger
62) 9-30-96 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to Jeffrey L. Bartlett, NRC
63) 11-12-96 letter in response to #'s 58, 60, 61, and 62 from NRC's
Richard L. Bangart
64) 12-27-96 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to NRC's Bangart
65) 1-30-97 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to NYSDEC's Steve Doleski
66) 1-4-98 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to NRC's Bangart
67) F.A.C.T.S.' "Comments on `Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
(EE/CA) for Praxair Interim Actions, January 1996', James M.
Rauch, March 12, 1996
68) F.A.C.T.S.' "Comments on `Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
(EE/CA) for Building 30 at Praxair', November 1996, U.S. Dept. of
Energy", James M. Rauch, December 20, 1996
69) "Safety of the High-Level Uranium Ore Residues at the Niagara
Falls Storage Site, Lewiston, New York", National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences, 1995
70) 1-14-97 letter from NYSDEC's Barbara Youngberg to James Rauch w/
enc.
71) 6-1-95 letter from Michael B. Gerrard to DOE Site Manager John
Michael Japp
72) "Authority Review for the Seaway Industrial Park in Tonawanda,
New York", undated, enclosure to document 10 of FOI list 1a
73) Selected documents from U.S. General Services Administration
response to F.A.C.T.S.' FOIA request
74) 6-24-80 letter from NYS Energy Office's John P. Spath to Andrew
Wallo, Aerospace Corporation, document 14 of FOI list 1a
75) Memorandum from DOE's James W. Wagoner II to DOE's L. Price,
Subject: Ownership of ll(e)2 Byproduct Material
76) 1-1-98 letter from F.A.C.T.S. to USACE's Col. Michael J. Conrad
77) "CANiT Politicians Flip-Flop on Cleanup at Tonawanda Nuclear
Site", article by Jim Rauch, Alt/Buffalo Alternative Press,
September 25 - October 9, 1996
78) "Ashland 1 and Ashland 2 Proposed Plan Public Meeting, December
17, 1997, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" handout
79) "Difficulty of Isolating Residual HLW in Tank(s) at West Valley",
September 14, 1997, Raymond C. Vaughan, Coalition on West Valley
Nuclear Wastes
80) "Radionuclide Cleanup Guideline Derivation for Ashland 1, Ashland
2, and Seaway, Tonawanda, New York, September 1997"
FOI list 1:
a) Documents provided in response to item 3 of F.A.C.T.S. 3-17-96
FOIA request to DOE Oak Ridge (OR 96-047) and 10-7-96 appeal
b) Documents provided in response to item 1 of F.A.C.T.S.' 2-4-97
FOIA request to DOE Oak Ridge (OR 97-021), NOTE: This item is the
subject of litigation in Federal District Court, see Vaughn Index
of documents withheld in entirety
c) Letters provided by NYSDEC Region 9:
1) 11-3-94 letter from DOE's Ron Kirk to BFI's Robert Hughes
2) 11-29-93 letter from DOE's Ron Kirk to NYSDEC's Yavuz Erk
3) 7-19-93 letter from NYSDEC's Paul D. Eismann to NLI's
Paul Barley
4) 2-6-95 letter from BFI's Robert D. Hughes to NYSDEC's
Paul Merges
5) 2-23-95 letter from NYSDEC's Paul J. Merges to BFI's
Robert D. Hughes
FOI list 2: Documents provided in response to Mr. Don Finch's 12-6-96
and 1-31-97 FOIL requests to NYS Department of Labor (File
No. 96-0695)
FOI list 3: Documents provided in response to F.A.C.T.S.' 2-1-97 FOIA
request to U.S. General Services Administration
(R2-97-029, property B-NY-543)
FOI list 4: Documents requested in items 4 and 5 of F.A.C.T.S.' 9-3-97
FOIA request to DOE Oak Ridge (OR 97-206)
FOI list 5:
a) Documents requested in item 2 of Mr. Don Finch's 6-7-95 FOIA
request to DOE Headquarters (9506130002)
b) Documents requested in item 2 of F.A.C.T.S.' 11-23-96 FOIA
request to DOE Oak Ridge (OR 96-209), NOTE: This item is the
subject of litigation in Federal District Court
c) Documents requested in F.A.C.T.S.' 3-5-97 FOIA request to DOE
Oak Ridge
|
