Scope of Work

Corrective Measure Study

A. Purpose

Based on the results of the RFI, the identified Corrective Measure Technologies (Task I.C.), and the results of any treatability studies, the Respondent shall identify, screen and develop the alternatives for removal, containment, treatment and/or other remediation of the contamination that has been identified at the Facility.

B.  Scope

The Corrective Measure Study (CMS) program consists of three tasks:

1. Task VIII:  Identification and Development of Corrective Action Alternatives

1. Description of Current Condition

2. Establish Corrective Action Objectives

3. Identify, Screen, and Develop Corrective Measure Alternatives

2. Task IX:  Evaluation of the Corrective Measure Alternatives

1. Protective of Human Health and the Environment

2. Attain Media Cleanup Standards

3. Control the Sources of Releases

4. Comply with Any Applicable Standards for Management of Wastes

5. Long Term Reliability and Effectiveness

6. Reduction in the Toxicity, Mobility or Volume of Wastes

7. Short Term Effectiveness

8. Implementability

9. Cost Estimate

10. Public Involvement

3. Task X:  Reports

1. Progress Reports

2. Draft Report

3. Final Report

B.1. Task VIII: Identification and Development of the Corrective Action Alternatives

1. Description of Current Conditions

The Respondent shall submit, as an element of the CMS Report, an update to the information describing the current situation at the Facility and the known nature and extent of the contamination as documented by the RFI Report.  The Respondent shall include an update to information presented in Task I of the RFI to EPA and the State regarding previous response activities and any interim measures which have or are being implemented at the Facility.  The Respondent shall also include a Facility specific statement of the purpose for the response, based on the results of the RFI.  The statement of purpose should identify the actual or potential exposure pathways that should be addressed by corrective measures.

2. Establishment of Corrective Action Objectives

The Respondent shall propose Facility specific objectives for corrective action, subject to EPA review and approval, as an element of the CMS Report.  These objectives shall be based on media cleanup standards, human health and environmental criteria, resource protection, source control, information gathered during the RFI and interim measures, EPA guidance, and the requirements of any applicable State and Federal statutes and regulations.

3. Identification, Screening, and Development of Corrective Measure Alternatives

1. Identification

The Respondent shall review the results of the RFI, assess the technologies specified in Task I.C.,  and identify additional technologies which are applicable at the Facility.  The Respondent shall list and describe potentially applicable technologies for each affected media that may be used to achieve the corrective action objectives.  The Respondent shall include a table that summarizes the available technologies.  Depending on the site-specific conditions, EPA may require the Respondent to include additional technologies.

The Respondent shall include innovative corrective action technologies when appropriate, especially in situations where there are a limited number of applicable existing corrective measure technologies. 

The Respondent shall rely on standard engineering practice to determine which of the previously identified technologies appear most suitable for the Facility.  Technologies can be combined to form the overall corrective action alternatives.  The alternatives developed should represent a workable number of option(s) that each appear to adequately address all site problems and corrective action objectives.  Each alternative may consist of an individual technology or a combination of technologies.

2. Screening

The Respondent shall screen the preliminary corrective measure technologies identified in Task I.C. of the RFI and any supplemental technologies to eliminate those that may prove infeasible to implement, that rely on technologies unlikely to perform satisfactorily or reliably, or that do not achieve the corrective measure objectives within a reasonable time period.  This screening process focuses on eliminating those technologies which have severe limitations for a given set of waste and site-specific conditions.  The screening step may also eliminate technologies based on inherent technology limitations.

The Respondent shall evaluate and document the technology limitations of the corrective measure alternatives identified above which may prove infeasible to implement given the existing set of waste and site specific conditions. 

Site, waste, and technology characteristics which are used to screen the corrective measure technology alternatives are described in more detail below:

1. Site Characteristics

Site data should be reviewed to identify conditions that may limit or promote the use of certain technologies.  Technologies whose use is clearly precluded by site characteristics should be eliminated from further consideration.

2. Waste Characteristics

Identification of waste characteristics that limit the effectiveness or feasibility of technologies is an important part of the screening process.  Technologies clearly limited by these waste characteristics should be eliminated from consideration.  Waste characteristics particularly affect the feasibility of in-situ methods, direct treatment methods, and land disposal (on/off-site).

