FMC and the government agencies have come to an agreement on how to proceed with the CMS for the Air Deposition Area and Culvert 105. There were 4 requests from the list of directives by the Agencies for changes to FMC's CMS report which FMC did not accept in their letter to the Agencies dated December 10, 2010.
In a letter dated December 21, 2010, FMC accepted the Agencies' modified directives and therefore avoided any action that would lead to filing for dispute resolution under the current Oder of Consent. FMC has set a target date for May 20, 2011 for completion of the revised CMS report. At that time there will probably be another review and comment by the Agencies before an agreed to report can be ready for public review.
The MCIG does not anticipate a need for the next meeting until the May time frame. An announcement will be made at the appropriate time. Updates will be made monthly using the
"Keeping You Posted" notes available in the Document Repository under Meeting Materials.
Click the
Read Full Article link below for more detail.
The four FMC objections were:
- The inclusion of a structural engineering analysis of the existing rail spurs at the FMC plant which would be used if rail transport of remedial soils was chosen. FMC contended that since it was winter and the area is covered with snow, such an analysis would have caused significant delays. Also FMC contended that this type of analysis would be better suited for the remedial design phase. FMC proposed to include the reasons for not selecting rail transport for remediated soil transfer in the CMA report.
- The inclusion of numeric estimates of green house gas emissions from equipment used to construct the CAMU compared with those estimated gas emissions if truck or rail transport of remediated soils was to be used. FMC contended that this type of analysis would use a wide range of assumptions for types and number of equipment, hours and fuel consumption. Also if a landfill is constructed in Middleport or off site, the construction would be similar. FMC proposed to include a qualitative evaluation of greenhouse gas generation for comparison of CAMU and off site disposal options in the CMS.
- An additional Corrective Action Alternative which would assume the extent of probable soil removal along sections of buried Culvert 105 pipe where there is an absence of subsurface soil contamination data. FMC felt it was inappropriate to include in the CMS, arbitrary remediation of the buried pipe where sampling data did not exist and pointed out there are some sections of buried pipe with data that shows contamination is below 20 PPM of arsenic and therefore does not need remediation. FMC proposed to address these sections of buried culvert pipe without sampling data during the CMA by taking additional samples were necessary.
- For large properties where sampling was performed using a 100 foot by 100 foot grid, the average used to determine the CMA would be based on each 100 foot square and not the whole property. FMC contended that each square had only one sampling point and therefore averaging was not possible. FMC also believed that the property maximum allowable concentration would address any concerns. FMC proposed an averaging over a 500 foot by 500 foot area.
On December 17th, the agencies E-mailed a letter to FMC after a conference call two days earlier with altered directives.
- FMC may exclude the engineering analysis of the rail spurs in the CMS but cannot omit rail transport as an option in the CMS.
- FMC may omit the green house gas emissions analysis however any qualitative evaluation would have to be noted as FMC's opinion.
- The agencies maintained the directive for assuming the extent of remediation along buried sections of Culvert 105 pipe but allowed FMC to state in the CMS that additional sampling in some areas along the pipe may be performed at FMC's discretion during the CMA.
- The agencies did not alter their direction for requiring averaging within 100 foot squares on large properties.
It should be noted that for item 4, FMC chose to move the grid on large properties by 50 feet in both north and west directions therefore moving the grid so that there was only one sampling point per square in the middle of each square instead on one on each corner totaling four per square. FMC then stated since there was only one sample point per square, averaging was impossible. The agencies have directed FMC to use the original gird mapping and include in the averaging the samples from each corner as well as any others within each square.
