Skip to main navigation

Selection of Remedial Actions At Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites (TAGM - 4030)

Issuing Authority: Michael J. O'Toole, Jr.
Title: Director, Division of Environmental Remediation
Date Issued: May 15, 1990

Attached is the revised Division Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum on Selection of Remedial Actions at Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites in its final form. The revisions are minor in nature and do not change the contents of the TAGM, originally issued on September 13, 1989. The revision of the September 13, 1989 TAGM includes the following:

1. "Hierarchy Remedial Technologies"
   Section 2.1 is revised to clarify the desirability of off-site land disposal of hazardous wastes.
2. Since New York State does not have ARARs in its statute and to avoid misinterpretation of New York State requirements, changes are made to replace "ARARs" with New York State Standards, Criteria and Guidelines (SCGs).
3. In accordance with the referenced TAGM, an alternative which does not meet the State Standards, Criteria and Guidelines (SCGs) and if a waiver to a SCG is not appropriate or justifiable such an alternative should not be further considered. It is possible that several alternatives may be dropped during the detailed analysis. Section 5.2.3 is rearranged so that alternatives are evaluated for criteria in the following order:

   (i) Compliance with New York SCGs;

   (ii) Protection of human health and the environment;

   (iii) Short-term effectiveness;

   (iv) Long-term effectiveness and permanence;

   (v) Reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume;

   (vi) Implementability; and

   (vii) Cost.

This TAGM has been effective since September 13, 1989 and should be used for evaluation and selection of remedial alternatives for all new RI/FS and some on-going projects.

(Note: For this on-line version, all references to the outdated scoring system have been deleted, including Tables 4.1 and 5.1 to 5.7)

Attachment

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation, Albany, New York 12233-7010

Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum for the Selection of Remedial Actions at Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites

1. Introduction: The use of treatment technologies at Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites has been underutilized primarily as a result of cost of such technologies. Recent federal Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and RCRA amendments which restrict land burial provide incentives to use treatment technologies in remedial programs. SARA added a more stringent statutory criteria governing the appropriate extent of clean-up. SARA requires that preference be given to remedies that permanently reduce the toxicity, volume, or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, and to remedies using alternative treatment technologies (SARA Section 121). In addition, the 1984 amendments to RCRA restricted land disposal of several types of wastes. The land disposal restrictions have several effects which include:

   • Prohibition of continued land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes beyond specified dates unless the waste meets treatment standards based upon the Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT);
   • United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) requirement to develop specified levels or methods of treatment which achieve substantial reduction of toxicity and mobility;
   • Prohibition of storage of restricted hazardous wastes except for accumulation to facilitate recovery, treatment or disposal; and
   • Statutory "hammer provisions" that prohibit land disposal of hazardous wastes if USEPA does not promulgate standards by statutory dates.

   This TAGM provides guidelines to select an appropriate remedy at Federal Superfund, State Superfund, and Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) sites. This document also sets forth a hierarchy of remedial technology treatments which will be consistent with SARA and RCRA land disposal restrictions. It presents detailed guidelines for evaluation and selection of remedial alternatives for some on-going and all new Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) projects. The Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation (DHWR) would consider exempting an inactive hazardous waste site from this document if deemed appropriate. For example, if a remedial action for a site is readily apparent, it would not be beneficial to select remedies using the procedures set forth in this TAGM.

