United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102G)
EPA542-R-00-013
February 2001
clu-in.org
&EPA
Cost Analyses for Selected
Groundwater Cleanup Projects:
Pump and Treat Systems
and Permeable Reactive Barriers
SUMMARY
Groundwater contamination is present at many Superfund and' RCRA corrective action sites. Groundwater cleanup
technologies, such as pump-and-treat (P&T) systems and permeable reactive barriers (PRBs), are being used at a
number of those sites. Information about the costs of groundwater cleanup technologies and factors that affect those
costs may be valuable to site managers, technology developers and users, and others involved in groundwater
remediation efforts to identify and evaluate those technologies for new and ongoing projects. This report presents
the results of an analysis, performed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), of costs for groundwater
cleanup incurred at 48 sites (the 32 P&T sites and 16 PRB sites listed in Exhibit 1). The report is based on data in
case studies prepared by EPA and other members of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) and
by the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF), and supplements EPA's analysis of 28 groundwater
remediation projects (Groundwater Cleanup: Overview of Operating Experience at 28 Sites, September 1999,
EPA 542-R-99-006).
The analysis of the 48 sites found that there is a significant amount of variability in the costs of groundwater
cleanups and that many of the factors that affect costs are site-specific. However, the following overall conclusions
can be drawn:
• The types of contaminant groups in the groundwater affect the capital costs of a P&T system. In general, capital
costs and annual operating costs were lower for sites at which chlorinated solvents are present, alone or with
other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), than for sites at which other combinations of contaminants (such as
VOCs with metals) are present. For sites at which complex combinations are present, it generally was necessary
to use more complex aboveground treatment systems.
• The types of above-ground treatment affect the annual operating costs of a P&T system. For P&T sites at which
chlorinated solvents are present, alone or with other VOCs, and at which air stripping or granular activated
carbon (GAC) treatment only are used, annual operating costs were lower than for sites at which the same
contaminants are present but a wider variety of treatment technologies are used. The additional treatment
technologies sometimes require additional labor and use of both chemicals and energy.
• For the sites in this analysis, the capital costs for PRBs generally were lower than those for P&T systems.
Decisions about whether a PRB or P&T system would be less expensive for a given site generally are based on
total life-cycle costs for each type of system (including total capital and operating costs); such site-specific
factors as hydrogeology, contaminant type, extent of contamination, and remedial goals often are considered in
making such decisions. In addition, PRBs may not be technically feasible at all sites.
The FRTR includes senior executives of eight agencies that have an interest in exchanging information about remediation
technologies. Primary members include the U.S. Departments of Defense, Energy, and the Interior, and EPA. Other
participants include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Tennessee
Valley Authority, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Information about the Roundtable is available through the FRTR's web site at
. Information about the P&T sites was obtained from FRTR case studies.
The RTDF includes members representing industry, government, and academia who have an interest in identifying steps
government and industry can take together to develop and improve the environmental technologies needed to address their
mutual cleanup problems in the safest, most cost-effective manner possible. Information about the RTDF is available through
the RTDF's web site at . Information about PRB sites was obtained primarily from an RTDF report; limited
information was obtained from FRTR and other sources.
-------
• Economies of scale were observed when the P&T system treats relatively large volumes of groundwater. For
systems treating more than 20 million gallons of groundwater per year, capital and annual operating costs per
volume of groundwater treated per year appear to be lower than those costs for systems treating less than 20
million gallons per year.
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING SITES FOR ANALYSIS
Exhibit 2 provides a description of P&T and PRB technologies. In selecting sites for this analysis, the available
FRTR and RTDF case studies were screened using the following criteria:
• The P&T or PRB system was operated on a full-scale basis (rather than as a pilot-scale or field
demonstration).
• For P&T sites, information was available about the capital cost, the annual average operating cost, and the
amount of groundwater treated per year of system operation; for PRB sites, information was available about
the capital cost.
• For P&T sites, aquifer cleanup goals (not containment-only goals) had been established.
For the analysis, 48 sites were identified (32 P&T sites and 16 PRB sites, including one site at which a PRB
replaced a P&T system), as shown in Exhibit 1.
EXHIBIT 1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF SELECTED SITES
Site Nam? > ':^ "• '"''^ > ' "^
P&T Sites (32)
Amoco Petroleum Pipeline, Michigan
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site, Massachusetts
Bofors Nobel Superfund Site, OU 1, Michigan
City Industries Superfund Site, Florida
Des Moincs TCE Superfund Site, OU 1, Iowa
Former Firestone Facility Superfund Site, California
Former Intersil, Inc. Site, California*
French Limited Superfund Site, Texas
Gold Coast Superfund Site, Florida
JMT Facility RCRA Site (formerly Black & Decker), New York
Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site, New Hampshire
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site, New
LaSallc Electrical Superfund Site, Illinois
Libby Groundwater Superfund Site, Montana
McClellan Air Force Base Superfund Site, OU B/C California ,
Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site, Arkansas
Mystery Bridge at Highway 20 Superfund Site, DOW/DSI,
Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site, OU 2, Texas
Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site, OU 2, Texas
Old Mill Superfund Site, Ohio
SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site, South Carolina
Site A (confidential Superfund site), New York
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site, Texas
Solid State Circuits Superfund Site, Missouri
Solvent Recovery Services of New England, Inc. Superfund Site,
Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site, New Hampshire
Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant Superfund Site (TCAAP),
United Chrome Superfund Site, Oregon
U.S. Aviex Superfund Site, Michigan
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Kansas City Plant, Missouri
U.S. DOE, Savannah River site, A/M Area, South Carolina
Western Processing Superfund Site, Washington
PRB Sites (16)
Aircraft Maintenance Facility, Oregon
Caldwcll Trucking, New Jersey
Federal Highway Administration Facility, Colorado
Former Drycleaning Site, Germany
Former Intersil, Inc. Site, California*
Former Manufacturing Site, New Jersey
Industrial Site, Kansas
Industrial Site. New York
Industrial Site, Northern Ireland
Industrial Site, South Carolina
Kansas City Plant, Missouri
Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado
Marzone Inc./Chevron Chemical Company, Georgia
Nickel Rim Mine Site, Ontario, Canada
U.S. Coast Guard Support Center, North Carolina
Y-12 Site. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee
*Both a PRB and a P&T system were operated at the former Intersil site.
-------
EXHIBIT 2. SELECT GROUNDWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Pump and Treat (P&T)
P&T involves extracting contaminated groundwater through recovery wells or trenches and treating the groundwater by ex situ
(aboveground) processes, such as air stripping, carbon adsorption, biological reactors, or chemical precipitation. Variables in
the design of a typical P&T system include:
• The number and pumping rate of groundwater extraction points (determined by such factors as the extent of
contamination and the productivity of the contaminated aquifer)
• The ex situ treatment processes employed (determined by such factors as system throughput and the contaminants that
require remediation)
• The discharge location for the effluent from the treatment plant (determined by such factors as location of the site and
regulatory requirements)
Additional information about the fundamentals of P&T technology can be found in Design Guidelines for Conventional
Pump-and-Treat Systems.
Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRBs)
A PRB is an in situ (below-ground) treatment zone of reactive material that degrades or immobilizes contaminants as
groundwater flows through it. PRBs are installed as permanent, semi-permanent, or replaceable units across the flow path of a
contaminated plume. Natural gradients transport contaminants through strategically placed media. The media degrade, sorb,
precipitate, or otherwise remove groundwater contaminants. The choice of the reactive media for a PRB is based on the
specific organic or inorganic contaminant to be remediated. Most PRBs installed to date use zero-valent iron (Fe°) as the
reactive medium for converting contaminants to nontoxic or immobile species. Other applications under development use
limestone, organic carbon, or bone char phosphate. The hydrogeologic setting at the site also is crucial; PRBs are best applied
to shallow, unconfined aquifer systems in unconsolidated deposits, as long as the reactive material is more conductive than the
aquifer.
Most PRBs are installed in one of two basic configurations: funnel-and-gate or continuous trench, although other techniques
such as hydrofracturing also are used. The funnel-and-gate system employs impermeable walls to direct the contaminated
plume through a gate, or treatment zone, that contains the reactive media. In a continuous trench configuration, a trench is
installed across the entire path of the plume and is filled with reactive media. Most PRBs installed to date have had depths of
50 feet (ft) or less. PRBs having depths of 30 ft or less can be installed with a continuous trencher, while those installed at
depths between 30 and 70 ft require a more innovative installation method, such as biopolymers. Installation of PRBs at
depths greater than 70 ft is more challenging.
