FINAL
Focused Feasibility Study Report
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River,
Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex
Superfund Site
Volume 3
Appendices A through D
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency Region 10
AES10 Task Order 49
Architect and Engineering Services
Contract No. 68-S7-04-01
Prepared by
CH2MHILL
August 2012
-------
-------
Contents
Appendix A Groundwater Modeling Analysis
Appendix B Predictive Analysis Methodology and Results
Appendix C Typical Conceptual Design (TCD) Schematics
Appendix D Cost Analysis Documentation
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
Groundwater Modeling Analysis
-------
-------
Contents
Section Page
Contents A-iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations A-vii
Groundwater Modeling Analysis A-l
A.l Introduction A-l
A.2 Model Updates A-2
A.3 Additional Model Calibrations A-4
A.3.1 Steady-State Baseflow Calibration A-4
A.3.2 Steady-State 7Q10 Calibration A-5
A.3.3 Steady-State 90th Percentile Flow Tier Calibration A-6
A.3.4 Transient Annual Calibration A-7
A.4 Methodology for Development of Metals Loading Budget A-10
A.4.1 Baseline Metals Loadings SFCDR Model A-ll
A.4.2 Baseline Metals Loadings Canyon Creek Model A-12
A.5 Application of Groundwater Flow Models to Remedial Alternatives
for OUs 2 and 3 A-13
A.5.1 OU 2 Alternative (a) A-14
A.5.2 OU 2 Alternative (b) A-14
A.5.3 OU 2 Alternative (c) A-15
A.5.4 OU 2 Alternative (d) A-16
A.5.5 OU 2 Alternative (e) A-17
A.5.6 Groundwater Components of OU 3 Remedial Alternatives for
the Mainstem SFCDR Watershed, Segment 01 A-18
A.5.7 Groundwater Components of OU 3 Remedial Alternatives for
Woodland Park A-19
A.6 Simulation Results A-19
A.6.1 Baseflow Conditions A-20
A.6.2 7Q10 Conditions A-22
A.6.3 90th Percentile Flow Conditions A-23
A.6.4 Average Annual Conditions A-23
A.7 OU 2 Sensitivity Analysis A-24
A.8 Additional Model Uncertainty A-26
A.9 References A-26
A-iii
-------
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Figures
A-l Canyon Creek Model Grid
A-2 SFCDR Model Grid
A-3 Upper Aquifer Transmissivity, Bunker Hill Box
A-4 Total Aquifer Transmissivity, Osburn Flats
A-5 Simulated versus Observed Groundwater Elevations - Baseflow Conditions
A-6a Residuals between Measured and Simulated Groundwater Elevations, Western
Bunker Hill Box, Baseflow Conditions
A-6b Residuals between Measured and Simulated Groundwater Elevations, Eastern
Bunker Hill Box, Baseflow Conditions
A-6c Residuals between Measured and Simulated Groundwater Elevations, Osburn Flats,
Baseflow Conditions
A-7 Simulated versus Observed Groundwater Elevations - 7Q10 Conditions
A-8a Residuals between Measured and Simulated Groundwater Elevations, Western
Bunker Hill Box, 7Q10 Conditions
A-8b Residuals between Measured and Simulated Groundwater Elevations, Eastern
Bunker Hill Box, 7Q10 Conditions
A-9 Simulated versus Observed Groundwater Elevations - 90th Percentile Flow Conditions
A-lOa Residuals between Measured and Simulated Groundwater Elevations, Western
Bunker Hill Box, 90th Percentile Flow Conditions
A-lOb Residuals between Measured and Simulated Groundwater Elevations, Eastern
Bunker Hill Box, 90th Percentile Flow Conditions
A-lOc Residuals between Measured and Simulated Groundwater Elevations, Osburn Flats,
90th Percentile Flow Conditions
A-ll Simulated versus Observed Groundwater Elevations - Canyon Creek,
90th Percentile Flow Conditions
A-12 Residuals between Measured and Simulated Groundwater Elevations, Canyon
Creek, 90th Percentile Flow Conditions
A-13a Simulated versus Measured Groundwater Elevations - Bunker Hill Box
A-13b Simulated versus Measured Groundwater Elevations - Bunker Hill Box
A-13c Simulated versus Measured Groundwater Elevations - Bunker Hill Box
A-13d Simulated versus Measured Groundwater Elevations - Bunker Hill Box
A-13e Simulated versus Measured Groundwater Elevations - Bunker Hill Box
A-13f Simulated versus Measured Groundwater Elevations - Bunker Hill Box
A-13g Simulated versus Measured Groundwater Elevations - Bunker Hill Box
A-13h Simulated versus Measured Groundwater Elevations - Bunker Hill Box/ Osburn Flats
A-iv
-------
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
A-13i Simulated versus Measured Groundwater Elevations - Osburn Flats
A-14 Simulated versus Measured Groundwater Elevations - Canyon Creek Watershed
A-15 OU 2 Mass Loading Reaches
A-16 Woodland Park Mass Loading Reaches
A-17 OU 2 Alternative (a): Minimal Stream Lining
A-18 OU 2 Alternative (b): Extensive Stream Lining
A-19 OU 2 Alternative (c): French Drains
A-20 OU 2 Alternative (d): Stream Lining/French Drain Combination
A-21 OU 2 Alternative (e): Extensive Stream Lining/French Drain Combination
A-22 Groundwater Components of OU 3 Remedial Alternatives for the Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed, Segment 01
A-23 Groundwater Components of Updated Remedial Actions for Woodland Park
A-24 Simulated Upstream Groundwater Flowlines from the SFCDR, No Action, Baseflow
Conditions
A-25 Simulated Upstream Groundwater Flowlines from the SFCDR, OU 2 Alternative (a),
Baseflow Conditions
A-26 Simulated Upstream Groundwater Flowlines from the SFCDR, OU 2 Alternative (b),
Baseflow Conditions
A-27a Simulated Upstream Groundwater Flowlines from the SFCDR, OU 2 Alternative (c),
Baseflow Conditions
A-27b Simulated Upstream Groundwater Flowlines from French Drains, OU 2 Alternative (c),
Baseflow Conditions
A-28a Simulated Upstream Groundwater Flowlines from the SFCDR, OU 2 Alternative (d),
Baseflow Conditions
A-28b Simulated Upstream Groundwater Flowlines from French Drains, OU 2 Alternative (d),
Baseflow Conditions
A-29 Simulated Upstream Groundwater Flowlines from French Drains, OU 2 Alternative (e),
Baseflow Conditions
A-30 Simulated Upstream Groundwater Flowlines from the SFCDR, Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed, Segment 01, No Action, Baseflow Conditions
A-31 Simulated Upstream Groundwater Flowlines from French Drains, Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed, Segment 01, Baseflow Conditions
A-32 Simulated Upstream Groundwater Flowlines from Canyon Creek, No Action,
Baseflow Conditions
A-33 Simulated Upstream Groundwater Flowlines from French Drains, Groundwater
Components of Updated Remedial Actions for Woodland Park, Baseflow Conditions
A-34 Results of the OU 2 Sensitivity Analysis
A-v
-------
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Tables
A-l Measured Baseflow Groundwater and Surface Water Elevations in Monitoring Pairs
- Government Gulch
A-2 Final PEST Parameter Multipliers
A-3 Simulated versus Observed Vertical Head Gradients in Well Pairs - Bunker Hill Box
A-4 Simulated versus Observed Vertical Head Gradients in Well Pairs - Osburn Flats
A-5 Comparison of Simulated Stream Gains and Losses to Data Measured During the
2008 Groundwater-Surface Water Interaction Studies
A-6 Simulated Stream Stage Differences for the 90th Percentile Flow Calibration -
SFCDR Model
A-7 Monthly Multipliers for Deep Percolation of Precipitation - SFCDR Model
A-8 Monthly Multipliers for Deep Percolation of Precipitation - Canyon Creek Model
A-9 Average Dissolved Zinc Concentrations in Groundwater in Woodland Park,
Fall 2006
A-10 Net Remedial Effectiveness Factors for Woodland Park Source Control Actions
A-ll Model-Simulated Flows - Baseflow Conditions
A-12 Simulated Dissolved Zinc Load - Baseflow Conditions
A-13 Model-Simulated Flows - 7Q10 Conditions
A-14 Simulated Dissolved Zinc Load - 7Q10 Conditions
A-15 Model-Simulated Flows - 90th Percentile Flow Conditions
A-l6 Simulated Dissolved Zinc Load - 90th Percentile Flow Conditions
A-l7 Model-Simulated Flows - Average Annual Conditions
A-18 Simulated Dissolved Zinc Load - Average Annual Conditions
A-19 Results of the OU 2 Sensitivity Analysis
A-vi
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
bgs
below ground surface
Box
Bunker Hill Box
cfs
cubic feet per second
CIA
Central Impoundment Area
CTP
Central Treatment Plant
feet/ day
feet per day
FFS
Focused Feasibility Study
ft/ft
foot per foot
lb/ day
pound(s) per day
mg/L
milligram(s) per liter
msl
mean sea level
NM
not measured
O&M
operation and maintenance
OU
Operable Unit
PEST
parameter estimation
REF
remedial effectiveness factor
RMS
root mean squared error
ROD
Record of Decision
SFCDR
South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River
SVNRT
Silver Valley Natural Resource Trust
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
A-vii
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
Groundwater Modeling Analysis
A.1 Introduction
From 2002 to 2005, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) performed an independent
evaluation of the Record of Decision (ROD) for Operable Unit 3 (OU 3) at the Bunker Hill
Mining and Metallurgical Complex Superfund Site (NAS, 2005). The study concluded that
although adequate characterization of the extent of metals contamination in soil, sediments,
and surface water was presented, the major source of dissolved metals to the surface water
systemgroundwater dischargewas not adequately characterized or fully addressed. In
response to these concerns, it was determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) that it was necessary to develop a quantitative tool that could be used to evaluate
the spatially varying components of the water budget and dissolved metals loading budget.
Two numerical groundwater flow models were developed for the Canyon Creek Watershed
(CH2M HILL, 2007) and the South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River (SFCDR) Watershed
(CH2M HILL, 2009b) to better characterize the distribution of dissolved metals loading from
the groundwater system under current conditions, and to evaluate various potential
remedial actions. Specific objectives of the groundwater modeling efforts included the
following:
Characterize the hydrogeology of the SFCDR and Canyon Creek Watersheds.
Develop a quantitative representation of stratigraphy and aquifer properties throughout
the SFCDR and Canyon Creek Watersheds.
Quantify the distribution and extent of groundwater-surface water interaction.
Develop water budgets for selected areas of the SFCDR and Canyon Creek Watersheds.
Develop dissolved metals loading budgets for selected areas of concern within the
SFCDR and Canyon Creek Watersheds.
Development of the Canyon Creek Watershed groundwater flow model (hereafter referred
to as the Canyon Creek Model) began in 2006 as part of the Canyon Creek Hydrologic Study
(CH2M HILL, 2007). The purpose of this study was to better understand the hydrologic
system within the Canyon Creek Watershed, as Canyon Creek represents one of the largest
point discharges of dissolved metals contamination to the greater Coeur d'Alene River
system. The Canyon Creek Model was developed using MicroFEMฎ, an integrated
groundwater modeling software program (Hemker and Nijsten, 2003). The finite-element
grid consists of 42,086 surface nodes and 83,785 elements in each of the five model layers
(Figure A-l). (The figures referenced in the text of this appendix are provided following
Section A.9) Nodal spacing was varied from as little as 2 feet near groundwater monitoring
well clusters and 20 feet in the Woodland Park area to as much as approximately 850 feet
near the model boundary. The lateral extent of the model grid represents the approximate
extent of the Canyon Creek Watershed, roughly 22 square miles, as defined by the
topographic divide (the ridgeline). The five model layers were discretized to simulate
A-1
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
aquifer systems in the alluvium, the weathered bedrock horizon, and the bedrock system.
Full documentation of the Canyon Creek Model development is presented in the Canyon
Creek Hydrologic Study Report (CH2M HILL, 2007).
The grid for the SFCDR Watershed groundwater flow model (hereafter referred to as the
SFCDR Model) consists of 134,535 surface nodes and 268,631 elements in each of the seven
model layers (Figure A-2). Nodal spacing was refined to as little as 25 feet in areas where
analysis of remedial actions was anticipated. The lateral extent of the model grid represents
the approximate extent of the SFCDR Watershed, roughly 300 square miles, as defined by
the topographic divide (the ridgeline). The seven model layers were discretized to simulate
the alluvial aquifer systems of the SFCDR and major tributary valleys, the weathered
bedrock horizon, and the underlying bedrock system. Full groundwater flow model
documentation is presented in South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River Watershed: Basinwide
Groundwater Flow Model Documentation (CH2M HILL, 2009b).
The purpose of this appendix is to document updates to the SFCDR Model that have taken
place since the documentation was published (no updates have been made to the Canyon
Creek Model), and to describe the application of the two groundwater flow models to the
evaluation of remedial alternatives for OUs 2 and 3 that are developed and described in this
Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) Report for the Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River. The
remedial actions evaluated by the groundwater flow models and documented in this
appendix constitute all substantive groundwater actions evaluated in the FFS. There are
three main alluvial areas in the Upper Basin for which groundwater actions are evaluated:
(1) the Mainstem SFCDR Watershed, Segment 01, which includes the alluvial floodplain of
the SFCDR between Wallace and Elizabeth Park; (2) the Woodland Park area of Canyon
Creek; and (3) the segment of the SFCDR that passes through OU 2 between Elizabeth Park
and Pinehurst.
A.2 Model Updates
The calibrated SFCDR Model, as documented in South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River
Watershed: Basinwide Groundwater Flow Model Documentation (CH2M HILL, 2009b), was
refined to improve both the characterization of the groundwater-surface water interaction
within Government Gulch and the overall calibration of the model in general.
Table A-l presents measured baseflow surface water and groundwater elevations and
stream discharges from locations within Government Gulch. (The tables referenced in this
appendix are provided after the figures that follow Section A.9.) Although the data obtained
during both the fall 2007 and fall 2008 measurement events are variable from point to point,
there was an overall gain in surface water flow within Government Gulch (between staff
gauging stations BH-GG-0002 and BH-GG-0001). The calibrated model (CH2M HILL, 2009b)
simulated Government Creek as a losing stream throughout the "gulch" portion. To better
evaluate remedial actions within Government Gulch, the following updates were made to
the SFCDR Model:
The horizontal hydraulic conductivity in model layers 1 and 2 was adjusted from 60 to
20 and 5 feet per day (feet/day), respectively.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
The thickness of model layer 3 was decreased near the mouth of Government Gulch so
that the total aquifer thickness near monitoring well pairs BH-GG-GW-0005/
BH-GG-GW-0006 and BH-GG-GW-0007/BH-GG-GW-0008 more closely matched
measured data.
The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of model layer 3 in the confining unit "window"
at the mouth of Government Gulch was decreased from 28.35 to 2.835 feet/day.
The deep percolation of precipitation within Government Gulch was doubled.
These modifications to the model resulted in improved calibration within the Government
Gulch drainage area. The measured stream discharge, as defined by the difference in fall
2008 stream discharge between stream gauging stations BH-GG-0001 and BH-GG-0002
(Table A-l), increased by 0.27 cubic foot per second (cfs) in fall 2008. The revised model
simulation predicts that 0.24 cfs of groundwater discharge to Government Creek occurs
over that same reach. In comparison, the previous version of the SFCDR Model
(CH2M HILL, 2009b) simulated this portion of Government Creek as a losing stream.
As part of the updated baseflow calibration, the SFCDR Model underwent an auto-
calibration process using PEST, a nonlinear parameter estimation software package
(Dougherty, 2004 and 2007). PEST adjusts user-defined model parameters (e.g., hydraulic
conductivity and recharge) to minimize the sum of squared differences between calibration
targets and simulated values (e.g., groundwater elevations and groundwater discharge to
streams). PEST runs a model for each adjustable parameter in which the value of that
parameter is slightly increased or decreased. PEST then identifies how each parameter
change affected each calibration target. These changes are combined in a multidimensional
system of equations that solves for a new set of parameter values that better match the
calibration targets. This is repeated until no further improvement is gained. In the course of
a typical calibration exercise with PEST, thousands to tens of thousands of model runs are
completed. PEST uses a process of parameter modification and calibration target-matching
that is similar to the manual interactive technique used by a groundwater modeler, but
PEST has the advantage of being able to perform and analyze tens (or even hundreds) of
model runs over a short time period. Although PEST cannot exercise professional judgment
on its own, it can be guided by a professional who is familiar with the site and the software.
Targets used in the PEST process included the following:
Groundwater elevations measured during fall 2008
Vertical head differences measured during fall 2008
Groundwater discharge to the SFCDR within the Bunker Hill "Box" (the Box) and
Osburn Flats as measured during the 2008 groundwater-surface water interaction
studies (CH2M HILL, 2009a and 2009c)
The total baseflow groundwater discharge to the SFCDR, as measured at the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge at Pinehurst
A-3
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
The total dissolved zinc load from groundwater to the SFCDR within the eastern gaining
stream reach along the northern side of the Central Impoundment Area (CIA)
The total dissolved zinc load from groundwater to Government Creek within the
"gulch" portion
During the auto-calibration process, PEST was able to adjust the horizontal and vertical
hydraulic conductivity of model layers 1 though 4 and the streambed conductance
parameters for reaches of the SFCDR in the Box and Osburn Flats. Additionally, because the
PEST process involved numerous model runs, model layer 7 was deleted in order to
decrease the number of nodes in the SFCDR Model and improve simulation run-times.
Table A-2 lists the multiplier factors for these parameters retained in the final calibration.
Figure A-3 presents the updated alluvial transmissivity distribution for the upper aquifer in
the Box, while Figure A-4 presents the updated total alluvial aquifer transmissivity for
Osburn Flats. Results of the auto-calibration process are discussed in Section A.3.
No updates or modifications were made to the Canyon Creek Model.
A.3 Additional Model Calibrations
During development of the remedial alternatives to be evaluated in the FFS, it was
recognized that it would be advantageous to evaluate the effectiveness of potential actions
under a variety of hydrologic conditions, not solely the baseflow conditions that were
assumed for the initial calibrations. To accommodate these additional analyses, both the
SFCDR and Canyon Creek Models were calibrated to four hydrologic conditions:
Steady-state calibration to fall baseflow conditions
Steady-state calibration to critical low-flow conditions, 7Q10
Steady-state calibration to higher flow conditions, 90th percentile flow
Transient calibration to an annual hydrologic condition (July 1, 2008 through
June 30, 2009)
These additional model calibrations are discussed in Sections A.3.1 through A.3.4,
respectively.
A.3.1 Steady-State Baseflow Calibration
The fall 2008 flow conditions that correspond to the baseflow calibration represent an
approximately 25th percentile flow condition, as defined by the USGS period of recorded
streamflow at the USGS stream gauge at Pinehurst (SF-271). Targets used in the 2008
baseflow calibration included the following:
Groundwater elevations measured in the fall of 2008
Vertical head differences measured in the fall of 2008
Groundwater discharge to the SFCDR within the Box and Osburn Flats, as measured
during the 2008 groundwater-surface water interaction studies (CH2M HILL, 2009a
and 2009c)
A-4
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
Figure A-5 presents an updated "scattergram" of simulated versus measured groundwater
elevations. Figures A-6a, A-6b, and A-6c present residuals between measured and simulated
groundwater elevations for the Box and Osburn Flats in map view. Tables A-3 and A-4
present the measured and simulated vertical hydraulic gradients for the Box and Osburn
Flats, respectively. Table A-5 presents the measured and simulated groundwater discharge
to the SFCDR in the Box and Osburn Flats.
A.3.2 Steady-State 7Q10 Calibration
To evaluate the effectiveness of potential groundwater remedial actions under critical low-
flow conditions, the Canyon Creek and SFCDR Models were calibrated to a steady-state
7Q10 flow condition. "7Q10" is defined as the lowest 7-day average daily flow that occurs
with a 10-year return period. For the SFCDR at the USGS Pinehurst gauge, the 7Q10 flow
has been estimated at 68 cfs (USEPA, 1999). The most recent 7Q10 at this location was
recorded in mid-September 2001. Data used as targets for the 7Q10 calibration included
groundwater elevations measured in monitoring wells and measured discharge of the
SFCDR at Pinehurst. It was assumed that under extreme low-flow conditions, all surface
water flow was supplied by groundwater discharge.
To calibrate the SFCDR Model to the 7Q10 flow at Pinehurst, several modifications were
made to the boundary conditions to reflect the drier hydrologic conditions. It was assumed
that all smaller streams within the model domain were dry during the 7Q10 flow condition.
These smaller streams (i.e., all streams except the SFCDR, Canyon Creek, Ninemile Creek,
Pine Creek, Government Creek, Milo Creek, Montgomery Creek, Big Creek, Terror Gulch,
Twomile Creek, and Placer Creek) were converted from the two-way head-dependent
boundary condition to a one-way head-dependent boundary condition. As the result of this
conversion, these streams could function as a sink for groundwater, but not a source. The
East and West Page Swamps were also converted to one-way head-dependent boundary
conditions.
The next change was to lower the stream stage elevations consistent with those measured
during fall 2001. The differences in gauge height between mid-September 2001 and fall 2008
(the baseflow calibration period) at the USGS gauges on the SFCDR at Pinehurst and
Elizabeth Park, on Canyon Creek at the mouth, on Ninemile Creek at the mouth, and on
Pine Creek below Amy Gulch were estimated. Of these gauge locations, those along the
tributary streams showed larger gauge heights during the 7Q10 flow condition than during
the fall 2008 flow period. As a result, the baseflow stream elevations were used for the
tributaries. The difference in gauge height between mid-September 2001 and fall 2008 on the
SFCDR was approximately 0.25 foot at Elizabeth Park and 0.50 foot at Pinehurst. The
calibrated baseflow stream stage elevation of the SFCDR was decreased by 0.50 foot
between the western model boundary and Pinehurst and by 0.25 foot from Pinehurst to the
SFCDR headwaters.
The final modification to the SFCDR Model was to adjust the deep percolation of
precipitation to reflect the drier hydrologic conditions. This was accomplished by an
iterative process of applying a multiplier to the deep percolation distribution, running the
model to steady-state solution, and then comparing evaluating the calibration against
measured groundwater elevations (at 28 monitoring wells in the Box) and the total ground-
water discharge to streams at the western model boundary. The final multiplier used in the
A-5
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
7Q10 simulations was 0.37 (i.e., the final deep percolation values were 37 percent of the
baseflow values). Figure A-7 presents a scattergram of simulated versus measured
groundwater elevations, while Figures A-8a and A-8b present the distribution of residuals
between simulated and measured groundwater elevations in map view. The simulated total
groundwater discharge to surface water in the calibrated 7Q10 SFCDR Model was
approximately 67 cfs.
Similar changes were made to calibrate the Canyon Creek Model to 7Q10 conditions. The
calibrated baseflow stage of Canyon Creek was decreased by 0.25 foot because of the
measured gauge height differences between fall 2001 and fall 2006 (the baseflow calibration
period for the Canyon Creek Model). The multiplier on the distribution of deep percolation
of precipitation from the calibrated 7Q10 version of the SFCDR Model (0.37) was applied to
the Canyon Creek Model. No measured groundwater elevations were available in the
Canyon Creek Watershed for the 7Q10 calibration period; therefore, the only calibration
target used was the total groundwater discharge to surface water during fall 2001
(measured at approximately 11 cfs and simulated at approximately 10 cfs).
A.3.3 Steady-State 90th Percentile Flow Tier Calibration
To evaluate the effectiveness of potential groundwater remedial actions under higher flow
conditions, the Canyon Creek and SFCDR Models were calibrated to a steady-state
90th percentile flow condition. The 90th percentile flow at the USGS stream gauge at
Pinehurst (SF-271) has been estimated at 1,290 cfs (USEPA, 1999). The most recently
available data that were obtained during the spring runoff period of Water Year 2009 were
used during the calibration. The first occurrence of a 1,290 cfs flow on the rising limb of the
SFCDR spring runoff hydrograph occurred on April 20, 2009. Calibration targets for the 90th
percentile flow simulations included groundwater elevations measured by transducers in
monitoring wells and piezometers on April 20, 2009. As groundwater discharge to streams
is not the sole component of streamflow during spring runoff, it was not possible to
calculate the quantity of groundwater discharge contributing to surface flow, and therefore
no flow targets were used in these calibration simulations.
To calibrate the SFCDR Model to the 90th percentile flow at Pinehurst, modifications were
made to boundary conditions to reflect the wetter hydrologic conditions. The stream stage
elevations for all streams in the model were modified to be consistent with measured data.
For all streams where data-logging pressure transducers were installed, the difference
between the stage during fall 2008 and the stage on April 20, 2009, was estimated. This
difference was then added to or subtracted from the stream stage in the calibrated baseflow
model. Although many stilling wells on tributary streams are instrumented with
transducers, it was necessary to work in stage differences because reference point elevations
are not available for the stream gauges on the SFCDR. Table A-6 lists the stage changes
implemented for all streams in the SFCDR Model. Where there was more than one stream
gauge on a particular stream, the water-level change was applied to reaches defined by the
half-distance between gauge locations (i.e., there was no interpolation of stream stage
change between gauges). Larger, non-instrumented streams were assigned stream stage
changes observed at the mouth of Government Gulch, while smaller streams were assigned
stage changes consistent with that observed at the mouth of Deadwood Gulch.
A-6
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
Modification of the deep percolation of precipitation to reflect the wetter hydrologic
conditions was accomplished in a similar manner to that used in the 7Q10 calibration. A
multiplier was applied to the baseflow deep percolation distribution, the model was run to
steady-state solution, and the simulated groundwater elevations were compared to the
measured values at 73 monitoring wells and piezometers in the Box and Osburn Flats. This
process was repeated until a reasonable calibration was achieved. The final multiplier used
in the 90th percentile flow simulations was 3 (i.e., the final deep percolation values were
three times greater than the baseflow values). Figure A-9 presents a scattergram of
simulated versus measured groundwater elevations, while Figures A-lOa, A-lOb, and A-lOc
present the distribution of residuals between simulated and measured groundwater
elevations in map view.
Calibration of the Canyon Creek Model to the 90th percentile flow condition involved
modifications to boundary conditions similar to those previously discussed. The stream
stage elevations were modified based on data recorded at stilling wells A2-SSD, A4E-SSD,
and A6-SSD and the USGS stream gauge CC-288. Because the three stilling wells have
surveyed reference point elevations, actual stream stage values measured on April 20, 2009,
were incorporated into the calibration of the Canyon Creek Model, as opposed to the gauge
height differences used in the SFCDR Model calibration. A stream stage value for stream
gauge CC-288 was calculated using the gauge height difference between April 20, 2009, and
the fall of 2006. New stream stage elevations were then applied to all stream nodes in the
model by interpolating stream stage values, as a function of distance, between the four
stilling well/gauge locations. From stilling well A2-SSD to the Canyon Creek headwaters,
the baseflow stream stage elevation was decreased by 0.055 feet, the difference between the
baseflow and 90th percentile stream stages at this stilling well. A multiplier was applied to
the calibrated baseflow distribution of deep percolation of precipitation in order to simulate
the wetter hydrologic conditions. The final multiplier used in the 90th percentile flow
simulations was 5.45 (i.e., the final deep percolation values were 5.45 times greater than the
baseflow values). Figure A-ll presents a scattergram of simulated versus measured
groundwater elevations, and Figure A-12 presents the distribution of residuals between
simulated and measured groundwater elevations in map view.
A.3.4 Transient Annual Calibration
The primary methodology used to evaluate the potential benefit of various remedial actions
on downgradient surface water quality for this FFS was the Predictive Analysis Tool,
discussed in Appendix B of the FFS Report. Because the inputs and outputs to and from this
tool are average annual data, it was necessary to calibrate both the SFCDR and Canyon
Creek Models to a transient annual condition. It was determined that using the most recent
data would provide the largest dataset for these calibrations. At the time of the calibration,
the fall 2009 transducer download had not occurred; therefore, it was not possible to
calibrate to Water Year 2009. Both groundwater flow models were calibrated to the most
recently available data, from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. The output from these
model simulations represent the average flows for the 365-day annual period, so they do not
represent a long-term average or "typical" conditions.
A-7
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
A.3.4.1 SFCDR Model
Similar to the steady-state calibrations previously listed, modifications to the head-
dependent boundary conditions were made to reflect varying hydrologic conditions
observed over the course of the year. Streams included in the SFCDR Model are listed in
Table A-5. For the stream reaches with stage monitoring equipment and a continuous
dataset between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009, a new baseline stream state distribution was
calculated. This was accomplished by calculating the gauge height difference between
July 1, 2008 and September 20 through October 20, 2009 (the baseflow calibration period).
This gauge height difference was then applied to the baseflow stream stage distribution for
each reach (reaches are defined as the half-distance between the monitoring locations listed
in Table A-5). Unmonitored streams were assigned changes in baseflow stream stages
consistent with that described for the 90th percentile flow calibration (i.e., small streams
were assigned the values from Deadwood Gulch and large streams were assigned the
values of the mouth of Government Gulch). For each stilling well and stream gauge
location, the average daily deviation from the July 1, 2008 gauge height/ stream stage was
calculated. These daily deviations were applied to the July 1, 2008 baseline stream stage
distribution throughout the transient simulation. Exceptions included the following:
The Osburn Flats stilling wells were installed in fall 2008; therefore, continuous
transducer data for these locations prior to November 2, 2008, were not available.
Regressions between available gauge height data at each Osburn Flats stilling wells and
data from the Elizabeth Park gauge (SF-268) were developed. These regressions were
used to populate the missing gauge height data back to July 1, 2008, for the three Osburn
Flats stilling wells. Daily deviations from the July 1, 2008, gauge height were estimated
from the entire dataset.
The new USGS stream gauge at Smelterville Flats (at the western end of the Bunker Hill
Box) began recording data on September 23, 2008. A regression was developed between
the available gage height data at this gauge and SF-268. This relationship was used to
populate the missing gauge height data for the Smelterville Flats gauge. Daily deviations
from the July 1, 2008, gauge height were estimated from the entire dataset.
Where there were gaps in the daily data, the last estimated deviation from the baseline
stage prior to the missing data was applied to the entire data gap.
Transducers in stilling wells BH-BC-0005 and BH-BC-0006 were not submerged over a
large portion of the dataset. The estimated deviations from the baseline stream stage
distribution for BH-BC-0004 were applied to all Bunker Creek stream reaches.
The second modification that was made to boundary conditions within the SFCDR Model
was to vary the quantity of deep percolation of precipitation over the course of the year-long
transient simulation. Developing a recharge runoff relationship for the SFCDR Watershed
was beyond the scope of this effort; therefore, the deep percolation of precipitation was
varied, according to an average unit groundwater hydrograph. Multipliers were applied to
the calibrated baseflow distribution of deep percolation of precipitation on a monthly basis.
Table A-7 lists the monthly factors. Deep percolation was modified so that the total annual
deep percolation within the major alluvial areas equals the average annual deep percolation
of precipitation estimated using the Turner approximation (Turner, 1986).
A-8
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
The transient annual simulation was set up such that the model was first run to steady-state
under baseflow conditions. At the start of the transient simulation, a specific yield of 6
percent was assigned to alluvial areas of model layers 1 and 2, and a specific storage of
2 x 106 x model layer thickness was assigned to bedrock areas of model layers 1 and 2 and
all of model layers 3 through 6. The baseline July 1, 2008 stream elevation distribution was
loaded, and the July 2008 multiplier was applied to the deep percolation distribution. The
transient simulation then proceeded with stream stage varying on daily time steps and deep
percolation of precipitation varying on monthly time steps. Targets for the transient average
annual simulation consisted of average daily measured groundwater elevations at
69 monitoring wells and piezometers within the Box and Osburn Flats. Simulated heads for
each of these locations and simulated groundwater discharge to surface water were output
on a daily basis. At the end of each simulation, the calibration to measured groundwater
elevations was evaluated and additional modifications were made as necessary. During the
calibration process many parameters were varied to test the improvement to the overall
calibration, including: varying the streambed resistance terms, modifying the stream stage
elevations, varying the vertical resistance terms between model layers, decreasing the
specific yield, and globally decreasing the initial heads. Of the parameter variations
previously listed, the following modifications were retained in the final transient calibration:
Reduction of the baseline July 1, 2008 stream stage in the SFCDR reach defined by the
Elizabeth Park stream gauge by 1 foot
Re-interpolation of the baseline July 1, 2008 stream stage distribution of the SFCDR
reach between monitoring wells BH-SF-E-101-U and BH-SF-E-0314-U
Re-interpolation of the baseline July 1, 2008 stream stage distribution of the SFCDR
reach between monitoring locations BH-SF-W-PZ-05 and BH-SF-W-0201-U
Because the groundwater hydrographs in monitoring wells and piezometers near the
SFCDR showed similar magnitude of responses to the SFCDR hydrograph, it was assumed
that the SFCDR was in hydraulic connection with the groundwater system. Although there
were no stream gauges in the reaches listed above, groundwater elevations measured on
July 1, 2008, at monitoring wells adjacent to the SFCDR were used as data points for the
re-interpolation of the baseline stream stage distribution. Plots showing simulated versus
measured groundwater elevations from the final transient calibration targets are presented
on Figures A-13a through A-13i.
A.3.4.2 Canyon Creek Model
The transient average annual calibration for the Canyon Creek Model followed a similar
methodology as described for the SFCDR Model. Rather than establishing a baseline stream
stage for the July 1, 2008 initial condition and then applying changes in stream stage from
this distribution based on gauge height deviations, average daily stream stage distributions
were developed. Daily stream stage distributions were based on linear interpolation, as a
function of distance between gauges, of pressure transducer data recorded at stilling wells
A2-SSD, A4E-SSD, and A6-SSD and the USGS stream gauge at the mouth of Canyon Creek
(CC-288). Because no reference point elevation was available for the USGS stream gauge at
the mouth of Canyon Creek, it was necessary to estimate an initial stream stage for
interpolation based on the difference in gauge height between July 1, 2008 and the fall 2006
A-9
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
baseflow calibration period. Daily stream stages were calculated based on gauge height
deviations from this starting condition. Additionally, it was necessary to develop "soft" data
points for nodes representing the headwaters of Canyon Creek and the southwestern model
boundary at the confluence with the SFCDR. A constant stream stage of 5,856 feet mean sea
level (msl) was used in the daily interpolation of the headwaters node. The node
representing the confluence with the SFCDR was assumed to have a stage 3 feet lower than
that at stream gauge CC-288. Daily stream stages were interpolated between:
The southwestern model boundary (confluence with the SFCDR) and gauge CC-288
Gauge CC-288 and stilling well A6-SSD
Stilling wells A6-SSD and A4E-SSD
Stilling wells A4E-SSD and A2-SSD
Stilling well A2-SSD and the headwaters of Canyon Creek
An annual average deep percolation of precipitation distribution (based on the Turner
approximation [Turner, 1986]) was developed for the Canyon Creek Watershed. The annual
distribution was apportioned monthly, by applying multipliers to the distribution based on
the approximate trend of an average annual groundwater hydrograph. This approach
differed from the approach used in the SFCDR Model calibration; the multipliers were
applied to an average annual distribution rather than the calibrated baseflow distribution of
deep percolation of precipitation. Table A-8 provides the values of the monthly multipliers
applied to the deep percolation of precipitation distribution. Multipliers were calculated
such that the total deep percolation applied during the average annual simulation was
consistent with that estimated using the Turner approximation (Turner, 1986).
The model simulation consisted of loading an initial set of heads (the calibrated baseflow
heads), assigning the storage values, and applying the changes to the boundary conditions
discussed above. A specific yield of 5 percent was assigned to model layer 1, and a specific
storage of 2 x lO6 x model layer thickness was assigned to model layers 2 through 5. The
transient simulation was calculated with stream stage varying on daily time steps and deep
percolation of precipitation varying on monthly time steps. Targets for the transient average
annual simulation consisted of average daily measured groundwater elevations at eight
monitoring wells within the Woodland Park area of the Canyon Creek Watershed.
Simulated heads for each of these locations and simulated groundwater discharge to surface
water were output on a daily basis. The match between simulated and measured
groundwater elevations from the initial transient simulation was acceptable; therefore, no
model parameters were changed. Plots showing simulated versus measured groundwater
elevations from the final transient calibration are presented on Figure A-14.
A.4 Methodology for Development of Metals Loading Budget
The calibrated groundwater flow models provide improved estimates of the magnitude of
groundwater-surface water interaction within the Box, Osburn Flats, and the Canyon Creek
Watershed. This information was used to identify the location and magnitude of
groundwater discharge to streams within the watershed. By combining the groundwater
discharge estimates with dissolved metals concentrations in groundwater, the groundwater
flow data can be converted into estimates of metals flux from groundwater to surface water.
A-10
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
The SFCDR and Canyon Creek Models are groundwater flow models; therefore, metals
transport and geochemical reactions are not simulated. As an alternative, dissolved metals
loadings to the surface water were estimated by dividing the gaining portions of the SFCDR
and Canyon Creek into reaches, and selecting representative monitoring wells that are
assumed to reflect the dissolved metals concentrations in groundwater entering the stream
over a given reach. The average dissolved metals concentrations within a particular reach
can then be multiplied by the simulated groundwater flow to the stream reach predicted by
the groundwater flow model to yield estimates of metals loadings. These values can then be
compared with more traditional loading calculations, derived from comparing calculated
upstream and downstream loads based on surface water flows and surface water metals
concentrations, to evaluate consistency in the independent loading estimates. If the
estimates agree reasonably well, confidence is gained that the independent predictions of
metals loadings to the stream over certain reaches are reasonably accurate. This
methodology assumes that (a) dissolved zinc can be used as a surrogate for other metals
(i.e., the reaches with the greatest zinc loads are also areas with the highest cadmium loads),
and (b) there is no change in dissolved metals concentrations in groundwater between the
location of the groundwater monitoring well and the discharge area into the stream
(i.e., metals transport in the groundwater system is conservative between the monitoring
well and the stream discharge area). The most recent dissolved zinc concentration data
(collected in fall 2008) were used in this analysis.
A.4.1 Baseline Metals LoadingsSFCDR Model
Dissolved zinc loadings to the SFCDR were estimated by combining the simulated ground-
water discharge rates to the stream with the dissolved zinc concentrations measured in
nearby groundwater monitoring wells. Figure A-15 presents the distribution of dissolved
zinc in the groundwater system measured during the fall 2008 and spring 2009 sampling
events in the Bunker Hill Box. To estimate the metals loadings from groundwater discharge
within the Box, the SFCDR and major tributaries were subdivided into 29 reaches. The
streams were subdivided so that there was one monitoring well or piezometer associated
with each reach. The geographic locations of these reaches are shown on Figure A-15. For a
given simulation, the simulated groundwater discharge to the stream was multiplied by the
dissolved zinc concentration in groundwater measured at the associated monitoring well or
piezometer, and the simulated flow from the stream to the groundwater system was
multiplied by the dissolved zinc concentration in surface water measured during the 2008
OU 2 groundwater-surface water interaction study (CH2M HILL, 2009a). The net dissolved
zinc load for each reach was calculated as the difference between the stream load gained
and lost. The calculated net loads for all 29 reaches were then added together to estimate a
total load gained through the Box under a particular hydrologic condition. Dissolved zinc
concentrations for the hydrologic conditions described in Section A.3.4 were used as
follows:
Baseflow fall 2008 dissolved zinc concentration
7Q10 fall 2008 dissolved zinc concentration
90th percentile flow spring 2009 dissolved zinc concentration
A-11
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
Transient annualfall 2008 dissolved zinc concentrations were applied to the time
frame from August 1, 2008 through March 15, 2009; spring 2009 dissolved zinc
concentrations were applied to the time frames from July 1, 2008 through July 31, 2008
and from March 16, 2009 through June 30, 2009.
Dissolved zinc loading for the remedial action simulations followed a similar methodology
as discussed above to estimate total loading to the surface water system. Estimates of
dissolved zinc loading to groundwater collection systems were calculating by multiplying
the simulated load to the French drains included in the remedial alternatives for OU 2 by
the average groundwater concentration in adjacent monitoring wells and piezometers. It
was assumed that the French drain systems simulated in the OU 2 alternatives were set far
enough away from streams that any induced flow from streams would flow through
contaminated sediments before discharging to the drain systems.
For groundwater actions proposed for the Mainstem SFCDR Watershed, Segment 01, the
dissolved zinc load was calculated as previously described. For all hydrologic conditions,
the dissolved zinc concentration was assumed to be equal to the average concentration
measured in Osburn Flats monitoring wells in fall 2008 (1.8 milligram per liter [mg/L]),
and the surface water concentration was assumed to be the average measured during
the 2008 Osburn Flats groundwater-surface water interaction study (0.75 mg/L)
(CH2M HILL, 2009c).
Discussions of how each of the above remedial alternatives was simulated and the results
are provided in Sections A.5 and A.6.
A.4.2 Baseline Metals LoadingsCanyon Creek Model
The zinc loading to Canyon Creek was estimated using a similar methodology as described
above for the SFCDR Model. The model-simulated groundwater discharge rates were
multiplied by the observed zinc concentrations measured in monitoring wells in the
Woodland Park area of the Canyon Creek Watershed. The dissolved zinc loading estimates
focused on this area of the watershed because this is where groundwater components of
various remedial actions were evaluated. To estimate the metals loading from groundwater
discharge, the Woodland Park area was subdivided into 12 reaches. The geographic location
of each reach and the distribution of dissolved zinc in groundwater, as measured during fall
2006, are shown on Figure A-16. For the purposes of this FFS, the average dissolved zinc
concentration within each reach was calculated; these data are provided in Table A-9.
Dissolved zinc loading to the surface water system was estimated by multiplying the
simulated total groundwater discharge to Canyon Creek and to land surface by the average
dissolved zinc concentration within each reach. This methodology assumes that ground-
water discharge to low-lying areas adjacent to Canyon Creek eventually flows into the
stream. The total dissolved zinc load to Canyon Creek through Woodland Park was
estimated as the sum of all 12 reaches. Because the fall 2006 sampling event represents the
most recent synoptic dissolved zinc dataset for the Canyon Creek Watershed, these data
were used for estimating dissolved zinc loading under all hydrologic conditions described
Section A.3.
Remedial actions proposed for the Woodland Park area include various source control and
sediment removal actions. It was assumed that these actions would reduce the dissolved
A-12
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
zinc concentrations in groundwater. The magnitude of these reductions within each of the
12 Woodland Park reaches was assumed to be a function of the percent of material
removed, the remedial effectiveness factor (REF) from the Simplified Tool for Predictive
Analysis1, and the fraction of the total area of each reach represented by a given source. The
estimation of the reduction in dissolved zinc concentrations in groundwater resulting from
source removal actions was as follows:
The percentage of total volume of each contaminant source proposed to be removed was
estimated (Table A- l 0, column 3).
The REF for each type of source removal action was taken from the Simplified Tool
(Table A-10, column 4).
The effective REF for each type of source removal action was calculated by multiplying
the proposed percentage of material to be removed by the REF (Table A-10, column 5).
For each Woodland Park reach, the area of contaminant source within the reach was
estimated (Table A-10, column 6).
For each Woodland Park reach, the fraction of the total area represented by each
contaminant source was calculated (Table A-10, column 7).
For each Woodland Park reach, the fraction of the total area for each contaminant source
was multiplied by effective REF (Table A-10, column 8).
The total REF for each reach was the sum of all the fractions of effective REFs for all
contaminant sources within the reach (Table A-10, column 9).
The total REFs for the reaches were used to reduce the average dissolved zinc concentration
in groundwater by assuming that for a given reach, the concentration would be reduced by
a percentage equal to the total REF. For example, for Reach 01, the total REF for the reach
was estimated to be 69 percent; this means that the average dissolved zinc concentration
after the source removal actions are completed would be 31 percent of the initial
concentrations. The pre-removal action and estimated post-source-removal-action dissolved
zinc concentrations in groundwater are presented in Table A-9. A complete discussion of the
simulation results is presented in Section A.6.
A.5 Application of Groundwater Flow Models to Remedial
Alternatives for Oils 2 and 3
This section describes how the groundwater components of each of the remedial actions
included in the applicable remedial alternatives described in Sections 6.0 and 7.0 of the
FFS Report were implemented in the SFCDR and Canyon Creek Models. These components
were consistently implemented in the models for all steady-state and transient hydrologic
1The Simplified Tool was developed in 2008 to provide a simplified version of the Predictive Analysis that was
used in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Coeur d'Alene Basin (USEPA, 2001a, 2001b, and
2007) and is also used in this FFS Report. The Simplified Tool allows for the evaluation of source sites and the
potential benefits of specific remedial actions for smaller segments of a stream, as opposed to the aggregated
source sites and remedial actions evaluated using the Predictive Analysis. The Working Draft Technical
Memorandum: Overview of the Simplified Predictive Analysis for Estimating Post-Remediation Water Quality
(CH2M HILL, 2008) presents the details of how the Simplified Tool was developed.
A-13
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
flow conditions discussed in Section A.3. The results of the simulations are presented in
Section A.6.
A.5.1 OU 2 Alternative (a)
OU 2 Alternative (a) consists of limited stream-lining actions in losing reaches of OU 2
streams to reduce recharge to the shallow alluvial groundwater system. The overall goal of
this alternative is to reduce the mobilization, transport, and mass flux of dissolved metals in
the groundwater system by reducing stream leakage from losing portions of the SFCDR and
tributaries, which would ultimately protect surface water downstream. This alternative was
developed to provide a limited passive action alternative without water treatment. The
locations of stream liners included in this alternative are based on the low operation and
maintenance (O&M) and minimal water management option identified during the OU 2
remedial alternative screening process, and were optimized during this process. Figure A-17
shows the locations of the stream liners that comprise this alternative, which include the
following:
Lining the SFCDR from the eastern portion of the Box to the 1-90 underpass at the
northeast corner of the CIA
Lining Bunker Creek from the Central Treatment Plant (CTP) to the 1-90 culvert
Lining Magnet Gulch from McKinley Avenue to the confluence with Bunker Creek
Lining Deadwood Gulch from McKinley Avenue to the confluence with Bunker Creek
For all the steady-state and transient simulations discussed in Section A.3, these stream
liners were simulated in the SFCDR Model by assigning a streambed conductance term of
zero where liners will be installed. This effectively removes the boundary condition from
these nodes, eliminating groundwater and surface water exchange.
A.5.2 OU 2 Alternative (b)
OU 2 Alternative (b) consists of extensive stream lining actions in OU 2 streams to reduce
recharge to the shallow alluvial groundwater system. Groundwater cutoff walls would be
installed at select locations as part of this alternative. The overall goal of OU 2 Alternative
(b) is to (more extensively than OU 2 Alternative (a)) reduce the mobilization, transport, and
mass flux of dissolved metals in the groundwater system to the extent practicable, with no
groundwater treatment, by reducing stream leakage from losing portions of tributaries to
the SFCDR, which would ultimately protect surface water downstream. To achieve this
goal, losing stream reaches were selected for lining. Similar to OU 2 Alternative (a), the
locations of stream liners included in this alternative are based on the objective of low O&M
and minimal water management as identified during the OU 2 remedial alternative
screening process, and were optimized during this process. Figure A-18 shows the locations
of the components of this alternative, which include the following:
Lining Bunker Creek from the CTP to the confluence with Bunker Creek
Lining Magnet Gulch from the point in the SFCDR Watershed where surface water has
elevated metals concentrations (approximately half the distance to the headwaters) to
the confluence with Bunker Creek
A-14
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
Lining Deadwood Gulch from where surface water has elevated metals concentrations
(approximately half the distance to the headwaters) to the confluence with Bunker Creek
Lining Government Creek from the upstream point of Government Gulch to the
confluence with Bunker Creek
Installing groundwater cut-off walls at the upstream end of all stream liner segments
except those on Bunker Creek
Installing clean groundwater collection sumps on the upstream side of the groundwater
cut-off walls
Installing sub-liner collection systems below stream liners, except those on Bunker
Creek, to prevent floating the liners in gaining stream reaches
For the steady-state and transient simulations discussed in Section A.3, stream liners were
simulated in the SFCDR Model by assigning a streambed conductance term of zero where
liners will be installed. This effectively removes the boundary condition from these nodes,
eliminating groundwater and surface water exchange. Groundwater cut-off walls were
simulated by assigning anisotropy to the horizontal hydraulic conductivity field.
Anisotropy was assigned to alluvial layers in the location of cut-off walls such that the
hydraulic conductivity in the direction of groundwater flow was 1 percent of the hydraulic
conductivity perpendicular to flow. For example, the horizontal hydraulic conductivity in
the alluvial valley of Deadwood Gulch is 10 feet/day. In the location of the groundwater
cut-off wall, the hydraulic conductivity in the downgradient flow direction is 0.1 foot/day,
while the hydraulic conductivity perpendicular to flow remains at 10 feet/day. This
methodology allowed the assignment of a barrier to flow without having extremely large
contrasts in model properties in adjacent nodes, thereby increasing the numerical stability of
the model simulation. Groundwater sumps on the upstream side of cut-off walls and
sub-liner collection systems were simulated using the MicroFEM drain package. These one-
way head-dependent boundary conditions act as sinks when simulated groundwater
elevations exceed the drain elevations, but do not act as sources of water when the
simulated groundwater elevations are lower than drain elevations. Drain elevations were
set at 2.5 feet below the calibrated baseflow groundwater elevation for all steady-state and
transient model simulations. This means that during simulations of "wetter" and "drier"
hydrologic conditions, the drain elevation did not fluctuate with the simulated water table.
A.5.3 OU 2 Alternative (c)
OU 2 Alternative (c) consists of a French drain system located in the central portion of OU 2
in the area with the highest dissolved metal load gains observed in the SFCDR. This French
drain system would intercept dissolved-metals-contaminated groundwater prior to
discharging to the SFCDR. Figure A-19 shows the locations of the components of this
alternative, which include the following:
Piping the CTP effluent directly to the SFCDR along the eastern side of the CIA instead
of conveying the discharge down Bunker Creek.
Installing a French drain parallel to the SFCDR in the highest dissolved metals loading
reach between the CIA and 1-90.
A-15
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
Installing a French drain perpendicular to the SFCDR alluvial valley in the narrows
between the eastern and western portions of the Box. This drain would be keyed in to
the bedrock on the western side of the mouth of Government Gulch.
The piping of the CTP discharge directly to the SFCDR was simulated in the SFCDR Model
using the same methodology as used for the stream liners discussed in previous sections. A
streambed conductance term of zero was assigned to the entire length of Bunker Creek,
eliminating groundwater and surface water exchange. The French drains were simulated
using the MicroFEM drain package. French drain elevations were set at either the geological
contact between the upper aquifer and the confining unit or at 25 feet below ground surface,
whichever was shallower. Additionally, drain elevations were assigned such that there was
a slope towards the pump station near Bunker Creek. The same drain elevations were used
for model simulations under all hydrologic conditions. A hydraulic conductivity of 1,500
feet/day was assigned along the French drains to simulate coarse backfill material.
A.5.4 OU 2 Alternative (d)
OU 2 Alternative (d) consists of French drains, stream linings, cutoff walls, and extraction
wells located in the central portion of OU 2, primarily in the area with the highest dissolved
metal load gains observed in the SFCDR. Similar to OU 2 Alternatives (a) and (b), the overall
goal of stream lining is to reduce the mobilization, transport, and mass flux of dissolved
metals in the groundwater system to the extent practicable by reducing stream leakage from
Government Creek. This alternative would reduce groundwater recharge and intercept
dissolved-metals-contaminated groundwater for treatment prior to discharging to the
SFCDR. Figure A-20 shows the locations of the components of this alternative, which
include the following:
Lining Government Creek from the upstream point of Government Gulch to the
1-90 culvert
Installing a groundwater cut-off wall at the upstream end of the stream liner
Installing clean groundwater collection sumps on the upstream side of the groundwater
cut-off wall
Installing a line of contaminated groundwater collection wells at the mouth of
Government Gulch
Installing sub-liner collection systems below stream liners to prevent the liners from
floating where Government Creek is gaining
Piping the CTP effluent directly to the SFCDR along the eastern side of the CIA instead
of conveying the discharge down Bunker Creek
Installing a French drain parallel to the SFCDR in the highest dissolved metals loading
reach between the CIA and 1-90
Installing a French drain perpendicular to the SFCDR alluvial valley in the narrows
between the eastern and western portions of the Box. This drain would be keyed in to
the bedrock on the eastern side of the mouth of Government Gulch
A-16
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
Stream lining and piping the CTP effluent directly to the SFCDR, rather than conveyance via
Bunker Creek, were simulated in the SFCDR Model as discussed above, by assigning a
streambed conductance term of zero to affected stream nodes. The groundwater cut-off wall
at the head of Government Gulch was simulated, as discussed for OU 2 Alternative (b), by
assigning anisotropy to the horizontal hydraulic conductivity field. The groundwater sumps
on the upstream side of the cut-off wall, the sub-liner collection system, the French drains in
the SFCDR valley, and the line of extraction wells at the mouth of Government Gulch were
simulated using the MicroFEM drain package. The drain elevations of the sumps and the
sub-liner collection system were set at 2.5 feet below the calibrated baseflow groundwater
elevation for all steady-state and transient model simulations. The elevations of the French
drains in the SFCDR valley were set at either the geological contact between the upper
aquifer and the confining unit or at 25 feet bgs, whichever was shallower. Additionally,
drain elevations were assigned so that there was a slope towards the pump station near
Bunker Creek. The drain elevation of the line of extraction wells at the mouth of
Government Gulch was set at the geological contact between the alluvium and bedrock. The
same drain elevations were used for model simulations under all hydrologic conditions. A
hydraulic conductivity of 1,500 feet/day was assigned along the French drains and the line
of extraction wells to simulate coarse backfill material.
A.5.5 OU 2 Alternative (e)
OU 2 Alternative (e) is the most extensive water collection and management alternative,
incorporating extensive stream lining of the SFCDR and its tributaries, as well as French
drain systems. The goal of OU 2 Alternative (e) is "no-net gain in dissolved metals through
the Bunker Hill Box". Figure A-21 shows the locations of the components of this alternative,
which include the following:
Lining Government Creek from the upstream point of Government Gulch to the
confluence with the SFCDR, the SFCDR throughout the Bunker Hill Box, the entire
length of Bunker Creek, Deadwood Gulch and Magnet Gulch from where surface water
has elevated metals concentrations to the confluence with Bunker Creek, and Humboldt
Creek and Grouse Creek from where they enter the SFCDR valley to the confluence with
the SFCDR
Installing groundwater cut-off walls at the upstream end of the stream liners
Installing a groundwater cut-off wall at the western end of the Box (installed to the top
of the confining unit)
Installing a clean groundwater cut-off wall at the eastern end of the Box (installed to
bedrock)
Installing clean groundwater collection sumps on the upstream sides of the
groundwater cut-off walls
Installing sub-liner collection systems below stream liners to prevent the liners from
floating where Government Creek, Magnet Gulch, and Deadwood Gulch are gaining
Installing a French drain in the eastern portion of the Box (between the CIA and 1-90) to
prevent the liner from floating where the SFCDR is gaining
A-17
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
Installing a French drain in the western portion of the Box (in Smelterville Flats) to
prevent the liner from floating where the SFCDR is gaining
Removing the weirs in the Page Swamps
Stream liners were simulated in the SFCDR Model as discussed above, by assigning a
streambed conductance term of zero to affected stream nodes. Groundwater cut-off walls
were simulated, as discussed for OU 2 Alternative (b), by assigning anisotropy to the
horizontal hydraulic conductivity field. The groundwater sumps on the upstream sides of
cut-off walls, the sub-liner collection systems, and French drains in the SFCDR valley were
simulated using the MicroFEM drain package. The drain elevations of the sumps and sub-
liner collection systems were set at 2.5 feet below the calibrated baseflow groundwater
elevation for all steady-state and transient model simulations. The elevations of the French
drain north of the CIA were set at either the geological contact between the upper aquifer
and the confining unit or 25 feet below ground surface, whichever was shallower.
Additionally, drain elevations were assigned such that there was a slope towards the pump
station near Bunker Creek. The drain elevation of the French drain in Smelterville Flats was
set at 5 feet below the calibrated baseflow water table. The same drain elevations were used
for model simulations under all hydrologic conditions. A hydraulic conductivity of
1,500 feet/ day was assigned along the French drains north of the CIA and in Smelterville
Flats to simulate coarse backfill materials. Weir removal was simulated by converting the
Page Swamps from a two-way head-dependent boundary condition to a one-way head-
dependent boundary condition. Because ponding no longer occurs within the swamps,
these could function as sinks for groundwater but not as a source of groundwater recharge.
A.5.6 Groundwater Components of OU 3 Remedial Alternatives for the Mainstem
SFCDR Watershed, Segment 01
Figure A-22 shows the groundwater components of all the OU 3 remedial alternatives for
the Mainstem SFCDR Watershed Segment 01. The objective of this remedial alternative was
to hydraulically isolate this reach of the SFCDR via stream lining and collection and
treatment of dissolved-metals-contaminated groundwater that would otherwise discharge
to the SFCDR. The components of this alternative include the following:
Lining the SFCDR from approximately Wallace to Elizabeth Park
Installing a French drain adjacent to the stream liner to prevent floating the liner in
gaining stream reaches
Capping tailings piles at the Silver Dollar Mine (site KLE034), the Silver Crescent Mine
(site KLE011), the Osburn Rock Pit along 1-90 (site WAL035), and the Caladay Mine (site
WAL020). These actions were included in the model simulations as they reduce
groundwater recharge due to deep percolation of precipitation
Lining the SFCDR was simulated in the SFCDR Model, as discussed for the OU 2
alternatives, by assigning a streambed conductance term of zero to lined stream nodes. The
French drain along the SFCDR was simulated using the MicroFEM drain package. The drain
elevation was set at 5 feet below the calibrated baseflow groundwater elevation for all
steady-state and transient model simulations. A hydraulic conductivity of 1,500 feet/ day
was assigned along the French drain to simulate coarse backfill materials. Capping the
A-18
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
tailings piles was simulated by assigning a deep percolation of precipitation of zero to
model nodes representing the capped areas.
A.5.7 Groundwater Components of OU 3 Remedial Alternatives for Woodland
Park
The updated groundwater components of the actions for the Woodland Park area included
in the OU 3 remedial alternatives were simulated using the Canyon Creek Model. These
components include a combination of stream liners and French drains that would be
installed along Canyon Creek to reduce dissolved metals loading to the creek and to collect
metals-contaminated water. The stream liners and French drains would be placed at
locations that would maximize dissolved metals load reduction in the creek and minimize
cost by (a) intercepting metals-contaminated groundwater that would otherwise discharge
to Canyon Creek, and (b) reducing the mobilization, transport, and mass flux of dissolved
metals in the groundwater system by reducing stream leakage from losing portions of
Canyon Creek. The locations of stream liners and French drains included in this alternative
were optimized during the remedial alternative screening process. Figure A-23 shows these
components, which include the following:
Lining the losing reach Canyon Creek from approximately Site A2 to Site A4E
Installing a French drain adjacent to Canyon Creek from approximately Site A2 to A6
Installing a French drain cut-off system perpendicular to the Canyon Creek alluvial
valley near Site A-6
Installing a French drain along the base of the Silver Valley Natural Resource Trust
tailings repository
Piping the Gem portal discharge directly to Canyon Creek instead of discharging the
effluent to Hecla Star Pond 6
Lining Canyon Creek was simulated, as discussed for the OU 2 alternatives, by assigning a
streambed conductance term of zero to lined stream nodes. All of the French drain systems
were simulated using the MicroFEM drain package. The drain elevations were set at 5 feet
below the calibrated baseflow groundwater elevation for all steady-state and transient
model simulations. Piping of the Gem portal discharge was simulated by removing the
specified flux for all nodes representing Hecla Star Pond 6.
A.6 Simulation Results
Groundwater components of the remedial alternatives described in the previous section
were simulated using the SFCDR and Canyon Creek groundwater flow models. The
modeling simulations were performed to obtain an estimate of the relative effectiveness of
each of the alternatives at reducing the dissolved metals loading to the SFCDR or Canyon
Creek. The effectiveness of each alternative was estimated by running a model simulation
with a remedy-in-place, and comparing the results with a baseline no-action simulation. The
difference in metal loading between the two simulations was assumed to be the benefit of
implementation of that particular alternative. Other information obtained from the model
A-19
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
simulations were estimated drain flows and CTP loads for the various remedial alternatives
evaluated. The sole metric used in this analysis to quantify alternative effectiveness was the
reduction in dissolved metals load to the SFCDR or Canyon Creek. While other benefits,
such as minimizing treatment loading or keeping clean water clean, could also be
considered, the assessment herein uses metal load reduction as the primary differentiator of
remedy effectiveness for the purposes of comparing alternatives.
A.6.1 Baseflow Conditions
Groundwater components of the remedial alternatives were simulated under steady-state
baseflow conditions observed during fall 2008 (the SFCDR Model) and fall 2006 (the Canyon
Creek Model). This time period represents an approximate 25th percentile flow as defined
by the SFCDR flow at the USGS stream gauge at Pinehurst (SF-271). Figure A-24 presents
upstream flowlines from gaining portions of the SFCDR under these conditions. This figure
also presents the simulated gaining and losing reaches of the SFCDR and tributaries for
which stream lining is proposed in the alternatives described above. These flowlines suggest
that under no-action baseline conditions, the primary sources of water to gaining portions of
the SFCDR in the eastern portion of the Box include the losing reaches of the SFCDR and
Bunker Creek, the groundwater underflow from the SFCDR alluvial system upstream of the
Box, and underflow from the Milo Creek Watershed. The primary sources of water to the
gaining reaches of the SFCDR in the western portion of the Box include the Page Swamps
and losing reaches of the SFCDR and Government Creek. (Flowline figures are only
presented for the baseflow conditions; flowlines for other hydrologic conditions show
similar patterns).
Figure A-25 presents upstream flowlines from the same gaining reaches of the SFCDR with
the components of OU 2 Alternative (a) in place. These flowlines are similar to the no-action
baseline conditions, except that they do not track back to losing reaches of the SFCDR and
Bunker Creek, as these stream reaches would be lined. Rather, a larger portion of the
groundwater that discharged to these gaining reaches would originate as groundwater
underflow from the SFCDR alluvial system upstream from the Box and underflow from the
Milo Creek Watershed.
Figure A-26 presents upstream flowlines from the same gaining reaches of the SFCDR with
the components of OU 2 Alternative (b) in place. These flowlines are similar to the no-action
and OU 2 Alternative (a) conditions, except that flowlines do not track back to the tributary
valleys of Bunker Creek due to the more extensive stream lining and groundwater cut-off
walls in these gulches.
Figure A-27a presents upstream flowlines from the same gaining reaches of the SFCDR with
the components of OU 2 Alternative (c) in place. This figure shows that a majority of the
reach of the SFCDR north of the CIA would no longer be gaining. Flowlines from the
portion of this reach that would still be gaining sweep north of the SFCDR under Kellogg.
Figure A-27b presents upstream flowlines from the French drain system. This figure
illustrates that a majority of the contaminated groundwater flowing beneath the CIA that
once discharged to the SFCDR would be captured by the French drains.
Figures A-28a and A-28b present upstream flowlines from the gaining reaches of the SFCDR
and the French drain systems with the components of OU 2 Alternative (d) in place. These
A-20
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
figures indicate that groundwater flow patterns would be similar to those discussed for
OU 2 Alternative (c).
Figure A-29 presents upstream flowlines from French drains with the components of OU 2
Alternative (e) in place. No flowlines from gaining reaches of the SFCDR are presented
because all streams would be lined within the Box under this alternative. This figure shows
that with such extensive stream lining coupled with a cut-off wall at Elizabeth Park, the
majority of water entering the French drains would be from groundwater underflow from
the Milo Creek Watershed.
Figures A-30 and A-31 show upstream flowlines from gaining portions of the SFCDR under
no-action conditions (Figure A-30), and with the French drain system proposed for
Mainstem SFCDR Watershed Segment 01 actions implemented (Figure A-31). These figures
show that the sources of water to either the SFCDR or the French drain system would be the
same: losing portions of the SFCDR, or tributaries and groundwater underflow from the
alluvial system upstream. Under the no-action scenario, this water is discharged to the
SFCDR; when the stream was lined, however, the water would be discharged to the French
drain system.
Figures A-32 and A-33 present upstream flowlines from gaining portions of Canyon Creek
under no-action conditions (Figure A-32), and with the French drain system proposed for
the updated remedial components for Woodland Park (Figure A-33). Figure A-32 also
presents simulated gaining and losing reaches of Canyon Creek under baseflow conditions.
These figures show a similar pattern to the pattern for Mainstem SFCDR Watershed
Segment 01. Under no-action conditions, water discharging to gaining reaches of Canyon
Creek originates from leakage from losing portions of Canyon Creek, groundwater
underflow from upstream portions of the alluvial valley, and groundwater underflow from
beneath the Silver Valley Natural Resource Trust (SVNRT) repository. With the remedial
actions in place, this water would discharge to the French drain systems instead of to
Canyon Creek.
Table A-ll presents summaries of simulated flows for the no-action and remedial
alternative simulations under baseflow conditions. Under no-action baseline conditions, the
SFCDR Model suggests that the SFCDR gain through the Box is approximately 8 cfs, while
the loss is approximately 3 cfs. Model results suggest that the stream-lining-only options
would not significantly reduce the gain to the SFCDR. Because the eastern losing reach of
the SFCDR would be lined, OU 2 Alternative (a) would reduce the leakage from the SFCDR
by approximately 2 cfs. OU 2 Alternative (b) would induce more seepage from the SFCDR
than the no-action baseline conditions, likely the result of the lining of Government Creek.
OU 2 Alternatives (c) and (d) would both reduce the groundwater discharge to the SFCDR
by more than 50 percent; however, the French drains would induce stream leakage doubling
the SFCDR leakage. Additionally, both alternatives would have a treatment flow of
approximately 8.5 cfs. Under OU 2 Alternative (e), the streams would be lined; therefore, no
stream loss or gain is simulated. The simulated treatment flow to the French drain and sub-
liner collection systems is approximately 5.5. cfs. Within the Mainstem SFCDR Watershed
Segment 01, between Wallace and Elizabeth Park in OU 3, the SFCDR Model suggests that
the SFCDR would gain approximately 10 cfs and loses 8 cfs. With the remedial actions in
place, there would be no groundwater-surface water interaction along the SFCDR as a result
of stream lining, and the French drain inflow would be approximately 7.5 cfs. The results of
A-21
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
baseflow simulations from the Canyon Creek Model suggest that under no-action baseline
conditions, Canyon Creek gains approximately 2 cfs and loses approximately 1 cfs. With the
Woodland Park components of the OU 3 remedial alternatives in place, stream gain would
be decreased by 0.5 cfs; however, Canyon Creek stream loss would increase by 0.3 cfs, and
there would be an inflow of 1 cfs to the French drains.
Table A-12 presents summaries of the estimated dissolved zinc loading under baseflow
conditions for the OU 2 and OU 3 baseflow simulations. These data suggest that under
no-action baseline conditions, the total dissolved zinc load to the SFCDR through the Box is
approximately 600 pounds per day (lb/day). This value is consistent with historical
measurements from baseflow groundwater-surface water interaction studies. The stream-
lining-only options would reduce the dissolved zinc load to the SFCDR by approximately
100 lb/ day. OU 2 Alternative (a) would be more effective at reducing direct load to the
SFCDR and the A-4 drain, while OU 2 Alternative (b) would reduce loading to Government
Creek. OU 2 Alternatives (c) and (d) would reduce the direct dissolved zinc loading to the
SFCDR by approximately 460 lb/ day; however, OU 2 Alternative (d) would be more
effective overall because it would reduce dissolved zinc loading to Government Creek. Both
of these alternatives would have a treatment load of more than 1,000 lb/ day. OU 2
Alternative (e) would be 100 percent effective in reducing dissolved zinc loading to the
surface water system and would carry a treatment burden of approximately 550 lb/ day. The
net dissolved zinc loading to Mainstem SFCDR Watershed Segment 01 in OU 3 would be
approximately 65 lb/ day. As shown in Table A-12, the remedial actions would remove this
zinc load from the system; however, the treatment load would be approximately 75 lb/day.
Results from the Canyon Creek Model suggest that under no-action baseline conditions, the
total dissolved zinc load to the Woodland Park reach of Canyon Creek is approximately
125 lb/ day. The Woodland Park components of the remedial alternatives for OU 3 would
reduce this loading by approximately 85 lb/ day and have a treatment load of approximately
80 lb/ day.
A.6.2 7Q10 Conditions
Tables A-13 and A-14 present the model-simulated flows and dissolved zinc load
summaries, respectively, for no-action and remedial alternative simulations from the
SFCDR and Canyon Creek Models under critical low-flow, 7Q10, conditions. A comparison
of Tables A-ll and A-13 shows that the relative trends in simulated flows would be similar
between baseflow and 7Q10 conditions. In general, streams would gain slightly less and lose
slightly more under 7Q10 conditions than under baseflow conditions. This would be the
result of lower groundwater elevations during drier periods.
Table A-14 shows that the estimated dissolved zinc load to the SFCDR under 7Q10 condi-
tions would be approximately 550 lb/day, 50 lb/day less than under baseflow conditions.
The five OU 2 alternatives show similar relative effectiveness under 7Q10 conditions as
under baseflow conditions. Table A-14 shows that of the two stream-lining-only options,
OU 2 Alternative (a) would be more effective under extreme low-flow conditions, probably
because of the inclusion of lining the eastern losing reach of the SFCDR. The lining-only
alternatives would be less effective than the actions involving the installation of French
drains; however, there would be little or no treatment load. The estimated dissolved zinc
load to Mainstem SFCDR Watershed Segment 01 in OU 3 would be approximately
A-22
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
60 lb/day under 7Q10 conditions. This load would be eliminated with the remedial actions
in place; however, the estimated dissolved zinc load to the French drain would be
60 lb/ day. Table A-14 shows that under 7Q10 conditions, the Woodland Park components
of the OU 3 remedial alternatives would reduce the dissolved zinc loading to Canyon Creek
by 75 lb/day and carry a treatment burden of approximately 50 lb/day.
A.6.3 90th Percentile Flow Conditions
Tables A-15 and A-16 present the model-simulated flows and dissolved zinc load
summaries, respectively, for no-action and remedial alternative simulations from the
SFCDR Watershed and Canyon Creek models under 90th percentile flow conditions, as
defined at the USGS stream gauge at Pinehurst (SF-271). Simulated flows presented in
Table A-15 suggest that for the SFCDR and tributaries within OU 2, the stream gains would
be lower and stream losses higher during the higher flow conditions than under baseflow
and 7Q10 conditions. This is likely because the stages in the surface water system would
increase quicker than the groundwater elevations. The larger differential in elevations
between the two systems would result in more stream loss and less stream gain. Simulated
groundwater discharge to Canyon Creek is higher under 90th percentile flow than the drier
hydrologic conditions. Simulated flows also show that in all cases, the French drain inflows
would be higher under the wetter hydrologic conditions than during 7Q10 or baseflow
periods.
Table A-16 presents the estimated dissolved zinc load to the surface water system within
OU 2 and OU 3 under 90th percentile flow conditions. Under the no-action scenario, the
estimated dissolved zinc loading to the SFCDR within the Box is 715 lb/ day. Results from
the SFCDR Model suggest that the relative effectiveness of the OU 2 alternatives would be
similar under the wetter hydrologic conditions as under 7Q10 and baseflow conditions. The
stream-lining-only options would reduce dissolved zinc loading by approximately
100 lb/ day, while the alternatives including French drains would reduce loading by
approximately 550 lb/day. The OU 2 Alternative (e) simulation shows some dissolved ziric
loading to the surface water system, as the A-4 drain would be active under the wetter
hydrologic conditions. The results for Mainstem SFCDR Watershed Segment 01 in OU 3 are
similar to those for the other hydrologic conditions. Table A-16 shows that under 90th
percentile flow conditions, the estimated dissolved zinc loading to Canyon Creek would be
higher under 90th percentile flow conditions than under baseflow and 7Q10 conditions,
approximately 260 lb/day. The Woodland Park components of the OU 3 remedial
alternatives would reduce dissolved zinc loading to Canyon Creek by nearly 150 lb/ day;
however, the treatment load would be approximately 180 lb/ day.
A.6.4 Average Annual Conditions
Tables A-17 and A-18 present the model-simulated flows and dissolved zinc load
summaries, respectively, for the transient annual simulations for the SFCDR and Canyon
Creek Models. A comparison of Tables A-ll and A-17 shows that the simulated flows are
very similar under baseflow and the average annual conditions. Consistent with the
90th percentile simulation results, the simulated flows for the SFCDR and tributaries within
OU 2 show that the stream gains would be lower and stream losses higher during the
average annual conditions than under baseflow conditions. The simulated groundwater
discharge to Canyon Creek is slightly higher under average annual than baseflow
A-23
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
conditions. Simulated flows also show that in all cases, the French drain inflows would be
higher under the average annual hydrologic conditions than during baseflow periods.
Table A-18 presents the estimated dissolved zinc load to the surface water system within
OU 2 and OU 3 under average annual flow conditions. A comparison of Tables A-12 and
A-18 shows that the estimated dissolved zinc loading to the surface water system would be
nearly identical under average annual and baseflow conditions. Although the simulated
flows between the baseflow and annual simulations differ, the use of variable concentration
distributions to estimate the average annual dissolved zinc loading for the transient
simulations yields similar results to the steady-state baseflow simulations. The primary
differences between the two hydrologic conditions are that OU 2 Alternative (a) would be
slightly more effective than OU 2 Alternative (b), and the treatment loads would be slightly
higher under average annual conditions. The results from the average annual simulations
were used as input to the Predictive Analysis Tool, as discussed in Appendix B of the
FFS Report.
A.7 OU 2 Sensitivity Analysis
Numerical models contain inherent uncertainty. Groundwater models are constructed using
available field data and professional judgment to develop an accurate numerical
representation of the physical features of a given site of interest, as well as of the physical
processes that operate at that site. Additionally, the calibration process allows the modeler
to further evaluate and modify the model input parameters in order improve the match
between selected calibration targets and model predictions. The larger the number of
individual calibration targets, and the greater the variety in the types of calibration targets
used (e.g., groundwater elevations, simulated flows, vertical hydraulic gradients, and
transient aquifer test data), the higher the degree of confidence is gained that the model is
able to provide accurate forecasts of future site conditions. There is, however, error
associated with measured field data, and numerical model solutions are non-unique,
meaning that there are a large number of parameter configurations that can provide an
equal level of calibration. To better quantify the potential range of uncertainty in the
estimates of dissolved zinc loading to the SFCDR for the five OU 2 alternatives, an
uncertainty analysis was undertaken using the SFCDR Model.
The sensitivity analysis performed on the SFCDR Model involved varying one model
parameter at a time, within a specified range, and running numerous simulations to yield
independent estimates of zinc loading to the SFCDR. The quality of model calibration was
evaluated for each of these sensitivity simulations to ensure that the parameter change made
in that run did not result in a model that no longer provides acceptable agreement between
simulated and observed calibration targets.
Seven model input parameters were selected for modification during the SFCDR Model
sensitivity analysis. Each parameter was increased and decreased by two factors, resulting
in 28 model simulations for the no-action alternative and each of the five OU 2 alternatives,
resulting in a total of 168 simulations. All of the sensitivity simulations were run using the
steady-state, baseflow condition. It was assumed that the other hydrologic conditions would
result in similar relative uncertainty. The model input parameters that were evaluated
A-24
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
during the sensitivity analysis, along with the range of values tested, are summarized as
follows:
Horizontal hydraulic conductivity in the alluvial aquifer systemThe horizontal
hydraulic conductivity of the alluvium in model layers 1 through 4 was multiplied and
divided by factors of 5 and 10.
Horizontal hydraulic conductivity in the confining unitThe horizontal hydraulic
conductivity of the confining unit in model layer 3 was multiplied and divided by
factors of 10 and 100.
Horizontal hydraulic conductivity in the bedrock aquifer systemThe horizontal
hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock in model layers 1 through 4 was multiplied and
divided by factors of 10 and 100.
Distribution of deep percolation of precipitationThe calibrated baseflow distribution
of deep percolation of precipitation was increased and decreased by 25 and 50 percent
throughout the model domain.
The vertical resistance between model layers The vertical resistance terms at the
interface between model layers 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 3 and 4 were increased and
decreased by factors of 10 and 100 throughout the model domain.
The streambed resistance termThe streambed conductance term for the SFCDR was
increased and decreased by factors of 5 and 10.
The wadi elevation termThe baseflow stream stage distribution of the SFCDR was
increased and decreased by 1 and 2 feet.
All of these parameter variations, with the exception of the deep percolation of precipita-
tion, were applied prior to assigning properties for the simulation of the various remedial
actions. Table A-19 summarizes the estimated dissolved zinc loading to the SFCDR within
the Bunker Hill Box for all of the sensitivity analysis simulations. These data are presented
graphically on Figure A-34. The baseflow estimates of residual dissolved zinc loading to the
SFCDR from the calibrated model are shown as yellow triangles, while the black "x"
symbols represent the results of all of the individual sensitivity analysis simulations. These
data show that the simulations of the no-action and liner-only alternatives yielded a wider
range of dissolved zinc loading estimates than did the simulations of the other alternatives.
For example, the alternatives involving French drains show much less overall deviation
from the baseflow dissolved zinc loading estimate obtained from the calibrated model,
while the simulations of OU 2 Alternative (e) show even less.
In all cases, the highest estimates of dissolved zinc loading to the SFCDR for each alternative
are from the simulations with increased horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the alluvial
aquifer system. Increases in the hydraulic conductivity by factors of 5 and 10 over the
currently assumed values result in extremely high values (up to 10,000 feet/ day), greater
than would be expected for the aquifer materials present at the site. Therefore, these results
are not considered representative of site conditions. The lowest estimated values of
dissolved zinc load for each alternative result from a variety of parameter modifications
depending on the alternative being evaluated. But all of the parameter changes that resulted
A-25
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
in these low estimates involve parameters that make it more difficult for groundwater to
discharge upward to the surface water system. These include increases in vertical resistance
between layers (reducing vertical flow), increasing the streambed conductance terms, and
increasing stream stage.
Overall, these results suggest that given the uncertainty in the model input parameters, it is
not possible to predict whether OU 2 Alternative (a) or (b) would be more effective at
reducing metals loading to the SFCDR. However, these results also clearly indicate that
OU 2 Alternatives (c) and (d) would be more effective than the liner-only alternatives, and it
appears that Alternative (d) would be the more effective of the French drain alternatives.
Finally, results suggest that OU 2 Alternative (e) appears to be the most effective under all
of the parameter variations considered in this analysis.
A.8 Additional Model Uncertainty
In addition to uncertainty in model forecasts associated with the assumed model input
parameters, uncertainty is also associated with the methodology used to estimate dissolved
metals loading to streams from groundwater flow model estimates. As discussed in Section
A.4, simulated flow estimates of groundwater discharge to streams, and surface water
leakage to underlying groundwater, are paired with analytical data from surface water
sampling and groundwater monitoring well sampling. This methodology assumes that
(a) dissolved zinc concentrations measured in monitoring wells and piezometers near
streams are representative of the concentrations actually being discharged to the stream,
and (b) a given set of samples collected during a discrete quarterly sampling event are
representative of dissolved zinc concentrations over some range of time (e.g., over the
baseflow or spring runoff period). Insufficient data are available with which to quantify the
magnitude of uncertainty that these assumptions may introduce into model forecasts.
One final area of uncertainty in the modeling results originates from site characteristics that
may be changed by remedial activities that are not explicitly included in the modeling
assumptions. One example is that extensive remedial activities, such as surface water
collection and treatment in the Upper Coeur d'Alene River Basin, may have significant
effects on the magnitude and timing of stream flow in the SFCDR within OU 2. Changes to
surface water flows and associated changes to river stage will affect groundwater conditions
to some degree. These types of changes to site conditions have not been evaluated during
the SFCDR Watershed modeling effort; they would likely have a relatively minor effect on
remedy effectiveness.
A.9 References
CH2M HILL. August 2007. Canyon Creek Hydrologic Study Report. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10.
CH2M HILL. October 24, 2008. Working Draft Technical Memorandum: Overview of the Simplified
Predictive Analysis for Estimating Post-Remediation Water Quality. Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Coeur d'Alene Basin Eco-Planning Team.
A-26
-------
APPENDIX A: GROUNDWATER MODELING ANALYSIS
CH2M HILL. March 31, 2009 (2009a). Technical Memorandum: OU2 2008 Groundwater/Surface
Water Interaction Monitoring Data Summary. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 10.
CH2M HILL. April 2009 (2009b). South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River Watershed: Basinwide
Groundwater Flow Model Documentation. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10.
CH2M HILL. July 2009 (2009c). Technical Report, Osburn Flats Groundwater-Surface Water
Interaction Study, Upper Coeur d'Alene Basin, Osburn, Idaho. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 10.
Dougherty, J. July 2004. PEST Model-Independent Parameter Estimation User Manual.
5th Edition.
Dougherty, J. January 2007. Addendum to the PEST Manual.
Hemker, C.J., and G.J. Nijsten. 2003. Groundwater Flow Modeling Using MicroFEMฉ.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 2005. Superfund and Mining Megasites: Lessons Learned
from the Coeur d'Alene River Basin. National Academies Press. Washington, D.C.
Turner, K.M. May 1986. Water Loss from Forest and Range Lands in California. Presented at the
Chaparral Ecosystems Conference, Santa Barbara, California.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). April 1999. Total Maximum Daily Load for
Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Lead, and Dissolved Zinc in Surface Waters of the Coeur d'Alene
Basin.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). September 2001 (2001a). Final (Revision 2)
Feasibility Study Report, Coeur d'Alene Basin Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Prepared
by URS Greiner and CH2M HILL for EPA Region 10.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2001 (2001b). Final (Revision 2)
Feasibility Study Report, Coeur d'Alene Basin Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Prepared
by URS Greiner and CH2M HILL for EPA Region 10.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 1, 2007. A Predictive Analysis of
Post-Remediation Metals Loading.
A-27
-------
-------
Figures
-------
-------
MACE
Woodland Park Inset
South Fork
oeur d'Alene River
WOODLAN
PARK. /
i ypN
ฐ'W ฆ
Model Grid
River/Creek
ฎ*- Major Highway
~ City Limit
0.375 0.75
1.5 Miles
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-1
Canyon Creek Model Grid
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
v>EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN 382081 \GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA CCMODELGRID.MXD JCARR3 6/30/2010 10:08:18
-------
-------
/
M?ssa
VILLE
South Fork,
Coeur d'Alene River,
Upper Basin
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
WALLACE
Kellogg Inset
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River _/
Model Grid
River/Creek
Canyon Creek Watershed
City Limit
| } State Boundary
4 Miles
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-2
SFCDR Model Grid
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
oEPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN 382081 \GIS\MAPFILES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA SFMODELGRID.MXD JCARR3 5/26/2010 09:32:20
-------
-------
The Bunker Hill Box
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
SMELTERVII
PINEHURS
Approximate Extent of Confining Unit
Transmissivity Contour
(2000-ft2/day interval)
Transmissivity (feet2/day)
< 2,000
2,000 to 4,000
4,000 to 6,000
6,000 to 8,000
8,000 to 10,000
10,000 to 12,000
12,000 to 14,000
14,000 to 16,000
> 16,000
River/Creek
~ City Limit
0 0.125 0.25
0.5 Miles
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-3
Upper Aquifer Transmissivity,
Bunker Hill Box
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
v>EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN_382081\GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS_APDXA_UPPERAQUIFERTRANS.MXD JCARR3 5/24/2010 11:14:11
-------
-------
i15000
Trarismissivity Contour
(5000-ft2/day interval)
Transmissivity (feet2/day)
> 5,000
5,000 to 10,000
10,000 to 15,000
15,000 to 20,000
20,000 to 25,000
25,000 to 30,000
30,000 to 35,000
35,000 to 40,000
40,000 to 45,000
45,000 to 50,000
50,000 to 55,000
55,000 to 60,000
60,000 to 65,000
65,000 to 70,000
70,000 to 75,000
> 75,000
River/Creek
~ City Limit
500 1,000
2,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-4
Total Aquifer Transmissivity,
Osburn Flats
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
v>EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN_382081\GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS_APDXA_TOTAQUIFERTRANS-OSB.MXD JCARR3 5/24/2010 11:24:07
Upper Basin,
Coeur d'
River, North Fork
Lower Basin
Coeur d'
River
Upper Basin,
d'Alene
River, South Fork
-------
-------
2650
2600
2550
2500
ฃ. 2450
2400
2350
2300
2250
2200
LINE REPRESENTS PERFECT MATCH
BETWEEN OBSERVED AND SIMULATED
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
2150
~
O
OSBURN RMS/RANGE = 1.9%
BOX RMS/RANGE = 1.8%
OSBURN WELLS (MODEL LAYER 1)
OSBURN WELLS (MODEL LAYER 2)
OSBURN WELLS (MODEL LAYER 3)
OSBURN WELLS (MODEL LAYER 4)
BOX WELLS (MODEL LAYER 1)
BOX WELLS (MODEL LAYER 2)
BOX WELLS (MODEL LAYER 4)
2150 2200 2250 2300 2350 2400 2450 2500 2550 2600
OBSERVED GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (feet above mean sea level)
2650
Note:
RMS/Range is a measure of model calibration
and is equal to the root mean squared error
divided by the range in measured groundwater
elevation.
\\Odin\proj\usepa\323031\BunkerHill\Figures\GRAPHER\2009
2__FEFS__ModelingAppendix\FIGURE__A-5__Scattergrarn.grf
Figure A-5
Simulated versus Observed
Groundwater Elevations -
Baseflow Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
** rnA
m m
-------
-------
BH-SF-W-0207-L
-5.04
-1.63
BH-SF-W-0202-L
-3.30
-4.39
V
BH-SF-W-0206-U
-1.12
-1.20
BH-SF-W-0201-IJ
-0.56
-0.56
BH-SF-W-0203-U
-1.21
-1.18
BH-SF-W-0204-U
-1.15
-1.20
BH-SF-W-0205-L
-4.12
-1.06
"1
BH-SF-W-0121-U
-0.14
-0.10
BH-SF-W-PZ-07
0.01
0.02
BH-SF-W-0118-U
-0.14
-0.08
BH-SF-W-PZ-Q5
0.79
0.76
BH-SF-W-PZ-04
0.80
0.76
BH-SF-W-0104-U
2.50
2.75
BH-SF-W-0122-L
-3.26
-5.34
BH-SF-W-PZ-03
1.97
2.04
BH-SF-W-0119-U
-0.80
-0.74
BH-SF-W-PZ-06
0.17
0.22
PINEHURST
BH-SF-W-0008-U
0.35
0.50
BH-SF-W-0009-U
0.13
0.56
BH-SF-W-0018-U
-1.05
-1.00
BH-SF-W-0021-U
-0.06
0.21
BH-SF-W-0022-U
0.67
1.00
L
BH-SF-W-0023-U
1.20
1.53
BH-SF-W-0111-U
2.88
3.20
BH-SF-W-PZ-01
-19.18
-18.86
BH-SF-W-PZ-02
-21.80
-21.46
BH-SF-W-0010-
-1.06
-0.20
BH-SF-W-0011-L
2.17
0.83
BH-SF-W-0020-U
-0.70
0.36
BH-SF-W-0019-U
-0.92
0.15
%
M
mk
Upper Basin,
Coeur d'Alenev j
River, North Fork y-OC
c. I a
\)~
Lower Basin,
Coeur d'Alene'
River
I Upper Basin,
'Coeur d'Alene
River, South Fork
Residual (feet)
~
-51 to -25
~
o
o
LO
(N
~
-10 to -5
~
-5 to -1
o
-1 to 1
O
1 to 5
O
5 to 10
O
10 to 25
o
25 to 40
River/Creek
~ City Limit
BH-SF-W-0021-U (Site ID)
-0.06 (Previous Residual)
0.21 (Current Residual1)
AO 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
I I I I I I I I I
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Notes:
1. Residual is equal to simulated groundwater
elevation minus measured groundwater elevation.
2. The demarcation line represents the area of
overlap between two connected figures such
that data for the previous/subsequent figure
are not displayed on the current figure.
Figure A-6a
Residuals between Measured
and Simulated Groundwater
Elevations, Western Bunker Hill
Box, Baseflow Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
&EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN 382081\GIS\MAPFILES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA OU2WRESIDUALBASEFLOW.MXD JCARR3 5/17/2010 11:55:43
-------
-------
BH-SF-W-0004-L
4.33
3.46
BH-SF-W-0003-U
6.12
5.39
BH-SF-W-00Q6-L
-0.20
ฆ0.93
SMELTERVILLE
BH-SF-W-0007-U /'
-0.62
'1'21 BH-GG-GW-0006
2.89
-4.40
BH-GG-GW-0005 /
-0.43
-7.66
BH-GG-GW-0008 /
3.22
-3.23 ,
BH-GG-GW-0007 /
2.21
2! -4.06
WARQ^EI?
Residual (feet)
~
-51 to -25
~
o
o
LO
(N
~
-10 to -5
~
-5 to -1
o
-1 to 1
O
1 to 5
O
5 to 10
O
10 to 25
o
25 to 40
River/Creek
~~ City Limit
BH-SF-E-0101 (Site ID)
-3.05 (Previous Residual)
-0.23 (Current Residual1)
AO 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
I I I I I I I I I
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Notes:
1. Residual is equal to simulated groundwater
elevation minus measured groundwater elevation.
2. The demarcation line represents the area of
overlap between two connected figures such
that data for the previous/subsequent figure
are not displayed on the current figure.
Figure A-6b
Residuals between Measured
and Simulated Groundwater
Elevations, Eastern Bunker Hill
Box, Baseflow Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
&EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN 382081\GIS\MAPFILES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA OU2ERESIDUALBASEFLOW.MXD JCARR3 5/17/2010 12:12:09
-------
-------
SFOB-MW03D
2.52
2.92
SF-OB-PZ-24
f 1.71
/ 2.04
/ USBM-MW04
I / 1.23
/ 1.39
SF-OB-MW02
5.52
6.90
SF-OB-MW07
0.98
1,76
SF-OB-PZ-14
/ 0.63
1 33
SF-QB-PZ-13
ft 0.18
/ 0.45
/ SF-OB-MW09
/ / 0.81
L _4 0.99
SF-OB-MW12
/" 0.63
/ 0.55
v/ SF-OB-MW05
-0.71
N$S<: -0.95
SF-OB-MW08
2.09
3.71
SF-OB-PZ-19
-0.48
0.35
OSBURN
SF-OB-MW01S
-4.22
-3.95
SF-OB-PZ-04
/ rr -2.64
-2.84
SF-OB-MW06
2.43
3.14
SF-OB-PZ-15
1.11
1.38
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
Upper Basin,
Coeur d'Alene
River, North Fork
\ |U|T
s\.
V
/
WA
Lower Basin, j
Coeur d'Alene'
River
i Upper Basin,
'Coeur d'Alene
River, South Fork
Residual (feet)
~
-51 to -25
ฆ
o
o
ID
(N
~
-10 to -5
ฆ
-5 to -1
-1 to 1
1 to 5
5 to 10
10 to 25
25 to 40
River/Creek
~ City Limit
SF-OB-PZ-04 (Site ID)
-2.64 (Previous Residual)
-2.84 (Current Residual1)
500 1,000
_j i i I L
2,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Note:
Residual is equal to simulated groundwater
elevation minus measured groundwater elevation.
Figure A-6c
Residuals between Measured
and Simulated Groundwater
Elevations, Osburn Fiats,
Baseflow Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
v>EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN 382081 \GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA OSBRESIDUALBASEFLOW.MXD JCARR3 6/22/2010 15:42:05
-------
-------
2650
2600
| 2550
ง> 2500
J. 2450
> 2400
2350
O 2300
0ฃ
O
Q
LU
t? 2250
2200
2150
LINE REPRESENTS PERFECT MATCH
BETWEEN OBSERVED AND SIMULATED
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
/
BOX RMS/RANGE = 1.1%
A BOX WELLS (MODEL LAYER 1)
BOX WELLS (MODEL LAYER 2)
O BOX WELLS (MODEL LAYER 4)
2150 2200 2250 2300 2350 2400 2450 2500 2550 2600
OBSERVED GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (feet above mean sea level)
2650
Figure A-7
Simulated versus Observed
Groundwater Elevations -
7Q10 Conditions
Note: Focused Feasibility Study
RMS/Range is a measure of model calibration Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
and is equal to the root mean squared error BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
divided by the range in measured groundwater
elevation. g%
iSr
\\Odin\proj\usepa\323O31\BunkerHill\Figures\GRAPHER\2OO9_12_FEFS_ModelingAppendix\FIGURE_A-7_Scattergram_7Q10.grf
-------
-------
BH-SF-W-0018-U
-0.79
BH-SF-W-0121-U
-0.76
BH-SF-W-0120-U
0.84
BH-SF-W-0104-U
2.82
BH-SF-W-Q111-U
12.03
BH-SF-W-0114-U
1.84
BH-SF-W-0115-L
7.52
PINEHURST
Vฐ'
%
%
CO
o
k-
(C
E
0)
Q
>K
Upper Basin,
Coeur d'Alenev j
River, North Fork y-OC
tiiiy ""i
C. I jj
\f
Lower Basin,
Coeur d'Alene'
River
I Upper Basin,
'Coeur d'Alene
River, South Fork
Residual (feet)
~
-51 to -25
~
o
o
LO
(N
~
-10 to -5
~
-5 to -1
o
-1 to 1
O
1 to 5
O
5 to 10
O
10 to 25
o
25 to 40
River/Creek
~ City Limit
BH-SF-W-0018-U (Site ID)
-0.79 (7Q10 Residual1)
AO 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
I l l l I l l l I
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Notes:
1. Residual is equal to simulated groundwater
elevation minus measured groundwater elevation.
2. The demarcation line represents the area of
overlap between two connected figures such
that data for the previous/subsequent figure
are not displayed on the current figure.
Figure A-8a
Residuals between Measured
and Simulated Groundwater
Elevations, Western Bunker Hill
Box, 7Q10 Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
&EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN_382081\GIS\MAPFILES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS_APDXA_OU2WRESIDUAL7Q10.MXD JCARR3 5/17/2010 12:52:42
-------
-------
SMELTERVILLE
WARDNER
Residual (feet)
~
-51 to -25
~
o
o
LO
(N
~
-10 to -5
~
-5 to -1
o
-1 to 1
O
1 to 5
O
5 to 10
O
10 to 25
o
25 to 40
River/Creek
~ City Limit
BH-SF-E-0101 (Site ID)
0.03 (7Q10 Residual1)
AO 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
I I I I I I I I I
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Notes:
1. Residual is equal to simulated groundwater
elevation minus measured groundwater elevation.
2. The demarcation line represents the area of
overlap between two connected figures such
that data for the previous/subsequent figure
are not displayed on the current figure.
Figure A-8b
Residuals between Measured
and Simulated Groundwater
Elevations, Eastern Bunker Hill
Box, 7Q10 Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
&EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN_382081\GIS\MAPFILES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS_APDXA_OU2ERESIDUAL7Q10.MXD JCARR3 5/17/2010 12:58:02
-------
-------
2650
2600
2550
2500
ฃ. 2450
2400
2350
2300
2250
2200
2150
LINE REPRESENTS PERFECT MATCH
BETWEEN OBSERVED AND SIMULATED
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
OSBURN RMS/RANGE = 2.8%
BOX RMS/RANGE = 2.5%
+ OSBURN WELLS (MODEL LAYER 1)
O OSBURN WELLS (MODEL LAYER 2)
ฃ3 OSBURN WELLS (MODEL LAYER 3)
~ OSBURN WELLS (MODEL LAYER 4)
A BOX WELLS (MODEL LAYER 1)
BOX WELLS (MODEL LAYER 2)
2150 2200 2250 2300 2350 2400 2450 2500 2550 2600
OBSERVED GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (feet above mean sea level)
2650
Note:
RMS/Range is a measure of model calibration
and is equal to the root mean squared error
divided by the range in measured groundwater
elevation.
Figure A-9
Simulated versus Observed
Groundwater Elevations -
90th Percentile Flow Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
>roj\usepa\323031
=igures\GRAPHE
iMV1odelingApperKlix\FIGURE_A-9_Scattergn;
JW.grf
-------
-------
BH-SF-W-0104-U
2.01
BH-SF-W-PZ-04
0.06 \
SMELTERVILL
PINEHURST
Upper Basin,
Coeur d'Alenev j
River, North Fork y-OC
tiiiy ""i
C. I jj
\f
Lower Basin,
Coeur d'Alene'
River
I Upper Basin,
'Coeur d'Alene
River, South Fork
Residual (feet)
~
-51 to -25
~
o
o
LO
(N
~
-10 to -5
~
-5 to -1
o
-1 to 1
O
1 to 5
O
5 to 10
O
10 to 25
o
25 to 40
River/Creek
~ City Limit
BH-SF-W-0010-U (Site ID)
-2.13 (90th Percentile Flow Residual1)
AO 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
I I I I I I I I I
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Notes:
1. Residual is equal to simulated groundwater
elevation minus measured groundwater elevation.
2. The demarcation line represents the area of
overlap between two connected figures such
that data for the previous/subsequent figure
are not displayed on the current figure.
Figure A-10a
Residuals between Measured
and Simulated Groundwater
Elevations, Western Bunker Hill
Box, 90th Percentile Flow
Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
&EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASI N 382081\GIS\MAPFILES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA OU2WRESIDUAL90FLOWTIER. MXD JCARR3 5/17/2010 12:59:38
-------
-------
SMELTERVILLE
BH-SF-E-01Q1
0.21
BH-SF-E-PZ-01
5.54
WARMER
Residual (feet)
~
-51 to -25
~
o
o
LO
(N
~
-10 to -5
~
-5 to -1
o
-1 to 1
O
1 to 5
O
5 to 10
O
10 to 25
o
25 to 40
River/Creek
~ City Limit
BH-SF-E-0101 (Site ID)
0.21 (90th Percentile Flow Residual1)
AO 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
I I I I I I I I I
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Notes:
1. Residual is equal to simulated groundwater
elevation minus measured groundwater elevation.
2. The demarcation line represents the area of
overlap between two connected figures such
that data for the previous/subsequent figure
are not displayed on the current figure.
Figure A-10b
Residuals between Measured
and Simulated Groundwater
Elevations, Eastern Bunker Hill
Box, 90th Percentile Flow
Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
&EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN 382081\GIS\MAPFILES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA OU2ERESIDUAL90FLOWTIER.MXD JCARR3 5/17/2010 13:02:25
-------
-------
USBM-MWQ4
0.28
SF-OB-MW03D
1.56
SF-OB-MW02
2.75
OSBURN
SF-OB-MW01S
-4.24
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
Residual (feet)
~
-51 to -25
~
o
o
LO
(N
~
-10 to -5
~
-5 to -1
o
-1 to 1
O
1 to 5
O
5 to 10
O
10 to 25
o
25 to 40
River/Creek
LH
City Limit
SF-OB-MW01D (Site ID)
-3.84 (90th Percentile Flow Residual1)
AO 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
I I I I I I I I I
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Note:
1. Residual is equal to simulated groundwater
elevation minus measured groundwater elevation.
Figure A-10c
Residuals between Measured
and Simulated Groundwater
Elevations, Osburn Flats, 90th
Percentile Flow Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
&EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN 382081\GIS\MAPFILES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA OSBRESIDUAL90FLOWTIER.MXD JCARR3 5/17/2010 13:05:41
-------
-------
3000
LINE REPRESENTS PERFECT MATCH
BETWEEN OBSERVED AND SIMULATED
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
CANYON CREEK RMS/RANGE = 1.4%
CANYON CREEK WELLS (MODEL LAYER 1)
CANYON CREEK WELLS (MODEL LAYER 2)
2800
2800
2825 2850 2875 2900 2925 2950 2975 3000
OBSERVED GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (feet above mean sea level)
Note:
RMS/Range is a measure of model calibration
and is equal to the root mean squared error
divided by the range in measured groundwater
elevation.
Figure A-11
Simulated versus Observed
Groundwater Elevations -
Canyon Creek,
90th Percentile Flow Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
4%
ฉ
>roj\usepa\323031\Bunkerl-
rigures\GRAPHER\:;;
jy]olelmgAppenlix\FIGURE_A~J'
-------
-------
A2-MWD2
0.45
A4W-ATWD
1.89
A4W-MWS2
1.46
A2-MWS2
-1.47
WOODI^AND
PARK
A6-MWS2
1.19
A4E-MWS1
-1.08
A6-MWS3
2.30
WALLACE
Residual (feet)
~
-51 to -25
ฆ
o
o
ID
(N
~
-10 to -5
ฆ
-5 to -1
-1 to 1
1 to 5
5 to 10
10 to 25
25 to 40
River/Creek
~ City Limit
A2-MWD2 (Site ID)
0.45 (90th Percentile Flow Residual1)
0 500 1,000
1 i i i I L
2,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Note:
Residual is equal to simulated groundwater
elevation minus measured groundwater elevation.
