WWW.SA.I-PDF.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Abstracts, books, theses
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 26 | 27 || 29 | 30 |   ...   | 36 |

«This page left intentionally blank. United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA-540-R-05-012 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response OSWER ...»

-- [ Page 28 ] --

Consistent with CERCLA and the NCP, each remedial action selected should be cost-effective.

The NCP provides several threshold criteria that should be satisfied (40 CFR §300.430(f)(ii)(D)). Costeffectiveness is generally determined by evaluating three of the five balancing criteria: 1) long-term effectiveness and permanence; 2) reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances through treatment; and 3) short-term effectiveness. A remedy typically is considered cost effective when its cost is proportional to its overall effectiveness. As described in the preamble to the NCP, more than one alternative may be considered cost-effective (55 Federal Register (FR) 8728, March 8, 1990). The relationship between overall effectiveness and cost should be examined across all alternatives to identify which options can best afford effectiveness proportional to their cost. The evaluation of an alternative’s cost effectiveness is usually concerned with the reasonableness of the relationship between the effectiveness afforded by each alternative and its costs when compared to other available options (U.S.

EPA 1999a).

For some complex sediment sites, there may be a high degree of uncertainty about the predicted effectiveness of various remedial alternatives. Where this is the case, it is especially important to identify and factor that uncertainty into site decisions. Project managers are encouraged to consider a range of probable effectiveness scenarios that includes both optimistic and non-ideal site conditions and remedy performance.

The NCP lists six “expectations” that EPA generally considers in developing appropriate remedial alternatives at Superfund sites (40 CFR §300.430(a)(1)(iii)). Highlight 7-1 discusses how the six expectations may be relevant for sites with contaminated sediment. Generally, the expectations are addressed by seeking the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives evaluated.

7.3 CONSIDERING REMEDIES

If the baseline risk assessment determines that contaminated sediment presents an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, remedial alternatives should be developed to reduce those risks to acceptable levels. As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.1, Developing Remedial Alternatives for Sediment, due to the limited number of approaches available for contaminated sediment, generally, project managers should evaluate each of the three major approaches monitored natural recovery (MNR), in-situ capping, and removal through dredging or excavation at every sediment site. Depending on sitespecific conditions, contaminant characteristics, and/or health or environmental risks at issue, certain methods or combinations of methods may prove more promising than others. Each site and the various sediment areas within it presents a unique combination of circumstances that should be considered carefully in selecting a comprehensive site-wide cleanup strategy. At large or complex sediment sites, the remedy decision frequently involves choices between areas of the site and how they are best suited to particular cleanup methods rather than a simple one-size-fits-all choice between approaches for the entire site.

Project managers should keep in mind that deeper contaminated sediment that is not currently bioavailable or bioaccessible, and that analyses have shown to be stable to a reasonable degree, do not necessarily contribute to site risks. In evaluating whether to leave buried contaminated sediment in place, project managers should include an analysis of several factors, including the depth to which significant 7-3 Chapter 7: Remedy Selection Considerations Highlight 7-1: NCP Remedy Expectations and Their Potential Application to Contaminated Sediment

EPA expects to use treatment to address the principal threats posed by a site, wherever practicable:

• In general, wastes, including contaminated sediment, may be considered a principal threat where toxicity and mobility combine to pose a potential human health risk of 10-3 or greater for carcinogens (U.S. EPA 1991d). For these areas, project managers should evaluate an alternative that includes treatment.

However, the practicability of treatment, and whether a treatment alternative should be selected, should be evaluated against the NCP’s nine remedy selection criteria. Based on available technology, treatment is not considered practicable at most sediment sites • Containment options for sediment generally focus on in-situ capping. A project manager should evaluate in-situ capping for every sediment site that includes low-level threat waste. Where a containment alternative is clearly not appropriate for a detailed evaluation, project managers should evaluate ex-situ containment (i.e., disposal without treatment). It should be recognized that in-situ containment can also be effective for principal threat wastes, where that approach represents the best balance of the NCP nine remedy selection criteria • Large or complex contaminated sediment sites or operable units frequently require development of alternatives that combine various approaches for different parts of the site. For a broader discussion on this topic, refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1, Alternatives that Combine Approaches • Institutional controls such as fish consumption advisories, fishing bans, ship draft/anchoring/wake controls, or structural maintenance requirements (e.g., dam or breakwater maintenance) are frequently a part of sediment alternatives, especially where contaminated sediment is left in place, or where remedial goals in fish tissue cannot be met for some time. See Chapter 3, Section 3.6, Institutional Controls, for additional discussion EPA expects to consider using innovative technology when such technology offers the potential for comparable or superior treatment performance or implementability, fewer or lesser adverse impacts than other available





approaches, or lower costs for similar levels of performance than demonstrated technologies:

• Innovative technologies are technologies whose limited number of applications may result in less cost and performance data, frequently due to limited field application. Additional cost and performance data may be needed for many sediment remedies, and field demonstrations of new techniques and approaches may be especially needed, including both innovative in-situ and ex-situ technologies. Although most innovations for sediment remedies are currently in the research phase, as they become available, project managers should consider using them EPA expects to return reusable ground waters to their beneficial uses wherever practicable, within a time frame that is reasonable given the circumstances for the site. When restoration of ground water to beneficial uses is not practicable, EPA expects to prevent further migration of the plume, prevent exposure to the contaminated ground

water, and evaluate further risk reduction:

• Ground water may be a continuing source of sediment and surface water contamination. Where this is the case, ground water migration prevention may be very important to a successful sediment cleanup and to protect benthic biota. Ground water restoration may also be needed to return the ground water to a beneficial use 7-4 Chapter 7: Remedy Selection Considerations populations of organisms burrow, the potential for erosion due to natural or anthropogenic (man-made) forces, the potential for contaminant movement via ground water, and the effectiveness of any institutional controls (ICs) to limit sediment disturbance. In some cases, the most appropriate approach may be long-term monitoring, with contingency actions, if necessary.

To assist project managers in evaluating cleanup options, two summary highlights are presented below. Highlight 7-2 provides general site, sediment, and contaminant characteristics or conditions especially conducive to each of the three common sediment approaches. This highlight is intended as a general tool for project managers as they look more closely at particular approaches when most of these characteristics are present. Project managers should note that these characteristics are not requirements.

It is important to remain flexible when evaluating sediment alternatives and when considering approaches that at first may not appear the most appropriate for a given environment. When an approach is selected for a site that has one or more site characteristics or conditions appearing problematic, additional engineering or ICs may be available to enhance the remedy. Some of these situations are discussed in the remedy-specific chapters (Chapters 4, 5, and 6).

–  –  –

Highlight 7-3 may assist project managers in evaluating cleanup options. For convenience, these comparisons are organized around the NCP’s nine remedy selection criteria. This highlight is intended only to identify some of the general differences between these three remedy types, not as an example of an actual comparative alternatives analysis for a site. An actual site alternatives analysis would typically include more complex alternatives and many site-specific details, as described in the ROD Guidance (U.S. EPA 1999a) and EPA’s Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA (U.S. EPA 1988a, commonly referred to as the “RI/FS Guidance”). The example criterion components column used in Highlight 7-3 below are adapted from the RI/FS Guidance and are 7-6 Chapter 7: Remedy Selection Considerations intended only as examples of some of the components that may be considered when evaluating each remedy selection criterion.

–  –  –

7.4 COMPARING NET RISK REDUCTION

Each approach to managing contaminated sediment has its own uncertainties and potential relative risks. The concept of comparative net risk reduction was discussed by the NRC as a method to ensure that all positive and negative aspects of each sediment management approach were appropriately considered at contaminated sediment sites. The Committee on Remediation of PCB-Contaminated

Sediments states that (NRC 2001):

All remediation technologies have advantages and disadvantages when applied at a particular site, and it is critical to the risk management that these be identified individually and as completely as possible for each site. For example, managing risks from contaminated sediment in the aqueous environment might result in the creation of additional risks in both aquatic and terrestrial environments... Removal of contaminated materials can adversely impact existing ecosystems and can remobilize contaminants, resulting in additional risks to humans and the environment. Thus, management decisions at a contaminated sediment site should be based on the relative risks of each alternative management action... For a site, it is important to consider “overall” or “net” risk in addition to specific risks.

Project managers are encouraged to use the concept of comparing net risk reduction between alternatives as part of their decision-making process for contaminated sediment sites, within the overall framework of the NCP remedy selection criteria. Consideration should be given not only to risk reduction associated with reduced human and ecological exposure to contaminants, but also to risks 7-13 Chapter 7: Remedy Selection Considerations introduced by implementing the alternatives. The magnitude of implementation risks associated with each alternative generally is extremely site-specific, as is the time frame over which these risks may apply to the site. Evaluation of both implementation risk and residual risk are existing important parts of the NCP remedy selection process. By evaluating these two concepts in tandem, additional information may be gained to help in the remedy selection process. Highlight 7-4 provides examples of elements that could be evaluated by project managers in this comparative evaluation.