IMPORTANT DATA CONSIDERATIONS
Several important considerations related to the data and results presented in this report are listed below:
• The sites selected are not a statistically representative sample of groundwater remediation projects; rather,
they present a range of the types of systems that are used to clean up groundwater at Superfund and RCRA
corrective action sites.
• Cost data were provided by EPA remedial project managers (RPMs), site owners, or vendors; include both
actual and estimated costs of groundwater cleanup; and were not verified independently by EPA.
• Groundwater cleanup has been completed at only two of the 32 P&T sites and is ongoing at the other P&T
sites. For the 30 P&T sites where remediation is ongoing, the costs presented in this report do not necessarily
represent the total cost of cleaning up groundwater at the site.
• Because groundwater cleanup is ongoing at most of the sites and the total time necessary to complete cleanup
is not known, this report presents the average annual operating costs rather than the total operating costs
incurred during site remediation. Likewise, no net present value (NPV) was calculated for the remedial costs
because additional costs will be incurred at sites at which remediation is ongoing, and the length of time each
system will operate in the future is not known. Rather, costs are presented as unit costs (cost per year or cost
per 1,000 gallons). The unit costs are described in more detail later in this report.
• The costs for PRB and P&T systems presented in this report may include costs for source control remedies
(such as slurry walls) employed at the sites, when the source control was an integrated part of the groundwater
cleanup. Exhibits 10 and 11 present the components included in the costs for each of the sites included in this
analysis.
-------
METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING THE COSTS OF P&T AND PRB TECHNOLOGIES
Total capital and total annual operating costs were provided in the individual case studies by EPA RPMs, site
owners, and vendors. For this analysis, the following methodology was used to calculate unit costs and adjusted
costs for the 48 sites.
Unit Costs
There are several ways in which unit costs can be calculated for groundwater remediation systems. The following
three types of unit costs were used in this analysis:
• Average operating cost per year of operation: This value was calculated by dividing the total operating cost
to date by the number of years represented by that cost. Several factors affect the average operating cost per
year, including throughput of the system, the treatment processes required to treat the extracted groundwater,
and the operating efficiency of the system. Because a breakdown of annual operating costs by year was not
available for most of the sites, the change in operating costs over the life of a site's remediation system could
not be evaluated.
• Capital cost per 1,000 gallons of groundwater treated per year: This value represents the relative costs of
installing remedial systems of various capacities, and is influenced by such factors as:
the complexity of the aquifer (which affect the size and complexity of the system needed to extract the
contaminated groundwater)
the types of contaminants targeted for treatment at the site (which affect the components of the treatment
plant needed to remove the contaminants)
the water and air discharge limits for the particular site (which affect the treatment plant components
needed)
restoration goals (which affect the time frame for cleanup)
• Average annual operating cost per 1,000 gallons of groundwater treated per year: This value represents the
relative costs of operating systems of various capacities and complexities. Similar to the capital cost per
1,000 gallons of groundwater treated per year, this unit cost is highly dependent on such site-specific factors
as the complexity of the aquifer, the types of contaminants targeted for treatment, the water and air discharge
limits, and the restoration goals.
Adjusted Costs
Remediation costs for the selected sites were adjusted for the location of the site (location adjustment) and for the
years in which costs were incurred (inflation adjustment). Those adjustments are described below and in
Appendix A to this report. Appendix A presents the equations used to adjust the total capital and total annual
operating costs; gives equations used to calculate the average annual operating costs; and shows example
calculations for one of the sites.
• Location adjustment: Costs were adjusted for location by multiplying the costs provided for each site by an
Area Cost Factor (ACF) Index published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in PAX Newsletter No. 3.2.1,
dated March 31, 1999 and available at .
• Inflation adjustment: The inflation factor used for this analysis was based on the Construction Cost Index
published by Engineering News Record. The most current year that had an annual average inflation
adjustment factor available at the time of preparing this report was for 1999. Costs were adjusted to year
1999 dollars by multiplying the costs provided for each site by an inflation adjustment factor for the year in
which the costs were incurred. For capital cost time adjustment, the inflation adjustment factor for the actual
year that the costs were incurred was used. For annual operating cost time adjustment, the inflation
adjustment factor for the median year of all years over which the costs were incurred was used. The
Construction Cost Index is available at http://www.enr.com/cost/costcci.asp.
-------
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
This analysis considered six main factors that affect the cost of P&T and PRB technology applications (discussed
in reference 1): (1) characteristics or properties of contaminants present, (2) system design and operation, (3)
source control, (4) hydrogeologic setting, (5) extent of contamination, and (6) remedial goals. The analysis found
that the costs varied significantly between sites and that many of the factors that affect costs are site-specific. In
addition, the amount of information available about each of the factors varied by site. For the analysis, general
conclusions were identified about the effect of a factor when information related to that factor was available for
five or more sites.
Exhibits 3 through 9 present the results of the cost analysis for the 48 sites, with detailed data for each site
summarized in Exhibits 10 and 11 for P&T and PRB sites, respectively. Exhibit 3 provides an overall summary of
the remedial cost and unit cost data for the 48 sites included in the analysis, while Exhibits 4 through 9 present 25th
percentile, 50th percentile (median), 75* percentile, and average costs, based on the types of contaminants present,
the technologies used, and the volume of groundwater treated each year. General conclusions about the effect of
contaminant property factors and system design and operation factors are presented below.
EXHIBIT 3. SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL COST AND UNIT COST DATA FOR 48 SITES
Cost Category
Years of system operation (with
data available)
Average volume of groundwater
treated per year (1,000 gallons
per year)
Total capital cost ($)'
Average operating cost per year
($ per year)1
Capital cost per volume of
groundwater treated per year
($71,000 gallons per year)1
Average annual operating cost
per volume of groundwater
treated per year ($/l,000 gallons
per year)1
P&T Sites (32 Sites)
25th
Percent.
4
7,000
1,700,000
180,000
23
5
Median
5
30,000
2,000,000
260,000
78
16
75th
Percent.
8
100,000
5,900,000
730,000
350
41
Average
6
120,000
4,900,000
770,000
280
32
PRB Sites (16 Sites)
25"
Percent.
NC
NC
440,000
NC2
NC
NC
Median
NC
NC
680,000
NC2
NC
NC
75th
Percent.
NC
NC
1,000,000
NC2
NC
NC
Average
NC
NC
730,000
NC2
NC
NC
Source: FRTR and RTDF: refer to Exhibit 1 for a list of sites.
i
All reported costs were adjusted for site locations and years in which costs were incurred, as described in the text.
2 Two of the case studies at PRB sites (Intersil and USCG) included annual operating costs for the PRB systems. Those costs are
presented in Exhibit 11.
NC = Not calculated; insufficient data available.
Contaminant property factors:
Contaminant properties affect the cost of groundwater remediation systems. These properties define (1) the
relative ease with which contaminants can be removed from the extracted groundwater (by ex situ treatment
technologies), (2) the steps that are required to treat the groundwater, and (3) the complexity of the mixture of
contaminants. Sites analyzed on the basis of contaminant property factors included sites contaminated with
chlorinated solvents, alone or with other VOCs, and sites at which other combinations of contaminants were
present. On the basis of site-specific data, the following conclusions can be made about contaminant property
factors:
-------
The type of contaminant groups in the groundwater affects both the capital and the annual operating cost of a
P&T system, as shown in Exhibit 4. For sites with chlorinated solvents alone or with other VOCs (such as
ethers or ketones), capital costs were lower than those for sites with other combinations of contaminants (such
as chlorinated solvents, BTEX, metals, PCBs, or PAHs). The median capital cost for P&T systems removing
chlorinated solvents, alone or with other VOCs, is $1,900,000, as compared with a median capital cost of
$7,400,000 for P&T systems removing other combinations of contaminants. The type of contaminant groups in
the groundwater has similar effects on the annual operating cost of a P&T system. Sites at which chlorinated
solvents, alone or with other VOCs, were present had lower annual operating costs than sites at which other
combinations of contaminants were present. The median annual operating cost for P&T systems removing
chlorinated solvents alone, or with other VOCs, is $12 per 1,000 gallons treated, as compared with a median
annual operating cost of $39 per 1,000 gallons treated for P&T systems removing other combinations of
contaminants.
