EPA-542-B-95-002
March 1995
Guide to Documenting Cost
and Performance for
Remediation Projects
Federal
Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
Prepared by the
Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Recycled/Recyclable
I Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
•contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
-------
Guide to Documenting
Cost and Performance
for Remediation Projects
Prepared by Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Defense
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
March 1995
-------
NOTICE
This document has been subjected to administrative review by all Agencies
participating in the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, and has been
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The purpose of this Guide is to foster the use of consistent procedures to
document cost and performance information for projects involving treatment of contaminated
media. In short, it provides site remediation project managers with a standardized set of
parameters to document completed remediation projects. Standard reporting of data will
broaden the utility of the information, increase confidence in the future effectiveness of
remedial technologies, and enhance the organization, storage, and retrieval of relevant
information. Through greater coordination, Federal Agencies hope to improve data
collection and dissemination, and thus to increase the effectiveness of hazardous waste
cleanups.
This Guide was developed by the Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable (the Roundtable). The Roundtable was created to exchange information on
hazardous waste site remediation technologies, to consider cooperative efforts of mutual
interest, and to develop strategies leading to a greater application of innovative technologies
Roundtable member Agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
the U.S Department of Defense (DoD), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the US
Department of the Interior (DOI), expect to complete many site remediation projects in the
near future. These Agencies recognize the importance of documenting the results from these
cleanups, and the benefits to be realized from greater coordination of such efforts between
Agencies.
The Roundtable established an Ad Hoc Cost and Performance Work Group
formed with representatives from government Agencies, professional associations, and
public interest groups, to improve the documentation of future remediation projects. A goal
of the Work Group was to determine what information would be practical and useful to
specify for inclusion in all reports. This Guide is the result of several Work Group meetings
held in 1993 and 1994. The primary contributors to this effort are listed at the end of this
report.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Chairman
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
11
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
Page
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Overview of the Guide '.'.'.'.'''''''
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES
2.1 Standard Terminology
2.1.1 Site Background
2.1.2 Site Characteristics ' i £
2.1.3 Treatment System
2.1.4 Example * *!
Parameters Affecting Cost or Performance . '
Measurement Procedures
2.3.1 Example .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.".'.'"" o
Standardized Cost Breakdown o
2.4.1 Example ' " " ' *
Performance ' ••••......... 12
***•*•••••• iJ
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX A
Site Background: Historical Activity That Generated Contamination -
Examples of SIC Codes Most Likely to Apply to Contaminated1 sites .
Work Breakdown Structure and Historical Cost Analysis System ....
Ad Hoc Work Group Members - Cost and Performance Information .
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Member Roster
19
43
. 47
51
53
55
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
Site Background: Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination
22
Media to be Treated
22
Contaminant Groups
23
Primary Treatment Systems
23
Supplemental Treatment Systems
Suggested Parameters to Document Full-Scale Technology
Applications: Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment
Cost or Performance
Suggested Parameters to Document Full-Scale Technology
Applications: Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment
Cost or Performance •
Matrix Characteristics: Measurement Procedures and
Potential Effects on Treatment Cost or Performance &>
Operating Parameters: Measurement Procedures and
Potential Effects on Treatment Cost or Performance 33
Interagency Work Breakdown Structure Cost Elements -
Second Level •
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
1 Example for Reporting Standard Terminology . . 7
2 Example for Reporting Matrk Characteristics Affecting
Treatment Cost or Performance and Associated
Measurement Procedures 9
3 Example for Reporting Operating Parameters Affecting
Treatment Cost or Performance 9
4 Second Level Work Breakdown Structure Cost Elements 10
5 Fifth Level Work Breakdown Structure Cost Elements 11
6 Example for Reporting Site Remediation Project Costs 12
7 Types of Treatment Technology Performance-Related
Information , 13
8 Example for Reporting Performance Information for an Ex
Situ Project ^5
10
Example for Reporting Untreated and Treated Contaminant
Concentrations jg
I
Example for Reporting Residuals Data 16
11 Example for Reporting Performance Information for an In
Situ Project 17
12 Example for Reporting Untreated and Treated Contaminant
Concentrations and Contaminant Removals 18
VI
-------
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Guide provides the recommended procedures for documenting results
from completed full-scale hazardous waste site remediation projects. The Guide was
developed by the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (the Roundtable) to
more effectively coordinate the activities of its member Agencies and to assist in
capturing their experience from these projects. Roundtable member Agencies include
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the U.S. Department of the Interior
(DOI).
1.1 Background
Federal Agencies are involved in a variety of activities to improve the
efficiency of their remediation efforts. These activities include the evaluation of new and
improved treatment technologies through field demonstration projects. For example,
Federal and State Agencies are participating in seven different demonstration programs
to test new processes with the hope of expediting their acceptance in the marketplace.
These demonstration projects are designed as technical evaluations of treatment
technologies and involve extensive data collection and documentation.
In addition, Federal and State Agencies are now participating in the
remediation of hazardous waste sites using both conventional and innovative
technologies. These full-scale cleanups also present an important opportunity to gather
data. The projects may entail documenting the achievement of prescribed cleanup goals
or other contract objectives. Currently, the contents of project documentation vary
widely and much of the first-hand experience of project personnel is not routinely
documented.
The Roundtable Agencies recognize the value of the data and experience
gained from these full-scale cleanups and agree that gathering cost and performance
information for remedial technologies should be a priority. At a Roundtable meeting in
May 1993, an Ad Hoc Work Group was established to assess the potential for
coordinating efforts of the separate Agencies in this area. This Work Group has met
four times to review relevant ongoing Federal efforts, to identify information needs, and
to develop a strategy for coordinating the documentation of cost and performance
information. During these meetings, which were open to the public, the Work Group
participants discussed issues concerning documentation of cost and performance data and
reviewed preliminary draft reporting formats. In addition, the Work Group reviewed
draft agency reports to identify areas for potential standardization.
DoD, DOE, and EPA have efforts underway to document full-scale
remediation projects. Their reports provide a primary source' of cost and performance
data and include information on matrix characteristics, treatment system design and
operation, and observations and lessons learned in cost and performance. EPA prepared
1
-------
summary reports using a standardized reporting format for 17 remediation projects
completed at Superfund sites. EPA's reports document cost and performance for
innovative technologies such as bioremediation, soil vapor extraction, thermal desorption,
and soil washing. DoD and DOE prepared cost and performance summaries for 21
remediation projects. Although DoD's and DOE's reports have a consistent set of topics,
the content of each topic is structured on a site-specific basis. The emphasis of these
reports is to produce a document with signed certifications from the Remedial Project
Manager(s) representing EPA, State Agencies, and other pertinent organizations, and
also to provide information to facilitate future permitting and the development of
presumptive remedies.
The Work Group concluded that a coordinated and consistent approach to
the collection of data across all Agencies would broaden the utility of the information,
increase confidence in the future effectiveness of remedial technologies, and enhance the
organization, storage, and retrieval of relevant information. The Work Group also
concluded that each Agency should be free to determine the overall format for their
reports on completed projects, as is currently being done. As a result, the Work Group
identified specific subject areas with the greatest potential for use in a standardized
report format, and that are most relevant to technology analysts. Specific benefits of the
interagency effort to coordinate information collection and documentation include:
• Establishing a baseline for future data gathering and report
preparation;
• Assisting in remedy selection by allowing a project manager to
consider previous technology applications on sites with similar
characteristics;
• Allowing a more meaningful comparison of technology performance,
including assessments of potential presumptive remedies, by
providing consistent soil characteristics and operating conditions;
• Supporting improved cost comparisons and projections through the
use of a standard work breakdown structure; and
• Ensuring a minimum level of reporting quality by specifying
documentation objectives for test and measurement procedures.
-------
1.2
Overview of the Guide
This Guide presents recommended procedures for documenting cost and
performance information by Roundtable Agencies. In addition to standard terminology,
the basic information types include waste characteristics and operating parameters that'
affect the cost or performance of different technologies, measurement procedures,
standardized cost breakdown, and treatment technology performance. These topics are
discussed in Section 2.0. Following the discussion of each topic, an example is provided
as a practical illustration of report format.
The recommended documentation procedures are relatively simple and
straight-forward. The parameters were chosen because they are practical and useful, and
the requested information will be relevant to future projects during the remedy selection
process. The procedures were developed especially for full-scale projects to help realize
the benefits associated with consistent and uniform data collection and documentation.
This Guide addresses both conventional and innovative treatment
technologies, but does not include capping or other containment processes.
Conventional technologies are included in this Guide because there is still much to learn
from the application of these processes at hazardous waste sites. In addition,
information on conventional technologies serves as a useful baseline against which the
data from innovative technologies can be compared.
While developing this Guide, the notion of "minimum data sets" caused
some confusion. To clarify, it is preferable to consider the recommended procedures as
constituting desirable data sets. The information should not be viewed as minimum
requirements for adequate documentation or, for that matter, for responsible remedy
selection. Further, collection of only the data recommended in Section 2.0 may not be
adequate to satisfy all project-specific data requirements. For example, most project
reports will include narrative site descriptions, lessons learned, and timelines; however,
the format for these presentations is left to the individual Agencies.
Section 3.0 of this Guide provides implementation considerations and a
description of future work group activities.
-------
-------
2.0
RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES
This section contains recommended procedures for documenting the
following cost and performance information for completed site remediation projects:
• Standard terminology;
• Waste characteristics and operating parameters affecting treatment
cost or performance;
• Measurement procedures;
• Standardized cost breakdown; and
• Performance.
2.1
Tables noted in the text may be found at the end of this Guide.
Standard Terminology
The use of standard terminology to describe site background, site
characteristics, and treatment systems will facilitate the storage and retrieval of
information, including the future use of electronic search routines. The parameters were
chosen to highlight important features of the remediation projects, so that they can be
used in the future as keywords for site screening. For each parameter, the Guide
proposes corresponding terms as possible descriptors.
2.1.1
Site Background
Site background information is necessary to describe the historical activity
that generated the contamination and the waste management practices that contributed
to the contamination. Historical activities that generated contamination may be
described using the 4-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code that best
represents the historical activity responsible for the contamination at a site. Appendix A
shows examples of SIC codes most likely to apply to contaminated sites. These examples
were derived from the SIC Codes identified by the Superfund program to be most closely
associated with contaminated sites. For the purpose of this Guide, some additional
codes have been created to address activities not described by current SIC codes Four-
ulgll ££ S are described in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, published
by the Office of Management and Budget, and available for sale from the National
Technical Information Service, order no. PB87-100012. Common terminology for waste
management practices that contribute to contamination are shown in Table 1 which was
rf/?c™ ^^ Vend°r Information system for Innovative Treatment Technologies
(VIM IT) and DoD's Installation Restoration Program (IRP).
-------
2.1.2
Site Characteristics
Site characteristic information is necessary to describe the type of media
(matrix) processed by the treatment system, the types of contaminants treated, and the
characteristics of the matrk (described in Section 2.2).
Terms that describe the type of media treated are presented in Table 2.
These terms were derived from information in EPA's VISITT database and the
interagency Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).
Contaminant groups that were treated may be described using the
terminology presented in Table 3. The terminology was derived from information in
EPA's VISITT database, EPA's Superfund Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) 6A/6B
Guides, and the WBS. Specific contaminants treated within each contaminant group
should 'also be identified (as well as the concentrations of those contaminants in the
untreated matrk). The groups shown in Table 3 were selected because they are widely
recognized terms. However, the groupings are not an exhaustive list for all
contaminants.
2.1.3 Treatment System
Treatment technology information is necessary to identify the primary and
supplemental systems (i.e., pretreatment, post-treatment, and process augmentation) used
in a site remediation project. Tables 4 and 5 list common terminology for treatment
technologies, which were derived from EPA's VISITT database and from the
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, July 1993, prepared
jointly by EPA and the Air Force.
2.1.4
Example
An example application of the recommended procedures for standard
terminology to a specific project (cleanup of the T H Agriculture & Nutrition (THAN)
Company Superfund Site in Albany, Georgia) is presented below in Exhibit 1:
-------
Exhibit 1; Example for Reporting Standard Terminology
Site Background:
Historical Activity that Generated Contamination
SIC Code: 2879 (Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified)
Management Practices that Contributed to Contamination
Storage - Drums/Containers (storage, formulation, and distribution of pesticides)
Site Characteristics:
Media Treated
Soil (ex situ)
Contaminants Treated
Halogenated Organic Pesticides/Herbicides (including the following constituents-
4,4'-DDT, toxaphene, BHC-alpha, and BHC-beta)
Treatment System:
Primary Treatment Technology
Thermal Desorption |
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Pretreatment (Solids) - Screening
Post-Treatment (Air) - Baghouse, Quench, Air Cooler, Induced Draft Fan, Carbon
Adsorption, Condenser
Post-Treatment (Solids) - Quench
Post-Treatment (Water) - Carbon Adsorption
2.2
Parameters Affecting Cost or Performance
Technology cost or performance is affected by waste characteristics and
treatment technology operating conditions. Tables 6 and 7 list, on a technology-specific
basis, the waste characteristics and operating conditions that should be documented for
several of the most common site remediation technologies. These parameters define
desirable information which may help to guide formulation of future field sampling
programs during site remediation. These parameters were selected because they affect a
technology's cost and performance and also because they are commonly measured in
practice. The parameters represent standard data sets which will allow a consistent
comparison of various applications of a particular technology.
i
Other items besides matrix characteristics and operating conditions are
important to document because of their potential impact on cost or performance, as
shown on Table 6. These include the type and concentration of contaminants, quantity
of material treated, cleanup goals or requirements, and environmental setting. For
-------
example, for in situ technologies, geologic and hydrogeologic characterizations should be
included in project documentation.
The parameters listed in Tables 6 and 7 represent the key factors which
would be of most value to project managers who are trying to apply results from a
completed cleanup to then: own particular site. The collection of additional parameters
will be decided on a site-specific basis and should be included in the project
documentation. Tables 8 and 9 provide additional information on the methods used to
measure each parameter shown in Tables 6 and 7, and on each parameter's potential
effect on cost or performance (i.e., the reasons why the parameters affecting cost or
performance are important).
In addition, because costs are typically reported in terms of dollars per
cubic yard or per ton of soil treated, the Work Group recommends that the bulk density
of soil be included in documentation for ex situ soil remediation projects (e.g., as shown
on Table 6 for thermal desorption). This information will allow for comparisons of
project costs in terms of costs per cubic yard and per ton of soil treated.
2.3 Measurement Procedures
Documentation of measurement procedures for many of the matrix
characteristics and operating parameters is important to allow a more meaningful
comparison of results among projects. It is- especially important to document
measurement procedures when there are different methods available or when less
standardized procedures are used for measuring an individual parameter (e.g., for clay
content). The use of different methods or less standardized procedures may lead to
variability in results and, therefore, should be considered in cross-project comparisons.
Tables 8 and 9 identify which measurement procedures are recommended for
documentation.
2.3.1
Example
An application of the recommended procedures for reporting parameters
affecting cost or performance to a specific project (cleanup of the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal, Operable Unit 18, hi Commerce City, Colorado using soil vapor extraction) is
presented in Exhibits 2 and 3. In Exhibits 2 and 3, measurement procedures are shown
for some parameters but not others. As shown on Tables 8 and 9 of the Guide,
measurement procedures should be documented for those parameters whose results may
vary due to method variability (e.g., for permeability).
-------
1
Exhibit 2:
Example for Reporting Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost
or Performance and Associated Measurement Procedures
Parameter
Soil Types
(Soil
classification
and clay
content)
Moisture
Content
Air
Permeability
Porosity
Total Organic
Carbon
Non-Aqueous
Phase Liquids
(NAPLs)
Value
0-35 ft. below ground surface (BGS):
poorly graded sand (SP), poorly graded
sand with gravel (SP), and poorly
graded sand with silt (SP-SM).
35.5 ft. BGS: lean clay with sand (CL).
55 ft. BGS: poorly graded sand (SP)
4.7 to 30.9%
0 to -38 ft. BGS: 167 darcys
-55 ft. BGS: 2,860 darcys
Not Measured
Not Measured
No evidence of NAPLs within operable
unit.
Measurement Procedure
Particle Size Analysis: ASTM Method
D422-63
Gravimetric Analysis: ASTM Method
D2216-90
Vacuum readings were taken at five-minute
intervals from P-7B and VES-4 during the
system start-up until steady state conditions
were observed. Vacuum readings at each
location were plotted against the natural log
of time. The slope and y-intercept of each
plot were used in a Johnson et al, 1990,
equation to predict soil permeability to air
flow.
Not Reported
Exhibit 3: Example for Reporting Operating Parameters Affecting
Treatment Cost or Performance
Parameter
Air Flow Rate
Operating Vacuum
Value
145 to 335 cfm (total for two extraction wells)
0 to 30 inches of water
Measurement Procedure
N/A*
N/A*
*N/A - Not applicable. See Table 9. Standard measurement procedures for air flow rate and operating
vacuum are available.
2.4
Standardized Cost Breakdown
An interagency group has developed a standardized work breakdown
structure (WBS), which includes five levels of detail for the types of cost elements.
Project cost documentation should follow the interagency WBS to the extent possible-
-------
documentation of treatment costs to the fifth level of detail is desirable and should be
provided whenever possible. In addition, the documentation should identify unit costs
and number of units for each cost element, as appropriate. The use of the WBS format
will facilitate comparison of costs across projects, and the detailed breakout will help
support extrapolation of costs to future applications. The second level WBS cost
elements, which relate to the treatment processes, are shown in Exhibit 4, and further
described in Table 10. The cost elements are grouped by when the activity occurs-
before, during, or after treatment.
Exhibit 4: Second Level Work Breakdown Structure Cost Elements
Interagency WBS #
Cost Element
Before Treatment Cost Elements
3301
3302
3303
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
Mobilization and Preparatory Work
Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis
Site Work
Surface Water Collection and Control
Groundwater Collection and Control
Air Pollution/Gas Collection and Control
Solids Collection and Containment
Liquids/Sediments/Sludges Collection and Containment
Drums/Tanks/Structures/Miscellaneous Demolition and Removal
Treatment Cost Elements
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
Biological Treatment
Chemical Treatment
Physical Treatment
Thermal Treatment
Stabilization/Fixation/Encapsulation
After Treatment Cost Elements
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
33 9X
Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D)
Disposal (other than Commercial)
Disposal (Commercial)
Site Restoration
Demobilization
Other (use numbers 90-99)
The third level of the WBS identifies 68 specific types of treatment
processes. The fourth level of the WBS is used to distinguish between portable and
permanent treatment units. For portable treatment units, the fifth level of the WBS
identifies 12 specific cost elements directly associated with treatment, as shown in
Exhibit 5.
10
-------
Exhibit 5: Fifth Level Work Breakdown Structure Cost Elements
Interagency WBS #
33XXXX01-
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
Portable Unit Treatment Cost Element
Solids Preparation and Handling - Includes loading/unloading, screening,
grinding, pulverizing, mixing, moisture control, and placement/disposal.
Liquid Preparation and Handling - Includes collection/storage
(equalization), separation, treatment, and release/disposal (POTW, surface
discharge).
Vapor/Gas Preparation and Handling - Includes collection/storage,
separation, treatment, and release/disposal.
Pads/Foundations/Spill Control - May include materials and construction of
facilities.
Mobilization/Setup - May include activities needed to prepare for startup.
Startup/Testing/Permits - May include activities needed to begin operation.
Training - May include training needed to operatic equipment.
Operation (Short Term - Up to 3 Years) - Includes bulk chemicals/raw
materials, fuel and utility usage, and maintenance; and repair.
Operation (Long Term - Over 3 Years) - Includes bulk chemicals/raw
materials, fuel and utility usage, and maintenance and repair.
Cost of Ownership - May include amortization, leasing, profit, and other
fees not addressed elsewhere.
Dismantling - May include activities needed prior to demobilization.
Demobilization - May include removal of unit.
For permanent treatment units, the fifth level of the WBS identifies 10
specific cost elements, 8 of which are identical to the cost elements described above for
portable units. For permanent units, item 05 (Mobilization/Setup) is replaced by
Construction of Plant, which includes architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical,
equipment fabrication/purchase, and equipment erection/installation. Items 10 through
12 are replaced with a new item 10, Mothballing, which may include costs for
deactivating the treatment unit.
\
For Before Treatment and After Treatment Cost Elements, documentation
to the second level of detail is adequate, while actual Treatment Cost Elements should
be provided to the fifth level if possible.
The WBS format will be used in the future as part of federal procurements
for site remediation services. Data collected through use of the WBS will be stored
electronically in a Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS). The documentation of
11
-------
projects using the WBS and the storage of this data in HCAS provides a mechanism for
comparison of costs among documented remediation projects and also between other
projects in the HCAS system. Additional information on the WBS and HCAS is
presented at the end of this Guide.
2.4.1
Example
An application of the recommended procedures for a land treatment
application at the Brown Wood Preserving Superfund site is presented in Exhibit 6. This
example shows before and after treatment costs at the second level of the WBS, and
costs directly associated with treatment at the fifth level of the WBS. It also shows unit
costs for appropriate cost elements.
Exhibit 6: Example for Reporting Site Remediation Project Costs
Before
Treatment
Costs
Treatment
Cost
Elements
Cost Element
Mobilization and Preparatory Work
- mobilization of equipment, material,
and personnel
Site Work
- site preparation
- fence
Solids Collection and Containment
- stockpile soil
Solids Preparation and Handling
- spread contaminated soil
Mobilization/Setup
- installation of clay liner
- installation of subsurface drainage
network
- construction of perimeter
containment berms
- shape retention pond
- installation of runon drainage swales
- installation of irrigation system
Operation (short-term - up to 3 years)
- 1988 O&M (construction mgmt.)
- 1989 O&M (includes approximately
$40,000 for groundwater monitoring)
- 1990 O&M (includes approximately
$40,000 for groundwater monitoring)
Unit Cost ($)
9,827
4,781.16/acre
22,610
0.53/cu. yd
2.77/cu. yd
3.23/cu. yd
68,062
3.29/ft
3,293
1.15/ft
20,312
36,883
194,118
80,560
No. of Units
lump sum
5 acres
lump sum
3,200 cu. yds
3,200 cu. yds
7,000 cu. yds
lump sum
2,000 ft
lump sum
3,000 ft
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
Cost ($)
9,827
23,906
22,610
1,696
8,864
22,610
68,062
6,580
3,293
3,450
20,312
36,883
194,118
80,560
12
-------
Exhibit 6 (Continued)
Treatment
Cost
Elements
(Continued)
After
Treatment
Cost
Elements
Cost Element
Operation (long-term - over 3 years)
- 1991 O&M (groundwater monitoring
and site restoration)
- 1992 O&M (groundwater monitoring
and site restoration)
- 1993 O&M (groundwater monitoring
and site restoration)
Demobilization
- Demobilization of equipment,
material, and personnel
Unit Cost ($)
60,477
37,307
22,891
9,827
No, of Units
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
Cost ($)
60,477
37,307
22,891
9,827
2.5
Performance
Treatment technology performance data are more difficult to standardize
than the other items described in this Guide, such as site background information.
Performance data vary by technology type, and are influenced by such factors as matrix
characteristics, geologic setting (for in situ technologies), and design and operation of the
technology. While performance is often characterized as a removal percentage or the
concentration level attained, this information alone may not be adequate to assess the
overall performance of the technology. Establishing performance levels for in situ
processes is particularly challenging due to the difficulty involved in accurately
characterizing the level and extent of contamination. Exhibit 7 lists the types of
information which should be reported to the extent possible when reporting
performance-related information in order to provide analysts with a better understanding
of the technology application.
Exhibit 7; Types of Treatment Technology Performance-Related Information
Performance-Related Topic
Types of Samples Collected
Sample Frequency and Protocol
Quantity of Material Treated
Type of Information
» Type of media sampled
o Type of constituents analyzed
o Use of surrogates (e.g., soil gas as a surrogate
for soil borings) !
o Where samples were collected
« How samples were collected
« When samples were collected
o Who collected samples
« Quantity of material treated during application
• For in situ technologies, area and depth of
contaminated materhil treated
13
-------
Exhibit 7 (Continued)
Performance-Related Topic
Type of Information
Untreated and Treated Contaminant
Concentrations
Measurement of initial conditions (even if not
required to demonstrate compliance with
cleanup criteria)
Measurement of contaminant concentration
during and/or after treatment (noting if there
are matched untreated/treated pairs of data,
and/or whether there are operating data to
correspond with performance data)
Assessment of percent removal achieved (noting
procedure used to derive percent removal)
Correlations of performance data with other
variables
Cleanup Objectives
• Cleanup goals or objectives
• Criteria for ceasing operation
Comparison With Cleanup Objectives
Assessment of whether technology operation
achieved cleanup objectives
Assessment of whether the technology was
operated to achieve reductions in contaminant
concentrations beyond the established cleanup
objectives
Analytical Methodology
Analytical methodology used (including field
screening or analyses, portable instrumentation,
mobile laboratory, off-site laboratory, CLP
procedures, nonstandard methods)
Exceptions to standard methodology
QA/QC*
Who had responsibility for QA/QC
Type of QA/QC measures performed
Level of procedures
Exceptions to QA/QC protocol or data quality
objectives
Other Residuals
Types of residuals generated (e.g., off-gasses,
wastewaters, or sludges)
Measurement of mass or volume, and
contaminant concentration, in each treatment
residual
*Note that only very general QA/QC information is recommended, with detailed reporting on an exceptions
basis.
Example applications of the recommended procedures for two projects
(one ex situ thermal desorption project, one in situ soil vapor extraction and bioventing
14
-------
project) are presented below in Exhibits 8 through 12. The exhibits illustrate the types
of information which are typically described in more detail in a project report.
Exhibit 8. Example for Reporting Performance Information for an Ex Situ Project
(T H Agriculture & Nutrition Company Superfmid Site, Albany, Georgia)
Types of Samples Collected:
Sampling Frequency and Protocol:
Quantity of Material Treated
Untreated and Treated Contaminant
Concentrations:
Cleanup Objectives:
Comparison With Cleanup Objectives:
Analytical Methodology:
QA/QC:
Other Residuals:
- Soil
- Analyzed for organochlorine (OCL) pesticides
- 18 composite samples collected over 3 month
operating period
- 4,318 tons of soil treated during thermal
desorption application
OCL pesticide concentrations (average) in
untreated and treated soil shown in Exhibit 9
Average untreated soil concentrations for
specific pesticides ranged from 1.9 to 257.7
mg/kg
Average treated soi] concentrations for specific
pesticides ranged from < 0.0383 to < 3.6456
mg/kg; no matched untreated/treated data pairs
available
Percent removal for specific pesticides ranged
from 91.19 to 99.99%
Percent removal calculated by treatment vendor
using one-half the reported detection limit for
results identified as below detection limit (BDL)
90% reduction for four OCL pesticides (BHC-
alpha, BHC-beta, 4,4'-DDT, and toxaphene)
Total OCL pesticide concentration less than 100
me/kg
Achieved average percent reduction for four
OCL pesticides greater than 98%
Achieved average treated soil total OCL
pesticide concentration equal to 0.5065 mg/kg
SW-846 Method 8080 for OCL pesticides
One exception to standard methodology
identified (a wide-bore GC column was used
instead .of a packed GC column)
QA/QC review performed by contractors for
EPA and PRP indicated no technical data
quality concerns
- Off-gasses generated by thermal desorber
- Off-gasses results and standards shown in
Exhibit 10
15
-------
Exhibit 9: Example for Reporting Untreated and Treated Contaminant Concentrations
Constituent/
Parameter
BHC-alpha
BHC-beta
4,4'-DDT
Toxaphene
Total OCL
Pesticides
Cleanup Goal
90% measured
reduction in
concentration
90% measured
reduction in
concentration
90% measured
reduction in
concentration
90% measured
reduction in
concentration
<100 mg/kg
""•
Average
Untreated Soil
Concentration
(from proof-
of-process
test) (mg/kg)
1.9
4.5
212.6
257.7
Not available
===================
Average
Treated Soil
Concentration
(from full-
scale
operation)
(mg/kg)
DDL (0.0399)
BDL (0.0383)
BDL (0.0710)
BDL (3.6456)
0.5065
======
Range of
Percent
Removal <%)
91.19 to 99.96
96.22 to 99.98
99.85 to 99.99
93.40 to 99.97
—
=====
Average
Percent
Removal (%)
98.97
99.57
99.98
99.29
-
=====
BDL - Below detection limit.
Exhibit 10: Example for Reporting Residuals Data
Constituent/Parameter
Stack Gas Total
Hydrocarbons
HC1 Mass Emission
Rate
Stack Gas Particulates
Toxaphene
4,4'-DDT
™
Air Emission
Standard
100 ppmv
<4 Ibs/hr
<0.08 gr/dscf
1.2 ppbv
1.0 ppbv
===========================
Average Emission Rate
or Concentration
11.9 ppmv
0.12 Ibs/hr
0.0006 gr/dscf
7.6 x 1Q-5 ppbv
6.1 x 10"* ppbv
:================ ~
Range of Emission Rates
or Concentrations
2.9 to 35.5 ppmv
0.12 to 0.13 Ibs/hr
0.0005 to 0.0007 gr/dscf
Not available
Not available
1
16
-------
Exhibit 11; Example for Reporting Performance Information jfor an In Situ Project
(Hill Air
Types of Samples Collected:
Sampling Frequency and Protocol:
Quantity of Material Treated:
Untreated and Treated Contaminant
Concentrations:
Cleanup Objectives:
Comparison With Cleanup Objectives:
Analytical Methodology:
QA/QC:
Other Residuals:
Force Base Site 914, Ogden, Utah)
- Soil and soil gas (soil gas samples used to assess
biodegradation)
- Analyzed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH),
Oxygen (O2), and Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
- Soil samples collected in 15 vent wells at 5 feet depth
intervals to 66 feet total depth
- Continuous monitoring of soil gas O2 and CO2
concentrations
- 5,000 cubic yards contaminated by spill
- Approximate extent of 10,000 mg/kg JP-4 contour
covered area 100 by 150 feet
- TPH concentrations (average) and TPH removal over
time are shown in Exhibit 12
- Soil TPH concentrations in untreated soil ranged from
<20 to 10,200 mg/kg, with average soil TPH
concentration of 411 mg/kg
- 211,000 pounds of JP-4 removed from soil in two years
of system operation
- Removal rate ranged from 20 to 400 pounds per day
- Soil TPH limit of 38.1 mg/kg set by Utah Department of
Health
- Average soil TPH concentration after treatment less than
6 mg/kg
- Identification of methodology not available at this time
- No exceptions to standard methodology identified
- Type of QA/QC measures performed not available at
this tune
- No exceptions to QA/QC protocol or data quality
objectives identified
- Off-gasses generated by extraction process treated by
catalytic oxidation
17
-------
Exhibit 12: Example for Reporting Untreated and
Treated Contaminant Concentrations and Contaminant Removals
Hill AFB Building 914 Soil Samples
Depth
(feet)
20
40
D3«2
1447
.5.6
.39
970
101
728
470
1422
]216
1— 1
20 100
Hydrocarbon Concentration (mg/kg)
CH Before EH Intermediate ssa After
Depth
(meters)
10
15
100
Key:
Before - Mean Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) Concentrations at 5-Foot Intervals Prior to Venting
Intermediate - Mean TPH Concentration After High Rate Operating Mode Venting but Before Low
Flow Operating Mode with Moisture and Nutrient Addition
After - Mean TPH Concentration After Low Flow Operating Mode with Moisture and Nutrient Addition
Cumulative Hydrocarbon Removal
at Hill AFB Building 914 Soil Venting Site
D
88
j F M A M J J A S O N D| J FMAMI JASON
1989 I 1990
Date
Cumulative Hydrocarbon Removal (Volatilized and Biodegraded) at Hill AFB, Utah, Soil Venting Site
(from 18 December 1988 to 14 November 1990)
18
-------
3.0
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Each Roundtable agency is responsible for developing its own plan for
implementing the procedures recommended in this Guide. Successful implementation
requires only that Agencies agree to use the baseline or core data elements when they
collect cost and performance data for full-scale remediation projects; the Agencies are
free to collect any additional data necessary to meet their particular needs, and to report
this information in a format of their choice.
To date, the basic report formats being adopted by Agencies include
descriptions of site background and conditions, nature and extent of contamination,
treatment system performance, cost, regulatory and institutional issues, and lessons
learned. During Work Group meetings, the importance of the lessons learned analyses
was often cited. This discussion describes experience in designing, constructing, or
operating the treatment system that could improve future projects. Discussions of how
problems were solved and suggestions or recommendations for future improvements are
valuable to future technology users.
i
During Work Group meetings, members discussed whether the
recommended procedures in the Guide also should apply to pilot-scale studies and
demonstration projects. These studies are conducted to collect detailed information and
are typically well documented. However, summarizing results from these efforts and
from treatability studies as suggested in this Guide will allow more meaningful
comparisons and assessments of technologies. Agencies may choose to apply parts or all
of this guidance to pilot-scale and demonstration studies.
i
Ease of access to the cost and performance information prepared under
this guidance is still an issue. The Work Group will continue to meet to discuss ways to
improve the dissemination of information on remedial technologies including electronic
distribution of full-scale cleanup reports.
i
I
This Guide is meant to be a starting point for improving the documenta-
tion of cleanup projects. The procedures presented here will be amended in the future
to reflect agency experience in using the Guide and documenting completed projects.
The Guide also will be expanded to add new technologies as they emerge into full-scale
application.
19
-------
-------
Table 1
Site Background:
Waste Management Practice That Contributed to Contamination*
•*.
Management Practice
Aboveground Storage Tank
Co-Disposal Landfill
Contaminated Aquifer - Contamination Source Unknown
Discharge to Sewer /Surface Water
Disposal Pit
Dumping— Unauthorized
Explosive/Ordnance Disposal Area
Fire/Crash Training Area
Incineration Residuals Handling
Industrial Landfill
Lake or River Disposed
Landfarm/Land Treatment Facility
Manufacturing Process
Ocean Disposed
Open Burn/Open Detonation Area
Petroleum, Oil, Lubricant (POL)
Recycling (other than as primary
Line
operation)
Road Oiling
Spill
Storage— Drums/Containers
Surface Disposial Area
Surface Impoundment/Lagoon
Underground Injection
Underground Storage Tank
Waste Pile
Waste Treatment Plant
Other (explain)
*Derived from EPA's VISITT and DoD's Installation Restoration Program efforts.
21
-------
Table 2
Media to be Treated*
Soil
Sludge
Solid (e.g., slag, rock)
Sediment
Light Non-aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPL)
Dense Non-aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPL)
Groundwater
Surface Water
Leachate
Buildings
Products, Chemicals
"Treatment of these media include both in situ and ex situ applications. Derived from EPA's VTSITT
database and the interagency WBS.
Table 3
Contaminant Groups*
Contaminant Groups
Organic Compounds
~ Volatiles—Halogenated
— Volatiles—Nonhalogenated
-BTEX
-TPH
- Ketones
- Styrene
— Semivolatiles—Halogenated
- Dioxins/Furans
-PCBs
- Organic corrosives
- Organic cyanides
- Organic pesticides/herbicides
— Semivolatiles—Nonhalogenated
- Phthalates
- Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
- Organic pesticides/herbicides
• Inorganic Compounds
— Asbestos
- Heavy metals (e.g., Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Pb, Ni,
Se, Zn)
— Inorganic cyanides
~ Inorganic corrosives
— Nonmetallic elements (e.g., As)
- Radioactive elements (e.g., Ce, Rb, Sr, U)
— Radionuclides (e.g., tritium)
• Radon
• Explosives/Propellants
• Organometallic Compounds
Pesticides/herbicides
*Examples of contaminant groups targeted for application of remedial technology. Derived from EPA's
VISITr database and Superfund LDR 6A/6B Guides, and the interagency WBS.
22
-------
Table 4
Primary Treatment Systems*
Soil In Situ
Bioremediation
Bioventing
Soil Flushing
Soil Vapor Extraction
Solidification/
Stabilization
Thermally Enhanced
Recovery (i.e., EM, RF)
Vitrification
Soil Ex Situ
Chemical Reduction/
Oxidation
Dehalogenation
Incineration
Land Treatment
Physical Separation
Pyrolysis
Slurry Phase
Bioremediation
Soil Washing
Solid Phase
Bioremediation
Solidification/
Stabilization
Solvent Extraction
Thermal Desorption
Vitrification
Groundwater In Sitw
Bioremediation
Chemical Reduction/
Oxidation
Cosolvent Flushing |
Dual Phase Extraction
Electrokinetics :
Hot Water/Steam
Flushing/Stripping
Natural Attenuation
Passive Treatment
Walls
Sparging
Surfactants
Groundwater Ex Situ
Pump and Treat with:
Air Stripping
Bioreactors
Carbon Adsorption
Chemical Treatment
Membrane Filtration
Solar Detoxification
UV Oxidation
*Derived from EPA's VISITT database and a screening matrix prepared jointly by EPA and Air Force
personnel.
Table 5
Supplemental Treatment Systems*
Pretreatment
(Solids)
Crushing
Dewatering
Milling
Mixing
Nutrient Injection
Screening
Shredding
Augmentation
(for In Situ Process)
Horizontal Wells
Hydraulic Fracturing
Mixing
Pneumatic Fracturing
Post-Treatment
(Air)
Baghouse
Biofiltration
Carbon Adsorption
Catalytic Oxidation
Condenser
Corona
Cyclone
Scrubber
Thermal Destruction
Post-Treatment
(Solids)
Compaction
Incineration '
Quench
Stabilization
1
Post-Treatment
(Water)
Air Stripping
Biological
Carbon Adsorption
Centrifugation
Chemical
Decanting
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Neutralization
*Derived from EPA's VISITT database and a screening matrix prepared jointly by EPA and Air Force personnel.
23
-------
Table 6
Suggested Parameters to Document Full-Scale Technology Applications:
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
Matrix Characteristics
In Situ Soil Remediation
Soil
Bioventing
Soil
Flushing
Soil Vapor
Extraction
Ex Sittt SoU Remediation
Land
Treatment
Composting
SOIL TYPES
Soil Classification
day Content and/or Particle Size Distribution
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
AGGREGATE SOIL PROPERTIES
Hydraulic Conductivity/Water Permeability
Moisture Content
Air Permeability
pH
Porosity
Transmissivity
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ORGANICS
Total Organic Carbon
Oil & Grease or Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids
MISCELLANEOUS™
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(B)
Sliwry Ptase Soil
Bioremediation
•
•
^Matrix characteristics shown for pump and treat are for groundwater pumping/extraction. Treatment process selection
may affect the list of desirable characteristics to be documented.
^Miscellaneous matrix characteristics include field capacity for land treatment; cation exchange capacity for soil washing
of metal-containing wastes; Btu value, halogen content, and metal content for incineration; and bulk density and Lower
Explosive Limit for thermal desorption.
Note: Some matrix characteristics listed above (e.g., moisture content and pH) are not identified on Table 6 as affecting
treatment cost or performance since these are typically modified during the operation of the technology.
Therefore, they are listed on Table 7 as operating parameters affecting treatment cost or performance.
24
-------
Table 6
(Continued)
Non-Matrix Characteristics Affecting Cost or Performance:
Contaminants: type and concentration of contaminants
Environmental Setting for in situ technologies: geology,
stratigraphy, and hydrogeology
SoU
Washing
•
•
•
(B)
Ex Situ Soil Remediation
Stabiliza-
tion
Incinera-
tion
Thermal
Desorption
Groundwater Remediation
Groundwater
Bioreinediation
Groundwater
Sparging
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(B)
•
(B)
•
•
•
Pump
and
Treat
-------
Table 7
Suggested Parameters to Document Full-Scale Technology Applications:
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
^^^=
Operating Parameters
In Situ Soil Remediation
Soil
Bioveflting
Soil
Flushing
Soil Vapor
Extraction
SYSTEM PARAMETERS
Air Flow Rate
Mixing Rate/Frequency
Moisture Content
Operating Pressure/Vacuum
pH
Pumping Rate
Residence Time
System Throughput
Temperature
Washing/Flushing Solution
Components/Additives and
Dosage
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY
Diomass Concentration
Microbiat Activity
Oxygen Uptake Rate
Carbon Dioxide Evolution
Hydrocarbon Degradation
Nutrients and Other Soil
Amendments
Soil Loading Rate
•
•
•
•
Ex Situ Soil Remediation
Land
Treatment
*
•
*
*
•
•
•
—
Composting
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
•
Slurry Phase
Ml
Bioreniedia-
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
•
26
-------
Table 7
(Continued)
Ex Situ Soil Remediation
Soil
Washing
Stabilize**
fioaW
Incinera-
tion
Thermal
Desorption
Groundwater Remediation
In Situ
Groundwater
Biodegradation
Groundwater
Sparging
Pump
and
Treat
Operating Parameters
SYSTEM PARAMETERS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,
I
,
•
;
Air Flow Rate
Mixing Rate/Frequency
Moisture Content
Operating Pressure/Vacuum
PH
Pumping Rate
Residence Time
System Throughput
Temperature
Washing/Flushing Solution
Components/Additives and
Dosage
BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY
Biomass Concentration
Microbial Activity
Oxygen Uptake Rate
Carbon Dioxide Evolution
Hydrocarbon Degradation
Nutrients and Other Soil
Amendments
Soil Loading Rate
(A)Additional operating parameters for stabilization include additives and dosage, curing time, compressive strength,
volume increase, bulk density, and permeability.
27
-------
Table 8
Matrix Characteristics: Measurement Procedures and Potential Effects on Treatment Cost or Performance
Matrix Characteristics
Measurement Procedures
Important to
Document
Measurement
Procedure?
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
Soil Types
Soil Classification
to
oo
Soil classification is a semi-empirical measurement of
sand, silt, clay, gravel, and loam content. Several soil
classification schemes are in use and include the ASTM
Standard D 2488-90. Practice for Description and
Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), the
USDA and CSSC systems.
Yes
Soil classification is an important characteristic
for assessing the effect on cost or performance
of all technologies shown on Table 6. For
example, in soil vapor extraction, sandy soils are
typically more amenable to treatment than clayey
soils. (See related information under clay content
and/or particle size distribution.)
Clay Content and/or
Particle Size Distribution
Clay content and/or particle size distribution is
measured using a variety of soil classification systems,
including ASTM D 2488-90 under soil classification.
Yes
Clay and particle size distribution affect air and
fluid flow through contaminated media. In slurry
phase bioremediation systems, particle size
affects ability to hold media in suspension. In
soil washing, the particle size/contaminant
concentration relationship affects the potential
for physical separation and volume reduction.
For thermal desorption systems, clay and particle
size affects mass and heat transfer, including
agglomeration and carryover to air pollution
control devices.
-------
Table 8 (Continued)
Matrix Characteristics: Measurement Procedures and Potential Effects on Treatment Cost or Performance
Matrix Characteristics
Measurement Procedures
Important to
Document
Measurement
Procedure?
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
Aggregate Soil Properties
Hydraulic Conductivity/
Water Permeability
to
Hydraulic conductivity/water permeability can be
determined through several procedures. Hydraulic
conductivity, which is a measure of the ease of water
flow through soil, is typically calculated as a function of
permeability or transmissivity. ASTM D 5126-90, Guide
for Comparison of Field Methods for Determining
Hydraulic Conductivity in the Vadose Zone, is a guide
for determining hydraulic conductivity. Water
permeability is often calculated by pumping out
groundwater, measuring groundwater draw-down rates
and recharge times through surrounding monitoring
wells, and factoring in the distance between the wells
and the pump. Method 9100 in EPA SW-846 is used to
measure permeability, as well as several ASTM
standards: D 2434-68 (1974V Test Method for
Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head). D
4630-86, Test Method for Determining Transmissivity
and Storativitv of Low Permeability Rocks by Tn Situ
Measurements Using the Constant Head Injection Test.
and D 4631-86, Test Method for Determining
Transmissivity and Storativitv of Low Permeability
Rocks by In Situ Measurements Using the Pressure
Pulse Technique.
Yes
This characteristic is important in groundwater
remediation technologies including in situ
groundwater bioremediation, groundwater
sparging, and pump and treat systems.
Hydraulic conductivity and water permeability
affect the zone of influence of the extraction
wells and, therefore, affects the number of wells
needed for the remediation effort and the cost of
operating the extraction wells.
-------
Table 8 (Continued)
Matrix Characteristics: Measurement Procedures and Potential Effects on Treatment Cost or Performance
Matrix Characteristics
Measurement Procedures
Important to
Document
Measurement
Procedure?
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
Moisture Content
Procedures for measuring soil moisture content are
standardized. Soil moisture content is typically
measured using a gravimetric ASTM standard, D 2216-
90. Test Method for Laboratory Determination of
Water (Moisture') Content of Soil and Rock.
No
The moisture content of the matrix typically
affects the performance, both directly and
indirectly, of in situ technologies such as
bioventing and soil vapor extraction, and ex situ
technologies such as stabilization, incineration,
and thermal desorption. For example, air flow
rates during operation of soil vapor extraction
technologies are affected by moisture content of
the soil. Thermal input requirements and air
handling systems for incineration and desorption
technologies can also be affected by soil
moisture content. (Effects of moisture content
on operation of technologies is discussed in
Table 9).
Air Permeability
Air permeability is a measure of the ease of air flow
through soil and is a calculated value. For example, air
permeability may be calculated by applying a vacuum to
soil with a pump, measuring vacuum pressures in
surrounding monitoring wells, and fitting the results to a
correlation derived by Johnson et al., 1990.
Yes
This characteristic is important for in situ soil
remediation technologies that involve venting or
extraction. Air permeability affects the zone of
influence of the extraction wells, and, therefore,
affects the number of extraction wells needed for
the remediation effort and the cost of operating
the extraction wells.
-------
Table 8 (Continued)
Matrix Characteristics: Measurement Procedures and Potential Effects on Treatment Cost or Performance
Matrix Characteristics
Porosity
Transmissivity
Measurement Procedures
pH is a measure of the degree of acidity or alkalinity of
a matrix. Procedures for measuring and reporting pH
are standardized and include EPA SW-846 Method 9045
and ASTM methods for soil (ASTM D 4972-89, Test
Method for pH of Soils) and groundwater (ASTM D
1293-84).
Porosity is the volume of air- or water-filled voids in a
mass of soil. Procedures for measuring and reporting
porosity are standardized. Porosity is measured by
ASTM D 4404-84, Test Method for Determination of
the Pore Volume and Pore Volume Distribution of Soil
and Rock by Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry.
Transmissivity, the flow from a saturated aquifer, is the
product of hydraulic conductivity and aquifer thickness.
Important to
Document
Measurement
Procedure?
a
No
No
No1
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
The pH of the matrix can impact the solubility of
contaminants and biological activity. Therefore,
this characteristic can affect technologies such as
soil bioventing, soil flushing, land treatment,
composting, stabilization, and in situ
groundwater bioremediation. pH can also affect
the operation of treatment technologies (see
Table 9). pH in the corrosive range (e.g., <2
and >12) can damage equipment and typically
requires use of personal protection equipment
and other special handling procedures.
This characteristic is important for in situ
technologies, such as soil bioventing, soil vapor
extraction, and groundwater sparging, that rely
upon use of a driving force for transferring
contaminants into an aqueous or air-filled space.
Porosity affects the driving force, and thus, the
performance that may be achieved by these
technologies.
This characteristic is important for groundwater
pump and treat or fluid cycling systems.
Transmissivity affects the zone of influence in
this type of remediation which impacts the
number of wells and the cost of operating the
wells.
*
•»
-------
Table 8 (Continued)
Matrix Characteristics: Measurement Procedures and Potential Effects on Treatment Cost or Performance
OJ
Matrix Characteristics
Organics
Total Organic Carbon
(TOC)
Oil & Grease (O&G) or
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TPH)
Nonaqueous Phase
Liquids (NAPLs)
Measurement Procedures
Important to
Document
Measurement
Procedure?
TOC is a measure of the total organic carbon content of
a matrix. Measurement of TOC is standardized (e.g.,
Method 9060 in EPA SW-846).
Procedures for measuring O&G and TPH are
standardized. O&G is measured using Method 9070 in
EPA SW-846, and TPH is measured using Method
9073. A TPH analysis is similar to an O&G analysis
with an additional extraction step. TPH does not
include non-petroleum fractions, such as animal fats and
humic and fulvic acids.
There is no standard measurement method for
determining the presence of NAPLs; rather, then-
presence is determined by examining groundwater and
identifying a separate phase. The presence of NAPLs is
reported as either being present or not present.
No
No
Yes
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
TOC affects the desorption of contaminants
from soil and impacts in situ soil remediation,
soil washing, stabilization, and in situ
groundwater bioremediation. TOC content may
differ between uncontaminated and contaminated
soil.
O&G and TPH affect the desorption of
contaminants from soil. For thermal desorption,
elevated levels of TPH may result in
agglomeration of soil particles, resulting in
shorter residence times.
NAPLs may be a continuing source of
contaminants for in situ technologies. NAPLs
may lead to increased contaminant loads and
thus to greater costs or longer operating periods
for achieving cleanup goals. Under certain
conditions, NAPLs may directly interfere with
the operation of the treatment process.
-------
Table 9
Operating Parameters: Measurement Procedures and Potential Effects on Treatment Cost or Performance
Documentation
Required Dae
to Method
Variability?
Potential Effects on Cost or
Performance
Operating Parameters
Measurement Procedures
System Parameters
OJ
OJ
Air Flow Rate
Mixing Rate/Frequency
Moisture Content
The air flow rate is a parameter set for a vapor
extraction or treatment system. The measurement of
air flow rate is standardized (i.e., measured with flow
meters).
Mixing rate or frequency is the rate of tilling for land
treatment, the rate of turning for composting, and the
rotational frequency of a mixer for slurry phase
bioremediation.
Procedures for measuring soil moisture content are
relatively standardized. Soil moisture content is
typically measured using a gravimetric ASTM
standard: D 2216-90, Test Method for Laboratory
Determination of Water (Moisture^ Content of Soil
.and Rock. Moisture content as a treatment system
operating parameter characterizes the amount of water
and aqueous reagent added to the soil (for example,
moisture content for slurry phase bioremediation
refers to the solid to liquid ratio).
No
No
No
Air flow rate affects the rate of
volatilization of contaminants in
technologies that rely on transferring
contaminants from a soil or aqueous
matrix to air, such as soil bioventing,
soil vapor extraction, and groundwater
sparging. For technologies involving
oxidation processes, this parameter
affects the availability of oxygen and the
rate at which oxidation occurs (e.g., for
biotreatment or incineration processes).
The mixing rate affects the rate of
fiOiOgtcai activity (through increased
contact between oxygen and
contaminants) and volatilization of
contaminants.
The moisture content affects the rate of
biological activity in soil bioventing,
land treatment, composting, and slurry
phase bioremediation technologies.
Contaminants must be in an aqueous
phase for biodegradation to occur, and
water is typically added to a soil to
maintain a sufficient level of moisture
to support biodegradation.
-------
Table 9 (Continued)
Operating Parameters: Measurement Procedures and Potential Effects on Treatment Cost or Performance
Operating Parameters
Operating Pressure/Vacuum
pH
Pumping Rate
Residence Time
Measurement Procedures
Operating pressure or vacuum is measured using a
pressure or vacuum gauge, such as a manometer. The
measurement of this parameter is standardized.
Procedures for measuring and reporting pH are
standardized (e.g., Method 9045 in EPA SW-846).
The pH of soil and groundwater is adjusted during
ex situ treatment as an operating parameter via the
addition of acidic and alkaline reagents.
Pumping rate is the volume of groundwater extracted
from the subsurface. The pumping rate is measured
through a production well or treatment system using a
flow meter or a bucket and stopwatch.
Residence time is the amount of time that a unit of
material is processed in a treatment system.
Residence time is measured by monitoring the length
of time that a unit of soil is contained in the treatment
system.
Documentation
Required Due
to Method
Variability?
No
No
No
No
Potential Effects on Cost or
Performance
Operating pressure/vacuum affects the
rate of volatilization of contaminants in
technologies that rely on transferring
contaminants from a soil or aqueous
matrix to air, such as soil bioventing,
soil vapor extraction, and groundwater
sparging.
pH affects the operation of technologies
that involve chemical or biological
processes, such as soil flushing, soil
washing, and bioremediation processes.
For example, in soil washing,
contaminants are extracted from a
matrix at specified pH ranges based on
the solubility of the contaminant at that
pH.
Pumping rate affects the amount of
time required to remediate a
contaminated area, and is important for
technologies that involve extraction of
groundwater, such as soil flushing, and
pump and treat.
Residence time is important for ex situ
technologies, such as land treatment,-
composting, slurry-phase soil
bioremediation, incineration, and
thermal desorption, to measure the
amount of time during which treatment
occurs.
-------
Table 9 (Continued)
Operating Parameters: Measurement Procedures and Potential Effects on Treatment Cost or Performance
Operating Parameters
Measurement Procedures
Documentation
Required Due
to Method
Variability?
Potential Effects on Cost or
Performance
System Throughput
System throughput is the amount of material that is
processed in a treatment system per unit of time.
No
System throughput affects the costs for
capital equipment required for a
remediation and operating labor for ex
situ technologies such as slurry phase
soil bioremediation, soil washing,
incineration, and thermal desorption.
Temperature
Temperature is measured using a thermometer or
thermocouple.
Washing/Flushing Solution
Components/Additives and
Dosage
The components and dosages of washing and flushing
solutions are site- and waste-specific "recipes" of
polymers, flocculants. and coagulants. The type and
concentrations of additives for a particular treatment
application are determined based on site and waste
characterization, treatability and performance tests,
and operator experience. The actual amounts added
are measured based on the volume and concentration
of additive solutions metered into the treatment
system.
No
No
For bioremediation technologies,
temperature affects rate of biological
activity. For stabilization, incineration,
and thermal desorption, temperature
affects the physical properties and rate
of chemical reactions of soil and
contaminants.
For soil flushing and washing
technologies, the types and dosages of
n**-»~T**~ ~.~~.. _— ~____.l __
auuiuvcs ouocis me suiuoiuiy ana rate
of extraction for contaminants; and thus
affects the costs for constructing and
operating flushing and washing
equipment.
-------
Table 9 (Continued)
Operating Parameters: Measurement Procedures and Potential Effects on Treatment Cost or Performance
Operating Parameters
Measurement Procedures
Documentation
Required Due
to Method
Variability?
Potential Effects on. Cost w
Performance
Biological Activity
Biomass Concentration
OS
Biomass concentration is the number of
microorganisms per unit volume in a treated or
untreated aqueous matrix. Biomass concentrations are
typically measured by direct plate counts. Portable
water test kits are available for field tests. Methods
10200 through 10400 from Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater are used in
laboratory analyses of biomass concentration.
Yes
Biomass concentration is an important
parameter for slurry phase soil
bioremediation and in situ groundwater
biodegradation. Biomass is necessary
to effect treatment and thus the
concentration of biomass is directly
related to performance.
Microbial Activity
Oxygen Uptake Rate (OUR)
Carbon Dioxide Evolution
Hydrocarbon Degradation
Oxygen uptake, carbon dioxide evolution, and
hydrocarbon degradation are all used to measure the
rate of biodegradation in a treatment system. Oxygen
uptake is measured using ASTM D 4478-85, Standard
Test Methods for Oxygen Uptake. Carbon dioxide
evolution is measured with a carbon dioxide monitor.
Hydrocarbon degradation is measured by sampling the
influent to and effluent from the treatment system and
analyzing samples for organic constituents, such as
total petroleum hydrocarbons (EPA SW-846 Method
9073).
Yes
Microbial activity is an important
parameter for soil bioventing, land
treatment, composting, and slurry phase
soil bioremediation technologies.
Hydrocarbon degradation is commonly
used as an indicator of treatment
performance for these technologies,
while OUR and carbon dioxide
evolution are used in specific
applications to supplement the
hydrocarbon degradation data.
-------
Table 9 (Continued)
Operating Parameters: Measurement Procedures and Potential Effects on Treatment Cost or Performance
Operating Parameters
Measurement Procedures
Documentation
Required Due
to Method
Variability?
Potential Effects on Cost or
Performance
Nutrients and Other Soil
Amendments
Oi
-j
Nutrients usually consist of nitrogen and phosphorus
(and trace inorganic constituents such as calcium and
magnesium), and are typically reported as a ratio of
carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus. Carbon is
measured as total organic carbon, with EPA SW-846
Method 9060. Nitrogen is measured as both ammonia
nitrogen using ASTM D 1426-89, Test Methods for
Ammonia Nitrogen in Water, and as nitrite-nitrate
using ASTM D 3867-90, Test Method for Nitrite-
Nitrate in Water. Phosphorus is measured using
ASTM D 515-88, Test Methods for Phosphorus in
Water. Calcium and magnesium are measured using
ASTM D 511-88. Test Method for Calcium and
Magnesium in Water. Other soil amendments may
include bulking agents for composting (e.g., sawdust).
Yes
Nutrients and other soil amendments
can affect soil bioventing and in situ
groundwater biodegradation as this
parameter directly affects the rate of
biological activity and, therefore,
contaminant biodegradation. This is
also applicable to ex situ soil
remediation technologies such as land
treatment, composting, and slurry phase
soil bioremediation.
Soil Loading Rate
Soil loading rate is the amount of soil applied to a unit
area of a composting system.
No
The soil loading rate affects the rate of
biological activity and can impact the
-------
Table 10
Interagency Work Breakdown Structure Cost Elements - Second Level
Jnteragency
WBS#
3301
3302
3303
3305
Cost Element
Description*
Before Treatment Cost Elements
Mobilization and Preparatory Work
Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis
Site Work
Surface Water Collection and Control
Includes all preparatory work required prior to commencement of
remedial action or construction, such as preconstruction submittals;
construction plans; mobilization of personnel, facilities, and equipment; -
construction of temporary facilities; temporary utilities; temporary
relocations; and setup of decontamination facilities and construction plant.
Provides for all costs associated with air, water, sludge, solids and soil
sampling, monitoring, testing, and analysis. Includes sample taking,
shipping samples, and sample analysis by on-site and off-site laboratory
facilities.
Consists of site preparation, site improvements, and site utilities. Site
preparation includes demolition, clearing, and earthwork. Site
improvements include roads, parking, curbs, gutters, walks, and other
hardscaping. Site utilities include water, sewer, gas, and other utility
distribution. All work involving contaminated or hazardous material is
excluded from this system. Storm drainage involving contaminated
surface water is included under "Surface Water Collection and Control"
(33 05). Note that topsoil, seeding, landscaping, and reestablishment of
existing structures altered during remediation activities are included in
"Site Restoration" (33 20).
Provides for the collection and control of contaminated surface water
through storm drainage piping and structures, erosion control measures,
and civil engineering structures such as berms, dikes, and levees. Includes
transport to treatment plant.
oo
-------
Table 10 (Continued)
Interagency Work Breakdown Structure Cost Elements - Second Level
Interagency
WBS#
Cost Element
Description*
3306
Groundwater Collection and Control
Provides for the collection and control of contaminated groundwater
through piping, wells, trenches, slurry walls, sheet piling, and other
physical barriers. Includes transport to treatment plant.
3307
Air Pollution/Gas Collection and Control
Includes the collection and control of gas, vapor, and dust.
3308
Solids Collection and Containment
U)
Provides for exhuming and handling of solid hazardous, toxic and
radioactive waste (HTRW) through excavation, sorting, stockpiling, and
filling containers. Provides for containment of solid waste through the
construction of multilayered caps as well as dynamic compaction of burial
grounds, cribs, or other waste disposal units. Includes transport to
treatment plant.
3309
Liquids/Sediments/Sludges Collection and
Containment
Includes collection of HTRW-contaminated liquids and sludges through
dredging and vacuuming, and the furnishing and filling of portable
containers. Includes the containment of liquids and sludges through the
construction of lagoons, basins, tanks, and dikes. Includes transport to
treatment plant.
3310
Drums/Tanks/Structures/Miscellaneous Demolition
and Removal
Includes the demolition and removal of HTRW-contaminated drums,
tanks, and other structures by excavation and downsizing. Also includes
ordnance, rp.mnval Dnp.c nnt in^liiHp filli«
-------
Table 10 (Continued)
Interagency Work Breakdown Structure Cost Elements - Second Level
Interagency
WBS#
Cost Element
Description*
Treatment
3311
Biological
Defined as the microbial transformation of organic compounds. May also
alter inorganic compounds such as ammonia and nitrate, and change the
oxidation state of certain metal compounds. Includes in-situ biological
treatment such as land farming as well as activated sludge, composting,
trickling filters, anaerobic, and aerobic digestion. Includes process
equipment and chemicals required for treatment.
3312
Chemical
Defined as the process in which hazardous wastes are chemically changed
to remove toxic contaminants from the environment. Type of treatment
included in this account are oxidation/reduction, solvent extraction,
chlorination, ozonation, ion exchange, neutralization, hydrolysis,
photolysis, dechlorination, and electrolysis reactions. Includes process
equipment and chemicals required for treatment.
3313
Physical
Defined as the physical separation of contaminants from solid, liquid, or
gaseous waste streams; and are applicable to a broad range of
contaminant concentrations. Physical treatments generally do not result in
total destruction or separation of the contaminants in the waste stream,
consequently post-treatment is often required. Type of physical treatment
included in this account are filtration, sedimentation, flocculation,
precipitation, equalization, evaporation, stripping, soil washing, carbon
adsorption, gravimetric separation, and magnetic/paramagnetic separation.
Includes process equipment and chemicals required for treatment.
-------
Table 10 (Continued)
Interagency Work Breakdown Structure Cost Elements - Second Level
Interagency
Cost Element
Description*
3314
Thermal
Defined as the destruction of wastes through exposure to high
temperature in combustion chambers and energy recovery devices.
Several processes capable of incinerating a wide range of liquid and solid
wastes include fluidized bed, rotary kiln, multiple hearth, infrared,
circulating bed, liquid injection, pyrolysis, plasma torch, wet air oxidation,
supercritical water oxidation, molten salt destruction, detonation, and
solar detoxification. Includes process equipment and chemicals required
for treatment.
3315
Stabilization/Fixation/Encapsulation
Improves the handling and physical characteristics of wastes, decreases the
surface area, limits the solubility of pollutants, and detoxifies pollutants
contained in wastes.
After Treatment Cost Elements
3317
Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D)
Associated with shutdown and final cleanup of a nuclear or other facility.
Includes facility shutdown and dismantling activities, preparation of
decommissioning plans, procurement of equipment and materials,
research and development, spent fuel handling, and hot cell cleanup.
3318
Disposal (Other than Commercial)
Provides for the final placement of HTRW or ordnance at facilities owned
or controlled by the Government, including the operation of the facility.
An example would be the disposal of wastes through burial at a DOE
nuclear facility or ordnance disposal at DoD facilities. The costs
associated with this include storage, handling, disposal fees and
transportation to the final Destruction/Disposal/Storage facility.
Excluded is the transportation to a facility for treatment prior to disposal.
Disposal may be accomplished through the use of secure landfills, surface
impoundments, deep well injection, or incineration.
-------
Table 10 (Continued)
Interagency Work Breakdown Structure Cost Elements - Second Level
Interagency
WBS#
Cost Element
Description*
3319
Disposal (Commercial)
Provides for the final placement of HTRW at third party commercial
facilities that charge a fee to accept waste depending on a variety of waste
acceptance criteria. Fees are assessed based on different waste categories,
methods of handling, and characterization. Disposal may be accomplished
through the use of secure landfills, surface impoundments, deep well
injection, or incineration. Includes transportation to the final
Destruction/Disposal/Storage facility. Excludes transportation to a
facility for treatment prior to disposal. _^__^
3320
Site Restoration
Includes topsoil, seeding, landscaping, restoration of roads and parking,
and other hardscaping disturbed during site remediation. Note that all
vegetation and planting is to be included as well as the installation of any
site improvement damaged or altered during construction. All vegetation
and plating for the purpose of erosion control during construction
activities should be placed under "Erosion Control" (33 05 13). Treated
soil used as backfill will be placed under "Disposal (Other than
Commercial)" (33 18). All new site improvements, those not disturbed
during construction, are to be included under "Site Work" (33 03).
3321
Demobilization
Provides for all costs associated with plant takedown and removal of
temporary facilities, utilities, equipment, material, and personnel.
33 9X
Other (use numbers 90-99)
Includes all Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste Remedial Action work
not described by the above listed categories.
*Excerpted from the interagency Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Remedial Action (RA) Work Breakdown Structure, April 1993.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets
and Technology Trends, EPA 542-R-92-012, April 1993 (contains information on
Installation Restoration Program).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide (a joint project of the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Air Force), EPA 542-B-
93-005, July 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund LDR Guide #6A - Obtaining a Soil
and Debris Treatability Variance for Remedial Actions, Directive No 9347 3-06F5 Julv
1989. ' '
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund LDR Guide #6B - Obtaining a Soil
and Debris Treatability Variance for Removal Actions, Directive No 9347 3-07F5 Julv
1989. ' 3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, VISITT - Vendor Information System for
Innovative Treatment Technologies, EPA 542-R-9-003, Number 3, July 1994.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual, NITS
No. PB87-100012, 1987.
Work Breakdown Structure and Historical Cost Analysis System developed by an
Interagency Cost Estimating Group representing EPA, DOE, USAGE, NAVFAC, and
USAF - see attached discussion for whom to contact for additional information on the
Work Breakdown Structure and Historical Cost Analysis System..
43
-------
-------
Appendix A
Site Background: Historical Activity That Generated Contamination
Examples of SIC Codes Most Likely to Apply to Contaminated Sites
Work Breakdown Structure and Historical Cost Analysis
System
Ad Hoc Work Group Members - Cost and Performance
Information
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Member
Roster
45
-------
-------
Site Background:
Historical Activity That Generated Contamination
Examples of SIC Codes Most Likely to
Apply to Contaminated Sites
Activity
Agricultural Services
Soil Preparation Services
Crop Preparation Services for Market, Except Cotton
Ginning
— Fumigation
Metal Mining
Iron Ores
Copper Ores
Lead and Zinc Ores
Gold Ores
Silver Ores
Ferroalloy Ores, except Vanadium
Metal Mining Services
Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ores
Miscellaneous Metal Ores, NEC
Oil and Gas Extraction
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas
Natural Gas Liquids
Drilling Oil and Gas Wells
Oil and Gas Exploration Services
Oil and Gas Field Services, NEC
Mining and Quarrying of Non-Metallic Minerals, Except
Fuels
Crushed and Broken Stone, NEC
Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining, NEC
Miscellaneous Non-Metallic Mining, Except Fuels
Lumber and Wood Products, Except Furniture
Wood Preserving
~ Copper Chromated Arsenic (CCA)
— Creosote
— Pentachlorophenol
Chemicals and Allied Products
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, NEC
Synthetic Rubber (Vulcanizable Elastomers)
Industrial Organic Chemicals, NEC
- Town Gas
Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals, NEC
Explosives
SIC Code*
0711
0723
0723A
1011
1021
1031
1041
1044
1061
1081
1094
1099
1311
1321
1381
1382
1389
1429
1479
1499
:2491
2491A
2491B
2491C
2819
2869
2869A
2879
2892
NEC = Not elsewhere classified.
47
-------
Site Background:
Historical Activity That Generated Contamination
Examples of SIC Codes Most Likely to
Apply to Contaminated Sites
(Continued)
| Activity
— — —
1 Petroleum Refining and Related Industries
1 Petroleum Refining
_
1 Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products
I Custom Compounding of Purchased Plastic Resins
SIC Code*
2911
3087
Primary Metal Industries
Steel Works, Blast Furnaces (Including Coke Ovens),
and Rolling Mills
— Coke Ovens
Gray and Ductile Iron Foundries
Primary Smelting and Refining of Copper
Primary Production of Aluminum
Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals,
Except Copper and Aluminum
Secondary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous
Metals
3312
3312A
3321
3331
3334
3339
3341
Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and
Transportation Equipment
Electroplating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services
Small Arms Ammunition
Ammunition, Except for Small Arms
Small Arms
Ordnance and Accessories, NEC
3471
3479
3482
3483
3484
3489
Electronic and Other Electrical Equipment and
Components, Except Computer Equipment
Power, Distribution and Specialty Transformers
Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus
Printed Circuit Boards
Semiconductors and Related Devices
3612
3613
3672
3674
Transportation Equipment
Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car Bodies
Aircraft
Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment, NEC
Ship Building and Repairing
Railroad Equipment _____
3711
3721
3728
3731
3743
Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing
Farm Product Warehousing and Storage
— Grain Storage
4221
4221A
NEC = Not elsewhere classified.
48
-------
Site Background:
Historical Activity That Generated Contamination
Examples of SIC Codes Most Likely to
Apply to Contaminated Sites
(Continued)
Activity
Transportation by Air
Airports, Flying Fields, and Airport Terminal Services
Pipelines, Except Natural Gas
Crude Petroleum Pipelines
Refined Petroleum Pipelines
Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services
Electric Services
Natural Gas Transmission
Water Supply
~ Groundwater Supply
Refuse Systems
—Co-disposal landfill
-Industrial landfill
-Open dump
-Sand and gravel pit disposal
-Salvage yard/junk yard
—Cement kiln operations
—Incinerator
—Radioactive waste disposal
—Waste processing facility, miscellaneous
Wholesale Trade - Durable Goods
Scrap and Waste Materials
- Recycling Batteries
- Recycling (Other - describe)
Personal Services
Dry Cleaning Plants, Except Rug Cleaning
Business Services
Business Services, NEC
— Solvents Recovery
Health Services
General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
Medical Laboratories
— Miscellaneous Laboratories
Sft
t.
A
' ,1.
A
A
A
A
4
'1
4
5
5
f
f
1,
f
k
8<
S1IC Code*
4581
4612
4613
4911
4922
4941
4941A
4953
4953A
4953B
4953D
4953E
4953F
4953L
4953M
4953R
4953W
5093
5093A
5093B
7216
7389
7389A
8062
.8071
8071A
NEC = Not elsewhere classified.
49
-------
Site Background:
Historical Activity That Generated Contamination
Examples of SIC Codes Most Likely to
Apply to Contaminated Sites
(Continued)
Activity
SIC Code*
Public Administration
National Security
—Miscellaneous
—Ordnance Production and Storage
—Ordnance Testing and Maintenance
Land, Mineral, Wildlife, and Forest Conservation
-Dept. of Agriculture
-Dept. of Interior
Regulation and Administration of Communications,
Electric, Gas, and Other Utilities
—Dept. of Energy
9711
9711A
9711B
9711C
9512
9512A
9512B
9631
9631A
*Nonstandard descriptors (e.g., A, B, C) are shown to provide additional information about SIC code.
Source: Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987.
NEC = Not elsewhere classified.
50
-------
Work Breakdown Structure and Historical Cost Analysis System
/rr^ A1?e W°rk Breakdown Structure (WBS) and Historical Cost Analysis
System (HCAS) resulted from the collective efforts of cost and project management
professionals. As early as 1989, the Interagency Cost Estimating Group (ICEG) for
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW), a group under the sponsorship of
fcFA, began meeting to discuss methods of increasing the effectiveness of cost
management (e.g., scoping, estimating, and controlling) for environmental restoration
projects. The participants include environmental and cost professionals from EPA,
DOE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and Air
Force and their counterparts in the private sector including federal contractors and other
mterested parties. A subcommittee of the ICEG, with participants from Navy, Army, Air
Force, EPA, and DOE, formulated the WBS and HCAS. The WBS and HCAS are the
result of insights, needs, and ideas from a broad spectrum of experience within the
environmental restoration arena.
The HCAS has been developed to collect and view HTRW project
information in the standard WBS format. HCAS is a PC-based software program which
facilitates the collection and retrieval of historic project information and costs. The
HCAS is available on the first quarter 1995 Construction Criterion Base (a CD-ROM
published by the National Institute of Building Sciences) and will be the vehicle used to
record and disseminate project information.
To continue towards the goal of widespread participation in the collection
and sharing of cost information among environmental restoration professionals, Logistics
Management Institute (LMI) is supporting the work of the ICEG. LMI, a not-for-profit
corporation, operates a federally-funded research and development center that is
dedicated to providing objective counsel to a wide array of government Agencies.
LMI is serving as the central collection and dissemination point for the
project information submitted from various participating groups. LMI will provide
support regarding the implementation of the WBS and HCAS, quality control of
incoming data and the solicitation of additional participants.
WBS and HCAS information may be obtained from:
Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge
McLean, Virginia 22102-7805
(703) 917-7570 (Marguerite Moss)
51
-------
The following ICEG committee members also may be contacted regarding the HCAS:
Aubrey Sadler (804) 444-9907
Ellsworth Spicher (804) 444-9975
Atlantic Div., NAVFACENGCOM
1510 Gilbert Street
Norfolk, Virginia 23511-2699
Tom Whalen (703) 603-8807
U.S. EPA OSWER/OERR (5203G)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Harve Wiethop (402) 221-7305
Jim Peterson (402) 221-7443
USAGE Missouri River Div.
12565 W. Center Road
Omaha, Nebraska 68144-3869
Doris Valentin-Meyer (202) 272-0233
HQ USAGE (Attn: CEMP-EC)
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20314-1000
52
-------
Ad Hoc Work Group Members - Cost and Performance Information
The following is a subset of Work Group members who provided
substantial input to developing the interagency Guide. These Work Group members are
actively involved in agency efforts to collect cost and performance data.
Air Force
Bob Furlong
HQ-USAF/CEVR
1260 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330-1260
Brent Johnson
HQ-USAF/CEVR
1260 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330-1260
Patrick Haas
AFCEE/ERT
8001 Arnold Dr.
Brooks AFB, TX
78235-5357
Edward Engbert
U.S. Army Environmental Center
ATTN: SFIM-AEC-TSD
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
Donna Kuroda
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CEMP-RT
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20314
Col. James M. Owendoff
DUSD-ES(CL)
3000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-3000
Skip Chamberlain
U.S. DOE/EM-54
Trevion 2
Washington, DC 20585-0002
Bert Jemmott
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Richard O'Donnell
U.S. Army Environmental Center
ATTN: SFIM-AEC-TSD
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-
5401
Mac Lankford
U.S. DOE (EM-55)
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585
53
-------
DPI
Jim Cook
U.S. Bureau of Mines
810 Seventh St., NW
Washington, DC 20241
EPA
Jim Qunmings Subijoy Dutta
U.S. EPA/HO U.S. EPA/OSW/PSPD
401 M Street, SW (SKEW) 401 M Street, SW (5303W)
Washington, DC 20460 Washington, DC 20460
Gordon Evans Linda Fiedler
U.S. EPA/ORD/RREL U.S. EPA/HO
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr. 401 M Street, SW (5102W)
Cincinnati, OH 45268 Washington, DC 20460
John Kingscott, Work Group Chairman Larry Rosengrant
U.S. EPA/HO U.S. EPA/OSW/WMD
401 M Street, SW (5102W) 401 M Street, SW (5302W)
Washington, DC 20460 Washington, DC 20460
Mary Stinson Steve McNeely
U.S. EPA/RCD (MS-106) U.S. EPA/OUST
Bldg. 10, 2nd Floor 401 M Street, SW (5403W)
2890 Woodbridge Ave. Washington, DC 20460
Edison, NJ 08837
Navy
Joe Graf Robert Nash
Naval Facilities Engineering Command U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering
200 Stovall (Code 41JG) Service Center (ESC414JF)
Alexandria, VA 22332-2300 560 Center Drive
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Non-Federal
Greg McNelly Chris van Loben Sels
Clean Sites Natural Resources Defense Council
1199 N. Fairfax St., Suite 400 1350 New York Ave., NW, Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314 Washington, DC 20005
54
-------
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Member Roster
Jim Arnold
U.S. Army Environmental Center
Attn: SFIM-AEC-ETT
Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD 21010-5401
Barry N. Breen
U.S. EPA/OFFE
401 M Street, SW (2261)
Washington, DC 20460
Col. Frank R. Finch
Director Environmental Programs
OACSIM
600 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-0600
Bob Hammond
Environmental Management Div
NASA (Code JE)
Washington, DC 20546
Dr. Walter W. Kovalick, Jr, Chairman
U.S. EPA/OSWER/TIO
401 M Street, SW (5102W)
Washington, DC 20460
Fred Lindsey
U.S. EPA/ORD/OEETD
401 M Street, SW (8301)
Washington, DC 20460
William Quade
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(Code 40) 200 Stovall
Alexandria, VA 22332-2300
Edward Wandelt (G-HCV-1A)
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters
2100 Second Street, SW, Room 6901
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Jack Baublitz
U.S. DOE/ERWM (EM-40)
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
Jim Cook
U.S. Bureau of Mines
810 Seventh Street, NW
Washington, DC 20241
Dr. Clyde Frank
U.S. DOE/ERWM (EM-50)
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
I
Gary Jones
Environmental Restoration Div.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20314
Nick Lailas
U.S. EPA/ORIA
401 M Street, SW (6603J)
Washington, DC 20460
Col. Jim Owendoff
DUSD-ES(CL)
3000 Defense, Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-3000
Dr. Harold Speidel, Manager
Biotech. Envir. Research Ctr.
Tennessee Valley Authority
P.O. Box 1010
Muscle Shoals, AL 35660-1010
Lt. Col. Timothy Wise
USAF/CEVR, Room BF 866
1260 Air Force, Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330-1260
55
-------
-------
-------
------- |