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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SITE INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR NATIONAL REMEDY REVIEW BOARD PART B, SECTION 2: SITE REGULATORY HISTORY, ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES, AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS • Demolition and disposal of many structures and debris, including the Coeur d’Alene Mill and the Silver Crescent and Charles Dickens Mine sites Figures B2-1 and B2-2 present timelines of the removal and remedial actions conducted in OUs 2 and 3, respectively. The RODs listed in Section 2.2, as well as the associated ROD Amendments and Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs), selected remedies and cleanup actions at all three OUs. Substantial progress has been made towards implementing those selected remedies and actions, including the following cleanup accomplishments: • CERCLA Five-Year Review Reports prepared to date show that the final selected human health remedies for OUs 1, 2, and 3 have functioned as designed and are protective of human health. For example, the Superfund cleanup actions have resulted in significant and well-documented declines in children’s blood lead levels, as measured by blood lead concentrations within the communities where cleanup actions have been implemented (USEPA, 2005). • Institutional controls have been put into place in the Upper Basin and other areas to ensure the protection of the human health remedies. The Institutional Controls Program (ICP) is administered by the Panhandle Health District and provides permitting and educational services that ensure the sustainability of the human health remedies. • Phase I remedial work in OU 2 is largely complete. The focus of Phase I was on source removal, containment, and consolidation of extensive contamination from various areas, capping source areas, demolition of structures, development and implementation of an ICP for OUs 1 and 2, and corresponding public health response actions. Phase I work was followed by an evaluation of the effectiveness of the implemented actions and studies of long-term water quality improvements that could provide the basis for selecting appropriate Phase II actions to address water quality issues. The 2002 ROD for OU 3 selected a final human health remedy for community and residential areas, including identified recreational areas, and an interim remedy for protection of the environment that focuses on improving water quality, minimizing downstream migration of metal contaminants, and improving conditions for fish and wildlife populations. USEPA has conducted a few actions at mine and mill sites that addressed recreational as well as ecological exposures (see File B2-2 on the Supplemental CD). USEPA has also conducted studies evaluating key technical aspects of environmental conditions and remedial approaches. 2.3.2 Studies and Investigations As part of remedy implementation, studies, information gathering, and the performance of remedial actions have added to a greater understanding of site conditions and risk. The resulting information indicates that it is essential to augment established remedies to ensure continued protection of human health and ecological receptors. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reviewed the OU 3 Coeur d’Alene Basin cleanup and the scientific and technical practices used in developing the human health and ecological risk assessments, remedial planning, and decisionmaking. Given improved knowledge of conditions in the Basin and in response to the findings of the NAS (2005), USEPA is B2-5
SITE INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR NATIONAL REMEDY REVIEW BOARD PART B, SECTION 2: SITE REGULATORY HISTORY, ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES, AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS updating its cleanup plan for the Upper Coeur d’Alene Basin by conducting an FFS and issuing a ROD Amendment. The update considers the specific recommendations of the NAS, which included holistic evaluation of the Upper Basin; developing an improved understanding of the distribution, fate, and transport of dissolved metals in the groundwater and surface water systems; considering groundwater treatment approaches; developing predictive tools to assess remedial action effectiveness; improving the use of the adaptive management approach; and considering impacts of flood events on protective barriers. A summary of studies and investigations that were conducted within the Upper Basin from 2001 through 2008 is provided in File B2-3 on the Supplemental CD. Since the 2002 ROD for OU 3 was issued (USEPA, 2002), most of the studies and investigations have focused on developing a better understanding of the groundwater system in the Upper Basin, how the surface water and groundwater interact, the fate and transport of metals in the subsurface, and the effectiveness of alternative water treatment processes. 2.4 Ongoing Data Collection Efforts Since the 2002 ROD for OU 3 was issued, more knowledge has been gained regarding the nature and extent of contamination and its effects on sensitive ecological receptors and potential associated effects on human health. Table B2-1 summarizes ongoing data collection programs within the Upper Basin. Existing programs are primarily associated with the Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) for OU 2, the Basin Environmental Monitoring Program (BEMP) for OU 3, and the Coeur d’Alene Basin Remedial Action Monitoring Program. These programs use dynamic parameters and monitoring frequencies that are anticipated to detect or predict potential rates of change in environmental conditions in the Upper Basin. USEPA has considered and used this information to support the development and evaluation of remedial alternatives that make up the comprehensive approach to address surface water within the Upper Basin. B2-6
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 9 and 10: Acronyms and Abbreviations µg/dL m
Page 11 and 12: RAO remedial action objective RI/FS
Page 23 and 24: 1. Site Name, Location, and Brief H
Page 29: SITE INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR NATION
Page 47 and 48: 5. Current and Potential Future Sit
Page 49 and 50: 6. Summary of Risks The Bunker Hill
Page 59 and 60: 8. Description of Alternatives The
Page 65 and 66: Remedial Alternative Description SI
Page 81 and 82:
SITE INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR NATION
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:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
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 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
TABLE B9-1b Comparative Analysis of
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
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?