2. Implementation of Remedial Actions: SARA clearly gives preference to treatment technologies "that, in whole or in part, will result in a permanent and significant decrease in the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants," to the maximum extent practicable. The Department concurs with this position. In order to eliminate the significant threat to public health and the environment, the Department believes it is important to implement permanent remedies wherever practicable. It should be emphasized, however, that there will be many instances where permanent remedies will not be practicable. For example, it is likely that conventional isolation and control technologies with pumping and treatment of leachate/groundwater may be selected as appropriate remedial action for municipal landfill sites which are now classified as inactive hazardous waste sites. When remedies such as conventional isolation and/or control technologies are selected, the Record of Decision (ROD) shall discuss why a remedial action resulting in a permanent and significant reduction in the toxicity, volume, or mobility of hazardous wastes was not selected. If a remedial action that leaves any hazardous wastes at the site is selected, such remedial action shall be reviewed no less than once each five years after completion of the remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the implemented remedial action; this review will take place in addition to the regularly scheduled monitoring and operation and maintenance, even if the monitoring data indicates that the implemented remedy does not contravene any "cleanup criteria or standards." The objective of the review will be to evaluate if the implemented remedy protects human health and the environment and to identify any "permanent" remedy available for the site. In addition, if upon such review, it is the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner, Office of Environmental Remediation, that action is appropriate at such site, the Department shall take or require such action. Before taking or requiring any action, all interested parties including the responsible parties and the public shall be provided an opportunity to comment on the Department's decision.

   2.1 Hierarchy of Remedial Technologies: The following provides the hierarchy of remedial technologies for hazardous waste disposal sites, from most desirable to least desirable. The Department shall consider only on-site or off-site destruction or separation/treatment or solidification/chemical fixation of inorganic wastes as permanent remedies. However, solidification/chemical fixation of wastes containing "low" level organic constituents may be considered as a permanent remedy if justified.

   1. Destruction: This type of remedy will irreversibly destroy or detoxify all or most of the hazardous wastes to "acceptable clean-up levels". The treated materials will have no residue containing unacceptable levels of hazardous wastes. This type of remedy will result in permanent reduction in the toxicity of all or most of the hazardous wastes to "acceptable clean-up level(s)";
   2. Separation/Treatment: Using on-site mobile or transportable unit, this type of remedial action will separate or concentrate the hazardous wastes from the wastes; this remedy would leave a treated waste stream with acceptable levels of hazardous wastes and a concentrated waste stream with high levels of contaminants - e.g. treatment of contaminated leachate by granular activated carbon. This type of remedy will result in permanent and significant reduction in volume of waste mixed with hazardous wastes. In these instances where the concentrated waste stream can be destroyed or detoxified as in (a) above, preference shall be given to this additional treatment;
   3. Solidification/Chemical Fixation: This type of remedy will, for a site containing predominantly inorganic hazardous wastes significantly reduce the mobility of inorganic hazardous wastes. This type of remedy may not significantly reduce the toxicity or volume of the inorganic hazardous wastes, but will significantly and permanently reduce the mobility and the availability of the inorganic hazardous wastes toward environmental transport and uptake.
   4. Control and Isolation Technologies: This type of remedial action will significantly reduce the mobility of the hazardous wastes, but will not significantly reduce the volume or toxicity of the hazardous wastes. It also includes construction of physical barriers to control migration of leachate, contaminated groundwater and surface runoff, solidification/fixation of organic hazardous wastes, and pumping and treatment of contaminated leachate/groundwater.
   5. Off-Site Land Disposal: This type of remedy will remove contaminated soil, sediment, leachate, groundwater, etc. and land dispose the wastes at an off-site permitted facility.

   In evaluating treatment technologies, the Department should give or require that preference be given to technologies which have:

   1. been successfully demonstrated on a full scale or a pilot scale under Federal Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program; or
   2. been successfully demonstrated on a full scale or pilot scale at a Federal Superfund site, at a Federal facility, at a State Superfund site anywhere in the country, at a PRP site overseen by a State environmental agency or USEPA; or
   3. a RCRA Part B permit; or
   4. a RCRA Research and Development permit; or
   5. a documented history of successful treatment such as granulated activated carbon unit.

