United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102G)
EPA-542-R-01-009
September 2001
vwww.epa.gov
clu-in.org
cv EPA
Remediation Technology
Cost Compendium -
Year 2000
-------
-------
EPA 542-R-01-009
September 2001
Remediation Technology
Cost Compendium - Year 2000
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This document was prepared by the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Technology
Innovation Office with support from Terra Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract Number 68-W-99-003.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use. For more information about this project, please contact: John Kingscott, U.S. EPA, Technology
Innovation Office, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (MS 5102G), Washington, DC, 20460.
This document can be obtained from EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/tio, or at http://clu-in.org. A
limited number of hard copies of this document is available free of charge by mail from EPA's National
Service Center for Environmental Publications at the following address (please allow 4-6 weeks for
delivery):
U.S. EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513)489-8190 or (800)490-9198
Fax: (513)489-8695
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special acknowledgment is given to the members of the Cost and Performance Work Group of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (see Appendix C) for their thoughtful suggestions and
support in preparing the individual case studies and this report. Acknowledgment also is given to other
reviewers including John Abraham (EPA, ORD), Paul Nadeau (EPA, OSWER), Carlos Pachon (EPA,
OSWER), Jim Peterson (USACE,HTRW-CX), Ronald Shafer (EPA, OEI), Dr. Bimal Sinha (UMBC),
and Ed Van Eeckhout (DOE, Sandia).
11
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
FOREWORD
Although there has been progress over the years in cleaning up hazardous waste sites, relatively little data
are available about the costs of actual field applications of remediation technologies. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes these historical costs are of value to potential future
users of these technologies.
The technologies selected for inclusion in this compendium are commonly applied for on-site
remediation and have the most data available. Costs were obtained exclusively from federal agency
sources, many of which' are part of an ongoing effort by the Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable (FRTR) to document cost and performance case studies.
Curves for specific technologies were developed to illustrate the correlations between unit costs and
quantity of media treated or mass of contaminant removed. During the analysis of the cost data and
development of the curves, consideration was given to what constitutes an adequate fit or correlation,
how to portray variations, and how to prevent misinterpretation of the cost curves. There were concerns
about whether, in some cases, the data adequately fit the curves and whether the data were consistent
with the assumed distribution. Furthermore, there was concern that additional independent variables may
contribute to the relatively large variability in the data.
While additional data would undoubtably help to better define the cost of remediation technologies,
available data are deemed sufficient to begin showing patterns in unit cost for four technologies. This
report does not seek to provide predictive cost models but rather to illustrate trends that can be derived at
this time from available information. Incomplete as this information may be, it is of value to those who
have various interests in the application of these technologies. For this compendium, the procedures used
to analyze each technology have been thoroughly documented, and important considerations related to
use of the document have been identified. EPA plans to update this compendium as additional cost data
become available.
111
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
This page intentionally left blank.
IV
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Notice and Disclaimer ii
Acknowledgments ii
Foreword iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 BIOREMEDIATION 2-1
3.0 THERMAL DESORPTION 3-1
4.0 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION 4-1
5.0 ON-SITE INCINERATION 5-1
6.0 PUMP AND TREAT SYSTEMS 6-1
7.0 PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS 7-1
8.0 REFERENCES 8-1
APPENDICES
A Summary of Price Information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
for Off-Site Disposal and Off-Site Incineration A-l
B Additional Information about Development of the Cost Curves B-l
C Active Members of the FRTR Ad Hoc Work Group on Cost and Performance C-l
-------
Exhibit
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
2-1 Bioremediation Case Studies - Sources 2-1
2-2 Bioremediation Projects by Project Type (Total Projects/Projects for Which Fully Defined
Cost Data Are Available) 2-1
2-3 Bioremediation Projects by Contaminant Type
(Total Projects/Projects Having Fully-Defined Cost Data) 2-2
2-4 Summary of Bioremediation Projects with Fully Defined Cost Data 2-3
2-5 AFCEE Bioventing Projects - Unit Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 68-Percent Confidence Interval) 2-7
2-6 AFCEE Bioventing Projects 2-8
3-1 Thermal Desorption Case Studies - Sources 3-1
3-2 Summary of Thermal Desorption Projects with Fully Defined Cost Data 3-2
3-3 Thermal Desorption Projects - Unit Cost vs. Quantity of Soil Treated
(with 68-Percent Confidence Interval) 3-5
4-1 SVE Projects - Sources 4-1
4-2 Summary of SVE Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data 4-2
4-3 Soil Vapor Extraction Projects - Unit Cost vs. Volume of Soil Treated
(with 68 Percent-Confidence Interval) 4-5
4-4 Soil Vapor Extraction Projects - Unit Cost vs. Mass of Contaminant Removed
(with 68 Percent-Confidence Interval) 4-7
5-1 Summary of On-Site Incineration Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data 5-2
6-1 Summary of Information for P&T Sites with Fully Defined Cost Data 6-2
6-2 Summary of Remedial Cost and Unit Cost Data for 32 P&T Sites 6-6
6-3 P&T Projects - Unit Capital Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 68-Percent Confidence Interval) 6-7
6-4 P&T Projects - Unit Average Annual Operating Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 68-Percent Confidence Interval) 6-9
7-1 Summary Information for PRB Sites 7-2
7-2 Summary of Remedial Cost Data for 16 PRB Sites 7-6
A-1 Summary of Adjusted USAGE Price Data for OffrSite Disposal
and Off-Site Incineration of RCRA Hazardous Waste A-l
B-l AFCEE Bioventing Projects - Unit Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 95- and 68-Percent Confidence Intervals) B-2
B-2 Thermal Desorption Projects - Unit Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 95- and 68-Percent Confidence Intervals) B-4
B-3 Soil Vapor Extraction Projects - Unit Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 95- and 68-Percent Confidence Intervals) B-6
B-4 Soil Vapor Extraction Projects - Unit Cost vs. Mass of Contaminant Removed
(with 95- and 68-Percent Confidence Intervals) ; B-8
B-5 Pump and Treat Projects - Unit Capital Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 95- and 68-Percent Confidence Intervals) B-10
B-6 Pump and Treat Projects - Unit Average Annual Operating Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 95- and 68-Percent Confidence Intervals) B-12
VI
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has prepared this cost
compendium to capture current information about
the costs of the following six remediation
technologies: (1) bioremediation; (2) thermal
desorption; (3) soil vapor extraction (SVE); (4)
on-site incineration; (5) groundwater pump and
treat; and (6) permeable reactive barriers (PRBs).
These technologies have been used during the
past several years to clean up contaminated media
through federal and state remediation programs
including those implemented under the
Comprehensive Envkonmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Information about the costs of specific
applications of remediation technologies will help
facilitate comparisons of technology options and
improve remedy selection. In addition, the
information provides a baseline that can be used
in evaluating innovative and conventional
technologies, and may be used to help verify other
sources of cost data, such as those provided by
technology vendors and others.
Cost data were obtained from federal agency
sources, including case studies and reports
prepared by the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable (FRTR)1, DOE's Los
Alamos National Laboratory; the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Hazardous, Toxic, and
Radioactive Waste Center for Expertise; and the
U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence (AFCEE). These sources included
cost data for about 150 projects. The data were
sufficient to begin to identify patterns in costs of
several technologies. However, additional cost
data about remediation technologies, collected
using standardized procedures, would help to
1 The FRTR includes members from the United States
Department of Defense (including Army, Navy, and Air
Force), United States Department of Energy (DOE),
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), and EPA, and maintains a web site at
http://www.frtr.gov. Current member who are
responsible for working with the FRTR and
coordinating information collection are shown in
Appendix C to this report.
better understand the impact of the factors that
affect the cost of technology applications.
One effort that is underway to improve the
availability of cost data about remediation
technologies is the FRTR cost and performance
initiative. Since 1995, the FRTR has been
working to document the cost and performance of
remedial technology projects and to make such
information more readily available. To date, the
agencies of the FRTR have prepared more than
270 case studies. These case studies were the
source of much of the cost data used in this
compendium. The FRTR's goals in providing
cost information about specific applications of
remedial technologies are to:
Increase the availability of standard cost
data 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 system for tracking data on
changes over time in the costs of specific
remedial activities
The FRTR is continuing to gather data on costs of
remedial technology applications and to add these
data to its web site at http://www.frtr.gov.
Additional information about the FRTR and its
recommended procedures for documenting costs
of remedial technologies is included in its Guide
to Documenting and Managing Cost and
Performance Information for Remediation
Projects (the Guide), EPA 542-B-98-007, October
1998, which is available through the FRTR web
site.
One of the major sources of data for this
compendium was the report Bioventing
Performance and Cost Results from Multiple Air
Force Test Sites, Technology Demonstration,
Final Technical Memorandum prepared by the
U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence. The Air Force report contains cost
data for 45 bioventing projects and was the major
source of cost data for bioventing projects in this
ES-1
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
comprehensive effort to collect costs through use
of standard procedures. The report is available at
The key findings of this compendium are
presented below:
Overall Findings
Correlations between unit costs and quantity
treated or mass removed were evident for four
of the six technologies - bioventing, thermal
desorption, SVE, and pump-and-treat systems.
Cost curves were developed to show the
correlation between unit cost and quantity of
material treated for all four technologies, with the
unit costs for pump-and-treat systems shown in
terms of both unit capital cost and unit operating
cost. For SVE, a cost curve that shows unit cost
compared with mass of contaminant removed was
developed, in addition to the cost curve for unit
cost compared with quantity treated.
Economies of scale were observed for the four
technologies where unit costs decreased as
larger quantities were treated. The higher unit
costs for lower quantities are attributed to the
effect of fixed costs (the baseline costs of
constructing and installing the technology). For
the three soil treatment technologies with cost
curves (bioventing, thermal desorption, and SVE),
the unit costs tended to increase rapidly and show
greater variability for treatment of less than
10,000 to 20,000 cubic yards of soil.
Costs of technology applications are site-
specific and are affected by many factors. The
relatively high variability indicates that a number
of factors potentially impact the cost of a
technology application, that those factors vary by
technology, and that the impact of those factors is
site-specific. Examples of other factors include
properties of the contaminant present and
characteristics of the matrix treated,
concentrations of contaminants, and distribution
of contamination in the subsurface; type and
properties of the soil; and hydrogeology of the
site, including characteristics of the aquifer.
Several additional factors affect all
technologies - Other factors that affect costs for
all remediation technologies include market
forces, such as supply and demand; the state of
development of the technology; and regulatory
requirements, including federal, state and local
requirements. The specific impact of such factors
on project costs are difficult to quantify because
they may vary by location and change over time.
Technology-Specific Findings
Among the four technologies for which cost
curves were developed, bioventing had the best
correlation between unit cost and quantity of
soil treated. These sites tended to have similar
characteristics and the relatively high correlation
most likely reflects the standard procedures used
by the Air Force in collecting the data. Unit costs
decreased from $10 to $50 per cubic yard for
projects treating up to 10,000 cubic yards of soil
to less than $5 per cubic yard for projects treating
relatively larger quantities of soil.
For other types of bioremediation, no
quantitative correlation between unit cost and
quantity of soil or groundwater treated was
observed. Cost data for various types of
bioremediation projects (in situ soil, ex situ soil,
and in situ groundwater) were limited. While no
quantitative correlation was evident, unit costs for
bioremediation potentially are affected by other
factors including soil type and aquifer chemistry,
site hydrogeology, type and quantity of
amendments used, and type and extent of
contamination.
For thermal desorption, the unit cost was
affected by the types of contaminants treated,
and a correlation between unit cost and
quantity of soil treated was observed for
projects where polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) were not present. Projects where PCBs
were present as a contaminant tended to have
higher unit costs than projects where PCBs were
not present. A difference in the emissions control
technologies for these two types of projects likely
contributed to the difference in cost. Projects
treating PCBs tended to include more complex
technologies such as oxidation as part of the
treatment for recovered scrubber water, and
involved additional emissions monitoring.
ES-2
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
Because of their different characteristics, those
projects were analyzed separately from projects
where PCBs were not present.
For projects where PCBs were not present, unit
costs decreased from $100 to $250 per ton for
projects treating up to 20,000 tons of soil to less
than $50 per ton for projects treating relatively
larger quantities of soil. However, the cost curve
contains a wide confidence interval. For projects
where PCBs were present, data were not
sufficient to support a quantitative analysis of unit
cost compared with quantity treated. No
correlations between unit cost and other factors,
such as soil properties and treatment temperature,
were identified.
For SVE, a correlation between unit cost and
quantity of soil treated and unit cost and mass
of contaminant removed was observed. Unit
cost decreased from $60 to nearly $350 per cubic
yard for projects treating less than 10,000 cubic
yards of soil to less than $5 per cubic yard for
projects treating relatively larger quantities of
soil. In addition, unit cost decreased from $300 to
approximately $800 per pound for projects where
up to 3,000 pounds of contaminant mass were
removed to less than $15 per pound for projects
where larger quantities were removed.
For on-site incineration, no correlation
between unit cost and quantity of material
treated was observed. A quantitative analysis of
unit cost compared with tons of soil treated was
performed for five incineration projects that
treated solid media (such as soil, sludge,
sediment, and debris). While no quantitative
correlation was evident, unit costs for incineration
potentially are affected by other factors including
soil type and characteristics of the matrix, type
and concentration of contaminants, and
maintenance needs.
For groundwater pump-and-treat systems, a
correlation between unit cost and quantity of
groundwater treated was observed for both the
unit capital cost and the unit average annual
operating cost. Unit capital cost decreased from
$60 to approximately $700 per 1,000 gallons per
year for projects treating up to 30 million gallons
of groundwater per year to less than $20 per 1,000
gallons per year for projects treating relatively
larger quantities of groundwater. Unit average
annual operating cost decreased from $10 to $120
per 1,000 gallons per year for projects treating
less than 20 million gallons of groundwater per
year to less than $5 per 1,000 gallons per year for
projects treating larger quantities of groundwater.
For PRBs, data were not available to perform
a quantitative analysis of unit cost compared
with quantity of groundwater treated because
of a lack of information about quantity
treated. Capital costs were available for 16 PRB
projects, and annual operating costs were
available for two projects. However, the case
studies for PRBs do not provide information
about anticipated longevity of the project or about
the quantity of groundwater treated or the mass of
contaminant removed and do not report unit costs
or information needed to calculate unit costs.
While no correlations could be performed, unit
costs for PRBs potentially are affected by other
factors including properties of the contaminants
and extent of contamination, the need for source
control, the hydrogeologic setting, and the
geochemistry of the aquifer.
Important Considerations About This Cost
Compendium
. The compendium provides a compilation
of historical cost data about six
remediation technologies for use by site
managers, engineers, decision makers,
and other parties interested in assessing
remedies. Cost data were taken from the
referenced sources and were not
subjected to independent verification or
validation. The curves are a best-fit
based on the available data and are
intended to be used for illustrative
purposes. The user should not assume
that the curves can be used in predicting
the cost of future applications because of
the effects of site-specific factors.
The curves may be useful early in the
remedy planning process when a "top-
down" analysis of technology costs is
performed for general comparative
purposes. Later in the implementation
ES-3
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
process, when more detailed "bottom-up"
cost analyses may be performed, other
tools, such as the Air Force's Remedial
Action Cost Engineering & Requirements
(RACER) and the Navy's Cost to
Complete (CTC) systems, may be more
appropriate for projecting the cost of
future applications.
The approach to the cost analysis was
designed to be consistent with acceptable
statistical practices. All cost data used in
the analysis first were adjusted for time
and location to a common basis. The
approach for developing the cost curves,
using a reverse exponential model, was
tested on Air Force bioventing cost data
for 45 projects. Those data provided the
largest number of technology applications
having similar characteristics and
represented a comprehensive effort to
collect costs at a number of sites through
standard procedures. While this approach
provided a reasonable fit for the Air
Force data, it is important to note that the
statistical fit for some other data was not
good. Some concerns were expressed
about the statistical methodology used for
this analysis, including the adequacy of
the fits and correlations, the limited
number of data points, and the effects of
other independent variables. While the
data and analysis in this report do not
support use of the cost curves as
predictive models, they do illustrate
trends in unit costs 'which may be useful
as part of a broad assessment of
technologies.
The cost curves in this compendium are
based solely on cost data provided in the
case studies and other information
sources. Projects were identified for
inclusion in this analysis on the basis of
availability of information and were not
intended to represent a cross-section of all
projects for each technology. All
available projects and data were
compiled, and the analysis does not
exclude any data as statistical outliers.
While this compendium focuses on unit
cost, there are other methods of
examining costs when comparing
technologies. Such methods include total
cost, total capital, or total operating cost,
or the cost of a technology compared with
the level of risk reduction or other factors.
ES-4
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has prepared this Remediation
Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
(compendium) to provide site managers,
technology users, technology developers, and other
interested parties with a better understanding of
the costs of specific remedial technologies and the
factors that affect those costs. The remediation
technology market is now at a point at which
sufficient data are available from federal agencies
to begin to identify trends in the costs of selected
technologies. This compendium provides
information about the costs of the following six
on-site remedial technologies for cleanup of sites
with contaminated media:
Bioremediation
Thermal desorption
Soil vapor extraction (SVE)
On-site incineration
Groundwater pump-and-treat systems
Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs)
Those technologies were selected for this analysis
because they are commonly used for on-site
remediation of hazardous waste sites and because
it was believed that the most cost data were
available for them from the identified federal
agency sources.
