SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Unit, states Solid Waste And Directive 9355.3-01 FS3 Env, )ental Protection Emergency Respc November 1989 Agency (OS-220) .".EPA The Feasibil'tyStudy Development And Screening Of Remedial Action Afternatives- This fact sheet is the third in a series of tober 1988, OSWER Directive 9355.3- limited number of the most promising four that summarizes the remedial in- 01), which discusses the development options to establish the basis for a rem- vestigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and screening of alternatives for reme- edy selection decision. process. The previous two fact sheets in dial action. In addition, this fact sheet this series discuss scoping the RI/FS provides information intended to assist A range of viable alternatives should be (OSWER Directive No. 9355.3-O1FS1) the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) in developed that meet the remedial re- ared site characterization and treatabil- managing this portion of the feasibility sponse objectives developed during scop- ity studies(OSWER Directive No.9355.3- study (FS) efficiently and effectively. ing and refined as the study progresses. 01 FS2). This fact sheet provides a sum- This range should reflect the program maty of Chapter 4 of the Guidance for The FS process consists of the develop- expectations to address the principal Conducting Remedia?Inuestigations and ment and screening of remedial action threats posed by the site(i.e.,liquids and Feasibility Studies Under CFRCIA (Oc- alternatives and a detailed analysis of a highly toxic and/or highly mobile waste) through treatment, and consider engi- neering controls (e.g., containment) to Stu address low-level contaminated mated- Scoping Chractertzetion ads and wastes for which treatment is impracticable. Institutional controls should be considered primarily as sup- Esublish,Ramed4 Action Objectives plements to engineering controls. In addition to the program expectations, Develop eenersI RPMs should consider the types of re- Raeponae Actions sponse actions selected for other sites with similar problems or contaminants to identify only those remedial alterna- Identlty Potential Treatment tives that carry high potential of being and Disposal Too nnoiogwe an effective solution for site problems. As appropriate, the range of source control alternathes should include op- Seiect a Representative Proceu tions employing treatment as a principal for each Technology Type element,one or more containment alter- natives, and the no-action alternative. Determine new The major components that comprise Dna Needa the development and screening process • Develop Sampling ret AddKoornal are presented in Figure 1. SVstcgies emanon Dais Reqund'- Traatabiliry Study Program No Repeat Slept In RI Srte Charactertration Note: The no-action alternative is and or Conduct Combine Medium-Specific Treatability Studies Technoloties into Ahemativea used as abaseline to compare other alternatives. Measures, such as actions taken to reduce the poten- Stre-ening of tial for exposure (e.g., site fencing) Site characterization activitiesAhemativet, should not be included as compo- are typically continued throughout nents of no-action alternatives. the Alternative Development and Such minimal actions should be Screening process Det studied as a separate, limited-ac- The need for&Mdonel data may Analysis d tion alternative. Environmental be determined et any time end-ors Atternatiwa number of times throughout the monitoring may be included as part process of a no-action alternative. Figure 1. Alternative Development and Screening Process 1