Of I*-000 Jฃ3
DRAFT GUIDANCE
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES UNDER RCRA, SUBTITLE C, SECTION 3004
Financial Requirements; Interim Status Standards
(40 CFR 265, Subpart H)
This report (SW-913) was prepared under contract no.
68-01-5794 for the Office of Solid Waste
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1981
-------
-if ,!
:1 ,'*
-------
i PREFACE
I
This draft guidance document has been prepared by the International
Research and Technology Corporation. In preparing this document, we
have sought and incorporated the advice of the Office of Solid Waste,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Regional Offices, the Office
of General Counsel, and the Office of Enforcement have not yet reviewed
this draft guidance document; therefore, this document does not repre-
sent EPA's final views and opinions.
-------
-------
LIST OF TABLES.
CONTENTS
.v
1.0 INTRODUCTION . , 1-1
2.0 BASIC RULES FOR THE CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE....... ......... .....ป.. .2-1
3. 0 BASIC RULES FOR THE POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE .3-1
4.0 PREPARING AND DOCUMENTING THE CLOSURE AND POST-
CLOSURE COST ESTIMATES. 4-1
4.1 Costs Based upan Experience of the Owner or
Operator. 4-1
4.2 Contractor Estimates ......4-2
4.3 Cost Estimating Handbooks 4-3
4.4 Workups from Labor, Material and Equipment
Requirements. 4-4
5.0 ADEQUACY OF THE CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE 5-1
5.1 Activities Relevant to All Facilities 5-4
5.1.1 Treating, Disposing or Removing Inventory 5-4
5.1.2 Decontaminating the Facility 5-6
5.1.3 Monitoring 5-6
5.1.4 Prof esisional Engineer Certification 5-6
5.2 Costs Required Only of Landfills and Surface
Impoundments. 57
5.2.1 Cover.,. 5-7
5.2.2 Vegetation. ซ 5-8
5.2.3 Optional Measures .....5-9
6. 0 ADEQUACY OF THE POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE 6-1
6.1 Inspections and Facility Visits 6-3
6.2 Reestablishing Cover and Vegetation 6-5
6.3 Fertilizing... ,i 6-5
6.4 Mowing . 6-5
6.5 Ground-water Monitoring ;..... 6-6
6.6 Maintaining and Replacing Fences 6-6
6.7 Collecting, Removing and Treating Leachate. ....6-6
7.0 REVISING THE CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATES ....7-1
iii
-------
8.0 ADJUSTING THE COST ESTIMATES TO ACCOUNT FOR INFLATION. 8-1
9.0 SAMPLE COST ESTIMATES 9-1
9.1 Introduction.
9.2 Example - Surface Impoundments
9.3 Example - Land Treatment Facilities, ซ
9.4 Example - Landfills ซ
9.5 Example- Incinerators ...... <
9.6 Example - Multiple Process Facility With Tanks
and Surface Impoundments.ป 9-91
9.7 Example- Post-Closure Cost Estimates... 9-114
.9-1
,9-2
.9-31
.9-56
.9-75
1
:v ฅ
iv
-------
I
LIST OF TABLES
Table , Page
5-1 CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE RAPID CHECKS. 5-3
6-1 COSTS OF SELECTED POST-CLOSURE ACTIVITIES. 6-4
8-1 HYPOTHETICAL SAMPLE PAGE OF SURVEY OF CURRENT
BUSINESS 8-3
-------
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
EPA has developed standards for financial requirements for owners
or operators of hazardous waste facilities as part of the Interim Status
Standards Subpart H Financial Requirements. This guidance document
covers only those portions of Subpart H promulgated on 19 May 1980 and
the technical amendments to those regulations. These portions require
the owner or operator to prepare cost estimates for closure and post-
closure . At later dates, Subpart H will also contain final regulations
covering liability requirements and financial assurance mechanisms.
