Criteria Relevant to Selecting a Remedial Alternative Generally
and
Criteria Relevant to Gelman
Consent Judgment Modification

The Gelman Consent Judgment:

§XXIV This Consent Judgment may not be modified unless such modification is in writing, signed by all Parties, and approved and entered by the court. Remedial Plans, work plans, or other submissions made pursuant to this Consent Judgment may be modified by mutual agreement of the parties

Part 201 of the NREPA:
324.20102a
Sec. 20102a. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the following actions shall be governed by the provisions of this part that were in effect on May 1, 1995:
(a) Any judicial action or claim in bankruptcy that was initiated by any person on or before May 1, 1995 under this part.
(b) An administrative order that was issued on or before May 1, 1995 pursuant to section 20119.
(c) An enforceable agreement with the state entered into on or before May 1, 1995 by any person under this part.
(2) For purposes of this section, the provisions of this part that were in effect on May 1, 1995 are hereby incorporated by reference.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), upon request of a person implementing response activity, the department shall approve changes in a plan for response activity to be consistent with sections 20118 and 20120a.

Part 201 Criteria Relevant to Selecting a Remedial Alternative -§20118


18(2)(a)Assure the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare, and the environment (PHSWE)

(2)(b)Except as otherwise provided in 18(5) & (6), attain a degree of cleanup and control of hazardous substances that complies with all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, rules, criteria, limitations and standards of state and federal environmental law (ARARs)

ØLaw allows the following rules to be “waived” under certain conditions
lRule 705 (5): plume can’t expand after start of cleanup
lRule 705(6): active cleanup required unless naturally occurring chemical or biological process is documented to be taking place

18(3) The cost effectiveness of alternative means of complying with this section shall be considered by the department only in selecting among alternatives that meet all of the criteria of subsection (2).

18(4) Remedies that permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility, (MTV) of hazardous substances

Part 201 Rules
Rule 603(1) When the department is selecting or approving a remedial action, or when another person is selecting a remedial action, all of the following shall be considered:

(a) Effectiveness of alternative in protecting PHSWE
(b) Long-term uncertainties
(c) Persistence, toxicity, mobility and propensity to bioaccumulate of the hazardous substances
(d) Short-term and Long-term potential for adverse health effects from human exposure
(e) Costs of remedial action, including long-term maintenance costs, except that costs shall only be considered as specified in R 299.5601(3).
(f) Reliability of the alternatives.
(g) The potential for future remedial action costs if an alternative fails.
(h) The potential threat to human health, safety, and welfare and the environment associated with excavation, transportation, and redisposal or containment.
(i) The ability to monitor remedial performance.
(j) For remedial actions that require the opportunity for public comment under section 20120d of the act, the public's perspective about the extent to which the proposed remedial action effectively addresses requirements specified in part 201 of the act and these rules.
(2) Evaluation of the factors in subrule (1) of this rule shall consider all factors in balance with one another as necessary to achieve the objectives of part 201 of the act and R 299.5601. No single factor in subrule (1) of this rule shall be considered most important.