Record of Decision New Federal Courthouse

New Search

Record of Decision Attachment C -Agency Comment and Responses 1A.3-The AutoCraft property was addressed in the draft EIS regarding business displacement under the Broadway site alternative (Alternative 5) and for hazardous materials under the Chiquita (formerly Agripac) site. The GSA was denied access to the site and was unable to conduct onsite investigations. The GSA is not attempting to avoid evaluating the presence of hazardous materials onsite. After distribution of the fmal EIS, access to the AutoCraft property was granted. A phase II analysis was conducted, and the results do not indicate the presence of hazardous materials concentrations above action levels. The statement that the AutoCraft site was removed "so further analysis would not be required for the draft EIS" is false. The AutoCraft site was included in the original site layout presented to the public during the scoping process and was removed prior to publication of the draft EIS in order to reduce the cost of the project and the displacement of the business. After publication of the draft EIS, it became apparent. that the AutoCraft property would be needed in order to provide for the safety and security of the courthouse facility. The GSA has recently been able to evaluate the materials and contamination. Council Memo January B, 2001 f' Page 8 ~ ,. 3'.) BECAUSE OF~THS DNRNOWN INFORMATIONREGARDING AN.ADDED Sa9l PROPBRTY TO THE PREFSRR® ENVIRONMENTAL OPTION TES GSA SHOULD OBTAIN TEEINFORNATION AND DOHA SUPPL8NRs21TAL EA OR EIS The PEis is very clear-that as to hazardous wastes on the AutoCraft property~no information is 'known ., FEIS~, pg.,103. Because of'the lack of diligent information,collection,,that.site is only listed as a "Potential Release Site:" ,T~. However, the site has had multiple uses which may have discharged groundwater pollutants which are hard to remediate. The Draft 8I5 notes. that the AutoCraft site has been removed from the alternative, and thus no further phase I environmental analysis was required on the site.` braft EIS page I28. ` .:. ..The logic of affirmatively removing the parcel so further analysis would not be required for the Draft EIS, and then adding it back to tihe Final EIS is'rrational, at beat. Had the property been kept do the preferred alternative during,the e revised acoping prooeas; then GSA would know the true toxic data oa the. site~to makeit~actually comparable to_the other rejected alternatide sites. When the information is readily available, the agency has a duty to obtain it and place it an a supplemental NEPA dobument. Further; in the hazardous waste category a whole category of "dangerous waste" has been eliminated from the Draft to the Final EIS. Draft BIS at page i2G: As to unknown.information the,CEQ regulations dfstiaguish between information that is exorbitantly priced and information that is not.-AS.to-theunknown informationthatcan'be~obtainedat a reaednable cost; the-regulation states: - When an agency is evaluating reaeonalily foreseeable significant: adverse effects on the humaxt environment is an environmental impact statement sad there.ia incomplete or unavailable information, the agency shall .always make clear that'auch 3nformatioa is lacking. (a) If the incompleteinfozmation relevant to During preparation of the draft and fmal EIS, the GSA collected as much information as possible on the AutoCraft site without infringing upon the owner's right to deny access. The GSA reached the conclusion that the risk of hazardous materials contamination was not sufficient to eliminate the site from consideration for the proposed federal courthouse. The recently completed phase II analysis did not fmd contamination at concentrations above action levels at the AutoCraft site. The term "dangerous waste" is used in the state of Washington but is not a recognized term in the state of Oregon. The term was deleted from the fmal EIS to conform with state of Oregon terminology.