Or. Admin. Code § 340-040-0050 - Selection of the Remedial Action
(1) Requirements: After opportunity for
public review and comment, the Director shall select a remedial action. Such
remedial action shall meet the following requirements:
(a) Be protective of present and future
public health, safety, and welfare and the environment; and
(b) To the maximum extent practicable:
(A) Be cost effective;
(B) Use permanent solutions and alternative
technologies or resource recovery technologies;
(C) Be implementable; and
(D) Be effective.
(2) Remedial Action Concentration
Limit: The remedial action shall attain the concentration limit specified under
OAR 340-040-0030(3)
for permitted operations or OAR
340-040-0060(2)
for non-permitted activities for the
contaminant substances, unless the Director determines that the specified
concentration limit does not satisfy the requirement set forth in subsection
(1)(b) of this rule, in which case the Director shall select a remedial action
that attains the lowest concentration level of the contaminant substances that
satisfies the requirements set forth in section (1) of this rule.
(3) Other Measures to Supplement Cleanup: The
Director may require other measures (e.g., institutional controls,
environmental hazard notice, alternate drinking water supply, caps, security
measures, etc.) to supplement cleanup of contaminant substances to the remedial
action concentration limit in accordance with section (2) of this rule, where
such supplementary measures are necessary to satisfy the requirements set forth
in section (1) of this rule.
(4)
Other Measures to Substitute for Cleanup: The Director may require other
measures to substitute for cleanup of contam-inant substances to the remedial
action concentration limit under section (2) of this rule, provided that:
(a) The Director finds that there is no
remedial action under section (2) of this rule, combined with supplementary
measures under section (3) of this rule, that satisfies the requirements of
section (1) of this rule;
(b) Any
such substitute measures, as appropriate, include provision for long-term care
and management, including monitoring and operation and maintenance, and
periodic review, to determine whether a remedial action satisfying the
requirements of section (1) of this rule has become available.
(5) Protection:
(a) In determining whether a remedial action
assures protection of the present and future public health, safety, and welfare
and the environment under subsection (1)(a) of this rule, only the
concentration limit specified under OAR
340-040-0030(3)
for permitted operations or OAR
340-040-0060(2)
for non-permitted activities shall be
presumed to be protective. This presumption may be rebutted by information
showing that a higher concentration level is also protective;
(b) In determining whether a concentration
level higher than the specified concentration limit is protective, the Director
shall consider:
(A) The characterization of
contaminant substances and the facility, and the endangerment
assessment;
(B) Other relevant
cleanup or health standards, criteria, or guidance;
(C) Relevant and reasonably available
scientific information; and
(D) Any
other information relevant to the protectiveness of a remedial
action.
(c) When
comparing between potential concentration levels, a concentration level lower
than another shall generally be considered to be more protective and
preferable. This presumption may be rebutted by information showing that a
higher concentration level is also protective;
(d) Any person responsible for undertaking
the remedial action who proposes that the remedial action attain a
concentration level higher than the specified concentration limit on the basis
of protection shall have the burden of demonstrating to the Director that such
concentration level is protective.
(6) Cost-Effectiveness: In determining
whether a remedial action is cost-effective under subsection (1)(b) of this
rule, the Director may consider:
(a) Costs of
the remedial action relative to the costs of another remedial action option, if
any, that achieves the same concentration level;
(b) Extent to which the remedial action's
incremental costs are proportionate to its incremental results;
(c) Extent to which the remedial actions
total costs are proportionate to its total results;
(d) Any other criterion relevant to
cost-effectiveness of the remedial action; and
(e) Costs that may be considered include but
are not limited to:
(A) Capital
costs;
(B) Operation and
maintenance costs;
(C) Costs of
periodic reviews, where required;
(D) Net present value of capital and
operation and maintenance costs; and
(E) Potential future remedial action
costs.
(7)
Permanent Solutions and Alternative or Resource Recovery Technologies: In
determining whether a remedial action uses a permanent solution and alternative
or resource recovery technologies under subsection (1)(b) of this rule:
(a) Remedial action options that use
permanent solutions shall be preferred over other remedies;
(b) Remedial action options in which resource
recovery or alternative technology is a principal element shall be preferred
over remedial action options not involving such technology;
(c) Subject to subsection (7)(e) of this
rule, the offsite transport and secure disposition of contaminated materials
without treatment may be preferred where practicable alternative treatment
technologies are not available;
(d)
Subject to subsections (7)(e) and (f) of this rule, and notwithstanding the
availability of practicable alternative treatment technologies as provided in
subsection (7)(c) of this rule, offsite transport and secure disposition of
contaminated materials may be preferred when the disposal method would
significantly expedite the cleanup or would achieve a total cleanup, especially
at sites with contaminant materials of small quantity or low
toxicity;
(e) The transport and
secure disposition offsite of a hazardous waste under ORS
466.005 in a treatment, storage,
or disposal facility shall meet the requirements of section 3004(c) to (g),
(m), (o), (p), (u) and (v) and 3005(c) of the federal Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended, P.L. 96-482 and P.L. 98-616;
(f) The transport and secure disposition of
contaminated materials, other than hazardous wastes, at an offsite facility may
be allowed provided that the transport and secure disposition of such
contaminated materials, in the Director's determination, is adequate to protect
the public health, safety, and welfare and the environment.
(8) Implementability: In
determining whether a remedial action is implementable under subsection (1)(b)
of this rule, the Director may consider:
(a)
Degree of difficulty associated with implementing the technology;
(b) Expected operational reliability of the
technology;
(c) Need to coordinate
with and obtain necessary approvals or permits from other agencies;
(d) Availability of necessary equipment and
specialists;
(e) Available capacity
and location of needed treatment, storage, and disposal services; and
(f) Any other criterion relevant to
implementability of the remedial action.
(9) Effectiveness of the Remedial Action: In
determining whether a remedial action is effective under subsection (1)(b) of
this rule, the Director shall consider the following unless immediate action is
needed to protect public health, safety and welfare and the environment:
(a) Expected reduction in toxicity, mobility,
and volume of the contaminant substances;
(b) Short-term risks that might be posed to
community, workers, and the environment during implementation, including
potential threats to human health and the environment associated with
excavation, transport, and redisposal or containment;
(c) Length of time until full protection is
achieved;
(d) Magnitude of residual
risks in terms of amounts and concentrations of contaminant substances
remaining following implementation of a remedial action, including
consideration of the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to
bioaccumulate of such contaminant substances and their constituents;
(e) Type and degree of long-term management
required, including monitoring, operation and maintenance;
(f) Long-term potential for exposure of human
and environmental receptors to remaining contaminants;
(g) Long-term reliability of engineering and
institutional controls, including long-term uncertainties associated with land
disposal, treated or untreated waste, and residuals;
(h) Potential for failure of the remedial
action or potential need for replacement of the remedy; and
(i) Any other criterion relevant to
effectiveness of the remedial action.
(10) Any person responsible for undertaking
the remedial action who proposes one remedial action option over another on the
basis of one or more of the elements of subsection (1)(b) of this rule shall
have the burden of demonstrating to the Director that such remedial action
option fulfills the requirements of subsections (1)(a) and (b) of this
rule.
Notes
Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & ORS 468B
Stats. Implemented: ORS 468.035
State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.
No prior version found.