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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE B9-1b Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 4+(a) through 4+(e) Site Information Package for National Remedy Review Board OU 2 Alternative (a) OU 2 Alternative (b) OU 3 Component Alternative 4+: Maximum Removal, Disposal, and Treatment OU 2 Component OU 2 Alternative (c) OU 2 Alternative (d) OU 2 Alternative (e) Extensive Stream Lining/French Drain Minimal Stream Lining Extensive Stream Lining French Drains Combined Upper Basin Alternative Stream Lining/French Drain Combination Combination Criteria Alternative 4+(a) Alternative 4+(b) Alternative 4+(c) Alternative 4+(d) Alternative 4+(e) Irreversible treatment Treatment is irreversible for the water stream treated for both active and semi-passive processes. Treatment residuals (Spent SRB media and hydroxide sludge) would require proper disposal to ensure that leaching of metals into the environment would not occur. Same as Alternative 4+(a). Same as Alternative 4+(a). Same as Alternative 4+(a). Same as Alternative 4+(a). Type and quantity of residuals Spent SRB substrate and hydroxide sludge require disposal. It is assumed that these wastes would be disposed of onsite. Total volume requiring disposal is estimated to be 10,300 cy/y. Same as Alternative 4+(a). Same waste types as for Alternative 4+(a). Total volume requiring disposal is greater, and estimated to be 15,300 cy/y. Same as Alternative 4+(c). Same waste types as for Alternative 4+(a). Total volume requiring disposal is greater than Alternative 4+(a) and (b) but less than Alternatives 4+(c ) and (d), and is estimated to be 13,300 cy/y. Statutory preference for treatment Short-Term Effectiveness Satisfies. Satisfies. Satisfies. Satisfies. Satisfies. Community protection Potentially significant short-term risks to the See Alternative 4+(a). Slightly higher volume of See Alternative 4+(a). Slightly higher volume of See Alternative 4+(c ). Slightly higher volume of See Alternative 4+(d ). Slightly higher volume of community from construction traffic. Risks truck trips would be associated with the longer truck trips would be associated with more truck trips would be associated with stream truck trips would be associated with additional would be minimized by traffic control plans and stream liner lengths in Alternative 4+(b). extensive floodplain work to install French lining and associated work in Government construction work in the Box. selective repository siting. drains. Gulch. Worker protection Limited risks to workers from remediation See Alternative 4+(a). See Alternative 4+(a). See Alternative 4+(a). Risks may be slightly See Alternative 4+(a). Relative to other actions. Risks would be minimized with higher than for Alternative 4+(c ) due to the alternatives, Alternative 4+(e) would present the standard health and safety measures. The massive scope of actions under Alternative 4+ would increase the risk of work injury relative to Alternative 3+. additional actions in Government Gulch. greatest short-term risks to workers. Environmental impacts Significant and ongoing impacts to environment during several decades of construction. In the context of current water quality in the SFCDR, these potential risks would be minimal. Impacts associated with: - 300,000 LF stream and riparian improvements - Very extensive excavation - Extensive repository requirements - Potential stream flow reduction (hydraulic isolation) Time until action is complete c Approximately 80 to 130 years to implement actions. Additional time would be required for natural source depletion to attain ARARs. See the discussion of overall protection of human health and the environment above. See Alternative 4+(a). In addition, more extensive floodplain construction would be required in the Box, adding to the short-term risks. In the context of current water quality in the SFCDR, these potential risks would be minimal. Approximately 80 to 130 years to implement actions. Additional time would be required for natural source depletion to attain ARARs. See the discussion of overall protection of human health and the environment above. Slightly less floodplain construction would be required in the Box relative to Alternative 4+(b); therefore, short-term risks would be slightly lower. In the context of current water quality in the SFCDR, these potential risks would be minimal. Approximately 80 to 130 years to implement actions. Additional time would be required for natural source depletion to attain ARARs; however, it is expected this time would be shorter than Alternatives 3+(a) and 3+(b) and Alternatives 4+(a) and (b), given the lower predicted AWQC ratios at remedy completion. See the discussion of overall protection of human health and the environment above. Page 3 of 5 Short-term risks would be roughly comparable to Alternative 4+(b). In the context of current water quality in the SFCDR, these potential risks would be minimal. Approximately 80 to 130 years to implement actions. Additional time would be required for natural source depletion to attain ARARs; however, it is expected this time would be shorter than Alternatives 3+(a) and 3+(b) and Alternatives 4+(a) and (b), given the lower predicted AWQC ratios at remedy completion. See the discussion of overall protection of human health and the environment above. Short-term risks would be higher than for Alternatives 4+(a) through 4+(d) due to extensive floodplain construction in the Box. In the context of current water quality in the SFCDR, these potential risks would be minimal. Approximately 90 to 140 years to implement actions. Less time would be required for natural source depletion to attain ARARs given the lower predicted AWQC ratios at remedy completion. See the discussion of overall protection of human health and the environment above.
