EPA 542-B-98-007
October 1998
Guide to Documenting and Managing
Cost and Performance Information
for Remediation Projects
Revised Version
Federal
Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
Prepared by the
Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Guide to Documenting and Managing
Cost and Performance Information
for Remediation Projects
Revised Version
Prepared by Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Defense
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Coast Guard
October 1998
-------
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.
Preparation of this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under EPA Contract No. 68-W5-0055.
-------
FOREWORD
A key objective of the Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for
Remediation Projects (the guide) is to provide a tool for improving the collection, documentation, and
management of data by describing a standard set of parameters for reporting cost and performance
information about treatment technologies. Since the first version of the guide was published in 1995,
federal agencies have made significant progress in coordinating efforts to document projects and to share
the results of those efforts. To date, members of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
(Roundtable) have completed approximately 130 case study reports.
The success of the guide is tied directly to the efforts of the Roundtable agencies. The Roundtable is an
interagency working group that was created to build a more collaborative atmosphere among the federal
agencies involved in remediation of hazardous waste sites. The Roundtable seeks to promote the
exchange of information about the development and use of technologies and works to identify and
publicize more efficient, cost-effective methods of hazardous waste remediation. A Cost and
Performance Work Group was created to discuss the overall scope and specific provisions of the guide
and electronic management of case studies. Member agencies recognize the importance of documenting
the results of cleanups and the benefits to be realized from a coordinated effort.
The Roundtable and Work Group have met several times since the original version of this document was
published to share the experiences of member agencies in using the guide and to discuss improvements.
As a result of those efforts, the Roundtable undertook several major revisions to improve and bring the
document up to date. Key changes include:
Expanding the number and types of technologies to a total of 29, including containment,
to reflect advances in remediation technologies since 1995.
Adding procedures for documenting results from demonstration-scale projects and
projects that are not yet completed (interim projects).
Updating the examples to include new technologies.
Streamlining the documentation for background information.
Simplifying the recommended procedures for documenting cost to better reflect
conventions and to facilitate comparison of technologies and unit costs.
Providing examples of reporting formats used by member agencies.
iii
-------
Significantly improving the electronic management of data on cost and performance by
developing a searchable database for reports. Although reports have been made
available through the Roundtable's World Wide Web site () for a
number of years, case studies can now be searched by a pick-list of key words designed
to help the user belter target searches and improve search results.
Member agencies have indicated a strong commitment to using the guide and to continuing to work
together to collectively improve the process of documenting and managing cost and performance data.
The Roundtable will continue to solicit information about experiences in using the guide, suggestions for
improving the procedures for documenting remediation projects, and recommendations for improvements
to the Roundtable web site. An Advisory Board will meet annually to evaluate and make
recommendations for improving the Roundtable web site.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Section
FOREWORD ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 SUMMARY OF MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GUIDE 1-2
1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDE 1-3
2.0 RECOMMENDED COST FORMAT 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.2 ROUNDTABLE COST FORMAT 2-2
2.3 EXAMPLES OF USE OF THE RECOMMENDED COST FORMAT 2-12
2.4 COST COMPARISONS 2-12
3.0 RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE REPORTING 3-1
4.0 FACTORS THAT AFFECT COST OR PERFORMANCE 4-1
4.1 BACKGROUND 4-1
4.2 DEMONSTRATION-SCALE PROJECTS 4-2
4.3 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES 4-4
5.0 REPORT FORMATS 5-1
6.0 WEB SITE STRATEGY 6-1
6.1 INTRODUCTION 6-1
6.2 PURPOSES FOR ROUNDTABLE WEB SITE 6-2
6.3 IMPLEMENTATION 6-2
6.4 INTERAGENCY PARTICIPATION 6-5
6.5 SEARCHABLE DATABASE OF COST AND
PERFORMANCE CASE STUDIES 6-5
6.6 KEY WORDS 6-6
Appendices
A POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE OF MATRIX
CHARACTERISTICS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS
B MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES FOR MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS
AND OPERATING PARAMETERS
C RECOMMENDED FORMAT FOR CASE STUDY ABSTRACT
D GENERIC FORMAT FOR COST AND PERFORMANCE CASE STUDY REPORT
E ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC WORK GROUP ON COST AND
PERFORMANCE
F MEMBERS OF FEDERAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES ROUNDTABLE
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 RECOMMENDED COST FORMAT 2-3
4-1 SUGGESTED PARAMETERS TO DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS:
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS THAT AFFECT COST OR PERFORMANCE OF A
TECHNOLOGY 4-5
4-2 SUGGESTED PARAMETERS TO DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS:
OPERATING PARAMETERS THAT AFFECT COST OR PERFORMANCE OF A
TECHNOLOGY 4-7
6-1 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION ON THE ROUNDTABLE WEB SITE 6-4
6-2 RECOMMENDED KEY WORDS FOR MEDIA 6-7
6-3 RECOMMENDED KEY WORDS FOR CONTAMINANTS 6-7
6-4 RECOMMENDED KEY WORDS FOR PRIMARY TECHNOLOGIES 6-8
6-5 RECOMMENDED KEY WORDS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES 6-8
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
2-1 SAMPLE WORKSHEET FOR COMPILING TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC UNIT
COSTS 2-9
3-1 RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE REPORTING 3-2
3-2 EXAMPLE OF REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
FOR A FULL-SCALE COMPLETED PROJECT 3-4
3-3 EXAMPLE OF REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
FOR A DEMONSTRATION-SCALE PROJECT 3-5
3-4 EXAMPLE OF REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
FOR AN ONGOING PROJECT 3-6
4-1 EXAMPLE FOR REPORTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT
DEMONSTRATION-SCALE PROJECTS 4-3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
6-1 GENERAL SITE MAP FOR FEDERAL REMEDIATION
TECHNOLOGIES ROUNDTABLE WEB SITE 6-3
VI
-------
Vll
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for Remediation Projects
provides the recommended procedures for documenting the results of completed and on-going full-scale
and demonstration-scale remediation projects. The original version was published by the Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable (Roundtable) in March 1995 to more effectively coordinate the
activities of its member agencies and to assist in documenting their experience with remediation
technologies. Member agencies of the Roundtable that were major contributors to this guide are the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE).
Agencies face a number of challenges in their efforts to increase the effectiveness of remediation projects,
while decreasing the costs of cleaning-up sites and the time necessary to do so. Federal agencies are
involved in a variety of activities intended to achieve those ends, including the evaluation of new
technologies through field demonstrations and implementation of full-scale cleanups. Such activities
present important opportunities to gather data that may be valuable in identifying future applications of a
technology. However, the types of information collected about projects may vary widely, making it
difficult to compare cost and performance data. In providing recommended procedures for documenting
remediation projects, the Roundtable's goals are to:
Increase the availability of standard cost and performance data on remediation
technologies to facilitate comparison and help improve remedy selection
Provide a baseline of information about conventional technologies that can be used as a
benchmark in evaluating innovative technologies
Provide a framework for streamlining future data collection and reporting efforts
Roundtable agencies have made significant progress in preparing cost and performance reports for
remediation projects. Agencies published 37 studies in March 1995 and 17 in July 1997. In September
1998, the Roundtable published 86 additional studies covering a wide range of soil and groundwater
remediation technologies, including conventional processes and such newer applications as permeable
reactive barriers.
Roundtable agencies are committed to using the guide and will continue to explore ways to promote the
adoption of standard procedures for reporting cost and performance. While the guide recommends the
1-1
-------
elements that should be documented, it also provides flexibility in the specific format to be used for
reporting information. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) has included the
reporting structure of the guide in a document titled Technical Requirements for Specifications to Report
HTRW [Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste} Environmental Restoration Cost and Performance.
In a July 1997 DOE memorandum on technology deployment, Alvin Aim, Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management, describes DOE's commitment to using the reporting structure identified in
the guide for collection and dissemination of information to help line programs, regulators, and
stakeholders make informed decisions about site remediation. William Quade, former Director of the
Environment, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), issued a memorandum on November
2, 1992, to all NAVFAC field offices recommending the documentation of cost and performance data for
site remediation projects. In addition, EPA encourages inclusion of cost and performance data,
developed using the procedures recommended in the guide, in remedial action reports.
The Roundtable also recognizes the value of obtaining as much information as possible on the cost and
performance of technologies and agrees that the expansion of such efforts beyond federal agencies has
merit. Members of the Roundtable see particular value with involving states in the effort and will
continue to encourage state participation. The Roundtable would welcome case studies prepared by
states that are consistent with the recommended procedures in the guide and would include these case
studies in Roundtable publications as well as the Roundtable web site.
1.1 SUMMARY OF MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE GUIDE
Since the original guide was published, Roundtable members have participated in several meetings during
which they shared their experiences in using the guide and discussed ways to improve procedures for
documenting cost and performance. In addition, members reviewed recommendations provided by the
National Research Council (NRC) in its report Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From
Concept to Commercialization (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1997).
As a result of those meetings, the Roundtable has revised the guide to expand the number and type of
technologies covered, and to streamline a number of areas to make it easier and more flexible to use. Key
improvements include:
Adding 16 new technologies (for a total of 29), and expanding the attention given to
conventional technologies to include containment technologies
1-2
-------
Expanding the scope to address demonstration-scale projects
Simplifying the procedures for reporting costs to better reflect cost reporting conventions
Adding a chapter on data management to reflect improvements in dissemination of case
studies through the World Wide Web
Revising the standard terminology and eliminating reporting of background information
about sites
1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDE
This document summarizes the recommended procedures for reporting cost and performance of
remediation projects. Chapter 2 focuses on costs, while Chapter 3 focuses on performance. Both
chapters include examples on how to use the recommended formats. Chapter 4 identifies factors that
affect cost or performance, and Chapter 5 presents information about specific reporting formats. A
discussion about the Roundtable web site strategy is provided in Chapter 6.
Appendices provide additional information related to that presented in Chapters 2 through 6. Appendix
A discusses the effects of matrix characteristics and operating parameters on cost or performance, while
measurement procedures for those parameters are shown in Appendix B. A recommended format for
preparing case study abstracts is provided in Appendix C, and a generic format for full case studies is
shown in Appendix D. Appendices E and F list the active members of the Ad Hoc Work Group on Cost
and Performance, and the members of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, respectively.
1-3
-------
2.0 RECOMMENDED COST FORMAT
2.1
INTRODUCTION
The cost elements recommended in this guide
were developed to be consistent with various
ongoing federal programs under which costs are
collected. The guide recommends a new cost
reporting format based on conventional capital
and operation and maintenance (O&M)
components for reporting costs of specific
remediation technologies (technology-specific
costs). Such technologies typically include
treatment and containment for soil and
groundwater.
The Roundtable recommends a new,
simplified cost reporting format.
The new format offers several major
benefits, including:
- Simplifying and standardizing
the reporting of costs
- Validating cost models
Aiding in evaluating specific
technologies
- Aiding in comparing
technologies to evaluate
remedial alternatives
In addition to technology-specific costs, most agencies also account for the overall costs of remediation
efforts (total project costs), and the Roundtable recommends that total project costs also be documented.
Overall costs may include a range of items, such as management and support activities; various forms of
site work related to security, stormwater control, access, and utilities; permitting; monitoring; and
preparation of various plans. Agencies are working together to improve cost data management and
recognize the need to establish and maintain common structures to efficiently meet growing agency-
specific and interagency reporting requirements. The current work breakdown structure is used to assist
agencies in collecting actual project costs and continues to evolve as the cost data backbone by which
project cost details are collected, analyzed, managed, and reported.
Identifying costs for a specific technology usually will be undertaken as part of a broad effort to
document total project costs. Some technology-specific costs are subsets of overall project costs that are
derived by disaggregating project-wide figures. Each agency is responsible for managing its own cost
documentation program. However, by agreeing on the common set of reporting elements in this guide,
the Roundtable agencies will maximize the use of their data by allowing meaningful comparison and
assessment of technologies. Agencies may develop "cross-walk" tables as needed for factoring the
Roundtable elements into their reporting formats.
2-1
-------
2.2 ROUNDTABLE COST FORMAT
The Roundtable cost format was developed with the following objectives in mind:
Simplicity: The format should be simple, straightforward, and easily understood by
project managers in the field, without the need for extensive training.
Common conventions: The format should be consistent with the terminology commonly
used by project managers in the field, such as the terms "capital costs" and "O&M
costs."
Remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater: The format should be focused on
technology applications used for treatment or containment of contaminated soil and
groundwater.
Unit costs: The format should be limited to those cost items that are related directly to
the performance of a technology and to those items that would be useful in a comparison
of unit costs (cost per unit of measure) for technologies and applications.
Standardization of cost data: The format should include a standardized approach to
reporting technology-specific costs that will aid in comparing data among projects, both
among multiple applications of a single technology and among applications of different
technologies.
Compatibility with the reporting of project costs: The format should be designed to
allow integration of the data into the reporting structures for total project costs.
Table 2-1 shows the format recommended by the Roundtable for documenting technology-specific costs.
The format is based on documentation of capital costs and O&M costs for the technology application.
Under those major categories, Table 2-1 shows the types of elements that typically should be reported,
such as equipment and appurtenances under capital costs, and labor, materials, and utilities under O&M
costs.
Capital cost items for technology include many of the fixed costs that are incurred during construction
and startup of a remedial activity, such as mobilization and demobilization of technology equipment and
personnel to and from a site, site preparation, and purchase of equipment. O&M cost items include many
of the ongoing or recurring costs of a remedial activity, such as the costs of labor, materials, and utilities.
For relatively short-term applications, O&M costs may be reported as a total value for the application;
however, for longer-term applications, annual O&M costs should be reported.
The format is recommended for full-scale and demonstration-scale applications, and for all types of soil
and groundwater remediation technologies, such as in situ and ex situ technologies, innovative and
conventional technologies, and treatment and containment technologies. In addition, the format is
applicable to both short-term and long-term technology applications.
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1
RECOMMENDED COST FORMAT
Cost Category/Element
Example Items
1. Capital Cost for
Technology *
Technology mobilization,
setup, and demobilization
Planning and preparation
Site work
Equipment and
appurtenances
- Structures
Process equipment
and appurtenances/
construction
- Other (specify)
Startup and testing
Other
(Includes non-process
equipment)
Includes the transportation (freight on board) or delivery of equipment, facilities, and
personnel to and from a site, as well as the setup of temporary facilities and utilities necessary
for the construction and startup of the remedial technology.
Includes permits and licenses including air emission and water discharge permits; license fees
associated with use of a technology; regulatory interaction; and various written plans, such as
work plans, sampling and analysis plans, health and safety plans, community relations plans,
and site management plans.
Includes all work necessary to establish the physical infrastructure for a technology
application and activities necessary to restore a site to pre-remediation conditions or to meet
the specifications of a site restoration plan. Includes activities associated with preparing the
specific site of the technology, such as clearing and grubbing; earthwork; and construction of
utilities, culverts, treatment pads, foundations, and spill control structures.
Includes structures, equipment, and appurtenances; construction or installation of remedial
technology components and materials, including technology parts and supplies to make the
technology and appurtenances operational; ownership (amortization), rental or lease of
equipment; and plant upgrades, modifications, or replacements; for containment, this should
be broadly interpreted as including structures such as slurry walls or caps; for pump and treat,
this includes construction and installation of extraction wells.
Includes activities associated with the startup of the treatment technology, such as
establishment of operating conditions, shakedown, and training of O&M personnel.
Includes all other capital costs associated with the specific technology that have not been
identified above. Generally, this would include costs for non-process equipment. Non-
process equipment includes office and administrative equipment, such as data processing and
computer equipment, safety equipment, and vehicles.
2. Operation and
Maintenance (O&M)
Cost for Technology*
Labor
Materials
Utilities and fuel
Equipment ownership,
rental, or lease
Performance testing and
analysis
Other
(Includes non-process
equipment overhead and
health and safety)
Includes labor to operate and maintain the technology and associated equipment, labor
supervision, and payroll expenses. Covers ongoing operations, as well as preventive and
corrective maintenance activities.
Includes consumable supplies, process materials, bulk chemicals, and raw materials. Covers
ongoing operations, as well as preventive and corrective maintenance activities.
Includes consumable energy supplies, such as fuel, electricity, natural gas, and water. Covers
ongoing operations, as well as preventive and corrective maintenance activities.
Includes ownership (amortization), rental, or lease of equipment necessary for operation and
maintenance of remedial technology components.
Includes monitoring, sampling, testing, and analysis related to identifying the performance of
a technology. Does not include similar activities related to demonstrating compliance with
applicable regulations and permits specific to the technology application.
Includes all O&M costs associated with a specific technology that were not identified above.
Costs generally include non-process equipment overhead and health and safety associated with
the O&M of a technology. Non-process equipment overhead includes maintenance and repair
of office and administrative equipment, such as data processing and computer equipment,
safety equipment, and vehicles. Health and safety costs include those for personal protective
equipment and monitoring of personnel for health and safety.
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-1
RECOMMENDED COST FORMAT (continued)
Cost Category/Element
Example Items
3. Other Technology-
Specific Costs
Compliance testing and
analysis
Soil, sludge, and debris
excavation, collection,
and control
Disposal of residues
4. Other Project Costs
Includes monitoring, sampling, testing, and analysis related to demonstrating compliance with
applicable regulations and permits specific to the technology application. Does not include
similar activities related to monitoring the performance of a technology.
Includes activities associated with excavation, collection, or control of contaminated soil,
sludge, and debris, prior to ex situ treatment, including staging of contaminated media. This
element includes collection of drums containing contaminated media.
Includes activities associated with disposal of primary and secondary waste residues from the
operation of the technology, such as treated soil disposed of off site. Covers both on- and off-
site disposal of waste residues.
Includes all activities associated with remediation of a contaminated site that are not
attributed directly to a specific technology, such as mobilization and demobilization, site
work, and site restoration activities. These costs may be helpful in comparing costs of entire
remediation projects and in comparing costs for a specific technology to that of the entire
project.
These items should be included in a calculation of unit cost for a specific technology application at a site. Some activities
are shown on this table under both capital and O&M (e.g., equipment ownership, rental, or lease). The Roundtable
recommends that the costs for those activities be reported as capital if they are related more closely to construction and
startup of a technology, and as O&M if they are related more closely to the ongoing, recurring operation or maintenance
of a technology. In addition, costs for project engineering and management support should be allocated to the appropriate
cost element as an overhead cost, as appropriate.
2-4
-------
For demonstration-scale projects, the Roundtable recommends that the projected costs for full-scale
applications, rather than the costs of the demonstration, be reported. The assumptions used in
extrapolating costs from demonstration-scale projects to full-scale projects also should be documented.
In addition, it may be useful to report costs incurred for the demonstration and to document how those
costs were used in projecting to full scale. It should be noted that there can be a great deal of uncertainty
with projections to full scale that are based on data from a demonstration project. The degree of
uncertainty will vary based on the background and experience of the organization extrapolating the date.
Therefore, the Roundtable recommends that the organization extrapolating the data be identified.
Costs should be reported for each of the items specified in Table 2-1, and more detailed reporting of each
element should be provided, when possible. For example, under equipment and appurtenances for a
groundwater pump and treat application, the Roundtable recommends reporting the cost separately for
extraction wells, injection wells, and above-ground treatment equipment that were used to calculate a
total cost for equipment and appurtenances. In addition, for some applications, it might be illustrative to
report the costs for certain O&M elements (such as labor, materials, utilities and fuel, and equipment
ownership, rental, or lease) separately for operation and for maintenance. For example, it would be
useful to report costs separately between operation and maintenance for applications with relatively large
costs for preventive or corrective maintenance.
Table 2-1 includes capital and O&M costs for technology as well as other technology-specific costs and
other project costs. Other technology-specific costs include costs for excavation of soil, sludge, and
debris (for ex situ processes), disposal of residues, and compliance testing and analysis. As discussed
below, under the section on unit cost, only the capital and O&M costs that are specific to a technology
(items 1 and 2 on Table 2-1) should be included when calculating a unit cost for a technology
application. However, the guide recommends reporting costs for the other elements (items 3 and 4) to
provide additional information that may be useful in comparing technologies.
Those items shown on Table 2-1 as other technology-specific costs (excavation of soil, sludge, and
debris, disposal of residues, and compliance testing and analysis) are related to use of a technology, and
there is disagreement among remediation professionals about whether to include these items in a
calculation of technology-specific unit costs (for example as part of O&M). The Roundtable suggests
that these other technology-specific costs be reported, but not included in a calculation of unit costs. In
this way, the data will be available and provide flexibility to analysts who may chose to include one or
more of these items in a unit cost or to use in future comparisons of technologies.
2-5
-------
The Roundtable recognizes that some activities, such as project engineering or management support,
could be considered as part of either capital or O&M costs. The Roundtable recommends that the costs
for project engineering and management support should be accounted for as an overhead expense
associated with the appropriate capital or O&M cost element, and generally not as a separate line item
cost element. These activities should be reported as capital if they are related more closely to
construction and startup of a technology, and as O&M if they are related more closely to the ongoing,
recurring operation or maintenance of a technology. It should also be noted that Table 2-1 does not show
profit as a separate cost element. Because there are a number of different ways to account for profit, the
Roundtable recommends that profit be accounted for within cost elements, as appropriate.
In addition, if detailed costs are not available, then costs should be reported at an aggregate level if it can
be verified that the aggregate cost includes only those elements identified in items 1 and 2 of Table 2-1
(capital and O&M costs). For example, a total cost could be reported when data for specific cost
elements are not available. Such data will be useful if the project manager can verify that only capital
and O&M cost elements are included in a total cost and that other activities at a site, not related to the
specific technology application (such as project site work or site restoration), not be included in the total.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CALCULATING UNIT COSTS
OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Most remedial applications involve on- or off-site testing and analyses of contaminated media and
residues of treatment. Those activities are conducted to monitor the performance of the technology
system (process control and operation) or to establish regulatory compliance. While there is
disagreement among remediation professionals about whether to include the costs of analysis for
both performance monitoring and compliance monitoring in a calculation of unit costs, the guide
recommends including only the costs of analysis for performance monitoring in a calculation of unit
costs for technology applications. This approach is consistent with that recommended in the original
guide, which discussed the significantly site-specific nature of the costs of analysis for regulatory
compliance. However, experience with documenting technology costs has shown that it has been
difficult to separate these two types of costs.
It may be useful to array the total project costs for a site and identify the portion of those costs that
represents technology-specific activities (sometimes referred to as disaggregation of project costs). In
addition, several common elements, such as mobilization and demobilization, and site work and
preparation, may be included in both project- and technology-specific costs. In those cases, as Table 2-1
shows, the Roundtable recommends that the portion of the costs of these activities that is directly
attributed to the technology application be identified and included in the costs of technology-specific
activities.
2-6
-------
For technology applications that involve use of a treatment train (several specific technologies grouped
together for sequential treatment of a contaminated media), the guide recommends that the technology
components of the treatment train be considered collectively for cost purposes (i.e., as a "single" specific
technology; generally the dominant technology) and that the costs of all components of the treatment train
be included in the costs for that single collective technology. A common example of a treatment train is a
pump and treat application for groundwater. In these applications, groundwater typically is extracted
and treated above ground through application of several technologies in series, such as chemical
precipitation, air stripping, and UV/oxidation. In this case, the entire treatment train could be considered
"groundwater treatment", and one cost reported for the collection and treatment of the groundwater.
Another example of a treatment train is a bioremediation application for soil in which the soil first is
treated by soil washing to separate out larger-sized soil fractions, and then is treated by application of the
bioremediation technology. In this case, the entire treatment train would be considered as ex situ slurry-
phase bioremediation, with one cost reported for both components.
The recommended cost format described in this guide differs from that in the original guide, but is still
intended for use with an interagency work breakdown structure. The new elements reflect experience
gained to date in collecting cost data, along with adherence to the objectives stated earlier.
INTERAGENCY COST ESTIMATING GROUP WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE
In the late 1980s, the USAGE, Navy, Air Force, EPA, and DOE formed the Interagency Cost
Estimating Group (ICEG) to develop the Hazardous, Toxic, and Radiological Waste (HTRW)
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The WBS was published in three sections; studies and design
(System 32), remedial actions (System 33), and operations and maintenance (System 34). The
WBS has been used as a common cost structure by federal agencies to assist in collecting historical
costs. The ICEG mission continues with maintaining this structure with upgrades including new
technologies and cost and performance data requirements.