3. Development of Remedial Alternatives: Alternatives are typically developed, concurrently with the Remedial Investigation (RI). In developing alternatives, two important activities take place. First, volumes or areas of environmental media (air, water, soil/sediment) are identified where contamination is present; the media to be treated are determined by information on the nature and extent of contamination, applicable or relevant and appropriate New York State Standards, Criteria and Guidelines (SCGs), cleanup criteria/standards, etc. SCGs also include federal standards which are more stringent than State Standards, Criteria, and Guidelines. Second, the remedial action alternatives and associated technologies including alternative treatment technologies are screened to identify those that would be effective for the hazardous wastes and media of interest at the site. The information obtained during these two activities is used in assembling technologies and the media to which they will be applied into alternatives for the site or specific operable unit. This process should consist of five general steps as briefly presented below:

   1. Develop remedial action objectives specifying the contaminants and media of interest, and exposure pathways. The objectives developed are based on contaminant-specific cleanup criteria.
   2. Develop general response actions for each medium of interest that may be taken to satisfy the remedial action objectives for the site or specific operable unit.
   3. Identify volumes or areas of media to which general response actions might be applied, taking into account the requirements for protectiveness as identified in the remedial action objectives and the chemical and geological characterization of the site or a specific operable unit.
   4. Identify and screen the technologies applicable to each medium of interest to eliminate those technologies that cannot be implemented technically at the site for that medium.
   5. Assemble the selected representative technologies into appropriate alternatives.

4. Preliminary Screening of Remedial Alternatives: The screening of alternatives follows the conceptual development of alternatives and precedes the detailed analysis of alternatives. Prior to screening, technologies should be identified and combined into alternatives, although specific details of the alternatives may not be defined. Initial set of alternatives developed shall include appropriate remedial technologies that are representative of each of the four categories of remedial technologies as described in Section 2.1. During the screening, the extent of remedial action (e.g., quantities of media to be affected), the sizes and capacities of treatment units, and other details of each alternative should be further defined, as necessary, so that screening evaluations can be conducted. The objective of remedial alternatives screening is to narrow the list of potential alternatives that will be evaluated in detail. In some situations, the number of viable alternatives to address site problems may be limited such that screening may be unnecessary or minimized. Screening is used as a tool throughout the alternative selection process to narrow the options being considered. When alternatives are being developed, individual remedial technologies should be screened primarily on their ability to meet medium-specific remedial action objectives, their implementability and their short-term and long-term effectiveness. At this time, cost should not be used to guide the initial development and screen remedial technologies or alternatives. Because the purpose of the screening evaluation is to reduce the number of alternatives that will undergo a more thorough and extensive analysis, alternatives should be evaluated more generally in this phase than during the detailed analysis.

   4.1 Effectiveness Evaluation: A key aspect of the screening evaluation is the effectiveness of each alternative in protecting human health and the environment. Each alternative should be evaluated as to the extent to which it will eliminate significant threats to public health and the environment through reductions in toxicity, mobility and volume of the hazardous wastes at the site. Both short-term and long-term effectiveness should be evaluated; short-term referring to the construction and implementation period, and long-term referring to the period after the remedial action is in place and effective. The expected lifetime or duration of effectiveness should be identified for each alternative. The control and isolation technologies may fail if any of the following is expected to take place:

   1. significant loss of the surface cover such as a clay cap with a potential for exposure of waste material underneath the cap;
   2. contamination of the groundwater by the leachate from the waste material;
   3. contamination of the adjoining surface water by the leachate from the waste material or by the contaminated groundwater;
   4. structural failure of the control or isolation technology.

   4.2 Implementability Evaluation: Implementability is a measure of both the technical and administrative feasibility of constructing, operating, and maintaining a remedial action alternative. Technical feasibility refers to the ability to construct, reliably operate and meet technical specifications or criteria, and the availability of specific equipment and technical specialist to operate necessary process units. It also includes operation, maintenance, replacement, and monitoring of technical components of an alternative, if required, into the future after the remedial action is complete. Administrative feasibility refers to compliance with applicable rules, regulations and statutes and the ability to obtain approvals from other offices and agencies, the availability of treatment, storage, and disposal services and capacity. Determinations of an alternative not being technically feasible and not being available for implementation will preclude it from further consideration unless steps can be taken to change the conditions responsible for the determination. Often, this type of fatal flaw would have been identified during technology development, and an alternative which is not feasible would not have been assembled. Remedial alternatives which will be difficult to implement administratively should not be eliminated from further consideration for this reason alone.

5. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives:

   5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 Purpose of the Detailed Analysis of Alternatives: The detailed analysis of alternatives is the analyses and presentation of the relevant information needed to allow decision-makers to select a site remedy. During the detailed analysis, each alternative is assessed against the seven evaluation criteria described in this chapter. The specific requirements that must be addressed in the Feasibility Study (FS) report are listed below:

   • Be protective of human health and the environment
   • Attain SCGs (explain why compliance with SCGs was not needed to protect public health and the environment)
   • Satisfy the preference for treatment that significantly and permanently reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous wastes as a principal element (or provide an explanation in the ROD as to why it does not)
   • Be cost-effective

   Seven evaluation criteria have been developed to address the requirements and considerations listed above. These evaluation criteria serve as the basis for conducting the detailed analyses during the FS and for subsequently selecting an appropriate remedial action. The evaluation criteria are:

   • Short-term impacts and effectiveness
   • Long-term effectiveness and performance
   • Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
   • Implementability
   • Compliance with SCGs
   • Overall protection of human health and the environment
   • Cost

   5.1.2 The Context of Detailed Analysis: The detailed analysis of alternatives follows the development and preliminary screening of alternatives and precedes the actual selection of a remedy. The extent to which alternatives are analyzed during the detailed analysis is influenced by the available data, the number and types of alternatives being analyzed, and the degree to which alternatives were previously analyzed during their development and screening. The evaluations conducted during the detailed analysis phase build on previous evaluations conducted during the development and preliminary screening of alternatives. This phase also incorporates any treatability study data and additional site characterization information that may have been collected during the RI. The results of the detailed analysis serve to document the evaluations of alternatives and provide the basis for selecting a remedy.

   5.2 Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives

   5.2.1 Alternative Definition: The alternatives that remain after preliminary screening may need to be refined more completely prior to the detailed analysis. Alternatives have already been developed and initially screened to match contaminated media with appropriate treatment processes. This matching is done by identifying specific remedial response objectives and sizing process units to attain the objective. The information developed to define alternatives at this stage in the RI/FS process may consist of preliminary design calculations, process flow diagrams, sizing of key process components, preliminary site layouts, and a discussion of the limitations, assumptions, and uncertainties concerning each alternative.

   5.2.2 Overview of Evaluation Criteria: The detailed analysis provides the rationale for a remedy selection. The FS analysis must provide sufficient quantity and quality of information to support the select listed encompass technical, cost, and institutional considerations, and compliance with specific statutory requirements. The level of detail required to analyze each alternative against these evaluation criteria will depend on the type and complexity of the site, the type of technologies and alternatives being considered, and other project-specific considerations. The analysis should be conducted in sufficient detail such that decision-makers understand the significant aspects of each alternative and any uncertainties associated with their evaluation. Each of the seven evaluation criteria has been further divided into specific factors to allow a thorough analysis of the alternatives. These factors are discussed in the following sections.

   5.2.3 Analysis of Individual Alternatives 5.2.3.1 Compliance with Applicable New York State Standards, Criteria and Guidelines (SCGs) This evaluation criterion is used to determine how each alternative complies with applicable or relevant and appropriate New York State Standards, Criteria, and Guidelines (SCGs). As stated in Section 3, the SCGs should also include federal standards which are more stringent than the State Standards, Criteria, and Guidelines. There are three general categories of SCGs: chemical-, location-, and action-specific. SCGs for each category are identified in previous stages of the RI/FS process (e.g. chemical-specific SCGs should be preliminarily identified during scoping of the project). The detailed analysis should summarize which requirements are applicable or relevant and appropriate to an alternative and describe how the alternative meets these requirements. When a SCG is not met, justification for use of one of the six waivers allowed under CERCLA and SARA should be discussed. The following should be addressed for each alternative during the detailed analysis of SCGs:

   1. Compliance with chemical-specific SCGs (e.g. groundwater standards) - This factor addresses whether the SCGs will be met and, if not, the basis for a waiver.
   2. Compliance with action-specific SCGs (e.g. RCRA minimum technology standards) - It should be determined whether SCGs will be met and, if not, the basis for a waiver.
   3. Compliance with location-specific SCGs - As with other SCG-related factors, this involves a consideration of whether the SCGs will be met and, if not, the basis for a waiver.

