Subcommittee Reports

[zweifel@nexus.chapman.edu]

From: Don Zweifel <zweifel@nexus.chapman.edu>

***** WARNING: THIS IS A VERY LONG FILE!!! ******

To all interested parties:

A little more than three years ago a presidential executive order mandated
the creation and implementation of the Restoration Advisory Board. Their
mission being to review all relevant documentation regarding the
remediation and restoration of DoD and/or DoE toxic waste disposal sites.

This process of review has at times been rather murky and illusive for
quite a number of us. What kind of a yardstick could one use to adequately
determine whether a particular remediation (clean-up) alternative would be
applicable, relevant and appropriate (ARARs)?
The USEPA has a very effective yardstick and it takes the form of actually
nine alternatives evaluation criteria. "These standards address CERCLA (or
Superfund) requirements and additional policy considerations for selecting
an appropriate remedy." 

A particular site does not have to be listed on the NPL (Nat'l Priority
List) to qualify for this site characterization. Albeit it may be so
legalistically speaking. Nonetheless your investigation of a
specific contaminated site could benefit enormously from the utilization
of this rule of thumb. 

When sitting down to hammer out a response to a range of
potentially feasible alternatives within your subcommittee please consider
each of the following standards as one reviews the document/s. 

Try not to rely on executive summaries because they have tendency to
over-generalize and/or gloss over potentially critical data. An executive
summary is oftentimes extremely difficult to effectively and thoroughly
accomplish if the site has numerous complexities. For example, more than
one contaminant in the soil percolating vertically into the shallow
and/or principal aquifer plus a horizontally migrating plume posing an
imminent risk to human health or the environment.

An executive summarization is only as good as a particular contractor's
engineers can depict it. And engineers as a rule are quite frequently
not known for their outstanding communications abilities, although
certainly not in every instance.

 EPA's ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CRITERIA

CRITERIA ONE

Consider the overall protection of human health and the environment.
Does it provide for all aspects of this factor? 

The goal here is to assess which alternative eliminates, reduces or
controls threats to human health and the environment through treatment,
engineering methods or institutional controls.

CRITERIA TWO

Is there compliance with State and Federal regs?

The alternatives are evaluated for compliance with environmental
protection regs determined to be applicable or relevant and appropriate
(ARARs) to the site characterizations. "Seek a legal finding of fact here
from EPA's legal council." D.Z.

CRITERIA THREE

What could be it's long-term effectiveness?

The alternatives are evaluated based upon their ability to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment "after"
implementation.

CRITERIA FOUR

Is there a reduction of contaminant toxicity, mobility and volume?

Each alternative is evaluated based on how it reduces the harmful nature
of the contaminants, their ability to move through the environment and
the quantification or amount of contamination. "Be very careful here, as
this is a often a difficult decision to properly determine." D.Z.

CRITERIA FIVE

Does it have short-term effectiveness?

The length of time needed to implement each alternative is considered as
well as the risks that implementation of a particular alternative may pose
to workers and/or nearby residents. "Many of us want instantaneous
remediation. In most instances this is just not practicable." D.Z.

CRITERIA SIX

What about its implementablility?

The technical feasibility. For example, the difficulty of the alternative
to construct and operate effectively and the adminisrative ease of a
remedy or the amount of coordination with other gov't agencies that is
required. Plus the availability of necessary goods and services are also
considered. "This is absolutely crucial to the success of the particular
alternative chosen." D.Z. 

CRITERIA SEVEN

What's the cost factor?

The benefits of implementing a particular alternative are weighed against
the cost of implementation. "In other words is it cost-effective? What is
its cost-benefit ratio?

Are you looking at the Best Available Technology (BAT)? If that's the case
then cost is often no object. What about the Best Conventional Technolgy
(BCT)? This pertains to tried 'n true pump 'n treat, it's usually a
costly route to follow but it does have a good track record over the long
run. 

Most everyone these days are seriously considering Best Practicable
Technology (BPT). It refers to a technology that has a good 
cost-to-benefit ratio which of course refers to its cost effectiveness.
One has three choices, which technology will be your subcommittee's
selection?" D.Z.

CRITERIA EIGHT

Will there be or could there conceivably be State acceptance?

EPA requests (timely) State comments on Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) reports and the proposed plan and considers whether the
State concurs with or opposes the preferred alternative. "Ask your State
agency to provide their findings so that they may supplement or augment 
the subcommittee's viewpoints. It actually boils down to whether the
subcommittee has any credibility or not. If your subcommittee doesn't do
their homework do not expect to find many sympathetic ears. I had to 
learn this lesson the hard way." D.Z.

CRITERIA NINE

Could there be community acceptance?

EPA assesses community acceptance of the preferred alternative by giving
the public an opportunity to comment on the remedy selection process. A
public comment period is held and EPA considers and responds to comments
received from the community prior to the final selection of a remedial
action.

"What about your community's acceptance of a particular clean-up
alternative? We are mandated by the above mentioned executive order to
desemminate to our communities all pertinent data regarding specific site
remediation program/s before the Record of Decision (ROD)is finally
determined. Our failure to do so could violate our RAB contract or
agreement with a particular service branch to adequately interface with the
public at large. The FERDEC's Keystone Report further delineates our
responsibilities.

A Federal repository or the USEPA will provide a revised and amended copy.
It's highly recommended.

I believe Lenny Siegel helped to write it. Ask him.
 Don Zweifel
 CalEPA DTSC Adv Grp