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 Notes: Criteria OU 2 Alternative (a) Minimal Stream Lining 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) a O&M costs over 30 years in current dollars, assuming a 7% discount factor. b Total NPV cost equals the total equivalent cost of the alternative over 30 years in current dollars, assuming a 7% discount factor. c This assumes a rough estimated range of $15M/yr to $25M/yr of available annual funding to cover capital costs. ARARs = applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements CTP = Central Treatment Plant CWA = Clean Water Act cy = cubic yards gpm = gallons per minute LF = linear feet NPV = net present value O&M = operation and maintenance OU = Operable Unit PRG = preliminary remediation goal RAO = Remedial Action Objective SFCDR = South Fork Coeur d'Alene River SRB = sulfate-reducing bioreactor NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures. NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility Study-level estimate with a nominal accuracy of –30 percent to +50 percent (–30/+50%). NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the final project schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets. Page 5 of 5
TABLE B9-2 Comparative Analysis of Remedy Protection Alternatives Site Information Package for National Remedy Review Board Feasibility Criterion Description of Criterion Threshold Criteria Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) Primary Balancing Criteria Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume through Treatment Ability of alternative to achieve and maintain protection of human health and the environment Ability of alternative to meet location- and action-specific ARARs Ability of technology to be protective of human health and the environment without upset over the long-term Ability of alternative to reduce mobility, toxicity, or volume of contaminants Short-Term Effectiveness Ability of alternative to protect human health and the environment during the short-term time frame. Implementability Ability of alternative to meet technical, administrative, and logistical challenges associated with implementation ALTERNATIVE RP-1 No Further Action (Post-Event Response) Alternative RP-1 would be protective of human health and the environment because the existing Selected Human Health Remedies are currently protective. The risk of exposure to contaminated material for Alternative RP-1 could temporarily increase following a storm event from the time the Selected Remedies were damaged until the post-event response was completed. Alternative RP-1 could potentially be implemented in compliance with location- and actionspecific ARARs. Chemical-specific ARARs were not included as part of this evaluation because the remedy protection alternatives only enhance the existing Selected Remedies. Alternative RP-1 would provide relatively less long-term effectiveness and permanence. Based on hydrologic and hydraulic models, there are areas of the existing Selected Remedies which are at risk to recontamination due to flooding and uncontrolled surface water flow. Alternative RP-1 would not address this issue of permanence of the existing Selected Remedies, but instead would rely on post-event response to repair the Selected Remedies when damaged. Alternative RP-1 would not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of metals contamination through treatment. In general, Alternative RP-1 would be effective in the short term because the existing Selected Remedies are currently protective of human health and the environment. Much of the existing infrastructure within communities is under-capacity. Therefore, Alternative RP-1 would allow a relatively higher risk of contaminant mobility within residential areas during and immediately following storm events. Additionally, the risk of exposure could temporarily increase following a storm event until the post-event response is completed. Alternative RP-1 would not be expected to have any technical feasibility issues. There would be administrative issues regarding the availability of federal funds to repair the Selected Remedies following a storm event. Additionally, in some cases, the repair of the protective barriers could be time-sensitive in order to maintain protectiveness and limit a resident's risk of exposure. ALTERNATIVE RP-2 Modifications to Selected Remedies to Enhance Protectiveness (Remedy Protection Projects) Alternative RP-2 would be protective of human health and the environment because the existing Selected Human Health Remedies are currently protective. Additionally, Alternative RP- 2 would be more protective of human health and the environment than Alternative RP-1 because it would enhance the long-term effectiveness and permanence of the Selected Remedies by reducing the potential for floods or surface water flow to damage the existing Selected Remedies. Alternative RP-2 could potentially be implemented in compliance with location- and actionspecific ARARs. Chemical-specific ARARs were not included as part of this evaluation because the remedy protection alternatives only enhance the existing Selected Remedies. Alternative RP-2 would enhance the long-term effectiveness and permanence of the Selected Remedies. This alternative would be expected to provide protectiveness to the communities from storm events smaller than the 50-year event. Alternative RP-2 would not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of metals contamination through treatment. Alternative RP-2 would be effective in the short term because the existing Selected Remedies are currently protective of human health and the environment. Additionally, Alternative RP-2 reduces the risk of exposure to contaminated material by protecting the Selected Remedies up to the 50-year storm event. This alternative would effectively convey stormwater and floodwater for storm events smaller than the 50-year event and reduce the risk of exposure and mobility of contaminants within residential areas. Alternative RP-2 would not be expected to have any technical implementability issues. The list of technologies and process options applied for Alternative RP-2 are standard engineering practices. There could be administrative issues that arise in regard to determining which state or local entity would be responsible for O&M of the Alternative RP-2 projects. Additionally, there could be logistical challenges to implementing Alternative RP-2 on private properties, where access and easement agreements would be needed prior to construction. Cost Total Capital Cost for Upper Basin Communities a NA $13,700,000 O&M Cost (30-Year NPV) for Upper Basin Communities a NA $4,980,000 Total Cost (30-Year NPV) for Upper Basin Communities a $33,800,000 $18,800,000 Total Capital Cost for Side Gulches b NA $10,900,000 O&M Cost (30-Year NPV) for Side Gulches b NA $4,180,000 Total Cost (30-Year NPV) for Side Gulches b $16,300,000 $15,100,000 Total Cost (30-Year NPV) $50,100,000 $33,900,000 Notes: NPV = net present value; ARARs = applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements; NA = nor applicable a The costs for Alternatives RP-1 and RP-2 in the eight Upper Basin communities include Pinehurst, Smelterville, Kellogg, Wardner, Osburn, Silverton, Wallace and Mullan b Side gulch costs for Alternatives RP-1 and RP-2 are approximate based on assumptions discussed in the FFS Report (see Appendix D, which is provided in File B14-1 on the Supplemental CD provided with this Site Information Package). NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility Study-level estimate with a nominal accuracy of –30 percent to +50 percent (–30/+50%). NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the final project schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets. Page 1 of 1
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 160 and 161: 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?