The purpose of the cost estimation requirements is to determine
the amount of financial assurance needed. These requirements are pre-
sented in 40 CFR ง265.142 for closure and 40 CFR ง265.144 for post-
closure. Each of these sections contains a requirement for a written
cost estimate available on the premises (40 CFR ง265.142(a) and 40 CFR
ง265.144(a)), a requirement for revisions in the cost estimate whenever
changes are made in the applicable plans (40 CFR ง265.142(b) and 40
CFR ง265.144(b)) and a requirement for annual adjustments in the closure
and post-closure cost estimates to reflect inflation (40 CFR ง265.142(c)
and 40 CFR ง265.144(c)) . All owners or operators of hazardous waste
facilities, except those facilities owned or operated by states and the
federal government, must prepare closure cost estimates. All owners or
operators of facilities in which hazardous wastes will remain after
closure, except those facilities owned or operated by states and the
federal government, must prepare a post-closure cost estimate. The
closure cost estimates must be available on the premises on the effective
date of these regulations, i.e., November 19, 1980, for those facilities
not required to have a post-closure plan. Owners or operators of land
disposal facilities, or facilities closed as such, will not be required
to have their closure and post-closure cost estimates available until
six months from the effective date of these regulations, i.e., Hay 19,
1981, because of the complexities involved in developing plans and
estimates for these types of facilities.
1-1
-------
The purpose of this document is to assist the Regional Offices in
implementing those sections of the interim status regulations relevant
to closure and post-closure cost estimates. Since the bases for the
cost estimates are the closure and post-closure plans, this section
i .MI : :' '''. : . .. . ' . & , !.; .I/. ..< .
should be read in association with the guidance for closure and post-
closure plans. The remainder of this document is divided into eight
sections: basic rules for the 'closure cost estimate; basic rules for
111 I " r
the post-closure cost estimate; preparing and documenting the closure
and post-closure cost estimates; adequacy of the closure cost estimate;
' / ' - .. , .( I '!'', . ' . , ' . ' I;,,, -' '! I'-';- " * I " _ j
adequacy of the post-closure cost estimate; revising the closure and
post-closure cost estimates; adjusting the cost estimates to account
for inflation; and sample cost estimates for various types of facilities,
The emphasis throughout this document is upon interim status. This is
particularly important to the sections on adequacy of cost estimates,
which are designed for rapid review and inspection.
Sample cost estimates have been developed for several kinds of
facilities in the final section of this document. The purpose of these
!ป t:i! (,," ' :" ' ' .'' ' ' ! ' "
samples is to illustrate the concepts involved in closure and post-
closure cost estimates and the formats which might be appropriate. The
samples are developed through a series of worksheets designed to illus-
trate an appropriate format for demonstrating the scope and nature of
the activities involved and the key unit cost elements used in arriving
at the final estimate. Closure and post-closure costs will be highly
site-specific, and as a result, these worksheets should be viewed as
only general guidance and are unlikely to be applicable in any specific
case. In no case should the unit costs used in the samples be regarded
as proper and accurate costs to be used in developing cost estimates.
1-2
, i'li'ji il-'l.
-------
2.0 BASIC RULES FOR THE CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE
In developing closure cost estimates for interim status, the
following concepts should be used for guidance.
2.1 The closure cost estimate is based upon the methods described
in the closure plan.
I , - :
A cost estimate should, be prepared for each activity or sub-activity
listed in the closure plan. The cost estimate is based upon the ac-
tivities, quantities and methods indicated in the closure plan. For
example, a cost estimate should be prepared for treating, disposing or
removing inventory. It must account for managing the maximum inventory
expected as indicated in the closure plan. The method used for treating,
disposing or removing the inventory would be identical to that indicated
in the closure plan. For example, if the closure plan indicates managing
1000 tons of waste, of which 800 tons are to be disposed or treated
on-site and 200 tons removed to an off-site TSDF, the cost estimate
must include estimates for these respective costs.
2.2 "The estimate must equal the cost of closure at the point in the
facility's operating life when the extent and manner of its opera-
tion would make closure the most expensive, as indicated by its
closure plan."* . -
The goal of the cost estimate is to ensure that if at any point in
time a facility had to begin closure for reasons unrelated to a catas-
trophe at the site, the costs of the closure would not exceed the cost
estimate. Thus, the conditions on which the cost estimate is predicated
will probably differ significantly from anticipated conditions at the end
of normal facility life with respect to amounts of undisposed or un-
treated wastes on-hand, status of processing equipment, and area of-the
facility in disturbed condition.
*EPA Interim Status Standards, 40 CFR ง265.142(a).
i - -
2-1
-------
For example, for purposes of the cost estimate, the estimate of
maximum inventory on-site should include the maximum normally expected
f;"'"' ' . ' ,' ').[ ': ' ' ' .',., ".' '-, ; I |'' ' '
bn^site. This estimate should take account of any long-term cycle of
inventory on-hand, and should take account of predictable events which
may occur over the life of the facility, such as adverse weather condi-
I1" . ": , ,i | " n' ' . ; ,11, , | ' * , " ' "I'ii \' , '" ! i" ! " . '.'''
tions preventing normal activity at a landfill and "down time" to
periodically rebrick the refractory of an incinerator. The initial
estimate need not, however, include provisions for highly unusual
contingencies unless they exist at the time the facility submits its
initial cost estimate. For example, the cost estimate need not include
provision for such unusual contingencies as the effects of the 50-year
storm or the failure of a liner in a major trench calling for removal of
'":'. '. ] ::, 'i./ '-".i i ...' " , . ., i; ' -if 'i: , i< i -, .;
all waste in that trench. If such events occur over the life of the
, ,,,,!
facility and cause the original maximum inventory estimate to be
exceeded, the owner or operator should revise the closure plan to
ffi;: ,i;' ,' ; i' I;; ;;"ti " : ' ", " ', , ; ;; ..;.'' .;'. ,'., v"', ,,'|.,<. | ; '.' : ;..,'
reflect the current situation unless he can immediately correct the
situation so that his original estimate of maximum inventory is not
exceeded. In cases of doubt, the Regional Administrator's office should
be contacted as to the advisability of revising the cost estimate. In
no case, however, should the initial cost estimate list a maximum inven-
r
tory less than that actually on-site. If normal operating procedures
include steps which would reduce closure costs, such as dredging of an
impoundment or capping portions of a landfill, it should be assumed that
closure will occur just before these, activities. Thus, in the closure
cost estimate all costs associated with such procedures should be
included. This assumption is to ensure adequate funds in the closure
cost estimate for the situation of forced closure due to an unforeseen
.1
event such as business failure of the facility's owner or operator.
If experience shows that the initial cost estimate over- or under-
estimated the most' expensive conditions likely to occur over the life
of the facility, or if those conditions are no longer possible,, then
revisions may be made in the cost estimate as appropriate (see Section
?..' :, '; , .11.; " , - ' , :, , s s "; ' i ,j )'!'-' '.
7.0). For example, if late in the life of the facility the total
2-2
-------
disturbed area is only 10 acres but had exceeded 20 acres earlier, it
would be appropriate to revise the cost estimate downward.
2.3 Cost estimates are to be based upon the operating costs to the
owner or operator of carrying out the planned activities.
i "',.""
This means that in developing the cost estimate the owner's or
operator's depreciation costs, capital recovery factors, and interest on
debt need not be included as part of the costs. For example, capital
recovery and depreciation factors for earth-moving equipment owned by
the owner or operator and costs of land already owned need not be
considered as part of the costs of disposing of inventory at a landfill.
If equipment must be rented to complete closure activities, however, the
costs of this rental must be .part of the cost estimate. If the owner or
operator plans to contract' out a specific activity (e.g., sandblasting
and steam-cleaning the equipment pn-site, planting vegetation), the full
costs of that contract would be the correct cost estimate.
2.4 The cost estimates .should include all associated costs necessary to
carry out closure procedures.
A cost estimate for a given activity must include all costs asso-
ciated with this activity, Including fully loaded labor costs (i.e.,
including fringe benefits and overhead), any costs of supervision, .fuel
and maintenance costs for the equipment used, administrative costs, and
provisions for normal contingencies. Administrative costs include all
costs associated with taxes and insurance, as well as costs of routine
administration, paperwork and reporting. "Provisions for normal contin-
gencies" means that the cost estimates should include a factor for
unforeseen events that may increase costs, such as those routinely put
into most initial cost estimates. Such contingencies include adverse
weather and other unanticipated complications. Given the absence in the
closure plan of detailed engineering designs, the uncertain nature of
precise facility conditions at the time of closure, and the lack of
provision for inflation during the closure period (which, in some cases,
can be quite lengthy), the provision for contingencies should be
2-3
-------
ป-, . , , ' i, I!"1*": ,., ! . ' ,'< ' , I; ! ', . '. ' . " .K'j ., I
generous. Standard engineering practice shows that in most cases
a provision for contingencies could reasonably be expected to fall
within the range of 15 to 25 percent. The lower end of the range
is appropriate for smaller facilities which require a short closure
period and have fewer uncertain variables. The higher end of the
raSige accounts''for larger facilities which may require extensive
,. , , - . .. ; ,. ;;;, ; ..[ ,' ..;
activities and a longer closure period, for which unusual weather
conditions or uncertain decontamination needs could seriously affect
the cost of closure.
