La. Admin. Code tit. 33 § VI-509

Current through Register Vol. 50, No. 11, November 20, 2024

Section VI-509 - Corrective Action Study

A. A corrective action study (CAS) includes:

1. the development of appropriate remedial alternatives for achieving the preliminary RECAP standards identified in the RI report; and

2. the provision of performance and cost data for use in evaluating these alternatives and selecting a remedy.

B. The CAS shall be used by the department or by PRPs to demonstrate that one or more remedial alternatives will meet the preliminary RECAP standards. Alternatively, PRPs may demonstrate in the CAS that compliance with the preliminary RECAP standards is technically infeasible and may propose alternative preliminary RECAP standards. The development and evaluation of alternatives in the CAS shall reflect the scope and complexity of the site problems being addressed.

C. Corrective Action Study Activities

1. Identification of RECAP Standards. Following approval of the RI report and the identification of the preliminary RECAP standards, the department, or PRPs as directed by the department, shall identify potential remedial alternatives for the site. Remedial alternatives identified and examined in the CAS should include a no further action (NFA) alternative and at least one treatment-based alternative.

2. Screening of Remedial Alternatives. Potential remedial alternatives shall be screened based upon the following criteria.

a. Effectiveness. The primary criterion for screening the alternatives is whether or not an alternative can effectively achieve the preliminary RECAP standards determined for the site as follows:

i. alternatives that have been proven capable of achieving the preliminary RECAP standard for contaminants and environmental media of concern shall be retained for further evaluation;

ii. alternatives that have been proven incapable of achieving the preliminary RECAP standards shall be eliminated from further consideration unless it is successfully demonstrated to the department that no known remedial alternative can achieve the preliminary RECAP standard; and

iii. alternatives that are unproven and are innovative technologies or approaches may be retained for further evaluation when it is successfully demonstrated to the department through treatability studies that the preliminary RECAP standards will be achieved;

b. Implementability. This criterion focuses on the technical and administrative ability of the department, or PRPs as directed by the department, to implement an alternative as follows:

i. technical implementability is determined by the availability of full-scale equipment, demonstrated processes, and remediation services to the department or the PRPs; and

ii. administrative implementability is determined by the ability of the department or PRPs to obtain all required permits or waivers;

c. Infeasible Alternatives. Alternatives that may ultimately prove to be technically or administratively infeasible to implement shall be eliminated from further consideration;

d. Relative Cost. Alternatives that offer technical and administrative applicability and implementability similar to that of other alternatives but at grossly higher construction, operation, and maintenance costs shall be identified and eliminated if lower-cost alternatives are available that can meet the preliminary RECAP standards; and

e. Regulatory Requirements. Remedial actions must meet all state and federal applicable, relevant, and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for the location or for specific remedies, unless the requirements of LAC 33:VI.511.A.3 are met.

3. Performance of Treatability Studies. Treatability studies may be conducted to:

a. generate the critical performance and cost data needed to evaluate and select remedial alternatives;

b. provide quantitative data for use in determining whether an alternative can achieve the preliminary RECAP standards; or

c. determine whether additional more detailed treatability testing is required.

4. Evaluation of the Alternatives. Analysis of the remedial alternatives shall consist of a detailed assessment of the individual alternatives using the evaluation criteria described below, followed by a comparison of the relative performance of each alternative. Individual alternatives shall be evaluated using the following criteria:

a. ability of the alternative to achieve the preliminary RECAP standards and other applicable requirements;

b. long-term effectiveness and permanence of the alternative, considering the magnitude of residual risk after implementation of the remedy, adequacy and reliability of engineering or institutional controls, and degree to which treatment is irreversible;

c. reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment, considering:

i. the treatment process used and materials treated;

ii. the amount of hazardous materials destroyed or treated;

iii. the degree of expected reductions in toxicity, mobility, and volume; and

iv. the type and quantity of residuals remaining after treatment;

d. short-term effectiveness, considering:

i. the protection of community and workers during implementation of the alternative;

ii. the environmental impacts during implementation of the alternative; and

iii. the time required until preliminary RECAP standards are achieved;

e. implementability, considering:

i. the ability to construct and operate the technology at the site;

ii. the reliability of the technology;

iii. the cost of undertaking additional remedial actions (if necessary);

iv. the ability to monitor effectiveness of the remedy;

v. the ability to obtain approvals from other agencies;

vi. coordination with other agencies;

vii. the availability of off-site treatment, storage, and disposal services, and capacity for disposal of residuals;

viii. the availability of necessary equipment and specialists, and services and materials; and

ix. the availability of prospective technologies;

f. cost effectiveness, considering capital costs and operating and maintenance costs; and

g. compliance with all state and federal ARARs.

5. Evaluation of the Impact of Remedial Alternatives on Natural Resources. If natural resources will be or could be injured by the release of hazardous substances, steps shall be taken by the department, or by PRPs as directed by the department, to ensure that state and federal trustees of the affected natural resources are notified. The department shall seek to coordinate necessary evaluations, investigations, and plans with such state and federal trustees. The department shall give priority to remedies that include mitigation of actual or potential threats to natural resources or restoration of those natural resources that have been injured.

6. Preparation of a Corrective Action Study Report. Following the completion of the corrective action study activities in this Subsection, a CAS report describing the results of all required CAS activities shall be prepared by the Office of Environmental Assessment, or by PRPs as directed by the department. Any CAS report prepared by PRPs shall be reviewed and approved by the department prior to the approval of the CAS. The department will provide comments to the PRPs and require revisions as necessary before approving the PRPs report.

La. Admin. Code tit. 33, § VI-509

Promulgated by the Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Environmental Assessment, Environmental Planning Division, LR 25:2188 (November 1999), amended LR 26:2512 (November 2000), amended by the Office of the Secretary, Legal Affairs Division, LR 33:2138 (October 2007), amended by the Office of the Secretary, Legal Division, LR 38:2758 (November 2012), Amended by the Office of the Secretary, Legal Affairs and Criminal Investigations Division, LR 432140 (11/1/2017).

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 30:2221 et seq., and 2271 et seq.