Unit Costs
Calculated unit costs are used to compare and contrast remediation technologies. Therefore, it is
important that such costs be calculated in a manner that allows comparison of different technologies and
of multiple applications that involve the same technologies. In general, unit costs should be expressed as
a total cost for the technology-specific application, divided by an appropriate unit of measure. Unit costs
are highly dependent on site-specific conditions and should be extrapolated to other sites with caution.
One of the challenges, as cost data become available in the future, is to better understand how site
conditions affect remediation costs.
2-7
-------
To achieve consistency in calculating unit costs, it is important that the basis used to develop the total
cost and the basis used to develop the unit of measure be consistent. To simplify the calculation of unit
costs, the guide provides a worksheet for compiling costs, shown as Exhibit 2-1. The worksheet shows
all the cost elements included on Table 2-1 and specifies that only capital and O&M cost elements should
be included in a calculation of technology-specific unit costs. The total cost for an application should not
include other project phases/activities, such as preliminary assessment/site investigation, remedial
investigation/feasibility study, remedial design, or post-closure surveillance and long-term monitoring.
Items that may be derived by disaggregation of overall project costs are marked with a double
asterisk (**) on Exhibit 2-1.
The Roundtable recognizes that the appropriate basis for calculating the unit of measure for each
application will vary by site, depending on the remediation technology used, the media treated, and the
performance data available. In addition, there are differences of opinion among remediation
professionals about the most appropriate basis for calculating unit costs. Agencies use different bases
for calculating unit costs, and there is no universal standard basis for calculating unit costs.
However, for the guide, the Roundtable recommends that the unit cost be stated either as the amount of
medium treated (for example, cost per cubic yard) or as the amount of contaminant removed (for
example, cost per pound) during the remediation. Typical unit costs for groundwater remediation are
cost per 1,000 gallons of water treated and cost per pound of contaminant removed. For soil
remediation, typical unit costs are cost per cubic yard of soil treated and cost per pound of contaminant
removed.
Unit costs should be calculated and reported for each specific technology application. In addition,
enough information should be reported to provide a detailed explanation of the unit cost basis, which will
enable a level comparison of calculated unit costs with those of other remedial technology applications.
As discussed under Chapter 3 of this guide (Recommended Performance Reporting), this might include
information such as initial and final contaminant concentrations.
Specific recommendations are provided about the following aspects related to calculating unit costs:
Recommendations for calculating unit costs for ex situ applications
Recommendations for calculating unit costs for in situ applications
Recommendations for calculating unit costs for groundwater pump and treat applications
Recommendations for calculating unit costs for containment applications
2-8
-------
EXHIBIT 2-1
SAMPLE WORKSHEET FOR COMPILING TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC UNIT COSTS
Cost Category/Element
Cost ($ Year Basis)
Cost for Calculating Unit Cost
1. Capital Cost for
Technology
Technology mobilization,
setup, and demobilization**
Planning and preparation
Site work**
Equipment and
appurtenances
- Structures
- Process equipment and
appurtenances/
construction
- Other (specify)
Startup and testing
Other**
(Includes nonprocess
equipment)
Total capital costs
2. O&M for Technology
Labor
Materials
Utilities and fuel
Equipment ownership,
rental, or lease
Performance testing and
analysis
Other**
(Includes nonprocess
equipment overhead and
health and safety)
Total operation and
maintenance costs
3. Other Technology-Specific
Costs
Compliance testing and
analysis
Soil, sludge, and debris
excavation, collection, and
control
Disposal of residues
4. Other Project Costs
Total cost (year basis for cost)
Total cost for calculating unit cost
Quantity treated
Calculated unit cost
Basis for quantity treated
1. Please provide additional details and supporting information for all cost elements as appropriate.
2. For longer-term applications, please modify this worksheet by adding columns to track costs year by year.
These figures are from apportionment of those costs attributable to the specific technology that may be derived by
disaggregation of overall project costs.
2-9
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CALCULATING UNIT COSTS
FOR EX SITU APPLICATIONS
Ex situ applications, such as thermal desorption and solidification and stabilization, typically involve:
(1) excavating soil or other contaminated media, (2) treating the media, and (3) disposing of treated
residues. While there is disagreement among remediation professionals about whether to include all
three cost elements in a calculation of unit costs, the guide suggests that only costs of treating the
contaminated media be used in calculating the unit costs for comparing among ex situ technology
applications. This approach is consistent with that recommended in the original guide, in which
excavation and disposal of residues were reported separately as before- and after-treatment costs,
respectively, and were not included in the unit cost calculation. One advantage of that approach is that it
allows an analyst the flexibility to include those costs in or omit them from the calculation of unit cost,
as desired. Further, the approach allows more meaningful comparison of ex situ technologies by
eliminating such site-specific costs from consideration.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CALCULATING UNIT COSTS
FOR IN SITU APPLICATIONS
Several special considerations apply to in situ applications such as soil vapor extraction (SVE) and in situ
bioremediation and should be considered for those applications. These include the basis for the quantity
of material treated, the basis for the quantity of contaminant removed versus treated, and the purpose of
the technology (treatment only, containment only, or treatment and containment), and whether there is a
continuing source of contamination. The Roundtable's recommendation for each situation is presented
below, along with examples.
Basis for quantity of material treated: Specify whether the quantity of material treated in situ is the
amount of material that is contaminated (for example, areal extent of contamination) or the amount of
material that was affected by the treatment technology (for example, radius of influence of a technology),
and provide both types of amounts as available.
Example: SVE; for these applications, the amount of material contaminated may differ from the amount
included in the zone of influence of the treatment system.
Basis for quantity of contaminant removed versus treated: Specify whether the technology included in
situ bioremediation as part of the application. In such cases, the amount of contaminant treated will be
greater than the amount of contaminant removed (also relevant for ex situ applications).
Example: Combination of a pump and treat system and in situ bioremediation
Presence of a continuing source of contamination: Specify whether a continuing source of
contamination, such as non aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs), was identified or suspected at the site. The
presence of continuing sources such as NAPLs sometimes tend to cause the unit costs of an application to
be higher than the costs of similar applications when NAPLs are not present.
Examples: SVE and in situ bioremediation
2-10
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CALCULATING
UNIT COSTS FOR GROUND WATER PUMP AND TREAT APPLICATIONS
Groundwater pump and treat applications consist of technologies used for extraction of groundwater
from the subsurface and above-ground treatment equipment, such as air strippers, carbon adsorption
units, and chemical treatment systems. Some of the considerations discussed above for ex situ and in
situ applications also are relevant to groundwater pump and treat applications. In addition, the guide
provides the following specific recommendations related to calculating unit costs for groundwater pump
and treat applications:
Cost basis: The costs of all groundwater extraction and above-ground treatment equipment should be
included as a capital cost item in the total cost of groundwater pump and treat applications. The costs of
operating and maintaining all extraction and injection wells, pumps, and treatment equipment should be
included as O&M cost items.
O&M costs: Because implementation of groundwater pump and treat applications often requires an
extended amount of time (for example, 10 years or more), the O&M costs should be provided both as a
total value and on an annual basis. Doing so will aid analysts who choose to calculate a net present
value for such applications.
Quantity of media removed and treated: The Roundtable recommends that unit costs be reported on the
basis of both the quantity of groundwater extracted and the quantity of contaminant removed from the
aquifer. For applications that involve biodegradation of contaminants, the Roundtable recommends
including an accounting of the quantity removed specifically by biodegradation.
Cost of source control: Many groundwater pump and treat applications also include source control
activities, such as excavation of soil (for hot spots), treatment of soil (SVE), and recovery of free
product. The Roundtable recommends including costs of source control activities in the cost basis for
groundwater pump and treat applications only if they are an integral part of the application.
Purpose of the technology: Specify whether the technology was operated for treatment only,
containment only, or for both treatment and containment. Unit costs for pump and treat systems
operated for containment of an aquifer may differ from unit costs for applications in which a pump and
treat system is operated for both remediation of an aquifer and hydraulic control.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CALCULATING
UNIT COSTS FOR CONTAINMENT APPLICATIONS
Containment projects are typically those involving vertical barrier walls (such as slurry or sheet pile
walls) or caps (such as on landfills). These applications include construction of physical barriers,
and labor and performance monitoring for conducting routine and ongoing maintenance of the
barriers. The Roundtable recommends that the costs for construction of the barriers be included
under capital costs and the routine and ongoing maintenance of the barriers be included under O&M
costs. In this way, the costs for construction and maintenance of the barriers will be included in a
calculation of unit costs for the barriers.
2-11
-------
2.3 EXAMPLES OF USE OF THE RECOMMENDED COST FORMAT
Two examples of actual remediation projects are provided to show how to report technology-specific
costs and how to use the sample worksheet. Example 1, a pump and treat system for treating
contaminated groundwater at McClellan Air Force Base, Operable Unit (OU) B/C, shows that capital
costs are limited to those for equipment and appurtenances, while O&M costs include those for labor,
materials, and analysis. In that example, O&M costs are shown as a total and as an annual value.
Example 2, in situ enhanced soil mixing at Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, shows that capital costs
include those for equipment and appurtenances, nonprocess equipment, permits, and site work and
preparation, while O&M costs include those for labor, materials, overhead, and analysis. In addition, in
the second example, costs were incurred for disposal of residues and analysis related to compliance
monitoring (separate from that for technology performance); those items are not included in the total cost
when calculating the unit cost.
2.4 COST COMPARISONS
To compare the costs of one technology with those of another, or to compare costs of a technology
application at one location with those at another, federal agencies have developed analytical
methodologies and cost factors. The following sources of information may be useful in evaluating cost
data.
Standard Life-Cycle Cost-Savings Analysis Methodology for Deployment of Innovative
Technologies, DOE Federal Energy Technology Center, October 30, 1998 (final draft).
(Note that at the time this guide was published, the DOE methodology was not yet
complete; it will be available soon after publication of the guide.)
Department of Defense (DoD) Area Cost Factors
Compendium of Cost Data for Environmental Remediation Technologies, 2nd Edition,
DOE Los Alamos Laboratory, August 1996
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, Version 3.0, Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable
2-12
-------
Example 1. Pump and Treat System at McClellan Air Force Base, OU B/C
Cost for
Techno- Calculating
logy Uni t
Type of Cost Cost(S) Cost(S)
1. Capital
Mobiliz ation/demobiliz ation
Planning and preparation
Site work
Equipment and
appurtenances
Incinerator
Air stripper
Scrubber
Heat exchangers (3)
Electric motors (6)
Blowers (2)
Pumps (6)
GAC tanks (4)
Water holding tank
Berm and foundation
Air compressors (2)
Water pipes to plant
Wells and pumps (10)
Control center
Indirect costs
TOTAL
Startup and testing
Other
Total capital costs
2. Operation and Maintenance
Labor
Labor, operations
support, staff labor
Materials
Reimbursables,
electricity, natural gas
Utilities and Fuel
Equipment ownership, rental
or lease
Performance testing and
analysis
Other
Equipment overhead
(Other direct costs)
Total operation and
maintenance costs
3. Other Technology-Specific
Costs
Compliance Testing and
Analysis
Soil, Sludge, and Debris
Excavation, Collection, and
Control
Disposal of Residues
4. Other Project Costs
Total technology cost
Total cost for calculating unit
Quantity treated
Calculated unit cost
0
0
0
300,000
400,000
300,000
300,000
180,000
40,000
180,000
360,000
40,000
150,000
60,000
300,000
300,000
140,000
910,000
4,000,000
0
0
4,000,000
730,000
320,000
Included
with
materials
0
40,000
150,000
1,240,000
0
0
0
0
5,240,000
5,240,000
1988
300,000
400,000
300,000
300,000
180,000
40,000
180,000
360,000
40,000
150,000
60,000
300,000
300,000
140,000
910,000
4,000,000
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
180,000
180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000
4,180,000
180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000
660,000,000 gallons groundwater extracted; 42,000 Ibs VOCs removed
$8 per 1,000 gallons extracted and S120 per pound of VOC removed
2-13
-------
Example 2. In Situ Enhanced Soil Mixing at Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
T m t. T u i /i * Cost for Calculating Unit
Type of Cost Technology Cost r t CS!1
1. Capital
Mobilization/demobilization
Planning and preparation
Site work
Equipment and appurtenances
- Structures
- Process equipment and appurtenances
Startup and testing
Other
- Nonprocess equipment
- Management support
Total
Total capital costs
2. Operation and Maintenance
Labor
Materials
Utilities and fuel
Equipment ownership, rental, or lease
Performance testing and analysis
Other
Equipment overhead
Total operation and maintenance costs
3. Other Technology-Specific Costs
Compliance testing and analysis
Soil, Sludge, and Debris Excavation Collection
and Control
Disposal of residues
4. Other Project Costs
Total technology cost
Total cost for calculating unit cost
60,000
0
142,000
745,000
0
124,000
199,500
323,500
1,270,500
270,750
56,000
Included with materials
0
73,500
50,000
450,250
A
0
150,000*
0
1,870,750
1,720,750
.... . , 10,300 - 15,000 cubic yards soil
Quantity treated , ., , .' ,-,ซ,, , ,. f ...
