Summary of the draft RI/FS-EIS cleanup alternatives

Alternative 1: No Action.

The "no-action" alternative is included to comply with the integration of NEPA requirements with CERCLA procedures, and it provides a baseline for comparison with other alternatives. Under this alternative, no action is taken to clean up the contamination present at any of the site properties. Only periodic monitoring of contaminant levels is performed. Fencing and signs currently in existence would be left in place but would not receive maintenance or repairs. This alternative would not be protective of human health and the environment.

Alternative 2: Complete Excavation with Offsite Disposal.

Complete excavation of MED-contaminated soils (including those underneath buildings and in the Seaway landfill) and offsite disposal would remove the source of contamination from the site. The Linde structures, including Buildings 14, 30, 31, 38 and the underground storage vault, would be demolished, crushed for volume reduction, and also shipped to an NRC-licensed offsite disposal facility at a physically-suitable storage location. Removal of contaminated material from Rattlesnake Creek would be performed during the dry season to minimize the need for dikes and berms; the associated wetlands would be reconstructed. This alternative would have to meet applicable cleanup standards and guidelines regarding acceptable levels of residual contamination and would also provide the greatest protection of human health and the environment for the longest length of time.

Alternative 3: Complete Excavation with Onsite Disposal.

Complete excavation of soils (including those underneath buildings and in the Seaway landfill) and onsite disposal (in a landfill to be constructed at the Ashland 1 property, probably) would leave the contamination at a physically-unsuitable location for long-term storage. Linde structures would be demolished and Rattlesnake Creek would be cleaned up as in Alternative 2 with the contaminated materials placed in the onsite landfill. Institutional controls would be imposed to control access to the onsite disposal landfill and applicable standards and guidelines would be met in the short run. However, ongoing erosion and weathering of the disposal landfill would expose and release the contamination in the not-to-distant future (perhaps as soon as 100 years), making this alternative both less protective of health and environment and lesscost-effective in the long run than Alternative 2.

Alternative 4: Partial Excavation with Offsite Disposal.

Partial excavation of only those MED-contaminated soils that are "accessible" (i.e., not under structures or under garbage in theSeaway landfill). Linde Buildings 14, 31, 38, and the underground storage vault would be demolished, crushed for volume reduction,and shipped to an NRC-licensed disposal facility at a physically-suitable site. Linde Building 30 would be decontaminated to allow for continued use. Soils under Building 30 would be excavated when they become accessible (after demolition of Building 30 by Linde at some time in the future). Removal of contaminated material from Rattlesnake Creek would be as in Alternative 2. This alternative will not meet existing applicable cleanup standards and guidelines for unrestricted future use of areas of these properties following cleanup. Therefore, federal control or ownership of these areas would be required for the purpose of providing long-term restrictions on the future use of these areas.

Alternative 5: Partial Excavation with Onsite Disposal.

Same as Alternative 4 except that the removed contaminated materials would be placed in an onsite disposal landfill. This alternative would provide less protection of human health and environment in the long run than Alternative 4 because the onsite disposal landfill will deteriorate as described in Alternative 3.

Alternative 6: Containment with Institutional Control.

Containment would involve placing clean fill over all accessible soils. Removal of contaminated material from Rattlesnake Creek would be done as described in Alternative 2 (although where this material would be stored is not known). Contamination on the surfaces of buildings and structures would be contained by applying sealants. Applicable standards and guidelines regarding residual contamination and containment would not be met. Therefore, federal control or ownership of all properties, except the area of Rattlesnake Creek subject to removal of contaminated material, would be required for the purpose of providing the necessary long-term restriction on future use of the propertie

RETURN TO

Home

Fundamentals

Library

Communications

News

HOME

FUNDAMENTALS

LIBRARY

COMMUNICATIONS

NEWS