   The actual determination of which requirements are applicable or relevant and appropriate is made by the DEC in consultation with the DOH. A summary of these SCGs and whether they will be attained by a specific alternative should be presented. It is to be pointed out that if an alternative does not meet the SCGs and a waiver to the SCGs is not appropriate or justifiable, such an alternative should not be further considered.

   5.2.3.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment This evaluation criterion provides a final check to assess whether each alternative meets the requirement that it is protective of human health and the environment. The overall assessment of protection is based on a composite of factors assessed under other evaluation criteria, especially long-term effectiveness and performance, short-term effectiveness, and compliance with SCGs. Evaluation of the overall protectiveness of an alternative during the RI/FS should focus on how a specific alternative achieves protection over time and how site risks are reduced. The analysis should indicate how each source of contamination is to be eliminated, reduced, or controlled for each alternative.

   5.2.3.3 Short-term Impacts and Effectiveness : This evaluation criterion assesses the effects of the alternative during the construction and implementation phase until remedial response objectives are met. Under this criterion, alternatives should be evaluated with respect to their effects on human health and the environment during implementation of the remedial action. The following factors of this analysis criterion should be addressed for each alternative:

   1. Protection of the community during remedial actions - This aspect of short-term effectiveness addresses any risk that results from implementation of the proposed remedial action, such as dust from excavation or air-quality impacts from the operation of an incinerator.
   2. Environmental impacts - This factor addresses the potential adverse environmental impacts that may result from the implementation of an alternative and evaluates how effective available mitigation measures would be in preventing or reducing the impacts.
   3. Time until remedial response objectives are achieved - This factor includes an estimate of the time required to achieve protection for either the entire site or individual elements associated with specific site areas or threats.
   4. Protection of workers during remedial actions - This factor assesses threats that may be posed to workers and the effectiveness and reliability of protective measures that could be taken.

   Analysis of the factor "protection of workers during remedial actions," should be used to design appropriate safety measures for 5.2.3.4 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence This evaluation criterion addresses the results of a remedial action in terms of its permanence and quantity/nature of waste or residual remaining at the site after response objectives have been met. The primary focus of this evaluation is the extent and effectiveness of the controls that may be required to manage the waste or residual remaining at the site and operating system necessary for the remedy to remain effective. The following components of the criterion should be addressed for each alternative:

   • Permanence of the remedial alternative.
   • Magnitude of remaining risk - The potential remaining risk may be expressed quantitatively, such as by cancer risk levels, or margins of safety over NOELs for non-carcinogenic effects, or by the volume or concentration of contaminants in waste, media or treatment residuals remaining at the site. The characteristics of the residuals that should be considered to the degree that they remain hazardous, taking into account their toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bio-accumulate.
   • Adequacy of controls - This factor assesses the adequacy and suitability of control, if any, that are used to manage treatment residuals or untreated wastes that remain at the site. It may include an assessment of containment systems and institutional controls to determine if they are sufficient to ensure that any exposure to human and environmental receptors is within protective levels.
   • Reliability of controls - This factor assesses the long-term reliability of management controls for providing continued protection from residuals. It includes the assessment of the potential need to replace components of the alternative, such as a cap, a slurry wall, or a treatment system; the potential exposure pathway; and the risks posed should the remedial action need replacement. This factor should also include systems to warn the failure of remedial alternative, once in place.

