technical review of 12/1992 proposed plan, feasibility … · 2020. 12. 4. · tbis dijcuaion, tbo1...

Nolcbl993

Prepued by

ltJenchty A Miller Inc middot~ Eut Bedlpoae Rood

Plainview New York 11803 (516) 249middot7600

GERAGHTY amp MILLER INC

--

INTRODUCTION I

OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE lla 3

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS bullbull bull 4

HISTORICAL DRAINAGE AND RUNOFF FROM 1111 NYANZA SITE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 6 r

OCCUUENCB EXTENT AND TRANSPORT OF MERCURY IN 1111 WETLAND SYnIIM I

CUUIIHI NIIICURY DATAIASII I -rr nAIISPOR1 bull 10 18AIID IDIILGQICAL ASIISDBI II CUIAIIUP ClliDIA I

IICDMMINDA110NS 11

WIIIIAIID CONIIDIIIA110NS bull IS

GERAGHTY amp MILLER I )C

TECHNICAL REVIEW OF mE FEASIBILITY SnJDY AND PROPOSm PLAN

NY ANZA SUPEIU1JND SITE OPERABLE UNIT m

MIDDLESEX COUNTY MASSACRUSETIS

INTBODVCDON

ltJenamphlJ A Milkr Inc wu - by Nyacol ProductJ Inc to- llldshy

onlhc draft Feuibility Study (FS) rqxxt llld lito Pruposod llemodill Pion far Opoablf Uoil m (OU Ul)llllte NJiltza Superfund SilO Middlaox County Mwocb- 11tiiS- S

by - NUS Envinlnmcnlal Corpontion agta- far lito US - _

- Apoqlt (USEPA) llelion I ltJenamphlJ A MiUor - lito_ uo1o1o - iadudillc lite tollowina middotFinol llemodill - _ ~ 0poo1111o

UlliiWSudburyllverStudyMiddleoe1County -Mayi992bull~NIJI

--Corpontion 1992amp) bullDraft Filtal FltuibWty SlUdy _ - 3 ~ Oponlrlo Ullil m Sucllury River Study Middlaox County -middot_ 1992

(llolllloorloo NUS Envinlnmcnlal Corpontion 199211) oad _ USIIPe I

_ Nyona CJteniical W- Dump SilO Alltllnd --middot Opoollllo

Ullil mSudbury River Study December 1992 Odter---11-- io IIIII - upon this review Geraahty A Miller beliews no -w Kli011 oleould lib plao

in lhc Welllnd Systltm based on lhc data collected to dole Oorqhty A MiUor ltu concluded

dtot lite USEPA ltu failed to demonstrate lhlllhc ampsiOm Wedued llld odjainina - shy

~ piths (collectively lhc ampsiOm Welllnd SYJIOill) JeM U I agtatlnuina mucb 1

Jipiflcant of mercury to lhc Sudbury River Systltm ~t SitionJ in lite ri- an

lhc rault of than ~ years of Klivity by color llld dye manufacturers lllhc farma Nyaoza

facility rather than from discharges from lhc Eastern Wetland If lhc USEPA is to go forward

with any Klivity it should focus on minimizing peroeived or potenlill ritks u oppoood to

undertakinc u~ensive source control measures

GERAGHTY 0 MILLER INC

I

Because of the lack of quantifS data or evidence COIICOI1Iinamp the impoct of theWshy

Syllem the USEPA has made very pnenl and unra1islic wont-lta10 riJk ISIWIIpliaas by

default and has lleledod aranedy (Aitallllive Ia) that iJ unwamnS atremely _Y owerly

ambitious and of doubtful effect in oddmsinamp macury contamination in the s-y Rishy

SyJtem The process and raJOninamp by which Altallllive Ia and the JOil cleonup cri- _ oeleclod do not adherlt to sound scientifh or enau-inc pnclica and are for the - port

arllilnry Ill oddilioo the ranedy - and the level of IIUdy complelod for the shy

~ iJ - witb pul - invelliplions and JaDedillion - shyIIIBPA_-

Tltia will - tbl ntlianlle for OenibiY amp Nlllorl CIIOCitoabiiOIII shy shyOvllw at A1laoiM IlL

oa--- ano~--at_y - AdoliY of the-shy_____ - Rilllt IIIII ecaiiiPcol-middot - C1oonup cri-

GERAGHTY C 11LLER I-C

OYERYIEW OF liLTERNliiDE Ia

lis a result of the OU-W Remediallnvestiption (IU) and FSthe USEPA bu pnlpOIId

a remedy based on the premise that the Eastern Wetland System bu served and CCX1tin1101to

serve as a source of mertury in the Sudbury River System This remedy Allernltive lla

includes the follolriaa lOtions

-and removal of atimatod 20~ cubic yanls (ydl) of llliiiM-tfiom the Eulcm Wetland IIIII tldjoiaina ---bull

of the a-- Unit I (QU-I) cell lltd -of 25000 fll of

- liD within and II1IUild the cell-

oew-ill and possible-of-lllillltd __litoW- SJIIOill and di-1 wltllilt thl QU-I cell

~of bactllllllllla fiom thl cell- bt- wi11t1o1 lito w_s _Slnlelion of the -wtd

Imposition of institutional controls

The USEPll wumes that approxiiOildy 19450 yds of lllil will be collocted over an

atimated S-acre and 750 yds of sodiment wiU be dmlpd fiom thl adjoininamp croob

Excavation for the moot put will tab place fiom 0 to 2 feet in depth and in one - to 6

feel in depth The objective is to excavate IOils with concentrations arater than 1 millianm por

kilolllm (mlfka) 1 cleanup criteria based upon 1 default wumption aimed II prevcnlinamp

GERAGHTY amp MlLLER iltC

environmenlll risk to aquatic life in lhe Sudbury River Syllem The principol COOII for t111t

remedy are approxillllldy $13000000 in capilli expendiiWel and _rumatdy $7000000

in _uon and mainleniiiCO over 30 yean

SVMMAilY OF CONCLUSIONS

The USEPAslllledion or Altcnlllive lla u well u lhe FS u a wlMIIo is- tllo

_ _ dlallbo Wedald s~ is a ol-ury In lilt~~

The USEPA- wilbout pnlvidillc any CXIIIIItaay lboa lbat -y isllliplliaa Ill tllo

~~middot~ sodl--rtaod 01-tllo

llaltoi ID _an tllit buic ampllllllplillllbo USEPA- n Wf ~

Imiddot mt- u _ana u Allonative IlL

AAir miowiaS lbo 00middot111 FS and -od llill _ for lbo

CJinPIJ amp -- fo11owias eaiiCIIIIiau 0 1 No_ - - durinllbo USIPAI ilvelllpiiOII- _

~In 1M sedi- in 1M- Wodalld S~ ~to

bull11111 - 1n 111o s-ry Rivers~I 2 The- Wetland Syllem -be- a ol-y wltloaootI

qtified data and information ccocorllina lito-specific 10111- tnlllpOII

ecalalica1 impaltU

3 llemodiatioo or the Eastern Wetland sy~~em u pmposed in the ou-m PS

(Altemative lla) at a cost of than $20000000 wiD have no -lblo

effect oo the Sudbul) River S)llem

GERAGHTYamp MILLER INC

4 By the USEPAs own admission the cleanup ampools derived ill the FS ue buod

on faulty assumptions The scope and COSI nmitications ue of sullldenlcoacom

u to WUUDt a more careful and ICientific aueament

$ It would not be legtampical efficient1 or cost-effective to proceed with an exlallive

remedial effort ill the Easlem Wetland Syllelll such u Altcmative I Ia uatila

docision is made u to whether the Sudbury Rivu Sysoem ftllluiNt mnedial-

and if so what acsion to talre

I 6 lmplomon- of Altcmative I Ia wiD -yan--o1 yenilllloshy

- The USEPA huIIOip--10- till U0 10 till Wldand octo the ~ility of a Wldand -ill ill p1ooo

c-- die - of _oa on die Nyanza liso die lick of -uw shy_ dloillpiCI of die Eullm Wetland 111 die Sudbury - Sysoem till

-oflllo- Weiland wip- Hale ifbully boololldal- till

IN Sysoem the remedy - ill die FS AMmodw llo Ia

llrms ofCOli and ocope inoonlitlw 111 and-__ I Ia buod Ill bnlld aad -llatod IIIUiftplioaS

5~ the Eullm Wetland Syllelll hu IIOibeea-- u I_ of

mnedial acsion isiiOI wamnted Howevu if die USEPA- 10 ta1re- acsion ill spile

of die we woo1d rocommend flnt IIIII inslibDal CCIIIInlla and -my- be

ta1ren 10 minimize or eliminate po181tial_ The FS - IIIII illllibDal- rin be i_ in any event due to die necliaible effeet of die mnedial acsion 111 -- ill

die Sudbury River As 1 second alternative the USEPA could consider limited a1 of

swficial soil from u- ueu suspocted of boillamp colloction zona of Y Clllllminasod

nmoff buod upon the existing clatabue and delineation of low lyillamp topopaphic ueu whero

runoff would have collected This more cost-effective approach would ~ill die


ampOils u Alternative 11a wilhout reopenillJ lhe OU-1 cdl deslroyillJ lhe waland eoolosYIIId

diuupeina lhe local tommuaity

HISTORICAL DRAINAGE AND RJNQFF FROM WE NYANZA SITE

Buod upon a review of documents in lhe public reltotd it is clear thallhe USEPA

caouidon the - _uons of Nyonza llld its ~ u a lipilicoot _ ol

-ury conlllllinalion in the Sudbury River We- 1101- die doll upon- lite

USEPAs conclusion is bued llld do not expras ony opinion u 10 die volidity a( tltol I --- Far_ ol our review of lite USEPAslropo-1 Pitta filr ~ Utsit m

L -middot--tbol coaclusion 10 be Yllid

-review of lhe hi- infonnolian it is opponnt tltolllte _r --middot-lilmiddot bull-inllslltiauelllldldmeetiollte-yRiverS_ _

ol - 50 yoon of - dlsdtorp llllllllf a( - - _ IIIli NJIIII SiiiIMIIa-llolcunoat-isollteUnW_S_ TltellljadiJ

_ (~-y~callottodiollloW_S__ 0 10andianuycuoaoo_ illadtlilltolllteUnW___

wtlltie lite~ fadlity _-flow pllbway AI a- tlton is 10-far llle

UIEPA 10 --die Eulem Wodaad allipl- _ ol _ CWIO- a I

~-oloucballllli _llllll_-llte-filrllteu_

ol _ via -t _ llld upllloo in tho - cbain while - _ fn1m tho Wetland SyJIOm - pollllliaUy _ Ollly a ~ If II Ill

- liodion of the overo11 polllltial-ury 1oodiac 10 die -yRivers- shy

_t 10 tho illll of lhe- hand1ina _on die Nyonza sile

A -led tOpOrt describina lhe history 111c1 wute eli- pnclices at die Nyonza site

compiled by the Massachusetts Depu1ment of ampvironmontal Quality Enai-inamp (DEQE) iA

1980 i- that dye manufacturina occumc1 at lhe Nyonza site rnm 1914 1m Until

_ximately 1970 Nyonza llld ill pOdecesoon discharamped _wasta iAto nearby surface


7

Wiler syJIOI11s that fed into the Sudbury River The DEQE (1980) nportod that IlleRshy

problems with the - hlndlinamp system 11 the Nyuua lite Uld bull_-

untratod wute wu a1lowod to disclwie dilectly into tribullriellcodinamp to the Sudbury 11-

In a study of mercury contamination in fish and Jedimenu in the Sudbury River in 1972 JBF

Scientific Corponlion eetimatod that from 1940 to 1970 Nyuua disclwiod 100000

pounds of menury dilectly to tribullriel of the Sudbury IIi- (JBF Scientific Colponliaa

1973)

1hae is no indicllion in either the JBF nport (1973) or DEQI nport (1910) IIIII die i - w wu within or port of the em- dnialp podlway durill 6o

--lsi-yofdie Nyuua lite In fact die USEPA did Dlll tlloMn Wllllltl 1middot sobeadulltal-----Ia die -ttllloci8ao (IQD) b

OU-1 ~19m) The USEPA lndkalod IIIII ury_--lid1 dlo-WIIIIItl-anolf-sitesowlllcb_lood__NJshytito IIIIUSEPA --thattho-W-be--tlloa_lhw-

WidiOul aplualion the USEPA bas ciiiDpd 1tl pooillon tho- W _

aftmiddottito-toa conlinlli and lipltlclnl IOUICCofsite--lld

dollpodan U I--_ UDit If- Ia tho

Wllllotl -beaocltoim--dloOU-1- _OIIIIIflllodshy11 _-- men lotical for the USEPA 10 follow ill CJria1s111 plan 10 llady t1loshyWedand u port of tho overall Sudbury River imeetiplion Buod-lidshylile -middotwedo not ace thejullificatioo for-- tho- Weiland U-1 IOUICC or a_ operable unit

It is _t that the Eulem Wetland cannot be assumed to be a current mucb lou a

siampnificantsoune of mercury in the Sudbury River System (u swed in tho FS) wttoncl

to theextentUidduration of the historic conlalnination u a result ofNyuuasoperatiom While

the mechanism for transport (former direct disclwie Uld runoff) of menury from the Nyuua


site into the Sudbury River il opporent and documented the trlnJpOit of- compouaclo shy

the Wltlland- (viatimont trlnJpOit and biolcJampiltal upcaloo) hu not--iD bullY

of the USEPA inUptions For - _ the Eutcm Wotland CUIIIOI ~cited u tbo

cunent source of present conditions in the river

flN31UENCL UTINTmiddot AND DANSPOU OF MQQIIY IN 1BI WEIUND SXSTEM

auDIT ~y DATAIIASE

i CiosllltampJ bull Mllllr t11o1 tho -cury c1o1a t 1a - t1to ou-m1111111

_s -tyllluod bull ____

~- 1111_11111 clolapiiiiNdby tltoUSEPA-- __

__thow-s~umiddot--middotbull-bull_

ol-gteliL

A lOIII ollllltlilllld timootclolapoillll-uacd by USEPA--shy-- __JandPitueD Tlle __ol_ittM

bull - 1111_ 10 152 tDIIIramiddot 0 tlto llllin IOC - 46

llllylld it tlto 0 2-loat - (23 llll(lloalltaol _ ______ lltlikl (tlto oaloclld- - -----) 14 ol tbo iD tho 2-10 6-foal dopdl inlorYal - below tlto

atlaiiL Coaaldarlaamp tbol only 36 amples CIMrilllbull olover 10 acres -tho UIEPAs _ crileria IIIII IIIUIIIial for _ af tbis diJcuaion tbo1 t1to clola

valid tho USEPA wu not shown sulllcioat justificalion for ~ tho llllin -Wedaod u a ooune of menury middot~ dill do not support the USEPAs ualian dial

- and di- of 20000 yds of soil at U1 estimated - of $1000 per yanl

IIJIIIIIIIrill or~ foc the Eutenl Wotland


There are several instances in the OU-IIl FS wlleto the USEPA biued the mercury dora

toward presentation of the worst-case scenario These instances lead to the conclusion that the

study wu not carried out in an objective and scientific manner Statillicallllll~ of mercury

concentrations pted in the OU-111 investiption include the nal atnme or

outlien It is common statistical practice to eliminate the outliers to usure more replelmlltive

lllllyoes For example the avenae rnmury concenbllioa of 4484 maJitl ia the -

IOdiment u -ted in the Rl is biued bocauJe of one concentnlioD of In maJitl shyclurinamp the Pllllo I aamplinamp survey The USEPA - 10 uoe only the_ of tile 1119

-I survey (10 data points) in its lllllyoes u illustrated in Fiawe 4-3 (Section 411) 011shy

m-RI The apllnllioa for not usinamp the 1991 - n (101 t1a1a poinll) _ 11 U both dala ICIS (PIIIIo I and II) and elllllinlliaa the atnme _ apampJ ol

Millallli- themiddot- concentntion to be 31 maJitl Con1it1oriJ1a the ~Ill

dlo USEPAs- romody Gerqhty It Mlller beliogta the--_ tile

-ury -andjustify why cenain data oea wae used and -_ tltiL

The mojority (75 percent) of the mercury data -ted ia the Rl and FS 1011 udlllld

for c11ant1oriz111 sile conditions and in romody - II Npllllld u 1-quolilloll ildlallloa lhll - Vllua onlllimated The lllimated Vll1101 -the entiJe _ o( -loos

J -middot The FS- 1101 discuss the 10110111 for the 1-quolilkotian or the liml- 111

- - ia the derivltion of the - romody The for quolltJbtl - bull _ con include holdina-time violations nwrix intafaonce in the __ - middot

equipment colibnbon ermr and poor lpilre movay U dloa 10 jllllify a

120000000 romodial -ram without cxplaNtion u 10 the Vllue of the dora - shy

the conclwions -ted in the OU-lll FS The USEPA should re-eval- tile validity of

the mercury data and disclose the and limitations of usi111 estimampIOd Vllua If the dala

are not Vllid in accordance with USEPA Rqion I Laboratory Data Validation Guidelines (June

13 1911) the USEPA mustiltCOI1sider the OU-IIlftndinasand the selected romody which would

abo be invalid


10

SEDIMENT TRANSPORT c One of lhe principol mcnury 1t11Up0rt polhways identified in lhe USEPA~ inYOIIipliao

is sediment transpon Allhouah a conceptual sediment transpon model was performed (Section

51 of lhe IU) no auempt wu made 10 confirm or calibrate it 10 prove wbelhcr -t

bUipOit ICtllllly oaun The sediment model and lhe conclusioas dcriwd from it shy

- vlaquoy _11111f1111Cions lhaiiiO ~ More disturbinamp is lhe foot that no 1111111p1

wu made 1D study l1lo surfoce-- hydrolosy of lhe Wdllnd

ToNiilblyevolualosodimenttnnJport ill llloEulom w-lllo-111

_ be -11111111111yiXIIIoolodiD

-111- c-budpt)- u 1oco1 pncipillliaa dolaIDIIoir

oudlow of- -middot redwp 10 pouod - middot -- ---~~~~~ trllllpirllian ( illloa) __ _

-durinamp lheOU-UIIIUdy The USEPAIIIoftbislaey illlllrmollcll --Mitll ___ flowinampoutofllloEulomW-IIId_ __ilari 0 II_ of llllfCWY iDio lhe Sudbury Rl 5~ 11111 CICIIICiullao _ lito

- k wu dcriwd delia loP and JCIOd -tillc j_

I Tile USEPA- in Section 501111110 OU-UIIU thaiAn in analyais111_

-n-roquiraatenli sediment- thalisbeyondlllo-111tbis

-middot tbis soction presents 101110 aenenlizations on sediment tnnJport 11111

- -y - upon lhe gtalueoftbe OU-UI y and tbe-shy_ _of Altanalive 11a whidlataccot of o 520000000 Clllainly

I _ I OQO iD-ltIepth analysis

The OU-IIIIU itself controdicts lhe USEPAs concllllion that sediment transport is a

polhway to mertUry mia-tion 10 lhe Sudbury River In eliminatinamp Remodial Altanali 13

whidt was proposed by lhe State of Massacltusetts and involwd lhe conltrlletion of a sodi

collection basin at the mouth of lhe Eastern Wetland 1101 lhe USEPA in Section 569 IIIIa

GERAGHTY( MILLER INC

11

Water flow in the Wetland is not measurable Flow velocity and volume II the dilcborp paint

ranaes from neampliampible during dry periods subotanlial during nin evenll and llpling -

Most contaminant (and sodiment) tsanspon will occur durinamp - evenll bull A JeYiew ot lllo FS

Repon Revision 3 - Addendum I indicaiOS tllat the entire analysis aod review of Allemllive 13

is baJod upon a sinampie attempted mwuremenc taken in a culvert and an usumed flow velocity

bullmiddot throuamph the culvert Althouamph flow from the Eastern Wetland could not be t the

USEPA insiats tbll sodiment tsanspon is occurring In order to juatify Allemllivc lla widtaut

confirming this coodition with actual field dlla

JUSJt AND ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

11lo - podlway assumed by the USEPA u a- for tile - - ladle

ilaJ upa11a ot ry throuamph b-mullllon and -mllealiaa Calli- shy

lllo _abovethe databue- not -any---Ia 8 1111 5-ry - middot In litis cue mercury In liJit -middot and - COIIlaiaiac ybullbull- w-Sy110m 111o wumpti0111 of tile rislt -tlloo pen bulllilltbullbull

-sllauld - illlJIIOVCd u a result of remedial ellllns camplelod as port otbull OU-1-middot 11lo lillt tbll mercury is present in the sodlment in the sum W- Sytlem Is not

-to CODdude dial the wetland is the ot mercury In the fblt d- Tile USEPA

admitted tbll bentltic ICrmlrial vqetative and oquatic studies wltidt examined tha palllttial

--in wltidt mercury oould llCillally enter tile Sudbury _ _ 0111 _

tile Wetland System In spite of this the USEPA is propooiJtc an ambidoua mnody- ttp011

very _ wumptions with no supporting dlla

The risk assessment evlluated potenlial exposures of human reoepton to mercury in

sodimenll in the Eastern Wetlands 111o ltawd quodent is the ntio of the caleulalod _

dose and the verifiod reference dose and is usod u an indicator of whether or not _ 1ltgt

nonmiddotcarciqenic compounds poses a threat to human health In all cases the hazard quotients

GERAGHTY amp MILLER I-IC

12

were less than one for both inorpnic and monomelhyl meroury Thereforlt from a bUDilD

heollh penpltQive there does not oppear ID be a lhrat ID human heollh from CliJIOIUIO to

menury in sedi-ts ill tbe Eastern Wetlands

The ecoloticll risk assessment evaluated tbe impoct of tbe OOIISiitucnts of _ in

sun--middot sedimoots and biota Exposure ocenarios evaluated for- ingtOIWid inpllloD

of OOIISiit-ts in sun- water and sediments The inampation of coataminalod bio4a wu alao

evaluated The USEPA risk wesamcnt used a food-chain model 1D predict shy

biooltxumulatioa wu a problem for tbe silO The model is buod on phytoplanlllan -middot

tbe food chain in tbe Sudbury River may be ~ u mialtt be apociOd Ia a

u- BWII dlouamplt tbe food-chain model WU not clewlaped pOCilicolly for l food cMio

iltllo tbe rilllt-- dtal dtia modol _ lliD _

- for tbe rilllt wesamcnt If biola oampla _ oolloclod from tbe t11o

~oftlto-ofmeroury in_-and--middot-Taoticity _ clewlaped for humanJ _ used ID- tbe W rilllt of lyenilll or

_ IaIIte-Wetlands dleUSEPAfotltddtalCllpOIUIOof-

10 _in ourfloe water would not-middot lhnlol ID tbelr bolllh

Sotll- _ _ eval- usina die - ao-11 llld AlltltiiIMric

~(NOAA) (roferonced u Lone Norpo ill tbe rilllt-)__

~ quollty valua _ values are not considerod ID be lllndanb or crillria Tbe

_--(ER-L) llld EffecuRup-- (El-M) valua- used forna

widt doloclod lewis of OOIISiioats in sedi-t The problem wilh tbe BR-L llld BR-M II dtal

die -tntion at which toxicity wu __ otNid not be Wy oxtnpola from shy

sediment lotllion ID anothermiddot Sodiment chanclerillics _uy innuence tbe ~

bullmiddot nNOM vt~~ forEItaMEl-M wtreWW~a--froaaWietyof( Wo --ot ~ wilipifkadylli o~ -of IIIIa 6-o tlle yenViolat M1Uot- to ofdlla - lppftbM -a low deJrM of coali4ec ill _bullY ol pWeli for COIIIIiiiiHIL

GERAGHTY ( MILLER INC

13

toxicity therefore the ER-L and ER-M cannot be used as a direct indicator of ldwne offecu

to aquatic orpnisms Therefore allhouamph the matli1J coocentntions in scdimonts aal the

ER-L and ER-M the impoct may not be u areat u is indicalltd by the risk_ due to

the uncertainties in the auidelines

_ Aquatic sediments readily adsorb mdlls and may provide a repooitory for mdll upCalao

by boaam-dwcllina species (Ney and VID Hwd 1983) - middot the IOiol mdli shyof a sediment may IIIII be entirely available to orpnisms A lup fJacliaa may be~

10 inorpnic lipnds and dissolved orpnic cuboo reducinamp pooontial toxicity to

(DiTormbullal1991) IAadditionbulltmdllarellllldiiOCily-10shy

llllicity (Lee and Jona 1987 BiJe et al 1917) The_ of pncipi-of- shyL lllor ~ --wa to IOiol- iD the_ bullY llllldiiOCily _10 _

of lltalcertlin chemicals potlition stroaampIY 10 aodi- -~~~~~- tltollltoJ

-- llllfillble- to~ -middot k il - tltol ~-ybo-

-oflito _y-in the Eulom w--isapllic ~middot AllltatiP -~- be-vened to-y~ theP$_1101_ oil of wry-middot in theaodi-cut be -d ~

10 dolor1nine the bioavailability of lite 11t0m11Y iD IIIIi- Ualoa lite USIPA

--- dtol - of the lllOmlfY is bioavaillble lite remedial IOiioo pnlpOIId for the- W- may 11111 be appropriale The cumnt site dallbue iJ insufllcienlto mallie dtiJ- middot The USEPA has esaentially acoqMed a risk_ wi-CltlftSidoriol-loey

factors dtol amprally influence its ou-e bioavailability of lllOmlfY the _t bealdt ol the

wesland and silO-specific chemical torplion properties An unclenlandinamp of--middot shyin lite EaRan Wetland and oo a brood scale u they relate to the Sudbury Ri Sysoem are

cleorly wamnted -bulliderinamp the level of remediation proposed in the FS


CLEANUP CIUTEIUA

The FS for the Nyanza OU Ill identifies I matkamp of RIOIltIU)I u the ~ cleonup pili

for sediment based on environmental recepton This tarampet is a default value devekJped in

Section 23S of the FS which accordinc 10 the USEPA bullmay offer some proiiCtion 10

envingtnmenial recepOn bull The underlyinc wumption for the development of lllllcleonup pili

it IIIII in_ then is oome reJationshlp- inorpnio RIOIltIU)I-111 ftsll

in die Sudbury Ri- and sediment - in the Eutom Welltnl -middot u discullod above the USEPA hu presented insuffiCient dlta 10 justify 1 reJationshlp shy

--sin the-- WUIId die- io lblt d-

The _ by wlllch the USEPA - die cloMup pi - bull lite _

Olllllllpllatt of ftsll is al q- Sectim 234 of die FS - dola tlta II 1D - 1 hyjodloacal rolatioruhip - lblt - 1011 shy--111-lio Tltis -P-dlen- 10 pouct die_ pol farm --CIIdlellefenocc-calculatodforl-~andl_

a- _die- poediciDd 1 ----fara_ ---tho USEPA -lodpd dtol thopnlplllld --iovalltl

till USEPA- tho amclllaliottllllp pnoiottlly llnllld u itMHd IDltullll

far 1 rtlbltennan The USEPA acknowledps dial this appnlldl IMY be iiMIId Ia die of die _ pili development when it - die oly - Alllioa

olljecti deriwd in dlis way mUll be qualified u tonUOUI bull Tltis --- shy

_ die USEPAa doclsion to Ule dlialllaliottllllp in derlvinamp die--shyThe ~ of the oolected cleonup pllia on die mnodial - (not includinc-shy

and main-) usinamp the USEPAs wumptions for Al-ves l11 (I mampikamp) lib (I

matkamp) and lie (30 mamplkampl are u follows

Alternative l11 $13080000

Alternative lib $8162000

Alternative lie $4038800

GERAGHTY amp MlLLER INC

More siampnificandy the seloctioo of a cleonup level will affect the wlume of ooi1

the neod for dewalltrina and trellinamp the ooil and the neod 10 opa1 the cop

constniCfed in OU-1 The cleanup levd will llso affect the level of WCI1Ind - IIIII

disruption to the community associated with lhe excavation and transport of 10il Considerina the ramificatioos that the various cleanup aolls can have the USEPA ohould have COIIIidonld

_ its uaumplions IIIII the process for derivinamp the clelnup ampoils men cuefully IIIII ohould hawo

_ thote uaumptions witl1 more n1loblo and ra1iJtic informalioa

wtIIAND CONSIDDIAnoNS

I

The inlont IIIII directives se1 fon1l by the foden1 __ the - _lllr --ot-- tou bull loa (33 CPR- 320bull 330~

of Defenle - CGrpo of eau-sJ implies that the -uoa laquo~of--lllr----ohouldbo_anlyua _aftoraD_ _ aplioal-- - - tbo-o(----shyl_ot--yllldotllor si___illllle--S~bullbull

-o(tbo-itself theUSEPA_IIOI_j_bull~tllll ----u pan of its- -y

AldlaulhtheUSEPAsseloctedremedyincluda-od-11111~

the pbyskallllll ooo1oiicaJ cllancteristics of the sysoem cu - be duptilalod nor is t1toN thai -ilhmern of the WCI1Ind will be successful or of equal value The ou-m JtlllldFSdonotCOIIIidortholona-llmllmpactofthe__ ~

__tho -ad excavadon ore u followJ

r I

I Jeplacement fill material quality may not hawo sutllcient nutrients 10 --

wedand plants maldnamp it impossible 10 support a wedand of equal value The

natural succession of a wetland involves the accumulations of nutrients and

orpnic material that promote vecdltive amprowth and diversity Theae conditiolls


16

cannalt be recrealed after excavation It will requU yean for lhe wetllad 1o

evolve to its current diversity and value

2 The pcrmelbility or the fill material may be differentlban lhe llllural cGIIdilltw

currently existinamp on-site A liampnificant difference in pemability cu lher

~ ~ poiiOniS causinamp utincreue - docreue ill depooilioa ~~~~ A

tllutp ill lhe depooilioa - eilber - depooilioa both erooion IIIII depooilioa C1D C1U10 dolriu en- on 11111111111

plutll In addition a tllutp ill pcrmelbillty will dlo pmod atllootlill

- dte --middot Milly--plllll-- nquiN pmoda at A-eilltbis_pmo~ __~_ _

I 3 DowMnlamp --will-die- atillpiCI liloill DowMn~ampbull_ __ pmodat_

L

--middot-IM-- 4 will middot-y-dle diwniampJ

die lile Reducina the plant diwnity will -111a a - vllue11111111111 die not loss ampoal- No at---- --uaplbydle---

middot will not be IOOJIIIIIl -typioallyu--- shyiJ lliJilOd at poralll A - plllll donlity will die 11111111111 -

IIIII it will lairlt yean for dte wetlands 10 10 ill undilblrbed - ll

- middot - di fliahmiddotvaluowetlandsllD yean toOYOivelllll i_ 10-by plantina

Dtlrina dte put decade 111011 JaiOnlionmation projects have failed duo 10 iruulllclatt

data ftllldinamp dte specific ocoloaical requiRmenll IIIII tolennce of wetland plutt spocieo A

GERAGHTY (J MILLER INC

17

limiled varielty of wetland plant species which ropraont a 1111111 portioll of tho opocia foulld

IIIIUrllly within a wetland is availoble from nunaies and sile-spocific odaplod bybrids

be punhuod tJuouamph oommercw nurseries lntroducinamp a species that il _ty ldoptod

for the site and will not survive is a waste of time and money In additioa intrOducina a nonmiddot

native species in a wetland can diwpt tho natural bolanco within tho wetland A new opocia

~ can OYelJtoW into areas that are currently vqetated with sensitive tpecies raultiq in a lbift

in clomiltant vepCalion and tho wildlife it can support Tltaefono tho raullinamp wodaad shy

if it il suaouful willncwr oompletely replace tho one that il ~shy

lila iawlvinl heavy melab oontlmiaosion in wodaad --11 tile

~~ Sile I S~ silo Ut New Yort tile USIPA- tile t10 lOlita

- for a IOCHae wlaquoland (Coaslitution Nri) tho boaia of a _ ___lltdthofactdtal--be-

-bJ-_COIItlllliaalod_ IAtho ottlleN_IilltlleUSIPA

bull-_ t data nor tho impact of tho pntpOIId r- vtollllllJ otbull-middot

llfampOMMjNDATOIIII

- - tho oonclusions provided above Gcnahty II Miller- tlto faUowial

I Tho USEPA bas no IOIIIId basis forlllldJoaillc tho- Wetlandua

_ unit from tlto Sudbury River Ewn if tho USEPA bad nliable dill

r -lish that tlto- Wetland ilaoonliiiW or~ tile

Sudbury River the USEPA bunorprovidedjustificalion forclividinaitsshy

efforts into two openble units

GERAGHTY Iii MILLER INC

18

2 Nevenhdeu if lhe USEPA procoedl wilh lhe Propolod Plla USEPA shy

reconsider iiS selection of Jlcmedill Altomllive IlL Tbo USEPA shy

conclusive dala 10 111pporl Jlcmedill Altomllive lla iJllhe ~

bull SeaJonal wetland hydroloampy and erosion

bull Buoline waland evaluation (Jenelal hoallh and value)

bull -uty_ol_

-~- 3 NoiiMidpliveaclividll(inlludlnl---)__

111111-dooilllllii-UIO-middotif ol

-~~ 1r111a USIPA is oompolled 10 liD -Ia111a-w-s- 111a p1

-- minimal~dllotsurftcilllllll-bJ shyI -mercury would have mootlilrdy ICIIIed Tbo advlnllpl ot dill-shybull uI bull EllmiJlates lhe- far openina die OUmiddotlcoll

bull Minimixs dis111ption of die waland and ~middot


19

bull Minimizes potltntial wy impocts from excavatioa dredalal IIIII

dewllltrinamp IIIII diJpotll IICiivitieo durinamp remodialion (u COIIIplllll to

Alternative lla)

bull II conside1bly less costly than remedial allanllives cumndy JIRIIIOIOCIbull

S CblnlleriDiion of the wetland IOdimellt lbould rely 011 aiJlinamp - 10 t1oa

atolll dill they valid udlbould bo fOCIIIIII 011 paadod a~

dcpmlod u willlin the EulaD Wedlllll whn depooitiOII of -ury _

I --uve mostlibly occuned SUa-_Ia lbo oall-lt - bo Jllilbly replicllld I fact wlddt is ncapilod io lllo IOialllllc

I _ty OerqlllyANlller ______~

_ lllllplinamplllllyaiiJ111111U1ia lbo-w-I 0 6 ---ua_of_rilk__Nlnreliancelhouldbo--aollaooed-ty(aoMalaa )

IIIII

r CloniPI) A Nlller believes- poovidea bolls rar a--shyolaquoective lllllldill llllution for the ea- Wedlllll Syen dial is~of_ llallllo

Mil1M--a is cansi-t wilh the pis IIIII objeclives ofthe-CandllpllcyI

F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC

ThOmu Senior AuocialeRqional Proplm M11111ec for CERCLA

GERAGHTY amp MJLLER INC

c BEfERtNCtS

Birae WJ PC Francis IA Black and AG Westmnan 1987 Toxicity of Sedimoatmiddot AJ10Cialod Cllemicals 10 Frahwater Orpnilms BiomonifGrina Procedures Pale llld E1rects of SedimoatmiddotBound Cllemica1s in Aquatic Sy_ Papmoo Pras Elllllfml New York

DiTorro DM CS Zorba Dl lllnJo WJBeny BC Swartz DE Cowin SP -middot HB Allen NA Thomas llld PBPoquia 1991 Tedulical Buia for~ Sediment Qualily Criteria for Nonionic Orpaic ChomicoiJ Ulina Equilibriumlarlilioainampmiddot Environ TOlicol Cbem 101541middot1513

I I IF Scioolilic 1973 Aa iiMIIiplial of Mlnury 1nlbloala in JIM___~middot

I 11opo1t for --w- - CammlloiaB Divillao of w Caolnll July 3 1973

laOF tiA - 1917 W-QuolltySipllkancoof~-shyI w-_ - Etrecb of SedimoatmiddotBound Cbemicab in Aqllllio _

Pras Elllllfml New York

NUS- Caoponlioa 1992a Fillol-~ 1i1paft 0 N~ Unit m s-ry RiwrSiudy _ c-y __ NoJ 1992

~ NUS ~ Ccxponlion 199211 Dnlt Final FtuibWiy Study lilpaft

- 3 Nyona Openble Unit m 5-ry - Study - c-y -middotllocember 1992

~ B 1910 11azan1ous w- c- 111o Coauaoa- of _ llopulment of Envilllftmenial Qualily EnaiJrin1 (DEQB) Oclllber 23 1910 r Cilelllico1 w- Dump w- Rood Alblond -middot Pnlimiaory Silo -Biport

r Hoy Il llld I von a-t 1913 SowoeoofVarillgtilily in Aocumulolion ofllolvy- by Fi- in I Baodoide $_ Aid Environ Con11m TOlicol 12701middot706