Figure A-12
Residuals between Measured
and Simulated Groundwater
Elevations, Canyon Creek, 90th
Percentile Flow Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
v>EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN 382081 \GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA CCRESIDUAL90FLOWTIER.MXD JCARR3 6/22/2010 15:47:14
-------
-------
2370
2369
2368
2367
2366
2365
2364
2363
2362
2361
2360
2275
2274
2273
2272
2271
2270
2269
2268
2267
2266
2265
BH-GG-GW-0004
BH-SF-E-0101
BH-SF-E-0202-U
BH-SF-E-0301-U
nV\_;
2284
2283
o 2281
| 2280
+-ป
(5
o 2279
LU
ฎ 2278
re
5
"g 2277
3
<5 2276
2275
2274
2275
2274
15 2273
E
| 2272
I 2271
13
o 2270
LU
ซ 2269
re
5
"g 2268
3
o
(5 2267
2266
V\*
/A
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09
7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09
7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
BH-SF-E-0305-U
BH-SF-E-0309-U
BH-SF-E-0314-U
BH-SF-E-0317-U
2280
2279
^ 2278
E
~ 2277
o
,
0?>
If / \\^
V ft
\
^ I
& i\
I 4 * /
/ V
2275
2274
^ 2273
E
| 2272
.2 2271
15
0 2270
LU
J" 2269
re
5
1 2268
3
o
(5 2267
2266
2265
2265
2264
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
LEGEND
- SIMULATED
MEASURED
Figure A-13a
Simulated versus Measured
Groundwater Elevations -
Bunker Hill Box
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
-------
-------
2270
2269
2268
2267
2266
2265
2264
2263
2262
2261
2260
2250
2249
2248
2247
2246
2245
2244
2243
2242
2241
2240
BH-SF-E-0320-U
BH-SF-E-0321-U
BH-SF-E-0402-U
BH-SF-E-0410-U
2260
2259
(0
E
| 2257
re
>
o
LU
a> 2254
(5
5
T3
2
o
2251
2250
2258
2257
(0
E
| 2255
| 2254
"S
o 2253
LU
ฃ 2252
re
5
"g 2251
3
<5 2250
2249
2248
2261
TZ 2260
E
| 2259
re
>
o
LU
0)
"S
ง
T3
O
(5 2254
2257
~\r~
<3>
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09
7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09
7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
BH-SF-E-0423-U
BH-SF-E-0425-U
BH-SF-E-0427-U
BH-SF-E-0429-U
2250
2249
TZ 2248
E
| 2247
g 2246
+-ป
rc
0 2245
LU
ฎ 2244
TO
5
1 2243
3
<5 2242
ซ 2251
E
1 2250
J 2249
13
0 2248
LU
ฃ 2247
(5
5
1 2246
3
o
(5 2245
V
-J*"
2248
2247
^ 2246
E
| 2245
J 2244
13
0 2243
LU
ฃ 2242
(5
5
1 2241
3
o
(5 2240
2241
2240
2244
2243
2239
2238
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
LEGEND
- SIMULATED
MEASURED
Figure A-13b
Simulated versus Measured
Groundwater Elevations -
Bunker Hill Box
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
-------
-------
BH-SF-E-0502-U
BH-SF-E-0503-U
BH-SF-E-PZ-01
BH-SF-E-PZ-03
2234
2233
re
>
o
LU
ป V
2240
2239
^ 2238
E
| 2237
2236
re
>
o
LU
ฎ 2234
re
5
"g 2233
3
(5 2232
2231
2230
2294
2 2292
| 2291
re
o 2290
LU
ฎ 2289
rc
5
"g 2288
3
<5 2287
2286
2285
A"W\S
2290
2289
15 2288
E
| 2287
| 2286
13
o 2285
LU
ฃ 2284
re
5
"g 2283
3
o
(5 2282
2281
2280
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
BH-SF-E-PZ-04
BH-SF-E-PZ-05
BH-SF-E-PZ-06
BH-SF-E-PZ-08
2290
2289
2288
2287
2286
2285
2284
2283
2282
2281
2280
2284
2283
~ 2282
in
E
2281
0
LU 2278
0)
1 2277
T3
| 2276
2
ฉ 2275
2274
2273
2284
2283
^ 2282
E
1 2281
| 2280
13
0 2279
LU
ฃ 2278
re
5
1 2277
3
o
(5 2276
2275
2274
% ffn ป
. y
0 V
\jw
AJy
A % f
i ^
\
%
%
%
\
% ปe
0 '
to c
i
N
\
vป*
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
LEGEND
- SIMULATED
MEASURED
Figure A-13c
Simulated versus Measured
Groundwater Elevations -
Bunker Hill Box
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
>roj\usepa\323031\Bunkerh
3RAPHER\2009
_MocfelingAppendix\FIGURE__A-13c__BoxHydrogra|:
"Xf
-------
-------
BH-SF-E-PZ-09
BH-SF-E-PZ-10
BH-SF-E-PZ-11
BH-SF-E-PZ-13
2278
2277
2276
2275
2274
2273
2272
2271
2270
2269
2268
2267
%
V
2280
2279
2278
2277
2276
2275
2274
2273
2272
2271
2270
2269
2277
2276
o 2274
| 2273
"S
o 2272
LU
ฎ 2271
re
5
"g 2270
3
<5 2269
2268
2267
2284
2283
2282
to
ฃ 2281
+-ป
0)
ฃ 2280
.1 2279
13
o 2278
LU
5 2277
"S
j> 2276
T3
o
2275
2274
2273
2272
V
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09
7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09
7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
BH-SF-E-PZ-14
BH-SF-E-PZ-15
BH-SF-E-PZ-16
BH-SF-E-PZ-17
2270
2269
TZ 2268
E
| 2267
g 2266
+-ป
(5
0 2265
LU
ฎ 2264
TO
5
1 2263
3
<5 2262
2261
2260
2275
2274
15 2273
E
| 2272
g 2271
+-ป
(5
0 2270
LU
ฎ 2269
GJ
5
1 2268
3
<5 2267
2266
2265
2268
2267
^ 2266
E
| 2265
J 2264
13
0 2263
LU
ฃ 2262
re
5
1 2261
3
o
(5 2260
2259
2258
A
2262
2261
^ 2260
E
1 2259
rc
o 2257
LU
ฃ 2256
re
5
T3
O
<5 2254
X
r*\
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
LEGEND
- SIMULATED
MEASURED
Figure A-13d
Simulated versus Measured
Groundwater Elevations -
Bunker Hill Box
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
-------
-------
BH-SF-E-PZ-18
BH-SF-E-PZ-20
BH-SF-E-PZ-21
BH-SF-E-PZ-22
2257
(0
E
| 2255
| 2254
"S
o 2253
LU
ฃ 2252
(5
5
"g 2251
3
<5 2250
2249
2248
2254
(0
E
| 2251
2250
- 2249
o
+-ป
(5
>
0
LU
3> 2248
GJ
"g 2247
3
<5 2246
2245
2244
r-
2244
2243
o 2241
2240
* 2239
o
+-ป
(5
>
0
LU
S 2238
GJ
5
"g 2237
3
<5 2236
2234
1 0 \
,v\
2245
2244
^ 2243
E
| 2242
| 2241
15
o 2240
LU
ฃ 2239
(5
5
"g 2238
3
o
<5 2237
2236
I
,&w"V _
vr
& d& ฎ ฎ
JS
i V \
ฐ \ * \\
\ ฐ \
V
/sr*V
*
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
BH-SF-E-PZ-23
BH-SF-E-PZ-24
BH-SF-E-PZ-25
BH-SF-E-PZ-26
2254
2251
2250
2249
2248
2247
2246
2245
2244
-Ar
2250
2249
2248
2247
2246
2245
2244
2243
2242
2241
2240
2244
2243
? 2242
E
1 2241
J 2240
13
0 2239
LU
ฃ 2238
re
5
1 2237
3
o
(5 2236
2234
2240
2239
^ 2238
E
1 2237
| 2236
13
0 2235
LU
ฃ 2234
(5
5
1 2233
3
o
<5 2232
2231
2230
' V V*
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
LEGEND
- SIMULATED
MEASURED
Figure A-13e
Simulated versus Measured
Groundwater Elevations -
Bunker Hill Box
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
i\323031\BunkerHill\Figures\GRAPHER\2009_12_FEFS_ModelingAppendix\FIGURE_A-13e_BoxHydrograf:
-------
-------
2240
2239
2238
2237
2236
2235
2234
2233
2232
2231
2230
2235
2234
2233
2232
2231
2230
2229
2228
2227
2226
2225
BH-SF-E-PZ-27
2240
2239
BH-SF-E-PZ-28
2240
2239
BH-SF-E-PZ-29
2240
2239
ฆJo 2238
E
| 2237
o 2236
re
>
o
LU
a> 2234
re
5
"2 2233
2
o
2231
2230
2 2237
| 2236
+ฆป
re
>
0
LU
ฃ 2234
GJ
"2 2233
O
o
2231
2230
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09
7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09
7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08
BH-SF-E-PZ-31
2235
BH-SF-E-PZ-32
2230
BH-SF-W-0001-U
2215
2234
2214
"Jo 2233
E
| 2232
g 2231
+-ป
(5
o 2230
LU
5 2229
GJ
5
T3
O 2227
2225
(0
E
| 2227
g 2226
"S
o 2225
LU
ฃ 2224
re
5
T3
O
(5 2222
2221
2220
m 2213
$ 2212
J 2211
13
0 2210
LU
ฃ 2209
re
5
1 2208
3
o
(5 2207
2206
2205
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08
LEGEND
- SIMULATED
MEASURED
-------
-------
2215
2214
2213
2212
2211
2210
2209
2208
2207
2206
2205
2200
2199
2198
2197
2196
2195
2194
2193
2192
2191
2190
BH-SF-W-0010-U
BH-SF-W-0018-U
BH-SF-W-0021-U
2214
2213
?2212
E
"S 2211
ฃ
I 2210
"S
j) 2209
LU
o
LU
S 2203
GJ
5
"g 2202
3
o
(5 2201
2200
2199
- 2204
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08
BH-SF-W-0104-U
BH-SF-W-0111-U
BH-SF-W-0118-U
2205
2204
2203
2202
2201
2200
2199
2198
2197
2196
2195
>5
VA
wป
2198
2197
^ 2196
E
1 2195
Hi
J 2194
13
0 2193
LU
ฃ 2192
(5
5
1 2191
3
o
(5 2190
2189
2188
2195
2194
TZ 2193
E
"5 2192
J 2191
13
0 2190
LU
ฃ 2189
(5
5
1 2188
3
o
(5 2187
2186
2185
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08
9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08
LEGEND
- SIMULATED
MEASURED
-------
-------
BH-SF-W-0201 -U
BH-SF-W-PZ-03
BH-SF-W-PZ-04
BH-SF-W-PZ-05
2195
2194
TZ 2193
E
"S 2192
ฃ
I 2191
"S
o 2190
LU
ฃ 2189
re
5
"g 2188
3
<5 2187
2186
2185
KJ*
o o % 0
ฐ %s 1
2200
2199
^ 2198
E
"S 2197
ฃ
2196
- 2195
o
+-ป
(5
>
0
LU
S 2194
GJ
5
"g 2193
3
<5 2192
2191
2190
ฆvV
ic\
2200
2199
o 2197
| 2196
+-ป
(5
o 2195
LU
ฎ 2194
re
5
"g 2193
3
<5 2192
2191
2190
2200
2199
TZ 2198
E
| 2197
| 2196
13
o 2195
LU
ฎ 2194
re
5
"g 2193
3
o
(5 2192
2191
2190
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
BH-SF-W-PZ-06
BH-SF-W-PZ-07
SF-OB-MW01S
SF-OB-MW01D
2198
2197
TZ 2196
E
| 2195
g 2194
+-ป
rc
0 2193
LU
ฃ 2192
GJ
5
1 2191
3
<5 2190
2189
2188
2195
2194
TZ 2193
E
| 2192
g 2191
+-ป
(5
0 2190
LU
ฎ 2189
TO
5
1 2188
3
<5 2187
2186
2185
ฐ
00^
oY *0 a
w
2551
2550
=5 2549
E
1 2548
J 2547
13
0 2546
LU
ฃ 2545
re
5
1 2544
3
o
(5 2543
2542
2541
2550
2549
TZ 2548
E
| 2547
| 2546
13
0 2545
LU
ฎ 2544
re
5
1 2543
3
o
(5 2542
2541
2540
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
LEGEND
- SIMULATED
MEASURED
Figure A-13h
Simulated versus Measured
Groundwater Elevations -
Bunker Hill Box/Osburn Flats
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
-------
-------
2508
2507
2506
2505
2504
2503
2502
2501
2500
2499
2498
2460
2459
2458
2457
2456
2455
2454
2453
2452
2451
2450
SF-OB-MW02
SF-OB-MW10
SF-OB-PZ-17
SF-OB-PZ-24
ss
y
/V
2505
2504
2503
2502
2501
2500
2499
2498
2497
2496
2495
2505
2504
2 2502
| 2501
+-ป
rc
o 2500
LU
ฃ 2499
(5
5
"g 2498
D
<5 2497
2496
2495
2460
2459
TZ 2458
E
| 2457
| 2456
13
o 2455
LU
ฃ 2454
(5
5
"g 2453
D
o
(5 2452
2451
2450
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
USBM-MW04
Figure A-13i
Simulated versus Measured
Groundwater Elevations -
Osburn Flats
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
LEGEND
- SIMULATED
MEASURED
-------
-------
A2-MWS2
A2-MWD2
A4E-MWS1
A4E-MWD1
2964
2961
n 2960
E
o
a
| 2959
+-ป
(5
>
0
LU
2958
GJ
"O
c
3
o 2957
2956
\
ฃ
V
V
%
v
y
\
2923
ซ 2922
E
\ I
.2
* -a
. -V
f -A
2922
ฆJo 2921
E
o
ฃ
| 2920
"S
>
o
LU
ฃ 2919
re
5
T3
C
3
o
(5 2918
2917
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09
7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09
7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
A4W-MWS2
A4W-ATWD
A6-MWS2
A6-MWS3
2928
ฆJo 2927
E
o
ฃ
o 2926
<ง 2924
2923
2929
"Jo 2928
E
o
ฃ
g 2927
+-ป
(5
>
0
LU
5 2926
TO
"O
c
3
o 2925
2924
2866
2865
E
"5
ฃ
| 2864
13
>
o
LU
5 2863
GJ
"O
c
3
o
o 2862
VVV
2862
w 2861
E
"S
.
0
LU
0
"S
-o
o
o 2858
2857
JV; \
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
7/1/08 9/1/08 11/1/08 1/1/09 3/1/09 5/1/09 7/1/09
Figure A-14
Simulated versus Measured
Groundwater Elevations -
Canyon Creek Watershed
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
EFฅV
LEGEND
- SIMULATED
MEASURED
i\323031\BunkerHill\Figures\GRAPHER\2009__12__FEFS__ModelingAppendix\FIGURE__A-14__CanyonCreekHydrographs.gti
-------
-------
The Bunker Hill Box
^MELTERVILL
X 0.0022
WARDNER
Dissolved Zinc (mg/L) (4Q0S)
Oto 5
5 to 10
10 to 15
15 to 25
25 to 50
50 to 75
Mass Loading Reach
River/Creek
~ City Limit
0.12 (4Q08 Dissolved Zinc Concentration [mg/L])
0.13 (2Q09 Dissolved Zinc Concentration [mg/L])
mg/L = milligrams per liter
0 1,000 2,000
1 i i i I i
4,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-15
OU 2 Mass Loading Reaches
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
svEPA
-------
-------
CC451
0,48
REACH 12
REACH 11
A4W-ATWD
3.84
A4W-MWS1 _
2.14
A4W-MWS3
1.60
A4W-MWD1
3.01 ~~I
A4W-MWS2 _
3.08 ~1
REACH9
REACH 10
REACH7
-REACH 8
ฆ " CC460
\ 9.90
REACH6
REACH5-
CC467
13.40
_ CC463
13.20 CC459
1220 A2-MWS1
13-20 A2-MWD1
I 15 70 A2-MWS2
^ Z 524 A2-MWD2
' 16-20 A2-ATWD
_ CC464 16.70
-i^CC1496
^ CC1505
NS
CC1506
51.60 .. .
- Unknown
124.00
MW-CCTW-01D
MW-CCTW-01 S
15.30
A4E-MW-S3
\X\ 28.40
VSC A4E-ATWD
V\ 8.94
A4E-MWS1
26.20
CC1509
49.20
CC1511
2.71
CC468
1.93 \
CC1494 __
12.70
CC1493
5.81
CC1512
5.97
CC1492
8.88
CC469
0.021 s
CC1515
5.24
CC1490
9.71
REACH3
REACH 2
L_ CC1508
50.60
_ A4E-MWD1
12.10
_ A4E-MWS2
9.36
_ CC462
11.60
. CC1497
21.90
. CC1510
20.9
CC1501
5.86
REACH1
A6-MW2 _
5.39
A6-MW1
2.83
A6-MW3
0.865
/ j1_ CC1498
/ / 29-ฐ
| L_ CC1513
/ 13.00
L CC1514
16.60
CC465
2.33
CC480
0.985
CC481
1.92
CC1499
WALLACE
Upper Basin,
Coeur d'Alenev j
River, North Fork
\ MT
vTjy
Lower Basin, J
Coeur d'Alene'
River
, Upper Basin,
'Coeur d'Alene
River, South Fork
Dissolved Zinc (mg/L)
0to 5
5 to 10
10 to 15
15 to 25
25 to 50
50 to 124
~
Canyon Creek
River/Creek
~
City Limit
CC453 (Site ID)
12.30 (Dissolved Zinc Concentration [mg/L])
mg/L = milligrams per liter
0 500 1,000
1 i i i I
2,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-16
Woodland Park Mass Loading
Reaches
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
*>EPA
WCASTAlC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN 382Q81\GIS\MAPFILES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA WOODREACHES.MXD JCARR3 6/30/2010 07:55:19
-------
-------
The Bunker Hill Box
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
SMELTERVILLE
PINEHURST
WARDNE
Install Check Dams Within
Reed and Russell
Adit Tunnels
Cherry Raise
Upper Basin,
Coeur d'Alene
River, North Fork
m /
\
\
\ MT
^7
\
Lower Basin, I
Coeur d'Alene'
River
i Upper Basin,
'Coeur d'Alene
River, South Fork
ฆ Central Treatment Plant (CTP)
0 Adit
ฆ Raise
Conveyance of Reed and Russell adit
discharge through the Bunker Hill Mine
via the Cherry Raise and the Kellogg
Tunnel to the CTP
Stream Liner
River/Creek
~ City Limit
Note: Conveyance and treatment of Reed and Russell
adit discharge is a contingency action that will be
implemented only if check dams do not eliminate the
flow of contaminated water from the adits.
1,000 2,000
4,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-17
OU 2 Alternative (a):
Minimal Stream Lining
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN_382081\GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS_APDXA_OU2ALTS.MXD JCARR3 5/26/2010 15:37:09
-------
-------
The Bunker Hill Box
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
SMELTERVILLE
PINEHURST
WARDNE
Install Check Dams Within
Reed and Russell
Adit Tunnels
Cherry Raise
Upper Basin,
Coeur d'Alene
River, North Fork
ID I
\
\
\ MT
1
^7
\
Lower Basin, I
Coeur d'Alene'
River
1 Upper Basin,
'Coeur d'Alene
River, South Fork
0
Central Treatment Plant (CTP)
Adit
Raise
Conveyance of Reed and Russell adit
discharge through the Bunker Hill Mine
via the Cherry Raise and the Kellogg
Tunnel to the CTP
Slurry Wall
Stream Liner
Extraction Wells
River/Creek
~ City Limit
Note: Conveyance and treatment of Reed and Russell
adit discharge is a contingency action that will be
implemented only if check dams do not eliminate the
flow of contaminated water from the adits.
1,000 2,000
4,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-18
OU 2 Alternative (b):
Extensive Stream Lining
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN_382081\GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS_APDXA_OU2ALTS.MXD JCARR3 5/27/2010 08:14:31
-------
-------
The Bunker Hill Box
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
SMELTERVILLE
PINEHURST
WARDNE
Install Check Dams Within
Reed and Russell
Adit Tunnels
Cherry Raise
Upper Basin,
Coeur d'Alene
River, North Fork
m /
\
\
\ MT
^7
\
Lower Basin, I
Coeur d'Alene'
River
i Upper Basin,
'Coeur d'Alene
River, South Fork
ฆ Central Treatment Plant (CTP)
I Pump Station
0 Adit
~ Raise
Conveyance of Reed and Russell adit
discharge through the Bunker Hill Mine
via the Cherry Raise and the Kellogg
Tunnel to the CTP
Conveyance Pipeline
CTP Effluent Discharge Pipeline
= French Drain
River/Creek
~ City Limit
Note: Conveyance and treatment of Reed and Russell
adit discharge is a contingency action that will be
implemented only if check dams do not eliminate the
flow of contaminated water from the adits.
1,000 2,000
4,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-19
OU 2 Alternative (c):
French Drains
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN_382081\GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS_APDXA_OU2ALTS.MXD JCARR3 5/27/2010 08:14:31
-------
-------
The Bunker Hill Box
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
SMELTERVILLE
PINEHURST
WARDNE
Install Check Dams Within
Reed and Russell
Adit Tunnels
Cherry Raise
Upper Basin,
Coeur d'Alene
River, North Fork
m /
\
\
\ MT
^7
\
Lower Basin, I
Coeur d'Alene'
River
i Upper Basin,
'Coeur d'Alene
River, South Fork
ฆ Central Treatment Plant (CTP)
I Pump Station
0 Adit
~ Raise
Conveyance of Reed and Russell adit
discharge through the Bunker Hill Mine
via the Cherry Raise and the Kellogg
Tunnel to the CTP
Conveyance Pipeline
CTP Effluent Discharge Pipeline
= French Drain
= Slurry Wall
' Stream Liner
= Extraction Wells
River/Creek
~ City Limit
Note: Conveyance and treatment of Reed and Russell
adit discharge is a contingency action that will be
implemented only if check dams do not eliminate the
flow of contaminated water from the adits.
1,000 2,000
4,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-20
OU 2 Alternative (d):
Stream Lining/French Drain
Combination
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN_382081\GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS_APDXA_OU2ALTS.MXD JCARR3 5/27/2010 08:14:31
-------
-------
The Bunker Hill Box
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
SMELTERVILLE
PINEHURST
WARDNE
Install Check Dams Within
Reed and Russell
Adit Tunnels
Cherry Raise
Upper Basin,
Coeur d'Alene
River, North Fork
m /
\
\ MT
^7
Lower Basin, I
Coeur d'Alene'
River
i Upper Basin,
'Coeur d'Alene
River, South Fork
0
~
Central Treatment Plant (CTP)
Pump Station
Adit
Raise
Conveyance of Reed and Russell adit
discharge through the Bunker Hill Mine
via the Cherry Raise and the Kellogg
Tunnel to the CTP
Conveyance Pipeline
French Drain
Slurry Wall
Stream Liner
Extraction Wells
River/Creek
~ City Limit
Note: Conveyance and treatment of Reed and Russell
adit discharge is a contingency action that will be
implemented only if check dams do not eliminate the
flow of contaminated water from the adits.
1,000 2,000
4,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-21
OU 2 Alternative (e):
Extensive Stream Lining/French
Drain Combination
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN_382081\GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS_APDXA_OU2ALTS.MXD JCARR3 5/27/2010 08:14:31
-------
-------
KLE034
SILVER DOLLAR MINE
OSBURN
WALQ35
OSBURN ROCKPIT
ALONG 1-90
KLE011
SILVER CRESCENT TAILINGS
SILVERTON
WAL020
CALADAY MINE
French Drain
Stream Liner
River/Creek
Capped Tailings Pile
~ City Limit
WAL020 (Site ID)
CALADAY MINE (Site Name)
AO 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet
! i i i I ( ( i !
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
iDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-22
Groundwater Components of
OU 3 Remedial Alternatives for
the Mainstem SFCDR Watershed,
Segment 01
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN 382081\GIS\MAPFILES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA SFCDRALT.MXD JCARR3 5/17/2010 14:49:55
-------
-------
French Drain
Stream Liner
River/Creek
~ City Limit
0 500 1,000
1 I I I I l_
2,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN 382081 \GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA WOODALTE.MXD JCARR3 5/24/2010 11:38:14
Figure A-23
Groundwater Components of
Updated Remedial Actions for
Woodland Park
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEPA
-------
-------
The Bunker Hill Box
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
SMELTERVILLE
PINEHURST
Upper Basin,
Coeur d'Alene
River, North Fork
ID I
\
\ MT
I
^7
\
Lower Basin, I
Coeur d'Alene'
River
i Upper Basin,
'Coeur d'Alene
River, South Fork
Simulated Groundwater Flowpath
Simulated Gaining Stream Reach
Simulated Losing Stream Reach
4 Simulated Groundwater Flow Direction
River/Creek
~ City Limit
AO 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet
I i i i I i i i I
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-24
Simulated Upstream Groundwater
Flowlines from the SFCDR,
No Action, Baseflow Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
v>EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN_382081\GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS_APDXA_OU2NOACTION.MXD JCARR3 5/24/2010 12:01:07
-------
-------
The Bunker Hill Box
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
SMELTERVILLE
PINEHURST
WARDNER
Install Check Dams Within
Reed and Russell
Adit Tunnels
Cherry Raise
Upper Basin,
Coeur d'Alene
River, North Fork
\ MT
\
A
\ ^
K
K
v^-
Lower Basin,
Coeur d'Alene'
River
Upper Basin,
'Coeur d'Alene
River, South Fork
0
Central Treatment Plant (CTP)
Adit
Raise
Conveyance of Reed and Russell adit
discharge through the Bunker Hill Mine
via the Cherry Raise and the Kellogg
Tunnel to the CTP
Stream Liner
Simulated Groundwater Flowpath
Simulated Groundwater Flow Direction
River/Creek
~ City Limit
Note: Conveyance and treatment of Reed and Russell
adit discharge is a contingency action that will be
implemented only if check dams do not eliminate the
flow of contaminated water from the adits.
1,000 2,000
4,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-25
Simulated Upstream Groundwater
Flowlines from the SFCDR, OU 2
Alternative (a), Baseflow
Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
*>EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN 382081 \GIS\MAPFILES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA OU2ALTS.MXD JCARR3 5/26/2010 15:37:09
-------
-------
The Bunker Hill Box
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
PINEHURST
WARDNER
Install Check Dams Within
ฆ Reed and Russell
Adit Tunnels
Cherry Raise
0
Central Treatment Plant (CTP)
Adit
Raise
Conveyance of Reed and Russell adit
discharge through the Bunker Hill Mine
via the Cherry Raise and the Kellogg
Tunnel to the CTP
Slurry Wall
Stream Liner
Extraction Wells
Simulated Groundwater Flowpath
Simulated Groundwater Flow Direction
River/Creek
~ City Limit
Note: Conveyance and treatment of Reed and Russell
adit discharge is a contingency action that will be
implemented only if check dams do not eliminate the
flow of contaminated water from the adits.
1,000 2,000
4,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-26
Simulated Upstream Groundwater
Flowlines from the SFCDR, OU 2
Alternative (b), Baseflow
Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
v>EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN_382081\GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS_APDXA_OU2ALTS.MXD JCARR3 5/27/2010 08:14:31
-------
-------
/
IS
The Bunker Hill Box
=
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
PINEHURST
_
Install Check Dams Within
Reed and Russell
Adit Tunnels
ฆ Central Treatment Plant (CTP)
I Pump Station
0 Adit
~ Raise
Conveyance of Reed and Russell adit
discharge through the Bunker Hill Mine
via the Cherry Raise and the Kellogg
Tunnel to the CTP
Conveyance Pipeline
CTP Effluent Discharge Pipeline
= French Drain
Simulated Groundwater Flowpath
<1 Simulated Groundwater Flow Direction
River/Creek
~ City Limit
Note: Conveyance and treatment of Reed and Russell
adit discharge is a contingency action that will be
implemented only if check dams do not eliminate the
flow of contaminated water from the adits.
1,000 2,000
4,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-27a
Simulated Upstream Groundwater
Flowlines from the SFCDR, OU 2
Alternative (c), Baseflow
Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
c/EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN_382081\GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS_APDXA_OU2ALTS.MXD JCARR3 5/27/2010 08:14:31
-------
-------
The Bunker Hill Box
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
SMELTERVILLE
PINEHURST
WARDNE
Install Check Dams Within
Reed and Russell
Adit Tunnels
Cherry Raise
ฆ Central Treatment Plant (CTP)
I Pump Station
0 Adit
~ Raise
Conveyance of Reed and Russell adit
discharge through the Bunker Hill Mine
via the Cherry Raise and the Kellogg
Tunnel to the CTP
Conveyance Pipeline
CTP Effluent Discharge Pipeline
= French Drain
Simulated Groundwater Flowpath
<1 Simulated Groundwater Flow Direction
River/Creek
~ City Limit
Note: Conveyance and treatment of Reed and Russell
adit discharge is a contingency action that will be
implemented only if check dams do not eliminate the
flow of contaminated water from the adits.
1,000 2,000
4,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-27b
Simulated Upstream Groundwater
Flowlines from French Drains,
OU 2 Alternative (c), Baseflow
Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
c/EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN_382081\GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS_APDXA_OU2ALTS.MXD JCARR3 5/27/2010 08:14:31
-------
-------
The Bunker Hill Box
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
PINEHURST
WARDซi5?
Install Check Dams Within
Reed and Russell
Adit Tunnels
Cherry Raise
ฆ Central Treatment Plant (CTP)
I Pump Station
0 Adit
~ Raise
Conveyance of Reed and Russell adit
discharge through the Bunker Hill Mine
via the Cherry Raise and the Kellogg
Tunnel to the CTP
Conveyance Pipeline
CTP Effluent Discharge Pipeline
= French Drain
= Slurry Wall
' ! Stream Liner
Extraction Wells
Simulated Groundwater Flowpath
<< Simulated Groundwater Flow Direction
* River/Creek
~ City Limit
Note: Conveyance and treatment of Reed and Russell
adit discharge is a contingency action that will be
implemented only if check dams do not eliminate the
flow of contaminated water from the adits.
1,000 2,000
4,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-28a
Simulated Upstream Groundwater
Flowlines from the SFCDR, OU 2
Alternative (d), Baseflow
Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN_382081\GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS_APDXA_OU2ALTS.MXD JCARR3 5/27/2010 08:14:31
-------
-------
The Bunker Hill Box
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
SMELTERVILLE
PINEHURST
WARDNES?
Install Check Dams Within
Reed and Russell
Adit Tunnels
Cherry Raise
ฆ Central Treatment Plant (CTP)
I Pump Station
0 Adit
~ Raise
Conveyance of Reed and Russell adit
discharge through the Bunker Hill Mine
via the Cherry Raise and the Kellogg
Tunnel to the CTP
Conveyance Pipeline
CTP Effluent Discharge Pipeline
= French Drain
= Slurry Wall
' ! Stream Liner
Extraction Wells
Simulated Groundwater Flowpath
<< Simulated Groundwater Flow Direction
* River/Creek
~ City Limit
Note: Conveyance and treatment of Reed and Russell
adit discharge is a contingency action that will be
implemented only if check dams do not eliminate the
flow of contaminated water from the adits.
1,000 2,000
4,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-28b
Simulated Upstream Groundwater
Flowlines from French Drains,
OU 2 Alternative (d), Baseflow
Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
c/EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN_382081\GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS_APDXA_OU2ALTS.MXD JCARR3 5/27/2010 08:14:31
-------
-------
The Bunker Hill Box
South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River
SMELTERVILLE
PINEHURST
Install Check Dams Within
Reed and Russell
Adit Tunnels
Cherry Raise
ฆ Central Treatment Plant (CTP)
I Pump Station
0 Adit
~ Raise
Conveyance of Reed and Russell adit
discharge through the Bunker Hill Mine
via the Cherry Raise and the Kellogg
Tunnel to the CTP
Conveyance Pipeline
= French Drain
: Slurry Wall
8 > Stream Liner
= Extraction Wells
Simulated Groundwater Flowpath
Simulated Groundwater Flow Direction
River/Creek
~~ City Limit
Note: Conveyance and treatment of Reed and Russell
adit discharge is a contingency action that will be
implemented only if check dams do not eliminate the
flow of contaminated water from the adits.
1,000 2,000
4,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-29
Simulated Upstream Groundwater
Flowlines from French Drains,
OU 2 Alternative (e), Baseflow
Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN_382081\GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS_APDXA_OU2ALTS.MXD JCARR3 5/27/2010 08:14:31
-------
-------
ฆKg. fwMtm l
ง
' m
mm
Simulated Groundwater Flowpath
4 Simulated Groundwater Flow Direction
River/Creek
~ City Limit
AO 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet
I i i i I i i i I
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-30
Simulated Upstream Groundwater
Flowlines from the SFCDR,
Mainstem SFCDR Watershed,
Segment 01, No Action,
Baseflow Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
v>EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN 382081 \GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA SFCDRBASEFLOW.MXD JCARR3 5/24/2010 12:04:48
-------
-------
KLE034
SILVER DOLLAR MINE
OSBURN
WALQ35
OSBURN ROCKPIT
ALONG 1-90
KLE011
SILVER CRESCENT TAILINGS
WAL020
CALADAY MINE
WALLACE
Upper Basin,
Coeur d'Alenev j
River, North Fork y-OC
vmF
,
Lower Basin,
Coeur d'Alene'
River
I Upper Basin,
'Coeur d'Alene
River, South Fork
Simulated Groundwater Flowpath
Simulated Groundwater Flow Direction
French Drain
Stream Liner
River/Creek
Capped Tailings Pile
~ City Limit
WAL020 (Site ID)
CALADAY MINE (Site Name)
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet
1 I I I I I I I I
Source: NHDPIus (Rivers, Waterbodies); ESRI base
data (Interstates 2006, Major Highways 2008); IDWR
(Aerial Imagery 2006).
Figure A-31
Simulated Upstream Groundwater
Flowlines from French Drains,
Mainstem SFCDR Watershed,
Segment 01, Baseflow
Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
&EPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASI N 382081\GIS\MAPFILES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA SFCDRBASEFLOWFD. MXD JCARR3 5/18/2010 08:36:50
-------
-------
WOODUAND
I PARK-/
WALLACE
Upper Basin,
Coeur d'Alene
"X J
River, North Fork
i n I
\ MT
\
Lower Basin, I
Coeur d'Alene'
River
I Upper Basin,
'Coeur d'Alene
River, South Fork
Simulated Groundwater Flowpath
Simulated Gaining Stream Reach
Simulated Losing Stream Reach
4 Simulated Groundwater Flow Direction
River/Creek
~ City Limit
0
1 L_
500 1,000
I I I l_
2,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-32
Simulated Upstream Groundwater
Fiowlines from Canyon Creek,
No Action, Baseflow Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN 382081 \GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA WOODALTE.MXD JCARR3 5/24/2010 11:38:14
-------
-------
French Drain
Stream Liner
Simulated Groundwater Flowpath
River/Creek
~ City Limit
0 500 1,000
1 i i i I
2,000 Feet
Base Map Data:
NHDPIus (Hydrography, 2005);
ESRI (Roads, Jurisdictional Boundaries, 2006);
IDWR (Aerial Imagery, 2006).
Figure A-33
Simulated Upstream Groundwater
Flowlines from French Drains,
Groundwater Components of
Updated Remedial Actions for
Woodland Park, Baseflow
Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEPA
\\CASTAIC\PROJ\EPA\CDABASIN 382081 \GIS\MAPFiLES\FFS\APPENDIXA\FFS APDXA WOODALTE.MXD JCARR3 6/22/2010 15:50:34
-------
-------
1400
1300
-D 1200
Q/ 1100
Q
ljl 1000
900
800
700
^ 600
"S 500
>
o
w 400
cc 300
=3
"O
'<ฃ> 200
100
No Action
Calibrated Baseflow Value
Sensitivity Analysis Value
Alternative (a) Alternative (b) Alternative (c)
OU 2 Remedial Alternative
A
g
^
Alternative (d)
Alternative (e)
Notes:
1. lb/day = pounds per day
2. SFCDR = South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River
3. OU 2 = Operable Unit 2
Figure A-34
Results of the OU 2
SensitivityAnalysis
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
>roj\usepa\323031\Bunkei+
jy]olelmgApperilix\Figure_A~34_
-------
-------
Tables
-------
-------
TABLE A-1
Measured Baseflow Groundwater and Surface Water Elevations in Monitoring Pairs - Government Gulch
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Monitoring Well and
Stream Gauging Station
Fall 2007 Elevations
Elevation Difference
Fall 2007 Discharge
Fall 2008 Elevations
Elevation Difference
Fall 2008 Discharge
Pair
(feet msl)
(feet)
(ft3/s)
(feet msl)
(feet)
(cfs)
BH-GG-GW-0002
2605.455
2605.645
BH-GG-0002
2604.582
0.873
0.83
2604.622
1.023
1.18
BH-GG-GW-0009
2475.735
2475.615
BH-GG-0005
2476.726
-0.991
2.41
NM
NM
BH-GG-GW-0010
2440.778
2440.498
BH-GG-0006
2436.515
4.263
1.24
2436.465
4.033
1.52
BH-GG-GW-0003
2407.657
2407.427
BH-GG-0007
2409.55
-1.893
1.25
2409.57
-2.143
0.99
BH-GG-GW-0004
2362.222
2362.062
BH-GG-0008
2363.702
-1.48
1.38
2363.742
-1.68
1.29
BH-GG-GW-0005
2243.52
2243.58
BH-GG-GW-0007
2239.8
2239.91
BH-GG-0001
NM
NM
2253.339
-11.594
1.45
Notes:
Monitoring pairs listed from upstream to downstream.
A positive elevation difference indicates an upward hydraulic gradient (gaining stream).
Surface water and groundwater measurements not collected on the same date.
NM = not measured
msl = mean sea level
cfs = cubic feet per second
Pagel of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-2
Final PEST Parameter Multipliers
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Parameter
Multiplier
Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity - Layer 1 Alluvium
1.04
Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity - Layer 1 Bedrock
1.00
Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity - Layer 1 Alluvium
1.00
Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity - Layer 1 Bedrock
1.00
Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity - Layer 2 Alluvium
0.49
Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity - Layer 2 Bedrock
1.00
Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity - Layer 2 Alluvium
1.00
Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity - Layer 2 Bedrock
1.00
Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity - Layer 3 Alluvium
5.53
Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity - Layer 3 Bedrock
1.00
Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity - Layer 3 Alluvium
1.00
Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity - Layer 3 Bedrock
1.00
Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity - Layer 4 Alluvium
0.66
Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity - Layer 4 Bedrock
1.00
Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity - Layer 4 Bedrock
1.00
Wadi Conductance - Osburn Flats Reach 1
0.26
Wadi Conductance - Osburn Flats Reach 2
0.60
Wadi Conductance - Osburn Flats Reach 3
1.14
Wadi Conductance - Osburn Flats Reach 4
0.88
Wadi Conductance - Bunker Hill Box Reach 1
0.30
Wadi Conductance - Bunker Hill Box Reach 2
2.14
Wadi Conductance - Bunker Hill Box Reach 3
0.79
Wadi Conductance - Bunker Hill Box Reach 4
0.84
Wadi Conductance - Bunker Hill Box Reach 5
1.00
Note:
PEST = parameter estimation
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-3
Simulated versus Observed Vertical Head Gradients in Well Pairs-Bunker Hill Box
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Simulated
Simulated Vertical
Simulated
Simulated Vertical
Difference in Well
Observed Groundwater
Observed Vertical
Groundwater Elevation
Gradient
Groundwater Elevation
Gradient
Screen Mid-Points
Elevation
Gradient
Previous Calibration
Previous Calibration
Updated Calibration
Updated Calibration
Well Name
(feet)
(feet msl)
(ft/ft)
(feet msl)
(ft/ft)
(feet msl)
(ft/ft)
BH-SF-E-0002
35
2,341.60
0.012
2,340.03
0.002
2,339.71
0.003
BH-SF-E-0003
2,341.10
2,339.94
2,339.60
BH-SF-E-PZ-03
50.5
2,283.40
0.315
2,287.15
0.08
2,288.30
0.05
BH-SF-E-0104
2,267.50
2,283.11
2,285.95
BH-SF-E-0202-U
50.5
2,275.80
0.175
2,277.97
0.042
2,279.11
0.03
BH-SF-E-0203-L
2,267.00
2,275.87
2,277.63
BH-SF-E-0301-U
53
2,268.30
0.059
2,271.41
0.028
2,273.45
0.04
BH-SF-E-0302-L
2,265.20
2,269.92
2,271.54
BH-SF-E-0306-U
42.5
2,266.20
0.014
2,270.25
0.007
2,271.85
0.008
BH-SF-E-0305-L
2,265.60
2,269.95
2,271.50
BH-SF-E-0309-U
45.5
2,272.40
0.133
2,271.06
0.02
2,271.86
0.008
BH-SF-E-0310-L
2,266.40
2,270.16
2,271.50
BH-SF-E-0314-U
6
2,269.70
0.027
2,268.49
0.037
2,268.88
0.006
BH-SF-E-0315-U
2,269.60
2,268.27
2,268.84
BH-SF-E-0423-U
62
2,243.50
-0.021
2,246.01
-0.079
2,246.87
-0.09
BH-SF-E-0424-L
2,244.80
2,250.91
2,252.25
BH-SF-E-0425-U
51
2,243.10
0.027
2,246.00
-0.049
2,246.70
-0.06
BH-SF-E-0426-L
2,241.70
2,248.52
2,249.62
BH-SF-E-0427-U
58.5
2,246.60
0.1
2,248.31
-0.026
2,248.73
-0.04
BH-SF-E-0428-L
2,240.70
2,249.85
2,250.93
BH-SF-W-0003-U
66.5
2,214.40
-0.014
2,219.39
0.013
2,219.82
0.015
BH-SF-W-0004-L
2,215.40
2,218.53
2,218.83
BH-SF-W-0005-U
75
2,215.60
-0.037
2,217.72
0.01
2,218.22
0.011
BH-SF-W-0006-L
,2218.4
2,216.98
2,217.43
BH-SF-W-0010-U
59
2,210.20
0.012
2,208.91
-0.01
2,209.97
-0.006
BH-SF-W-0011-L
2,209.50
2,209.51
2,210.32
BH-SF-W-0121-U
72.5
2,188.80
-0.077
2,188.57
-0.002
2,188.74
-0.005
BH-SF-W-0122-L
2,194.40
2,188.71
2,189.08
BH-SF-W-0201 -U
92.5
2,187.00
-0.042
2,186.12
0.001
2,186.46
-0.001
BH-SF-W-0202-L
2,190.90
2,186.07
2,186.55
BH-SF-W-0204-U
100.5
2,172.90
0.011
2,171.25
0.008
2,171.65
0.009
BH-SF-W-0205-L
2,171.80
2,170.44
2,170.71
BH-SF-W-0206-U
119
2,171.70
0.006
2,170.07
0.008
2170.496
0.009
BH-SF-W-0207-L
2,171.00
2,169.17
2169.404
Notes:
A positive value indicates a downward vertical gradient,
ft/ft = foot per foot
msl = mean sea level
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-4
Simulated versus Observed Vertical Head Gradients in Well Pairs - Osburn Flats
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Simulated
Observed
Groundwater
Simulated Vertical
Simulated Groundwater
Simulated Vertical
Difference in Well
Groundwater
Observed Vertical
Elevation
Gradient
Elevation
Gradient
Screen Mid-Points
Elevation
Gradient
Previous Calibration
Previous Calibration
Updated Calibration
Updated Calibration
Well Name
(feet)
(feet msl)
(ft/ft)
(feet msl)
(ft/ft)
(feet msl)
(ft/ft)
SF-OB-MW-01S
9.6
2,547.80
0.055
2,543.70
-0.005
2,543.82
0.007
SF-OB-MW-01D
2,547.20
2,543.80
2,543.76
SF-OB-PZ-17
11.3
2,499.50
0.304
2,500.50
-0.067
2,501.13
-0.162
SF-OB-MW-02
2,496.10
2,501.30
2,502.96
SF-OB-PZ-24
17.8
2,451.90
0.041
2,451.80
-0.023
2,453.92
-0.008
SF-OB-MW-03
2,451.10
2,452.30
2,454.06
SF-OB-MW-06
1.8
2,503.20
-0.003
2,505.30
0.12
2,506.29
0.102
SF-OB-PZ-16
2,503.20
2,505.10
2,506.10
SF-OB-PZ-14
15.4
2,504.50
0.023
2,504.90
0.002
2,505.85
-0.006
SF-OB-MW-07
2,504.20
2,504.90
2,505.93
SF-OB-PZ-13
8.1
2,511.30
0.028
2,511.70
-0.042
2,511.77
-0.039
SF-OB-MW-09
2,511.10
2,512.00
2,512.08
SF-OB-PZ-23
5.4
2,452.90
0.015
2,455.10
0.03
2,457.99
0.024
SF-OB-MW-11
2,452.80
2,455.00
2,457.86
Notes:
A positive value indicates a downward vertical gradient,
ft/ft = foot per foot
msl = mean sea level
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-5
Comparison of Simulated Stream Gains and Losses to Data Measured During the 2008 Groundwater-Surface Water Interaction Studies
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
SFCDR Discharge Gain/Loss (cfs)
Gain/Loss
Model-simulated
Model-simulated
SFCDR Reaches3
Condition
9/23/2008
9/24/2008
9/25/2008
3-day Average
Previous Calibration
Previous Calibration
BH-SF-LF-0001 to BH-SF-LF-0003
Losing
-6
-10
-7
-7.7
-2.7
-1.8
BH-SF-LF-0003 to BH-SF-LF-0006
Gaining
5
-1
6
3.3
4.8
4.5
BH-SF-LF-0006 to BH-SF-LF-0008
Losing
-5
3
-11
-4.3
-0.4
0.1
BH-SF-LF-0008 to BH-SF-LF-0010
Gaining
23
9
15
15.7
3.1
2.2
BH-SF-LF-0010 to BH-SF-LF-0011
Gaining
32
41
28
33.7
NAb
NAb
Model-simulated
Model-simulated
9/9/2008
9/10/2008
9/11/2008
3-day Average
Previous Calibration
Previous Calibration
Site B-1 ALT to Site B-2 ALT
Losing
-12.7
-14.5
-7.9
-11.7
-3.0
-4.1
Site B-2 ALT to Site B-5 ALT
Gaining
9.1
12.1
8.6
9.9
2.4
3.4
Site B-5 ALT to Site B-7
Losing
-5.5
-9.2
-6.2
-7.0
0.25
0.9
Site B-7 to Site B-8
Gaining
14.9
17.9
15.8
16.2
0.5
0.5
aAlthough the reaches are the same approximate geographic location between the field-measured and simulated data, the exact locations of the transitions between
gaining and losing vary slightly.
bThe change in flow for this reach was not evaluated due to anomalous surface water flow measurements in the western portion of the Box, as noted in the Technical
Report, Osburn Flats Groundwater-Surface Water Interaction Study, Upper Coeur d'Alene Basin, Osburn, Idaho (CH2M HILL, 2009c).
Notes:
cfs = cubic feet per second
SFCDR = South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-6
Simulated Stream Stage Differences for the 90th Percentile Flow Calibration - SFCDR Model
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Stream Stage Difference3
Stream
Stream Gauge
(feet)
Boulder Creek
None
0.2
Bear Creek
None
0.2
Big Creek
None
0.3
Blackcloud Creek
None
0.2
Bunker Creek
BH-BC-0004
0
Bunker Creek
BH-BC-0005
0.1
Bunker Creek
BH-BC-0006
0.2
Canyon Creek
None
0.3
Cook Creek
None
0.2
Deadman Gulch
None
0.2
Deadwood Gulch
BH-DW-0001
0.2
Dexter Gulch
None
0.2
East Fork Big Creek
None
0.2
East Fork Deadman Gulch
None
0.2
Notes:
None
0.2
East Fork Ninemile Creek
None
0.2
East Fork Pine Creek
None
0.3
East Fork Twomile Creek
None
0.2
East Fork Willow Creek
None
0.2
Elk Creek
None
0.3
Gold Creek
None
0.2
Government Creek
BH-GG-0001
0.3
Government Creek
BH-GG-0002
0.3
Government Creek
BH-GG-0004
0.3
Grouse Creek
BH-GC-0001
0.15
Grouse Gulch
None
0.2
Humboldt Creek
BH-HC-0001
0.3
Italian Gulch
None
0.2
Jackass Creek
None
0.2
Lake Creek
None
0.2
Little North Fork of the South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
None
0.2
Little Pine Creek
None
0.3
Magnet Gulch
BH-MG-0001
0.15
McFarren Culch
None
0.2
Middle Fork Pine Creek
None
0.2
Mill Creek
None
0.2
Milo Creek
None
0.3
Montgomery Creek
None
0.3
Moon Creek
None
0.3
Ninemile Creek
None
0.3
Nuckols Gulch
None
0.2
Pine Creek
None
0.3
Placer Creek
None
0.3
Portal Gulch
None
0.2
Railroad Gulch
None
0.2
Revenue Gulch
None
0.2
Rock Creek
None
0.2
Rosebud Gulch
None
0.2
Ruddy Gulch
None
0.2
SFCDR
SF-268 (Elizabeth Park)
2.1
SFCDR
SF-271 (Pinehurst)
1.6
SFCDR
SF-OB-SG01
1.7
SFCDR
SF-OB-SG02
1.2
Page 1 of 2
-------
TABLE A-6
Simulated Stream Stage Differences for the 90th Percentile Flow Calibration - SFCDR Model
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Stream Stage Difference3
Stream
Stream Gauge
(feet)
SFCDR
SF-OB-SG03
1.3
SFCDR
Smelterville
1.6
SFCDR
Theater Bridge
1.6
Shields Gulch
None
0.2
St. Joe Creek
None
0.2
Terror Gulch
None
0.3
Trowbridge Gulch
None
0.2
Twomile Creek
None
0.3
Upper SFCDR Unnamed Tributary
None
0.2
West Fork
None
0.2
West Fork Big Creek
None
0.2
West Fork Deadman Gulch
None
0.2
West Fork Elk Creek
None
0.2
West Fork Montgomery Creek
None
0.2
West Fork Moon Creek
None
0.2
West Fork Pine Creek
None
0.2
West Fork Placer Creek
None
0.2
West Fork Wllow Creek
None
0.2
Wllow Creek
None
0.2
aStream stage difference is equal to the value measured on April 20, 2009, minus the average value measured between
September 22 and October 20, 2008 (the baseflow calibration period).
Note:
SFCDR = South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
Page 2 of 2
-------
TABLE A-7
Monthly Multipliers for Deep Percolation of Precipitation - SFCDR Model
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Simulation Month
Multiplier
July 2008
2.3
August 2008
1.5
September 2008
1.3
October 2008
1
November 2008
1.3
December 2008
1.5
January 2009
1.7
February 2009
1.9
March 2009
2.5
April 2009
2.9
May 2009
3.6
June 2009
2.9
Note:
SFCDR = South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-8
Monthly Multipliers for Deep Percolation of Precipitation - Canyon Creek Model
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Simulation Month
Multiplier
July 2008
0.1
August 2008
0.02
September 2008
0.01
October 2008
0.01
November 2008
0.02
December 2008
0.025
January 2009
0.05
February 2009
0.05
March 2009
0.1
April 2009
0.15
May 2009
0.2
June 2009
0.15
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-9
Average Dissolved Zinc Concentrations in Groundwater in Woodland Park, Fall 2006
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Woodland Park Reach
No Action
Average Dissolved Zinc Concentration
(mg/L)
Post-Sou rce-Control
Average Dissolved Zinc Concentration
(mg/L)
Reach 01
1.5
0.4
Reach 02
3.0
2.5
Reach 03
5.2
4.8
Reach 04
19.5
18.3
Reach 05
13.6
13.0
Reach 06
44.3
42.7
Reach 07
14.4
13.9
Reach 08
13.5
13.1
Reach 09
11.1
10.7
Reach 10
12.3
11.3
Reach 11
1.5
1.2
Reach 12
0.5
0.5
SVNRT
124.0
124.0
Notes:
mg/L = milligram(s) per liter
SVNRT = Silver Valley Natural Resource Trust
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-10
Net Remedial Effectiveness Factors for Woodland Park Source Control Actions
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
REF from Simplified
Effective REF Based
Fraction of Total
Proposed Percentage of Total
Tool for Complete
on Limited Source
Area of Source within
Source Area within
Fraction of
Total REF for
Woodland Park Reach
Contaminant Source ID
Volume of Material to be Removed
Removal
Removal3
Reach (feet2)
Reach
Effective REF
Reach
Reach 01
WAL040
72%
99%
71%
1,073,000
0.90
71%
Reach 01
WAL081
50%
99%
50%
115,270
0.10
50%
69%
Reach 02
WAL040
72%
99%
71%
67,083
0.17
71%
Reach 02
WAL041
7%
99%
6%
334,300
0.83
6%
17%
Reach 03
WAL041
7%
99%
6%
572,600
1.00
6%
6%
Reach 04
WAL041
7%
99%
6%
450,200
1.00
6%
6%
Reach 05
WAL041
7%
99%
6%
569,400
0.78
6%
Reach 05
WAL009
0%
0%
0%
165,300
0.22
0%
5%
Reach 06
WAL041
7%
99%
6%
784,500
0.57
6%
Reach 06
WAL009
0%
0%
0%
506,900
0.37
0%
Reach 06
WAL042
50%
0%
0%
73,860
0.05
0%
4%
Reach 07
WAL009
0%
0%
0%
332,300
0.45
0%
Reach 07
WAL041
7%
99%
6%
413,100
0.55
6%
4%
Reach 08
WAL009
0%
0%
0%
344,400
0.55
0%
Notes:
WAL041
7%
99%
6%
192,900
0.31
6%
Reach 08
WAL010
7%
99%
7%
92,610
0.15
7%
3%
Reach 09
WAL009
0%
0%
0%
510,900
0.58
0%
Reach 09
WAL010
7%
99%
7%
364,900
0.42
7%
3%
Reach 10
WAL009
0%
0%
0%
822,800
0.48
0%
Reach 10
WAL010
7%
99%
7%
392,500
0.23
7%
Reach 10
OSB047/cc05
21%
99%
20%
411,600
0.24
20%
Reach 10
WAL011
25%
99%
25%
93,650
0.05
25%
8%
Reach 11
OSB047/cc05
21%
99%
20%
411,600
1.00
20%
20%
Reach 12
None
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
aEffective remedial effectiveness factor (REF) is calculated as the proposed percentage of material to be removed multiplied by the REF from the Simplified Tool.
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-11
Model-Simulated Flows - Baseflow Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Total Bunker Creek
Total Bunker Creek
Total Government
Total Government
Total A-4 Drain
Total Canyon
Total Canyon
Total Remedial Drain
Total SFCDR Gain
Total SFCDR Loss
Gain
Loss
Creek Gain
Creek Loss
Gain
Creek Gaina b
Creek Lossb
Gain
Simulation
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
OU 2 No Action
7.8
2.9
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.4
NA
NA
NA
Alternative (a)
6.6
1.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
NA
NA
NA
Alternative (b)
6.8
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
NA
NA
NA
Alternative (c)
3.5
6.9
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
NA
NA
8.4
Alternative (d)
3.5
6.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
NA
NA
8.3
Alternative (e)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
5.2
OU 3 Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed Segment 01 -
No Action
10.1
8.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
OU 3 Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed Segment 01 -
G ro u n dwate r Acti o ns
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.6
OU 3 Woodland Park-
No Action
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.1
0.8
NA
OU 3 Updated Remedial
Components for Woodland Park
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.6
1.1
1.0
includes groundwater discharge to Canyon Creek and land surface
bWoodland Park Reaches 1 though 12
Notes:
cfs = cubic feet per second
NA = not applicable
OU = Operable Unit
SFCDR = South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-12
Simulated Dissolved Zinc Load - Baseflow Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Net Load to
Net Load to
Net Load to A-4
Load to Canyon
Reduction in Load
Net Load to SFCDR
Bunker Creek
Government Creek
Drain
Creek
Total Load
from No Action
Load to RA-Drains
Simulation
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
OU 2 No Action
526
15
33
31
NA
605
0
NA
Alternative (a)
462
0
33
18
NA
513
92
NA
Alternative (b)
475
0
0
29
NA
504
101
NA
Alternative (c)
63
0
33
4
NA
100
505
1,073
Alternative (d)
63
0
0
4
NA
67
538
1,065
Alternative (e)
0
0
0
0
NA
0
605
510
OU 3 Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed Segment 01 -
No Action
66
NA
NA
NA
NA
66
0
NA
OU 3 Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed Segment 01 -
Groundwater Actions
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
66
74
OU 3 Woodland Park -
No Action
NA
NA
NA
NA
125
125
0
NA
OU 3 Updated Remedial
Components for Woodland Park
NA
NA
NA
NA
41
41
84
82
Notes:
lb/day = pound(s) per day
NA = not applicable
OU = Operable Unit
SFCDR = South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-13
Model-Simulated Flows - 7Q10 Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Total Bunker Creek
Total Bunker Creek
Total Government
Total Government
Total A-4 Drain
Total Canyon
Total Canyon
Total Remedial Drain
Total SFCDR Gain
Total SFCDR Loss
Gain
Loss
Creek Gain
Creek Loss
Gain
Creek Gaina b
Creek Lossb
Gain
Simulation
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
OU 2 No Action
7.1
3.5
0.2
0.9
0.1
0.2
0.3
NA
NA
NA
Alternative (a)
5.7
1.4
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
NA
NA
NA
Alternative (b)
6.7
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
NA
NA
NA
Alternative (c)
2.8
7.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
NA
NA
8.2
Alternative (d)
3.3
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
NA
NA
8.6
Alternative (e)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
4.0
OU 3 Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed Segment 01 -
No Action
9.4
8.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
OU 3 Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed Segment 01 -
Groundwater Actions
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.3
OU 3 Woodland Park-
No Action
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.7
1.1
NA
OU 3 Updated Remedial
Components for Woodland Park
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1
1.2
0.8
includes groundwater discharge to Canyon Creek and land surface.
bWoodland Park Reaches 1 though 12
Notes:
cfs = cubic feet per second
NA = not applicable
OU = Operable Unit
SFCDR = South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-14
Simulated Dissolved Zinc Load - 7Q10 Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Net Load to
Net Load to
Government
Net Load to A-4
Load to Canyon
Reduction in Load
Net
Load to SFCDR
Bunker Creek
Creek
Drain
Creek
Total Load
from No Action
Load to RA-Drains
Simulation
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
OU 2 No Action
502
11
14
25
NA
553
0
NA
Alternative (a)
425
0
14
12
NA
450
103
NA
Alternative (b)
477
0
0
28
NA
505
48
NA
Alternative (c)
43
0
14
1
NA
58
495
1,045
Alternative (d)
61
0
0
11
NA
72
481
1,095
Alternative (e)
0
0
0
0
NA
0
553
398
OU 3 Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed Segment 01 -
No Action
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
0
NA
OU 3 Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed Segment 01 -
Groundwater Actions
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
58
61
OU 3 Woodland Park -
No Action
NA
NA
NA
NA
101
101
0
NA
OU 3 Updated Remedial
Components for Woodland Park
NA
NA
NA
NA
26
26
75
53
Notes:
lb/day = pound(s) per day
NA = not applicable
OU = Operable Unit
SFCDR = South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-15
Model-Simulated Flows - 90th Percentile Flow Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Total Bunker Creek
Total Bunker Creek
Total Government
Total Government
Total A-4 Drain
Total Canyon
Total Canyon
Total Remedial Drain
Total SFCDR Gain
Total SFCDR Loss
Gain
Loss
Creek Gain
Creek Loss
Gain
Creek Gaina b
Creek Lossb
Gain
Simulation
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
OU 2 No Action
6.0
3.7
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.5
NA
NA
NA
Alternative (a)
5.6
1.2
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.5
NA
NA
NA
Alternative (b)
5.7
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
NA
NA
NA
Alternative (c)
2.6
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.2
NA
NA
9.4
Alternative (d)
2.9
7.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
NA
NA
9.8
Alternative (e)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
NA
NA
10.8
OU 3 Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed Segment 01 -
No Action
9.9
9.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
OU 3 Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed Segment 01 -
Groundwater Actions
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.0
OU 3 Woodland Park-
No Action
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.5
0.4
NA
OU 3 Updated Remedial
Components for Woodland Park
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.7
0.7
1.5
includes groundwater discharge to Canyon Creek and land surface.
bWoodland Park Reaches 1 though 12
Notes:
cfs = cubic feet per second
NA = not applicable
OU = Operable Unit
SFCDR = South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-16
Simulated Dissolved Zinc Load - 90th Percentile Flow Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Net Load to
Net Load to
Net Load to A-4
Load to Canyon
Reduction in Load
Net
Load to SFCDR
Bunker Creek
Government Creek
Drain
Creek
Total Load
from No Action
Load to RA-Drains
Simulation
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
OU 2 No Action
561
42
57
54
NA
715
0
NA
Alternative (a)
516
0
57
52
NA
625
90
NA
Alternative (b)
545
0
0
60
NA
605
110
NA
Alternative (c)
86
0
57
22
NA
165
550
1,303
Alternative (d)
123
0
0
40
NA
163
552
1,350
Alternative (e)
0
0
0
30
NA
30
685
1,213
OU 3 Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed Segment 01 -
No Action
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
58
0
NA
OU 3 Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed Segment 01 -
Groundwater Actions
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
58
77
OU 3 Woodland Park -
No Action
NA
NA
NA
NA
258
258
0
NA
OU 3 Updated Remedial
Components for Woodland Park
NA
NA
NA
NA
112
112
146
182
Notes:
lb/day = pound(s) per day
NA = not applicable
OU = Operable Unit
SFCDR = South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-17
Model-Simulated Flows - Average Annual Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Total Bunker Creek
Total Bunker Creek
Total Government
Total Government
Total A-4 Drain
Total Canyon
Total Canyon
Total Remedial Drain
Total SFCDR Gain
Total SFCDR Loss
Gain
Loss
Creek Gain
Creek Loss
Gain
Creek Gaina b
Creek Lossb
Gain
Simulation
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
OU 2 No Action
7.2
2.9
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.1
0.4
NA
NA
NA
Alternative (a)
6.0
1.5
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
NA
NA
NA
Alternative (b)
6.4
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
NA
NA
NA
Alternative (c)
3.2
7.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
NA
NA
00
CO
Alternative (d)
3.2
7.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.1
NA
NA
8.7
Alternative (e)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
NA
NA
5.3
OU 3 Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed Segment 01 -
No Action
10.8
7.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
OU 3 Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed Segment 01 -
Groundwater Actions
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.0
OU 3 Woodland Park-
No Action
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.8
0.6
NA
OU 3 Updated Remedial
Components for Woodland Park
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.1
0.9
1.2
includes groundwater discharge to Canyon Creek and land surface.
bWoodland Park Reaches 1 though 12
Notes:
cfs = cubic feet per second
NA = not applicable
OU = Operable Unit
SFCDR = South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-18
Simulated Dissolved Zinc Load - Average Annual Conditions
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Net Load to Bunker
Net Load to
Net Load to A-4
Load to Canyon
Reduction in Load
Net Load to SFCDR
Creek
Government Creek
Drain
Creek
Total Load
from No Action
Load to RA-Drains
Simulation
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
lb/day
OU 2 No Action
524
14
38
42
NA
617
0
NA
Alternative (a)
447
-0.5
37
26
NA
509
108
NA
Alternative (b)
480
0
0
37
NA
517
100
NA
Alternative (c)
64
0
36
7
NA
107
510
1,163
Alternative (d)
64
0
0
6
NA
70
547
1,146
Alternative (e)
0
0
0
0
NA
0
617
531
OU 3 Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed Segment 01 -
No Action
77
NA
NA
NA
NA
77
0
NA
OU 3 Mainstem SFCDR
Watershed Segment 01 -
Groundwater Actions
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
77
77
OU 3 Woodland Park -
No Action
NA
NA
NA
NA
141
141
0
NA
OU 3 Updated Remedial
Components for Woodland Park
NA
NA
NA
NA
53
53
87
117
Notes:
lb/day = pound(s) per day
NA = not applicable
OU = Operable Unit
SFCDR = South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE A-19
Results of the OU 2 Sensitivity Analysis
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Estimated Dissolved Zinc Load to the Surface Water System within the Bunker Hill Box (lb/day)
Input Parameter Modification No Action Alternative (a) Alternative (b) Alternative (c) Alternative (d) Alternative (e)
Calibrated Baseflow Model
605
513
504
100
67
0
Kx Bedrock x 10
625
541
514
115
70
11
Kx Bedrock x 100
684
628
568
140
93
14
Kx Bedrock10
600
507
502
97
66
11
Kx Bedrock 100
600
506
502
96
66
11
Kx CU x 10
605
513
504
100
67
12
Kx CU x 100
605
511
503
101
67
11
Kx CU - 10
605
513
504
100
67
13
Kx CU - 100
605
513
504
100
67
13
Kx Alluvium x 5
1,026
863
849
278
260
20
Kx Alluvium x 10
1,341
1,120
1,117
498
491
31
Kx Alluvium 5
433
384
371
63
32
8
Kx Alluvium - 10
394
353
336
56
26
7
PPN x 25%
615
527
522
107
69
13
PPN x 50%
624
539
515
114
72
13
PPN - 25%
593
498
498
91
64
12
PPN - 50%
581
481
492
82
61
12
Vertical Resistance x 10
390
341
284
77
44
2
Vertical Resistance x 100
303
245
191
66
31
0
Vertical Resistance 10
726
594
604
115
82
7
Vertical Resistance 100
774
621
636
123
91
11
SFCDR wc1 x 5
358
316.0
274
100
66
13
SFCDR wc1 x 10
277
241
195
101
65
13
SFCDR wc1 5
679
563
562
100
66
11
SFCDR wc1 - 10
688
571
670
101
68
13
SFCDR Stream Stage -1 foot
647
540
530
122
89
13
SFCDR Stream Stage - 2 feet
680
558
537
145
111
13
SFCDR Stream Stage + 1 foot
540
464
448
74
41
13
SFCDR Stream Stage + 2 feet
447
384
364
41
8
13
Notes:
CU = confining unit
Kx = horizontal hydraulic conductivity
PPN = calibrated deep percolation of precipitation distribution
wc1 = streambed conductance term
RDD/100080013 (Draft_Final_FFS_Report_Appendix_A_Tables.xls)
ES010710093751RDD
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
Predictive Analysis Methodology and Results
-------
-------
Contents
Section Page
Abbreviations and Acronyms B-iii
Predictive Analysis Methodology and Results B-l
B.l Predictive Analysis Tool Overview B-2
B.l.l Model Components B-2
B.l.2 Model Outputs B-3
B.l.3 Analytical Steps, Input Values, and Uncertainties B-3
B.2 FFS Predictive Analysis Tool Model Components B-5
B.2.1 Pre-Remediation Dissolved Metal Loads B-5
B.2.2 Pre-Remediation Load Allocation B-7
B.2.3 Post-Remediation Load Reduction B-8
B.2.3.1 Non-Groundwater Source Remedial Factors B-8
B.2.3.2 Groundwater Residual Load B-8
B.2.4 Post-Remediation Residual Load Aggregation B-9
B.2.5 Post-Remediation AWQC B-9
B.3 Model Uncertainty Estimates B-10
B.4 Predictive Analysis Modeling Results B-ll
B.5 References B-ll
Figures
B-l Predictive Analysis Model Schematic
B-2 Elizabeth Park Dissolved Zinc vs. Discharge Over Time
B-3 Pinehurst Dissolved Zinc vs. Discharge Over Time
B-4 Elizabeth Park Loading: Comparison of Pre-Remediation, Remediation, and Post-
Remediation Distribution
B-5 Pinehurst Loading: Comparison of Pre-Remediation, Remediation, and Post-
Remediation Distribution
Tables
B-l Elizabeth Park and Pinehurst Predictive Analysis Tool Modeling Inputs
B-2 Total Source Volumes and Relative Loading Potential by Waste Type
B-3 Elizabeth Park Source Volume Inputs by Waste Type and Remedial Action
B-4 Pinehurst Source Volume Inputs by Waste Type and Remedial Action
B-5 Remediation Factor by Waste Type and Remedial Action
-------
APPENDIX B: PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
B-6 Groundwater Load Reductions for Treatment Alternatives with Groundwater
Components
B-7 Summary of Predictive Analysis Results
Attachments
B-l Mathematical Updates to Predictive Analysis Implemented in PAT1
B-ii
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ARAR
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
AWQC
ambient water quality criterion/criteria
AWQCr
AWQC ratio
BEMP
Basin Environmental Monitoring Program
cfs
cubic foot/feet per second
CV
coefficient of variation
cy
cubic yard(s)
EOF
Error of Fact
FFS
Focused Feasibility Study
lb / day
pound(s) per day
LCL
lower confidence level
Lr
load ratio
^g/L
microgram(s) per liter
mg/L
milligram(s) per liter
NA
not applicable
NAS
National Academy of Sciences
NE
nonexceedance
OU
Operable Unit
PAT
Predictive Analysis Tool
PI
probability interval
RF
remediation factor
RI
Remedial Investigation
RLP
relative loading potential
ROD
Record of Decision
SFCDR
South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River
UCL
upper confidence level
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
Predictive Analysis Methodology and Results
A comparison of the potential relative effectiveness of the remedial alternatives in this
Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) has been developed using an approach called the Predictive
Analysis. The Predictive Analysis, in turn, relies on an analytical model called "the
Predictive Analysis Tool" (PAT). The PAT was initially developed to support the evaluation
of alternatives in the 2001 Feasibility Study (FS) Report for Operable Unit 3 (OU 3) (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 2001a) and was subsequently used to support
evaluations in the Proposed Plan (USEPA, 2001b) and the Record of Decision (ROD) for OU
3 (often referred to as "the Interim ROD"; USEPA, 2002). The analyses included two
modeled locations, Pinehurst and Harrison, and did not account for dissolved metals
sources in OU 2, which is located in the Bunker Hill "Box" (often referred to as "the Box").
The theory underlying the PAT, its mathematical and statistical bases, and the parameter
estimates assumed in the 2001 predictive modeling were formally documented in the
Technical Memorandum (Revision 1): Probabilistic Analysis of Post-Remediation Metal Loading
Technical Memorandum (URS Greiner, 2001).1 The PAT was evaluated as part of the program
review conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in Superfund and Mining
Megasites: Lessons from the Coeur d'Alene River Basin (NAS, 2005). When the pre-publication
NAS review report was released, a response to both the review and criticism of the PAT
contained in Appendix F of the NAS report was prepared. This response document, NAS
Appendix F Errors of Fact (EOF) (URS, 2005), includes a point-by-point discussion of the
issues raised by the NAS and identifies substantive errors in the NAS review that were not
corrected in the subsequent final NAS report. Further, USEPA sought an independent
review of the PAT by a well-known leader in the field of probabilistic modeling, Dr.
Gregory B. Baecher, University of Maryland, A.J. Clark School of Engineering (College Park,
Maryland). The independent review validated the approach used by USEPA and its use in
the evaluation and comparison of alternatives. This review culminated in a second technical
memorandum, A Predictive Analysis for Post-Remediation Metal Loading, Coeur d'Alene Basin
RI/FS (URS, 2007), which provided clarification and additional documentation of the
approach used by USEPA. The fundamentals of the original analysis have remained
unchanged since its initial development for the 2001 FS. The 2007 technical memorandum
included a cover letter prepared by Dr. Baecher describing the conclusions of his review.
It has been necessary to make a number of modifications to the Predictive Analysis to
support the evaluation of alternatives in this FFS. These modifications have included:
Adding Elizabeth Park as a modeled location;
Updating current water quality conditions (i.e., pre-remediation loads);
Adding pre-remediation loading from the Box (mathematical updates to the PAT to
support this modification are detailed in Attachment B-l);
1 The Predictive Analysis was referred to as the Probabilistic Analysis at that time.
B-1
-------
APPENDIX B: PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
Updating source types, volumes, and remedial actions to reflect the updated remedial
alternatives; and
Integrating more accurate estimates of load reduction from the groundwater model
(groundwater modeling is described in Appendix A of this FFS Report, and
mathematical updates to the Predictive Analysis to support the integration of these
results into the PAT are detailed in Attachment B-l to this Appendix B).
This appendix summarizes the methodology and results from the updated Predictive
Analyses for the remedial alternatives described in this FFS Report. The appendix consists
of the following five sections:
Section B.l provides an overview of the PAT model, describes the steps in the
probabilistic Predictive Analysis, and identifies uncertainties inherent in the modeling
process;
Section B.2 describes the updates to the PAT model specific to the integration of the
groundwater model results, as well as changes in input data that document current
conditions in the watershed;
Section B.3 describes how the uncertainty associated with the expected performance of
remedial alternatives was quantified by mathematically propagating the uncertainty of
the input variables;
Section B.4 summarizes results from the updated Predictive Analysis modeling
applicable to the alternatives evaluated in this FFS Report; and
Section B.5 provides full references for documents cited.
B.1 Predictive Analysis Tool Overview
B.1.1 Model Components
The PAT is a simple analytical tool whose underlying concepts are shown schematically in
Figure B-l. The figure is a generic description of the modeling process that was applied at
two locations within the Upper Basin of the Coeur D'Alene River: Elizabeth Park on the
South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River (SCFDR), representing water quality in OU 3
upstream from (above) OU 2, and Pinehurst, which is downstream from OU 2, representing
the combined water quality of OU 2 and the rest of the Upper Basin. The surface water
monitoring locations in Elizabeth Park (SF-268) and Pinehurst (SF-271) are depicted in
Figure 3-1 in this FFS Report. The modeling process is the same at the two locations,
differing with respect to input values unique to each location. In both cases, the modeling
process draws upon observed loading of dissolved metals (in this case, dissolved zinc) in
surface water at the modeled location, allocates the observed loading between known
upstream dissolved metal contaminant sources, and then estimates load reductions
resulting from implementation of the remedial actions specific to each of the remedial
alternatives evaluated in this FFS Report.
The PAT also includes a component that can be used to estimate residual post-remediation
loads over time, due to source depletion. The natural source depletion component of the
B-2
-------
APPENDIX B: PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
PAT has not been used in the FFS analysis because the prediction of long-term water quality
trends and specific water quality in the SFCDR watershed in the distant future is subject to
considerable uncertainty, stemming from the complex weathering rates and the changes in
these rates for the numerous mine waste types and source sites in the watershed. A
description of natural source depletion processes is provided in Section 3.0 of this FFS
Report. Site-specific exposure to seasonal wetting and water flux, as well as variations in
particle surface area, iron sulfide content, trace metal content, air diffusion, and other
factors, control the release of contaminants from mine wastes. The effect of cleanup actions
further complicates these predictions.
Knowledge gained from other heavily contaminated mine sites suggests that water quality
in the SFCDR watershed could be adversely impacted for long periods of time, particularly
when significant waste volumes are left in place. A long-term monitoring program coupled
with adaptively managed cleanup actions is likely the best approach for assessing long-term
water quality and improvements resulting from cleanup. The PAT time-dependent source
depletion estimates will be considered in remedy implementation, including adaptive
management, and updated as new information becomes available from Basin
Environmental Monitoring Program (BEMP) monitoring.
B.1.2 Model Outputs
The primary PAT output estimates residual load. Calculated residual loads can be used to
establish the percent dissolved zinc load reduction by each alternative. Percent load
reduction is defined as the alternative-specific ratio of the predicted dissolved zinc load
reduction to the existing pre-remediation loading. The PAT also provides estimates of the
post-remediation ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) ratios. AWQC ratios are the main
output estimates used for evaluating compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs), and the effectiveness of the remedial alternatives
presented in this FFS. The AWQC ratios are calculated by comparing the dissolved zinc
loads to loading capacity values that are equal to the AWQC multiplied by discharge.
B.1.3 Analytical Steps, Input Values, and Uncertainties
Each analytical step in the modeling procedure (see Figure B-l) requires model input values
that derive from either available empirical data or engineering estimates based on
experience and expert opinion. All of the input values, regardless of source (empirical data
or engineering-based estimated factors), are subject to uncertainties. The input values and
the uncertainties for each analytical step are as follows:
Step 1, Estimate Surface Water Loading. This step requires input of the cumulative pre-
remediation loading of dissolved zinc in surface water. The pre-remediation loading
estimates are location-specific and based on empirical environmental monitoring to
estimate flow and concentrations of dissolved metals in surface water within the Upper
Basin. Both flow rate and concentrations of dissolved metals are subject to real variations
over time and space on the scale of "events" (e.g., pre-remediation conditions vs.
conditions during remedial actions vs. conditions following remedy completion) as well
as temporal variations within and across water years.
B-3
-------
APPENDIX B: PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
Step 2, Allocate Loading to Upstream Sources. Step 2 includes quantification of both
the volume of contaminant source materials and estimation of the leaching
characteristics of those materials. The load attributed to direct discharge of adit
drainages, seeps, and groundwater is first subtracted from the total load, and then the
remaining load is apportioned to specific waste types and volumes represented at each
location. During preparation of the 2001 FS Report, an inventory of contaminant sources
was developed based on extensive data accumulated through previous studies
conducted by multiple state and federal agencies. This inventory includes volume
estimates for each source type identified in the Coeur d'Alene Basin. The volume
estimates are considered to carry a significant degree of uncertainty, primarily related to
limitations in knowledge about the extent of both known and unknown contamination
sources. Notwithstanding these uncertainties, the primary objective is to assess the
potential relative effectiveness of the FFS alternatives, and not to quantify specific
predictions of future water quality.
The apportioning of load is based on the total volumes of waste types and their
respective relative load potential (RLP) estimates. Each waste type is assigned a different
RLP based on professional judgment estimates of its proportional "loading strength".
The RLP values used for different waste types were first defined in the 2001 FS Report
and remain unchanged in this analysis. The RLP of a given source type is an index of the
average contribution of metal (zinc) load from that source type to the SFCDR per cubic
yard (cy) of source material per year. The RLP expresses the relative propensity of a
source type to contribute metal load to the river. That source judged to have the highest
propensity is assigned an RLP of 1.0, and other source types are scaled proportionately,
with values ranging from 0.0 to 1.0. At the end of Step 2, the difference in load between
the two points is apportioned to specific waste types and volumes located between those
two points, such that the sum of all waste type-specific loads is equal to the measured
load between the two locations.
Step 3, Estimate Residual Loading for Remedial Alternatives. Step 3 applies
remediation factors (RFs) to the source-specific pre-remediation loads to estimate post-
remediation residual loads, depending upon the specific actions identified in the
remedial alternatives. The effectiveness of specific remedial actions is based largely on
engineering experience and expert opinion, which is subject to uncertainty. Inclusion of
groundwater-based actions in this FFS has added another level of uncertainty because
estimates of load reduction resulting from groundwater-based actions are based on
groundwater modeling, a methodology that is also subject to uncertainties due to both
spatial and temporal conditions of groundwater within the watershed and inherent
limitations of empirical data upon which the modeling is based.
Step 4, Sum Residual Loading Across Sources. Step 4 aggregates the post-remediation
loadings from each contamination source into a cumulative summation. Estimation
uncertainty in that sum also combines the estimation error propagated at each step of
the modeling process.
Throughout the analytical process, the PAT mathematically assigns uncertainties to the
required model component inputs (empirically-based variables, model-based metrics, and
engineering-based parameters). Input estimates for all input variables and parameters
B-4
-------
APPENDIX B: PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
applied in the model incorporate both a best estimate and an estimate of the uncertainty in
the best estimate. The best estimate used in the model is the expected value of the variable
or parameter. The uncertainty is measured by the coefficient of variation (CV), which
includes both natural variability and estimation error. By definition, the CV is the ratio of
the standard deviation divided by the expected value, resulting in a unitless estimate. As
such, the CV gives insight into the relative variability of different variables over different
scales. For example, an input variable with a CV of 0.30 is substantively less variable than a
variable with a CV of 0.97, independent of where on the measurement scale the expected
value lies.
Expected values and CVs are the inputs into the PAT for all measures and parameter
estimates described in this appendix.
B.2 FFS Predictive Analysis Tool Model Components
Although the PAT is conceptually simple, its successful implementation requires use of an
involved modeling procedure. As shown in Figure B-l, the modeling consists of five
analytical steps (only Steps 1 through 4 are used in this FFS), beginning with estimation of
pre-remediation input loading of dissolved metals into system surface waters. Those loads
are then allocated to known upstream sources, each of which was assigned a RLP. Source-
specific pre-remediation loads are then reduced based on the remedial actions identified for
each of the remedial alternatives, resulting in source-specific post-remediation residual
loads that would be expected to remain after successful remedy implementation. Source-
specific post-remedial loads are then re-aggregated to a cumulative, location-specific
residual post-remediation load. The analytical steps are the same at Elizabeth Park and
Pinehurst, differing only in terms of input metrics given location-specific conditions and
remedial alternatives.
The remainder of this section details the expected values and CVs used in each of the
analytical steps in the PAT conceptual schematic shown in Figure B-l (with the exception of
the source depletion component). Each model component (empirically-based value or
estimated engineering parameter) is first described, followed by the strategy and methods
used to update specific model components and tailor the model to the FFS alternatives.
B.2.1 Pre-Remediation Dissolved Metal Loads
The development of estimates for pre-remediation surface water loading in pounds per day
(lb/day) of dissolved zinc at Elizabeth Park and Pinehurst is based on monitoring records
from Stations SF-268 and SF-271, respectively, which are stream gauging and water quality
sampling stations maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for USEPA.
Load estimates used in the 2001 FS were developed using data collected from 1987 through
1999. Since the FS, remedial actions have been taken in the Box that were expected to reduce
post-remediation loadings at Pinehurst. For the current FFS, surface water monitoring data
were accessed and updated through August 2009 and evaluated to determine the extent to
which conditions have changed with respect to surface water loadings at Elizabeth Park and
Pinehurst over the period 1987 through 2009.
B-5
-------
APPENDIX B: PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
Potential changes in loading over time were evaluated by examining the relationships
between dissolved zinc concentration and discharge (the two components used to calculate
load) over three periods: pre-remediation (1987 through September 1995), active
remediation (October 1995 through September 2002), and post-remediation (October 2002
through August 2009). Figures B-2 and B-3 show the relationships at Elizabeth Park and
Pinehurst, respectively, plotting the natural log (In) of the discharge (cfs) on the x-axis and
dissolved zinc concentration (milligrams per liter [mg/L]) on the y-axis. Synoptic
observations from the three periods use different symbols, as noted in the legend.
Regression equations that estimate dissolved zinc concentration using a power equation
relationship (concentration equaling a constant times discharge taken to a power, estimated
from the data by regression) are also noted in the figures. Best-fit curves are indicated as
curved lines passing through the period-specific points.
Dissolved zinc loads calculated from synoptic concentration and discharge data within the
three periods were compared at the two sites, applying a nonparametric analysis of variance
to observed loadings. Load comparisons are graphically displayed in box plots found in the
left panels of Figures B-4 and B-5, for Elizabeth Park and Pinehurst, respectively. Apparent
lack of significant difference across monitoring periods for Elizabeth Park is indicated by the
overlap of box plot loads and corroborated with the insignificant test statistic (p = 0.32).
Although the best fit power functions across years in Figure B-2 suggest a decreasing trend,
differences in load are not sufficient at Elizabeth Park to exceed "noise" within the metric.
Figure B-5 suggests statistically significant differences in the pre-remediation, active
remediation, and post-remediation periods for Pinehurst loads; these differences are
supported by the significant test statistic (p = 0.002). Apparent differences at Pinehurst
indicate that samples from both pre-remediation and active remediation events are
significantly elevated over loads observed following the remedial activities.
Based on the Pinehurst results and in the interest of using data representative of current
conditions within the Basin, monitoring data used to develop estimates for the PAT input
were limited to results from sampling events following October 2002. Although loadings at
Elizabeth Park exhibit no statistically significant differences over pre-remediation, active
remediation, and post-remediation conditions, synoptic observations are needed to estimate
OU 2 loadings; therefore, the data used were limited to the same period. Limiting sampling
events to the post-October 2002 period resulted in approximately 50 observations per
location, which gives sample sizes considered sufficient to develop reasonable expected
values and CVs.
Pre-remediation dissolved zinc load estimates are based on lognormal distributions that are
supported by the probability plots of loading in the right panels of Figures B-4 and B-5.2
Table B-l lists model input estimates of Elizabeth Park and Pinehurst loading (along with
other variable expected values used as input for the current model runs). Results for both
Elizabeth Park and Pinehurst are summarized in the following bullets. In these bullets, the
current estimates at Pinehurst are compared to the 2001 FS input estimates. This comparison
was done only for changes observed at Pinehurst because Predictive Analysis modeling at
Elizabeth Park was not conducted during the 2001 FS, precluding comparison.
2 Pre-remediation load estimates for the 2001 FS modeling effort were also based on lognormal distributions.
B-6
-------
APPENDIX B: PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
Elizabeth Park dissolved zinc load inputs (expected value and coefficients of variation)
for the current Predictive Analysis modeling are 1,260 pounds per day (lb/ day) and
CV=0.94.
Dissolved zinc load inputs at Pinehurst for the 2001 FS and the current Predictive
Analysis modeling exhibit statistically significant differences, with expected value and
coefficients of variation of 2,921 lb/day (CV=0.60) and 2,285 (CV = 1.21), respectively.
The comparatively lower expected value with higher CV for the current data indicates
an overall reduction in dissolved metal loading at Pinehurst with a somewhat increased
relative variability. These results are consistent with remedial activities having been
initiated in OU 2 in 1995 and completed in 2002.
B.2.2 Pre-Remediation Load Allocation
As noted above, an inventory of contaminant sources was developed for the 2001 FS Report
based on information accumulated by multiple state and federal agencies. In the
development of that inventory, each source was designated as a specific source type (e.g.,
sediments within the floodplain or upland tailings). On-going source documentation since
the 2001 FS Report was completed has resulted in changes in the original inventory of
contaminant sources within the Upper Basin. The current inventory was developed by
adjusting the original inventory to reflect updated source and volume information. Table B-
2 lists updated total volumes of materials for each source waste type for both Elizabeth Park
and Pinehurst, including sediments; impounded tailings at both inactive and active
facilities; unimpounded tailings; waste rock with loading potential, upland waste rock with
little potential loading, and waste rock with loading potential at active facilities; and adit
drainages.
Allocation of pre-remediation cumulative loads to individual sources draws upon both
empirical data documenting upstream contaminant sources and source volumes as well as
professional judgment as to the RLP associated with individual sources. Table B-2 lists RLPs
for each waste type. For this FFS modeling, the RLP for each source was assigned, based on
professional judgment, as documented in the 2001 FS Predictive Analysis modeling efforts.
The RLPs as originally defined in the 2001 FS Predictive Analysis have been retained
without change. RLPs range between 0 and 1, with 1 meaning that the full source volume is
included in the adjusted volume cumulative sum.
The resulting cumulative pre-remediation load was then allocated among the individual
sources, based on the relative loading potential and volume per source, normalized by the
sum of relative loading and volume products across all sources. The ultimate result of this
step of the modeling is the attribution of the cumulative pre-remediation load to the
individual upstream contaminant sources. In reality, loading will be heavily influenced also
by the concentration of metals in the waste (which can vary considerably by site) and site
characteristics such as drainage (i.e. poorly drained sites yield relatively higher loading).
However, accounting for this variability would require a degree of site characterization that
is not yet available.
B-7
-------
APPENDIX B: PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
B.2.3 Post-Remediation Load Reduction
Changes in focus between the 2001 FS and the current FFS have required modifications to
the original PAT algorithm. First, the spatial coverage of the remedial alternatives in the two
feasibility studies differs in that the 2001 FS considered sources in the Upper and Lower
Basins, intentionally excluding sources within OU 2. Second, although groundwater
collection and treatment was considered for OU 3 in the 2001 FS, the original PAT did not
account for dissolved metals sources in OU 2, including groundwater. For this FFS,
contaminated groundwater from OU 2 and upstream from Elizabeth Park is being
considered in addition to the source contamination outside OU 2 that was considered in the
2001 FS.
In summary, adaptation of the PAT to account for differences between the 2001 FS and this
FFS represents not only a spatial expansion of where contaminant sources are found (to
include sources both outside and within OU 2), but also changes in the method of
accounting for the sources and their remediation when groundwater is a treatment option
for the remedial alternative. How these changes affect the current modeling effort is
described for non-groundwater sources and groundwater sources in Sections B.2.3.1 and
B.2.3.2., respectively.
B.2.3.1 Non-Groundwater Source Remedial Factors
Post-remediation load reductions of non-groundwater source loads depend upon relative
effectiveness of the remedial treatment proposed. Remediation factors (RFs) have been
developed for each of the remedial technologies in Alternatives 3+ and 4+ described in
Section 7.0 of this FFS Report. RFs for the various treatment technologies in each alternative
to be applied to the different waste types estimate how much of the pre-remediation loading
would remain following successful implementation of the alternative for each waste type.
That quantity, designated the post-remediation or residual load, is specific for each waste
type for each remedial alternative. RFs are, therefore, specific to both waste type and
remedial technology. RFs range in value from zero to one, with higher RFs corresponding to
reduced remedial effectiveness. Thus, for example, a no-action technology for a portion of a
source material volume would carry an RF value of 1.00. RFs for waste types and treatment
technologies that were previously defined as alternative options in the original FS modeling
have been retained in the current application of the PAT to the FFS alternatives.
Tables B-3 and B-4 list the Alternative 3+ and 4+ remedial actions for Elizabeth Park and
Pinehurst, respectively, including the volumes by type of action and alternative. Cumulative
volumes for the individual source types sum to the entries in Table B-2. Table B-5 lists RFs
for each of the remedial actions included in the alternatives. These RFs are applied
consistently across alternatives and modeled locations.
B.2.3.2 Groundwater Residual Load
The PAT algorithm was updated to account for groundwater-based actions in the post-
remediation load calculations in a manner that parallels other treatment technologies. Load
reduction estimates are based on expected value and variability in load reductions from
water-year transient model groundwater results specific to each OU 2 alternative and to the
actions identified for the Woodland Park area of Canyon Creek and the SFCDR French drain
and stream liner system between Wallace and Elizabeth Park.
B-8
-------
APPENDIX B: PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
Expected values and CVs for the five OU 2 alternatives and the two groundwater actions
upstream from Elizabeth Park (Woodland Park and the SFCDR drain/liner system) are
based on groundwater modeling, and the results are documented in Appendix A of this FFS
Report. Table B-6 summarizes modeled load reductions for these groundwater components,
including summary statistics used for model input estimates.
B.2.4 Post-Remediation Residual Load Aggregation
Re-aggregation of the post-remediation residual loads results in cumulative post-
remediation loads specific to each of the alternatives. The analytical methods used for the
summation are identical to the methods used in the original PAT developed in 2001,
requiring no changes in the original algorithm.
B.2.5 Post-Remediation AWQC
As described in Section B.1.2, Predictive Analysis outputs include post-remediation residual
loads that estimate the extent to which remedial actions are effective. Residual loads
normalized by load capacity are numerically comparable to AWQC ratios, and an AWQC
ratio equal to one means that residual loading equals loading capacity. To develop AWQC
ratios from the modeled residual loads requires an additional model parameter, load
capacity. Load capacity calculations applied in the 2001 Predictive Analysis have changed
based on a new site-wide AWQC values as described in Section B.2.5.1.
As described in Section B.l, load capacities depend on sample-specific AWQC and surface
water discharge. They are, therefore, sample-specific calculated values that are calculated
from empirical data. The AWQC that are applicable to the SFCDR have changed since the
2001 FS Report was completed. Since that time, site-specific AWQC for ecological protection
for the SFCDR basin have been developed by the State of Idaho and adopted by USEPA.
Therefore, the surface water AWQC applicable to the Upper Basin are SFCDR Subbasin-
Specific Criteria (Idaho Administrative Procedures Act [IDAPA] 58.01.02.284). Reference to
AWQC in this appendix refers to these standards.
The SFCDR-specific dissolved-zinc AWQC calculation is based on the following equation:
AWQCsFCDR-spedfic = e(o.6624 * in(hardness) + 2.2235) (micrograms per liter [|Jg/ L] )
The dissolved-zinc AWQC calculation that was applicable to the SFCDR in the 2001 FS
(based on State of Idaho regulations in place at that time)is provided as follows for
comparison:
AWQC2OOI = 0.986*e (0-8473 * ln(hardness) + 0.7614) (jj,g/L)
For fixed water hardness, the calculated SFCDR-specific AWQC is greater than the Idaho
criterion, resulting in a higher load capacity for the same discharge. For example, the range
of hardness observed at Elizabeth Park over the period 1987-2009 is between 12 and
146 mg/L. The corresponding Idaho AWQC ranges are between 17.3 and 47.9, whereas the
SFCDR AWQC range is between 108 and 200. The relationship between the two calculated
values is not linear, but over the range of hardness observed at Elizabeth Park, the SFCDR
AWQC is between 1.7 and 2.8 times greater than the original AWQC applied in 2001.
B-9
-------
APPENDIX B: PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
As shown under Load Capacity in Table B-l (bottom row), the dissolved zinc load capacity
expected values and CVs input for the Elizabeth Park and Pinehurst modeling are
287 lb/day (CV = 1.22) and 449 mg/L (CV = 1.08), respectively. As apparent in the table,
differences in loading capacity between the two locations are attributable to the reduced
discharge at Elizabeth Park as opposed to differences in surface water hardness that are
comparable over the post-remediation period.
B.3 Model Uncertainty Estimates
The Predictive Analysis quantified the uncertainty associated with the expected
performance of remedial alternatives in terms of post-remediation dissolved zinc loading,
F(t), and load ratios, Lr(t), which are numerically identical to AWQC ratios. The uncertainty
stems from unavoidably imperfect knowledge and includes both inherent natural variability
(aleatory uncertainty) of basin conditions and limited information (epistemic uncertainty)
on both Coeur d'Alene Basin conditions and future remedial performance.
The uncertainty was quantified by mathematically propagating the uncertainty of the input
variables, as measured by their coefficients of variation, through the Predictive Analysis
model (the PAT) to the output variables, F(t) and Lr(t) (URS Greiner, 2001, and URS, 2007).
The PAT output included both the expected value and coefficients of variation of each F(t)
and Lr(t) estimate (one estimate for each alternative and time step).
Based on statistical analysis and interpretation of historical (pre-remediation) loadings and
load ratios measured at BEMP monitoring locations , the uncertainty in the post-
remediation F(t) and Lr(t) estimates was assumed to following lognormal probability
distributions, consistent with historical BEMP data. A lognormal probability distribution
was thus associated with the expected value and coefficients of variation of each F(t) and
Lr(t) estimate.
For each estimate, its lognormal probability distribution (which includes the expected value
and coefficient of variation) represents a complete quantitative description of the
uncertainty of the estimate. The probability distribution can then be used to quantify the
expected accuracy and precision of the estimate using "probability intervals", or Pis, as
discussed in the following paragraphs. Pis are used for probabilistic estimates in the same
way as confidence intervals are used for estimates of statistical parameters.3
The accuracy of the F(t) and Lr(t) estimates was quantified by Pis, with the precision
quantified by the range of the interval. The higher the probability associated with the PI
(e.g., 80 percent or 90 percent), the more accurate the estimate, but the wider the interval,
meaning less precision. Conversely, higher precision means lower accuracy. For this
analysis, an 80% PI was calculated for each F(t) and Lr(t) estimate, consistent with the range
used for the 2001 FS (URS Greiner, 2001, URS, 2007). Each 80% PI is bounded on the high
end by the 90% nonexceedance (90% NE) estimate, and on the low end by the 10% NE
3 For example, for an 80 percent confidence interval (80% CI) on a statistical estimate for a population average,
the 80% CI would be bounded by the 90 percent upper confidence level (90% UCL) and 90 percent lower
confidence level (90% LCL). Because Predictive Analysis estimates are probabilistic, not statistical, "confidence
intervals" are replaced by "probability intervals" with UCLs and LCLs replaced by "nonexceedance" (NE)
estimates.
B-10
-------
APPENDIX B: PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
estimate. There is thus a nominal or estimated 80 percent probability (90% - 10%) that the
uncertain true value of the variable being estimated, F(t) or Lr(t), will lie within the 80% PI
of the estimate. There is a 10 percent probability that the true value will not exceed the 10%
NE and a 10 percent probability it will exceed the 90% NE.
B.4 Predictive Analysis Modeling Results
Results from the Predictive Analysis modeling at Elizabeth Park and Pinehurst with
implementation of the remedial alternatives evaluated in this FFS Report are presented in
Table B-7. Elizabeth Park results (found in the upper panel of the table) are limited to the No
Action Alternative, Alternative 3+ including groundwater treatment-based actions at
Woodland Park and along the Mainstem SFCDR segment between Elizabeth Park and
Wallace, and Alternative 4+ with groundwater-based actions limited to the SFCDR segment.
The Pinehurst results include the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 3+ and 4+, both
with and without OU 2 groundwater-based actions, Alternatives (a) through (e).
Table B-7 summarizes, for Alternatives 3+ (a) to (e) and 4+ (a) to (e), the remaining post-
remediation load (lb/day) with 80% PI intervals; the load reduction (lb/day) and percent
load reduction given initial cumulative load; and the resulting AWQC ratio for the residual
load, calculated based on remedy completion. As noted above, the results of the Predictive
Analysis have been used in this FFS Report to assist in the comparison of the potential
relative effectiveness among the remedial alternatives evaluated. Actual post-
implementation performance of remedial alternatives may deviate significantly from
predictions due to the inherent uncertainties in modeling, as reflected in the 80% PI intervals
presented along with the results.
B.5 References
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 2005. Superfund and Mining Megasites: Lessons from the
Coeur d'Alene River Basin.
URS. July 25, 2005. NAS Appendix F Error of Fact (EOF) Document. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 10.
URS. October 2007. Technical Memorandum: A Predictive Analysis for Post-Remediation Metal
Loading, Coeur d'Alene Basin RJ/FS. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10.
URS Greiner. September 2001. Technical Memorandum (Revision 1): Probabilistic Analysis of
Post-Remediation Metal Loading. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2001 (2001a). Final (Revision 2)
Feasibility Study Report, Coeur d'Alene Basin Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Prepared
by URS Greiner and CH2M HILL for EPA Region 10.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 29, 2001 (2001b). Coeur d'Alene
Basin Proposed Plan.
B-11
-------
APPENDIX B: PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). September 2002. Record of Decision, The
Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex Operable Unit 3.
B-12
-------
Figures
-------
-------
MODELING
PROCESS:
SURFACE
WATER
LOADING
ANALYTICAL
STEPS:
1. ESTIMATE
SURFACE WATER
LOADING
DATA
SOURCES:
USGS
EPA STORET\
LOADING
BY SOURCE
SOURCE
SOURCE
RELATIVE
VOLUME
LOADING
(VOL)
POTENTIAL
(RLP)
WASTE
RLP WASTE
ROCK
ROCK
^'ฆTAILINGS
ฆ
ฆ
ฆ
TAILINGS
ฆ
ฆ
I
ฆ
ฆ
ADITS
. I
ฆ
RLP
ADITS
REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVE 3+
REMEDIATION FACTOR (RF)
BY SOURCE
LOAD
WASTE ROCK
LOAD
TAILINGS
LOAD
ADITS
2. ALLOCATE LOADING
TO UPSTREAM SOURCES
PROFESSIONAL f
JUDGMENT \
( (I
FS SOURCE
VOLUME INVENTORY}
)
<
RF
3+, WASTE ROCK
RF
3+, TAILINGS
RF
3+, ADITS
GW
Note:
The natural source depletion component of the
model is not used in this FFS Report, as discussed
in Section B.1.1.
RESIDUAL
3+, WASTE
ROCK
RESIDUAL
3+, MODELED LOAD
REDUCTION
3. ESTIMATE RESIDUAL LOADING
FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
FS DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
DEFINITIONS
LOAD
VOL
RLP
Surface water dissolved metal loading [lb/day] RF
Waste Volume [cy] RESIDUAL
Relative Leaching Potential AWQCr
Remedial Factor
Load Remaining Post-Remedy
Ambient Water Quality Criterion Ratio
)
3+, GW
CUMULATIVE
RESIDUAL
LOADING
4. SUM
~ RESIDUAL
LOADING
ACROSS
SOURCES
at TQm.i
Time to
AWQCr = 1
5. PROJECT NATURAL
RECOVERY DUE TO
SOURCE DEPLETION
382081.F1.06.01,03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. B-1 PredidiveAnalysis_ModelSchematic_5May10.ai
Figure B-1
Predictive Analysis Model Schematic
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEm
i
-------
-------
Pre-Remediation
ฆ2.2875
ฉ Pre-Remediation: 1987-1995
ฆ Active Remediation: 1995-2002
A Post-Remediation: 2002-Present
Power (Pre-Remediation: 1987-1995)
ฆ ฆ Power (Active Remediation: 1995-2002)
^Power (Post-Remediation: 2002-Present)
4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50
LN Discharge [cfs]
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
Figure B-2
Elizabeth Park Dissolved Zinc vs. Discharge Over Time
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
-------
-------
O Pre-Remediation: 1987-1995
ฆ Active Remediation: 1995-2002
A Post-Remediation: 2002-Present
Power (Pre-Remediation: 1987-1995)
Power (Active Remediation: 1995-2002)
Power (Post-Remediation: 2002-Present)
4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50
LN Discharge [cfs]
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
Figure B-3
Pinehurst Dissolved Zinc vs. Discharge Over Time
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
-------
-------
3 r
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Dissolved Zinc Load (lb/day)
o>
o
-3
Probability Plot
J L
Post-Remediation Dissolved Zinc Load (lb/day)
Figure B-4
Elizabeth Park Loading: Comparison of Pre-Remediation,
Remediation, and Post-Remediation Distribution
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
-------
-------
5000
10000
J
15000
o>
o
Probability Plot
J I I i i i i
Dissolved Zinc Load (lb/day)
Post-Remediation Dissolved Zinc Load (lb/day)
Figure B-5
Pinehurst Loading: Comparison of Pre-Remediation,
Remediation, and Post-Remediation Distribution
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
-------
-------
Tables
-------
-------
TABLE B-1
Elizabeth Park and Pinehurst Predictive Analysis Tool Modeling Inputs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Elizabeth Park Pinehurst
Parameter Inputs
Record
Count
Expected
Value
Coefficient
of Variation
Model
Estimation
Error
Record
Count
Expected
Value
Coefficient
of Variation
Model
Estimation
Error
Pre-Remediation Load (lb/day)
50
1,260
0.94
-
51
2,285
1.21
-
OU 3 Upper Basin Load (lb/day)
-
-
-
-
50
1,424
1.50
-
OU 2 Groundwater Load (lb/day)
-
-
-
50
1,025
0.78
Groundwater Load Reduction (lb/day)
OU 2(a)
-
-
-
-
365
108
0.27
0.26
OU 2(b)
-
-
-
-
365
100
0.07
0.29
OU 2(c)
-
-
-
-
365
510
0.13
0.71
OU 2(d)
-
-
-
-
365
547
0.12
1.04
OU 2(e)
-
-
-
-
365
617
0.19
0.49
OU 3 (Woodland Park)
365
157
0.33
0.25
365
157
0.33
0.25
OU 3 (SFCDR Mainstem)
365
76
0.42
0.25
365
76
0.42
0.25
Load Capacity (lb/day)
50
287
1.22
51
449
1.08
Notes:
lb/day = pounds of dissolved zinc per day
OU = Operable Unit
SCFDR = South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE B-2
Total Source Volumes and Relative Loading Potential by Waste Type
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Estimated Relative
Pre-Adjusted Source Volume Loading Potential
(cy) (RLP)
Waste Type
Elizabeth Park
Pinehurst
Floodplain Sediments
6,500,000
6,800,000
1.000
Tailings, Impounded in Inactive Facilites
3,600,000
3,700,000
0.143
Tailings, Impounded in Active Facilites
6,000,000
6,000,000
0.143
Tailings, Unimpounded
1,100,000
1,300,000
0.404
Waste Rock with Loading Potential
6,400,000
7,100,000
0.059
Waste Rock, Upland (with Little Loading Potential)
3,200,000
4,400,000
0.003
Waste rock, with loading potential at active facilities
1,000,000
1,000,000
--
Adits (Equivalent to Floodplain Sediments)3
108
133
1.000
Notes:
aEstimated adits drainage (pounds of zinc per day) has been adjusted to cubic yards of sediment, based on a common RLP of 1.
cy = cubic yards
RLP = relative loading potential
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE B-3
Elizabeth Park Source Volume Inputs by Waste Type and Remedial Action
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Remedial Actions
Units
Alternative 3+
Alternative 4+
Floodplain Sediments
Total Materials
cy
6,500,000
6,500,000
Excavation/Disposal
cy
2,100,000
3,500,000
Hydraulic Isolation at Discrete Facilities
cy
1,200,000
920,000
Hydraulic Isolation of Stream Reaches
cy
0
150,000
No Action
cy
3,200,000
1,930,000
Potential Deeper Affected Sediment
cy
10,081,363
10,081,363
Tailings, Impounded at Inactive Facilities
Total Materials
cy
3,600,000
3,600,000
Cap or Regrade/Consolidate/Revegetate
cy
910,000
0
Excavation/Disposal
cy
13,000
3,600,000
No Action
cy
2,677,000
0
Tailings, Impounded at Active Facilities
Total Materials
cy
6,000,000
6,000,000
Hydraulic Isolation
cy
4,000,000
4,700,000
No Action
cy
2,000,000
1,300,000
No Action (Materials with Loading Potential)
cy
700,000
0
Tailings, Unimpounded
Total Materials
cy
1,100,000
1,100,000
Excavation/Disposal
cy
670,000
700,000
No Action
cy
430,000
400,000
Waste Rock with Loading Potential
Total Materials
cy
6,400,000
6,400,000
Regrade/Consolidate/Revegetate
cy
770,000
290,000
Cap
cy
3,900,000
0
Excavation/Disposal
cy
1,300,000
5,800,000
No Action
cy
430,000
310,000
Waste Rock, Upland (with Little Loading Potential)
Total Materials
cy
3,200,000
3,200,000
Regrade/Consolidate/Revegetate
cy
144,000
2,545,000
No Action
cy
3,056,000
655,000
Waste Rock with Loading Potential (at Active Facilities)
Total Materials
cy
1,000,000
1,000,000
No Action
cy
1,000,000
1,000,000
Adit Drainage
Total Load
lb/day
108
108
Notes:
cy = cubic yards; lb/day = pounds of dissolved zinc per day
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE B-4
Pinehurst Source Volume Inputs by Waste Type and Remedial Action
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Remedial Actions
Units
Alternative 3+
Alternative 4+
Floodplain Sediments
Total Materials
cy
6,800,000
6,800,000
Excavation/Disposal
cy
2,200,000
3,600,000
Hydraulic Isolation at Discrete Facilities
cy
1,200,000
920,000
Hydraulic Isolation of Stream Reaches
cy
0
150,000
No Action
cy
3,400,000
2,130,000
Potential Deeper Affected Sediment
cy
10,081,363
10,081,363
Tailings, Impounded at Inactive Facilities
Total Materials
cy
3,700,000
3,700,000
Cap or Regrade/Consolidate/Revegetate
cy
950,000
0
Hydraulic Isolation
cy
42,000
0
Excavation/Disposal
cy
13,000
3,700,000
No Action
cy
2,695,000
0
Tailings, Impounded at Active facilities
Total Materials
cy
6,000,000
6,000,000
Hydraulic Isolation
cy
4,000,000
4,700,000
No Action
cy
2,000,000
1,300,000
No Action (Materials with Loading Potential)
cy
700,000
0
Tailings, Unimpounded
Total Materials
cy
1,300,000
1,300,000
Cap
cy
56,000
0
Excavation/Disposal
cy
770,000
850,000
No Action
cy
474,000
450,000
Waste Rock with Loading Potential
Total Materials
cy
7,100,000
7,100,000
Regrade/Consolidate/Revegetate
cy
860,000
380,000
Cap
cy
4,000,000
20,000
Excavation/Disposal
cy
1,600,000
6,100,000
No Action
cy
640,000
600,000
Waste Rock, Upland (with Little Loading Potential)
Total Materials
cy
4,400,000
4,400,000
Regrade/Consolidate/Revegetate
cy
667,900
3,680,000
No Action
cy
3,732,100
720,000
Waste Rock with Loading Potential (at Active Facilities)
Total Materials
cy
1,000,000
1,000,000
No Action
cy
1,000,000
1,000,000
Adit Drainage
Total Load
lb/day
133
133
Notes:
cy = cubic yards
lb/day = pounds of dissolved zinc per day
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE B-5
Remediation Factor by Waste Type and Remedial Action
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Remedial Action
Estimated Remediation Factor
Floodplain Sediments
Excavation/Disposal
0.01
Hydraulic Isolation at Discrete Facilities
0.18
Hydraulic Isolation of Stream Reaches
0.25
No Action
1.00
No Action (Potential Deeper Affected Sediment)
1.00
Tailings, Impounded at Inactive Facilities
Cap + Hydraulic Isolation
0.03
Cap Only
0.05
Excavation/Disposal
0.01
Hydraulic Isolation
0.05
No Action
1.00
Tailings, Unimpounded
Cap
0.05
Excavation/Disposal
0.01
No Action
1.00
Waste Rock with Loading Potential
Cap
0.05
Excavation/Disposal
0.01
Regrade/Consolidate/Revegetate
0.46
No Action
1.00
Waste Rock, Upland (with Little Loading Potential)
Regrade/Consolidate/Revegetate
0.46
No Action
1.00
Waste Rock with Loading Potential (at Active Facilities)
No Action
1.00
Adit Drainage
Passive Load Treatment
0.11
Active Load Treatment
0.01
Load No Treatment
1.00
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE B-6
Groundwater Load Reductions for Treatment Alternatives with Groundwater Components
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Dissolved Zinc Load Reduction (lb/day)
Alternatives
Minimum
Maximum
Expected Value
Coefficient of
Variation
Standard
Deviation
OU 3 Alternatives
OU 3 Woodland Park
62.24
118.55
87
0.23
20
OU 3 SFCDR Drains - Wallace to Elizabeth Park
-24.93
114.78
77
0.42
32
OU 2 Alternatives
OU 2 (a)
62.95
186.96
108
0.27
30
OU 2 (b)
60.77
138.36
100
0.07
7
OU 2 (c)
189.89
633.16
510
0.13
67
OU 2 (d)
219.33
668.78
547
0.12
64
OU 2 (e)
34.39
855.02
617
0.19
117
Notes:
lb/day = pounds of dissolved zinc per day
OU = Operable Unit
SFCDR = South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE B-7
Summary of Predictive Analysis Results
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
At Remedy Completion
Post-
Remediation
Dissolved
Zinc Load
(lb/day)
80% Probability Interval on
Load Estimate
Dissolved Zinc Load
Reduction
AWQC Ratio
80% Probability Interval on
AWQC Estimate
Modeled Location/Alternative
Expected
Value
Lower
Upper
Pounds/Day
Percent
Expected
Value
Lower
Upper
Elizabeth Park
No Action Alternative3
1,260
330
2,540
5.5
2.9
8.6
Alt. 3+ (OU 3 Only)
513
90
1,120
744
59
1.9
1
3
Alt. 4+ (OU 3 Only)
432
75
940
825
66
1.6
0.8
2.6
Pinehurst
No Action Alternative3
2,290
433
4,910
5.2
2.8
8.1
Alt. 3+ (OU 3 Only)
1,450
267
3,140
833
36
3.3
1.8
5.1
Alt. 3+(a)
1,340
225
2,940
941
41
2.9
1.5
4.7
Alt. 3+(b)
1,350
227
2,960
933
41
3.0
1.5
4.7
Alt. 3+(c)
942
97
2,140
1,340
59
1.8
0.7
3.1
Alt. 3+(d)
905
84
2,060
1,380
60
1.7
0.6
2.9
Alt. 3+(e)
835
71
1,900
1,450
63
1.5
0.5
2.7
Alt. 4+ (OU 3 Only)
1,350
268
2,890
931
41
3.1
1.7
4.9
Alt. 4+(a)
1,250
223
2,700
1,040
45
2.8
1.5
4.4
Alt. 4+(b)
1,250
226
2,720
1,030
45
2.8
1.5
4.4
Alt. 4+(c)
844
90
1,910
1,440
63
1.6
0.7
2.8
Alt. 4+(d)
807
76
1,830
1,480
65
1.5
0.6
2.6
Alt. 4+(e)
737
63
1,680
1,550
68
1.3
0.5
2.4
Notes:
aThe dissolved zinc load and AWQC ratio for the No Action Alternative at each location are reflective of current conditions.
AWQC = ambient water quality criteria
OU = Operable Unit
lb/day = pounds of dissolved zinc per day
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
Attachment B-l
Mathematical Updates to Predictive Analysis
Implemented in PAT1
-------
-------
MEMORANDUM
Page 1 of 10
Mathematical Updates to Predictive Analysis
Implemented in PAT1
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
Rebecca Maco, PE, and Alta Turner, MS; CH2MHill
Chuck Vita, PhD, PE, GE; URS
March 8, 2010
The mathematical updates to the Predictive Analysis (PA) that were implemented in the Predictive
Analysis Tool spreadsheet PAT1 are documented in this memorandum. PAT1 was used to estimate
the performance of remedial alternatives, as discussed in the Draft FFS Report (CH2MHill 2010).
This memo supplements the FFS Report and builds on previous PA documents (URS 2007, 2002,
2001) that provide the basis and detailed description of the PA. Some opportunities for
improvements to the PA and PAT1 are also noted in this memo.
The PAT1 updates included the addition of pre-remediation loadings in the Box and load reductions
(LR) due to groundwater treatment (GWT) elements that were part of the remedial alternatives.
Also, a source depletion empirical beta calibration factor (beta factor) was added to the PA natural
recovery model. FFS Report Section 7 can be consulted for an overview and discussion of the
PAT1 updates and the analysis results.
The mathematical updates have treated post-remediation loads and AWQC ratios at time t=0 as
occurring immediately after the completion of active remediation and without explicit consideration
of the time associated with remedy implementation and any concurrent source depletion that would
occur during that implementation period. The current pre-remediation load and load capacity inputs
to PAT1 have been based on statistical analysis of historic monitoring data that do not account for
source depletion during a potential future period of remedy implementation. Correction for the
period of implementation would entail including a corresponding element of load reduction (by
source depletion) either as part of the remedy in effect at t=0 or by a corresponding reduction in the
pre-remediation load inputs. Absent correction, PAT1 results will be biased to higher loads and
AWQC ratios at time t=0 than would be expected in consideration of concurrent source depletion
during the period of remedy implementation.
Memo Structure and Organization
This memorandum is structured as follows. Table 1 lists and briefly describes the PA and PAT1
input variables. The input variables are estimated outside the PA and PAT1 based on analysis and
evaluation of available data and professional judgment. Table 2 lists and briefly describes the output
variables calculated by PAT1. The PA mathematical development follows Tables 1 and 2, starting
with post-remediation loading at time t=0, F, followed by the AWQC Ratio, Lr, and non-
exceedance estimates. Natural recovery by source depletion including the empirical calibration beta
factor completes the PA and PAT1 mathematical updates discussed in this memo.
Chuck Vita Paget of 10 5/5/2010
C:\My Files\CdA 2006-10\2009 CdAYPATs 2009\05Janl0 PATsVPA Math Update - Attach 1 Appen B.doc
-------
MEMORANDUM Math Updates to Predicative Analysis Implemented in PAT1
Page 2 of 10
Table 1.--PAT1 Input Variables
Variables Used in Mathematical Formulation
PAT1 Input Variables
Symbol
Description
Expected Values E[-] and Coefficients of Variation CV[-]
Lungwt
Pre-remediation Load from Upper Basin (SF268+PC) not including GWT.
Estimates based on statistical analysis of available historical monitoring data.
LRugwt
GWT Load Reduction in Upper Basin; varies with remedial alternative.
Estimates are based on GWM output.
Lbx
Pre-remediation Load from Box; independent of remedial alternative. Estimates
based on statistical analysis of available historical monitoring data.
LRbxgwt
GWT Load Reduction in Box; varies with remedial alternative. Estimates are
based on GWM output.
Cl
Loading capacity (CL= AWQC*Q) over water year. Estimates based on
statistical analysis of available historical monitoring data.
GWMEu
Groundwater model random estimation error (error) for LR estimates in the
Upper Basin. Measured by CV[GWMEu] with E[GWMEu]= 1.0. Assumed
independent of remedial alternative. Estimates based on professional judgment.
GWMEbx
Groundwater model random estimation error (error) for LR estimates in the
Box. Measured by CV[GWMEBx] with E[GWMEBx]=10. Assumed
independent of remedial alternative. Estimates based on professional judgment.
BF
Beta Factor used to calibrate P to empirical P estimates from statistical analysis
of available historic monitoring data.
Correlation Coefficients, p
PlnL,lnRo
p between the natural log (In) of Upper Basin pre-remediation loading, InL, and
the natural log of the aggregate remediation factor for upper basin remedial
action, lnR0. In PAT1, PimIjmr0 = "plnL,lnRo (t=0 only)" and is treated
independent of remedial alternative.
Pfu,fbx
p between Upper Basin post-remediation loading Fu and post-remediation Box
loading FBx- In PAT1, Pfu.fbx = "pBox Load, UB Load" (the same as "pUB
Load, Box Load" = Pfbx fu) and is treated independent of remedial alternative.
PFungwt,LRugwt
p between Upper Basin post-remediation loading without (no) groundwater
treatment, F, v,;\yt- and Upper Basin load reduction due to groundwater
treatment, LRUGWT. In PAT1, PFungwt,LRugwt = "pAlt3+ Load, 3+ GW LR" for
Alternative 3+ and "pAlt4+ Load, 4+ GW LR" for Alternative 4+.
PLBX,LRBXgwt
p between pre-remediation Box loading, LBX, and Box load reduction due to
groundwater treatment, LRBXgwt- In PAT1, Plbx,LRBXgwt = "pBox Load, Box GW
LR" and is treated independent of remedial alternative.
PlnF,lnCL
p between natural log of post-remediation loading, F, and load capacity CL. In
PAT1, PinF.inCL = "plnF,lnCL" and is treated independent of remedial alternative.
PlnFo,B
p between the natural log of the post-remediation loading, F0, and decay factor
"beta" p. In PAT1, p^B = "plnFo,exp{-Bt}." PAT1 treats PhFo.B as
independent of remedial alternative. See URS 2002 for further discussion.
Table 1 Notes. LR is used for load reductions due to GWT; the "GWT" and "gwt" subscripts could be deleted, but
are included for clarity. GWT = Groundwater Treatment. GWM = Groundwater Mode. PAT 1 could be modified to
make Piur Pfu.fbx, PLBx,LRBxgwt, or pinFo3 dependent on remedial alternative. In PAT1, PimUmr0 = "plnL,lnRo (t=0
only)"; Pfu.fbx = "pBox Load, UB Load"; PFmgwt,LRugwt = "pAlt3+ Load, 3+ GW LR" and "pAlt4+ Load, 4+ GW LR";
PLBx,LRBXgwt = "pBox Load, Box GW LR"; piM|..iM,;i. = "plnF,lnCL"; and piM|..h = "plnFo,exp{-Bt}."
Chuck Vita Page 2 of 10
C:\My Files\CdA 2006-10\2009 CdAYPATs 2009\05Janl0 PATsVPA Math Update - Attach 1 Appen B.doc
5/5/2010
-------
MEMORANDUM Math Updates to Predicative Analysis Implemented in PAT1
Page 3 of 10
Table 2.--PAT1 Calculated Variables
Variables Used in Mathematical Formulation
Symbol
Description
Expected Values E[-] and Coefficients of Variation CV[-]
Rungwt
Remediation factor of Upper Basin remedial actions. Estimates calculated from
PAT1 inputs for source type remediated volumes (including no action), Vij, and
corresponding remediation factors, Rij.
LR'
CV[LR'] only. CV[LR'] combines LR variability over the water year,
CV[LRugwt] or CV[LRBXgwtL and GWM model error, CV[GWMEu] or
CV[GWMEBx]-
Fu
Post-remediation load into the Box from the Upper Basin at SF268 plus Pine
Creek.
3
.2
Fbx
Post-remediation load from the Box, between SF268 and SF271, not including
Pine Creek.
C8
>
ฆa
F
Post-remediation load at SF271 or at SF268 by not including (1) Box loading or
groundwater treatment, and (2) Pine Creek loading or remedial actions.
"s
CJ
Lr
Post-remediation AWQC (Load) Ratio.
u
Non-Exceedance Estimates at Probability of Non-Exceedance "Pn"
H
<
a.
Fpn
Post-remediation loading F having probability of non-exceedance "Pn."
Pn=90% and 10% is used in PAT1.
LRPn
Post-remediation AWQC Ratio LR having probability of non-exceedance "Pn."
Pn=90% and 10% is used in PAT1.
Natural Recovery by Source Depletion: Loading and AWQC Ratio at Times t>0
F(t)
Post-remediation load at times t>0 that include natural recovery by source
depletion.
LR(t)
Post-remediation AWQC (Load) Ratio at times t>0 that include natural
recovery by source depletion.
F(t)pn
Post-remediation loading F(t) having probability of non-exceedance "Pn."
Pn=90% and 10% is used in PAT1.
LR(t)pn
Post-remediation AWQC Ratio having probability of non-exceedance "Pn."
Pn=90% and 10% is used in PAT1.
Chuck Vita Page 3 of 10
C:\My Files\CdA 2006-10\2009 CdAYPATs 2009\05Janl0 PATsVPA Math Update - Attach 1 Appen B.doc
5/5/2010
-------
MEMORANDUM Math Updates to Predicative Analysis Implemented in PAT1
Page 4 of 10
POST REMEDIATION LOAD AT SF271 AT TIME t=0
In this section all post-remediation loads are at time t=0. Time t=0 occurs immediately after the
completion of active remediation without explicit consideration of the time associated with remedy
implementation. The pre-remediation load inputs to PAT1 have been based on statistical analysis of
historic monitoring data that do not account for source depletion during a future period of remedy
implementation. While this simplification does not directly affect the mathematical development, it
would affect the meaning, and thus interpretation, of numerical results. A relatively simple
correction for the period of implementation would entail including a corresponding element of load
reduction (by source depletion) either as part of the remedy in effect at t=0 or by a corresponding
reduction in the pre-remediation load inputs. Absent correction, PAT1 results will be biased to
higher loads, and thus AWQC ratios, at time t=0 than would be expected in consideration of
concurrent source depletion during the period of remedy implementation.
L represents pre-remediation loads; F represents post-remediation loads. The subscript on F0 for
time t=0 has been suppressed to reduce notational complexity. Subscript "U" represents Upper
Basin (inflow to the Box) at SFCDR station SF268 plus Pine Creek inflow to the Box. Subscript
"BX" represents the Box between SF268 and SF271. Load reductions (LR) due to groundwater
treatment (GWT) were estimated using the groundwater model (GWM) documented in the FFS.
Symbol LR is used for load reductions that are due only to GWT. Subscript "UNGWT" represents
Upper Basin without (no) GWT; "UGWT" represents Upper Basin loadings with GWT.
E[LRugwt] and CV[LRugwt] are from the GWM. CV[LRugwt] represents natural variability of the
load reduction over the water year. CV[GWME] represents GWM model uncertainty. E[LRugwt]
and E[LRBxgwt] vary with each GWT alternative. GWT = Groundwater Treatment; GWM =
Groundwater Model.
Based on the math model for the post-remediation loading F expressed in the following Eq 1, the
expected value E[F] and variance V[F] and coefficient of variation CV[F], of post-remediation
loading were calculated as follows.
MATH MODEL
[1] F = Fu + Fbx
= Fu + (Lbx - LRbxgwt)
= (Lungwt*Rungwt - LRugwt) + (Lbx - LRbxgwt)
= (Fungwt - LRugwt) + (Lbx - LRbxgwt)
= Fungwt - LRugwt + Lbx - LRbxgwt
EXPECTED VALUES, E[-]
[2] E[F] = E[Fu + Fbx]
= E[Fu + (LBx - LRbxgwt)]
= E[(Lungwt*Rungwt - LRugwt) + (Lbx - LRbxgwt)]
Chuck Vita Page 4 of 10
C:\My Files\CdA 2006-10\2009 CdAYPATs 2009\05Janl0 PATsYPA Math Update - Attach 1 Appen B.doc
5/5/2010
-------
MEMORANDUM Math Updates to Predicative Analysis Implemented in PAT1
Page 5 of 10
- E[(Fungwt - LRugwt) + (Lbx - LRbxgwt)]
= E[Fungwt ~ LRugwt + Lbx - LRbxgwt]
= E[Fu] + E[Fbx]
= E[Fu] + (E[Lbx] - E[LRbxgwt])
= (E[Lungwt]*E[Rungwt]*^inL,inRo - E[LRugwt]) + (E[LBx] - E[LRBXGWt])
= E[Lungwt] *E[Rungwt] * ฃ2inL,inRo - E[LRugwt] + E[Lbx] - E[LRbxgwt]
= E[Fungwt] - E[LRugwt] + E[Lbx] - E[LRbxgwt]
Where: E[FunGWt] = E[LuNGWT]*E[RuNGWT]*ฃ2lnL,lnRo
^lnL,lnRo = exp{pinL,lnRo*[ln(CV[LuNGWT]2 + l)(ln(CV[RuNGWT]2 + l )] ' J
Note that the variable "exp" in PAT1 is Q2.
^lnL,lnRo exp{2*pinL,lnRo*[ln(CV[LuNGWT]2 + l)(ln(CV[RuNGWT]2 + l)]2};
ฃ2lnL,lnRo = exp{pinLJnRo*[hl(CV[LuNGWT]2 + l)(ln(CV[RuNGWT]2 + l )] '}
E[F] using only PAT1 Inputs:
E[F] = E[LuNGWT]*E[RuNGWT]*^inL,inRo - E[LRugwt] + E[Lbx] - E[LRbxgwt]
Expected Value for Upper Basin Loading before (no) GWT, Fungwt
E[FuNGWt] = E[LuNGWT]*E[RuNGWT]*^lnL,lnRo
Where: QinL,inRo = exp{pinL,inRo*[ln(CV[LuNGWT]2 + l)(ln(CV[RuNGWT]2+ l)]2}
CV[FuNGWt] = Sqrt{(CV[LuNGWT]2 + 1)(CV[RuNGWt]2+ l)]*^lnL,lnRo2 - 1}
V[Fungwt] = (CV[Fungwt]*E[Fungwt])2
= {(CV[LuNGWt]2 + 1)(CV[RuNGWt]2+ l)]*^lnL,lnRo2 - 1 } *E[FuNGWt]2
Expected Value for Upper Basin Loading, Fu
E[Fu] = E[Fungwt] - E[LRugwt]
Expected Value for Box Loading, FBx
E[Fbx] = E[Lbx] - E[LRbxgwt]
VARIANCE, V[-], AND COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION, CV[-]
[3] V[F] =V[Fu + FBx]
= V[Fu + (Lbx - LRbxgwt)]
= V[(Lungwt*Rungwt - LRugwt) + (Lbx - LRbxgwt)]
= V[(Fungwt - LRugwt) + (Lbx - LRbxgwt)]
= V[Fungwt - LRugwt + Lbx - LRbxgwt]
= V[Fu] + V[Fbx] + 2pfu,fbx(V[Fu]*V[Fbx])2
Chuck Vita Page 5 of 10
C:\My Files\CdA 2006-10\2009 CdAVPATs 2009\05Janl0 PATsVPA Math Update - Attach 1 Appen B.doc
5/5/2010
-------
MEMORANDUM Math Updates to Predicative Analysis Implemented in PAT1
Page 6 of 10
[4] CV[F] =V[F]1/2/E[F]
= Sqrt{V[Fu] + V[FBX] + 2PFUjFBx(V[Fu]*V[Fbx])1/2}/E[F]
Variance for Upper Basin Loading before (no) GWT, Fungwt
V[Fungwt] = (CV[Fungwt]*E[Fungwt])2
= {(CV[LuNGWt]2 + 1)(CV[RuNGWt]2+ l)]*^lnL,lnRo2 - 1 } *E[FuNGWt]2
Where: CV[Fungwt] = Sqrt{(CV[LuNGWT]2 + 1)(CV[Rungwt]2+ l)]*^inL,inR02 - 1}
Variances for Upper Basin Loading, Fu
V[Fu] = V[FuNGWt] + V[LRugWt'] - 2pFungwt,LRugwt(V[FuNGWT]*V[LRuGWT])/2
V[Fungwt] = {(CV[Lungwt]2 + 1)(CV[Rungwt]2+ l)]*^inL,inR02 - 1} *E[Fungwt]2
Where: QinLjnRo = exp{pinL,inRo*[ln(CV[LuNGWT]2 + l)(ln(CV[RuNGWT]2+ l)]2}
V[LRUGwt'] = {(CV[LRugwt]2 + l)(CV[GWMEu]2+ 1) - 1}*E[LRUGwt]2
Where: Q = 1.0 for Upper Basin LR and GWM assumed uncorrected, Plr,gwm = 0.0
CV[LRUGwt'] = {(CV[LRUGwt]2 + l)(CV[GWMEu]2+ 1) - 1}'/2
CV[LRugwt'] combines LR water-year variability, CV[LRugwt],
and GWM model error, CV[GWMEu].
Coefficient of Variation for Upper Basin Loading, Fu
CV[Fu] = Sqrt{V[Fu]}/E[Fu]
= Sqrt{V[FuNGWT] + V[LRugWt] - 2pFungwt,LRugwt(V[FuNGWT]*V[LRuGWT])/2}/E[Fu]
Variances for Box Loading, FBx
V[Fbx] = V[Lbx] + V[LRbxGWt'] - 2pLBX,LRBXgwt(V[LBx]*V[LRBXGWT']) 2
= (CV[Lbx]*E[Lbx])2 + (CV[LRbxgwt']*E[LRbxgwt])2
- 2pLBx,LRBXgwt(C V[Lbx] *E[Lbx] *C V[LRbxgwt' ] *E[LRbxGWt])
Where: Q = 1.0 for Box LR and GWM assumed uncorrected, Plr,gwm = 0.0
CV[LRbxgwt'] = {(CV[LRbxgwt]2 + l)(CV[GWMEBx]2+ 1) - 1}'/2
Chuck Vita Page 6 of 10 5/5/2010
C:\My Files\CdA 2006-10\2009 CdAVPATs 2009\05Janl0 PATsVPA Math Update - Attach 1 Appen B.doc
-------
MEMORANDUM Math Updates to Predicative Analysis Implemented in PAT1
Page 7 of 10
CV[LRBxgwt'] combines LR water-year variability, CV[LRBxgwt],
and GWM model error, CV[GWMEBx]-
Coefficient of Variation for Box Loading, FBx
CV[Fbx] = Sqrt{V[FBx]}/E[Fbx]
= Sqrt{V[LBx] + V[LRbxgwt'] - 2pLBx,LRBxgwt(V[LBx]*V[LRBXGWT']) 2}/E[FBx]
As stated, the pre-remediation load inputs to PAT1 have been based on statistical analysis of
historic monitoring data that do not account for source depletion during a potential future period of
remedy implementation. A relatively simple to implement correction for the period of
implementation would be to include a corresponding element of load reduction (by source
depletion) either as part of the remedy in effect at t=0 or by a corresponding reduction in the pre-
remediation load inputs. Absent correction, PAT1 results will be biased to higher loads and AWQC
ratios at time t=0 than would be expected in consideration of concurrent source depletion during the
period of remedy implementation.
AWQC (LOAD) RATIO, Lr
Based on the relationship for the AWQC (or load) ratio, Lr, expressed in the following Eq 1, where
Cl is the load capacity, the expected value and coefficient of variation of the load ratio, E[Lr] and
CV[Lr], were calculated as follows:
[1]
Lr
F/Cl
[2]
E[Lr] =
E[F](l+CV[CL]2)QinF,inCL / E[Cl]
[3]
CV[Lr]=
{(CV[F]2+l)(CV[CL]2+l)QinF,inCL2-l}1/2
where: OinF,inCL- exp {- PtaFjnCLj ln(C V[F]2+1 )ln(C V[CL]2+1) }1/2 }
Because F varies with remedial alternative, so does Lr. Load capacity Cl is treated as independent
of remedial alternative and estimated from available historic monitoring data.
NON-EXCEEDANCE ESTIMATES
Non-exceedance estimates are denoted with subscript "Pn" the non-exceedance probability. Pn is
the nominal probability that the uncertain true value of the variable (say, loading F) does not exceed
the non-exceedance estimate (say FPn). Equivalently, Pn is the probability that the non-exceedance
estimate overestimates the true value, and is thus not an underestimate. The complement of the
Chuck Vita Page 7 of 10
C:\My Files\CdA 2006-10\2009 CdAYPATs 2009\05Janl0 PATsYPA Math Update - Attach 1 Appen B.doc
5/5/2010
-------
MEMORANDUM Math Updates to Predicative Analysis Implemented in PAT1
Page 8 of 10
non-exceedance probability, 1-Pn, is the probability that the uncertain true value of the variable
does exceed the non-exceedance estimate or, equivalently, that non-exceedance estimate is an
underestimate of the true value.
The non-exceedance estimate are given by the following equations, where upn is the standardized
normal variate corresponding to Pn. The values calculated in PAT1 are the 10% and 90% non-
exceedance values, for which upn = 1.28.
Non-Exceedance Estimates of Post-Remediation Loading
[1]
F pn =
E[F]
expjupn ln(CV[F] 2+l)1/2} / (CV[F] 2+l)1/2
[2]
F 90% =
E[F]
exp{1.28 ln(CV[F] 2+l)1/2} / (CV[F] 2+l)1/2
[3]
Fio% =
E[F]
exp{-1.28 ln(CV[F] 2+l)1/2} / (CV[F] 2+l)1/2
Non-Exceedance Estimates of the Load Ratio
[4]
LrPn =
E[Lr]
[5]
Lr9o% =
E[Lr]
[6]
Lrio% =
E[Lr]
vl/2-ป / /^T,rT 2 , inI/2
U/2-> / tT*\ ttt n 2 , in 1/2
vl/2-ป / ^,,rr 2 , 1 \l/2
LOADS & AWQC RATIO AT TIME t>0
NATURAL RECOVER BY SOURCE DEPLETION
Post-remediation loading at SF271 for time t>0, F(t), was estimated from the post-remediation
loading at t=0, F, by decaying that loading over time using the source depletion model developed in
URS 2001. Two aggregate decay rates "(3" are needed: one for the Upper Basin, (3u, and one for the
Box, Pbx- To simplify the analysis, and to a tractable first approximation, (3bx was set to (3u with
the composite beta symbolized as "(3." The mathematics implemented in PAT1 is as follows.
[1] F(t) = Fu(t) + FBX(t)
= Fu*exp{-(3ut} +FBx(t)*exp{-(3Bxt}
= F*exp{-(3t}
[2] E[F(t)] = E[F*exp{-(3t}]
= E[F]*E[exp{-(3t}]*QinFo,p
[3] CV[F(t)] = {(CV[F]2 + l)*(CV[exp{-(3t}]2 + 1}*QiFo/ - 1}
1/2
^inFo,p = exp{-pinFo p{ln(CV[F]Z + l)*ln(CV[exp{-(3t}]z + 1}1/2 }
Chuck Vita Page 8 of 10
C:\My Files\CdA 2006-10\2009 CdAVPATs 2009\05Janl0 PATsVPA Math Update - Attach 1 Appen B.doc
5/5/2010
-------
MEMORANDUM Math Updates to Predicative Analysis Implemented in PAT1
Page 9 of 10
The greatest single source of uncertainty for the composite (3 is (3bx, the "Box beta," which could
also vary with Box GWT alternative. It is recommended that any future update to the PA make the
uncertainty in (3bx explicit and separate from the uncertainty in (3u. Relevant discussion on this
issue can be found in Section B.3.5.2. of URS 2001 and 2007, which should be updated if (3bx is
made explicit from (3u in PAT1. Updating PAT1 for separate (3bx and (3u is an easy modification.
AWQCR at Time t>0, Lr(t)
Mathematically, the AWQC Ratio over time, Lr(t), follows from F(t); that is:
Non-exceedance estimates use the previous equations with F(t) substituted for F and Lr(t)
substituted for Lr.
Source Depletion Factor and Decay Rate
Source depletion factors exp{-(3t}, needed to estimate F(t), were estimated at selected times "t"
based on the following relationships, where PDF[(3] is the (lognormal) probability density function
of the natural recovery decay rate (3. PDF[(3] represents both parameter uncertainty in (3 and model
uncertainty in the source depletion factor exp{-(3t} as they affect F(t), including effects of natural
variability.
For a given time, t, the integrals on the right sides of Eqs 6 and 7 were numerically approximated as
detailed in URS 2001 and 2007. PDF[(3] depends on E[(3] and CV[|3], calculated as follows, where
estimates for E[L\ and CV[Z] and E[TEM'] and CV[TEM'] are detailed in URS 2007 Section
B.2.2.2. The (model-based) decay rate (3 is updated to |3" by the empirical "Beta Factor, BF."
[5] CV[Lr(t)]
[4] E[Lr(t)]
E[F(t)](l+CV[CL]2)QnF,incL / E[Cl]
{ (C V[F(t)]2+1 )(C V[CL]2+1 )OlnF,lnCL2 " 1 }^
[6] E[exp{-(3t}] = /0toปexp{-Pt}*PDF[P],,'dP
[7] CV[exp{-pt}] = V[exp{-pt}]1/2/E[exp{-pt}]
{/0toป (exp{-pt})2*PDF[p]*dp-E[exp{-pt}]2}1/2/E[exp{-pt}]
[8] p
BF*(Z/(TEM')
BF*(E[Z](1+CV[TEM']2)Q / E[TEM'])
{(CV[Z]2+1)(CV[TEM']2+1)Q2(CV[M]2+1) - 1}1/2
[9] E[P"]
[10] CV[P"]
Chuck Vita Page 9 of 10
C:\My Files\CdA 2006-10\2009 CdAVPATs 2009\05Janl0 PATsVPA Math Update - Attach 1 Appen B.doc
5/5/2010
-------
MEMORANDUM Math Updates to Predicative Analysis Implemented in PAT1
10
Page 10 of
CV[p]
exp{-p {ln(CV[Lf+1 )ln(C V[TEM' ]2+1) }1/2 }
= 1.00 for p = pinLJnTEM' = 0.0
= Source Depletion model uncertainty,
CV[M]=0.5 was used in the analysis
= Beta Factor.
Note: In PAT1, BF operates through the "B update factor" which is the
reciprocal of BF, 1/BF, that multiplies TEM' to reduce the "total effective
metal mass available for leaching" and thus increase the effective "updated"
beta, P", as represented in these equations. The PAT1 "B update factor" =
1/BF as represented here. The physical meaning of BF is that it reduces
TEM' by the factor 1/BF, consistent with empirical beta. TEM' is a very
uncertain variable that cannot be measured directly, unlike the yearly average
load L. The BF is therefore meant to modify TEM', not /., to effect an
empirically updated estimate of P, P".
The beta factor "BF" was used to calibrate P, and thus E[P] and PDF[P], to empirical P estimates
from statistical analysis of available historic monitoring data. Empirically, P appears to vary to
some extent with the discharge level and time period, although there is significant measurement
noise and natural variability in the data. Nevertheless, with judgment, the BF can be used (as a tool)
to investigate potential discharge effects and their implications, including natural recovery trends
and projections for load and AWQC ratio at lower and higher discharge levels.
To reiterate, the greatest single source of uncertainty for t>0 projections at SF271 is (3bx, the "Box
beta." It is recommended that any future update to the PA make the uncertainty in (3bx explicit and
separate from the uncertainty in (3u. (Some relevant discussion on this issue can be found in Section
B.3.5.2. of URS 2001 and 2007). Updating PAT1 for separate (3bx and (3u is an easy modification.
CITED REFERENCES
CH2MHill 2010. Focused Feasibility Study Report, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River,
Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex Superfund Site. Draft Report prepared for U. S.
EPA. February 2010.
URS 2007. A Predictive Analysis for Post-Remediation Metal Loading, Coeur d'Alene Basin RI/FS
Technical Memorandum. Prepared for U.S. EPA. October 2007.
URS 2002. "Draft Selected Remedy and Ecological Alternatives 1 through 6, Updated Probabilistic
Estimates for the SFCDR at Pinehurst (SF271) and the CDR at Harrison (LC60)," Memo to Coeur
d'Alene Project File. May 29, 2002.
URS 2001. Probabilistic Analysis of Post-Remediation Metal Loading, Technical Memorandum
(Revision 1). Prepared for U.S. EPA. September 2001.
oOo
Q
CV[M]
BF
Chuck Vita Page 10 of 10
C:\My Files\CdA 2006-10\2009 CdAYPATs 2009\05Janl0 PATsYPA Math Update - Attach 1 Appen B.doc
5/5/2010
-------
APPENDIX C
Typical Conceptual Design (TCD) Schematics
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
Typical Conceptual Design (TCD) Schematics
This appendix provides schematics of the typical conceptual designs (TCDs) that were used
to develop the remedial alternatives for the Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River during
the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS). Detailed descriptions of each TCD can be found in
Section 5.0 of the FFS Report. The schematics are listed below and organized by Source
Control TCDs (Figures C-l through C-10); Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management
TCDs (Figures C-ll through C-20); Water Treatment TCDs (Figures C-21 through C-24); and
Stream and Riparian Cleanup Action TCDs (Figures C-25 through C-31). No separate
schematics are provided for Human Health TCDs because existing TCD schematics visually
represent these TCDs; details are provided in Section 5.4.1.
Source Control TCDs
C-l Excavation, TCDs C01 and COlb
C-2 Regrade/Consolidate/Re vegetate, TCDs C02a through C02c
C-3 Low-Permeability Cap, TCD C03
C-4 Low-Permeability Cap with Seepage Collection, TCD C04
C-5 Low-Permeability Cap with Erosion Protection, TCD C05
C-6 Waste Consolidation Area with Erosion Protection, TCD C06
C-7 Waste Consolidation Area Above Flood Level, TCD C07
C-8 Repository, TCD C08a
C-9 Impoundment Closure, TCD C09
C-10 Haul to Repository, TCD HAUL-2
Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management TCDs
C-ll Adit Drainage Collection, TCD CIO
C-12 Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry Wall, TCDs Clla through Cllj
C-13 Stream Lining, TCDs C14a through C14c
C-14 French Drain, TCDs C15a through C15d
C-15 Extraction Well, TCDs C17a through C17e
C-16 SFCDR Diversion, TCD C18
C-l7 1-90 Crossing, TCD C19
C-1
-------
APPENDIX C: 1BTYPICAL CONCEPTUAL DESIGN (TCP) SCHEMATICS
C-18 Check Dam, TCD C20
C-19 Gravity Pipeline and Pressurized Pipeline, TCDs PIPE-1 through -4 and PRESSURE-
PIPE-1 through -4
C-20 Pump Station, TCDs PUMP-1 through PUMP-5
Water Treatment TCDs
C-21 Centralized High-Density Sludge (HDS) Treatment at Central Treatment Plant
(CTP), TCD WT01
C-22 Onsite Semi-Passive Water Treatment Using Lime Addition and Settling Pond(s),
TCD WT02
C-23 Onsite Semi-Passive Water Treatment Using Sulfate-Reducing Bioreactor (SRB)
System, TCD WT03
C-24 In Situ Semi-Passive Groundwater Treatment Using Sulfate-Reducing Permeable
Reactive Barrier (SR-PRB), TCDs WT04a and WT04b
Stream and Riparian Cleanup Action TCDs
C-25 Current Deflectors, TCD CD-AVG
C-26 Current Deflectors, Sediment Traps, TCD CD-SED
C-27 Vegetative Bank Stabilization, TCD VBS-AVG
C-28 Bioengineered Revetments, TCD BSBR-AVG
C-29 Floodplain and Riparian Replanting, TCD FP/RP-AVG
C-30 Off-Channel Hydrologic Features, TCD OFFCH-AVG
C-31 Channel Realignment, TCD CH-REAL-1
C-2
-------
Figures
-------
-------
TCD C01. Excavation (Dry)
Waste Pile
TCD C01b. Excavation (60% Dry/40% Wet)
This figure shows the 40% wet excavation (below the water table). The
figure for TCD C01 shows the 60% dry excavation (above the water table).
Material Below Water Table
DEWATERING TRENCH INFILTRATION TRENCH
Note: These typical conceptual designs (TCDs) were developed for
feasibility-level analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be
developed during remedial design based on the selected remedy and
site-specific conditions and requirements.
NOT TO SCALE
Figure C-1
Excavation, TCDs C01 and C01b
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
382081.F1.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-1 TCDs C01 and C016 Excavation.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
f/EPA
-------
-------
LEGEND
Existing Slope
Regraded Slope
/ /V
Cut
Fill
Surface Drainage
as Needed
COVER DETAIL
ฆ Topsoil of Manufactured
Growth Medium
Waste
Rock
Regrade/Consolidate Above Flood Plain
Notes:
1. C02a assumes waste rock piles are on slopes.
2. C02b assumes waste rock pile has filled stream valley.
3. C02c assumes slope too steep and requires regrade. Riprap placed
below floodplain to limit erosion.
This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
NOT TO SCALE
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-2 TCDs C02a through C02c.ai . 4/15/10 . dk
Figure C-2
Regrade/Consolidate/Revegetate,
TCDs C02a through C02c
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
-------
-------
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
NOT TO SCALE
Figure C-3
Low-Permeability Cap, TCD C03
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-3TCDsC03 Low-Permeability Cap.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
-------
-------
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
NOT TO SCALE
382081.F1.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-4TCD C04 Low-Permeability Cap.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
Figure C-4
Low-Permeability Cap with
Seepage Collection, TCD C04
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
oEFft
-------
-------
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for
feasibility-level analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be
developed during remedial design based on the selected remedy and Figure C-5
site-specific conditions and requirements. Low-Permeability Cap with
Erosion Protection, TCD C05
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
NOT TO SCALE
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-5TCD C05 Low-Permeability Cap.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
HEPA
-------
-------
Topsoil or Manufactured
Growth Medium
16 oz.Geotextile
Drainage Layer
Geosynthetic Clay Liner
GROUNDWATER
DIVERSION
16 oz.Geotextile
Drainage Layer
16 oz.Geotextile
Low-Permeability Native Soil
(#10-6 cm/sec)
Rock pad - as needed
to elevate waste above
groundwater
Nominal
100-year
flood level
Ordinary
high-water
level
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD)
was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives.
Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the remedy
selected in the ROD and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
Cap (see detail above)
Waste
TOE DRAIN DETAIL
As required for
flood protection
(with bioengineering
as needed)
ROCK PAD DETAIL
See Detail Above
Collect and discharge 60mil - FML
NOT TO SCALE
Figure C-6
Waste Consolidation Area with
Erosion Protection, TCD C06
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-6 onsite repository with erosion protection, TCD C06.ai. 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
-------
-------
TOE DRAIN DETAIL
Topsoil or Manufactured
Growth Medium
16 oz. Geotextile -
Drainage Layer
Geosynthetic Clay Liner
Low-Permeability Native Soil
60mil - FML
GROUNDWATER DIVERSION DETAIL
Free-Draining
I#
N
bravei dqcktiii
I
I
Silt Barrier
< 60mil FML
Geotextile
Regolith
Perforated
!p
PVC Pipe
1
J Bedrock
Discharge to Surface
Drainage System
ROCK PAD DETAIL
16-oz. Geotextile
Drainage Layer
16-oz. Geotextile
Low-Permeability Native Soil
(#10"6 cm/sec)
Rock Pad - as Needed
to Elevate Waste Above
Groundwater
Waste
,r
Varies
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
NOT TO SCALE
Figure C-7
Waste Consolidation Area
Above Flood Level, TCD C07
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
382081. F1.06.01.03_Bun kerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-7 TCD C07 Vtoste Consolidation Area Above Flood Level.ai. 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
-------
-------
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
NOT TO SCALE
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-8TCDC08 Regional Repository.ai . 4/15/10 . dk
Figure C-8
Repository, TCD C08a
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
HEPA
-------
-------
CAP DETAIL
TOE DRAIN DETAIL
3 S
j
Cap, see detail
Berm Material
Free-Draining
Gravel
/ Discharge to
Surface Drainage System
Topsoil or Manufactured
Growth Medium
16-oz. Geotextile -
Drainage Layer
Geosynthetic
Clay Liner
Existing Sideslope
Regrade to 3H:1V
or Flatter and Cap
PERIMETER
GROUNDWATER BARRIER
Provide Hydraulic Isolation (TCD C11)
where Native Soil Consists of
Contaminated Sediments
Low-Permeability Layer
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
NOT TO SCALE
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-9TCDC09 Impoundment Closure.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
Figure C-9
Impoundment Closure, TCD C09
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEFA
-------
-------
NOT TO SCALE
Figure C-10
Haul to Repository,
TCD HAUL-2
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-10 TCDs Haul-2.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
ปERA
-------
-------
6' typ
Bat Gate
(Steel Bars)
T
3'typ
Drainage collected and piped to
active treatment plant (high metals
loading sources) or conveyed to
passive treatment system (small
or remote sources)
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
NOT TO SCALE
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-11 TCD C10 Adit Drainage Collection.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
Figure C-11
Adit Drainage Collection, TCD C10
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
ปvEFtt
-------
-------
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
NOT TO SCALE
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-12TCD C11 Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry Wall.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
Figure C-12
Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry Wall,
TCDs C11 a through C11 j
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
iiepa
-------
-------
EXISTING CHANNEL
Notes: NOT TO SCALE
1. Remove and stage existing riprap.
2. Excavate 2 ft below existing channel bottom.
PVC LINER
GRAVEL (1 ft)
SAND (1 ft)
CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL
NOT TO SCALE
Notes:
1. Sand layer 1 ft placed over native materials.
2. PVC liner placed over sand and keyed into anchor trench.
3. Gravel placed over PVC liner.
4. Geotextile placed over gravel layer and keyed into anchor trench.
5. Staged riprap placed over geotextile.
6. Channel width:
C14a: 10 ft
C14b: 20 ft
C14c: 100 ft
This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-13TCD C14Typical Channel Liner.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
Figure C-13
Stream Lining,
TCDs C14a through C14c
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
#EPA
-------
-------
CLEAN OUT VAULT ON
1,000 FOOT CENTERS
TO PUMP STATION
OR TREATMENT
FACILITY
GRANULAR BEDDING
FILTER
Notes:
1. TCD assumes drains are installed to a depth of 5 feet below the water table.
2. Drain depths range from 10-25 ft below ground surface.
This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-14TCD C15Typical French Drain.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
Figure C-14
French Drain,
TCDs C15a through C15d
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
ซEPA
-------
-------
SO'
UIN
extraction
WELL
TO
TREATMENT
EXTRACTION
WELL
Notes:
1. Well depths range from 20-70 ft.
2.15 ft screen intervals.
This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
Figure C-15
Extraction Well,
TCDs C17a through C17e
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-15 TCD C17 Typical Groundwater Extractioin Wells.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
-------
-------
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
NOT TO SCALE
Figure C-16
SFCDR Diversion, TCD C18
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-16 TCD C18_SFCDR Diversion.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
-------
-------
Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry
Separate TCD
Notes:
1-90 would be compromised for hydraulic isolation using
slurry wall installation. Two lanes of 1-90 (eastbound or westbound)
would be compromised at one time.
This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
NOT TO SCALE
Figure C-17
I-90 Crossing, TCD C19
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-17TCD C19J-90 Crossing.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
-------
-------
Mine
Water
Flow
Tunnel
HT
Check
Dam
PLAN VIEW
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-18 Tunnel Seal, TCD C20.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
Mine Water
t "
Check
Dam
SECTION VIEW
Figure C-18
Check Dam, TCD C20
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEPA
-------
-------
TCDs PIPE-1 through PIPE-4
Facility
Notes:
Pipe-1: 6-inch diameter pipe
Pipe-2: 12-inch diameter pipe
Pipe-3: 24-inch diameter pipe
Pipe-4: 36-inch diameter pipe
TCDs PRESSURE-PIPE-1 through PRESSURE-PIPE-4
Valve Vault on
1,000 Foot Centers
Notes:
Pressure-Pipe-1: <6-inch diameter pipe
Pressure-Pipe-2: 6-14 inch diameter pipe
Pressure-Pipe-3: >14-inch diameter pipe
Pressure-Pipe-4: 3-inch diameter vertical pipe
These typical conceptual designs (TCDs) were developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
NOT TO SCALE
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-19 TCDs Pipe 1-3 & Pipe 1-4.ai . 5/24/10 . dk
Figure C-19
Gravity Pipeline and Pressurized
Pipeline, TCDs PIPE-1 through -4
and PRESSURE-PIPE-1 through -4
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
#EPA
-------
-------
TCD PUMP-1
Note:
Pump station capacity is 0.14 MGD.
Pump to be submersible pump (constant speed or float controlled).
The pump should be able to handle some grit, sand, and debris
TCDs PUMP-2 through PUMP-5
To Treatment
Facility
French Drain
Confining Unit
Notes:
Pump station capacity ranges from 1.4 to 6.5 MGD.
Lower Aquifer
Stainless-Steel
Pumps
These typical conceptual designs (TCDs) were developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
Pump to be submersible pump (constant speed or float controlled).
The pump should be able to handle some grit, sand, and debris
NOT TO SCALE
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-20 Pump Stations, TCDs PUMP-1 through PUMP-5.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
Figure C-20
Pump Station, TCDs PUMP-1
through PUMP-5
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEPA
-------
-------
*-
Discharge to Sludge Pond at the
Central Impoundment Area
Waste Sludge
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-21 Central Treatment Plant Flow Schematic.ai . 4/15/10 . dk
-Or
Polymer
Vซ-
Makeup
Polymer Feed Pump
(Flocculant)
Thickener
Thickener Overflow (Supernatant)
Thickener Underflow (Sludge)
Granular Media
Filtration System
Sludge Recycling
& Wasting Pumps
Effluent
Discharge to
Bunker Creek
Figure C-21
Centralized High-Density Sludge
(HDS) Treatment at Central Treatment
Plant (CTP), TCD WT01
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEFtt
-------
-------
M = Valve
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-22 Semi-Passive Lime Flow Schematic.ai . 4/15/10 . dk
Emergency Channel
Optional Bypass
Optional Bypass
Settling Pond 1
100 ft.
Settling Pond 2
Effluent
50 ft. Channel
Figure C-22
Onsite Semi-Passive Water
Treatment Using Lime Addition,
TCD WT02
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEPA
-------
-------
Emergency Channel
Optional Bypass
Influent
100 ft. Pipe
100 ft. Pipe
Optional Bypass
SRB-2
Aeration
Aerobic Polishing
Pond
Wetland
Effluent
50 ft. Channel
: Valve
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-23 Ex Situ Treatment.ai . 5/24/10 . dk
Figure C-23
Onsite Semi-Passive Water Treatment
Using Sulfate-Reducing Bioreactor (SRB)
System, TCD WT03
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
ฎBฅV
-------
-------
7.5'
75% Stable Waste Low-Permeability Layer
25% Lime
Figure C-24
In Situ Semi-Passive Groundwater
Treatment Using Sulfate-Reducing
Permeable Reactive Barrier (SR-PRB),
TCDs WT04a and WT04b
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
f/EPA
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-24 In Situ Groundwater Treatment.ai . 5/24/10 . dk . Iw
-------
-------
Cross-Sectional Detail
PLAN VIEW
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
Figure C-25
Current Deflectors, TCD CD-AVG
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
NOT TO SCALE
&EPA
382081.F1.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-25 Current Deflectors, TCD CD-AVG.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
Whdrc, h
-------
-------
PLAN VIEW
Notes:
CD-SED includes addition of sediment traps.
This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
NOT TO SCALE
Figure C-26
Current Deflectors, Sediment Traps,
TCD CD-SED
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SEPA
382081.Fl.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-26 Current Deflectors, Sediment Traps, TCD CD-SED.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
-------
-------
CROSS SECTION
MEAN HIGH WATER
(TOP
TOP OF BANK
RIPRAP
- STATIC
WATER
LEVEL
ENDS REACH
STATIC WATER
JOINT PLANTED FASCINE
LIVE POST
STAKE
MEAN LOW
WATER ELEVATION
BACKFILL WITH SOIL
SUITABLE FOR PLANT GROWTH.
VERTICAL SPACING VARIES
DEPENDENT UPON BANK HEIGHT
TOE TREATVE
NOT SHOWN
p^ 1/4 j
|varie:s 1-2.5 m|-
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
NOT TO SCALE
Figure C-27
Vegetative Bank Stabilization,
TCD VBS-AVG
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
SERA
382081.F1.06.01.03_BurikerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-27 Vegetative Bank Stabilization, TCD VBS-AVG.ai. 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
-------
-------
COIR GEOCRID
TOP OF BANK
(PLANT WITH UVE STAKES AND LIVE POSTS)
STAKED FASCINE
UVE STAKE
UVE CUTTINGS
1.5-2.5 M
5MAN ROCK
/S NEEDED
FISH BOULDER
(5MAN ROCK)
TOE OF BANK PRO TEC VON
RIPRAP SIZED FOR
SITE CONDITIONS
EXCAVATE OR DRIVE LOG INTO BANK
(POINT END AS NEEDED)
LONG LOG WITH ROOTS.
TRENCH AND INSTALL UMBED LOG BOLE 3.5-5 M. MINIMUM
DISTANCE INTO BANK BELOW EXISTING MEAN HIGH WATER.
ANCHOR WITH FISH BOULDERS. EPOXY AND WIRE ROPE
CABLE. OR DRIVEABLE ANCHORS.
CROSS-SECTION
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
Figure C-28
Bioengineered Revetments,
TCD BSBR-AVG
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
NOT TO SCALE
SEPA
382081.F1.06.01.03_BurikerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-28 Bioengineered Revetments, TCD BSBR-AVG.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . iw
-------
-------
'Single or Double Row along Toe of
Eroded Bank with Bioengineered
Bank Protection
Downstream Inclined Rows
Stems placed in trenches
excavated by backlioe
Depth of Plantings close
to expected low water level
Eroded Bank
PLAN VIEW
Cross-Sectional Detail
derive
Figure C-29
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level Floodplain and^Riparian Replanting,
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during TCD FP/RP-AVG
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific Focused Feasibility Study
conditions and requirements. Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
NOT TO SCALE
SEPA
382081.FI.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-29 Floodplain and Riparian Replanting, TCD FP/RP-AVG.ai. 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
-------
-------
Log curtain wall to
deflect floating debris
Intake structure
and trash rack
Settling pond with T*f
^ wood debris cover B
Cu vert
Valve
OFF-CHANNEL POND
PLAN VIEW
Flood protection dyke using granular
material from channel excavation
Wood debris cover
throughout channel
SIDE CHANNEL
Pool with large wood debris
(minimum 0.5 m water depth)
Notes:
Combination of side channels and off-channel ponds.
This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
Figure C-30
Off-Channel Hydrologic Features,
TCD OFFCH-AVG
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
NOT TO SCALE
&EPA
382081.F1.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-30 Off-Channel Hydrologic Features, TCD OFFCH-AVG.ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
-------
-------
Stream Channel
PLAN VIEW
Note: This typical conceptual design (TCD) was developed for feasibility-level
analysis of remedial alternatives. Actual designs would be developed during
remedial design based on the selected remedy and site-specific
conditions and requirements.
Figure C-31
Channel Realignment,
TCD CH-REAL-1
Focused Feasibility Study
Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Alene River
BUNKER HILL SUPERFUND SITE
NOT TO SCALE
SEPA
382081.F1.06.01.03_BunkerHill_ES042009003SEA . Fig. C-31 Channel Realignment, TCD CH-REAL-1 .ai . 4/15/10 . dk . Iw
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
Cost Analysis Documentation
-------
-------
Contents
Section Page
Acronyms and Abbreviations D-iii
Cost Analysis Documentation D-l
D.l TCD Cost Estimation and Application D-l
D.l.l Source Control TCDs D-l
D.l.2 Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management TCDs D-2
D.l.3 Water Treatment TCDs D-3
D.1.4 Human Health TCDs D-4
D.1.5 Stream and Riparian Cleanup Action TCDs D-4
D.2 Remedy Protection Costs D-4
D.2.1 Alternative RP-1 D-4
D.2.2 Alternative RP-2 D-5
D.3 Site-by-Site Costs for Alternatives 3+ and 4+ D-5
D.4 References D-6
Tables
D-l Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Source Control TCDs
D-2a Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management
TCDs
D-2b Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Pump Station TCDs
D-3 Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Treatment TCDs
D-4 Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Human Health TCDs
D-5 Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Stream and Riparian Cleanup Action TCDs
D-6 Summary of Cost Assumptions and Limitations for Source Control TCDs
D-7 Summary of Cost Assumptions and Limitations for Water Collection, Conveyance,
and Management TCDs
D-8 Summary of Cost Assumptions and Limitations for Water Treatment TCDs
D-9 Summary of Cost Assumptions and Limitations for Human Health TCDs
D-10 Summary of Cost Assumptions and Limitations for Stream and Riparian Cleanup
Action TCDs
D-ll Alternative RP-1: Pinehurst Cost Analysis
D-12 Alternative RP-1: Smelterville Cost Analysis
D-13 Alternative RP-1: Kellogg Cost Analysis
D-14 Alternative RP-1: Wardner Cost Analysis
D-i
-------
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
D-15 Alternative RP-1: Osburn Cost Analysis
D-16 Alternative RP-1: Silverton Cost Analysis
D-17 Alternative RP-1: Wallace Cost Analysis
D-18 Alternative RP-1: Mullan Cost Analysis
D-19 Alternative RP-1: Approximate Cost for Side Gulches
D-20 Alternative RP-2: Pinehurst Cost Summary
D-21 Alternative RP-2: Pinehurst Detailed Unit Cost
D-22 Alternative RP-2: Smelterville Cost Summary
D-23 Alternative RP-2: Smelterville Detailed Unit Cost
D-24 Alternative RP-2: Kellogg Cost Summary
D-25 Alternative RP-2: Kellogg Detailed Unit Cost
D-26 Alternative RP-2: Wardner Cost Summary
D-27 Alternative RP-2: Wardner Detailed Unit Cost
D-28 Alternative RP-2: Osburn Cost Summary
D-29 Alternative RP-2: Osburn Detailed Unit Cost
D-30 Alternative RP-2: Silverton Cost Summary
D-31 Alternative RP-2: Silverton Detailed Unit Cost
D-32 Alternative RP-2: Wallace Cost Summary
D-33 Alternative RP-2: Wallace Detailed Unit Cost
D-34 Alternative RP-2: Mullan Cost Summary
D-35 Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
D-36 Alternative RP-2: Approximate Cost for Side Gulches
D-37 Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
D-38 Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
D-39 Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 3+
D-40 Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 4+
D-41 Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Watershed
Attachment
D-l Technical Memorandum: CTP Expansion for Treatment of Other OU 2 and OU 3
Waters
D-ii
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
bgs
below ground surface
BLM
Bureau of Land Management
cfs
cubic foot/feet per second
CPES
CH2M HILL Parametric Cost Estimating System
CTP
Central Treatment Plant
CY
cubic yards
FML
flexible membrane liner
FS
Feasibility Study
FFS
Focused Feasibility Study
gpm
gallons per minute
NPV
net present value
O&M
operation and maintenance
PVC
polyvinyl chloride
TCD
typical conceptual design
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
Cost Analysis Documentation
This appendix provides a detailed description of the processes used to develop cost estimates
for the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) for the Coeur d'Alene Basin. The text of this appendix is
organized by typical conceptual design (TCD) costs (Section D. l), remedy protection costs
(Section D.2), and site-by-site costs for Alternatives 3+ and 4+ (Section D.3). References cited in
the text are listed in Section D.4, and are followed by Tables D-l through D-41.
D.1 TCD Cost Estimation and Application
This section presents the methodology and assumptions used to develop the cost estimates for
the TCDs included in Alternatives 3+ and 4+. The development of these TCDs is described in
Section 5.0 of the FFS Report. Costs were developed based upon principles outlined in U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost
Estimates during the Feasibility Study (2000).
Detailed unit cost estimates are summarized by TCD in Tables D-l through D-5. Direct capital
costs were calculated for each individual action, characterized by a TCD, on a source material.
The direct capital cost was calculated using the TCD unit cost and the appropriate
measurement, which is specific to the site and source material. The indirect capital costs were
assumed to be 70 percent of the direct capital costs for all TCDs except for WT01, active
treatment at the Central Treatment Plant (CTP) discussed in Attachment D-l (which follows the
tables in this appendix). This assumption was based on information provided in USEPA's cost
estimating guide (USEPA, 2000). Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs were assumed to be
a percentage of the direct capital costs and varied for each TCD.
The O&M costs were calculated as the net present value (NPV) of 30 years of O&M at a discount
rate of 7 percent (USEPA, 2000). The total cost is the sum of direct capital, indirect capital, and
O&M costs. The nominal accuracy of these estimates is -30 percent to +50 percent. Assumptions
and limitations used in the development of the unit costs are summarized in Tables D-6 through
D-10.
For TCDs retained from the Final (Revision 2) Feasibility Study Report, Coeur d'Alene Basin
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (2001 FS Report; USEPA, 2001), costs were escalated to
2009 values assuming an escalation factor of 1.358. This escalation factor was developed from
the Engineering News Record Construction and Building Cost Index (2008). For new TCDs, costs
were developed by calculating unit costs for materials, labor, and equipment. These values were
then summed to determine the direct capital unit cost for each TCD.
D.1.1 Source Control TCDs
All of the Source Control TCDs were retained from the 2001 FS Report, and the costs were
escalated as described above with the exception of C01, COlb, and C02c. Revegetation was
added to TCDs C01 and COlb for areas disturbed during excavation. TCD C02c was developed
in 2007, and no detailed cost breakdown is available (URS, 2007).
D-1
-------
APPENDIX D: COST ANALYSIS DOCUMENTATION
A number of assumptions were used when applying these TCDs:
The unit costs for C02a, C02b, C02c, C03, C04, C05, and C09 are on a per-acre basis. The
acreage used to calculate the cost for a given source was assumed to be the acreage
associated with the source material in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) polygon.
The costs for treatment of leachate (TCDs C04, C06, CO 7, COS a, and C09) were assumed to be
negligible. Infiltration would be minimized with the cap design, and little leachate would be
anticipated. Therefore, the cost of leachate treatment should be negligible in comparison to
the cost of the waste consolidation area or repository.
Hauling costs were calculated on a site-by-site basis. For the waste consolidation area above
flood level (TCD C07), hauling costs are included in the TCD and assume a haul distance of
one half-mile. For the repository (TCD C08a), hauling costs are not included in the TCD. A
hauling TCD, H A U L-2, was developed for the 2001 FS and was applied along with TCD
C08a assuming a haul distance of 5 miles for all sites.
The costs for the disposal of waste at the repository were developed for various repository
sizes. Based on work conducted by the repository siting team, the costs for the smallest
repository, TCD C08a, of 1 million cubic yards (CY) were used. Costs from the 2001 FS
Report were adjusted to remove the geosynthetic clay liner and increase the drainage layer
flexible membrane liner (FML) from 60 to 80 mils.
Road costs were applied as 15 percent of the total direct capital cost for each alternative.
D.1.2 Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management TCDs
TCDs C10, PIPE-1, PIPE-2, and PIPE-3 were retained from the 2001 FS Report, and the costs
were escalated as described above. Additional TCDs were developed for actions that the TCDs
retained from the 2001 FS Report did not address or needed modifications to address site needs.
These included TCDs PIPE-4, Clla through Cllj, PRESSURE-PIPE-1 through PRESSURE-PIPE-
4, C14a through C14c, C15a through C15d, C17a through C17e, C18, C19, C20, and PUMP-1
through PUMP-5. Detailed descriptions of these TCDs can be found in Section 5.2.2 and
Table 5-1 in the FFS Report.
Piping TCD design was based on maximum flow, which increased pipe size from the 2001 FS
Report. In addition, several sites designated for passive water treatment in the 2001 FS Report
were included in active treatment for this FFS Report.
The costs for Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry Wall TCDs (Clla through Cllj) are based on the
length of the wall required for hydraulic isolation. If the slurry wall is required for both sides of
the river/stream, then the length of the river/stream must be doubled to calculate the cost.
The costs for Stream Lining TCDs (C14a through C14e) are based on the average width of the
river/ stream over the application length of each liner. The costs currently include some
measures to prevent liner lift. These include anchoring the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) liner and
the geotextile into the trench and placing staged riprap over the geotextile. Care should be taken
during the design of the stream liners for the gaining reaches to ensure that the design will
prevent lift given site-specific conditions.
D-2
-------
APPENDIX D: COST ANALYSIS DOCUMENTATION
The costs for French Drain TCDs (C15a through C15d) are based on the flows developed by
groundwater modeling.
Pump station TCD costs were developed based on a CH2M HILL Parametric Cost Estimating
System (CPES) model. Direct unit costs based on varying flow rates are presented in Table D-2b.
D. 1.3 Water Treatment TCDs
Attachment D-l describes the active treatment TCD WT01. The capital costs are based on
maximum flow to the CTP, and O&M costs are based on average flow to the CTP for each
alternative. An additional sludge pond cost was developed to support TCD WT01 and applied
on an alternative basis.
Detailed sludge pond costs were developed based on sludge capacities of Alternatives 3+ (cl)
and (d l), which both have a storage capacity of 414,000 cubic yards. Capital cost, annual O&M,
and 30-year NPV O&M were scaled for the remaining alternatives based the sludge production
rate. The costs were scaled depending on the required size of the sludge pond for each
alternative. The capital cost includes the closure cost of the existing pond once it reaches
capacity and the capital cost of the new sludge pond. Section 5.3 of the FFS Report describes the
pond design.
All of the semi-passive treatment TCDs (VVT02, VVT03, \VT04a, and WT04b) were newly
developed for the FFS.
The costs for WT02 (Onsite Semi-Passive Water Treatment Using Lime Addition and Settling
Pond[s]) and WT03 (Onsite Semi-Passive Water Treatment Using Sulfate-Reducing Bioreactor
[SRB] System) are based on flow (gallons per minute [gpm]). Detailed direct capital and O&M
costs were developed for flows of 5 gpm, 50 gpm, and 1,000 gpm. These costs were then
graphed and linearized. The linear equations were then used to calculate both direct capital and
O&M costs for the site flows.
A bypass and emergency channel system was put in place for WT02 and WT03 to prevent
flooding of the systems.
For WT02, the lime feed storage system cost was based on a quote by Aquafix. There are
multiple options for the size of the lime feed storage and dispenser. The appropriate size of
equipment was chosen based on the lime demand for that size flow. Winter weather was
accounted for by adding a propane tank to heat the building containing the lime feed system. It
is assumed that the settling ponds would be dredged every 10 years.
For WT03, the SRB ponds were assumed to include 75 percent stable waste and 25 percent lime.
It is assumed that the media would be replaced every 15 years.
TCDs WT04a and WT04b (In Situ Semi-Passive Groundwater Treatment Using Sulfate-
Reducing Permeable Reactive Barrier [SR-PRB]) were designed based on the depth of the
media. WT04a assumes a media depth of 10 feet, which begins at 5 feet below ground surface
(bgs). WT04b assumes a media depth of 40 feet, which begins at 5 feet bgs. These depths were
chosen in order to apply these TCDs to different depths of confining layers. The media are
assumed to be 75 percent stable waste and 25 percent lime. It is assumed that the media would
be replaced every 15 years. Both TCDs assume a length of 100 feet and a width of 7.5 feet.
D-3
-------
APPENDIX D: COST ANALYSIS DOCUMENTATION
For both semi-passive and active water treatment, cost calculations for direct capital cost were
based on maximum flow, while the O&M costs were based on average flow. If the average flow
at a site was known, but the maximum flow was unknown, the maximum flow was assumed to
be twice the average flow. In cases where no flow data were available, the average flow was
assumed to be 0.1 cubic foot per second (cfs) and the maximum flow was assumed to be 0.2 cfs.
D.1.4 Human Health TCDs
All of the Human Health TCDs were retained from the 2001 FS Report, and the costs were
escalated to 2009 values as described above.
D.1.5 Stream and Riparian Cleanup Action TCDs
All of the Stream and Riparian Cleanup Action TCDs were retained from the 2001 FS Report,
with the exception of CD-SED. Retained TCD costs were escalated to 2009 values as described
above. TCD CD-SED was developed in 2007, and no detailed cost breakdown is available (URS,
2007).
D.2 Remedy Protection Costs
This section discusses the assumptions used for developing costs for the remedy protection
alternatives evaluated in Section 9.0 of the FFS Report. The remedy protection alternatives
include RP-1: No Further Action (Post-Event Response) and RP-2: Modifications to Selected
Remedies to Enhance Protectiveness (Remedy Protection Projects). The scope of costs that were
developed for these alternatives includes eight communities within the Upper Coeur d'Alene
Basin (Pinehurst, Smelterville, Kellogg, Wardner, Osburn, Silverton, Wallace and Mullan) in
addition to a less detailed estimate developed for the side gulches.
The approach used to develop costs for these alternatives differed from the TCD approach
described above. Detailed hydrologic and hydraulic modeling was conducted, as documented
in Appendix G of the FFS Report, to determine (1) the expected damage to the Selected
Remedies and subsequent post-event costs for Alternative RP-1, and (2) the capital project costs
necessary to mitigate the potential risks posed by flood events for Alternative RP-2. The cost
analyses conducted for Section 9.0 are also more detailed than the TCD approach. This detailed
approach for Alternatives RP-1 and RP-2 was determined to be more appropriate for
developing costs for the remedy protection alternatives because (1) only eight communities
were evaluated in detail, and (2) hydrologic and hydraulic modeling allowed sufficient data to
create more detailed cost estimates.
D.2.1 Alternative RP-1
The costs for Alternative RP-1 were developed based on the methodology described in Section
9.6.1.1 of the FFS Report (CH2M HILL, 2009). This methodology uses the hydrologic and
hydraulic analyses documented in Appendix G to apply costs for the expected annual damage
to the Selected Remedies. The 30-year NPV cost was then calculated as the present value of the
expected annual damage. Tables D-ll through D-18 include the expected annual damage and
30-year NPV costs for each community.
D-4
-------
APPENDIX D: COST ANALYSIS DOCUMENTATION
Although detailed analyses were not conducted for the side gulches, it would be expected that
hydrologic and hydraulic trends within the eight Upper Basin communities would be
applicable to the side gulches. Table D-19 presents the calculations used to determine the
approximate RP-1 costs for the side gulches.
Alternative RP-1 includes costs for post-event response (or "re-remediation") of the protective
barriers. These are considered O&M costs. No capital costs are associated with Alternative RP-1.
D.2.2 Alternative RP-2
Alternative RP-2 was developed to enhance the protectiveness of existing Selected Remedies
within the eight communities. These enhancements were developed from the list of
technologies and process options applicable to remedy protection included in Table 9-4
accompanying Section 9.0 in the FFS Report. Multiple technologies and/or process options were
combined and applied to expected impact areas in each of the communities. The impact areas
were developed based on the results of the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses documented in
Appendix G. These analyses were also used to determine approximate sizes, lengths, and other
quantity measurements to apply to the process options to mitigate the existing risks posed to
Selected Remedies during flood and storm events. Detailed descriptions (including figures) of
the process options applied for each community are included in Attachment G-3 of Appendix
G.
Based on the information included in Attachment G-3, cost estimates were developed for each
community. Tables D-20 through D-35 present the detailed unit costs for the process options
applied to each community, and a summary by community of the costs to mitigate damage to
the Selected Remedies. Based on existing conditions, assumptions were made to support
development of the detailed unit costs. It was assumed that the remedy protection projects
would be implemented during the dry season and minimal dewatering would be necessary
during construction. Unit costs assume that all excavated material would be disposed of at a
repository (similar to TCD C08a).
O&M costs were also included for Alternative RP-2 on a community basis. Costs for O&M
include inspections, repairs, and documentation. These costs were assumed to be 2 percent of
the capital costs for Alternative RP-2 annually.
As discussed in Section 9.0, an approximate cost for Upper Basin side gulches was developed
for Alternative RP-2. This cost is approximate because detailed hydrologic and hydraulic
modeling was not conducted for the side gulches. This cost is based on a typical side gulch,
which assumes average characteristics based on the side gulches included in Table 9 in
Appendix G. Table D-36 presents the methods used to develop the total approximate
Alternative RP-2 cost for the side gulches.
D.3 Site-by-Site Costs for Alternatives 3+ and 4+
Because of the large number of sites involved, a relational database was developed to compile
quantity and unit cost data, identify TCDs, and calculate costs on a site-by-site and alternative-
by-alternative basis. For each waste type at each source, quantity data including the volume,
acreage, linear feet, volumetric flow rate, and metals concentration, were input into the
database. The TCD(s) identified to remediate each waste type at each source were input for each
D-5
-------
APPENDIX D: COST ANALYSIS DOCUMENTATION
alternative. The unit cost data for the TCDs were input into the database. The quantity and unit
cost data were used by the database to calculate the direct capital, indirect capital, and net
present value costs.
Costs were calculated for Alternative 3+ and Alternative 4+. Tables D-37 and D-38 present the
estimated costs for each site included in Alternatives 3+ and 4+, respectively, broken out by
waste type (trait) and TCD. Tables D-39 and D-40 present the total estimated costs by site for
Alternatives 3+ and 4+, respectively. Table D-41 presents the total estimated costs for each
watershed under the two alternatives. Rolled-up costs for each alternative are presented in
Table 8-3 in the FFS Report.
D.4 References
Engineering News Record. December 2008. Construction and Building Cost Index.
CH2M HILL. September 16, 2009. Memorandum: Methodology for Estimating Expected Loss from
Damage to Remedies. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10.
CH2M HILL. March 21, 2010. Technical Memorandum: Side Gulch Costs for Remedy Protection
Alternatives. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10.
TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering. March 30, 2010. Side Gulch Costing Memorandum.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10.
URS. June 8, 2007. Memorandum: Estimated Cleanup Costs for the Coeur d'Alene Basin, Costs
Escalated to December 2006 and Pine Creek Costs Excluded. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 10.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). July 2000. A Guide to Developing and
Documenting Cost Estimates during the Feasibility Study.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 2001. Final (Revision 2) Feasibility Study
Report, Coeur d'Alene Basin Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Prepared by URS Greiner and
CH2M HILL for USEPA Region 10.
D-6
-------
Tables
-------
-------
TABLE D-1
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Source Control TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
TCD
Direct Capital
Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
C01
Excavation
1
CY
$4.28
Excavate
1
CY
$4.20
hydraulic excavator @ 100cy/hr
Hydroseed
2%
LS
$0.08
assume 2% of direct unit cost
C01b
Excavation (60% Dry/40% Wet)
1
CY
$13.49
Assumes 60% excavation above and 40% below water table, backfill 25% of
excavated sediment; NEW
Excavate in dry
1
CY
$2.19
60%; cost by others
Excavate below water table
1
CY
$5.99
40%; cost by others, with excavator or dredge?
Replace excavated sediment
1
CY
$5.05
25%; cost by others
Hydroseed
2%
LS
$0.26
assume 2% of direct unit cost
C02a
Regrade/Consolidate/Revegetate
1
AC
$84,281.47
per Draft Tech Memo 1 dated 1/00
Regrade Waste Rock
8,067
CY
$5.98
assume 5' deep
Vegetative Cover
1,613
CY
$16.66
based on CIA estimate
Grade Surface Drainage Ditch
400
CY
$4.15
assume 400' & 1 cy/LF
Hydroseed
4,840
SY
$0.41
from Bunker Hill estimates
Miscellaneous
1
LS
$5,513.74
slope protection, erosion control, etc
C02b
Regrade/Consolidate/Revegetate
1
AC
$166,906.76
per Draft Tech Memo 1 dated 1/00
Regrade Waste Rock
20,973
CY
$5.98
assume 13' deep
Vegetative Cover
1,613
CY
$16.66
based on CIA estimate
Grade Surface Drainage Ditch
400
CY
$4.15
assume 400' & 1 cy/LF
Hydroseed
4,840
SY
$0.41
from Bunker Hill estimates
Miscellaneous
1
LS
$10,919.13
slope protection, erosion control, etc
C02c
Regrade/Consolidate/Revegetate
1
AC
$14,900.00
per 2007 Cost Update Memo; No detail available
C03
Low-Permeability Cap
1
AC
$224,826.10
per Draft Tech Memo 1 dated 1/00
Regrade Waste Rock
8,067
CY
$5.98
assume 5' deep
Vegetative Cover
2,420
CY
$19.55
over geotextile
Grade Surface Drainage Ditch
400
CY
$4.15
assume 400' & 1 cy/LF
Hydroseed
4,840
SY
$0.41
from Bunker Hill estimates
Native Soil Leveling Layer Placement
807
CY
$11.59
50cy/hr production, depth of 0.5'; description & quantity change only, same cost
Drainage Layer Placement
1,613
CY
$11.59
50cy/hr production
Haul Above Material
2,420
CY
$13.73
this & following item, Sue Alvarez information, based on 10mi one way
Develop & Close Pit for Material Above
2,420
CY
$3.43
allowance per CY for mining development & closure
GCL
4,840
SY
$5.86
Bunker Hill estimates; added line item, previous cost
16oz Geotextile
4,840
SY
$2.68
quote for CIA plus installation
Miscellaneous
1
LS
$14,708.25
slope protection, erosion control, etc
C04
Low-Permeability Cap w/Seepage Collection
1
AC
$254,029.64
per Draft Tech Memo 1 dated 1/00
Regrade Waste Rock
8,067
CY
$5.98
assume 5' deep
Vegetative Cover
2,420
CY
$19.55
over geotextile
Grade Surface Drainage Ditch
400
CY
$4.15
assume 400' & 1 cy/LF
Page 1 of 6
-------
TABLE D-1
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Source Control TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
TCD
Direct Capital
Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Hydroseed
4,840
SY
$0.41
from Bunker Hill estimates
Native Soil Leveling Layer Placement
807
CY
$11.59
50cy/hr production, depth of 0.5'
Drainage Layer Placement
1,613
CY
$11.59
50cy/hr production
Haul Above Material
2,420
CY
$13.73
this & following item, Sue Alvarez information, based on 10mi one way
Develop & Close Pit for Material Above
2,420
CY
$3.43
allowance per CY for mining development & closure
GCL
4,840
SY
$5.86
Bunker Hill estimates
16oz Geotextile
4,840
SY
$2.68
quote for CIA plus installation
Groundwater Collection & Diversion Trench
2,500
SF
$10.92
Size: 3'wx10'd Length Variable=
Soil Excavation
241
CY
$8.40
boulders, cobbles, etc
Rock Excavation
56
CY
$41.99
earthwork crew @ 10cy/hr-assume can be excavated w/backhoe
Shoring (trench box)
250
LF
$2.72
trench box
Waste
296
CY
$6.86
dispose on tailings pile
Dewatering
250
LF
$6.79
allowance for sumps & pumps
4" CPE Pipe
250
LF
$4.15
Drain Rock
296
CY
$44.67
quote for Bunker Hill projects, 20cy/hour
Geotextile
333
SY
$2.68
quote for CIA plus installation
60mil FML
333
SY
$10.08
10Osy/hr
Miscellaneous
1
LS
$16,618.76
slope protection, erosion control, etc
C05
Low-Permeability Cap w/Erosion Protection
1
AC
$252,170.08
per Draft Tech Memo 1 dated 1/00
Site Preparation
1
AC
$3,324.79
clearing, grubbing
Regrade Waste Rock
8,067
CY
$5.98
assume 5' deep
Vegetative Cover
2,420
CY
$19.55
over geotextile
Grade Surface Drainage Ditch
400
CY
$4.15
assume 400' & 1 cy/LF
Hydroseed
4,840
SY
$0.41
from Bunker Hill estimates
Native Soil Leveling Layer Placement
807
CY
$11.59
50cy/hr production, depth of 0.5'
Drainage Layer Placement
1,613
CY
$11.59
50cy/hr production
Haul Above Material
2,420
CY
$13.73
this & following item, Sue Alvarez information, based on 10mi one way
Develop & Close Pit for Material Above
2,420
CY
$3.43
allowance per CY for mining development & closure
GCL
4,840
SY
$5.86
Bunker Hill estimates
16oz Geotextile
4,840
SY
$2.41
Riprap Toe
296
CY
$43.96
assume 10'w x 2'd
Miscellaneous
1
LS
$27,018.22
slope protection, erosion control, etc
C06
Waste Consolidation Area w/Erosion Protection
40,333
CY
$15.72
per Draft Tech Memo 1 dated 1/00
Haul to On-site Containment
40,333
CY
$1.56
loader to nearby repository, assume 25' deep
Site Preparation
1
AC
$3,324.79
clearing, grubbing
Grade at Repository
40,333
CY
$2.07
1-dozer @ 100cy/hr
Grade Surface Drainage Ditch
400
CY
$4.15
assume 400' & 1 cy/LF
Groundwater Collection & Diversion Trench
3,000
SF
Size: 3'wx 10'd Variable=
Page 2 of 6
-------
TABLE D-1
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Source Control TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Soil Excavation
289
CY
$8.40
boulders, cobbles, etc
Rock Excavation
67
CY
$41.99
earthwork crew @ 10cy/hr-assume can be excavated w/backhoe
Shoring (trench box)
300
LF
$2.72
trench box
Waste
356
CY
$6.86
dispose on tailings pile
Dewatering
300
LF
$6.79
allowance for sumps & pumps
4" CPE Pipe
300
LF
$4.15
Drain Rock
356
CY
$44.67
quote for Bunker Hill projects, 20cy/hour
Geotextile
400
SY
$2.68
quote for CIA plus installation
60miI FML
400
SY
$10.08
100sy/hr
Rock Pad
0.8
AC
assume 80% of cap area
Geotextile
7,744
SY
$2.41
Low Permeability Native Soil Placement
1,291
CY
$11.59
50cy/hr production
Drainage Layer Placement
2,581
CY
$11.59
50cy/hr production
Haul Above Material
3,872
CY
$13.73
this & following item, Sue Alvarez information, based on 10mi one way
Develop & Close Pit for Material Above
3,872
CY
$3.43
allowance per CY for mining development & closure
Toe Drain for Rock Pad
300
LF
Excavation
267
CY
$4.20
earthwork crew @ 100cy/hr
Waste
4,172
CY
$6.86
dispose on tailings pile
4" CPE Pipe
300
LF
$4.15
Drain Rock
267
CY
$44.67
quote for Bunker Hill projects, 20cy/hour
60mil FML
333
SY
$10.08
10Osy/hr
Cap
1.20
AC
assumed acreage=
GCL Liner
5,808
SY
$5.97
Bunker Hill estimates
Vegetative Cover
2,904
CY
$19.55
over geotextile
Hydroseed
5,808
SY
$0.41
from Bunker Hill estimates
Low Permeability Native Soil Placement
968
CY
$11.59
50cy/hr production
Drainage Layer Placement
1,936
CY
$11.59
50cy/hr production
Haul Above Material
2,904
CY
$13.73
this & following item, Sue Alvarez information, based on 10mi one way
Develop & Close Pit for Material Above
2,904
CY
$3.43
allowance per CY for mining development & closure
16oz Geotextile
5,808
SY
$2.68
quote for CIA plus installation
Riprap Toe
296
CY
$43.96
assume 10'w x 2'd
Miscellaneous
1
LS
$67,953.46
anchor trenches, slope protection, erosion control, etc
Waste Consolidation Area Above Flood Level
40,333
CY
$14.68
per Draft Tech Memo 1 dated 1/00
Haul to On-site Containment
40,333
CY
$1.56
loader to nearby repository, assume 25' deep
Site Preparation
1
AC
$3,324.79
clearing, grubbing
Grade at Repository
40,333
CY
$2.07
1-dozer @ 100cy/hr
Grade Surface Drainage Ditch
400
CY
$4.15
assume 400' & 1 cy/LF
Groundwater Collection & Diversion Trench
3,000
SF
$10.92
Size: 3'wx 10'd Variable=
Page 3 of 6
-------
TABLE D-1
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Source Control TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
TCD
Direct Capital
Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Soil Excavation
289
CY
$8.40
boulders, cobbles, etc
Rock Excavation
67
CY
$41.99
earthwork crew @ 10cy/hr-assume can be excavated w/backhoe
Shoring (trench box)
300
LF
$2.72
trench box
Waste
356
CY
$6.86
dispose on tailings pile
Dewatering
300
LF
$6.79
allowance for sumps & pumps
4" CPE Pipe
300
LF
$4.15
Drain Rock
356
CY
$44.67
quote for Bunker Hill projects, 20cy/hour
Geotextile
400
SY
$2.68
quote for CIA plus installation
60miI FML
400
SY
$10.08
100sy/hr
Rock Pad
0.8
AC
assume 80% of cap area
Geotextile
7,744
SY
$2.68
quote for CIA plus installation
Low Permeability Native Soil Placement
1,291
CY
$11.59
50cy/hr production
Drainage Layer Placement
2,581
CY
$11.59
50cy/hr production
Haul Above Material
3,872
CY
$13.73
this & following item, Sue Alvarez information, based on 10mi one way
Develop & Close Pit for Material Above
3,872
CY
$3.43
allowance per CY for mining development & closure
Toe Drain for Rock Pad
300
LF
Excavation
266.67
CY
$4.20
earthwork crew @ 100cy/hr
Haul Above Material
266.67
CY
$6.86
assume 5 mile one way - 5 trucks
4" CPE Pipe
300
LF
$4.15
Drain Rock
266.67
CY
$44.67
quote for Bunker Hill projects, 20cy/hour
60mil FML
333.33
SY
$10.08
10Osy/hr
Cap
1.2
AC
$160,721.13
assumed size w/area adjustment for slopes
GCL Liner
5,808
SY
$5.97
Bunker Hill estimates
Vegetative Cover
2,904
CY
$19.55
over geotextile
Hydroseed
5,808
SY
$0.41
from Bunker Hill estimates
Low Permeability Native Soil Placement
968
CY
$11.59
50cy/hr production
Drainage Layer Placement
1,936
CY
$11.59
50cy/hr production
Haul Above Material
2,904
CY
$13.73
this & following item, Sue Alvarez information, based on 10mi one way
Develop & Close Pit for Material Above
2,904
CY
$3.43
allowance per CY for mining development & closure
16oz Geotextile
5,808
SY
$2.68
quote for CIA plus installation
Miscellaneous
1
LS
$63,426.69
anchor trenches, slope protection, erosion control, etc
C08a
Repository, 1 million cy
1,000,000
CY
$17.68
assume 900' sq & 75' high
Transfer at Repository
1,000,000
$1.36
Grade & Compact at Repository
1,000,000
CY
$2.07
1-dozer @ 100cy/hr
Access Road
1
Ml
$679,000.00
Liner
19
AC
$3,618,745.71
Site Preparation
19
AC
$3,324.79
clearing, grubbing
Grade base for drainage (CNS)
45,093
CY
$5.08
Page 4 of 6
-------
TABLE D-1
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Source Control TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Drainage Layer
60,000
CY
$11.59
hauled in from elsewhere, over geotextile
Haul Above Material
60,000
CY
$13.73
recent site information, based on 10 mi one way
Develop & Close Pit for Material Above
60,000
CY
$3.43
allowance per CY for mining development & closure
80miI FML
90,000
SY
$8.63
CHANGED ON 12/01/09
Geotextile
90,000
SY
$2.68
quote for CIA plus installation
Drain Rock
1,100
CY
$44.67
Every 300 ft
Drain Pipe
3,600
LF
$4.15
Strip drains
810,000
SF
$0.48
100% of area
Leachage Collection System
1
LS
$100,000.00
ALLOWANCE ADDED ON 12/01/09
Perimeter Drain & Rock Berm
3,600
LF
Drain Pipe
3,600
LF
$4.15
Drain Rock
5,333
CY
$44.67
quote for Bunker Hill projects, 20cy/hour
Trench Liner
5,200
SY
$7.42
Bunker Hill estimates
Rock Berm
43,333
CY
$43.96
assume full perimeter, 10' high x 32.5' average width
Collection Sump & Gravity Pipeline
1
LS
$45,516.42
ALLOWANCE ADDED ON 12/01/09, ASSUMES 1000' OF 6" HDPE
Cap
22.31
AC
$6,082,768.64
slope area increase factor of 1.2
Subgrade Preparation
108,000
SY
$0.21
top of existing pile or site of new pile
80miI FML
108,000
SY
$8.63
CHANGED ON 12/01/09
Geotextile
108,000
SY
$2.68
quote for CIA plus installation
Strip drains
81,000
SF
$0.48
10% of area
Drainage Layer
36,000
CY
$11.59
hauled in from elsewhere, over geotextile
Compacted Native Soil
36,000
CY
$5.79
Interim cover
100,000
CY
$5.79
10% of volume
Haul Above Material
172,000
CY
$13.73
this & following item, Sue Alvarez information, based on 10mi one way
Develop & Close Pit for Material Above
172,000
CY
$3.43
allowance per CY for mining development & closure
Vegetative Cover
36,000
CY
$16.66
based on CIA estimate, REVISED TO 1' ON 12/01/09
Hydroseed
108,000
SY
$0.41
from Bunker Hill estimates
Misc Work
1
LS
$1,607,085.73
anchor trenches, slope protection, erosion control, etc
Impoundment Closure
67
AC
$245,945.54
based on Hecla-Star 5800'x 500' x 35' high
Perimeter Drain
12,600
LF
$32.25
Excavation
16,333
CY
$8.40
assume added volume for boulders, cobbles, etc
Waste
16,333
CY
$6.86
assume 20% volume of bentonite
Trench Liner
16,800
SY
$5.97
Bunker Hill estimates
Drain Pipe
12,600
LF
$4.15
Drain Rock
2,800
CY
$44.67
quote for Bunker Hill projects, 20cy/hour
Cap
73.23
AC
$216,393.23
x 1.1 area increase factor for slopes
Regrade Tailings Pile Top
107,407
CY
$2.07
1-dozer @ 100cy/hr, assume 1' average depth
Regrade Tailings Side Slopes
425,000
CY
$2.07
1-dozer @ 100cy/hr, from 1.5:1 slope to 3:1 slopes
Page 5 of 6
-------
TABLE D-1
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Source Control TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
TCD Direct Capital
Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
GCL Liner
354,444
SY
$5.97
Bunker Hill estimates
Geotextile
354,444
SY
$2.68
quote for CIA plus installation
Drainage Layer
118,148
CY
$11.59
hauled in from elsewhere, over geotextile
Compacted Native Soil
118,148
CY
$5.79
Haul Above Material
236,296
CY
$13.73
this & following item, Sue Alvarez information, based on 10mi one way
Develop & Close Pit for Material Above
236,296
CY
$3.43
allowance per CY for mining development & closure
Vegetative Cover
236,296
CY
$16.66
based on CIA estimate
Hydroseed
354,444
SY
$0.41
Bunker Hill estimates
Misc Work
1
LS
$1,488,525.89
anchor trenches, slope protection, erosion control, etc
HAUL-2
Haul to Repository
1
CY-MI
$1.10
1 - 10cy truck, at 25mph average, plus return trip
Haul to Repository
1
CY
$1.10
25x10=250, 1/250=004x2=008
Notes:
AC = acre(s)
CIA = Central Impoundment Area
CPE = polyethylene
CY = cubic yards
FML = flexible membrane liner
GCL = geosynthetic clay liner
HDPE = high density polyethylene
LF = linear feet
LS = lump sum
SY = square yards
TCD = typical conceptual design
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal accuracy of -30 percent to +50
percent (-30/+50%).
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-magnitude cost
opinion shown has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of
preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions,
productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the final project schedule, and other variable
factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding
needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Page 6 of 6
-------
TABLE D-2a
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
TCD Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
C10
Adit Drainage Collection
1
LS
$9,684.18
per DTM 1 dated 1/00, conveyance pipe included elsewhere
Steel Bars
12
EA
$414.74
assume 6" spacing & 1" dia x 7'long drilled & grouted
Concrete Wall
1
CY
$1,872.29
incl forms, rebar & concrete
Drain pipe, stainless
5
LF
$119.94
4" diameter
Misc Work
1
LS
$2,235.27
flanges, grout, waste, pipe penetration, temporary drainage, etc
C11a
Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry Wall, 15'd x 3'w
1
LF
$195.60
Soil Bentonite Mix (10%), 20'd x 3'w
15
SF
$144.60
for 1 slurry wall only from C11 retained TCD cost
Waste all Excavated Material to Repository
15
SF
$51.00
C11b
Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry Wall, 20'd x 3'w
1
LF
$260.80
Soil Bentonite Mix (10%), 20'd x 3'w
20
SF
$192.80
for 1 slurry wall only from C11 retained TCD cost
Waste all Excavated Material to Repository
20
SF
$68.00
C11c
Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry Wall, 30'd x 3'w
1
LF
$391.20
Soil Bentonite Mix (10%), 20'd x 3'w
30
SF
$289.20
for 1 slurry wall only from C11 retained TCD cost
Waste all Excavated Material to Repository
30
SF
$102.00
C11d
Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry Wall, 40'd x 3'w
1
LF
$521.60
Soil Bentonite Mix (10%), 20'd x 3'w
40
SF
$385.60
for 1 slurry wall only from C11 retained TCD cost
Waste all Excavated Material to Repository
40
SF
$136.00
C11e
Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry Wall, 45'd x 3'w
1
LF
$594.90
Soil Bentonite Mix (10%), 45'd x 3'w
45
SF
$441.90
for 1 slurry wall only from C11 retained TCD cost
Waste all Excavated Material to Repository
45
SF
$153.00
C11f
Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry Wall, 50'd x 3'w
1
LF
$652.00
Soil Bentonite Mix (10%), 50'd x 3'w
50
SF
$482.00
for 1 slurry wall only from C11 retained TCD cost
Waste all Excavated Material to Repository
50
SF
$170.00
C11g
Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry Wall, 50'd x 10'wide
1
LF
$4,175.00
Soil Cement Mix (10%), 50'd x 10'wide
50
SF
$4,005.00
revised to cement w/clamshell, 8/11/09 - revised to 10' thick 9/23/09
Waste all Excavated Material to Repository
50
SF
$170.00
C11h
Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry Wall, w/Drain
1
LF
$1,116.29
per Draft Tech Memo 1 dated 1/00
GW Barrier (Soil/Bentonite Slurry)
1
LF
$173.86
15
SF
$11.59
per Draft Tech Memo #1 dated 1/17/00 - 30'd x 3'thick x variable=
Excavation
2.22
CY
$8.40
assume added volume for boulders, cobbles, etc
Rock Excavation
0.22
CY
$41.99
rock will be waste
Haul & Dispose at Repository
2.22
CY
$5.49
assume all wasted, 5 mile, use HAUL-2 cost
Repository Cost
2.22
CY
$17.70
use C8a cost
Bentonite Material
0.24
TN
$203.70
1 ton/cy
Mix & Place Bentonite/Soil
2.44
CY
$11.11
add $2 for mixing
Miscellaneous
1
LS
$17.37
French Drain
1
LF
15' Deep French Drain
1
LF
$942.43
see detail for C15b
C11 i
Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry Wall, w/Drain
GW Barrier (Soil/Bentonite Slurry)
1
1
LF
LF
$1,210.81
$225.70
per Draft Tech Memo 1 dated 1/00
20
SF
$11.29
per Draft Tech Memo #1 dated 1/17/00 - 30'd x 3'thick x variable=
Excavation
2.96
CY
$8.40
assume added volume for boulders, cobbles, etc
Rock Excavation
0.22
CY
$41.99
rock will be waste
Haul & Dispose at Repository
2.96
CY
$5.49
assume all wasted, 5 mile, use HAUL-2 cost
Page 1 of 11
-------
TABLE D-2a
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
TCD Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Repository Cost
2.96
CY
$17.70
use C8a cost
Bentonite Material
0.32
TN
$203.70
1 ton/cy
Mix & Place Bentonite/Soil
3.19
CY
$11.11
add $2 for mixing
Miscellaneous
1
LS
$22.51
French Drain
1
LF
20' Deep French Drain
1
LF
$985.10
see detail for C15c
C11j
Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry Wall, w/Drain
GW Barrier (Soil/Bentonite Slurry)
1
1
LF
LF
$1,586.14
$329.41
per Draft Tech Memo 1 dated 1/00
30
SF
$10.98
per Draft Tech Memo #1 dated 1/17/00 - 30'd x 3'thick x variable=
Excavation
4.44
CY
$8.40
assume added volume for boulders, cobbles, etc
Rock Excavation
0.22
CY
$41.99
rock will be waste
Haul & Dispose at Repository
4.44
CY
$5.49
assume all wasted, 5 mile, use HAUL-2 cost
Repository Cost
4.44
CY
$17.70
use C8a cost
Bentonite Material
0.47
TN
$203.70
1 ton/cy
Mix & Place Bentonite/Soil
4.67
CY
$11.11
add $2 for mixing
Miscellaneous
1
LS
$32.79
French Drain
30' Deep French Drain
1
LF
$1,256.73
see detail for C15d
C14a
Stream Lining -10' wide
1
LF
$318.46
10' wide bottom width channel
Diversion/Care of Water
1
LF
$20.00
allowance for temp dikes/facilities & bypass pumping
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
1
LF
$37.41
Temporary piping allowance; may be in segments
Excavate & Prep Channel
2
CY
$20.49
50cy/hr
Haul & Dispose at Repository
2
CY
$13.42
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile, use HAUL-2 cost
Repository Cost
2
CY
$43.27
use C8a cost
12" Quarry Spalls
1
CY
$29.95
native, include loading & hauling
Pea Gravel
1
CY
$45.15
imported
Sand
1
CY
$45.15
imported
Liner/Geotextile System
5
SY
$39.82
incl anchor trench
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$23.80
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
C14b
Stream Lining - 20' wide
1
LF
$505.10
20' wide bottom width channel
Diversion/Care of Water
1
LF
$10.00
allowance for temp dikes/facilities & bypass pumping
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
1
LF
$26.73
Temporary piping allowance; may be in segments
Excavate & Stockpile Riprap
3
CY
$49.67
25cy/hr
Excavate & Prep Channel
3
CY
$24.84
50cy/hr
Haul & Dispose at Repository
3
CY
$16.27
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile, use HAUL-2 cost
Repository Cost
3
CY
$52.44
use C8a cost
Replace Stockpiled Riprap
3
CY
$73.87
native, include loading & hauling
Pea Gravel
1
CY
$82.10
imported
Sand
1
CY
$82.10
imported
Liner/Geotextile System
6
SY
$47.41
incl anchor trench
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$39.67
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
C14c
Stream Lining -100' wide
1
LF
$2,969.53
100' wide bottom width channel
Diversion/Care of Water
1
LF
$50.00
allowance for temp dikes/facilities & bypass pumping
Diversion Piping
1
LF
$58.58
Temporary piping allowance; may be in segments
Page 2 of 11
-------
TABLE D-2a
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
TCD Code Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Excavate & Prep Channel
24
CY
$198.68
50cy/hr, 6' deep
Excavate & Sort Existing Rock
9
CY
$99.86
50cy/hr + screening allowance
Haul & Dispose at Repository
19
CY
$104.11
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile, use HAUL-2 cost
Repository Cost
19
CY
$335.64
use C8a cost
Riprap
19
CY
$778.53
48" thick
Pea Gravel
5
CY
$262.72
imported
Sand
5
CY
$262.72
imported
Native Rock, Screened
5
CY
$94.56
excavated material
Liner/Geotextile System
15
SY
$261.69
incl anchor trench, 80mil PVC & 16oz geotex, allowance
Additional Mob & Demob Required
5
EA
$250.71
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$211.75
TESC etc.
C15a French Drain, 10'bgs
1
LF
$545.41
10' deep avg depth, valve vault @1000'
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.001
AC
$0.65
Excavate Trench
2
CY
$6.31
Bed & Zone
0.3
CY
$14.87
1/2 mile one way average
Locally Obtained Backfill Material
1
CY
$17.38
allow for material loading & preparation
Imported Backfill - Drain Rock Material (Cobble)
0
CY
$7.18
Haul & Dispose at Repository
2
CY
$8.27
assume all wasted, 5 mile, use HAUL-2 cost
Repository Cost
2
CY
$26.66
use C8a cost
Filter Fabric Wrap
21
SF
$24.76
Trench Shoring - 25' avg depth
20
SF
$288.50
Solid shoring
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0.1
HR
$2.08
24 hr operation plus redundantt pump, pump to PS drain & to CTP
Temporary Pipeline to PS Drain & Removal
1
LF
$41.82
allow for 8" above grade HDPE pipe & appurtenances
Pipe, 14" HDPE, SDR 26 - Perforated
1
LF
$54.39
200'/day
Cleanouts
0.002
EA
$4.37
allowance
Restoration - Seeding
0.001
AC
$1.75
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$46.41
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
C15b French Drain, 15'bgs
1
LF
$907.04
10' deep avg depth, valve vault @1000'
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.001
AC
$0.65
Excavate Trench
2
CY
$9.31
Bed & Zone
0.3
CY
$16.01
1/2 mile one way average
Locally Obtained Backfill Material
1
CY
$27.37
allow for material loading & preparation
Imported Backfill - Drain Rock Material (Cobble)
0.46
CY
$11.31
Haul & Dispose at Repository
2
CY
$12.20
assume all wasted, 5 mile, use HAUL-2 cost
Repository Cost
2
CY
$39.33
use C8a cost
Filter Fabric Wrap
24
SF
$27.60
Trench Shoring - 25' avg depth
40
SF
$567.55
Solid shoring
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0.1
HR
$3.07
24 hr operation plus redundantt pump, pump to PS drain & to CTP
Temporary Pipeline to PS Drain & Removal
1
LF
$41.82
allow for 8" above grade HDPE pipe & appurtenances
Pipe, 18" HDPE, SDR 26 - Perforated
1
LF
$66.92
180'/day
Cleanouts
0.002
EA
$4.37
allowance
Restoration - Seeding
0.001
AC
$1.75
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$77.77
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Page 3 of 11
-------
TABLE D-2a
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
TCD Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
C15c
French Drain, 20' bgs
1
LF
$949.24
10' deep avg depth, valve vault @1000'
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.001
AC
$0.65
Excavate Trench
3
CY
$12.42
Bed & Zone
0.3
CY
$16.01
1/2 mile one way average
Locally Obtained Backfill Material
2
CY
$38.47
allow for material loading & preparation
Imported Backfill - Drain Rock Material (Cobble)
1
CY
$15.89
Haul & Dispose at Repository
3
CY
$16.27
assume all wasted, 5 mile, use HAUL-2 cost
Repository Cost
3
CY
$52.44
use C8a cost
Filter Fabric Wrap
26
SF
$30.54
Trench Shoring - 25' avg depth
40
SF
$567.55
Solid shoring
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0.2
HR
$4.09
24 hr operation plus redundantt pump, pump to PS drain & to CTP
Temporary Pipeline to PS Drain & Removal
1
LF
$41.82
allow for 8" above grade HDPE pipe & appurtenances
Pipe, 18" HDPE, SDR 26 - Perforated
1
LF
$66.92
180'/day
Cleanouts
0.002
EA
$4.37
allowance
Restoration - Seeding
0.001
AC
$1.75
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$80.05
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
C15d
French Drain, 25' bgs
1
LF
$1,210.16
25' deep avg depth, valve vault @1000'
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.001
AC
$0.65
Excavate Trench
4
CY
$16.14
Bed & Zone
0.4
CY
$17.14
1/2 mile one way average
Locally Obtained Backfill Material
3
CY
$50.67
allow for material loading & preparation
Imported Backfill - Drain Rock Material (Cobble)
1
CY
$20.93
Haul & Dispose at Repository
4
CY
$21.15
assume all wasted, 5 mile, use HAUL-2 cost
Repository Cost
4
CY
$68.18
use C8a cost
Filter Fabric Wrap
29
SF
$34.06
Trench Shoring - 25' avg depth
52
SF
$737.81
Solid shoring
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0.2
HR
$5.32
24 hr operation plus redundantt pump, pump to PS drain & to CTP
Temporary Pipeline to PS Drain & Removal
1
LF
$41.82
allow for 8" above grade HDPE pipe & appurtenances
Pipe, 24" HDPE, SDR 26 - Perforated
1
LF
$88.27
150'/day,
Cleanouts
0.002
EA
$4.37
allowance
Restoration - Seeding
0.001
AC
$1.75
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$101.89
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
C17a
Extraction Well - 20' deep
1
EA
$65,722.66
6" dia, 20' deep, sst screen 15', sch 80 pvc casing
Quote plus mark-up
Well Drilling and Development - Subcontract
1
EA
$4,729.56
Pumps - Subcontracted
1
EA
$3,547.17
allow
Discharge Piping
Pipe at Pump
Pipe-2" SDR 11 HDPE
30
LF
$251.52
Bend- 90 deg
2
EA
$214.11
Check Valve
1
EA
$463.97
Globe Valve
1
EA
$617.68
Gate Valve
1
EA
$411.94
Insulation Allowance
1
LS
$17,276.03
Clear & Grub Disposal Site
0.15
AC
$127.00
Page 4 of 11
-------
TABLE D-2a
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
TCD Code Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Pipe-6" SDR 21 HDPE
200
LF
$7,080.05
Tee - Reducing
1
EA
$628.55
Bend- 45 deg - allow
2.0
EA
$1,322.85
Excavate Trench
89
CY
$372.53
Bed & Zone
36
CY
$1,728.58
Native Backfill
52
CY
$517.10
Haul Waste Material
37
CY
$203.70
within 5 mile radius, clean material
Restoration - Seeding
0.15
AC
$339.58
subcontract
Electrical Service & Controls Allowance
50%
LS
$19,915.96
allow
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$5,974.79
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
C17b Extraction Well - 40' deep
1
EA
$68,649.07
6" dia, 40' deep, sst screen 15', sch 80 pvc casing
Quote plus mark-up
Well Drilling and Development - Subcontract
1
EA
$6,503.15
Pumps - Subcontracted
1
EA
$3,547.17
allow
Discharge Piping
Pipe at Pump
Pipe-2" SDR 11 HDPE
30
LF
$251.52
Bend- 90 deg
2
EA
$214.11
Check Valve
1
EA
$463.97
Globe Valve
1
EA
$617.68
Gate Valve
1
EA
$411.94
Insulation Allowance
1
LS
$17,276.03
Clear & Grub Disposal Site
0.15
AC
$127.00
Pipe -6" SDR 21 HDPE
200
LF
$7,080.05
Tee - Reducing
1
EA
$628.55
Bend- 45 deg - allow
2.0
EA
$1,322.85
Excavate Trench
89
CY
$372.53
Bed & Zone
36
CY
$1,728.58
Native Backfill
52
CY
$517.10
Haul Waste Material
37
CY
$203.70
within 5 mile radius, clean material
Restoration - Seeding
0.15
AC
$339.58
subcontract
Electrical Service & Controls Allowance
50%
LS
$20,802.75
allow
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$6,240.82
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
C17c Extraction Well - 50'deep
1
EA
$72,876.48
6" dia, 50' deep, sst screen 15', sch 80 pvc casing
Quote plus mark-up
Well Drilling and Development - Subcontract
1
EA
$8,276.73
Pumps - Subcontracted
1
EA
$5,911.95
allow
Discharge Piping
Pipe at Pump
Pipe-2" SDR 11 HDPE
30
LF
$251.52
Bend- 90 deg
2
EA
$214.11
Check Valve
1
EA
$463.97
Globe Valve
1
EA
$617.68
Gate Valve
1
EA
$411.94
Insulation Allowance
1
LS
$17,276.03
Clear & Grub Disposal Site
0.15
AC
$127.00
Page 5 of 11
-------
TABLE D-2a
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
TCD Code Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Pipe-6" SDR 21 HDPE
200
LF
$5,738.51
Tee - Reducing
1
EA
$527.94
Bend- 45 deg - allow
2.0
EA
$1,188.69
Excavate Trench
89
CY
$372.53
Bed & Zone
36
CY
$1,728.58
Native Backfill
52
CY
$517.10
Haul Waste Material
37
CY
$203.70
within 5 mile radius, clean material
Restoration - Seeding
0.15
AC
$339.58
subcontract
Electrical Service & Controls Allowance
50%
LS
$22,083.78
allow
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$6,625.13
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
C17d Extraction Well - 50'deep
1
EA
$80,354.73
10" dia, 55' deep, sst screen 15', sch 80 pvc casing (Note while this was
developed for 55' foot deep well it is being applied in a 50' deep scenario as the
values are similar)
Well Drilling and Development - Subcontract
1
EA
$11,232.71
Quote plus mark-up
Pumps - Subcontracted
1
EA
$5,911.95
allow
Discharge Piping
Pipe at Pump
Pipe-2" SDR 11 HDPE
30
LF
$251.52
Bend- 90 deg
2
EA
$214.11
Check Valve
1
EA
$463.97
Globe Valve
1
EA
$617.68
Gate Valve
1
EA
$411.94
Insulation Allowance
1
LS
$17,276.03
Clear & Grub Disposal Site
0.15
AC
$127.00
Pipe -6" SDR 21 HDPE
200
LF
$7,080.05
Tee - Reducing
1
EA
$628.55
Bend- 45 deg - allow
2.0
EA
$1,322.85
Excavate Trench
89
CY
$372.53
Bed & Zone
36
CY
$1,728.58
Native Backfill
52
CY
$517.10
Haul Waste Material
37
CY
$203.70
within 5 mile radius, clean material
Restoration - Seeding
0.15
AC
$339.58
subcontract
Electrical Service & Controls Allowance
50%
LS
$24,349.92
allow
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$7,304.98
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
C17e Extraction Well - 70' deep
1
EA
$83,281.15
10" dia, 70' deep, sst screen 15', sch 80 pvc casing
interp from above
Well Drilling and Development - Subcontract
1
EA
$13,006.29
Pumps - Subcontracted
1
EA
$5,911.95
allow
Discharge Piping
Pipe at Pump
Pipe-2" SDR 11 HDPE
30
LF
$251.52
Bend- 90 deg
2
EA
$214.11
Check Valve
1
EA
$463.97
Globe Valve
1
EA
$617.68
Gate Valve
1
EA
$411.94
Page 6 of 11
-------
TABLE D-2a
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
TCD Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Insulation Allowance
1
LS
$17,276.03
Clear & Grub Disposal Site
0.15
AC
$127.00
Pipe-6" SDR 21 HDPE
200
LF
$7,080.05
Tee - Reducing
1
EA
$628.55
Bend- 45 deg - allow
2.0
EA
$1,322.85
Excavate Trench
89
CY
$372.53
Bed & Zone
36
CY
$1,728.58
Native Backfill
52
CY
$517.10
Haul Waste Material
37
CY
$203.70
within 5 mile radius, clean material
Restoration - Seeding
0.15
AC
$339.58
subcontract
Electrical Service & Controls Allowance
50%
LS
$25,236.71
allow
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$7,571.01
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
C18
SFCDR Diversion
1
EA
$881,812.79
Cofferdam Both Sides of Cutoff Wall Excavation
300
LF
$270,000.00
Pump Intake Structure
2
EA
$50,000.00
allowance
Diversion Pump
4
EA
$243,748.27
2 active, 2 standby
30" HDPE Pipe
200
LF
$24,126.93
asm SDR 17
Misc Detail Allowance
50%
LS
$293,937.60
TESC, maintenance, etc
C19
I-90 Crossing
1
EA
$276,096.45
Remove Pavement
433
SY
$9,080.37
sawct, remove, dispose
Night Work Premium
1
LS
$52,000.00
assume 10%
Production Loss Adjustment
1
LS
$104,000.00
130LF, % of cutoff wall cost
Replace Pavement, Striping, etc
433
SY
$21,666.67
assume concrete/ACP
Traffic Control
1
LS
$52,000.00
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$37,349.41
road maint & repair, lights, plates, patch, etc
C20
Check Dam
1
EA
$47,897.66
assume pyramid 10ft base and 5 ft tall
Prepare Location for Check Dam Structure
1
LS
$14,601.84
potential shoring & bracing replacements, etc
Prep & Clean Surfaces for Mix
1
LS
$5,840.73
remove dirt & debris
Controlled Density Fill (CDF)
11
CY
$2,251.85
allow for special mix in small quantity, transport, 1:1 slope
Transport, Setup, Prep Operation
1
LS
$9,000.00
RSM 07/21/29.10, assume $3000/day & 3 days for bulkhead
Setup & Install CDF
11
CY
$8,220.29
assume hand mix at site
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$7,982.94
lighting, ventilation, etc
PIPE-1
Gravity Pipeline - 6"
1
LF
$58.74
Clear & Grub
3.6
SY
$0.84
Excavation
0.43
CY
$20.99
Bed & Zone
0.14
CY
$43.31
Native Backfill
0.28
CY
$11.59
Waste
0.15
CY
$6.86
HDPE Pipe
1
LF
$24.12
assume SDR 26 HDPE, 400'/day
Restoration
3.6
SY
$0.68
road gravel/seeding
Misc Work
1
LS
$9.79
fittings, valves, testing, startup
Page 7 of 11
-------
TABLE D-2a
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
TCD Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
PIPE-2
Gravity Pipeline -12"
1
LF
$86.16
Clear & Grub
3.8
SY
$0.84
Excavation
0.59
CY
$20.99
Bed & Zone
0.23
CY
$43.31
Native Backfill
0.33
CY
$11.59
Waste
0.26
CY
$6.86
HDPE Pipe
1
LF
$38.07
assume SDR 26 HDPE, 350'/day
Restoration
3.8
SY
$0.68
road gravel/seeding
Misc Work
1
LS
$14.36
fittings, valves, testing, startup
PIPE-3
Gravity Pipeline - 24"
1
LF
$138.85
Clear & Grub
4.2
SY
$0.84
Excavation
1
CY
$20.99
Bed & Zone
0.38
CY
$43.31
Native Backfill
0.5
CY
$11.59
Waste
0.5
CY
$6.86
HDPE Pipe
1
LF
$62.65
assume SDR 26 HDPE, 300'/day
Restoration
4.2
SY
$0.68
road gravel/seeding
Misc Work
1
LS
$23.14
fittings, valves, testing, startup
PIPE-4
Gravity Pipeline - 36"
1
LF
$180.00
Assume 6/10ths rule based on PIPE-3
PRESSURE-PIPE-1
Pressurized Pipeline - 3"
1
LF
$44.06
3' cover
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.001
AC
$2.96
Excavate Trench
0.52
CY
$2.17
Bed & Zone
0.16
CY
$7.77
Native Backfill
0.36
CY
$3.56
Haul Waste Material
0.16
CY
$0.89
within 5 mile radius, clean material
Trench Safety
1.00
LF
$5.00
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0.00
HR
$0.00
NA
Pipe, 3" HDPE, SDR 17
1.00
LF
$15.80
500'/day
Restoration - Seeding
0.0009
AC
$1.98
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$3.92
fittings, valves, location detection, etc
PRESSURE-PIPE-2
Pressurized Pipeline - 6"
1
LF
$82.03
single pipe, 30' deep avg depth, valve vault @1000'
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.001
AC
$2.54
Excavate Trench
0.444
CY
$1.86
Bed & Zone
0.178
CY
$8.64
Native Backfill
0.259
CY
$2.59
Haul Waste Material
0.185
CY
$1.02
within 5 mile radius, clean material
Trench Safety
1.000
LF
$5.00
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0.027
HR
$0.32
24 hr operaton x 4 for in stream
Pipe, 6" HDPE, SDR 17
1.000
LF
$34.07
300'/day
Pipe, 6" Tee Assembly
0.001
EA
$1.31
Pipe, 6" Flange Adapter
0.001
EA
$1.64
Pipe, 6" Valve w/ Stem/Box
0.001
EA
$7.12
Pipe, 8" Cap
0.001
EA
$0.53
Page 8 of 11
-------
TABLE D-2a
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
TCD Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Valve Vault Structure
0.001
EA
$6.33
Restoration - Seeding
0.001
AC
$1.70
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$7.37
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
PRESSURE-PIPE-2
Pressurized Pipeline - 8"
1
LF
$86.72
single pipe, 30' deep avg depth, valve vault @1000'
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.001
AC
$2.55
Excavate Trench
0.463
CY
$1.94
Bed & Zone
0.191
CY
$9.27
Native Backfill
0.260
CY
$2.59
Haul Waste Material
0.204
CY
$1.12
within 5 mile radius, clean material
Trench Safety
1.000
LF
$5.00
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0.028
HR
$0.33
24 hr operaton x 4 for in stream
Pipe, 8" HDPE, SDR 17
1.000
LF
$36.44
300'/day
Pipe, 8" Tee Assembly
0.001
EA
$1.28
Pipe, 8" Flange Adapter
0.001
EA
$1.73
Pipe, 8" Valve w/ Stem/Box
0.001
EA
$8.06
Pipe, 8" Cap
0.001
EA
$0.59
Valve Vault Structure
0.001
EA
$6.33
Restoration - Seeding
0.001
AC
$1.71
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$7.78
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
PRESSURE-PIPE-2
Pressurized Pipeline -12"
1
LF
$91.46
single pipe, 30' deep avg depth, valve vault @1000'
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.001
AC
$2.58
Excavate Trench
0.505
CY
$2.11
Bed & Zone
0.212
CY
$10.28
Native Backfill
0.264
CY
$2.63
Haul Waste Material
0.241
CY
$1.32
within 5 mile radius, clean material
Trench Safety
1.000
LF
$5.00
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0.030
HR
$0.36
24 hr operaton x 4 for in stream
Pipe, 12" HDPE, SDR 17
1.000
LF
$38.21
300'/day
Pipe, 12" Tee Assembly
0.001
EA
$1.37
Pipe, 12" Flange Adapter
0.001
EA
$1.80
Pipe, 12" Valve w/ Stem/Box
0.001
EA
$8.89
Pipe, 12" Cap
0.001
EA
$0.65
Valve Vault Structure
0.001
EA
$6.33
Restoration - Seeding
0.001
AC
$1.72
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$8.19
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
PRESSURE-PIPE-2
Pressurized Pipeline -14"
1
LF
$105.48
single pipe, 30' deep avg depth, valve vault @1000'
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.001
AC
$2.60
Excavate Trench
0.556
CY
$2.33
Bed & Zone
0.234
CY
$11.37
Native Backfill
0.282
CY
$2.81
Haul Waste Material
0.274
CY
$1.51
within 5 mile radius, clean material
Page 9 of 11
-------
TABLE D-2a
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
TCD Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Trench Safety
1.000
LF
$5.00
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0.033
HR
$0.40
24 hr operaton x 4 for in stream
Pipe, 14" HDPE, SDR 17
1.000
LF
$47.56
250'/day
Pipe, 14" Tee Assembly
0.001
EA
$1.52
Pipe, 14" Flange Adapter
0.001
EA
$1.92
Pipe, 14" Valve w/ Stem/Box
0.001
EA
$10.19
Pipe, 14" Cap
0.001
EA
$0.74
Valve Vault Structure
0.001
EA
$6.33
Seventeen structures assumed
Restoration - Seeding
0.001
AC
$1.74
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$9.45
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
PRESSURE-PIPE-3
Pressurized Pipeline -18"
1
LF
$176.44
single pipe, 30' deep avg depth, valve vault @1000'
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.001
AC
$2.66
Excavate Trench
0.667
CY
$2.79
Bed & Zone
0.280
CY
$13.61
Native Backfill
0.321
CY
$3.20
Haul Waste Material
0.346
CY
$1.90
within 5 mile radius, clean material
Trench Safety
1.000
LF
$5.00
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0.040
HR
$0.92
24 hr operation plus redundantt pump, pump to PS drain & to CTP
Temporary Pipeline to PS Drain & Removal
1.000
LF
$42.57
allow for 8" above grade HDPE pipe & appurtenances
Pipe, 18" HDPE, SDR 17
1.000
LF
$62.47
factored from 20"
Pipe, 18" Tee Assembly
0.001
EA
$1.85
factored from 20"
Pipe, 18" Flange Adapter
0.001
EA
$2.42
factored from 20"
Pipe, 18" Valve w/ Stem/Box
0.001
EA
$12.11
factored from 20"
Pipe, 18" Cap
0.001
EA
$0.97
factored from 20"
Valve Vault Structure
0.001
EA
$6.33
Seventeen structures assumed
Restoration - Seeding
0.001
AC
$1.78
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$15.87
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
PRESSURE-PIPE-3
Pressurized Pipeline - 21"
1
LF
$183.12
5' cover, valve vault @1000'
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.001
AC
$2.85
Excavate Trench
1.203
CY
$5.04
Bed & Zone
0.316
CY
$15.35
Native Backfill
0.797
CY
$7.95
Haul Waste Material
0.405
CY
$2.23
within 5 mile radius, clean material
Trench Safety
1.000
LF
$5.00
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0.072
HR
$1.66
24 hr operation plus redundantt pump, pump to PS drain & to CTP
Temporary Pipeline to PS Drain & Removal
1.000
LF
$42.57
allow for 8" above grade HDPE pipe & appurtenances
Pipe, 21" HDPE, SDR 17
1.000
LF
$58.86
300'/day
Pipe, 21" Tee Assembly
0.001
EA
$1.76
Pipe, 21" Flange Adapter
0.001
EA
$2.10
Pipe, 21" Valve w/ Stem/Box
0.001
EA
$12.21
Pipe, 21" Cap
0.001
EA
$0.86
Valve Vault Structure
0.001
EA
$6.33
Seventeen structures assumed
Page 10 of 11
-------
TABLE D-2a
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
TCD Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Restoration - Seeding
0.001
AC
$1.90
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$16.44
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
PRESSURE-PIPE-4
Pressurized Pipeline - 3"
1
LF
$154.69
3" HDPE Vertical in Cherry Raise
1
LF
$85.62
SDR 15.5, 80'/day
Supports & Hangers
1
LF
$5.00
asm 1/5', installation above
Pipe Chase Improvements
1
LF
$50.00
allowance to replace rotted timbers, etc
Misc Work
1
LS
$14,062.32
lights, acess, fittings, valves, etc
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal accuracy of -30 percent to
+50 percent (-30/+50%).
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-magnitude
cost opinion shown has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the
time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site
conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the final project schedule, and
other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these
factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions or establishing final
budgets.
Page 11 of 11
Notes:
AC = acre(s)
ACP = asphalt concrete paving
CDF = control density fill
CTP = central treatment plant
CY = cubic yards
EA = each
HDPE = high density polyethylene
HR = hour
LF = linear feet
LS = lump sum
PVC = polyvinyl chloride
SDR = standard dimension ratio
SF = square foot
SST = stainless steel
SY = square yards
TCD = typical conceptual design
-------
-------
TABLE D-2b
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Pump Station TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
TCD Code
Description
Unit
2009
Direct Capital
Unit Cost
O&M %
PUMP-1
Pump Station - 0.14 MGD
EA
$29,300.00
100%
PUMP-2
Pump Station -1.4 MGD
EA
$959,000.00
100%
PUMP-3
Pump Station - 3.9 MGD
EA
$1,025,000.00
100%
PUMP-4
Pump Station - 6.3 MGD
EA
$1,188,000.00
100%
PUMP-5
Pump Station - 6.5 MGD
EA
$1,208,000.00
100%
Notes:
EA = each
MGD = million gallons per day
TCD = typical conceptual design
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal accuracy of-30 percent
to +50 percent (-30/+50%).
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-
magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information
available at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material
costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the final
project schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making
specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-3
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Treatment TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
TCD
Direct Capital
Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
WT01
Centralized High-Denisty Sludge Treatment at CTP
Costs for WT01 are included in Attachment D-1
WT02
Semi-Passive Lime Treatment (Lineraized Cost)
gpm
y = 2613x +
O&M %:
258722
y = (4254.9x + 997357)/(2613x + 258722)
WT02
Semi-Passive Lime Treatment
5
GPM
$233,951
5 Lime Feed System
Clear & Grub
0.50
AC
$2,748
entire area allowance
Lime Feed/Storage System
1
LS
$21,133
quote + frt & markup [Aquafix]
Lime
0.25
Ton
$109
quote + frt & markup [Aquafix] This system holds 500 lbs of lime.
Concrete Pad
6
CY
$3,972
assume 10' sq
Building over Equipment
100
SF
$20,000
3-sided metal shed, foundation, no lighting
500-gallon propane tank for heating
1
LS
$2,200
lump sum estimate by Aquafix
Conveyance Channel
100
LF
Excavation
122
CY
$2,080
assume 100' long, 2'w@ bottom, 3:1 slopes, 3'd
Waste
122
CY
$293
2 trucks, dispose nearby
Riprap
85
CY
$4,255
assume 12" thick
Settling Ponds and Bypass
2
EA
Cut & Fill
1,180
CY
$24,318
assume balance cut & fill, From design spreadsheet: Volume pond =
2612 cf, Liquid depth = 10 ft., Area (avg) = 261 sf
Liner Fill
380
CY
$18,042
6" under & over, prorated quantity
Lining
1,120
SY
$12,661
single 60mil HDPE, prorated quantity
Site Fencing, Gates & Signage
480
LF
$12,000
subcontract
Bird Deterrent
1,120
SY
$5,600
subcontract
6" HDPE Pipeline
230
LF
$15,901
5' cover; This assumes 100 ft of pipe to the ponds, 100 ft. of pipe
between the 2 ponds, and 30 ft of pipe for the bypass. The bypass
was determined to be 150% of the diameter of the two ponds.
6" Knife Gate Valve & Vault
4
EA
$24,727
Effluent and Emergency Channel
310
LF
This assumes a 50' effluent channel and a 260' (100' conveyance, 60'
diameter of ponds, 100' in between ponds - see figure) emergency
channel to protect the ponds.
Excavation
379
CY
$6,449
assume 310' long, 2'w @ bottom, 3:1 slopes, 3'd
Waste
379
CY
$908
2 trucks, dispose nearby
Riprap
264
CY
$13,189
assume 12" thick
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$38,117
testing, startup, other TESC, etc
Page 1 of 7
-------
TABLE D-3
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Treatment TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
TCD
Direct Capital
Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
WT02
Semi-Passive Lime Treatment
50
GPM
$428,994
50
Lime Feed System
Clear & Grub
0.50
AC
$2,748
entire area allowance
Lime Feed/Storage System
1
LS
$29,933
quote + frt & markup
Lime
2
Ton
$875
quote + frt & markup; This system holds 2 tons of lime.
Concrete Pad
6
CY
$3,972
assume 10' sq
Building over Equipment
100
SF
$20,000
3-sided metal shed, foundation, no lighting
500-gallon propane tank for heating
1
LS
$2,200
lump sum estimate by Aquafix
Conveyance Channel
100
LF
Excavation
122
CY
$2,080
assume 100' long, 2'w@ bottom, 3:1 slopes, 3'd
Waste
122
CY
$293
2 trucks, dispose nearby
Riprap
85
CY
$4,255
assume 12" thick
Settling Ponds and Bypass
2
EA
Cut & Fill
4,960
CY
$102,220
assume balance cut & fill
Liner Fill
840
CY
$39,882
6" under & over
Lining
2,520
SY
$28,487
single 60mil HDPE
Site Fencing, Gates & Signage
1,120
LF
$28,000
subcontract
Bird Deterrent
2,520
SY
$12,600
subcontract
6" HDPE Pipeline
290
LF
$20,049
5' cover; This assumes 100 ft of pipe to the ponds, 100 ft. of pipe
between the 2 ponds, and 90 ft of pipe for the bypass. The bypass
was determined to be 150% of the diameter of the two ponds.
6" Knife Gate Valve & Vault
4
EA
$24,727
Effluent and Emergency Channel
430
LF
This assumes a 50' effluent channel and a 380' (100' conveyance,
180' diameter of ponds, 100' in between ponds - see figure)
emergency channel to protect the ponds.
Excavation
526
CY
$8,953
assume 380' long, 2'w @ bottom, 3:1 slopes, 3'd
Waste
526
CY
$1,261
2 trucks, dispose nearby
Riprap
366
CY
$18,280
assume 12" thick
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$70,163
testing, startup, other TESC, etc
WT02
Semi-Passive Lime Treatment
1,000
GPM
$2,869,940
1000
Lime Feed System
Clear & Grub
1.00
AC
$5,496
entire area allowance
Lime Feed/Storage System
1
LS
$117,933
quote + frt & markup
Lime
18
Ton
$7,878
quote + frt & markup
Page 2 of 7
-------
TABLE D-3
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Treatment TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
TCD
Direct Capital
Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Concrete Pad
13
CY
$8,938
assume 15' sq
Building over Equipment
100
SF
$20,000
3-sided metal shed, foundation, no lighting
500-gallon propane tank for heating
1
LS
$2,200
lump sum estimate by Aquafix
Conveyance Channel
100
LF
Excavation
122
CY
$2,080
assume 100' long, 2'w@ bottom, 3:1 slopes, 3'd
Waste
122
CY
$293
2 trucks, dispose nearby
Riprap
85
CY
$4,255
assume 12" thick
Settling Ponds and Bypass
2
EA
Cut & Fill
63,000
CY
$1,298,359
assume balance cut &fill; Volume pond = 522,413 cf, Liquid depth =
10 ft., Area (avg) = 52,241 sf
Liner Fill
6,000
CY
$284,871
6" under & over
Lining
17,900
SY
$202,349
single 60mil HDPE
Site Fencing, Gates & Signage
4,320
LF
$108,000
subcontract
Bird Deterrent
17,900
SY
$89,500
subcontract
12" HDPE Pipeline
590
LF
$86,299
5' cover; This assumes 100 ft of pipe to the ponds, 100 ft. of pipe
between the 2 ponds, and 390 ft of pipe for the bypass. The bypass
was determined to be 150% of the diameter of the two ponds.
12" Knife Gate Valve & Vault
4
EA
$43,090
allowance
Bypass System
1
LS
$14,727
pipe, fittings, valves, vaults, etc
Effluent and Emergency Channel
1,030
LF
This assumes a 50' effluent channel and a 980' (100' conveyance,
780' diameter of ponds, 100' in between ponds) emergency channel
to protect the ponds.
Excavation
1,259
CY
$21,428
assume 1030' long, 2'w@ bottom, 3:1 slopes, 3'd
Waste
1,259
CY
$3,017
2 trucks, dispose nearby
Riprap
877
CY
$43,822
assume 12" thick
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$472,907
testing, startup, other TESC, etc
WT03
Semi-Passive SRB Treatment (Linearized Cost)
gpm
y = 6482.4x +
O&M %:
132414
y = (3012.9x + 526116)/(6482.4x + 132414)
WT03
Semi-Passive SRB Treatment
5
GPM
$164,753
5 SRB Ponds
2
EA
Clear & Grub
0.25
AC
$1,374
entire area allowance
Cut & Fill
264
CY
$5,441
assume balance earthwork;SRB depth = 10 ft, SRB Area = 361 sf
Liner Fill
170
CY
$8,071
6" under & over
Page 3 of 7
-------
TABLE D-3
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Treatment TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
TCD
Direct Capital
Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Lining
560
SY
$6,330
60mil HDPE
Stable Waste
203
CY
$7,953
75% of excavation, 0.5TN/CY, quote + markup
Lime
68
CY
$5,479
25% of excavation, 1.25TN/CY, quote + markup, mix in-place
Flow Distribution Piping
2
EA
$7,496
allowance
Passive Aeration Channel
100
LF
Excavation
122
CY
$2,080
assume 100' long, 2'w@ bottom, 3:1 slopes, 3'd
Waste
122
CY
$293
2 trucks, dispose nearby
Riprap
85
CY
$4,255
assume 12" thick
Aerobic Polishing Pond
1
EA
Cut & Fill
60
CY
$1,237
assume balance earthwork
Wetland
1
EA
Cut & Fill
10
CY
$2,748
assume balance earthwork
Wetland Planting
11
SY
$111
cattails, allowance
Other including bypass
Site Fencing, Gates & Signage
600
LF
$15,000
subcontract, assume 1/2 acre
Bird Deterrent
1,200
SY
$6,000
subcontract, assume 1/4 acre
6" HDPE Pipeline
270
LF
$18,666
5' cover; This assumes 100 ft of pipe to the ponds, 100 ft. of pipe
between the 2 ponds, and 70 ft of pipe for the bypass. The bypass
was determined to be 150% of the diameter of the two SRB ponds.
6" Knife Gate Valve & Vault
4
EA
$24,727
Effluent and Emergency Channel
370
LF
assumes a 50' effluent and 320' emergency channel
Excavation
452
CY
$7,698
assume 320' long, 2'w @ bottom, 3:1 slopes, 3'd
Waste
452
CY
$1,084
2 trucks, dispose nearby
Riprap
315
CY
$15,742
assume 12" thick
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$19,362
testing, startup, other TESC, etc
WT03
Semi-Passive SRB Treatment
50
GPM
$456,608
50 SRB Ponds
2
EA
Clear & Grub
0.50
AC
$2,748
entire area allowance
Cut & Fill
1,970
CY
$40,599
assume balance earthwork
Liner Fill
400
CY
$18,991
6" under & over
Lining
2,200
SY
$24,870
60mil HDPE
Stable Waste
2,006
CY
$78,767
75% of excavation, 0.5TN/CY, quote + markup
Lime
669
CY
$54,264
25% of excavation, 1.25TN/CY, quote + markup, mix in-place
Flow Distribution Piping
2
EA
$7,496
allowance
Page 4 of 7
-------
TABLE D-3
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Treatment TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
TCD
Direct Capital
Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Passive Aeration Channel
100
LF
Excavation
122
CY
$2,080
assume 100' long, 2'w@ bottom, 3:1 slopes, 3'd
Waste
122
CY
$293
2 trucks, dispose nearby
Riprap
85
CY
$4,255
assume 12" thick
Aerobic Polishing Pond
1
EA
Cut & Fill
400
CY
$8,244
assume balance earthwork
Wetland
1
EA
Cut & Fill
50
CY
$13,739
assume balance earthwork
Wetland Planting
278
SY
$2,778
cattails, allowance
Other including bypass
Site Fencing, Gates & Signage
800
LF
$20,000
subcontract, assume 1 acre
Bird Deterrent
2,400
SY
$12,000
subcontract, assume 1/2 acre
6" HDPE Pipeline
410
LF
$28,345
5' cover; This assumes 100 ft of pipe to the ponds, 100 ft. of pipe
between the 2 ponds, and 210 ft of pipe for the bypass. The bypass
was determined to be 150% of the diameter of the two SRB ponds,
polishing pond, and wetland.
6" Knife Gate Valve & Vault
4
EA
$24,727
Effluent and Emergency Channel
590
LF
assumes a 50' effluent and a 540' emergency channel
Excavation
721
CY
$12,275
assume 590' long, 2'w @ bottom, 3:1 slopes, 3'd
Waste
721
CY
$1,728
2 trucks, dispose nearby
Riprap
503
CY
$25,102
assume 12" thick
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$64,091
testing, startup, other TESC, etc
WT03
Semi-Passive SRB Treatment
1,000
GPM
$6,614,763
1000
SRB Ponds
2
EA
Clear & Grub
4.55
AC
$24,980
entire area allowance
Cut & Fill
60,000
CY
$1,236,532
assume balance earthwork
Liner Fill
8,000
CY
$379,828
6" under & over
Lining
22,000
SY
$248,698
60mil HDPE
Stable Waste
40,101
CY
$1,574,990
75% of excavation, 0.5TN/CY, quote + markup
Lime
13,367
CY
$1,085,046
25% of excavation, 1.25TN/CY, quote + markup, mix in-place
Flow Distribution Piping
2
EA
$7,496
allowance
Passive Aeration Channel
100
LF
Excavation
122
CY
$2,080
assume 100' long, 2'w@ bottom, 3:1 slopes, 3'd
Waste
122
CY
$293
2 trucks, dispose nearby
Riprap
85
CY
$4,255
assume 12" thick
Page 5 of 7
-------
TABLE D-3
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Treatment TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
TCD
Direct Capital
Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Aerobic Polishing Pond
1
EA
Cut & Fill
10,800
CY
$222,576
assume balance earthwork
Wetland
1
EA
Cut & Fill
600
CY
$164,871
assume balance earthwork
Wetland Planting
1,202
SY
$12,018
cattails, allowance
Other including bypass
Site Fencing, Gates & Signage
2,000
LF
$50,000
subcontract, assume 6 acre
Bird Deterrent
24,000
SY
$120,000
subcontract, assume 5 acre
12" HDPE Pipeline
1,110
LF
$162,359
5' cover; This assumes 100 ft of pipe to the ponds, 100 ft. of pipe
between the 2 ponds, and 910 ft of pipe for the bypass. The bypass
was determined to be 150% of the diameter of the two SRB ponds.
12" Knife Gate Valve & Vault
4
EA
$43,090
allowance
Effluent and Emergency Channel
1,720
LF
assumes a 50' effluent and a 1670' emergency channel
Excavation
2,102
CY
$35,784
assume 1720' long, 2'w@ bottom, 3:1 slopes, 3'd
Waste
2,102
CY
$5,038
2 trucks, dispose nearby
Riprap
1,465
CY
$73,179
assume 12" thick
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$1,044,542
testing, startup, other TESC, etc
WT04a
Semi-Passive SR-PRB Treatment
11,250
CF
$19,522
10' Deep
Clear & Grub
0.07
AC
$378
150'x20'
Excavation
417
CY
$3,546
100'Lx7.5'Wx15'D;PRB will be 10'deep, 5'of excavation on top
Waste
278
CY
$666
2 trucks, dispose nearby
Stable Waste
208
CY
$5,066
75% of excavation, 0.5TN/CY, quote + markup
Lime
69
CY
$6,931
25% of excavation, 1.25TN/CY, quote + markup, mix in-place
Misc Detail Allowance
15%
LS
$2,488
testing, startup, other TESC, etc
7,500
100'Lx7.5'Wx10'D This accounts for only the PRB. See 'P11" for
entire excavation.
Page 6 of 7
-------
TABLE D-3
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Water Treatment TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
TCD
Direct Capital
Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
WT04b
Semi-Passive SR-PRB Treatment
33,750
CF
$117,985
40' Deep
Clear & Grub
0.17
AC
$946
150'x50'
Excavation
1,250
CY
$24,300
100'Lx7.5'Wx45'D; PRB will be 40' deep, 5' of excavation on top
Waste
1,111
CY
$2,663
2 trucks, dispose nearby
Stable Waste
833
CY
$28,574
75% of excavation, 0.5TN/CY, quote + markup
Lime
278
CY
$36,352
25% of excavation, 1.25TN/CY, quote + markup, mix in-place
Misc Detail Allowance
25%
30,000
LS
$23,209
testing, startup, other TESC, safety, dewatering, rockissure etc
100'Lx7.5'Wx40'D This accounts for only the PRB. See 'P11" for
entire excavation.
Notes:
AC = acre(s)
CTP = central treatment plant
CY = cubic yards
EA = each
HDPE = high density polyethylene
LS = lump sum
SRB = sulfate reducing bioreactor
SR-PRB = sulfate reducing permeable reactive barrier
SY = square yards
TESC = temporary erosion and sediment control
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal
accuracy of-30 percent to +50 percent (-30/+50%).
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-
magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information
available at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material
costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the final
project schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making
specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Page 7 of 7
-------
-------
TABLE D-4
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Human Health TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Direct
TCD Capital Unit
Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Cost
Comments
HH-2
Upland Waste Pile Soil Cover
1
AC
$58,443.08
Regrade Waste Rock
4,840
CY
$5.25
assume 5' deep
Vegetative Cover
1,613
CY
$15.94
based on CIA estimate
Grade Surface Drainage Ditch
400
CY
$3.78
assume 400' & 1cy/LF
Hydroseed
4840
SY
$0.41
Bunker Hill estimates
Miscellaneous
1
LS
$3,823.73
HH-3
Millsite Decontamination
1
EA
$135,800.00
HH-4
Millsite Demolition/Disposal
100
CY
$168.60
Demolish and Dispose in Solid Waste Landfill
75
CY
$67.90
Disposal of Hazardous Waste
25
TN
$407.40
Miscellaneous
1
LS
$1,582.07
Notes:
AC = acre(s)
CIA = central impoundment area
CY = cubic yards
EA = each
LS = lump sum
SY = square yards
TCD = typical conceptual design
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal accuracy of-30 percent to +50 percent (-30/+50%).
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-magnitude cost opinion shown has
been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will
depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the final
project schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these
factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-5
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Stream and Riparian Cleanup Action TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
TCD Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
CD-1
Current Deflector-Groynes (Spur Dikes, Spurs)
1
EA
$2,005.22
high end of cost range
Rock
3
EA
$135.80
Log
3
EA
$108.64
Installation
1
LS
$1,089.61
assume 2 hours
Misc Work
1
LS
$182.29
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
CD-2
Current Deflector-Bank Deflector with Root Wad
1
EA
$1,674.82
Riprap
20
CY
$27.16
allow 20cy
Orientation Log
4
EA
$108.64
Installation
1
LS
$544.80
assume 1 hour
Misc Work
1
LS
$152.26
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
CD-3
Current Deflector-Riprap Groynes & Orientation Effect
1
EA
$1,915.59
Riprap
20
CY
$27.16
allow 20cy
Log
1
EA
$108.64
Installation
1
LS
$1,089.61
assume 2 hours
Misc Work
1
LS
$174.14
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
CD-4
Current Deflector-Log Weir & Dam Structure
1
EA
$2,806.17
Riprap
10
CY
$27.16
allow 10cy
Streambed Gravel
10
CY
$33.95
allow 10cy
Logs, Posts & Braces
1
LS
$271.60
Filter Cloth
1
LS
$33.95
Installation
1
LS
$1,634.41
assume 3 hours
Misc Work
1
LS
$255.11
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
CD-5
Current Deflector-Angled Vortex Rock Weir w/Rootwads
1
EA
$1,915.59
Riprap
20
CY
$27.16
allow 10cy
Rootwad & Anchor
1
EA
$108.64
Installation
1
LS
$1,089.61
assume 2 hours
Misc Work
1
LS
$174.14
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
CD-6
Current Deflector-Riprap Turning Rock Wall
1
EA
$2,093.09
Riprap
50
CY
$27.16
allow 50cy
Installation
1
LS
$544.80
assume 1 hour
Misc Work
1
LS
$190.28
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
CD-7
Current Deflector-Riprap Tieback
1
EA
$2,035.10
Riprap
20
CY
$27.16
allow 20cy
Log
2
EA
$108.64
Installation
1
LS
$1,089.61
assume 2 hours
Misc Work
1
LS
$185.01
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
CD-AVG
Current Deflector, Average Cost
1
EA
$2,063.65
average cost from above
CD-SED
Current Deflectors, Sediment Traps
1
EA
$1,870.00
from 2007 URS Cost Update Memo
Page 1 of 5
-------
TABLE D-5
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Stream and Riparian Cleanup Action TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
TCD Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
VBS-1
Brush Mattress w/Rock Toe
1
LF
$52.05
Rock Toe
0.5
CY
$38.06
excavate & place
Wire or Jute Rope & Stakes
10
SF
$1.36
Topsoil
0.2
CY
$16.66
6"th
Fascines
1
LS
$6.79
allowance
Installation
1
LF
$4.59
assume 500'/day
Misc Work
1
LS
$4.73
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
VBS-2
Brush Layer
1
LF
$27.69
Wire or Jute Rope & Stakes
10
SF
$1.36
Topsoil
0.1
CY
$16.66
Fascines
1
LS
$6.79
allowance
Installation
1
LF
$4.59
assume 500'/day
Misc Work
1
LS
$1.07
eros/sed control, etc
VBS-3
Live Stake, Live Post & Joint Planted Fascines
1
LF
$76.25
Riprap
1
CY
$27.16
Joint Planted Fascine
2
EA
$2.72
Live Stake
5
EA
$1.36
6"th
Live Post
3
EA
$2.72
Installation
1
LS
$21.79
assume 200'/day
Misc Work
1
LS
$6.93
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
VBS-AVG
Vegetative Bank Stabilization, Average Cost
1
LF
$52.00
average cost from above
BSBR-1
Vegetated Geogrid
1
LF
$112.24
Soil Excavation
2
CY
$5.45
assume 2cy/LF
Waste
2
CY
$2.72
dispose on tailings pile
Filter Layer
0.09
CY
$1.36
assume 5' x 6"th
Rock Blanket
0.44
CY
$44.67
quote for Bunker Hill projects, 20cy/hour
Topsoil
1.11
CY
$16.66
assume 6' x 5'th
Coir Geotextile
3
SY
$1.36
assume 3sy/LF
Live Branches
5
EA
$0.68
Live Stakes
5
EA
$1.36
Straw Matting
2
SY
$2.04
assume 2sy/LF
Installation
1
LS
$28.87
assume 150'/day
Misc Work
1
LS
$10.20
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
BSBR-2
Live Cribwall
1
LF
$206.54
Soil Excavation
2
CY
$5.45
assume 2cy/LF
Waste
2
CY
$2.72
dispose on tailings pile
Timbers
36
BF
$1.36
assume 6x6 timbers & 36BF/LF
Rock Fill
0.44
CY
$26.32
quote for Bunker Hill projects
Topsoil
1.11
CY
$16.66
assume 6' x 5'th
Anchor
0.01
EA
$67.90
assume 100'oc allow cost
Live Branches
5
EA
$0.68
Drain Rock
1
CY
$44.67
quote for Bunker Hill projects, 20cy/hour
Page 2 of 5
-------
TABLE D-5
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Stream and Riparian Cleanup Action TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
TCD Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
Installation
1
LS
$43.58
assume 100'/day
Misc Work
1
LS
$18.78
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
BSBR-3
Low Energy Tree Revetment
1
LF
$61.35
Soil Excavation
1
CY
$5.45
assume 1cy/LF
Backfill
1
CY
$5.45
assume excavated material backfill & compact around
logs
Logs
0.20
EA
$108.64
assume 5' spacing, allow cost
Revegetate Bank
1.00
SY
$1.36
1 sy/LF
Installation
1
LS
$21.79
assume 200'/day
Misc Work
1
LS
$5.58
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
BSBR-4
Moderate Energy Tree Revetment
1
LF
$104.27
Soil Excavation
2
CY
$5.45
assume 1cy/LF
Waste
1
CY
$2.72
dispose on tailings pile
Backfill
1
CY
$5.45
assume excavated material backfill & compact around
logs
Logs
0.20
EA
$108.64
assume 10' spacing, allow cost for footer, header &
rootwad
5-man Rock
0.07
EA
$135.80
assume 15' spacing, allow cost
Deadman
0.01
EA
$67.90
assume 100' spacing, allow cost
Live Stakes & Posts
10.00
EA
$1.36
assume 10/LF
Revegetate Bank
1.00
SY
$1.36
1 sy/LF
Installation
1
LS
$28.87
assume 150'/day
Misc Work
1
LS
$9.48
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
BSBR-5
Tree Deflector
1
LF
$90.48
Soil Excavation
1
CY
$5.45
assume 1cy/LF
Backfill
1
CY
$5.45
assume excavated material backfill & compact around
logs
Trees
0.10
EA
$108.64
assume 10' spacing, allow cost
Connector Cable
1.00
LF
$2.72
Deadman & Cable
0.03
EA
$67.90
assume 40' spacing, allow cost
Rock Anchor & Leash
0.10
EA
$203.70
assume 10' spacing, allow cost
Live Stakes & Posts
10.00
EA
$1.36
assume 10/LF
Installation
1
LS
$21.79
assume 200'/day
Misc Work
1
LS
$8.23
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
BSBR-6
Woody Debris & Vegetated Geogrid System
1
LF
$156.70
Soil Excavation
1
CY
$5.45
assume 2cy/LF
Backfill
1
CY
$5.45
assume excavated material backfill & compact around
logs
Logs
0.10
EA
$108.64
assume 10' spacing, allow cost
Rock Filter Layer
0.09
CY
$21.73
assume 5' x 6"th
Riprap
1.00
CY
$27.16
assume 1cy/LF
Rock Anchor & Leash
0.10
EA
$203.70
assume 10' spacing, allow cost
Page 3 of 5
-------
TABLE D-5
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Stream and Riparian Cleanup Action TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
TCD Code
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
5-man Rock
0.07
EA
$135.80
assume 15' spacing, allow cost
Topsoil
1.11
CY
$16.66
assume 6' x 5'th
Coir Geotextile
3
SY
$1.36
assume 3sy/LF
Live Branches
5
EA
$0.68
Live Stakes & Posts
5
EA
$1.36
Installation Cost
1
LS
$28.87
assume 150'/day
Misc Work
1
LS
$14.25
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
BSBR-Avg
Bioengineered Revetments, Averaqe Cost
1
LF
$121.93
average cost from above
FP/RP-1a
Floodplain and Riparian Planting
1
SF
$0.54
bank width/LF of river variable
Site Prep
0.01
CY
$2.72
assume 4" deep average grading
Soil Ammendments
0.01
CY
$1.73
Live Planting
0.1
EA
$1.36
assume 1cy/LF
Tree Planting
0.1
EA
$2.72
allow cost
Hydroseeding
0.1
SY
$0.41
Bunker Hill estimates
Misc Work
1
LS
$0.05
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
FP/RP-1b
Floodplain Planting
1
SF
$2.14
Soil Excavation
0.01
CY
$5.45
assume trenches 5' apart & 10'long each side, 1cy/LF
Backfill
0.01
CY
$5.45
assume excavated material backfill & compact around
logs
Riprap
0.01
CY
$54.40
assume 1cy/LF
Live Branches
2
EA
$0.70
allow cost
Installation Cost
0.01
LS
$9.19
assume 500'/day
Misc Work
0.01
LS
$0.21
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
FP/RP-Avg
Floodplain and Riparian Planting, Average Cost
1
SF
$1.34
OFFCH-1
Groundwater-Fed Side Channel
6,050
SY
$23.76
assume 1/2 hectare as typical size = approx 1.25 acre
Cut & Fill
2,017
CY
$5.45
assume 1' deep over entire area
Stream Gravel
2,017
CY
$39.40
assume 1' deep
Riprap
100
CY
$54.40
allow quantity
LWD etc
50
EA
$135.80
assume 2' spacing, allow cost
Misc Work
1
LS
$41,067.86
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
OFFCH2-3
Surface-Fed Side Channel
167
SY
$41.64
assume 15'w, sloped 3h:1v, 5'd
Cut & Fill
56
CY
$5.45
assume 1' deep over entire area
Stream Gravel
56
CY
$39.40
assume 1' deep
Riprap
20
CY
$54.40
assume quantity
LWD etc
10
EA
$135.80
assume quantity
Misc Work
1
LS
$1,982.95
stream diversion, eros/sed control, etc
Page 4 of 5
-------
TABLE D-5
Detailed Unit Cost Estimates for Stream and Riparian Cleanup Action TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009
Direct Capital
TCD Code Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Comments
OFFCH-3 Off-Channel Pond
556
SY
$62.56
assume 50'w, sloped 3h:1v, 5'd
Soil Excavation
1,204
CY
$5.45
assume 5' deep & slope allowance
Waste
1,204
CY
$6.86
Stream Gravel
185
CY
$39.40
assume 1' deep
LWD etc
20
EA
$135.80
assume quantity
Misc Work
1
LS
$9,930.88
OFFCH-Avg Off-Channel Hydroloqic Features, Average Cost
2,257
SY
$42.65
CH REAL-1 Channel Realignment
100
SY
$42.19
Soil Excavation
133
CY
$5.45
assume 3' deep including slope allowance
Waste
133
CY
$6.86
Stream Gravel
44
CY
$39.40
assume 1' deep
Misc Work
1
LS
$843.75
bank stabilization & restoration
Notes:
BF = board foot
CY = cubic yards
EA = each
LF = linear feet
LS = lump sum
SF = square foot
SY = square yards
TCD = typical conceptual design
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal accuracy of-30 percent to +50 percent (-30/+50%).
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-magnitude cost opinion shown has
been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will
depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the
final project schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these
factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Page 5 of 5
-------
-------
TABLE D-6
Summary of Cost Assumptions and Limitations for Source Control TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
TCD
Assumptions/Limitations
Code
Description
2009 Direct Capital Unit Cost
O&M Costs
C01
Excavation
Assumes excavator (trackhoe),
excavation above water table. Does not
include hauling and dewatering, if
needed.
Assumes complete removal.
C01b
Sediment Excavation
Assumes 60% excavation above water
table, 40% below water table, with
replacement of 25% of excavated
sediment with imported backfill.
Assumes complete removal.
C02a
Regrade/Consolidate/Revegetate
Waste pile on hillside. Assumes average
regrading depth of 5 ft.
Repair of damaged cap components potentially largest
O&M element: assumed 5% of cap area repaired at
ฆyear 2, 2.5% at year 5, and 1 % every 5 years
thereafter. O&M would also include inspections and
ฆmonitoring.
C02b
Regrade/Consolidate/Revegetate
Waste pile in drainage. Assumes
average regrading depth of 13 ft.
C02c
Regrade/Consolidate/Revegetate
For slopes steeper than 1.51-1:1 V. Riprap
used for erosion protection below
nominal 100-year flood elevation.
C03
Low-Permeability Cap
Uses GCL for low permeability layer.
Low-permeability native soil or native soil
amended with bentonite are other
options.
C04
Low-Permeability Cap with Seepage
Collection
Same as C03, with groundwater
collection and diversion trench.
C05 Low-Permeability Cap with Erosion
Protection
C06
C07
Same as C03, with addition of riprap toe.
Waste Consolidation Area with
Erosion Protection
Assumes 25 ft waste thickness.
Assumes GCL and 1 acre cap.
Waste Consolidation Area Above
Flood Level
Cost does include a 1/2 mile haul.
Assumes 25 ft waste thickness.
Assumes GCL and 1 acre cap.
C08a
Repository, 1 million cy
Cost does not include hauling.
Assumes bottom liner and leachate
collection system.
Land acquisition costs are not included.
Includes two 16 hr inspections/year (1 spring and 1
winter) and two storm event inspections/year;
Assumes 2% of capital cost for annual repairs and
maintenance;
Quarterly sampling and analysis
C09
Impoundment Closure
Includes regrading to 31-1:1 V sideslope
and placement of GCL cap.
Repair of damaged cap components potentially largest
O&M element: assumed 5% of cap area repaired at
year 2, 2.5% at year 5, and 1 % every 5 years
thereafter. O&M would also include inspections and
monitoring.
HAUL-2 Haul to Repository
Cost is in units of CY-MI.
No O&M costs.
Notes:
CY = cubic yards
GCL = geosynthetic clay liner
O&M = operation and maintenance
TCD = typical conceptual design
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-7
Summary of Cost Assumptions and Limitations for Water Collection, Conveyance, and Management TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Assumptions/Limitations
TCD Code
Description
2009 Direct Capital Unit Cost
O&M Costs
C10
Adit Drainage Collection
Costs for water treatment not
included. Does not incorporate full
adit seal, infiltration control, or
management of water levels inside
mine.
Inspections
and sediment
removal.
C11a
Slurry Wall (no drain) -15 feet deep
Used for hydraulic isolation of stream No O&M costs.
C11b
Slurry Wall (no drain) - 20 feet deep
reaches or discrete facilities. When
C11c
Slurry Wall (no drain) - 30 feet deep
used for stream reaches, cost is per
C11d
Slurry Wall (no drain) - 40 feet deep
linear foot of stream, one side of
C11e
Slurry Wall (no drain) - 45 feet deep
stream. Assumes excavated with
C11f
Slurry Wall (no drain) - 50 feet deep
excavator (track hoe). Assumed no
C11g
Slurry Wall (no drain, soil cement) - 50 feet deep
excavated material reusable as
C11h
Slurry Wall (with drain) -15 feet deep
backfill.
Inspections
C11i
Slurry Wall (with drain) - 20 feet deep
and drain
C11 j
Slurry Wall (with drain) - 30 feet deep
cleanout.
C14a
Stream Lining -10 feet wide
Assumes average bottom width of
Routine
C14b
Stream Lining - 20 feet wide
channel over entire length of
inspection and
C14c
Stream Lining -100 feet wide
application.
maintenance.
C15a
French Drain -10 feet deep
Water treatment not included in drain Inspections
C15b
French Drain -15 feet deep
cost.
and drain
C15c
French Drain - 20 feet deep
cleanout.
C15d
French Drain - 25 feet deep
C17a
Extraction Well - 20 feet deep (6" wide)
Costs do not include effluent piping.
Inspection,
C17b
Extraction Well - 40 feet deep (6" wide)
maintenance.
C17c
Extraction Well - 50 feet deep (6" wide)
Replacement
C17d
Extraction Well - 50 feet deep (10" wide)
of pumps.
C17e
Extraction Well - 70 feet deep (10" wide)
C18
SFCDR Diversion
Includes coffer dam on both sides of
cutoff wall.
No O&M costs.
C19
I-90 Crossing
Assumes 130' cutoff wall beneath
I-90.
No O&M costs.
C20
Check Dam
Dam height and material dependent
upon water flowrate and chemistry.
No O&M costs.
PIPE-1
Gravity Pipeline - 6"
All pipelines trenched and buried. No Assumed 2%
PIPE-2
Gravity Pipeline -12"
unusual geographic, soils, or
replacement
PIPE-3
Gravity Pipeline - 24"
groundwater conditions. Land
every 5 years.
PIPE-4
Gravity Pipeline - 36"
acquisition costs not included.
PRESSURE-PI PE-1
Pressurized Pipeline - < 6" diameter
All pipelines trenched and buried. No Assumed 2%
PRESSURE-PI PE-2
Pressurized Pipeline - < 6"-14" diameter
unusual geographic, soils, or
replacement
PRESSURE-PI PE-3
Pressurized Pipeline - >14" diameter
groundwater conditions. Land
every 5 years.
PRESSURE-PI PE-4
Pressurized Pipeline - 3" diameter
acquisition costs not included.
PUMP-1
Pump Station - 0.14 MGD
Costs developed using CPES
Inspection,
PUMP-2
Pump Station -1.4 MGD
assuming maximum flow.
maintenance.
PUMP-3
Pump Station - 3.9 MGD
Replacement
PUMP-4
Pump Station - 6.3 MGD
of pumps.
PUMP-5
Pump Station - 6.5 MGD
Notes:
MGD = million gallons per day
O&M = operation and maintenance
TCD = typical conceptual design
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-8
Summary of Cost Assumptions and Limitations for Water Treatment TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Assu mptions/Li mitations
TCD Code
Description
2009 Direct Capital Unit Cost
O&M Costs
WT02 Onsite Semi-Passive Water Treatment
Using Lime Addition and Settling Pond(s)
Includes a Lime feed system, Includes cleaning of ponds (with a 50% liner
conveyance channel, 2 settling ponds replacement) at years 10 and 20.
with bypass functionality, and an effluent Includes lime replacement based on usage
and emergency channel determined by design criteria.
Includes monitoring 4 times/year
Includes miscellaneous O&M at 8% of direct
capital cost
WT03 Onsite Semi-Passive Water Treatment
Using SRB System
Includes 2 SRB ponds, a passive
aeration channel, an aerobic polishing
pond, a wetland, and an effluent and
emergency channel
Includes media replacement every 15 years
Includes monitoring 4 times/year
Includes miscellaneous O&M at 4% of direct
capital cost
WT04a In Situ Onsite Semi-Passive Groundwater
Treatment Using SR-PRB
Includes a 10 ft. deep PRB with 5 feet
excavation on top of that. Therefore the
total excavation is 15 ft bgs.
Includes media replacement every 15 years
Includes monitoring 4 times/year
Includes miscellaneous O&M at a lump sum
of $3500/year
WT04b In Situ Onsite Semi-Passive Groundwater
Treatment Using SR-PRB
Includes a 40 ft. deep PRB with 5 feet
excavation on top of that. Therefore the
total excavation is 45 ft bgs.
Includes media replacement every 15 years
Includes monitoring 4 times/year
Includes miscellaneous O&M at a lump sum
of $10,000/year
Notes:
O&M = operation and maintenance
SRB = sulfate reducing bioreactor
PRB = permeable reactive barrier
TCD = typical conceptual design
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-9
Summary of Cost Assumptions and Limitations for Human Health TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Assumptions/Limitations
TCD Code
Description
2009 Direct Capital Unit Cost
O&M Costs
HH-2
Upland Waste Pile Soil Cover
Assumed depth of regrading = 5 ft.
Routine inspection and
maintenance.
HH-3
Millsite Decontamination
Removal and offsite disposal of
hazardous substances,
decontamination of building
surfaces.
Routine inspection and
maintenance.
HH-4
Millsite Demolition/Disposal
Assume 25% of material to
hazardous waste landfill; 75% to
solid waste landfill or disposed of
onsite.
Routine inspection and
maintenance.
Notes:
O&M = operation and maintenance
TCD = typical conceptual design
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-10
Summary of Cost Assumptions and Limitations for Stream and Riparian Cleanup Action TCDs
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
TCD Code
Description
2009 Direct Capital Unit Cost
Assumptions/Limitations
O&M Costs
CD-AVG
CD-SED
Current Deflector, Average Cost
Placement requires use of heavy
machinery, riprap toe protection. Site
access may also be a significant cost
consideration in some cases. However,
most streams in the project are
paralleled by roads on one or both sides,
minimizing access difficulties.
Current Deflectors, Sediment Traps
Detailed cost breakdown unavailable.
Assumes periodic (annual) inspection for
evidence of outflanking or undermining.
Repair or redesign and replacement may
be required if damaged by high flow
events or channel migration.
VBS-AVG Vegetative Bank Stabilization, Average Cost Site preparation with heavy machinery All plantings are vulnerable to high
and toe protection with riprap, live stream flows and desiccation until roots
facines, or other material required. are established. Frequent monitoring
Banks may be stabilized with live cuttings may be required initially until the root
or rooted stock, rooted stock being mass is established, followed by
generally more expensive. seasonal and then annual monitoring.
Protection from browsing animals,
irrigation, and some replanting may be
required.
BSBR-AVG Bioengineered Revetments, Average Cost Assumes site preparation and toe Requires annual monitoring for evidence
protection with heavy machinery. of undermining or outflanking at head.
Placement of rocks, crib, logs, and other Repair or additional reinforcement may
large heavy materials also require heavy be required to prevent structure failure,
machinery. Occasional repair or redesign and
replacement of some areas may be
required if large scale failure occurs.
FP/RP-AVG Floodplain/Riparian Planting, Average Cost
Assumes areas subject to regular
overbank flows during high flow events
require use of heavy machinery to create
trenches for protection of live plantings.
Areas less subject to overbank flow will
not require heavy machinery and may
follow the "dig and drop" approach to
planting.
Live plantings are vulnerable to
desiccation, overbank flows, and
browsing animals. Protection from
browsing animals and irrigation may be
required initially. Assumes regular
monitoring will be conducted until root
mass is established, and seasonal
monitoring thereafter, with site
preparation and replanting conducted as
required.
OFFCH-AVG Off-Channel Hydrologic Feature, Average Cost
Off-channel hydrologic features will be
sited in areas where excavation of
contaminants is planned. Unit cost
estimates do not include site excavation
O&M rates for off-channel hydrologic
features can vary considerably. Properly
constructed groundwater fed features will
require minimal maintenance, whereas
requirements assumed to be represented surface water fed features may require
by the costs of contaminant removal, but an active O&M plan to maintain
do include "cut and fill" costs using heavy connectivity to the mainstem, hydrologic
machinery for additional site preparation
as needed.
performance, and ensuring fish access
and other habitat considerations as
desired. Accordingly, monitoring
requirements will vary with the type of
feature.
CH REAL-1
Channel Realignment
Channel realignment may be required as Assuming proper design and
part of an integrated approach to
streambank and substrate stabilization.
This approach assumes use of heavy
machinery and possibly temporary flow
diversion.
implementation, channel realignment is
directed towards creating a self-
maintaining structural change requiring
minimal O&M. However, realignment
failure and subsequent channel migration
can result in failure of bank stabilization
and other remedial measures, requiring
extensive replacement.
Notes:
O&M = operation and maintenance
TCD = typical conceptual design
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-11
Alternative RP-1 - Pinehurst Cost Analysis
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Calculation of Expected Annual Damage7
30-Year Life Cycle Cost
Average
Storm Damage for Expected
Event Probability of Estimated Frequency Frequency Annual
(Years) Occurrence Damage2 Interval Interval Damage
50 2.00% $11,127,000
2.00% $8,958,000 $179,200
25 4.00% $6,788,000
16.00% $5,166,000 $826,600
5 20.00% $3,544,000
Total $1,005,800
Real Discount Rate 7%
Target Number of Years for Remedy Protection 30
^resent^/alue_of_Exฃected^nnual_Damac(e_Over30^ear_ฃenod^^_^^^12J480J000
Notes:
1 Calculation of expected annual damage based on method described in Memorandum: Methodology for Estimating Expected Loss from
Damage to Remedies (CH2M HILL, September 16, 2009).
2 Estimated damage values are from Appendix G in this Focused Feasibility Study Report. Based on modeling results and remediation
costs of $5.17 per square foot.
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-12
Alternative RP-1: Smelterville Cost Analysis
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Calculation of Expected Annual Damage1
30-Year Life Cycle Cost
Average
Storm Damage for Expected
Event Probability of Estimated Frequency Frequency Annual
(Years) Occurrence Damage2 Interval Interval Damage
50 2.00% $6,468,000
2.00% $4,887,000 $97,700
25 4.00% $3,306,000
16.00% $2,071,000 $331,400
5 20.00% $835,000
Total $429,100
Real Discount Rate 7%
Target Number of Years for Remedy Protection 30
Present Value of Expected Annual Damage Over 30-year period $5,320,000
Notes:
1 Calculation of expected annual damage based on method described in Memorandum: Methodology for Estimating Expected Loss
from Damage to Remedies (CH2M HILL, September 16, 2009).
2 Estimated damage values are from Appendix G in this Focused Feasibility Study Report. Based on modeling results and
remediation costs of $5.17 per square foot.
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-13
Alternative RP-1: Kellogg Cost Analysis
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Calculation of Expected Annual Damage1
30-Year Life Cycle Cost
Storm
Event
(Years)
50
25
Probability of
Occurrence
2.00%
4.00%
20.00%
Estimated
Damage2
Frequency
Interval
Average
Damage for
Frequency
Interval
$867,000
$745,000
$474,000
2.00%
16.00%
$806,000
$610,000
Expected
Annual
Damage
$16,100
$97,600
Total
$113,700
Real Discount Rate
Target Number of Years for Remedy Protection
Present Value of Expected Annual Damage Over 30-year period
7%
30
$1,410,000
Notes:
1 Calculation of expected annual damage based on method described in Memorandum: Methodology for Estimating Expected
Loss from Damage to Remedies (CH2M HILL, September 16, 2009).
2 Estimated damage values are from Appendix G in this Focused Feasibility Study Report. Based on modeling results and
remediation costs of $5.17 per square foot.
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-14
Alternative RP-1: Wardner Cost Analysis
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Calculation of Expected Annual Damage1
30-Year Life Cycle Cost
Average
Storm Damage for Expected
Event Probability of Estimated Frequency Frequency Annual
(Years) Occurrence Damage2 Interval Interval Damage
50 2.00% $696,000
2.00% $696,000 $13,900
25 4.00% $696,000
16.00% $696,000 $111,400
5 20.00% $696,000
Total $125,300
Real Discount Rate 7%
Target Number of Years for Remedy Protection 30
Present Value of Expected Annual Damage Over 30-year period $1,550,000
Notes:
1 Calculation of expected annual damage based on method described in Memorandum: Methodology for Estimating Expected
Loss from Damage to Remedies (CH2M HILL, September 16, 2009).
2 Estimated damage values are from Appendix G in this Focused Feasibility Study Report. Based on modeling results and
remediation costs of $5.17 per square foot.
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-15
Alternative RP-1: Osburn Cost Analysis
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Calculation of Expected Annual Damage1
30-Year Life Cycle Cost
Average
Storm Damage for Expected
Event Probability of Estimated Frequency Frequency Annual
(Years) Occurrence Damage2 Interval Interval Damage
50 2.00% $4,440,000
2.00% $4,032,000 $80,600
25 4.00% $3,623,000
16.00% $2,473,000 $395,700
5 20.00% $1,322,000
Total $476,300
Real Discount Rate 7%
Target Number of Years for Remedy Protection 30
Present Value of Expected Annual Damage Over 30-year period $5,910,000
Notes:
1 Calculation of expected annual damage based on method described in Memorandum: Methodology for Estimating Expected Loss
from Damage to Remedies (CH2M HILL, September 16, 2009).
2 Estimated damage values are from Appendix G in this Focused Feasibility Study Report. Based on modeling results and
remediation costs of $5.17 per square foot.
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-16
Alternative RP-1: Silverton Cost Analysis
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Calculation of Expected Annual Damage1
30-Year Life Cycle Cost
Average
Storm Damage for Expected
Event Probability of Estimated Frequency Frequency Annual
(Years) Occurrence Damage2 Interval Interval Damage
50 2.00% $3,192,000
2.00% $2,401,000 $48,000
25 4.00% $1,610,000
16.00% $1,282,000 $205,100
5 20.00% $954,000
Total $253,100
Real Discount Rate 7%
Target Number of Years for Remedy Protection 30
Present Value of Expected Annual Damage Over 30-year period $3,140,000
Notes:
1 Calculation of expected annual damage based on method described in Memorandum: Methodology for Estimating Expected Loss
from Damage to Remedies (CH2M HILL, September 16, 2009).
2 Estimated damage values are from Appendix G in this Focused Feasibility Study Report. Based on modeling results and
remediation costs of $5.17 per square foot.
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-17
Alternative RP-1: Wallace Cost Analysis
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Calculation of Expected Annual Damage1
30-Year Life Cycle Cost
Average
Storm Damage for Expected
Event Probability of Estimated Frequency Frequency Annual
(Years) Occurrence Damage2 Interval Interval Damage
50 2.00% $534,000
2.00% $392,000 $7,800
25 4.00% $249,000
16.00% $169,000 $27,000
5 20.00% $88,000
Total $34,800
Real Discount Rate 7%
Target Number of Years for Remedy Protection 30
Present Value of Expected Annual Damage Over 30-year period $430,000
Notes:
1 Calculation of expected annual damage based on method described in Memorandum: Methodology for Estimating Expected
Loss from Damage to Remedies (CH2M HILL, September 16, 2009).
2 Estimated damage values are from Appendix G in this Focused Feasibility Study Report. Based on modeling results and
remediation costs of $5.17 per square foot.
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-18
Alternative RP-1: Mullan Cost Analysis
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Calculation of Expected Annual Damage1
30-Year Life Cycle Cost
Average
Storm Damage for Expected
Event Probability of Estimated Frequency Frequency Annual
(Years) Occurrence Damage2 Interval Interval Damage
50 2.00% $2,889,000
2.00% $2,477,000 $49,500
25 4.00% $2,065,000
16.00% $1,457,000 $233,100
5 20.00% $848,000
Total $282,600
Real Discount Rate 7%
Target Number of Years for Remedy Protection 30
Present Value of Expected Annual Damage Over 30-year period $3,510,000
Notes:
1 Calculation of expected annual damage based on method described in Memorandum: Methodology for Estimating Expected
Loss from Damage to Remedies (CH2M HILL, September 16, 2009).
2 Estimated damage values are from Appendix G in this Focused Feasibility Study Report. Based on modeling results and
remediation costs of $5.17 per square foot.
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-19
Alternative RP-1: Approximate Cost for Side Gulches
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Total Area of Existing Selected Remedies in Side Gulches1
Unit Cost to Re-remediate (or Repair) Selected Remedies2 $
Estimated Area of Remedy at Risk for 5-, 25-, and 50-year Storm Events
11,320,000 SF
5.17 per SF
Estimated Estimated Area
Percent of of Remedy at Estimated Cost to
Storm Event Remedy at Risk3 Risk4 Re-Remediate5
(Years) (%) (SF) ($)
50
25
5
25% 2,830,000 $ 14,600,000
16% 1,810,000 $ 9,400,000
7% 790,000 $ 4,080,000
Calculation of Expected Annual Damage
30-Year Life Cycle Cost
Average Damage
Storm Event Probability of Estimated Frequency for Frequency Expected Annual
(Years) Occurrence7 Damage8 Interval9 Interval Damage
50
25
5
2.00%
4.00%
20.00%
14,600,000
9,400,000
4,080,000
2.00%
16.00%
$12,000,000 $240,000
$6,700,000 $1,070,000
Total
$1,310,000
Real Discount Rate
Target Number of Years for Remedy Protection
Present Value of Expected Annual Damage Over 30-year period
7%
30
$16,300,000
TOTAL APPROXIMATE COST (30-year NPV) for Side Gulches
$16,300,000
Notes:
SF = square feet
NPV = net present value
1 Total area of existing Selected Remedies in side gulches calculated by GIS analysis as documented in
Side Gulch Costing Memorandum (TerraGraphics, 2010).
2 This cost was developed by TerraGraphics and is documented in Appendix G of the FFS Report.
3 The estimated percent of remedy at risk is based on the average remedy at risk for the eight
communities where hydrologic and hydraulic modeling analyses were conducted. This is documented in
Table 9-3 in the FFS Report.
4 The estimated area of remedy at risk multiplies the estimated percent of remedy at risk by the total
existing remedy in the side gulches.
5 The estimated cost to re-remediate multiplies the estimated area of remedy at risk by the unit costs to re-
remediate (or repair) Selected Remedies
6 Calculation of expected annual damage based on method described in Methodology for Estimating Expected Loss
from Damage to Remedies Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2009).
7 Probability of occurrence calculated based on the percent chance that the storm event will happen in any given
year. For example in a single year, there is a 2% probability of experiencing the damage from a 50-year storm event.
Estimated damage values are from modeling outputs and unit cost assumptions discussed in Section 9.6.1.1 and
documented in Appendix G of the FFS Report.
9 The frequency interval is the difference between the probability of occurrence for two storm events.
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-20
Alternative RP-2: Pinehurst Cost Summary
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
2009 Total
Direct and
Capital Unit
Direct Capital
Indirect Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Cost
Cost
Cost
Little Pine Creek
1
Channel Modification-Increase Left Bank Height To 4 ft With A 1 ft Tall Berm (XS 1)
165
LF
$110
$18,150
$30,855
2
Reconstruct Existing Earthen Channel To 10' X 3' Channel W/ 3' Vert Concrete Wall Along
80
LF
$340
$27,200
$46,240
Left Side Of Channel (XS 2)
3
Reconstruct Existing Earthen Channel To 12' X 3' (L) X61 (R) Concrete Channel (XS 3A)
50
LF
$928
$46,400
$78,880
4
Reconstruct Existing Earthen Channel To 12' X 3' (L) X61 (R) Concrete Channel (XS 3B)
100
LF
$933
$93,300
$158,610
5
Reconstruct Existing Earthen Channel To 12' X 3.5' (L) X 4' (R) Concrete Channel (XS 4)
125
LF
$780
$97,500
$165,750
6
Reconstruct Existing Earthen Channel To 12' X3' (L) Concrete Channel (XS 6A)
105
LF
$697
$73,185
$124,415
7
Reconstruct Existing Earthen Channel To 12' X3' (L) Concrete Channel (XS 6B)
105
LF
$697
$73,185
$124,415
8
Reconstruct Existing Earthen Channel To 12' X3' (L) Concrete Channel (XS 6C)
180
LF
$711
$127,980
$217,566
9
Channel Modification-Increase Left Bank Height To 3 ft With A 1.4 ft Tall Berm (XS 10)
330
LF
$37
$12,210
$20,757
10
Reconstruct Existing Channel By Widening To 28'X18'X2.5' Earthen Channel W/ 0.8 ft Tall
270
LF
$56
$15,120
$25,704
Berm On Right And Left Bank (XS 11)
11
Channel Modifications-Construct 0.5 ft Tall Berm On Left Bank And Increase Channel
170
LF
$22
$3,740
$6,358
Bottom By 0.1 ft To Account For Slope Alterations (XS 13)
12
Channel Modifications-Construct 0.5 ft Tall Berm On Left Bank And Decrease Channel
120
LF
$28
$3,360
$5,712
Bottom By 0.5 ft To Account For Slope Alterations (XS 14)
13
Channel Modifications-Decrease Channel Depth By 0.7 ft To Account For Slope
55
LF
$28
$1,540
$2,618
Alterations (XS 15)
14
Reconstruct Existing Channel To 25.2'X11'X3.1' (L) X4' (R) Earthen Channel And
55
LF
$65
$3,575
$6,078
Decrease Channel Depth By 0.7 ft To Account For Slope Alterations (XS 16)
15
Replace Existing Wood Driveway Bridge With 14'X26' Single Span Bridge W/ A Clear
1
EA
$169,000
$169,000
$287,300
Height Of 2.5 ft (Bridge 1, Xs 5)
16
Replace Existing Steel Driveway Bridge With 14'X15" Single Span Bridge W/ A Clear
1
EA
$103,000
$103,000
$175,100
Height Of 2.5 ft (Bridge 2, Xs 7)
17
Replace Existing Wood Driveway Bridge With 14'X18' Single Span Bridge W/ A Clear
1
EA
$118,000
$118,000
$200,600
Height Of 2.5 ft (Bridge 3, Xs 8)
18
Replace Existing Driveway Bridge With 14'X16' Single Span Bridge W/ A Clear Height Of
1
EA
$110,000
$110,000
$187,000
2.5 ft (Bridge 4, Xs 9)
19
Replace Existing Concrete Box Culvert (3'X8'X28') With 18'X28' Single Span Bridge W/ A
1
EA
$224,000
$224,000
$380,800
Clear Height Of 3 ft (Bridge 5, Xs 12)
20
Replace Existing Wood Bridge (12'X4') With 14'X4' Single Span Bridge W/ A Clear Height
1
EA
$34,000
$34,000
$57,800
Of 3.6 ft (Bridge 6)
Subtotal Rounded
$2,300,000
NPV for 30-year O&M Cost
Total NPV cost at 30 years
$844,000
$3,144,000
Notes:
NPV = Net Present Value
EA = each
LF = linear feet
O&M = operation and maintenance
Assumptions:
All excavated material is hauled to repository and replaced with imported material.
Pipe cover is 3' over pipe
All work will be performed in the summer and therefore no water issues exist.
See estimate details for additional assumptions
Total indirect cost assumes 70% of Total Direct Capital Cost
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-21
Alternative RP-2: Pinehurst Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct Direct Capital
Description Quantity Unit Capital Unit Cost Cost Comments
Little Pine Creek
Increase Left Bank Height to 4 ft w/1 ft Berm (1)
165
LF
see detail
Prep Channel Bank
165
LF
$86.03
$14,194
difficult operation, assume 10 dys
Imported Fill Material
34.8
CY
$62.91
$2,191
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$1,639
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$29
Total Direct Unit Cost
$110.00
$18,053
Reconstruct Existing Channel to 10' wide/ 3' Wall (2)
80
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.1
AC
$6,514.75
$479
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
26.7
CY
$14.80
$395
Prep & Grade Channel
80
LF
$7.84
$627
Haul & Dispose at Repository
26.7
CY
$5.49
$146
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
Repository Cost
26.7
CY
$11.38
$303
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
17.8
CY
$53.33
$948
imported, difficult operation
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 3' tall + 1 foot below grade
11.9
CY
$737.64
$8,742
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
2370.4
LB
$1.79
$4,231
CIP Wall Footing, 2.5 wide x 1.5' tall
11.1
CY
$496.76
$5,520
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
1666.7
LB
$1.79
$2,975
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$2,392
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$375
Total Direct Unit Cost
$340.00
$27,134
Reconstruct Channel w/ 3' L wall, 6' R wall, 12' Channel (3A)
50
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.0
AC
$6,514.75
$299
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Demo existing RR Tie and Debris
50
LF
$62.74
$3,137
Excavate Channel
55.6
CY
$14.80
$822
Prep & Grade Channel
50
LF
$7.84
$392
Haul & Dispose at Repository
55.6
CY
$5.49
$305
Repository Cost
55.6
CY
$11.38
$632
Imported Fill Material
20.4
CY
$53.33
$1,086
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 3' tall
5.6
CY
$737.64
$4,098
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
1111.1
LB
$1.79
$1,983
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 6' tall
11.1
CY
$737.64
$8,196
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
use C08a cost
imported, difficult operation
Page 1 of 10
-------
TABLE D-21
Alternative RP-2: Pinehurst Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
2222.2
LB
$1.79
$3,967
CIPSlab, 12" thk, 16' wide
30
CY
$295.88
$8,767
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
4,444
LB
$1.79
$7,934
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$4,068
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$682
Total Direct Unit Cost
$928.00
$46,369
4
Reconstruct Channel w/ 3' L wall, 6' R wall, 12' Channel (3B)
100
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.1
AC
$6,514.75
$598
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Demo existing RR Tie and Debris
100
LF
$62.74
$6,274
Excavate Channel
127.8
CY
$14.80
$1,891
Prep & Grade Channel
100
LF
$7.84
$784
Haul & Dispose at Repository
127.8
CY
$5.49
$702
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
way
Repository Cost
127.8
CY
$11.38
$1,454
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
40.7
CY
$53.33
$2,173
imported, difficult operation
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 3' tall
11.1
CY
$737.64
$8,196
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
2222.2
LB
$1.79
$3,967
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 6' tall
22.2
CY
$737.64
$16,392
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
4444.4
LB
$1.79
$7,934
CIPSlab, 12" thk, 16' wide
59
CY
$295.88
$17,534
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
8,889
LB
$1.79
$15,868
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$8,161
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$1,364
Total Direct Unit Cost
$933.00
$93,290
5
Reconstruct Channel w/ 3.5' L wall, 4' R wall, 12' Channel (4)
125
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.1
AC
$6,514.75
$748
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
125.0
CY
$14.80
$1,850
Prep & Grade Channel
125
LF
$7.84
$980
Haul & Dispose at Repository
125.0
CY
$5.49
$686
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
way
Repository Cost
125.0
CY
$11.38
$1,423
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
34.7
CY
$53.33
$1,852
imported, difficult operation
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 3.5' tall
16.2
CY
$737.64
$11,953
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
3240.7
LB
$1.79
$5,785
Page 2 of 10
-------
TABLE D-21
Alternative RP-2: Pinehurst Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 4' tall
18.5
CY
$737.64
$13,660
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
3703.7
LB
$1.79
$6,611
CIP Slab, 12" thk, 16' wide
74
CY
$295.88
$21,917
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
11,111
LB
$1.79
$19,834
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$8,519
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$1,565
Total Direct Unit Cost
$780.00
$97,383
6 Reconstruct Channel w/ 3' L & R wall, 12' Channel (6A)
105
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.1
AC
$6,514.75
$628
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
68.4
CY
$14.80
$1,013
Prep & Grade Channel
105
LF
$7.84
$823
Haul & Dispose at Repository
68.4
CY
$5.49
$376
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
68.4
CY
$11.38
$779
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
23.3
CY
$53.33
$1,244
imported, difficult operation
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 3' tall
11.7
CY
$737.64
$8,606
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
2333.3
LB
$1.79
$4,165
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 3' tall
11.7
CY
$737.64
$8,606
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
2333.3
LB
$1.79
$4,165
CIP Slab, 12" thk, 16' wide
62
CY
$295.88
$18,410
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
9,333
LB
$1.79
$16,661
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$6,432
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$1,204
Total Direct Unit Cost
$697.00
$73,113
Reconstruct Channel w/ 3' L & R wall, 12' Channel (6B)
105
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.1
AC
$6,514.75
$628
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
70.0
CY
$14.80
$1,036
Prep & Grade Channel
105
LF
$7.84
$823
Haul & Dispose at Repository
70.0
CY
$5.49
$384
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
Repository Cost
70.0
CY
$11.38
$797
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
23.3
CY
$53.33
$1,244
imported, difficult operation
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 3' tall
11.7
CY
$737.64
$8,606
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
2333.3
LB
$1.79
$4,165
Page 3 of 10
-------
TABLE D-21
Alternative RP-2: Pinehurst Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 3' tall
11.7
CY
$737.64
$8,606
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
2333.3
LB
$1.79
$4,165
CIP Slab, 12" thk, 16' wide
62
CY
$295.88
$18,410
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
9,333
LB
$1.79
$16,661
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$6,435
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$1,204
Total Direct Unit Cost
$697.00
$73,165
8 Reconstruct Channel w/ 3' L & R wall, 12' Channel (6C)
180
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.2
AC
$6,514.75
$1,077
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
53.3
CY
$14.80
$789
Prep & Grade Channel
180
LF
$7.84
$1,412
Haul & Dispose at Repository
53.3
CY
$5.49
$293
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
way
Repository Cost
53.3
CY
$11.38
$607
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
120.0
CY
$53.33
$6,399
imported, difficult operation
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 3' tall
20.0
CY
$737.64
$14,753
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
4000.0
LB
$1.79
$7,140
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 3' tall
20.0
CY
$737.64
$14,753
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
4000.0
LB
$1.79
$7,140
CIP Slab, 12" thk, 16' wide
107
CY
$295.88
$31,561
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
16,000
LB
$1.79
$28,562
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$11,359
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$2,130
Total Direct Unit Cost
$711.00
$127,974
9 Increase L Bank to 3' with 1.4' Berm (10)
330
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.3
AC
$6,514.75
$1,974
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
58.7
CY
$14.80
$868
Prep & Grade Channel
330
LF
$7.84
$2,588
Haul & Dispose at Repository
58.7
CY
$5.49
$322
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
way
Repository Cost
58.7
CY
$11.38
$668
use C8a cost
Imported Fill Material
85.6
CY
$53.33
$4,563
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$999
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Page 4 of 10
-------
TABLE D-21
Alternative RP-2: Pinehurst Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$71
Total Direct Unit Cost
$37.00
$12,052
10
Increase Channel Height to 2.5' and 18' wide (11)
270
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.2
AC
$6,514.75
$1,615
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
229.5
CY
$14.80
$3,396
Prep & Grade Channel
270
LF
$7.84
$2,117
Haul & Dispose at Repository
229.5
CY
$5.49
$1,260
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
way
Repository Cost
229.5
CY
$11.38
$2,612
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
52.8
CY
$53.33
$2,816
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$994
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$44
Total Direct Unit Cost
$56.00
$14,854
11
Construct 6" Berm on Left Bank, Increase Bottom 0.1' (13)
170
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.2
AC
$6,514.75
$1,017
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
0.0
CY
$14.80
$0
Prep & Grade Channel
170
LF
$7.84
$1,333
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.0
CY
$5.49
$0
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
way
Repository Cost
0.0
CY
$11.38
$0
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
18.6
CY
$53.33
$994
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$334
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$15
Total Direct Unit Cost
$22.00
$3,694
12
Construct 6" Berm on Left Bank, Lower Bottom 0.5' (14)
120
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.1
AC
$6,514.75
$718
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
31.1
CY
$14.80
$460
Prep & Grade Channel
120
LF
$7.84
$941
Haul & Dispose at Repository
31.1
CY
$5.49
$171
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
way
Repository Cost
31.1
CY
$11.38
$354
use C08a cost
Page 5 of 10
-------
TABLE D-21
Alternative RP-2: Pinehurst Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
Imported Fill Material
6.7
CY
$53.33
$356
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$247
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$6
Total Direct Unit Cost
$28.00
$3,253
13
Lower Channel Bottom By 0.7' (15)
55
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.1
AC
$6,514.75
$329
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
20.0
CY
$14.80
$295
Prep & Grade Channel
55
LF
$7.84
$431
Haul & Dispose at Repository
20.0
CY
$5.49
$110
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
20.0
CY
$11.38
$227
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
0.0
CY
$53.33
$0
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$106
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$0
Total Direct Unit Cost
$28.00
$1,498
14
Reconstruct Channel: 25.2'x11,x3.1,(L)x4,(R), Lower Bottom 0.7'
55
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.1
AC
$6,514.75
$329
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
81.1
CY
$14.80
$1,200
Prep & Grade Channel
55
LF
$7.84
$431
Haul & Dispose at Repository
81.1
CY
$5.49
$445
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
81.1
CY
$11.38
$923
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
0.0
CY
$53.33
$0
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$196
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$0
Total Direct Unit Cost
$65.00
$3,525
15
Replace Existing Bridge w/ New 14'x26' Span Bridge
1
EA
3' cover, done in summer, no dewatering needed,
keep one lane open
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
77.8
SY
$12.55
$976
Remove & Dispose Existing Wooden Bridge, 14'x26'
364
SF
$30.00
$10,920
Excavate Trench
0.0
CY
$7.84
$0
account for pipe removal & loading, less pipe
Page 6 of 10
-------
TABLE D-21
Alternative RP-2: Pinehurst Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
Bed & Zone
0.0
CY
$46.86
$0
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.0
CY
$9.94
$0
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.0
CY
$5.49
$0
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.0
CY
$11.38
$0
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
0
LF
$5.00
$0
trench box
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 2.5' tall
2.4
CY
$737.64
$1,776
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
481.5
LB
$1.79
$859
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 2.5' tall
2.4
CY
$737.64
$1,776
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
481.5
LB
$1.79
$859
CIP Slab, 12" thk, 16' wide
15
CY
$295.88
$4,559
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
2,311
LB
$1.79
$4,126
New Bridge & Abutments - Steel
364
SF
$300.00
$109,200
based on road & bridge file
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$27,010
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
SUBTOTAL
$162,061
Total Direct Unit Cost
$169,000.00
$168,914
16 Replace Existing Bridge w/ New 14'x15' Span Bridge
1
EA
3' cover, done in summer, no dewatering needed,
keep one lane open
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
77.8
SY
$12.55
$976
Remove & Dispose Existing Steel Bridge, 14'x15'
210
SF
$50.00
$10,500
Excavate Trench
0.0
CY
$7.84
$0
account for pipe removal & loading, less pipe
Bed & Zone
0.0
CY
$46.86
$0
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.0
CY
$9.94
$0
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.0
CY
$5.49
$0
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.0
CY
$11.38
$0
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
0
LF
$5.00
$0
trench box
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 2.5' tall
1.4
CY
$737.64
$1,025
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
277.8
LB
$1.79
$496
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 2.5' tall
1.4
CY
$737.64
$1,025
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
277.8
LB
$1.79
$496
CIP Slab, 12" thk, 16' wide
9
CY
$295.88
$2,630
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
1,333
LB
$1.79
$2,380
New Bridge & Abutments - Steel
210
SF
$300.00
$63,000
based on road & bridge file
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$16,505
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$3,954
Total Direct Unit Cost
$103,000.00
$102,986
Page 7 of 10
-------
TABLE D-21
Alternative RP-2: Pinehurst Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
17 Replace Existing Bridge w/ New 14'x18' Span Bridge
1
EA
3' cover, done in summer, no dewatering needed,
keep one lane open
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
77.8
SY
$12.55
$976
Remove & Dispose Existing Wooden Bridge, 14'x 18'
252
SF
$30.00
$7,560
Excavate Trench
0.0
CY
$7.84
$0
account for pipe removal & loading, less pipe
Bed & Zone
0.0
CY
$46.86
$0
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.0
CY
$9.94
$0
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.0
CY
$5.49
$0
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.0
CY
$11.38
$0
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
0
LF
$5.00
$0
trench box
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 2.5' tall
1.7
CY
$737.64
$1,229
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
333.3
LB
$1.79
$595
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 2.5' tall
1.7
CY
$737.64
$1,229
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
333.3
LB
$1.79
$595
CIP Slab, 12" thk, 16' wide
11
CY
$295.88
$3,156
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
1,600
LB
$1.79
$2,856
New Bridge & Abutments - Steel
252
SF
$300.00
$75,600
based on road & bridge file
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$18,759
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$4,744
Total Direct Unit Cost
$118,000.00
$117,301
18 Replace Existing Bridge w/ New 14'x16' Span Bridge
1
EA
3' cover, done in summer, no dewatering needed,
keep one lane open
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
77.8
SY
$12.55
$976
Remove & Dispose Existing Wooden Bridge, 14'x 18'
224
SF
$50.00
$11,200
Excavate Trench
0.0
CY
$7.84
$0
account for pipe removal & loading, less pipe
Bed & Zone
0.0
CY
$46.86
$0
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.0
CY
$9.94
$0
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.0
CY
$5.49
$0
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.0
CY
$11.38
$0
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
0
LF
$5.00
$0
trench box
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 2.5' tall
1.5
CY
$737.64
$1,093
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
296.3
LB
$1.79
$529
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 2.5' tall
1.5
CY
$737.64
$1,093
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
296.3
LB
$1.79
$529
CIP Slab, 12" thk, 16' wide
9
CY
$295.88
$2,805
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
1,422
LB
$1.79
$2,539
New Bridge & Abutments - Steel
224
SF
$300.00
$67,200
based on road & bridge file
Page 8 of 10
-------
TABLE D-21
Alternative RP-2: Pinehurst Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$17,593
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$4,217
Total Direct Unit Cost
$110,000.00
$109,773
19 Replace Existing Culvert w/ New 18'x28' Span Bridge
1
EA
3' cover, done in summer, no dewatering needed,
keep one lane open
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
77.8
SY
$12.55
$976
Remove & Dispose Exist Culvert, 8'x28'
224
SF
$50.00
$11,200
Excavate Trench
8.3
CY
$7.84
$65
account for pipe removal & loading, less pipe
Bed & Zone
0.0
CY
$46.86
$0
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
20.7
CY
$9.94
$206
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
8.3
CY
$5.49
$46
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
8.3
CY
$11.38
$94
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
0
LF
$5.00
$0
trench box
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 3.0'tall +1 bury
4.1
CY
$737.64
$3,060
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
829.6
LB
$1.79
$1,481
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 3.0'tall +1 bury
4.1
CY
$737.64
$3,060
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
829.6
LB
$1.79
$1,481
CIP Wall Footing, 2.5 wide x 1.5' tall
7.8
CY
$496.76
$3,864
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
1166.7
LB
$1.79
$2,083
New Bridge & Abutments - Steel
504
SF
$300.00
$151,200
based on road & bridge file
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$35,735
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$9,347
Total Direct Unit Cost
$224,000.00
$223,897
20 Replace Existing Bridge w/ New 14'x4' Span Bridge
1
EA
3' cover, done in summer, no dewatering needed,
keep one lane open
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
77.8
SY
$12.55
$976
Remove & Dispose Existing Wooden Bridge, 12'x14'
48
SF
$50.00
$2,400
Excavate Trench
0.0
CY
$7.84
$0
account for pipe removal & loading, less pipe
Bed & Zone
0.0
CY
$46.86
$0
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.0
CY
$9.94
$0
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.0
CY
$5.49
$0
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.0
CY
$11.38
$0
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
0
LF
$5.00
$0
trench box
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 3.6' tall
1.9
CY
$737.64
$1,377
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
373.3
LB
$1.79
$666
Page 9 of 10
-------
TABLE D-21
Alternative RP-2: Pinehurst Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Description
Quantity
Unit
2009 Direct
Capital Unit Cost
2009 Total
Direct Capital
Cost
Comments
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 3.6' tall
1.9
CY
$737.64
$1,377
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
373.3
LB
$1.79
$666
CIP Slab, 12" thk, 16' wide
4
CY
$295.88
$1,227
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
622
LB
$1.79
$1,111
New Bridge & Abutments - Steel
56
SF
$300.00
$16,800
based on road & bridge file
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$5,320
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$1,137
Total Direct Unit Cost
$34,000.00
$33,058
Notes:
CIP = cast-in-place
CY = cubic yards
EA = each
LB = pound(s)
LS = lump sum
SF = square feet
SY = square yards
TESC = temporary erosion and sediment control
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal accuracy of-30
percent to +50 percent (-30/+50%).
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-
magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the
information available at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual
labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final
project scope, the final project schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs
will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be carefully
reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Page 10 of 10
-------
TABLE D-22
Alternative RP-2: Smelterville Cost Summary
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct 2009 Total Direct and
Capital Unit Direct Capital Indirect Capital
Description Quantity Unit Cost Cost Cost
Grouse Creek
1 Abandon Existing 36" Dia Concrete Culvert (Culvert 1)
2 Abandon Existing 36" Dia Concrete Culvert (Culvert 2)
3 Install/Construct New 4.5' X 8' Concrete Box Culvert (Culvert 3)
4 Reconstruct Existing Channel - Install 4.5' Tall Vertical Concrete Wall Along N Side
Of Creek (Xs 1)
5 Reconstruct Existing Channel - Install 4.5' Tall Vertical Concrete Wall Along N Side
Of Creek (Xs 2)
6 Reconstruct Existing Channel - Install 4.5' Tall Vertical Concrete Wall Along N Side
Of Creek (Xs 3)
7 Reconstruct Existing Channel - Install 4.5' Tall Vertical Concrete Wall Along N Side
Of Creek And 0.7' Berm On S Side Of Creek (Xs 4)
Subtotal Rounded $1,700,000
$620,000
$2,320,000
Notes:
NPV = Net Present Value
LF = linear feet
O&M = operation and maintenance
Assumptions:
All excavated material is hauled to repository and replaced with imported material.
Pipe cover is 3' over pipe
All work will be performed in the summer and therefore no water issues exist.
See estimate details for additional assumptions
Total indirect cost assumes 70% of Total Direct Capital Cost
60
LF
$59
$3,540
$6,018
50
LF
$59
$2,950
$5,015
105
LF
$1,359
$142,695
$242,582
335
LF
$433
$145,055
$246,594
620
LF
$433
$268,460
$456,382
880
LF
$420
$369,600
$628,320
160
LF
$432
$69,120
$117,504
NPV for 30-year OaM Cost
Total NPV cost at 30 years
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-23
Alternative RP-2: Smelterville Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Description
Quantity Unit
2009 Direct
Capital Unit Cost
2009 Total
Direct Capital
Cost
Comments
Grouse Creek
1,2
Abandon Existing 36" Dia Concrete Culvert
50
LF
Fill with CDF
13
CY
$100.00
$1,309
Pumping Costs
13
CY
$80.82
$1,058
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$473
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$79
Total Direct Unit Cost
$59.00
$2,919
leave open, use as overflow storage
Construct New 4.5'x8" Concrete Box Culvert
105
LF
Total Direct Unit Cost
180.0
SY
$12.55
$2,258
Excavate Channel
368.5
CY
$5.92
$2,181
25cy/hr to remove & load
Imported Fill Material
177.4
CY
$24.94
$4,426
imported
Haul & Dispose at Repository
368.5
CY
$5.57
$2,054
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
Repository Cost
368.5
CY
$11.38
$4,193
use C08a cost
CIP Wall, 8"thk, 105 If x 4.5 ft tall
23.5
CY
$737.64
$17,298
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
4690.0
LB
$1.79
$8,372
CIP ElvSlab, 8' wide x 8" Thk
41.7
CY
$664.70
$27,711
Elv Slab Rebar @ 200 #/cy
8337.8
LB
$1.79
$14,884
CIP Slab, 8' wide x 8" thk
41.7
CY
$295.88
$12,335
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
6253.3
LB
$1.79
$11,163
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
41
TON
$70.00
$2,873
CSBC, 6" thk
30
CY
$31.26
$938
Flagger
200
HR
$60.14
$12,028
Misc Detail Allowance
15%
LS
$0.00
$17,778
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$2,167
Total Direct Unit Cost
$1,359.00
$142,657
Reconstruct Exist Channel w/ 4.5' wall, 15' bottom, XS1&2
335
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.3
AC
$6,514.75
$2,004
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
375.3
CY
$14.80
$5,554
Prep & Grade Channel
335
LF
$7.84
$2,627
Haul & Dispose at Repository
375.3
CY
$5.49
$2,061
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
Repository Cost
375.3
CY
$11.38
$4,271
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
68.2
CY
$53.33
$3,639
imported, difficult operation
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 4.5' tall + 1 foot below grade
68.2
CY
$737.64
$50,337
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
13648.1
LB
$1.79
$24,363
Page 1 of 3
-------
TABLE D-23
Alternative RP-2: Smelterville Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
CIP Wall Footing, 2.5 wide x 1.5' tall
46.5
CY
$496.76
$23,113
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
6979.2
LB
$1.79
$12,459
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$12,410
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$1,903
Total Direct Unit Cost
$433.00
$144,741
6
Reconstruct Exist Channel w/ 4.5' wall, 13.7' bottom, XS3
880
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.8
AC
$6,514.75
$5,264
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
490.5
CY
$14.80
$7,259
Prep & Grade Channel
880
LF
$7.84
$6,901
Haul & Dispose at Repository
490.5
CY
$5.49
$2,693
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
490.5
CY
$11.38
$5,582
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
268.9
CY
$53.33
$14,340
imported, difficult operation
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 4.5' tall + 1 foot below grade
179.3
CY
$737.64
$132,229
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
35851.9
LB
$1.79
$63,999
CIP Wall Footing, 2.5 wide x 1.5' tall
122.2
CY
$496.76
$60,715
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
18333.3
LB
$1.79
$32,727
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$32,343
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$5,072
Total Direct Unit Cost
$420.00
$369,124
7
Reconstr Exist Channel w/ 4.5' wall, 10.5' bottom, & berm, XS4
880
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.8
AC
$6,514.75
$5,264
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
824.6
CY
$14.80
$12,202
Prep & Grade Channel
880
LF
$7.84
$6,901
Haul & Dispose at Repository
824.6
CY
$5.49
$4,527
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
824.6
CY
$11.38
$9,384
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material behind wall
179.3
CY
$53.33
$9,560
imported, difficult operation
Imported Fill Material for berm
88.0
CY
$53.33
$4,693
imported, difficult operation
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 4.5' tall + 1 foot below grade
179.3
CY
$737.64
$132,229
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
35851.9
LB
$1.79
$63,999
CIP Wall Footing, 2.5 wide x 1.5' tall
122.2
CY
$496.76
$60,715
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
18333.3
LB
$1.79
$32,727
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$32,829
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Page 2 of 3
-------
TABLE D-23
Alternative RP-2: Smelterville Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Description
Quantity
2009 Direct
Unit Capital Unit Cost
2009 Total
Direct Capital
Cost
Comments
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
Total Direct Unit Cost
$432.00
$5,071
$380,101
Notes:
ACP = asphalt concrete paving
CIP = cast-in-place
CY = cubic yards
EA = each
LB = pound(s)
LS = lump sum
SF = square feet
SY = square yards
TESC = temporary erosion and sediment control
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal accuracy of-30
percent to +50 percent (-30/+50%).
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-
magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information
available at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material
costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the final
project schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making
specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Page 3 of 3
-------
-------
TABLE D-24
Alternative RP- 2: Kellogg Cost Summary
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Direct 2009 Total 2009 Total Direct
Capital Unit Direct Capital and Indirect Capital
Description Quantity Unit Cost Cost Cost
Jackass Creek
1
Reconstruct Existing Channel To 15' X12' X 5' Channel (Xs 1)
260
LF
$34
$8,840
$15,028
2
Line Side Of Channel With Riprap (5.00 Cf/Lf)
260
LF
$25
$6,500
$11,050
3
Line Culvert Entrance With 15 Cy Of Rip Rap
2
EA
$830
$1,660
$2,822
Portland Road
1
Construct 4'X0.5'X2' Rock-Lined Ditch Along South Side Of Portland Road. Must First
1070
LF
$50
$53,500
$90,950
Remove Existing Wooden 1'X1'X1' Flume
2
Install 300 Lf Of 36" Dia Cpe Pipe In Place Of Existing Pipe
300
LF
$240
$72,000
$122,400
3
Remove And Replace Existing Concrete Vault With 4'X4'X4' Concrete Inlet
1
EA
$6,004
$6,004
$10,207
4
Install 2'WX1'HX12'L Rock Water Bars At 250 Lf Spacings Along Portland Road
1
LS
$325
$325
$553
(4 To 5 Rock Bars Total)
5
Re-Grade Gravel Road (Portland Road) To Drain South Towards New Ditch
1070
LF
$13
$13,910
$23,647
Subtotal Rounded $280,000
NPV for 30-year O&M Cost $149,000
Total NPV cost at 30 years $429,000
Notes:
NPV = Net Present Value
EA =each
LF = linear feet
LS = lump sum
O&M = operation and maintenance
Assumptions:
All excavated material is hauled to repository and replaced with imported material.
Pipe cover is 3' over pipe
All work will be performed in the summer and therefore no water issues exist.
See estimate details for additional assumptions
Total indirect cost assumes 70% of Total Direct Capital Cost
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-25
Alternative RP-2: Kellogg Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
Jackass Creek
1 Reconstruct Existing Channel to 15'x12'x5' -XS1
260
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
50.0
AC
$6,514.75
$1,555
Excavate Channel
145.6
CY
$14.80
$2,155
Prep & Grade Channel
260
LF
$7.84
$2,039
Haul & Dispose at Repository
145.6
CY
$5.49
$799
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
145.6
CY
$11.38
$1,657
use C08a cost
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$575
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$0
Total Direct Unit Cost
$34.00
$8,780
2 Line Side of Channel with Riprap
260
LF
Riprap
52
CY
$72.91
$3,791
imported, difficult operation
Prep & Grade Channel
260
LF
$7.84
$2,039
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$583
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$72
Total Direct Unit Cost
$25.00
$6,485
3 Line Culvert Entrance with Riprap
1
EA
Riprap
15
CY
$48.96
$734
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$73
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$21
Total Direct Unit Cost
$830.00
$828
Portland Road
1 Construct 4'x0.5'x2' rock lined ditch
1,070
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.7
AC
$6,514.75
$4,801
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
713.3
CY
$14.80
$10,556
Prep & Grade Channel
1,070
LF
$7.84
$8,391
Haul & Dispose at Repository
713.3
CY
$5.49
$3,916
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
713.3
CY
$11.38
$8,118
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
257.6
CY
$53.33
$13,737
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$3,748
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$213
Total Direct Unit Cost
$50.00
$53,480
Page 1 of 3
-------
TABLE D-25
Alternative RP-2: Kellogg Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
Pipeline - 36" CHDPE, 6' to Invert
1
LF
3' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
1.6
SY
$12.55
$20
Excavate T rench
1.4
CY
$3.92
$6
Bed & Zone
0.5
CY
$46.86
$24
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.7
CY
$29.94
$20
Haul & Dispose at Repository
1.4
CY
$5.49
$8
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
1.4
CY
$11.38
$16
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 36" CPE Pipe
1
LF
$80.83
$81
200'/day
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.4
TON
$70.00
$25
CSBC, 6" thk
0.3
CY
$31.26
$8
Flagger
0.08
HR
$60.14
$5
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$19
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$6
Total Direct Unit Cost
$240.00
$242
Install new 4' x 4' x 4' concrete inlet
1
EA
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
16.0
SY
$12.55
$201
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Catch Basin
26.7
CY
$14.80
$395
Prep & Grade Channel
0
LF
$7.84
$0
Haul & Dispose at Repository
26.7
CY
$5.49
$146
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
26.7
CY
$11.38
$303
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
22.0
CY
$53.33
$1,175
imported, difficult operation
Grate
1.0
EA
$250.00
$250
CIP Wall, 6" thk, 4'tall
1.2
CY
$737.64
$874
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
237.0
LB
$1.79
$423
CIP Elevated Slab, 10" thk
0.8
CY
$737.64
$567
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
153.7
LB
$1.79
$274
CIP Slab, 10" thk, 7'x 7' wide
0.8
CY
$295.88
$227
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
115.3
LB
$1.79
$206
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$459
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$502
Total Direct Unit Cost
$6,004.00
$6,003
Page 2 of 3
-------
TABLE D-25
Alternative RP-2: Kellogg Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
4
Install 2' w x 1' h x 12' 1 rock water bars
5
EA
4'w x 1 'th
Prep Channel Bank
0
LF
$86.03
$0
assume 2 days
Imported Fill Material
4.44
CY
$62.91
$280
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
15%
LS
$0.00
$42
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$4
Total Direct Unit Cost
$65.00
$325
5
Regrade Gravel Road
1,070
LS
5' cover
Re-Grade Roadway
1426.7
SY
$3.10
$4,416
CSBC, 6" thk
237.8
CY
$31.26
$7,432
Flagger
8.00
HR
$60.14
$481
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$1,233
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$235
Total Direct Unit Cost
$13.00
$13,797
Notes:
ACP = asphalt concrete paving
CIP = cast-in-place
CPE = polyethylene
CY = cubic yards
EA = each
LB = pound(s)
LS = lump sum
SF = square feet
SY = square yards
TESC = temporary erosion and sediment control
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal accuracy of-30 percent
to +50 percent (-30/+50%).
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-
magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information
available at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material
costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the final
project schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making
specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Page 3 of 3
-------
-------
TABLE D-26
Alternative RP-2: Wardner Cost Summary
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Direct 2009 Total 2009 Total Direct
Capital Unit Direct Capital and Indirect Capital
Description
Quantity Unit
Cost
Cost
Cost
Wardner/Sierra Nevada Road
1 Construct 40' Of 36 Dia Cpe Pipe With 1' Of Cover
2 Construct 50' Of 36 Dia Cpe Pipe With 1' Of Cover
3 Install 12'X6.5' Cattle Guard W/ 10'X6'X4' Cast-ln-Place Concrete Vault
40
50
2
LF
EA
EA
$150
$150
$25,100
$6,000
$7,500
$50,200
$10,200
$12,750
$85,340
Subtotal Rounded $110,000
Npv For 30-Year O&M Cost
Total NPV cost at 30 years
$99,000
$209,000
Notes:
NPV = Net Present Value
CPE = polyethylene
EA = each
LF = linear feet
O&M = operation and maintenance
Assumptions:
All excavated material is hauled to repository and replaced with imported material.
Pipe cover is 3' over pipe
All work will be performed in the summer and therefore no water issues exist.
See estimate details for additional assumptions
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-27
Alternative RP-2: Wardner Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct Direct Capital
Description Quantity Unit Capital Unit Cost Cost Comments
Wardner/Sierra Nevada Road
Pipeline - 36" CHDPE, 1' Cover
1
LF
3' cover
Clear, Grub & Dispose
50.0
AC
$6,514.75
$1
Excavate T rench
0.8
CY
$3.92
$3
Bed & Zone
0.5
CY
$46.86
$24
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.1
CY
$29.94
$2
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.8
CY
$5.49
$5
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.8
CY
$11.38
$10
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 36" CPE Pipe
1
LF
$80.83
$81
200'/day
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$12
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$3
Total Direct Unit Cost
$150.00
$146
12'X6' Cattle Guard with CIP Vault
1
EA
10'x6' Cattle Guard
1.0
EA
$10,305.31
$10,305
Use $100/SF cost
Grade existing pond bottom
140.0
SF
$3.14
$439
Excavate for walls
25.9
CY
$3.92
$102
Imported Backfill
8.1
CY
$29.94
$244
Haul & Dispose at Repository
25.9
CY
$5.49
$142
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
25.9
CY
$11.38
$295
use C08a cost
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 4 ft tall
5.3
CY
$737.64
$3,934
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
1066.7
LB
$1.79
$1,904
CIP Slab, 12" thk, 14'x10' including 1 foot beyond wall
5.2
CY
$295.88
$1,534
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
777.8
LB
$1.79
$1,388
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$4,058
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$717
Total Direct Unit Cost
$25,100.00
$25,063
Page 1 of 2
-------
TABLE D-27
Alternative RP-2: Wardner Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct Direct Capital
Description Quantity Unit Capital Unit Cost Cost Comments
Notes:
CPE = polyethylene
CIP = cast-in-place
CY = cubic yards
EA = each
LB = pound(s)
LS = lump sum
SF = square feet
TESC = temporary erosion and sediment control
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal
accuracy of-30 percent to +50 percent (-30/+50%).
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future
escalation. The order-of-magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for
guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of
preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material
costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final
project scope, the final project schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the
final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors,
funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions
or establishing final budgets.
Page 2 of 2
-------
TABLE D-28
Alternative RP-2: Osburn Cost Summary
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Description
Quantity
Unit
2009 Direct
Capital Unit
Cost
2009 Total
Direct Capital
Cost
2009 Total Direct
and Indirect
Capital Cost
Shields Gulch
1 Replace Existing 32" 0 Cmp Culvert With 4'X6' Cmp Arch (Culvert 1)
14
LF
$780
$10,920
$18,564
2 Replace Existing 36" 0 Concrete Culvert With 4'X6' Cmp Arch (Culvert 2)
25
LF
$780
$19,500
$33,150
3 Replace Existing 36" 0 Cmp Culvert With 4'X6' Cmp Arch (Culvert 3)
50
LF
$780
$39,000
$66,300
4 Install New 4'X6' Cmp Arch Culvert (Culvert 4)
35
LF
$570
$19,950
$33,915
5 Reconstruct Right Channel Bank With 1' Berm (Xs 1)
65
LF
$411
$26,715
$45,416
6 Construct 12' X 4' X 4' Earthen Channel (Xs 2)
1890
LF
$57
$107,730
$183,141
7 Construct 25' X 15' X 5' Earthen Channel (Xs 3)
155
LF
$260
$40,300
$68,510
Rosebud Gulch
1 Replace Existing Culverts (One 24" 0 Cmp And Two 20" 0 Cmp) With One 48" 0
130
LF
$620
$80,600
$137,020
Cmp (Culvert 1)
2 Replace Existing Park Culvert With A 10.5' X 16' Single Span Bridge With A
1
EA
$95,000
$95,000
$161,500
Clear Height Of 2' (Bridge 1)
3 Reconstruct Right Channel Bank With 1' Berm (Xs 1)
310
LF
$110
$34,100
$57,970
4 Reconstruct Existing Channel To 11' X 4' X 4' Earthen Channel (Xs 2 - A & B)
90
LF
$32
$2,880
$4,896
5 Reconstruct Existing Channel To 8.5' X 5.5' X 2' Earthen Channel (Xs 4)
1330
LF
$21
$27,930
$47,481
Meyer Creek
1-10 Construct 24"0 hdpe Pipe At An Average Depth Of 7 Ft
2835
LF
$210
$595,350
$1,012,095
11 Furnish And Install New48"0 Manhole
9
EA
$4,600
$41,400
$70,380
12 Abandon 360 Lf Of Existing Meyer Creek Pipe-Leave Open For Storage
1
LS
$0
$0
$0
13 Modify Inlet Structure
1
LS
$97,874
$97,874
$166,386
Subtotal Rounded
$2,110,000
NPV for 30-year O&M Cost
Total NPV cost at 30 years
$745,000
$2,855,000
Notes:
NPV = Net Present Value
EA = each
LF = linear feet
LS = lump sum
O&M = operation and maintenance
Assumptions:
All excavated material is hauled to repository and replaced with imported material.
Pipe cover is 3' over pipe
All work will be performed in the summer and therefore no water issues exist.
See estimate details for additional assumptions
Total indirect cost assumes 70% of Total Direct Capital Cost
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-29
Alternative RP-2: Osburn Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
Shields Gulch
1,2,3 Replace Culvert with 4'X6' CMP Arch
50
LF
3' cover, done in summer, no dewatering needed,
keep one lane open
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
40
SY
$12.55
$502
Remove & Dispose Existing Culvert
30
LF
$7.84
$235
32 to 36" CMP or RCP
Excavate Trench
83.2
CY
$7.84
$653
account for pipe removal & loading, less pipe
Bed & Zone
44.2
CY
$46.86
$2,071
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
32.0
CY
$24.94
$798
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
83.2
CY
$5.49
$457
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
83.2
CY
$11.38
$947
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
30
LF
$5.00
$150
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
HR
$12.00
$0
none requred
4'x6' CMP Arch
30
LF
$360.72
$10,822
75'/day
Headwall/Miter
1
EA
$1,500.00
$1,500
allowance
Restoration - Base Course & Pavement Patch
40
SY
$22.00
$880
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$3,522
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
Total Direct Unit Cost
$780.00
$672
$23,208
New4'X6' CMP Arch Culvert
35
LF
3' cover
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
46.7
SY
$12.55
$586
Remove & Dispose Existing Culvert
0
LF
$7.84
$0
not required
Excavate Trench
105.2
CY
$3.92
$412
account for pipe removal & loading
Bed & Zone
51.6
CY
$46.86
$2,416
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
37.3
CY
$24.94
$930
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
105.2
CY
$5.49
$577
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile
Repository Cost
105.2
CY
$11.38
$1,197
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
35
LF
$5.00
$175
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
HR
$12.00
$0
none requred
4'x6' CMP Arch
35
LF
$215.32
$7,536
75'/day, Material cost per The Guide
Headwall/Miter
1
EA
$1,500.00
$1,500
allowance
Restoration - Base Course & Pavement Patch
46.7
SY
$22.00
$1,027
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$2,916
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$464
Total Direct Unit Cost
$570.00
$19,737
Page 1 of 6
-------
TABLE D-29
Alternative RP-2: Osburn Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
5
Reconstruct Right Channel Bank with 1' Berm
65
LF
4'w x 1 'th
Prep Channel Bank
65
LF
$86.03
$5,592
assume 2 days
Imported Fill Material
9.63
CY
$62.91
$606
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
15%
LS
$0.00
$20,255
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$231
Total Direct Unit Cost
$411.00
$26,683
6
Construct 12'x4'x4' Earthen Channel
1,890
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
1.7
AC
$6,514.75
$11,307
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
allowance for temp dikes/facilities & bypass
pumping
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
2268
CY
$14.80
$33,562
25cy/hrto remove & load, small area
Prep & Grade Channel
1890
LF
$7.84
$14,821
Haul & Dispose at Repository
2268
CY
$5.49
$12,451
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
2268
CY
$11.38
$25,810
use C08a cost
Pea Gravel
0
CY
$19.88
$0
Sand
0
CY
$19.88
$0
Liner/Geotextile System
0
SY
$4.97
$0
Misc Detail Allowance
15%
LS
$0.00
$8,954
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$0
Total Direct Unit Cost
$57.00
$106,905
7
Construct 25'x15'x5' Earthen Channel
155
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.1
AC
$6,514.75
$927
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
allowance for temp dikes/facilities & bypass
pumping
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
655.7
CY
$15.68
$10,283
25cy/hrto remove & load
Prep & Grade Channel
155
LF
$7.84
$1,216
Haul & Dispose at Repository
655.7
CY
$5.49
$3,600
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
655.7
CY
$11.38
$7,461
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
52.7
CY
$62.91
$3,312
imported, difficult operation
Sand
0
CY
$19.88
$0
Liner/Geotextile System
0
SY
$4.97
$0
Imported Fill Material
181.35
CY
$49.41
$8,961
imported, small operation
Misc Detail Allowance
15%
LS
$0.00
$3,705
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$202
Total Direct Unit Cost
$260.00
$39,666
Page 2 of 6
-------
TABLE D-29
Alternative RP-2: Osburn Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Description
Quantity Unit
2009 Total
2009 Direct Direct Capital
Capital Unit Cost Cost
Comments
Rosebud Gulch
1
Replace Multiple Culverts w/1-48" CMP Culvert
130
LF
3' cover, done in summer, no dewatering needed,
keep one lane open
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
642.8
SY
$12.55
$8,065
Remove & Dispose Existing Culvert, 1-24" & 2-20" CMP
390
LF
$3.92
$1,529
Excavate Trench
294.8
CY
$7.84
$2,312
account for pipe removal & loading, less pipe
Bed & Zone
132.6
CY
$46.86
$6,214
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
136.7
CY
$24.94
$3,409
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
294.8
CY
$5.49
$1,619
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
294.8
CY
$11.38
$3,355
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
130
LF
$5.00
$650
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
none requred
48" CMP Pipe
130
LF
$182.34
$23,704
10O'/day
Headwall/Miter
1
EA
$1,500.00
$1,500
allowance
Restoration - Base Course & Pavement Patch
642.8
SY
$22.00
$14,141
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$12,305
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
Total Direct Unit Cost
$620.00
$1,324
$80,127
Replace Multiple Culverts w/Single Span Bridge
LF
3' cover, done in summer, no dewatering needed,
keep one lane open
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
642.8
SY
$12.55
$8,065
Remove & Dispose Existing Culvert, 1-24" & 2-20" CMP
390
LF
$3.92
$1,529
Excavate Trench
294.8
CY
$7.84
$2,312
account for pipe removal & loading, less pipe
Bed & Zone
132.6
CY
$46.86
$6,214
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
136.7
CY
$24.94
$3,409
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
294.8
CY
$5.49
$1,619
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
294.8
CY
$11.38
$3,355
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
New Bridge & Abutments - Steel
168
SF
$300.00
$50,400
based on road & bridge file
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$14,387
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
Total Direct Unit Cost
$95,000.00
$3,322
$94,617
3 Reconstruct Right Channel Bank
310
LF
see detail
Prep Channel Bank
310
LF
$86.03
$26,668
difficult operation, assume 10 dys
Imported Fill Material
62
CY
$62.91
$3,900
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$3,057
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$51
Total Direct Unit Cost
$110.00
$33,676
Page 3 of 6
-------
TABLE D-29
Alternative RP-2: Osburn Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
Reconstruct Existing Channel to 11'x4,x4' Earthen Channel
90
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.1
AC
$6,514.75
$538
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
4.5
CY
$15.68
$71
25cy/hr to remove & load
Prep & Grade Channel
90
LF
$7.84
$706
Haul & Dispose at Repository
4.5
CY
$5.49
$25
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile
Repository Cost
4.5
CY
$11.38
$51
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
19.4
CY
$62.91
$1,217
imported, difficult operation
Sand
0
CY
$19.88
$0
Liner/Geotextile System
0
SY
$4.97
$0
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$253
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$16
Total Direct Unit Cost
$32.00
$2,877
5 Reconstruct Existing Channel to 8.5'x5
Clear, Grub & Dispose
Diversion/Care of Water
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Eq
Excavate Channel
Prep & Grade Channel
Haul & Dispose at Repository
Repository Cost
Imported Fill Material
Sand
Liner/Geotextile System
Misc Detail Allowance
Sales Tax on Materials
.5'x2' Earthen Channel
Total Direct Unit Cost
1,330
LF
1.2
AC
$6,514.75
$7,956
0
LF
$10.00
$0
0
LF
$10.39
$0
199.5
CY
$14.80
$2,952
1330
LF
$7.84
$10,430
199.5
CY
$5.49
$1,095
199.5
CY
$11.38
$2,270
0
CY
$62.91
$0
0
CY
$19.88
$0
0
SY
$4.97
$0
10%
LS
$0.00
$2,134
5% $0
$21.00 $26,838
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
use C08a cost
imported, difficult operation
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Meyer Creek
Pipeline - 24"
1
LF
5' cover
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
1.3
SY
$12.55
$17
Excavate Trench
1.6
CY
$3.92
$6
Bed & Zone
0.4
CY
$46.86
$17
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
1.1
CY
$29.94
$33
Haul & Dispose at Repository
1.6
CY
$5.49
$9
assume all but rock is wasted,
Repository Cost
1.6
CY
$11.38
$18
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Page 4 of 6
-------
TABLE D-29
Alternative RP-2: Osburn Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
Pipe, 24" Corrugated HDPE
1
LF
$58.67
$59
200'/day
Restoration - Base Course & Pavement Patch
1.3
SY
$22.00
$29
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$17
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$3
Total Direct Unit Cost
$210.00
$211
11
Manhole, 48" Dia X 8'
1
EA
Purchase & Install Manhole, Frame, Ring, Cover
1
EA
$4,068.40
$4,068
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$407
invert
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$138
Total Direct Unit Cost
$4,600.00
$4,613
12
Abandon Meyer Creek Pipe
360
LF
Plug Ends with Concrete
0
EA
$250.00
$0
leave open, use as overflow storage
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$0
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$0
Total Direct Unit Cost
$0.00
$0
13
Modify Inlet Structure
1
EA
$95,214
Riprap
40
CY
$72.91
$2,916
imported, difficult operation
12'x15' Steel Trash Rack at outlet
1
EA
$21,105.31
$21,105
Use $100/SF cost
Grade existing pond bottom
2000
SF
$3.14
$6,274
CIP Wall, 8" thk, 50 If x 6 ft tall
7.4
CY
$737.64
$5,491
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
1488.9
LB
$1.79
$2,658
CIP Wall Footing, 2.5 wide x 1.5' tall
6.9
CY
$496.76
$3,450
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
1041.7
LB
$1.79
$1,859
CIP Slab and sump, 10" thk
61.5
CY
$295.88
$18,191
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
9222.2
LB
$1.79
$16,463
Crushed Gravel Driveway
30
CY
$31.26
$938
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$15,869
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$2,660
Total Direct Unit Cost
$97,874
Page 5 of 6
-------
TABLE D-29
Alternative RP-2: Osburn Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct Direct Capital
Description Quantity Unit Capital Unit Cost Cost Comments
Notes:
CIP = cast-in-place
CMP = corrugated metal pipe
CY = cubic yards
EA = each
HDPE = high density polyethylene
HR = hour
LB = pound(s)
LS = lump sum
SF = square feet
SY = square yards
TESC = temporary erosion and sediment control
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future
escalation. The order-of-magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for
guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation.
The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site
conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the final
project schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary
from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be
carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions or establishing final
budgets.
Page 6 of 6
-------
TABLE D-30
Alternative RP-2: Silverton Cost Summary
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Description
Quantity
Unit
2009 Direct
Capital Unit
Cost
2009 Total
Direct Capital
Cost
2009 Total
Direct and
Indirect Capil
Cost
Revenue Gultch Alternative 2
1
Replace Existing Culvert (48" Dia Cmp) With 56" Dia Cmp (Culvert 1)
38
LF
$540
$20,520
$34,884
2
Replace Existing Culvert (15 Lf Of 48" Dia Cmp) With 15'X32' Single Span Bridge W/
1
LS
$184,000
$184,000
$312,800
A Clear Height Of 5' (Bridge 1)
3
Replace Existing Culvert (48" Dia Cmp) W/ One 5.6'X7.9' Pipe Arch Cmp (Culvert 2)
32
LF
$810
$25,920
$44,064
4
Replace Existing Culvert (48" Dia Cmp) W/ One 6.1'X8.8' Pipe Arch Cmp (Culvert 3)
22
LF
$1,350
$29,700
$50,490
5
Replace Existing Culvert (Box Culvert) With One 3'X7.5' Box Culvert (Culvert 4)
550
LF
$1,054
$579,700
$985,490
6
Install/Construct Overflow Structure
1
LS
$72,500
$72,500
$123,250
7
Construct 235 Lf Of 18" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 6' To Invert (Pipe 1)
235
LF
$160
$37,600
$63,920
8
Construct 210 Lf Of 18" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 6' To Invert (Pipe 2)
210
LF
$160
$33,600
$57,120
9
Construct 210 Lf Of 18" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 6' To Invert (Pipe 3)
210
LF
$160
$33,600
$57,120
10
Construct 200 Lf Of 18" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 6' To Invert (Pipe 4)
200
LF
$160
$32,000
$54,400
11
Construct 80 Lf Of 36" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 6' To Invert (Pipe 5)
80
LF
$240
$19,200
$32,640
12
Construct 290 Lf Of 36" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 7.5' To Invert (Pipe 6)
290
LF
$290
$84,100
$142,970
13
Construct 225 Lf Of 36" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 7.5' To Invert (Pipe 7)
225
LF
$290
$65,250
$110,925
14
Construct 190 Lf Of 36" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 7.5' To Invert (Pipe 8)
190
LF
$290
$55,100
$93,670
15
Construct 190 Lf Of 36" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 7.5' To Invert (Pipe 9)
190
LF
$290
$55,100
$93,670
16
Construct 205 Lf Of 36" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 7.5' To Invert (Pipe 10)
205
LF
$290
$59,450
$101,065
17
Construct 185 Lf Of 36" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 7.5' To Invert (Pipe 11)
185
LF
$290
$53,650
$91,205
18
Construct 190 Lf Of 36" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 7.5' To Invert (Pipe 12)
190
LF
$290
$55,100
$93,670
19
Construct 265 Lf Of 36" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 6' To Invert (Pipe 13)
265
LF
$240
$63,600
$108,120
20
Construct 265 Lf Of 36" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 6' To Invert (Pipe 14)
265
LF
$240
$63,600
$108,120
21
Construct 70 Lf Of 42" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 5.5' To Invert (Pipe 15)
70
LF
$280
$19,600
$33,320
22
Furnish And Install New 48" Dia Manhole At A Depth Of 6' To 8'
14
EA
$4,890
$68,460
$116,382
23
Furnish And Install New Storm Drain
8
EA
$6,130
$49,040
$83,368
West
of Western Avenue
1
Construct 206 Lf Of 16" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 6' To Invert (Pipe 1)
206
LF
$150
$30,900
$52,530
2
Construct 220 Lf Of 16" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 6' To Invert (Pipe 2)
220
LF
$150
$33,000
$56,100
3
Construct 229 Lf Of 16" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 6' To Invert (Pipe 3)
229
LF
$150
$34,350
$58,395
4
Construct 192 Lf Of 18" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 6' To Invert (Pipe 4)
192
LF
$160
$30,720
$52,224
5
Construct 196 Lf Of 20" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 6.5' To Invert (Pipe 5)
196
LF
$180
$35,280
$59,976
6
Construct 183 Lf Of 20" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 6.5' To Invert (Pipe 6)
183
LF
$180
$32,940
$55,998
7
Construct 192 Lf Of 20" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 6.5' To Invert (Pipe 7)
192
LF
$180
$34,560
$58,752
8
Construct 181 Lf Of 20" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 6.5' To Invert (Pipe 8)
181
LF
$180
$32,580
$55,386
9
Construct 200 Lf Of 22" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 6.5' To Invert (Pipe 9)
200
LF
$200
$40,000
$68,000
10
Construct 544 Lf Of 22" Dia Chdpe At An Avg Depth Of 5' To Invert (Pipe 10)
544
LF
$150
$81,600
$138,720
11
Furnish And Install New 48" Dia Manhole At A Depth Of 6' To 8'
10
EA
$4,890
$48,900
$83,130
12
Furnish And Install New Storm Drain
20
EA
$6,130
$122,600
$208,420
Unnamed Creek
1
Replace Existing Culvert (12" Cmp) With 22" Dia Cmp (Culvert 1)
24
LF
$290
$6,960
$11,832
2
Reconstruct Existing Channel To 12'X3'X3' Earthen Channel (Xs 1)
1115
LS
$43
$47,945
$81,507
Subtotal Rounded $4,030,000
$1,340,000
$5,370,000
Notes:
NPV = Net Present Value
CMP = corrugated metal pipe
EA =each
LF = linear feet
LS = lump sum
O&M = operation and maintenance
Assumptions:
All excavated material is hauled to repository and replaced with imported material.
Pipe cover is 3' over pipe
All work will be performed in the summer and therefore no water issues exist.
See estimate details for additional assumptions
NPV for 30-year OaM Cost
Total NPV cost at 30 years
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-31
Alternative RP- 2: Silverton Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
Revenue Gulch
1 Replace 48" Culverst w/ 56" CMP Culvert
38
LF
3' cover, done in summer, no dewatering needed,
keep one lane open
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
50.0
SY
$12.55
$0
Remove & Dispose Existing Culvert, 1-48" CMP
38
LF
$15.68
$596
Excavate Trench
101.1
CY
$7.84
$793
account for pipe removal & loading, less pipe
Bed & Zone
35.4
CY
$46.86
$1,658
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
41.6
CY
$24.94
$1,038
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
101.1
CY
$5.49
$555
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
101.1
CY
$11.38
$1,150
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
38
LF
$5.00
$190
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
none requred
56" CMP Pipe
38
LF
$241.52
$9,178
75'/day
Headwall/Miter
1
EA
$1,500.00
$1,500
allowance
Restoration - Base Course & Pavement Patch
0.0
SY
$22.00
$0
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$2,990
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
Total Direct Unit Cost
$540.00
$535
$20,183
2 Replace Multiple Culverts w/ 15'x32' Single Span Bridge 1 EA 3'cover, done in summer, no dewatering needed,
keep one lane open
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
53.3
SY
$12.55
$669
Remove & Dispose Existing Culvert, 1-48" CMP
15
LF
$15.68
$235
Excavate Trench
45.1
CY
$7.84
$353
account for pipe removal & loading, less pipe
Bed & Zone
0.0
CY
$46.86
$0
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.0
CY
$9.94
$0
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
45.1
CY
$5.49
$247
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
45.1
CY
$11.38
$513
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
0
LF
$5.00
$0
trench box
New Bridge & Abutments - Steel
480
SF
$300.00
$144,000
based on road & bridge file
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$29,052
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$8,640
Total Direct Unit Cost
$184,000.00
$183,710
Page 1 of 11
-------
TABLE D-31
Alternative RP- 2: Silverton Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
3
Replace 48" Culverts w/ 5.6'x7.9' Arch Culvert
32
LF
3' cover, done in summer, no dewatering needed,
keep one lane open
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
0.0
SY
$12.55
$0
Remove & Dispose Existing Culvert, 1-48" CMP
32
LF
$15.68
$502
Excavate Trench
147.2
CY
$7.84
$1,154
account for pipe removal & loading, less pipe
Bed & Zone
62.1
CY
$46.86
$2,909
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
54.4
CY
$24.94
$1,357
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
147.2
CY
$5.49
$808
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
147.2
CY
$11.38
$1,675
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
32
LF
$5.00
$160
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
none requred
95"x67" Arch CMP Culert
32
LF
$335.88
$10,748
50'/day, Material cost per The Guide
Headwall/Miter
1
EA
$2,000.00
$2,000
allowance
Restoration - Base Course & Pavement Patch
0.0
SY
$22.00
$0
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$3,766
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$656
Total Direct Unit Cost
$810.00
$25,735
4
Replace 48" Culverts/ 6.1'x8.8' Arch Culvert
22
LF
3' cover, done in summer, no dewatering needed,
keep one lane open
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
0.0
SY
$12.55
$0
Remove & Dispose Existing Culvert, 1-48" CMP
22
LF
$15.68
$345
Excavate Trench
214.9
CY
$7.84
$1,686
account for pipe removal & loading, less pipe
Bed & Zone
91.1
CY
$46.86
$4,269
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
66.8
CY
$24.94
$1,667
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
214.9
CY
$5.49
$1,180
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
214.9
CY
$11.38
$2,446
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
22
LF
$5.00
$110
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
none requred
112"x75" Arch CMP Culert
22
LF
$497.76
$10,951
25'/day, Material cost per The Guide
Headwall/Miter
1
EA
$2,000.00
$2,000
allowance
Restoration - Base Course & Pavement Patch
0.0
SY
$22.00
$0
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$4,205
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$628
Total Direct Unit Cost
$1,350.00
$29,487
Page 2 of 11
-------
TABLE D-31
Alternative RP- 2: Silverton Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
5
Replace Existing Box Culvert w/3'x7.5' Box Culvert
550
LF
Demo ACP Roadway
305.6
SY
$12.55
$3,834
275' of length under roadway
Remove & Dispose Existing Box Culvert
550
LF
$31.37
$17,252
Excavate Channel
1161.1
CY
$5.92
$6,873
Imported Fill Material
702.8
CY
$24.94
$17,529
imported
Haul & Dispose at Repository
1161.1
CY
$5.57
$6,472
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
1161.1
CY
$11.38
$13,213
use C08a cost
CIP Wall, 8" thk, 3 ft tall
81.9
CY
$737.64
$60,405
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
16378
LB
$1.79
$29,236
CIP Elv Slab, 7.5' wide x 8" Thk
204.7
CY
$664.70
$136,079
Elv Slab Rebar @ 200 #/cy
40944
LB
$1.79
$73,090
CIP Slab, 7.5' wide x 10" thk
204.7
CY
$295.88
$60,573
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
30708
LB
$1.79
$54,818
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
70
TON
$70.00
$4,877
CSBC, 6" thk
51
CY
$31.26
$1,592
Flagger
200
HR
$60.14
$12,028
Misc Detail Allowance
15%
LS
$0.00
$72,698
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$9,232
Total Direct Unit Cost
$1,054.00
$579,801
6
Overflow Structure
1
EA
$70,211
Riprap
18.5
CY
$72.91
$1,350
imported, difficult operation
20'x6' Steel Trash Rack at outlet
1.0
EA
$15,105.31
$15,105
Use $100/SF cost
Grade existing pond bottom
950.0
SF
$3.14
$2,980
Excavate for walls
44.6
CY
$3.92
$175
Imported Backfill
25.5
CY
$29.94
$763
Haul & Dispose at Repository
44.6
CY
$5.49
$245
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
44.6
CY
$11.38
$507
use C08a cost
Sluice Gate, 36"x36"
1.0
EA
$17,217.04
$17,217
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 6 ft tall
9.6
CY
$737.64
$7,049
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
1911.1
LB
$1.79
$3,412
CIP Wall Footing, 3 wide x 2' tall
9.6
CY
$496.76
$4,747
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
1433.3
LB
$1.79
$2,559
CIP Slab, 12" thk
4.3
CY
$295.88
$1,260
Footing Rebar @ 150 #/cy
638.9
LB
$1.79
$1,140
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$11,702
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$2,339
Total Direct Unit Cost
$72,500.00
$72,549
Page 3 of 11
-------
TABLE D-31
Alternative RP- 2: Silverton Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
7-10 Pipeline -18" CHDPE, 6' to Invert
1
LF
4.5' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
1.4
SY
$12.55
$17
Excavate Trench
1.1
CY
$3.92
$4
Bed & Zone
0.3
CY
$46.86
$13
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.7
CY
$29.94
$22
Haul & Dispose at Repository
1.1
CY
$5.49
$6
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
1.1
CY
$11.38
$12
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 18" CPE Pipe
1
LF
$30.71
$31
350'/day
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.3
TON
$70.00
$22
CSBC, 6" thk
0.2
CY
$31.26
$7
Flagger
0.05
HR
$60.14
$3
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$12
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$3
Total Direct Unit Cost
$160.00
$158
11,19,20 Pipeline -36" CHDPE, 6' to Invert
1
LF
3' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
1.6
SY
$12.55
$20
Excavate Trench
1.4
CY
$3.92
$6
Bed & Zone
0.5
CY
$46.86
$24
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.7
CY
$29.94
$20
Haul & Dispose at Repository
1.4
CY
$5.49
$8
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
1.4
CY
$11.38
$16
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 36" CPE Pipe
1
LF
$80.83
$81
200'/day
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.4
TON
$70.00
$25
CSBC, 6" thk
0.3
CY
$31.26
$8
Flagger
0.08
HR
$60.14
$5
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$19
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$6
Total Direct Unit Cost
$240.00
$242
Page 4 of 11
-------
TABLE D-31
Alternative RP- 2: Silverton Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
12-18 Pipeline - 36" CHDPE, 7.5' to Invert
1
LF
4.5' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
1.9
SY
$12.55
$24
Excavate Trench
2.1
CY
$3.92
$8
Bed & Zone
0.5
CY
$46.86
$24
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
1.3
CY
$29.94
$39
Haul & Dispose at Repository
2.1
CY
$5.49
$11
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
2.1
CY
$11.38
$24
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 36" CPE Pipe
1
LF
$80.83
$81
200'/day
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.4
TON
$70.00
$30
CSBC, 6" thk
0.3
CY
$31.26
$10
Flagger
0.08
HR
$60.14
$5
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$23
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$7
Total Direct Unit Cost
$290.00
$290
21 Pipeline - 42" CHDPE, 5.5' to Invert
1
LF
2' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
1.5
SY
$12.55
$19
Excavate Trench
1.4
CY
$3.92
$5
Bed & Zone
0.6
CY
$46.86
$29
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.4
CY
$29.94
$12
Haul & Dispose at Repository
1.4
CY
$5.49
$8
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
1.4
CY
$11.38
$16
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 42" CPE Pipe
1
LF
$118.68
$119
150'/day
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.3
TON
$70.00
$24
CSBC, 6" thk
0.3
CY
$31.26
$8
Flagger
0.11
HR
$60.14
$6
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$23
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$7
Total Direct Unit Cost
$280.00
$280
Page 5 of 11
-------
TABLE D-31
Alternative RP- 2: Silverton Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
22
Manhole 48" 6 to 8 ft Depth
1
EA
Demo ACP Roadway
7.1
SY
$12.55
$89
Excavate Trench
19.0
CY
$3.92
$74
Bed & Zone
0.0
CY
$46.86
$0
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
15.2
CY
$29.94
$456
Haul & Dispose at Repository
19.0
CY
$5.49
$104
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
19.0
CY
$11.38
$216
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
EA
$25.00
$25
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
48" Manhole
1
EA
$2,776.78
$2,777
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
1.6
TON
$70.00
$113
CSBC, 6" thk
1.2
CY
$31.26
$37
Flagger
8.00
HR
$60.14
$481
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$405
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$112
Total Direct Unit Cost
$4,890.00
$4,890
23
Furnish and Install Storm Drain and Inlet
1
EA
3' cover, 25 ft long
Demo ACP Roadway
26.4
SY
$12.55
$331
Excavate Trench
17.1
CY
$3.92
$67
Bed & Zone
7.0
CY
$46.86
$328
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
8.5
CY
$29.94
$254
Haul & Dispose at Repository
17.1
CY
$5.49
$94
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
17.1
CY
$11.38
$195
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
25
LF
$5.00
$125
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 18" CPE Pipe
25
LF
$30.71
$768
350'/day
Grated concrete inlet structure
1
EA
$2,758.50
$2,759
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
6.0
TON
$70.00
$421
CSBC, 6" thk
4.4
CY
$31.26
$137
Flagger
0.05
HR
$60.14
$3
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$519
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$129
Total Direct Unit Cost
$6,130.00
$6,131
Page 6 of 11
-------
TABLE D-31
Alternative RP- 2: Silverton Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
West of Western Avenue
1-3 Pipeline -16" CHDPE, 6' to Invert
1
LF
4.5' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
1.4
SY
$12.55
$17
Excavate Trench
1.0
CY
$3.92
$4
Bed & Zone
0.3
CY
$46.86
$12
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.7
CY
$29.94
$22
Haul & Dispose at Repository
1.0
CY
$5.49
$6
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
1.0
CY
$11.38
$12
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 16" CPE Pipe (Price as 15" CPE)
1
LF
$26.63
$27
350'/day
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.3
TON
$70.00
$22
CSBC, 6" thk
0.2
CY
$31.26
$7
Flagger
0.05
HR
$60.14
$3
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$12
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$3
Total Direct Unit Cost
$150.00
$151
4 Pipeline-18" CHDPE, 6' to Invert
1
LF
4.5' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
1.4
SY
$12.55
$17
Excavate Trench
1.1
CY
$3.92
$4
Bed & Zone
0.3
CY
$46.86
$13
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.7
CY
$29.94
$22
Haul & Dispose at Repository
1.1
CY
$5.49
$6
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
1.1
CY
$11.38
$12
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 18" CPE Pipe
1
LF
$30.71
$31
350'/day
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.3
TON
$70.00
$22
CSBC, 6" thk
0.2
CY
$31.26
$7
Flagger
0.05
HR
$60.14
$3
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$12
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$3
Total Direct Unit Cost
$160.00
$158
Page 7 of 11
-------
TABLE D-31
Alternative RP- 2: Silverton Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
5-9 Pipeline - 20" CHDPE, 6.5' to Invert
1
LF
4.83' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
1.5
SY
$12.55
$19
Excavate Trench
1.3
CY
$3.92
$5
Bed & Zone
0.3
CY
$46.86
$14
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.9
CY
$29.94
$27
Haul & Dispose at Repository
1.3
CY
$5.49
$7
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
1.3
CY
$11.38
$15
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 20" CPE Pipe
1
LF
$36.41
$36
330'/day
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.3
TON
$70.00
$24
CSBC, 6" thk
0.3
CY
$31.26
$8
Flagger
0.05
HR
$60.14
$3
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$14
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$4
Total Direct Unit Cost
$180.00
$181
10 Pipeline - 22" CHDPE, 5' to Invert
1
LF
4.83' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
1.1
SY
$12.55
$14
Excavate Trench
0.8
CY
$3.92
$3
Bed & Zone
0.3
CY
$46.86
$14
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.4
CY
$29.94
$11
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.8
CY
$5.49
$4
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.8
CY
$11.38
$9
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 22" CPE Pipe (Price as 24" CPE)
1
LF
$45.65
$46
330'/day
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.3
TON
$70.00
$18
CSBC, 6" thk
0.2
CY
$31.26
$6
Flagger
0.05
HR
$60.14
$3
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$12
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$3
Total Direct Unit Cost
$150.00
$147
Page 8 of 11
-------
TABLE D-31
Alternative RP- 2: Silverton Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
11
Manhole 48" 6 to 8 ft Depth
1
EA
Demo ACP Roadway
7.1
SY
$12.55
$89
Excavate Trench
19.0
CY
$3.92
$74
Bed & Zone
0.0
CY
$46.86
$0
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
15.2
CY
$29.94
$456
Haul & Dispose at Repository
19.0
CY
$5.49
$104
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
19.0
CY
$11.38
$216
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
EA
$25.00
$25
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
48" Manhole
1
EA
$2,776.78
$2,777
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
1.6
TON
$70.00
$113
CSBC, 6" thk
1.2
CY
$31.26
$37
Flagger
8.00
HR
$60.14
$481
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$405
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$112
Total Direct Unit Cost
$4,890.00
$4,890
12
Furnish and Install Storm Drain and Inlet
1
EA
3' cover, 25 ft long
Demo ACP Roadway
26.4
SY
$12.55
$331
Excavate Trench
17.1
CY
$3.92
$67
Bed & Zone
7.0
CY
$46.86
$328
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
8.5
CY
$29.94
$254
Haul & Dispose at Repository
17.1
CY
$5.49
$94
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
17.1
CY
$11.38
$195
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
25
LF
$5.00
$125
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 18" CPE Pipe
25
LF
$30.71
$768
350'/day
Grated concrete inlet structure
1
EA
$2,758.50
$2,759
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
6.0
TON
$70.00
$421
CSBC, 6" thk
4.4
CY
$31.26
$137
Flagger
0.05
HR
$60.14
$3
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$519
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$129
Total Direct Unit Cost
$6,130.00
$6,131
Page 9 of 11
-------
TABLE D-31
Alternative RP- 2: Silverton Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct Direct Capital
Description Quantity Unit Capital Unit Cost Cost Comments
Unnamed Creek
Replace 12" Culverts w/ 22" CMP Culvert
24
LF
3' cover, done in summer, no dewatering needed,
keep one lane open
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
0.0
SY
$12.55
$0
Remove & Dispose Existing Culvert, 1-18" CMP
24
LF
$10.46
$251
Excavate Trench
19.8
CY
$7.84
$155
account for pipe removal & loading, less pipe
Bed & Zone
7.9
CY
$46.86
$369
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
9.5
CY
$24.94
$238
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
19.8
CY
$5.49
$108
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
19.8
CY
$11.38
$225
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
24
LF
$5.00
$120
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
none requred
56" CMP Pipe
24
LF
$124.52
$2,988
75'/day
Headwall/Miter
1
EA
$1,200.00
$1,200
allowance
Restoration - Base Course & Pavement Patch
0.0
SY
$22.00
$0
subcontract
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$1,064
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$151
Total Direct Unit Cost
$290.00
$6,869
Reconstruct Exist Channel w/12' wx 3'd, XS 1
1,115
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
1.0
AC
$6,514.75
$6,670
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
929.2
CY
$14.80
$13,750
Prep & Grade Channel
1,115
LF
$7.84
$8,744
Haul & Dispose at Repository
929.2
CY
$5.49
$5,101
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
929.2
CY
$11.38
$10,574
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
0.0
CY
$53.33
$0
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$2,916
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$0
Total Direct Unit Cost
$43.00
$47,755
Page 10 of 11
-------
TABLE D-31
Alternative RP- 2: Silverton Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct Direct Capital
Description Quantity Unit Capital Unit Cost Cost Comments
Notes:
ACP = asphalt concrete paving
CIP = cast-in-place
CMP = corrugated metal pipe
CPE = polyethylene
CY = cubic yards
EA = each
HR = hour
LB = pound(s)
LS = lump sum
SF = square feet
SY = square yards
TESC = temporary erosion and sediment control
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future
escalation. The order-of-magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for
guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation.
The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site
conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the final
project schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary
from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be
carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions or establishing final
budgets.
Page 11 of 11
-------
-------
TABLE D-32
Alternative RP-2: Wallace Cost Summary
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Description
Quantity Unit
2009 Direct
Capital Unit
Cost
2009 Total
Direct Capital
Cost
2009 Total
Direct and
Indirect Capital
Cost
Printer's Creek
1 Furnish And Install New 10' Deep, 5' Diameter Precast Manhole
2 Remove Existing Inlet Structure
3 Construct New Inlet Structure
EA
LS
LS
$7,630
$9,900
$41,000
$7,630
$9,900
$41,000
$12,971
$16,830
$69,700
Subtotal Rounded $100,000
Npv For 30-Year O&M Cost
Total NPV cost at 30 years
$99,000
$199,000
Notes:
NPV= Net Present Value
EA = each
LS = lump sum
O&M = operation and maintenance
Assumptions:
All excavated material is hauled to repository and replaced with imported material.
Pipe cover is 3' over pipe
All work will be performed in the summer and therefore no water issues exist.
See estimate details for additional assumptions
Total indirect cost assumes 70% of Total Direct Capital Cost
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-33
Alternative RP-2: Wallace Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
Printer's Creek
1 Manhole 5' Diameter, 10' Depth
50
EA
Demo ACP Roadway
9.0
SY
$12.55
$113
Excavate T rench
30.0
CY
$3.92
$118
Bed & Zone
0.0
CY
$46.86
$0
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
22.7
CY
$29.94
$681
Haul & Dispose at Repository
30.0
CY
$5.49
$165
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
30.0
CY
$11.38
$341
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
EA
$25.00
$25
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
60" Manhole, 10 feet deep
1
EA
$4,718.35
$4,718
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
2.1
TON
$70.00
$144
CSBC, 6" thk
1.5
CY
$31.26
$47
Flagger
8.00
HR
$60.14
$481
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$633
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$163
Total Direct Unit Cost
$7,630.00
$7,628
2 Remove Existing Inlet Structure
1
EA
Demo Existing inlet structure
1
LS
$6,273.60
$6,274
Haul & Dispose
1
LS
$1,891.84
$1,892
assume all is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$1,633
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$132
Total Direct Unit Cost
$9,900.00
$9,930
3 New Inlet Structure at Printer's Creek
1
EA
Riprap
15
CY
$72.91
$1,080
imported, difficult operation
20'x6' Steel Trash Rack at outlet
1
EA
$15,105.31
$15,105
Use $100/SF cost
Grade existing pond bottom
400
SF
$3.14
$1,255
Excavate for walls
30
CY
$3.92
$116
Imported Backfill
16
CY
$29.94
$466
Haul & Dispose at Repository
30
CY
$5.49
$163
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
30
CY
$11.38
$337
use C08a cost
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 8 ft tall
7
CY
$737.64
$5,464
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
1481
LB
$1.79
$2,645
CIP Wall Footing, 2' wide x 2' tall
7
CY
$496.76
$3,312
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
1000
LB
$1.79
$1,785
Page 1 of 2
-------
TABLE D-33
Alternative RP-2: Wallace Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Description
Quantity
Unit
2009 Direct
Capital Unit Cost
2009 Total
Direct Capital
Cost
Comments
CIP Slab, 12" thk
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
Misc Detail Allowance
3
389
20%
CY
LB
LS
$295.88
$1.79
$0.00
$767
$694
$6,638
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
Total Direct Unit Cost
$41,000.00
$1,196
$41,023
Notes:
ACP = asphalt concrete paving
CIP = cast-in-place
CY = cubic yards
EA = each
LB = pound(s)
LS = lump sum
SY = square yards
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal accuracy of-30
percent to +50 percent (-30/+50%).
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-
magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information
available at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material
costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the final
project schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making
specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Page 2 of 2
-------
TABLE D-34
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Cost Summary
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Description
Quantity Unit
2009 Direct
Capital Unit
Cost
2009 Total
Direct Capital
Cost
2009 Total
Direct and
Indirect Capital
Cost
3rd Street Neighborhood
1 Construct Asphalt Lined Ditch (2.5' Deep With 1:1 Side Slopes)
2 Install 55 Lf Of 24" Dia Rep Pipe, 2' Cover With Asphalt Reconstruction
3 Remove Existing Culvert And Install 40 Lf Of 24" Dia Rep (Culvert 1), 1 Ft Cover
With Pavement Restoration
4 Remove Existing Culvert And Install 40 Lf Of 24" Dia Rep (Culvert 2), 1 Ft Cover
With Pavement Restoration
5 Remove Existing Culvert And Install 25 Lf Of 24" Dia Rep (Culvert 3), 1 Ft Cover
With Pavement Restoration
6 Remove Existing Culvert And Install 40 Lf Of 24" Dia Rep (Culvert 4), 1 Ft Cover
With Pavement Restoration
7 Furnish And Install New 48" Dia Manhole At 6 Ft Depth
8 Furnish And Install New 48" Catch Basin With Sump
Tiger Creek
1 Construct Concrete Inlet Structure (See Plan 316-1, Case A With 8' Long X 4'
Tall Wingwalls And 3' Long X 4' Tall Headwalls)
2 Install 175 Lf Of 24" Cmp. 1 Ft Cover With Sod Surface Restoration
3 Construct Asphalt Lined Ditch (2.5' Deep With 1:1 Side Slopes)
4 Install 30 Lf Of 24" Rep (Culvert 1). 1 Ft Cover With Pavement Restoration
5 Install 30 Lf Of 24" Rep (Culvert 2). 1 Ft Cover With Pavement Restoration
6 Install Rip Rap At Outfall
Miii Creek
1 Regrade And Vegetate 140 Lf Of Stream Banks
2 Construct 4' High X 4' Long Concrete Wingwalls At Culvert Enterance
3 Reconstruct Existing Concrete Open Channel (2.5' H X 4.33' W) To 3' H X 6' W
Concrete Channel
4 Construct 325 Lf Of 3.5' H X 6' W Concrete Box Culvert Along New Alignment
(Culvert 1). Remove 80 Lf Of Existing 3' H X 6' W Concrete Box
5 Plug And Fill Existing Culvert (80 Lf Of 3' X 6' Concrete Box Culvert And 100 Lf
Of 58" Dia Cmp) With Cdf
6 Install Rip Rap At Culvert 1 Outfall
7 Replace Two Existing 32" Cpe Culvert In Parallel With 15' WX 25' L Precast
Concrete Bridge With Footings And Clear Hieght Of 2.5 Ft (Bridge 1)
8 Replace Two Existing 36" Cpe Culvert In Parallel With 15' WX 20' L Precast
Concrete Bridge With Footings And Clear Hieght Of 2.5 Ft (Bridge 2)
9 Excavate And Regrade 50 Lf Of Existing Gravel Road To Provide 1.5 Ft Rolling
Dip
Mill Street
1 Construct Asphalt Lined Ditch (2.5 Ft Deep With 1:1 Side Slopes) Along South
Side Of Mill Street
2 Construct Asphalt Lined Ditch (2.5 Ft Deep With 1:1 Side Slopes) Along North
Side Of Mill Street
3 Construct 10' X 2' X 3 Rock Lined Ditch (Xs 1)
4 Install 60 Lf Of 15" Dia Rep Pipe With 2 Ft Of Cover (Culvert 1)
5 Install 80 Lf Of 15" Dia Rep Pipe With 2 Ft Of Cover (Culvert 2)
6 Install 30 Lf Of 15" Dia Rep Pipe With 2 Ft Of Cover (Culvert 3)
7 Install 50 Lf Of 15" Dia Rep Pipe With 2 Ft Of Cover (Culvert 4)
8 Install Two (2) 25 Lf 15" Rep Culverts With 2 Ft Of Cover (Culvert 5 & 6)
9 Install Two (2) 50 Lf 18" Rep Culverts With 1.5 Ft Of Cover (Culvert 7 & 9)
10 Install 25 Lf Of 18" Dia Cpe Culvert With 1.5 Ft Cover (Culvert 8)
11 Install 25 Lf Of 30" Dia Cpe Culvert Under Trail Of Coeur D'Alenes (Culvert 10). 3
Ft Cover With Pavement Surface Restoration
12 Install New Dual Inlet Catch Basin (ltd Catch Basin Type 6) With 4' Sump
13 Install 15 Cy Rip Rap At Outfall To South Fork Coeur D'Aiene River
Dewey Street Area
Construct Asphalt Lined Ditch (2.5' Deep With 1:1 Side Slopes) Along N Side Of
Lower Dewey St
Construct Asphalt Lined Ditch (2.5' Deep With 1:1 Side Slopes) Along E Side Of
Lower Dewey St (Daylight To Hunter St)
Construct Asphalt Lined Ditch (2.5' Deep With 1:1 Side Slopes) Along E Side Of
Lower Dewey St (Daylight To Mill St)
3400
LF
$25
$85,000
$144,500
55
LF
$160
$8,800
$14,960
40
LF
$150
$6,000
$10,200
40
LF
$150
$6,000
$10,200
25
LF
$150
$3,750
$6,375
40
LF
$150
$6,000
$10,200
1
LF
$4,890
$4,890
$8,313
2
LF
$4,890
$9,780
$16,626
1
EA
$24,600
$24,600
$41,820
175
LF
$130
$22,750
$38,675
750
LF
$25
$18,750
$31,875
30
LF
$150
$4,500
$7,650
30
LF
$150
$4,500
$7,650
10
CY
$82
$820
$1,394
140
LF
$33
$4,620
$7,854
2
EA
$4,510
$9,020
$15,334
175
LF
$574
$100,450
$170,765
325
LF
$624
$202,800
$344,760
1
LS
$27,025
$27,025
$45,943
10
CY
$82
$820
$1,394
1
EA
$160,000
$160,000
$272,000
2
EA
$128,000
$256,000
$435,200
1
LS
$1,880
$1,880
$3,196
960
LF
$25
$24,000
$40,800
925
LF
$25
$23,125
$39,313
390
LF
$101
$39,390
$66,963
60
LF
$110
$6,600
$11,220
80
LF
$110
$8,800
$14,960
30
CY
$110
$3,300
$5,610
50
EA
$110
$5,500
$9,350
1
LS
$5,500
$5,500
$9,350
1
LS
$12,000
$12,000
$20,400
25
LF
$120
$3,000
$5,100
25
LF
$210
$5,250
$8,925
1
EA
$5,367
$5,367
$9,124
15
CY
$82
$1,230
$2,091
100
LF
$25
$2,500
$4,250
280
LF
$25
$7,000
$11,900
365
LF
$25
$9,125
$15,513
Page 1 of 2
-------
TABLE D-34
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Cost Summary
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Description
Quantity
Unit
2009 Direct
Capital Unit
Cost
2009 Total
Direct Capital
Cost
2009 Total
Direct and
Indirect Capital
Cost
4
Install 25 Lf Of 18" Rep (Culvert 1). 1.5 Ft Cover With Pavement Restoration
25
LF
$120
$3,000
$5,100
5
Install 25 Lf Of 18" Rep (Culvert 2). 1.5 Ft Cover With Pavement Restoration
25
LF
$120
$3,000
$5,100
6
Install 25 Lf Of 18" Rep (Culvert 3). 1.5 Ft Cover With Gravel Restoration
25
LF
$100
$2,500
$4,250
7
Replace Existing Catch Basin New 4' Deep Inlet With Sump
6
EA
$4,890
$29,340
$49,878
8
Replace 12" Dia Storm Sewer With 18" Dia Cpe Pipe With 3 Ft Of Cover
650
LF
$120
$78,000
$132,600
Copper Street Neighborhood
1
Construct Asphalt Lined Ditch (2.5 Ft Deep With 1:1 Side Slopes) Along South
400
LF
$25
$10,000
$17,000
Side Of Idaho Street
2
Construct Asphalt Lined Ditch (2.5 Ft Deep With 1:1 Side Slopes) Along Idaho
1100
LF
$25
$27,500
$46,750
Street East And West Sides Of Eighth Street
3
Construct Asphalt Lined Ditch (2.5 Ft Deep With 1:1 Side Slopes) Along North
205
LF
$25
$5,125
$8,713
Side Of Oregon Street
4
Construct Asphalt Lined Ditch (2.5 Ft Deep With 1:1 Side Slopes) Along
305
LF
$25
$7,625
$12,963
Montana Street
5
Install Six (6) 25 Lf 18" Rep Culverts With 1.5 Ft Of Cover (Culvert 1 Through 6)
1
LS
$18,000
$18,000
$30,600
6
Install Seven (7) 20 Lf 18" Rep Culverts With 1.5 Ft Of Cover (Culvert 7 Through
1*^
1
LS
$16,800
$16,800
$28,560
7
lo;
Install 310 Lf Of 48" Cmp Culvert With 3.5 Ft Of Cover (Culvert 14 And 15)
310
LF
$400
$124,000
$210,800
8
Install 915 Lf Of New 24" Cpe Storm Pipe With 4 Ft Of Cover
915
LF
$210
$192,150
$326,655
9
Remove Existing Drywell, 4 Exsiting Catch Basins, And 285 Lf Of Existing Storm
1
LS
$17,680
$17,680
$30,056
Drain Pipe Along Idaho Street
10
Furnish And Install New 6' X 6' Concrete Manhole At A Depth Of 8 Ft
1
EA
$11,676
$11,676
$19,849
11
Furnish And Install New 48" Dia Storm Manhole At A Depth Of 6 Ft
4
EA
$4,890
$19,560
$33,252
12
Furnish And Install New Catch Basin With 4' Sump
6
EA
$4,890
$29,340
$49,878
13
Install 15 Cy Rip Rap At Culvert/Pipe Outfall
30
CY
$82
$2,460
$4,182
South End Of 2nd Street
1
Construct 10'X4'X3' Rock Lined Ditch Along West Side Of Second Street (Xs 1)
110
LF
$108
$11,880
$20,196
2
Construct 10'X4'X3' Rock Lined Ditch Along South Side Of The Trail Of The
655
LF
$108
$70,740
$120,258
Coeur D'Alenes (Xs 1)
3
Install 60 Lf Of New 18" Dia Cpe Pipe With 3 Ft Of Cover
60
LF
$120
$7,200
$12,240
4
Install 20 Lf Of New 18" Dia Cpe Pipe Under Trail Of Coeur D'Alenes (Culvert 1).
20
LF
$120
$2,400
$4,080
3 Ft Of Cover With Pavement Surface Restoration.
5
Install New Dual Inlet Catch Basin (ltd Cathc Basin Type 6) With 4 Ft Sump.
1
EA
$5,367
$5,367
$9,124
6
Install Rip Rap At Outfall To Mill Creek
15
CY
$82
$1,230
$2,091
Subtotal Rounded
$3,110,000
NPV for 30-year O&M Cost
Total NPV cost at 30 years
$1,080,000
$4,190,000
Notes:
NPV = Net Present Value
CY = cubic yards
EA = each
LF = linear feet
LS = lump sum
O&M = operation and maintenance
Assumptions:
All excavated material is hauled to repository and replaced with imported material.
Pipe cover is 3' over pipe
All work will be performed in the summer and therefore no water issues exist.
See estimate details for additional assumptions
Total indirect cost assumes 70% of Total Direct Capital Cost
Page 2 of 2
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct Direct Capital
Description Quantity Unit Capital Unit Cost Cost Comments
3rd Street Neighborhood
Construct Asphalt Lined Ditch (2.5 deep w/1:1 slopes)
3,400
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
50.0
AC
$6,514.75
$15,255
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
787.0
CY
$14.80
$11,647
Prep & Grade Ditch
3,400
LF
$3.92
$13,331
Haul & Dispose at Repository
787.0
CY
$5.49
$4,321
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
Repository Cost
787.0
CY
$11.38
$8,956
use C08a cost
ACP Pavement, 2" thk
301.5
TON
$70.00
$21,103
Imported Fill Material
0.0
CY
$53.33
$0
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$6,134
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$1,161
Total Direct Unit Cost
$25.00
$81,907
Pipeline - 24" RCP, 2' Cover Pavement Restoration
1
LF
2' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
1.0
SY
$12.55
$13
Excavate T rench
0.7
CY
$3.92
$3
Bed & Zone
0.4
CY
$46.86
$17
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.2
CY
$29.94
$6
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.7
CY
$5.49
$4
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.7
CY
$11.38
$8
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 24" RCP Pipe
1
LF
$65.97
$66
RS Means 334113502040
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.2
TON
$70.00
$16
CSBC, 6" thk
0.2
CY
$31.26
$5
Flagger
0.08
HR
$60.14
$5
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$13
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$4
Total Direct Unit Cost
$160.00
$163
Page 1 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
3-6
Pipeline - 24" RCP, 1' Cover Pavement Restoration
1
LF
1' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
0.8
SY
$12.55
$10
Excavate T rench
0.5
CY
$3.92
$2
Bed & Zone
0.4
CY
$46.86
$17
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.1
CY
$29.94
$2
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.5
CY
$5.49
$3
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.5
CY
$11.38
$6
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 24" RCP Pipe
1
LF
$65.97
$66
RS Means 334113502040
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.2
TON
$70.00
$12
CSBC, 6" thk
0.1
CY
$31.26
$4
Flagger
0.08
HR
$60.14
$5
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$12
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$3
Total Direct Unit Cost
$150.00
$147
7,8
Manhole 48" 6 to 8 ft Depth
1
EA
Demo ACP Roadway
7.1
SY
$12.55
$89
Excavate T rench
19.0
CY
$3.92
$74
Bed & Zone
0.0
CY
$46.86
$0
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
15.2
CY
$29.94
$456
Haul & Dispose at Repository
19.0
CY
$5.49
$104
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
19.0
CY
$11.38
$216
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
EA
$25.00
$25
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
48" Manhole
1
EA
$2,776.78
$2,777
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
1.6
TON
$70.00
$113
CSBC, 6" thk
1.2
CY
$31.26
$37
Flagger
8.00
HR
$60.14
$481
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$405
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$112
Total Direct Unit Cost
$4,890.00
$4,890
Page 2 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct Direct Capital
Description Quantity Unit Capital Unit Cost Cost Comments
Tiger Creek
New Inlet Structure at Tiger Creek
1
EA
Riprap
14.8
CY
$72.91
$1,080
imported, difficult operation
20'x6' Steel Trash Rack at outlet
1.0
EA
$9,105.31
$9,105
Use $100/SF cost
Grade existing pond bottom
400.0
SF
$3.14
$1,255
Excavate for walls
14.1
CY
$3.92
$55
Imported Backfill
6.2
CY
$29.94
$186
Haul & Dispose at Repository
14.1
CY
$5.49
$77
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
Repository Cost
14.1
CY
$11.38
$160
use C08a cost
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 4 ft tall
2.8
CY
$737.64
$2,076
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
563.0
LB
$1.79
$1,005
CIP Wall Footing, 2' wide x 2' tall
5.0
CY
$496.76
$2,502
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
755.6
LB
$1.79
$1,349
CIP Slab, 12" thk
2.0
CY
$295.88
$592
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
300.0
LB
$1.79
$536
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$3,996
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$653
Total Direct Unit Cost
$24,600.00
$24,627
Pipeline - 24" RCP, 1' Cover Sod Restoration
1
LF
1' cover
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.0
AC
$6,514.75
$4
Excavate T rench
0.5
CY
$3.92
$2
Bed & Zone
0.4
CY
$46.86
$17
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.1
CY
$29.94
$2
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.5
CY
$5.49
$3
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.5
CY
$11.38
$6
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 24" RCP Pipe
1
LF
$65.97
$66
RS Means 334113502040
SOD
1.6
SY
$4.50
$7
Topsoil, 6" thk
0.3
CY
$27.94
$7
Flagger
0.00
HR
$60.14
$0
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$11
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$3
Total Direct Unit Cost
$130.00
$133
Page 3 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
3
Construct Asphalt Lined Ditch (2.5 deep w/1:1 slopes)
3,400
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
2.3
AC
$6,514.75
$15,255
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
787.0
CY
$14.80
$11,647
Prep & Grade Ditch
3,400
LF
$3.92
$13,331
Haul & Dispose at Repository
787.0
CY
$5.49
$4,321
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
787.0
CY
$11.38
$8,956
use C08a cost
ACP Pavement, 2" thk
301.5
TON
$70.00
$21,103
Imported Fill Material
0.0
CY
$53.33
$0
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$6,134
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$1,161
Total Direct Unit Cost
$25.00
$81,907
4,5
Pipeline - 24" RCP, 1' Cover Pavement Restoration
1
LF
1' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
0.8
SY
$12.55
$10
Excavate T rench
0.5
CY
$3.92
$2
Bed & Zone
0.4
CY
$46.86
$17
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.1
CY
$29.94
$2
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.5
CY
$5.49
$3
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.5
CY
$11.38
$6
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 24" RCP Pipe
1
LF
$65.97
$66
RS Means 334113502040
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.2
TON
$70.00
$12
CSBC, 6" thk
0.1
CY
$31.26
$4
Flagger
0.08
HR
$60.14
$5
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$12
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$3
Total Direct Unit Cost
$150.00
$147
6
Rip Rap
1
EA
Riprap
1
CY
$72.91
$73
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$7
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$2
Total Direct Unit Cost
$82.00
$82
Page 4 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Description
Quantity
Unit
2009 Direct
Capital Unit Cost
2009 Total
Direct Capital
Cost
Comments
Mill Creek
1 Regrade and Revegetate Stream Banks
140
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.1
AC
$6,514.75
$838
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
0.0
CY
$14.80
$0
Prep & Grade Channel
140
LF
$7.84
$1,098
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.0
CY
$5.49
$0
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
Repository Cost
0.0
CY
$11.38
$0
use C08a cost
Planting along stream banks
140
LF
$15.00
$2,100
allowance
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$404
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
Total Direct Unit Cost
$33.00
$116
$4,554
Construct 4' H x 4' L Wingwalls at Culvert
1
EA
Riprap
8
CY
$72.91
$608
imported, difficult operation
Grade existing pond bottom
225
SF
$3.14
$706
Excavate for walls
5
CY
$3.92
$19
Imported Backfill
2
CY
$29.94
$71
Haul & Dispose at Repository
5
CY
$5.49
$26
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
Repository Cost
5
CY
$11.38
$54
use C08a cost
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 4 ft tall
1
CY
$737.64
$874
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
237
LB
$1.79
$423
CIP Wall Footing, 2' wide x 2' tall
1
CY
$496.76
$589
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
178
LB
$1.79
$317
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$737
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$83
Total Direct Unit Cost
$4,510.00
$4,507
Page 5 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
3
Reconstruct Channel w/ 3' H Wall, 6' W Concrete Channel
175
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.2
AC
$6,514.75
$1,047
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Demo existing 2.5' H x 4.33' W
175
LF
$11.84
$2,072
Excavate Channel
137.2
CY
$14.80
$2,031
Prep & Grade Channel
175
LF
$7.84
$1,372
Haul & Dispose at Repository
137.2
CY
$5.49
$753
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
137.2
CY
$11.38
$1,562
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
38.9
CY
$53.33
$2,074
imported, difficult operation
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 3' tall
38.9
CY
$737.64
$28,686
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
7777.8
LB
$1.79
$13,884
CIP Slab, 12" thk, 10' wide
65
CY
$295.88
$19,177
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
9,722
LB
$1.79
$17,355
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$8,770
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$1,531
Total Direct Unit Cost
$574.00
$100,315
4
Construct 3.5' H x 6' W Concrete Box Culvert
325
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.3
AC
$6,514.75
$1,944
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Demo existing 3' H x 6' W
80
LF
$11.84
$947
Excavate Channel
379.2
CY
$14.80
$5,611
Prep & Grade Channel
325
LF
$7.84
$2,549
Haul & Dispose at Repository
379.2
CY
$5.49
$2,082
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
379.2
CY
$11.38
$4,315
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
84.3
CY
$53.33
$4,493
imported, difficult operation
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 3' tall
84.3
CY
$737.64
$62,153
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
16851.9
LB
$1.79
$30,082
CIP Slab, 12" thk, 10' wide
120
CY
$295.88
$35,615
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
18,056
LB
$1.79
$32,231
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$17,563
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$3,072
Total Direct Unit Cost
$624.00
$202,657
Page 6 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
5
Plug and Fill Existing Culvert
1
LS
Fill 3'x6' culvert with CDF
53
CY
$100.00
$5,333
leave open, use as overflow storage
Pumping Costs
53
CY
$80.82
$4,310
Fill 58" Dia CMP with CDF
68
CY
$100.00
$6,786
leave open, use as overflow storage
Pumping Costs
68
CY
$80.82
$5,485
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$4,383
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$727
Total Direct Unit Cost
$27,025.00
$27,024
6
Rip Rap
1
EA
Riprap
1
CY
$72.91
$73
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$7
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$2
Total Direct Unit Cost
$82.00
$82
7
Replace Existing Culvert w/ New 15'x25' Span Bridge
1
EA
3' cover, done in summer, no dewatering needed,
keep one lane open
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
41.7
SY
$12.55
$523
Remove & Dispose Exist Culverts
1
LS
$591.92
$592
Excavate T rench
48.6
CY
$7.84
$381
account for pipe removal & loading, less pipe
Bed & Zone
0.0
CY
$46.86
$0
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.0
CY
$9.94
$0
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
48.6
CY
$5.49
$267
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
48.6
CY
$11.38
$553
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
0
LF
$5.00
$0
trench box
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 2.5' tall +1 bury
3.2
CY
$737.64
$2,391
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
648.1
LB
$1.79
$1,157
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 2.5' tall +1 bury
3.2
CY
$737.64
$2,391
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
648.1
LB
$1.79
$1,157
CIP Wall Footing, 2.5 wide x 1.5' tall
6.9
CY
$496.76
$3,450
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
1041.7
LB
$1.79
$1,859
New Bridge & Abutments - Concrete
375
SF
$300.00
$112,500
based on road & bridge file
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$25,280
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$6,977
Total Direct Unit Cost
$160,000.00
$159,478
Page 7 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
Replace Existing Culvert w/ New 15'x20' Span Bridge
1
EA
3' cover, done in summer, no dewatering needed,
keep one lane open
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
33.3
SY
$12.55
$418
Remove & Dispose Exist Culverts
1
LS
$591.92
$592
Excavate T rench
38.9
CY
$7.84
$305
account for pipe removal & loading, less pipe
Bed & Zone
0.0
CY
$46.86
$0
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.0
CY
$9.94
$0
assume all wasted to repository
Haul & Dispose at Repository
38.9
CY
$5.49
$214
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
38.9
CY
$11.38
$443
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
0
LF
$5.00
$0
trench box
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 2.5' tall +1 bury
2.6
CY
$737.64
$1,912
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
518.5
LB
$1.79
$926
CIP Wall, 12" thk, 2.5' tall +1 bury
2.6
CY
$737.64
$1,912
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
518.5
LB
$1.79
$926
CIP Wall Footing, 2.5 wide x 1.5' tall
5.6
CY
$496.76
$2,760
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
833.3
LB
$1.79
$1,488
New Bridge & Abutments - Concrete
300
SF
$300.00
$90,000
based on road & bridge file
Misc Detail Allowance
20%
LS
$0.00
$20,248
minor traffic control, TESC, etc
Sales Tax on Materials 5% $5,582
Total Direct Unit Cost $128,000.00 $127,724
Excavate and Regrade Gravel Road
1
LS
5' cover
Excavate Roadway
34.7
CY
$3.92
$136
Place Excavated Material Backfill
34.7
CY
$9.94
$345
Trench Safety
0
LF
$5.00
$0
trench box
CSBC, 6" thk
23.1
CY
$31.26
$724
Flagger
8.00
HR
$60.14
$481
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$169
road maint &
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$23
Total Direct Unit Cost
$1,880.00
$1,878
Page 8 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct Direct Capital
Description Quantity Unit Capital Unit Cost Cost Comments
Mill Street
Construct Asphalt Lined Ditch (2.5 deep w/1:1 slopes)
3,400
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
2.3
AC
$6,514.75
$15,255
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
787.0
CY
$14.80
$11,647
Prep & Grade Ditch
3,400
LF
$3.92
$13,331
Haul & Dispose at Repository
787.0
CY
$5.49
$4,321
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
Repository Cost
787.0
CY
$11.38
$8,956
use C08a cost
ACP Pavement, 2" thk
301.5
TON
$70.00
$21,103
Imported Fill Material
0.0
CY
$53.33
$0
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$6,134
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$1,161
Total Direct Unit Cost
$25.00
$81,907
Construct 10'x2'x3' Rock Lined Ditch
390
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.4
AC
$6,514.75
$2,333
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
693.3
CY
$14.80
$10,260
Prep & Grade Channel
390
LF
$7.84
$3,058
Haul & Dispose at Repository
693.3
CY
$5.49
$3,806
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
Repository Cost
693.3
CY
$11.38
$7,890
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
173.3
CY
$53.33
$9,244
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$2,490
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$143
Total Direct Unit Cost
$101.00
$39,224
Page 9 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
4-9
Pipeline -15" RCP, 2' Cover
1
LF
2' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
0.8
SY
$12.55
$9
Excavate T rench
0.5
CY
$3.92
$2
Bed & Zone
0.2
CY
$46.86
$12
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.2
CY
$29.94
$5
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.5
CY
$5.49
$2
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.5
CY
$11.38
$5
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 15" RCP Pipe
1
LF
$35.75
$36
350'/day
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.2
TON
$70.00
$12
CSBC, 6" thk
0.1
CY
$31.26
$4
Flagger
0.05
HR
$60.14
$3
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$9
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$2
Total Direct Unit Cost
$110.00
$106
10
Pipeline -18" RCP, 1.5' Cover Pavement Restoration
1
LF
1' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
0.7
SY
$12.55
$9
Excavate T rench
0.5
CY
$3.92
$2
Bed & Zone
0.3
CY
$46.86
$13
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.1
CY
$29.94
$4
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.5
CY
$5.49
$3
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.5
CY
$11.38
$5
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 18" RCP Pipe
1
LF
$44.92
$45
RS Means 334113502040
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.2
TON
$70.00
$12
CSBC, 6" thk
0.1
CY
$31.26
$4
Flagger
0.06
HR
$60.14
$4
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$10
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$2
Total Direct Unit Cost
$120.00
$116
Page 10 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
11
Pipeline - 30" CPE, 3' Cover Pavement Restoration
1
LF
2' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
1.4
SY
$12.55
$17
Excavate T rench
1.1
CY
$3.92
$5
Bed & Zone
0.4
CY
$46.86
$20
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.5
CY
$29.94
$16
Haul & Dispose at Repository
1.1
CY
$5.49
$6
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
1.1
CY
$11.38
$13
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 30" CPE Pipe
1
LF
$74.25
$74
RS Means 334113502040
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.3
TON
$70.00
$22
CSBC, 6" thk
0.2
CY
$31.26
$7
Flagger
0.08
HR
$60.14
$5
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$17
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$5
Total Direct Unit Cost
$210.00
$213
12
Install New Dual Inlet Catch Basin with 4' Sump
1
EA
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
8.3
SY
$12.55
$105
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Catch Basin
20.8
CY
$14.80
$308
Prep & Grade Channel
0
LF
$7.84
$0
Haul & Dispose at Repository
20.8
CY
$5.49
$114
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
20.8
CY
$11.38
$237
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
17.0
CY
$53.33
$907
imported, difficult operation
Grate
1
EA
$250.00
$250
CIP Wall, 6" thk, 7'tall
2.1
CY
$737.64
$1,530
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
414.8
LB
$1.79
$740
CIP Slab, 6" thk, 5.5' x 2.5' wide
0.5
CY
$295.88
$151
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
76.4
LB
$1.79
$136
CIP Gutter Slab, 6" thk
0.2
CY
$295.88
$55
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
27.8
LB
$1.79
$50
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$423
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$360
Total Direct Unit Cost
$5,367.00
$5,367
Page 11 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
13 Rip Rap
1
EA
Riprap
1
CY
$72.91
$73
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$7
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$2
Total Direct Unit Cost
$82.00
$82
Dewey Street Area
1-3 Construct Asphalt Lined Ditch (2.5 deep w/1:1 slopes)
3,400
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
2.3
AC
$6,514.75
$15,255
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
787.0
CY
$14.80
$11,647
Prep & Grade Ditch
3,400
LF
$3.92
$13,331
Haul & Dispose at Repository
787.0
CY
$5.49
$4,321
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
787.0
CY
$11.38
$8,956
use C08a cost
ACP Pavement, 2" thk
301.5
TON
$70.00
$21,103
Imported Fill Material
0.0
CY
$53.33
$0
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$6,134
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$1,161
Total Direct Unit Cost
$25.00
$81,907
4,5 Pipeline -18" RCP, 1.5' Cover Pavement Restoration
1
LF
1' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
0.7
SY
$12.55
$9
Excavate T rench
0.5
CY
$3.92
$2
Bed & Zone
0.3
CY
$46.86
$13
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.1
CY
$29.94
$4
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.5
CY
$5.49
$3
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.5
CY
$11.38
$5
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 18" RCP Pipe
1
LF
$44.92
$45
RS Means 334113502040
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.2
TON
$70.00
$12
CSBC, 6" thk
0.1
CY
$31.26
$4
Flagger
0.06
HR
$60.14
$4
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$10
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$2
Total Direct Unit Cost
$120.00
$116
Page 12 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
Pipeline -18" RCP, 1.5' Cover Gravel Restoration
1
LF
1' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
0.7
SY
$12.55
$9
Excavate T rench
0.5
CY
$3.92
$2
Bed & Zone
0.3
CY
$46.86
$13
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.1
CY
$29.94
$4
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.5
CY
$5.49
$3
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.5
CY
$11.38
$5
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 18" RCP Pipe
1
LF
$44.92
$45
RS Means 334113502040
CSBC, 6" thk
0.1
CY
$31.26
$4
Flagger
0.03
HR
$60.14
$2
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$8
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$2
Total Direct Unit Cost
$100.00
$101
Manhole 48" 6 to 8 ft Depth
1
EA
Demo ACP Roadway
7.1
SY
$12.55
$89
Excavate T rench
19.0
CY
$3.92
$74
Bed & Zone
0.0
CY
$46.86
$0
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
15.2
CY
$29.94
$456
Haul & Dispose at Repository
19.0
CY
$5.49
$104
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
19.0
CY
$11.38
$216
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
EA
$25.00
$25
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
48" Manhole
1
EA
$2,776.78
$2,777
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
1.6
TON
$70.00
$113
CSBC, 6" thk
1.2
CY
$31.26
$37
Flagger
8.00
HR
$60.14
$481
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$405
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$112
Total Direct Unit Cost
$4,890.00
$4,890
Page 13 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
8 Pipeline -18" CHDPE, 3'Cover
1
LF
3' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
1.1
SY
$12.55
$13
Excavate T rench
0.7
CY
$3.92
$3
Bed & Zone
0.3
CY
$46.86
$13
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.3
CY
$29.94
$10
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.7
CY
$5.49
$4
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.7
CY
$11.38
$8
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 18" CPE Pipe
1
LF
$30.71
$31
350'/day
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.2
TON
$70.00
$17
CSBC, 6" thk
0.2
CY
$31.26
$5
Flagger
0.05
HR
$60.14
$3
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$10
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$3
Total Direct Unit Cost
$120.00
$124
Copper Street Neighborhood
1-4 Construct Asphalt Lined Ditch (2.5 deep w/1:1 slopes)
3,400
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
2.3
AC
$6,514.75
$15,255
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
787.0
CY
$14.80
$11,647
Prep & Grade Ditch
3,400
LF
$3.92
$13,331
Haul & Dispose at Repository
787.0
CY
$5.49
$4,321
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
787.0
CY
$11.38
$8,956
use C08a cost
ACP Pavement, 2" thk
301.5
TON
$70.00
$21,103
Imported Fill Material
0.0
CY
$53.33
$0
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$6,134
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$1,161
Total Direct Unit Cost
$25.00
$81,907
Page 14 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
5,6
Pipeline -18" RCP, 1.5' Cover Pavement Restoration
1
LF
1' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
0.7
SY
$12.55
$9
Excavate T rench
0.5
CY
$3.92
$2
Bed & Zone
0.3
CY
$46.86
$13
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.1
CY
$29.94
$4
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.5
CY
$5.49
$3
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.5
CY
$11.38
$5
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 18" RCP Pipe
1
LF
$44.92
$45
RS Means 334113502040
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.2
TON
$70.00
$12
CSBC, 6" thk
0.1
CY
$31.26
$4
Flagger
0.06
HR
$60.14
$4
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$10
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$2
Total Direct Unit Cost
$120.00
$116
7
Pipeline - 48" CMP, 3.5' Cover Pavement Restoration
1
LF
2' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
2.0
SY
$12.55
$25
Excavate T rench
2.4
CY
$3.92
$9
Bed & Zone
0.7
CY
$46.86
$34
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
1.2
CY
$29.94
$35
Haul & Dispose at Repository
2.4
CY
$5.49
$13
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
2.4
CY
$11.38
$27
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 48" CMP Pipe
1
LF
$161.36
$161
RS Means 334113402200
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.5
TON
$70.00
$32
CSBC, 6" thk
0.3
CY
$31.26
$10
Flagger
0.10
HR
$60.14
$6
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$32
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$11
Total Direct Unit Cost
$400.00
$401
Page 15 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
8
Pipeline - 24" CPE, 4' Cover Pavement Restoration
1
LF
4' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
1.6
SY
$12.55
$20
Excavate T rench
1.5
CY
$3.92
$6
Bed & Zone
0.4
CY
$46.86
$20
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.9
CY
$29.94
$27
Haul & Dispose at Repository
1.5
CY
$5.49
$8
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
1.5
CY
$11.38
$17
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 24" CPE Pipe
1
LF
$47.54
$48
RS Means 334113502040
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.4
TON
$70.00
$26
CSBC, 6" thk
0.3
CY
$31.26
$8
Flagger
0.05
HR
$60.14
$3
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$16
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$5
Total Direct Unit Cost
$210.00
$209
9
Remove Drywell, CB's, and Storm Drain along Idaho St.
1
LF
2' cover
Demo Drywell
1
EA
$392.10
$392
Demo Catchbasin
4
EA
$784.20
$3,137
Demo Existing Storm Drain
285
EA
$9.94
$2,834
Imported Backfill to fill in removals
190
CY
$29.94
$5,689
Trench Safety
285
LF
$5.00
$1,425
trench box
Flagger
40
HR
$60.14
$2,406
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$1,588
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$209
Total Direct Unit Cost
$17,680.00
$17,679
Page 16 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
10
Description
Quantity
Unit
2009 Direct
Capital Unit Cost
2009 Total
Direct Capital
Cost
Comments
Install New 6' x 6' Concrete Manhole, 8' Depth
1
EA
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
16.0
SY
$12.55
$201
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Catch Basin
48.0
CY
$14.80
$710
Prep & Grade Channel
0
LF
$7.84
$0
Haul & Dispose at Repository
48.0
CY
$5.49
$264
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1
Repository Cost
48.0
CY
$11.38
$546
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
33.9
CY
$53.33
$1,809
imported, difficult operation
Grate
1.0
EA
$250.00
$250
CIP Wall, 6" thk, 8'tall
3.6
CY
$737.64
$2,623
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
711.1
LB
$1.79
$1,269
CIP Elevated Slab, 10" thk
1.5
CY
$737.64
$1,111
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
301.3
LB
$1.79
$538
CIP Slab, 10" thk, 7'x 7' wide
1.5
CY
$295.88
$446
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
225.9
LB
$1.79
$403
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$936
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
Total Direct Unit Cost
$11,676.00
$570
$11,676
11,12 Manhole 48" 6 to 8 ft Depth
1
EA
Demo ACP Roadway
7.1
SY
$12.55
$89
Excavate T rench
19.0
CY
$3.92
$74
Bed & Zone
0.0
CY
$46.86
$0
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
15.2
CY
$29.94
$456
Haul & Dispose at Repository
19.0
CY
$5.49
$104
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
19.0
CY
$11.38
$216
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
EA
$25.00
$25
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
48" Manhole
1
EA
$2,776.78
$2,777
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
1.6
TON
$70.00
$113
CSBC, 6" thk
1.2
CY
$31.26
$37
Flagger
8.00
HR
$60.14
$481
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$405
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$112
Total Direct Unit Cost
$4,890.00
$4,890
Page 17 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
13 Rip Rap
1
EA
Riprap
1
CY
$72.91
$73
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$7
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$2
Total Direct Unit Cost
$82.00
$82
South End of 2nd Street
1,2 Construct 10'x4'x3' Rock Lined Ditch
110
LF
Clear, Grub & Dispose
0.1
AC
$6,514.75
$658
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Channel
195.6
CY
$14.80
$2,894
Prep & Grade Channel
110
LF
$7.84
$863
Haul & Dispose at Repository
195.6
CY
$5.49
$1,074
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
195.6
CY
$11.38
$2,225
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
61.1
CY
$53.33
$3,259
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$767
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$50
Total Direct Unit Cost
$108.00
$11,790
3,4 Pipeline -18" CHDPE, 3'Cover
1
LF
3' cover
Demo ACP Roadway
1.1
SY
$12.55
$13
Excavate T rench
0.7
CY
$3.92
$3
Bed & Zone
0.3
CY
$46.86
$13
1/2 mile one way average
Imported Backfill
0.3
CY
$29.94
$10
Haul & Dispose at Repository
0.7
CY
$5.49
$4
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
0.7
CY
$11.38
$8
use C08a cost
Trench Safety
1
LF
$5.00
$5
trench box
Dewatering: Two Sump Pmps
0
HR
$12.00
$0
NA
Pipe, 18" CPE Pipe
1
LF
$30.71
$31
350'/day
ACP Pavement, 4" thk
0.2
TON
$70.00
$17
CSBC, 6" thk
0.2
CY
$31.26
$5
Flagger
0.05
HR
$60.14
$3
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$10
road maint & repair, testing, detection tape, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$3
Total Direct Unit Cost
$120.00
$124
Page 18 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Capital Unit Cost
Cost
Comments
5
Install New Dual Inlet Catch Basin with 4' Sump
1
EA
Sawcut & Remove Pavement
8.3
SY
$12.55
$105
Diversion/Care of Water
0
LF
$10.00
$0
Diversion Piping - Temporary: 36" dia Equiv
0
LF
$10.39
$0
Excavate Catch Basin
20.8
CY
$14.80
$308
Prep & Grade Channel
0
LF
$7.84
$0
Haul & Dispose at Repository
20.8
CY
$5.49
$114
assume all but rock is wasted, 5 mile 1 way
Repository Cost
20.8
CY
$11.38
$237
use C08a cost
Imported Fill Material
17.0
CY
$53.33
$907
imported, difficult operation
Grate
1.0
EA
$250.00
$250
CIP Wall, 6" thk, 7'tall
2.1
CY
$737.64
$1,530
Wall Rebar @ 200 #/cy
414.8
LB
$1.79
$740
CIP Slab, 6" thk, 5.5' x 2.5' wide
0.5
CY
$295.88
$151
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
76.4
LB
$1.79
$136
CIP Gutter Slab, 6" thk
0.2
CY
$295.88
$55
Footing Rebar @150 #/cy
27.8
LB
$1.79
$50
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$423
access.TESC, restoration, etc
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$360
Total Direct Unit Cost
$5,367.00
$5,367
6
Rip Rap
1
EA
Riprap
1.0
CY
$72.91
$73
imported, difficult operation
Misc Detail Allowance
10%
LS
$0.00
$7
Sales Tax on Materials
5%
$2
Total Direct Unit Cost
$82.00
$82
Notes:
CIP = cast-in-place
CPE = polyethylene
CY = cubic yards
EA = each
LB = pound(s)
LS = lump sum
SF = square feet
SY = square yards
TESC = temporary erosion and sediment control
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal
Page 19 of 20
-------
TABLE D-35
Alternative RP-2: Mullan Detailed Unit Cost
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Direct Direct Capital
Description Quantity Unit Capital Unit Cost Cost Comments
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future
escalation. The order-of-magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for
guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of
preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material
costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final
project scope, the final project schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the
final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors,
funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions
or establishing final budgets.
Page 20 of 20
-------
TABLE D-36
Alternative RP-2: Approximate Cost for Side Gulches
Typical Side Gulch Cost
Length of Stream that Fronts or
Flows Through Remediate
Areas1
(LF)
Length of
Channel
Improvements2
(LF)
Direct Capital
Unit Cost3
Direct Capital
Cost
Indirect
Capital Cost4
O&M Cost Total Cost
(30-Year NPV)5 (30-Year NPV)
2,700
1,200
$ 291
$ 349,000
$ 244,000
$ 228,000 $ 821,000
Approximate Number of
Crossings8
Length of Culvert
Replacement7
(LF)
Direct Capital
Unit Cost8
Direct Capital
Cost
Indirect
Capital Cost
O&M Cost Total Cost
(30-Year NPV)5 (30-Year NPV)
4
104
$ 682
$ 71,000
$ 50,000
$ 46,000 $ 167,000
Surface Water Improvements9
Qty
Direct Capital
Unit Cost10
Direct Capital
Cost
Indirect
Capital Cost
O&M Cost Total Cost
(30-Year NPV)5 (30-Year NPV)
Assume 1 per typcial side gulch
1
$ 181,000
$ 181,000
$ 127,000
$ 118,000 $ 426,000
Total for Typical Side Gulch
$ 601,000
$ 421,000
$ 392,000 $ 1,414,000
TOTAL APPROXIMATE COST for Side Gulches11
$ 6,410,000
$ 4,490,000
$ 4,180,000 $ 15,100,000
Notes:
LF = linear feet
NPV = net present value
1 Length of stream that fronts or flows through remediated areas is based on GIS analysis. This value (2,700 LF) is an average length for all
side gulches (see Table 9, Appendix G).
2 Length of expected channel improvements for a typical side gulch assumes 45% of length of stream fronting or flowing through remediated
areas would require improvements. This assumption is based on the development of remedy protection projects using hydrologic and
hydraulic modeling for Alternative RP-2 in the eight Upper Basin communities. (TerraGraphics, 2010)
3 Direct unit capital cost for channel improvements is based on average direct capital unit cost for channel hydraulic capacity improvements
included in Alternative RP-2 for the eight Upper Basin communities. (CH2M HILL, 2010)
4 Indirect capital cost assumes 70% of direct capital costs.
5 O&M Cost (30 Year NPV) assumes 38% of total capital cost. This assumption is based on O&M costs calculated in development of
remedy protection projects in eight Upper Basin communities. (CH2M HILL, 2010)
6 Approximate number of crossing is based on average for side gulches (see Table 9, Appendix G). Assumes all crosssings are culverts.
7 Typical culvert (or crossing) assumes a two-lane road (24-ft) with shoulders (20-ft) and rip-rap headwalls (8-ft). Assumes 50% of crossings
would require culvert replacement. This assumption is based on the development of Alternative RP-2 projects using hydrologic and hydraulic
modeling for the eight Upper Basin communities. (TerraGraphics, 2010)
8 Direct unit cost for culvert replacement is based on average unit cost for culvert replacement technologies included in Alternative RP-2 for
the eight Upper Basin communities. (CH2M HILL, 2010)
9 Surface water improvements assumes that a typical side gulch would need some degree of drainage improvements to reduce scour
potential. The typical side gulch cost assumes one surface water improvement project for each side gulch.
10 Direct unit cost is based on average unit cost for surface water improvement projects included in Alternative RP-2 for the eight Upper
Basin communities. These projects include multiple neighborhoods in Mullan, Printer's Creek (Wallace), Portland Road (Kellogg), and
Sierra Nevada Road (Wardner). (CH2M HILL, 2010)
11 The total approximate cost for side gulches assumes 67% of side gulches will actually require remedy protection actions. This
assumption is based on the analyses conducted during the characterization of the risk posed to the Selected Remedies in the eight Upper
Basin communities. Bunker Creek and Government Creek are not included. (TerraGraphics, 2010)
Page 1 of 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
BigCrkSegOl
POL044
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02c
$4,470
$3,130
$7,600
$1,030
$8,630
POL052
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$19,700
$13,800
$33,500
$0
$33,500
C07
$67,600
$47,300
$114,900
$14,900
$129,800
BigCrkSeg03
POL001
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C02c
$5,070
$3,550
$8,620
$1,170
$9,790
POL002
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$7,280
$5,090
$12,370
$0
$12,370
C07
$25,000
$17,500
$42,500
$5,500
$48,000
POL067
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$521,000
$365,000
$886,000
$1,210,000
$2,096,000
POL068
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$16,900
$11,800
$28,700
$2,190
$30,890
BigCrkSeg04
BIG04-2
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$140,000
$97,800
$237,800
$41,900
$279,700
CD-AVG
$35,000
$24,500
$59,500
$10,500
$70,000
CD-SED
$3,740
$2,620
$6,360
$22,400
$28,760
VBS-AVG
$59,500
$41,700
$101,200
$17,900
$119,100
BIG04-3
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$573,000
$401,000
$974,000
$172,000
$1,146,000
CD-AVG
$247,000
$173,000
$420,000
$74,200
$494,200
CD-SED
$26,200
$18,300
$44,500
$157,000
$201,500
FP/RP-AVG
$432,000
$302,000
$734,000
$77,700
$811,700
OFFCH-AVG
$832,000
$582,000
$1,414,000
$150,000
$1,564,000
VBS-AVG
$244,000
$171,000
$415,000
$73,300
$488,300
KLE025
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings - inactive Facilities
C09
$5,930,000
$4,150,000
$10,080,000
$1,190,000
$11,270,000
KLE026
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C02c
$182,000
$127,000
$309,000
$41,800
$350,800
KLE027
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$399,000
$279,000
$678,000
$0
$678,000
C07
$1,370,000
$958,000
$2,328,000
$301,000
$2,629,000
KLE047
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$44,900
$31,400
$76,300
$0
$76,300
C08a
$58,800
$41,200
$100,000
$8,230
$108,230
HAUL-2
$18,200
$12,800
$31,000
$0
$31,000
KLE053
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$842,000
$589,000
$1,431,000
$0
$1,431,000
C07
$2,890,000
$2,020,000
$4,910,000
$636,000
$5,546,000
KLE054
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$714,000
$500,000
$1,214,000
$661,000
$1,875,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$685,000
$480,000
$1,165,000
$0
$1,165,000
C07
$2,350,000
$1,650,000
$4,000,000
$518,000
$4,518,000
KLE071
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$529,000
$370,000
$899,000
$0
$899,000
C08a
$694,000
$486,000
$1,180,000
$97,100
$1,277,100
HAUL-2
$215,000
$151,000
$366,000
$0
$366,000
KLE073
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$1,350,000
$945,000
$2,295,000
$0
$2,295,000
C08a
$1,770,000
$1,240,000
$3,010,000
$248,000
$3,258,000
HAUL-2
$549,000
$384,000
$933,000
$0
$933,000
POL008
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$34,900
$24,400
$59,300
$0
$59,300
C07
$120,000
$84,000
$204,000
$26,400
$230,400
POL010
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$19,500
$13,700
$33,200
$0
$33,200
C07
$67,000
$46,900
$113,900
$14,700
$128,600
Page 1 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
POL011
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$13,400
$9,350
$22,750
$0
$22,750
C07
$45,900
$32,100
$78,000
$10,100
$88,100
POL022
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C02c
$12,700
$8,870
$21,570
$2,910
$24,480
POL066
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
CCSeg PIPECC
General Feature
Source General Information
PIPE-1
$1,050,000
$735,000
$1,785,000
$84,000
$1,869,000
PIPE-2
$54,100
$37,900
$92,000
$4,330
$96,330
PIPE-3
$2,380,000
$1,670,000
$4,050,000
$191,000
$4,241,000
PIPE-4
$3,330,000
$2,330,000
$5,660,000
$267,000
$5,927,000
CCSegOl BUR105
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$27,800
$19,500
$47,300
$0
$47,300
C03
$60,800
$42,500
$103,300
$7,290
$110,590
BUR109
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$23,500
$16,400
$39,900
$0
$39,900
C03
$257,000
$180,000
$437,000
$30,800
$467,800
BUR185
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$69,800
$48,800
$118,600
$8,370
$126,970
BUR187
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$56,300
$39,400
$95,700
$6,750
$102,450
THO023
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$42,800
$29,900
$72,700
$5,130
$77,830
CCSeg02 BUR107
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$119,000
$83,300
$202,300
$0
$202,300
C04
$594,000
$416,000
$1,010,000
$137,000
$1,147,000
BUR130
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$2,570
$1,800
$4,370
$0
$4,370
C03
$536,000
$375,000
$911,000
$64,300
$975,300
BUR132
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$78,800
$55,100
$133,900
$0
$133,900
C03
$376,000
$263,000
$639,000
$45,100
$684,100
BUR133
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$22,700
$15,900
$38,600
$0
$38,600
C07
$77,900
$54,500
$132,400
$17,100
$149,500
BUR134
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$61,600
$43,100
$104,700
$0
$104,700
C07
$212,000
$148,000
$360,000
$46,600
$406,600
BUR135
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$131,000
$91,400
$222,400
$15,700
$238,100
BUR145
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$240,000
$168,000
$408,000
$0
$408,000
C07
$823,000
$576,000
$1,399,000
$181,000
$1,580,000
BUR150
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$27,900
$19,500
$47,400
$0
$47,400
C03
$306,000
$214,000
$520,000
$36,700
$556,700
BUR153
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$236,000
$165,000
$401,000
$0
$401,000
C08a
$310,000
$217,000
$527,000
$43,400
$570,400
HAUL-2
$96,100
$67,300
$163,400
$0
$163,400
CC02-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$243,000
$170,000
$413,000
$72,800
$485,800
CD-AVG
$123,000
$86,100
$209,100
$36,900
$246,000
Page 2 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID Source ID
Source Type Description
Trait Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
2009 Total
Direct Capital
Cost
2009 Indirect
Capital Cost
2009 Total
Direct and
Indirect Capital
Cost
O&M Cost (30-
Year NPV)
Total Cost (30-
Year NPV)
CD-SED
FP/RP-AVG
VBS-AVG
$12,300
$889,000
$172,000
$8,640
$622,000
$121,000
$20,940
$1,511,000
$293,000
$74,100
$160,000
$51,700
$95,040
$1,671,000
$344,700
CCSeg03 BUR087
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
C03
$53,500
$873,000
$37,500
$611,000
$91,000
$1,484,000
$0
$105,000
$91,000
$1,589,000
BUR088
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
WT01
$9,680
$60,300
$6,780
$64,500
$16,460
$124,800
$1,740
$45,700
$18,200
$170,500
BUR089
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
C03
$171
$45,000
$120
$31,500
$291
$76,500
$0
$5,400
$291
$81,900
BUR090
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
C07
$128,000
$441,000
$89,900
$309,000
$217,900
$750,000
$0
$97,000
$217,900
$847,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
C03
$47,100
$2,360,000
$33,000
$1,650,000
$80,100
$4,010,000
$0
$283,000
$80,100
$4,293,000
BUR099
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
WT01
$9,680
$60,300
$6,780
$64,500
$16,460
$124,800
$1,740
$45,700
$18,200
$170,500
BUR146
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
C08a
HAUL-2
$344,000
$451,000
$140,000
$241,000
$316,000
$98,000
$585,000
$767,000
$238,000
$0
$63,200
$0
$585,000
$830,200
$238,000
BUR149
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
C03
$8,900
$115,000
$6,230
$80,300
$15,130
$195,300
$0
$13,800
$15,130
$209,100
BUR166
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
C03
$171
$74,300
$120
$52,000
$291
$126,300
$0
$8,910
$291
$135,210
BUR180
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
C03
$4,710
$51,800
$3,300
$36,200
$8,010
$88,000
$0
$6,210
$8,010
$94,210
CCSeg04 BUR066
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
C03
$5,990
$67,500
$4,190
$47,300
$10,180
$114,800
$0
$8,100
$10,180
$122,900
BUR067
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
WT01
$9,680
$950,000
$6,780
$1,020,000
$16,460
$1,970,000
$1,740
$723,000
$18,200
$2,693,000
Upland tailings
C01
C07
$10,700
$36,800
$7,490
$25,700
$18,190
$62,500
$0
$8,090
$18,190
$70,590
Upland waste rock (potential intermixed tailings)
C01
C03
C07
$749,000
$1,070,000
$2,570,000
$524,000
$748,000
$1,800,000
$1,273,000
$1,818,000
$4,370,000
$0
$128,000
$566,000
$1,273,000
$1,946,000
$4,936,000
BUR068
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
C07
$51,400
$176,000
$36,000
$123,000
$87,400
$299,000
$0
$38,800
$87,400
$337,800
BUR072
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C03
$392,000
$274,000
$666,000
$47,000
$713,000
BUR073
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
C03
$108,000
$1,190,000
$75,500
$830,000
$183,500
$2,020,000
$0
$142,000
$183,500
$2,162,000
BUR075
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
C07
$15,000
$51,500
$10,500
$36,000
$25,500
$87,500
$0
$11,300
$25,500
$98,800
BUR094
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$118,000
$82,600
$200,600
$15,300
$215,900
BUR096
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
Page 3 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
Trait Description
2009 Total
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
2009 Total
Direct and
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
WT01
$4,890
$5,230
$10,120
$3,700
$13,820
Upland waste rock
C02a
$120,000
$83,800
$203,800
$15,600
$219,400
BUR097
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$869,000
$929,000
$1,798,000
$659,000
$2,457,000
Upland waste rock
C02a
$73,300
$51,300
$124,600
$9,530
$134,130
BUR098
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$905,000
$968,000
$1,873,000
$896,000
$2,769,000
Upland waste rock (potential intermixed tailings)
C01
$235,000
$165,000
$400,000
$0
$400,000
C07
$809,000
$566,000
$1,375,000
$178,000
$1,553,000
BUR112
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
BUR117
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$7,700
$5,390
$13,090
$0
$13,090
C07
$26,500
$18,500
$45,000
$5,820
$50,820
Upland waste rock (potential intermixed tailings)
C03
$250,000
$175,000
$425,000
$30,000
$455,000
BUR118
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$141,000
$98,900
$239,900
$0
$239,900
C07
$485,000
$340,000
$825,000
$107,000
$932,000
BUR119
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$175,000
$123,000
$298,000
$22,800
$320,800
BUR120
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$78,400
$54,900
$133,300
$10,200
$143,500
BUR121
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$682,000
$729,000
$1,411,000
$517,000
$1,928,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$88,200
$61,700
$149,900
$0
$149,900
C03
$452,000
$317,000
$769,000
$54,300
$823,300
BUR122
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$23,100
$16,200
$39,300
$0
$39,300
C03
$252,000
$176,000
$428,000
$30,200
$458,200
BUR124
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$84,300
$59,000
$143,300
$11,000
$154,300
BUR125
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$27,000
$18,900
$45,900
$3,510
$49,410
BUR128
BLM Polygon
Buildings & structures
HH-3
$136,000
$95,100
$231,100
$6,790
$237,890
Upland tailings
C01
$186,000
$130,000
$316,000
$0
$316,000
C07
$638,000
$447,000
$1,085,000
$140,000
$1,225,000
BUR129
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
Upland tailings
C01
$22,500
$15,700
$38,200
$0
$38,200
C07
$77,200
$54,000
$131,200
$17,000
$148,200
BUR141
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$297,000
$208,000
$505,000
$0
$505,000
C08a
$389,000
$273,000
$662,000
$54,500
$716,500
HAUL-2
$121,000
$84,500
$205,500
$0
$205,500
BUR142
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$10,500
$7,340
$17,840
$0
$17,840
C07
$36,000
$25,200
$61,200
$7,920
$69,120
Upland waste rock (potential intermixed tailings)
C03
$680,000
$476,000
$1,156,000
$81,500
$1,237,500
BUR143
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$432,000
$302,000
$734,000
$0
$734,000
C08a
$566,000
$396,000
$962,000
$79,300
$1,041,300
HAUL-2
$176,000
$123,000
$299,000
$0
$299,000
Page 4 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
BUR144
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$33,400
$23,400
$56,800
$0
$56,800
C03
$572,000
$400,000
$972,000
$68,600
$1,040,600
BUR176
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$126,000
$88,200
$214,200
$15,100
$229,300
BUR177
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$153,000
$107,000
$260,000
$18,400
$278,400
BUR178
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$9,420
$6,590
$16,010
$0
$16,010
C03
$104,000
$72,500
$176,500
$12,400
$188,900
BUR189
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$45,000
$31,500
$76,500
$5,400
$81,900
BUR190
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$302,000
$323,000
$625,000
$165,000
$790,000
BUR191
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$131,000
$91,500
$222,500
$17,000
$239,500
BUR192
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings (discrete site)
C01
$13,300
$9,290
$22,590
$0
$22,590
C07
$45,600
$31,900
$77,500
$10,000
$87,500
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$23,100
$16,200
$39,300
$0
$39,300
C03
$252,000
$176,000
$428,000
$30,200
$458,200
BUR204
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$42,800
$29,900
$72,700
$5,130
$77,830
CC04-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$732,000
$512,000
$1,244,000
$220,000
$1,464,000
CD-AVG
$371,000
$260,000
$631,000
$111,000
$742,000
CD-SED
$37,400
$26,200
$63,600
$224,000
$287,600
FP/RP-AVG
$510,000
$357,000
$867,000
$91,900
$958,900
VBS-AVG
$520,000
$364,000
$884,000
$156,000
$1,040,000
HHWPCC04-1
General Feature
Upland waste rock
HH-2
$58,400
$40,900
$99,300
$7,600
$106,900
HHWPCC04-2
General Feature
Upland waste rock
HH-2
$58,400
$40,900
$99,300
$7,600
$106,900
HHWPCC04-3
General Feature
Upland waste rock
HH-2
$58,400
$40,900
$99,300
$7,600
$106,900
CCSeg05 CC05-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$81,400
$57,000
$138,400
$24,400
$162,800
CD-AVG
$20,600
$14,400
$35,000
$6,180
$41,180
CD-SED
$1,870
$1,310
$3,180
$11,200
$14,380
FP/RP-AVG
$916,000
$641,000
$1,557,000
$165,000
$1,722,000
VBS-AVG
$57,800
$40,400
$98,200
$17,300
$115,500
CC05-2
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$492,000
$344,000
$836,000
$148,000
$984,000
CD-AVG
$124,000
$86,500
$210,500
$37,100
$247,600
CD-SED
$13,100
$9,160
$22,260
$78,500
$100,760
CH REAL-1
$3,780,000
$2,650,000
$6,430,000
$643,000
$7,073,000
FP/RP-AVG
$1,800,000
$1,260,000
$3,060,000
$324,000
$3,384,000
VBS-AVG
$350,000
$245,000
$595,000
$105,000
$700,000
OSB047
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$47,000
$32,900
$79,900
$0
$79,900
C08a
$61,700
$43,200
$104,900
$8,640
$113,540
HAUL-2
$19,100
$13,400
$32,500
$0
$32,500
WAL010
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$13,800
$9,640
$23,440
$0
$23,440
Page 5 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
C08a
$18,100
$12,600
$30,700
$2,530
$33,230
HAUL-2
$5,600
$3,920
$9,520
$0
$9,520
WAL011
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$29,700
$20,800
$50,500
$0
$50,500
C08a
$38,900
$27,300
$66,200
$5,450
$71,650
HAUL-2
$12,100
$8,450
$20,550
$0
$20,550
WAL039
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$53,500
$37,500
$91,000
$0
$91,000
C08a
$221,000
$155,000
$376,000
$31,000
$407,000
HAUL-2
$68,600
$48,000
$116,600
$0
$116,600
WAL040
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$175,000
$122,000
$297,000
$0
$297,000
C08a
$229,000
$161,000
$390,000
$32,100
$422,100
HAUL-2
$71,200
$49,800
$121,000
$0
$121,000
WAL041
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$53,500
$37,500
$91,000
$0
$91,000
C08a
$70,200
$49,100
$119,300
$9,830
$129,130
HAUL-2
$21,800
$15,200
$37,000
$0
$37,000
WAL042
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings - inactive Facilities
C03
$579,000
$406,000
$985,000
$69,500
$1,054,500
WAL081
BLM Polygon
Floodplain artificial fill
C01
$12,200
$8,540
$20,740
$0
$20,740
C08a
$50,400
$35,300
$85,700
$7,060
$92,760
HAUL-2
$15,600
$11,000
$26,600
$0
$26,600
WP-OPTIONC
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C14b
$1,360,000
$954,000
$2,314,000
$54,500
$2,368,500
C15b
$7,070,000
$4,950,000
$12,020,000
$141,000
$12,161,000
Groundwater
WT01
$453,000
$485,000
$938,000
$549,000
$1,487,000
Source General Information
PIPE-2
$388,000
$272,000
$660,000
$31,000
$691,000
MIDGradSeg PIPEMG
General Feature
Source General Information
PIPE-1
$417,000
$292,000
$709,000
$33,300
$742,300
PIPE-2
$40,400
$28,300
$68,700
$3,230
$71,930
PIPE-4
$12,100,000
$8,480,000
$20,580,000
$969,000
$21,549,000
MIDGradSegOl HHWPMG01-1
General Feature
Upland waste rock
HH-2
$58,400
$40,900
$99,300
$7,600
$106,900
HHWPMG01-2
General Feature
Upland waste rock
HH-2
$58,400
$40,900
$99,300
$7,600
$106,900
HHWPMG01-3
General Feature
Upland waste rock
HH-2
$58,400
$40,900
$99,300
$7,600
$106,900
HHWPMG01-4
General Feature
Upland waste rock
HH-2
$58,400
$40,900
$99,300
$7,600
$106,900
HHWPMG01-5
General Feature
Upland waste rock
HH-2
$58,400
$40,900
$99,300
$7,600
$106,900
KLE011
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings - inactive facilities
C09
$1,940,000
$1,360,000
$3,300,000
$388,000
$3,688,000
KLE016
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$140,000
$97,700
$237,700
$16,700
$254,400
KLE020
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$30,800
$21,600
$52,400
$0
$52,400
C03
$333,000
$233,000
$566,000
$40,000
$606,000
KLE021
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$146,000
$102,000
$248,000
$17,600
$265,600
KLE023
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$259,000
$181,000
$440,000
$31,100
$471,100
KLE033
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$21,400
$15,000
$36,400
$0
$36,400
C03
$360,000
$252,000
$612,000
$43,200
$655,200
Page 6 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
Trait Description
2009 Total
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
2009 Total
Direct and
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
KLE034
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$18,800
$13,200
$32,000
$0
$32,000
C03
$515,000
$361,000
$876,000
$61,800
$937,800
KLE035
BLM Polygon
Buildings & structures
HH-3
$136,000
$95,100
$231,100
$6,790
$237,890
C01
$257,000
$180,000
$437,000
$0
$437,000
C03
$3,030,000
$2,120,000
$5,150,000
$363,000
$5,513,000
KLE040
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C14c
$10,400,000
$7,280,000
$17,680,000
$312,000
$17,992,000
C15b
$3,170,000
$2,220,000
$5,390,000
$63,500
$5,453,500
Groundwater
WT01
$402,000
$430,000
$832,000
$609,000
$1,441,000
KLE042
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$675,000
$473,000
$1,148,000
$0
$1,148,000
C08a
$885,000
$620,000
$1,505,000
$124,000
$1,629,000
HAUL-2
$275,000
$192,000
$467,000
$0
$467,000
Floodplain tailings
C01
$55,600
$38,900
$94,500
$0
$94,500
C07
$191,000
$134,000
$325,000
$42,000
$367,000
KLE048
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$744,000
$521,000
$1,265,000
$0
$1,265,000
C08a
$975,000
$683,000
$1,658,000
$137,000
$1,795,000
C14c
$8,910,000
$6,240,000
$15,150,000
$267,000
$15,417,000
C15b
$2,720,000
$1,900,000
$4,620,000
$54,400
$4,674,400
HAUL-2
$302,000
$212,000
$514,000
$0
$514,000
Groundwater
WT01
$402,000
$430,000
$832,000
$609,000
$1,441,000
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$1,760,000
$1,230,000
$2,990,000
$0
$2,990,000
C08a
$2,300,000
$1,610,000
$3,910,000
$322,000
$4,232,000
C14c
$7,430,000
$5,200,000
$12,630,000
$223,000
$12,853,000
C15b
$2,270,000
$1,590,000
$3,860,000
$45,400
$3,905,400
HAUL-2
$714,000
$500,000
$1,214,000
$0
$1,214,000
Groundwater
WT01
$402,000
$430,000
$832,000
$609,000
$1,441,000
KLE051
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$74,300
$52,000
$126,300
$8,910
$135,210
KLE062
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$351,000
$246,000
$597,000
$0
$597,000
C08a
$460,000
$322,000
$782,000
$64,400
$846,400
HAUL-2
$143,000
$99,900
$242,900
$0
$242,900
KLE066
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$85,500
$59,900
$145,400
$10,300
$155,700
KLE067
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$23,500
$16,500
$40,000
$0
$40,000
C03
$45,000
$31,500
$76,500
$5,400
$81,900
KLE068
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$59,900
$41,900
$101,800
$0
$101,800
C07
$206,000
$144,000
$350,000
$45,300
$395,300
KLE069
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$2,780
$1,950
$4,730
$0
$4,730
C03
$94,500
$66,200
$160,700
$11,300
$172,000
KLE070
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$94,500
$66,200
$160,700
$11,300
$172,000
KLE074
BLM Polygon
Buildings & structures
HH-3
$136,000
$95,100
$231,100
$6,790
$237,890
Upland tailings
C01
$59,900
$41,900
$101,800
$0
$101,800
Page 7 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct and
Direct Capital 2009 Indirect Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
TCD Cost Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) Year NPV)
C07
$206,000
$144,000
$350,000
$45,300
$395,300
KLE075
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$17,100
$12,000
$29,100
$0
$29,100
C07
$58,800
$41,200
$100,000
$12,900
$112,900
MG01-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$110,000
$76,900
$186,900
$32,900
$219,800
CD-AVG
$53,600
$37,500
$91,100
$16,100
$107,200
CD-SED
$5,610
$3,930
$9,540
$33,700
$43,240
FP/RP-AVG
$46,800
$32,800
$79,600
$8,430
$88,030
MG01-2
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$97,600
$68,300
$165,900
$29,300
$195,200
CD-AVG
$28,800
$20,200
$49,000
$8,650
$57,650
CD-SED
$3,740
$2,620
$6,360
$22,400
$28,760
FP/RP-AVG
$131,000
$91,500
$222,500
$23,500
$246,000
MG01-3
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$134,000
$93,900
$227,900
$40,300
$268,200
CD-AVG
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$5,560
$37,060
CD-SED
$1,870
$1,310
$3,180
$11,200
$14,380
FP/RP-AVG
$199,000
$140,000
$339,000
$35,900
$374,900
VBS-AVG
$57,200
$40,000
$97,200
$17,200
$114,400
MG01-4
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$305,000
$214,000
$519,000
$91,500
$610,500
CD-AVG
$53,600
$37,500
$91,100
$16,100
$107,200
CD-SED
$5,610
$3,930
$9,540
$33,700
$43,240
FP/RP-AVG
$1,560,000
$1,100,000
$2,660,000
$282,000
$2,942,000
VBS-AVG
$130,000
$91,000
$221,000
$39,000
$260,000
MG01-5
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$97,600
$68,300
$165,900
$29,300
$195,200
CD-AVG
$12,400
$8,650
$21,050
$3,710
$24,760
CD-SED
$1,870
$1,310
$3,180
$11,200
$14,380
FP/RP-AVG
$35,000
$24,500
$59,500
$6,310
$65,810
VBS-AVG
$41,600
$29,100
$70,700
$12,500
$83,200
MG01-6
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$384,000
$269,000
$653,000
$115,000
$768,000
CD-AVG
$70,000
$49,000
$119,000
$21,000
$140,000
CD-SED
$7,480
$5,240
$12,720
$44,900
$57,620
FP/RP-AVG
$518,000
$363,000
$881,000
$93,300
$974,300
OFFCH-AVG
$956,000
$669,000
$1,625,000
$172,000
$1,797,000
VBS-AVG
$164,000
$115,000
$279,000
$49,100
$328,100
MG01-7
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$433,000
$303,000
$736,000
$130,000
$866,000
CD-AVG
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$5,560
$37,060
CD-SED
$1,870
$1,310
$3,180
$11,200
$14,380
FP/RP-AVG
$443,000
$310,000
$753,000
$79,700
$832,700
OFFCH-AVG
$998,000
$699,000
$1,697,000
$180,000
$1,877,000
VBS-AVG
$185,000
$129,000
$314,000
$55,400
$369,400
MG01-8
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$286,000
$200,000
$486,000
$85,900
$571,900
CD-AVG
$43,300
$30,300
$73,600
$13,000
$86,600
CD-SED
$3,740
$2,620
$6,360
$22,400
$28,760
CH REAL-1
$1,320,000
$924,000
$2,244,000
$225,000
$2,469,000
Trait Description
Segment ID Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
Page 8 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct and
Direct Capital 2009 Indirect Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
TCD Cost Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) Year NPV)
FP/RP-AVG
$17,900
$12,600
$30,500
$3,230
$33,730
OFFCH-AVG
$3,640,000
$2,550,000
$6,190,000
$655,000
$6,845,000
VBS-AVG
$122,000
$85,400
$207,400
$36,600
$244,000
MG01-9
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$68,000
$47,600
$115,600
$20,400
$136,000
CD-AVG
$10,300
$7,210
$17,510
$3,090
$20,600
CD-SED
$1,870
$1,310
$3,180
$11,200
$14,380
CH REAL-1
$314,000
$219,000
$533,000
$53,300
$586,300
FP/RP-AVG
$305,000
$214,000
$519,000
$55,000
$574,000
VBS-AVG
$29,000
$20,300
$49,300
$8,690
$57,990
MG01-10
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$48,800
$34,200
$83,000
$14,600
$97,600
CD-AVG
$8,240
$5,770
$14,010
$2,470
$16,480
CD-SED
$1,870
$1,310
$3,180
$11,200
$14,380
FP/RP-AVG
$68,700
$48,100
$116,800
$12,400
$129,200
VBS-AVG
$20,800
$14,600
$35,400
$6,240
$41,640
MG01-11
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$140,000
$98,200
$238,200
$42,100
$280,300
CD-AVG
$14,400
$10,100
$24,500
$4,330
$28,830
CD-SED
$1,870
$1,310
$3,180
$11,200
$14,380
FP/RP-AVG
$384,000
$269,000
$653,000
$69,100
$722,100
VBS-AVG
$59,800
$41,900
$101,700
$17,900
$119,600
MG01-12
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$134,000
$93,900
$227,900
$40,300
$268,200
CD-AVG
$26,800
$18,700
$45,500
$8,030
$53,530
CD-SED
$3,740
$2,620
$6,360
$22,400
$28,760
FP/RP-AVG
$554,000
$388,000
$942,000
$99,700
$1,041,700
OFFCH-AVG
$2,320,000
$1,620,000
$3,940,000
$417,000
$4,357,000
VBS-AVG
$57,200
$40,000
$97,200
$17,200
$114,400
MG01-13
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$305,000
$214,000
$519,000
$91,500
$610,500
CD-AVG
$43,300
$30,300
$73,600
$13,000
$86,600
CD-SED
$3,740
$2,620
$6,360
$22,400
$28,760
CH REAL-1
$1,270,000
$892,000
$2,162,000
$217,000
$2,379,000
FP/RP-AVG
$342,000
$239,000
$581,000
$61,500
$642,500
OFFCH-AVG
$3,570,000
$2,500,000
$6,070,000
$642,000
$6,712,000
VBS-AVG
$130,000
$91,000
$221,000
$39,000
$260,000
MG01-14
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$92,500
$64,700
$157,200
$27,700
$184,900
CD-AVG
$14,400
$10,100
$24,500
$4,330
$28,830
CD-SED
$1,870
$1,310
$3,180
$11,200
$14,380
CH REAL-1
$426,000
$298,000
$724,000
$72,500
$796,500
FP/RP-AVG
$203,000
$142,000
$345,000
$36,600
$381,600
OFFCH-AVG
$179,000
$125,000
$304,000
$32,300
$336,300
VBS-AVG
$39,400
$27,600
$67,000
$11,800
$78,800
MG01-15
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$47,100
$33,000
$80,100
$14,100
$94,200
CD-AVG
$35,000
$24,500
$59,500
$10,500
$70,000
CD-SED
$3,740
$2,620
$6,360
$22,400
$28,760
Trait Description
Segment ID Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
Page 9 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct and
Direct Capital 2009 Indirect Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
TCD Cost Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) Year NPV)
FP/RP-AVG
$51,800
$36,200
$88,000
$9,320
$97,320
OFFCH-AVG
$2,650,000
$1,850,000
$4,500,000
$476,000
$4,976,000
VBS-AVG
$20,100
$14,100
$34,200
$6,020
$40,220
MG01-16
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$13,100
$9,140
$22,240
$3,920
$26,160
CD-AVG
$20,600
$14,400
$35,000
$6,180
$41,180
CD-SED
$1,870
$1,310
$3,180
$11,200
$14,380
FP/RP-AVG
$19,400
$13,600
$33,000
$3,500
$36,500
OFFCH-AVG
$444,000
$311,000
$755,000
$80,000
$835,000
VBS-AVG
$5,560
$3,890
$9,450
$1,670
$11,120
MG01-17
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$334,000
$234,000
$568,000
$100,000
$668,000
CD-AVG
$49,400
$34,600
$84,000
$14,800
$98,800
CD-SED
$5,610
$3,930
$9,540
$33,700
$43,240
CH REAL-1
$1,540,000
$1,080,000
$2,620,000
$262,000
$2,882,000
FP/RP-AVG
$523,000
$366,000
$889,000
$94,100
$983,100
OFFCH-AVG
$659,000
$462,000
$1,121,000
$119,000
$1,240,000
VBS-AVG
$142,000
$99,700
$241,700
$42,700
$284,400
MG01-18
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$167,000
$117,000
$284,000
$50,000
$334,000
CD-AVG
$24,700
$17,300
$42,000
$7,420
$49,420
CD-SED
$3,740
$2,620
$6,360
$22,400
$28,760
CH REAL-1
$768,000
$538,000
$1,306,000
$131,000
$1,437,000
FP/RP-AVG
$537,000
$376,000
$913,000
$96,600
$1,009,600
OFFCH-AVG
$231,000
$162,000
$393,000
$41,500
$434,500
VBS-AVG
$71,000
$49,700
$120,700
$21,300
$142,000
MUL085
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C04
$94,000
$65,800
$159,800
$21,600
$181,400
MUL086
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$25,700
$18,000
$43,700
$0
$43,700
C03
$284,000
$198,000
$482,000
$34,000
$516,000
OSB025
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$10,300
$7,190
$17,490
$0
$17,490
C03
$113,000
$78,800
$191,800
$13,500
$205,300
OSB030
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$101,000
$70,900
$171,900
$12,200
$184,100
OSB065
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$5,860,000
$4,100,000
$9,960,000
$0
$9,960,000
C08a
$7,680,000
$5,380,000
$13,060,000
$1,080,000
$14,140,000
C14c
$65,300,000
$45,700,000
$111,000,000
$1,960,000
$112,960,000
C15b
$20,000,000
$14,000,000
$34,000,000
$399,000
$34,399,000
HAUL-2
$2,380,000
$1,670,000
$4,050,000
$0
$4,050,000
Groundwater
WT01
$402,000
$430,000
$832,000
$609,000
$1,441,000
OSB070
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$26,500
$18,600
$45,100
$0
$45,100
C03
$293,000
$205,000
$498,000
$35,100
$533,100
OSB072
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$51,800
$36,200
$88,000
$6,210
$94,210
OSB073
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$18,800
$13,200
$32,000
$0
$32,000
Page 10 of 28
Trait Description
Segment ID Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct and
Direct Capital 2009 Indirect Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
TCD Cost Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) Year NPV)
C03
$131,000
$91,400
$222,400
$15,700
$238,100
OSB074
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
OSB075
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$63,000
$44,100
$107,100
$7,560
$114,660
OSB076
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$45,000
$31,500
$76,500
$5,400
$81,900
OSB078
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$18,000
$12,600
$30,600
$2,160
$32,760
OSB117
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings
C01
$59,900
$41,900
$101,800
$0
$101,800
C07
$206,000
$144,000
$350,000
$45,300
$395,300
OSB118
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$810,000
$567,000
$1,377,000
$0
$1,377,000
C08a
$1,060,000
$743,000
$1,803,000
$149,000
$1,952,000
HAUL-2
$329,000
$231,000
$560,000
$0
$560,000
OSB119
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments (underlying tailings pond)
C11j
$11,100,000
$7,790,000
$18,890,000
$223,000
$19,113,000
Groundwater
WT01
$30,200
$32,300
$62,500
$22,900
$85,400
OSB120
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$3,890,000
$2,720,000
$6,610,000
$0
$6,610,000
C08a
$5,100,000
$3,570,000
$8,670,000
$714,000
$9,384,000
C14c
$41,600,000
$29,100,000
$70,700,000
$1,250,000
$71,950,000
C15b
$12,700,000
$8,890,000
$21,590,000
$254,000
$21,844,000
HAUL-2
$1,580,000
$1,110,000
$2,690,000
$0
$2,690,000
Groundwater
WT01
$402,000
$430,000
$832,000
$609,000
$1,441,000
POL018
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$18,800
$13,200
$32,000
$0
$32,000
C03
$205,000
$143,000
$348,000
$24,600
$372,600
POL019
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C05
$1,880,000
$1,320,000
$3,200,000
$434,000
$3,634,000
POL021
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$149,000
$104,000
$253,000
$17,800
$270,800
POL064
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$45,000
$31,500
$76,500
$5,400
$81,900
WAL001
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments (underlying tailings pond)
C11j
$13,400,000
$9,350,000
$22,750,000
$267,000
$23,017,000
Groundwater
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$18,300
$143,100
Upland tailings - active facilities
C09
$16,300,000
$11,400,000
$27,700,000
$3,260,000
$30,960,000
WAL002
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$603
$645
$1,248
$366
$1,614
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$196,000
$137,000
$333,000
$23,500
$356,500
WAL004
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$1,470,000
$1,030,000
$2,500,000
$0
$2,500,000
C08a
$1,930,000
$1,350,000
$3,280,000
$270,000
$3,550,000
C14c
$25,200,000
$17,700,000
$42,900,000
$757,000
$43,657,000
C15b
$7,710,000
$5,400,000
$13,110,000
$154,000
$13,264,000
HAUL-2
$597,000
$418,000
$1,015,000
$0
$1,015,000
Groundwater
WT01
$402,000
$430,000
$832,000
$609,000
$1,441,000
Trait Description
Segment ID Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
Page 11 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
WAL014
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$33,400
$23,400
$56,800
$0
$56,800
C03
$362,000
$254,000
$616,000
$43,500
$659,500
WAL016
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
WAL020
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$297,000
$208,000
$505,000
$0
$505,000
C03
$1,310,000
$914,000
$2,224,000
$157,000
$2,381,000
WAL024
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$96,800
$67,700
$164,500
$11,600
$176,100
WAL034
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$527,000
$369,000
$896,000
$0
$896,000
C08a
$690,000
$483,000
$1,173,000
$96,600
$1,269,600
HAUL-2
$214,000
$150,000
$364,000
$0
$364,000
WAL035
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$120,000
$83,900
$203,900
$0
$203,900
C03
$1,330,000
$928,000
$2,258,000
$159,000
$2,417,000
WAL036
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$304,000
$213,000
$517,000
$0
$517,000
C07
$331,000
$232,000
$563,000
$72,800
$635,800
WAL037
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$51,400
$36,000
$87,400
$0
$87,400
C07
$176,000
$123,000
$299,000
$38,800
$337,800
WAL046
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$58,500
$41,000
$99,500
$7,020
$106,520
WAL055
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$38,300
$26,800
$65,100
$4,590
$69,690
WAL056
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$54,000
$37,800
$91,800
$6,480
$98,280
WAL057
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$22,500
$15,800
$38,300
$2,700
$41,000
WAL058
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$20,300
$14,200
$34,500
$2,430
$36,930
WAL062
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$42,800
$29,900
$72,700
$5,130
$77,830
WAL064
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$78,800
$55,100
$133,900
$9,450
$143,350
WAL072
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$18,000
$12,600
$30,600
$2,160
$32,760
WAL073
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$22,500
$15,800
$38,300
$2,700
$41,000
MIDGradSeg02 KLW061
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$2,320,000
$1,620,000
$3,940,000
$301,000
$4,241,000
KLW062
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$356,000
$249,000
$605,000
$46,200
$651,200
KLW070
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$126,000
$88,400
$214,400
$0
$214,400
C08a
$165,000
$116,000
$281,000
$23,200
$304,200
HAUL-2
$51,300
$35,900
$87,200
$0
$87,200
KLW095
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$137,000
$95,900
$232,900
$17,800
$250,700
MG02-10
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$7,540
$5,270
$12,810
$2,260
$15,070
Page 12 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
CD-AVG
$22,700
$15,900
$38,600
$6,800
$45,400
CD-SED
$1,870
$1,310
$3,180
$11,200
$14,380
VBS-AVG
$6,420
$4,500
$10,920
$1,930
$12,850
MG02-11
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$6,660
$4,660
$11,320
$2,000
$13,320
CD-AVG
$8,240
$5,770
$14,010
$2,470
$16,480
CD-SED
$1,870
$1,310
$3,180
$11,200
$14,380
VBS-AVG
$5,680
$3,980
$9,660
$1,700
$11,360
MG02-12
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$1,830
$1,280
$3,110
$549
$3,659
CD-AVG
$2,060
$1,440
$3,500
$618
$4,118
FP/RP-AVG
$2,070
$1,450
$3,520
$372
$3,892
VBS-AVG
$401
$281
$682
$120
$802
MoonCrkSegOl
KLE061
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
MC01-2
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach Current Deflector Frequency
CD-SED
$7,480
$5,240
$12,720
$44,900
$57,620
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$187,000
$131,000
$318,000
$56,000
$374,000
CD-AVG
$70,000
$49,000
$119,000
$21,000
$140,000
FP/RP-AVG
$154,000
$108,000
$262,000
$27,700
$289,700
VBS-AVG
$79,600
$55,700
$135,300
$23,900
$159,200
MoonCrkSeg02
KLE008
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02b
$109,000
$76,000
$185,000
$14,100
$199,100
KLE014
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
KLE041
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$44,600
$31,200
$75,800
$0
$75,800
C08a
$58,400
$40,900
$99,300
$8,180
$107,480
HAUL-2
$18,100
$12,700
$30,800
$0
$30,800
KLE063
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02b
$25,100
$17,500
$42,600
$3,260
$45,860
KLE064
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02b
$21,700
$15,200
$36,900
$2,820
$39,720
KLE065
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02b
$38,400
$26,900
$65,300
$4,990
$70,290
MC02-2
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$163,000
$114,000
$277,000
$48,800
$325,800
CD-AVG
$124,000
$86,500
$210,500
$37,100
$247,600
CD-SED
$13,100
$9,160
$22,260
$78,500
$100,760
FP/RP-AVG
$447,000
$313,000
$760,000
$80,500
$840,500
VBS-AVG
$69,400
$48,600
$118,000
$20,800
$138,800
MC02-3
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$136,000
$95,400
$231,400
$40,900
$272,300
CD-AVG
$51,500
$36,100
$87,600
$15,500
$103,100
CD-SED
$5,610
$3,930
$9,540
$33,700
$43,240
FP/RP-AVG
$225,000
$157,000
$382,000
$40,400
$422,400
VBS-AVG
$58,100
$40,700
$98,800
$17,400
$116,200
MC02-4
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$70,800
$49,500
$120,300
$21,200
$141,500
CD-AVG
$53,600
$37,500
$91,100
$16,100
$107,200
CD-SED
$5,610
$3,930
$9,540
$33,700
$43,240
Page 13 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
FP/RP-AVG
$194,000
$136,000
$330,000
$34,900
$364,900
VBS-AVG
$45,200
$31,600
$76,800
$13,600
$90,400
NMSeg PIPENM
General Feature
Source General Information
PIPE-1
$1,560,000
$1,090,000
$2,650,000
$125,000
$2,775,000
NMSegOl BUR051
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
BUR052
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C01
$3,420
$2,400
$5,820
$0
$5,820
C03
$36,000
$25,200
$61,200
$4,320
$65,520
BUR053
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$2,960,000
$2,070,000
$5,030,000
$0
$5,030,000
C04
$2,150,000
$1,500,000
$3,650,000
$494,000
$4,144,000
BUR140
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$135,000
$94,500
$229,500
$0
$229,500
C08a
$177,000
$124,000
$301,000
$24,800
$325,800
HAUL-2
$54,900
$38,400
$93,300
$0
$93,300
BUR160
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C04
$1,070,000
$747,000
$1,817,000
$245,000
$2,062,000
NM01-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$489,000
$343,000
$832,000
$147,000
$979,000
CD-AVG
$98,900
$69,200
$168,100
$29,700
$197,800
CD-SED
$9,350
$6,550
$15,900
$56,100
$72,000
FP/RP-AVG
$269,000
$188,000
$457,000
$48,400
$505,400
VBS-AVG
$209,000
$146,000
$355,000
$62,600
$417,600
NMSeg02 BUR054
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$211,000
$148,000
$359,000
$549,000
$908,000
Upland tailings - inactive facilities
C09
$615,000
$431,000
$1,046,000
$123,000
$1,169,000
Upland waste rock (potential intermixed tailings)
C03
$4,820,000
$3,370,000
$8,190,000
$578,000
$8,768,000
BUR055
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$74,300
$52,000
$126,300
$0
$126,300
C08a
$97,400
$68,100
$165,500
$13,600
$179,100
HAUL-2
$30,200
$21,100
$51,300
$0
$51,300
Upland tailings
C07
$206,000
$144,000
$350,000
$45,300
$395,300
C01
$59,900
$41,900
$101,800
$0
$101,800
BUR056
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (potential intermixed tailings)
C02b
$2,230,000
$1,560,000
$3,790,000
$290,000
$4,080,000
BUR058
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
BUR139
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C03
$295,000
$206,000
$501,000
$35,400
$536,400
BUR170
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$453,000
$317,000
$770,000
$1,160,000
$1,930,000
Upland waste rock (potential intermixed tailings)
C03
$214,000
$150,000
$364,000
$25,700
$389,700
BUR171
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$330,000
$231,000
$561,000
$1,060,000
$1,621,000
Upland waste rock (potential intermixed tailings)
C03
$149,000
$104,000
$253,000
$17,800
$270,800
BUR172
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C03
$96,800
$67,700
$164,500
$11,600
$176,100
NM02-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$921,000
$645,000
$1,566,000
$276,000
$1,842,000
CD-AVG
$185,000
$130,000
$315,000
$55,600
$370,600
CD-SED
$18,700
$13,100
$31,800
$112,000
$143,800
FP/RP-AVG
$506,000
$354,000
$860,000
$91,100
$951,100
Page 14 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
OFFCH-AVG
$14,800
$10,300
$25,100
$2,660
$27,760
VBS-AVG
$393,000
$275,000
$668,000
$118,000
$786,000
OSB040
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$228,000
$160,000
$388,000
$0
$388,000
C08a
$299,000
$210,000
$509,000
$41,900
$550,900
HAUL-2
$92,800
$65,000
$157,800
$0
$157,800
OSB044
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$135,000
$94,500
$229,500
$0
$229,500
C08a
$177,000
$124,000
$301,000
$24,800
$325,800
HAUL-2
$54,900
$38,400
$93,300
$0
$93,300
Upland tailings (jig tailings)
C01
$1,540,000
$1,080,000
$2,620,000
$0
$2,620,000
C08a
$6,370,000
$4,460,000
$10,830,000
$892,000
$11,722,000
HAUL-2
$1,980,000
$1,380,000
$3,360,000
$0
$3,360,000
Upland waste rock
C02a
$37,900
$26,600
$64,500
$4,930
$69,430
OSB048
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$12,600
$8,850
$21,450
$1,640
$23,090
OSB056
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$21,600
$15,100
$36,700
$0
$36,700
C08a
$28,300
$19,800
$48,100
$3,960
$52,060
HAUL-2
$8,780
$6,150
$14,930
$0
$14,930
OSB057
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$176,000
$123,000
$299,000
$0
$299,000
C08a
$230,000
$161,000
$391,000
$32,200
$423,200
HAUL-2
$71,400
$50,000
$121,400
$0
$121,400
OSB058
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$21,600
$15,100
$36,700
$0
$36,700
C08a
$28,300
$19,800
$48,100
$3,960
$52,060
HAUL-2
$8,780
$6,150
$14,930
$0
$14,930
OSB088
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$3,920
$4,200
$8,120
$2,970
$11,090
OSB089
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$10,600
$11,300
$21,900
$8,690
$30,590
NMSeg03 NM03-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
CD-AVG
$68,000
$47,600
$115,600
$20,400
$136,000
CD-SED
$7,480
$5,240
$12,720
$44,900
$57,620
FP/RP-AVG
$621,000
$434,000
$1,055,000
$112,000
$1,167,000
OFFCH-AVG
$56,000
$39,200
$95,200
$10,100
$105,300
VBS-AVG
$169,000
$118,000
$287,000
$50,600
$337,600
NMSeg04 NM04-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$252,000
$177,000
$429,000
$75,700
$504,700
CD-AVG
$51,500
$36,100
$87,600
$15,500
$103,100
CD-SED
$5,610
$3,930
$9,540
$33,700
$43,240
CH REAL-1
$1,160,000
$815,000
$1,975,000
$198,000
$2,173,000
FP/RP-AVG
$194,000
$136,000
$330,000
$34,900
$364,900
OFFCH-AVG
$84,000
$58,800
$142,800
$15,100
$157,900
VBS-AVG
$108,000
$75,300
$183,300
$32,300
$215,600
NM04-2
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$87,500
$61,200
$148,700
$26,200
$174,900
CD-AVG
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$5,560
$37,060
CD-SED
$1,870
$1,310
$3,180
$11,200
$14,380
CH REAL-1
$404,000
$282,000
$686,000
$68,600
$754,600
Page 15 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
FP/RP-AVG
$192,000
$135,000
$327,000
$34,600
$361,600
VBS-AVG
$37,300
$26,100
$63,400
$11,200
$74,600
NM04-3
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$677,000
$474,000
$1,151,000
$203,000
$1,354,000
CD-AVG
$138,000
$96,600
$234,600
$41,400
$276,000
CD-SED
$13,100
$9,160
$22,260
$78,500
$100,760
CH REAL-1
$3,120,000
$2,190,000
$5,310,000
$531,000
$5,841,000
FP/RP-AVG
$893,000
$625,000
$1,518,000
$161,000
$1,679,000
VBS-AVG
$289,000
$202,000
$491,000
$86,600
$577,600
OSB032
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$17,100
$12,000
$29,100
$0
$29,100
C03
$189,000
$132,000
$321,000
$22,700
$343,700
OSB033
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$13,700
$9,590
$23,290
$0
$23,290
C03
$153,000
$107,000
$260,000
$18,400
$278,400
OSB038
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$26,500
$18,600
$45,100
$0
$45,100
C03
$288,000
$202,000
$490,000
$34,600
$524,600
OSB039
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$4,100
$4,390
$8,490
$3,110
$11,600
Buildings & structures
HH-3
$136,000
$95,100
$231,100
$6,790
$237,890
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$149,000
$104,000
$253,000
$0
$253,000
C08a
$195,000
$136,000
$331,000
$27,300
$358,300
HAUL-2
$60,400
$42,300
$102,700
$0
$102,700
Upland tailings
C01
$47,100
$33,000
$80,100
$0
$80,100
C07
$162,000
$113,000
$275,000
$35,600
$310,600
OSB052
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings - inactive facilities
C09
$1,370,000
$956,000
$2,326,000
$273,000
$2,599,000
OSB059
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$446,000
$312,000
$758,000
$0
$758,000
C08a
$584,000
$409,000
$993,000
$81,800
$1,074,800
HAUL-2
$181,000
$127,000
$308,000
$0
$308,000
OSB060
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$10,800
$7,560
$18,360
$0
$18,360
C07
$11,800
$8,230
$20,030
$2,590
$22,620
OSB061
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$30,000
$21,000
$51,000
$0
$51,000
C07
$103,000
$72,000
$175,000
$22,600
$197,600
OSB082
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$11,100
$7,790
$18,890
$0
$18,890
C03
$122,000
$85,100
$207,100
$14,600
$221,700
OSB115
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$76,500
$53,600
$130,100
$9,180
$139,280
WAL006
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$56,300
$39,400
$95,700
$6,750
$102,450
WAL033
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$445,000
$312,000
$757,000
$0
$757,000
C07
$485,000
$339,000
$824,000
$107,000
$931,000
PineCrkSegOl HHWPPC01-1
General Feature
Upland waste rock
HH-2
$58,400
$40,900
$99,300
$7,600
$106,900
HHWPPC01-2
General Feature
Upland waste rock
HH-2
$58,400
$40,900
$99,300
$7,600
$106,900
MAS006
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings - inactive Facilities
C09
$1,010,000
$706,000
$1,716,000
$202,000
$1,918,000
C11j
$3,180,000
$2,230,000
$5,410,000
$63,600
$5,473,600
Page 16 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
Trait Description
2009 Total
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
2009 Total
Direct and
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MAS007
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$348,000
$243,000
$591,000
$595,000
$1,186,000
Upland waste rock
C01
$205,000
$144,000
$349,000
$0
$349,000
C03
$410,000
$287,000
$697,000
$49,100
$746,100
MAS008
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$107,000
$74,900
$181,900
$0
$181,900
C07
$368,000
$257,000
$625,000
$80,900
$705,900
MAS009
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$31,800
$22,300
$54,100
$0
$54,100
C07
$109,000
$76,600
$185,600
$24,100
$209,700
MAS011
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$136,000
$95,300
$231,300
$527,000
$758,300
MAS012
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$2,140
$1,500
$3,640
$0
$3,640
C07
$7,350
$5,150
$12,500
$1,620
$14,120
MAS013
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$20,100
$14,100
$34,200
$0
$34,200
C07
$69,100
$48,400
$117,500
$15,200
$132,700
MAS014
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Seep
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Upland tailings
C01
$342
$240
$582
$0
$582
C08a
$1,420
$991
$2,411
$198
$2,609
HAUL-2
$439
$307
$746
$0
$746
Upland waste rock
C01
$131,000
$92,000
$223,000
$0
$223,000
C03
$288,000
$202,000
$490,000
$34,600
$524,600
MAS015
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$152,000
$106,000
$258,000
$528,000
$786,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$4,280
$3,000
$7,280
$0
$7,280
C07
$14,700
$10,300
$25,000
$3,230
$28,230
MAS016
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$135,000
$94,400
$229,400
$527,000
$756,400
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$99,600
$69,700
$169,300
$0
$169,300
C07
$342,000
$240,000
$582,000
$75,300
$657,300
MAS017
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$268,000
$188,000
$456,000
$0
$456,000
C07
$921,000
$645,000
$1,566,000
$203,000
$1,769,000
MAS018
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$11,600
$8,090
$19,690
$0
$19,690
C07
$39,700
$27,800
$67,500
$8,730
$76,230
MAS019
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$4,280
$3,000
$7,280
$0
$7,280
C07
$14,700
$10,300
$25,000
$3,230
$28,230
MAS020
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$391,000
$274,000
$665,000
$550,000
$1,215,000
Page 17 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
Trait Description
2009 Total
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
2009 Total
Direct and
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MAS021
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$389,000
$272,000
$661,000
$1,140,000
$1,801,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C04
$160,000
$112,000
$272,000
$36,800
$308,800
MAS022
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$205,000
$144,000
$349,000
$0
$349,000
C07
$706,000
$494,000
$1,200,000
$155,000
$1,355,000
MAS023
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$4,280
$3,000
$7,280
$0
$7,280
C07
$14,700
$10,300
$25,000
$3,230
$28,230
MAS025
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock (intermixed tailings)
C01
$150,000
$105,000
$255,000
$0
$255,000
MAS027
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$30,000
$21,000
$51,000
$0
$51,000
C03
$545,000
$381,000
$926,000
$65,300
$991,300
MAS028
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$46,200
$32,400
$78,600
$0
$78,600
C07
$159,000
$111,000
$270,000
$34,900
$304,900
MAS029
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (intermixed tailings)
C01
$3,000
$2,100
$5,100
$0
$5,100
C07
$10,300
$7,200
$17,500
$2,260
$19,760
MAS030
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$5,750
$4,030
$9,780
$0
$9,780
C03
$63,000
$44,100
$107,100
$7,560
$114,660
MAS031
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$18,500
$12,900
$31,400
$0
$31,400
C07
$63,500
$44,500
$108,000
$14,000
$122,000
MAS032
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$342
$240
$582
$0
$582
C07
$1,180
$823
$2,003
$259
$2,262
MAS033
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$20,500
$14,400
$34,900
$0
$34,900
C07
$70,600
$49,400
$120,000
$15,500
$135,500
MAS035
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$34,200
$24,000
$58,200
$0
$58,200
C07
$118,000
$82,300
$200,300
$25,900
$226,200
MAS036
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings
C01
$11,600
$8,090
$19,690
$0
$19,690
C07
$39,700
$27,800
$67,500
$8,730
$76,230
MAS040
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$18,600
$13,000
$31,600
$0
$31,600
C08a
$24,400
$17,100
$41,500
$3,420
$44,920
HAUL-2
$7,580
$5,300
$12,880
$0
$12,880
MAS041
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$31,600
$22,100
$53,700
$0
$53,700
C08a
$41,400
$29,000
$70,400
$5,800
$76,200
HAUL-2
$12,800
$8,990
$21,790
$0
$21,790
MAS042
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$14,600
$10,200
$24,800
$0
$24,800
C08a
$19,100
$13,400
$32,500
$2,680
$35,180
HAUL-2
$5,930
$4,150
$10,080
$0
$10,080
MAS043
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$40,500
$28,400
$68,900
$0
$68,900
C08a
$53,100
$37,200
$90,300
$7,430
$97,730
HAUL-2
$16,500
$11,500
$28,000
$0
$28,000
MAS045
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$40,500
$28,400
$68,900
$0
$68,900
C08a
$53,100
$37,200
$90,300
$7,430
$97,730
HAUL-2
$16,500
$11,500
$28,000
$0
$28,000
Page 18 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
Trait Description
2009 Total
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
2009 Total
Direct and
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MAS046
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$322,000
$225,000
$547,000
$0
$547,000
C08a
$422,000
$296,000
$718,000
$59,100
$777,100
HAUL-2
$131,000
$91,700
$222,700
$0
$222,700
MAS048
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings
C01
$21,200
$14,800
$36,000
$0
$36,000
C07
$72,800
$50,900
$123,700
$16,000
$139,700
Upland tailings
C01
$69,800
$48,900
$118,700
$0
$118,700
C07
$240,000
$168,000
$408,000
$52,800
$460,800
MAS049
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings
C01
$154,000
$108,000
$262,000
$0
$262,000
C07
$529,000
$370,000
$899,000
$116,000
$1,015,000
MAS050
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$374,000
$261,000
$635,000
$1,150,000
$1,785,000
Floodplain waste rock (intermixed tailings)
C01
$91,600
$64,100
$155,700
$0
$155,700
C03
$338,000
$236,000
$574,000
$40,500
$614,500
MAS052
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$4,520
$3,160
$7,680
$0
$7,680
C03
$49,500
$34,700
$84,200
$5,940
$90,140
MAS053
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
MAS054
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$184,000
$129,000
$313,000
$538,000
$851,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$45,200
$31,600
$76,800
$0
$76,800
C07
$155,000
$109,000
$264,000
$34,200
$298,200
MAS055
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
MAS057
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
MAS065
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
MAS068
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$171
$120
$291
$0
$291
C03
$36,000
$25,200
$61,200
$4,320
$65,520
MAS072
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
MAS078
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$354,000
$247,000
$601,000
$578,000
$1,179,000
MAS079
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$160,000
$112,000
$272,000
$0
$272,000
C03
$428,000
$299,000
$727,000
$51,300
$778,300
MAS081
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C02a
$177,000
$124,000
$301,000
$23,000
$324,000
MAS083
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$34,900
$24,400
$59,300
$0
$59,300
C07
$120,000
$83,900
$203,900
$26,400
$230,300
Upland waste rock
C01
$124,000
$86,900
$210,900
$0
$210,900
C03
$632,000
$443,000
$1,075,000
$75,900
$1,150,900
MAS084
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings
C01
$128,000
$89,900
$217,900
$0
$217,900
C07
$441,000
$309,000
$750,000
$97,000
$847,000
Page 19 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
Trait Description
2009 Total
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
2009 Total
Direct and
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
TWI002
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$24,700
$17,300
$42,000
$0
$42,000
C07
$84,700
$59,300
$144,000
$18,600
$162,600
TWI006
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$20,500
$14,400
$34,900
$0
$34,900
C07
$70,600
$49,400
$120,000
$15,500
$135,500
TWI008
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
TWI009
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$27,700
$19,400
$47,100
$0
$47,100
C07
$95,300
$66,700
$162,000
$21,000
$183,000
TWI011
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
TWI012
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$16,400
$11,500
$27,900
$0
$27,900
C07
$56,400
$39,500
$95,900
$12,400
$108,300
TWI013
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C01
$32,900
$23,000
$55,900
$0
$55,900
C07
$113,000
$79,000
$192,000
$24,800
$216,800
TWI014
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$25,700
$18,000
$43,700
$0
$43,700
C07
$88,200
$61,700
$149,900
$19,400
$169,300
TWI018
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
TWI020
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
TWI027
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
TWI029
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
TWI 030
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
KLW075
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$72,900
$51,100
$124,000
$0
$124,000
C07
$250,000
$175,000
$425,000
$55,100
$480,100
KLW077
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$47,300
$33,100
$80,400
$0
$80,400
C07
$162,000
$114,000
$276,000
$35,700
$311,700
KLW079
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$41,100
$28,800
$69,900
$0
$69,900
C07
$141,000
$98,800
$239,800
$31,000
$270,800
KLW080
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C01
$30,800
$21,600
$52,400
$0
$52,400
C03
$67,500
$47,300
$114,800
$8,100
$122,900
KLW082
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$34,900
$24,400
$59,300
$0
$59,300
C07
$120,000
$84,000
$204,000
$26,400
$230,400
KLW083
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$59,600
$41,700
$101,300
$0
$101,300
C07
$205,000
$143,000
$348,000
$45,000
$393,000
KLW085
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$61,600
$43,100
$104,700
$0
$104,700
C07
$212,000
$148,000
$360,000
$46,600
$406,600
MAS003
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (intermixed tailings)
C04
$980,000
$686,000
$1,666,000
$226,000
$1,892,000
PC03-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$248,000
$174,000
$422,000
$74,400
$496,400
PineCrkSeg02
PineCrkSeg03
Page 20 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
CD-AVG
$76,200
$53,400
$129,600
$22,900
$152,500
CD-SED
$7,480
$5,240
$12,720
$44,900
$57,620
FP/RP-AVG
$312,000
$218,000
$530,000
$56,100
$586,100
OFFCH-AVG
$790,000
$553,000
$1,343,000
$142,000
$1,485,000
VBS-AVG
$106,000
$74,000
$180,000
$31,700
$211,700
PC03-2
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$201,000
$141,000
$342,000
$60,400
$402,400
CD-AVG
$41,200
$28,800
$70,000
$12,400
$82,400
CD-SED
$3,740
$2,620
$6,360
$22,400
$28,760
FP/RP-AVG
$243,000
$170,000
$413,000
$43,700
$456,700
OFFCH-AVG
$763,000
$534,000
$1,297,000
$137,000
$1,434,000
VBS-AVG
$85,700
$60,000
$145,700
$25,700
$171,400
PC03-3
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$122,000
$85,400
$207,400
$36,600
$244,000
CD-AVG
$16,500
$11,500
$28,000
$4,940
$32,940
CD-SED
$3,740
$2,620
$6,360
$22,400
$28,760
FP/RP-AVG
$381,000
$267,000
$648,000
$68,600
$716,600
VBS-AVG
$52,000
$36,400
$88,400
$15,600
$104,000
UpperSFCDRSeg PIPEUG
General Feature
Source General Information
PIPE-1
$245,000
$172,000
$417,000
$19,600
$436,600
PIPE-2
$12,900
$9,050
$21,950
$1,030
$22,980
PIPE-3
$6,420,000
$4,490,000
$10,910,000
$513,000
$11,423,000
PIPE-4
$5,080,000
$3,560,000
$8,640,000
$406,000
$9,046,000
UpperSFCDRSegOl HHWPUG01-1
General Feature
Upland waste rock
HH-2
$58,400
$40,900
$99,300
$7,600
$106,900
HHWPUG01-2
General Feature
Upland waste rock
HH-2
$58,400
$40,900
$99,300
$7,600
$106,900
HHWPUG01-3
General Feature
Upland waste rock
HH-2
$58,400
$40,900
$99,300
$7,600
$106,900
HHWPUG01-4
General Feature
Upland waste rock
HH-2
$58,400
$40,900
$99,300
$7,600
$106,900
HHWPUG01-5
General Feature
Upland waste rock
HH-2
$58,400
$40,900
$99,300
$7,600
$106,900
LOK001
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$109,000
$76,100
$185,100
$14,100
$199,200
LOK002
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$107,000
$74,900
$181,900
$13,900
$195,800
LOK004
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$521,000
$365,000
$886,000
$1,210,000
$2,096,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$262,000
$183,000
$445,000
$0
$445,000
C07
$900,000
$630,000
$1,530,000
$198,000
$1,728,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$15,200
$10,600
$25,800
$1,970
$27,770
LOK006
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$5,340
$3,740
$9,080
$0
$9,080
C03
$58,500
$41,000
$99,500
$7,020
$106,520
LOK007
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$22,800
$15,900
$38,700
$2,960
$41,660
LOK008
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$7,810
$5,460
$13,270
$0
$13,270
C03
$85,500
$59,900
$145,400
$10,300
$155,700
LOK009
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$94,500
$66,200
$160,700
$0
$160,700
C07
$325,000
$227,000
$552,000
$71,400
$623,400
LOK010
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$2,880
$2,010
$4,890
$0
$4,890
C03
$31,500
$22,100
$53,600
$3,780
$57,380
LOK011
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
Page 21 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct and
Direct Capital 2009 Indirect Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
TCD Cost Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) Year NPV)
WT01
$3,620,000
$3,870,000
$7,490,000
$2,630,000
$10,120,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$235,000
$165,000
$400,000
$0
$400,000
C07
$809,000
$566,000
$1,375,000
$178,000
$1,553,000
LOK017
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$26,500
$18,600
$45,100
$0
$45,100
C03
$817,000
$572,000
$1,389,000
$98,000
$1,487,000
LOK024
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
LOK048
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C02a
$22,800
$15,900
$38,700
$2,960
$41,660
LOK050
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings - inactive facilities
C01
$55,600
$38,900
$94,500
$0
$94,500
C07
$191,000
$134,000
$325,000
$42,000
$367,000
LOK051
BLM Polygon
Floodplain artificial fill
C02a
$161,000
$113,000
$274,000
$20,900
$294,900
LOK053
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$26,100
$18,300
$44,400
$3,400
$47,800
MUL001
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$323,000
$226,000
$549,000
$0
$549,000
C07
$1,110,000
$775,000
$1,885,000
$244,000
$2,129,000
MUL002
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$98,400
$68,900
$167,300
$0
$167,300
C07
$338,000
$237,000
$575,000
$74,400
$649,400
MUL004
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$16,800
$11,800
$28,600
$0
$28,600
C03
$185,000
$129,000
$314,000
$22,100
$336,100
MUL006
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$15,000
$10,500
$25,500
$0
$25,500
C03
$164,000
$115,000
$279,000
$19,700
$298,700
MUL007
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$80,100
$56,100
$136,200
$10,400
$146,600
MUL008
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$28,200
$19,800
$48,000
$0
$48,000
C03
$302,000
$211,000
$513,000
$36,200
$549,200
MUL009
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$21,100
$14,800
$35,900
$2,740
$38,640
MUL012
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$210,000
$224,000
$434,000
$197,000
$631,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$462,000
$324,000
$786,000
$0
$786,000
C03
$1,520,000
$1,060,000
$2,580,000
$182,000
$2,762,000
MUL013
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$44,700
$31,300
$76,000
$5,810
$81,810
MUL014
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$1,100,000
$1,170,000
$2,270,000
$832,000
$3,102,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$6,780
$4,750
$11,530
$0
$11,530
C03
$74,300
$52,000
$126,300
$8,910
$135,210
MUL015
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$787,000
$551,000
$1,338,000
$102,000
$1,440,000
MUL018
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$61,600
$43,100
$104,700
$0
$104,700
C07
$212,000
$148,000
$360,000
$46,600
$406,600
MUL019
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$558,000
$597,000
$1,155,000
$540,000
$1,695,000
Buildings & structures
HH-3
$136,000
$95,100
$231,100
$6,790
$237,890
Floodplain tailings
C01
$364,000
$255,000
$619,000
$0
$619,000
C07
$1,250,000
$875,000
$2,125,000
$275,000
$2,400,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$288,000
$202,000
$490,000
$0
$490,000
Page 22 of 28
Trait Description
Segment ID Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct and
Direct Capital 2009 Indirect Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
TCD Cost Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) Year NPV)
C03
$3,970,000
$2,780,000
$6,750,000
$477,000
$7,227,000
MUL020
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments (underlying tailings pond)
C11j
$5,090,000
$3,560,000
$8,650,000
$102,000
$8,752,000
Floodplain tailings - active facilities
C09
$2,710,000
$1,900,000
$4,610,000
$543,000
$5,153,000
Groundwater
WT01
$30,200
$32,300
$62,500
$9,150
$71,650
MUL021
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$24,900
$17,400
$42,300
$0
$42,300
C03
$272,000
$191,000
$463,000
$32,700
$495,700
MUL022
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$29,500
$20,700
$50,200
$3,840
$54,040
MUL023
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$134,000
$93,500
$227,500
$0
$227,500
C07
$459,000
$321,000
$780,000
$101,000
$881,000
MUL027
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$221,000
$155,000
$376,000
$547,000
$923,000
Upland waste rock
C02b
$165,000
$116,000
$281,000
$21,500
$302,500
MUL028
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$388,000
$272,000
$660,000
$600,000
$1,260,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$87,300
$61,100
$148,400
$0
$148,400
C03
$956,000
$669,000
$1,625,000
$115,000
$1,740,000
MUL029
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$87,300
$61,100
$148,400
$0
$148,400
C07
$300,000
$210,000
$510,000
$66,000
$576,000
MUL030
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$7,400
$5,180
$12,580
$0
$12,580
C03
$81,000
$56,700
$137,700
$9,720
$147,420
MUL031
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$28,700
$20,100
$48,800
$3,730
$52,530
MUL033
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$67,800
$47,500
$115,300
$0
$115,300
C07
$233,000
$163,000
$396,000
$51,200
$447,200
MUL037
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$583,000
$408,000
$991,000
$0
$991,000
C08a
$765,000
$535,000
$1,300,000
$107,000
$1,407,000
HAUL-2
$237,000
$166,000
$403,000
$0
$403,000
Floodplain sediments (underlying tailings pond)
C11j
$5,410,000
$3,780,000
$9,190,000
$108,000
$9,298,000
Floodplain tailings - active facilities
C09
$2,470,000
$1,730,000
$4,200,000
$494,000
$4,694,000
Groundwater
WT01
$30,200
$32,300
$62,500
$9,150
$71,650
MUL038
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings
C01
$55,600
$38,900
$94,500
$0
$94,500
C07
$191,000
$134,000
$325,000
$42,000
$367,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$56,900
$39,800
$96,700
$0
$96,700
C03
$623,000
$436,000
$1,059,000
$74,800
$1,133,800
MUL042
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$59,600
$41,700
$101,300
$0
$101,300
C07
$205,000
$143,000
$348,000
$45,000
$393,000
MUL043
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$75,000
$52,500
$127,500
$0
$127,500
C07
$258,000
$180,000
$438,000
$56,700
$494,700
MUL045
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$118,000
$82,700
$200,700
$0
$200,700
C07
$406,000
$284,000
$690,000
$89,300
$779,300
MUL047
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$4,730
$3,310
$8,040
$0
$8,040
Page 23 of 28
Trait Description
Segment ID Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
C03
$51,800
$36,200
$88,000
$6,210
$94,210
MUL048
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$91,400
$64,000
$155,400
$0
$155,400
C07
$314,000
$220,000
$534,000
$69,100
$603,100
MUL049
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$25,300
$17,700
$43,000
$3,290
$46,290
MUL051
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$24,700
$17,300
$42,000
$0
$42,000
C03
$270,000
$189,000
$459,000
$32,400
$491,400
MUL052
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$390,000
$273,000
$663,000
$1,160,000
$1,823,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$12,800
$8,990
$21,790
$0
$21,790
C03
$299,000
$209,000
$508,000
$35,900
$543,900
MUL053
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$266,000
$186,000
$452,000
$34,600
$486,600
MUL054
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$79,200
$55,500
$134,700
$10,300
$145,000
MUL056
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$29,500
$20,700
$50,200
$3,840
$54,040
MUL057
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$66,600
$46,600
$113,200
$8,660
$121,860
MUL058
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$1,890,000
$1,320,000
$3,210,000
$0
$3,210,000
C08a
$2,480,000
$1,730,000
$4,210,000
$347,000
$4,557,000
HAUL-2
$769,000
$538,000
$1,307,000
$0
$1,307,000
Floodplain sediments (underlying tailings pond)
C11j
$9,700,000
$6,790,000
$16,490,000
$194,000
$16,684,000
Floodplain tailings - active facilities
C09
$8,540,000
$5,980,000
$14,520,000
$1,710,000
$16,230,000
Groundwater
WT01
$30,200
$32,300
$62,500
$9,150
$71,650
MUL059
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$96,600
$67,600
$164,200
$0
$164,200
C07
$332,000
$232,000
$564,000
$73,000
$637,000
MUL060
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$4,310
$3,020
$7,330
$0
$7,330
C03
$47,300
$33,100
$80,400
$5,670
$86,070
MUL063
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$4,310
$3,020
$7,330
$0
$7,330
C03
$47,300
$33,100
$80,400
$5,670
$86,070
MUL065
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$6,370
$4,460
$10,830
$0
$10,830
C03
$69,800
$48,800
$118,600
$8,370
$126,970
MUL071
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$2,140
$1,500
$3,640
$0
$3,640
C03
$1,830,000
$1,280,000
$3,110,000
$220,000
$3,330,000
MUL073
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$174,000
$122,000
$296,000
$22,600
$318,600
MUL081
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$6,850
$4,790
$11,640
$0
$11,640
C03
$171,000
$120,000
$291,000
$20,500
$311,500
MUL083
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$13,100
$9,200
$22,300
$0
$22,300
C03
$144,000
$101,000
$245,000
$17,300
$262,300
MUL103
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$5,390
$3,770
$9,160
$0
$9,160
C03
$212,000
$148,000
$360,000
$25,400
$385,400
MUL119
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$23,600
$16,500
$40,100
$3,070
$43,170
MUL120
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$479
$336
$815
$0
$815
C03
$76,500
$53,600
$130,100
$9,180
$139,280
MUL129
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$22,800
$16,000
$38,800
$0
$38,800
C03
$250,000
$175,000
$425,000
$30,000
$455,000
Page 24 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
Trait Description
2009 Total
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
2009 Total
Direct and
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MUL131
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$28,200
$19,800
$48,000
$0
$48,000
C07
$97,000
$67,900
$164,900
$21,300
$186,200
MUL132
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$7,700
$5,390
$13,090
$0
$13,090
C07
$26,500
$18,500
$45,000
$5,820
$50,820
MUL135
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$15,200
$10,600
$25,800
$1,970
$27,770
MUL136
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$10,100
$7,080
$17,180
$1,320
$18,500
MUL139
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
MUL141
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$65,100
$45,600
$110,700
$0
$110,700
C07
$70,900
$49,600
$120,500
$15,600
$136,100
MUL142
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$232,000
$162,000
$394,000
$0
$394,000
C07
$252,000
$176,000
$428,000
$55,500
$483,500
MUL145
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$28,400
$19,800
$48,200
$0
$48,200
C07
$30,900
$21,600
$52,500
$6,790
$59,290
MUL146
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$135,000
$94,200
$229,200
$0
$229,200
C03
$295,000
$206,000
$501,000
$35,400
$536,400
MUL149
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$38,100
$26,700
$64,800
$0
$64,800
C07
$41,500
$29,100
$70,600
$9,140
$79,740
MUL150
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$102,000
$71,300
$173,300
$0
$173,300
C07
$111,000
$77,700
$188,700
$24,400
$213,100
MUL153
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$51,300
$35,900
$87,200
$0
$87,200
C07
$55,900
$39,100
$95,000
$12,300
$107,300
THO020
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$5,960
$4,170
$10,130
$0
$10,130
C03
$65,300
$45,700
$111,000
$7,830
$118,830
UG01-4
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$6,220
$4,360
$10,580
$1,870
$12,450
VBS-AVG
$5,360
$3,750
$9,110
$1,610
$10,720
UG01-5
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$133,000
$93,100
$226,100
$39,900
$266,000
CD-AVG
$57,700
$40,400
$98,100
$17,300
$115,400
CD-SED
$5,800
$4,060
$9,860
$34,800
$44,660
FP/RP-AVG
$124,000
$87,100
$211,100
$22,400
$233,500
VBS-AVG
$56,700
$39,700
$96,400
$17,000
$113,400
UG01-6
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$171,000
$120,000
$291,000
$51,200
$342,200
CD-AVG
$56,400
$39,500
$95,900
$16,900
$112,800
CD-SED
$5,610
$3,930
$9,540
$33,700
$43,240
FP/RP-AVG
$906,000
$634,000
$1,540,000
$163,000
$1,703,000
OFFCH-AVG
$97,600
$68,300
$165,900
$17,600
$183,500
VBS-AVG
$135,000
$94,600
$229,600
$40,600
$270,200
UG01-7
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$98,200
$68,700
$166,900
$29,500
$196,400
CD-AVG
$48,400
$33,900
$82,300
$14,500
$96,800
CD-SED
$4,860
$3,400
$8,260
$29,200
$37,460
FP/RP-AVG
$281,000
$197,000
$478,000
$50,600
$528,600
VBS-AVG
$77,700
$54,400
$132,100
$23,300
$155,400
Page 25 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
UG01-8
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$39,800
$27,800
$67,600
$11,900
$79,500
CD-AVG
$15,000
$10,500
$25,500
$4,510
$30,010
CD-SED
$1,500
$1,050
$2,550
$8,980
$11,530
VBS-AVG
$14,800
$10,400
$25,200
$4,450
$29,650
UG01-9
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$175,000
$123,000
$298,000
$52,500
$350,500
CD-AVG
$73,500
$51,500
$125,000
$22,100
$147,100
CD-SED
$7,480
$5,240
$12,720
$44,900
$57,620
FP/RP-AVG
$206,000
$144,000
$350,000
$37,000
$387,000
VBS-AVG
$139,000
$97,000
$236,000
$41,600
$277,600
UG01-10
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$150,000
$105,000
$255,000
$45,100
$300,100
CD-AVG
$57,100
$39,900
$97,000
$17,100
$114,100
CD-SED
$5,800
$4,060
$9,860
$34,800
$44,660
FP/RP-AVG
$152,000
$106,000
$258,000
$27,300
$285,300
VBS-AVG
$80,000
$56,000
$136,000
$24,000
$160,000
UG01-11
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$42,700
$29,900
$72,600
$12,800
$85,400
CD-AVG
$17,300
$12,100
$29,400
$5,190
$34,590
CD-SED
$1,680
$1,180
$2,860
$10,100
$12,960
FP/RP-AVG
$143,000
$100,000
$243,000
$25,800
$268,800
VBS-AVG
$33,800
$23,700
$57,500
$10,100
$67,600
UG01-12
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$541,000
$379,000
$920,000
$162,000
$1,082,000
CD-AVG
$165,000
$115,000
$280,000
$49,400
$329,400
CD-SED
$16,800
$11,800
$28,600
$101,000
$129,600
FP/RP-AVG
$702,000
$491,000
$1,193,000
$126,000
$1,319,000
VBS-AVG
$231,000
$161,000
$392,000
$69,200
$461,200
UG01-13
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$297,000
$208,000
$505,000
$89,100
$594,100
CD-AVG
$90,200
$63,200
$153,400
$27,100
$180,500
CD-SED
$9,160
$6,410
$15,570
$55,000
$70,570
FP/RP-AVG
$128,000
$89,900
$217,900
$23,100
$241,000
VBS-AVG
$127,000
$88,600
$215,600
$38,000
$253,600
UG01-14
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$57,600
$40,300
$97,900
$17,300
$115,200
CD-AVG
$17,500
$12,300
$29,800
$5,250
$35,050
CD-SED
$1,680
$1,180
$2,860
$10,100
$12,960
FP/RP-AVG
$21,900
$15,400
$37,300
$3,950
$41,250
VBS-AVG
$24,500
$17,200
$41,700
$7,360
$49,060
UG01-15
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$207,000
$145,000
$352,000
$62,000
$414,000
CD-AVG
$62,800
$44,000
$106,800
$18,800
$125,600
CD-SED
$6,360
$4,450
$10,810
$38,100
$48,910
FP/RP-AVG
$6,850
$4,800
$11,650
$1,230
$12,880
VBS-AVG
$88,100
$61,700
$149,800
$26,400
$176,200
UG01-16
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$190,000
$133,000
$323,000
$57,000
$380,000
CD-AVG
$55,600
$38,900
$94,500
$16,700
$111,200
CD-SED
$5,610
$3,930
$9,540
$33,700
$43,240
Page 26 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct and
Direct Capital 2009 Indirect Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
TCD Cost Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) Year NPV)
FP/RP-AVG
$510,000
$357,000
$867,000
$91,800
$958,800
VBS-AVG
$150,000
$105,000
$255,000
$45,100
$300,100
UG01-17
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$451,000
$316,000
$767,000
$135,000
$902,000
CD-AVG
$137,000
$96,000
$233,000
$41,200
$274,200
CD-SED
$13,800
$9,690
$23,490
$83,000
$106,490
FP/RP-AVG
$657,000
$460,000
$1,117,000
$118,000
$1,235,000
OFFCH-AVG
$744,000
$521,000
$1,265,000
$134,000
$1,399,000
VBS-AVG
$192,000
$135,000
$327,000
$57,700
$384,700
UG01-18
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$364,000
$255,000
$619,000
$109,000
$728,000
CD-AVG
$111,000
$77,400
$188,400
$33,200
$221,600
CD-SED
$11,200
$7,850
$19,050
$67,300
$86,350
VBS-AVG
$155,000
$109,000
$264,000
$46,500
$310,500
UG01-19
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$38,400
$26,900
$65,300
$11,500
$76,800
CD-AVG
$13,400
$9,370
$22,770
$4,020
$26,790
CD-SED
$1,310
$916
$2,226
$7,850
$10,076
FP/RP-AVG
$36,800
$25,800
$62,600
$6,630
$69,230
OFFCH-AVG
$46,300
$32,400
$78,700
$8,340
$87,040
VBS-AVG
$30,400
$21,300
$51,700
$9,130
$60,830
WAL013
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$6,980
$4,890
$11,870
$0
$11,870
C03
$76,500
$53,600
$130,100
$9,180
$139,280
WAL038
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$3,760,000
$2,630,000
$6,390,000
$0
$6,390,000
C08a
$4,930,000
$3,450,000
$8,380,000
$690,000
$9,070,000
HAUL-2
$1,530,000
$1,070,000
$2,600,000
$0
$2,600,000
WAL076
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$175,000
$122,000
$297,000
$0
$297,000
C07
$600,000
$420,000
$1,020,000
$132,000
$1,152,000
WAL077
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$567,000
$397,000
$964,000
$0
$964,000
C08a
$743,000
$520,000
$1,263,000
$104,000
$1,367,000
HAUL-2
$231,000
$161,000
$392,000
$0
$392,000
Notes:
This Table does not include Central Treatment Plant (CTP) Sludge Pond Closure costs, these costs will be applied to the Total Alternative Cost.
This Table does not include Roads and Bridges costs, these costs will be applied to the Total Alternative Cost.
O&M = Operations and Maintenance
NPV = Net Present Value
Typical Conceptual Design (TCD) Codes
BSBR-AVG = Bank Stabilization via Revetments - Average Cost
C01 = Excavation (dry)
C01 b = Excavation (60% dry/40% wet)
Trait Description
Segment ID Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
Page 27 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-37
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Trait Description
Segment ID Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
C02a = Regrade/Consolidate/Vegetative Cover: Lower Part of Pile in 100-Year Floodplain
C02b = Regrade/Consolidate/Vegetative Cover: Waste Rock Pile in Stream Valley
C02c = Regrade/Consolidate/Vegetative Cover: Stabilize Using Erosion Protection
C03 = Low-Permeability Cap
C04 = Low-Permeability Cap with Seepage Collection
C05 = Low-Permeability Cap with Erosion Protection
C07 = Waste Consolidation Area Above Flood Level
C08a = Repository, 1 million cy
C09 = Impoundment Closure
C10 = Adit Drainage Collection
C11j = Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry Wall (with drain, 30 ft deep)
C14b = Stream Lining (20 feet wide)
C14c = Stream Lining (100 feet wide)
C15b = French Drain (15 feet bgs)
CD-AVG = Current Deflector Average Cost
CD-SED = Current Deflector Sediment Traps
CH REAL-1 = Channel Realignment
FP/RP-AVG = Floodplain and Riparian Replanting - Average Cost
HAUL-2 = Haul to Repository
HH-2 = Upland Waste Pile Soil Cover
HH-3 = Millsite Decontamination
OFFCH-AVG = Off-Channel Hydrologic Feature Average Cost
PIPE-1 = Conveyance Pipeline (6-inch)
PIPE-2 = Conveyance Pipeline (12-inch)
PIPE-3 = Conveyance Pipeline (24-inch)
VBS-AVG = Vegetative Bank Stabilization - Average Cost
WT01 = Centralized High-Density Sludge (HDS) Treatment at Central Treatment Plant (CTP)
WT02 = Onsite Semi-Passive Water Treatment Using Lime Addition and Settling Pond(s)
WT03 = Onsite Semi-Passive Water Treatment Using Sulfate-Reducing Bioreactor (SRB) System
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal accuracy of -30 percent to +50 percent (30/+50%).
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-magnitude cost opinion shown has
been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will
depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the
final project schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these
factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct and
Direct Capital 2009 Indirect Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
TCD Cost Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) Year NPV)
Page 28 of 28
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
POL044
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
POL045
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$16,000
$11,200
$27,200
$2,080
$29,280
POL046
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$15,200
$10,600
$25,800
$1,970
$27,770
POL047
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,910
POL048
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$14,300
$10,000
$24,300
$1,860
$26,160
POL049
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$11,000
$7,670
$18,670
$1,420
$20,090
POL050
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,910
POL051
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$33,400
$23,400
$56,800
$4,340
$61,140
POL052
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$19,700
$13,800
$33,500
$0
$33,500
C08a
$81,400
$57,000
$138,400
$11,400
$149,800
HAUL-2
$25,300
$17,700
$43,000
$0
$43,000
POL024
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$16,900
$11,800
$28,700
$2,190
$30,890
POL025
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$22,800
$15,900
$38,700
$2,960
$41,660
POL026
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$19,400
$13,600
$33,000
$2,520
$35,520
POL027
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$39,600
$27,700
$67,300
$5,150
$72,450
POL028
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$11,000
$7,670
$18,670
$1,420
$20,090
POL036
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$43,000
$30,100
$73,100
$5,590
$78,690
POL037
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$23,600
$16,500
$40,100
$3,070
$43,170
POL038
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$14,300
$10,000
$24,300
$1,860
$26,160
POL039
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$17,700
$12,400
$30,100
$2,300
$32,400
POL040
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$78,500
$54,900
$133,400
$10,200
$143,600
POL041
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$31,200
$21,800
$53,000
$4,050
$57,050
POL042
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$28,700
$20,100
$48,800
$3,730
$52,530
POL043
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$29,500
$20,700
$50,200
$3,840
$54,040
POL053
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$21,100
$14,800
$35,900
$2,740
$38,640
POL054
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$25,300
$17,700
$43,000
$3,290
$46,290
POL056
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$35,400
$24,800
$60,200
$4,600
$64,800
POL062
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$27,000
$18,900
$45,900
$3,510
$49,410
POL063
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,910
POL001
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$34,900
$24,400
$59,300
$0
$59,300
C08a
$144,000
$101,000
$245,000
$20,200
$265,200
HAUL-2
$44,800
$31,400
$76,200
$0
$76,200
POL002
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$223,000
$156,000
$379,000
$547,000
$926,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$7,280
$5,090
$12,370
$0
$12,370
C08a
$30,100
$21,100
$51,200
$4,210
$55,410
HAUL-2
$9,330
$6,530
$15,860
$0
$15,860
POL004
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$285,000
$199,000
$484,000
$1,020,000
$1,504,000
Upland waste rock
C02b
$35,100
$24,500
$59,600
$4,560
$64,160
BigCrkSegOl
BigCrkSeg02
BigCrkSeg03
Page 1 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
BigCrkSeg04
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
POL067
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$521,000
$365,000
$886,000
$1,210,000
$2,096,000
Upland waste rock
C02a
$41,300
$28,900
$70,200
$5,370
$75,570
POL068
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
POL069
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$24,400
$17,100
$41,500
$3,180
$44,680
POL070
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$35,100
$24,500
$59,600
$4,560
$64,160
POL071
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$23,400
$16,400
$39,800
$3,040
$42,840
BIG04-2
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$140,000
$97,800
$237,800
$41,900
$279,700
CD-AVG
$39,100
$27,400
$66,500
$11,700
$78,200
VBS-AVG
$59,500
$41,700
$101,200
$17,900
$119,100
BIG04-3
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$573,000
$401,000
$974,000
$172,000
$1,146,000
CD-AVG
$276,000
$193,000
$469,000
$82,800
$551,800
FP/RP-AVG
$504,000
$353,000
$857,000
$90,700
$947,700
OFFCH-AVG
$849,000
$595,000
$1,444,000
$153,000
$1,597,000
VBS-AVG
$244,000
$171,000
$415,000
$73,300
$488,300
KLE024
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments (underlying tailings pond)
C11j
$8,750,000
$6,120,000
$14,870,000
$175,000
$15,045,000
Floodplain tailings - active facilities
C09
$10,400,000
$7,280,000
$17,680,000
$2,080,000
$19,760,000
Groundwater
WT03
$423,000
$296,000
$719,000
$553,000
$1,272,000
KLE025
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$135,000
$94,500
$229,500
$0
$229,500
C08a
$177,000
$124,000
$301,000
$24,800
$325,800
HAUL-2
$54,900
$38,400
$93,300
$0
$93,300
Floodplain tailings - inactive Facilities
C01
$1,730,000
$1,210,000
$2,940,000
$0
$2,940,000
C08a
$7,150,000
$5,010,000
$12,160,000
$1,000,000
$13,160,000
HAUL-2
$2,220,000
$1,550,000
$3,770,000
$0
$3,770,000
KLE026
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$377,000
$264,000
$641,000
$0
$641,000
C08a
$1,560,000
$1,090,000
$2,650,000
$218,000
$2,868,000
HAUL-2
$483,000
$338,000
$821,000
$0
$821,000
KLE027
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$399,000
$279,000
$678,000
$0
$678,000
C08a
$1,650,000
$1,150,000
$2,800,000
$231,000
$3,031,000
HAUL-2
$511,000
$358,000
$869,000
$0
$869,000
KLE029
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$187,000
$131,000
$318,000
$24,300
$342,300
KLE047
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$44,900
$31,400
$76,300
$0
$76,300
C08a
$58,800
$41,200
$100,000
$8,230
$108,230
HAUL-2
$18,200
$12,800
$31,000
$0
$31,000
KLE053
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$842,000
$589,000
$1,431,000
$0
$1,431,000
C08a
$3,480,000
$2,440,000
$5,920,000
$487,000
$6,407,000
HAUL-2
$1,080,000
$756,000
$1,836,000
$0
$1,836,000
KLE054
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$714,000
$500,000
$1,214,000
$661,000
$1,875,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$685,000
$480,000
$1,165,000
$0
$1,165,000
Page 2 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
C08a
$2,830,000
$1,980,000
$4,810,000
$397,000
$5,207,000
HAUL-2
$879,000
$615,000
$1,494,000
$0
$1,494,000
KLE071
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$662,000
$463,000
$1,125,000
$0
$1,125,000
C08a
$867,000
$607,000
$1,474,000
$121,000
$1,595,000
HAUL-2
$269,000
$188,000
$457,000
$0
$457,000
KLE073
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$1,350,000
$945,000
$2,295,000
$0
$2,295,000
C08a
$1,770,000
$1,240,000
$3,010,000
$248,000
$3,258,000
HAUL-2
$549,000
$384,000
$933,000
$0
$933,000
POL005
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$56,800
$39,700
$96,500
$7,380
$103,880
POL006
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$31,700
$22,200
$53,900
$4,120
$58,020
POL008
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$34,900
$24,400
$59,300
$0
$59,300
C08a
$144,000
$101,000
$245,000
$20,200
$265,200
HAUL-2
$44,800
$31,400
$76,200
$0
$76,200
POL010
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$19,500
$13,700
$33,200
$0
$33,200
C08a
$80,700
$56,500
$137,200
$11,300
$148,500
HAUL-2
$25,000
$17,500
$42,500
$0
$42,500
POL011
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$13,400
$9,350
$22,750
$0
$22,750
C08a
$55,200
$38,700
$93,900
$7,730
$101,630
HAUL-2
$17,100
$12,000
$29,100
$0
$29,100
POL022
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$138,000
$96,800
$234,800
$527,000
$761,800
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$19,700
$13,800
$33,500
$0
$33,500
C08a
$81,400
$57,000
$138,400
$11,400
$149,800
HAUL-2
$25,300
$17,700
$43,000
$0
$43,000
POL023
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$50,100
$35,100
$85,200
$6,510
$91,710
POL066
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
POL075
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$33,400
$23,400
$56,800
$4,340
$61,140
CCSeg PIPECC
General Feature
Source General Information
PIPE-1
$1,430,000
$1,000,000
$2,430,000
$115,000
$2,545,000
PIPE-2
$76,900
$53,800
$130,700
$6,150
$136,850
PIPE-3
$1,800,000
$1,260,000
$3,060,000
$144,000
$3,204,000
PIPE-4
$4,090,000
$2,870,000
$6,960,000
$327,000
$7,287,000
CCSegOl BUR102
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$120,000
$83,800
$203,800
$15,600
$219,400
BUR105
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$27,800
$19,500
$47,300
$0
$47,300
C07
$95,600
$66,900
$162,500
$21,000
$183,500
BUR109
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$117,000
$82,100
$199,100
$0
$199,100
C07
$403,000
$282,000
$685,000
$88,600
$773,600
BUR110
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$24,400
$17,100
$41,500
$3,180
$44,680
BUR182
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$13,500
$9,440
$22,940
$1,750
$24,690
Page 3 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
CCSeg02
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
BUR183
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,910
BUR184
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$17,700
$12,400
$30,100
$2,300
$32,400
BUR185
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
BUR186
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$20,200
$14,200
$34,400
$2,630
$37,030
BUR187
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
BUR188
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$36,200
$25,400
$61,600
$4,710
$66,310
THO012
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$27,800
$19,500
$47,300
$3,620
$50,920
THO013
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$29,500
$20,700
$50,200
$3,840
$54,040
THO014
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$23,600
$16,500
$40,100
$3,070
$43,170
THO015
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$34,600
$24,200
$58,800
$4,490
$63,290
THO016
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$11,000
$7,670
$18,670
$1,420
$20,090
THO017
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$45,500
$31,900
$77,400
$5,920
$83,320
THO018
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$16,900
$11,800
$28,700
$2,190
$30,890
THO023
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
BUR100
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$21,100
$14,800
$35,900
$2,740
$38,640
BUR106
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$21,100
$14,800
$35,900
$2,740
$38,640
BUR107
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$595,000
$416,000
$1,011,000
$0
$1,011,000
C07
$2,040,000
$1,430,000
$3,470,000
$450,000
$3,920,000
BUR130
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$12,800
$8,990
$21,790
$0
$21,790
C07
$44,100
$30,900
$75,000
$9,700
$84,700
BUR131
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$37,900
$26,600
$64,500
$4,930
$69,430
BUR132
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$394,000
$276,000
$670,000
$0
$670,000
C07
$1,350,000
$947,000
$2,297,000
$298,000
$2,595,000
BUR133
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$22,700
$15,900
$38,600
$0
$38,600
C07
$77,900
$54,500
$132,400
$17,100
$149,500
BUR134
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$61,600
$43,100
$104,700
$0
$104,700
C07
$212,000
$148,000
$360,000
$46,600
$406,600
BUR135
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
BUR138
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$48,900
$34,200
$83,100
$6,360
$89,460
BUR145
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$240,000
$168,000
$408,000
$0
$408,000
C07
$823,000
$576,000
$1,399,000
$181,000
$1,580,000
BUR150
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$140,000
$97,700
$237,700
$0
$237,700
C08a
$577,000
$404,000
$981,000
$80,800
$1,061,800
HAUL-2
$179,000
$125,000
$304,000
$0
$304,000
BUR151
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$148,000
$104,000
$252,000
$19,300
$271,300
BUR153
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$473,000
$331,000
$804,000
$0
$804,000
Page 4 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
C08a
$620,000
$434,000
$1,054,000
$86,700
$1,140,700
HAUL-2
$192,000
$135,000
$327,000
$0
$327,000
CC02-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$405,000
$283,000
$688,000
$121,000
$809,000
CD-AVG
$136,000
$95,200
$231,200
$40,800
$272,000
FP/RP-AVG
$889,000
$622,000
$1,511,000
$160,000
$1,671,000
VBS-AVG
$172,000
$121,000
$293,000
$51,700
$344,700
BUR085
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Upland waste rock
C02a
$34,600
$24,200
$58,800
$4,490
$63,290
BUR086
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$141,000
$98,500
$239,500
$18,300
$257,800
BUR087
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$107,000
$74,900
$181,900
$0
$181,900
C07
$368,000
$257,000
$625,000
$80,900
$705,900
BUR088
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
BUR089
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
BUR090
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$128,000
$89,900
$217,900
$0
$217,900
C08a
$531,000
$372,000
$903,000
$74,300
$977,300
HAUL-2
$165,000
$115,000
$280,000
$0
$280,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$235,000
$165,000
$400,000
$0
$400,000
C07
$809,000
$566,000
$1,375,000
$178,000
$1,553,000
BUR091
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
Upland waste rock
C02a
$24,400
$17,100
$41,500
$3,180
$44,680
BUR092
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$16,000
$11,200
$27,200
$2,080
$29,280
BUR099
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
Upland waste rock
C02a
$17,700
$12,400
$30,100
$2,300
$32,400
BUR101
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$20,200
$14,200
$34,400
$2,630
$37,030
BUR146
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$689,000
$482,000
$1,171,000
$0
$1,171,000
C08a
$903,000
$632,000
$1,535,000
$126,000
$1,661,000
HAUL-2
$280,000
$196,000
$476,000
$0
$476,000
BUR149
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$44,500
$31,200
$75,700
$0
$75,700
C07
$153,000
$107,000
$260,000
$33,600
$293,600
BUR165
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$17,700
$12,400
$30,100
$2,300
$32,400
BUR166
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
BUR167
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$35,400
$24,800
$60,200
$4,600
$64,800
BUR179
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$20,200
$14,200
$34,400
$2,630
$37,030
BUR180
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$23,500
$16,500
$40,000
$0
$40,000
CCSeg03
Page 5 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
C07
$80,900
$56,600
$137,500
$17,800
$155,300
CCSeg04 BUR063
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$159,000
$112,000
$271,000
$20,700
$291,700
BUR064
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$34,600
$24,200
$58,800
$4,490
$63,290
BUR065
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$85,100
$59,600
$144,700
$11,100
$155,800
BUR066
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$30,000
$21,000
$51,000
$0
$51,000
C08a
$124,000
$86,700
$210,700
$17,300
$228,000
HAUL-2
$38,400
$26,900
$65,300
$0
$65,300
BUR067
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$950,000
$1,020,000
$1,970,000
$723,000
$2,693,000
Upland tailings
C01
$10,700
$7,490
$18,190
$0
$18,190
C08a
$44,300
$31,000
$75,300
$6,200
$81,500
HAUL-2
$13,700
$9,610
$23,310
$0
$23,310
Upland waste rock (potential intermixed tailings)
C01
$1,500,000
$1,050,000
$2,550,000
$0
$2,550,000
C08a
$6,200,000
$4,340,000
$10,540,000
$867,000
$11,407,000
HAUL-2
$1,920,000
$1,350,000
$3,270,000
$0
$3,270,000
BUR068
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$51,400
$36,000
$87,400
$0
$87,400
C08a
$212,000
$149,000
$361,000
$29,700
$390,700
HAUL-2
$65,900
$46,100
$112,000
$0
$112,000
BUR069
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$88,500
$62,000
$150,500
$11,500
$162,000
BUR070
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$237,000
$166,000
$403,000
$30,800
$433,800
BUR071
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$166,000
$116,000
$282,000
$21,600
$303,600
BUR072
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$61,200
$42,800
$104,000
$0
$104,000
C08a
$253,000
$177,000
$430,000
$35,400
$465,400
HAUL-2
$78,500
$55,000
$133,500
$0
$133,500
BUR073
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$539,000
$377,000
$916,000
$0
$916,000
C08a
$2,230,000
$1,560,000
$3,790,000
$312,000
$4,102,000
HAUL-2
$692,000
$484,000
$1,176,000
$0
$1,176,000
BUR074
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$145,000
$101,000
$246,000
$18,800
$264,800
BUR075
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$15,000
$10,500
$25,500
$0
$25,500
C08a
$62,000
$43,400
$105,400
$8,670
$114,070
HAUL-2
$19,200
$13,500
$32,700
$0
$32,700
Upland waste rock
C02a
$148,000
$103,000
$251,000
$19,200
$270,200
BUR076
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$9,270
$6,490
$15,760
$1,210
$16,970
BUR093
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$11,800
$8,260
$20,060
$1,530
$21,590
BUR094
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$118,000
$82,600
$200,600
$15,300
$215,900
BUR095
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,910
BUR096
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$4,890
$5,230
$10,120
$3,700
$13,820
Upland waste rock
C02a
$120,000
$83,800
$203,800
$15,600
$219,400
BUR097
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$869,000
$929,000
$1,798,000
$659,000
$2,457,000
Upland waste rock
C02a
$73,300
$51,300
$124,600
$9,530
$134,130
Page 6 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
BUR098
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$905,000
$968,000
$1,873,000
$896,000
$2,769,000
Upland waste rock (potential intermixed tailings)
C01
$235,000
$165,000
$400,000
$0
$400,000
C08a
$974,000
$681,000
$1,655,000
$136,000
$1,791,000
HAUL-2
$302,000
$211,000
$513,000
$0
$513,000
BUR111
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$20,200
$14,200
$34,400
$2,630
$37,030
BUR112
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
Upland waste rock
C02a
$111,000
$77,900
$188,900
$14,500
$203,400
BUR113
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$22,800
$15,900
$38,700
$2,960
$41,660
BUR114
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$98,600
$69,000
$167,600
$12,800
$180,400
BUR115
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$49,700
$34,800
$84,500
$6,470
$90,970
BUR116
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$27,800
$19,500
$47,300
$3,620
$50,920
BUR117
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$7,700
$5,390
$13,090
$0
$13,090
C08a
$31,900
$22,300
$54,200
$4,460
$58,660
HAUL-2
$9,880
$6,920
$16,800
$0
$16,800
Upland waste rock (potential intermixed tailings)
C01
$621,000
$434,000
$1,055,000
$0
$1,055,000
C08a
$2,570,000
$1,800,000
$4,370,000
$359,000
$4,729,000
HAUL-2
$796,000
$557,000
$1,353,000
$0
$1,353,000
BUR118
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$141,000
$98,900
$239,900
$0
$239,900
C08a
$584,000
$409,000
$993,000
$81,800
$1,074,800
HAUL-2
$181,000
$127,000
$308,000
$0
$308,000
BUR119
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$175,000
$123,000
$298,000
$22,800
$320,800
BUR120
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$78,400
$54,900
$133,300
$10,200
$143,500
BUR121
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$682,000
$729,000
$1,411,000
$517,000
$1,928,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$441,000
$309,000
$750,000
$0
$750,000
C08a
$1,820,000
$1,280,000
$3,100,000
$255,000
$3,355,000
HAUL-2
$565,000
$396,000
$961,000
$0
$961,000
BUR122
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$116,000
$80,900
$196,900
$0
$196,900
C08a
$478,000
$335,000
$813,000
$66,900
$879,900
HAUL-2
$148,000
$104,000
$252,000
$0
$252,000
BUR123
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$13,500
$9,440
$22,940
$1,750
$24,690
BUR124
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$84,300
$59,000
$143,300
$11,000
$154,300
BUR125
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$27,000
$18,900
$45,900
$3,510
$49,410
BUR126
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$39,600
$27,700
$67,300
$5,150
$72,450
Page 7 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
BUR127
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$14,300
$10,000
$24,300
$1,860
$26,160
BUR128
BLM Polygon
Buildings & structures
HH-4
$1,690,000
$1,180,000
$2,870,000
$219,000
$3,089,000
Upland tailings
C01
$186,000
$130,000
$316,000
$0
$316,000
C08a
$768,000
$538,000
$1,306,000
$108,000
$1,414,000
HAUL-2
$238,000
$167,000
$405,000
$0
$405,000
BUR129
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
Upland tailings
C01
$22,500
$15,700
$38,200
$0
$38,200
C08a
$92,900
$65,000
$157,900
$13,000
$170,900
HAUL-2
$28,800
$20,200
$49,000
$0
$49,000
BUR141
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$297,000
$208,000
$505,000
$0
$505,000
C08a
$389,000
$273,000
$662,000
$54,500
$716,500
HAUL-2
$121,000
$84,500
$205,500
$0
$205,500
BUR142
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$21,000
$14,700
$35,700
$0
$35,700
C08a
$86,700
$60,700
$147,400
$12,100
$159,500
HAUL-2
$26,900
$18,800
$45,700
$0
$45,700
Upland waste rock (potential intermixed tailings)
C01
$310,000
$217,000
$527,000
$0
$527,000
C08a
$1,280,000
$898,000
$2,178,000
$180,000
$2,358,000
HAUL-2
$398,000
$279,000
$677,000
$0
$677,000
BUR143
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$432,000
$302,000
$734,000
$0
$734,000
C08a
$566,000
$396,000
$962,000
$79,300
$1,041,300
HAUL-2
$176,000
$123,000
$299,000
$0
$299,000
BUR144
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$167,000
$117,000
$284,000
$0
$284,000
C08a
$690,000
$483,000
$1,173,000
$96,600
$1,269,600
HAUL-2
$214,000
$150,000
$364,000
$0
$364,000
BUR174
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$427,000
$299,000
$726,000
$55,500
$781,500
BUR175
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$21,100
$14,800
$35,900
$2,740
$38,640
BUR176
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
BUR177
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
BUR178
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$47,100
$33,000
$80,100
$0
$80,100
C08a
$195,000
$136,000
$331,000
$27,300
$358,300
HAUL-2
$60,400
$42,300
$102,700
$0
$102,700
BUR189
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
BUR190
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$302,000
$323,000
$625,000
$165,000
$790,000
BUR191
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$131,000
$91,500
$222,500
$17,000
$239,500
Page 8 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
BUR192
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings (discrete site)
C01
$13,300
$9,290
$22,590
$0
$22,590
C08a
$54,900
$38,400
$93,300
$7,680
$100,980
HAUL-2
$17,000
$11,900
$28,900
$0
$28,900
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$116,000
$80,900
$196,900
$0
$196,900
C08a
$478,000
$335,000
$813,000
$66,900
$879,900
HAUL-2
$148,000
$104,000
$252,000
$0
$252,000
BUR193
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$63,200
$44,300
$107,500
$8,220
$115,720
BUR194
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$58,200
$40,700
$98,900
$7,560
$106,460
BUR195
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$35,400
$24,800
$60,200
$4,600
$64,800
BUR198
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$114,000
$79,700
$193,700
$14,800
$208,500
BUR199
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$27,000
$18,900
$45,900
$3,510
$49,410
BUR200
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$19,400
$13,600
$33,000
$2,520
$35,520
BUR202
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$9,270
$6,490
$15,760
$1,210
$16,970
BUR203
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$10,100
$7,080
$17,180
$1,320
$18,500
BUR204
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
CC04-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$1,220,000
$854,000
$2,074,000
$366,000
$2,440,000
CD-AVG
$412,000
$288,000
$700,000
$124,000
$824,000
FP/RP-AVG
$3,190,000
$2,230,000
$5,420,000
$574,000
$5,994,000
OFFCH-AVG
$1,800,000
$1,260,000
$3,060,000
$324,000
$3,384,000
VBS-AVG
$520,000
$364,000
$884,000
$156,000
$1,040,000
CC05-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$136,000
$94,900
$230,900
$40,700
$271,600
CD-AVG
$22,700
$15,900
$38,600
$6,800
$45,400
FP/RP-AVG
$4,810,000
$3,370,000
$8,180,000
$865,000
$9,045,000
OFFCH-AVG
$16,000,000
$11,200,000
$27,200,000
$2,890,000
$30,090,000
VBS-AVG
$57,800
$40,400
$98,200
$17,300
$115,500
CC05-2
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$820,000
$574,000
$1,394,000
$246,000
$1,640,000
CD-AVG
$138,000
$96,600
$234,600
$41,400
$276,000
CH REAL-1
$3,780,000
$2,650,000
$6,430,000
$643,000
$7,073,000
FP/RP-AVG
$1,800,000
$1,260,000
$3,060,000
$324,000
$3,384,000
VBS-AVG
$350,000
$245,000
$595,000
$105,000
$700,000
OSB047
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01B
$230,000
$161,000
$391,000
$0
$391,000
C08a
$301,000
$211,000
$512,000
$42,100
$554,100
HAUL-2
$93,300
$65,300
$158,600
$0
$158,600
WAL009
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments (underlying tailings pond)
C01B
$4,360,000
$3,050,000
$7,410,000
$0
$7,410,000
C08a
$5,720,000
$4,000,000
$9,720,000
$800,000
$10,520,000
HAUL-2
$1,770,000
$1,240,000
$3,010,000
$0
$3,010,000
Floodplain tailings - inactive Facilities
C01
$8,990,000
$6,290,000
$15,280,000
$0
$15,280,000
C08a
$37,200,000
$26,000,000
$63,200,000
$5,200,000
$68,400,000
HAUL-2
$11,500,000
$8,070,000
$19,570,000
$0
$19,570,000
WAL010
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01B
$203,000
$142,000
$345,000
$0
$345,000
CCSeg05
Page 9 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
MIDGradSeg
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
C08a
$266,000
$186,000
$452,000
$37,200
$489,200
HAUL-2
$82,400
$57,600
$140,000
$0
$140,000
WAL011
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
Floodplain sediments
C01B
$119,000
$83,200
$202,200
$0
$202,200
C08a
$156,000
$109,000
$265,000
$21,800
$286,800
HAUL-2
$48,300
$33,800
$82,100
$0
$82,100
Upland tailings
C01
$49,600
$34,800
$84,400
$0
$84,400
C08a
$205,000
$144,000
$349,000
$28,700
$377,700
HAUL-2
$63,700
$44,600
$108,300
$0
$108,300
WAL039
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$53,500
$37,500
$91,000
$0
$91,000
C08a
$221,000
$155,000
$376,000
$31,000
$407,000
HAUL-2
$68,600
$48,000
$116,600
$0
$116,600
WAL040
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01B
$243,000
$170,000
$413,000
$0
$413,000
C08a
$319,000
$223,000
$542,000
$44,600
$586,600
HAUL-2
$98,800
$69,200
$168,000
$0
$168,000
WAL041
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01B
$486,000
$340,000
$826,000
$0
$826,000
C08a
$637,000
$446,000
$1,083,000
$89,200
$1,172,200
HAUL-2
$198,000
$138,000
$336,000
$0
$336,000
WAL042
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01B
$109,000
$76,500
$185,500
$0
$185,500
C08a
$143,000
$100,000
$243,000
$20,100
$263,100
HAUL-2
$44,500
$31,100
$75,600
$0
$75,600
Floodplain tailings - inactive Facilities
C01
$2,570,000
$1,800,000
$4,370,000
$0
$4,370,000
C08a
$10,600,000
$7,430,000
$18,030,000
$1,490,000
$19,520,000
HAUL-2
$3,290,000
$2,310,000
$5,600,000
$0
$5,600,000
WAL081
BLM Polygon
Floodplain artificial fill
C01
$24,400
$17,100
$41,500
$0
$41,500
C08a
$101,000
$70,600
$171,600
$14,100
$185,700
HAUL-2
$31,300
$21,900
$53,200
$0
$53,200
PIPEMG
General Feature
Source General Information
PIPE-1
$417,000
$292,000
$709,000
$33,300
$742,300
PIPE-2
$40,400
$28,300
$68,700
$3,230
$71,930
PIPE-4
$12,100,000
$8,480,000
$20,580,000
$969,000
$21,549,000
KLE004
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$29,500
$20,700
$50,200
$3,840
$54,040
KLE005
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$54,000
$37,800
$91,800
$7,010
$98,810
KLE006
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$115,000
$80,800
$195,800
$15,000
$210,800
KLE011
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings - inactive facilities
C01
$351,000
$246,000
$597,000
$0
$597,000
C08a
$1,450,000
$1,020,000
$2,470,000
$203,000
$2,673,000
HAUL-2
$450,000
$315,000
$765,000
$0
$765,000
KLE016
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
KLE020
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$154,000
$108,000
$262,000
$0
$262,000
C08a
$637,000
$446,000
$1,083,000
$89,200
$1,172,200
HAUL-2
$198,000
$138,000
$336,000
$0
$336,000
MIDGradSegOl
Page 10 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
KLE021
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
KLE022
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$88,500
$62,000
$150,500
$11,500
$162,000
KLE023
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
KLE032
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$23,600
$16,500
$40,100
$3,070
$43,170
KLE033
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$107,000
$74,900
$181,900
$0
$181,900
C08a
$443,000
$310,000
$753,000
$62,000
$815,000
HAUL-2
$137,000
$96,100
$233,100
$0
$233,100
KLE034
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$94,200
$65,900
$160,100
$0
$160,100
C08a
$389,000
$273,000
$662,000
$54,500
$716,500
HAUL-2
$121,000
$84,500
$205,500
$0
$205,500
KLE035
BLM Polygon
Buildings & structures
HH-4
$1,690,000
$1,180,000
$2,870,000
$219,000
$3,089,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$514,000
$360,000
$874,000
$0
$874,000
C08a
$2,120,000
$1,490,000
$3,610,000
$297,000
$3,907,000
HAUL-2
$659,000
$461,000
$1,120,000
$0
$1,120,000
KLE036
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$58,200
$40,700
$98,900
$7,560
$106,460
KLE038
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$307,000
$215,000
$522,000
$39,900
$561,900
KLE039
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$150,000
$105,000
$255,000
$0
$255,000
C08a
$620,000
$434,000
$1,054,000
$86,700
$1,140,700
HAUL-2
$192,000
$135,000
$327,000
$0
$327,000
KLE040
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$1,510,000
$1,060,000
$2,570,000
$0
$2,570,000
C08a
$1,980,000
$1,390,000
$3,370,000
$278,000
$3,648,000
HAUL-2
$615,000
$430,000
$1,045,000
$0
$1,045,000
Groundwater
WT01
$402,000
$430,000
$832,000
$609,000
$1,441,000
KLE042
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$675,000
$473,000
$1,148,000
$0
$1,148,000
C08a
$885,000
$620,000
$1,505,000
$124,000
$1,629,000
HAUL-2
$275,000
$192,000
$467,000
$0
$467,000
Floodplain tailings
C01
$55,600
$38,900
$94,500
$0
$94,500
C08a
$230,000
$161,000
$391,000
$32,200
$423,200
HAUL-2
$71,400
$50,000
$121,400
$0
$121,400
KLE048
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$1,620,000
$1,130,000
$2,750,000
$0
$2,750,000
C08a
$2,120,000
$1,480,000
$3,600,000
$297,000
$3,897,000
C14c
$8,910,000
$6,240,000
$15,150,000
$267,000
$15,417,000
C15b
$2,720,000
$1,900,000
$4,620,000
$54,400
$4,674,400
HAUL-2
$657,000
$460,000
$1,117,000
$0
$1,117,000
Groundwater
WT01
$402,000
$430,000
$832,000
$609,000
$1,441,000
KLE049
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$1,760,000
$1,230,000
$2,990,000
$0
$2,990,000
C08a
$2,300,000
$1,610,000
$3,910,000
$322,000
$4,232,000
C14c
$7,430,000
$5,200,000
$12,630,000
$223,000
$12,853,000
Page 11 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
C15b
$2,270,000
$1,590,000
$3,860,000
$45,400
$3,905,400
HAUL-2
$714,000
$500,000
$1,214,000
$0
$1,214,000
Groundwater
WT01
$402,000
$430,000
$832,000
$609,000
$1,441,000
KLE051
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
KLE056
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$30,300
$21,200
$51,500
$3,950
$55,450
KLE057
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$15,200
$10,600
$25,800
$1,970
$27,770
KLE058
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$19,400
$13,600
$33,000
$2,520
$35,520
KLE059
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$11,800
$8,260
$20,060
$1,530
$21,590
KLE060
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$20,200
$14,200
$34,400
$2,630
$37,030
KLE062
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$351,000
$246,000
$597,000
$0
$597,000
C08a
$460,000
$322,000
$782,000
$64,400
$846,400
HAUL-2
$143,000
$99,900
$242,900
$0
$242,900
Upland waste rock
C02a
$278,000
$195,000
$473,000
$36,200
$509,200
KLE066
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
KLE067
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$267,000
$187,000
$454,000
$1,010,000
$1,464,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$118,000
$82,400
$200,400
$0
$200,400
C08a
$487,000
$341,000
$828,000
$68,100
$896,100
HAUL-2
$151,000
$106,000
$257,000
$0
$257,000
KLE068
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$59,900
$41,900
$101,800
$0
$101,800
C08a
$248,000
$173,000
$421,000
$34,700
$455,700
HAUL-2
$76,900
$53,800
$130,700
$0
$130,700
KLE069
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$5,560
$3,890
$9,450
$0
$9,450
C08a
$23,000
$16,100
$39,100
$3,220
$42,320
HAUL-2
$7,140
$5,000
$12,140
$0
$12,140
KLE070
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
KLE074
BLM Polygon
Buildings & structures
HH-4
$1,690,000
$1,180,000
$2,870,000
$219,000
$3,089,000
Upland tailings
C01
$59,900
$41,900
$101,800
$0
$101,800
C08a
$248,000
$173,000
$421,000
$34,700
$455,700
HAUL-2
$76,900
$53,800
$130,700
$0
$130,700
KLE075
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$17,100
$12,000
$29,100
$0
$29,100
C08a
$70,800
$49,600
$120,400
$9,910
$130,310
HAUL-2
$22,000
$15,400
$37,400
$0
$37,400
MG01-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$110,000
$76,900
$186,900
$32,900
$219,800
CD-AVG
$59,700
$41,800
$101,500
$17,900
$119,400
FP/RP-AVG
$47,000
$32,900
$79,900
$8,460
$88,360
Page 12 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description (Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MG01-10
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$104,000
$72,600
$176,600
$31,100
$207,700
CD-AVG
$10,300
$7,210
$17,510
$3,090
$20,600
FP/RP-AVG
$409,000
$286,000
$695,000
$73,600
$768,600
OFFCH-AVG
$2,990,000
$2,090,000
$5,080,000
$538,000
$5,618,000
VBS-AVG
$44,200
$30,900
$75,100
$13,300
$88,400
MG01-11
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$140,000
$98,200
$238,200
$42,100
$280,300
CD-AVG
$16,500
$11,500
$28,000
$4,940
$32,940
FP/RP-AVG
$173,000
$121,000
$294,000
$31,200
$325,200
VBS-AVG
$59,800
$41,900
$101,700
$17,900
$119,600
MG01-12
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$134,000
$93,900
$227,900
$40,300
$268,200
CD-AVG
$30,900
$21,600
$52,500
$9,270
$61,770
FP/RP-AVG
$238,000
$166,000
$404,000
$42,800
$446,800
VBS-AVG
$57,200
$40,000
$97,200
$17,200
$114,400
MG01-13
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$305,000
$214,000
$519,000
$91,500
$610,500
CD-AVG
$47,400
$33,200
$80,600
$14,200
$94,800
CH REAL-1
$1,270,000
$892,000
$2,162,000
$217,000
$2,379,000
FP/RP-AVG
$715,000
$500,000
$1,215,000
$129,000
$1,344,000
OFFCH-AVG
$2,710,000
$1,900,000
$4,610,000
$488,000
$5,098,000
VBS-AVG
$130,000
$91,000
$221,000
$39,000
$260,000
MG01-14
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$92,500
$64,700
$157,200
$27,700
$184,900
CD-AVG
$16,500
$11,500
$28,000
$4,940
$32,940
CH REAL-1
$426,000
$298,000
$724,000
$72,500
$796,500
FP/RP-AVG
$61,900
$43,300
$105,200
$11,100
$116,300
OFFCH-AVG
$55,700
$39,000
$94,700
$10,000
$104,700
VBS-AVG
$39,400
$27,600
$67,000
$11,800
$78,800
MG01-15
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$236,000
$165,000
$401,000
$70,700
$471,700
CD-AVG
$39,100
$27,400
$66,500
$11,700
$78,200
FP/RP-AVG
$966,000
$676,000
$1,642,000
$174,000
$1,816,000
OFFCH-AVG
$1,800,000
$1,260,000
$3,060,000
$324,000
$3,384,000
VBS-AVG
$30,200
$21,100
$51,300
$9,050
$60,350
MG01-16
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$131,000
$91,500
$222,500
$39,200
$261,700
CD-AVG
$22,700
$15,900
$38,600
$6,800
$45,400
FP/RP-AVG
$60,300
$42,200
$102,500
$10,900
$113,400
OFFCH-AVG
$1,400,000
$979,000
$2,379,000
$252,000
$2,631,000
VBS-AVG
$16,700
$11,700
$28,400
$5,010
$33,410
MG01-17
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$334,000
$234,000
$568,000
$100,000
$668,000
CD-AVG
$55,600
$38,900
$94,500
$16,700
$111,200
CH REAL-1
$1,540,000
$1,080,000
$2,620,000
$262,000
$2,882,000
FP/RP-AVG
$1,400,000
$981,000
$2,381,000
$252,000
$2,633,000
OFFCH-AVG
$1,100,000
$772,000
$1,872,000
$198,000
$2,070,000
VBS-AVG
$142,000
$99,700
$241,700
$42,700
$284,400
MG01-18
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$167,000
$117,000
$284,000
$50,000
$334,000
Page 13 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct and
Direct Capital 2009 Indirect Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
TCD Cost Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) Year NPV)
CD-AVG
$28,800
$20,200
$49,000
$8,650
$57,650
CH REAL-1
$768,000
$538,000
$1,306,000
$131,000
$1,437,000
FP/RP-AVG
$545,000
$381,000
$926,000
$98,000
$1,024,000
OFFCH-AVG
$231,000
$162,000
$393,000
$41,500
$434,500
VBS-AVG
$71,000
$49,700
$120,700
$21,300
$142,000
MG01-2
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$97,600
$68,300
$165,900
$29,300
$195,200
CD-AVG
$33,000
$23,100
$56,100
$9,890
$65,990
FP/RP-AVG
$133,000
$92,900
$225,900
$23,900
$249,800
MG01-3
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$189,000
$132,000
$321,000
$56,700
$377,700
CD-AVG
$20,600
$14,400
$35,000
$6,180
$41,180
FP/RP-AVG
$557,000
$390,000
$947,000
$100,000
$1,047,000
VBS-AVG
$80,600
$56,400
$137,000
$24,200
$161,200
MG01-4
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$305,000
$214,000
$519,000
$91,500
$610,500
CD-AVG
$119,000
$83,600
$202,600
$35,800
$238,400
FP/RP-AVG
$874,000
$612,000
$1,486,000
$157,000
$1,643,000
VBS-AVG
$130,000
$91,000
$221,000
$39,000
$260,000
MG01-5
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$97,600
$68,300
$165,900
$29,300
$195,200
CD-AVG
$14,400
$10,100
$24,500
$4,330
$28,830
FP/RP-AVG
$833,000
$583,000
$1,416,000
$150,000
$1,566,000
VBS-AVG
$41,600
$29,100
$70,700
$12,500
$83,200
MG01-6
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$384,000
$269,000
$653,000
$115,000
$768,000
CD-AVG
$78,300
$54,800
$133,100
$23,500
$156,600
FP/RP-AVG
$1,900,000
$1,330,000
$3,230,000
$342,000
$3,572,000
OFFCH-AVG
$3,240,000
$2,270,000
$5,510,000
$583,000
$6,093,000
VBS-AVG
$164,000
$115,000
$279,000
$49,100
$328,100
MG01-7
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$433,000
$303,000
$736,000
$130,000
$866,000
CD-AVG
$20,600
$14,400
$35,000
$6,180
$41,180
FP/RP-AVG
$487,000
$341,000
$828,000
$87,700
$915,700
OFFCH-AVG
$440,000
$308,000
$748,000
$79,100
$827,100
VBS-AVG
$185,000
$129,000
$314,000
$55,400
$369,400
MG01-8
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$286,000
$200,000
$486,000
$85,900
$571,900
CD-AVG
$47,400
$33,200
$80,600
$14,200
$94,800
CH REAL-1
$1,320,000
$924,000
$2,244,000
$225,000
$2,469,000
FP/RP-AVG
$3,150,000
$2,200,000
$5,350,000
$566,000
$5,916,000
OFFCH-AVG
$2,620,000
$1,830,000
$4,450,000
$471,000
$4,921,000
VBS-AVG
$122,000
$85,400
$207,400
$36,600
$244,000
MG01-9
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$68,000
$47,600
$115,600
$20,400
$136,000
CD-AVG
$12,400
$8,650
$21,050
$3,710
$24,760
CH REAL-1
$314,000
$219,000
$533,000
$53,300
$586,300
FP/RP-AVG
$30,600
$21,400
$52,000
$5,520
$57,520
VBS-AVG
$29,000
$20,300
$49,300
$8,690
$57,990
MUL085
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
Page 14 of 43
Trait Description
Segment ID Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct and
Direct Capital 2009 Indirect Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
TCD Cost Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) Year NPV)
WT02
$1,090,000
$766,000
$1,856,000
$1,680,000
$3,536,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
MUL086
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$128,000
$89,900
$217,900
$0
$217,900
C08a
$531,000
$372,000
$903,000
$74,300
$977,300
HAUL-2
$165,000
$115,000
$280,000
$0
$280,000
MUL087
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$31,200
$21,800
$53,000
$4,050
$57,050
OSB024
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$54,800
$38,400
$93,200
$7,120
$100,320
OSB025
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$51,400
$36,000
$87,400
$0
$87,400
C08a
$212,000
$149,000
$361,000
$29,700
$390,700
HAUL-2
$65,900
$46,100
$112,000
$0
$112,000
OSB026
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$65,800
$46,000
$111,800
$8,550
$120,350
OSB027
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$100,000
$70,200
$170,200
$13,000
$183,200
OSB028
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$9,270
$6,490
$15,760
$1,210
$16,970
OSB030
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
OSB065
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$6,240,000
$4,370,000
$10,610,000
$0
$10,610,000
C08a
$8,180,000
$5,720,000
$13,900,000
$1,140,000
$15,040,000
C14c
$65,300,000
$45,700,000
$111,000,000
$1,960,000
$112,960,000
C15b
$20,000,000
$14,000,000
$34,000,000
$399,000
$34,399,000
HAUL-2
$2,540,000
$1,780,000
$4,320,000
$0
$4,320,000
Groundwater
WT01
$402,000
$430,000
$832,000
$609,000
$1,441,000
OSB070
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$133,000
$92,900
$225,900
$0
$225,900
C08a
$549,000
$384,000
$933,000
$76,800
$1,009,800
HAUL-2
$170,000
$119,000
$289,000
$0
$289,000
OSB071
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$27,000
$18,900
$45,900
$3,510
$49,410
OSB072
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
OSB073
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$94,200
$65,900
$160,100
$0
$160,100
C08a
$389,000
$273,000
$662,000
$54,500
$716,500
HAUL-2
$121,000
$84,500
$205,500
$0
$205,500
OSB074
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Upland waste rock
C02a
$21,100
$14,800
$35,900
$2,740
$38,640
OSB075
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
OSB076
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$139,000
$97,200
$236,200
$528,000
$764,200
Trait Description
Segment ID Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
Page 15 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
OSB078
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
OSB079
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$13,500
$9,440
$22,940
$1,750
$24,690
OSB080
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$145,000
$102,000
$247,000
$529,000
$776,000
Upland waste rock
C02a
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,910
OSB117
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings
C01
$59,900
$41,900
$101,800
$0
$101,800
C08a
$248,000
$173,000
$421,000
$34,700
$455,700
HAUL-2
$76,900
$53,800
$130,700
$0
$130,700
OSB118
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$810,000
$567,000
$1,377,000
$0
$1,377,000
C08a
$1,060,000
$743,000
$1,803,000
$149,000
$1,952,000
HAUL-2
$329,000
$231,000
$560,000
$0
$560,000
OSB119
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments (underlying tailings pond)
C01b
$4,320,000
$3,020,000
$7,340,000
$0
$7,340,000
C08a
$5,660,000
$3,960,000
$9,620,000
$792,000
$10,412,000
C11j
$11,100,000
$7,790,000
$18,890,000
$223,000
$19,113,000
HAUL-2
$1,760,000
$1,230,000
$2,990,000
$0
$2,990,000
Groundwater
WT01
$30,200
$32,300
$62,500
$22,900
$85,400
OSB120
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$6,480,000
$4,540,000
$11,020,000
$0
$11,020,000
C08a
$8,500,000
$5,950,000
$14,450,000
$1,190,000
$15,640,000
C14c
$41,600,000
$29,100,000
$70,700,000
$1,250,000
$71,950,000
C15b
$12,700,000
$8,890,000
$21,590,000
$254,000
$21,844,000
HAUL-2
$2,640,000
$1,840,000
$4,480,000
$0
$4,480,000
Groundwater
WT01
$402,000
$430,000
$832,000
$609,000
$1,441,000
POL015
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$27,000
$18,900
$45,900
$3,510
$49,410
POL016
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$25,300
$17,700
$43,000
$3,290
$46,290
POL017
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$21,100
$14,800
$35,900
$2,740
$38,640
POL018
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$94,200
$65,900
$160,100
$0
$160,100
C08a
$389,000
$273,000
$662,000
$54,500
$716,500
HAUL-2
$121,000
$84,500
$205,500
$0
$205,500
POL019
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856,000
$599,000
$1,455,000
$0
$1,455,000
C08a
$3,540,000
$2,480,000
$6,020,000
$496,000
$6,516,000
HAUL-2
$1,100,000
$769,000
$1,869,000
$0
$1,869,000
POL020
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$16,000
$11,200
$27,200
$2,080
$29,280
POL021
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
POL029
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$13,500
$9,440
$22,940
$1,750
$24,690
POL030
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$40,500
$28,300
$68,800
$5,260
$74,060
Page 16 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
POL031
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$36,200
$25,400
$61,600
$4,710
$66,310
POL032
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$19,400
$13,600
$33,000
$2,520
$35,520
POL033
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$19,400
$13,600
$33,000
$2,520
$35,520
POL034
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$69,100
$48,400
$117,500
$8,990
$126,490
POL035
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$165,000
$116,000
$281,000
$21,500
$302,500
POL055
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$37,900
$26,600
$64,500
$4,930
$69,430
POL057
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$15,200
$10,600
$25,800
$1,970
$27,770
POL058
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$19,400
$13,600
$33,000
$2,520
$35,520
POL059
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$22,800
$15,900
$38,700
$2,960
$41,660
POL060
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$17,700
$12,400
$30,100
$2,300
$32,400
POL061
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$32,000
$22,400
$54,400
$4,160
$58,560
POL064
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
POL065
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$17,700
$12,400
$30,100
$2,300
$32,400
POL077
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$16,900
$11,800
$28,700
$2,190
$30,890
POL078
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$13,500
$9,440
$22,940
$1,750
$24,690
POL079
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$15,200
$10,600
$25,800
$1,970
$27,770
POL080
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$13,500
$9,440
$22,940
$1,750
$24,690
POL081
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,910
POL082
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,910
POL083
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$15,200
$10,600
$25,800
$1,970
$27,770
POL084
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$13,500
$9,440
$22,940
$1,750
$24,690
POL085
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$11,800
$8,260
$20,060
$1,530
$21,590
POL086
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$15,200
$10,600
$25,800
$1,970
$27,770
POL087
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$15,200
$10,600
$25,800
$1,970
$27,770
POL088
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$27,000
$18,900
$45,900
$3,510
$49,410
POL089
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,910
POL090
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$9,270
$6,490
$15,760
$1,210
$16,970
POL091
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$16,000
$11,200
$27,200
$2,080
$29,280
POL092
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$23,600
$16,500
$40,100
$3,070
$43,170
WAL001
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments (underlying tailings pond)
C11j
$13,400,000
$9,350,000
$22,750,000
$267,000
$23,017,000
Groundwater
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$18,300
$143,100
Upland tailings - active facilities
C09
$16,300,000
$11,400,000
$27,700,000
$3,260,000
$30,960,000
WAL002
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$603
$645
$1,248
$366
$1,614
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
WAL003
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$277,000
$194,000
$471,000
$36,100
$507,100
WAL004
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$1,600,000
$1,120,000
$2,720,000
$0
$2,720,000
C08a
$2,100,000
$1,470,000
$3,570,000
$293,000
$3,863,000
Page 17 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct and
Direct Capital 2009 Indirect Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
TCD Cost Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) Year NPV)
C14c
$25,200,000
$17,700,000
$42,900,000
$757,000
$43,657,000
C15b
$7,710,000
$5,400,000
$13,110,000
$154,000
$13,264,000
HAUL-2
$650,000
$455,000
$1,105,000
$0
$1,105,000
Groundwater
WT01
$402,000
$430,000
$832,000
$609,000
$1,441,000
WAL005
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$28,700
$20,100
$48,800
$3,730
$52,530
WAL014
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$167,000
$117,000
$284,000
$0
$284,000
C08a
$690,000
$483,000
$1,173,000
$96,600
$1,269,600
HAUL-2
$214,000
$150,000
$364,000
$0
$364,000
WAL016
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
WAL017
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$175,000
$122,000
$297,000
$22,700
$319,700
WAL019
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$24,400
$17,100
$41,500
$3,180
$44,680
WAL020
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$595,000
$416,000
$1,011,000
$0
$1,011,000
C08a
$2,460,000
$1,720,000
$4,180,000
$344,000
$4,524,000
HAUL-2
$763,000
$534,000
$1,297,000
$0
$1,297,000
WAL021
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$15,200
$10,600
$25,800
$1,970
$27,770
WAL022
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$11,000
$7,670
$18,670
$1,420
$20,090
WAL023
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$13,500
$9,440
$22,940
$1,750
$24,690
WAL024
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
WAL025
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$16,900
$11,800
$28,700
$2,190
$30,890
WAL026
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$7,590
$5,310
$12,900
$986
$13,886
WAL027
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$76,700
$53,700
$130,400
$9,970
$140,370
WAL028
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$15,200
$10,600
$25,800
$1,970
$27,770
WAL029
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$30,300
$21,200
$51,500
$3,950
$55,450
WAL034
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$1,050,000
$737,000
$1,787,000
$0
$1,787,000
C08a
$1,380,000
$966,000
$2,346,000
$193,000
$2,539,000
HAUL-2
$428,000
$300,000
$728,000
$0
$728,000
WAL035
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$599,000
$419,000
$1,018,000
$0
$1,018,000
C08a
$2,480,000
$1,730,000
$4,210,000
$347,000
$4,557,000
HAUL-2
$769,000
$538,000
$1,307,000
$0
$1,307,000
WAL036
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$608,000
$425,000
$1,033,000
$0
$1,033,000
C08a
$797,000
$558,000
$1,355,000
$112,000
$1,467,000
HAUL-2
$247,000
$173,000
$420,000
$0
$420,000
WAL037
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$51,400
$36,000
$87,400
$0
$87,400
C08a
$212,000
$149,000
$361,000
$29,700
$390,700
HAUL-2
$65,900
$46,100
$112,000
$0
$112,000
WAL046
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
Trait Description
Segment ID Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
Page 18 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
WAL047
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,910
WAL048
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$102,000
$71,400
$173,400
$13,300
$186,700
WAL049
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$95,300
$66,700
$162,000
$12,400
$174,400
WAL050
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$70,800
$49,600
$120,400
$9,210
$129,610
WAL051
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$54,000
$37,800
$91,800
$7,010
$98,810
WAL052
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$70,800
$49,600
$120,400
$9,210
$129,610
WAL053
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$27,000
$18,900
$45,900
$3,510
$49,410
WAL054
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$58,200
$40,700
$98,900
$7,560
$106,460
WAL055
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
WAL056
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
WAL057
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
WAL058
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
WAL059
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$35,400
$24,800
$60,200
$4,600
$64,800
WAL060
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$20,200
$14,200
$34,400
$2,630
$37,030
WAL061
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$32,000
$22,400
$54,400
$4,160
$58,560
WAL062
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
WAL063
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$24,400
$17,100
$41,500
$3,180
$44,680
WAL064
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
WAL065
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$31,200
$21,800
$53,000
$4,050
$57,050
WAL066
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$27,800
$19,500
$47,300
$3,620
$50,920
WAL067
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$58,200
$40,700
$98,900
$7,560
$106,460
WAL070
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$59,900
$41,900
$101,800
$7,780
$109,580
WAL071
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$16,900
$11,800
$28,700
$2,190
$30,890
WAL072
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
WAL073
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
WAL074
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$21,900
$15,300
$37,200
$2,850
$40,050
Page 19 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
KLW061
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$2,320,000
$1,620,000
$3,940,000
$301,000
$4,241,000
KLW062
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$356,000
$249,000
$605,000
$46,200
$651,200
KLW070
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$126,000
$88,400
$214,400
$0
$214,400
C08a
$165,000
$116,000
$281,000
$23,200
$304,200
HAUL-2
$51,300
$35,900
$87,200
$0
$87,200
KLW071
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$576,000
$403,000
$979,000
$74,900
$1,053,900
KLW095
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$137,000
$95,900
$232,900
$17,800
$250,700
KLW123
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$15,200
$10,600
$25,800
$1,970
$27,770
KLW124
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$61,800
$43,300
$105,100
$8,030
$113,130
KLW125
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$38,400
$26,900
$65,300
$4,990
$70,290
KLW126
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$21,900
$15,300
$37,200
$2,850
$40,050
KLW127
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$21,700
$15,200
$36,900
$2,820
$39,720
KLW128
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$212,000
$148,000
$360,000
$27,600
$387,600
MAS070
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$33,700
$23,600
$57,300
$4,380
$61,680
MG02-10
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$15,100
$10,500
$25,600
$4,520
$30,120
CD-AVG
$12,400
$8,650
$21,050
$3,710
$24,760
FP/RP-AVG
$16,600
$11,600
$28,200
$2,980
$31,180
VBS-AVG
$6,420
$4,500
$10,920
$1,930
$12,850
MG02-11
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$13,300
$9,330
$22,630
$4,000
$26,630
CD-AVG
$10,300
$7,210
$17,510
$3,090
$20,600
FP/RP-AVG
$14,600
$10,200
$24,800
$2,630
$27,430
VBS-AVG
$5,680
$3,980
$9,660
$1,700
$11,360
MG02-12
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$9,410
$6,590
$16,000
$2,820
$18,820
CD-AVG
$2,060
$1,440
$3,500
$618
$4,118
FP/RP-AVG
$6,200
$4,340
$10,540
$1,120
$11,660
VBS-AVG
$1,200
$842
$2,042
$361
$2,403
KLE007
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$104,000
$72,500
$176,500
$13,500
$190,000
KLE061
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
MC01-2
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach Current Deflector Frequency
CD-SED
$7,480
$5,240
$12,720
$44,900
$57,620
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$187,000
$131,000
$318,000
$56,000
$374,000
CD-AVG
$70,000
$49,000
$119,000
$21,000
$140,000
FP/RP-AVG
$154,000
$108,000
$262,000
$27,700
$289,700
VBS-AVG
$79,600
$55,700
$135,300
$23,900
$159,200
KLE008
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02b
$109,000
$76,000
$185,000
$14,100
$199,100
KLE009
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$116,000
$81,400
$197,400
$15,100
$212,500
KLE013
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$88,500
$62,000
$150,500
$11,500
$162,000
KLE014
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
KLE041
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$44,600
$31,200
$75,800
$0
$75,800
MIDGradSeg02
MoonCrkSegOl
MoonCrkSeg02
Page 20 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
TCD
2009 Total
Direct Capital
Cost
2009 Indirect
Capital Cost
2009 Total
Direct and
Indirect Capital
Cost
O&M Cost (30-
Year NPV)
Total Cost (30-
Year NPV)
C08a
HAUL-2
$58,400
$18,100
$40,900
$12,700
$99,300
$30,800
$8,180
$0
C02b
$25,100
$17,500
$42,600
$3,260
C02b
$21,700
$15,200
$36,900
$2,820
C02b
$38,400
$26,900
$65,300
$4,990
BSBR-AVG
CD-AVG
FP/RP-AVG
VBS-AVG
$163,000
$138,000
$447,000
$69,400
$114,000
$96,600
$313,000
$48,600
$277,000
$234,600
$760,000
$118,000
$48,800
$41,400
$80,500
$20,800
BSBR-AVG
CD-AVG
FP/RP-AVG
VBS-AVG
$136,000
$57,700
$225,000
$58,100
$95,400
$40,400
$157,000
$40,700
$231,400
$98,100
$382,000
$98,800
$40,900
$17,300
$40,400
$17,400
BSBR-AVG
CD-AVG
FP/RP-AVG
VBS-AVG
$70,800
$59,700
$194,000
$45,200
$49,500
$41,800
$136,000
$31,600
$120,300
$101,500
$330,000
$76,800
$21,200
$17,900
$34,900
$13,600
$107,480
$30,800
$45,860
$39,720
$70,290
$325,800
$276,000
$840,500
$138,800
$272,300
$115,400
$422,400
$116,200
$141,500
$119,400
$364,900
$90,400
PIPE-1
$1,560,000
$1,090,000
$2,650,000
$125,000
$2,775,000
C10
WT02
$9,680
$493,000
$6,780
$345,000
$16,460
$838,000
$1,740
$1,190,000
C02a
$153,000
$107,000
$260,000
$19,800
C01
C07
$17,100
$58,800
$12,000
$41,200
$29,100
$100,000
$0
$12,900
C01
C07
$2,960,000
$10,200,000
$2,070,000
$7,120,000
$5,030,000
$17,320,000
$0
$2,240,000
C02a
$96,100
$67,300
$163,400
$12,500
C10
WT02
$9,680
$493,000
$6,780
$345,000
$16,460
$838,000
$1,740
$1,190,000
C02a
$51,400
$36,000
$87,400
$6,680
C02a
$35,400
$24,800
$60,200
$4,600
C02a
$27,000
$18,900
$45,900
$3,510
C02a
$22,800
$15,900
$38,700
$2,960
C01b
C08a
HAUL-2
$135,000
$177,000
$54,900
$94,500
$124,000
$38,400
$229,500
$301,000
$93,300
$0
$24,800
$0
BSBR-AVG
CD-AVG
FP/RP-AVG
VBS-AVG
$489,000
$82,400
$269,000
$209,000
$343,000
$57,700
$188,000
$146,000
$832,000
$140,100
$457,000
$355,000
$147,000
$24,700
$48,400
$62,600
$18,200
$2,028,000
$279,800
$29,100
$112,900
$5,030,000
$19,560,000
$175,900
$18,200
$2,028,000
$94,080
$64,800
$49,410
$41,660
$229,500
$325,800
$93,300
$979,000
$164,800
$505,400
$417,600
C10
WT03
$9,680
$211,000
$6,780
$148,000
$16,460
$359,000
$1,740
$549,000
C01
$963,000
$674,000
$1,637,000
$0
$18,200
$908,000
$1,637,000
Segment ID
Trait Description
Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
KLE063
MC02-2
BLM Polygon
KLE064 BLM Polygon
KLE065 BLM Polygon
Bioengineering Reach
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
BioReach General Characteristics
MC02-3
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
MC02-4
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
NMSeg
NMSegOl
PIPENM
General Feature
BUR051 BLM Polygon
Source General Information
Adit drainage
BUR052 BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
Upland waste rock
BUR053 BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
BUR077 BLM Polygon
BUR081 BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
Adit drainage
BUR082 BLM Polygon
BUR083 BLM Polygon
BUR084 BLM Polygon
BUR140 BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
Upland waste rock
Upland waste rock
Upland waste rock
Floodplain sediments
NM01-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
NMSeg02
BUR054 BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
Upland tailings - inactive facilities
Page 21 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
C08a
$3,980,000
$2,790,000
$6,770,000
$558,000
$7,328,000
HAUL-2
$1,240,000
$865,000
$2,105,000
$0
$2,105,000
Upland waste rock (potential intermixed tailings)
C01
$321,000
$225,000
$546,000
$0
$546,000
C08a
$1,330,000
$929,000
$2,259,000
$186,000
$2,445,000
HAUL-2
$412,000
$288,000
$700,000
$0
$700,000
BUR055
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$74,300
$52,000
$126,300
$0
$126,300
C08a
$97,400
$68,100
$165,500
$13,600
$179,100
HAUL-2
$30,200
$21,100
$51,300
$0
$51,300
Upland tailings
C01
$59,900
$41,900
$101,800
$0
$101,800
C08a
$248,000
$173,000
$421,000
$34,700
$455,700
HAUL-2
$76,900
$53,800
$130,700
$0
$130,700
BUR056
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (potential intermixed tailings)
C01
$1,250,000
$878,000
$2,128,000
$0
$2,128,000
C08a
$5,190,000
$3,630,000
$8,820,000
$726,000
$9,546,000
HAUL-2
$1,610,000
$1,130,000
$2,740,000
$0
$2,740,000
BUR057
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$76,700
$53,700
$130,400
$9,970
$140,370
BUR058
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Upland waste rock
C02a
$81,800
$57,200
$139,000
$10,600
$149,600
BUR059
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$147,000
$103,000
$250,000
$19,100
$269,100
BUR060
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$180,000
$126,000
$306,000
$23,500
$329,500
BUR061
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$120,000
$83,800
$203,800
$15,600
$219,400
BUR062
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$57,300
$40,100
$97,400
$7,450
$104,850
BUR170
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$453,000
$317,000
$770,000
$1,160,000
$1,930,000
Upland waste rock (potential intermixed tailings)
C01
$47,100
$33,000
$80,100
$0
$80,100
C08a
$195,000
$136,000
$331,000
$27,300
$358,300
HAUL-2
$60,400
$42,300
$102,700
$0
$102,700
BUR171
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$330,000
$231,000
$561,000
$1,060,000
$1,621,000
BUR196
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$26,100
$18,300
$44,400
$3,400
$47,800
BUR197
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$38,800
$27,100
$65,900
$5,040
$70,940
BUR205
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$54,800
$38,400
$93,200
$7,120
$100,320
NM02-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$921,000
$645,000
$1,566,000
$276,000
$1,842,000
CD-AVG
$157,000
$110,000
$267,000
$47,000
$314,000
FP/RP-AVG
$506,000
$354,000
$860,000
$91,100
$951,100
OFFCH-AVG
$15,600
$10,900
$26,500
$2,810
$29,310
VBS-AVG
$393,000
$275,000
$668,000
$118,000
$786,000
OSB040
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$257,000
$180,000
$437,000
$0
$437,000
C08a
$336,000
$235,000
$571,000
$47,100
$618,100
HAUL-2
$104,000
$73,000
$177,000
$0
$177,000
OSB044
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$135,000
$94,500
$229,500
$0
$229,500
C08a
$177,000
$124,000
$301,000
$24,800
$325,800
Page 22 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
NMSeg03
NMSeg04
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
HAUL-2
$54,900
$38,400
$93,300
$0
$93,300
Upland tailings (jig tailings)
C01
$1,540,000
$1,080,000
$2,620,000
$0
$2,620,000
C08a
$6,370,000
$4,460,000
$10,830,000
$892,000
$11,722,000
HAUL-2
$1,980,000
$1,380,000
$3,360,000
$0
$3,360,000
Upland waste rock
C01
$72,800
$50,900
$123,700
$0
$123,700
C08a
$301,000
$211,000
$512,000
$42,100
$554,100
HAUL-2
$93,300
$65,300
$158,600
$0
$158,600
OSB045
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$70,800
$49,600
$120,400
$9,210
$129,610
OSB046
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$29,500
$20,700
$50,200
$3,840
$54,040
OSB048
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$12,600
$8,850
$21,450
$1,640
$23,090
OSB056
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$21,600
$15,100
$36,700
$0
$36,700
C08a
$28,300
$19,800
$48,100
$3,960
$52,060
HAUL-2
$8,780
$6,150
$14,930
$0
$14,930
OSB057
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$176,000
$123,000
$299,000
$0
$299,000
C08a
$230,000
$161,000
$391,000
$32,200
$423,200
HAUL-2
$71,400
$50,000
$121,400
$0
$121,400
OSB058
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$21,600
$15,100
$36,700
$0
$36,700
C08a
$28,300
$19,800
$48,100
$3,960
$52,060
HAUL-2
$8,780
$6,150
$14,930
$0
$14,930
OSB088
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$3,920
$4,200
$8,120
$2,970
$11,090
OSB089
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$10,600
$11,300
$21,900
$8,690
$30,590
NM03-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
CD-AVG
$76,200
$53,400
$129,600
$22,900
$152,500
FP/RP-AVG
$621,000
$434,000
$1,055,000
$112,000
$1,167,000
OFFCH-AVG
$56,000
$39,200
$95,200
$10,100
$105,300
VBS-AVG
$241,000
$169,000
$410,000
$72,300
$482,300
OSB041
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$69,100
$48,400
$117,500
$8,990
$126,490
OSB042
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$16,000
$11,200
$27,200
$2,080
$29,280
OSB043
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$113,000
$79,100
$192,100
$14,700
$206,800
OSB049
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$46,400
$32,500
$78,900
$6,030
$84,930
OSB081
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$11,800
$8,260
$20,060
$1,530
$21,590
OSB087
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$8,430
$5,900
$14,330
$1,100
$15,430
NM04-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$252,000
$177,000
$429,000
$75,700
$504,700
CD-AVG
$43,300
$30,300
$73,600
$13,000
$86,600
CH REAL-1
$1,160,000
$815,000
$1,975,000
$198,000
$2,173,000
FP/RP-AVG
$194,000
$136,000
$330,000
$34,900
$364,900
OFFCH-AVG
$101,000
$70,800
$171,800
$18,200
$190,000
VBS-AVG
$108,000
$75,300
$183,300
$32,300
$215,600
NM04-2
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$87,500
$61,200
$148,700
$26,200
$174,900
CD-AVG
$14,400
$10,100
$24,500
$4,330
$28,830
CH REAL-1
$404,000
$282,000
$686,000
$68,600
$754,600
Page 23 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct and
Direct Capital 2009 Indirect Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
TCD Cost Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) Year NPV)
FP/RP-AVG
$192,000
$135,000
$327,000
$34,600
$361,600
VBS-AVG
$37,300
$26,100
$63,400
$11,200
$74,600
NM04-3
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$677,000
$474,000
$1,151,000
$203,000
$1,354,000
CD-AVG
$115,000
$80,800
$195,800
$34,600
$230,400
CH REAL-1
$3,120,000
$2,190,000
$5,310,000
$531,000
$5,841,000
FP/RP-AVG
$893,000
$625,000
$1,518,000
$161,000
$1,679,000
VBS-AVG
$289,000
$202,000
$491,000
$86,600
$577,600
OSB031
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$47,200
$33,000
$80,200
$6,140
$86,340
OSB032
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$85,600
$59,900
$145,500
$0
$145,500
C08a
$354,000
$248,000
$602,000
$49,600
$651,600
HAUL-2
$110,000
$76,900
$186,900
$0
$186,900
OSB033
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$68,500
$47,900
$116,400
$0
$116,400
C08a
$283,000
$198,000
$481,000
$39,600
$520,600
HAUL-2
$87,800
$61,500
$149,300
$0
$149,300
OSB034
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$25,300
$17,700
$43,000
$3,290
$46,290
OSB035
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$41,300
$28,900
$70,200
$5,370
$75,570
OSB036
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$21,100
$14,800
$35,900
$2,740
$38,640
OSB037
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$59,900
$41,900
$101,800
$7,780
$109,580
OSB038
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$133,000
$92,900
$225,900
$0
$225,900
C08a
$549,000
$384,000
$933,000
$76,800
$1,009,800
HAUL-2
$170,000
$119,000
$289,000
$0
$289,000
OSB039
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$4,100
$4,390
$8,490
$3,110
$11,600
Buildings & structures
HH-4
$1,690,000
$1,180,000
$2,870,000
$219,000
$3,089,000
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$297,000
$208,000
$505,000
$0
$505,000
C08a
$389,000
$273,000
$662,000
$54,500
$716,500
HAUL-2
$121,000
$84,500
$205,500
$0
$205,500
Upland tailings
C01
$47,100
$33,000
$80,100
$0
$80,100
C08a
$195,000
$136,000
$331,000
$27,300
$358,300
HAUL-2
$60,400
$42,300
$102,700
$0
$102,700
Upland waste rock
C02a
$991,000
$694,000
$1,685,000
$129,000
$1,814,000
OSB052
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings - inactive facilities
C01
$856,000
$599,000
$1,455,000
$0
$1,455,000
C08a
$3,540,000
$2,480,000
$6,020,000
$496,000
$6,516,000
HAUL-2
$1,100,000
$769,000
$1,869,000
$0
$1,869,000
OSB055
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$4,040
$4,320
$8,360
$3,060
$11,420
Upland waste rock
C02a
$30,300
$21,200
$51,500
$3,950
$55,450
OSB059
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$446,000
$312,000
$758,000
$0
$758,000
C08a
$584,000
$409,000
$993,000
$81,800
$1,074,800
HAUL-2
$181,000
$127,000
$308,000
$0
$308,000
OSB060
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$10,800
$7,560
$18,360
$0
$18,360
C08a
$14,200
$9,910
$24,110
$1,980
$26,090
Trait Description
Segment ID Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
Page 24 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
PineCrkSegOl
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
HAUL-2
$4,390
$3,070
$7,460
$0
$7,460
OSB061
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$30,000
$21,000
$51,000
$0
$51,000
C08a
$124,000
$86,700
$210,700
$17,300
$228,000
HAUL-2
$38,400
$26,900
$65,300
$0
$65,300
OSB082
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$55,600
$38,900
$94,500
$0
$94,500
C08a
$230,000
$161,000
$391,000
$32,200
$423,200
HAUL-2
$71,400
$50,000
$121,400
$0
$121,400
OSB083
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$64,900
$45,400
$110,300
$8,440
$118,740
OSB114
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,910
OSB115
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
OSB116
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$26,100
$18,300
$44,400
$3,400
$47,800
WAL006
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
WAL033
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$459,000
$321,000
$780,000
$0
$780,000
C08a
$602,000
$421,000
$1,023,000
$84,300
$1,107,300
HAUL-2
$187,000
$131,000
$318,000
$0
$318,000
WAL069
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$20,200
$14,200
$34,400
$2,630
$37,030
WAL075
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$7,590
$5,310
$12,900
$986
$13,886
WAL078
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$22,800
$15,900
$38,700
$2,960
$41,660
MAS004
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$322,000
$225,000
$547,000
$1,050,000
$1,597,000
Upland waste rock
C02a
$71,700
$50,200
$121,900
$9,320
$131,220
MAS005
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$24,400
$17,100
$41,500
$3,180
$44,680
MAS006
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings - inactive Facilities
C01
$180,000
$126,000
$306,000
$0
$306,000
C08a
$743,000
$520,000
$1,263,000
$104,000
$1,367,000
HAUL-2
$231,000
$161,000
$392,000
$0
$392,000
MAS007
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$348,000
$243,000
$591,000
$595,000
$1,186,000
Upland waste rock
C01
$205,000
$144,000
$349,000
$0
$349,000
C08a
$850,000
$595,000
$1,445,000
$119,000
$1,564,000
HAUL-2
$264,000
$184,000
$448,000
$0
$448,000
MAS008
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$107,000
$74,900
$181,900
$0
$181,900
C08a
$443,000
$310,000
$753,000
$62,000
$815,000
HAUL-2
$137,000
$96,100
$233,100
$0
$233,100
MAS009
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$135,000
$94,400
$229,400
$527,000
$756,400
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$31,800
$22,300
$54,100
$0
$54,100
C08a
$132,000
$92,200
$224,200
$18,400
$242,600
HAUL-2
$40,800
$28,600
$69,400
$0
$69,400
Page 25 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MAS011 BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$136,000
$95,300
$231,300
$527,000
$758,300
MAS012 BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$2,140
$1,500
$3,640
$0
$3,640
C08a
$8,850
$6,200
$15,050
$1,240
$16,290
HAUL-2
$2,750
$1,920
$4,670
$0
$4,670
MAS013 BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$20,100
$14,100
$34,200
$0
$34,200
C08a
$83,200
$58,200
$141,400
$11,600
$153,000
HAUL-2
$25,800
$18,100
$43,900
$0
$43,900
MAS014 BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Seep
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Upland tailings
C01
$342
$240
$582
$0
$582
C08a
$1,420
$991
$2,411
$198
$2,609
HAUL-2
$439
$307
$746
$0
$746
Upland waste rock
C01
$131,000
$92,000
$223,000
$0
$223,000
C07
$452,000
$316,000
$768,000
$99,300
$867,300
MAS015 BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$152,000
$106,000
$258,000
$528,000
$786,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$4,280
$3,000
$7,280
$0
$7,280
C08a
$17,700
$12,400
$30,100
$2,480
$32,580
HAUL-2
$5,490
$3,840
$9,330
$0
$9,330
MAS016 BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$135,000
$94,400
$229,400
$527,000
$756,400
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$99,600
$69,700
$169,300
$0
$169,300
C08a
$412,000
$288,000
$700,000
$57,700
$757,700
HAUL-2
$128,000
$89,500
$217,500
$0
$217,500
MAS017 BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$268,000
$188,000
$456,000
$0
$456,000
C08a
$1,110,000
$776,000
$1,886,000
$155,000
$2,041,000
HAUL-2
$344,000
$241,000
$585,000
$0
$585,000
MAS018 BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$11,600
$8,090
$19,690
$0
$19,690
C08a
$47,800
$33,500
$81,300
$6,690
$87,990
HAUL-2
$14,800
$10,400
$25,200
$0
$25,200
MAS019 BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$4,280
$3,000
$7,280
$0
$7,280
C08a
$17,700
$12,400
$30,100
$2,480
$32,580
HAUL-2
$5,490
$3,840
$9,330
$0
$9,330
MAS020 BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$391,000
$274,000
$665,000
$550,000
$1,215,000
MAS021 BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
Page 26 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct and
Direct Capital 2009 Indirect Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
TCD Cost Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) Year NPV)
WT02
$389,000
$272,000
$661,000
$1,140,000
$1,801,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$4,280
$3,000
$7,280
$0
$7,280
C08a
$17,700
$12,400
$30,100
$2,480
$32,580
HAUL-2
$5,490
$3,840
$9,330
$0
$9,330
MAS022
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$205,000
$144,000
$349,000
$0
$349,000
C08a
$850,000
$595,000
$1,445,000
$119,000
$1,564,000
HAUL-2
$264,000
$184,000
$448,000
$0
$448,000
MAS023
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$4,280
$3,000
$7,280
$0
$7,280
C08a
$17,700
$12,400
$30,100
$2,480
$32,580
HAUL-2
$5,490
$3,840
$9,330
$0
$9,330
MAS025
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$714,000
$500,000
$1,214,000
$661,000
$1,875,000
MAS025
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock (intermixed tailings)
C01
$150,000
$105,000
$255,000
$0
$255,000
C08a
$620,000
$434,000
$1,054,000
$86,700
$1,140,700
HAUL-2
$192,000
$135,000
$327,000
$0
$327,000
MAS027
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$30,000
$21,000
$51,000
$0
$51,000
C08a
$124,000
$86,700
$210,700
$17,300
$228,000
HAUL-2
$38,400
$26,900
$65,300
$0
$65,300
MAS028
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$46,200
$32,400
$78,600
$0
$78,600
C08a
$191,000
$134,000
$325,000
$26,800
$351,800
HAUL-2
$59,300
$41,500
$100,800
$0
$100,800
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$139,000
$97,000
$236,000
$528,000
$764,000
MAS029
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (intermixed tailings)
C01
$3,000
$2,100
$5,100
$0
$5,100
C08a
$12,400
$8,670
$21,070
$1,730
$22,800
HAUL-2
$3,840
$2,690
$6,530
$0
$6,530
MAS030
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$28,800
$20,100
$48,900
$0
$48,900
C08a
$119,000
$83,300
$202,300
$16,700
$219,000
HAUL-2
$36,900
$25,800
$62,700
$0
$62,700
MAS031
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$18,500
$12,900
$31,400
$0
$31,400
C08a
$76,500
$53,500
$130,000
$10,700
$140,700
HAUL-2
$23,700
$16,600
$40,300
$0
$40,300
MAS032
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$342
$240
$582
$0
$582
C08a
$1,420
$991
$2,411
$198
$2,609
HAUL-2
$439
$307
$746
$0
$746
MAS033
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$20,500
$14,400
$34,900
$0
$34,900
C08a
$85,000
$59,500
$144,500
$11,900
$156,400
HAUL-2
$26,400
$18,400
$44,800
$0
$44,800
MAS034
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$12,600
$8,850
$21,450
$1,640
$23,090
MAS035
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$34,200
$24,000
$58,200
$0
$58,200
C08a
$142,000
$99,100
$241,100
$19,800
$260,900
HAUL-2
$43,900
$30,700
$74,600
$0
$74,600
Trait Description
Segment ID Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
Page 27 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MAS036
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings
C01
$11,600
$8,090
$19,690
$0
$19,690
C08a
$47,800
$33,500
$81,300
$6,690
$87,990
HAUL-2
$14,800
$10,400
$25,200
$0
$25,200
MAS040
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$18,600
$13,000
$31,600
$0
$31,600
C08a
$24,400
$17,100
$41,500
$3,420
$44,920
HAUL-2
$7,580
$5,300
$12,880
$0
$12,880
MAS041
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$31,600
$22,100
$53,700
$0
$53,700
C08a
$41,400
$29,000
$70,400
$5,800
$76,200
HAUL-2
$12,800
$8,990
$21,790
$0
$21,790
MAS042
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$14,600
$10,200
$24,800
$0
$24,800
C08a
$19,100
$13,400
$32,500
$2,680
$35,180
HAUL-2
$5,930
$4,150
$10,080
$0
$10,080
MAS043
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$40,500
$28,400
$68,900
$0
$68,900
C08a
$53,100
$37,200
$90,300
$7,430
$97,730
HAUL-2
$16,500
$11,500
$28,000
$0
$28,000
MAS045
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$40,500
$28,400
$68,900
$0
$68,900
C08a
$53,100
$37,200
$90,300
$7,430
$97,730
HAUL-2
$16,500
$11,500
$28,000
$0
$28,000
MAS046
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$322,000
$225,000
$547,000
$0
$547,000
C08a
$422,000
$296,000
$718,000
$59,100
$777,100
HAUL-2
$131,000
$91,700
$222,700
$0
$222,700
MAS048
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings
C01
$21,200
$14,800
$36,000
$0
$36,000
C08a
$87,600
$61,300
$148,900
$12,300
$161,200
HAUL-2
$27,200
$19,000
$46,200
$0
$46,200
Upland tailings
C01
$69,800
$48,900
$118,700
$0
$118,700
C08a
$289,000
$202,000
$491,000
$40,400
$531,400
HAUL-2
$89,600
$62,700
$152,300
$0
$152,300
MAS049
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings
C01
$154,000
$108,000
$262,000
$0
$262,000
C08a
$637,000
$446,000
$1,083,000
$89,200
$1,172,200
HAUL-2
$198,000
$138,000
$336,000
$0
$336,000
MAS050
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$374,000
$261,000
$635,000
$1,150,000
$1,785,000
Floodplain waste rock (intermixed tailings)
C01
$91,600
$64,100
$155,700
$0
$155,700
C08a
$379,000
$265,000
$644,000
$53,000
$697,000
HAUL-2
$117,000
$82,200
$199,200
$0
$199,200
MAS051
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$38,400
$26,900
$65,300
$4,990
$70,290
MAS052
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$22,600
$15,800
$38,400
$0
$38,400
C08a
$93,500
$65,400
$158,900
$13,100
$172,000
HAUL-2
$29,000
$20,300
$49,300
$0
$49,300
MAS053
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
Page 28 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MAS054
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$184,000
$129,000
$313,000
$538,000
$851,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$45,200
$31,600
$76,800
$0
$76,800
C08a
$187,000
$131,000
$318,000
$26,200
$344,200
HAUL-2
$58,000
$40,600
$98,600
$0
$98,600
MAS055
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
MAS056
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$31,700
$22,200
$53,900
$4,120
$58,020
MAS057
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
MAS058
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$25,300
$17,700
$43,000
$3,290
$46,290
MAS059
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$23,600
$16,500
$40,100
$3,070
$43,170
MAS060
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$45,100
$31,600
$76,700
$5,860
$82,560
MAS061
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$26,100
$18,300
$44,400
$3,400
$47,800
MAS062
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$38,400
$26,900
$65,300
$4,990
$70,290
MAS063
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$12,600
$8,850
$21,450
$1,640
$23,090
MAS065
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
MAS067
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$30,300
$21,200
$51,500
$3,950
$55,450
MAS068
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
MAS069
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$159,000
$112,000
$271,000
$20,700
$291,700
MAS072
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
MAS075
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$16,000
$11,200
$27,200
$2,080
$29,280
MAS076
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$37,900
$26,600
$64,500
$4,930
$69,430
MAS077
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$91,900
$64,300
$156,200
$11,900
$168,100
MAS078
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$354,000
$247,000
$601,000
$578,000
$1,179,000
MAS079
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$160,000
$112,000
$272,000
$0
$272,000
MAS079
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C08a
$660,000
$462,000
$1,122,000
$92,400
$1,214,400
HAUL-2
$205,000
$143,000
$348,000
$0
$348,000
MAS080
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$36,200
$25,400
$61,600
$4,710
$66,310
MAS081
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C02a
$177,000
$124,000
$301,000
$23,000
$324,000
MAS082
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$104,000
$72,500
$176,500
$13,500
$190,000
MAS083
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$34,900
$24,400
$59,300
$0
$59,300
C08a
$144,000
$101,000
$245,000
$20,200
$265,200
Page 29 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
PineCrkSeg02
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
HAUL-2
$44,700
$31,300
$76,000
$0
$76,000
Upland waste rock
C01
$124,000
$86,900
$210,900
$0
$210,900
C08a
$513,000
$359,000
$872,000
$71,900
$943,900
HAUL-2
$159,000
$111,000
$270,000
$0
$270,000
MAS084
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings
C01
$128,000
$89,900
$217,900
$0
$217,900
C08a
$531,000
$372,000
$903,000
$74,300
$977,300
HAUL-2
$165,000
$115,000
$280,000
$0
$280,000
TWI001
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$47,200
$33,000
$80,200
$6,140
$86,340
TWI002
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$24,700
$17,300
$42,000
$0
$42,000
C08a
$102,000
$71,400
$173,400
$14,300
$187,700
HAUL-2
$31,600
$22,100
$53,700
$0
$53,700
TWI003
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$13,500
$9,440
$22,940
$1,750
$24,690
TWI004
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$19,400
$13,600
$33,000
$2,520
$35,520
TWI005
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$25,300
$17,700
$43,000
$3,290
$46,290
TWI006
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$20,500
$14,400
$34,900
$0
$34,900
C08a
$85,000
$59,500
$144,500
$11,900
$156,400
HAUL-2
$26,400
$18,400
$44,800
$0
$44,800
TWI007
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$41,800
$29,200
$71,000
$5,430
$76,430
TWI008
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
TWI009
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$27,700
$19,400
$47,100
$0
$47,100
C08a
$115,000
$80,300
$195,300
$16,100
$211,400
HAUL-2
$35,600
$24,900
$60,500
$0
$60,500
TWI010
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$55,100
$38,600
$93,700
$7,160
$100,860
TWI011
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
TWI012
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$16,400
$11,500
$27,900
$0
$27,900
C08a
$68,000
$47,600
$115,600
$9,520
$125,120
HAUL-2
$21,100
$14,800
$35,900
$0
$35,900
TWI013
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C01
$32,900
$23,000
$55,900
$0
$55,900
C08a
$136,000
$95,200
$231,200
$19,000
$250,200
HAUL-2
$42,200
$29,500
$71,700
$0
$71,700
TWI014
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$25,700
$18,000
$43,700
$0
$43,700
C08a
$106,000
$74,300
$180,300
$14,900
$195,200
HAUL-2
$32,900
$23,100
$56,000
$0
$56,000
TWI015
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$53,400
$37,400
$90,800
$6,950
$97,750
TWI016
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$41,800
$29,200
$71,000
$5,430
$76,430
TWI017
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$22,800
$15,900
$38,700
$2,960
$41,660
TWI018
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
Page 30 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
TWI019
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$55,100
$38,600
$93,700
$7,160
$100,860
TWI020
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
TWI021
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,910
TWI022
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$61,500
$43,100
$104,600
$8,000
$112,600
TWI023
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$42,200
$29,500
$71,700
$5,480
$77,180
TWI024
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$35,400
$24,800
$60,200
$4,600
$64,800
TWI025
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$25,300
$17,700
$43,000
$3,290
$46,290
TWI026
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$116,000
$81,400
$197,400
$15,100
$212,500
TWI027
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
TWI028
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$30,100
$21,000
$51,100
$3,910
$55,010
TWI029
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
TWI030
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
KLW072
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$87,700
$61,400
$149,100
$11,400
$160,500
KLW073
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C01
$36,000
$25,200
$61,200
$0
$61,200
C08a
$149,000
$104,000
$253,000
$20,800
$273,800
HAUL-2
$46,100
$32,300
$78,400
$0
$78,400
KLW075
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$72,900
$51,100
$124,000
$0
$124,000
C08a
$302,000
$211,000
$513,000
$42,200
$555,200
HAUL-2
$93,500
$65,500
$159,000
$0
$159,000
KLW077
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$47,300
$33,100
$80,400
$0
$80,400
C08a
$195,000
$137,000
$332,000
$27,400
$359,400
HAUL-2
$60,600
$42,400
$103,000
$0
$103,000
KLW079
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$41,100
$28,800
$69,900
$0
$69,900
C08a
$170,000
$119,000
$289,000
$23,800
$312,800
HAUL-2
$52,700
$36,900
$89,600
$0
$89,600
KLW080
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C01
$30,800
$21,600
$52,400
$0
$52,400
C07
$106,000
$74,100
$180,100
$23,300
$203,400
KLW081
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$156,000
$109,000
$265,000
$532,000
$797,000
KLW082
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$34,900
$24,400
$59,300
$0
$59,300
C08a
$144,000
$101,000
$245,000
$20,200
$265,200
HAUL-2
$44,800
$31,400
$76,200
$0
$76,200
KLW083
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$59,600
$41,700
$101,300
$0
$101,300
PineCrkSeg03
Page 31 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
C08a
$246,000
$172,000
$418,000
$34,500
$452,500
HAUL-2
$76,400
$53,500
$129,900
$0
$129,900
KLW084
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$28,700
$20,100
$48,800
$3,730
$52,530
KLW085
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$61,600
$43,100
$104,700
$0
$104,700
C08a
$255,000
$178,000
$433,000
$35,700
$468,700
HAUL-2
$79,100
$55,300
$134,400
$0
$134,400
MAS001
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$91,000
$63,700
$154,700
$11,800
$166,500
MAS003
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$152,000
$106,000
$258,000
$532,000
$790,000
Upland waste rock (intermixed tailings)
C06
$314,000
$220,000
$534,000
$72,200
$606,200
MAS064
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$21,100
$14,800
$35,900
$2,740
$38,640
MAS066
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C08a
$3,540
$2,480
$6,020
$496
$6,516
HAUL-2
$1,100
$769
$1,869
$0
$1,869
PC03-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$248,000
$174,000
$422,000
$74,400
$496,400
CD-AVG
$84,500
$59,100
$143,600
$25,300
$168,900
FP/RP-AVG
$313,000
$219,000
$532,000
$56,300
$588,300
OFFCH-AVG
$792,000
$554,000
$1,346,000
$143,000
$1,489,000
VBS-AVG
$106,000
$74,000
$180,000
$31,700
$211,700
PC03-2
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$201,000
$141,000
$342,000
$60,400
$402,400
CD-AVG
$45,300
$31,700
$77,000
$13,600
$90,600
FP/RP-AVG
$265,000
$186,000
$451,000
$47,800
$498,800
OFFCH-AVG
$679,000
$475,000
$1,154,000
$122,000
$1,276,000
VBS-AVG
$85,700
$60,000
$145,700
$25,700
$171,400
PC03-3
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$122,000
$85,400
$207,400
$36,600
$244,000
CD-AVG
$20,600
$14,400
$35,000
$6,180
$41,180
FP/RP-AVG
$381,000
$267,000
$648,000
$68,600
$716,600
VBS-AVG
$52,000
$36,400
$88,400
$15,600
$104,000
UpperSFCDRSeg PIPEUG
General Feature
Source General Information
PIPE-1
$332,000
$232,000
$564,000
$26,600
$590,600
PIPE-2
$12,900
$9,050
$21,950
$1,030
$22,980
PIPE-3
$6,420,000
$4,490,000
$10,910,000
$513,000
$11,423,000
PIPE-4
$5,080,000
$3,560,000
$8,640,000
$406,000
$9,046,000
UpperSFCDRSegOl BUR136
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$25,300
$17,700
$43,000
$3,290
$46,290
BUR137
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$27,000
$18,900
$45,900
$3,510
$49,410
LOK001
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$109,000
$76,100
$185,100
$14,100
$199,200
LOK002
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$107,000
$74,900
$181,900
$13,900
$195,800
LOK003
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$20,200
$14,200
$34,400
$2,630
$37,030
LOK004
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$521,000
$365,000
$886,000
$1,210,000
$2,096,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$262,000
$183,000
$445,000
$0
$445,000
C08a
$1,080,000
$758,000
$1,838,000
$152,000
$1,990,000
HAUL-2
$336,000
$235,000
$571,000
$0
$571,000
Page 32 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
LOK005
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$15,200
$10,600
$25,800
$1,970
$27,770
LOK006
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$26,700
$18,700
$45,400
$0
$45,400
C08a
$110,000
$77,300
$187,300
$15,500
$202,800
HAUL-2
$34,300
$24,000
$58,300
$0
$58,300
LOK007
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$27,700
$19,400
$47,100
$0
$47,100
C07
$95,300
$66,700
$162,000
$21,000
$183,000
LOK008
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$39,000
$27,300
$66,300
$0
$66,300
C07
$134,000
$93,800
$227,800
$29,500
$257,300
LOK009
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$94,500
$66,200
$160,700
$0
$160,700
C07
$325,000
$227,000
$552,000
$71,400
$623,400
LOK010
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$14,400
$10,100
$24,500
$0
$24,500
C08a
$59,500
$41,600
$101,100
$8,330
$109,430
HAUL-2
$18,400
$12,900
$31,300
$0
$31,300
LOK011
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$3,620,000
$3,870,000
$7,490,000
$2,630,000
$10,120,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$235,000
$165,000
$400,000
$0
$400,000
C07
$809,000
$566,000
$1,375,000
$178,000
$1,553,000
LOK012
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$122,000
$85,600
$207,600
$15,900
$223,500
LOK013
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$108,000
$75,500
$183,500
$14,000
$197,500
LOK014
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Upland waste rock
C02a
$40,500
$28,300
$68,800
$5,260
$74,060
LOK015
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$10,100
$7,080
$17,180
$1,320
$18,500
LOK016
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$69,100
$48,400
$117,500
$8,990
$126,490
LOK017
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$159,000
$111,000
$270,000
$532,000
$802,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$133,000
$92,900
$225,900
$0
$225,900
C08a
$549,000
$384,000
$933,000
$76,800
$1,009,800
HAUL-2
$170,000
$119,000
$289,000
$0
$289,000
LOK018
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$47,200
$33,000
$80,200
$6,140
$86,340
LOK019
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$134,000
$93,900
$227,900
$527,000
$754,900
Upland waste rock
C02b
$110,000
$77,200
$187,200
$14,300
$201,500
LOK020
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$45,500
$31,900
$77,400
$5,920
$83,320
LOK021
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$96,100
$67,300
$163,400
$12,500
$175,900
LOK022
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$124,000
$86,700
$210,700
$16,100
$226,800
LOK024
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Upland waste rock
C02a
$111,000
$77,900
$188,900
$14,500
$203,400
LOK025
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$32,000
$22,400
$54,400
$4,160
$58,560
Page 33 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
LOK026
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$28,700
$20,100
$48,800
$3,730
$52,530
LOK027
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$16,000
$11,200
$27,200
$2,080
$29,280
LOK028
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Upland waste rock
C02a
$38,800
$27,100
$65,900
$5,040
$70,940
LOK041
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$79,200
$55,500
$134,700
$10,300
$145,000
LOK044
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$127,000
$88,800
$215,800
$16,500
$232,300
LOK045
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$31,200
$21,800
$53,000
$4,050
$57,050
LOK047
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$191,000
$133,000
$324,000
$24,800
$348,800
LOK048
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$27,700
$19,400
$47,100
$0
$47,100
C07
$95,300
$66,700
$162,000
$21,000
$183,000
LOK050
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings - inactive facilities
C01
$55,600
$38,900
$94,500
$0
$94,500
C08a
$230,000
$161,000
$391,000
$32,200
$423,200
HAUL-2
$71,400
$50,000
$121,400
$0
$121,400
LOK051
BLM Polygon
Floodplain artificial fill
C01
$196,000
$137,000
$333,000
$0
$333,000
C08a
$811,000
$568,000
$1,379,000
$114,000
$1,493,000
HAUL-2
$252,000
$176,000
$428,000
$0
$428,000
LOK052
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$26,100
$18,300
$44,400
$3,400
$47,800
LOK053
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$26,100
$18,300
$44,400
$3,400
$47,800
LOK054
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$11,000
$7,670
$18,670
$1,420
$20,090
MUL001
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$18,300
$19,600
$37,900
$13,900
$51,800
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$323,000
$226,000
$549,000
$0
$549,000
C08a
$1,330,000
$934,000
$2,264,000
$187,000
$2,451,000
HAUL-2
$414,000
$290,000
$704,000
$0
$704,000
MUL002
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$98,400
$68,900
$167,300
$0
$167,300
C08a
$407,000
$285,000
$692,000
$57,000
$749,000
HAUL-2
$126,000
$88,400
$214,400
$0
$214,400
MUL003
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$231,000
$162,000
$393,000
$30,000
$423,000
MUL004
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$84,200
$59,000
$143,200
$0
$143,200
C08a
$348,000
$244,000
$592,000
$48,800
$640,800
HAUL-2
$108,000
$75,600
$183,600
$0
$183,600
MUL005
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$28,700
$20,100
$48,800
$3,730
$52,530
MUL006
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$75,000
$52,500
$127,500
$0
$127,500
C08a
$310,000
$217,000
$527,000
$43,400
$570,400
HAUL-2
$96,200
$67,300
$163,500
$0
$163,500
MUL007
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$80,100
$56,100
$136,200
$10,400
$146,600
MUL008
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$141,000
$98,900
$239,900
$0
$239,900
C08a
$584,000
$409,000
$993,000
$81,800
$1,074,800
HAUL-2
$181,000
$127,000
$308,000
$0
$308,000
MUL009
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$21,100
$14,800
$35,900
$2,740
$38,640
MUL010
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$27,000
$18,900
$45,900
$3,510
$49,410
Page 34 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MUL011
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$12,600
$8,850
$21,450
$1,640
$23,090
MUL012
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$210,000
$224,000
$434,000
$197,000
$631,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$924,000
$647,000
$1,571,000
$0
$1,571,000
C07
$3,180,000
$2,220,000
$5,400,000
$699,000
$6,099,000
MUL013
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$60,300
$64,500
$124,800
$45,700
$170,500
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$44,700
$31,300
$76,000
$5,810
$81,810
MUL014
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$1,100,000
$1,170,000
$2,270,000
$832,000
$3,102,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$33,900
$23,700
$57,600
$0
$57,600
C07
$116,000
$81,500
$197,500
$25,600
$223,100
MUL015
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$98,400
$68,900
$167,300
$0
$167,300
C07
$338,000
$237,000
$575,000
$74,400
$649,400
MUL016
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$46,400
$32,500
$78,900
$6,030
$84,930
MUL017
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$45,500
$31,900
$77,400
$5,920
$83,320
MUL018
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$61,600
$43,100
$104,700
$0
$104,700
C08a
$255,000
$178,000
$433,000
$35,700
$468,700
HAUL-2
$79,100
$55,300
$134,400
$0
$134,400
MUL019
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT01
$558,000
$597,000
$1,155,000
$540,000
$1,695,000
Buildings & structures
HH-4
$1,690,000
$1,180,000
$2,870,000
$219,000
$3,089,000
Floodplain tailings
C01
$364,000
$255,000
$619,000
$0
$619,000
C08a
$1,500,000
$1,050,000
$2,550,000
$211,000
$2,761,000
HAUL-2
$467,000
$327,000
$794,000
$0
$794,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$1,440,000
$1,010,000
$2,450,000
$0
$2,450,000
C08a
$5,950,000
$4,170,000
$10,120,000
$833,000
$10,953,000
HAUL-2
$1,850,000
$1,290,000
$3,140,000
$0
$3,140,000
MUL020
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments (underlying tailings pond)
C11j
$5,090,000
$3,560,000
$8,650,000
$102,000
$8,752,000
Floodplain tailings - active facilities
C09
$2,710,000
$1,900,000
$4,610,000
$543,000
$5,153,000
Groundwater
WT01
$30,200
$32,300
$62,500
$9,150
$71,650
MUL021
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$124,000
$87,000
$211,000
$0
$211,000
C08a
$514,000
$360,000
$874,000
$72,000
$946,000
HAUL-2
$159,000
$112,000
$271,000
$0
$271,000
MUL022
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$29,500
$20,700
$50,200
$3,840
$54,040
MUL023
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$134,000
$93,500
$227,500
$0
$227,500
C08a
$552,000
$387,000
$939,000
$77,300
$1,016,300
HAUL-2
$171,000
$120,000
$291,000
$0
$291,000
MUL024
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Page 35 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
Upland waste rock
C02b
$187,000
$131,000
$318,000
$24,300
$342,300
MUL025
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$85,100
$59,600
$144,700
$11,100
$155,800
MUL026
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$170,000
$119,000
$289,000
$22,100
$311,100
MUL027
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$221,000
$155,000
$376,000
$547,000
$923,000
Upland waste rock
C01
$102,000
$71,200
$173,200
$0
$173,200
C07
$349,000
$244,000
$593,000
$76,800
$669,800
MUL028
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$388,000
$272,000
$660,000
$600,000
$1,260,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$437,000
$306,000
$743,000
$0
$743,000
C07
$1,500,000
$1,050,000
$2,550,000
$330,000
$2,880,000
MUL029
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$87,300
$61,100
$148,400
$0
$148,400
C07
$300,000
$210,000
$510,000
$66,000
$576,000
MUL030
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$37,000
$25,900
$62,900
$0
$62,900
C07
$127,000
$88,900
$215,900
$27,900
$243,800
MUL031
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$34,900
$24,400
$59,300
$0
$59,300
C07
$120,000
$84,000
$204,000
$26,400
$230,400
MUL032
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$28,700
$20,100
$48,800
$3,730
$52,530
MUL033
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$67,800
$47,500
$115,300
$0
$115,300
C07
$233,000
$163,000
$396,000
$51,200
$447,200
MUL034
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$73,500
$51,400
$124,900
$9,550
$134,450
MUL035
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$25,300
$17,700
$43,000
$3,290
$46,290
MUL036
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$23,600
$16,500
$40,100
$3,070
$43,170
MUL037
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$595,000
$417,000
$1,012,000
$0
$1,012,000
C08a
$781,000
$546,000
$1,327,000
$109,000
$1,436,000
HAUL-2
$242,000
$169,000
$411,000
$0
$411,000
Floodplain sediments (underlying tailings pond)
C11j
$5,410,000
$3,780,000
$9,190,000
$108,000
$9,298,000
Floodplain tailings - active facilities
C09
$2,470,000
$1,730,000
$4,200,000
$494,000
$4,694,000
Groundwater
WT01
$30,200
$32,300
$62,500
$9,150
$71,650
MUL038
BLM Polygon
Floodplain tailings
C01
$55,600
$38,900
$94,500
$0
$94,500
C08a
$230,000
$161,000
$391,000
$32,200
$423,200
HAUL-2
$71,400
$50,000
$121,400
$0
$121,400
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$285,000
$199,000
$484,000
$0
$484,000
C08a
$1,180,000
$824,000
$2,004,000
$165,000
$2,169,000
HAUL-2
$365,000
$255,000
$620,000
$0
$620,000
MUL040
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$16,000
$11,200
$27,200
$2,080
$29,280
MUL041
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$314,000
$220,000
$534,000
$40,800
$574,800
MUL042
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$59,600
$41,700
$101,300
$0
$101,300
C07
$205,000
$143,000
$348,000
$45,000
$393,000
MUL043
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$75,000
$52,500
$127,500
$0
$127,500
C07
$258,000
$180,000
$438,000
$56,700
$494,700
MUL045
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$118,000
$82,700
$200,700
$0
$200,700
Page 36 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
C07
$406,000
$284,000
$690,000
$89,300
$779,300
MUL046
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$29,500
$20,700
$50,200
$3,840
$54,040
MUL047
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$23,600
$16,500
$40,100
$0
$40,100
C07
$81,100
$56,800
$137,900
$17,900
$155,800
MUL048
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$91,400
$64,000
$155,400
$0
$155,400
C08a
$378,000
$265,000
$643,000
$52,900
$695,900
HAUL-2
$117,000
$82,100
$199,100
$0
$199,100
MUL049
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$25,300
$17,700
$43,000
$3,290
$46,290
MUL050
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$31,200
$21,800
$53,000
$4,050
$57,050
MUL051
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$123,000
$86,300
$209,300
$0
$209,300
C07
$423,000
$296,000
$719,000
$93,100
$812,100
MUL052
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$390,000
$273,000
$663,000
$1,160,000
$1,823,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$64,200
$44,900
$109,100
$0
$109,100
C07
$221,000
$154,000
$375,000
$48,500
$423,500
MUL053
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$667,000
$467,000
$1,134,000
$1,330,000
$2,464,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$312,000
$219,000
$531,000
$0
$531,000
C07
$1,070,000
$751,000
$1,821,000
$236,000
$2,057,000
MUL054
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$173,000
$121,000
$294,000
$536,000
$830,000
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
MUL055
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$220,000
$154,000
$374,000
$28,600
$402,600
MUL056
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$29,500
$20,700
$50,200
$3,840
$54,040
MUL057
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$66,600
$46,600
$113,200
$8,660
$121,860
MUL058
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$1,890,000
$1,320,000
$3,210,000
$0
$3,210,000
C08a
$2,480,000
$1,730,000
$4,210,000
$347,000
$4,557,000
HAUL-2
$769,000
$538,000
$1,307,000
$0
$1,307,000
Floodplain sediments (underlying tailings pond)
C11j
$9,700,000
$6,790,000
$16,490,000
$194,000
$16,684,000
Floodplain tailings - active facilities
C09
$8,540,000
$5,980,000
$14,520,000
$1,710,000
$16,230,000
Groundwater
WT01
$30,200
$32,300
$62,500
$9,150
$71,650
MUL059
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$96,600
$67,600
$164,200
$0
$164,200
C08a
$399,000
$280,000
$679,000
$55,900
$734,900
HAUL-2
$124,000
$86,700
$210,700
$0
$210,700
MUL060
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$21,600
$15,100
$36,700
$0
$36,700
C08a
$89,200
$62,400
$151,600
$12,500
$164,100
HAUL-2
$27,700
$19,400
$47,100
$0
$47,100
MUL061
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$29,500
$20,700
$50,200
$3,840
$54,040
MUL062
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$21,100
$14,800
$35,900
$2,740
$38,640
MUL063
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$21,600
$15,100
$36,700
$0
$36,700
C08a
$89,200
$62,400
$151,600
$12,500
$164,100
Page 37 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct and
Direct Capital 2009 Indirect Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
TCD Cost Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) Year NPV)
HAUL-2
$27,700
$19,400
$47,100
$0
$47,100
MUL064
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$47,200
$33,000
$80,200
$6,140
$86,340
MUL065
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$31,800
$22,300
$54,100
$0
$54,100
C08a
$132,000
$92,200
$224,200
$18,400
$242,600
HAUL-2
$40,800
$28,600
$69,400
$0
$69,400
MUL066
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$79,200
$55,500
$134,700
$10,300
$145,000
MUL067
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$113,000
$79,100
$192,100
$14,700
$206,800
MUL068
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$30,300
$21,200
$51,500
$3,950
$55,450
MUL069
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,910
MUL071
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$10,700
$7,490
$18,190
$0
$18,190
C08a
$44,300
$31,000
$75,300
$6,200
$81,500
HAUL-2
$13,700
$9,610
$23,310
$0
$23,310
MUL072
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$311,000
$218,000
$529,000
$1,040,000
$1,569,000
Upland waste rock
C02a
$64,900
$45,400
$110,300
$8,440
$118,740
MUL073
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$174,000
$122,000
$296,000
$22,600
$318,600
MUL074
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$38,800
$27,100
$65,900
$5,040
$70,940
MUL075
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$25,300
$17,700
$43,000
$3,290
$46,290
MUL076
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$29,500
$20,700
$50,200
$3,840
$54,040
MUL077
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$20,200
$14,200
$34,400
$2,630
$37,030
MUL078
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$96,100
$67,300
$163,400
$12,500
$175,900
MUL079
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$75,000
$52,500
$127,500
$9,750
$137,250
MUL080
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$28,700
$20,100
$48,800
$3,730
$52,530
MUL081
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT03
$164,000
$115,000
$279,000
$536,000
$815,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$34,200
$24,000
$58,200
$0
$58,200
C08a
$142,000
$99,100
$241,100
$19,800
$260,900
HAUL-2
$43,900
$30,700
$74,600
$0
$74,600
MUL082
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$21,100
$14,800
$35,900
$2,740
$38,640
MUL083
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$65,700
$46,000
$111,700
$0
$111,700
C08a
$272,000
$190,000
$462,000
$38,100
$500,100
HAUL-2
$84,300
$59,000
$143,300
$0
$143,300
MUL084
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$95,300
$66,700
$162,000
$12,400
$174,400
MUL103
BLM Polygon
Adit drainage
C10
$9,680
$6,780
$16,460
$1,740
$18,200
WT02
$493,000
$345,000
$838,000
$1,190,000
$2,028,000
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$27,000
$18,900
$45,900
$0
$45,900
C08a
$112,000
$78,100
$190,100
$15,600
$205,700
HAUL-2
$34,600
$24,200
$58,800
$0
$58,800
MUL107
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$11,000
$7,670
$18,670
$1,420
$20,090
MUL108
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$11,800
$8,260
$20,060
$1,530
$21,590
MUL109
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$14,300
$10,000
$24,300
$1,860
$26,160
Trait Description
Segment ID Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
Page 38 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MUL110
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$11,800
$8,260
$20,060
$1,530
$21,590
MUL111
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$16,000
$11,200
$27,200
$2,080
$29,280
MUL112
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$15,200
$10,600
$25,800
$1,970
$27,770
MUL113
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$17,700
$12,400
$30,100
$2,300
$32,400
MUL114
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,910
MUL115
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$20,200
$14,200
$34,400
$2,630
$37,030
MUL116
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$15,200
$10,600
$25,800
$1,970
$27,770
MUL117
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$23,600
$16,500
$40,100
$3,070
$43,170
MUL118
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$27,000
$18,900
$45,900
$3,510
$49,410
MUL119
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C02a
$23,600
$16,500
$40,100
$3,070
$43,170
MUL120
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$2,400
$1,680
$4,080
$0
$4,080
C08a
$9,910
$6,940
$16,850
$1,390
$18,240
HAUL-2
$3,070
$2,150
$5,220
$0
$5,220
MUL121
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$13,500
$9,440
$22,940
$1,750
$24,690
MUL122
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$17,700
$12,400
$30,100
$2,300
$32,400
MUL123
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$12,600
$8,850
$21,450
$1,640
$23,090
MUL124
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$15,200
$10,600
$25,800
$1,970
$27,770
MUL125
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$21,100
$14,800
$35,900
$2,740
$38,640
MUL126
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,910
MUL127
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$19,400
$13,600
$33,000
$2,520
$35,520
MUL128
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$16,000
$11,200
$27,200
$2,080
$29,280
MUL129
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$114,000
$79,800
$193,800
$0
$193,800
C08a
$472,000
$330,000
$802,000
$66,000
$868,000
HAUL-2
$146,000
$102,000
$248,000
$0
$248,000
MUL130
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$149,000
$104,000
$253,000
$19,400
$272,400
MUL131
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$28,200
$19,800
$48,000
$0
$48,000
C08a
$117,000
$81,800
$198,800
$16,400
$215,200
HAUL-2
$36,200
$25,400
$61,600
$0
$61,600
MUL132
BLM Polygon
Upland tailings
C01
$7,700
$5,390
$13,090
$0
$13,090
C08a
$31,900
$22,300
$54,200
$4,460
$58,660
HAUL-2
$9,880
$6,920
$16,800
$0
$16,800
MUL133
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$21,100
$14,800
$35,900
$2,740
$38,640
MUL134
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$48,900
$34,200
$83,100
$6,360
$89,460
MUL135
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
MUL136
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
MUL137
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$30,300
$21,200
$51,500
$3,950
$55,450
MUL138
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$68,300
$47,800
$116,100
$8,880
$124,980
MUL139
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$856
$599
$1,455
$0
$1,455
C07
$2,940
$2,060
$5,000
$647
$5,647
MUL140
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$14,300
$10,000
$24,300
$1,860
$26,160
Page 39 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description
(Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MUL141
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$130,000
$91,200
$221,200
$0
$221,200
C08a
$171,000
$120,000
$291,000
$23,900
$314,900
HAUL-2
$53,000
$37,100
$90,100
$0
$90,100
MUL142
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$463,000
$324,000
$787,000
$0
$787,000
C08a
$607,000
$425,000
$1,032,000
$85,000
$1,117,000
HAUL-2
$188,000
$132,000
$320,000
$0
$320,000
MUL143
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$30,300
$21,200
$51,500
$3,950
$55,450
MUL144
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$20,200
$14,200
$34,400
$2,630
$37,030
MUL145
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$56,700
$39,700
$96,400
$0
$96,400
C08a
$74,300
$52,000
$126,300
$10,400
$136,700
HAUL-2
$23,100
$16,100
$39,200
$0
$39,200
MUL146
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock (erosion potential)
C01
$135,000
$94,200
$229,200
$0
$229,200
C07
$462,000
$324,000
$786,000
$102,000
$888,000
MUL147
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$16,000
$11,200
$27,200
$2,080
$29,280
MUL148
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02b
$112,000
$78,300
$190,300
$14,500
$204,800
MUL149
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$76,300
$53,400
$129,700
$0
$129,700
C08a
$100,000
$70,000
$170,000
$14,000
$184,000
HAUL-2
$31,000
$21,700
$52,700
$0
$52,700
MUL150
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$204,000
$143,000
$347,000
$0
$347,000
C08a
$267,000
$187,000
$454,000
$37,400
$491,400
HAUL-2
$82,900
$58,000
$140,900
$0
$140,900
MUL151
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$21,100
$14,800
$35,900
$2,740
$38,640
MUL152
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$14,300
$10,000
$24,300
$1,860
$26,160
MUL153
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$103,000
$71,800
$174,800
$0
$174,800
C08a
$135,000
$94,200
$229,200
$18,800
$248,000
HAUL-2
$41,700
$29,200
$70,900
$0
$70,900
MUL154
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$147,000
$103,000
$250,000
$19,100
$269,100
MUL155
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$32,000
$22,400
$54,400
$4,160
$58,560
MUL156
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$14,300
$10,000
$24,300
$1,860
$26,160
MUL157
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$9,270
$6,490
$15,760
$1,210
$16,970
THO019
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$28,700
$20,100
$48,800
$3,730
$52,530
TH0020
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$29,800
$20,900
$50,700
$0
$50,700
C08a
$123,000
$86,200
$209,200
$17,200
$226,400
HAUL-2
$38,200
$26,700
$64,900
$0
$64,900
THO021
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$25,300
$17,700
$43,000
$3,290
$46,290
UG01-1
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
FP/RP-AVG
$14,200
$9,930
$24,130
$2,550
$26,680
UG01-4
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$6,220
$4,360
$10,580
$1,870
$12,450
VBS-AVG
$5,360
$3,750
$9,110
$1,610
$10,720
UG01-5
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$190,000
$133,000
$323,000
$57,000
$380,000
CD-AVG
$63,900
$44,700
$108,600
$19,200
$127,800
FP/RP-AVG
$124,000
$87,100
$211,100
$22,400
$233,500
VBS-AVG
$81,000
$56,700
$137,700
$24,300
$162,000
Page 40 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
Segment ID
2009 Total
Direct and
Trait Description
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Source Type Description (Waste Types)
TCD
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
UG01-6
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$171,000
$120,000
$291,000
$51,200
$342,200
CD-AVG
$61,800
$43,300
$105,100
$18,500
$123,600
FP/RP-AVG
$485,000
$340,000
$825,000
$87,400
$912,400
OFFCH-AVG
$1,580,000
$1,110,000
$2,690,000
$285,000
$2,975,000
VBS-AVG
$135,000
$94,600
$229,600
$40,600
$270,200
UG01-7
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$98,200
$68,700
$166,900
$29,500
$196,400
CD-AVG
$53,600
$37,500
$91,100
$16,100
$107,200
FP/RP-AVG
$281,000
$197,000
$478,000
$50,600
$528,600
VBS-AVG
$77,700
$54,400
$132,100
$23,300
$155,400
UG01-8
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$39,800
$27,800
$67,600
$11,900
$79,500
CD-AVG
$16,500
$11,500
$28,000
$4,940
$32,940
FP/RP-AVG
$206,000
$144,000
$350,000
$37,000
$387,000
VBS-AVG
$14,800
$10,400
$25,200
$4,450
$29,650
UG01-9
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$175,000
$123,000
$298,000
$52,500
$350,500
CD-AVG
$82,400
$57,700
$140,100
$24,700
$164,800
FP/RP-AVG
$133,000
$92,900
$225,900
$23,900
$249,800
VBS-AVG
$139,000
$97,000
$236,000
$41,600
$277,600
UG01-10
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$150,000
$105,000
$255,000
$45,100
$300,100
CD-AVG
$63,900
$44,700
$108,600
$19,200
$127,800
FP/RP-AVG
$156,000
$109,000
$265,000
$28,100
$293,100
VBS-AVG
$56,000
$39,200
$95,200
$16,800
$112,000
UG01-11
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$42,700
$29,900
$72,600
$12,800
$85,400
CD-AVG
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$5,560
$37,060
FP/RP-AVG
$143,000
$100,000
$243,000
$25,800
$268,800
VBS-AVG
$33,800
$23,700
$57,500
$10,100
$67,600
UG01-12
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$541,000
$379,000
$920,000
$162,000
$1,082,000
CD-AVG
$183,000
$128,000
$311,000
$55,000
$366,000
FP/RP-AVG
$1,160,000
$814,000
$1,974,000
$209,000
$2,183,000
OFFCH-AVG
$623,000
$436,000
$1,059,000
$112,000
$1,171,000
VBS-AVG
$231,000
$161,000
$392,000
$69,200
$461,200
UG01-13
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$297,000
$208,000
$505,000
$89,100
$594,100
CD-AVG
$101,000
$70,700
$171,700
$30,300
$202,000
FP/RP-AVG
$65,200
$45,600
$110,800
$11,700
$122,500
OFFCH-AVG
$503,000
$352,000
$855,000
$90,500
$945,500
VBS-AVG
$127,000
$88,600
$215,600
$38,000
$253,600
UG01-14
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$57,600
$40,300
$97,900
$17,300
$115,200
CD-AVG
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$5,560
$37,060
FP/RP-AVG
$19,000
$13,300
$32,300
$3,410
$35,710
VBS-AVG
$24,500
$17,200
$41,700
$7,360
$49,060
UG01-15
Bioengineering Reach BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$207,000
$145,000
$352,000
$62,000
$414,000
CD-AVG
$70,000
$49,000
$119,000
$21,000
$140,000
FP/RP-AVG
$5,400
$3,780
$9,180
$973
$10,153
Page 41 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct and
Direct Capital 2009 Indirect Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
TCD Cost Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) Year NPV)
VBS-AVG
$88,100
$61,700
$149,800
$26,400
$176,200
UG01-16
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$190,000
$133,000
$323,000
$57,000
$380,000
CD-AVG
$61,800
$43,300
$105,100
$18,500
$123,600
FP/RP-AVG
$381,000
$267,000
$648,000
$68,700
$716,700
VBS-AVG
$150,000
$105,000
$255,000
$45,100
$300,100
UG01-17
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$386,000
$271,000
$657,000
$116,000
$773,000
CD-AVG
$152,000
$107,000
$259,000
$45,700
$304,700
FP/RP-AVG
$1,000,000
$703,000
$1,703,000
$181,000
$1,884,000
OFFCH-AVG
$831,000
$582,000
$1,413,000
$150,000
$1,563,000
VBS-AVG
$306,000
$214,000
$520,000
$91,800
$611,800
UG01-18
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$364,000
$255,000
$619,000
$109,000
$728,000
CD-AVG
$124,000
$86,500
$210,500
$37,100
$247,600
FP/RP-AVG
$20,000
$14,000
$34,000
$3,610
$37,610
VBS-AVG
$155,000
$109,000
$264,000
$46,500
$310,500
UG01-19
Bioengineering Reach
BioReach General Characteristics
BSBR-AVG
$59,800
$41,800
$101,600
$17,900
$119,500
CD-AVG
$14,400
$10,100
$24,500
$4,330
$28,830
FP/RP-AVG
$37,600
$26,300
$63,900
$6,770
$70,670
OFFCH-AVG
$46,300
$32,400
$78,700
$8,340
$87,040
VBS-AVG
$47,300
$33,100
$80,400
$14,200
$94,600
WAL013
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$34,900
$24,400
$59,300
$0
$59,300
C08a
$144,000
$101,000
$245,000
$20,200
$265,200
HAUL-2
$44,800
$31,400
$76,200
$0
$76,200
WAL038
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$4,470,000
$3,130,000
$7,600,000
$0
$7,600,000
C08a
$5,860,000
$4,100,000
$9,960,000
$821,000
$10,781,000
C11j
$41,300,000
$28,900,000
$70,200,000
$827,000
$71,027,000
HAUL-2
$1,820,000
$1,270,000
$3,090,000
$0
$3,090,000
WAL038
BLM Polygon
Groundwater
WT01
$1,820,000
$1,940,000
$3,760,000
$2,750,000
$6,510,000
WAL068
BLM Polygon
Upland waste rock
C02a
$24,400
$17,100
$41,500
$3,180
$44,680
WAL076
BLM Polygon
Floodplain waste rock
C01
$175,000
$122,000
$297,000
$0
$297,000
C08a
$722,000
$506,000
$1,228,000
$101,000
$1,329,000
HAUL-2
$224,000
$157,000
$381,000
$0
$381,000
WAL077
BLM Polygon
Floodplain sediments
C01b
$567,000
$397,000
$964,000
$0
$964,000
C08a
$743,000
$520,000
$1,263,000
$104,000
$1,367,000
HAUL-2
$231,000
$161,000
$392,000
$0
$392,000
Notes:
This Table does not include Central Treatment Plant (CTP) Sludge Pond Closure costs, these costs will be applied to the Total Alternative Cost.
This Table does not include Roads and Bridges costs, these costs will be applied to the Total Alternative Cost.
O&M = Operations and Maintenance
NPV = Net Present Value
Trait Description
Segment ID Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
Page 42 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-38
Summary of Estimated Costs for Sites by Trait and TCD, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
Trait Description
Source ID Source Type Description (Waste Types)
TCD
2009 Total
Direct Capital
Cost
2009 Total
Direct and
2009 Indirect Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-
Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) Year NPV)
Typical Conceptual Design (TCD) Codes
BSBR-AVG = Bank Stabilization via Revetments - Average Cost
C01 = Excavation (dry)
C01 b = Excavation (60% dry/40% wet)
C02a = Regrade/Consolidate/Vegetative Cover: Lower Part of Pile in 100-Year Floodplain
C02b = Regrade/Consolidate/Vegetative Cover: Waste Rock Pile in Stream Valley
C06 = Waste Consolidation Area with Erosion Protection
C07 = Waste Consolidation Area Above Flood Level
C08a = Repository, 1 million cy
C09 = Impoundment Closure
C10 = Adit Drainage Collection
C11j = Hydraulic Isolation Using Slurry Wall (with drain, 30 ft deep)
C14c = Stream Lining (100 feet wide)
C15b = French Drain (15 feet bgs)
CD-AVG = Current Deflector Average Cost
CD-SED = Current Deflector Sediment Traps
CH REAL-1 = Channel Realignment
FP/RP-AVG = Floodplain and Riparian Replanting - Average Cost
HAUL-2 = Haul to Repository
HH-4 = Millsite Demolition/Disposal
OFFCH-AVG = Off-Channel Hydrologic Feature Average Cost
PIPE-1 = Conveyance Pipeline (6-inch)
PIPE-2 = Conveyance Pipeline (12-inch)
PIPE-3 = Conveyance Pipeline (24-inch)
VBS-AVG = Vegetative Bank Stabilization - Average Cost
WT01 = Centralized High-Density Sludge (HDS) Treatment at Central Treatment Plant (CTP)
WT02 = Onsite Semi-Passive Water Treatment Using Lime Addition and Settling Pond(s)
WT03 = Onsite Semi-Passive Water Treatment Using Sulfate-Reducing Bioreactor (SRB) System
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal accuracy of -30 percent to +50 percent (-30/+50%).
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-magnitude cost opinion shown
has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation. The final costs of the
project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final
project scope, the final project schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented
above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions or establishing
final budgets.
Page 43 of 43
-------
-------
TABLE D-39
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID
Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
BigCrkSegOl
POL044
$4,470
$3,100
$7,600
$1,030
$8,630
POL052
$87,300
$61,000
$148,000
$14,900
$163,000
BigCrkSeg03
POL001
$5,070
$3,600
$8,620
$1,170
$9,790
POL002
$32,300
$23,000
$54,900
$5,500
$60,400
POL067
$531,000
$370,000
$902,000
$1,210,000
$2,110,000
POL068
$16,900
$12,000
$28,700
$2,190
$30,900
BigCrkSeg04
BIG04-2
$238,000
$170,000
$405,000
$92,700
$498,000
BIG04-3
$2,350,000
$1,600,000
$4,000,000
$704,000
$4,710,000
KLE025
$5,930,000
$4,200,000
$10,100,000
$1,190,000
$11,300,000
KLE026
$182,000
$130,000
$309,000
$41,800
$351,000
KLE027
$1,770,000
$1,200,000
$3,010,000
$301,000
$3,310,000
KLE047
$122,000
$85,000
$207,000
$8,230
$216,000
KLE053
$3,730,000
$2,600,000
$6,340,000
$636,000
$6,980,000
KLE054
$3,760,000
$2,600,000
$6,400,000
$1,180,000
$7,580,000
KLE071
$1,440,000
$1,000,000
$2,450,000
$97,100
$2,540,000
KLE073
$3,670,000
$2,600,000
$6,240,000
$248,000
$6,490,000
POL008
$155,000
$110,000
$263,000
$26,400
$290,000
POL010
$86,500
$61,000
$147,000
$14,700
$162,000
POL011
$59,300
$41,000
$101,000
$10,100
$111,000
POL022
$12,700
$8,900
$21,600
$2,910
$24,500
POL066
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
CCSeg
PIPECC
$6,810,000
$4,800,000
$11,600,000
$546,000
$12,100,000
CCSegOl
BUR105
$88,600
$62,000
$151,000
$7,290
$158,000
BUR109
$281,000
$200,000
$477,000
$30,800
$508,000
BUR185
$70,000
$49,000
$119,000
$8,370
$127,000
BUR187
$56,500
$40,000
$96,000
$6,750
$103,000
THO023
$43,000
$30,000
$73,000
$5,130
$78,100
CCSeg02
BUR107
$783,000
$570,000
$1,350,000
$184,000
$1,540,000
BUR130
$539,000
$380,000
$915,000
$64,300
$980,000
BUR132
$455,000
$320,000
$773,000
$45,100
$818,000
BUR133
$101,000
$70,000
$171,000
$17,100
$188,000
BUR134
$274,000
$190,000
$465,000
$46,600
$511,000
BUR135
$131,000
$92,000
$223,000
$15,700
$238,000
BUR145
$1,060,000
$740,000
$1,810,000
$181,000
$1,990,000
BUR150
$334,000
$230,000
$567,000
$36,700
$604,000
BUR153
$642,000
$450,000
$1,090,000
$43,400
$1,130,000
CC02-1
$1,440,000
$1,000,000
$2,450,000
$396,000
$2,840,000
CCSeg03
BUR087
$927,000
$650,000
$1,580,000
$105,000
$1,680,000
BUR088
$70,000
$71,000
$141,000
$47,400
$189,000
BUR089
$45,200
$32,000
$76,800
$5,400
$82,200
BUR090
$2,980,000
$2,100,000
$5,060,000
$380,000
$5,440,000
BUR099
$70,000
$71,000
$141,000
$47,400
$189,000
BUR146
$935,000
$660,000
$1,590,000
$63,200
$1,650,000
BUR149
$124,000
$87,000
$210,000
$13,800
$224,000
BUR166
$74,500
$52,000
$127,000
$8,910
$136,000
BUR180
$56,500
$40,000
$96,000
$6,210
$102,000
CCSeg04
BUR066
$73,500
$51,000
$125,000
$8,100
$133,000
BUR067
$5,400,000
$4,100,000
$9,530,000
$1,430,000
$11,000,000
BUR068
$227,000
$160,000
$386,000
$38,800
$425,000
BUR072
$392,000
$270,000
$666,000
$47,000
$713,000
BUR073
$1,300,000
$910,000
$2,200,000
$142,000
$2,350,000
BUR075
$66,500
$47,000
$113,000
$11,300
$124,000
BUR094
$118,000
$83,000
$201,000
$15,300
$216,000
BUR096
$135,000
$96,000
$230,000
$21,000
$251,000
BUR097
$952,000
$990,000
$1,940,000
$670,000
$2,610,000
BUR098
$1,960,000
$1,700,000
$3,660,000
$1,080,000
$4,740,000
Page 1 of 8
-------
TABLE D-39
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
BUR112
$70,000
$71,000
$141,000
$47,400
$189,000
BUR117
$284,000
$200,000
$483,000
$35,800
$519,000
BUR118
$626,000
$440,000
$1,060,000
$107,000
$1,170,000
BUR119
$175,000
$120,000
$298,000
$22,800
$321,000
BUR120
$78,400
$55,000
$133,000
$10,200
$144,000
BUR121
$1,230,000
$1,100,000
$2,350,000
$573,000
$2,920,000
BUR122
$275,000
$190,000
$467,000
$30,200
$498,000
BUR124
$84,300
$59,000
$143,000
$11,000
$154,000
BUR125
$27,000
$19,000
$45,900
$3,510
$49,400
BUR128
$960,000
$670,000
$1,630,000
$147,000
$1,780,000
BUR129
$170,000
$140,000
$311,000
$64,400
$375,000
BUR141
$807,000
$570,000
$1,370,000
$54,500
$1,430,000
BUR142
$727,000
$510,000
$1,240,000
$89,400
$1,320,000
BUR143
$1,170,000
$820,000
$2,000,000
$79,300
$2,070,000
BUR144
$605,000
$420,000
$1,030,000
$68,600
$1,100,000
BUR176
$126,000
$88,000
$214,000
$15,100
$230,000
BUR177
$153,000
$110,000
$260,000
$18,400
$279,000
BUR178
$113,000
$79,000
$193,000
$12,400
$205,000
BUR189
$45,200
$32,000
$76,800
$5,400
$82,200
BUR190
$312,000
$330,000
$641,000
$167,000
$808,000
BUR191
$131,000
$92,000
$223,000
$17,000
$240,000
BUR192
$334,000
$230,000
$567,000
$40,200
$608,000
BUR204
$43,000
$30,000
$73,000
$5,130
$78,100
CC04-1
$2,170,000
$1,500,000
$3,690,000
$803,000
$4,490,000
HHWPCC04-1
$58,400
$41,000
$99,300
$7,600
$107,000
HHWPCC04-2
$58,400
$41,000
$99,300
$7,600
$107,000
HHWPCC04-3
$58,400
$41,000
$99,300
$7,600
$107,000
CCSeg05 CC05-1
$1,080,000
$750,000
$1,830,000
$224,000
$2,060,000
CC05-2
$6,560,000
$4,600,000
$11,200,000
$1,340,000
$12,500,000
OSB047
$128,000
$90,000
$217,000
$8,640
$226,000
WAL010
$37,500
$26,000
$63,700
$2,530
$66,200
WAL011
$141,000
$120,000
$262,000
$51,200
$313,000
WAL039
$343,000
$240,000
$584,000
$31,000
$615,000
WAL040
$475,000
$330,000
$808,000
$32,100
$840,000
WAL041
$146,000
$100,000
$247,000
$9,830
$257,000
WAL042
$579,000
$410,000
$985,000
$69,500
$1,050,000
WAL081
$78,200
$55,000
$133,000
$7,060
$140,000
WP-OPTIONC
$9,270,000
$6,700,000
$15,900,000
$776,000
$16,700,000
MIDGradSeg PIPEMG
$12,600,000
$8,800,000
$21,400,000
$1,010,000
$22,400,000
MIDGradSegOl HHWPMG01-1
$58,400
$41,000
$99,300
$7,600
$107,000
HHWPMG01-2
$58,400
$41,000
$99,300
$7,600
$107,000
HHWPMG01-3
$58,400
$41,000
$99,300
$7,600
$107,000
HHWPMG01-4
$58,400
$41,000
$99,300
$7,600
$107,000
HHWPMG01-5
$58,400
$41,000
$99,300
$7,600
$107,000
KLE011
$1,940,000
$1,400,000
$3,300,000
$388,000
$3,690,000
KLE016
$140,000
$98,000
$238,000
$16,700
$255,000
KLE020
$364,000
$250,000
$618,000
$40,000
$658,000
KLE021
$146,000
$100,000
$248,000
$17,600
$266,000
KLE023
$259,000
$180,000
$440,000
$31,100
$471,000
KLE033
$381,000
$270,000
$648,000
$43,200
$692,000
KLE034
$534,000
$370,000
$908,000
$61,800
$970,000
KLE035
$3,420,000
$2,400,000
$5,820,000
$370,000
$6,190,000
KLE040
$14,000,000
$9,900,000
$23,900,000
$985,000
$24,900,000
KLE042
$2,080,000
$1,500,000
$3,540,000
$166,000
$3,710,000
KLE048
$14,100,000
$10,000,000
$24,000,000
$1,070,000
$25,100,000
KLE049
$14,900,000
$11,000,000
$25,400,000
$1,200,000
$26,600,000
Page 2 of 8
-------
TABLE D-39
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
KLE051
$74,500
$52,000
$127,000
$8,910
$136,000
KLE062
$954,000
$670,000
$1,620,000
$64,400
$1,690,000
KLE066
$85,700
$60,000
$146,000
$10,300
$156,000
KLE067
$68,500
$48,000
$117,000
$5,400
$122,000
KLE068
$266,000
$190,000
$452,000
$45,300
$497,000
KLE069
$97,300
$68,000
$165,000
$11,300
$177,000
KLE070
$94,700
$66,000
$161,000
$11,300
$172,000
KLE074
$402,000
$280,000
$683,000
$52,100
$735,000
KLE075
$75,900
$53,000
$129,000
$12,900
$142,000
MG01-1
$216,000
$150,000
$367,000
$91,100
$458,000
MG01-10
$148,000
$100,000
$252,000
$46,900
$299,000
MG01-11
$600,000
$420,000
$1,020,000
$145,000
$1,170,000
MG01-12
$3,100,000
$2,200,000
$5,260,000
$605,000
$5,860,000
MG01-13
$5,660,000
$4,000,000
$9,630,000
$1,090,000
$10,700,000
MG01-14
$956,000
$670,000
$1,620,000
$196,000
$1,820,000
MG01-15
$2,810,000
$2,000,000
$4,770,000
$538,000
$5,310,000
MG01-16
$505,000
$350,000
$858,000
$106,000
$964,000
MG01-17
$3,250,000
$2,300,000
$5,530,000
$666,000
$6,200,000
MG01-18
$1,800,000
$1,300,000
$3,070,000
$370,000
$3,440,000
MG01-2
$261,000
$180,000
$444,000
$83,900
$528,000
MG01-3
$411,000
$290,000
$699,000
$110,000
$809,000
MG01-4
$2,050,000
$1,400,000
$3,500,000
$462,000
$3,960,000
MG01-5
$188,000
$130,000
$320,000
$63,000
$383,000
MG01-6
$2,100,000
$1,500,000
$3,570,000
$495,000
$4,070,000
MG01-7
$2,080,000
$1,500,000
$3,530,000
$462,000
$4,000,000
MG01-8
$5,430,000
$3,800,000
$9,240,000
$1,040,000
$10,300,000
MG01-9
$728,000
$510,000
$1,240,000
$152,000
$1,390,000
MUL085
$94,900
$66,000
$161,000
$21,600
$183,000
MUL086
$310,000
$220,000
$526,000
$34,000
$560,000
OSB025
$123,000
$86,000
$209,000
$13,500
$223,000
OSB030
$101,000
$71,000
$172,000
$12,200
$184,000
OSB065
$102,000,000
$71,000,000
$173,000,000
$4,050,000
$177,000,000
OSB070
$320,000
$220,000
$543,000
$35,100
$578,000
OSB072
$52,000
$36,000
$88,300
$6,210
$94,500
OSB073
$150,000
$100,000
$254,000
$15,700
$270,000
OSB074
$503,000
$350,000
$854,000
$1,190,000
$2,050,000
OSB075
$63,200
$44,000
$107,000
$7,560
$115,000
OSB076
$45,200
$32,000
$76,800
$5,400
$82,200
OSB078
$18,200
$13,000
$30,900
$2,160
$33,100
OSB117
$266,000
$190,000
$452,000
$45,300
$497,000
OSB118
$2,200,000
$1,500,000
$3,740,000
$149,000
$3,890,000
OSB119
$11,100,000
$7,800,000
$19,000,000
$246,000
$19,200,000
OSB120
$65,300,000
$46,000,000
$111,000,000
$2,830,000
$114,000,000
POL018
$224,000
$160,000
$380,000
$24,600
$405,000
POL019
$1,880,000
$1,300,000
$3,200,000
$434,000
$3,630,000
POL021
$149,000
$100,000
$253,000
$17,800
$271,000
POL064
$45,200
$32,000
$76,800
$5,400
$82,200
WAL001
$29,800,000
$21,000,000
$50,600,000
$3,550,000
$54,100,000
WAL002
$206,000
$140,000
$351,000
$25,600
$377,000
WAL004
$37,300,000
$26,000,000
$63,600,000
$1,790,000
$65,400,000
WAL014
$395,000
$280,000
$673,000
$43,500
$716,000
WAL016
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
WAL020
$1,610,000
$1,100,000
$2,730,000
$157,000
$2,890,000
WAL024
$97,000
$68,000
$165,000
$11,600
$176,000
WAL034
$1,430,000
$1,000,000
$2,430,000
$96,600
$2,530,000
WAL035
$1,450,000
$1,000,000
$2,460,000
$159,000
$2,620,000
Page 3 of 8
-------
TABLE D-39
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID
Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
WAL036
$635,000
$450,000
$1,080,000
$72,800
$1,150,000
WAL037
$227,000
$160,000
$386,000
$38,800
$425,000
WAL046
$58,700
$41,000
$99,800
$7,020
$107,000
WAL055
$38,500
$27,000
$65,400
$4,590
$70,000
WAL056
$54,200
$38,000
$92,100
$6,480
$98,600
WAL057
$22,700
$16,000
$38,600
$2,700
$41,300
WAL058
$20,500
$14,000
$34,800
$2,430
$37,200
WAL062
$43,000
$30,000
$73,000
$5,130
$78,100
WAL064
$79,000
$55,000
$134,000
$9,450
$144,000
WAL072
$18,200
$13,000
$30,900
$2,160
$33,100
WAL073
$22,700
$16,000
$38,600
$2,700
$41,300
MIDGradSeg02
KLW061
$2,320,000
$1,600,000
$3,940,000
$301,000
$4,240,000
KLW062
$356,000
$250,000
$605,000
$46,200
$651,000
KLW070
$342,000
$240,000
$583,000
$23,200
$606,000
KLW095
$137,000
$96,000
$233,000
$17,800
$251,000
MG 02-10
$38,500
$27,000
$65,500
$22,200
$87,700
MG02-11
$22,500
$16,000
$38,200
$17,400
$55,500
MG02-12
$6,360
$4,500
$10,800
$1,660
$12,500
MoonCrkSegOl
KLE061
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
MC01-2
$498,000
$350,000
$847,000
$174,000
$1,020,000
MoonCrkSeg02
KLE008
$109,000
$76,000
$185,000
$14,100
$199,000
KLE014
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
KLE041
$121,000
$85,000
$206,000
$8,180
$214,000
KLE063
$25,100
$18,000
$42,600
$3,260
$45,900
KLE064
$21,700
$15,000
$36,900
$2,820
$39,700
KLE065
$38,400
$27,000
$65,300
$4,990
$70,300
MC02-2
$817,000
$570,000
$1,390,000
$266,000
$1,650,000
MC02-3
$476,000
$330,000
$809,000
$148,000
$957,000
MC02-4
$369,000
$260,000
$628,000
$120,000
$747,000
NMSeg
PIPENM
$1,560,000
$1,100,000
$2,650,000
$125,000
$2,780,000
NMSegOl
BUR051
$503,000
$350,000
$854,000
$1,190,000
$2,050,000
BUR052
$39,400
$28,000
$67,000
$4,320
$71,300
BUR053
$5,110,000
$3,600,000
$8,680,000
$494,000
$9,170,000
BUR140
$367,000
$260,000
$624,000
$24,800
$649,000
BUR160
$1,070,000
$750,000
$1,820,000
$245,000
$2,060,000
NM01-1
$1,080,000
$750,000
$1,830,000
$344,000
$2,170,000
NMSeg02
BUR054
$5,660,000
$4,000,000
$9,610,000
$1,250,000
$10,900,000
BUR055
$468,000
$330,000
$795,000
$58,900
$854,000
BUR056
$2,230,000
$1,600,000
$3,790,000
$290,000
$4,080,000
BUR058
$503,000
$350,000
$854,000
$1,190,000
$2,050,000
BUR139
$295,000
$210,000
$501,000
$35,400
$536,000
BUR170
$677,000
$470,000
$1,150,000
$1,190,000
$2,340,000
BUR171
$489,000
$340,000
$830,000
$1,080,000
$1,910,000
BUR172
$96,800
$68,000
$165,000
$11,600
$176,000
NM02-1
$2,040,000
$1,400,000
$3,470,000
$655,000
$4,120,000
OSB040
$620,000
$440,000
$1,050,000
$41,900
$1,100,000
OSB044
$10,300,000
$7,200,000
$17,500,000
$922,000
$18,400,000
OSB048
$12,600
$8,900
$21,500
$1,640
$23,100
OSB056
$58,700
$41,000
$99,700
$3,960
$104,000
OSB057
$477,000
$330,000
$811,000
$32,200
$844,000
OSB058
$58,700
$41,000
$99,700
$3,960
$104,000
OSB088
$13,600
$11,000
$24,600
$4,710
$29,300
OSB089
$20,300
$18,000
$38,400
$10,400
$48,800
NMSeg03
NM03-1
$921,000
$640,000
$1,570,000
$238,000
$1,800,000
NMSeg04
NM04-1
$1,860,000
$1,300,000
$3,160,000
$405,000
$3,560,000
NM04-2
$741,000
$520,000
$1,260,000
$157,000
$1,420,000
Page 4 of 8
-------
TABLE D-39
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
NM04-3
$5,130,000
$3,600,000
$8,730,000
$1,100,000
$9,830,000
OSB032
$206,000
$140,000
$350,000
$22,700
$373,000
OSB033
$167,000
$120,000
$283,000
$18,400
$302,000
OSB038
$315,000
$220,000
$535,000
$34,600
$570,000
OSB039
$763,000
$530,000
$1,300,000
$74,500
$1,370,000
OSB052
$1,370,000
$960,000
$2,330,000
$273,000
$2,600,000
OSB059
$1,210,000
$850,000
$2,060,000
$81,800
$2,140,000
OSB060
$22,600
$16,000
$38,400
$2,590
$41,000
OSB061
$133,000
$93,000
$226,000
$22,600
$249,000
OSB082
$133,000
$93,000
$226,000
$14,600
$241,000
OSB115
$76,700
$54,000
$130,000
$9,180
$140,000
WAL006
$56,500
$40,000
$96,000
$6,750
$103,000
WAL033
$930,000
$650,000
$1,580,000
$107,000
$1,690,000
PineCrkSegOl HHWPPC01-1
$58,400
$41,000
$99,300
$7,600
$107,000
HHWPPC01-2
$58,400
$41,000
$99,300
$7,600
$107,000
MAS006
$4,190,000
$2,900,000
$7,130,000
$266,000
$7,390,000
MAS007
$973,000
$680,000
$1,650,000
$646,000
$2,300,000
MAS008
$475,000
$330,000
$807,000
$80,900
$888,000
MAS009
$141,000
$99,000
$240,000
$24,100
$264,000
MAS011
$146,000
$100,000
$248,000
$529,000
$777,000
MAS012
$512,000
$360,000
$871,000
$1,190,000
$2,060,000
MAS013
$89,200
$63,000
$152,000
$15,200
$167,000
MAS014
$1,420,000
$990,000
$2,410,000
$2,420,000
$4,830,000
MAS015
$181,000
$130,000
$307,000
$533,000
$840,000
MAS016
$586,000
$410,000
$997,000
$604,000
$1,600,000
MAS017
$1,690,000
$1,200,000
$2,880,000
$1,390,000
$4,270,000
MAS018
$51,300
$36,000
$87,200
$8,730
$95,900
MAS019
$19,000
$13,000
$32,300
$3,230
$35,500
MAS020
$401,000
$280,000
$681,000
$552,000
$1,230,000
MAS021
$560,000
$390,000
$951,000
$1,180,000
$2,130,000
MAS022
$911,000
$640,000
$1,550,000
$155,000
$1,700,000
MAS023
$19,000
$13,000
$32,300
$3,230
$35,500
MAS025
$150,000
$110,000
$255,000
$0
$255,000
MAS027
$575,000
$400,000
$977,000
$65,300
$1,040,000
MAS028
$205,000
$140,000
$349,000
$34,900
$384,000
MAS029
$13,300
$9,300
$22,600
$2,260
$24,900
MAS030
$68,800
$48,000
$117,000
$7,560
$124,000
MAS031
$82,000
$57,000
$139,000
$14,000
$153,000
MAS032
$1,520
$1,100
$2,590
$259
$2,840
MAS033
$91,100
$64,000
$155,000
$15,500
$170,000
MAS035
$152,000
$110,000
$259,000
$25,900
$284,000
MAS036
$51,300
$36,000
$87,200
$8,730
$95,900
MAS040
$50,600
$35,000
$86,000
$3,420
$89,400
MAS041
$85,800
$60,000
$146,000
$5,800
$152,000
MAS042
$39,600
$28,000
$67,400
$2,680
$70,100
MAS043
$110,000
$77,000
$187,000
$7,430
$195,000
MAS045
$110,000
$77,000
$187,000
$7,430
$195,000
MAS046
$875,000
$610,000
$1,490,000
$59,100
$1,550,000
MAS048
$404,000
$280,000
$686,000
$68,800
$755,000
MAS049
$683,000
$480,000
$1,160,000
$116,000
$1,280,000
MAS050
$813,000
$570,000
$1,380,000
$1,190,000
$2,570,000
MAS052
$54,000
$38,000
$91,900
$5,940
$97,800
MAS053
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
MAS054
$394,000
$280,000
$670,000
$574,000
$1,240,000
MAS055
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
MAS057
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
Page 5 of 8
-------
TABLE D-39
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID
Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MAS065
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
MAS068
$36,200
$25,000
$61,500
$4,320
$65,800
MAS072
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
MAS078
$364,000
$250,000
$617,000
$580,000
$1,200,000
MAS079
$588,000
$410,000
$999,000
$51,300
$1,050,000
MAS081
$177,000
$120,000
$301,000
$23,000
$324,000
MAS083
$911,000
$640,000
$1,550,000
$102,000
$1,650,000
MAS084
$569,000
$400,000
$968,000
$97,000
$1,060,000
PineCrkSeg02
TWI002
$109,000
$77,000
$186,000
$18,600
$205,000
TWI006
$91,100
$64,000
$155,000
$15,500
$170,000
TWI008
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
TWI009
$123,000
$86,000
$209,000
$21,000
$230,000
TWI011
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
TWI012
$72,800
$51,000
$124,000
$12,400
$136,000
TWI013
$146,000
$100,000
$248,000
$24,800
$273,000
TWI014
$114,000
$80,000
$194,000
$19,400
$213,000
TWI018
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
TWI020
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
TWI027
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
TWI029
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
TWI030
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
PineCrkSeg03
KLW075
$323,000
$230,000
$549,000
$55,100
$604,000
KLW077
$209,000
$150,000
$356,000
$35,700
$392,000
KLW079
$182,000
$130,000
$310,000
$31,000
$341,000
KLW080
$98,300
$69,000
$167,000
$8,100
$175,000
KLW082
$155,000
$110,000
$263,000
$26,400
$290,000
KLW083
$265,000
$180,000
$449,000
$45,000
$494,000
KLW085
$274,000
$190,000
$465,000
$46,600
$511,000
MAS003
$980,000
$690,000
$1,670,000
$226,000
$1,890,000
PC03-1
$1,540,000
$1,100,000
$2,620,000
$372,000
$2,990,000
PC03-2
$1,340,000
$940,000
$2,270,000
$302,000
$2,580,000
PC03-3
$575,000
$400,000
$978,000
$148,000
$1,130,000
UpperSFCDRSeg
PIPEUG
$11,800,000
$8,200,000
$20,000,000
$940,000
$20,900,000
UpperSFCDRSegOl
HHWPUG01-1
$58,400
$41,000
$99,300
$7,600
$107,000
HHWPUG01-2
$58,400
$41,000
$99,300
$7,600
$107,000
HHWPUG01-3
$58,400
$41,000
$99,300
$7,600
$107,000
HHWPUG01-4
$58,400
$41,000
$99,300
$7,600
$107,000
HHWPUG01-5
$58,400
$41,000
$99,300
$7,600
$107,000
LOK001
$109,000
$76,000
$185,000
$14,100
$199,000
LOK002
$107,000
$75,000
$182,000
$13,900
$196,000
LOK004
$1,690,000
$1,200,000
$2,880,000
$1,410,000
$4,290,000
LOK005
$15,200
$11,000
$25,800
$1,970
$27,800
LOK006
$63,800
$45,000
$109,000
$7,020
$116,000
LOK007
$22,800
$16,000
$38,700
$2,960
$41,700
LOK008
$93,300
$65,000
$159,000
$10,300
$169,000
LOK009
$420,000
$290,000
$713,000
$71,400
$784,000
LOK010
$34,400
$24,000
$58,500
$3,780
$62,300
LOK011
$4,670,000
$4,600,000
$9,280,000
$2,810,000
$12,100,000
LOK017
$844,000
$590,000
$1,430,000
$98,000
$1,530,000
LOK024
$503,000
$350,000
$854,000
$1,190,000
$2,050,000
LOK048
$22,800
$16,000
$38,700
$2,960
$41,700
LOK050
$247,000
$170,000
$420,000
$42,000
$462,000
LOK051
$161,000
$110,000
$274,000
$20,900
$295,000
LOK053
$26,100
$18,000
$44,400
$3,400
$47,800
MUL001
$1,430,000
$1,000,000
$2,430,000
$244,000
$2,680,000
MUL002
$436,000
$310,000
$742,000
$74,400
$817,000
Page 6 of 8
-------
TABLE D-39
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
2009 Total
2009 Total
Direct and
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MUL004
$202,000
$140,000
$343,000
$22,100
$365,000
MUL006
$179,000
$130,000
$305,000
$19,700
$324,000
MUL007
$80,100
$56,000
$136,000
$10,400
$147,000
MUL008
$330,000
$230,000
$561,000
$36,200
$597,000
MUL009
$21,100
$15,000
$35,900
$2,740
$38,600
MUL012
$2,200,000
$1,600,000
$3,820,000
$381,000
$4,200,000
MUL013
$44,700
$31,000
$76,000
$5,810
$81,800
MUL014
$1,190,000
$1,200,000
$2,420,000
$843,000
$3,270,000
MUL015
$787,000
$550,000
$1,340,000
$102,000
$1,440,000
MUL018
$274,000
$190,000
$465,000
$46,600
$511,000
MUL019
$6,580,000
$4,800,000
$11,400,000
$1,300,000
$12,700,000
MUL020
$7,830,000
$5,500,000
$13,300,000
$654,000
$14,000,000
MUL021
$297,000
$210,000
$505,000
$32,700
$538,000
MUL022
$29,500
$21,000
$50,200
$3,840
$54,000
MUL023
$1,100,000
$770,000
$1,860,000
$1,290,000
$3,150,000
MUL027
$396,000
$280,000
$673,000
$570,000
$1,240,000
MUL028
$1,440,000
$1,000,000
$2,450,000
$717,000
$3,170,000
MUL029
$387,000
$270,000
$658,000
$66,000
$724,000
MUL030
$88,400
$62,000
$150,000
$9,720
$160,000
MUL031
$28,700
$20,000
$48,800
$3,730
$52,500
MUL033
$301,000
$210,000
$511,000
$51,200
$563,000
MUL037
$9,500,000
$6,700,000
$16,100,000
$718,000
$16,900,000
MUL038
$927,000
$650,000
$1,580,000
$117,000
$1,690,000
MUL042
$265,000
$180,000
$449,000
$45,000
$494,000
MUL043
$333,000
$230,000
$566,000
$56,700
$622,000
MUL045
$524,000
$370,000
$891,000
$89,300
$980,000
MUL047
$56,500
$40,000
$96,000
$6,210
$102,000
MUL048
$405,000
$280,000
$689,000
$69,100
$759,000
MUL049
$25,300
$18,000
$43,000
$3,290
$46,300
MUL051
$295,000
$210,000
$501,000
$32,400
$533,000
MUL052
$711,000
$500,000
$1,210,000
$1,200,000
$2,410,000
MUL053
$266,000
$190,000
$452,000
$34,600
$487,000
MUL054
$79,200
$56,000
$135,000
$10,300
$145,000
MUL056
$29,500
$21,000
$50,200
$3,840
$54,000
MUL057
$66,600
$47,000
$113,000
$8,660
$122,000
MUL058
$23,400,000
$16,000,000
$39,800,000
$2,260,000
$42,100,000
MUL059
$429,000
$300,000
$728,000
$73,000
$801,000
MUL060
$51,600
$36,000
$87,700
$5,670
$93,400
MUL063
$51,600
$36,000
$87,700
$5,670
$93,400
MUL065
$76,200
$53,000
$129,000
$8,370
$138,000
MUL071
$1,830,000
$1,300,000
$3,110,000
$220,000
$3,330,000
MUL073
$174,000
$120,000
$296,000
$22,600
$319,000
MUL081
$178,000
$120,000
$303,000
$20,500
$323,000
MUL083
$157,000
$110,000
$267,000
$17,300
$285,000
MUL103
$217,000
$150,000
$369,000
$25,400
$395,000
MUL119
$23,600
$17,000
$40,100
$3,070
$43,200
MUL120
$77,000
$54,000
$131,000
$9,180
$140,000
MUL129
$273,000
$190,000
$464,000
$30,000
$494,000
MUL131
$125,000
$88,000
$213,000
$21,300
$234,000
MUL132
$34,200
$24,000
$58,100
$5,820
$63,900
MUL135
$15,200
$11,000
$25,800
$1,970
$27,800
MUL136
$10,100
$7,100
$17,200
$1,320
$18,500
MUL139
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
MUL141
$136,000
$95,000
$231,000
$15,600
$247,000
MUL142
$484,000
$340,000
$822,000
$55,500
$878,000
MUL145
$59,300
$41,000
$101,000
$6,790
$107,000
Page 7 of 8
-------
TABLE D-39
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 3+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
Source ID
2009 Total
Direct Capital
Cost
2009 Indirect
Capital Cost
2009 Total
Direct and
Indirect Capital
Cost
O&M Cost (30-
Year NPV)
Total Cost (30-
Year NPV)
MUL146
$430,000
$300,000
$730,000
$35,400
$766,000
MUL149
$79,600
$56,000
$135,000
$9,140
$145,000
MUL150
$213,000
$150,000
$362,000
$24,400
$386,000
MUL153
$107,000
$75,000
$182,000
$12,300
$195,000
THO020
$71,300
$50,000
$121,000
$7,830
$129,000
UG01-10
$445,000
$310,000
$756,000
$148,000
$904,000
UG01-11
$238,000
$170,000
$405,000
$64,000
$469,000
UG01-12
$1,660,000
$1,200,000
$2,810,000
$508,000
$3,320,000
UG01-13
$651,000
$460,000
$1,110,000
$232,000
$1,340,000
UG01-14
$123,000
$86,000
$210,000
$44,000
$254,000
UG01-15
$371,000
$260,000
$631,000
$147,000
$778,000
UG01-16
$911,000
$640,000
$1,550,000
$244,000
$1,790,000
UG01-17
$2,190,000
$1,500,000
$3,730,000
$569,000
$4,300,000
UG01-18
$641,000
$450,000
$1,090,000
$256,000
$1,350,000
UG01-19
$167,000
$120,000
$283,000
$47,500
$331,000
UG01-4
$11,600
$8,100
$19,700
$3,480
$23,200
UG01-5
$377,000
$260,000
$642,000
$131,000
$773,000
UG01-6
$1,370,000
$960,000
$2,330,000
$323,000
$2,650,000
UG01-7
$510,000
$360,000
$868,000
$147,000
$1,010,000
UG01-8
$71,100
$50,000
$121,000
$29,800
$151,000
UG01-9
$601,000
$420,000
$1,020,000
$198,000
$1,220,000
WAL013
$83,500
$58,000
$142,000
$9,180
$151,000
WAL038
$10,200,000
$7,200,000
$17,400,000
$690,000
$18,100,000
WAL076
$775,000
$540,000
$1,320,000
$132,000
$1,450,000
WAL077
$1,540,000
$1,100,000
$2,620,000
$104,000
$2,720,000
Notes:
This Table does not include Central Treatment Plant (CTP) Sludge Pond Closure costs, these costs will be applied to the Total Alternative Cost.
This Table does not include Roads and Bridges costs, these costs will be applied to the Total Alternative Cost.
O&M = Operations and Maintenance
NPV = Net Present Value
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal accuracy of -30 percent to +50 percent (-30/+50%).
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for
guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material
costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the final project schedule, and other variable factors. As a
result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making
specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Page 8 of 8
-------
TABLE D-40
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
and Indirect
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID
Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
BigCrkSegOl
POL044
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
POL045
$16,000
$11,000
$27,200
$2,080
$29,300
POL046
$15,200
$11,000
$25,800
$1,970
$27,800
POL047
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,900
POL048
$14,300
$10,000
$24,300
$1,860
$26,200
POL049
$11,000
$7,700
$18,700
$1,420
$20,100
POL050
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,900
POL051
$33,400
$23,000
$56,800
$4,340
$61,100
POL052
$126,000
$89,000
$215,000
$11,400
$226,000
BigCrkSeg02
POL024
$16,900
$12,000
$28,700
$2,190
$30,900
POL025
$22,800
$16,000
$38,700
$2,960
$41,700
POL026
$19,400
$14,000
$33,000
$2,520
$35,500
POL027
$39,600
$28,000
$67,300
$5,150
$72,500
POL028
$11,000
$7,700
$18,700
$1,420
$20,100
POL036
$43,000
$30,000
$73,100
$5,590
$78,700
POL037
$23,600
$17,000
$40,100
$3,070
$43,200
POL038
$14,300
$10,000
$24,300
$1,860
$26,200
POL039
$17,700
$12,000
$30,100
$2,300
$32,400
POL040
$78,500
$55,000
$133,000
$10,200
$144,000
POL041
$31,200
$22,000
$53,000
$4,050
$57,100
POL042
$28,700
$20,000
$48,800
$3,730
$52,500
POL043
$29,500
$21,000
$50,200
$3,840
$54,000
POL053
$21,100
$15,000
$35,900
$2,740
$38,600
POL054
$25,300
$18,000
$43,000
$3,290
$46,300
POL056
$35,400
$25,000
$60,200
$4,600
$64,800
POL062
$27,000
$19,000
$45,900
$3,510
$49,400
POL063
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,900
BigCrkSeg03
POL001
$224,000
$160,000
$381,000
$20,200
$401,000
POL002
$279,000
$200,000
$475,000
$553,000
$1,030,000
POL004
$330,000
$230,000
$560,000
$1,030,000
$1,590,000
POL067
$572,000
$400,000
$973,000
$1,220,000
$2,190,000
POL068
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
POL069
$24,400
$17,000
$41,500
$3,180
$44,700
POL070
$35,100
$25,000
$59,600
$4,560
$64,200
POL071
$23,400
$16,000
$39,800
$3,040
$42,800
BigCrkSeg04
BIG04-2
$239,000
$170,000
$406,000
$71,500
$477,000
BIG04-3
$2,450,000
$1,700,000
$4,160,000
$572,000
$4,730,000
KLE024
$19,600,000
$14,000,000
$33,300,000
$2,810,000
$36,100,000
KLE025
$11,500,000
$8,000,000
$19,500,000
$1,020,000
$20,500,000
KLE026
$2,420,000
$1,700,000
$4,110,000
$218,000
$4,330,000
KLE027
$2,560,000
$1,800,000
$4,350,000
$231,000
$4,580,000
KLE029
$187,000
$130,000
$318,000
$24,300
$342,000
KLE047
$122,000
$85,000
$207,000
$8,230
$216,000
KLE053
$5,400,000
$3,800,000
$9,190,000
$487,000
$9,670,000
KLE054
$5,120,000
$3,600,000
$8,700,000
$1,060,000
$9,760,000
KLE071
$1,800,000
$1,300,000
$3,060,000
$121,000
$3,180,000
KLE073
$3,670,000
$2,600,000
$6,240,000
$248,000
$6,490,000
POL005
$56,800
$40,000
$96,500
$7,380
$104,000
POL006
$31,700
$22,000
$53,900
$4,120
$58,000
POL008
$224,000
$160,000
$381,000
$20,200
$401,000
POL010
$125,000
$88,000
$213,000
$11,300
$224,000
POL011
$85,700
$60,000
$146,000
$7,730
$153,000
POL022
$274,000
$190,000
$466,000
$540,000
$1,010,000
POL023
$50,100
$35,000
$85,200
$6,510
$91,700
POL066
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
POL075
$33,400
$23,000
$56,800
$4,340
$61,100
Page 1 of 14
-------
TABLE D-40
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
and Indirect
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID
Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
CCS eg
PIPECC
$7,400,000
$5,200,000
$12,600,000
$592,000
$13,200,000
CCSegOl
BUR102
$120,000
$84,000
$204,000
$15,600
$219,000
BUR105
$123,000
$86,000
$210,000
$21,000
$231,000
BUR109
$590,000
$440,000
$1,030,000
$136,000
$1,160,000
BUR110
$24,400
$17,000
$41,500
$3,180
$44,700
BUR182
$13,500
$9,400
$22,900
$1,750
$24,700
BUR183
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,900
BUR184
$17,700
$12,000
$30,100
$2,300
$32,400
BUR185
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
BUR186
$20,200
$14,000
$34,400
$2,630
$37,000
BUR187
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
BUR188
$36,200
$25,000
$61,600
$4,710
$66,300
THO012
$27,800
$20,000
$47,300
$3,620
$50,900
THO013
$29,500
$21,000
$50,200
$3,840
$54,000
THO014
$23,600
$17,000
$40,100
$3,070
$43,200
THO015
$34,600
$24,000
$58,800
$4,490
$63,300
THO016
$11,000
$7,700
$18,700
$1,420
$20,100
THO017
$45,500
$32,000
$77,400
$5,920
$83,300
THO018
$16,900
$12,000
$28,700
$2,190
$30,900
THO023
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
CCSeg02
BUR100
$21,100
$15,000
$35,900
$2,740
$38,600
BUR106
$21,100
$15,000
$35,900
$2,740
$38,600
BUR107
$2,700,000
$1,900,000
$4,620,000
$497,000
$5,120,000
BUR130
$56,900
$40,000
$96,800
$9,700
$106,000
BUR131
$37,900
$27,000
$64,500
$4,930
$69,400
BUR132
$1,740,000
$1,200,000
$2,970,000
$298,000
$3,270,000
BUR133
$101,000
$70,000
$171,000
$17,100
$188,000
BUR134
$274,000
$190,000
$465,000
$46,600
$511,000
BUR135
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
BUR138
$48,900
$34,000
$83,100
$6,360
$89,500
BUR145
$1,060,000
$740,000
$1,810,000
$181,000
$1,990,000
BUR150
$896,000
$630,000
$1,520,000
$80,800
$1,600,000
BUR151
$148,000
$100,000
$252,000
$19,300
$271,000
BUR153
$1,290,000
$900,000
$2,190,000
$86,700
$2,270,000
CC02-1
$1,600,000
$1,100,000
$2,720,000
$374,000
$3,100,000
CCSeg03
BUR085
$537,000
$380,000
$913,000
$1,200,000
$2,110,000
BUR086
$141,000
$99,000
$240,000
$18,300
$258,000
BUR087
$545,000
$400,000
$948,000
$128,000
$1,080,000
BUR088
$70,000
$71,000
$141,000
$47,400
$189,000
BUR089
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
BUR090
$1,870,000
$1,300,000
$3,180,000
$252,000
$3,430,000
BUR091
$94,400
$88,000
$183,000
$50,600
$233,000
BUR092
$16,000
$11,000
$27,200
$2,080
$29,300
BUR099
$87,700
$84,000
$171,000
$49,700
$221,000
BUR101
$20,200
$14,000
$34,400
$2,630
$37,000
BUR146
$1,870,000
$1,300,000
$3,180,000
$126,000
$3,310,000
BUR149
$198,000
$140,000
$336,000
$33,600
$369,000
BUR165
$17,700
$12,000
$30,100
$2,300
$32,400
BUR166
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
BUR167
$35,400
$25,000
$60,200
$4,600
$64,800
BUR179
$20,200
$14,000
$34,400
$2,630
$37,000
BUR180
$104,000
$73,000
$178,000
$17,800
$195,000
CCSeg04
BUR063
$159,000
$110,000
$271,000
$20,700
$292,000
BUR064
$34,600
$24,000
$58,800
$4,490
$63,300
BUR065
$85,100
$60,000
$145,000
$11,100
$156,000
BUR066
$192,000
$130,000
$327,000
$17,300
$344,000
Page 2 of 14
-------
TABLE D-40
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
and Indirect
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
BUR067
$10,600,000
$7,800,000
$18,500,000
$1,600,000
$20,100,000
BUR068
$329,000
$230,000
$560,000
$29,700
$590,000
BUR069
$88,500
$62,000
$151,000
$11,500
$162,000
BUR070
$237,000
$170,000
$403,000
$30,800
$434,000
BUR071
$166,000
$120,000
$282,000
$21,600
$304,000
BUR072
$393,000
$270,000
$668,000
$35,400
$703,000
BUR073
$3,460,000
$2,400,000
$5,880,000
$312,000
$6,190,000
BUR074
$145,000
$100,000
$246,000
$18,800
$265,000
BUR075
$244,000
$170,000
$415,000
$27,900
$442,000
BUR076
$9,270
$6,500
$15,800
$1,210
$17,000
BUR093
$11,800
$8,300
$20,100
$1,530
$21,600
BUR094
$118,000
$83,000
$201,000
$15,300
$216,000
BUR095
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,900
BUR096
$135,000
$96,000
$230,000
$21,000
$251,000
BUR097
$952,000
$990,000
$1,940,000
$670,000
$2,610,000
BUR098
$2,430,000
$2,000,000
$4,460,000
$1,030,000
$5,490,000
BUR111
$20,200
$14,000
$34,400
$2,630
$37,000
BUR112
$181,000
$150,000
$330,000
$61,900
$392,000
BUR113
$22,800
$16,000
$38,700
$2,960
$41,700
BUR114
$169,000
$140,000
$309,000
$60,200
$369,000
BUR115
$49,700
$35,000
$84,500
$6,470
$91,000
BUR116
$27,800
$20,000
$47,300
$3,620
$50,900
BUR117
$4,040,000
$2,800,000
$6,860,000
$363,000
$7,230,000
BUR118
$906,000
$630,000
$1,540,000
$81,800
$1,620,000
BUR119
$175,000
$120,000
$298,000
$22,800
$321,000
BUR120
$78,400
$55,000
$133,000
$10,200
$144,000
BUR121
$3,520,000
$2,700,000
$6,240,000
$774,000
$7,010,000
BUR122
$742,000
$520,000
$1,260,000
$66,900
$1,330,000
BUR123
$83,500
$81,000
$164,000
$49,200
$213,000
BUR124
$154,000
$130,000
$285,000
$58,400
$343,000
BUR125
$27,000
$19,000
$45,900
$3,510
$49,400
BUR126
$39,600
$28,000
$67,300
$5,150
$72,500
BUR127
$14,300
$10,000
$24,300
$1,860
$26,200
BUR128
$2,880,000
$2,000,000
$4,900,000
$327,000
$5,220,000
BUR129
$214,000
$170,000
$386,000
$60,400
$447,000
BUR141
$807,000
$570,000
$1,370,000
$54,500
$1,430,000
BUR142
$2,120,000
$1,500,000
$3,610,000
$192,000
$3,800,000
BUR143
$1,170,000
$820,000
$2,000,000
$79,300
$2,070,000
BUR144
$1,070,000
$750,000
$1,820,000
$96,600
$1,920,000
BUR174
$427,000
$300,000
$726,000
$55,500
$782,000
BUR175
$21,100
$15,000
$35,900
$2,740
$38,600
BUR176
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
BUR177
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
BUR178
$303,000
$210,000
$514,000
$27,300
$541,000
BUR189
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
BUR190
$312,000
$330,000
$641,000
$167,000
$808,000
BUR191
$131,000
$92,000
$223,000
$17,000
$240,000
BUR192
$827,000
$580,000
$1,410,000
$74,600
$1,480,000
BUR193
$63,200
$44,000
$108,000
$8,220
$116,000
BUR194
$58,200
$41,000
$98,900
$7,560
$106,000
BUR195
$35,400
$25,000
$60,200
$4,600
$64,800
BUR198
$114,000
$80,000
$194,000
$14,800
$209,000
BUR199
$27,000
$19,000
$45,900
$3,510
$49,400
BUR200
$19,400
$14,000
$33,000
$2,520
$35,500
BUR202
$9,270
$6,500
$15,800
$1,210
$17,000
BUR203
$10,100
$7,100
$17,200
$1,320
$18,500
Page 3 of 14
-------
TABLE D-40
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
and Indirect
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
BUR204
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
CC04-1
$7,140,000
$5,000,000
$12,100,000
$1,540,000
$13,700,000
CCSeg05 CC05-1
$21,000,000
$15,000,000
$35,700,000
$3,820,000
$39,600,000
CC05-2
$6,890,000
$4,800,000
$11,700,000
$1,360,000
$13,100,000
OSB047
$624,000
$440,000
$1,060,000
$42,100
$1,100,000
WAL009
$69,500,000
$49,000,000
$118,000,000
$6,000,000
$124,000,000
WAL010
$551,000
$390,000
$937,000
$37,200
$974,000
WAL011
$702,000
$510,000
$1,220,000
$96,200
$1,310,000
WAL039
$343,000
$240,000
$584,000
$31,000
$615,000
WAL040
$661,000
$460,000
$1,120,000
$44,600
$1,170,000
WAL041
$1,320,000
$920,000
$2,250,000
$89,200
$2,330,000
WAL042
$16,800,000
$12,000,000
$28,500,000
$1,510,000
$30,000,000
WAL081
$157,000
$110,000
$266,000
$14,100
$280,000
MIDGradSeg PIPEMG
$12,600,000
$8,800,000
$21,400,000
$1,010,000
$22,400,000
MIDGradSegOl KLE004
$29,500
$21,000
$50,200
$3,840
$54,000
KLE005
$54,000
$38,000
$91,800
$7,010
$98,800
KLE006
$115,000
$81,000
$196,000
$15,000
$211,000
KLE011
$2,250,000
$1,600,000
$3,830,000
$203,000
$4,040,000
KLE016
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
KLE020
$989,000
$690,000
$1,680,000
$89,200
$1,770,000
KLE021
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
KLE022
$88,500
$62,000
$151,000
$11,500
$162,000
KLE023
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
KLE032
$23,600
$17,000
$40,100
$3,070
$43,200
KLE033
$687,000
$480,000
$1,170,000
$62,000
$1,230,000
KLE034
$604,000
$420,000
$1,030,000
$54,500
$1,080,000
KLE035
$4,980,000
$3,500,000
$8,470,000
$516,000
$8,990,000
KLE036
$58,200
$41,000
$98,900
$7,560
$106,000
KLE038
$307,000
$220,000
$522,000
$39,900
$562,000
KLE039
$962,000
$670,000
$1,640,000
$86,700
$1,720,000
KLE040
$4,510,000
$3,300,000
$7,820,000
$887,000
$8,700,000
KLE042
$2,190,000
$1,500,000
$3,730,000
$156,000
$3,880,000
KLE048
$16,400,000
$12,000,000
$28,100,000
$1,230,000
$29,300,000
KLE049
$14,900,000
$11,000,000
$25,400,000
$1,200,000
$26,600,000
KLE051
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
KLE056
$30,300
$21,000
$51,500
$3,950
$55,500
KLE057
$15,200
$11,000
$25,800
$1,970
$27,800
KLE058
$19,400
$14,000
$33,000
$2,520
$35,500
KLE059
$11,800
$8,300
$20,100
$1,530
$21,600
KLE060
$20,200
$14,000
$34,400
$2,630
$37,000
KLE062
$1,230,000
$860,000
$2,090,000
$101,000
$2,200,000
KLE066
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
KLE067
$1,030,000
$720,000
$1,760,000
$1,080,000
$2,840,000
KLE068
$385,000
$270,000
$654,000
$34,700
$688,000
KLE069
$35,700
$25,000
$60,700
$3,220
$63,900
KLE070
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
KLE074
$2,070,000
$1,400,000
$3,520,000
$254,000
$3,780,000
KLE075
$110,000
$77,000
$187,000
$9,910
$197,000
MG01-1
$217,000
$150,000
$368,000
$59,300
$428,000
MG01-10
$3,560,000
$2,500,000
$6,040,000
$659,000
$6,700,000
MG01-11
$389,000
$270,000
$662,000
$96,100
$758,000
MG01-12
$460,000
$320,000
$782,000
$110,000
$891,000
MG01-13
$5,180,000
$3,600,000
$8,810,000
$979,000
$9,790,000
MG01-14
$692,000
$480,000
$1,180,000
$138,000
$1,310,000
MG01-15
$3,070,000
$2,100,000
$5,220,000
$589,000
$5,810,000
MG01-16
$1,630,000
$1,100,000
$2,770,000
$314,000
$3,080,000
Page 4 of 14
-------
TABLE D-40
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
and Indirect
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MG01-17
$4,570,000
$3,200,000
$7,780,000
$871,000
$8,650,000
MG01-18
$1,810,000
$1,300,000
$3,080,000
$350,000
$3,430,000
MG01-2
$264,000
$180,000
$448,000
$63,100
$511,000
MG01-3
$847,000
$590,000
$1,440,000
$187,000
$1,630,000
MG01-4
$1,430,000
$1,000,000
$2,430,000
$323,000
$2,750,000
MG01-5
$987,000
$690,000
$1,680,000
$196,000
$1,870,000
MG01-6
$5,770,000
$4,000,000
$9,810,000
$1,110,000
$10,900,000
MG01-7
$1,570,000
$1,100,000
$2,660,000
$358,000
$3,020,000
MG01-8
$7,550,000
$5,300,000
$12,800,000
$1,400,000
$14,200,000
MG01-9
$454,000
$320,000
$771,000
$91,600
$863,000
MUL085
$1,110,000
$780,000
$1,880,000
$1,680,000
$3,560,000
MUL086
$824,000
$580,000
$1,400,000
$74,300
$1,480,000
MUL087
$31,200
$22,000
$53,000
$4,050
$57,100
OSB024
$54,800
$38,000
$93,200
$7,120
$100,000
OSB025
$329,000
$230,000
$560,000
$29,700
$590,000
OSB026
$65,800
$46,000
$112,000
$8,550
$120,000
OSB027
$100,000
$70,000
$170,000
$13,000
$183,000
OSB028
$9,270
$6,500
$15,800
$1,210
$17,000
OSB030
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
OSB065
$103,000,000
$72,000,000
$175,000,000
$4,110,000
$179,000,000
OSB070
$852,000
$600,000
$1,450,000
$76,800
$1,520,000
OSB071
$27,000
$19,000
$45,900
$3,510
$49,400
OSB072
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
OSB073
$604,000
$420,000
$1,030,000
$54,500
$1,080,000
OSB074
$524,000
$370,000
$890,000
$1,190,000
$2,080,000
OSB075
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
OSB076
$154,000
$110,000
$262,000
$530,000
$792,000
OSB078
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
OSB079
$13,500
$9,400
$22,900
$1,750
$24,700
OSB080
$173,000
$120,000
$295,000
$533,000
$828,000
OSB117
$385,000
$270,000
$654,000
$34,700
$688,000
OSB118
$2,200,000
$1,500,000
$3,740,000
$149,000
$3,890,000
OSB119
$22,900,000
$16,000,000
$38,900,000
$1,040,000
$39,900,000
OSB120
$72,300,000
$51,000,000
$123,000,000
$3,300,000
$126,000,000
POL015
$27,000
$19,000
$45,900
$3,510
$49,400
POL016
$25,300
$18,000
$43,000
$3,290
$46,300
POL017
$21,100
$15,000
$35,900
$2,740
$38,600
POL018
$604,000
$420,000
$1,030,000
$54,500
$1,080,000
POL019
$5,500,000
$3,800,000
$9,340,000
$496,000
$9,840,000
POL020
$16,000
$11,000
$27,200
$2,080
$29,300
POL021
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
POL029
$13,500
$9,400
$22,900
$1,750
$24,700
POL030
$40,500
$28,000
$68,800
$5,260
$74,100
POL031
$36,200
$25,000
$61,600
$4,710
$66,300
POL032
$19,400
$14,000
$33,000
$2,520
$35,500
POL033
$19,400
$14,000
$33,000
$2,520
$35,500
POL034
$69,100
$48,000
$118,000
$8,990
$126,000
POL035
$165,000
$120,000
$281,000
$21,500
$303,000
POL055
$37,900
$27,000
$64,500
$4,930
$69,400
POL057
$15,200
$11,000
$25,800
$1,970
$27,800
POL058
$19,400
$14,000
$33,000
$2,520
$35,500
POL059
$22,800
$16,000
$38,700
$2,960
$41,700
POL060
$17,700
$12,000
$30,100
$2,300
$32,400
POL061
$32,000
$22,000
$54,400
$4,160
$58,600
POL064
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
POL065
$17,700
$12,000
$30,100
$2,300
$32,400
Page 5 of 14
-------
TABLE D-40
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
and Indirect
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
POL077
$16,900
$12,000
$28,700
$2,190
$30,900
POL078
$13,500
$9,400
$22,900
$1,750
$24,700
POL079
$15,200
$11,000
$25,800
$1,970
$27,800
POL080
$13,500
$9,400
$22,900
$1,750
$24,700
POL081
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,900
POL082
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,900
POL083
$15,200
$11,000
$25,800
$1,970
$27,800
POL084
$13,500
$9,400
$22,900
$1,750
$24,700
POL085
$11,800
$8,300
$20,100
$1,530
$21,600
POL086
$15,200
$11,000
$25,800
$1,970
$27,800
POL087
$15,200
$11,000
$25,800
$1,970
$27,800
POL088
$27,000
$19,000
$45,900
$3,510
$49,400
POL089
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,900
POL090
$9,270
$6,500
$15,800
$1,210
$17,000
POL091
$16,000
$11,000
$27,200
$2,080
$29,300
POL092
$23,600
$17,000
$40,100
$3,070
$43,200
WAL001
$29,800,000
$21,000,000
$50,600,000
$3,550,000
$54,100,000
WAL002
$15,800
$11,000
$27,100
$2,600
$29,700
WAL003
$277,000
$190,000
$471,000
$36,100
$507,000
WAL004
$37,700,000
$27,000,000
$64,200,000
$1,810,000
$66,100,000
WAL005
$28,700
$20,000
$48,800
$3,730
$52,500
WAL014
$1,070,000
$750,000
$1,820,000
$96,600
$1,920,000
WAL016
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
WAL017
$175,000
$120,000
$297,000
$22,700
$320,000
WAL019
$24,400
$17,000
$41,500
$3,180
$44,700
WAL020
$3,820,000
$2,700,000
$6,490,000
$344,000
$6,830,000
WAL021
$15,200
$11,000
$25,800
$1,970
$27,800
WAL022
$11,000
$7,700
$18,700
$1,420
$20,100
WAL023
$13,500
$9,400
$22,900
$1,750
$24,700
WAL024
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
WAL025
$16,900
$12,000
$28,700
$2,190
$30,900
WAL026
$7,590
$5,300
$12,900
$986
$13,900
WAL027
$76,700
$54,000
$130,000
$9,970
$140,000
WAL028
$15,200
$11,000
$25,800
$1,970
$27,800
WAL029
$30,300
$21,000
$51,500
$3,950
$55,500
WAL034
$2,860,000
$2,000,000
$4,860,000
$193,000
$5,050,000
WAL035
$3,850,000
$2,700,000
$6,540,000
$347,000
$6,880,000
WAL036
$1,650,000
$1,200,000
$2,810,000
$112,000
$2,920,000
WAL037
$329,000
$230,000
$560,000
$29,700
$590,000
WAL046
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
WAL047
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,900
WAL048
$102,000
$71,000
$173,000
$13,300
$187,000
WAL049
$95,300
$67,000
$162,000
$12,400
$174,000
WAL050
$70,800
$50,000
$120,000
$9,210
$130,000
WAL051
$54,000
$38,000
$91,800
$7,010
$98,800
WAL052
$70,800
$50,000
$120,000
$9,210
$130,000
WAL053
$27,000
$19,000
$45,900
$3,510
$49,400
WAL054
$58,200
$41,000
$98,900
$7,560
$106,000
WAL055
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
WAL056
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
WAL057
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
WAL058
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
WAL059
$35,400
$25,000
$60,200
$4,600
$64,800
WAL060
$20,200
$14,000
$34,400
$2,630
$37,000
WAL061
$32,000
$22,000
$54,400
$4,160
$58,600
WAL062
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
Page 6 of 14
-------
TABLE D-40
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
and Indirect
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID
Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
WAL063
$24,400
$17,000
$41,500
$3,180
$44,700
WAL064
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
WAL065
$31,200
$22,000
$53,000
$4,050
$57,100
WAL066
$27,800
$20,000
$47,300
$3,620
$50,900
WAL067
$58,200
$41,000
$98,900
$7,560
$106,000
WAL070
$59,900
$42,000
$102,000
$7,780
$110,000
WAL071
$16,900
$12,000
$28,700
$2,190
$30,900
WAL072
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
WAL073
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
WAL074
$21,900
$15,000
$37,200
$2,850
$40,100
MIDGradSeg02
KLW061
$2,320,000
$1,600,000
$3,940,000
$301,000
$4,240,000
KLW062
$356,000
$250,000
$605,000
$46,200
$651,000
KLW070
$342,000
$240,000
$583,000
$23,200
$606,000
KLW071
$576,000
$400,000
$979,000
$74,900
$1,050,000
KLW095
$137,000
$96,000
$233,000
$17,800
$251,000
KLW123
$15,200
$11,000
$25,800
$1,970
$27,800
KLW124
$61,800
$43,000
$105,000
$8,030
$113,000
KLW125
$38,400
$27,000
$65,300
$4,990
$70,300
KLW126
$21,900
$15,000
$37,200
$2,850
$40,100
KLW127
$21,700
$15,000
$36,900
$2,820
$39,700
KLW128
$212,000
$150,000
$360,000
$27,600
$388,000
MAS070
$33,700
$24,000
$57,300
$4,380
$61,700
MG02-10
$50,500
$35,000
$85,800
$13,100
$98,900
MG02-11
$43,900
$31,000
$74,600
$11,400
$86,000
MG02-12
$18,900
$13,000
$32,100
$4,920
$37,000
KLE007
$104,000
$73,000
$177,000
$13,500
$190,000
KLE061
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
MC01-2
$498,000
$350,000
$847,000
$174,000
$1,020,000
KLE008
$109,000
$76,000
$185,000
$14,100
$199,000
KLE009
$116,000
$81,000
$197,000
$15,100
$213,000
KLE013
$88,500
$62,000
$151,000
$11,500
$162,000
KLE014
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
KLE041
$121,000
$85,000
$206,000
$8,180
$214,000
KLE063
$25,100
$18,000
$42,600
$3,260
$45,900
KLE064
$21,700
$15,000
$36,900
$2,820
$39,700
KLE065
$38,400
$27,000
$65,300
$4,990
$70,300
MC02-2
$817,000
$570,000
$1,390,000
$192,000
$1,580,000
MC02-3
$477,000
$330,000
$810,000
$116,000
$926,000
MC02-4
$370,000
$260,000
$629,000
$87,600
$716,000
NMSeg
PIPENM
$1,560,000
$1,100,000
$2,650,000
$125,000
$2,780,000
NMSegOl
BUR051
$656,000
$460,000
$1,110,000
$1,210,000
$2,330,000
BUR052
$75,900
$53,000
$129,000
$12,900
$142,000
BUR053
$13,200,000
$9,200,000
$22,400,000
$2,240,000
$24,600,000
BUR077
$96,100
$67,000
$163,000
$12,500
$176,000
BUR081
$554,000
$390,000
$942,000
$1,200,000
$2,140,000
BUR082
$35,400
$25,000
$60,200
$4,600
$64,800
BUR083
$27,000
$19,000
$45,900
$3,510
$49,400
BUR084
$22,800
$16,000
$38,700
$2,960
$41,700
BUR140
$367,000
$260,000
$624,000
$24,800
$649,000
NM01-1
$1,050,000
$730,000
$1,780,000
$283,000
$2,070,000
NMSeg 02
BUR054
$8,470,000
$5,900,000
$14,400,000
$1,290,000
$15,700,000
BUR055
$587,000
$410,000
$997,000
$48,300
$1,040,000
BUR056
$8,050,000
$5,600,000
$13,700,000
$726,000
$14,400,000
BUR057
$76,700
$54,000
$130,000
$9,970
$140,000
BUR058
$584,000
$410,000
$993,000
$1,200,000
$2,200,000
BUR059
$147,000
$100,000
$250,000
$19,100
$269,000
Page 7 of 14
-------
TABLE D-40
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
and Indirect
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
BUR060
$180,000
$130,000
$306,000
$23,500
$330,000
BUR061
$120,000
$84,000
$204,000
$15,600
$219,000
BUR062
$57,300
$40,000
$97,400
$7,450
$105,000
BUR170
$765,000
$540,000
$1,300,000
$1,190,000
$2,490,000
BUR171
$340,000
$240,000
$577,000
$1,060,000
$1,640,000
BUR196
$26,100
$18,000
$44,400
$3,400
$47,800
BUR197
$38,800
$27,000
$65,900
$5,040
$70,900
BUR205
$54,800
$38,000
$93,200
$7,120
$100,000
NM02-1
$1,990,000
$1,400,000
$3,390,000
$535,000
$3,920,000
OSB040
$697,000
$490,000
$1,190,000
$47,100
$1,230,000
OSB044
$10,700,000
$7,500,000
$18,200,000
$959,000
$19,200,000
OSB045
$70,800
$50,000
$120,000
$9,210
$130,000
OSB046
$29,500
$21,000
$50,200
$3,840
$54,000
OSB048
$12,600
$8,900
$21,500
$1,640
$23,100
OSB056
$58,700
$41,000
$99,700
$3,960
$104,000
OSB057
$477,000
$330,000
$811,000
$32,200
$844,000
OSB058
$58,700
$41,000
$99,700
$3,960
$104,000
OSB088
$13,600
$11,000
$24,600
$4,710
$29,300
OSB089
$20,300
$18,000
$38,400
$10,400
$48,800
NMSeg03 NM03-1
$994,000
$700,000
$1,690,000
$217,000
$1,910,000
OSB041
$69,100
$48,000
$118,000
$8,990
$126,000
OSB042
$16,000
$11,000
$27,200
$2,080
$29,300
OSB043
$113,000
$79,000
$192,000
$14,700
$207,000
OSB049
$46,400
$33,000
$78,900
$6,030
$84,900
OSB081
$11,800
$8,300
$20,100
$1,530
$21,600
OSB087
$8,430
$5,900
$14,300
$1,100
$15,400
NMSeg04 NM04-1
$1,860,000
$1,300,000
$3,160,000
$372,000
$3,530,000
NM04-2
$735,000
$510,000
$1,250,000
$145,000
$1,390,000
NM04-3
$5,090,000
$3,600,000
$8,670,000
$1,020,000
$9,680,000
OSB031
$47,200
$33,000
$80,200
$6,140
$86,300
OSB032
$550,000
$380,000
$934,000
$49,600
$984,000
OSB033
$439,000
$310,000
$747,000
$39,600
$786,000
OSB034
$25,300
$18,000
$43,000
$3,290
$46,300
OSB035
$41,300
$29,000
$70,200
$5,370
$75,600
OSB036
$21,100
$15,000
$35,900
$2,740
$38,600
OSB037
$59,900
$42,000
$102,000
$7,780
$110,000
OSB038
$852,000
$600,000
$1,450,000
$76,800
$1,520,000
OSB039
$3,800,000
$2,700,000
$6,470,000
$435,000
$6,900,000
OSB052
$5,500,000
$3,800,000
$9,340,000
$496,000
$9,840,000
OSB055
$44,000
$32,000
$76,300
$8,750
$85,100
OSB059
$1,210,000
$850,000
$2,060,000
$81,800
$2,140,000
OSB060
$29,400
$21,000
$49,900
$1,980
$51,900
OSB061
$192,000
$130,000
$327,000
$17,300
$344,000
OSB082
$357,000
$250,000
$607,000
$32,200
$639,000
OSB083
$64,900
$45,000
$110,000
$8,440
$119,000
OSB114
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,900
OSB115
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
OSB116
$26,100
$18,000
$44,400
$3,400
$47,800
WAL006
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
WAL033
$1,250,000
$870,000
$2,120,000
$84,300
$2,210,000
WAL069
$20,200
$14,000
$34,400
$2,630
$37,000
WAL075
$7,590
$5,300
$12,900
$986
$13,900
WAL078
$22,800
$16,000
$38,700
$2,960
$41,700
PineCrkSegOl MAS004
$403,000
$280,000
$685,000
$1,060,000
$1,750,000
MAS005
$24,400
$17,000
$41,500
$3,180
$44,700
MAS006
$1,150,000
$810,000
$1,960,000
$104,000
$2,070,000
Page 8 of 14
-------
TABLE D-40
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
and Indirect
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MAS007
$1,680,000
$1,200,000
$2,850,000
$716,000
$3,570,000
MAS008
$687,000
$480,000
$1,170,000
$62,000
$1,230,000
MAS009
$349,000
$240,000
$594,000
$547,000
$1,140,000
MAS011
$146,000
$100,000
$248,000
$529,000
$777,000
MAS012
$516,000
$360,000
$878,000
$1,190,000
$2,070,000
MAS013
$129,000
$90,000
$220,000
$11,600
$231,000
MAS014
$1,580,000
$1,100,000
$2,690,000
$2,480,000
$5,170,000
MAS015
$189,000
$130,000
$321,000
$532,000
$853,000
MAS016
$784,000
$550,000
$1,330,000
$586,000
$1,920,000
MAS017
$2,220,000
$1,600,000
$3,780,000
$1,350,000
$5,130,000
MAS018
$74,200
$52,000
$126,000
$6,690
$133,000
MAS019
$27,500
$19,000
$46,700
$2,480
$49,200
MAS020
$401,000
$280,000
$681,000
$552,000
$1,230,000
MAS021
$426,000
$300,000
$724,000
$1,140,000
$1,870,000
MAS022
$1,320,000
$920,000
$2,240,000
$119,000
$2,360,000
MAS023
$27,500
$19,000
$46,700
$2,480
$49,200
MAS025
$1,690,000
$1,200,000
$2,870,000
$749,000
$3,620,000
MAS027
$192,000
$130,000
$327,000
$17,300
$344,000
MAS028
$297,000
$210,000
$504,000
$26,800
$531,000
MAS029
$168,000
$120,000
$285,000
$531,000
$817,000
MAS030
$185,000
$130,000
$314,000
$16,700
$331,000
MAS031
$119,000
$83,000
$202,000
$10,700
$212,000
MAS032
$2,200
$1,500
$3,740
$198
$3,940
MAS033
$132,000
$92,000
$224,000
$11,900
$236,000
MAS034
$12,600
$8,900
$21,500
$1,640
$23,100
MAS035
$220,000
$150,000
$374,000
$19,800
$394,000
MAS036
$74,200
$52,000
$126,000
$6,690
$133,000
MAS040
$50,600
$35,000
$86,000
$3,420
$89,400
MAS041
$85,800
$60,000
$146,000
$5,800
$152,000
MAS042
$39,600
$28,000
$67,400
$2,680
$70,100
MAS043
$110,000
$77,000
$187,000
$7,430
$195,000
MAS045
$110,000
$77,000
$187,000
$7,430
$195,000
MAS046
$875,000
$610,000
$1,490,000
$59,100
$1,550,000
MAS048
$584,000
$410,000
$993,000
$52,700
$1,050,000
MAS049
$989,000
$690,000
$1,680,000
$89,200
$1,770,000
MAS050
$971,000
$680,000
$1,650,000
$1,200,000
$2,860,000
MAS051
$38,400
$27,000
$65,300
$4,990
$70,300
MAS052
$145,000
$100,000
$247,000
$13,100
$260,000
MAS053
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
MAS054
$484,000
$340,000
$823,000
$566,000
$1,390,000
MAS055
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
MAS056
$31,700
$22,000
$53,900
$4,120
$58,000
MAS057
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
MAS058
$25,300
$18,000
$43,000
$3,290
$46,300
MAS059
$23,600
$17,000
$40,100
$3,070
$43,200
MAS060
$45,100
$32,000
$76,700
$5,860
$82,600
MAS061
$26,100
$18,000
$44,400
$3,400
$47,800
MAS062
$38,400
$27,000
$65,300
$4,990
$70,300
MAS063
$12,600
$8,900
$21,500
$1,640
$23,100
MAS065
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
MAS067
$30,300
$21,000
$51,500
$3,950
$55,500
MAS068
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
MAS069
$159,000
$110,000
$271,000
$20,700
$292,000
MAS072
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
MAS075
$16,000
$11,000
$27,200
$2,080
$29,300
MAS076
$37,900
$27,000
$64,500
$4,930
$69,400
Page 9 of 14
-------
TABLE D-40
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
and Indirect
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID
Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MAS077
$91,900
$64,000
$156,000
$11,900
$168,000
MAS078
$364,000
$250,000
$617,000
$580,000
$1,200,000
MAS079
$1,030,000
$720,000
$1,740,000
$92,400
$1,830,000
MAS080
$36,200
$25,000
$61,600
$4,710
$66,300
MAS081
$177,000
$120,000
$301,000
$23,000
$324,000
MAS082
$104,000
$73,000
$177,000
$13,500
$190,000
MAS083
$1,020,000
$710,000
$1,730,000
$92,100
$1,830,000
MAS084
$824,000
$580,000
$1,400,000
$74,300
$1,480,000
PineCrkSeg02
TWI001
$47,200
$33,000
$80,200
$6,140
$86,300
TWI002
$158,000
$110,000
$269,000
$14,300
$283,000
TWI003
$13,500
$9,400
$22,900
$1,750
$24,700
TWI004
$19,400
$14,000
$33,000
$2,520
$35,500
TWI005
$25,300
$18,000
$43,000
$3,290
$46,300
TWI006
$132,000
$92,000
$224,000
$11,900
$236,000
TWI007
$41,800
$29,000
$71,000
$5,430
$76,400
TWI008
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
TWI009
$178,000
$120,000
$303,000
$16,100
$319,000
TWI010
$55,100
$39,000
$93,700
$7,160
$101,000
TWI011
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
TWI012
$106,000
$74,000
$179,000
$9,520
$189,000
TWI013
$211,000
$150,000
$359,000
$19,000
$378,000
TWI014
$165,000
$120,000
$280,000
$14,900
$295,000
TWI015
$53,400
$37,000
$90,800
$6,950
$97,800
TWI016
$41,800
$29,000
$71,000
$5,430
$76,400
TWI017
$22,800
$16,000
$38,700
$2,960
$41,700
TWI018
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
TWI019
$55,100
$39,000
$93,700
$7,160
$101,000
TWI020
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
TWI021
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,900
TWI022
$61,500
$43,000
$105,000
$8,000
$113,000
TWI023
$42,200
$30,000
$71,700
$5,480
$77,200
TWI024
$35,400
$25,000
$60,200
$4,600
$64,800
TWI025
$25,300
$18,000
$43,000
$3,290
$46,300
TWI026
$116,000
$81,000
$197,000
$15,100
$213,000
TWI027
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
TWI028
$30,100
$21,000
$51,100
$3,910
$55,000
TWI029
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
TWI030
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
PineCrkSeg03
KLW072
$87,700
$61,000
$149,000
$11,400
$161,000
KLW073
$231,000
$160,000
$393,000
$20,800
$413,000
KLW075
$468,000
$330,000
$796,000
$42,200
$838,000
KLW077
$303,000
$210,000
$515,000
$27,400
$543,000
KLW079
$264,000
$180,000
$449,000
$23,800
$472,000
KLW080
$137,000
$96,000
$233,000
$23,300
$256,000
KLW081
$166,000
$120,000
$281,000
$534,000
$815,000
KLW082
$224,000
$160,000
$381,000
$20,200
$401,000
KLW083
$382,000
$270,000
$649,000
$34,500
$684,000
KLW084
$28,700
$20,000
$48,800
$3,730
$52,500
KLW085
$396,000
$280,000
$672,000
$35,700
$708,000
MAS001
$91,000
$64,000
$155,000
$11,800
$167,000
MAS003
$476,000
$330,000
$808,000
$606,000
$1,410,000
MAS064
$21,100
$15,000
$35,900
$2,740
$38,600
MAS066
$5,500
$3,800
$9,340
$496
$9,840
PC03-1
$1,540,000
$1,100,000
$2,620,000
$331,000
$2,950,000
PC03-2
$1,280,000
$890,000
$2,170,000
$270,000
$2,440,000
PC03-3
$576,000
$400,000
$979,000
$127,000
$1,110,000
Page 10 of 14
-------
TABLE D-40
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
and Indirect
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
UpperSFCDRSeg PIPEUG
$11,800,000
$8,300,000
$20,100,000
$947,000
$21,100,000
UpperSFCDRSegOl BUR136
$25,300
$18,000
$43,000
$3,290
$46,300
BUR137
$27,000
$19,000
$45,900
$3,510
$49,400
LOK001
$109,000
$76,000
$185,000
$14,100
$199,000
LOK002
$107,000
$75,000
$182,000
$13,900
$196,000
LOK003
$20,200
$14,000
$34,400
$2,630
$37,000
LOK004
$2,210,000
$1,500,000
$3,760,000
$1,360,000
$5,120,000
LOK005
$15,200
$11,000
$25,800
$1,970
$27,800
LOK006
$171,000
$120,000
$291,000
$15,500
$307,000
LOK007
$123,000
$86,000
$209,000
$21,000
$230,000
LOK008
$243,000
$190,000
$435,000
$76,900
$512,000
LOK009
$420,000
$290,000
$713,000
$71,400
$784,000
LOK010
$92,300
$65,000
$157,000
$8,330
$165,000
LOK011
$4,670,000
$4,600,000
$9,280,000
$2,810,000
$12,100,000
LOK012
$122,000
$86,000
$208,000
$15,900
$224,000
LOK013
$108,000
$76,000
$184,000
$14,000
$198,000
LOK014
$543,000
$380,000
$923,000
$1,200,000
$2,120,000
LOK015
$10,100
$7,100
$17,200
$1,320
$18,500
LOK016
$69,100
$48,000
$118,000
$8,990
$126,000
LOK017
$1,020,000
$710,000
$1,730,000
$611,000
$2,340,000
LOK018
$47,200
$33,000
$80,200
$6,140
$86,300
LOK019
$254,000
$180,000
$432,000
$543,000
$975,000
LOK020
$45,500
$32,000
$77,400
$5,920
$83,300
LOK021
$96,100
$67,000
$163,000
$12,500
$176,000
LOK022
$124,000
$87,000
$211,000
$16,100
$227,000
LOK024
$614,000
$430,000
$1,040,000
$1,210,000
$2,250,000
LOK025
$32,000
$22,000
$54,400
$4,160
$58,600
LOK026
$28,700
$20,000
$48,800
$3,730
$52,500
LOK027
$16,000
$11,000
$27,200
$2,080
$29,300
LOK028
$541,000
$380,000
$920,000
$1,200,000
$2,120,000
LOK041
$79,200
$56,000
$135,000
$10,300
$145,000
LOK044
$127,000
$89,000
$216,000
$16,500
$232,000
LOK045
$31,200
$22,000
$53,000
$4,050
$57,100
LOK047
$191,000
$130,000
$324,000
$24,800
$349,000
LOK048
$123,000
$86,000
$209,000
$21,000
$230,000
LOK050
$357,000
$250,000
$607,000
$32,200
$639,000
LOK051
$1,260,000
$880,000
$2,140,000
$114,000
$2,250,000
LOK052
$26,100
$18,000
$44,400
$3,400
$47,800
LOK053
$26,100
$18,000
$44,400
$3,400
$47,800
LOK054
$11,000
$7,700
$18,700
$1,420
$20,100
MUL001
$2,090,000
$1,500,000
$3,570,000
$203,000
$3,770,000
MUL002
$631,000
$440,000
$1,070,000
$57,000
$1,130,000
MUL003
$231,000
$160,000
$393,000
$30,000
$423,000
MUL004
$540,000
$380,000
$919,000
$48,800
$968,000
MUL005
$28,700
$20,000
$48,800
$3,730
$52,500
MUL006
$481,000
$340,000
$818,000
$43,400
$861,000
MUL007
$80,100
$56,000
$136,000
$10,400
$147,000
MUL008
$906,000
$630,000
$1,540,000
$81,800
$1,620,000
MUL009
$21,100
$15,000
$35,900
$2,740
$38,600
MUL010
$27,000
$19,000
$45,900
$3,510
$49,400
MUL011
$12,600
$8,900
$21,500
$1,640
$23,100
MUL012
$4,320,000
$3,100,000
$7,420,000
$898,000
$8,320,000
MUL013
$115,000
$100,000
$217,000
$53,300
$271,000
MUL014
$1,260,000
$1,300,000
$2,540,000
$859,000
$3,400,000
MUL015
$436,000
$310,000
$742,000
$74,400
$817,000
MUL016
$46,400
$33,000
$78,900
$6,030
$84,900
Page 11 of 14
-------
TABLE D-40
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
and Indirect
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MUL017
$45,500
$32,000
$77,400
$5,920
$83,300
MUL018
$396,000
$280,000
$672,000
$35,700
$708,000
MUL019
$13,800,000
$9,900,000
$23,700,000
$1,800,000
$25,500,000
MUL020
$7,830,000
$5,500,000
$13,300,000
$654,000
$14,000,000
MUL021
$797,000
$560,000
$1,360,000
$72,000
$1,430,000
MUL022
$29,500
$21,000
$50,200
$3,840
$54,000
MUL023
$1,360,000
$950,000
$2,310,000
$1,270,000
$3,580,000
MUL024
$690,000
$480,000
$1,170,000
$1,220,000
$2,390,000
MUL025
$85,100
$60,000
$145,000
$11,100
$156,000
MUL026
$170,000
$120,000
$289,000
$22,100
$311,000
MUL027
$682,000
$480,000
$1,160,000
$626,000
$1,780,000
MUL028
$2,330,000
$1,600,000
$3,970,000
$932,000
$4,900,000
MUL029
$387,000
$270,000
$658,000
$66,000
$724,000
MUL030
$164,000
$110,000
$279,000
$27,900
$307,000
MUL031
$155,000
$110,000
$263,000
$26,400
$290,000
MUL032
$28,700
$20,000
$48,800
$3,730
$52,500
MUL033
$301,000
$210,000
$511,000
$51,200
$563,000
MUL034
$73,500
$51,000
$125,000
$9,550
$134,000
MUL035
$25,300
$18,000
$43,000
$3,290
$46,300
MUL036
$23,600
$17,000
$40,100
$3,070
$43,200
MUL037
$9,530,000
$6,700,000
$16,200,000
$720,000
$16,900,000
MUL038
$2,190,000
$1,500,000
$3,710,000
$197,000
$3,910,000
MUL040
$16,000
$11,000
$27,200
$2,080
$29,300
MUL041
$314,000
$220,000
$534,000
$40,800
$575,000
MUL042
$265,000
$180,000
$449,000
$45,000
$494,000
MUL043
$333,000
$230,000
$566,000
$56,700
$622,000
MUL045
$524,000
$370,000
$891,000
$89,300
$980,000
MUL046
$29,500
$21,000
$50,200
$3,840
$54,000
MUL047
$105,000
$73,000
$178,000
$17,900
$196,000
MUL048
$586,000
$410,000
$998,000
$52,900
$1,050,000
MUL049
$25,300
$18,000
$43,000
$3,290
$46,300
MUL050
$31,200
$22,000
$53,000
$4,050
$57,100
MUL051
$546,000
$380,000
$928,000
$93,100
$1,020,000
MUL052
$685,000
$480,000
$1,160,000
$1,210,000
$2,370,000
MUL053
$2,060,000
$1,400,000
$3,500,000
$1,570,000
$5,070,000
MUL054
$186,000
$130,000
$317,000
$538,000
$855,000
MUL055
$220,000
$150,000
$374,000
$28,600
$403,000
MUL056
$29,500
$21,000
$50,200
$3,840
$54,000
MUL057
$66,600
$47,000
$113,000
$8,660
$122,000
MUL058
$23,400,000
$16,000,000
$39,800,000
$2,260,000
$42,100,000
MUL059
$620,000
$430,000
$1,050,000
$55,900
$1,110,000
MUL060
$139,000
$97,000
$235,000
$12,500
$248,000
MUL061
$29,500
$21,000
$50,200
$3,840
$54,000
MUL062
$21,100
$15,000
$35,900
$2,740
$38,600
MUL063
$139,000
$97,000
$235,000
$12,500
$248,000
MUL064
$47,200
$33,000
$80,200
$6,140
$86,300
MUL065
$205,000
$140,000
$348,000
$18,400
$366,000
MUL066
$79,200
$56,000
$135,000
$10,300
$145,000
MUL067
$113,000
$79,000
$192,000
$14,700
$207,000
MUL068
$30,300
$21,000
$51,500
$3,950
$55,500
MUL069
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,900
MUL071
$78,400
$55,000
$133,000
$7,940
$141,000
MUL072
$386,000
$270,000
$656,000
$1,050,000
$1,710,000
MUL073
$174,000
$120,000
$296,000
$22,600
$319,000
MUL074
$38,800
$27,000
$65,900
$5,040
$70,900
MUL075
$25,300
$18,000
$43,000
$3,290
$46,300
Page 12 of 14
-------
TABLE D-40
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Segment ID
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
and Indirect
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MUL076
$29,500
$21,000
$50,200
$3,840
$54,000
MUL077
$20,200
$14,000
$34,400
$2,630
$37,000
MUL078
$96,100
$67,000
$163,000
$12,500
$176,000
MUL079
$75,000
$53,000
$128,000
$9,750
$137,000
MUL080
$28,700
$20,000
$48,800
$3,730
$52,500
MUL081
$394,000
$280,000
$669,000
$558,000
$1,230,000
MUL082
$21,100
$15,000
$35,900
$2,740
$38,600
MUL083
$422,000
$300,000
$717,000
$38,100
$755,000
MUL084
$95,300
$67,000
$162,000
$12,400
$174,000
MUL103
$676,000
$470,000
$1,150,000
$1,210,000
$2,360,000
MUL107
$11,000
$7,700
$18,700
$1,420
$20,100
MUL108
$11,800
$8,300
$20,100
$1,530
$21,600
MUL109
$14,300
$10,000
$24,300
$1,860
$26,200
MUL110
$11,800
$8,300
$20,100
$1,530
$21,600
MUL111
$16,000
$11,000
$27,200
$2,080
$29,300
MUL112
$15,200
$11,000
$25,800
$1,970
$27,800
MUL113
$17,700
$12,000
$30,100
$2,300
$32,400
MUL114
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,900
MUL115
$20,200
$14,000
$34,400
$2,630
$37,000
MUL116
$15,200
$11,000
$25,800
$1,970
$27,800
MUL117
$23,600
$17,000
$40,100
$3,070
$43,200
MUL118
$27,000
$19,000
$45,900
$3,510
$49,400
MUL119
$23,600
$17,000
$40,100
$3,070
$43,200
MUL120
$15,400
$11,000
$26,200
$1,390
$27,500
MUL121
$13,500
$9,400
$22,900
$1,750
$24,700
MUL122
$17,700
$12,000
$30,100
$2,300
$32,400
MUL123
$12,600
$8,900
$21,500
$1,640
$23,100
MUL124
$15,200
$11,000
$25,800
$1,970
$27,800
MUL125
$21,100
$15,000
$35,900
$2,740
$38,600
MUL126
$18,500
$13,000
$31,500
$2,410
$33,900
MUL127
$19,400
$14,000
$33,000
$2,520
$35,500
MUL128
$16,000
$11,000
$27,200
$2,080
$29,300
MUL129
$732,000
$510,000
$1,240,000
$66,000
$1,310,000
MUL130
$149,000
$100,000
$253,000
$19,400
$272,000
MUL131
$181,000
$130,000
$308,000
$16,400
$325,000
MUL132
$49,500
$35,000
$84,100
$4,460
$88,600
MUL133
$21,100
$15,000
$35,900
$2,740
$38,600
MUL134
$48,900
$34,000
$83,100
$6,360
$89,500
MUL135
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
MUL136
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
MUL137
$30,300
$21,000
$51,500
$3,950
$55,500
MUL138
$68,300
$48,000
$116,000
$8,880
$125,000
MUL139
$3,800
$2,700
$6,460
$647
$7,100
MUL140
$14,300
$10,000
$24,300
$1,860
$26,200
MUL141
$354,000
$250,000
$602,000
$23,900
$626,000
MUL142
$1,260,000
$880,000
$2,140,000
$85,000
$2,220,000
MUL143
$30,300
$21,000
$51,500
$3,950
$55,500
MUL144
$20,200
$14,000
$34,400
$2,630
$37,000
MUL145
$154,000
$110,000
$262,000
$10,400
$272,000
MUL146
$597,000
$420,000
$1,020,000
$102,000
$1,120,000
MUL147
$16,000
$11,000
$27,200
$2,080
$29,300
MUL148
$112,000
$78,000
$190,000
$14,500
$205,000
MUL149
$207,000
$150,000
$352,000
$14,000
$366,000
MUL150
$554,000
$390,000
$942,000
$37,400
$979,000
MUL151
$21,100
$15,000
$35,900
$2,740
$38,600
MUL152
$14,300
$10,000
$24,300
$1,860
$26,200
Page 13 of 14
-------
TABLE D-40
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Site, Alternative 4+
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeur d'Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
and Indirect
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-
Segment ID Source ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Year NPV)
Year NPV)
MUL153
$280,000
$200,000
$475,000
$18,800
$494,000
MUL154
$147,000
$100,000
$250,000
$19,100
$269,000
MUL155
$32,000
$22,000
$54,400
$4,160
$58,600
MUL156
$14,300
$10,000
$24,300
$1,860
$26,200
MUL157
$9,270
$6,500
$15,800
$1,210
$17,000
THO019
$28,700
$20,000
$48,800
$3,730
$52,500
THO020
$191,000
$130,000
$325,000
$17,200
$342,000
THO021
$25,300
$18,000
$43,000
$3,290
$46,300
UG01-1
$14,200
$9,900
$24,100
$2,550
$26,700
UG01-10
$426,000
$300,000
$724,000
$109,000
$833,000
UG01-11
$238,000
$170,000
$405,000
$54,300
$459,000
UG01-12
$2,740,000
$1,900,000
$4,660,000
$607,000
$5,260,000
UG01-13
$1,090,000
$760,000
$1,860,000
$260,000
$2,120,000
UG01-14
$120,000
$84,000
$203,000
$33,600
$237,000
UG01-15
$371,000
$260,000
$630,000
$110,000
$740,000
UG01-16
$783,000
$550,000
$1,330,000
$189,000
$1,520,000
UG01-17
$2,680,000
$1,900,000
$4,550,000
$585,000
$5,140,000
UG01-18
$663,000
$460,000
$1,130,000
$196,000
$1,320,000
UG01-19
$205,000
$140,000
$349,000
$51,500
$401,000
UG01-4
$11,600
$8,100
$19,700
$3,480
$23,200
UG01-5
$459,000
$320,000
$780,000
$123,000
$903,000
UG01-6
$2,430,000
$1,700,000
$4,140,000
$483,000
$4,620,000
UG01-7
$511,000
$360,000
$868,000
$120,000
$988,000
UG01-8
$277,000
$190,000
$471,000
$58,300
$529,000
UG01-9
$529,000
$370,000
$900,000
$143,000
$1,040,000
WAL013
$224,000
$160,000
$381,000
$20,200
$401,000
WAL038
$55,300,000
$39,000,000
$94,600,000
$4,400,000
$99,000,000
WAL068
$24,400
$17,000
$41,500
$3,180
$44,700
WAL076
$1,120,000
$790,000
$1,910,000
$101,000
$2,010,000
WAL077
$1,540,000
$1,100,000
$2,620,000
$104,000
$2,720,000
Notes:
This Table does not include Central Treatment Plant (CTP) Sludge Pond Closure costs, these costs will be applied to the Total Alternative Cost.
This Table does not include Roads and Bridges costs, these costs will be applied to the Total Alternative Cost.
O&M = Operations and Maintenance
NPV = Net Present Value
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal accuracy of -30 percent to +50 percent (-30/+50%).
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for
guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material
costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the final project schedule, and other variable factors. As a
result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making
specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Page 14 of 14
-------
TABLE D-41
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Watershed
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total
2009 Total Direct
Direct Capital
2009 Indirect
and Indirect Capital
O&M Cost (30-
Total Cost (30-Year
Alternative
Watershed ID
Cost
Capital Cost
Cost
Year NPV)
NPV)
3+
BIG
$24,200,000
$16,900,000
$41,100,000
$5,790,000
$46,900,000
CC
$39,900,000
$29,400,000
$69,300,000
$8,220,000
$77,500,000
CCWP
$18,800,000
$13,400,000
$32,200,000
$2,550,000
$34,800,000
MGS
$361,000,000
$253,000,000
$614,000,000
$27,900,000
$642,000,000
MN
$2,490,000
$1,740,000
$4,230,000
$741,000
$4,970,000
NM
$47,800,000
$33,400,000
$81,200,000
$11,800,000
$93,000,000
PC
$26,800,000
$18,700,000
$45,500,000
$14,100,000
$59,600,000
UG
$112,000,000
$80,400,000
$192,000,000
$22,500,000
$215,000,000
4+
BIG
$58,100,000
$40,700,000
$98,800,000
$10,400,000
$109,000,000
CC
$72,100,000
$52,100,000
$124,000,000
$12,600,000
$137,000,000
CCWP
$119,000,000
$83,000,000
$202,000,000
$13,000,000
$215,000,000
MGS
$406,000,000
$285,000,000
$692,000,000
$35,700,000
$727,000,000
MN
$2,800,000
$1,960,000
$4,750,000
$643,000
$5,400,000
NM
$74,800,000
$52,300,000
$127,000,000
$15,500,000
$143,000,000
PC
$32,200,000
$22,500,000
$54,700,000
$17,700,000
$72,400,000
UG
$189,000,000
$135,000,000
$324,000,000
$38,000,000
$362,000,000
Notes:
This Table does not include Central Treatment Plant (CTP) Sludge Pond Closure costs, these costs will be applied to the Total Alternative Cost.
This Table does not include Roads and Bridges costs, these costs will be applied to the Total Alternative Cost.
O&M = Operations and Maintenance
NPV = Net Present Value
BIG = Big Creek
CC = Canyon Creek
CCWP = Canyon Creek - Woodland Park
MGS = Mainstem, SFCDR
MN = Moon Creek
Page 1 of 2
-------
TABLE D-41
Summary of Total Estimated Costs by Watershed
Focused Feasibility Study, Upper Basin of the Coeurd'Aiene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site
2009 Total 2009 Total Direct
Direct Capital 2009 Indirect and Indirect Capital O&M Cost (30- Total Cost (30-Year
Alternative Watershed ID Cost Capital Cost Cost Year NPV) NPV)
NM = Ninemile
PC = Pine Creek
UG = Upper South Fork
NOTE: The above costs are presented rounded to three significant figures
NOTE: The above cost opinion is a Feasibility-Study-level estimate with a nominal accuracy of-30 percent to +50
percent (-30/+50%).
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in 2009 dollars and does not include future escalation. The order-of-magnitude
cost opinion shown has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the
time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site
conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, the final project schedule, and
other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these
factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions or establishing final
budgets.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Attachment D-l
Technical Memorandum: CTP Expansion
for Treatment of Other OU 2 and OU 3 Waters
-------
-------
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CH2MHILL
CTP Expansion for Treatment of Other OU 2
and OU 3 Waters
PREPARED FOR: Ed Moreen/ USEPA
Bill Adams/USEPA
PREPARED BY: Jim Stefanoff, P.E./CH2M HILL
DATE: January 14, 2010
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to describe expansion of the Bunker Hill
Central Treatment Plant (CTP), located in Kellogg, Idaho, for treatment of other Operable
Unit 2 (OU 2) and OU 3 waters. The CTP primarily treats acid mine drainage (AMD) from
the Bunker Hill mine along with relatively minor amounts of other OU 2 waters consisting
of stormwater from the mine yard, drainage from the smelter closure area, vehicle
decontamination water, and decontamination water associated with sampling.
The historical background of the CTP (Section 2.0) describes the 2001 Mine Water ROD
Amendment (USEPA, 2001a), which selected a final remedy for managing Bunker Hill
AMD, including improvements needed at the CTP. This is presented because improvements
needed to expand CTP capacity for additional waters must consider interface with the CTP's
role of treating its current inflows, and particularly Bunker Hill AMD (Section 3.0).
Section 4.0 describes the estimated capital and O&M costs for a range of potential expanded
CTP capacities.
This technical memorandum has been developed for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) Region 10 under the requirements of CH2M HILL's USEPA Region 10
Architect and Engineering Service (AES) Contract 68-57-04-01.
2.0 Background
2.1 CTP Historical Background
Before 1928, liquid and solid waste from the Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex
was discharged directly into the South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River (SFCDR) and its
tributaries. In 1928 the waste was directed to a nearby floodplain where a Central
Impoundment Area (CIA) was developed. AMD and wastewater from the complex were
discharged to the CIA, where a pond was constructed to settle solids before discharging the
liquids to the river. This primary treatment mechanism was one of the first major pollution
control features instituted by the mining industry.
The CTP was constructed in 1974 by the Bunker Hill Mining Company to treat AMD from
the mine and various sources of wastewater from their metallurgical complex. Bunker Hill
mine AMD is the single strongest source of contaminated water in either OU 2 or OU 3,
CTP EXPANSION UPGRADES AND COSTSTM.DOC
-------
having an average zinc concentration of about 170 milligrams per liter (mg/ L), and a range
of between about 60 and 700 mg/L. The average annual zinc load is about 3,000 pounds per
day (lb/day).
The CTP uses the lime neutralization process to increase influent pH and to precipitate
dissolved metals as oxy-hydroxide precipitates, which are settled in a clarifier and pumped
into a sludge disposal pond located on the top of the adjacent CIA. Polymer is added prior
to the clarifier to promote flocculation and settling of the precipitates. The CTP does not
have filters to remove precipitates that do not settle in the clarifier.
In 1974, when the CTP was first brought online, AMD and complex waters were stored in an
unlined pond on top of the CIA before being decanted to the CTP. When the smelter closed
in 1981, the CIA was no longer required to impound wastewater from the complex,
although surface runoff from the complex and AMD from the mine were still routed to the
CIA before treatment. Sludge formed during the treatment process was also disposed of in
unlined ponds on top of the CIA.
Ownership of the mine has passed through a number of companies during the more than
100-year history of the site, finally ending up under the direction of the New Bunker Hill
Mining Company (NBHMC). NBHMC did not, however, purchase the CTP. Bunker Limited
Partnership (BLP), and then the Gulf and Pintlar corporations as creditors of BLP, continued
to operate the treatment plant using money from a trust fund established as part of the BLP
bankruptcy. The federal and state governments assumed operation of the CTP in November
1994, following the bankruptcy of the Gulf and Pintlar corporations. In that same year,
USEPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to NBHMC directing the company to keep
the mine pool pumped to an elevation below the level of the SFCDR to prevent discharges
to the river, to convey mine water to the CTP for treatment unless an alternative form of
treatment was approved, and to provide for emergency mine water storage within the mine.
The CTP was operated by the BLP, under the direction of USEPA, from November 1994 to
February 1996 using money from the BLP trust fund. At that time, it was determined that
the BLP trust fund monies would be better spent on ongoing site cleanup.
Since February 1996, the ongoing treatment of AMD has been conducted and funded by the
federal and state governments. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers currently operates the
CTP for USEPA using a contractor. The CTP includes all associated mine water
infrastructure components external to the mine (the AMD collection ditch at the Kellogg
Tunnel portal [the main entrance to the mine], the AMD conveyance pipelines to the CTP,
and the lined pond [a 7 million-gallon lined AMD storage pond]), the CTP, and the sludge
disposal pond located on the CIA used for treatment residuals. The NBHMC is currently
operating the Bunker Hill mine and maintaining its infrastructure, including the AMD
collection ditches within the mine, the mine pool pumping system used to pump the lower
workings water to the 9 Level (the main operations level which drains AMD out through
the Kellogg Tunnel ditch system), and the Kellogg Tunnel itself.
2.2 Record of Decision Amendment
An amendment to the OU 2 1992 Non-Populated Areas Record of Decision (ROD), which
addressed management of AMD from the mine, was issued in December 2001 (USEPA,
2001a). The ROD Amendment was necessary to address shortcomings presented by the
CTP EXPANSION UPGRADES AND C0STSTM.DOC
2
-------
existing mine water control systems that resulted in continued generation and discharge of
AMD from the mine and the antiquated state of the CTP. The ROD Amendment identified
decreasing water entry to the underground workings as the most viable way to reduce the
magnitude of the AMD problem. The selected remedy for managing AMD from the Bunker
Hill mine was Alternative 3 - Phased Source Control/Treatment. Each component of the
remedy and its current status is described below.
AMD Mitigation
This component of the remedy includes actions to reduce the quantity of surface water
entering the mine and AMD created within the mine. This would provide the following
benefits:
Reduced in-mine maintenance associated with drifts and drainage ditches
Reduced mine water pumping from the lower workings
Improved reliability of conveying mine water to the portal for collection
Reduced peak treatment flows at the CTP
Generation of less sludge
Reduced CTP operations costs
The mitigations include constructing a stream diversion on the West Fork of Milo Creek,
modification of the Phil Sheridan raise system, and plugging in-mine drill holes, as a first
phase of source control. These efforts are expected to have the greatest impact on reducing
the magnitude of mine water flows and the strength of the flows (in terms of the amount of
dissolved metal contaminants) exiting the mine through the Kellogg Tunnel. Other flow
reduction measures would be considered in future phases, based on performance
monitoring and an evaluation of the ability of additional measures to provide cost-effective
water and/or contaminant reductions.
AMD Collection
This component includes collection of AMD within the mine. The ROD Amendment
specified use of the existing AMD collection system within the mine and transport through
the Kellogg Tunnel using the existing ditch systemgiven that the mine, at the time of the
ROD Amendment and also currently, is an open and operational mine.
AMD Storage
AMD storage is required during those times when the treatment plant is shut down for
maintenance or repairs, or when the mine water flow exceeds treatment capacity. Mine
water flows in excess of 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm) would be temporarily stored in the
existing lined pond or in the mine using a new gravity system to divert water into the mine
pool. A new mine pool extraction system would be installed to reduce the time needed to
extract the stored water and to increase reliability.
AMD Conveyance
This component of the remedy includes the conveyance of mine water from the Kellogg
Tunnel to the CTP. A new section of pipe would be added to allow direct flow of AMD to
the CTP rather than to the lined pond, where it requires pumping because its elevation is
lower than that of the CTP.
CTP EXPANSION UPGRADES AND COSTSTM.DOC
3
-------
AMD Treatment
The CTP would be upgraded to improve efficiency and increase reliability, to make less
sludge, and to achieve lower concentrations of metals in the plant's discharge allowing
compliance with the State of Idaho's water quality criteria. The existing CTP cannot
consistently meet the criteria because of the lack of media (sand) filters, and operates under
an expired National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Under the
ROD Amendment remedy, the CTP was to have an initial treatment capacity using media
filters of 2,500 gpm, but an overall treatment capacity of 5,000 gpm. Flows in excess of
2,500 gpm would either be bypassed around the filters or passed through the filters at
higher than design-flow rates. Additional filtration capacity could be added if determined to
be necessary based on the performance of the AMD mitigations for reducing peak AMD
flows.
Sludge Management
USEPA selected sludge disposal Option A (disposal of sludge in beds on top of the CIA).
However, because of community concerns about competing disposal needs, preserving
developable site land, and potentially developing regional disposal areas as part of the
Coeur d'Alene River Basin cleanup efforts, sludge disposal was to be implemented in the
following manner:
1. Execute initial upgrades to the CTP. These upgrades will reduce the current amount of
sludge produced by about half, thereby doubling the expected life of the current
disposal area.
2. Reevaluate whether additional regional sludge disposal capacity has become available
as part of the Basin (OU 3) cleanup efforts, which would make offsite disposal more
cost-effective. If so, pursue offsite sludge disposal. If not, construct one 10-year disposal
bed on the CIA, and close the existing sludge disposal area using a capping system
similar to the rest of the CIA.
3. Reconsider Step 2 before the construction of additional sludge beds on the CIA.
Performance Monitoring
Monitoring of the remedy was to include an assessment of untreated mine water within the
mine and at the Kellogg Tunnel portal, the quality of water treated at the CTP and measured
where effluent is discharged into Bunker Creek, and the performance of source control
actions (mitigations) to determine if additional flow reduction measures or treatment
capacity are warranted.
2.3 Status of Mine Water Remedy
A number of actions associated with the mine water remedy have been completed since the
signing of the ROD Amendment. The completed actions are discussed below by remedy
component, as presented in the ROD Amendment. In addition, this section identifies the
remedy actions that have yet to be implemented. This information is provided because
upgrades to the CTP for treatment of other OU 2 and OU 3 waters need to consider how to
integrate required changes with the existing mine water-related treatment infrastructure.
CTP EXPANSION UPGRADES AND C0STSTM.DOC
4
-------
AMD Mitigations/Source Control
The original mitigation actions to be constructed as part of the remedy include diverting
West Fork Milo Creek around the Guy Cave area (an area of known infiltration to the worst
AMD-forming areas of the mine), modifying the Phil Sheridan Diversion, and plugging
various in-mine drill holes that produce water. None of these actions has been constructed.
A 95 percent complete design was developed for the West Fork Milo Creek Diversion,
which includes modifying the Phil Sheridan Diversion.
AMD Collection
The AMD collection approach presented in the ROD Amendment consisted of gathering the
AMD within the mine using the existing collection system. Under the existing system, mine
water from the upper portions of the mine flows by gravity to the 9 Level and out the
Kellogg Tunnel. A portion of the flow from the upper mine bypasses the 9 Level and
discharges to the submerged workings (the mine pool), along with an unknown amount of
water coming from the cross-connected Crescent Mine. The mine pool water is pumped
from near the 11 Level up to the 9 Level through Shaft No. 2, where it joins the gravity
drainage water in the 9 Level ditch system and flows out the Kellogg Tunnel. The current
collection system requires that a large portion of the mine infrastructure, including the
Kellogg Tunnel, a large portion of 9 Level, Raise No. 2 and the hoist, and the Cherry Raise
and hoist, be maintained to allow for maintenance and periodic cleaning. However, these
areas must also be maintained this way to support the ongoing mine operations.
This remedy used the existing AMD collection procedure, which is still in use today. Thus,
no new AMD collection actions were included in the remedy as the mine was, and still is,
open and operational.
AMD Conveyance
This remedy included construction of a new pipeline to allow AMD to drain directly to the
CTP rather than to the lined pond, where it was resulting in an accumulation of sediment,
and the need to continuously pump the AMD to the CTP because of the pond's lower
elevation. This new section of pipeline is known as the Direct Feed pipeline.
The Direct Feed pipeline was installed in 2002. The pipeline is constructed of 20-inch high-
density polyethylene (HDPE) and includes valves to allow AMD to flow to either the lined
pond or directly to the CTP. A cleaning vault was constructed to allow periodic inspection
of the pipeline and cleaning by "pigging."
AMD Storage
Current mine water storage options consist of storing mine water either in the lined pond or
the lower portions of the mine itself. The remedy did not change this storage approach but
included construction of a new gravity diversion system to increase the flexibility of storing
water in the mine pool. The new gravity diversion would route water from the upper
workings of the mine into the mine pool for temporary storage when the lined pond did not
provide sufficient storage capacity. An evaluation conducted during the Remedial
Instruction/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) (USEPA, 2001b) indicated that the water in the mine
pool could rise up to the 10 Level with no net gravity head of mine pool water towards the
SFCDR. This remedy also included a new mine pool extraction system to reduce the time
CTP EXPANSION UPGRADES AND C0STSTM.DOC
5
-------
needed to extract the stored water. The conceptual design of the new extraction system
consisted of two 700 gpm pumps installed below 11 Level and an upgrade of the current
mine electrical system to support the pumping operation. The remedy also included
continued repair and maintenance of the existing lined pond.
An alternate and simpler approach to the remedy gravity diversion system was proposed
and implemented by the mine owner. This system consists of temporarily constructing a
sandbag cutoff dam at the back of the Kellogg Tunnel to impound AMD and to back up the
AMD into the Barney Vent Raise, where it flows down to 10 Level and subsequently into the
mine pool. This system was funded by the mine owner; therefore, no USEPA or state
funding was required.
Although not specified in the remedy, the lined pond was cleaned of accumulated sediment
in 2003 to improve storage capacity. This was done after the construction of the Direct Feed
pipeline.
AMD Treatment
As described previously, the CTP was built in 1974 and had not been updated in any
significant way at the time the ROD Amendment was adopted. Much of the equipment was
nearly worn out, and many of the automated control systems no longer functioned or had
been removed. The plant's sand filters, previously used to remove solids from the discharge,
had also been removed. Their removal resulted in the plant being unable to function in
high-density sludge (HDS) mode ( a mode of lime treatment whereby significantly less
sludge is produced) as it had originally; the plant also was unable to consistently meet the
discharge standards of its expired NPDES permit. The plant had no backup power and went
offline periodically because of electrical interference from lightning storms or localized
power surges. All original alarm systems were inoperative. A Radio Shack phone auto-
dial box was the only alarm system and it was unreliable due in part to leaks in the electrical
room roof. Buildup of solids in plant pipes had reduced its capacity from 5,000 gpm to
about 3,500 gpm. The lime storage silo was caked with hardened lime, and the lime makeup
and feed system was manual requiring significant operator attention. The wall upon which
the electrical equipment was mounted leaked, and constant seepage had rusted out the back
of many of the electrical panels. In summary, the plant was far below modern operational
standards, was prone to failure, and was labor intensive to operate. The CTP Master Plan
(Bunker Hill RI/FS, Appendix E) specified needed improvements to address these
problems. These improvements were adopted as part of the ROD Amendment.
As mentioned above, the CTP was originally designed to use lime HDS treatment
technology. This process uses lime to remove acidity and to precipitate the dissolved metals
as hydroxides, which creates solids known as "sludge." The HDS process creates sludge of
much higher density than conventional lime treatment. HDS sludge dewaters to a greater
extent and requires much less disposal space than conventional lime sludge, thereby
significantly reducing cost.
At the time of its construction in 1974, only a few HDS plants were on-line in the world. This
technology is still state-of-the-art and used at hundreds of mine and industrial sites.
However, while originally designed as an HDS plant, the CTP currently must be operated in
a "low-density sludge" mode, which prevents the formation of true HDS. This is because
CTP EXPANSION UPGRADES AND C0STSTM.DOC
6
-------
the sand filters, needed for polishing excess suspended solids from the clarifier overflow,
have been removed. Filters are also needed to allow the CTP to not only consistently meet
its current discharge standards established by the expired NPDES permit, but also the much
more rigorous standards yet to be enacted pursuant to Idaho water quality standards. This
is primarily because excess solids periodically overflow into the plant effluent, increasing
the concentration of zinc beyond discharge standards. New discharge standards, in
conformance with current Idaho water quality standards, were established for the CTP as
part of the ROD Amendment. These new standards will be adopted once filters are
constructed. Filter construction would also allow the plant to be operated in HDS mode,
significantly reducing long-term sludge disposal costs.
Since the ROD Amendment, USEPA and the State of Idaho have moved forward with a
number of CTP improvements specified in the CTP Master Plan. The following
improvements were performed as part of time critical actions taken to replace the most
failure-prone equipment and plant systems:
Replaced and upgraded the lime storage and feeding system
Refurbished the thickener
Updated the plant electrical system
Constructed a new control building and updated the plant control system including new
alarm systems
Increased the hydraulic capacity to 5,000 gpm by replacing the pipeline between the
thickener and the polishing pond
Installed a backup diesel electrical generator and sound-deadening enclosure
Installed a new sludge recycle pump and disposal pipeline from the CTP to the sludge
disposal cell
The following actions remain to be implemented. Addition of the filters would allow the
plant to meet Idaho water quality standards and to operate in the HDS mode, thus
significantly reducing sludge disposal volumes. The other items listed below are needed to
complete plant modernization.
Add 2,500 gpm of filters and associated piping and pump stations, and a new building
to house the filters
Replace Reactor A (sludge conditioning tank/rapid mix tank) and agitator
Replace the Aeration Basin with a new Reactor B, agitator, and air blower
Replace the manual polymer makeup system with an automated system, and replace the
feed pumps and pipes
Replace the other sludge recycle and wasting pumps
Add an influent flow meter and replace the effluent Parshall flume
Sludge Management
A new sludge pipeline from the CTP to the existing CIA sludge bed was installed. This was
needed because the old pipeline was periodically developing leaks and was in poor
CTP EXPANSION UPGRADES AND C0STSTM.DOC
7
-------
condition. The existing CIA sludge bed is still being used and estimated to have about
12 years of remaining life.
Performance Monitoring
A major aspect of the remedy was the phased approach to implement AMD source control
measures (mitigations). Information collected from the monitoring program would be used
to help determine if additional mitigations were required beyond those included in the first
phase. The remedy includes performance monitoring of:
1. AMD at various locations within the mine (for a 10-year period as part of the phased
implementation approach for source control measures/CTP capacity) and at the at the
Kellogg Tunnel portal
2. Treated CTP effluent at its discharge
3. Source control actions to determine if additional flow reduction measures or treatment
capacity are warranted (for a 10-year period as part of the phased implementation
approach for source control measures/CTP capacity)
Treated CTP effluent is monitored at the outfall to Bunker Creek. Periodic samples of the
AMD from the Kellogg Tunnel portal are also collected along with flow rate. No in-mine
AMD monitoring has been conducted, nor has monitoring associated with source control
action areas such as Milo Creek and its tributaries.
3.0 CTP Treatment Capacity Expansion
The CTP could be effectively expanded to treat other metals impacted water from OU 2 or
OU 3, such as groundwater or AMD from other mines. The 2005 Canyon Creek treatability
study (CH2M HILL, 2006) demonstrated that Canyon Creek groundwater could be
successfully co-treated with Bunker Hill mine AMD using the lime HDS treatment process,
which is the same process used at the CTP although the CTP is currently operated in a
low-density sludge mode because of lack of media filters as described earlier.
The 2005 Canyon Creek treatability study also demonstrated that the lime HDS process can
successfully treat much more dilute streams than the combination of Bunker Hill mine
water and Canyon Creek groundwater. A separate test was conducted on just Canyon Creek
groundwater. While the effluent quality was as good, the sludge was not as dense as the
combined Bunker Hill mine and Canyon Creek groundwater, although it was much denser
than what would be produced from traditional lime treatment not employing the HDS
approach.
3.1 CTP Capacity
The CTP could be expanded to treat very large inflows. Equipment could be upsized and/or
replicated as needed. Constraints on ultimate capacity are primarily limited to availability of
land and related infrastructure. The largest single piece of equipment needed is the clarifier.
While additional clarifiers could be added, the existing 236-foot-diameter unit has a
maximum hydraulic capacity, based on the results of the Canyon Creek treatability testing
program, of about 30,000 gpm. Higher flows than this may be effectively treated, but given
CTP EXPANSION UPGRADES AND COSTSTM.DOC
8
-------
available information, this flow is a reasonable upper end limit without addition of a second
clarifier.
3.2 Modifications Needed
The following CTP modifications would be needed to treat up to 30,000 gpm and to meet
Idaho water quality standards. Below are the required modifications, which are already
planned as part of the remaining ROD Amendment upgrades:
Add 2,500 gpm of media filters, associated piping and pump stations, and a new
building to house the filters
Replace Reactor A (sludge conditioning tank/rapid mix tank) and agitator
Replace the manual polymer makeup system with an automated system, and replace the
feed pumps and pipes
Replace the existing nearly worn-out sludge recycle and wasting pumps
Add electrical, instrumentation, and controls associated with the new equipment
The follow modifications are required to treat additional OU 2 and OU 3 waters that are not
part of the remaining ROD amendment upgrades:
Add additional media filters, associated piping and pump stations, and a new building
to house the filters if needed
Replace the Aeration Basin with two new Reactor B tanks, each with an agitator, air
blower, and associated inlet and outlet piping
Increase the hydraulic capacity of the clarifier feed trough, clarifier effluent launder, and
perhaps the feedwell
Add a larger influent flow meter and a larger effluent Parshall flume
Add electrical, instrumentation, and controls associated with the new equipment
Install an additional backup diesel generator if needed (the existing one may have
sufficient capacity depending on plant configuration and operation)
3.3 Implementation
Increasing the CTP capacity up to 30,000 gpm is implementable. The lime HDS process is a
proven treatment technology, whose effectiveness was demonstrated during the Canyon
Creek treatability study. The necessary equipment, materials, and labor force to construct
the required changes are available. The additional treatment chemicals (lime and polymer)
are available from existing suppliers. The additional power requirements are available from
the local utility (Avista). The Canyon Creek treatability study demonstrated that Idaho
water quality standards could be met.
CTP expansion would likely be conducted in phases to accommodate when additional
influent sources would be available. This approach is similar to the two-phased approach
described in Appendix E of the mine water RI/FS document (USEPA, 2001b). One approach
would be to use two phases, whereby one-half of the maximum needed capacity would be
CTP EXPANSION UPGRADES AND C0STSTM.DOC
9
-------
constructed in Phase 1 and the second half in Phase 2. This would allow capacity to better
accommodate the timing of influent demand.
4.0 Capital and O&M Costs
An order-of-magnitude cost opinion was developed to increase the CTP to various
maximum capacities. This one done using the capital and O&M cost estimates developed for
the mine water RI/FS and updated in 2006, and then modifying them for maximum
capacities of either 5,000; 10,000; 15,000; or 20,000 gpm. These costs were escalated to
2009 dollars and used to develop a capital cost curve and an O&M cost curve relating cost to
capacity. The cost estimates and curves are attached to the back of this technical
memorandum.
The curves are quite linear with respect to capacity, as was expected, because the size of the
required upgrades, and particularly the filters, is proportional to flow. The capital costs
represent the total cost to upgrade the existing plant to the desired capacity. The annual
O&M costs include treatment of the Bunker Hill mine water, and O&M associated with all
existing mine water systems consisting of the Kellogg Tunnel portal collection system, the
AMD pipelines, the lined pond, and the CIA sludge disposal bed.
The largest single capital cost component is associated with adding the media filters. Media
filters are sized based on flow (gpm) per media filter surface area (square feet). Thus,
increasing the treatment capacity from 2,500 gpm to 20,000 gpm requires 8 times the area of
filters. The next largest capital cost is associated with constructing the neutralization/
aeration reactors. These are sized using treatment residence time, which is also proportional
to flow.
While the capital cost required to construct 20,000 gpm of capacity is about 5 times that
required to provide 2,500 gpm capacity, the annual O&M cost increases by only about
0.5 times, or about 50 percent. This is because once the plant treatment capacity is available,
the incremental cost, on a per-gallon basis, to treat additional water is relatively low. Little
additional operations labor is required, and the increased lime and polymer consumption is
also relatively low because of the much more dilute nature of the other OU 2/OU 3 waters
as compared to Bunker Hill mine water.
The attached cost opinions are considered order-of-magnitude, with an expected accuracy of
minus 30 percent to plus 50 percent. Estimated capital and operating costs were derived
from vendor quotes, cost estimating manuals, historical operating budgets, and similar
projects. Costs are for comparative purposes only. Net present value (NPV) costs are based
on 30 years of operation at a 7 percent interest rate. The order-of-magnitude cost opinions
are in 2009 dollars. They have been prepared for guidance in project evaluation and should
be carefully reviewed before making specific financial decisions or establishing final project
budgets. The actual costs are expected to vary from the costs shown here based on actual
labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, final project scope, and other
variable factors.
CTP EXPANSION UPGRADES AND C0STSTM.DOC
10
-------
5.0 References
CH2M HILL. 2006. Canyon Creek Phase II Treatability Study. Prepared for the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. October 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001a. Record of Decision Amendment, Non-
Populated Areas Operable Unit, Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex, Shoshone County,
Idaho. December 2001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001b. Bunker Hill Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study. April 2001.
CTP EXPANSION UPGRADES AND COSTSTM.DOC
11
-------
-------
Figures and Tables
-------
-------
CTP Expansion Capital Cost
Direct and Indirect Costs
Treatment Capacity (gpm)
-------
-------
CTP Annual O&M Cost Curve
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
-------
-------
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 2,500 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Description Quantity Unit
HPS (Hydroxide)
Sitework/Yard Piping
Fencing 1,000 LF
Gravel Surfacing & Misc 1 LS
Connections & Relocations of Existing Piping 1 LS
Reactor A (Sludge Conditioning Tank)
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab 1 LS
Elevated Platform for Reactor A&B 1 LS
Paint 1 LS
Sludge Conditioning Tank, 2500gal FRP 1 EA
Mixer, 3hp 1 EA
Inlet Piping, 24" SDR 15.5 120 LF
Inlet Piping, 18" SDR 15.5 120 LF
Valves, vaults, etc 1 LS
Neutralization/Oxidation System
Distribution Piping, 24" HDPE 170 LF
Retaining Wall to Accommodate New Tank 450 SF
Earthwork for Retaining Wall 1 LS
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab 1 LS
Paint 1 LS
Aeration Tank (Reactor B), 75,000gal Steel Tank 1 EA
Submerged Turbine Aerator/Mixer 1 EA
Positive Displacement Blower 1 EA
Pipe Supports, Hangers, etc 1 LS
Automated Polymer Make-up & Feed System
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab
1
LS
Paint
1
LS
Polymer Make-up System
2
EA
Polymer Make-up Tank, 2000gal
1
EA
Mixer
2
EA
Transfer Pump, 20gpm
2
EA
Polymer Feed Tank, 2000gal
1
EA
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
Direct Capital
Unit Cost
Comments
The Following Costs are in Year 2000 Dollars. See Escalation Factor at Bottom.
$10,000 allowance
$25,000 allowance
$30,000 allowance
$19,872 apx 50cy @ $400/cy
$60,000 asm 40x20 @ $75/sf high level and to support reactor A
$10,000 allowance for subcontract
$42,695 quote + 5% infla. + 5%frt + 10%mu
$13,803 quote + 5% infla. + 5%frt + 10%mu
$23,242 constrained schedule & access w/obstacles, ftgs, valves, connections, etc
$17,634 constrained schedule & access w/obstacles, ftgs, valves, connections, etc
$50,000 allowance
$32,926 constrained schedule & access w/obstacles, ftgs, valves, connections, etc
$11,250 45'x 8'H + 2' below grade, CIP cantelever
$6,814
$65,578 apx 165cy @ $400/cy
$50,000 allowance for subcontract
$56,250 revised to $.75/gal
$73,520 use same a 5000gpm estimate
$13,205
$2,500 allowance
$0 in bldg
$5,000 allowance for subcontract
$20,433
$3,974
$4,674 corrected hours
$6,548 corrected hours
$3,974
Page 1 of 3
1/15/2010 9:34 AM
-------
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 2,500 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Description Quantity Unit
Variable Speed Gear Pump, 1 gpm 2 EA
Piping to Feed Point 100 LF
Thickener
Clean & Decommission Existing Floe System 1 LS
Replace Weir 0 LS
Groundwater Test & Empty Tank 0 LS
Replace Thickener Rake System Complete 0 LS
E-DUC Feed & Floe System & Center Well Mods 1 LS
Surface Prep & Coat 0 LS
Sludge Wasting & Recycle Pumps
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab 0 LS
Remove Existing Pumps 1 LS
Paint 1 LS
Sludge Recycle Pump, 400gpm 2 EA
Sludge Recycle Pump, 800gpm 1 EA
Sludge Waste Pump, 400gpm, 200' tdh 1 EA
Sludge Recycle Piping, 8" Dl 150 LF
Sludge Wasting Piping, 6" Dl 0 LF
l&C and Electrical
Total l&C 1 LS
New Magnetic Flowmeter in Existing Vault 1 EA
Parshall Flume @ Effluent 1 EA
Electrical 1 LS
Existing Plant Demolition
Earthwork 1 LS
Concrete Slab & Footings 100 CY
Relocate Existing Filtration Bldg, etc 1 LS
Repairs, Touchup, etc 1 LS
Water 1 LS
Sanitary 1 LS
Drains 1 LS
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
Direct Capital
Unit Cost
$8,421
$1,990
Comments
$1,775
$0 quote + frt & markup=$19/lf & allow for removal & replacement
$0 allowance
$0 quote + frt & markup
$45,934 quote + frt & markup + add'l parts for mods
$0 allowance for interior walls & mechanism
$0 apx 200cy @ $400/cy
$2,474
$20,000 allowance for subcontract
$29,234 new cost for smaller pump
$22,048 new cost for smaller pump
$26,380 new cost for larger pump
$10,271 including ftgs, valves, etc, revised cost
$0 including ftgs, valves, etc, revised cost
$41,371 use 5% of above
$10,269 24"
$3,037 12"
$70,568 use 8% of above
$7,314
$25,536 assume 18" avg thickness to account for ftgs, etc
$34,071 60' x 30' x 10' eave ht metal bldg-remove contents, dismantle & re-erect
$5,000 allowance for some painting, sealants, doors, etc
$4,235 sink, emer. Shower, hose bibbs, piping & service
$1,917 toilet, piping & service
$2,117
Page 2 of 3
1/15/2010 9:34 AM
-------
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 2,500 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Description Quantity Unit
HVAC 1 LS
Electrical 1 LS
Tertiary Media Filters
HDS Pump Station Complete 1 LS
Water Reuse Pump Station Complete 1 LS
Distribution Piping 500 LF
Media Filter System 1 LS
Liquid Polymer System 0 LS
Backwash Pumping Complete 1 LS
Dirty Backwash Storage Tank, 30,000gal 1 EA
Dirty Backwash Storage Tank Mixer 1 EA
Dirty Backwash Return Pump 1 EA
Clean Backwash Supply Tank, 30,000gal 1 EA
Clean Backwash Supply Pump 1 EA
Building Complete 1 LS
Electrical/l&C 1 LS
Mechanical 1 LS
Backflow Preventer 1 EA
Distribution Piping 1,000 LF
Paint 1 LS
CAPITAL TOTAL (ROUNDED) (Yr 2000 Dollars)
Escalate from Yr 2000 to Yr 2009 Dollars (factor of 1.358)
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in October 2000 dollars and does not include escalation.
The order of magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation
at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material
costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope, final
schedule and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to
making specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
Direct Capital
Unit Cost Comments
$1,617 reinstall unit heaters
$4,933 reinstall, fixtures, panels, wiring, etc
$70,000 cost by DAH
$30,000 cost by DAH
$17,500 4" plastic, below grade
$566,834 quote=430000 + 10% frt + 10% mu & 100hrs to install
$0 Not required per JS 11/28/2000
$133,461 Bob York spreadsheet + 10% OH&P, scaled to 2500gpm + escalation to 2(
$22,500 $.75/gal
$3,737 allowance
$13,885 allowance
$22,500 $.75/gal
$13,885
$318,750 85'x 50 @ $75/sf
$0 included
$0 included
$10,000 allowance
$23,000 2" plastic
$5,000 misc painting allowance
$4,736,050 Year 2000 Dollars
$6,432,827 Year 2009 Dollars
Page 3 of 3
1/15/2010 9:34 AM
-------
-------
AT_5,000 gpm ExpanCapital_09
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 5,000 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Description
Quantity Unit
Direct Capital
Unit Cost
Comments
HPS (Hydroxide)
Sitework/Yard Piping
Fencing
Gravel Surfacing & Misc
Connections & Relocations of Existing Piping
1,000
1
1
LF
LS
LS
The Following Costs are in Year 2000 Dollars. See Escalation Factor at Bottom.
$10,000 allowance
$30,000 allowance
$30,000 allowance
Reactor A (Sludge Conditioning Tank)
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab
Elevated Platform for Reactor A&B
Paint
Sludge Conditioning Tank, 2500gal FRP
Mixer, 3hp
Inlet Piping, 24" SDR 15.5
Inlet Piping, 18" SDR 15.5
Valves, vaults, etc
1
1
1
1
1
120
120
1
LS
LS
LS
EA
EA
LF
LF
LS
$19,872 apx 50cy @ $400/cy
$60,000 asm 40x20 @ $75/sf high level and to support reactor A
$10,000 allowance for subcontract
$42,695 quote + 5% infla. + 5%frt + 10%mu
$13,803 quote + 5% infla. + 5%frt + 10%mu
$23,242 constrained schedule & access w/obstacles, ftgs, valves, connections, etc
$17,634 constrained schedule & access w/obstacles, ftgs, valves, connections, etc
$50,000 allowance
Neutralization/Oxidation System
Distribution Piping, 24" HDPE 85 LF
Retaining Wall to Accommodate New Tanks 225 SF
Earthwork for Retaining Wall 1 LS
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab 1 LS
Paint 2 LS
Aeration Tank (Reactor B), (2) 75000 gal Steel Tank 2 EA
Submerged Turbine Aerator/Mixer 2 EA
Positive Displacement Blower 2 EA
Pipe Supports, Hangers, etc 1 LS
$16,463 constrained schedule & access w/obstacles, ftgs, valves, connections, etc
$5,625 90'x 8'H + 2' below grade, CIP cantelever
$13,629
$95,337 apx 450cy @ $400/cy
$100,000 allowance for subcontract
$112,500 $0.75/gal
$130,583
$23,031
$5,000 allowance
Automated Polymer Make-up & Feed System
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab
Paint
Polymer Make-up System
Polymer Make-up Tank, 2000gal
Mixer
Transfer Pump, 20gpm
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
LS
LS
EA
EA
EA
EA
$0 in bldg
$5,000 allowance for subcontract
$20,433
$3,974
$4,674 corrected hours
$6,548 corrected hours
Page 1 of 4
1/15/2010 9:21 AM
-------
AT_5,000 gpm ExpanCapital_09
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 5,000 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Description
Quantity Unit
Direct Capital
Unit Cost
Comments
Polymer Feed Tank, 2000gal
Variable Speed Gear Pump, 1gpm
Piping to Feed Point
1
2
100
EA
EA
LF
$3,974
$8,421
$1,990
Thickener
Clean & Decommission Existing Floe System 1 LS $1,775
Replace Weir 1 LS $28,905
E-DUC Feed & Floe System & Hydraulic Mods 1 LS $32,334
Sludge Wasting & Recycle Pumps
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab 0
Remove Existing Pumps 1
Paint 1
Sludge Recycle Pump, 400gpm 2
Sludge Recycle Pump, 800gpm 1
Sludge Waste Pump, 400gpm, 200' tdh 1
Sludge Recycle Piping, 8" Dl 150
Sludge Wasting Piping, 6" Dl 0
LS $0 apx 200cy @ $400/cy
LS $2,474
LS $20,000
EA $29,234
EA $22,048
EA $26,380
LF $10,271 including ftgs, valves, etc, revised cost
LF $0 including ftgs, valves, etc, revised cost
l&C and Electrical
Total l&C
New Magnetic Flowmeter in Existing Vault
Parshall Flume @ Effluent
Electrical
1 LS $51,892 use 5% of above
1 EA $10,269 24"
1 EA $5,537
1 LS $88,444 use 8% of above
Existing Plant Demolition
Remove Reactor A
Remove Aeration Basin, Ret Wall, Stairs, etc
Remove Flocculation Basin
Remove Associated Piping
Remove Associated Electrical
Regrade Area
Connections & Relocations of Existing Piping
Earthwork
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
1
LS
$2,810
1
LS
$127,768
_C
>
o
o
o
CM
ฎ
O
O
O
O
CD
1
LS
$18,734
allow 40hrs
1
LS
$1,873
1
LS
$1,873
1
LS
$1,704
1
LS
$5,000
allowance
1
LS
$7,314
Page 2 of 4
1/15/2010 9:21 AM
-------
AT_5,000 gpm ExpanCapital_09
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 5,000 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Description
Quantity
Unit
Direct Capital
Unit Cost Comments
Concrete Slab & Footings
100
CY
$25,536 assume 18" avg thickness to account for ftgs, etc
Relocate Existing Filtration Bldg, etc
1
LS
$34,071 60' x 30' x 10' eave ht metal bldg-remove contents, dismantle & re-erect
Repairs, Touchup, etc
1
LS
$5,000 allowance for some painting, sealants, doors, etc
Water
1
LS
$4,235 sink, emer. Shower, hose bibbs, piping & service
Drains
1
LS
$2,117
Electrical
1
LS
$4,933 reinstall, fixtures, panels, wiring, etc
Tertiarv Media Filters
Filter Pump Station Complete
1
LS
$106,100
Water Reuse Pump Station Complete
1
LS
$30,000 cost by DAH
Distribution Piping
500
LF
$17,500 4" plastic, below grade
Media Filter System
2
LS
$1,133,668 quote=430000 + 10% frt + 10% mu & 10Ohrs to install
Liquid Polymer System
0
LS
$0 Not required as per JS 11/28/2000
Backwash Pumping Complete
1
LS
$190,677
Dirty Backwash Storage Tank
1
EA
$45,000 $.75/gal
Dirty Backwash Storage Tank Mixer
1
EA
$5,182 allowance
Dirty Backwash Return Pump
1
EA
$20,080 allowance
Clean Backwash Supply Tank
1
EA
$45,000 $.75/gal
Clean Backwash Supply Pump
1
EA
$20,080
Building Complete
1
LS
$637,500 $75/sf
Electrical/l&C
1
LS
$0 included
Mechanical
1
LS
$0 included
Backflow Preventer
1
EA
$10,000 allowance
Distribution Piping
2,000
LF
$46,000 2" plastic
Paint
1
LS
$10,000 misc painting allowance
CAPITAL TOTAL (ROUNDED) (Yr 2000 Dollars)
Escalate from Yr 2000 to Yr 2009 Dollars (factor of 1.358)
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in October 2000 dollars and does not include escalation.
The order of magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation
at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material
costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope, final
schedule and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
$7,760,880 Year 2000 Dollars
$10,541,358 Year 2009 Dollars
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
Page 3 of 4 1/15/2010 9:21 AM
-------
AT_5,000 gpm ExpanCapital_09
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 5,000 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Direct Capital
Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Comments
presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to
making specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
Page 4 of 4
1/15/2010 9:21 AM
-------
AT_10,000gpm ExpanCapital_09
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 10,000 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Description
Quantity Unit
Direct Capital
Unit Cost
Comments
HPS (Hydroxide)
Sitework/Yard Piping
Fencing
Gravel Surfacing & Misc
Connections & Relocations of Existing Piping
Reactor A (Sludge Conditioning Tank)
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab
Elevated Platform for Reactor A&B
Paint
Sludge Conditioning Tank, 2500gal FRP
Mixer, 3hp
Inlet Piping, 24" SDR 15.5
Inlet Piping, 18" SDR 15.5
Valves, vaults, etc
1,000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
120
120
1
LF
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
EA
EA
LF
LF
LS
The Following Costs are in Year 2000 Dollars. See Escalation Factor at Bottom.
$10,000 allowance
$35,000 allowance
$30,000 allowance
$19,872 apx 50cy @ $400/cy
$60,000 asm 40x20 @ $75/sf high level and to support reactor A
$10,000 allowance for subcontract
$42,695 quote + 5% infla. + 5%frt + 10%mu
$13,803 quote + 5% infla. + 5%frt + 10%mu
$23,242 constrained schedule & access w/obstacles, ftgs, valves, connections, etc
$17,634 constrained schedule & access w/obstacles, ftgs, valves, connections, etc
$50,000 allowance
Neutralization/Oxidation System
Distribution Piping, 24" HDPE 170 LF
Retaining Wall to Accommodate New Tanks 450 SF
Earthwork for Retaining Wall 1 LS
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab 1 LS
Paint 2 LS
Aeration Tank (Reactor B), 150,000 gal Steel Tank 2 EA
Submerged Turbine Aerator/Mixer 2 EA
Positive Displacement Blower 2 EA
Pipe Supports, Hangers, etc 1 LS
$32,926 constrained schedule & access w/obstacles, ftgs, valves, connections, etc
$11,250 90'x 8'H + 2' below grade, CIP cantelever
$13,629
$123,174 apx 450cy @ $400/cy
$151,572 allowance for subcontract
$225,000 $0.75/gal
$197,926
$32,010
$10,000 allowance
Automated Polymer Make-up & Feed System
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab
1
LS
$0 in bldg
Paint
1
LS
$5,000 allowance for subcontract
Polymer Make-up System
2
EA
$20,433
Polymer Make-up Tank, 2000gal
1
EA
$3,974
Mixer
2
EA
$4,674 corrected hours
Transfer Pump, 20gpm
2
EA
$6,548 corrected hours
Polymer Feed Tank, 2000gal
1
EA
$3,974
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
Page 1 of 3
1/15/2010 9:18 AM
-------
AT
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 10,000 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Description Quantity
Variable Speed Gear Pump, 1gpm 2
Piping to Feed Point 100
Thickener
Clean & Decommission Existing Floe System 1
Replace Weir 1
E-DUC Feed & Floe System & Hydraulic Mods 1
Sludge Wasting & Recycle Pumps
Remove Existing Pumps 1
Paint 1
Sludge Recycle Pump, 400gpm 2
Sludge Recycle Pump, 800gpm 1
Sludge Waste Pump, 400gpm, 200' tdh 1
Sludge Recycle Piping, 8" Dl 150
Sludge Wasting Piping, 6" Dl 0
l&C and Electrical
Total l&C 1
New Magnetic Flowmeter in Existing Vault 1
Parshall Flume @ Effluent 1
Electrical 1
Existing Plant Demolition
Remove Reactor A 1
Remove Aeration Basin, Ret Wall, Stairs, etc 1
Remove Flocculation Basin 1
Remove Associated Piping 1
Remove Associated Electrical 1
Regrade Area 1
Connections & Relocations of Existing Piping 1
Earthwork 1
Concrete Slab & Footings 100
Relocate Existing Filtration Bldg, etc 1
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
10,000gpm ExpanCapital_09
Direct Capital
Unit Unit Cost Comments
EA $8,421
LF $1,990
LS $1,775
LS $43,010
LS $45,934
LS $2,474
LS $20,000
EA $29,234
EA $22,048
EA $26,380
LF $10,271 including ftgs, valves, etc, revised cost
LF $0 including ftgs, valves, etc, revised cost
LS $68,294 use 5% of above
EA $10,269 24"
EA $5,537
LS $115,998 use 8% of above
LS $2,810
LS $127,768 6000cy @ 200cy/hr
LS $18,734 allow 40hrs
LS $1,873
LS $1,873
LS $1,704
LS $5,000 allowance
LS $7,314
CY $25,536 assume 18" avg thickness to account for ftgs, etc
LS $34,071 60' x 30' x 10' eave ht metal bldg-remove contents, dismantle & re-erect
Page 2 of 3
1/15/2010 9:18 AM
-------
AT_10,000gpm ExpanCapital_09
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 10,000 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Description
Quantity Unit
Direct Capital
Unit Cost
Comments
Repairs, Touchup, etc
Water
Drains
Electrical
LS
LS
LS
LS
$5,000 allowance for some painting, sealants, doors, etc
$4,235 sink, emer. Shower, hose bibbs, piping & service
$2,117
$4,933 reinstall, fixtures, panels, wiring, etc
Tertiary Media Filters
Filter Pump Station Complete
Water Reuse Pump Station Complete
Distribution Piping
Media Filter System
Liquid Polymer System
Backwash Pumping Complete
Dirty Backwash Storage Tank
Dirty Backwash Storage Tank Mixer
Dirty Backwash Return Pump
Clean Backwash Supply Tank
Clean Backwash Supply Pump
Building Complete
Electrical/l&C
Mechanical
Backflow Preventer
Distribution Piping
Paint
CAPITAL TOTAL (ROUNDED) (Yr 2000 Dollars)
Escalate from Yr 2000 to Yr 2009 Dollars (factor of 1.358)
1
LS
$160,818
1
LS
$30,000
cost by DAH
500
LF
$17,500
4" plastic, below grade
4
LS
$2,267,336
quote=430000 + 10% frt
0
LS
$0
Not required as per JS 1
1
LS
$289,013
1
EA
$90,000
$.75/gal
1
EA
$7,371
allowance
1
EA
$29,470
allowance
1
EA
$90,000
$.75/gal
1
EA
$29,470
1
LS
$1,275,000
$75/sf
1
LS
$0
included
1
LS
$0
included
1
EA
$10,000
allowance
000
LF
$92,000
2" plastic
1
LS
$20,000
misc painting allowance
$12,862,956
Year 2000 Dollars
$17,471,346
Year 2009 Dollars
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in October 2000 dollars and does not include escalation.
The order of magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation
at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material
costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope, final
schedule and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to
making specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
Page 3 of 3 1/15/2010 9:18 AM
-------
-------
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 15,000 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
AT_15,000gpm ExpanCapital_09
Description
Quantity Unit
Direct Capital
Unit Cost
Comments
HPS (Hydroxide)
Sitework/Yard Piping
Fencing
Gravel Surfacing & Misc
Connections & Relocations of Existing Piping
1,000
1
1
LF
LS
LS
The Following Costs are in Year 2000 Dollars. See Escalation Factor at Bottom.
$10,000 allowance
$40,000 allowance
$30,000 allowance
Reactor A (Sludge Conditioning Tank)
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab 1 LS
Elevated Platform for Reactor A&B 1 LS
Paint 1 LS
Sludge Conditioning Tank, 2500gal FRP 1 EA
Mixer, 3hp 1 EA
Inlet Piping, 24" SDR 15.5 120 LF
Inlet Piping, 18" SDR 15.5 120 LF
Valves, vaults, etc 1 LS
Neutralization/Oxidation System
Distribution Piping, 24" HDPE 261 LF
Retaining Wall to Accommodate New Tanks 690 SF
Earthwork for Retaining Wall 1 LS
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab 1 LS
Paint 2 LS
Aeration Tank (Reactor B), 230,000 gal Steel Tank 2 EA
Submerged Turbine Aerator/Mixer 2 EA
Positive Displacement Blower 2 EA
Pipe Supports, Hangers, etc 1 LS
Automated Polymer Make-up & Feed System
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab 1 LS
Paint 1 LS
Polymer Make-up System 2 EA
Polymer Make-up Tank, 2000gal 1 EA
Mixer 2 EA
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
$19,872 apx 50cy @ $400/cy
$60,000 asm 40x20 @ $75/sf high level and to support reactor A
$10,000 allowance for subcontract
$42,695 quote + 5% infla. + 5%frt + 10%mu
$13,803 quote + 5% infla. + 5%frt + 10%mu
$23,242 constrained schedule & access w/obstacles, ftgs, valves, connections, etc
$17,634 constrained schedule & access w/obstacles, ftgs, valves, connections, etc
$50,000 allowance
$50,487 constrained schedule & access w/obstacles, ftgs, valves, connections, etc
$17,250 90'x 8'H + 2' below grade, CIP cantelever
$13,629
$151,011 apx 450cy @ $400/cy
$195,884 allowance for subcontract
$345,000 $0.75/gal
$255,791
$39,726
$15,000 allowance
$0 in bldg
$5,000 allowance for subcontract
$20,433
$3,974
$4,674 corrected hours
Page 1 of 4
1/15/2010 9:16 AM
-------
AT
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 15,000 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Description Quantity
Transfer Pump, 20gpm 2
Polymer Feed Tank, 2000gal 1
Variable Speed Gear Pump, 1gpm 2
Piping to Feed Point 100
Thickener
Clean & Decommission Existing Floe System 1
Replace Weir 1
E-DUC Feed & Floe System & Hydraulic Mods 1
Surface Prep & Coat 0
Sludge Wasting & Recycle Pumps
Remove Existing Pumps 1
Paint 1
Sludge Recycle Pump, 400gpm 2
Sludge Recycle Pump, 800gpm 1
Sludge Waste Pump, 400gpm, 200' tdh 1
Sludge Recycle Piping, 8" Dl 150
Sludge Wasting Piping, 6" Dl 0
l&C and Electrical
Total l&C 1
New Magnetic Flowmeter in Existing Vault 1
Parshall Flume @ Effluent 1
Electrical 1
Existing Plant Demolition
Remove Reactor A 1
Remove Aeration Basin, Ret Wall, Stairs, etc 1
Remove Flocculation Basin 1
Remove Associated Piping 1
Remove Associated Electrical 1
Regrade Area 1
Connections & Relocations of Existing Piping 1
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
15,000gpm ExpanCapital_09
Direct Capital
Unit Unit Cost Comments
EA $6,548 corrected hours
EA $3,974
EA $8,421
LF $1,990
LS $1,775
LS $57,115
LS $59,534
LS $0 allowance for interior walls & mechanism
LS $2,474
LS $20,000
EA $29,234
EA $22,048
EA $26,380
LF $10,271 including ftgs, valves, etc, revised cost
LF $0 including ftgs, valves, etc, revised cost
LS $84,243 use 5% of above
EA $10,269 24"
EA $5,537
LS $142,793 use 8% of above
LS $2,810
LS $127,768 6000cy @ 200cy/hr
LS $18,734 allow 40hrs
LS $1,873
LS $1,873
LS $1,704
LS $5,000 allowance
Page 2 of 4 1/15/2010 9:16 AM
-------
AT_15,000gpm ExpanCapital_09
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 15,000 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Description
Quantity
Unit
Direct Capital
Unit Cost Comments
Earthwork
1
LS
$7,314
Concrete Slab & Footings
100
CY
$25,536 assume 18" avg thickness to account for ftgs, etc
Relocate Existing Filtration Bldg, etc
1
LS
$34,071 60' x 30' x 10' eave ht metal bldg-remove contents, dismantle & re-erect
Repairs, Touchup, etc
1
LS
$5,000 allowance for some painting, sealants, doors, etc
Water
1
LS
$4,235 sink, emer. Shower, hose bibbs, piping & service
Drains
1
LS
$2,117
Electrical
1
LS
$4,933 reinstall, fixtures, panels, wiring, etc
Tertiarv Media Filters
Filter Pump Station Complete
1
LS
$205,111
Water Reuse Pump Station Complete
1
LS
$30,000 cost by DAH
Distribution Piping
500
LF
$17,500 4" plastic, below grade
Media Filter System
6
LS
$3,401,004 quote=430000 + 10% frt + 10% mu & 10Ohrs to install
Liquid Polymer System
0
LS
$0 Not required as per JS 11/28/2000
Backwash Pumping Complete
1
LS
$368,614
Dirty Backwash Storage Tank
1
EA
$135,000 $.75/gal
Dirty Backwash Storage Tank Mixer
1
EA
$9,143 allowance
Dirty Backwash Return Pump
1
EA
$37,070 allowance
Clean Backwash Supply Tank
1
EA
$135,000 $.75/gal
Clean Backwash Supply Pump
1
EA
$37,070
Building Complete
1
LS
$1,912,500 $75/sf
Electrical/l&C
1
LS
$0 included
Mechanical
1
LS
$0 included
Backflow Preventer
1
EA
$10,000 allowance
Distribution Piping
6,000
LF
$138,000 2" plastic
Paint
1
LS
$30,000 misc painting allowance
CAPITAL TOTAL (ROUNDED) (Yr 2000 Dollars)
$17,875,000 Year 2000 Dollars
Escalate from Yr 2000 to Yr 2009 Dollars (factor of
1.358)
$24,279,000 Year 2009 Dollars
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in October 2000 dollars and does not include escalation.
The order of magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation
at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
Page 3 of 4 1/15/2010 9:16 AM
-------
AT_15,000gpm ExpanCapital_09
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 15,000 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Direct Capital
Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Comments
costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope, final
schedule and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to
making specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
Page 4 of 4
1/15/2010 9:16 AM
-------
AT_20,000gpm ExpanCapital_09
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 20,000 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Description
Quantity Unit
Direct Capital
Unit Cost
Comments
HPS (Hydroxide)
Sitework/Yard Piping
Fencing
Gravel Surfacing & Misc
Connections & Relocations of Existing Piping
1,000
1
1
LF
LS
LS
The Following Costs are in Year 2000 Dollars. See Escalation Factor at Bottom.
$10,000 allowance
$45,000 allowance
$30,000 allowance
Reactor A (Sludge Conditioning Tank)
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab 1 LS
Elevated Platform for Reactor A&B 1 LS
Paint 1 LS
Sludge Conditioning Tank, 2500gal FRP 1 EA
Mixer, 3hp 1 EA
Inlet Piping, 24" SDR 15.5 120 LF
Inlet Piping, 18" SDR 15.5 120 LF
Valves, vaults, etc 1 LS
Neutralization/Oxidation System
Distribution Piping, 24" HDPE 340 LF
Retaining Wall to Accommodate New Tanks 900 SF
Earthwork for Retaining Wall 1 LS
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab 1 LS
Paint 2 LS
Aeration Tank (Reactor B), 300,OOOgal Steel Tank 2 EA
Submerged Turbine Aerator/Mixer 2 EA
Positive Displacement Blower 2 EA
Pipe Supports, Hangers, etc 1 LS
Automated Polymer Make-up & Feed System
Earthwork & Concrete for Slab 1 LS
Paint 1 LS
Polymer Make-up System 2 EA
Polymer Make-up Tank, 2000gal 1 EA
Mixer 2 EA
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
$19,872 apx 50cy @ $400/cy
$60,000 asm 40x20 @ $75/sf high level and to support reactor A
$10,000 allowance for subcontract
$42,695 quote + 5% infla. + 5%frt + 10%mu
$13,803 quote + 5% infla. + 5%frt + 10%mu
$23,242 constrained schedule & access w/obstacles, ftgs, valves, connections, etc
$17,634 constrained schedule & access w/obstacles, ftgs, valves, connections, etc
$50,000 allowance
$65,853 constrained schedule & access w/obstacles, ftgs, valves, connections, etc
$22,500 90'x 8'H + 2' below grade, CIP cantelever
$13,629
$178,848 apx 450cy @ $400/cy
$229,740 allowance for subcontract
$450,000 $0.75/gal
$300,000
$45,620
$20,000 allowance
$0 in bldg
$5,000 allowance for subcontract
$20,433
$3,974
$4,674 corrected hours
Page 1 of 4
1/15/2010 9:15 AM
-------
AT_20,000gpm ExpanCapital_09
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 20,000 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Direct Capital
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Transfer Pump, 20gpm
2
EA
$6,548 corrected hours
Polymer Feed Tank, 2000gal
1
EA
$3,974
Variable Speed Gear Pump, 1gpm
2
EA
$8,421
Piping to Feed Point
100
LF
$1,990
Comments
Thickener
Clean & Decommission Existing Floe System 1 LS $1,775
Replace Weir 1 LS $71,040
E-DUC Feed & Floe System & Hydraulic Mods 1 LS $73,134
Sludge Wasting & Recycle Pumps
Remove Existing Pumps 1
Paint 1
Sludge Recycle Pump, 400gpm 2
Sludge Recycle Pump, 800gpm 1
Sludge Waste Pump, 400gpm, 200' tdh 1
Sludge Recycle Piping, 8" Dl 150
Sludge Wasting Piping, 6" Dl 0
LS $2,474
LS $20,000
EA $29,234
EA $22,048
EA $26,380
LF $10,271 including ftgs, valves, etc, revised cost
LF $0 including ftgs, valves, etc, revised cost
l&C and Electrical
Total l&C
New Magnetic Flowmeter in Existing Vault
Parshall Flume @ Effluent
Electrical
1 LS $97,990 use 5% of above
1 EA $10,269 24"
1 EA $5,537
1 LS $165,888 use 8% of above
Existing Plant Demolition
Remove Reactor A
Remove Aeration Basin, Ret Wall, Stairs, etc
Remove Flocculation Basin
Remove Associated Piping
Remove Associated Electrical
Regrade Area
Connections & Relocations of Existing Piping
Earthwork
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
1
LS
$2,810
1
LS
$127,768
_C
>
o
o
o
CM
ฎ
O
O
O
O
CD
1
LS
$18,734
allow 40hrs
1
LS
$1,873
1
LS
$1,873
1
LS
$1,704
1
LS
$5,000
allowance
1
LS
$7,314
Page 2 of 4
1/15/2010 9:15 AM
-------
AT_20,000gpm ExpanCapital_09
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 20,000 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Description
Quantity
Unit
Direct Capital
Unit Cost Comments
Concrete Slab & Footings
100
CY
$25,536 assume 18" avg thickness to account for ftgs, etc
Relocate Existing Filtration Bldg, etc
1
LS
$34,071 60' x 30' x 10' eave ht metal bldg-remove contents, dismantle & re-erect
Repairs, Touchup, etc
1
LS
$5,000 allowance for some painting, sealants, doors, etc
Water
1
LS
$4,235 sink, emer. Shower, hose bibbs, piping & service
Drains
1
LS
$2,117
Electrical
1
LS
$4,933 reinstall, fixtures, panels, wiring, etc
Tertiarv Media Filters
Filter Pump Station Complete
1
LS
$243,600
Water Reuse Pump Station Complete
1
LS
$30,000 cost by DAH
Distribution Piping
500
LF
$17,500 4" plastic, below grade
Media Filter System
8
LS
$4,534,673 quote=430000 + 10% frt + 10% mu & 10Ohrs to install
Liquid Polymer System
0
LS
$0 Not required as per JS 11/28/2000
Backwash Pumping Complete
1
LS
$464,445
Dirty Backwash Storage Tank
1
EA
$180,000 $.75/gal
Dirty Backwash Storage Tank Mixer
1
EA
$10,683 allowance
Dirty Backwash Return Pump
1
EA
$43,675 allowance
Clean Backwash Supply Tank
1
EA
$180,000 $.75/gal
Clean Backwash Supply Pump
1
EA
$43,675
Building Complete
1
LS
$2,550,000 $75/sf
Electrical/l&C
1
LS
$0 included
Mechanical
1
LS
$0 included
Backflow Preventer
1
EA
$10,000 allowance
Distribution Piping
8,000
LF
$184,000 2" plastic
Paint
1
LS
$40,000 misc painting allowance
CAPITAL TOTAL (ROUNDED) (Yr 2000 Dollars)
Escalate from Yr 2000 to Yr 2009 Dollars (factor of 1.358)
$22,800,505 Year 2000 Dollars
$30,969,204 Year 2009 Dollars
NOTE: The above cost opinion is in October 2000 dollars and does not include escalation.
The order of magnitude cost opinion shown has been prepared for guidance in project evalu;
at the time of preparation. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and mate
costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope, 1
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
Page 3 of 4
1/15/2010 9:15 AM
-------
AT_20,000gpm ExpanCapital_09
Bunker Hill CTP
Bunker Hill Mine Water
Upgrade Existing CTP to Treat 20,000 gpm
Order of Magnitude Cost Opinion
Direct Capital
Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Comments
schedule and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior
making specific financial decisions or establishing final budgets.
Water Treatment TCD Unit Costs Master File.xls
Page 4 of 4
1/15/2010 9:15 AM
------- |