   5.2.3.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume This evaluation criterion assesses the remedial alternative's use for treatment technologies that permanently and significantly reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous wastes as their principal element. As a matter of the Department's policy, it is preferred to use treatment to eliminate any significant threats at a site through destruction of toxic contaminants, reduction of the total mass of toxic contaminants, irreversible reduction in contaminants mobility, or reduction of total volume of contaminated media. This evaluation would focus on the following specific factors for a particular remedial alternative:

   • The amount of hazardous materials that will be destroyed or treated, including how the principal threat(s) will be addressed
   • The degree of expected reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume measured as a percentage of reduction (or order of magnitude)
   • The degree to which the treatment will be irreversible
   • The type and quantity of treatment residuals that will remain following treatment

   5.2.3.6 Implementability The implementability criterion addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing an alternative and the availability of various services and materials required during its implementation. This criterion involves analysis of the following factors:

   • Technical feasibility Construction and operation - This relates to the technical difficulties and unknowns associated with a technology. This was initially identified for specific technologies during the development and preliminary screening of alternatives and is addressed again in the detailed analysis of the alternative as a whole. Reliability of technology - This focuses on the ability of a technology to meet specified process efficiencies or performance goals. The likelihood that technical problems will lead to schedule delays should be considered as well. Ease of undertaking additional remedial action - This includes a discussion of what, if any, future remedial actions may need to be undertaken and how difficult it would be to implement such additional actions. This is particularly applicable for an FS addressing an interim action at a site where additional operable units may be analyzed at a later time. Monitoring considerations - This addresses the ability to monitor the effectiveness of the remedy and includes an evaluation of the risks of exposure should monitoring be insufficient to detect a system failure.
   • Administrative Feasibility Activities needed to coordinate with other offices and agencies (e.g. obtaining permits for off-site activities or rights-of-way for construction)
   • Availability of Services and Materials Availability of adequate off-site treatment, storage capacity, and disposal services Availability of necessary equipment, specialists and skilled operators and provisions to ensure any necessary additional resources Availability of services and materials, plus the potential for obtaining competitive bids, which may be particularly important for alternative remedial technologies.

   5.2.3.7 Cost The application of cost estimates to evaluation of alternatives is discussed in the following paragraphs.

   1. Capital Costs. Capital costs consist of direct (construction) and indirect (non-construction and overhead) costs. Direct costs include expenditures for the equipment, labor and materials necessary to install remedial actions. Indirect costs include expenditures for engineering and other services that are not part of actual installation activities but are required to complete the installation of remedial alternatives. Capital costs that must be incurred in the future as part of the remedial action alternative should be identified and noted for the year in which they will occur. Direct capital costs may include the following:

      • Construction costs - Costs of materials, labor (including fringe benefits and worker's compensation), and equipment required to install a remedial action
      • Equipment costs - Costs of remedial action and service equipment necessary to enact the remedy; (these materials remain until the site remedy is complete)
      • Land and site-development costs - expenses associated with the purchase of land and the site preparation costs of existing property
      • Buildings and services costs - Costs of process and non-process buildings, utility connections, purchased services, and disposal costs
      • Relocation expenses - Costs of temporary or permanent accommodations for affected nearby residents
      • Disposal costs - Costs of transporting and disposing of waste material such as drums, contaminated soils and residues.

      Indirect capital costs may include:

      • Engineering expenses - Costs of administration, design, construction supervision, drafting, and treatability testing
      • Legal fees and license or permit costs - Administrative and technical costs necessary to obtain licenses and permits for installation and operation
      • Start up and shakedown costs - Costs incurred during remedial action start up
      • Contingency allowances - Funds to cover costs resulting from unforeseen circumstances, such as adverse weather conditions, strikes, and inadequate site characterization.

   2. Operation & Maintenance Costs. Annual costs are post-construction costs necessary to ensure the continued effectiveness of a remedial action. The following annual cost components should be considered:

      • Operating labor costs - Wages, salaries, training, overhead, and fringe benefits associated with the labor needed for post-construction operations
      • Maintenance materials and labor costs - Costs for labor, parts and other resources required for routine maintenance of facilities and equipment
      • Auxiliary materials and energy - Costs of such items as chemicals and electricity for treatment plant operations, water and sewer services, and fuel
      • Disposal of residues - Costs to treat or dispose of residuals such as sludges from treatment processes or spent activated carbon
      • Purchased services - Sampling costs, laboratory fees, and professional fees for which the need can be predicted
      • Administrative costs - Costs associated with the administration of remedial action O&M not included under other categories
      • 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
      • Replacement costs - Cost for maintaining equipment or structures that wear out over time
      • Costs of periodic site reviews - Costs for periodic site reviews (to be conducted every five years) if a remedial action leaves any hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at the site.