EXHIBIT 4. COST COMPARISON OF P&T SYSTEMS THAT TREAT VARIOUS CONTAMINANT GROUPS
Contaminant Group
Cost Range ~ "
iS^Perccntile
Median
TS^Percentile
Average Cost'
Total Capital Cost2
Chlorinated solvents, alone
or with other VOCs
Other combinations of
contaminants (solvents,
BTEX, metals, PCBs or
PAHs)1
$1,200,000
$4,300,000
$1,900,000
$7,400,000
$4,400,000
$15,000,000
$3,600,000
$8,900,000
Average Annual Operating Cost per 1,000 Gallons Treated2'*
Chlorinated solvents, alone
or with other VOCs
Other combinations of
contaminants (solvents,
BTEX, metals, PCBs or
PAHs)1
$3
$10
$12
$39
$40
$61
$26
$53
Number of Sites
18
9
18
9
1 The costs of P&T systems that treat only metals or only BTEX are not included in this exhibit because data were available for only
three such systems. General conclusions were developed about the effect of a factor when information about that factor was
available for five or more sites.
1 All reported costs were adjusted for site locations and years in which costs were incurred, as described in the text.
1 The average volume of groundwater treated per year for the 18 sites at which chlorinated solvents, alone or with other VOCs, were
present and the nine sites at which a combination of contaminants were present are 160,000,000 and 65,000,000 gallons,
respectively.
The type of above-ground treatment affects the annual operating cost of a P&T system. For sites contaminated
with chlorinated solvents, alone or with other VOCs, Exhibit 5 compares the annual operating costs of treatment
systems using air stripping or GAC only with annual operating costs of treatment systems using a wider variety
of treatment technologies. For P&T sites for which remedial cleanup goals had been established for chlorinated
solvents, alone or with other VOCs, and using air stripping or GAC treatment only, annual operating costs were
lower than those for sites for which remedial cleanup goals had been established for the same contaminants but
at which other combinations of treatment technologies, such as biological treatment or filtration, were used.
The median average annual operating cost for P&T systems removing chlorinated solvents with air stripping or
GAC only is $3 per 1,000 gallons treated. The median average annual operating cost for P&T systems
removing the same contaminants with other combinations of treatment technologies is $40 per 1,000 gallons
treated. At sites for which remedial cleanup goals had been established for chlorinated solvents, alone or with
other VOCs, treatment technologies besides air stripping or GAC may be necessary because other substances
present in the groundwater may inhibit the effectiveness of the air stripping or GAC units. For example, at Sol
Lynn, the initial treatment system included an air stripper and GAC unit only. However, an iron filter was
added to the treatment train to minimize fouling of the packing of the air stripper. Such additional treatment
technologies may require additional labor and use of chemicals or electricity.
-------
EXHIBIT 5. ANNUAL OPERATING COST COMPARISON OF VARIOUS P&T TECHNOLOGIES AT SITES
CONTAMINATED WITH CHLORINATED SOLVENTS, ALONE OR WITH OTHER VOCs
*•* - ' t <
? Treatment Technology' -^
AS and/or GAC treatment
only
Other combination of
treatment technologies (see
Exhibit 10)
All sites with chlorinated
solvents, alone or with other
VOCs
* " - Average Annual Qperatmg^jCosfper l,00(M3aUo»s Treated*-2 **•*
25th PercenUfe ,($)''•'
2
28
3
Median (fe ", "~
3
40
12
•w ', ^
75* Percent ile <$)
12
41
40
Number of Sites
11
7
18
' All reported costs were adjusted for site locations and years when costs were incurred, as described in the text.
2 The average volume of groundwater treated per year for the 1 1 sites at which air stripping (AS) or granular activated carbon (GAC)
was used, the 7 sites at which other combinations of treatment technologies were used, and the 1 8 sites at which chlorinated solvents
alone or with other VOCs, were present are 260,000,000; 19,000,000; and 160,000,000 gallons, respectively.
System design and operation factors:
The cost of a groundwater remediation system is affected by a number of factors including the type of treatment
technologies used to remediate the site, the adequacy of a system design to remediate the site, system downtime,
system optimization efforts, the amount and type of monitoring performed, and the use of multiple primary
treatment technologies (for example, P&T and an in situ technology). On the basis of site-specific data, the
following conclusions can be made about system design and operation factors:
• For the sites included in the analysis, the total capital costs for PRBs generally were lower than those for P&T
systems. As demonstrated in Exhibit 6, the 75th percentile of total capital costs for the 16 PRB projects
($1,000,000) was less than the 25th percentile of total capital costs for the 32 P&T projects ($1,700,000). The
data included in the analysis show that the total capital cost of a very large PRB may approach the total capital
cost of a small P&T system. In addition, the median total capital cost for the 32 P&T projects is $2,000,000;
the median total capital cost for the 16 PRB projects is $680,000. Decisions about whether a PRB or P&T
system would be less expensive for a given site generally are based on total life-cycle costs for each type of
system; such site-specific factors as hydrogeology, contaminant type, extent of contamination, and remedial
goals should be considered in making those decisions. Further, PRBs may not be feasible at every site;
therefore, a comparison of P&T and PRB systems may not be appropriate for a given site.
EXHIBIT 6. CAPITAL COST COMPARISON OF P&T AND PRB SYSTEMS
*" " Technology -
P&T
PRBs
£• <; Capital Cost Range1 C, /-. 'C
^aS* Percentile ($} -
1,700,000
440,000
f ^ ~
, Median,($)
2,000,000
680,000
75* Percentile ($)„
5,900,000
1,000,000
Average-
Capital
:i( COSt1 ($)
4,900,000
730,000
Number of- -
32
16
1 All reported costs were adjusted for site locations and years when costs were incurred, as described in the text
Two of the case studies at PRB sites included annual operating costs for the PRB systems. The adjusted annual
operating costs for the PRBs at those sites are $75,000 at the U.S. Coast Guard site and $120,000 at the Intersil
site. The annual operating costs included in the analysis are those for relatively new PRB systems, and
operating costs included monitoring costs only; maintenance was not required during the period of operation for
which data were available. As a PRB system ages, maintenance of the system may be required, including
replacement of the exhausted reactive medium and other repairs of the PRB system. Decisions about whether a
PRB or a P&T system would be less expensive would include an analysis of total life-cycle costs for each type
-------
of system. Again, such site-specific factors as hydrogeology, contaminant type, extent of contamination, and
remedial goals should be considered in making those decisions.
Economies of scale were observed when relatively large volumes of groundwater were treated annually by a
P&T system. For sites at which more than 20 million gallons of groundwater per year are treated, the capital
and annual operating costs per volume of groundwater treated per year appear to be lower than at sites where 20
million gallons or less are treated per year. As Exhibit 7 shows, the median capital costs per volume of
groundwater treated per year for P&T sites at which 20 million gallons or less are treated per year and for those
at which more than 20 million gallons are treated per year are $440 per 1,000 gallons per year and $24 per
1,000 gallons per year, respectively. The data show a similar trend in annual operating costs per volume of
groundwater treated per year. The median average annual operating costs per volume of groundwater treated
per year for P&T sites at which 20 million gallons or less are treated per year and for those at which more than
20 million gallons are treated per year are $42 per 1,000 gallons per year and $5 per 1,000 gallons per year,
respectively.
Exhibits 8 and 9 show the distribution of the unit capital costs and the average annual operating costs for the
P&T sites included in the analysis, respectively, as a function of volume of groundwater treated per year. For
sites at which more than 20 million gallons per year are treated, operating and capital costs are lower than costs
for sites at which 20 million gallons or less per year are treated. Unit costs vary more for sites at which 20
million gallons or less per year are treated than for sites at which 20 million or more gallons per year are
treated. Because of the variability in the costs, these data are not intended for use in making estimates of costs
for other sites.
