BNSF Railway Black Tank Property - Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study

21 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Ann Wick

6/25/17 @ 4:21 AM
No attachments

Comment From: Margaret Phillips

6/22/17 @ 5:06 AM
I've read this pamphlet which btw, say June 22nd for comments, and it seems to me that Option D is the best cleanup process. it says it will take 10 years or about the time it will take the NSC to be finished. so together they can be done about the s...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Greg Mason

6/21/17 @ 6:40 AM
Jeremy, Please see attached document. My mailer regarding public input says comments can be made May 22 - June 22
Attachments:

Comment From: The Lands Council (Mike Petersen)

6/21/17 @ 3:53 AM
The Lands Council appreciates the opportunity to comment on the RI/FS for the BNSF Railway Black Tank Property. We note that the May 2017 publication lists June 22, 2017 as the end of the comment period. We support a timely and thorough clean-up,...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Stan Fergin

6/20/17 @ 10:16 AM
No attachments

Comment From: Dominic Gannon

6/19/17 @ 7:22 AM
In-situ surfactant/surfactant-nutrient mix-enhanced bioremediation of NAPL (fuel)-contaminated sandy soil aquifers. - PubMed - NCBI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17120829 Option B. or C. is the only options​ that should be looked at. Who ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Charlie Chisholm

6/05/17 @ 11:43 AM
My comments on Cleanup Options: In my Opinion, Option C, "Bioventing/biosparging and manual petroleum removal" is the best option. I also disagree with the estimated costs of this method compared to Option B, "Bioventing/biosparging" alone. It shou...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Brandon Peterson

6/04/17 @ 5:17 AM
BNSF should pay for the entire clean up process. They receive tax payer subsidies, they are receiving a boat load of money that we have to pay them to build our north south freeway along the railroad tracks. They polluted it, and they should clean it...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Rosilyn Coe

6/02/17 @ 3:00 AM
No attachments

Comment From: Teresa Orozco

5/31/17 @ 2:02 PM
As a resident of Spokane, I would choose the safest, fastest method of cleaning pollution in and around our water. I have a hard time trusting a company who caused the pollution to choose/present the most appropriate options. I don't think igniting/...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Darlene Sisk

5/29/17 @ 9:07 AM
I live in the effected area. I like option E for clean up of the underground oil. I have a degree from Eastern Washington University in medical technology with a major in chemistry. Oil floating on water will have a tiny amount of the contaminates di...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Tom Haugen

5/28/17 @ 4:00 PM
WSDOT built floating bridges for the freeways on the W. side. They could ignore this contamination and just put a floating bridge over the top of it on one side while the remediation is done to the other side. When the first side is finished they c...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Cliff Winger

5/25/17 @ 6:33 AM
No attachments

Comment From: Elizabeth Marlin

5/24/17 @ 4:39 AM
The state of WA should pursue option E and take the speediest course of action to rectify the contamination issue, regardless of expense. The companies responsible for this contamination were negligent in their duty to WA and its residents, and shoul...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Catherine Armatage

5/24/17 @ 2:19 AM
No attachments

Comment From: KEN KOSCH

5/24/17 @ 1:07 AM
I read the options A,B.etc. The 14 year in option B is the least expensive and most cost effective. My question is why would it cost 5.5 million to force air and let nature take it course? How many people have their hands out to line their pockets wi...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Crystal Bagley

5/24/17 @ 12:20 AM
I own a house in the Jim Hill estates neighborhood, we have a 9 month old son so this topic is extremely important to my husband and I. First of all, we find it appalling that it has taken 11 years to conduct this "study" after the 1999 tank leak. It...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Justin Rogers

5/23/17 @ 4:13 PM
I believe option C is the best route. I don't think option E is good at all, D is a lot of work from the sounds of it. A is not acceptable and B is the cheaper way out for the companies. Let's get out as much as possible while we're waiting for it to...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Spokane Regional Health Distri... (Heather Wallace)

5/23/17 @ 6:10 AM
No attachments

Comment From: Adam Jackson

5/22/17 @ 11:46 PM
What is the opinion of DOE on each of the options? Weighing the decision solely on costs over time, I would say Option B is the most efficient. However, if I understand correctly, it appears that the private entities (BNSF and Marathon Oil) are finan...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Ronald Davis

5/22/17 @ 1:12 PM
Our water must be taken seriously! The companies involved should be taking full responsibility for making our town whole in a safe and quick manner. Option B with C sound like the better alternatives for what is presented. If there are better optio...↓
No attachments