OAR 340-122-0085: Feasibility Study

(1) If, based upon the remedial investigation, the results of a removal, or other information, the Director determines that remedial action might be necessary to protect public health, safety or welfare or the environment, the Director may perform or require to be performed a feasibility study to develop information for selection or approval of a remedial action. (2) A feasibility study shall develop and evaluate a range of remedial action alternatives acceptable to the Department, including any or all of the following: (a) No action; (b) Remedial action utilizing engineering and/or institutional controls; (c) Remedial action utilizing treatment; (d) Remedial action utilizing excavation and transportation to an offsite disposal facility; and (e) Any combination of the above, as appropriate. (3) Remedial action alternatives may be eliminated from development or evaluation in the feasibility study if, based on the remedial investigation and consideration of factors specified in OAR 340-122-0090, the Department determines one or more remedial action alternatives are not protective, feasible or appropriate for the facility. (4) For each remedial action option developed under section (2) of this rule, the feasibility study shall evaluate: (a) The protectiveness of the alternative based upon the standards set forth in OAR 340-122-0040; (b) The feasibility of the alternative based upon a balancing of the remedy selection factors set forth in OAR 340-122-0090(3) and (4); and (c) The extent to which the remedial action alternative remediates hot spots of contamination based upon the criteria set forth in sections (5) and (7) of this rule and OAR 340-122-0090(4). (5) For groundwater or surface water in which a significant adverse effect on existing or reasonably likely future beneficial uses has been identified under OAR 340-122-0080(6): (a) The feasibility study shall evaluate treatment to concentrations that ensure such significant adverse effects will not occur. Specifically, the following shall be evaluated: (A) Whether treatment is reasonably likely to restore or protect a beneficial use within a reasonable time; and (B) The extent to which treatment is feasible, considering the remedy selection factors set forth in OAR 340-122-0090, including application of the higher threshold for evaluating the reasonableness of the cost of treating hot spots of contamination. (b) Where a concentration identified in subsection (5)(a) of this rule is not equivalent to an acceptable risk level: (A) The feasibility study shall evaluate the feasibility of treatment to the concentration identified in subsection (5)(a), regardless of whether that level is more or less stringent than the acceptable risk level, applying the higher threshold for reasonableness of the cost of treatment; and (B) Where the acceptable risk level is more stringent than the concentration identified in subsection (5)(a), the feasibility study shall also evaluate the feasibility of treatment to the acceptable risk level, without application of the higher threshold for reasonableness of the cost of treatment. If treatment to a more stringent acceptable risk level is not feasible, the feasibility study shall evaluate other remedial measures providing protection while allowing beneficial use of the water. (6) For contamination of media other than groundwater or surface water, the feasibility study shall evaluate the extent to which the hazardous substances cannot be reliably contained. (7) For hot spots of contamination in media other than groundwater or surface water that have been identified under OAR 340-122-0080(7) or section (6) of this rule, the feasibility study shall evaluate the feasibility of treatment, and the feasibility of excavation and offsite disposal at an authorized disposal facility, to a point where the concentration or condition making the hazardous substance a hot spot would no longer occur at the facility, based upon a balancing of the remedy selection factors set forth in OAR 340-122-0090 and an application of the higher threshold for evaluating the reasonableness of the cost of treatment and of the cost of excavation and offsite disposal of hot spots of contamination. (8) For contaminant concentrations in media other than water that would remain after treatment or excavation and off-site disposal pursuant to section (7) of this rule, the feasibility study shall evaluate the feasibility of a range of remedial action alternatives to achieve the acceptable risk level. The evaluation shall be based upon a balancing of the remedy selection factors in OAR 340-122-0090 without application of the higher thresholds, under section (7), for reasonableness of the cost of the treatment and excavation and offsite disposal of hot spots of contamination. (9) The feasibility study should recommend a protective and feasible remedial action from the remedial action alternatives developed and evaluated in the feasibility study. For any recommended remedial action, the feasibility study shall: (a) Identify the extent to which the remedial action alternative would be conducted onsite; (b) Identify all state or local permits, licenses, or other authorizations or procedural requirements that would be exempted pursuant to ORS 465.315(3); (c) Describe any consultation with affected state or local government bodies; and (d) Identify applicable substantive requirements of the affected state or local laws and how they would be addressed.