NR 722.07(3)(b)2m.2m. Can be implemented in a manner that will not pose a significant risk of harm to human health, safety, or welfare or the environment; and NR 722.07(3)(b)3.3. Is likely to result in the reduction or control, or both, of the hazardous substances present at the site to a degree and in a manner that is in compliance with the requirements of s. NR 722.09 (2) to (4). NR 722.07 NoteNote: Section NR 722.07 (3) (b) is intended to provide a streamlined evaluation process for certain remedial actions that are presumed to meet the evaluation and selection criteria in ss. NR 722.07 and 722.09. NR 722.07(4)(4) Evaluation criteria. Except as provided in s. NR 722.07 (3) (b), the remedial action options identified by the initial screening shall be evaluated based on the following requirements and in compliance with the requirements of s. NR 722.09. NR 722.07(4)(a)(a) Technical feasibility. The technical feasibility of each appropriate remedial action option that effectively and efficiently addresses the sources of contamination shall be evaluated using the following criteria: NR 722.07(4)(a)1.1. ‘Long-term effectiveness.’ The long-term effectiveness of appropriate remedial action options, taking into account all of the following: NR 722.07(4)(a)1.a.a. The degree to which the toxicity, mobility and volume of the contamination is expected to be reduced. NR 722.07(4)(a)1.b.b. The degree to which a remedial action option, if implemented, will protect public health, safety, and welfare and the environment over time. NR 722.07(4)(a)2.2. ‘Short-term effectiveness.’ The short-term effectiveness of appropriate remedial action options, taking into account any adverse impacts on public health, safety, or welfare or the environment that may be posed during the construction and implementation period until case closure under ch. NR 726. NR 722.07(4)(a)3.3. ‘Implementability.’ The implementability of appropriate remedial action options, taking into account all of the following: NR 722.07(4)(a)3.a.a. The technical feasibility of constructing and implementing the remedial action option at the site or facility given the type of contaminants and hydrogeologic conditions present. NR 722.07(4)(a)3.b.b. The availability of materials, equipment, technologies, and services needed to conduct the remedial action option taking into account the location and environmental impact of the selected materials and equipment. NR 722.07(4)(a)3.c.c. The potential difficulties and constraints associated with on-site construction or off-site disposal and treatment. NR 722.07 NoteNote: For example, evaluate the use of heavy equipment and cost of fuel to transport wastewater and leachate from a site compared to on-site treatment.
NR 722.07(4)(a)3.d.d. The difficulties associated with monitoring the effectiveness of the remedial action option. NR 722.07(4)(a)3.e.e. The administrative feasibility of the remedial action option, including activities and time needed to obtain any necessary licenses, permits or approvals. NR 722.07(4)(a)3.g.g. The technical feasibility of recycling, treatment, engineering controls or disposal. NR 722.07(4)(a)3.h.h. The technical feasibility of naturally occurring biodegradation at the site or facility, if responsible parties evaluate this option. NR 722.07(4)(a)3.i.i. The redevelopment potential of the site once the remedy has been implemented. NR 722.07(4)(a)3.j.j. Reduction of greenhouse gases consistent with federal or state climate action policies. NR 722.07(4)(a)4.4. ‘Restoration time frame.’ The expected time frame needed to achieve the necessary restoration, taking into account all of the following qualitative criteria: NR 722.07(4)(a)4.c.c. Presence of threatened or endangered species or habitats, as defined by state and federal law. NR 722.07(4)(a)4.d.d. Current and potential use of the aquifer, including proximity to private and public water supplies and surface water bodies. NR 722.07(4)(a)4.g.g. Effectiveness, reliability, and enforceability of continuing obligations.