EXHIBIT 7. COMPARISON OF UNIT TREATMENT COST FOR P&T SITES
WITH VOLUME TREATED PER YEAR
Size of Treatment System
Size
(1,000 gallons/year)
; Cost Range - ,,
25a"Percentile
v Median
75a"Percentile ,
>
Average ,&
Cost '
' 0 1< »
s ,- •• ,/• ,
" • Number of
/ Sites, ^ ,
Capital Cost Per Volume of Groundwater Treated Per Year ($/l,000 gallons/year)1
<: 20,000
> 20,000
$200
$14
$440
$24
$730
$62
$580
$49
14
18
Average Annual Operating Cost Per Volume of Groundwater Treated Per Year ($/l,000 gallons)u
S 20,000
> 20,000
$33
S3
$42
$5
$64
$7
$62
$10
14
18
1 All reported costs were adjusted for site locations and years when costs were incurred, as described in the text.
2 The average volume of groundwater treated per year for the 14 sites treating 20 million gallons or less of groundwater annually and
the 18 sites treating more than 20 million gallons of groundwater annually are 7,800,000 and 200,000,000 gallons, respectively.
Other Factors - Source control, hydrogeology, extent of contamination, and remedial goals also can have a
significant effect on remediation costs; however, insufficient data were available to develop quantitative
conclusions about the effects of those factors on the costs for the sites' included in the analysis.1 Several site-
specific examples are presented below to demonstrate how each of those factors increase or decrease costs for a
particular site. The examples listed below compare remediation costs for P&T sites at which the groundwater is
contaminated with chlorinated solvents, alone or with other VOCs. The examples also are presented in Exhibits
10 and 11, which include costs and information about the factors that affect the costs for all 48 sites included in the
analysis.
There are several tools available that are used to estimate the costs for use of groundwater (and other) cleanup
technologies, and that address these types of factors. Tools include products such as RACER and RS Means9.
Additional information on these products is available through the RACER and RS Means® web sites, at
<\vmv.talpart.com/products/racer/racerabout.html> and , respectively.
-------
EXHIBIT 8. CAPITAL COST FOR PUMP AND TREAT SYSTEMS AS A FUNCTION OF QUANTITY TREATED PER YEAR
4,000 -
= 3,500 -
c
•u
S
a
o
3,000 -
2,500 -
| S
c «
U
®<3
| I 2,000
|i
«
3
D.
(0
U
1,500 -
1,000 -
500 -
0
Lower
Confidence
Limit
Best Fit
Upper Confidence Limit
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Average Gallons Treated Per Year (1,000 Gallons/Year)
1. All reported costs were adjusted for site locations and years when costs were incurred, as described in the text.
2. This chart shows a solid line based on a best fit of the available data for the 32 P&T sites, and dashed lines for the upper and lower confidence intervals using a 95% degree of confidence. The
lines were drawn based on the results from a statistical analysis of the available data, using SAS JMP software; the specific methodology used to draw the lines is described more fully in the EPA
report titled "Year 2000 Remediation Technology Cost Compendium" (under preparation by EPA's Technology Innovation Office). This chart shows an expanded view of the data points within
the ranges shown, and does not include several sites that are treating more than 300,000 gallons per year.
-------
EXHIBIT 9. ANNUAL OPERATING COST FOR PUMP AND TREAT SYSTEMS AS A FUNCTION OF QUANTITY TREATED PER YEAR
400
to
•a
I
o
350-
300-
I
O
•S £
0=2
E co
= CD
O o
> §
Is
w "~*
o
O
D)
•C
Q.
O
|
250-
200-
150
100
50
Lower
Confidence
Limit
-> Best Fit
Upper Confidence Limit
50,000
100,000 150,000 200,000
Average Gallons Treated Per Year (1,000 Gallons/Year)
250,000
300,000
I. All reported costs were adjusted for site locations and years when costs were incurred, as described in the text.
2 This chart shows a solid line based on a best fit of the available data for the 32 P&T sites, and dashed lines for the upper and lower confidence intervals using a 95% degree of confidence Jhe
' lines were drawn based on the results from a statistical analysis of the available data, using SAS JMP software; the specific methodology used to draw the lines is described more fully in the EPA
report titled "Year 2000 Remediation Technology Cost Compendium" (under preparation by EPA's Technology Innovation Office). This chart shows an expanded view of the data points within
the ranges shown, and does not include several sites that are treating more than 300,000 gallons per year.
10
-------
Source control factors:
The method, timing of application, and success of source controls in mitigating contact of non-aqueous phase
liquids (NAPLs) or other sources of contaminants, such as highly contaminated soil, with groundwater affect the
cost of groundwater remediation systems. At several sites, efforts were made to remove NAPL or isolate the
NAPL from contact with the groundwater. Such efforts often involved significant capital expenditures. For
example, at Western Processing, both dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) and light non-aqueous phase
liquids (LNAPLs) were observed in the groundwater. A slurry wall was constructed around the site to contain the
plume and NAPLs and help achieve the cleanup goals in a limited amount of time. Capital costs for construction
of the slurry wall were approximately $1.8 million.
Hydrogeologic factors:
The cost of groundwater remediation systems is affected by the properties of the aquifer. These properties include
hydraulic connection of aquifers that allows for contamination of more than one aquifer, aquifer flow parameters,
influences of adjacent surface water bodies on the aquifer system, and influences of adjacent groundwater
production wells on the aquifer system. The following example illustrates a specific case in which
hydrogeological factors affected the cost of the groundwater remediation technology implemented at the site. At
JMT, the hydraulic conductivity in the contaminated bedrock aquifer was relatively low (0.65 feet per day). To
increase the hydraulic conductivity, controlled blasting was carried out to create an artificial fracture zone, which
served as an interceptor drain in the bedrock around the extraction well. While that approach increased the capital
cost of the system, it allowed effective extraction of the groundwater from the bedrock aquifer by one well
screened in the new fracture zone.
Extent of contamination factors:
The magnitude of the contaminated groundwater plume, including the area and depth of the plume and the
concentration of contaminants within the plume, affect the cost of groundwater remediation systems. Typically,
groundwater contamination that is limited in area and depth is easier and cheaper to remediate than the same mass
of contaminant when it extends deeper and spreads out over a larger area. This factor affects the size of the
extraction and treatment system and the complexity of the system in terms of the quantity of groundwater to be
extracted from the aquifer and treated ex. situ. For example, at Gold Coast, the initial areal extent of the
contaminated plume was estimated to be 0.87 acre, and the initial volume of the plume was estimated to be less
than 3 million gallons. The site was remediated at a total cost of less than $800',000.
Remedial goal factors:
Regulatory factors affect the design of a remedial system or the period of time it must be operated. These factors
include aquifer restoration or treatment system performance goals, and specific system design requirements (such
as disallowing reinjection of treated groundwater or specifying the treatment technology to be used). For example,
at Western Processing, a P&T system, consisting of more than 200 groundwater extraction points pumping
approximately 265 gpm, was installed. After approximately seven years of operation, an ESD was issued to
change the focus of remediation efforts from restoration to containment. Because of that change, the system was
modified to a system pumping approximately 80 gpm, which significantly reduced operating costs for the system.
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by EPA's Technology Innovation Office with support provided under Contract Number
68-W-99-003. Information in this report is derived from a variety of references (including personal
communications with experts in the field), some of which have been peer-reviewed. This report has undergone
EPA and external review by experts in the field. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. For more information about this report, please contact:
Linda Fiedler, U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation Office, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
(MS 5102G), Washington, D.C., 20460; (703) 603-7194; e-mail: fiedler.linda@epa.gov.