3. Technology Limitations

During the screening process, the level of technology development, performance record, and inherent construction, operation, and maintenance problems should be identified and supported by performance data for each technology considered.  Technologies that are unreliable, perform poorly, or are not fully demonstrated may be eliminated in the screening process.  For example, certain treatment methods have been developed to a point where they can be implemented in the field without extensive technology transfer or development.

3. Development

Utilizing the technologies which are not eliminated in the screening process outlined in Task VIII.C.2., the Respondent shall identify corrective measure alternatives to achieve the corrective action objectives established in Task VIII.B.

B.2. Task IX: Evaluation of the Corrective Measure Alternatives

The Respondent shall describe and evaluate each corrective measure alternative that passes through the Initial Screening in Task VIII.  For each alternative which warrants a more detailed evaluation, including those situations when only one alternative is being proposed, the Respondent shall provide detailed documentation of how the potential remedy will comply with each of the standards (i.e. Task IX.A. through Task IX.D) listed below.  These standards reflect the major corrective action objectives and components of remedies including cleanup of releases, source control and management of wastes that are generated by remedial activities.  The Respondent shall also provide detailed documentation for each of the additional evaluation criteria (i.e. Task IX.E through Task IX.J) which supports the use of viable remedial alternatives.

1. Protective of Human Health and the Environment

The standard for protection of human health and the environment is a general mandate derived from the RCRA statute.  This standard requires that remedies include those measures that are needed to be protective, but are not directly related to media cleanup, source control, or management of wastes.  An example would be a requirement to provide alternative drinking water supplies in order to prevent exposures to releases from an aquifer used for drinking water purposes.  Another example would be a requirement for the construction of barriers or for other controls to prevent harm arising from direct contract with waste management units.  Therefore, the Respondent shall include in the CMS Report a discussion on what types of short term remedies are appropriate for the particular Facility in order to meet this standard.  This information shall be provided in addition to a discussion of how the other corrective measure alternatives meet this standard.

2. Attain Media Cleanup Standards

Corrective measures shall be required to attain media cleanup standards set by State or Federal regulations (e.g. ground water standards).  The media cleanup standards for a corrective measure will often play a large role in determining the approach of implementing the remedy.

As part of the necessary information for satisfying this requirement, the Respondent shall address whether the potential corrective measure will achieve the corrective action objective identified under Task VIII.B, as approved by EPA, as well as other, alternative remediation objectives that may be proposed by the Respondent.  The Respondent shall also include an estimate of the time frame necessary for each alternative to meet these standards.

3. Control the Sources of Releases

A critical objective of any corrective measure must be to stop further environmental degradation by controlling or eliminating further releases that may pose a threat to human health and/or the environment.  Unless source control measures are taken, efforts to clean up releases may be ineffective or, at best, will essentially involve a perpetual cleanup.  Therefore, an effective source control program is essential to ensure the long-term effectiveness and protectiveness of the corrective action program.

The proposed source control standard is not intended to mandate a specific remedy or class of remedies.  Instead, the Respondent is encouraged to examine a wide range of options.  This standard should not be interpreted to preclude the equal consideration of using other protective remedies to control the source, such as partial waste removal, capping, slurry walls, in-situ treatment/stabilization and consolidation.  Source controls may need to be combined with other measures, such as plume management or exposure controls, to ensure an effective and protective remedy.

4. Comply with Any Applicable Standards for Management of Wastes

The Respondent shall include a discussion of how the specific waste management activities will be conducted in compliance with all applicable State or Federal regulations (e.g., CAMU closure requirements, land disposal restrictions).

5. Long-term Reliability and Effectiveness

In evaluating the long-term reliability and effectiveness of a corrective measure, EPA will place an emphasis on its ability to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment over the long term.  Thus, source control technologies that involve treatment of wastes, or that otherwise do not rely on containment structures or systems to ensure against future releases, will be strongly preferred to those that offer more temporary, or less reliable, controls.