TABLE B9-1b Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 4+(a) through 4+(e) Site Information Package for National Remedy Review Board Criteria OU 2 Alternative (a) Minimal Stream Lining Implementability Technical feasibility Technically feasible, but major logistical constraints on truck traffic. Large uncertainty in construction volumes – these could further increase construction difficulties and administrative difficulties. Major cost and logistical considerations for obtaining borrow materials and excavating in floodplains. Potential construction difficulties for hydraulic isolation. OU 2 Alternative (b) Extensive Stream Lining OU 3 Component Alternative 4+: Maximum Removal, Disposal, and Treatment OU 2 Component OU 2 Alternative (c) French Drains OU 2 Alternative (d) Stream Lining/French Drain Combination OU 2 Alternative (e) Extensive Stream Lining/French Drain Combination Combined Upper Basin Alternative Alternative 4+(a) Alternative 4+(b) Alternative 4+(c) Alternative 4+(d) Alternative 4+(e) Treatability testing would be required as with Alternatives 3+(a) through 3+(e). Monitoring could assess effectiveness and the need for additional action. Administrative feasibility Major difficulties in acquiring land and obtaining approvals for repositories and active treatment pipelines, obtaining borrow materials, and coordinating truck traffic. Coordination with other agencies would be required, potentially including completion of a biological assessment. Availability of services and materials Cost Services, equipment, and technologies are all available, at least on a regional level. Total Capital Cost $1,690,000,000 O&M Cost (30-Year NPV) a $137,900,000 Total Cost (30-Year NPV) b $1,970,000,000 Costs for Alternatives 4+(a) through 4+(d) are very similar and within the accuracy of the estimate (-40/+50%).Costs for alternatives based on Alternative 4+ are lower than corresponding alternatives based on Alternative 3+. See Alternative 4+(a). Longer stream lining included in Alternative 4+(b) would add to the logistical issues noted, although there is no SFCDR liner in this alternative which would have many logistical challenges. Treatability testing would be required as with Alternatives 3+(a) through 3+(e). Monitoring could assess effectiveness and the need for additional action. See Alternative 4+(a). In addition, the extensive French drains included in this alternative would add to the logistical issues noted. Treatability testing would be required as with Alternatives 3+(a) through 3+(e). Monitoring could assess effectiveness and need for additional action. See Alternative 4+(c ). In addition, work in Government Gulch would add to the logistical issues noted. Treatability testing would be required as with Alternatives 3+(a) through 3+(e). Monitoring could assess effectiveness and the need for additional action. See Alternative 4+(c ). In addition, extensive work in the Box would add to the logistical issues noted. Excavation of sediments from below the water table would pose significant logistical issues and result in higher costs. These implementability concerns are great under this Alternative because the French drain and pump station depth may range from 10 to 40 feet below ground surface. Deeper excavations, if required, would increase the dewatering difficulties. Treatability testing would be required as with Alternative 3+(a) through 3+(e). Monitoring could assess effectiveness and need for additional action. See Alternative 4+(a). See Alternative 4+(a). See Alternative 4+(a). See Alternative 4+(a). Extensive actions in the Box would add to the difficulties in acquiring land and obtaining approvals. See Alternative 4+(a). See Alternative 4+(a). See Alternative 4+(a). See Alternative 4+(a). $1,650,000,000 $137,700,000 $1,930,000,000 Costs for Alternatives 4+(a) through 4+(d) are very similar and within the accuracy of the estimate (-40/+50%). Costs for alternatives based on Alternative 4+ are lower than corresponding alternatives based on Alternative 3+. $1,650,000,000 $138,600,000 $1,930,000,000 Costs for Alternatives 4+(a) through 4+(d) are very similar and within the accuracy of the estimate (-40/+50%). Costs for alternatives based on Alternative 4+ are lower than corresponding alternatives based on Alternative 3+. Page 4 of 5 $1,660,000,000 $139,300,000 $1,940,000,000 Costs for Alternatives 4+(a) through 4+(d) are very similar and within the accuracy of the estimate (-40/+50%). Costs for alternatives based on Alternative 4+ are lower than corresponding alternatives based on Alternative 3+. $1,870,000,000 $144,400,000 $2,160,000,000 This alternative has a relatively high cost. Costs for alternatives based on Alternative 4+ are lower than corresponding alternatives based on Alternative 3+.
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:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
12. Potential Applicable or Relevan
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
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 112 and 113: SITE INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR NATION
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 130 and 131: [Two Updated Updated Woodland Ecolo
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 162 and 163: 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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?