11
-------
EXHIBIT 10. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED P&T SITES
Site Name
and Location
Contaminants With
Remedial
Cleanup Goals '
Remediation Technology }
P&T (with ex situ
treatment)'
2
PS
1
^4
|
S
o
CO
CO
1
•
B
6
Years of Operation/Status M
Gallons Treated Per Year
(1,000 Gallons)
Adjusted Capital Cost 1
(Reported Capital Cost) ' j
Adjusted AvJVnn. Opcr. Cost
(Reported Av. Ann. Oper. Cost) **
Adjusted Capital Cost Per Volume of [
Groundwatcr Treated Per Year 1
($/l,000 Gallons/Year) s |
Adjusted Av. Ann. Opcr. Cost Per
Volume of Groundwater Treated
Per Year
($/l,000 Gallons)5-'
Cost Highlights
CHLORINATED SOLVENTS ALONE OR WITH OTHER VOCs
French, Ltd.,
rx
rCAAP, MN
Firestone, CA
McClellan
AFB, OU B/C,
CA
U.S. DOE,
Savannah
River, SC
Des Moines,
IA
Old Mill, OH
benzene, toluene,
chloroform, 1,2-DCA,
VC
1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA,
TCE, PCE
1.1-DCE,TCE,PCE,
1,1 -DCA, benzene,
toluene, xylene
None, primary
contaminants of concern
are TCE, cis-l,2-DCE,
PCE, 1,2-DCA
TCE, PCE, 1,1,1-TCA
TCE
TCE, PCE, 1,2-DCE,
ethylbenzene
•
*
•
*
*
3.9/A
4.9/0
6.8/C
6.8/0
8.3/O
8.8/0
7.8/0
78,000
1,400,000
270,000
96,000
240,000
550,000
1,700
$16,000,000
($15,000,000)
$12,000,000
($8,000,000)
$6,900,000
($4,100,000)
$5,600,000
($4,000,000)
$5,200,000
($4,100,000)
$2,200,000
($1,600,000)
$2,100,000
($1,600,000)
$3,200,000
($3,300,000)
$810,000
($590,000)
$2,000,000
($1,300,000)
$1,600,000
($1,200,000)
$170,000
($150,000)
$140,000
($110,000)
$240,000
($210,000)
$200
$8.4
$26
$58
$21
$3.9
$1,300
$41
$0.58
$7.3
$17
$0.71
$0.25
$150
Oversight costs were high because this is a large
system. Costs include those for P&T, ISB, and
two VCBs. Ex situ metals treatment was added
after it was determined that the biological
treatment unit failed to sufficiently remove
metals. Costs for VCBs are included in the
capital costs because they were an integral part
of containing the groundwater plume.
Complex hydrogeology (multilayer aquifer
system) increased remediation costs.
Frequent modifications-to system increased
costs. Cost of analysis and data management
were high.
Frequent modifications to system increased
costs. Excess treatment capacity required
nternal groundwater recycling to sustain
efficient treatment; this raised operating costs./
Small system, unit costs reflect economies of
scale. The ex situ treatment system originally
included biological treatment. This unit
operation was discontinued after influent ketone
levels fell below detection limits. A second
smaller groundwater treatment system was
installed at the site in 1991 ; costs for this
system are not included.
Complex hydrogeology and presence of
DNAPLs increased remediation costs.
Large treatment system; unit costs reflect
economies of scale.
Modifications to the system increased capital
costs by 22 percent. Relatively small volume of
groundwater treated annually; increased unit
cost relative to larger systems.
12
-------
EXHIBIT 10. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED P&T SITES (CONTINUED)
Site Name
and Location
U.S. Aviex, MI
U.S. DOE,
Cansas City,
MO
Keefe, NH
SCRDI
Dixiana, SC
JMT, NY
City
ndustries, FL
Contaminants With
Remedial
Cleanup Goals '
TCE
1,1,1-TCA, 1,2-DCA,
DEE, 1,1-DCE, TCE,
3CE, BTEX
None, contaminants of
greatest concern at the
site are PCE, TCE, cis-
1,2-DCE, trans- 1,2-DCE,
and VC.
PCE, TCE, 1,1-DCE,
benzene, 1,2-DCA
PCE, TCE, 1,1,1-TCA,
,1-DCE, 1,1,2-TCA,
,1,2,2-PCA, chloroform,
carbon tetrachloride,
lenzene,
lichloromethane
TCE, cis- 1,2-DCE, TCA,
f/"1
VC
,1-DCA, 1,1-DCE, MC,
VC, PCE, TCE, 1,1,1-
'CA, benzene, toluene,
thylbenzene, acetone,
MEK, MffiK, phthalates,
is- 1,2-DCE, trans- 1,2-
DCE
Remediation Technology *
P&T (with ex situ
' treatment)7
.O
•3
q
3
•
I
n
1
•
*
Q
O
B
B
05
•
*
*
*
•
%
1
»
%
I
a
u
Cfl
•3
' ^5
•£
OJ
is
2
2 .
i*
3.0/S
3.4/0
5.8/0
4. I/O
4.6/0
9.6/O
3.0/O
a
V
u
iS!
•d •£
•s «
is
" 5
en o
ld
"3
4,000
96,000
11,000
11,000
4,500
5,200
51,000
w
"K tn
O O
'& *3i
II
13 -d
4» S
|l
<; i2
$2,000,000
($2,100,000)
$1,900,000
($1,400,000)
$1,900,000
($1,400,000)
$1,900,000
($1,600,000)
$1,900,000
($1,800,000)
$1,400,000
($880,000)
$1,200,000
($1,200,000)
1
if
00
OJ O
:??
"^ ^"
ftl Td
•M V
II
$130,000
($150,000)
$230,000
($180,000)
$450,000
($360,000)
$280,000
($240,000)
$220,000
($220,000)
$220,000
($150,000)
$160,000
($170,000)
"8
S «
5 ^
Isi?
a3 «
«1^
u £ J
-H73
ill
"S c«^
•t2'"
$460
$20
$170
$170
$420
$280
$23
fe -0
ft S
U fi "-
* In ^j. ^
S* S JN O
' ils«
•g s S
.1,1
$31
$2.4
$40
$25
$48
$42
$3.2
Cost Highlights
Complex hydrogeology increased capital costs.
An iron filter was added to the ex situ treatment
train to minimize fouling in the air stripper
packing.
Optimization of interim P&T system before
final remedy reduced costs. All contaminants
with remedial cleanup goals except diethyl ether
are chlorinated solvents or BTEX. All
contaminants are VOCs, as reflected in the
relatively simple ex situ treatment system.
Remediation costs was high for the following
reasons: frequent fouling of the extraction wells
required well treatment/redevelopment; and
initial oxidation system was undersized and was
replaced with larger system.
Optimization of the system pumping rates
increased mass removal efficiency.
5RP made major modifications to the remedial
system, which increased costs. Relatively low
contaminant concentration resulted in lower
remediation costs. Ex situ treatment system
originally included a metal media filter unit
jefore the original air stripper. The metal
emoval unit was discontinued when the
original packed-column air stripper was
eplaced with a shallow stacked tray air stripper
vlodifications of treatment system increased
capital costs 35 percent; system consisted of
one extraction well, which reduced remediation
costs.
)ptimized pump rates; biofouling of air stripper
ncreased system downtime and likely increased
emediation costs. All contaminants with
emedial cleanup goals except acetone, MEK,
/ID3K, and phthalates are chlorinated solvents
or BTEX. All contaminants are VOCs, as
eflected in the relatively simple ex situ
13
-------
EXHIBIT 10. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED P&T SITES (CONTINUED)
Site Name
and Location
Solid State,
MO
Intersil (P&T),
CA
vlystery
Bridge, WY
Gold Coast, FL
Contaminants With
Remedial
Cleanup Goals '
TCE
TCE,cis-l,2-DCE,VC,
Freon 113®
trans- 1,2-DCE, cis- 1,2-
DCE, TCE, PCE, 1,1,1-
TCA, 1,1 -DCE
MC, 1,1 -DCA, trans- 1,2-
DCE, TCE, PCE, toluene
Site A, NY
Amoco, MI
BTEX
None, contaminants of
concern are BTEX and
MTBE
Remediation Technology *
P&T (with «:«'/«
treatment)'
2
M
U
O
PHYS/CHEM
O
STRIP
•
•
•
•
%
•
1
•
•
•
•
M
C/3
p««
•
i
PH
•
ca
Years of Operation/Status M I
4.2/0
7.2/D
3.6/0
3.7/C
Gallons Treated Per Year
(1,000 Gallons)
62,000
5,000
54,000
22,000
Adjusted Capital Cost II
(Reported Capital Cost) s |
$1,000,000
($930,000)
$510,000
($320,000)
$340,000
($310,000)
$290,000
($250,000)
BTEX ONLY
2.3/0
5.7/0
6,700
150,000
$2,200,000
($1,400,000)
$470,000
($300,000)
Adjusted Av.Ann. Opcr. Cost I
(Reported Av. Ann. Oper. Cost) ** II
$300,000
($280,000)
$200,000
($140,000)
$180,000
($170,000)
$130,000
($120,000)
$430,000
($290,000)
$700,000
($480,000)
Adjusted Capital Cost Per Volume of I
Groundwater Treated Per Year |
($/l,000 Gallons/Year) s |
$17
$100
$6.3
$13
Adjusted Av.Ann. Opcr. Cost Per 1
Volume of Groundwater Treated |
Per Year 1
($/l,000 Gallons) M I
$4.9
$41
$3.4
$6.2
$330
$3.2
$65
$4.7
Cost Highlights
Capital costs do not include costs for
installation of four deep extraction wells
installed as part of RI/FS.
Groundwater extraction system was expanded
after three years of operation, likely increasing
operating costs. Costs for the PRB are not
included.
Low concentrations in groundwater result in
lower remediation costs.
Optimized extraction wells resulted in lower
remediation costs; P&T system required less
than four years to clean up site. Costs for the
AS are not included.
Use of skid-mounted modular equipment
reduced capital costs. The capital cost includes
the cost of SVE wells because this cost could
not be separated from the groundwater system
costs.
Leasing GAC and GAC system provided
flexibility to modify treatment system, likely
reducing remediation costs. Costs for AS are
not included.
METALS ONLY
United
Chrome, OR
Odessa I, TX
Odessa II, TX
Cr
Cr
Cr
•
•
•
8.6/0
4.2/0
4.1/0
7,200
30,000
30,000
$5,100,000
($3,300,000)
$1,900,000
($2,000,000)
$1,800,000
($1,900,000)
$110,000
($74,000)
$220,000
($250,000)
$160,000
($180,000)
$710
$62
$62
$15
$7.5
$5.4
Modular treatment system used initially,
reducing costs.
ROD required that ferrous iron be produced
onsite electrochemically, limiting number of
appropriate vendors and increasing capital
costs.
ROD required that ferrous iron be produced
onsite electrochemically, limiting number of
appropriate vendors and increasing capital
costs.
14
-------
EXHIBIT 10. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED P&T SITES (CONTINUED)
Site Name
and Location
Contaminants With
Remedial
Cleanup Goals '
•''••V- ' - •
Remediation Technology 2
P&T (with ex situ
treatment)'
O.
5
3'
0
"1
8
1
1'
0
§
":
3
f
a
1-
1
S -
1
rs of Opera tion/S
s
2
lions Treated Per
(1,000 Gallons)
3
if
djusted Capital C
sported Capital C
•'«! «
to tn
y o
;ted Av.Ann. Ope:
:ed Av. Ann. Opel
a £
'{.
S t.
£ B
5 u
Capital Cost Per
dwater Treated I
1,000 Gallons/Yes
,11§;
w P
ll
la.-.
w H *.
d Av. Ann. Oper.
; of Groundwatei
Per Year
($/l,000 Gallons)
•« |
I"!
Cost Highlights
OTHER COMBINATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS
Western
5rocessing,
WA
Bofors Nobel,
OU1.MI
Baird and
McGuire, MA
Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn,
Hg, Ag, cyanide, trans-
1,2-DCE, cis-l,2-DCE
Remedial goals set for
analine, 2-chloroaniline,
selected purgeable
lalocarbons, and selected
surgeable aromatics.
Key specific .
contaminants are
benzene, benzidine, 2-
chloroaniline, 1,2-DCE,
TCE, 3,3-
dichlorobenzidene,
aniline, VC.
til EX, acenaphthene,
naphthalene, 2,4-
dimethyl phenol,
dieldrin, chlordane, Pb,
As
*
*
*
*
*
8.2/0
3.1/0
3.8/0
120,000
230,000
21,000
$19,000,000
($14,000,000)
$16,000,000
($12,000,000)
$15,000,000
($11,000,000)
$4,600,000
($3,600,000)
$970,000
($770,000)
$2,500,000
($2,000,000)
$160
$70
$730
$39
$4.3
$120
Remediation cost was high for the following
reasons: large complex system with over 200
vacuum well points was initially used, 24-hour
oversight was required; frequent maintenance
was required to control iron precipitate buildup;
treatment system originally included metals
precipitation, oxidation, air stripping, and
granular activated carbon treatment. In 1995,
remedial goal was changed from aquifer
restoration to plume containment; metals
precipitation, oxidation, and granular activated
carbon treatment were subsequently
discontinued. The capital cost includes the cost
of a slurry wall because it is an integral part of
containing the groundwater plume.
Preventative maintenance program ensured
uninterrupted operation of extraction system,
which likely reduced remediation costs. A
metals precipitation unit that was operated
during the first two years of system operation
was taken out of service after it was determined
to be unnecessary.
Operating costs increased due to the need to
monitor for a wide range of contaminants and
'or several full-time operators to be onsite.
Originally, ex situ system included biological
treatment. This step was eventually
discontinued. Historical data indicate that
sufficient organic removal rates are attained
without the use of biological treatment.
15
-------
EXHIBIT 10. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED P&T SITES (CONTINUED)
Site Name
and Location
Sylvester/
Gilson Road,
NH
LaSalle, IL
Solvent
Recovery
Service, CT
Libby, MT
King of
Prussia, NJ
Contaminants With
Remedial
Cleanup Goals '
MC, chloroform, MEK,
toluene, phenols, Se,
methyl methacrylate,
1,1,1-TCA, trans- 1,2-
DCA, 1,1 -DCA,
chlorobenzene, 1,1,2-
TCA, VC, benzene
PCBs.TCE, 1,2-DCE,
1,1,1-TCA, VC, 1,1-
DCA, PCE
None, contaminants at
the site include TCE, cis-
1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA,
PCBs, Ba, Cd, Ch, Pb,
Mn
napthalene,
acenaphthene, fluorene,
anthracene, pyrene,
fluoranthene,
benzo(a)anthracene,
chrysene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(a)pyrene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,
indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene,
As, benzene, PCP
1,1-DCA, trans-1,2-
DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, TCE,
PCA, PCE, benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene,
Be, Cr, Cu, Ni, Cd, Hg,,
Zn
Remediation Technology *
P&T (with ex situ
treatment)7
§
•
•
3
•
•
•
PHYS/CHEM
•
•
•
O
•
03
•
•
•
3
1
«
8
•
1
I
•
•
Years of Operation/Status M 1
9.5/E
4.4/0
3.0/0
5.3/0
2.7/O
Gallons Treated Per Year |
(1,000 Gallons) I
130,000
5,200
11,000
3,000
57,000
Adjusted Capital Cost
(Reported Capital Cost) $
$11,000,000
($7,200,000)
$7,400,000
($5,300,000)
$5,100,000
($4,400,000)
$4,300,000
($3,000,000)
$1,800,000
($2,000,000)
Adjusted AvwVnn. Oper. Cost
(Reported Av. Ann. Oper. Cost) *•*
$2,400,000
($1,800,000)
$210,000
($160,000)
$660,000
($580,000)
$520,000
($400,000)
$290,000
($330,000)
Adjusted Capital Cost Per Volume of
Groundwater Treated Per Year I
($/l,000 Gallons/Year) 5 |
$85
$1,400
$470
$1,500
$32
Adjusted Av. Ann. Opcr. Cost Per
Volume of Groundwater Treated
Per Year
($/l,000 Gallons) **
$19
$40
$61
$180
$5.1
Cost Highlights
Remediation cost was high for the following
reasons: several full-time operators were on site
24 hours per day, high costs for fuel oil to
operate the vapor incinerator used for air
emission control.
Complex mixture of contaminants and DNAPL
contributed to elevated capital costs. Relatively
small volume of groundwater treated annually;
increased unit cost relative to larger systems.
Presence of DNAPL contributed to elevated
capital and operating costs. The capital cost
includes the cost of a sheet pile wall because it
was an integral part of containing the
»roundwater plume.
Chemical costs (e.g., hydrogen peroxide) were
high for in situ bioremediation; monitoring,
sampling, and analysis costs were high at the
beginning of the project. Relatively small
volume of groundwater treated annually;
increased unit cost relative to larger systems.
Electrochemical treatment to remove metals
from the groundwater increased costs.
16
-------
EXHIBIT 10. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED P&T SITES (CONTINUED)
Site Name
and Location
MSWP, AR
Contaminants With
Remedial
Cleanup Goals '
PCP, Cr, As,
benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(b+k)fluoranthene,
chrysene
Remediation Technology '
P&T (with ex situ
treatment)'
O
S
o
1
•
is
,O
1
en
-------
EXHIBIT 11. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED PRB SITES
c
o
£ 3
So
f-> M
« -a
~ a
to a
ut
C
a
e
3
<§
T3 srt ^ 4 B
§*
-, 0
a
•o
?.,
11
3 §
11
Reactive Media Dimensions
Total Mass
Width
Length
Depth
Cost
Highlights
CHLORINATED SOLVENTS
Kansas City
Plant, MO
Caldwell
Trucking,
Former
Manf. Site,
NJ
FHA
Facility, CO
Industrial
Site, NY
1,2-DCE.VC
TCE
1,1,1-TCA;
PCE; TCE;
DNAPL
TCA; 1,1-
DCE; TCE;
cis-l,2-DCE
TCE, cis-1,2-
DCE, VC
$1,600,000
($1,500,000)
Design =
$200,000
Other =
$1,300,000
$1,400,000
($1,120,000)
$1,100,000
($875,000)
Design =
$180,000
Iron =
$360,000*
Other =
$560,000
$1,100,000
($1,000,000)
Iron =
$210,000'
Other =
$890,000
$1,000,000
($797,000)
Iron =
$360,000'
Other =
$640,000
*
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
*
•
*
*
•
•
0
*
•
Apr.
1998
Apr.
1998
Sept.
1998
Oct.
1996
Dec.
1997
CT
HF
DE,
CT,
SPC
F&G
CT
1
2
I
4
2
Top half of
trench
Bottom half of
trench
Permeation
infill
Hydrofrace
DNAPL
excavation
Top 4 to 7 ft of
CT'
Bottom 7 to 21
ftofCT"
All 4 PRBs
Main trench
Upgradient
trench
2 ft Fe°, 4 ft
sand
100%Fe°
Fe°
Fe°
1:1 Fe7
3:2 Fe7
sand
4:lFe7
sand
Fe°
Fe°
370 tons of
iron
250 tons
720 tons of
iron
476 tons of
iron*
742 tons
6ft
3 in
Sin
5ft
varies
1 ft
1 ft
130ft
150ft
90ft
127ft
Each
gate is
40ft
wide
370ft
10ft
13-27 ft"
27-33 ft
15-50 ft
15-50 ft
25ft
25ft9
18ft
NR
Contractor had difficulty using 1-
pass deep trenching machine (wet,
heavy clay). Resorted to
conventional sheet pile construction.
This likely increased remediation
costs.
Permeation infill wall cost $53 1,000
Hydrofrace wall cost $791,000
Below grade sewer line permitted
water to enter excavation. Therefore
subaqueous excavation was required
for that portion of the wall,
increasing remediation costs.
1 ,040-ft funnel section. Use of
multiple gates increased remediation
costs.
Capital cost includes cost of site
improvements to allow access by the
trenching equipment.
18
-------
EXHIBIT 11. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED PRB SITES (CONTINUED)
B
_o
1 1
K J
£"§
CO n
Intersil, CA5
Aircraft
Facility, OR
Lowry Air
?orce Base,
CO
Industrial
Site, N.
Ireland
ndustrial
Site, KS
Industrial
Site, SC
CA
C
.1
" B
a-
g •
u
TCE, cis-1,2-
DCE, VC,
Freon 113®
TCE
TCE
TCE;cis-l,2-
DCE
TCE; 1,1,1-
TCA
TCE.cis-1,2-
DCE, VC
•*•* T3 *?
tJ W £ W .
fli O *j 0
•s y I u
i1 a" "" 8*
$760,000
($600,000)"'
Iron =
$170,000*
Other =
$590,000
$710,000
($600,000)
$600,000
($530,000)
$580,000"
($375,000)
$400,000
($400,000)
Iron =
$50,000*
Other =
$350,000
$360,000
($400,000)
Design =
$45,000
Iron =
$130,000*
Other =
$180,000
Cost Components
Si
DC
1
A
•
•
§
'•S
y
ts
1
•
•
9'
•v
•
2
«
'R
S
«
• A
*
*
*
*
•
n
S
i
I
«
*
•
*
•
*
ec
•§
I
w
1
*
eT&D
•M
1
N
•e
u
C
1
£•
a
•
A
Q
&
o
jj
1
3
w -
Feb.
1995
Mar.
1998
Dec.
1995
Dec.
1995
Jan.
1996
Nov.
1997
•o
o
a
«
c
tallatio
S
M
F&G
F&G
F&G
F&R
F&G
CT
ffl
«
!'
&.
•s
b
u
£i
S
1
i
2
1
1
1
1
1 c
p o
al
0< o
NA
Gate 1
Gate 2
NA
NA
NA
NA
ri
*D
tu
t3 «j
« •g
Fe"
Fe°
Fe°, sand
Fe°
Fe°
Fe°
Fe°, sand
(1:1 ratio)
Reactive Media Dimensions
Total Mass
220 tons
324 tons of
iron"
NR
NR
70 tons
400 tons of
iron
Width
4ft
Two 9-in
thick layers
3ft
5ft
Vessel has
4-ft diam.
3ft
1 ft
Length
36ft
50ft
60ft
10ft
Vessel
has
4-ft
diam.
20ft
375 ft9
Depth
11-31 ft
to 24-34 ft
to 24-34 ft
0-17 ft
33-49 ft
0-30 ft
0-29 ft
Cost
Highlights
Two slurry walls: 300 ft and 235 ft
long. Average annual operating
costs are $120,000"'.
2-ft. thick funnel walls, 650-ft. long
funnel.
Two 14-ft. sheet piling funnel walls
Two 100-ft. bentonite/cement slurry
walls
Two 490-ft. bentonite slurry walls
Installation of PRB system being
performed in two phases; costs
reflect both phases.
19
-------
EXHIBIT 11. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED PRB SITES (CONTINUED)
§
o ~
| 3
u -o
«• n
03 (9
Former
Dryclean
Site,
Germany
1
«
3
a
6
PCE; 1,2-
DCE
M
w T3 +*
T3 55 o «
f u*u
$160,000
($123,000)
Design =
$39,000
Other =
$120,000
Cost Components
ft
"8
Q
•
e
o
TJ
Constru
•
a
1
.5
•o
Reactive
0
M
u
'on
W
O
*
U
1
1?
£
P
O
e.
o
JS
2
June
1998
.
^J
3
a
_o
*?
a
i— {
cw
8
n
fcc
o
S3
.a
2
1
a
Jj
tt< u
NS
NS
5
I.
•- 'E
«s
1:1 mass
ratio Fe7
gravel
IS
Reactive Media Dimensions
Total Mass
69 tons
85 tons
Width
2-3 ft
Length
33ft
41 ft
Depth
10 -33 ft7
Cost
Highlights
The mandrel construction method
was chosen because it was
determined to be easier and less
expensive than continuous sheet
piling construction.
METALS AND INORGANICS
Nickel Rim
Mine Site,
Canada
Y- 12 Site,
Oak Ridge
National
Marzone
Inc., GA
U.S. Coast
Guard
Support
Center, NC8
Ni, Fe,
Sulfate
U, Tc, HN03
alpha-HCB,
beta-HCB,
ODD, DDT,
xylene, EB,
lindane,
methyl
parathion
Cr*6, TCE
$43,000
($30,000)
•
•
•
•
Aug.
1995
C&F
1
NA
oc/
pea gravel
COMBINATION OF CONTAMINANTS
$900,000
($1,000,000)
$650,000
($750,000)
.
$200,000
Other =
$450,000
$460,000
($500,000)'°
Design =
$160,000
Iron = $150,000
Other =
$150,000
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
9
•
•
0
•
Nov.
1997
Dec.
Aug.
1998
June
1996
CT
F&R
F&G
CT
1
5
1
1
NS
NS
All 5 reactors
NA
NA
100% iron
100% gravel
iron
AC
Fe"
NR
80 tons iron
NR
NR
0.9 tons
450 tons
12ft
2ft
NR
NR
2ft
50ft
26ft
199ft
NR
400ft
150ft
14 ft deep
22-30 ft
NR
NR
3-24 ft
12-in clay cap covers PRB to preven
surface water and oxygen entry.
Coarse sand buffer zones installed u[
and downgradient.
Did not excavate into confining unit;
this may result in lower remediation
costs and may permit the
media.
System flushing required every 3-4
weeks to reinitiate flow; resulting in
higher than anticipated operating
costs.
Total trench is 225 ft long. The
exact location of the 26-ft iron
portion is unspecified.
Primary Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 1999. Field Applications of In Situ Remediation Technologies: Permeable Reactive Barriers. EPA 542-R-99-002. June.
20
-------
EXHIBIT 11. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED PRB SITES (CONTINUED)
Additional Sources: Fax Transmittal from Mr. Robert Puls, EPA to Susan Guenther, TTEMI. March 8, 2000. Comments on Exhibit 10: Summary of Cost and Technical Information for Selected Permeable Reactive Barrier Sites.
EPA. 1998. Remediation Case Studies: Innovative Gmundwater Treatment Technologies. Volume 11. EPA542-R-98-015. September.
' Contaminant Key: As = arsenic, HCB = hexachlorobenzene, Cd = cadmium, Cu = copper, Crw = hexavalent chromium, DCE = dichloroethene, ODD = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane, DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane,
DNAPL = dense nonaqueous-phase liquid, EB = ethylbenzene, Fe = Iron, HN03 = nitric acid, Ni = Nickel, Pb = lead, PCE = tetrachloroethene, Tc = technetium, TCA = trichloroethane, TCE = trichloroethene, U = uranium, VC =
vinyl chloride, Zn = zinc.
2 All reported capital costs were adjusted for site locations and years when costs were incurred, as described in the text. All unadjusted (reported) costs are presented in parentheses. Adjusted costs are not presented in parentheses.
•' Installation Method Key: C&F = cut and fill, CT = continuous trencher, CW = continuous wall, DE = dense nonaqueous-phase liquid (DNAPL) extraction, F&G = funnel and gate, F&R = funnel and reaction vessel, HF =
hydraulic fracturing, SPC = Sheet piling construction.
4 Reactive Media Material Key: AC = activated carbon, AFO = amorphous ferric oxyhydroxide, Fe" = zero-valent iron, IS = iron sponge (wood shavings or chips impregnated with hydrated iron oxide), LM = limestone, OC =
organic carbon (municipal/leaf compost and wood chips), P04 = bone char phosphate.
5 Adjusted average annual operating costs for Intersil are $120,000. Information was obtained from EPA 542-R-98-015.
6 An adjustment factor for Northern Ireland is not available. Therefore, an adjustment factor for the United Kingdom was used.
7 The lower boundary of the continuous wall was not reported. However, the aquifer extends to 33 ft.
* Adjusted average annual operating costs for the U.S. Coast Guard Support Center are $78,000. Information was obtained from EPA 542-R-98-015.
9 Information provided by Mr Robert Puls, EPA.
'" Information obtained from EPA 542-R-98-015.
NA = Not applicable, NR = Not reported, NS = Not specified
21
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Groundwater Cleanup: Overview of Operating
Experience at 28 Sites. EPA 542-R-99-006. . September.
2. EPA. 1999. Field Applications of In Situ Remediation Technologies: Permeable Reactive Barriers. EPA
542-R-99-002. . June.
3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. PAX Newsletter No. 3.2.1.
. March.
4. EPA. 1998. Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for Remediation
Projects, Revised Version. EPA 542-B-98-007. . October.
5. EPA. 1998. Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and Treat (Chlorinated Solvents, Volume 9).
EPA 542-R-98-013. . September.
6. EPA. 1998. Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and Treat (Nonchlorinated Contaminants,
Volume 10). EPA 542-R-98-014. . September.
7. EPA. 1998. Remediation Case Studies: Innovative Groundwater Treatment Technologies, Volume 11. EPA
542-R-98-015. . September.
8. Battelle. 1998. Performance Evaluation of a Pilot-Scale Permeable Reactive Barrier at Former Naval Air
Station Moffett Field, Mountain View, California. June.
9. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment. EPA-542-R-95-003. .
March.
10. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. .
11. Remediation Technologies Development Forum, .
12. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index.
.
13. EPA. 1997. Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends (1996 Edition). EPA-
542-R-96-005. April.
14. Cohen, R.M., J.W. Mercer, and R.M. Greenwald. 1998. EPA Groundwater Issue, Design Guidelines for
Conventional Pump-and-Treat Systems. EPA 540/S-97/504. .
September. :
APPENDIX A. COST EQUATIONS AND EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
The equations used to normalize the total capital and total annual operating costs and to calculate the average annual
operating costs are presented below.
Adjusted Total Capital Cost =
Adjusted Total Annual Operating Cost =
Average Annual Operating Cost =
(Total Capital Cost)(ACF)(IF)
(Total Annual Operating Cost)(ACF)(IF)
(Adjusted Total Annual Operating Cost)/(# of Years)
Example calculations are presented below for the Former Firestone Superfund Site, which is one of the 32 P&T sites
included in the analysis. The site is located in Salinas, California (California ACF = 1.15). The groundwater
treatment system at the Former Firestone Superfund Site was installed in 1985 (IF = 1.44). Annual costs were
incurred from 1986 to 1992, for a total of 6.8 years. 1989 was used as the median year in which annual costs were
incurred (IF = 1.31). The total unadjusted capital cost and total annual operating cost for the site are $4,100,000
and $8,800,000, respectively.
Adjusted Total Capital Cost =
Adjusted Total Annual Cost =
Average Annual Operating Cost =
($4,100,000)(1.15)(1.44)
($8,800,000)(1.15)(1.31)
($13,000,000)/(6.8)
$6,900,000
$13,000,000
$2,000,000
22
-------
Case Studies and Related Publications
Ordering Instructions and Form
The following documents are available free-of-charge from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Service Center
for Environmental Publications (NSCEP). To order, mail this completed form to: EPA NSCEP, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242;
or fax the form to (513) 489-8695. Telephone orders may be placed at (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190.
Title
FRTR Publications
Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 1
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 1: Bioremediation
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 2: Groundwater Treatment
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 3: Soil Vapor Extraction
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 4: Thermal Desorption, Soil
Washing, and In Situ Vitrification
Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 2
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 5: Bioremediation and Vitrification
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 6: Soil Vapor Extraction and Other In
Situ Technologies
Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 3
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 7: Ex Situ Soil Treatment
Technologies (Bioremediation, Solvent Extraction, Thermal Desorption)
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 8: In Situ Soil Treatment
Technologies (Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal Processes)
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 9: Groundwater Pump and Treat
(Chlorinated Solvents)
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 10: Groundwater Pump and Treat
(Nonchlorinated Contaminants)
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 11: Innovative Groundwater
Treatment Technologies
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 12: On-Site Incineration
Remediation Case Studies, Volume 13: Debris and Surface Cleaning
Technologies, and Other Miscellaneous Technologies
Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information
for Remediation Projects, Revised Version
Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 4
FRTR Cost and Performance Remediation Case Studies and Related
Information (CD-ROM)
EPA Publications
Field Applications of In Situ Remediation Technologies: Permeable
Reactive Barriers
Groundwater Cleanup: Overview of Operating Experience at 28 Sites
Please
Number Send
EPA-542-R-95-001; March 1995 D
EPA-542-R-95-002; March 1995 D
EPA-542-R-95-003; March 1995 D
EPA-542-R-95-004; March 1995 D
EPA-542-R-95-005; March 1995 D
EPA-542-R-97-010; July 1997 n
EPA-542-R-97-008; July 1997 D
EPA-542-R-97-009; July 1997 D
EPA-542-R-98-010; September 1998 D
EPA-542-R-98-011; September 1998 D
EPA-542-R-98-012; September 1998 D
EPA-542-R-98-013; September 1998 D
EPA-542-R-98-014; September 1998 D
EPA-542-R-98-015; September 1998 D
EPA-542-R-98-016; September 1998 D
EPA-542-R-98-017; September 1998 D
EPA-542-B-98-007; October 1998 D
EPA-542-R-00-006; June 2000 D
EPA 542-C-00-001; June 2000 D
EPA-542-R-99-002; June 1999 D
EPA-542-R-99-006; September 1999 D
Name
Date
Organization
Address
City/State/Zip.
Telephone
E-mail Address
Individual remediation case studies and abstracts also are available on the Internet at http://www.frtr.gov/costor at
http://clu-in.org. EPA publications are available at http://clu-in.org.
23
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
National Service Center for
Environmental Publications
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use S300
EPA542-R-00-013
February 2001
------- |