Final Site Information Package for National Remedy Review Board ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

[Two Updated Updated Woodland Ecological Park Components of Combined Remedial OU 2 a Alternatives from Ecological Alternatives Alternatives* the 2001 FS] 3 and 4 [Five Remedial Alternatives] [10 Action Alternatives] Alternative 3+: More Extensive Removal, Disposal, and Treatment Alternative 4+: Maximum Removal, Disposal, and Treatment Targeted source control, French drains/stream lining Alternative (a): Minimal Stream Lining + = Equivalent to 2001 FS Ecological Alternative 4, except for changes to the water treatment TCD + Alternative (b): Extensive Stream Lining Alternative (c): French Drains b Alternative (d): Stream Lining/French Drain Combination b + = Alternative (e): Extensive Stream Lining/French Drain Combination Alternative 3+(a) Alternative 3+(b) Alternative 3+(c) Alternative 3+(d) Alternative 3+(e) Alternative 4+(a) Alternative 4+(b) Alternative 4+(c) Alternative 4+(d) Alternative 4+(e) * The five OU 2 alternatives are combined with each of the two OU 3 alternatives to form 10 action alternatives. With the addition of the No Action Alternative, a total of 11 remedial alternatives were evaluated in the FFS Report (USEPA, 2010). FS = Feasibility Study OU = Operable Unit TCD = typical conceptual design a All the OU 2 alternatives also include the same set of actions for the Reed and Russell Tunnel adit flows: installation of a check dam to reduce or eliminate the flow of contaminated water, with a contingency plan for collection and treatment of discharge water if needed. b A limestone permeable reactive barrier (PRB) was evaluated as a potential option in place of a portion of the French drain in these alternatives (FFS Report [USEPA, 2010], Section 6.3 and Appendix F). However, based on the results of this evaluation, the PRB option has not been retained for direct inclusion in the alternatives. Additional study would be needed to further evaluate the potential effectiveness and cost of the PRB option. Figure B8-1 Schematic Illustration of the Remedial Alternatives Site Information Package for National Remedy Review Board
Estimated 30-Yr NPV Cost, Millions of Dollars $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 Alternative4+(d) Alternative 3+(c) Alternative 4+(e) Alternative 4+(c) Alternative 3+(e) Alternative 3+(d) Alternative 4+(a) Alternative 4+(b) Alternative 3+(a) Alternative 3+(b) No Action 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA\CURRENT FIGURES\Stephanie's_NRRB_Figures\Fig_B9-1_Present_Value_vs_AWQC_Ratios.ai 3/24/10 dk Predicted Post-Remediation AWQC Ratio in the SFCDR at Pinehurst Figure B9-1 Total Net Present Value Costs Versus Predicted Post-Remediation AWQC Ratios at Pinehurst Site Information Package for National Remedy Review Board 5
Page 1 and 2:
United States Environmental Protect
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations
Page 5 and 6:
SITE INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR NATION
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Acronyms and Abbreviations µg/dL m
Page 11 and 12:
RAO remedial action objective RI/FS
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
1. Site Name, Location, and Brief H
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
5. Current and Potential Future Sit
Page 49 and 50:
6. Summary of Risks The Bunker Hill
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
8. Description of Alternatives The
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Remedial Alternative Description SI
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80: SITE INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR NATION
Page 85 and 86: 12. Potential Applicable or Relevan
Page 93 and 94: COMMISSIONERS: PFfifiY WHITF CLERK
Page 95 and 96: Dan Opalski, U.S. EPA March 10,2010
Page 97 and 98: Dan Opalski, U.S. EPA March 10, 201
Page 99: Dan Opalski, U.S. EPA March 10,2010
Page 118 and 119: Rose Lake ll n e §¨¦ 90 DUDLEY "
Page 120 and 121: 1992-1994 Removal of tailings and c
Page 122 and 123: The box plot shows the median or 50
Page 124 and 125: ! ( ! ! ( ! ! ! Upper Basin Coeur d
Page 126 and 127: DUDLEY ") §¨¦ 90 ") St Joe River
Page 128 and 129: Base Map Data: NHDPlus (Rivers, Wat
Page 132 and 133: Ninemile Creek WALLACE BUNN Upper B
Page 134 and 135: OSBURN §¨¦ 90 Upper Basin Coeur
Page 136 and 137: 176 E Upper Basin Coeur d'Alene Riv
Page 138 and 139: §¨¦ 90 ENAVILLE The Bunker Hill
Page 140 and 141: E 169 §¨¦ 90 Upper Basin Coeur d
Page 142 and 143: TABLE B2-1 Summary of Ongoing Data
Page 144 and 145: TABLE B4-2 Screening Level Exceedan
Page 146 and 147: TABLE B7-1 Preliminary Remediation
Page 148 and 149: TABLE B8-1 Descriptions of Typical
Page 150 and 151: TABLE B8-2 Summary of Alternatives
Page 152 and 153: TABLE B9-1a Comparative Analysis of
Page 158 and 159: TABLE B9-1b Comparative Analysis of
Page 164 and 165: TABLE B11-1 Legend of Bureau of Lan
Page 166 and 167: TABLE B11-1 Legend of Bureau of Lan
Page 168 and 169: TABLE B11-2 Summary of Estimated Po
Page 170 and 171: TABLE B11-4 Summary of Remedy Prote
Page 172 and 173: TABLE B14-1 Estimated Costs Summari
Page 174 and 175: TABLE B14-2 Summary of Estimated Co
Page 176: TABLE B14-2 Summary of Estimated Co
show all

Final Site Information Package for National Remedy Review Board ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?