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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SITE INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR NATIONAL REMEDY REVIEW BOARD PART B, SECTION 7: REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES AND REMEDIATION GOALS through B7-3 on the Supplemental CD provided with this Site Information Package. The AWQC (Table B7-1) represent the fundamental Upper Basin remediation goal because they are published numeric criteria directly applicable to surface water. However, final sitespecific action or cleanup levels developed for the Upper Basin will be established in the ROD Amendment and may differ from the PRGs presented in Files B7-1 through B7-3 on the Supplemental CD. The 2001 EcoRA (CH2M HILL and URS Greiner, 2001) and the ROD for OU 3 (USEPA, 2002) identified the lack of site-specific riparian and riverine songbird data and a protective cleanup level as data gaps that should be addressed. Based on the findings of the sitespecific data gathered in the USFWS songbird study (Hansen, 2007), the focused EcoRA (CH2M HILL, 2006b), and other relevant information, USEPA made a risk managementbased determination that a site-specific lead cleanup level of 530 mg/kg for soil will be protective of songbirds in the Coeur d’Alene Basin. This cleanup number is also consistent with the human health approach. For surface water, AWQC are both the principal ARARs and PRGs for protection of the aquatic environment. The State of Idaho established site-specific aquatic life criteria for cadmium, lead, and zinc in March 2002. Idaho Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements, 58.01.02.284, apply to the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River subbasin (Hydrological Unit Code 1710302), which includes the SFCDR and its tributaries. USEPA also recognizes that other requirements are under development but are not yet finalized (e.g., Coeur d’Alene Tribal water quality standards). B7-3
8. Description of Alternatives The overall purpose of the FFS Report (USEPA, 2010) was to identify and evaluate two kinds of alternatives that address unacceptable exposures to human health and the environment in the Upper Coeur d’Alene Basin: • Remedial alternatives that address the widespread contamination impacting surface water in the Upper Basin; and • Remedy protection alternatives that enhance the protectiveness of the existing human health remedies for OUs 1, 2, and 3. As described previously, ecological remedies selected in previous decision documents, like the interim remedy described in the ROD for OU 3 (USEPA, 2002), could not be implemented for several reasons, including availability of funding, cost, and uncertainties involved with predicting their effectiveness, particularly on a Basin-wide basis. Since the 2001 NRRB Presentation Information (USEPA, 2001b; Supplemental CD, File B2-1) was submitted and reviewed, USEPA has conducted studies and collected data with which to identify a comprehensive solution to the ecological conditions in the Upper Basin. At the same time, USEPA has implemented significant portions of the human health remedies and has observed and evaluated impacts to protective barriers that may affect the protectiveness of the remedies. In the development and evaluation of the alternatives in the FFS Report, remedial actions that can be applied incrementally by using an adaptive management approach were favored, as was maximizing the effectiveness of limited resources. 8.1 Remedial Alternatives A general framework of alternatives to meet CERCLA goals and objectives was developed and evaluated in the FFS Report. Remedial alternatives were first developed separately for the Upper Basin portion of OU 3 and for OU 2. These separate alternatives were then combined to produce 10 combined remedial alternatives that address all of the Upper Basin. These combined remedial alternatives, along with a No Action Alternative included for baseline comparison purposes, were evaluated in the FFS Report, using the CERCLA threshold and primary balancing criteria to identify a comprehensive surface water remedy for the Upper Basin. A detailed description of the FFS approach is provided in Part B, Section 3.3 of this Site Information Package. The remedial alternatives for the Upper Basin portion of OU 3 and for OU 2 are described in Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2, respectively. 8.1.1 Remedial Alternatives for the Upper Basin Portion of OU 3 In the 2001 FS Report (USEPA, 2001d), six remedial alternatives, including Alternative 1 (No Action), were selected for evaluation to address ecological risks posed to fish, waterfowl, other birds, and plants in the Upper and Lower Basins. Of these, Ecological Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 were not retained for further evaluation because they were determined to be B8-1
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: 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 47 and 48: 5. Current and Potential Future Sit
Page 49 and 50: 6. Summary of Risks The Bunker Hill
Page 57: SITE INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR NATION
Page 65 and 66: Remedial Alternative Description SI
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 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 ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?