Common use of Institutional Controls Clause in Contracts

Institutional Controls. This section does not provide adequate attention as to why none of the participating agencies in the FFA feel it is necessary to provide warning signage or physical access restriction such as fencing at the SED-Katy Trail crossing or Burgermeister Spring (DOE 6301). Both sites are located on heavily traveled areas (by hikers and bikers) within the MDOC ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Spring and ▇▇▇▇▇ Memorial Conservation areas and land leased to MDNR for Katy Trail State Park. Neither the “historical signs” that are in place or the recently prepared MDOC brochure adequately warn the public of the real risks due to groundwater and sediment contamination by uranium, TCE, nitroaromatics and nitrosamines. The FFA needs to address this issue. At a minimum, it needs to state why the three partner agencies feel the present ICs in the Final LTS&M plan for ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Spring site are adequate in this regard.” Response: Comment: Response: Comment: Response: Comment: “Section XV, Data/document availability. Sections 54 and 55 on page 20 do not provide a means for the sampling data to be brought to the attention of the general public. The stance of DOE that informing the WSCC is adequate conveyance is not acceptable for several reasons: (a) the members are appointed by the County Executive, who is the Principal Investigator of a grant from DOE that funds WSCC oversight activities, and (b) only St. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ residents can be appointed to be commissioners. The impact of an FFA is regional. Hence WSCC is potentially conflicted in their oversight of DOE, who in turn funds their activities. It is likely that persons who might have opinions that are adverse to DOE will not be appointed to the WSCC.” Response:

Institutional Controls. This section does not provide adequate attention as to why none of the participating agencies in the FFA feel it is necessary to provide warning signage or physical access restriction such as fencing at the SED-Katy Trail crossing or Burgermeister Spring (DOE 6301). Both sites are located on heavily traveled areas (by hikers and bikers) within the MDOC ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Spring and ▇▇▇▇▇ Memorial Conservation areas and land leased to MDNR for Katy Trail State Park. Neither the “historical signs” that are in place or the recently prepared MDOC brochure adequately warn the public of the real risks due to groundwater and sediment contamination by uranium, TCE, nitroaromatics and nitrosamines. The FFA needs to address this issue. At a minimum, it needs to state why the three partner agencies feel the present ICs in the Final LTS&M plan for ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Spring site are adequate in this regard.” Response: Comment: Response: Comment: Response: Comment: “. Section XV, Data/document availability. Sections 54 and 55 on page 20 do not provide a means for the sampling data to be brought to the attention of the general public. The stance of DOE that informing the WSCC is adequate conveyance is not acceptable for several reasons: (a) the members are appointed by the County Executive, who is the Principal Investigator of a grant from DOE that funds WSCC oversight activities, and (b) only St. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ residents can be appointed to be commissioners. The impact of an FFA is regional. Hence WSCC is potentially conflicted in their oversight of DOE, who in turn funds their activities. It is likely that persons who might have opinions that are adverse to DOE will not be appointed to the WSCC.” Response: