Costs remedial action

The Cost of Remedial Action (CORA) model was developed for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The model is used in developing and costing remedial actions for Superfund sites before or during the remedial investigation of the cleanup. 

At the end of each month, the field cost engineer collects all current information on a detailed cost report form. As these are actual costs, they can be used to estimate future job costs to completion. Daily reports of unit-cost progress for concrete, excavation, masonry, steel, piping, and electrical work, etc., are then used to predict possible overruns or underruns for the various items. Analysis and comparison with the original estimate point out trouble spots for early attention. If an item is running into difficulty, it is red-flagged to the resident and projec t engineers for remedial action. 

Tier 2 Future liability costs, such as remedial actions, personal injury under the OSH A regulations, property damage, etc. 

Many organizations use a Nonconformity Report to deal with the remedial action and a Corrective Action Report or Request (CAR) to prevent the recurrence of one or more nonconformities. In this way you are not committed to taking action on every incident but on a group of incidents when the action and its cost can be more easily justified. 

In the absence of a trim system with feedback, it is likely to prove cost-effective to use a simple portable efficiency monitor on a regular basis, perhaps weekly for small boilers. The change of reading is as important as the actual value of the reading. A deviation from what is known to be a good post-commissioning setting will indicate a drift from ratio and the need for remedial action. 

An EPA contractor has prepared a draft remedial action master plan (RAMP) for the Mead site. The contractor recommends further exploration to determine if any undiscovered potliner piles exist and also further geological studies. This recommendation is contingent on cost versus benefit of the action. 

It should be noted that early remedial actions for contaminated soil consisted primarily of excavation and removal of the contaminated soil from the site and its disposal at a landfill. SARA strongly recommends on-site treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances, and utilizes cost-effective permanent solutions. The legislation prohibits land disposal of hazardous wastes unless U.S. EPA determines otherwise (as in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, HSWA). 

The feasibility study (FS) utilizes the data on site characterization and remedial technology screening to establish remedial alternatives, in turn, to select the cost-effective remedial actions. The FS may be viewed as occurring in three phases ... 

Source U.S. EPA, Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites, EPA/625/6-85/006, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, 1985. a U.S. ACE (Cost Index for Utilities) may be used to convert costs into current USD. 

In situ methods have potential use as an interim or emergency measure until dredging can be undertaken or as a primary remedial action where it is determined to be more cost-effective than removal. The biggest advantages are that they are much less costly than dredging, eliminate the need for dredged material management, and minimize the resuspension of contained sediments.15... 

Based on our experience with remedial actions and modifications of design in new construction we recommend the following strategy for making new buildings (slab on grade, ventilated crawl space or furnished basement) radon protective or radon safe in a cost-effective way ... 

Ericson, S.-0. and H. Schmied, Modified Technology in New Constructions and Cost-Effective Remedial Action in Existing Structures to Prevent Infiltration of Soil Gas Carrying Radon. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, 5 153-158 (1984). 

MTT was used to treat 3500 yd of lead-contaminated soil at a scrap yard in Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin. The project included landfiUing the treated soil and an additional 3500 yd of other material, a treatability demonstration, implementation of the remedial action, closure sampling, and preparation and submittal of a documentation report. According to the vendor, the total project costs were approximately 210,000 or 30/yd of soil treated (D13684P, p. 3). 

The permitting and regulatory costs given assume that the treatment is part of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) remedial action and that the effluent is discharged to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW). 

What role can torts play when damages are collectively consumed Simple torts are prone to the same free-rider problems that groups face when purchasing emissions rights. If a neighbor successfully sues a company to reduce its emissions, all those who consume the air or water will benefit regardless of whether they contributed to the lawsuit costs. Class-action suits partially remedy the free-rider problem by allowing one suit to represent the diffuse interests of all the beneficiaries. ... 

If it deems it necessary, the USEPA can require an expedited response action (ERA) at a site that would require an immediate engineering evaluation/ cost analysis (EE/CA). After a removal action is completed or determined unnecessary, the long-term remedial action must be undertaken. First, a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) is performed to determine a proper course of action. This can involve ... 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This is an attempt to deal with the many waste sites that exist across the nation. It covers remedial action, including the establishment of a National Priorities List to identify those sites that should have a high priority for remediation. This act authorizes the cleanup of hazardous waste sites, including those containing pesticides, that threaten human health or the environment. If they can be identified, the US EPA is authorized to recover cleanup costs from those parties responsible for the contamination. CERCLA provides a fund to pay for the cleanup of contaminated sites when no other parties are able to conduct the cleanup. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) (1986) is an amendment to CERCLA that enables the US EPA to identify and cleanup inactive hazardous waste sites and to recover reimbursement of cleanup costs. One section of CERCLA authorizes the EPA to act whenever there is a release or substantial threat of release of a hazardous substance or any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare into the environment. 

The purpose of the Corrective Action Plan is to define the overall activities, schedule, costs, and responsibilities necessary to guide the development and implementation of technological and procedural controls to bring the systems into compliance with Part 11. The plan should identify any existing technological/procedural controls that may be modified or new technological/procedural controls that need to be implemented in order to ensure that the regulatory requirements are completed in a consistent and uniform manner. The remediation action items identified in the Part 11 assessment should be documented in a detailed implementation plan. 

This review provides information related to the methods which are currently most suitable for the remediation of contaminated soils and water. The development of a deeper understanding of the physical and chemical processes involved in the degradation of contaminants will facilitate the establishment of more cost-effective and efficient remedial action plans that are protective of human health and the environment. 

Hence risk assessment criteria must be established so that there can be developed a national priority list of the hazardous sites that require remedial action. EPA has adopted the Mitre Model for assessing the risks and ranking waste sites. There is some criticism of this model, and there are a number of as yet unanswered questions about its application. Formal cost/benefit analysis will not be used, and risk assessment will be on a case-by-case basis. EPA will thus be developing its knowledge base and procedures as it carries out the program. 

Among the elements which must be included in the revised NCP under this section are methods and criteria for determining the appropriate extent of either removal or remedial measures (Section 105(3)). The NCP must also contain means for assuring that "remedial" action measures, as distinct from the short-term "removal" measures, are "cost-effective" (Section 105(7)). Finally, Section 105(8)(A) requires criteria for determining priorities which are "based upon relative risk or danger to public health or welfare or the environment," and Section 105(8)(B) requires that such criteria be used to develop a national priority list of 400 sites. 

Where a significant compliance gap is identified for a critical computer system, the remedial action plan will need to consider whether replacement of the computer system is more cost-effective than revafidation. 

---