J (soil density 120 Ibs/cubic foot)
, , , , ., , $115 - $167 per cubic yard of
Calculated unit cost r ., J. . ,
soil treated
For this application, information was available only for the sum of items 3 and 5; that sum is shown here in item 5.
2-14
-------
Life-Cycle Cost-Savings Analysis
The DOE methodology is a systematic approach to developing and reporting estimated life-cycle cost
savings achieved through the deployment of innovative technologies. The methodology, which requires
reporting of total project costs and not just technology costs, consists of the following steps: identifying
credible sources of technical data on the innovative technology, identifying the applicable baseline
systems, automating the analysis, performing cost analyses, and identifying organizational roles and
responsibilities.
The methodology requires that innovative and conventional options be compared on an equitable basis,
with factors common to both options (such as waste volumes) equal to the maximum extent possible, and
that effects "upstream" and "downstream" of an innovative technology (such as monitoring and waste
disposal) be considered in a total life-cycle cost comparison.
Cost analyses described in the DOE methodology include cash-flow schedules, net present value (NPV),
break-even times, uncertainty analyses, and sensitivity analyses. According to the methodology, the
appropriate discount rate established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in OMB Circular
A-94 (revised periodically) should be used in calculating the NPV of each option. Under the DOE
methodology, the cost savings for an innovative technology option compared with a conventional
technology option should be based on the difference between the NPVs of their estimated total life cycle
cost.
Area Cost Factors
All DoD services use area cost factors (ACF) to adjust average historical facility costs to a specific
project location. This approach provides increased accuracy in comparing and projecting costs at a
various locations. According to the DoD methodology, the combination of local labor, material, and
equipment (LME) has the greatest effort on total construction costs. A market basket of 10 labor crafts,
20 materials, and four pieces of construction equipment was selected, and each of the 34 individual items
was given a relative weight to represent its contribution to the total cost of construction at a typical
facility. Once every two years, USAGE surveys the prices of the 34 items in the market basket in 188
cities. In addition to the local LME cost, other local conditions that affect construction costs, referred to
2-15
-------
as matrix factors, are included in the ACF. These matrix factors include such items as regional design
loads for seismic activity, wind, snow, and heat. The results of the survey and consideration of the matrix
factors are used in developing the ACF. ACFs are available on the Internet through the USACE's Cost
Engineering & Programs Formulation Branch web site at . As of October 1998, this web site provides ACFs from April 1998; the ACFs are updated
on a yearly basis.
Compendium of Cost Data
The Compendium of Cost Data for Environmental Remediation Technologies, Second Edition
(LA-UR-96-2205) was compiled in August 1996 under the Environmental Technologies Cost-Savings
Analysis Project (ETCAP) at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The effort was supported by DOE's
Office of Science and Technology, EM-50. The first edition of the compendium was assembled in 1989.
The second edition is available as hard copy or a searchable database from the Los Alamos National
Laboratory's web site at .
The compendium provides a representative sample of cost information for both conventional and
innovative remediation technologies for the treatment of hazardous, radioactive, and mixed wastes. The
compendium describes approximately 250 commercial or pilot-scale remedial projects. Cost data for the
projects were gathered from a variety of sources (for example, National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information [NCEPI] repository, the Vendor Information System for Innovative
Treatment Technologies [VISITT] database, and Roundtable remediation case studies) and summarized to
provide actual cost summaries, site characteristics, and comments about details of remedial projects. The
cost information provided varies according to source in level of detail.
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
The Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, Version 3.0, prepared under the auspices of the
Roundtable, is a web-based product that allows a user to view information about remedial technologies
from contaminant, media, or technology perspectives. In addition, the screening matrix includes links to
related web sites such as for cost and performance reports. Users can identify the range of technologies
that are applicable to a specific type of contaminant or media, and then draw on the collection of cost and
2-16
-------
performance reports to view historical information about actual field applications of those technologies.
Roundtable member agencies plan to frequently update the screening matrix web site to keep pace with the
ever-changing range of available technologies.
2-17
-------
3.0 RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE REPORTING
The recommended procedures for reporting
Procedures are recommended tor reporting
performance cover full-scale and demonstration-
scale projects and address both completed and
Analysts should document all cleanup
ongoing projects. Exhibit 3-1 lists the types of
performance information, by topic area, that
should be reported for a technology application.
The level of detail and data available for each
and applications
topic will vary by technology type and the
site remediation project performance
objectives, and how well a remedial action
met each objective
Consistency in reporting project performance
will aid in comparing among technologies
specific application; therefore, the items listed in
Exhibit 3-1 provide a guide to ensure that the important topics related to technology performance are
documented. For example, performance often is characterized only in terms of a removal percentage or
the level of concentration attained. However, that information alone, in the absence of information about
the other topics listed in Exhibit 3-1, may not be adequate to assess the overall performance of the
technology. Exhibit 3-2 presents an example that shows how to document performance for a completed
remediation project.
The parameters to be documented for demonstration-scale projects are similar to those for full-scale
projects, taking into account the following additional parameters (developed by DOE for its reports):
commercialization issues, including market influences and patents, and competing technologies. Exhibit
3-3 presents an example that shows how to document performance for a demonstration-scale project. A
primary goal of reporting on demonstration-scale projects is documentation of performance information.
For ongoing projects, such as a groundwater pump and treat applications, it is useful to document interim
results, including information about the progress and status of the project that gives an indication of how
well a technology is performing over time, whether problems arose during the technology application, and
how such problems were or are being resolved. Interim reports should be updated when new data are
available or when the project is completed. One benchmark for updating a report would be periodically
scheduled reviews, such as the five-year Superfund review process. However, decisions about when it is
appropriate to update a report should be made on a case-by-case basis. Exhibit 3-4 presents an example
that shows how to document performance for an ongoing project.
3-1
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1
RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE REPORTING
Performance Topic
Type of Information
Types of samples collected
Types of media sampled
Types of constituents analyzed
Use of surrogates (for example, soil gas as a
surrogate for soil borings)
Sample frequency and protocol
Where samples were collected
How samples were collected
When samples were collected
Who collected samples
Quantity of material treated
Quantity of material treated during application
For in situ technologies, area and depth of
contaminated material treated
Concentrations of untreated and treated
contaminants
Measurement of initial conditions (even if not
required to demonstrate compliance with
cleanup criteria)
Measurement of concentrations of
contaminants during or after treatment (noting
whether there are matched pairs of data on
treated and untreated contaminants or whether
there are operating data that 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 the technology
operation achieved the cleanup objectives
Assessment of whether the technology was
operated to achieve reductions in
concentrations of contaminants beyond the
established cleanup objectives
Method of analysis
Method of analysis used (including field
screening or analyses, portable instruments,
mobile laboratory, off-site laboratory,
laboratory procedures, nonstandard methods)
Exceptions to standard methodology
3-2
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1 (continued)
RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE REPORTING
Performance Topic
Type of Information
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)*
Who was responsible for QA/QC
Type of QA/QC measures performed
Level of procedures
Exceptions to QA/QC protocol or data quality
objectives
Other residues
Types of residues generated (for example, off-
gases, wastewaters, or sludges)
Measurement of mass or volume, and
concentration of contaminants in each
treatment residue
Note that only very general QA/QC information is recommended; any exceptions to the QA/QC
procedures should be documented.
3-3
-------
EXHIBIT 3-2
EXAMPLE OF REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
FOR A FULL-SCALE COMPLETED PROJECT
Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Cantonment, Florida
Types of samples collected
Sample frequency and protocol
Quantity of material treated
Untreated and treated contaminant
concentrations
Cleanup objectives
Comparison with cleanup objectives
Method of Analyses
Quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC)*
Other residues
Soil analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
including trichloroethene (TCE); pentachlorophenol
(PCP); and poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Soil in each 165 -cubic yard batch analyzed prior to and
after 14-day treatment
19,705 tons of contaminated soil were treated in 165-
cubic yard batches
Average Concentrations:
Total PAHs Initial - 50.8 to 576.2 mg/kg
Final - 3.3 to 49.7 mg/kg
PCP Initial - 7.67 to 160 mg/kg
Final - 16.5 to 36.3 mg/kg
Total Xylenes Initial - 0.07 to 69.5 mg/kg
Final - 0.03 to 1.05 mg/kg
TCE Initial - 0.01 to 1 mg/kg
Final - 0.01 to 0.04 mg/kg
Benzene and 1,1-dichloroethene (DCE) were not
reported above detection limits in any samples
Cleanup goals for soil:
Total PAHs - 50 mg/kg
PCP - 50 mg/kg
Total Xylenes - 1.5 mg/kg
Benzene 10 mg/kg
TCE - 0.05 mg/kg
1,1-DCE- 0.07 mg/kg
Cleanup objectives were met for all treated soil batches
EPA Method 8270 for PAHs and PCP
EPA Method 8010 and 8020 for VOCs
QAPP prepared for project
Remediation contractor was responsible for QA/QC
Trip blanks, field blanks, matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicate samples were taken; no exceptions to data
quality objectives were noted
None generated
3-4
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3
EXAMPLE OF REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
FOR A DEMONSTRATION-SCALE PROJECT
In Situ Air Stripping of Contaminated Groundwater at U.S. Department of Energy,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina
Types of samples collected
Sample frequency and protocol
Quantity of material treated
Untreated and treated contaminant concentrations
Cleanup objectives
Comparison with cleanup objectives
Method of Analyses
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)
Other residues
Soil vapor and groundwater; analyzed for VOCs
- Soil vapor monitored for VOCs continually
during demonstration
- Groundwater monitored weekly
Area of VOC-contaminated groundwater has an
approximate thickness of 150 feet and covers
about 1,200 acres
- Substantial changes in groundwater VOC
concentrations measured during demonstration
- Increased microbial numbers and metabolic
activity exhibited during an air injection period
No specific cleanup goals identified for the field
demonstration (total VOC removal to be
measured)
139 day demonstration removed nearly 16,000
pounds of VOCs
VOCs monitored using a FID
None identified for field demonstration
- Decontamination fluids
- Off-gas
Additional Information for Demonstration-Scale Project Refer to Exhibit 4-1
3-5
-------
EXHIBIT 3-4
EXAMPLE OF REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
FOR AN ONGOING PROJECT
Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, New Brighton, Minnesota
Project status
Types of samples collected
Sample frequency and protocol
Quantity of material treated
Untreated and treated contaminant concentrations
Cleanup/remediation objectives
Comparison with cleanup objectives
Method of Analyses
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)
Other residues
Ongoing; report covers period October 1987
through September 1992
Groundwater; analyzed for VOCs
Sample frequency from 17 groundwater
extraction wells was not specified
1.4 billion gallons of groundwater were treated
from October 1991 to September 1992
- Chlorinated VOCs (CVOCs) were detected in
the aquifer
- TCE was the most prevalent with
concentrations up to 10,000 (jg/1
- No substantial change in the contaminant
concentrations in the aquifer has been noted
- Cleanup goals for groundwater (based on the
site ROD):
TCE - 5 (jg/1
PCE - 6.9 (jg/1
1,2-DCE - 70 (ig/1
l,l,l-TCA-200(ig/l
- Containment of the contaminant plume
- Cleanup goals have not been met to date
- Plume containment has been achieved
Not identified in interim report
Not identified in interim report
Not identified in interim report
3-6
-------
4.0 FACTORS THAT AFFECT COST OR PERFORMANCE
4.1 BACKGROUND _ . _ ., . _ , .
Specific parameters are identified for
documenting matrix characteristics and
operating parameters of 29 remediation
technologies
parameters, including matrix characteristics and
r-r- . +1 * Parameters were selected as those items most
operating parameters can affect the cost or . . , , ,
important for influencing a technology s cost
As discussed in the original guide, a number of
performance of a treatment technology. Tables
or performance
4-1 and 4-2 presented at the end of this chapter
list, by technology, the key parameters that affect cost or performance and that should be documented for
a specific application. The matrix characteristics to be documented include soil types, soil properties, and
organic contaminants that may be present in a matrix. The operating parameters include system
parameters, such as residence time and system throughput.
The recommended reporting factors were developed with the following objectives and basic principles in
mind:
Only technologies used in large-scale field projects are included: The guide is limited
to an evaluation of technologies that have been used in a relatively large-scale field
demonstration and are considered ready for full-scale application; technologies that have
been used only in relatively small bench- or pilot-scale research studies were not included.
Matrix characteristics are limited to soil types and media properties: In identifying
the matrix characteristics that are most important for documenting technology
applications, only those characteristics that represent soil types and media properties
(such as hydraulic conductivity) were included. Other parameters that affect the cost and
performance of remedial technologies are addressed elsewhere. The other parameters
include items such as the types and concentrations of specific contaminants, the
environmental setting (for in situ technologies), the quantity of material treated, and
cleanup goals or requirements.
Operating parameters are those items that can be modified or changed: Several of
the parameters referred to below, such as moisture content, might be considered either
matrix characteristics or operating parameters, depending on when and how they are
discussed. Items were considered to be operating parameters when they could be
modified or changed by an engineered process, such as adding nutrients for in situ
bioremediation.
4-1
-------
The original guide recommended reporting factors that affect cost or performance for 13 specific
technologies. Since that time, several technologies have become ready for full-scale remedial
applications.
This guide includes recommended reporting factors for 29 specific technologies, including both treatment
and containment technologies. The following specific technologies are listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2.
In Situ Soil Remediation and Containment
Bioventing
Soil flushing
Soil vapor extraction
Bioslurping
Phytoremediation
In situ heating
Vitrification
Capping
Ex Situ Soil Remediation
Land treatment
Composting
Soil washing
Stabilization
Incineration
Thermal desorption
Slurry-phase bioremediation
Groundwater Remediation and Containment
Pump and treat system
Dual-phase extraction
Air sparging
Circulating wells (UVB)
Dynamic underground stripping
Steam flushing
Cosolvents and surfactants
Natural attenuation (chlorinated compounds)
Natural attenuation (nonchlorinated
hydrocarbons)
Bioremediation
Phytoremediation
Vertical barrier walls
Reactive permeable barriers
In situ oxidation (Fenton's reagent)
Appendix A presents information about the potential effects on cost or performance of each of the matrix
characteristics and operating parameters listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. This appendix provides additional
background information about how specific parameters may affect the cost or performance of a
technology.
4.2
DEMONSTRATION-SCALE PROJECTS
The parameters listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 constitute a standard set of data that will facilitate the
comparison of cost and performance among technologies. The need to collect information about
additional parameters should be decided on a site-specific basis, and such information should be included
4-2
-------
in the project documentation, as appropriate. For demonstration-scale projects, the information in Tables
4-1 and 4-2 should be documented, when possible. The following additional information (obtained from
DOE's Innovative Technology Summary Reports on demonstration-scale projects) also should be
documented if possible to address specific issues associated with the demonstration aspects of the
technology, as follows:
Applicability of the technology: Include information about the suitability and
limitations of the technology in light of such factors as hydrogeologic setting or specific
considerations related to the matrix or contaminant. Discuss information related to
commercialization and intellectual property.
Competing technologies: Include information about other technologies currently in use
that may compete with the technology of concern. Identify the organization providing
the information on the baseline and any competing technology and whether the
organization is a vendor, developer, investor, or other entity that may have an interest in
the technology.
Maturity of the technology: Include information about the development status of the
technology, including the types of demonstrations that have been performed and the
extent to which there are current applications of the technology.
Exhibit 4-1 presents an example for reporting additional information on issues associated with a specific
demonstration-scale project (demonstration of in situ air stripping [ISAS] using horizontal wells at
DOE's Savannah River site in Aiken, South Carolina).
EXHIBIT 4-1
EXAMPLE FOR REPORTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT
DEMONSTRATION-SCALE PROJECTS
Applicability of the Technology
ISAS has been demonstrated to remediate soils, sediments, and groundwater contaminated with
VOCs, both above and below the water table.
Quantitative modeling and bench- and pilot-scale work indicate that ISAS would be effective at
removing light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL). It is not suitable for dense nonaqueous phase
liquids (DNAPL).
ISAS is not well suited to sites having highly stratified soils with low permeability layers, fractured
rock or clay geologies. ISAS does not effectively remediate large dilute plumes, but would be useful
near source areas.
Similar to pump and treat, ISAS may not be able to attain drinking-water standards (without such
enhancements as addition of nutrients to promote biodegradation).
For this project, 19 licenses have been applied for and 8 licenses have been granted.
ISAS is commercially available through the Westinghouse Savannah River Company Technology
Transfer Center.
4-3
-------
EXHIBIT 4-1 (continued)
EXAMPLE FOR REPORTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT
DEMONSTRATION-SCALE PROJECTS
Competing Technologies
ISAS competes with conventional baseline technologies of pump and treat and pump and treat
combined with SVE. Numerous other thermal, physical and chemical, and biological technologies
that treat VOC-contaminated soils and groundwater in situ or aboveground are available or under
development.
This analysis was prepared by an environmental services company under contract to DOE's
Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program (HAZWRAP). The environmental services company
identified no potential interests in the technology of concern (in situ air stripping) or the baseline
technology (pump and treat).
Maturity of the Technology
Air sparging with vertical wells is a relatively established technology offered by dozens of vendors.
Variations of the technique have been implemented at hundreds of sites.
ISAS using horizontal wells currently is being applied at an airport in New York and at industrial
sites in North Carolina, Minnesota, and Missouri. The technology also is being implemented at full
scale at two locations at the Savannah River Site.
4.3 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES
Because the use of different methods of measurement can cause results to vary, documentation of
measurement procedures for many of the matrix characteristics and operating parameters is important to
allow a comparison of results among projects. It is especially important to document measurement
procedures when different methods are available or when less standardized methods are used for
measuring an individual parameter (e.g., for clay content). In these cases, measurement procedures
should be documented. Appendix B provides information about the measurement procedures
recommended for documentation.
4-4
-------
TABLE 4-1
SUGGESTED PARAMETERS TO DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS:
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS THAT AFFECT COST OR PERFORMANCE OF A TECHNOLOGY
Matrix Characteristics
In Situ Soil Remediation
Bioventing
Soil Flushing
Soil Vapor
Extraction
Bioslurping
Phytoremediation
BJ)
_e
1
9
33
g
Vitrification
Capping
Ex Situ Soil Remediation
Land Treatment
Composting
Soil Washing
Stabilization
Incineration
Thermal
Desorption
Slurry-Phase
Bioremediation
SOIL TYPES
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size
Distribution
AGGREGATE SOIL MATRIX PROPERTIES
Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Content
Air Permeability
PH
Porosity
Depth bgs or thickness of zone of
interest
ORGANIC PROPERTIES
Total Organic Carbon
Oil and Grease or Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Presence of NAPLs
MISCELLANEOUS
'
2
3
5
"
'
Nonmatrix Characteristics that Affect Cost or Performance:
Contaminants: Type and concentration of contaminants
Environmental Setting for in situ technologies: Geology, stratigraphy,
and hydrogeology (primarily)
Quantity of material treated: Cubic yards or 1,000 gallons of groundwater
Cleanup goals and requirements: Cleanup levels, schedules, sampling and analysis
Electrical conductivity (for electrical heating)
Lower explosive limit, glass forming materials, electrical conductivity, and presence of inclusions
Future use; rainfall or infiltration rate; and permeability of clay liner, geomembrane, or other polymer
layers
Field capacity
Cation exchange capacity of soils
BTU value, halogen content, and metal content
Bulk density
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-1 (continued)
SUGGESTED PARAMETERS TO DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS:
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS THAT AFFECT COST OR PERFORMANCE OF A TECHNOLOGY
Matrix Characteristics
Groundwater Remediation
Pump and Treat
Dual-Phase Extrac
Air Sparging
ซ
^
Circulating Wells (
s
e
=
Dynamic Undergro
Stripping
J3
S
CO
s
a
Cosolvent/Surfacta
^
e
=
e a
Natural Attenuatio
(chlorinated compc
1
h
u
ฎ
e -e
Natural Attenuatio
(nonchlorinated hy
Bioremediation
Phytoremediation
a
a
Vertical Barrier W
2
s
a
ซ
Permeable Reactiv
In Situ Oxidation
(Fenton's reagent)
SOIL TYPES
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size
Distribution
AGGREGATE SOIL MATRIX PROPERTIES
Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Content
Air Permeability
PH
Porosity
Depth bgs/thickness of zone of
interest
ORGANIC PROPERTIES
Total Organic Carbon
Oil & Grease or Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Presence of NAPLs
MISCELLANEOUS
8
>
Redox conditions, electron acceptors (oxygen, nitrate, iron, sulfate, methane), electron donors (carbon source, for example, presence of toluene).
Dissolved oxygen levels and electron acceptors (oxygen, nitrate, iron, sulfate, methane).
4-6
-------
TABLE 4-2
SUGGESTED PARAMETERS TO DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS:
OPERATING PARAMETERS THAT AFFECT COST OR PERFORMANCE OF A TECHNOLOGY
Operating Parameters
In Situ Soil Remediation
Bioventing
Soil Flushing
Soil Vapor Extraction
Bioslurping
Phytoremediation
In Situ Heating
Vitrification
Capping
Ex Situ Soil Remediation
Land Treatment
Composting
Soil Washing
Stabilization
Incineration
Thermal Desorption
Slurry-Phase
Bioremediation
SYSTEM PARAMETERS
Air Flow Rate
Mixing Rate/Frequency
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
Biodegradation Rate for Organics
Nutrients and Other Soil
Amendments
MISCELLANEOUS
'
2
3
5
"
'
8
Plants per unit area and plant type
Electrical or radio frequency (RF) power input
Power consumption per unit volume
Design infiltration rates
Moisture content
Moisture content and soil loading rate
Curing time, compressive strength, volume increase, and permeabilit;
Density of slurry and volume fraction of water
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-2 (continued)
SUGGESTED PARAMETERS TO DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS:
OPERATING PARAMETERS THAT AFFECT COST OR PERFORMANCE OF A TECHNOLOGY
Operating Parameters
Groundwater Remediation
Pump and Treat
Dual-Phase Extraction
Air Spargmg
Circulating Wells (UVB)
Dynamic Underground
Stripping
OD
to
_3
S
S
X
Cosolvent/Surfactants
Natural Attenuation
(chlorinated compounds)
Natural Attenuation
(nonchlorinated
hydrocarbons)
Bioremediation
Phytoremediation
Vertical Barrier Walls
Permeable Reactive Barriers
In Situ Oxidation
(Fenton's reagent)
SYSTEM PARAMETERS
Air Flow Rate
Mixing Rate/Frequency
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
Biodegradation Rate for Organics
Nutrients and Other Soil Amendments
MISCELLANEOUS
"
9 For the treatment component of the pump and treat system, the operating
parameters will vary by the specific type of treatment used (for example, carbon
adsorption, air stripper). For a more extensive list of operating parameters
for those treatment technologies, please refer to Technical Requirements to Report
HTRW Environmental Restoration Cost and Performance, USAGE
(EP 1110-1-19), November 15, 1996
0
i
2
3
4
15
10
"
12
"
"
"
Efficiency of recovery and recycling
Presence of breakdown products and levels of ethene, ethane, or methane
Plants per unit area and plant type
Permeability of wall material and depth of key
Flow rate through the gate (for funnel-and-gate system) and type of reactant (for example, iron
granules)
Injection rates and cost of chemicals
4-8
-------
5.0 REPORT FORMATS
As discussed above, the guide recommends a minimum set of reporting elements for documenting the
cost and performance of remediation projects; however, agencies may use formats of their choosing for
preparing reports. Those formats may include additional information beyond the minimum set of items
recommended by the guide. For example, formats might include detailed descriptions of treatment
technologies.
The technology vendor or developer (provider) is a valuable resource for providing information on the
cost and performance of technologies. While the Roundtable encourages these sources to continue to
provide information, there should be independent preparation or review of cost and performance reports.
Several agencies have developed report formats that incorporate items recommended in this guide,
including formats prepared by USAGE, DOE, the U.S. Air Force, and EPA. Information about the report
formats listed below, prepared by USAGE and DOE, are available on the Internet at the addresses
indicated:
USAGE. 1996. Engineering and Design - Technical Requirements for Specifications to
Report HTRW Environmental Restoration Cost and Performance. Publication Number
EP 1110-1-19. CEMP-RT. November 15.
DOE Office of Environmental Management. 1996. Documenting Cost and Performance
for Environmental Remediation Projects. DOE/EM-0302. Augusts.
Some agencies are considering more streamlined formats that are adapted to specific purposes, such as for
reporting summary information about cost and performance for relatively common treatment applications.
For all reports prepared under the cost and performance effort, an abstract should be prepared that
extracts key information from the report. The abstract allows a user to quickly screen key information
about a particular remedial application and decide whether to obtain the full case study report. Appendix
C to this guide presents a format recommended for preparing abstracts.
5-1
-------
Appendix D presents a generic format that illustrates how to prepare cost and performance reports. The
generic format includes all the key features identified in this guide and was developed as a composite of
the reporting elements identified by EPA, USAGE, and DOE in their case study reports. The format is
intended for documenting full-scale technology applications, but also includes elements specific to
demonstration-scale applications, which are identified as such in the format.
5-2
-------
6.0 WEB SITE STRATEGY
The Roundtable will use its web site at
.,///-. r - The Roundtable web site is a primary means
as a primary means or _ ,. . . .,. _
tor dissemination ot mtormation on
distributing case studies. The Roundtable will
publish and distribute printed copies when a
A key word based search function is
sufficient number of reports are available.
(Some case study reports will be published first
Ready access to targeted case studies helps
as separate documents by the sponsoring agency
and then collated with other, similar reports and
remediation case studies
included on the web site
facilitate their use by remediation
professionals
published again under a Roundtable cover.) The
Work Group discussed electronic management of the case studies as part of a broader effort to improve
the web site. This chapter presents the strategy for managing this site.
6.1 INTRODUCTION
In 1996, the Roundtable established a web site to provide general information about its activities, to
provide information and documents related to site remediation, and to provide a central point of entry for
users to connect to member agencies' web sites.
The Roundtable web site contains information about remedial and site characterization technologies; case
studies of field remedial applications; and information about the business of the Roundtable, such as
meeting summaries and published reports. Use of the Roundtable web site has increase substantially over
time, and it has been used by U.S. government sources, such as the military service; educational
institutions; agencies of other countries; and private consulting and engineering firms.
In late 1997, the members of the Roundtable identified a need to update and revise the format and
functionality of the web site. On April 2, 1998, members of an ad hoc Web Site Task Force, including
representatives of DoD, DOE, and EPA, met to review the current status of the web site and to develop
plans for updating it. The task force recommended that the web site be revised to update its design and
improve its functionality, including expansion of the search capabilities. The members of the task force
recommended that all member agencies of the Roundtable participate in supporting the site. The task
force also recommended that an "advisory board" be established to provide direction and leadership to
those responsible for maintaining the site.
6-1
-------
6.2 PURPOSES FOR ROUNDTABLE WEB SITE
The Web Site Task Force recommended that the purpose of the site be clarified, that is the scope be
narrowed, and that certain functions be improved. The following purposes for the Roundtable web site
were identified:
Provide information about the Roundtable and its products, such as recent remedial
technology and site characterization screening guides.
Serve as a point of entry to the web sites of member agencies and direct users to site
characterization and remediation links on those web sites.
6.3 IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 6-1 presents a general site map of the Roundtable web site. As the figure shows, the main
components of the web site, which is coordinated by USAGE, are:
Remediation technologies screening matrix
Field sampling and analysis technologies matrix
Cost and performance case studies
Roundtable business items
Roundtable publications
Links to other agencies
Table 6-1 provides a brief description of each of these components and identifies the responsible member
agencies for maintaining them. In addition, member agencies have agreed to identify key points of contact
to assist in keeping information on the web site current.
6-2
-------
Remediation
Technologies
Screening Matrix
Field Sampling and
Analysis Technologies
Matrix
Roundtable Business
Items
Roundtable Web Site
(www.frtr.gov)
Maintain the
Web Site
Cost and Performance
Case Studies
Roundtable Publications
Links to Other Agencies
Figure 6-1. General Site Map for Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Web Site
6-3
-------
TABLE 6-1
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION ON THE ROUNDTABLE WEB SITE
Web Site
Component
Information Included
Responsible
Member Agency
Remediation
Technologies
Screening Matrix
The remediation technologies screening matrix (Version 3.0) is a
web-based product that allows a user to view information about
remedial technologies from contaminant, treatment, or technology
perspectives. This product is updated weekly to incorporate
current information about specific remedial technologies and links
to appropriate web sites.
Army
Environmental
Center (AEC);
maintained and
updated by AEC
Field Sampling
and Analysis
Technologies
Matrix
The field sampling and analysis technologies matrix provides
users with an introduction to site characterization technologies to
promote the use of potentially cost-effective methods for on-site
monitoring and measurement. For a variety of field sampling and
collection techniques and sample analysis tools, the matrix
summarizes such items as applicability, status of the technology,
certification and validation, and relative cost. At the time this
guide was prepared, no plans had been made to update the matrix.
U.S. Navy and EPA
prepared matrix
USACE created
web version of
matrix and may
maintain web
version
Cost and
Performance Case
Studies
Cost and performance case studies document actual full-scale and
demonstration-scale applications of innovative and traditional
technologies used to remediate sites having a wide variety of
contaminants. The case studies support the remediation
technologies screening matrix by providing detailed information
about actual field experiences in application of remedial
technologies included in the matrix.
All member
agencies prepare
case studies;
searchable database
developed and
maintained by EPA
Roundtable
Business Items
Roundtable business items include information about the mission
and objectives of the Roundtable; Roundtable meetings, such as
announcements of upcoming meetings and minutes of previous
meetings, and items distributed at meetings, as well as similar
information about meetings of work groups of the Roundtable,
such as the Cost and Performance and Accelerated Site
Characterization and Monitoring workgroup.
All member
agencies
Roundtable
Publications
Roundtable publications include Site Remediation Technology
InfoBase: A Guide to Federal Programs, Information Resources,
and Publications on Contaminated Site Cleanup Technologies
(EPA/542/B-98/006)
All member
agencies
Links to Other
Agencies
The Roundtable web site provides links to the web site of the
following member agencies: AEC; U.S. Air Force Environmental
Management; Department of the Navy Environmental Program;
U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center; DOE; EPA
Cleanup Information (Clu-In); USACE Environmental Division;
and the U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. In
addition, the FRTR web site provides links to other related web
sites.
All member
agencies
6-4
-------
The task force recommended that the advisory board meet annually to provide guidance to those
responsible for maintaining the Roundtable web site. The advisory board will review information about
the use of the web site during the preceding year, including statistics on use and comments from users on
format and functionality. In addition, the advisory board will help keep links provided on the web site
current, and help to keep the information web site consistent with the priorities and responsibilities of the
member agencies.
The Roundtable web site has a search function that allows a user to search the site or portions of the site,
as follows: (1) the entire web site, (2) the remediation technologies screening matrix only, (3) the field
sampling and analysis technologies matrix only, or (4) the cost and performance case studies only. The
search functions are text-based (open-ended indexed search), allowing a search based on terms selected by
the user.
6.4 INTERAGENCY PARTICIPATION
The Roundtable web site provides access to information about innovative environmental technologies that
is available from member agencies of the Roundtable. The site also encourages communication and
collaboration among member agencies, regulatory and academic personnel, and the general public.
Member agencies are encouraged to submit comments to update information included on the web site and
identify information to be added to it.
6.5 SEARCHABLE DATABASE OF COST AND PERFORMANCE CASE STUDIES
The cost and performance case studies have been compiled into a database that can be searched through
the Roundtable web site. The web site allows a user to complete a text-based or key word (pick list)
search (see the discussion of key words below). Key word searches prompt the user for categories of
information based on a selection of key words. The key words were chosen to facilitate searches by
allowing the user to select such topics as medium treated, contaminant type, and technology. Once a
selection has been made, the search will return basic information about applications that meet the search
criteria, including site name, location, and primary technology type. The results will be organized by
categories selected by the users (for example, project scale or lead agency). The user then will be able to
view a two-page abstract of the case study or the complete case study.
6-5
-------
The system for searching case studies on the Roundtable web site may be expanded to incorporate related
information from other sources. For example, programs such as EPA's SITE program, the report
Completed North American Innovative Remediation Technology Demonstration Projects, the Advanced
Applied Technology Demonstration Facility (AATDF) program at Rice University, and DoD's Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) program all have information about
technology evaluation. By developing a flexible system, the Roundtable hopes to be able to incorporate
studies prepared under these type of programs.
6.6 KEY WORDS
To facilitate storage and retrieval of information in the case studies through the Roundtable web site, a list
of key words has been developed. The key words are commonly used terms that describe media,
contaminants, and primary and supplemental technologies. As Tables 6-2 through 6-5 show, the key
words are organized as pick-lists; the user can search for projects of interest by one or more combinations
of the key words from the lists.
In developing the lists of key words, the Roundtable examined several systems currently in use for projects
related to remediation and reviewed the lists of key words used in those systems. For example, the
Roundtable reviewed the Programs and Project Management Information System (PROMIS) developed by
USAGE; the Installation Restoration Information System (IRIS) developed by the U.S. Army; NORM
developed by the U.S. Navy; AFRIMS developed by the U.S. Air Force; the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) developed by
EPA; and the Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT) developed by
EPA.
Most of the systems examined include key words for medium, contaminant, and primary technology.
However, since many of the primary technologies listed may be qualified further or have residue
management components of interest, it is important to identify any supplemental technologies used in the
application. Such systems include those used in pretreatment and post-treatment. Dewatering solids
before treatment is an example of a supplemental technology. Table 6-5 lists the terms to be used to
document supplemental treatment systems.
6-6
-------
TABLE 6-2
RECOMMENDED KEY WORDS FOR MEDIA
Media
Soil (in situ)
Soil (ex situ)
Sludge
Solid (for example slag)
Sediment (in situ)
Sediment (ex situ)
Debris
Off-gases
Groundwater
Free product
Organic liquids
Light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL)
Dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPL)
Surface water
Wastewater
Leachate
TABLE 6-3
RECOMMENDED KEY WORDS FOR CONTAMINANTS
Contaminants
Organic Compounds (all)
~ Volatileshalogenated (all)
- Chlorinated solvents
PCE, TCE, DCE
~ Volatilesnonhalogenated (all)
-BTEX
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene
- Ketones
-MTBE
~ Semivolatileshalogenated (all)
- Dioxins/furans
-PCBs
- Organic corrosives
- Organic cyanides
- Organic pesticides/herbicides
~ Semivolatilesnonhalogenated (all)
- Phthalates
- Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
- Organic pesticides/herbicides
- Petroleum Hydrocarbons (all)
- Gasoline range hydrocarbons
- Diesel range hydrocarbons
- Residual range hydrocarbons
Inorganic Compounds (all)
~ Asbestos
~ Heavy metals (for example, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Pb.
Ni, Se, Zn)
~ Inorganic cyanides
~ Inorganic corrosives
~ Nonmetallic elements (for example, As)
~ Radionuclides (for example, tritium)
Radon
Explosives/propellants
Organometallic compounds (all)
Pesticides/herbicides
6-7
-------
TABLE 6-4
RECOMMENDED KEY WORDS FOR PRIMARY TECHNOLOGIES
Soil In Situ
Soil Ex Situ
Groundwater In Situ
Groundwater Ex Situ
Bioslurping
Biosparging
Bioventing
Bioremediation (in situ) -
Soil
Cap
Dual-Phase Extraction
Dynamic Underground
Stripping
Electrokinetics
Hot Air Injection
In Situ Heating
Phytoremediation
Soil Flushing (in situ)
Soil Vapor Extraction
Solidification/
Stabilization
Steam Extraction
Thermally Enhanced
Recovery (e.g., EM, RF,
ISTD)
Vitrification
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
Composting
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
Land Treatment
Bioremediation (ex situ) -
Slurry Phase
Chemical Reduction/
Oxidation
Contained Recovery of
Oily Waste (CROW)
Critical Fluid Extraction
Cyanide Oxidation
Dehalogenation
Incineration (off-site)
Incineration (on-site)
Physical Separation
Plasma High Temperature
Metals Recovery
Pyrolysis
Solar Detoxification
Soil Washing
Solidification/
Stabilization
Solvent Extraction
Thermal Desorption
Vitrification
Aeration
Air Sparging (in situ) -
Groundwater
Bioremediation (in situ) -
Groundwater
Chemical Reduction/
Oxidation
Circulating Wells (UVB)
Cosolvent Flushing
Dual-Phase Extraction
Dynamic Underground
Stripping
Electrokinetics
Hot Water/Steam
Flushing/Stripping
In Situ Oxidation
Monitored Natural
Attenuation
Permeable Reactive
Barrier
Phytoremediation
Surfactants/Surfactant
Flushing
Vertical Barrier Wall
Free Product Recovery
Pump and treat with:
Air Stripping
Bioreactors
Carbon Adsorption
Chemical Reduction/
Oxidation
Chemical Treatment -
Groundwater
Distillation
Electrochemical
Treatment
Filtration
Precipitation
Reverse Osmosis
Solar Detoxification
Solvent Extraction
Supercritical Water
Oxidation
UV/Oxidation
TABLE 6-5
RECOMMENDED KEY WORDS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
Pretreatment
(Solids)
Crushing
Dewatering
Milling
Mixing
Screening
Shredding
Augmentation
(for In Situ Process)
Horizontal Wells
Fracturing - Hydraulic
Mixing
Fracturing - Pneumatic
Drilling
Post-Treatment
(Air)
Baghouse
Biofiltration
Carbon Adsorption
Catalytic Oxidation
Condenser
Corona
Cyclone
Photolytic
Destruction
Scrubber
Thermal Destruction
Post-Treatment
(Solids)
Compaction
Quench
Stabilization
Post-Treatment
(Water) *
Air Stripping
Biological
Carbon Adsorption
Centrifugation
Chemical
Decanting
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Neutralization
* Other than for treatment of primary contaminants as part of a pump and treat system
6-8
-------
APPENDIX A
POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE OF MATRIX
CHARACTERISTICS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS
-------
APPENDIX A
POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
OF MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*
Parameter
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
Matrix Characteristics
Soil Types
Soil classification
Soil classification effects the relative ease of treating soil and
groundwater. For example, in soil vapor extraction, sandy soils
typically are more amenable to treatment than clayey soils. (See
related information under clay content or particle size distribution
below.)
Clay content or particle size
distribution
Clay and particle size distribution affect the flow of air and fluid
through contaminated media. In slurry-phase bioremediation
systems, particle size affects ability to hold media in suspension. In
soil washing, the relationship between particle size and
contaminant concentration affects the potential for physical
separation and reductions of volume. For thermal desorption
systems, clay and particle size affect mass and heat transfer,
including agglomeration and carryover to air pollution control
devices.
Aggregate Soil Properties
Hydraulic conductivity/
water permeability
This characteristic is important to 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 affect the number of wells needed
for the remediation effort and the cost of operating the extraction
wells.
Moisture content
The moisture content of the matrix typically affects the
performance, both directly and indirectly, of such in situ
technologies such as bioventing and soil vapor extraction and such
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 also can be affected by soil
moisture content.
Air permeability
This characteristic is important to 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.
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A (continued)
POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
OF MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*
Parameter
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
pH
The pH of the matrix can affect the solubility of contaminants and
biological activity. Therefore, this characteristic can affect such
technologies as soil bioventing, soil flushing, land treatment,
composting, stabilization, and in situ groundwater bioremediation.
In addition, pH can affect the operation of treatment technologies.
pH in the corrosive range (<2 and >12) can damage equipment and
typically requires use of personal protection equipment and other
special handling procedures.
Porosity
This characteristic is important to in situ technologies, such as soil
bioventing, soil vapor extraction, and groundwater sparging, that
rely upon use of a driving force to transfer contaminants into an
aqueous or air-filled space. Porosity affects the driving force and
therefore the performance achieved by the technologies.
Transmissivity
This characteristic is important for groundwater pump and treat or
fluid cycling systems. Transmissivity affects the zone of influence
in this type of remediation, thereby affecting the number of wells
needed and the cost of operating the wells.
Organics
Total organic carbon (TOC)
TOC affects the desorption of contaminants from soil and affects in
situ soil remediation, soil washing, stabilization, and in situ
groundwater bioremediation. TOC content may differ in
uncontaminated and contaminated soil.
Oil and grease (O&G) or total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)
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.
Nonaqueous phase liquids (NAPL)
NAPLs may be a continuing source of contaminants for in situ
technologies. The presence of NAPLs may lead to increased
contaminant loads and therefore to increases in the costs or length
of operating periods necessary to achieve cleanup goals. Under
certain conditions, NAPLs may interfere directly with the operation
of the treatment process.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A (continued)
POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
OF MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*
Parameters
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
Operating Parameters
System Parameters
Air flow rate
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 that involve oxidation
processes, this parameter affects the availability of oxygen and the
rate at which oxidation occurs (for biotreatment or incineration
processes).
Mixing rate/frequency
The mixing rate affects the rate of biological activity (through
increased contact between oxygen and contaminants) and
volatilization of contaminants.
Moisture content
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 if biodegradation is to occur, and water typically is added to a
soil to maintain a level of moisture sufficient to support
biodegradation.
Operating pressure/vacuum
Operating pressure or 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
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 on
the basis of the solubility of the contaminant at that pH.
Pumping rate
Pumping rate affects the amount of time required to remediate a
contaminated area and is important to technologies that involve
extraction of groundwater, such as soil flushing, and pump and
treat systems.
Residence time
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 continues.
System throughput
System throughput affects the costs of capital equipment required
for a remediation and operating labor for such ex situ technologies
as slurry phase soil bioremediation, soil washing, incineration, and
thermal desorption.
A-3
-------
APPENDIX A (continued)
POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
OF MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*
Parameters
Temperature
Washing/flushing solution
components/additives and dosage
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
In bioremediation technologies, temperature affects the rate of
biological activity. In 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 additives affect the solubility and rate of extraction of
contaminants and therefore affect the costs of constructing and
operating flushing and washing equipment.
Biological Activity
Biomass concentration
Microbial activity
Oxygen uptake rate (OUR)
Carbon dioxide evolution
Hydrocarbon degradation
Nutrients and other soil amendments
Soil loading rate
Biomass concentration is an important parameter for slurry -phase
soil bioremediation and in situ groundwater biodegradation.
Biomass is necessary to effect treatment and therefore the
concentration of biomass is related directly to performance.
Microbial activity is an important parameter for soil bioventing,
land treatment, composting, and slurry -phase soil bioremediation
technologies. Hydrocarbon degradation commonly is used as an
indicator of treatment performance for these technologies, while
OUR and carbon dioxide evolution are used in specific applications
to supplement the data on hydrocarbon degradation.
Nutrients and other soil amendments can affect ex situ soil
remediation technologies, such as land soil bioventing, treatment,
composting, and slurry -phase soil bioremediation, and in situ
groundwater biodegradation, since this parameter directly affects
the rate of biological activity and therefore biodegradation of
contaminants
The soil loading rate affects the rate of biological activity and can
affect the costs of operation of the technology.
* The parameters shown here are in addition to the items identified on Table 4-1 as important for affecting a
technology's cost or performance. These additional parameters are:
1. Contaminants: type and concentration (initial and final, organic and inorganic, as appropriate)
2. Environmental setting: geology, stratigraphy, and hydrogeology
3. Quantity of material treated
4. Cleanup goals and requirements: cleanup levels, schedules, sampling and analysis
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES FOR MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS
AND OPERATING PARAMETERS
-------
APPENDIX B
MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES FOR MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS
AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*
Parameter
Measurement Procedures
Important to
Document
Measurement
Procedure?
Matrix Characteristics
Soil Types
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle
Size Distribution
Soil classification is a semiempirical measurement of
sand, silt, clay, gravel, and loam content. Several soil
classification methods are in use, including the ASTM
Standard D 2488-90, the Practice for Description and
Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), and
the USDA and CSSC systems.
Clay content or particle size distribution is measured by
application of a variety of soil classification systems,
including ASTM D 2488-90 under soil classification.
Yes
Yes
Aggregate Soil Properties
Hydraulic Conductivity/
Water Permeability
Moisture Content
Hydraulic conductivity /water permeability can be
determined through several procedures. Hydraulic
conductivity, which is a measure of the ease with which
water flows through soil, typically is 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 U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency SW-846 is used to measure
permeability, as well as several ASTM standards: D 2434-
68 (1974), Test Method for Permeability of Granular
Soils (Constant Head); D 4630-86, Test Method for
Determining Transmissivity and Storativity of Low
Permeability Rocks by In Situ Measurements Using the
Constant Head Injection Test; andD 4631-86, Test
Method for Determining Transmissivity and Storativity of
Low Permeability Rocks by In Situ Measurements Using
the Pressure Pulse Technique.
Procedures for measuring soil moisture content are
standard. Soil moisture content typically is measured
according to a gravimetric ASTM standard, D 2216-90,
Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water
(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock.
Yes
No
B-l
-------
APPENDIX B (continued)
MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES FOR MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS
AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*
Parameter
Measurement Procedures
Important to
Document
Measurement
Procedure?
Air Permeability
Air permeability is a measure of the ease with which air
flows 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
pH
pH is a measure of the degree of acidity or alkalinity of a
matrix. Procedures for measuring and reporting pH are
standard 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).
No
Porosity
Porosity is the volume of air- or water-filled voids in a
mass of soil. Procedures for measuring and reporting
porosity are standard. 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.
No
Transmissivity
Transmissivity, the flow from a saturated zone, is the
product of hydraulic conductivity and aquifer thickness.
No1
Organics
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
TOC is a measure of the total organic carbon content of a
matrix. Measurement of TOC is standard (for example,
Method 9060 in EPA SW-846).
No
Oil & Grease (O&G) or
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TPH)
Procedures for measuring O&G and TPH are standard.
O&G is measured by Method 9070 in EPA SW-846, and
TPH is measured by Method 9073. A TPH analysis is
similar to an O&G analysis, with an additional extraction
step. TPH does not include nonpetroleum fractions, such
as animal fats and humic and fulvic acids.
No
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids
(NAPLs)
There is no standard method of measurement for
determining the presence of NAPLs; rather, their presence
is determined by examining groundwater and identifying
a separate phase. NAPLs are reported as present or not
present.
Yes
The measurement of hydraulic conductivity is important to document; since transmissivity is a product of hydraulic
conductivity and thickness of the aquifer, it would not be necessary to document the measurement procedure for this
characteristic.
B-2
-------
APPENDIX B (continued)
MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES FOR MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS
AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*
Parameter
Measurement Procedures
Important to
Document
Measurement
Procedure?
Operating Parameters
System Parameters
Air Flow Rate
Mixing Rate/Frequency
Moisture Content
Operating Pressure/Vacuum
pH
Pumping Rate
Residence Time
System Throughput
The air flow rate is a parameter set for a vapor extraction
or treatment system. The measurement of air flow rate is
standard (for example, measured by 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 standard. Soil moisture content typically is
measured according to a gravimetric ASTM standard: D
2216-90, Test Method for Laboratory Determination of
Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock. Moisture
content as are operating parameter of a treatment system
characterizes the amount of water and aqueous reagent
added to the soil (for example, moisture content for slurry-
phase bioremediation refers to the ratio of solid to liquid).
Operating pressure or vacuum is measured by a pressure
or vacuum gauge, such as a manometer. The
measurement of this parameter is standard.
Procedures for measuring and reporting pH are standard
(for example, Method 9045 in EPA SW-846). During
ex situ treatment, the pH of soil and groundwater is
adjusted as an operating parameter by 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 by a flow
meter or a bucket and stopwatch.
Residence time is the amount of time during which 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 remains in the treatment system.
System throughput is the amount of material that is
processed in a treatment system per unit of time.
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
B-3
-------
APPENDIX B (continued)
MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES FOR MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS
AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*
Parameter
Measurement Procedures
Important to
Document
Measurement
Procedure?
Temperature
Temperature is measured by a thermometer or
thermocouple.
No
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 types and
concentrations of additives for a particular treatment
application are determined by site and waste
characterization, conducted of treatability and
performance tests, and application of the operator's
judgment. The actual amounts added are measured by the
volume and concentration of additive solutions metered
into the treatment system.
No
Biological Activity
Biomass Concentration
Biomass concentration is the number of microorganisms
per unit volume in a treated or untreated aqueous matrix.
Biomass concentrations typically are 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
Microbial Activity
Oxygen Uptake Rate (OUR)
Carbon Dioxide Evolution
Hydrocarbon Degradation
Oxygen uptake, carbon dioxide evolution, and
hydrocarbon degradation are used to measure the rate of
biodegradation in a treatment system. Oxygen uptake is
measured according to 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 TPH (EPA SW-846
Method 9073).
Yes
B-4
-------
APPENDIX B (continued)
MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES FOR MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS
AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*
Parameter
Nutrients and Other Soil
Amendments
Soil Loading Rate
Measurement Procedures
Nutrients usually consist of nitrogen and phosphorus (and
trace inorganic constituents such as calcium and
magnesium) and typically are reported as a ratio of carbon
to nitrogen to phosphorus. Carbon is measured as total
organic carbon by with EPA SW-846 Method 9060.
Nitrogen is measured as both ammonia nitrogen
according to using ASTM D 1426-89, Test Methods for
Ammonia Nitrogen in Water, and as nitrite -nitrate
according to ASTM D 3867-90, Test Method for Nitrite-
Nitrate in Water. Phosphorus is measured according to
ASTM D 515-88, Test Methods for Phosphorus in Water.
Calcium and magnesium are measured according to
ASTM D 511-88, Test Method for Calcium and
Magnesium in Water. Other soil amendments may
include bulking agents for composting (for example,
sawdust).
Soil loading rate is the amount of soil applied to a unit
area of a composting system.
Important to
Document
Measurement
Procedure?
Yes
No
* The parameters shown here are in addition to the items identified on Table 4-1 as important for affecting a
technology's cost or performance. These additional parameters are:
1. Contaminants: type and concentration (initial and final, organic and inorganic, as appropriate)
2. Environmental setting: geology, stratigraphy, and hydrogeology
3. Quantity of material treated
4. Cleanup goals and requirements: cleanup levels, schedules, sampling and analysis
B-5
-------
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED FORMAT FOR CASE STUDY
ABSTRACT
-------
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED FORMAT FOR CASE STUDY ABSTRACT
TECHNOLOGY AT SITE NAME, LOCATION
Site Name:
Location:
Contaminants:
Type and concentration
Period of Operation:
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale, demonstration-scale
Vendor:
Name, address, phone no.
Technology:
Type, design, and operations
Cleanup Authority:
Type, date, lead
Additional Contacts:
Name, address, phone no.
Regulatory Contacts:
Name, address, phone no.
Waste Source:
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Type, quantity, properties
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Bulleted information
Results:
Bulleted information
Cost:
Bulleted information
Description:
Brief text description of site, technology application, results, and lessons learned
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D
GENERIC FORMAT FOR COST AND PERFORMANCE
CASE STUDY REPORT
-------
APPENDIX D
GENERIC FORMAT FOR
COST AND PERFORMANCE CASE STUDY REPORT
Site Name
SITE INFORMATION
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION:
Site Name:
Location:
CERCLIS ID No.:
Regulatory Context: (for example, date for Record of Decision)
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
Period of Operation:
Quantity of Material Treated during Application: (also provide basis for estimate)
BACKGROUND
Waste Management Practice That Contributed to Contamination: (for example, leaks and spills
from waste storage)
Site History: (brief, focusing on sources of contamination)
Remedy Selection: (brief summary of the selected remedy and the basis for selection)
SITE LOGISTICS/CONTACTS
(Provide name, address, telephone, e-mail)
Site Lead:
Oversight:
Regulatory Contact:
Technology System Vendor/Consultant:
Additional Contacts:
D-l
-------
Site Name
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
MATRIX IDENTIFICATION
Type of Matrix Processed Through Technology System: (for example, soil or groundwater)
CONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION
Primary Contaminant Groups and Concentrations Measured During Site Investigation:
Identify nature and extent of contamination; include site map showing locations, as appropriate
Contaminant Properties:
Include tabular list of properties such as solubility, partition coefficients, boiling points
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING TECHNOLOGY COST OR PERFORMANCE
(Provide information on relevant parameters for the application)
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size Distribution
Additional Soil Characteristics (specify)
Value
Measurement
Procedure
SITE GEOLOGY/STRATIGRAPHY
Describe heterogeneity, depth to groundwater, size and characteristics of applicable aquifers and units
(especially important for in situ technologies)
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
PRIMARY TECHNOLOGY
Technology name
SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNOLOGY TYPES
Example - Post-Treatment (Air): Technology name(s)
Example - Post-Treatment (Water): Technology name(s)
D-2
-------
Site Name
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
System Description
(Include a description of system; provide a process flow diagram if available; identify key design
criteria)
System Operation
(Include a description of system operation, identify the remediation technology plan and how operation
compared with the plan, including any operational problems; describe activities used to perform system
optimization)
OPERATING PARAMETERS AFFECTING TECHNOLOGY COST OR PERFORMANCE
(Provide information on relevant operating parameters for the application.)
Parameter
Example: Temperature
Others (as appropriate)
Value
TIMELINE
(Provide dates for key activities for the application, focusing on events related to technology.)
Start Date
End Date
Activity
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
CLEANUP GOALS/STANDARDS
Please specify for media treated as well as applicable standards for related parameters such as air
emissions and effluent discharges.
PERFORMANCE DATA
Tabular and/or graphical presentation of analytical data for media treated before, during, and after
technology application, as appropriate. (Include site map showing sampling locations, as appropriate)
D-3
-------
Site Name
PERFORMANCE DATA ASSESSMENT
Objective comparison of performance data, including direct comparison of performance data with
cleanup goals and standards.
PERFORMANCE DATA QUALITY
Briefly describe quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures used in application, and note any
exceptions to those procedures.
COST OF THE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM
PROCUREMENT PROCESS
Number of bids, competitive nature of procurement process, names and roles of selected contractors.
COST DATA
(Identify organization that provided cost data and whether cost data are actual or estimated costs)
Item
Capital (specify cost/activity)
Operation and maintenance (specify cost/activity)
Other (specify)
Cost ($ Year Basis)
Actual or Estimated
(A or E)
(For relatively short-term applications, O&M costs may be reported as a total value for the application;
however, for longer-term applications, annual O&M costs should be reported.)
REGULATORY/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
Identify the approvals, licenses, and permits required to operate the technology at the site.
TECHNOLOGY APPLICABILITY AND ALTERNATIVES
(Provide only for demonstration-scale reports)
Identify technology applicability, competing technologies, and technology maturity; may also discuss
commercialization and intellectual property issues.
D-4
-------
Site Name
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
COST OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Provide observations and lessons learned related to cost of the application.
PERFORMANCE OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Provide observations and lessons learned related to performance of the application.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Provide additional observations and lessons learned for the application, and an assessment about
potential use at other sites.
List of references used in preparation of the cost and performance report.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Name of organization(s) that prepared case study report, and corresponding contract number (as
appropriate).
D-5
-------
APPENDIX E
ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC WORK GROUP ON COST AND PERFORMANCE
-------
APPENDIX E
ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC WORK GROUP
ON COST AND PERFORMANCE
Listed below are members of the Work Group who participated in revising the Interagency Guide. The
members listed may also be involved in efforts to collect cost and performance data.
William Anderson
American Academy of
Environmental Engineers
130 Holiday Court, Suite 100
Annapolis, MD 21401
Maria Bayon
NASA (Code JE)
300 E Street, SW
Washington, DC 20546
Skip Chamberlain
U.S. Department of Energy
EM-53, Clover Leaf Bldg.
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown, MD 20874-2290
Scott Edwards
OADUSD
3400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-3400
Edward Engbert
U.S. Army Environmental Center
ATTN: SFIM-AEC-ETD
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010
Gordon Evans
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ORD/NRMRL
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Bob Furlong
HQ-USAF/CEVR
1260 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330-1260
Mike Goldstein
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401M Street, SW (5202G)
Washington, DC 20460
Stan Hanson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CEMRD-ET-E
12565 West Center Road
Omaha, NE 68144
Steve Hirsh
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
841 Chestnut Building (3HW50)
Philadelphia, PA 19107
John Kingscott (Chairman)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Innovation Office
401 M Street, SW (5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
Donna Kuroda
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CEMP-RT
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20314
Mac Lankford
U.S. Department of Energy (EM-55)
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585
Kelly Madalinski
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Innovation Office
401 M Street, SW (5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
Jeff Marqusee
ODUSD (ES)
3400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-3400
E-l
-------
APPENDIX E (continued)
ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC WORK GROUP
ON COST AND PERFORMANCE
Mary McCune
U.S. Department of Energy
(EM-43), Clover Leaf Bldg.
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown, MD 20874-1290
Steven McNeely
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OUST
401M Street, SW (5403G)
Washington, DC 20460
David Morganwalp
U.S. Geological Survey
412 National Center
Reston,VA 22092
Robert Nash
Naval Facilities Engineering
Service Center (ESC414RN)
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Margaret Patterson
U.S. Air Force
129 Andrews Street, Suite 102
ACC CEVRW
Langley AFB, VA 23665
Kate Peterson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CEMRD-ET-E
12565 West Center Road
Omaha, NE 68144
Johnnie Shockley
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CEMRD-ET-E
12565 West Center Road
Omaha, NE 68144
Ken Skahn
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OERR (5203G)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Bryan Skokan
U.S. Department of Energy
EM-42
Cloverleaf Building
Washington, DC 20585
Rob Smith
Code ENV-CLEANUP
Naval Facility Engineering Command
Washington Navy Yard
1322 Patterson Avenue, S.E., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20374-5065
Dennis A. Teefy
U.S. Army Environmental Center
ATTN: SFIM-AEC-ETD
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
Stephen Warren
U.S. Department of Energy (EM-43)
19901 Germantown Rd.
Germantown, MD 20874
Stan Wolf
U.S. Department of Energy (EM-55)
100 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585
E-2
-------
APPENDIX F
MEMBERS OF FEDERAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES ROUNDTABLE
-------
APPENDIX F
MEMBERS OF FEDERAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES ROUNDTABLE
James Arnold
U.S. Army Environmental Center
SFIM-AEC-ET Building E4430
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010
Gerald Boyd
Deputy Assistant Secretary
U.S. Department of Energy
ERWM (EM-50)
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
Col. James Dries DAIM-ED
Asst. Chief of Staff - Installation Management
600 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-0600
James Fiore
U.S. Department of Energy (EM-40)
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
Brian Harrison
Code ENV
Naval Facility Engineering Command
Washington Navy Yard
1322 Patterson Avenue, S.E., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20374-5065
Dr. Joe Hoagland, Manager
Land and Water Sciences and Remediation
Tennessee Valley Authority
Environmental Research and Services/CTR-2R
Muscle Shoals, AL 35662
Craig Hooks
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OFFE
401 M Street, SW (2261)
Washington, DC 20460
Dr. Tom Houlihan, Director
Interagency Environmental Technologies Office
730 Jackson Place, NW
Washington, DC 20503
Lt. Col. Ray Knight
USAF/ILEVR
1260 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330-1260
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D. (Chairman)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Innovation Office
401 M Street, SW (5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
Phillip Newkirk, Acting Center Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ORIA
Center for Remediation, Technology & Tools
401M Street, SW (6602J)
Washington, DC 20460
Timothy Oppelt
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ORD
National Risk Management Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
John Powell
U.S. Geological Survey
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 404
Reston,VA 20192
Patricia Rivers
Environmental Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CEMP-RT
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Col. John Selstrom
AFCEE/ERT
3207 North Road
Brooks AFB, TX 78235
Edward Wandelt (G-HCV-1)
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters
2100 Second Street, SW, Room 6109
Washington, DC 20593-0001
F-l
-------
APPENDIX F (continued)
MEMBERS OF FEDERAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES ROUNDTABLE
James Woolford Dr. Robert J. York
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Army Environmental Center
FFRRO SFIM-AEC-IR, Building E4480
401 M Street, SW (5101) Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010
Washington, DC 20460
Dr. James Wright
Code ENV
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Washington Navy Yard
1322 Patterson Avenue, S.E., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20374-5065
F-2
------- |