Owners and their consultants, have the responsibility to conduct corrective action in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment and that is in compliance with the BUSTR corrective action regulations. In addition, owners and their consultants have a further responsibility to protect the Financial Assurance Fund from unnecessary and excessive claims. To accomplish this, owners and their consultants should have a clear strategy for achieving no further action by conducting corrective action in as cost effective manner as possible.
However, there are an increasing number of sites that have been in remedial action beyond the original cost estimate and completion schedule for achieving no further action. In many cases, little to no progress has been made to reach closure and future costs are eminent. It is likely that a re-evaluation of these sites and the selected remedial action alternative could result in a no further action determination, or the need to find a more effective approach for remedial action.
Many of these sites are where the owner has provided for direct payment of reimbursement from the Fund to a consultant and therefore, the owner no longer takes a direct role in the corrective action decision process. An owner must consider before entering into a contract of this type that all liability remains with the owner. It is particularly important for an owner to stay involved and manage the costs of cleanup.
The corrective action costs for many remedial action sites are exceeding the original estimates and will have a direct impact on the Fund’s liability projections and future costs. Once claims that have been submitted exceed the approved cost estimate, additional reimbursements will not be processed until pre-approval for the additional expenses are approved by the Board.
Owners of sites that fall into this category will be required to submit a brief progress summary, an evaluation of other remedial alternatives and revised cost estimates and completion dates for pre-approval.
The progress summary must include graphic or tabular summaries of the reduction in concentrations of chemicals of concern (COCs), or mass removal of COCs over time, and an estimated initial and remaining total mass of petroleum hydrocarbons.
The re-evaluation must indicate if the current approach remains the most cost effective solution. In making a determination, other alternatives should be evaluated, including switching to the 2005 risk based corrective action rule if the release predates March 1, 2005. Without BUSTR’s approval to remain in a pre-2005 corrective action rule, you must have switched to the 2005 rule by March 2, 2006. You must notify the Fund of your election to switch to the new rule.
If another remedial alternative will be proposed, recommendations for revising
the current Remedial Action Plan must be submitted simultaneously to BUSTR and
the Board for pre-approval. The revised RAP must include a summary of all of the
alternatives considered with their estimated costs and completion schedules.
Remember, further reimbursement of RAP implementation costs will be held
pending the receipt of this information.