Highlight 7-4: Sample Elements for Comparative Evaluation of Net Risk Reduction Elements Potentially Reducing Risk • Reduced exposure to bioavailable/bioaccessible contaminants • Removal of bioavailable/bioaccessible contaminants • Removal or containment of buried contaminants that are likely to become bioaccessible

–  –  –

For MNR:

• Continued exposure to contaminants already at sediment surface and in food chain • Potential for undesirable changes in the site’s natural processes (e.g., lower sedimentation rate) • Potential for contaminant exposure due to erosion or human disturbance

For In-Situ Capping:

• Contaminant releases during capping • Continued exposure to contaminants currently in the food chain • Other community impacts (e.g., accidents, noise, residential or commercial disruption) • Worker risk during transport of cap materials and cap placement • Releases from contaminants remaining outside of capped area • Potential contaminant movement through cap • Disruption of benthic community

For Dredging or Excavation:

• Contaminant releases during sediment removal, transport, or disposal • Continued exposure to contaminants currently in the food chain • Other community impacts (e.g., accidents, noise, residential or commercial disruption) • Worker risk during sediment removal and handling • Residual contamination following sediment removal • Releases from contaminants remaining outside dredged/excavated area • Disruption of benthic community

7.5 CONSIDERING INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS (ICs)

Institutional controls (ICs) such as fish consumption advisories, fishing bans, or ship draft/anchoring/wake controls are common parts of sediment remedies (see Chapter 3, Section 3.6, Institutional Controls). Structural maintenance agreements are another legal mechanism that may be important for protecting some remedies. 40 CFR §300.430(a)(1)(iii)(D) contains the following general EPA expectations with respect to ICs. These expectations generally apply to all Superfund sites,

including sediment sites:

7-14 Chapter 7: Remedy Selection Considerations

–  –  –

• The use of institutional controls shall not be substituted for active response measures (e.g., treatment and/or containment of source material, restoration of ground waters to their beneficial uses) as the sole remedy unless such active measures are determined not to be practicable, based on the balancing of tradeoffs among alternatives that is conducted during the selection of remedy.

EPA policies concerning ICs are explained in Institutional Controls: A Site Manager’s Guide to Identifying, Evaluating, and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups (U.S. EPA 2000f). In addition to considering the NCP expectations concerning ICs, the project manager should determine what entities possess the legal authority, capability and willingness to implement, and where applicable, monitor, enforce, and report on the status of the IC. An evaluation should also be made of the durability and effectiveness of any proposed IC. The objectives of any ICs contained in the selected alternative should be clearly stated in the ROD or other decision document together with any relevant performance standards. While the specific IC mechanism need not be identified, the types of ICs envisioned should be discussed in sufficient detail to support a conclusion that effective implementation of the ICs can be reasonably expected. For some federal facilities in the CERCLA program, the IC implementation details (i.e., the specific IC mechanism) should be placed in the ROD. The program manager should refer to EPA’s Guidance on the Resolution of the Post-ROD Dispute (U.S. EPA 2003d) for guidelines describing and documenting ICs in Federal Facility RODs, Remedial Designs, Remedial Action Workplans, and Federal Facility Agreements/Interagency Agreements.



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 26 | 27 || 29 | 30 |   ...   | 36 |


Similar works:

«MINNESOTA Boating Guide Boat Safe • Boat Smart Take a boating safety course.For watercraft registration and titling questions: 651-296-2316 mndnr.gov/licenses For boating information: 651-259-5400 888-646-6367 boatandwater.dnr@state.mn.us mndnr.gov/boatingsafety Upon request, this document can be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities by email or by calling the phone numbers above. The Minnesota DNR prohibits discrimination in its programs and services based on...»

«Illustrated Books Books From the 17th Century to the Present: Catalogue # 199D Second Life Books Inc ABAAILAB P.O. Box 242, 55 Quarry Road Lanesborough, MA 01237 413-447-8010 fax: 413-499-1540 Email: orders@secondlifebooks.com Illustrated Books CATALOGUE # 199D Terms: All books are fully guaranteed and returnable within 7 days of receipt. Massachusetts residents please add 5% sales tax. Postage is additional. Libraries will be billed to their requirements. Deferred billing available upon...»

«TETANUS-A PREVENTABLE DISEASE* IN THE INCLUDING AN EXPERlENCE WITH CIVILIAN CASUALTlES BATTLE FOR MANILA (1945) FRANK GLENN, M.D. NEW YORK, N. Y. BECAUSE of its dramatic manifestations, tetanus, one of the horrors of war, has been well recorded for centuries. In the Civil War' (I86I-65), among 246,I72 wounded there was an incidence of 2.07 per thousand. The disease has had a high mortality rate that has not been notably reduced. The progress in combatting tetanus since the causative organism...»