NUS Corporation 1915lt Draft Pllue I Remedial JnvestiptionFeuibilily Study Report Volumes ll Pllue I Feasibility Study Nyanza Cbemica1 Sile Middlelex Counly Muadluoetts EPA Work Assiampnment No 11-1115 1 Contraol No 68-01(699 Mardt19115


21

United Sllla Envirollmental Proteotioo Apncy (USEPA) 1980 Oflicc of-- IIIII Remedial Raponse Superfund Record of Decision Marathon llat1ery New Ycxt Seplcmber 1989

United S-Envirollmcntallrolecsion Apncy (USEPA) IIIIa Review Warllpuup -J 1988 ilqioo I 1obontory Dala Vllidalioo FuncOonll Ouldolioa for Evlluolill IAnalyiOI

Uailod--tal- Apncy (USEPA) ~Pion USEPA I ~ Pnlpm Nyanza Cbemilol Willi Dump She Alllllllll - Oponblo Ulit m Sudbury River Study Docember 1992


barcode 580242

barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 580242

--

INTRODUCTION I

OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE lla 3

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS bullbull bull 4

HISTORICAL DRAINAGE AND RUNOFF FROM 1111 NYANZA SITE bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 6 r

OCCUUENCB EXTENT AND TRANSPORT OF MERCURY IN 1111 WETLAND SYnIIM I

CUUIIHI NIIICURY DATAIASII I -rr nAIISPOR1 bull 10 18AIID IDIILGQICAL ASIISDBI II CUIAIIUP ClliDIA I

IICDMMINDA110NS 11

WIIIIAIID CONIIDIIIA110NS bull IS

GERAGHTY amp MILLER I )C




INTBODVCDON



















I











































ecalalica1 impaltU

















































7







1973)


















auDIT ~y DATAIIASE





ol-gteliL































abo be invalid


10























11
























12

























13



















CLEANUP CIUTEIUA




























I







r I






16










L









17














llfampOMMjNDATOIIII








18






bull -uty_ol_







19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242





INTBODVCDON



















I











































ecalalica1 impaltU

















































7







1973)


















auDIT ~y DATAIIASE





ol-gteliL































abo be invalid


10























11
























12

























13



















CLEANUP CIUTEIUA




























I







r I






16










L









17














llfampOMMjNDATOIIII








18






bull -uty_ol_







19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242


I











































ecalalica1 impaltU

















































7







1973)


















auDIT ~y DATAIIASE





ol-gteliL































abo be invalid


10























11
























12

























13



















CLEANUP CIUTEIUA




























I







r I






16










L









17














llfampOMMjNDATOIIII








18






bull -uty_ol_







19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242


































ecalalica1 impaltU

















































7







1973)


















auDIT ~y DATAIIASE





ol-gteliL































abo be invalid


10























11
























12

























13



















CLEANUP CIUTEIUA




























I







r I






16










L









17














llfampOMMjNDATOIIII








18






bull -uty_ol_







19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242














































7







1973)


















auDIT ~y DATAIIASE





ol-gteliL































abo be invalid


10























11
























12

























13



















CLEANUP CIUTEIUA




























I







r I






16










L









17














llfampOMMjNDATOIIII








18






bull -uty_ol_







19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242







auDIT ~y DATAIIASE





ol-gteliL































abo be invalid


10























11
























12

























13



















CLEANUP CIUTEIUA




























I







r I






16










L









17














llfampOMMjNDATOIIII








18






bull -uty_ol_







19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242
























abo be invalid


10























11
























12

























13



















CLEANUP CIUTEIUA




























I







r I






16










L









17














llfampOMMjNDATOIIII








18






bull -uty_ol_







19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242


10























11
























12

























13



















CLEANUP CIUTEIUA




























I







r I






16










L









17














llfampOMMjNDATOIIII








18






bull -uty_ol_







19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242


11
























12

























13



















CLEANUP CIUTEIUA




























I







r I






16










L









17














llfampOMMjNDATOIIII








18






bull -uty_ol_







19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242


12

























13



















CLEANUP CIUTEIUA




























I







r I






16










L









17














llfampOMMjNDATOIIII








18






bull -uty_ol_







19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242


13



















CLEANUP CIUTEIUA




























I







r I






16










L









17














llfampOMMjNDATOIIII








18






bull -uty_ol_







19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242


CLEANUP CIUTEIUA




























I







r I






16










L









17














llfampOMMjNDATOIIII








18






bull -uty_ol_







19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242









I







r I






16










L









17














llfampOMMjNDATOIIII








18






bull -uty_ol_







19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242


16










L









17














llfampOMMjNDATOIIII








18






bull -uty_ol_







19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242


17














llfampOMMjNDATOIIII








18






bull -uty_ol_







19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242


18






bull -uty_ol_







19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242


19



Alternative lla)








IIIII



F5LL y11Ub ll0d

r GEM A INC



c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242


c BEfERtNCtS














21





barcode 580242


21





barcode 580242


technical review of 12/1992 proposed plan, feasibility … · 2020. 12. 4. · tbis dijcuaion, tbo1...

Documents