|
quired to assess potential process 1 long-term management require- after completion of the remedial action.
<br /> tations and which data are required to ments and address principal threats Administrattve feasibility includes the
<br /> establish design criteria. a Containment options,used either in ability to obtain approvals from other
<br /> conjunction with treatment or alone, agencies; the availability of treatment,
<br /> Treatability studies are typically needed that reduce exposure to waste storage, and disposal services; and the
<br /> whenever treatment has been identified availability of equipment and technical
<br /> as a viable alternative. These studies • A no-action alternative(which should expertise.
<br /> provide data on technologies and their be maintained throughout the analy-
<br /> effectiveness on a specific waste found at sis) The objective of the cost evaluation is to
<br /> a site. Treatability studies may not be eliminate from further consideration
<br /> necessary in those instances where in- Note: Generally no more than five those alternatives whose costs are grossly
<br /> formation already exists about a treat- source control alternatives should excessive for the effectiveness they pro-
<br /> ment process and its performance on the be carried through to detailed vide. Cost estimates for alternatives
<br /> same type of waste found at the site. analysis. Fewer alternatives may should be sufficiently accurate to con-
<br /> be appropriatc in the case of an tinue to support resulting decisions when
<br /> Assemble Technologies Into early action, where options are their accuracy improves beyond the
<br /> Alternatives limited or obvious, or when pro- screening level.Capital,O&M,and pres-
<br /> gram guidance or ARARs establish ent worth costs should be determined.
<br /> To assemble alternattves, general re- appropriate alternatives. Documentation of the screening proc-
<br /> sponse actions should be combined, I I ess,if conducted,is required.Figure 4-5
<br /> using different process options appli of the RI/FS Guidance provides an ex-
<br /> cable to different volumes of media or For ground-water response actions, al- ample of adequate documentation.
<br /> areas of the site, to meet all remedial ternatives should not only address re-
<br /> action objectives. For example,an alter- mediation or clean-up levels but also the
<br /> native might call for incinerating the estimated time frame within which these Note: Potential action-specific
<br /> most highly contaminated soil from a clean-up levels might be achieved. Al- ARARs, identified earlier in the
<br /> portion of the site, while capping other though the goal of ground-water response process,are evaluated further with
<br /> less contaminated areas.When cg otherbin- actions is to return the ground water to respect to the remaining remedial
<br /> lesalternatives, it is necessary to con- its beneficial uses (i.e., health-based action alternatives. This process
<br /> ing der interactions between media, such levels should be achieved for potentially continues until the comparative
<br /> si
<br /> sithe interaction between ground water drinkable water),it should be recognized analysis of the detailed analysis.
<br /> as and soils through dissolution, p d water that it may not always be practicable to By this time, all action-specific
<br /> tion, and adsorption processes. Consid- attain this goal.Contingencies may need ARARs must be identified.
<br /> to be planned for and discussed in the
<br /> eration should also be given to how
<br /> gRecord of Decision (see Considerations
<br /> general response actions can be inte-
<br /> Super-
<br /> grated in the most efficient ways. For m Ground Water Remediation at Super•
<br /> example, residual streams that could g
<br /> ld be f� Sites, October 1989, OSWERmatio Di- Develo ment and
<br /> addressed by two different response rective o. 9355.4-03). Information on
<br /> the ran e of alernatives for roundwa- ScreeningDeliverables
<br /> actions may be best handled together,
<br /> such as sludge from a metals precipita- ter remedial response actions may be
<br /> tion process and ash from onsite ipiincta- found in the Guidance on Remedial Ac- Although generally no formal report is
<br /> tion pr.A description of each alternative tions for Contaminated Groundwater at required during this phase of the FS,it is
<br /> erationshould A included in the FS report, Superfund Sites (December 1988, important that the lead and the support
<br /> W
<br /> including the logic behind the assembly OSER Directive No. 9283.1-2). agencies agree in writing on the set of al-
<br /> of the specific remedial action alterna- ternatives selected for detailed analysis.
<br /> fives. During screening, each alternative Based on agreement between the lead
<br /> should be evaluated with regard to: and support agencies, the following in-
<br /> Screen Alternatives, If Required formation should be documented in the
<br /> • Short- and long-term effectiveness FS report, which is submitted following
<br /> The alternative development process and reductions achieved in toxicity, the detailed analysis of alternatives:
<br /> should focus only on the most viable mobility, or volume Chemical-and/or risk-based reme-
<br /> options for site remediation. In the event • Implementability including techni- dial objectives
<br /> that a large number ofviable alternatives cal and administrative feasibility • Technologies evaluated and reasons
<br /> remains at the conclusion of the assem- • Gross disproportionate cost
<br /> bly of alternatives,an additional screen for exclusion or inclusion
<br /> ing process should be used to limit the The"short-term"is considered to be the • Process option representation ra-
<br /> number of alternatives that must un- remedial construction and impiementa- tionale
<br /> dergo the detailed analysis. tion period,while"long-term"begins once • Rationale for screening out alterna-
<br /> Source control alternatives retained the remedial action is complete and re- fives, if applicable
<br /> through the screening process should medial action objectives have been met. 0 Clear, concise description of each
<br /> include those options that have a signifi- Technical feasibility includes the ability alternative, including its respective
<br /> cant potential for being implemented at to construct, reliably operate, and meet chemical-, location-, and action-
<br /> the site. The range of options that may regulations,as well as the ability to meet specific ARARs
<br /> be retained could include: the operations and maintenance, re- The Detailed Analysts Fact Sheet con-
<br /> Treatment options that minimize placement,and monitoring requirements tains a further description of the con-
<br /> 3
<br />
|