«Acknowledgments I am truly and deeply indebted to so many people that there is no way to acknowledge them all, or even any of them properly. I sincerely hope that everyone who knows that they have influenced me feels satisfaction that they have helped such a poor soul along and does not feel remorse that either I did not get it right or then ungratefully omitted them from explicit mention. I offer my sincerest apologies to anyone in the latter category. The nature of this work is firmly in the...»

«Liberty Township 5 June 2014 A regularly scheduled meeting of the Township of Liberty was held in the Municipal Building, 349 Mountain Lake Road, Great Meadows on 5 June 2014. The meeting was opened by Mayor John Inscho with Adequate Notice of Meeting and the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:08 p.m. Present: Mayor John Inscho; Deputy Mayor Dan Grover; Carl Cummins; and, Ronald Petersen Absent: Pete Karcher Also, Present: Roger Skoog, Municipal Attorney; and, Diane M Pflugfelder, Municipal...»

«Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-20). 2008. Volume 1. Edited by Marjorie K.M. Chan and Hana Kang. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University. Pages 285-295.Complicating the Oversimplification: Chinese Numeral Classifiers and True Measures1 Chak-Lam Colum Yip University of Washington This paper provides evidence that true measures and sortal/mensural classifiers come with different morphosyntactic features, which result in variations in surface...»

«Belief Modelling, Intentionality and Perlocution in Metaphor Comprehension Tony Veale, M. T. Keane Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.1. Introduction The view that metaphor plays a fundamental structural role in organizing our conceptual systems, rather than serving a deviant rhetorical effect, is now generally accepted. Indeed, this idea drives many recent computational models (Weiner, 1984; Martin, 1990; Way, 1991;Veale & Keane, 1992a, 1992b). However, these...»

«IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA Jean Bookout; Charles Schwarz, ) individually and as Personal ) Representative of the Estate of ) Barbara Schwarz, deceased; ) Richard Forrester Brandt, as ) Personal Representative of the ) Estate of Barbara Schwarz, ) deceased, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CJ-2008-7969 ) Toyota Motor Corporation; Toyota ) Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.; ) Toyota Motor Engineering and ) Manufacturing North America, ) Inc.; Aisan Industry Co., Ltd., )...»

«Der Guerilla Garten als informeller Lernort und sozialer Freiraum Am Beispiel des Längenfeldgartens in Wien von Barbara Graf überarbeitete Version (September 2012) BACHELORARBEIT zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Bachelor of Education (BEd) an der Hochschule für Agrarund Umweltpädagogik Betreuer Mag. Alfred Germ eingereicht am Wien, 8. Juli 2011 Kurzzusammenfassung Viele Guerilla Gärtner/innen sehen in ihrer Aktivität auch einen pädagogischen Wert. Einerseits sollen Einstellungen...»

«Media Contacts Alex Capriotti, 213-232-6236, acapriotti@thebroad.org Judy Miller Silverman, 323-662-3865, judy@motormouthmedia.com THE BROAD ANNOUNCES SUMMER PROGRAMMING: LATE-NIGHT MUSIC AND PERFORMANCE HAPPENINGS, PLUS A CINDY SHERMAN–RELATED FILM SERIES Nonobject(ive): Summer Happenings line-up to include performances by Rostam Batmanglij, Perfume Genius, Sophie, the Haxan Cloak, Richard Hell, Julianna Barwick, Charles Atlas, Kaitlyn Aurelia Smith, Vessel, Narcissister, Cindytalk, Jlin,...»

«PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON Pagel Security Housing Unit March 2014 Inmate Orient~tion Package INDEX GENERAL RULES AND PROCEDURES DISABILITY PLACEMENT PROGRAM REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS VERTFYD\JG DISABILITIES ORIENTATION STATUS CLASSIFICATION ACCESS TO COUNSELORS GENERAL ORDERS AND INSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES SERVICES AT CELL FRONT ESCORT PROCEDURES APPEAL PROCEDURES MAIL REGllLATIONS VISITING CANTEEN PROCEDURE HOUSEKEEPING PROCEDURE STATE JS SUED SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS CLO'fHTNG EXCf-IANGE.........»

«C O M M O N W E A L T H OF MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS OF T H E SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT BAR COUNSEL, Petitioner, BBO File Nos. Cl-10-0064 vs. & Cl-08-0128 JANE JONES, ESQ Respondent. AMENDED BOARD MEMORANDUM A hearing committee has recommended that the respondent* be publicly reprimanded for her handling of an immigration matter. Both parties have appealed. Bar counsel asks us to reject certain critical findings of fact made by the committee, including fmdings based on credibility...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2017 www.sa.i-pdf.info - Abstracts, books, theses

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.