West Lake CAG NRRB Submission REVISED ADDENDUM January 4 2018
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Louis area to include the <strong>West</strong> <strong>Lake</strong> Landfill with the understanding that transfer to FUSRAP would<br />
most likely result in Full Removal.<br />
5a) Is WLL and/or Bridgeton Landfill A FUSRAP Vicinity Property?<br />
The <strong>West</strong> <strong>Lake</strong> Landfill qualifies as a Vicinity Property to HISS/FUTURA (Latty Avenue site) and<br />
should not have been excluded from the current FUSRAP cleanup 9 . Also, based on the Federal<br />
Facilities Agreement, it appears that any RIM found within the Bridgeton Landfill property line<br />
(and it has been documented by EPA/PRPs to be there) would become the responsibility of<br />
FUSRAP.<br />
6) Timely Removal is Possible<br />
The PRPs can afford to implement the Full Removal Remedy in less time than the artificial timeline<br />
calculation in the FFS. This calculation erroneously holds the PRPs annual spending at the same<br />
level independent of Remedy chosen. Obviously, this should not be tolerated by the EPA.<br />
7) Safe Removal – Is Relocation Necessary?<br />
We have noticed that the FFS does not include any costs for temporary or permanent relocation of<br />
nearby residences or businesses. Are we to assume that the PRPs consider ALL evaluated<br />
Remedies to be safe for our community? If not, shouldn’t these costs be included in the cost<br />
estimates in the FFS? Also, our State and Federal legislators are being heavily lobbied by some of<br />
the PRPs who are stating that Full Removal is not safe for those living or working nearby. Please<br />
clarify this as it seems like it is not fair for them to have it both ways depending on what suits the<br />
conversation at the moment.<br />
8) Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) Concerns<br />
The baseline risk assessment doesn’t take into consideration various scenarios such as fires,<br />
flooding, earthquakes, tornadoes or other ways for radioactivity to leave the landfill and impact<br />
human health. On the other hand, the risks for remedial alternatives are significantly magnified to<br />
account for uncertainty. Even though this may be “standard procedure,” it skews the risk<br />
assessments so that various risk scenarios are considered in the remedial options whereas those risks<br />
are not considered in the BRA.<br />
9<br />
From pdf page 7 of the Federal Facilities Agreement for St. Louis and Hazelwood FUSRAP sites, docket<br />
VII-90-F-0005 moenvironment.org/files/1990_FedFacilitiesAgreement.pdf<br />
Page 12