Cost data for this compendium were obtained from
federal agency sources, including case studies and
reports prepared by the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable (FRTR), the U.S. Air
Force Center for Environmental Excellence
(AFCEE); the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE)
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL); EPA's
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRML); and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive
Waste Center for Expertise. Brief descriptions of
those sources are presented below.
FRTR: FRTR case studies present information
from more than 200 case study reports about
remedial technology projects, including cost data
for the six remediation technologies of interest for
this compendium. Each case study provides
information about the site background, technology
design and performance, cost, and lessons learned.
Cost data generally were reported in the format
provided in the FRTR's Guide to Documenting
and Managing Cost and Performance Information
for Remediation Projects (the guide), with the
level of detail of the cost data varying by case
study. Case studies are available at the FRTR web
site at .
AFCEE: AFCEE prepared the report Bioventing
Performance and Cost Results from Multiple Air
Force Test Sites, June 1996, about 45 bioventing
projects that were performed at Air Force bases
throughout the country. For each project,
information is provided about site name, location,
total cost of bioventing and volume of soil treated.
A standard protocol was used in collecting the cost
data.
DOE LANL: The report A Compendium of Cost
Data for Environmental Remediation
Technologies, Los Alamos National Laboratory
(LANL), LA-UR-96-2205, August 1996 presents
summary information about 250 commercial or
pilot-scale remedial projects, including actual
costs, site characteristics, and comments about the
project. Cost data were provided by a variety of
sources (including FRTR case studies) and vary in
level of detail. The report is available at
.
EPA NRML: Bioremediation in the Field Search
System (BFSS), Version 2.1 is a database of
information about waste sites in the U. S. and
Canada where bioremediation is being tested or
implemented or has been completed. The database
contains information about 450 full-scale
bioremediation efforts and treatability and
feasibility studies. BFSS is available at
.
USAGE: The report Cost Data for Innovative
Treatment Technologies, Internal Draft USAGE,
July 1997, presents information about the cost of
selected technology applications, drawn from data,
available in public sources and from personal
communications with site managers. In addition,
USAGE identified key factors at the sites that are
related to project costs.
1-1
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
General Methodology
The general methodology used in analyzing cost
data for the six remediation technologies is
described below. Any variations from the
approach are discussed in the section for each
technology.
1. Identify Projects for Which Cost Data Are
Available for Each Technology
The available information sources were reviewed
to identify projects for which cost data are
available for the six technologies. Only
technology applications that were uniquely
identified by site name and location and that
primarily used a single technology were included.
2. Identify Projects for Which Fully Defined
Costs Are Available for Each Technology
For each project identified for the six remediation
technologies, available information was evaluated
to determine whether "fully defined" cost data
were available. Cost data were considered fully
defined if the data met the following criteria:
The total cost directly associated with the
treatment technology application (capital
and operation and maintenance [O&M])
must be provided and differentiated clearly
from other project costs that are not
directly associated with the treatment
application, as defined in the guide. The
treatment technology cost may be provided
as (1) a total cost for the application, (2)
total capital and total O&M, or (3) a more
detailed breakdown of individual cost
elements for total capital and total O&M
costs. For ex situ technologies, costs for
activities such as excavation and disposal
of residuals were not included in the total
cost, as described in the guide.
The cost data must be based on the actual
application (historical) rather than on
projected (future) activities. The historical
costs may be provided as the actual or
estimated costs of treatment-related
activities that have been performed.
Projections of full-scale costs from
demonstration-scale projects were not
considered.
To allow the calculation of a unit cost,
information must be provided about the
total quantity of material treated or mass
of contaminant removed. The information
may be provided for the technology
application (for completed projects) or
through a specified period of operation
(for ongoing projects).
The cost data must be obtained from a
federal agency source.
Cost data were obtained directly from the cited
sources, and no independent verification of costs
was performed. All costs presented in this
compendium have been rounded to three
significant digits.
3. Normalize the Total Cost Projects with Fully
Defined Cost Data for Time and Location
Total costs for technology applications were
standardized to make them comparable, with
adjustments made for both time and location. The
following methods were used to make those
adjustments.
Inflation Adjustment: The total cost of
each application was adjusted to year 1999
dollars by multiplying the unadjusted total
cost by an inflation factor for the year in
which the costs were incurred. The
inflation factor used for the analysis was ,
obtained from the Construction Cost Index
published by Engineering News Record.
The most current year for which an annual
average inflation adjustment factor was
available at the time this compendium was
prepared was 1999. For time adjustment
of capital costs, the inflation adjustment
factor for the actual year in which the
costs were incurred was used. For time
adjustment of annual operating costs, 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
.
1-2
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
Location Adjustment: The total cost of
each application was adjusted for location
by multiplying the costs provided for each
site by an Area Cost Factor Index
published by USAGE in PAX Newsletter,
No. 3.2.1, dated March 31, 1999 and
available on the USAGE web site at
.
4. Determine Unit Costs for Projects with Fully
Defined Cost Data
Following adjustments for time and location, the
unit cost of a technology application was
calculated by dividing the adjusted total cost of the
treatment technology application and the quantity
of material treated or contaminant removed, as
appropriate.
5. Perform a Cost Analysis by Technology
An analysis of unit cost versus quantity treated
was performed to determine whether a correlation
was evident. The analysis was performed for
technologies for which fully defined cost data
were available for five or more projects having
similar characteristics. In addition, cost data were
evaluated to determine whether correlations were
evident for other factors that potentially affect the
cost of a technology application, including type of
contaminants treated, types and characteristics of
media treated, and technology design parameters.
If a correlation was evident, cost curves were
developed, using a reverse exponential linear fit on
the data, as described below (Appendix B presents
additional information about statistical
calculations and alternative confidence interval
calculations):
1. For each technology, the natural logarithm
of the data on unit cost and quantity
treated data was calculated. The
transformation was based on the
assumption that the data would fit a
reverse exponential model, which typically
is used to model unit cost data.
2. For each technology, a linear regression of
log-transformed data was performed to
calculate the best-fit of the data.
Statistical parameters, such as goodness of
fit and coefficient of determination were
calculated for each plot.
3. Confidence intervals (68 and 95 percent,
corresponding to one and two standard
deviations, respectively) were calculated
for each fit.
4. The actual data, best-fit line, and
confidence intervals (for 68 percent) were
plotted on a logarithmic-scale (base 10)
graph. In addition, a decimal-scale plot
was prepared that showed the best-fit line
and 68 percent confidence internals to
illustrate a specific range of unit costs and
quantity treated (or mass removed) for an
individual technology. Users of the cost
curves should note that the labels and
scales on the graphs vary by technology.
In addition, other factors that potentially affect
costs, such as contaminants treated, types and
characteristics of media treated, and technology
design parameters, were considered, drawing on
information provided in the case studies and
available references. For each technology, that
information is presented in narrative format.
Organization of the Report
This report includes six sections, each of which
describes the cost analysis for one of the six
technologies - bioremediation (Section 2), thermal
desorption (Section 3), SVE (Section 4), on-site
incineration (Section 5), pump-and-treat (Section
6), and PRBs (Section 7). Each of the sections
includes a brief description of the technology, a
discussion of the methodology used in the cost
analysis, and the results of the cost analysis. The
results .subsection includes the results of
quantitative analyses (cost curves), when adequate
correlations were evident, and qualitative
information about factors that potentially impact
the costs of a technology application. Section 8 is
a list of references used in preparing this report.
Appendix A of this report presents a summary of
information about costs of off-site disposal of
wastes. The summary is based on information
prepared by USAGE, Report on Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)for
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste, and is
1-3
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
provided for purposes of comparison. Appendix B
provides additional information about the
development of cost curves, and Appendix C
presents a list of active members of the FRTR cost
and performance work group.
1-4
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 200O
2.0 BIOREMEDIATION
Bioremediation is a remedial technology that uses
biological processes to destroy or transform
contaminants. Bioremediation may be intrinsic
(natural) or enhanced (engineered) by adding
nutrients, electron donors or acceptors, or
microbes to soil or groundwater. This section
presents a summary of data obtained from case
studies of on-site bioremediation projects that
employ engineered systems and the results of the
analysis of those data.
Methodology for Cost Analysis for
Bioremediation Projects
As Exhibit 2-1 shows, 69 bioremediation case
studies addressing 61 individual projects2 were
identified from the available information sources.
Bioremediation projects were identified through
application of the criteria discussed in Section 1
and the following two technology-specific
criteria:
The application must be identified in the
information source as in situ
bioremediation of groundwater, in situ
bioremediation of soil, or ex situ
bioremediation of soil.3
The application must be primarily a
bioremediation project and must not have
a significant non-bioremediation
component. Therefore, applications that
used bioremediation in combination with
another technology, such as SVE or
groundwater pump-and-treat technologies
were not included.
Capital and O&M costs were obtained from the
case studies, along with data needed to calculate
unit costs, such as volume of material treated. Of
the 61 projects, fully defined cost data, as
described in Section 1, were determined to be
available for 22. Exhibits 2-2 and 2-3 summarize
Exhibit 2-1. Bioremediation Case Studies -
Sources
Source
FRTR bioremediation case studies
(volumes 1 [1995], 5 [1997], and 7
[1998] and CD-ROM [2000]).
Available at http://www.frtr.gov/cost.
A Compendium of Cost Data for
Environmental Remediation
Technologies, LANL, LA-UR-96-2205,
August 1996. Available at
http://www.lanl.gOV/orgs/d/d4/enviro/
etcap.
Case studies presented in Cost Data for
Innovative Treatment Technologies,
USAGE, July 1997.
Bioremediation in the Field Search
System, Version 2.1.
Available at http://clu-in.org/
PRODUCTS/MOREINFO/Bfss.htm.
Number of
Case Studies
27
32
7
3
Exhibit 2-2. Bioremediation Projects by
Project Type (Total Projects/Projects for
Which Fully Defined Cost Data Are Available)
Project Type
Ex Situ Bioremediation
(Soil)
In Situ Bioremediation
(Soil)
In Situ Bioremediation
(Groundwater)
TOTAL
Total
Projects
31
11
19
61
Projects with
Fully Defined
Cost Data
13
3
6
22
the total number of projects and projects with
fully defined cost data were available by project
type and by contaminant type, respectively.
Exhibit 2-4, organized by bioremediation project
type, presents summary information about the 22
projects with fully defined cost data, including
name, location, contaminants, and cost
information.
In addition to the bioremediation projects
discussed in Exhibit 2-4,45 bioventing projects
were identified in a report prepared by the
AFCEE.
2-1
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit 2-3. Bioremediation Projects by Contaminant Type
(Total Projects/Projects Having Fully-Defined Cost Data)
Project Type
Ex Situ Bioremediation (Soil)
In Situ Bioremediation (Soil)
In Situ Bioremediation (Ground water)
Contaminated Type
VOCs
BTEX
8/6
5/2
2/0
cVOCs
2/2
2/0
10/5
Other
2/2
1/0
0/0
SVOCs
PAHs
9/6
0/0
0/0
PCBs
2/1
0/0
0/0
Pest/Herb
1/0
0/0
0/0
Other
7/4
1/0
0/0
PHCs
3/0
0/0
0/0
Notes:
Several projects address more than one contaminant
BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
cVOC = Chlorinated volatile organic compound
Other SVOC = Other semivolatile organic compound
Other VOC = Other volatile organic compound (for example,
ketones)
PAH = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyl
Pest/Herb = Pesticides and herbicides
PHC = Petroleum hydrocarbons
SVOC = Semivolatile organic compound
VOC = Volatile organic compound
Technology Transfer Division entitled Bioventing
Performance and Cost Results from Multiple Air
Force Test Sites, Technology Demonstration,
Final Technical Memorandum, June 1996. Cost
information for the 45 bio venting projects
included total cost and quantity treated. Because
the data for the Air Force report represented a
comprehensive effort to collect cost data by
standard procedures, the data were considered to
be unique in the field and, therefore, were
analyzed separately.
Results of Analysis of 22 Bioremediation
Projects with Fully Defined Cost Data
Unit Cost Versus Quantity Treated
The 22 projects with fully defined cost data were
reviewed to identify projects that exhibited
similar characteristics (project type and
contaminant type). Five or more projects were
identified for the following groups:
Ex situ bioremediation (soil), with BTEX
as a contaminant (6 sites)
Ex situ bioremediation (soil), with PAHs
as a contaminant (6 sites)
In situ bioremediation of groundwater,
with chlorinated solvents as a
contaminant (5 sites)
The costs for the projects in each of the three
groups were evaluated to determine whether any
correlations in unit cost versus quantity of soil or
groundwater treated were evident. No correlation
between unit cost and quantity of soil or
groundwater treated was evident for any of the
groups.
Other Factors
Potential correlations between unit cost and other
factors, such as soil type, moisture content, and
types of amendments used, were considered for
the projects in each group, but none was
identified. While no quantitative correlations for
those factors were evident, the following
qualitative information about potential factors
affecting the design and operation of
bioremediation systems was provided in the case
studies and in the EPA report Engineered
Approaches to In Situ Bioremediation of
Chlorinated Solvents, July 2000. The specific
effects of those and other factors on the cost of a
bioremediation system are site-specific.
Soil type and aquifer chemistry: For in situ
bioremediation, the porosity, organic content, and
moisture content of the soil affect the flow rate of
fluids and are factors in determining the delivery
method for additives and how well the additives
disperse in the subsurface. Parameters such as
oxygen content, pH, redox potential,
2-2
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit 2-4. Summary of Bioremediation Projects with Fully Defined Cost Data
(Page 1 of 3)
Site Name
State
Cleanup
Under
Status
Contaminants
Start
Year
Area
Cost
Factor
Technology
Cost($)*
(Source)
Volume
Treated
(yd3)
Unit
Cost
($/yd3)
Ex situ Bioremediation (Soil)**
"Bonneville Power
Administration Superfund
Site
Brown Wood Preserving
Superfund Site
Dubose Oil Products Co.
Superfund Site
Fort Greely UST Soil
Piles
Fort Wainwright, North
Post Site Soil Remediation
French Limited Superfund
Site
Glasgow Air Force Base
UST Removal
Havre Air Force Station,
Remove Abandoned USTs
Lowry AFB
Matagora Island Air Force
Base
WA
FL
FL
AK
AK
TX
MT
MT
CO
TX
Superfund
Superfund
Superfund
Other
Other
Superfund
Other
Other
Other
Other
FS Complete
FS Complete
FS Complete
FS Complete
FS Complete
FS Complete
FS Complete
FS Complete
FS Ongoing
FS Complete
PAHs, Other
SVOCs
PAHs
BTEX,
cVOCs, Other
SVOCs, Other
VOCs
BTEX, PHC
BTEX
cVOCs, PAHs,
Other SVOCs,
Other VOCs,
pCBs
PHC
BTEX
BTEX, PHC
BTEX ;
1995
1989
1993
1994
1993
1992
1994
1992
i
1992
1992
1.07
0.87
0.87
1.60
1.60
0.82
1.14
1.14
1.03
0.82
1,280,000
(1)
635,000 (1)
4,990,000
(1)
749,000
(1,2)
433,000 (1)
26,810,000
(1)
60,000 (2)
48,700 (2)
130,000 (1)
77,600 (2)
1,048
8,100
13,137
9,800
4,240
300,000
4,800
1,786 .
5,400
500
1,220
.78.4
380
76.4
102
89.4
12.5
27.3
24.1
155
Comments
Included extensive
technology demonstration
activities
Constructed lined treatment
system; moderate initial
contaminant concentrations
Treatment system
"constructed in building,
including leachate
collection, inoculant
generation, vacuum
extractions, and wastewater
treatment
O&M only in summer
months; no liner
Remediation technology
costs only; activities
included liner construction,
drainage, tilling, and
addition of nutrients
Extremely large volume;
remediation conducted ex
situ, but in place
Application primarily
consisted of soil tilling
Application primarily
consisted of soil plowing
and tilling
Conducted on plastic
sheeting, nutrients added
once and aerated; interim
costs
Cost of entire project
including excavation,
treatment, and monitoring
2-3
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium-Year2000
Exhibit 2-4. Summary of Bioremediation Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data
(Page 2 of 3)
Site Name
Scott Lumber Company
Superfund Site
Southeastern Wood
Preserving Superfund Site,
OU1
Umatilla Army Depot
Activity (FS)
State
MO
MS
OR
Cleanup
Under
Superfund
Superfund
Other
Status
FS Complete
FS Complete
FS Complete
Contaminants
PAHs
PAHs
Other SVOCs
Start
Year
1990
1991
1994
Area
Cost
Factor
0.96
0.87
1.15
Technology
Cost($)*
(Source)
6,580,000
(1)
2,550,000
(1)
5,260,000
(1)
Volume
Treated
(yd3)
10,641
10,500
10,969
Unit
Cost
($/yd3)
618
243
479
Comments
Constructed lined treatment
area, irrigation and drainage
system, and addition of
nutrient and culture
Bioreactor system
constructed; high initial
contaminant
concentrations; extensive
pretreatment
Composting conducted in
building; one of first
biotreatment projects for
soil contaminated with
explosives; maintained high
moisture content
In Situ Bioremediation (Soil)
Dover AFB, Area 6
Hill AFB, Site 280
Hill AFB, Site 914
Lowry AFB (in situ)
DE
UT
UT
CO
Superfund
Not
Specified
Other
Other
DS
Complete
FS Ongoing
FS Complete
FS Complete
cVOCs, Heavy
metals
BTEX, PHC
BTEX, PHC
BTEX, PHC
1996
1990
1989 .
