CJW

CJW is highly aware of the cost-sensitive nature of environmental response actions under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). Our staff considers practical site closure options to avoid involving our clients in long running and costly remediation systems. In many MCP cases, we work jointly with our client's legal counsel.

If at all possible, we strive to address contamination at a site prior to proceeding through the standard MCP-phased approach. For example, many contaminated sites can be easily addressed with proactive responses. Should an immediate and permanent remedy for a site involve soil excavation and management, we can implement a Limited Response Action (LRA) to keep the site out of the MCP altogether. Through the proper understanding and use of LRAs, we have avoided significant expenditures on MCP paperwork, studies, and further cleanup. This strategy is particularly important when dealing with smaller releases that can be quickly addressed.

However, when it is inevitable that a site will become a MCP site, CJW has been able to use various other "front end" vehicles within the MCP, prior to Tier Classification, to achieve closure before proceeding through the phased MCP process. We achieve closure on a great majority of the sites through the use of Immediate Response Actions (IRAs) or Release Abatement Measures (RAMs). At numerous sites, we have begun small removal actions as LRAs and converted them to RAMs only when the quantities or nature of contamination finally dictated this regulatory requirement. We fully understand the limitations and opportunities afforded by RAMs to bring a site to closure and often use them as true "risk reduction measures" (i.e., to reduce the amount of contamination at the site to the point necessary to realistically, quantitatively assess risks and achieve closure).

As necessary and for more complex sites, highly focused Phase I and II investigations supported by site specific Risk Characterizations have assisted in the timely close-out of sites. We have implemented response actions for releases ranging from minor soil staining (where the release had already been reported) to major remediation projects. We have also executed complex response actions that included tasks such as emergency implementation of free product/groundwater recovery and treatment systems and design of multi-approach final remediation systems (bioremediation with groundwater/product recovery).

A final critical tool used by CJW is the coupling of risk assessments with the implementation of Activity and Use Limitations (AULs). Coupled with the characterization of risk to human health and the environment, AULs are one of the strongest MCP tools for properly limiting cleanup expenditures. CJW has prepared and filed AULs that carefully limit site prohibitions to only those truly dictated by the residual contamination, thus allowing for appropriate and economically viable site use. Again, most of these closures with AULs have been achieved without resorting to comprehensive MCP investigations, while fulfilling the critical technical requirements to support closure.