   3. Future Capital Costs: The costs of potential future remedial actions should be addressed and if appropriate should be included when there is a reasonable expectation that a major component of the remedial alternative will fail and require replacement to prevent significant exposure to contaminants. It is not expected that a detailed statistical analysis will be required to identify probable future costs. Rather, qualitative engineering judgment should be used and the rationale should be well documented in the FS report.

   4. Cost of Future Land Use: Any remedial action that leaves hazardous wastes at a site may affect future land use and perhaps groundwater use. Access or use of such sites will be restricted, resulting in loss of business activities, residential development and taxes to the local, State and federal governments. During the feasibility study, potential future land use of the site should be considered. Based on this potential land use, economic loss attributable to such use should be calculated and included as a cost of the remedial alternative. In addition, the continuing presence of an inactive hazardous waste site, even though remediated, may have a negative effect on surrounding property values. This loss in value should also be considered as a cost of the remedial program developed for the site. Economic loss due to the future land use should be derived based on comparison with a neighboring community not affected by any of hazardous waste sites. Cost of future land use should be determined for sites only when such cost is deemed appropriate and significant. When cost of land surrounding an inactive hazardous waste site located in the urban/suburban area is determined to be significant in relation to the cost of a remedial alternative, then cost of future land use as described above should be determined for inclusion in the present worth analysis of the remedial alternative. Accuracy of Cost Estimates. Site characterization and treatability investigation information should permit the user to refine cost estimates for remedial action alternatives. It is important to consider the accuracy of costs developed for alternatives in the FS. Typically, the "study estimate" costs made during the FS are expected to provide an accuracy of 50 percent to -30 percent and are prepared using data available from the RI. Costs developed with expected accuracies other than +50 percent to -30 percent should be identified as such in the FS. Present Worth Analysis. A present worth analysis is used to evaluate expenditures that occur over different time periods by discounting all future costs to a common base year, usually the current year. This allows the cost of remedial action alternatives to be compared on the basis of a single figure representing the amount of money that, if invested in the base year and disbursed as needed, would be sufficient to cover all costs associated with the remedial action over its planned life. In conducting the present worth analysis, assumptions must be made regarding the discount rate and the period of performance. It is recommended that a discount rate equivalent to the 30-year U.S. treasury bond rate taxes and after inflation be used in determining the present worth of an alternative. The period of performance should not exceed 30 years. Cost Sensitivity Analysis. After the present worth of each remedial action alternative is calculated, individual costs may be evaluated through a sensitivity analysis if there is sufficient uncertainty concerning specific assumptions. A sensitivity analysis assesses the effect that variations in specific assumptions associated with the design, implementation, operation, discount rate, and effective life of an alternative have on the present worth for the alternative. These assumptions depend on the accuracy of the data developed during the site characterization and treatability investigation and on predictions of the future behavior of the technology. Therefore these assumptions are subject to varying degrees of uncertainty from site to site. The potential effect on the cost of an alternative because of these uncertainties can be observed by varying the assumptions and noting the effects on estimated costs. Sensitivity analyses can also be used to optimize the design of a remedial action alternative, particularly when design parameters are interdependent (e.g., incinerator capacity for contaminated soil and the length of the period of performance). Use of sensitivity analyses should be considered for the factors that can significantly change overall costs of an alternative with only small changes in their values, especially if the factors have a high degree of uncertainty associated with them. Other factors chosen for analysis may include those factors for which the expected (or estimated) value is highly uncertain. The results of such an analysis can be used to identify worst-case scenarios and to revise estimates of contingency or reserve funds. The following factors are potential candidates for consideration in conducting a sensitivity analysis:

      • The effective life of a remedial action
      • The O&M costs
      • The duration of cleanup
      • The volume of contaminated material, given the uncertainty about site conditions
      • Other design parameters (e.g. the size of the treatment system)
      • The discount rate (a range of 3 to 10 percent may be used to investigate uncertainties)

      The results of a sensitivity analysis should be discussed during the comparison of alternatives. Areas of uncertainty that may have a significant effect on the cost of an alternative should be highlighted, and a rationale should be presented for selection of the most probable value of the parameter.

