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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SITE INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR NATIONAL REMEDY REVIEW BOARD PART B, SECTION 11: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE remediation water quality at Elizabeth Park and Pinehurst for each remedial alternative considered. Further reductions in the AWQC ratio, eventually resulting in the attainment of ARARs, are expected as a result of natural source depletion. (Natural source depletion will contribute to reductions in the AWQC ratio during the implementation period, and will continue following the completion of remedial actions.) Particulate lead in streams and rivers would also be significantly reduced as a result of source removal actions within floodplains and adjacent upland areas. In addition, source removal actions included in Alternative 3+ would provide important human health and environmental benefits by reducing the potential for direct contact with mining-contaminated wastes. The key factors leading to the preference for Alternative 3+ over Alternative 4+ included: • Nearly the same improvement in water quality. Under Alternative 3+, the estimated post-remediation AWQC ratio for dissolved zinc at the completion of remedial actions in the SFCDR at Elizabeth Park is 1.7. This estimated post-remediation AWQC ratio represents a substantial decrease from the current value of 5.5 and is nearly the same as the estimated post-remediation AWQC ratio under Alternative 4+ (1.5). • Fewer implementability concerns. Alternative 3+ would have substantially fewer technical and administrative feasibility difficulties compared to Alternative 4+. The types of implementability considerations are similar for the two alternatives, although the smaller quantities of materials addressed in Alternative 3+ would mean comparatively less repository space, and therefore less difficulty in implementation and long-term management. • Fewer short-term negative impacts to the community. The time required for implementation of Alternative 3+ is likely to be decades shorter than the time needed for implementation of Alternative 4+. In addition, the comparatively smaller quantity of materials that would be handled would translate into less truck traffic and less area within the Upper Basin that would be needed for waste consolidation areas and repositories. • Lower cost. The estimated cost of Alternative 3+, in terms of 30-year NPV, is $1.25 billion, which is substantially ($620 million) less than the estimated cost for Alternative 4+ ($1.87 billion). 11.1.2 Description of OU 2 Components and Key Factors in Identification The Preferred Remedial Alternative for OU 2 is OU 2 Alternative (d). This alternative consists of the following components that are depicted in Figure B11-9: • A phased approach to address adit drainage from the Reed/Russell adits within the Milo Gulch watershed. • French drain installation along a gaining reach between the CIA and the SFCDR and extending south to the eastern side of the mouth of Government Gulch. • Direct-discharge pipeline installation from the CTP to the SFCDR so that treated CTP effluent would no longer discharge into Bunker Creek and infiltrate into contaminated subsurface materials. B11-3
SITE INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR NATIONAL REMEDY REVIEW BOARD PART B, SECTION 11: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE • Stream liners on Government Creek. The stream liners would be accompanied by an upstream clean groundwater cutoff wall that would divert clean groundwater into the lined stream; a line of groundwater extraction wells at the mouth of Government Gulch; and a conveyance system that would transport the intercepted contaminated groundwater to the CTP for treatment. OU 2 Alternative (d) was identified as the Preferred Alternative for OU 2 because it would meet the CERCLA threshold criteria and provide the best balance of trade-offs based on the CERCLA primary balancing criteria. As shown in Table B11-2, OU 2 Alternative (d) is estimated by the Predictive Analysis to reduce the AWQC ratio for dissolved zinc in the SDCDR at Pinehurst from the current value of 4.3 to 1.5 (when coupled with Alternative 3+ actions in OU 3) at the completion of remedial actions. Further reductions in the AWQC ratio, eventually resulting in the attainment of ARARs, are expected as a result of natural source depletion, which will contribute to reductions in the AWQC ratio during the implementation period and will continue following the completion of remedial actions. The key factors leading to the preference for OU 2 Alternative (d) over the other remedial alternatives for OU 2 included: • Significant improvements in water quality. OU 2 Alternative (e) would be anticipated to have the greatest positive impact on surface water quality, with an estimated postremediation AWQC ratio at Pinehurst of 1.3. However, this is only slightly better than the estimated post-remediation AWQC ratios for OU 2 Alternatives (c) and (d), both estimated to be 1.5. Given the uncertainty associated with these estimates, there is relatively little difference in estimated post-remediation water quality between OU 2 Alternatives (c), (d), and (e). OU 2 Alternatives (c) and (d) provide similar benefits in terms of SFCDR water quality; however, in terms of addressing surface water quality in the major OU 2 tributaries, OU 2 Alternative (d) addresses Government Creek while OU 2 Alternative (c) does not. In addition, the Government Gulch component of OU 2 Alternative (d) is consistent with remedial action objectives identified for tributary water quality within OU 2 in the ROD for OU 2 (USEPA, 1992), which states that “…ARARs are expected to be achieved in onsite tributaries to the SFCDR upon successful implementation of remedial actions specified in this ROD.” OU 2 Alternatives (a) and (b) are estimated to provide much smaller improvements in water quality than OU 2 Alternatives (c), (d), and (e) (Table B11-2), and therefore were eliminated from further consideration. • Fewer implementability concerns. The extensive and intrusive nature of OU 2 Alternative (e) also carries with it short- and long-term impacts on the surrounding community and environment, as well as technical and administrative challenges associated with the large amount of stream lining identified. Alternative (e) also has the highest potential of any OU 2 alternative to adversely affect the existing SFCDR levee system.. OU 2 Alternative (d) is expected to have relatively few implementability concerns, although slightly more than OU 2 Alternative (c) due to the additional actions included for Government Creek. Due to the additional action in Government Creek, OU 2 Alternative (d) is expected to have slightly more implementability concerns than OU 2 Alternative (c). B11-4
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: 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 77: 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 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?