Demonstrated and expected reliability is a way of assessing the risk and effect of failure.  The Respondent shall consider whether the technology, or combination of technologies, has been used effectively together under analogous site conditions, whether failure of any one technology in the alternative will have an immediate impact on receptors, and whether the alternative will have the flexibility to deal with uncontrollable changes at the site (e.g., heavy rain storms, earthquakes, etc.).

Most corrective measure technologies, with the exception of destruction, deteriorate with time.  Often deterioration can be slowed through proper system operation and maintenance, but the technology eventually may require replacement.  Each corrective measure alternative shall be evaluated in terms of the projected useful life of the overall alternative and of its component technologies.  Useful life is defined as the length of time the corrective action objective identified under Task VIII.B can be maintained.

As a general goal, remedies will be preferred that employ techniques, such as treatment technologies, that are capable of eliminating or substantially reducing the inherent potential for the wastes in SWMUs (and/or contaminated media at the Facility) to cause future environmental releases or other risks to human health and the environment.  Estimates of how much the corrective alternatives will reduce the waste toxicity, volume, and/or mobility may be helpful in applying this factor.  This may be done through a comparison of initial site conditions to post-corrective measure conditions.

7. Short-term Effectiveness

Short-term effectiveness may be particularly relevant when remedial activities will be conducted in densely populated areas, or where waste characteristics are such that risks to workers or the environment are high and special protective measures are needed.  Possible factors to consider include fire, explosion, exposure to hazardous substances and potential threats associated with treatment, excavation, transportation, and redisposal or containment of waste material.

8. Implementability

Implementability will often be a determining variable in shaping remedies.  Some technologies will require State or local approvals prior to construction, which may increase the time necessary to implement the remedy.  In some cases, State or local restrictions or concerns may necessitate eliminating or deferring certain technologies or remedial approaches from consideration in remedy selection.  Information to consider may include, but not be limited to:

1. Additional time of administrative activities (e.g., permits, rights of way, off-site approvals, etc.) required prior to implementing the corrective measure alternative;

2. The availability of adequate off-site treatment, storage capacity, disposal services, needed technical services and materials;

3. The availability of prospective technologies for each corrective measure alternative;

4. Constructability is determined by conditions both internal and external to the Facility conditions and include such items as location of underground utilities, depth to water table, heterogeneity of subsurface materials, and location of the Facility (i.e., remote location vs. a congested urban area).  The Respondent shall evaluate what measures can be taken to facilitate construction under these conditions. External factors which affect implementation include the need for special permits or agreements, equipment availability, and the location of suitable off-site treatment or disposal facilities; and

5. Time has two components that shall be addressed: the time it takes to implement a corrective measure and the time it takes to actually see beneficial results.

9. Cost Estimate

The Respondent shall develop an estimate of the cost of each corrective measure alternative (and for each phase or segment of the alternative). The cost estimate shall include both capital and operation and maintenance costs.

1. Capital costs consist of direct (construction) and indirect (nonconstruction and overhead) costs.

1. Direct capital costs include, but are not limited to:

1. Construction costs: Costs of materials, labor (including fringe benefits and worker's compensation), and equipment required to install the corrective measure;

2. Equipment costs:  Costs of treatment, containment, disposal and/or service equipment necessary to implement the action; these materials remain until the corrective action is complete;

3. Land and site-development costs:  Expenses associated with purchase of land and development of existing property; and

4. Buildings and services costs:  Costs of process and nonprocess buildings, utility connections, purchased services, and disposal costs.

2. Indirect capital costs include, but are not limited to:

1. Engineering expenses:  Costs of administration, design, construction supervision, drafting, and testing of corrective measure alternatives;

2. Legal fees and license or permit costs:  Administrative and technical costs necessary to obtain licenses and permits for installation and operation;

3. Startup and initial evaluation and adjustment costs:  Costs incurred during corrective measure startup; and

4. Contingency allowances:  Funds to cover costs resulting from unforeseen circumstances, such as adverse weather conditions, strikes, and inadequate Facility characterization.