1992
1.02
1.03
1.03
1.03
551,000 (1)
271,000 (1)
863,000 (1)
75,300 (1)
1,667
NR
5,000
NR
331
NC
173
NC
Direct injection of air and
propane; cometabolic
aerobic; pilot test
Interim costs
Early bioventing
application; combined with
SVE
Interim costs; high initial
contaminant
concentrations; used
horizontal trenches
In Situ Bioremediation (Groundwater)
Avco Lycoming
Superfund Site
Edwards AFB
PA
CA
Superfund
Superfund
FS Ongoing
DS
Complete
cVOCs, Heavy
metals
cVOCs
1997
1995
1.03
1.15
455,000 (1)
445,000 (1)
NR
1,517
NC
293
Direct injection of
molasses; anaerobic; air
sparging, with SVE
Recirculation between two
aquifer systems; aerobic
2-4
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit 2-4. Summary of Bioremediation Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data
(Page 3 of 3)
Site Name
Pinellas Northeast Site,
Anaerobic Bioremediation
Texas Gulf Coast Site
Department of Energy,
Savannah River Site, M
Area Process
Sewer/Integrated
Demonstration Site
State
PL
TX
SC
Cleanup
Under
RCRA
CA
Other
Superfund
Status
DS
Complete
FS Complete
DS
Complete
Contaminants
cVOCs
cVOCs
cVOCs
Start
Year
1997
1995
1992
Area
Cost
Factor
0.87
0.82
0.87
Technology
Cost ($)*
(Source)
359,000 (1)
630,000 (1)
729,000 (1)
Volume
Treated
(yd3)
1,238
NR
NR
Unit
Cost
($/yd3) .
290
NC
NC
Comments
Recirculation with addition
of benzoate, lactate, and
methanol; anaerobic;
intended to supplement
active pump-and-treat
system
Recirculation with addition
of methanol; anaerobic;
intended as a precursor to
monitored natural
attenuation
Direct injection of
cometabolites; aerobic;
SVE employing horizontal
wells
Sources: (1) FRTR case studies (volumes 1 [1995], 5 [1997], and 7 [1998] and CD-ROM [2000]). Available at http://www.frtr.gov/cost.
(2) Cost Data for Innovative Treatment Technologies., USAGE, Internal Draft, July 1997.
Notes:
Costs are the sum of capital and annual O&M costs for the technology and have been adjusted to a common location and year 1999, as discussed in Section 1.
Ex situ soil projects are land treatment, unless otherwise noted.
AFB = Air Force Base
BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
CA = Corrective Action
cVOC = Chlorinated volatile organic compound
DS " = Demonstration scale
FS = Full-scale
NC = Not calculated
NR = Not reported
Other VOC = Other volatile organic compound (for example, ketones)
OU = Operable Unit
PAH = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyl
PHC = Petroleum hydrocarbons
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
UST = Underground Storage Tank
SVE = Soil Vapor Extraction
SVOC = Semivolatile organic compound
yd3 = Cubic yard
2-5
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
concentrations of nutrients, and concentration of
electron acceptors affect the types of degradation
mechanisms that are likely to occur and the rate of
degradation. For ex situ bioremediation,
parameters such as moisture content and pH may
requke adjustment before treatment, depending
on the bioremediation mechanism and types of
additives used. The moisture content of the soil
also may affect the need for leachate collection
and treatment.
Hydrogeologic setting: The permeability,
heterogeneity, depth to groundwater, and
thickness of the aquifer, along with the site type
and aquifer chemistry, affect the complexity of
the system in terms of the type of engineered
solutions required and the extent to which such
solutions are needed. A site that has low
permeability and is highly stratified may require
the use of pneumatic fracturing to improve
conditions for use of bioremediation.
Amendments: The cost of amendments is affected
by the price of the specific amendment used
(including mixtures and proprietary solutions), the
total amount required during operation, the
complexity of the delivery mechanism, and the
effectiveness of the amendment in treating the
target contaminant(s).
Type and extent of contamination: The type,
concentration, and areal extent of contamination
affect the size of the system (number of injection
and extraction wells and blower size); the need
for and complexity of off-gas treatment; the
length of time the system must be operated to
reach cleanup targets; the type and amount of
amendments needed; the specific degradation
mechanisms that may occur; and the rate and
effectiveness of those mechanisms in treating the
targeted contaminants. For in situ
bioremediation, the presence of non-aqueous.
phase liquids (NAPLs) may require source
control, with the type and extent of the NAPL
contamination determining the complexity and
potential effectiveness of the source control. For
ex situ bioremediation, the type and concentration
of contaminants determine the need for and type
of liner, leachate collection, and emissions
controls.
Results of Analysis of AFCEE Data - Unit Cost
Versus Quantity Treated
The data for the individual AFCEE bioventing
applications were adjusted on the basis of site
location, as described in Section 1. However,
because no information about the period of
operation was available, costs could not be
adjusted for inflation. The cost data then were
evaluated to determine whether any correlations
in unit cost versus quantity of soil treated were
evident. A reverse-exponential linear fit was
calculated for the data, as described in Section 1.
Exhibit 2-5 presents the results of the analysis on
both decimal-scale and logarithmic-scale plots.
Appendix B provides the detailed backup for the
analyses, including alternate confidence interval
calculations. Exhibit 2-6 summarizes the
information provided for the 45 AFCEE
bioventing sites.
As Exhibit 2-5 shows, a correlation between unit
costs and volume of soil treated is evident for the
AFCEE bioventing projects. Economies of scale
were observed where unit costs decreased as
larger quantities were treated. For example, unit
costs for projects decrease from about $10 to $20
per cubic yard for 10,000 cubic yards of soil
treated to less than $5 per cubic yard for projects
where relatively large quantities of soil were
treated.
2-6
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit 2-5. AFCEE Bioventing Projects - Unit Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 68-Percent Confidence Interval)
fee
r
1,000 -j
100-
1
1
o
Si
10-
1 -.
100
Notes
Decimal-Scale View - Selected Range
10,000
20,000
70,000
80,000
Volume of Soil Treated (ydj)
Log-Scale View
68%
Confidence
Limits
1,000 10,000 .
Volume of Soil Treated (yd3)
100,000.
1,000,000
'..;.',, ; ^sy.-^s.j.js^^.^aiK^jtr^aata,^
All reported costs were adjusted for site locations, as described jn the text. ,
, ?:ป' fr ^L ,:.,. H--V,_I: t\j ;, >, 'n^i-".4-^;^nii* >y-T;,-]L;i V:L-"*^I!'J'^ ^^^-.^jffiaii^vift.^AijiSi^JttiT^tW'fijib'-iwv ^^.3^.5*^"'***-
r 3 The coefficient of determination Fr2) for the linear fitto the data is 80 percent.
* ""-,wgy i^mp' .':j:*l 'WII^'VY"/-^^.-^^^^^^^^^.^.^^^^^^^ "L"'^?r'
4 Appendix Bi presents the methodology^ and 'other statistical informationrelafedlothe'plbts above. "'
2-7
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium. Year 2000
Exhibit 2-6. AFCEE Bioventing Projects
Site Name
AFP 4
AFPPJKS
Battle Creek ANGB
BealeAFB
Boiling AFB
Camp Pendeleton
Cannon AFB
Cape Canaveral AFB
Charleston AFB
Davis-Monthan
Dyess AFB
Edwards AFB
Eglin AFB
Ellsworth AFB
ElmendorfAFB
Fairchild AFB
FE Warren AFB
Ft. Drum
Grissom AFB
Hanscom AFB
Hickam AFB
Hill AFB
K.I. Sawyer AFB
Kelly AFB
Kirtland AFB
LA AFB
Little Rock AFB
Malmstrom AFB
March AFB
McClellan AFB
McGuire AFB
Mt. Hope AFB
Nellis AFB
Offutt AFB
Patrick AFB
Pease AFB
Plattsburgh AFB
Pope AFB
Randolph AFB
Shaw AFB
Tinker AFB
Travis AFB
USCG Supp. Cen. Kodiak
Vandenberg AFB
Wcstover AFB
Site Location
TX
CO
MI
CA
DC
CA
NM
FL
SC
AZ
TX
CA
FL
SD
AK
WA
WY
NY
IN
MA
HI
UT
MI
TX
NM
CA
AR
MT
CA
CA
NJ
ID
NV
NE
FL
NH
NY
NC
TX
SC
OK
CA
AK
CA
MA
Treatment Volume (yd3)
1,800
2,100
8,700
42,100
10,200
4,100
13,500
4,900
1,600
311,500
. 2,000
4,300
12,300
3,700
19,000
8,000
2,800
1,900
6,000
3,600
13,700
77,700
71,300
33,000
3,100
20,600
1,000
1,400
1,200
53,200 ,
2,800
1,900
26,200
14,800
1,350
14,800
63,800
1,700
4,700
5,200
1,800
600
4,500
29,000
5,800
Total Cost ($)
599,000
47,600
53,600
232,000
99,000
97,900
128,000
131,000
120,000
423,000
49,000
168,000
105,000
68,000
237,000
310,000
53,000
68,800
87,400
48,500
270,000
207,000
179,000
130,000
77,500
176,000
55,500
71,900
113,000
622,000
82,400
58,700
181,000
219,000
146,000
293,000
255,000
69,600
37,500
104,000
41,500
112,000
110,000
380,000
69,200
Unit Cost ($/yd3)
333
22.7
6.16
5.51
9.71
23.9
9.48
26.7
75.0
1.36
24.5
39.1
8.54
18.4
12.5
38.8
18.9
36.2
14.6
13.5
19.7
2.70
2.50
3.94
25.0
8.54
55.5
51.4
94.2
11.7
29.4
30.9
6.91
14.8
108
19.8
4.00
40.9
7.98
20.0
23.1
187
24.4
13.1
11.9
Source: Bioventing Performance and Cost Results from Multiple Air Force Test Sites, Technology Demonstration, Final
Technical Memorandum. AFCEE Technology Transfer Division. June 1996.
20
-o
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
3.0 THERMAL DESORPTION
Thermal desorption is used to treat contaminated
soil by heating the soil (directly or indirectly) to a
target temperature to cause the organic
contaminants to volatilize and separate from the
soil. The volatilized contaminants (vapors) are
collected and generally are treated by one or more
off-gas treatment technologies. Types of off-gas
treatment include filtration, wet-scrubbing, vapor-
phase carbon adsorption, and thermal oxidation.
This section presents a summary of data obtained
from case studies of on-site, ex situ thermal
desorption and the results of the analysis of those
data.
Methodology for Cost Analysis for Thermal
Desorption Projects
As Exhibit 3-1 shows, 35 thermal desorption case
studies involving 29 individual projects4 were
identified from the available information sources.
Exhibit 3-1. Thermal Desorption Case Studies
- Sources
Source
FRTR thermal desorption case studies
(Volumes 1 [1995], 5 [1997], and 7
[1998] and CD-ROM [2000]). Available
at http://www.frtr.gov/cost.
A Compendium of Cost Data for
Environmental Remediation
Technologies, LANL, LA-UR-96-2205,
August 1996. Available at
htttp://www.lanl.gov/orgs/d/d4/enviro/
etcap.
Case studies presented in Cost Data for
Innovative Treatment Technologies,
USAGE, July 1997.
Number of
Case Studies
18
10
7
Capital and O&M costs were obtained from the
case studies, along with data needed to calculate
unit costs, such as volume of material treated. Of
the 29 thermal desorption projects identified, it
was determined that fully defined cost data, as
described in Section 1, were available for 22. For
ex situ projects with fully-defined cost data, costs
for excavation and disposal of residues were not
included in the calculation of unit cost. Exhibit
3-2 presents summary information about the 21
projects, including name, location, contaminants,
cost information, and information about the
technology.
Results
Unit Cost Versus Quantity of Soil Treated
The costs of thermal desorption projects were
evaluated to determine whether any correlations
in unit cost versus quantity of soil treated were
evident. Initially, the analysis was performed
using all 21 projects with fully-defined cost data.
Preliminary results showed that several projects
appeared to have much higher relative unit costs.
Additional analysis indicated that projects where
PCBs were present in the contaminated soil
generally exhibited higher unit costs than projects
where PCBs were not present. Further review
indicated that the types of emissions controls used
for projects where PCBs were present differed
substantially different from those used for
projects where PCBs were not present. For
example, most of the projects where PCB-
contaminated soil was treated required the use of
complex emissions control systems, such as a
liquid-phase oxidation system. Therefore, it was
determined that projects involving PCB-
contaminated soil did not involve technologies
having characteristics similar to those projects
that did not involve PCBs, and that the two types
of projects should be analyzed separately.
For the 17 projects under which PCBs were not a
contaminant, a reverse-exponential linear fit was
calculated for the data, as described in Section 1.
Exhibit 3-3 presents the results of the analysis on
both decimal-scale and logarithmic-scale pilot.
Appendix B presents the detailed backup for the
analyses, including alternate confidence internal
calculations. As Exhibit 3-3 shows, a correlation
between unit costs and volume of soil treated is
evident. Economies of scale were observed
where unit costs decreased as larger quantities
were treated. For example, unit costs for projects
where 20,000 tons of soil were treated were
3-1
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit 3-2. Summary of Thermal Desorption Projects with Fully Defined Cost Data
(Page 1 of 2)
Site
Waldick Aerospace
Devices Superfund Site
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund
Site
Port Holler Radio Relay
Station
Wide Beach Development
Superfund Site
Outboard Marine
Corporation Superfund
Site
Reich Farm Superfund Site
Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology Site
McKin Company
Superfund Site
Sarney Farm Superfund
Site
Sand Creek Industrial
Superfund Site, OU 5
Naval Air Station Cecil
Field
Letterkenny Army Depot
Metaltec
Arlington Blending &
Packaging Superfund Site
TH Agriculture &
Nutrition Company
Superfund Site
PCX Washington
Superfund Site
Application Data
Application
Year
1993
1994
1995
1990
1992
1995
1996
1986
1997
1995
1995
1994
1995
1996
1993
1995
Location
NJ
MA
AK
NY
IL
NJ
CO
ME
NY
CO
FL
PA
NJ
TN
GA
NC
Cost * ($)
(with source)
2,890,000 (1)
24,100,000 (1)
7,070,000 (1)
19,300,000 (1)
4,720,000 (1)
6,010,000 (1)
1,480,000 (1)
4,340,000 (1)
2,900,000 (1)
2,280,000 (1)
1,960,000 (1)
3,410,000 (2)
1,206,000(1)
4,090,000 (1)
371,000 (1)
1,610,000 (1)
Tons
Treated
5,175
44,000
14,250
42,000
12,755
22,245
5,694
17,250
10,571
13,000
11,768
20,979
6,104
41,431
4,300
20,386
$/Ton
558
548
496
459
370
270
260
252
234
175
167
162
197 ,
98.7
86.3
79.0
% Soil
Moisture
13
8.9'
11
18.3
12.9
NA
NA
NA
<25
NA
12.9
24
NA
17
16
15
Treatment
Temperature
(degrees F)
500
750
.1200
1293
1339
NA
250
400
700
500
825
600
750
680
1080
350
Contaminants
U
ฃ
PH
X
X
X
3
1
X
X
X
X
X
U
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U
o
U
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U
o
>
co
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
PM
X
X
X
X
a
(3
&
X
Emission Controls
U
$
>
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VScrubber
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VThermal
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
h-
X
X
X
3-2
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit 3-2. Summary of Thermal Desorption Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data
(Page 2 of 2)
Site
Longhorn Army
Ammunition Plant,
Burning Ground No. 3
Alameda Naval Air
Station, Interim Soil
Removal
Fort Lewis Solvent Refined
Coal Pilot Plant
Fort Campell POL Site
Dane County Regional
Airport, Truaz Field
Application Data
|
<ฃ
1997
1993
1996
1994
1994
Location
TX
CA
WA
KY
WI
Cost * ($)
(with source)
3,910,000 (1)
154,000 (3)
4,110,000(1)
1,230,000 (3)
1,150,000(3) '
i
Tons
Treated
51,669
2,250
104,336
32,404
34,862
$/Ton
75.7
68.4
39.4
38.0
33.0
% Soil
Moisture
17.5
NA
4
NA
NA
Treatment
Temperature
(degrees F)
430
NA
750
NA
NA
Contaminants
U
PL,
X
X
X
X
ซ
!ง
X
u
n
X
X
u
u
u
X
u
o
c/3
X
u
CM
"3
Emission Controls
o
ri
>
fH
O
X)
3
o
rrt
X
-a
<3
>
X
X
X
u
rt
>-4
X
>-
Sources:
(1) FRTR case studies (volumes 1 [1995], 5 [1997], and 7 [1998] and CD-ROM [2000]). Available at .
(2) A Compendium of Cost Data for Environmental Remediation Technologies. LANL. LA-UR-96-2205. August 1996. Available at
.
(3) Cosf Data for Innovative Treatment Technologies, internal USAGE draft. July 1997.
Notes:
Cost are the sum of capital and annual O&M costs for the technology and have been adjusted to a common location and year 1999 as discussed in Section 1. Where
excavation and disposal of residuals were specifically identified as a separate cost elements, they were excluded from the technology cost and unit cost calculation.
BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
cVOCs = Chlorinated volatile organic compound
DS = Demonstration scale
LGAC = Granular activated carbon treatment for liquid phase
LOx = Oxidative treatment for liquid phase
NA = Not available
NC = Not calculated
NR = Not reported
OU = Operable unit
Other VOCs = Other volatile organic compound (for example, ketones)
PAHs = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyl
PHC = Petroleum hydrocarbon
POL = Petroleum, oil and lubricant :
Rad = Radionuclides
SVOCs = Other semivolatile organic compound
VGAC = Granular activated carbon treatment for gas phase
Vscrabber = Wet scrubber treatment for gas phase
Vthermal = Thermal treatment for gas phase
yd3 = Cubic yards
3-3
-------
approximately $100 to $300 per ton; costs
decreased to less than $50 per ton for projects
treating relatively larger quantities of soil.
Because PCBs were treated at fewer than five
projects, a quantitative analysis of unit cost versus
quantity of soil treated was not performed.
However, qualitative information from the case
studies indicates that potential factors
contributing to the relatively higher cost of
treatment for projects where PCBs are a
contaminant include types of emissions control
technologies required (discussed above), the need
to operate the thermal desorption unit at higher
temperatures, and the type of liquid effluent
controls required.
Other Factors
Potential correlations between unit cost and other
factors, such as throughput, moisture content, and
treatment temperature, were considered, but no
correlations were evident. While quantitative
correlations for those factors were not evident, the
following qualitative information aboutpotential
factors affecting the design and operation of ex
situ thermal desorption systems was provided in
the case studies. The specific effects of those and
other factors on the cost of a thermal desorption
system are site-specific.
Soil type and matrix characteristics: Clay .
content, particle size, moisture content, and pH
determine the need for pretreatment of soil before
thermal desorption to avoid such operational '
problems as slagging and clogging of the feed
mechanism. Pretreatment may include screening
to adjust particle size, chemical treatment to
adjust pH, and dewatering to adjust moisture
content.
Type and concentration of contaminants: The
type and concentration of contaminants affect the
operating temperature, the need to operate under a
vacuum or with a reducing or inert atmosphere,
and the type of off-gas treatment needed. For
example, thermal desorption of soils that contain
high concentrations of chlorinated compounds
generally uses higher temperatures, is performed
under a vacuum, and uses more complex off-gas
treatment (an acid-gas scrubber or thermal
oxidizer) than thermal desorption of soils that
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
contain non-chlorinated compounds. However, a
comparison of thermal desorption projects that
had chlorinated compounds versus those without
chlorinated compounds did not show a substantial
difference in unit costs and the cost curve shown
above includes both types of projects.
Maintenance: The type and amount of
maintenance needed for the thermal desorption
system can affect the project schedule and costs.
For the feed mechanism and thermal desorption
unit, adequate characterization of the soil type
and matrix characteristics are important to
minimizing downtime, as described above. For
off-gas treatment, the properties of the off-gas,
including contaminant concentrations and levels
of particulates, affect the length of time a
treatment technology operates before routine
maintenance is needed (for example, changeout of
carbon or filters) and the frequency with which
non-routine maintenance is needed (for example,
clogging of a baghouse). Depending on the type
and extent of the maintenance needs, the design
and operation of the thermal desorption system
may be modified.
3-4
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit 3-3. Thermal Desorption Projects - Unit Cost vs. Quantity of Soil Treated
(with 68-Percent Confidence Interval)
n
A
I* *
Sfa;
4.
&' v
Decimal-Scale View - Selected Range
15,000 30,000 45,000 60,000 75,000
Quantity of Soil Treated (Tons)
90,000
105,000
Log-Scale View
1,000 -i
Jo 100
o
o
Confidence
Limits
10-
1,000
10,000 .: , 100,000
Quantity of Soil Treated (Tons)
1,000,000
Notes
. J jThe line of best fit (solid line) and 68-percent confidence limits (dashed lines) for individual predicted points for 17
thermal desorption projects are shown in theplots above "The line of best fit and"confidence limits were calculated using
. linear regression of the natural-log transformed data The upper plot was prepared by back transformation of the log-
- transformed data to show the line of best fit and confidence limits in original units (The upper plot shows projects under
which less than 105,dOO tons of soil were treated and"the unit cost was less than $300 per ton )
C 1| *^J^^ J * tt ป ^ ซ ป ' a - . ',
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
This page intentionally left blank.
3-6
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium- Year 2QQQ
4.0 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is an in situ remedial
technology that is used to remove volatile organic
contaminants from soil. Air is drawn through the
subsurface by applying a vacuum to one or more
extraction points, from which the vapor phase of
the volatile contaminants is removed. The soil
vapors (off-gases) from the system are collected
and generally treated by one or more
technologies, such as granular activated carbon
(GAC), thermal oxidation, catalytic oxidation, or
scrubbing. SVE often is used with other
technologies such, as air sparging, to enhance the
removal of biodegradable contaminants or to strip
volatile contaminants from the saturated zone,
respectively. This section presents a summary of
data obtained from case studies of SVE
applications and an analysis of those data.
Methodology for Cost Analysis for SVE
Projects
Exhibit 4-1 shows 44 SVE case studies addressing
35 individual projects5 that were identified from
the available information sources.
Exhibit 4-1. SVE Projects -Sources
Source
FRTR SVE case studies (for example,
volumes 1 [1995], 5 [1997], 7 [1998] and
CD-ROM [2000]). Available at
http://www.frtr.gov/cost.
A Compendium of Cost Data for
Environmental Remediation
Technologies, LANL, LA-UR-96-2205,
August 1996. Available at
ht tp://www. lanl. gov/orgs/d/d4/enviro/
etcap.
Case studies presented in Cost Data for
Innovative Treatment Technologies,
USAGE, July 1997.
Number of
Case Studies
28
11
5
Capital and O&M costs were obtained from the
case studies, along with data needed to calculate
unit costs, such as the quantity of soil treated or
mass of contaminant removed. Of the 35 SVE
projects identified, it was determined that fully
defined cost data, as describedun Section 1, were
available for 23. Exhibit 4-2 presents information
about each of these projects, including site name,
location, contaminants, and cost data. For each of
the three ongoing projects, the total cost reflects
the information reported in the case study for a
specified period of operation and may not be the
final cost of the project.
The case studies provided information about
quantity treated in terms of (1) volume of soil
treated and/or (2) mass of contaminant removed.
Therefore, unit costs were calculated both ways,
according to the information available in the case
study. Volume of soil treated was standardized to
cubic yards on the basis of soil density (assumed
to be 1.5 tons per cubic yard when not specified).
For the 23 projects for which fully defined costs
were available, unit cost was calculated on the
basis of quantity of soil treated for 18 sites and on
the basis of mass of contaminant removed for 14
sites.
Results
The costs of SVE projects were evaluated to
determine whether any correlations in unit cost
versus quantity of soil treated or mass of
contaminant removed were evident. A reverse-
exponential linear fit was calculated for the data,
as described in Section 1. The results of the
analysis are presented on both decimal-scale and
logarithmic-scale plots. Appendix B presents the
detailed backup for the analyses, including
alternate confidence interval calculations.
Unit Cost Versus Volume of Soil Treated
Exhibit 4-3 presents the results of the analysis of
unit cost versus volume of soil treated for 18
projects. A correlation between unit cost and
volume of soil treated is evident for the SVE
projects. Economies of scale were observed
where unit costs decreased as larger quantities
were treated. For example, units costs decreased
from $60 to $350 per cubic yard for projects
treating up to 10,000 cubic yards of soil to less
than $5 per cubic yard for projects treating
relatively larger quantities of soil.
4-1
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium-Year 2000
Exhibit 4-2. Summary of SVE Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data
(Page 1 of 2)
Site Name
Amcor Precast
Camp LeJeune Military Reservation
Superfund Site, Site 82, Area A
Commencement Bay, South
Tacoma Channel Well 12A
Superfund Site
Davis-Monthan AFB, Site ST-35
Defense Supply Center Richmond
Superfund Site
Fairchild Semiconductor
Corporation Superfund Site
Fort Lewis Landfill 4
Garden State Cleaners
Hastings Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Site,
Well Number 3 Subsite
Holloman AFB, Sites 2 and 5
Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site
Kelly AFB, Area 1100
Luke Air Force Base, North Fire
Training Area
Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund
Site, Motor Pool Area, OU 18
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund
Site, Burn Pits OU
Sacramento Army Depot Superfund
Site, Tank 2, OU 3
Sand Creek Industrial Superfund
Site, OU 1
Shaw AFB, OU 1
Location
UT
NC
WA
AZ
VA
CA
WA
NJ
NE
NM
CA
TX
AZ
CO
CA
CA
CO
SC
Project
Status
Ongoing
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Contaminants
PHC, BTEX
cVOCs, BTEX
cVOCs
cVOCs
cVOCs
cVOCs, BTEX
cVOCs, Metals
cVOCs
cVOCs
BTEX
cVOCs
PHC
BTEX, VOCs
cVOCs
VOCs, cVOCs
cVOCs
cVOCs, PHC
PHC
Off-gas
Treatment
NA
GAG
NA
thermal
oxidizer
GAG
GAC
GAC
GAC
GAC
Bioreactor
GAC
NA
thermal
oxidizer
GAC
GAC
GAC
catalytic
oxidation
catalytic
oxidation
Total Cost
($)*
240,610
591,305
4,477,689
225,909
97,745
4,442,609
1,623,250
197,009
456,862
646,632
801,299
737,446
601,296
212,399
677,417
517,089
2,284,944
2,776,862
Volume
Treated (yd3)
7,500
17,500
41,720
63,000
1,000
42,000
600
185,000
9,500
280,000
8,900
NA
34,000
650
247,900
31,440
83,333
Mass of
Contaminant
Removed
(pounds)**
NA
NA
NA
585,700
NA
16,000
60
NA
600
44,000
3,000
NA
12,000
70
2,300
138
176,500
518,250
Cost/yd3
Treated
32.08
35.79
107.33
3.59
102.64
105.78
NC
328.35
2.47
68.07
2;86
82.86
NC
6.25
1,042.18
2.09
72.68 -
33.32
Cost/Pound
Contaminant
Removed
NC
NC
NC
0.39
NC .
277.66
27,054.16
NC
761.44
14.7
267.10
NC
50.11
3,034.27
294.53
3,747.02
12.95
5.36
4-2
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit 4-2. Summary of SVE Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data
(Page 2 of 2)
Site Name
SMS Instruments Superfund Site
Twin Cities Army Ammunition
Plant
UST, Big Rapids
Verona Well Field Superfund Site,
Thomas Solvent Raymond Road
OU1
Location
NY
MN
MI
MI
Project
Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Contaminants
cVOCs, VOCs,
PHC
cVOCs
VOCs, PHCs
cVOCs
Off-gas
Treatment
catalytic
oxidation,
scrubbing
GAC
GAC
GAC, catalytic
oxidation
Total Cost
($)*
413,171
844,889
244,070
1,753,833
Volume
Treated (yd3)
1,250
NA
NA
27,600
Mass of
Contaminant
Removed
(pounds)**
NA
551,465
45,000
NA
Cost/yd3
Treated
330.54
NC
NC
63.54
Cost/Pound
Contaminant
Removed
NC
1.53
5.42
NC
Sources:
(1) FRTR case studies (volumes 1 [1995], 5 [1997], and 7 [1998] and CD-ROM [2000]). Available at .
(2) A Compendium of Cost Data for Environmental Remediation Technologies. LANL. LA-UR-96-2205. August 1996. Available at
'.
(3) Cost Data for Innovative Treatment Technologies, Internal USAGE draft. July 1997.
Notes: -
* Cost are the sum of capital and annual O&M costs for technology and have been adjusted to a common location and year 1999 as discussed in Section 1.
** Mass of contaminants removed was reported in the case studies as total volatile organic compounds or as the sum of individual contaminants.
BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
cVOCs = Chlorinated volatile organic compound
DS = Demonstration scale
GAC = Granular activated carbon
NA = Information not available
NC = Not calculated
NR = Not reported
Other VOCs = Other volatile organic compound (for example, ketones)
PAHs = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyl
PHC = Petroleum hydrocarbon
SVOCs , = Semivolatile organic compound
4-3
-------
Unit Cost Versus Mass of Contaminant Removed
Exhibit 4-4 presents the results of the analysis of
unit cost versus mass of contaminant removed for
14 projects. A correlation between unit cost and
mass of contaminant removed is evident for the
S VB projects. Economies of scale were observed
where unit costs decreased as larger quantities
were treated. For example, units costs for
projects decreased from $300 to 900 per pound
for projects where up to 3,000 pounds of
contaminant were removed to less than $15 per
pound for projects where relatively larger
quantities of contaminant were removed. Units
costs were less than $2 per pound for projects
where more than about 500,000 pounds of
contaminant were removed.
Other Factors
Potential correlations between unit cost and other
factors, such as throughput, moisture content,
type of contaminant, and type of off-gas
treatment, were considered, but no correlations
were evident. While quantitative correlations for
those factors were not evident, the following
qualitative information about potential factors
affecting the design and operation of SVE
systems was provided in the case studies and in
the EPA report Analysis of Selected
Enhancements for Soil Vapor Extraction,
September 1997. The specific effects of those
and other factors on the cost of SVE systems are
site-specific.
Soil type and hydrogeologic setting: The
permeability, porosity, moisture content, and
heterogeneity of the soil; the depth and
stratigraphy of the contamination in the
subsurface; and the extent of seasonal variations
in the water table affect the number and
placement of the extraction wells, the radius of
influence of the extraction wells, the ease with
which contamination can be removed from the
subsurface, and the length of time needed to reach
cleanup targets. For SVE, it was generally true
that the more permeable the soil, the easier it is to
extract the contaminants.
Properties of the contaminant and extent of
contamination: The properties and concentration
of contaminants, along with the areal extent of
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
contamination, affect the size of the system
(number of extraction wells and blower size); the
need for and complexity of off-gas treatment; and
the length of time the system must be operated to
reach cleanup targets. For example, SVE
generally is more effective for contaminants that
have vapor pressures greater than 1 millimeter of
mercury (mm Hg) at 20ฐC. The presence of
chlorinated compounds may require the use of
more complex off-gas treatment, such as thermal
oxidation, while carbon adsorption can be used
for non-chlorinated compounds. In addition, the
presence of NAPLs may require source control,
with the type and extent of the NAPL
contamination determining the complexity and
potential effectiveness of the source control.
Enhancements: Enhancement technologies, such
as hot-air injection, horizontal wells, air sparging,
and pneumatic and hydraulic fracturing, may be
used when the contaminants or soil characteristics
limit the effectiveness of SVE (for example, when
conditions include low-permeability soil or when
contaminants having low vapor pressures are
present). Costs are affected by the type of
enhancement used and by the effectiveness of the
enhancement in improving performance of SVE.
4-4
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium- Year 2000
Exhibit 4-3. Soil Vapor Extraction Projects - Unit Cost vs. Volume of Soil Treated
(with 68 Percent-Confidence Interval)
10,000
1,000 -
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
This page intentionally left blank.
4-6
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit 4-4. Soil Vapor Extraction Projects - Unit Cost vs. Mass of Contaminant Removed
(with 68 Percent-Confidence Interval)
Decimal-Scale View - Selected Range
900
*
o
u
800-
700-
600-
500-
400-
300;
200-
100
0 -
Lower
Confidence
Limit
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 . 25JOOO 30,000 35,000 40,000
Mass of Contaminant Removed (Ibs)
45,000
50,000
^i^^
Log-Scale View
100,000 T
10,000 -
1,000 ;
100;
1
O 10
.0
10
100 1,000 10,000 . 100,000
Mass of Contaminant Removed (Ibs)
1,000,000
s- Notes:
1 The line of best fif (sgliป*^ .,ป
" -.-..- .......
- Av;i;r. "ri^^^v^pfc^:;'?1,^!'^^^^
* All reported costs were adjusted for location and years during which costs were incurred, as described in the text.
iWw.ii,; wi;'?iK;,.M^
3 The coefficient of determination (r2) for the linear fit to the data is 92 percent.
... ,. , ___!._ -XBMgmgsHi^ftigfiBfiig,^
y and other statistical information related to the above plots.
Simf-^fmas^im.^mป,a.w^-irm^ป&^smu^^issa;msi^
JF?* ,s.:^^:;7mi^a^tMfemi^K^ซซJj|:if^^MfSRiEK,ifl^!4sa":Tซs
4 Appendix B presents the methodology and other sta
rr , j,/,i%;ja^,,fejซ^feiai-<'^":^'ซ&M'giaMKปM!ซ'
4-7
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
This page intentionally left blank.
4-8
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
5.0 ON-SITE INCINERATION
Incineration uses controlled-flame combustion to
volatilize and destroy organic contaminants.
Common incinerator designs include the rotary
kiln, which can be used to treat a variety of waste
forms, such as solids, liquids, sludges, and debris,
and liquid injection systems which are used to
treat aqueous and non-aqueous wastes that can be
atomized through a burner nozzle. An air
pollution control system (APCS) is used to treat
off-gases from the combustion process and
generally includes one or more of the following
components: cyclones, baghouses, gas-
conditioning (quench) systems, scrubbers, and mist
eliminators. This section presents a summary of
data obtained from case studies of on-site
incineration projects and the results of the analysis
of those data.
Methodology for Cost Analysis for On-Site
Incineration Projects
In total, 17 case studies addressing 17 individual
projects where incineration was the primary
technology used to remediate the contaminated
media were identified from the available
information sources. The case studies, prepared
by the FRTR, were included in the report FRTR
Remediation Case Studies: On-Site Incineration,
Volume 12 (1998) and CD-ROM (2000) and
summarized in On-site Incineration: Overview of
Superfund Operating Experience, March 1998.
Capital and O&M costs were obtained from the
case studies, along with data needed to calculate
unit costs, such as the quantity of soil treated. Of
the 17 projects, fully defined cost data were
identified for seven. Exhibit 5-1 presents
summary information about those seven projects,
including site name and location, contaminants,
design, anci cost data.
Results
Unit Cost Versus Quantity Treated
The costs of incineration projects were evaluated
to determine .whether any correlations in unit cost
versus quantity of soil treated were evident. For
the analysis, projects were grouped by similar
characteristics on the basis of physical properties
of the media treated. Five projects treated solid
media (such as soil, sludge, sediment, and debris)
and two projects treated only liquids and fumes.
For the five incineration projects where solid
media were treated, no correlations in unit cost
versus quantity of soil treated were evident.
Because the total number of projects under which
liquids or fumes only were treated was fewer than
five, no quantitative analysis of unit cost versus
quantity of soil treated was performed.
Other Factors
Potential correlations between unit cost and other
factors, such as throughput, moisture content, and
treatment temperature, were considered, but but
no correlations were evident. While the available
cost data did not show specific correlations for
those factors, the following qualitative information
about the potential factors affecting the cost of
incineration was provided in the case studies and
in the EPA report On-Site Incineration: Overview
of Superfund Operating Experience, March 1998.
Soil type and matrix characteristics: Clay content,
particle size, moisture content, and pH determine
the need for pretreatment of soil before
incineration to minimize such potential operational
problems as slagging, overpressurization, and
clogging of the feed mechanism, Pretreatment
may include screening to adjust particle size,
chemical treatment to adjust the pH, and
dewatering to adjust moisture content.
Type and concentration of contaminants: The
type and concentration of contaminants affect the
temperature and residence time and the type of off-
gas treatment. For example, incineration of waste
that contains high concentrations of chlorinated
compounds generally uses more complex off-gas
treatment (an acid-gas scrubber in addition to a
cyclone and baghouse) to treat products of
incomplete combustion.
Maintenance: The type and amount of
maintenance needed for the incinerator can affect
the project schedule and costs. For the incinerator,
adequate characterization of the soil type and
matrix characteristics are important in minimizing
downtime, as described above. For off-gas
treatment, the properties of the off-gas, including
concentrations of contaminant and levels of
particulates, affect the frequency with which non-
routine maintenance is needed (for example,
unclogging of a baghouse).
5-1
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit 5-1. Summary of On-Site Incineration Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data
(Page 1 of 2)
Site Name and
Location
Bayou
Bonfouca, LA
Celanese
Corporation
Shelby Fiber
Operations, NC
Former
Nebraska
Ordnance Plant,
NE
MOTCO, TX
Petro
Processors, LA
" Principal
Contaminants
PAHs
Ethylene glycol
VOCs
PAHs
Phenol
Explosives and
propellents
Styrene tars
VOCs
Chlorinated
hydrocarbons
PAHs
Oils
Medium
Sediment
Soil and
sludge
Soil and
debris
Soil
Sludge
Organic
liquids
Aqueous
wastes
Organic
liquids
and fumes
Incineration System
Design
Rotary Win, SCC,
quench system, gas
conditioner, scrubber,
and mist eliminator
Rotary kiln, SCC,
quench duct,
baghouse, and
packed-bed scrubber
system
Rotary kiln, SCC,
water quench, and
mist eliminator
Rotary kiln, SCC;
second incinerator
with single liquid
injection chamber;
both had quench
system, gas
conditioner, wet
scrubber, and mist
eliminator
Horizontal liquid
injection incinerator,
quench tank, wet
scrubber, particulate
scrubber, entrainment
separator
Period of
Operation
1993-
1995
1991
1997
1990-
1991
1994-
1997
Cost of
Treatment
($)d)
74,000,000
2,000,000
7,000,000
33,000,000
4,800,000
Quantity Incinerated
250,000 tons (169,000
yds3)
4,660 tons
16,449 tons
23,021 tons total
Soil (4,699 tons)
Sludge (283 tons)
Organic liquids (7,568
tons)
Aqueous wastes (10,471
tons)
213,376 gallons (as of
June 1997)
Calculated
Unit Cost for
Treatment
$300/ton
$440/ton
$430/ton
$l,400/ton
$22/gallon
Comments
Costs for
incineration were
paid on the basis
of dry weight of
ash rather than the
weight of feed
material
Relatively small
amount of waste
treated
Shutdown of the
system during a
period of
inclement weather
resulted in higher
costs than had
been expected
Mechanical
problems during
operation were
attributed to
inaccurate waste
characterization
Project is
ongoing; costs
reported are those
through June
1997
5-2
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit 5-1. Summary of On-Site Incineration Projects with Fully-Defined Cost Data
(Page 2 of 2)
Site Name and
Location
Rocky Mountain
Arsenal, CO
Sikes Disposal
Pits, TX
Principal
Contaminants
Organochlorine
and
organophosphorus
pesticides
Organic and
phenolic
compounds
Medium
Liquids
Soil and
debris
Incineration System
Design
Submerged quench
incinerator, quench
chamber, spray dryer,
scrubber, and
packed-tower
scrubber
Rotary kiln, SCC,
quench section, and
two-stage scrubber
Period of
Operation
1993-
1995
1992-
1994
Cost of
Treatment
($) (1)
69,000,000
81,000,000
Quantity Incinerated
10,900,000 gallons
Soil and debris (496,000
tons)
Calculated
Unit Cost for
Treatment
$6/gallon
$160/ton
Comments
Innovative design
was used to
capture metal
particulates
Project completed
18. months ahead
of schedule
because of use of
larger incinerator
than had been
planned
Source:
FRTR case studies (volume 12 [1998] and CD-ROM [2000]). Available at .
Notes:
Cost are the sum of capital and annual O&M costs for technology and have been adjusted to a common" location and year 1999 as discussed in Section 1.
PAHs = Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
VOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds
SCC = Secondary combustion chamber
5-3
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
This page intentionally left blank.
5-4
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
6.0 PUMP AND TREAT SYSTEMS
Pump and treat (P&T) technology involves
extracting groundwater from the subsurface
through one or more wells and treating the
extracted groundwater above ground (ex situ).
Aboveground treatment systems typically include
one or more biological, physical, or chemical
technologies for treating the extracted groundwater
and one or more technologies for treating any off-
gases such as GAC. This section presents a
summary of data obtained from case studies of
P&T projects and the results of the analysis of
those data.
Methodology for Cost Analysis for P&T
Projects
In total, 32 case studies addressing 32 individual
projects where P&T was the primary technology
.used to remediate the contaminated media were
identified from the available information sources.
The case studies, prepared by the FRTR, were
obtained from the report Cost Analyses for
Selected Groundwater Cleanup Projects: Pump
and Treat and Permeable Reactive Barriers,
February 2001.
Capital and operating costs were obtained from the
case studies, along with data needed to calculate
unit costs. Exhibit 6-1 presents summary
information about the 32 projects for which fully-
defined cost data were available, including site
name and location, contaminants, technology
design, and costs.
The majority of the case studies are ongoing P&T
projects for which cost data were provided only
for a specified period of operation. Neither the
total cost nor the total length of time to complete
the project was specifically known or identified in
the case studies. Therefore, this analysis presents
the average annual costs rather than the total
annual costs incurred during site remediation, and
no net present value (NPV) was calculated.
Exhibit 6-2 provides a summary of the cost data
presented in Exhibit 6-1 for total capital cost,
average operating cost per year, and unit costs
(unit capital and unit average annual operating
cost). To illustrate the range of costs, the 25th
percentile, 50th percentile (median), 75th percentile,
and average are presented for each cost category.
The median total capital cost was $2,000,000, and
the median average operating cost per year was
$260,000. Several factors affect the average
operating cost per year, including throughput of
the system and the treatment processes required to
treat the extracted groundwater, as well as the
operating efficiency of the system. Since no
breakdown of annual operating costs by year was
available for most projects, the change in operating
costs over the life of a remediation system could
not be evaluated.
As discussed above, for the majority of projects,
which are ongoing, no total project cost (capital
plus operating costs) was provided in the case
studies, or no such cost could be calculated.
However, information was available for total
capital cost and average annual operating cost.
That information was used to calculate unit costs
in terms of (1) a unit capital cost per volume of
groundwater treated and (2) a unit average annual
operating cost per volume of groundwater treated.
The volume of groundwater treated is expressed in
terms of 1,000 gallons per year, reflecting the way
in which the case studies typically reported
quantity treated (as a rate in terms of gallons per
minute or gallons per year). In addition, the total
volume of groundwater treated was not known or
could not be calculated for ongoing projects.
Unit Capital Cost (Capital Cost per 1,000
Gallons of Groundwater Treated per
Year) - This value was calculated by
dividing the total capital cost by the
average quantity of groundwater treated
each year. This value represents the
relative costs of installing P&T systems of
various sizes and complexities.
Unit Average Annual Operating Cost
(Average Annual Operating Cost per
1,000 Gallons of Groundwater Treated
per Year) - This value was calculated by
dividing the average operating cost per
year of operation by the average quantity
of groundwater treated per year. This
value represents the relative costs of
operating P&T systems of various sizes
and complexities.
6-1
-------
ง
- ]
h^
H
IT}
G.
>5*
,_'_.
10
O
h3
O' H "^ O
|- o V -W
3 ~ o n
P ^ 5> td
& 8 "_ .-
1,1-TCA, 1,1-DCE,
1 ,2,2-PCA, chloroform,
iloride, benzene,
ane
s
1
H-l
1
o
o
o
y
o
0
o
^9
OO
ฃ
8>
i-r^
w
O *d
> Jฐ
ฃ
CO
1 ป
6
o
w
ง
1
"to
O
"o
o
0
,_J
NO
g
0
to
oo
o
o
o
o
69
O
69
to
U\
%0
5s
P
C/3
ง?
Q
sr
r>8?
6ง 8
" r* O
| & |
dnants of greatest
: site are PCE, TCE, cis-
is-l,2-DCE,andVC.
D
oo
5
( i
O
o
o
,_!
NO
o
o
"o
0
o
Q
o
ia
o
69
o
oo
^
<;
o>
k
r3ฃ
W "K-
33
CO >
W !-
2-DCA, DEE, 1,1-DCE,
TEX
S
NO
ON
0
o
O
i ป
.NO
O
o
o
o
0
to
LO
0
r ,
0
1
-69
to
00
o
ฃ
13
S
hJ
|x|
3
CO
o
00
8
o
to
0
0
0
CO
0
Q
0
69
-69
1 '
O
S!
S
ฃ '
0
w
^
J3
n
m
K-
2-DCE, ethylbenzene
00
5
8
to
0
0
o
g
Q
fft
OJ
8
o
O
CD
W
S
o
ID
CD
,-j
P-*"
H
tn
00
ง
^n
O
o
8
to
to
8
o
g
o
o
0
69
OJ
NO
r
0
Sง
Q W
t/l ^
O ง
^
g.
&
^
w
n
bd
h-
i i
oo
o
to
o
"o
o
0
t-h
8
R
o
o
o
o
0
69
to
H- -1
69
0
H"1
g|
w 2
P
P >
^
CO
C'8 ?
08"
> ^ 'S
S a
H ^
/ contaminants of
CE,cis-l, 2-DCE, PCE,
ON
oo
NO
ON
O
O
O
u\
ON
O
O
O
0
^
O
o
0
o
o
Ul
oo
t 1
i1-
CT
s
ฃ3
ซ
O
S"C
s o
FT
51 n
S W
Is
Ifc
6
o
o\
1 oo
O
tj
o
0
o
o
ON
NO
o
o
o
o
o
JO
8
f~j
0
n
t!
LO
S
s
"
&I
^
"to
t^J
8
* i
i
13
8
S
ฃ
8
to
0
8
g
o
oo
0
o
0
00
69
0
i/i
OO
3"
i-
j-K
S.
"J_j
K^
a es
> N
o
o
H
H
Tl
O
O
CO
CH ff
S P
ง S
a
c-
0
0
Kf
Q =
ants With Remedial
>anup Goals I>2
BIO
GAC
PHYS/CHEM
oxro
STRIP
^ H
2 S
s
Years of Operation/Status "*
Average Gallons
Treated Per Year
(1,000 Gallons)
Total Capital Cost ($) 5
Average Annual
Operating Cost ($) *
Unit Capital Cost
(Capital Cost Per 1,000 Gallons of
Groundwater Treated Per Year) 5
Unit Average Annual
Operating Cost
(Average Annual Operating
Cost Per 1,000 Gallons
of Groundwater Treated
I
S5
S1
i
9
I
I
I:
ง
I
i
a.
S
I
I
-------
ฃป
o.
CX
ฃ
&
c_
o jxj td
II $
n o &a
^ eg
"ซ% a
?tt
&B
&ฃ
o> ca
^
O tf
' ฃ
I
'
LO
00
b
to
1 1
"o
o
0
Ln
o
o
o
o
CD
0
JO
'(-n
o
o
o
S!
LO,
O
10
O
33
ff
3
&
O
Ol
<2 n
1 *
1-
O **
g cJ
ฃ*
D "
8-^
2. crc>
i' > !ฃ>
"totp
O
n
m
oo
b
1 '
to
o
"o
'0
0
,-1
o
o
o
o
CD
0
^
o
o
o
8
S
OS
o
60
LO
o
1
n
1
H
1
00
o
Tl
n
H
i_3
en
O
ex
VI
8>
H
X
P
-^
I1
b
10
o
0
1 I
00
o
o
0
(->
0
1 1
o\
o
r-j
ff>
o\
to
60
Ln
O
P.
'"
P
^
to
b
CO
o
o
o
o
o
0
to
to
o
CD
8
FA
IN>
S!
<-n
c
w
n
g
i
P
00
b
io
o
Oi
1 ป
o
o
f )
0
1 ป
o
Q
8
ti
( ป
o
-60
^
^
H
^
O
iij
Ki
^
^
k
td 5;
IS
M O
ex S
CO
'a
s
p
_
3
Q
Ln
b
Ln
O
"o
CD
0
o
o
CD
0
o
o
o
o
o
60
to
4$
^
P.
^
3
w
X
to
LO
b
o\
"--1
o
to
to
o
o
f >
0
LO
O
Q
8
fS
o
to
Ln
63
H
X
O
J^l
P
o-
1
3
ง^
tu >
cr
lo
o
O
-
w
ซ
LO
b
to
to
"o
o
to
o
o
o
0
1 1
LO
O
o
to
LO
at
to
3%
CP
>3
w
ง
&l
r o
> 0_
^~* i
6V
w n
T
^
w
LO
ง
Ln
ฃ
o
LO
4^>
O
O
CD
0
i ป
,00
o
o
-60
LO
60
LO
^
t?
y
1
3.
n
o
VI
"to
a
o
-
p
RJ
o
i
C
0
o
o
CD
8
FA
1 i
-J
^
VO
D
| i
!
ง
P
p a i-1 o
w N ^ i"
ฐ O H-3 "*"*
6 I ซ-w
sei^
PT W-re <;
a ^^ o^ O
ฃ s i"^
^|s S
**
LO
O
O
Ln
i ป
o
i i
to
o
o
' f )
0
1 1
o\
o
o
8
&U
K
LO
i>j
'
K
If
ง S
0-
. f
a
O I.
11
S S
"3 i<
O S
ง ?
^SS.
w 53
&
a
BIO
GAC g- ง
PHYS/CHEM | S,
OXID X|-
STRIP
Years of Operation/Status 4
Average Gallons
Treated Per Year
(1,000 Gallons)
Total Capital Cost ($) 5
Average Annual
Operating Cost ($) *
Unit Capital Cost
(Capital Cost Per 1,000 Gallons of
Groundwater Treated Per Year) 5
Unit Average Annual
Operating Cost
(Average Annual Operating
Cost Per 1,000 Gallons
of Groundwater Treated
I
t/5
i
S,
o
bJ Z,
2,pp
^ H
i
I
O
i
ซ-*>
o
BS
-------
5'
2,
h?
i
ฃ'
>
1,1-DCA, trans-l,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA
TCE, PCA, PCE, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, Be, Cr, Cu, Ni, Cd, Hg
Zn
*
9
to
5
(j\
ง"
o
1 *
oo
o
f )
0
to
VO
o
o
o
o
6/5
U)
to
^
Ul
1 1
t-1
^
%>
3
Napthalene, acenaphthene, fluorene,
anthracene, pyrene, fluoranthene,
benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyren
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(l,2,3
cd)pyrene, As, benzene, PCP
Ul
ง
"o
0
U)
o
o
o
f ^
o
&)
{/I
o
o
Eft
i *
OO
o
GO GO
S S*
s g
1
-3
None; contaminants at the site includ
TCE, cis-l,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, PCBs
Ba, Cd, Ch, Pb, Mn
9
0
o
0
i i
o
o
0
Os
OS
o
f ^
0
*ฃ
o
ON
t-1
So
&
H
S
kซd i1
g
i '
i '
i i
O
0
"to
0
g
o
o
0
to
o
o
0
Eft
i ป
0
g
O
o *
b
to
OJ
o
0
o
o
ON
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
*/>
o
4^
w
O!
ff
o z
s ป
63 ง
Contaminants With Remedial
Cleanup Goals li2
BIO
GAC
PHYS/CHEM
OXED
STRIP
*
2? S
& a_
s
Years of Operation/Status 4
Average Gallons
Treated Per Year
(1,000 Gallons)
Total Capital Cost ($) s
Average Annual
Operating Cost ($) 6
Unit Capital Cost
(Capital Cost Per 1,000 Gallons of
Groundwater Treated Per Year) 5
Unit Average Annual
Operating Cost
(Average Annual Operating
Cost Per 1,000 Gallons
of Groundwater Treated
6
I
ro
O
5
!
I
i
s
o
5-
n
S3.
p
n
Ij
i
i
?
-------
ng
was
o
I
Si
'
tal
the operating
E?
S
e-
?$
k
$
o
1
S
O.
cr
Remediati
PHYS/CH
t,
P
product recove
able reactive ba
? p
00 >
H n
|f
II
B g.
ง
II
if
Contam
dichloro
nonhalo
pentachl
CP
o
95
n
to
S ii
;g ซg. a
ฐ- " ง "ra
-ฐ S-.P S.
g1 8. S'S
n ha 5 a*
N.-Q w |
sirs 8
g&i
ป < Cu
O.
W
s
1
S1
8.
r
I
.
a
^)
i
a.
?
ง
o
9
o
s
s
I
?o
ty cr IT)
g ง o
"5sฎ P
Aฅ>
a| jป
I ง"
! A
3 'ej'
-ฐ* ง.
o 3*
tr H
*-< o
co Cl>
S ง
oo
^
o
^
to
8
o
1
8
o
0
"o
8
69
S
0
an
ff
a I
ง g
ft
ง
Q|
11
*T3 .
o ง
p EJ1
co ^rt
^ C^
^3
Hi
BIO
GAC g-jjjjf
PHYS/CHEM | S,
ffi S
oxro x|-
STRIP
Years of Operation/Status 4
Average Gallons
Treated Per Year
(1,000 Gallons)
J
Total Capital Cost ($) 5
Average Annual
Operating Cost ($) 6
Unit Capital Cost
(Capital Cost Per 1,000 Gallons of
Groundwater Treated Per Year) 5
Unit Average Annual
Operating Cost
(Average Annual Operating
Cost Per 1,000 Gallons
of Groundwater Treated
I
05
3
H
0
3.
e^
E
1
>3
re
a.
I'
!
3
O
f
I
?
ง
&
!
bo
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit 6-2. Summary of Remedial Cost and Unit Cost Data for 32 P&T Sites
Cost Category1
Total Capital Cost ($)
Average Operating Cost Per Year ($/Year)2
Unit Capital Cost (Capital Cost Per 1,000
Gallons of Groundwater Treated Per Year)
Unit Average Annual Operating Cost (Average
Annual Operating Cost Per 1,000 Gallons of
Groundwater Treated Per Year)
25th Percentile
$1,700,000
$180,000
$23
$5
Median
$2,000,000
$260,000
$78
$16
75"1 Percentile
$6,000,000
$730,000
$350
$41
Average
$4,900,000
$770,000
$280
$32
Source: Cost Analyses for Selected Groundwater Cleanup Projects: Pump and Treat and Permeable Reactive Barriers, EPA
542-R-00-013, February 2001.
Notes:
' All reported costs were adjusted for location and years during which costs were incurred, as described in Section 1.
2 The average annual operating cost was calculated by dividing the total of operating costs to date, as reported in the case
study, by the number of years represented by that cost.
Results
The costs of P&T projects were evaluated to
determine whether any correlations were evident
in unit cost versus quantity of groundwater treated
per year. The analysis was performed for (1) unit
capital cost versus volume of groundwater treated
per year and (2) unit average annual operating cost
versus volume of groundwater treated per year, by
calculating reverse exponential linear fits of each
data set, as described in Section 1. Exhibits 6-3
and 6-4 present the results of the two analyses on
both decimal-scale and logarithmic-scale plots.
Appendix B presents the detailed backup for the
analyses, including alternate confidence interval
calculations.
Unit Capital Cost Versus Volume of Groundwater
Treated
As Exhibit 6-3 shows, a correlation between unit
capital costs and volume of groundwater treated is
evident. Economies of scale were observed where
unit costs decreased as larger quantities were
treated. For example, unit capital costs decreased
from $60 to 800 per 1,000 gallons treated per year
for projects treating up to 30 million gallons of
groundwater per year to less than $20 per 1,000
gallons treated per year for projects treating
relatively larger quantities of groundwater per
year.
Unit Average Annual Operating Cost Versus
Volume of Groundwater Treated
Exhibit 6-4 presents a similar correlation for unit
average annual operating cost per volume of
groundwater treated per year, with economies of
scale observed where unit costs decreased as larger
quantities were treated. For example, unit average
annual operating costs decreased from $10 to 120
per 1,000 gallons treated per year for projects
treating less than 20 million gallons of
groundwater per year to less than $1 to $5 per
1,000 gallons of groundwater treated per year for
projects treating relatively larger quantities of
groundwater per year.
Other Factors
Potential correlations between unit cost and other
factors, such as type of contaminant and type of ex
situ groundwater treatment used, were considered,
but no correlations were evident. While
quantitative correlations for those factors were not
evident, the following qualitative information
about potential factors affecting the design and
operation of P&T systems was provided in the
case studies and in the EPA report Cost Analyses
for Selected Groundwater Cleanup Projects:
Pump and Treat and Permeable Reactive Barriers,
February, 2001. The specific effects of those and
other factors on the cost of a P&T system are
highly site-specific.
6-6
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit 6-3. P&T Projects - Unit Capital Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 68-Percent Confidence Interval)
ซ.ซ;>ซ-
;?..*?* n
;ซ*ป
*'.;%.
*&'.'>"
'ijft-ซs*,ป
i*;V;.f
#!.): i
J?%=?*
p;ii*t
&P$
III
^ฉtfi,
fe*'-r
S*--^4
ffilS
i'*,ป*^
iiฅ'
&:';;t'
*!fe-'!','!H;
W.^'-oS
Decimal-Scale View - Selected Range
*ฃ 800.
= 600-
o
I
5;
o
O
8
'a.
8
500-
400-
300-
200-
100-
50,000 .
100,000
150,000
200,000.
250,000
300,000
Volume of Groundwater Treated Per Year (1,000 Gallons/Year)
Log-Scale View
10,000
(0
0>
2 1,000
(0
O
o
w
3
s
'EL
ซs
100-
10 -.
- Confidancs
Limits
1,000 10,000 .. _ . 100,000 . - . - 1,000,000
Volume of Groundwater Treated Per Year (1,000 Gallons/Year)
10,000,000
Eti^t<}g^
SEQa.of the natural-log tran^fprmed,data,/The 'ugger glot was'pFepared by tack transformjitibn oftSe log-transfprined
^M^^ง^s^^^^jA^^^^^:Ji^^^^^jj!^^^^^^^'.""
f ground water treated ger y^ear was less than SOOmllion jallons or the^ unit capital cost was less than $800 per
[piis .treated "per" year)."
^.Ali .reported costs were adjusted for location and years Curing which costs were incurred, as described in the text.
The coefficient of determination (r2) for the linear fit to the data is 59 percent.
,ปป M; ;-,ป.,-, uW^fS..'..;.-...-.^^.^!:-!!,;^
;AppendkB presents the methodolbgy'arid other statisticar
ป;'' :^::/^.>-<-jf;-.>a!.L-;vL:^^tViri:y.'iTdvfclL^!^.v4^:^aii^
6-7
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Soil type and hydrogeologic setting: The
permeability, porosity, moisture content, and
heterogeneity of the soil and the depth and
stratigraphy of the contamination in the subsurface
affect the number and placement of the extraction
wells, the radius of influence of the extraction
wells, and the ease with which contamination can
be removed from the subsurface. Properties of the
aquifer that define contaminant transport and
groundwater extraction system design needs
include hydraulic connection of aquifers that
allows 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.
Properties of the contaminant and extent of
contamination: The properties and concentration
of contaminants, along with the areal extent of the
contamination (plume size), affect the size of the
extraction system (number and depth of wells and
pump size), the type and complexity of the above-
ground treatment system, and the need for off-gas
treatment. For example, both capital and average
annual operating costs tended to be higher for
projects where combinations of contaminants
(solvents, BTEX, metals, PCBs, or PAHs) were
present because more complex systems generally
were required to treat complex combinations of
contaminants. In general, groundwater
contamination concentrated in an isolated area and
at a shallow depth typically is easier and less
costly to remediate than the same mass of
contaminant when it is extended deeper and spread
out over a larger area.
Source control: The presence of NAPLs in
groundwater can serve as a continuing source of
contamination, extending the length of time that it
may be necessary to operate to reach cleanup
levels. Source controls may be implemented at a
site to address the NAPLs, with the type and extent
of the NAPL contamination determining the
complexity and potential effectiveness of the
source control.
. 6-8
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
Exhibit 6-4. P&T Projects - Unit Average Annual Operating Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 68-Percent Confidence Interval)
Decimal-Scale View - Selected Range
to
o
ฐ 100 -
O)
If
^ ซ
3ฐ
งS 60'
o
li
* 20
c
o 4
0
Upper
'_
\\
r-^- Confidence
Limit
^ Bast Fit
~.%
'N--J
k Confidence
--.....
50,000
Limit
.
f
100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300
000
Volume of Groundwater Treated Per Year (1 ,000 Gallons/Year)
Log-Scale View
1,000
C~ 100
S 8
0) >
ฐ =
n
= ซ
P
Q) O
D) "
li
10-
68%
Confidence
- Limits
0
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
Volume of Groundwater Treated Per Year (1,000 Gallons/Year)
']*i"'lt'H "Ifllll'l-Jl'SiBllliJ'iiii.'Wni!1!!"11 JfMinll
rt^ .
Notes: , ' . ' 1 " ( r__ ^ _r ^ r ,, __
1 The line of best fit (solid line) and 68-percent confidence limits (dashed lines) for individual predicted points for 32 pump-
and-treat projects are shown in the plots above. The line of best fit and confidence limits were calculated using linear
regression of the natural-fog transfbrmed data. The upper plot was prepared by back transformation of the log-transformed
data to show the \me_gf b^tiit and CQ^i^nc&jw^^inQng^ai units. (The upper plot shows projects under which the
volume treated per year was less than 300 million gallons and the unit average annual operating cost was less than $120
per 1,000 gallons treated per year).
2 All reported costs were adjusted for location and years during which costs were incurred, as described in the text.
3 The coefficient of determination (r2) for the linear fit to the data is 62 percent
4 Appendix B presents the methodology and other statistical information related to the above plots.
6-9
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
This page intentionally left blank.
6-10
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
7.0 PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS
A permeable reactive barrier (PRB) is an in situ
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 contaminant plume. The
type of reactive material used for the PRB is
determined based on the specific contaminants
and the conditions of the aquifer. Examples of
reactive materials used in PRBs include zero-
valent iron, organic carbon, and limestone. Most
PRBs are installed in one of two basic
configurations - funnel and gate or continuous
trench. This section presents a summary of data
obtained from case studies of PRB projects and
the results of the analysis of those data.
Methodology for Cost Analysis for PRB
Projects
As Exhibit 7-1 shows, 16 PRB case studies
addressing 16 individual projects were identified
from the available information sources. The case
studies, prepared by the FRTR and the
Remediation Technology Development Forum
(RTDF)6, were obtained from the report Cost
Analyses for Selected Groundwater Cleanup
Projects: Pump and Treat and Permeable
Reactive Barriers, February 2001. PRB projects
were identified using the criteria discussed in
Section 1 and the following two technology-
specific criteria:
The PRB system was operated on a full-
scale basis (as opposed to a pilot-scale or
field demonstration project).
Information was available about the
capital cost of the PRB system.
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 organization's web site at .
Case studies are available in Field Applications of In
Situ Remediation Technologies: Permeable Reactive
Barriers, EPA 542-R-99-002, 1999.
Capital and operating cost data were obtained
from the case studies. A review of the
information showed that, while capital costs were
available for all 16 projects, annual operating
costs were available for only two projects.
Further, none of the case studies provided
information about unit costs or information
needed to calculate unit costs such as the quantity
of groundwater treated or the mass of contaminant
removed. Therefore, it was determined that fully
defined cost data, as described in Section 1, were
not available for any of the PRB projects. Exhibit
7-1 summarizes available information about the
sites, including site name and location, PRB
design, and cost data.
Exhibit 7-2 summarizes available capital cost
information for the 16 PRB projects by the 25th
percentile, 50th percentile (median), 75th
percentile, and average to illustrate the range of
costs. The median total capital cost of the 16
PRB projects was $680,000.
Results
As discussed in Section 1, fully defined cost data
must be available for at least five sites to identify
a potential correlation between unit cost and
quantity treated. Fully defined cost data were not
available for any of the PRB projects because no
information about the quantity treated was
available. Therefore, no quantitative analyses of
unit cost versus quantity treated was performed.
Potential correlations between unit cost and other
factors, such as .type of contaminant, were
considered, but no correlations were evident.
While no quantitative correlations for those
factors were evident, the following qualitative
information about potential factors affecting the
design and operation of PRB systems was
provided in the case studies; in the EPA report
Cost Analyses for Selected Groundwater Cleanup
Projects: Pump and Treat and Permeable
Reactive Barriers, February, 2001; and in the
report Permeable Reactive Barriers Notebook.
The specific effects of those and other factors on
the cost of a PRB system are highly site-specific.
7-1
-------
s^
." c"
, , CO
"n"o
w <ป'
1,000,000
Iron =
360,000
Other =
640,000
1
Q
(0
Main trench
Upgradient
trench
' *
-j
to
6*
a
CO
5 5
0 0
"-P 3*
bid ^^
n p1 m
ง ป 0 >
n 2. ff r"
W f V
O 1-1 O M
0 T, 0 "
0 !l 0 J-
o
o
;
VO
VO
ON
i
-
A114PRBS
?
476 tons of
iron
1
, _ (JQ t_j
^ 4^- p [TJ
5- O C?- P
qi^ 0> o
n ป K- a-
to
Sง s
1 1
<ฃ> &
jf a
i
8
SH^H-
s n s > ~
180,000
Iron =
360,000
Other = 560,000
ii ฃ
o
o
"o
8
GO
OO
83*
I-
Top 4 to 7 ft
ofCT
Bottom 7 to
21 ft of CT
W L'l M JO
g )TCl g ^TJ
O- CD CL o
_o ^o
720 tons of
iron
DNAPL
excavation
1.1
Ul
t*
to
3 t? P
O D-
3 CP
OQ CS
a
1,400,000
ซ
9
t;
i i
VO
oo
8"
*>
w ^
"? S
O" K' R
1 gง
8 "f
a? $
o o
o
3
CO
LO Oi
a' a'
1 1
1 * 11
1 I
ui Ln
O O
3> S>
IS?
21
i >
"to
0 ฐ
(J O
1,600,000
Design =
200,000
Other =
1,300,000
f
i '
VO
VO
oo
9
-
a-S'^'
Ii IE
o a* a^ M^
tl4 P 0
Ph M.
to
> I . .
o f*
O g *T1
"o ฐ"*
370 tons of
iron
ON
1 ป
O
tO .l-"
OJ tO
O3 ~J
S1 f*
CHLORINATED SOLVENTS
Site Name
and Location
Contaminants *
Capital Cost ($) 2
Design
Construction
Materials
Reactive Media
Engineering
Unspecified
Cost Components
Installation
Date
Installation
Method3
Number of PRBs/Gates
PRB Location
or Function
Reactive Medium
Material 4
s3
E
1
EA
1
1
G
n
"S-
Dimensions of Reactive Medium ||
-------
GO |
e.
i~* *3
lo O
ฐ hTQ-
- "
ostfo
Si 'O || d3'
" S M
o 5; ง
g "Q o
S 8.8
*
3
o
1 1
^
9
~
z
H-1 O
i ง
& &
o
. 0
s,
ป
t-rt
*
o
to
VO
*
b^ rt-
^0 ^"
H.!" H
>V$
SOgg*
'ofSft
งn CZJ
11
8
ง*"
*
^
S
ง
o
-,
ฐ
~j
o
0
CO
ป
to
o
t*
o
U)
o
ป
C? KB*
|F 1
S h^l Cซ
& -^ H
&
"to Q
0"
W f
m
o
ง"
G
n>
p
VO
<-n
1.
