Final Site Information Package for National Remedy Review Board ...
Final Site Information Package for National Remedy Review Board ...
Final Site Information Package for National Remedy Review Board ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
TABLE B9-1b<br />
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 4+(a) through 4+(e)<br />
<strong>Site</strong> <strong>In<strong>for</strong>mation</strong> <strong>Package</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Remedy</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>Board</strong><br />
Criteria<br />
OU 2 Alternative (a)<br />
Minimal Stream Lining<br />
Implementability<br />
Technical feasibility Technically feasible, but major logistical<br />
constraints on truck traffic. Large uncertainty in<br />
construction volumes – these could further<br />
increase construction difficulties and<br />
administrative difficulties. Major cost and<br />
logistical considerations <strong>for</strong> obtaining borrow<br />
materials and excavating in floodplains.<br />
Potential construction difficulties <strong>for</strong> hydraulic<br />
isolation.<br />
OU 2 Alternative (b)<br />
Extensive Stream Lining<br />
OU 3 Component<br />
Alternative 4+: Maximum Removal, Disposal, and Treatment<br />
OU 2 Component<br />
OU 2 Alternative (c)<br />
French Drains<br />
OU 2 Alternative (d)<br />
Stream Lining/French Drain Combination<br />
OU 2 Alternative (e)<br />
Extensive Stream Lining/French Drain<br />
Combination<br />
Combined Upper Basin Alternative<br />
Alternative 4+(a) Alternative 4+(b) Alternative 4+(c) Alternative 4+(d) Alternative 4+(e)<br />
Treatability testing would be required as with<br />
Alternatives 3+(a) through 3+(e). Monitoring<br />
could assess effectiveness and the need <strong>for</strong><br />
additional action.<br />
Administrative feasibility Major difficulties in acquiring land and obtaining<br />
approvals <strong>for</strong> repositories and active treatment<br />
pipelines, obtaining borrow materials, and<br />
coordinating truck traffic. Coordination with<br />
other agencies would be required, potentially<br />
including completion of a biological assessment.<br />
Availability of services and<br />
materials<br />
Cost<br />
Services, equipment, and technologies are all<br />
available, at least on a regional level.<br />
Total Capital Cost $1,690,000,000<br />
O&M Cost (30-Year NPV) a $137,900,000<br />
Total Cost (30-Year NPV) b $1,970,000,000<br />
Costs <strong>for</strong> Alternatives 4+(a) through 4+(d) are<br />
very similar and within the accuracy of the<br />
estimate (-40/+50%).Costs <strong>for</strong> alternatives<br />
based on Alternative 4+ are lower than<br />
corresponding alternatives based on Alternative<br />
3+.<br />
See Alternative 4+(a). Longer stream lining<br />
included in Alternative 4+(b) would add to the<br />
logistical issues noted, although there is no<br />
SFCDR liner in this alternative which would<br />
have many logistical challenges.<br />
Treatability testing would be required as with<br />
Alternatives 3+(a) through 3+(e). Monitoring<br />
could assess effectiveness and the need <strong>for</strong><br />
additional action.<br />
See Alternative 4+(a). In addition, the extensive<br />
French drains included in this alternative would<br />
add to the logistical issues noted.<br />
Treatability testing would be required as with<br />
Alternatives 3+(a) through 3+(e). Monitoring<br />
could assess effectiveness and need <strong>for</strong><br />
additional action.<br />
See Alternative 4+(c ). In addition, work in<br />
Government Gulch would add to the logistical<br />
issues noted.<br />
Treatability testing would be required as with<br />
Alternatives 3+(a) through 3+(e). Monitoring<br />
could assess effectiveness and the need <strong>for</strong><br />
additional action.<br />
See Alternative 4+(c ). In addition, extensive<br />
work in the Box would add to the logistical<br />
issues noted. Excavation of sediments from<br />
below the water table would pose significant<br />
logistical issues and result in higher costs.<br />
These implementability concerns are great<br />
under this Alternative because the French drain<br />
and pump station depth may range from 10 to<br />
40 feet below ground surface. Deeper<br />
excavations, if required, would increase the<br />
dewatering difficulties.<br />
Treatability testing would be required as with<br />
Alternative 3+(a) through 3+(e). Monitoring<br />
could assess effectiveness and need <strong>for</strong><br />
additional action.<br />
See Alternative 4+(a). See Alternative 4+(a). See Alternative 4+(a). See Alternative 4+(a). Extensive actions in the<br />
Box would add to the difficulties in acquiring<br />
land and obtaining approvals.<br />
See Alternative 4+(a). See Alternative 4+(a). See Alternative 4+(a). See Alternative 4+(a).<br />
$1,650,000,000<br />
$137,700,000<br />
$1,930,000,000<br />
Costs <strong>for</strong> Alternatives 4+(a) through 4+(d) are<br />
very similar and within the accuracy of the<br />
estimate (-40/+50%). Costs <strong>for</strong> alternatives<br />
based on Alternative 4+ are lower than<br />
corresponding alternatives based on Alternative<br />
3+.<br />
$1,650,000,000<br />
$138,600,000<br />
$1,930,000,000<br />
Costs <strong>for</strong> Alternatives 4+(a) through 4+(d) are<br />
very similar and within the accuracy of the<br />
estimate (-40/+50%). Costs <strong>for</strong> alternatives<br />
based on Alternative 4+ are lower than<br />
corresponding alternatives based on Alternative<br />
3+.<br />
Page 4 of 5<br />
$1,660,000,000<br />
$139,300,000<br />
$1,940,000,000<br />
Costs <strong>for</strong> Alternatives 4+(a) through 4+(d) are<br />
very similar and within the accuracy of the<br />
estimate (-40/+50%). Costs <strong>for</strong> alternatives<br />
based on Alternative 4+ are lower than<br />
corresponding alternatives based on Alternative<br />
3+.<br />
$1,870,000,000<br />
$144,400,000<br />
$2,160,000,000<br />
This alternative has a relatively high cost. Costs<br />
<strong>for</strong> alternatives based on Alternative 4+ are<br />
lower than corresponding alternatives based on<br />
Alternative 3+.