5.2.4 Presentation of Individual Analysis The analysis of individual alternatives against the seven criteria should be presented in the FS report as a narrative discussion accompanied by a summary table. This information will be used to compare the alternatives and support a subsequent analysis of the alternatives made by the decision-maker in the remedy selection process. The narrative discussion should, for each alternative, provide (1) a description of the alternative and (2) a discussion of the individual criteria assessment. The alternative description should provide data on technology components (use of innovative technologies should be identified), quantities of hazardous materials handled, time required for implementation, process sizing, implementation requirements, and assumptions. These descriptions will also serve as the basis for selecting the New York SCGs. Therefore, the key SCGs for each alternative should be identified and integrated into these discussions. The narrative discussion of the analysis should, for each alternative, present the assessment of the alternative against each of the seven criteria. This discussion should focus on how, and to what extent, the various factors within each of the seven criteria are addressed. The uncertainties associated with specific alternatives should be included when changes in assumptions or unknown conditions could affect the analysis. The FS should also include a summary table highlighting the assessment of each alternative with respect to each of the seven criteria.

5.2.5 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives Once the alternatives have been individually assessed against the seven criteria, a comparative analysis should be conducted to evaluate the relative performance of each alternative in relation to each specific evaluation criterion. This analysis is in contrast to the preceding analysis in which each alternative was analyzed independently without the consideration of interrelationships between alternatives. The purpose of this comparative analysis is to identify the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative relative to one another so that the key trade-offs to be evaluated by the decision-maker can be identified. The first five criteria (short-term effectiveness; long-term effectiveness,and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume; implementability; and cost) will generally require more discussion than the remaining criteria because the key trade-offs or concerns among alternatives will most frequently relate to one or more of these five. The overall protectiveness and compliance with the SCGs criteria will generally serve as threshold determinations in that they either will or will not be met. Community preference will likely be evaluated only preliminarily during the RI/FS because such information frequently is not available. Community preference can be addressed more thoroughly once comments on the RI/FS report and the proposed remedial action plan have been received and a final remedy selection decision is being made.

5.2.6 Presentation of Comparative Analysis The comparative analysis should include a narrative discussion describing the strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives relative to one another with respect to each criterion, and how reasonable variations of key uncertainties could change the expectations of their relative performance. If destruction and treatment technologies are being considered, their potential advantages in cost or performance and the degree of uncertainty in their expected performance (as compared with conventional/isolation technologies) should also be discussed. The comparative analysis should also summarize the total sizing for each alternative. The presentation of differences between alternatives can be measured either qualitatively or quantitatively, as appropriate, and should identify substantive differences (e.g. greater short-term effectiveness concerns greater cost, etc.) between alternatives. Quantitative information that was used to assess the alternatives (e.g. specific cost estimates, time until response objectives would be obtained, and levels of residual contamination) should be included in these discussions. The Final Draft RI/FS or the Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) should present the remedial alternative recommended for the site and clear rationale for the recommendation.

• Community Assessment: This assessment incorporates public comment into the selection of a remedy. There are several points in the RI/FS process at which the public may have previously provided comments (e.g. first phase of the RI/FS). The Department will solicit public comments on the remedial alternatives and the recommended alternative in accordance with the New York State Inactive Hazardous Waste Site Citizen Participation Plan and statutory and regulatory requirements. A document titled, "New York State Inactive Hazardous Waste Site Citizen Participation Plan," dated August 30, 1988, should be used as a guidance to solicit the public comments on the remedial alternatives and the recommended alternative. The public comments shall be considered. The remedy for the site will be selected and documented in accordance with the Organization and Delegation Memorandum #89-05 Policy - Records of Decision for Remediation of Class 2 Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites.

• 
• Contact for this Page:
• NYS DEC
  Environmental Remediation
  625 Broadway
  Albany, NY 12233-7012
  518-402-9764
  email us