1 '
>$
no
*
i ฃITi
^
P-^B-B5
S |Zp W W
OJ
oo
^o
*
w gi r1
w >-t ^
o"?
o g:
S
ON
g
ง"
ซ
*
ซ
O
G
n>
i *
VO
en
1
i-
z
CT= .
90
*
1 '
O
*
9
^J
ป
"II
w
o
0
o
o
g
h
1 1
oo
S--
to
g!
to
3g
GO
D.
O
of
i '
"=
. U)
ซ'?
II
s,
(
OJ
*
o\
o
*
6*
"f^
"
i-j
p
Ul
o
*
S
r*' -4^
^
Qff
1
H- p N> n
ฉ 3 n 2
B - "
vo-O^g1
o ^ "o n
8 ii 8
ON
O
O
o
o
*
^
n
p*
VO
*
LO
3>
i *
~T
3"
Site Name
and Location
Contaminants *
Capital Cost ($) 2
Design
Construction
Materials
Reactive Media
Engineering
Unspecified
o
o'
o
o
9
5?
Installation
Date
Installation
Method 3
Number of PRBs/Gates
PRB Location
or Function
Reactive Medium
Material 4
H
1
i
*
y
M.
e
T3
*
5
1"
O*
g
8,
1
a
i
1
^
Ol
e
09 O
ป |-|5
fcs> W
I
hS
-------
II
S a " X
HI
1 1
'
era
OO
O
-
$
*
p .
i
.1
$
9
""Top o
o ซ
ir
1,900,000
1
s
-
All 5
reactors
r
'
^
s
ป
5
n
i i
oo
era >-
3 ฐ
< < '
CO
100% kon
80 tons kon
to
t*
to
*
to
to
o
1 COMBINATION OF C(
1
1
ฃU " ^ X4
g- งa
3
CD
a *P
"o
8
OQ
1 l
i.
i ป
$
CD
OQ O '
to
o
0. )-
CO "*
<ง ft
| METALS AND INORGANICS ||
O <ฃ O gl
P '0* CD
<: ง
id
160,000
Design = 39,000
Other =120,000
*
1
I '
CO
's
-
2 2
&o co
III
OO C\
Ul VO
o o
a o
Vt VI
to
\-^ OJ
U)
Site Name
and Location
Contaminants '
Capital Cost ($) 2
Design
Construction
Materials
Reactive Media
Engineering
Unspecified
Cost Components
Installation
Date
Installation
Method 3
Number of PRBs/Gates
PRB Location
or Function
Reactive Medium
Material 4
3
ฃ
a.
I
a
re
1
Dimensions of Reactive Medium
w
I
S5
(/>
i
. ฃ5
iq
O
>13
B9
.s
w w
S.&
*1
M
r*
ง
S8
1
CO
s:
^
!
a.
ป
I
I
s
!
?
9
S
*
K>
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
Exhibit 7-1. Summary of Information for PRB Sites
(Page 4 of 4)
S
si
S ฃJ
wง
U.S.
Coast
Guard
Support
Center,
NC7
ซ
1
1
Cr+6, TCE
ฎ
1
5
5
460,000
Design =
160,000
Iron = 150,000
Other = 150,000
Cost Components
.1
Q
1
I
3
e
U
ซ
.'ง
*ป
ง
|
'S
1
, OJ
en
1
S
"8
O)
&
a
-S
|o.
i
June 1996
a
.1"
-I
5*
CT
"8
<
ง
g
1
a
1
e
.2 a '
-*-* o
3 1
Ss
NA
g
3
la
>l 1
1ง
Feฐ
Dimensions of Reactive Medium
Total Mass
450 tons
Width
2ft
Length
150ft
Depth
3-24 ft
Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Cost Analyses for Selected Groundwater Cleanup Projects: Pump and Treat and Permeable Reactive Barriers, EPA 542-R-00-013,
December 2000.
Notes:
1 Contaminant Key: As = arsenic, HCB = hexachlorobenzene, Cd = cadmium, Cu = copper, Cr+s = hexavalent chromium, DCE = dichloroethene, DDD = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane, DDT =
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, DNAPL = dense non-aqueous-phase liquid, EB = ethylbenzene, Fe = Iron, HNO3 = 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.
3 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, Feฐ = 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.
NA = Not applicable, NR = Not reported, NS = Not specified
7-5
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit 7-2. Summary of Remedial Cost Data for 16 PRB Sites
Cost Category
Total Capital Cost ($)'
PRB Sites (16 Sites)
25th Percentile ($)
440,000
Median ($)
680,000
75th Percentile ($)
1,000,000
Average ($)
730,000
Source: FRTR and RTDF - Refer to Exhibit 7-1 for a list of sites.
Notes:
1 All reported costs were adjusted for location and years during which costs were incurred, as described in Section 1.
Hydrogeologic setting: Because a PRB relies on
the natural gradient of the groundwater to allow
the plume to move through the reactive zone, the
groundwater flow patterns and distribution of the
contaminants in the plume (location and extent)
are important considerations in the installation of
a PRB. Those conditions are influenced by such
parameters as the piezeometric surfaces and
gradient, hydraulic conductivity, permeability,
and porosity (which may vary stratigraphically),
and seasonal variation in groundwater flow
direction and flux. The depth of the aquifer and
of the contamination, whether the aquifer is
unconfmed or confined, and the chemistry of the
aquifer also influence the design of the PRB,
including location and configuration (funnel and
gate or continuous trench), size, and whether and
how the PRB is keyed into the subsurface (for
example, keyed into a low-permeability clay layer
to prevent underflow of the contaminant).
Geochemistry: Geochemical parameters of the
aquifer or plume, such as pH, oxygen content,
presence of reducing agents (for example,
sulfates), affect the type of reactive media used
and the life expectancy of the media. Potential
reactions of the specific reactive media with the
geochemical properties of the groundwater also
may affect the ability of the reactive media to
degrade, sorb, precipitate, or otherwise remove
contaminants from the groundwater. For
example, as groundwater containing carbonate
passes through a PRB containing zero-valent iron,
calcite (CaCO3) precipitates. Should carbonate
levels in the groundwater be high, the resultant
precipitate may build up on the reactant surface
and reduce the effectiveness of the PRB .
Properties of the contaminant and extent of
contamination: Properties of the contaminants,
their concentrations, and degradation rates in the
presence of the reactive media affect the type of
reactive media used, the thickness of the reactive
zone and the residence time, the effectiveness of
the reactive media, and the life of the reactive
media. In addition, the extent of the plume
(including variations in types and concentrations
of contaminants throughout the plume) affects the
placement and orientation of the PRB to capture
and treat the entire plume.
Source control: The presence of NAPLs in
groundwater can serve as a continuing source of
contamination, extending the length of time
during which it is, necessary to operate a system to
reach cleanup levels. Source controls may be
implemented at site to address the NAPLs, with
the type and extent of the NAPL contamination
determining the complexity and potential
effectiveness of the source control.
7-6
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
8.0 REFERENCES
1. Construction Cost Index. 1999. Engineering
News Record, http://www.enr.com/cost/
costcci.asp.
2. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
(FRTR). Remediation Case Studies.
http://www.frtr.gov.
3. Los Alamos National Laboratory. 1996. A
Compendium of Cost Data for Environmental
Remediation Technologies. LA-UR-96-2205.
August.
http://www. lanl. gov/projects/etcap/title. html.
4. Remediation Technologies Development
Forum (RTDF). http://www.rtdf.org.
5. U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence (AFCEE). 1996. Bioventing
Performance and Cost Results from Multiple
Air Force Test Sites, Technology
Demonstration, Final Technical
Memorandum. June.
6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE).
1999. PAX Newsletter No. 3.2.1.
http://www. hq. usace. army, mil/cemp/e/es/
pax/paxtoc.htm. March.
7. USACE. 1998. Report on Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)for
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste.
March.
http://www. environmental, usace. army. mil.
8. USACE. 1997. Case Studies Presented in
Cost Data for Innovative Treatment
Technologies. July.
9. U.S. Envkonmental Protection Agency (EPA).
2001. Cost Analyses for Selected
Groundwater Cleanup Projects: Pump and
Treat and Permeable Reactive Barriers. EPA
542-R-00-013. February.
10. EPA. 2000. Engineered Approaches to In
Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents.
EPA 542-R-00-008. http://www.clu-in.org.
July.
11. EPA. 2000. Field Applications of In Situ
Remediation Technologies: Permeable
Reactive Barriers. EPA 542-R-99-002. June.
http://www.clu-in.org.
12. EPA. 1999. Groundwater Cleanup:
Overview of Operating Experience at 28 Sites.
. EPA 542-R-99-006. September.
http://www. clu-in. org.
13. EPA. 1998. On-Site Incineration: Overview
ofSuperfund Operating Experience. EPA
542-R-97-012. March, http://www.clu-in.org.
14. EPA. 1997. Analysis of Selected
Enhancements for Soil Vapor Extraction.
EPAR-97-007. September, http://www.clu-
in.org.
15. EPA. 2000. Bioremediation in the Field '
Search System, Version 2.1.
http://clu-in.org/PRODUCTS/MOREINFO/ '
Bfss.htm.
8-1
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
This page intentionally left blank.
8-2
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
APPENDIX A
Summary of Price Information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
for Off-Site Disposal and Off-Site Incineration
In March 1998, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) published a document titled Report
on Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) for Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive
Waste(http://\vww.environmental.usace.army.miT) that contains information about prices charged by off-
site hazardous waste landfills and incineration facilities permitted under RCRA for the disposal of RCRA
hazardous wastes. This appendix provides a summary of information obtained from that report that may
be'useful in comparing costs of other technologies, such as those in the Remediation Technology Cost
Compendium - Year 2000.
USAGE collected the price information by contacting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs)
(using a'list developed by EPA and state environmental agencies) to obtain vendor price quotes. Price
information was obtained for two types of landfills - those that accept bulk solid waste that does not
require stabilization and those that accept bulk solid waste that does require stabilization by the TSDF.
As Exhibit A-l shows, price information was obtained for 28 off-site RCRA-permitted facilities - 12
hazardous waste landfills without stabilization;, 10 hazardous waste landfills with stabilization; and six
hazardous waste incinerators.
For this compendium, the USAGE cost data (vendor price quotes) were adjusted for location and
inflation, as described in Section 1 of the compendium. Costs also were adjusted to include all
applicable taxes and fees for the state in which the vendor was located because, for off-site disposal,
taxes and fees are a standard part of the total cost of disposal and vary by location. For example, taxes
and fees range from $0 per ton in Louisiana and Indiana to $45.13 per ton in California and $135 per ton
in Oregon. Information about taxes and fees was taken directly from the USAGE report. Transportation
costs were not included in the analysis because such costs are site-specific and generally are considered
on a case-by-case basis.
Exhibit A-l presents a summary of the adjusted price data for the-three types of off-site disposal
facilities. Data are shown as the 25th percentile, 50th percentile, 75th percentile, and average prices,
expressed as cost per ton of waste disposed. The average price ranged from $155 per ton for RCRA
hazardous waste disposed of without stabilization at a landfill to $529 per ton for RCRA hazardous waste
disposed of by incineration. A number of factors potentially affect the price of waste disposal at such
facilities. Example factors include the total quantity of waste being disposed of, the types and
concentrations of contaminants in the waste, the physical properties of the waste (for example, particle
size, moisture content, and halogen content), and market factors.
Exhibit A-l. Summary of Adjusted USACE Price Data for Off-Site Disposal
and Off-Site Incineration of RCRA Hazardous Waste
Type of RCRA Off-Site Disposal
Facility
RCRA Hazardous Waste Landfill
(without stabilization)
RCRA Hazardous Waste Landfill
(with stabilization)
RCRA Hazardous Waste Incinerator
25th Percentile
($/ton)
112
196
472
50th Percentile
(Median)
($/ton)
143
217
494
75th Percentile
($/ton)
168
283
587
Average
($/ton)
155
239
529
Number of
Facilities
12
10
6
Source: USACE, Report on Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities for Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste, March
1998.
A-l
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
This page intentionally left blank.
A-2
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
APPENDIX B
Additional Information about Development of the Cost Curves
Section 1 of the Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000 summarized the manner in
which the cost curves were developed for the compendium. This appendix provides additional
information about the statistical analyses used in developing the cost curves, including detailed backup
calculations. In addition, at the end of this appendix is a brief response to selected external reviewer
comments about the statistical methodology.
The specific steps used in the statistical methodology were:
1. Data on unit cost and quantity of material treated or mass of contaminant removed was transformed
to the corresponding natural log values.
2. A linear best fit of the log-transformed data was determined, and a statistical summary of the fit was
prepared, including the coefficient of determination (r2) that was used as a measure of how well the
data fit the model.
3. Using the log-transformed data, the residuals from the linear fit were examined to determine whether
they were distributed normally, using the Shapiro-Wilk W test (a goodness-of-fit test). For this test,
the null hypothesis (Ho) is that the data are distributed normally. If the probability of obtaining a
smaller value for the Shapiro-Wilk test than the value calculated for the observed data (W) is greater
than 0.05, then H0 is not rejected and it is concluded that the data are normally distributed.
4. The line of best fit and both 68- and 95-percent confidence limits for the individual predicted values
from the linear regression equation were plotted. Separate plots were also prepared using scales in
original units by back transformation of the log-transformed data.
As discussed in the Executive Summary of the compendium; the approach for developing the cost curves,
using a reverse exponential model, was tested using the Air Force bioventing cost data for 45 projects.
Those data provided the greatest number of technology applications having similar characteristics and
represented a comprehensive effort to collect costs at a number of sites by standard procedures. For the
bioventing cost curves, the coefficient of determination for the linear fit of the log-transformed data was
0.80, meaning that 80 percent of the variability in the data is explained by the model. The same
methodology was applied to other data sets, and the coefficient of determination and other statistical
details are provided together with the plots in this appendix. The coefficient of determination varied by
technology.
All statistical tests were performed using JMPฎ (SAS Institute, Inc.) software. Statistical output from
IMP is not rounded to a fixed number of significant digits. The results of those calculations are provided
for each cost curve.
B-l
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit B-l. AFCEE Bioventing Projects - Unit Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 95- and 68-Percent Confidence Intervals)
1.000
100
10
100
Log Scale View
1,000
10,000
Volume of Soil Treated (yd3)
100,000
1,000,000
Notes:
1 The line of best fit (solid line) and 68- and 95-percent confidence limits (dashed lines) for individual predicted points for 45
bioventing projects are shown in the plots above.
2 All reported costs were adjusted for site locations, as described in the text.
3 The coefficient of determination (r2) for the line of best fit is 80 percent.
B-2
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Detailed Calculations for AFCEE Bioventing Projects - Unit Cost vs. Volume Treated
Linear Fit
log(Cost/CY) = 8.9310144 - 0.7002108 log(CY)
I Summary of Fit ~~ I
RSquare 0.799508
RSquare Adj 0.794845
Root Mean Square Error 0.494289
Mean of Response 2.760522
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 45
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares
Model 1 41.894246
Error 43 10.505814
C. Total 44 52.400060
Mean Square
41.8942
0.2443
F Ratio
171.4720
Prob > F
c.OOOl
Parameter Estimates
Term Estimate Std Error
Intercept 8.9310144 , 0.476946
log(CY) -0.700211 0.053473
t Ratio Prob>ltl
18.73 <.0001
-13.09 <0001
Fit Measured on Original Scale
Sum of Squared Error 18372.596
Root Mean Square Error 20.670503
RSquare 0.6044654
Sum of Residuals 194.95537
IUU
80 -
ง 60 -
1 40 -
c: 20 -
.
f.
g+V-f
1 1 1 1
75000
150000
225000
300000
CY
1
0.5
-0.5
-1.0
6
Distributions
. .
.
7
' .
.
.
i i i i i
8 9 . 10 11 12
log(CY)
13
1
1 Residuals log(CostXCY)
i
i
j
i
""""'/
ll I
I1 '
2
i
i
i
r
L
i
r
L
ฃ
z
'
3;
1 1
1
1 -j
I .f
_ ,sw
9-
5-
0-
5-
.25-
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit B-2. Thermal Desorption Projects - Unit Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 95-and 68-Percent Confidence Intervals)
1,000 1
100
3
10
1,000
Log Scale View
95%
10,000 100,000
Quantity of Soil Treated (Tons)
1,000,000
Notes:
1 The line of best fit (solid line) and 68- and 95-percent confidence limits (dashed lines) for individual predicted points for 17
thermal desorption projects are shown in the plots above.
- All reported costs were adjusted for location and time, as described in the text.
J The coefficient of determination is (r2) for the line of best fit is 21 percent.
B-4
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Detailed Calculations for Thermal Desorption - Unit Cost vs. Volume Treated
Linear Fit
log(Cost/Tons) = 8.6166802 - 0.389974 log(Tons)
| Summary of Fit 1
RSquare 0.206222
RSquareAdj 0.156611
Root Mean Square Error 0.772762
Mean of Response 4.881348
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 18
I Analysis of Variance
Source
Model
Error
C. Total
DF
1
16
17
Sum of Squares
2.482265
9.554577
12.036842
Mean Square F Ratio
2.48226 4.1568
0.59716 Prob>J
0.0583
Fit Measured on Original Scale
Sum of Squared Error 385259.03
Root Mean Square Error 155.1731
RSquare -0.017582
Sum of Residuals 714.62713
Parameter Estimates
Term Estimate Std Erroi
Intercept 8.6166802 1.841139
log(Tons) -0.389974 0.191275
t Ratio Prob>|t|
4.68 0.0003
-2.04 0.0583
futr
309-
13200-
ง109-
8 0-
-109
-209
-306
*
. *
* * . .
1 1 1 1
3 25000 50000 75000 100000 125
Tons
1.5
1.0-
0.5-
'ฐ-ฐ-
-1.0-
-1.5-
I I I I I I i 1
7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5.
log(Tons)
12
I Distributions
| Residuals log(Cost/Tons)
i
i
i
I
i
i
/'
1
^J^
i i r
1 L
1
<^
]>>
.99-
. .90-
.. -fiSt-
.25-
.10-
.05-
.01-
1
r3 i| i 1 Quantiles . || Moments
3 1 100.0% maximum 1.3197 Mean 4.9e-16
-2 1 99.5% 1.3197 StdDev 0.7496892
ง 97.5% 1.3197 StdErrMean 0.1767034
& 90.0% 1.0697 upper 95% Mean 013728095
., 1 75.0% quartile 0.5183 lower 95% Mean -0.372809
1 50.0% median 0.0943 N 18
55 25.0% quartile -0.5510 Sum Wgts 18
_0 i 10.0% -1.0762 Sum 8.9e-15
1 2.5% -1.3779 Variance 0.5620339
0.5% -1.3779 Skewness -0.121837
. , 1 0.0% minimum -1.3779 Kurtosis -0.593628
CV 1.52e+17
i
"2
i | Goodness-of-Fit Test |
i Shapiro-WilkWTest
i W Prob
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Exhibit B-3. Soil Vapor Extraction Projects - Unit Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 95- and 68-Percent Confidence Intervals)
10,000
1,000
100
01
8
1 10
0 -I
100
Log Scale View
1,000 10,000
Volume of Soil Treated (yd3)
. 100,000
1,000,000
Notes:
' The line of best fit (solid line) and 68- and 95-percent confidence limits (dashed lines) for individual predicted points for 18
soil vapor extraction projects are shown in the plots above.
2 All reported costs were adjusted for location and years during which costs were incurred, as described in the text.
3 The coefficient of determination (r2) for the line of best fit is 69 percent.
B-6
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
Detailed Calculations for Soil Vapor Extraction - Unit Cost vs. Volume Treated
Linear Fit
lpg(Cost/CY) = 11.169826 - 0.769932 log(CY)
| Summary of Fit |
RSquare 0.691274
RSquareAdj 0.671979
Root Mean Square Error 1.043341
Mean of Response 3.657401
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 18
Fit Measured on Original Scale
Sum of Squared Error 431701.73
Root Mean Square Error 164.26003
RSquare 0.583Q949
Sum of Residuals 381.8575
| Analysis of Variance
Source
Model
Error
C. Total
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square
1
16
17
38.998725
17.416973
' 56.415698
38.9987
1.0886
F Ratio .
35.8260
Prob > F
<.0001
Parameter Estimates
Term Estimate Std Error
Intercept 11.169826 1.278973
logCCY) -0.769932 0.128633
t Ratio Protปltl
8.73 -c.OOOl
-5.99 <.0001
ouu
_ 400-
ง200-
55
ฎ 0
-200-
-4UU \
1 1 1 1 1
0 50000
100000 150000 200000 250000
CY
1.5-
o 1.0-
"0
1 o.o-
K-0.5-
-i.o-
.
-l.o i I l i | | |
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1
log(CY)
Distributions
| Resid
i
j
j
1
J>
h
r-i
1.5
ials
S
-
~
i
i
\
-1
r-
-1
bg(Cost/CY)
^
s
1
/
<<
>
.5
S
J
h
1-
S
.99-
50-
.10-
.05-
.01-
-H
P
rง -S 1 1 Quantiles II Moments
1 1 1 1 1
k 2. o - -N
Normal Quantlle P
i i i
- N U> 4
Count Axis
1.5 2
100.0% maximum 1.6972 Mean -1.5e-15
99.5% 1.6972 StdDev 1.0121896
97.5% 1.6972 Std Err Mean 0.2385754
90.0% 1.6887 upper 95% Mean 0.5033471
75.0% quartils 0.906E lower 95% Mean -0.503347
50.0% median -0.0125 N T8
25.0% quartile -0.8856 Sum Wgts 18
10.0% -1.3122 Sum -2.8e-14
2.5% -1.3844 Variance 1.0245278
0.5% -1.3844 Skewness 0.2635939
0.0% minimum -1.3844 Kurtosis -1.13625
CV -6.56e+16
| Goodness-of-Fit Test |
Shapiro-Wilk W Test
W Prob
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
Exhibit B-4. Soil Vapor Extraction Projects - Unit Cost vs. Mass of Contaminant Removed
(with 95- and 68-Percent Confidence Intervals)
1,000,000
100,000.
10.000
1,000-
3 100
10
10
Log Scale View
100
1000 10000 .. 100000
Mass of Contaminant Removed (Ibs)
1000000
10000000
Notes:
1 The line of best fit (solid line) and 68- and 95-percent confidence limits (dashed lines) for individual predicted points for 14
soil vapor extraction projects are shown in the plots above.
2 All reported costs were adjusted for location and years during which costs were incurred, as described in the text.
3 The coefficient of determination (r2) for the line of best fit is 92 percent.
B-8
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
Detailed Calculations for Soil Vapor Extraction - Unit Cost vs. Mass of Contaminant Removed
Linear Fit
log(Cost/MCR) = 13,014916 - 0.9418857 log(MCR)
| Summary of Fit
RSquare
RSquare Adj
Root Mean Square Error
Mean of Response
Observations (or Sum Wgts)
0.919495 '
0.912787
0.957782
4.42804
14
Analysis of Variance
Source
Model
Error
C. Total
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square
1
12
13
125.73136
11.00816
136.73952
125.731
0.917
F Ratio
137.0599
Prob > F
<.0001
Parameter Estimates
Term
Intercept
log(MCR)
Estimate
13.014916
-0.941886
Std Error
0.776851
0.080453
t Ratio Prob>ltl
16.75 . <.0001
-11.71 <.0001
Fit Measured on Original Scale
Sum of Squared Error 335635185
Root Mean Square Error 5288.6292
RSquare 0.4959219
Sum of Residuals 11695.193
ง
20000 -
15000 -
10000 -
5000 -
0
-5000 -
0 100000 200000.300000 400000 500000
MCR (Pounds)
z.u
1.5-
o 1.0-
T3
'8 o.o-
a-0.5 -
-i.o -
1
i
i
1 .99-1
l
I /"3s-
' jS .90-
,<'/?^'*
* 'v*/*^- ^^." 50-
*" jr '
-''/?'' -25-
s^ /
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
Exhibit B-5. Pump and Treat Projects - Unit Capital Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 95- and 68-Percent Confidence Intervals)
100,000 ,
10,000
1,000
ll 100
S2
10 :
1 ,
1,000
Log Scale View
10,000 100,000 1,000,000
Volume of Groundwater Treated Per Year (1,000 Gallons/Year)
10,000,000
Notes:
1 The line of best fit (solid line) and 68- and 95-percent confidence limits (dashed lines) for individual predicted points for 32
pump and treat projects are shown in the plots above.
2 All reported costs were adjusted for location and years during which costs were incurred, as described in the text.
3 The coefficient of determination (r2) for the line of best fit is 59 percent.
B-10
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
Detailed Calculations for Pump and Treat - Unit Capital Cost vs. Volume Treated per Year
Linear Fit
logftJnlt Cost) = 12712083 - 0.7974345 log(Volume)
| Summary of Fit |
RSquare 0.592322
RSquare Adj 0.578733
Root Mean Square Error 1.126549.
Mean of Response 4.457747
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 32
| Analysis of Variance
Fit IVfeCBLredmCrig'nd Sods'
Source
Model
Error
C. Total
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square
1
30
31
55.317415
38.073364
93.390778
55.3174
1.2691
F Ratio
43.5875
Prob > F
<0001
Parameter Estimates
Term
Intercept
log(Volume)
Estimate
12.712083
-0.797434
Std Error
1.266024
0.120785
t Ratio Protปltl
10.04 <.0001
-6.60 <0001
SumofSqjcredError
R oof IVbcn S qucre E r ror
RSqjcre
Sum of Residua's
2908234.8
311.35375
0.455782
3311.8483
1000-
"o
-D 500-
55
CD
^ Q-
-500
^
3 ฐ~
I"1 ~
-2-
-3
500000 1000000
Volume
1500000
l I I I I I I I I
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
log(Volume)
Distributions
[Residuals loqfUnit Cost)
1
1
!
i
1
....
ป
X
./
s
1
1
'
1 '
1
-3
1
-2
s
^ ป<
S jfs
IT /
'
_] ^
^-r^
(
/ .99-1
/
'
'
/.4
m
.95-
Vป0-
^
ex .50-
'
O (-
?*> t-
ix> r
)
.25-
.10-
.05-
.01-1
, 1
' 1
' 2
f3 -g f | Quantiles || Moments
cu
-2 5
40
cy
1
V.
-o z
100.0% maximum 1.8156 Mean
99.5% 1.8156 StdDev
97.5% 1 .81 56 Std Err Mean
2v1e-l7
1.1082297
0.1959092
90.0% 1.5254 upper 95% Mean 0.3995566
75.0% quartile 0.9150 lower 95% Mean -0.399557
50.0% median 0.0700 N
25.0% quartile -0.7389 Sum Wgts
10.0% -1.8327 Sum
2.5% -2.1853 Variance
--2
0.5% -2.1853 Skewness
0.0% minimum -2.1853 Kurtosis
CV
-15
,52
| Goodness-of-Fit Test
Shapiro-Wilk W Test
W Prob
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
Exhibit B-6. Pump and Treat Projects - Unit Average Annual Operating Cost vs. Volume Treated
(with 95- and 68-Percent Confidence Intervals)
10,000
S
1,000
100
s
C3
Is
I
s
10 -
1 -
0
0
1,000
Log Scale View
- 95%
10,000 100,000 1,000,000
Volume of Groundwater Treated Per Year (1,000 Gallons/Year)
10,000,000
Notes:
1 The line of best fit (solid line) and 68- and 95-percent confidence limits (dashed lines) for individual predicted points for 32
pump and treat projects are shown in the plots above.
2 All reported costs were adjusted for location and years during which costs were incurred, as described in the text.
3 The coefficient of determination (r2) for the line of best fit is 62 percent.
B-12
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
Detailed Calculations for Pump and Treat - Unit Average Annual Operating Cost vs. Volume of
Groundwater Treated per Year
Linear Fit
logOJnit Cost) = 10.356779- 0.754574 log(Volume)
| Summary of Fit |
RSquare 0.619322
RSquare Adj 0.606633
Root Mean Square Error 1.00739
Mean of Response 2.546098
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 32
| Analysis of Variance
Source
Model
Error
C. Total
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square
1
30
31
49.530820
30.445034
79.975854
49.5308
1.0148
F Ratio
48.8068
Prob > F
<.0001
Parameter Estimates
Term
Intercept
log(Volume)
Estimate
10.356779
-0.754574
Std Error
1.132112
0.108009
t Ratio Protปltl
9.15 <.000l
-6.99 <.0001
Fit Measured on Original Scale
Sum of Squared Error 28362.686
Root Mean Square Error 30.747729
RSquare 0.5065955
Sum of Residuals 255.52333
ioo-
"o
-D 50-
8 '
* o-
-50-
1 - i ' i
500000 1000000
Volume/Yr/l,OOOgal
15000C
2.0-
\ i.o:
\ ฐ'ฐ-
"-i.o-
-2.0-
*
ll i l i i i
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1
, , ,
logCVolume)
Distributions
| Residuals log(Unit Cost)
1
/ .99-
^"/V .10-
/' / -05-
/ .01-
1 <> 1
1 il
Normal Quantile P
-7.5 s.
-5.0 1
-2.5 3
| Quantiles || Moments
100.0% maximum 2.1204 Mean -2.4e-15
99.5% 2.1204 StdDev 0.9910085
97.5% 2.1204 Std Err Mean 0.1751872
90.0% 1 .7334 upper 95% Mean O.3572942
75.0% quartile 0.6847 lower 95% Mean -0.357294
50.0% median -0.1793 N 32
25.0% quartile -0.8817 Sum Wgts 32
10.0% -1.0130 Sum -7.76-14
2.5% -1.7636 Variance 0.9820979
0.5% -1.7636 Skewness 0.5520105
0.0% minimum -1.7636 Kurtosis -0.36062
CV -4.126+16
| Goodness-of-Fit Test |
Shapiro-Wilk W Test
W Prob
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium Year 2000
Response to External Reviewer Comments on the Statistical Details of the "Remediation
Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000"
The following are responses to some of the external reviewer comments on the report.
1. Providing optimal fits for essentially non-linear models can be an exhaustive exercise. Most
statisticians frown on using exploratory techniques for non-linear modeling; that is, one should have
some idea of the correct functional form that best describes the data. In our case, our assumption that
the cost data are described by a negative exponential model is probably pretty sound. A logarithmic
transformation was used to linearize the data, and for several data sets a linear regression of the
transformed data provided a reasonable fit. The reviewers are correct, however, that the fit was very
poor for some data sets. An additional concern regarding the normality of the residuals led them to
suggest we use Box-Cox power transformations to find an optimal transformation for each data set.
This is a good suggestion, but is only one of many things that could be done to find the best fit to the
data. Another approach worth exploring is using breakpoint regression (or other more sophisticated
regressions techniques), which allows you to fit more than one regression model to each data set.
This level of effort is only warranted if you are interested in providing optimal predictive models. A
full discussion of estimation errors associated with the regression approach we used could be
provided at a separate time.
2. The reviewers implied that the Shapiro-Wilk W test has low statistical power to correctly identify
departure from normality when sample sizes are small. This is true, and is one reason why histogram
and box-plots, normal quantile plots, and summary tables of quantiles and moments for the residuals
for each plot are provided. If text is added to the report to better interpret the statistical output and
to concisely summarize the main limitations of the approach, then this should satisfy the more
sophisticated readers.
3. The report provides summary graphics of the fits for each data set in the main body, but the salient
statistical details one needs to evaluate each regression model are buried in the appendix. This
obviously has advantages and disadvantages. In order to not mislead readers into thinking that these
are robust predictive models, it might be a good idea to provide a very clear explanation of the
objectives and limitations of the approach used in the front of the report. Also, a few corrections and
additions to the "Notes" section below each figure might help to clarify things (e.g., r2 is the '
coefficient of determination).
4. The reviewers are correct in pointing out that text needs to be added to explain the confidence
intervals (CI) that are shown in the plots. Graphical and tabular results for CIs for both the
regression line (i.e., per unit cost - a random variable) and for the expected per unit cost (our
predicted dependent variable) for individual values of the independent variable (our "wide" CIs) are
provided. Since the report identifies CIs for individual predicted points, the reviewer is correct in
saying that we would need to calculate joint confidence bounds based on Schwartz's inequality if we
want to correctly report the significance level for any combined statements made regarding more than
one per unit cost.
B-14
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
APPENDIX C
Active Members of the FRTR Ad Hoc Work Group on Cost and Performance
Listed below are members of the Work Group who participated in efforts to collect cost and performance
data.
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
Jeff Cornell
AFCEE/ERT
3207 North Road
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5363
Brian Harrison
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Washington Navy Yard
1322 Patterson Avenue, SE
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20374-5056
John Kingscott (Chairman)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Innovation Office
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
Kelly Madalinski
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Innovation Office
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
Mary McCune
U.S. Department of Energy
EM-43, Clover Leaf Bldg.
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown, MD 20874-1290
Duane L. Meighan
U.S. Air Force/ILEVR
1260 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20330-1260
Robert Nash
Naval Facilities Engineering
Service Center (ESC414RN)
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Kate Peterson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CEMRD-ET-E
12565 West Center Road
Omaha, NE 68144
Malcolm Siegal
Sandia National Laboratories - AL
MS-0755
Albuquerque, NM 87185
Johnnie Shockley
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CEMRD-ET-E
12565 West Center Road
Omaha, NE 68144
Dennis A. Teefy
U.S. Army Environmental Center
ATTN: SFIM-AEC-ETD
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
Cathy Vogel
SERDP Program Office
901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 303
Arlington, VA 22203
James W. Wolcott
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CECW-ET
441 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20314-1000
C-l
-------
Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000
This page intentionally left blank.
C-2
-------
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(5102G)
Washington, D.C. 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA-542-R-01-009
-------
|