SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Development andDevelo p General Response mentabWty. That is, existing informa- Sereening Activities Actions tion on technologies and site characteri- zation data are used to screen out proc- Establish Remedial Action General response actions are selected to ess options that cannot be effectively satisfy the remedial action objectives for implemented at the site. Figure 4-4 of Objectives each medium of concern.These actions, the RI/FS Guidance illustrates the nec- The preliminary remedial action objet- initially defined during scoping, are re- essarydocumentation for this evaluation tives identified during scoping are re- fined during this phase and relate to of process implementability and can be fined as necessary during this phase of basic methods of protection such as included in the FS report. the Rl/FS to develop medium-specific treatment or containment. General re- goals for protecting human health and sponse actions may be combined to To the extent possible, design parame- the environment. Remedial action ob- form alternatives such as treatment of ters for the technologies being consid- jectives specify: highly toxic material with containment ered should be identified to focus sam- of the treatment residuals. pling efforts during the site characteriza- • mn The contaminants) and media of tion phase. Field investigation activities The volume or area to which general will be ongoing during the development concern response actions mlghtbe applied should and screening of alternatives due to the • The exposure route(s)and receptor(s) be identified at this time and based on: interactive nature of the RI and FS,which • The remediation goal(s) for each the exposure routes, the known nature are conducted concurrently. exposure route and extent of contamination, and pre- liminary remediation goals and a pre- Select Representative Process An example of a remedial action objet- llminary list of action-specific ARkRs. Options tive is reducing concentrations of TCE Action-specific ARARs set restrictions in potable ground water to 5 ppb. on particular remedial activities as re- To simplify the development and evalu- lated to the management of hazardous ation of alternatives, one representative The contaminants, media of concern, wastes. process option should be selected, if and exposure routes are the most im- possible, for each technology type re- portant preliminary sources of informa- Identify and Screen Appropriate maining after the technical implementa- tion necessary for the development of al- Technologies bility screening procedure.Effectiveness, ternatives. That is, the identification of implementability, and cost are the crite- appropriate remedial technologies can Throughout the RI/F5 Guidance and ria used to evaluate and select represen- be initiated without identifying the ftnal this fact sheet, the term -technology" tative process options (see page 3 for a remediation goal or the exact cleanup refers to general categories of technolo- description of these criteria).The sources requirement. These requirements will gies, such as chemical treatment or of information used to identify the best ne-ed to be identified prior to the detailed capping. The term "technology process representative process option are the analysis of alternatives. option"refers to specific alternative proc- same as those used to identify technol- esses within each technology family, ogy types.During remedial design,other During the development of alternatives, such as ion exchange or use of a soil- process options may be selected if they preliminary remediation goals are es- clay cap. are found to be more advantageous. tablished based on readily available in- formation such as applicable or relevant appropriate requirements (ARARs). Note: Typical sources of informa- and a nd s, final remediation goals take tion that can be used to identify Note: Given the performance un- into consideration the results s site technology needs and to determine certainty often associated with ion and the baseline risk capabilities of technology process innovative technologies,it may not characterization baseline risk assess- options include: be possible to evaluate innovative assessment. ment defines tl e risks sed b • a site process options on the same basis posed y ORD technology experts as conventional processes.If avail- and establishes t'-.-need(or lack thereof) . SITE program staff able information indicates that for remedial action. • Technology Screening GuideJor innovative technologies will pro- Treatment of CERCIA Sludges vide comparable or superior treat- ment performance, fewer or lesser Note:Identification oflocation-and and Soils (EPA/540J2-88/044, adverse impacts, or lower cost for a chemical-specific ARARs, begun September 1958) similar level of performance, they com- pleted during alternatives deveI- during scoping, should be *Appendix D of the RLIS Guid- should be retained for further evalu- opment.Examples of such require- ante atioa. ments include: • Contractor process engineers •Maximum contaminant levels • Equipment vendors Reevaluate Data Needs (NGLs) •Water quality criteria A list of potentially applicable technolo- The need for additional data may become • State-action levels for drinking gies and technology process options, apparent after representative process water corresponding to the identified general options have been selected. Process response actions, is compiled and then engineers, equipment vendors, and PRP *State air emission standards reduced by evaluating the process op- in-house engineers and chemists can tions with respect to technical imple- help in determining which data are re- 2