2. Operation and maintenance costs are post-construction costs necessary to ensure continued effectiveness of a corrective measure.  The Respondent shall consider the following operation and maintenance cost components:

1. Operating labor costs:  Wages, salaries, training, overhead, and fringe benefits associated with the labor needed for post-construction operations;

2. Maintenance materials and labor costs:  Costs for labor, parts, and other resources required for routine maintenance of facilities and equipment;

3. Auxiliary materials and energy:  Costs of such items as chemicals and electricity for treatment plant operations, water and sewer service, and fuel;

4. Purchased services:  Sampling costs, laboratory fees, and professional fees for which the need can be predicted;

5. Disposal and treatment costs:  Costs of transporting, treating, and disposing of waste materials, such as treatment plant residues, generated during operations;

6. Administrative costs:  Costs associated with administration of corrective measure operation and maintenance not included under other categories;

7. Insurance, taxes, and licensing costs:  Costs of such items as liability and sudden accidental insurance; real estate taxes on purchased land or rights-of-way; licensing fees for certain technologies; and permit renewal and reporting costs;

8. Maintenance reserve and contingency funds:  Annual payments into escrow funds to cover (1) costs of anticipated replacement or rebuilding of equipment and (2) any large unanticipated operation and maintenance costs; and

9. Other costs:  Items that do not fit any of the above categories.

The relative cost of a corrective measure may be an appropriate consideration, especially in those situations where several different technical alternatives to remediation will offer equivalent protection of human health and the environment, but may vary widely in cost. Cost estimates could include costs for:  engineering, site preparation, construction, materials, labor, sampling/analysis, waste management/disposal, permitting, health and safety measures, a training, operation and maintenance, etc.

10. Public Involvement

After a CMS has been performed by the Respondent, and EPA has selected a preferred alternative for proposal in the Statement of Basis, it is the EPA's policy to request public comment on the Administrative Record and the proposed corrective measure(s).  Changes to the proposed corrective measure(s) may be made by EPA after consideration of public comment.  The EPA may also require that the Respondent perform additional corrective measures studies.  In the event that significant interest is expressed during the public comment period, a public meeting may be held to facilitate community participation.  After consideration of the public's comment on the proposed corrective measure(s), EPA will develop the Final Decision and Response to Comments (RTC) to document the selected corrective measure(s), the EPA's justification for such selection, and response to the public's comment.  Additional public involvement activities may be necessary, based on Facility specific circumstances.

B.3 Task X: Reports

The Respondent shall submit a Corrective Measure Study (CMS) Report presenting the results of Tasks VIII through X and recommending a corrective measure alternative.

1. Progress Reports

The Respondent shall at a minimum provide the State and EPA with signed, quarterly CMS progress reports containing:

1. A description and estimate of the percentage of the CMS completed;

2. Summaries of all findings;

3. Summaries of all contacts with representatives of the local community, public interest groups or State government during the reporting period;

4. Summaries of all problems or potential problems encountered during the reporting period;

5. Actions being taken to rectify problems;

6. Changes in the personnel involved with the CMS during reporting period; and

7. Projected work for the next reporting period.

2. Corrective Measures Study Report

The CMS Report shall at a minimum include:

1. A description of the Facility;

2. Site topographic map;

3. Updated description of the current conditions at the Facility;

1. Summary of field studies (ground water, surface water, soil, air); and

2. Summary of treatability studies.

4. A description of the corrective action objectives;

5. A description of the potentially applicable technologies;

1. Identification of technologies;

2. Screening of technologies.

6. Description of potentially applicable technology limitations;

7. Description of corrective measure alternatives identified after initial screening process;

1. Preliminary design criteria;

2. General operation and maintenance requirements; and

3. Long-term monitoring requirements.

8. Description of the following corrective measure standards and evaluation criteria:

1. Protection of human health and the environment;

2. Media cleanup standards;

3. Release source control;

4. Compliance with applicable standards for management of wastes;

5. Long-term reliability and effectiveness;

6. Reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume of wastes;

7. Short-term effectiveness;

8. Implementability;

9. Cost estimates; and

10. Public involvement.

A summary of the activities and information reporting requirements contained in the Corrective Measure Study Scope of Work is presented below: