1 / 29

Investigation Area H1 Draft Feasibility Study

Investigation Area H1 Draft Feasibility Study. H1 Feasibility Study Objectives. Develop remediation alternatives Evaluate each alternative against nine specified criteria: Overall protection of human health and the environment

tryna
Download Presentation

Investigation Area H1 Draft Feasibility Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Investigation Area H1Draft Feasibility Study

  2. H1 Feasibility Study Objectives • Develop remediation alternatives • Evaluate each alternative against nine specified criteria: • Overall protection of human health and the environment • Compliance with applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) • Long-term effectiveness and permanence • Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume • Short-term effectiveness • Implementability • Cost • State acceptance • Community acceptance

  3. Area H1 Feasibility Study • Discussed in three sections following the Remedial Investigation format • Containment Area • Upland Areas Outside the Containment Area • Non-tidal Wetland Areas Outside the Containment Area

  4. Containment Area

  5. Containment Area Alternatives • Alternative 1─No Action • Alternative 2─Multilayer Cap, Institutional Controls, Groundwater Containment, and Landfill Gas Monitoring • Alternative 3─Removal and Disposal

  6. IA H1 Landfill Remedy - Containment • Interim Remedy – Groundwater Containment Barrier • Completed October 2004 • 7,300 linear feet of slurry wall • Groundwater extraction/collection system • Extracted groundwater discharged to local POTW • Remedy – Multilayer Cap • Containment for approximately 70 acres • Includes roughly 7 acres of disposal areas that are seasonal wetlands; Wetland X and two smaller areas • Wetlands are isolated low value wetlands but contain some pickleweed which may provide habitat for the salt marsh harvest mouse

  7. RCRA Liner Cross-Section

  8. Non-RCRA Liner Cross-Section

  9. Wetland Mitigation • A Multilayer Cap will cover non-tidal Wetland inside containment area • Wetland mitigation includes creation of new higher value pickleweed wetlands in the upland areas • A Wetland mitigation plan is being reviewed by the interested agencies and experts to develop final workable plan

  10. Existing Seasonal Wetlands Within Containment

  11. History of Wetland X Wetland X 1970 1966 1954

  12. Wetland X Vicinity Subsurface Conditions 3 inch projectile shipping containers

  13. IA H1 Existing Wetlands, Anticipated Wetland Loss (Fill) Areas, and Proposed Wetland Creation Areas

  14. Containment Area Removal and Disposal • Includes removal of all waste and transport to other facilities • Not usually considered due to past EPA experience and development of presumptive remedy for landfills • Requires approximately 48,000 truckloads of waste to be removed from the site • Time to complete is years (2-3) • Moves waste from one area to another • Exposes workers to more potential hazards • Exposes public to waste transportation hazards

  15. Comparison of Alternatives Containment Area • Containment and Removal meet required criteria • Containment is much more implementable • Removal creates higher short term hazards in handling large amounts of waste material on-site and trucking to final disposal facilities • Containment can be implemented in months not years • Containment cost is $36,775,000 versus removal cost of $233,000,000.

  16. Upland Area

  17. Upland Areas Alternatives • Alternative 1-No Action • Alternative 2-Institutional Controls, Hot Spot Removal, Groundwater Monitoring and 2-Foot Soil Cover • Alternative 3-Institutional Controls, Limited Hot Spot Removal, Groundwater Monitoring, and 2-Foot Soil Cover • Alternative 4-Institutional Controls, Upland Excavation and Disposal

  18. Upland Hot Spots and Soil Cover (Alternative 2)

  19. Upland Areas Alternative 2 - Hot Spot Removal • Risk based determination of hot spots • Hot spots include all areas with • Unacceptable ecological risk • Human cancer Risk estimate of 1x10-4 • Areas posing a threat to groundwater • Exhibiting visible oil/free product

  20. Upland Areas Alternative 2 - continued • Remaining risk for Human cancer risk would be 1x 10-5 or better. • After hot spot excavation an additional 2-foot soil cover would be placed over the entire area to provide a good base for vegetation. • Groundwater monitoring in shallow water bearing zone would be conducted at the margins of the upland area to evaluate and ensure groundwater is not impacting the non-tidal wetlands.

  21. Upland Hot Spots and Soil Cover (Alternative 3)

  22. Upland Areas Alternative 3 -& 4 Limited Hot Spot Removal and Removal • Similar to alternative 2 however would remove only hot spots that pose a threat to groundwater or have visible oil/free product • All other actions are the same as Alternative 2 including the 2-foot soil cover and groundwater monitoring. • Alternative 4 would remove all the Upland areas to a depth ranging from 2-14 feet bgs.

  23. Comparison of Alternatives Upland Areas • Alternative 2,3, and 4 satisfy the required criteria • Alternatives 2 and 3 provide thegreatest protection to the environment, and are preferred based on short- and long-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost • Alternative 4 is much more difficult to implement and has more severe short-term impacts due to the large amount of material required to be excavated • Alternatives 2 and 3 are the preferred remedy with a total cost of $6,363,000 and $5,844,000, respectively.

  24. Non-tidal Wetland Areas

  25. Non-tidal Wetland Alternatives • Alternative 1-No Action • Alternative 2-Institutional Controls, Hot Spot Removal, and Sediment Monitoring • Alternative 3-Institutional Controls and Wetland Excavation

  26. Non-tidal Wetland Areas Alternative 2 - Hot Spot Removal • Risk based determination for hot spots. Same definitions as in the Upland Areas • Three hot spots would be removed • One current hot spot for manganese would be monitored because removal would likely result in more harm to the wetland than the available threat from manganese • Sediment monitoring will be conducted to confirm that concentrations in sediment are not increasing to hazardous levels over time

  27. Non-tidal Wetland Areas Alternative 3 - Wetland Excavation • This alternative includes removal of the upper 2-feet of sediment and surface soil. • Destruction of habitat would occur but contaminants would be removed • Would have a substantial short term impact on wetlands

  28. Comparison of Alternatives Non-Tidal Wetland Areas • Alternative 2 and 3 satisfy the required criteria • Alternative 2 provides the greatest protection to the environment, and is preferred based on short-term and long-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost • Alternative 3 provides the most long-term effectiveness and permanence however, it presents the most risk of impacts to the wetlands because the wetlands would essentially be removed and then replaced • Alternative 2 is the preferred remedy for the Non-Tidal Wetlands outside the Containment Barrier with a total cost of $400,000. This alternative removes key hot spots while maintaining the functional wetlands

  29. Next Steps • Comments due on Draft FS mid-January 2005 • Selection of the Remedy • Proposed Plan – Public Input – Design in progress • Remedial Action Plan/Record of Decision (RAP/ROD) • Public Comment • Target RAP/ROD Approval Date – June 30, 2005 • Remedial Action – Summer/Fall 2005

More Related