A cost estimate for treating inventory in an incinerator would
include fully loaded labor costs, supervision, maintenance, utilities,
any chemicals and catalysts employed, administration, andprovisions
for contingencies. Although the cost estimate should include all of
these cost Clements, they need not be documented separately. Thus, for
example, well documented unit costs for treating inventory are
appropriate even if they do not include separate documentation for
maintenance, utilities, or all energy costs. This point is further
discussed in Section 4.0 and examples of an appropriate approach
arฐe shown in Section 9.0.
2.5 The cost estimates should be based upon costs in the year in which
the estimate is prepared; there is no need to provide for inflation
in developing the cost estimate, as this will be provided for in
the adjustment procedure.
:, ,,::..' , , . . ' , -, . , ; i, . ", .
Costs should be based upon current costs. For practical purposes,
this means costs within one year of the time of preparation of the cost
estimate. There is no need to adjust data or cost estimates based
"'"';' ', ,,!| ' ,; ' '" ,, " ,, ,, ' ,!, t - ' ! ' , ,1 ,;,,',',,
upon data within the current year to the exact month for which the
cost estimate is dated.
2-4
-------
3.0 BASIC RULES FOR THE POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE
In developing a post-closure cost estimate for interim status, the
following concepts should be used for guidance.
j. - .
3.1 A post-closure cost estimate must be prepared for all facilities
at which hazardous wastes remain on-site after closure.
Post-closure cost estimates are required for landfills and surface
impoundments and land treatment systems at which any hazardous wastes
remain on-site following final closure. If an owner or operator of
a surface impoundment originally plans to close it as a storage or
treatment facility ay removing all hazardous waste, hut later decides to
close it as a disposal facility, he must immediately prepare a post-closure
plan for the facility. In similar fashion, if the -owner or operator of a
land treatment facility originally prepares a closure plan based on the
assumption that treatment will render the waste non-hazardous but tests
show this is not the case, he must immediately prepare a post-closure
plan and cost estimate.
3.2 The post-closure cost estimate is based upon the methods described
in the post-closure plan.
The post-closure cost estimate is based upon the activities, quan-
tities, and methods indicated in the post-closure plan. A cost estimate
should be prepared for each activity or sub-activity listed in the post-
closure plan. For example, a cost estimate should be prepared to cover
maintenance activities. It must reflect the methods to be used in the
post-closure plan and the rates of fertilization, mowing, sprinkling,
and other-activities listed, in the post-closure plan.
3.3 The post-closure cost estimate should be prepared for the entire
area expected to conta,in' hazardous waste at the time of final
closure.
3-1
-------
The post-closure estimate should provide for post-closure care for
f't1'"- " ' ",!! - . ,' ' - : ' , v. ; H .:);>.'"
the entire facility as it is expected to exist at the time of final
closure. Thus, if a ISO-acre facility is expected to be filled at a
'!:', I , ii,,.; ,, ,ii i ;i,iiiniiil || i, , ' IM
rate of 10 acres per year, the initial post-closure cost estimate must
ii
reflect the costs of post-closure care for the full 180 acres.
i
3.4 The post-closure cost estimate should reflect the costs of
purchasing all necessary labor, materials and equipment to carry
out post-closure requirements. Unlike the closure cost estimate,
it may riot be assumed that the owner or operator already has
adequate equipment for the purpose.
I, . i ' . . , ,,, .. : . j , ) .
It is highly uncertain whether the entire period of post-closure
care 'will be carried out by the owner or operator himself, and whether
'!"ป' '.' ;" ' '. .: .,','.' ':-. ']' i '- ....; :
on-site labor and equipment will be available. Therefore, the cost esti-
mate should assume that all services required for post-closure must be
contracted for in order to ensure financial adequacy. The post-closure
cost estimate must therefore include adequate allowance for profits on
the post-closurecare services. For example, if regular mowing is part
jiH? , . ,;'!;! r. "f .; i i';
of the post-closure plan, the costs must reflect the costs of hiring a
service to carry out this mowing, rather than the cost of having a laborer
of the owner or operator using mowing equipment already in use elsewhere
by the owner or operator. Similarly, monitoring costs must be estimated
assuming it is necessary to hire outside help both to take the necessary
samples and to conduct the necessary laboratory tests.
3.5 The post-closure cost estimate must be complete and include all
associated costs necessary to carry out post-closure procedures.
i
A cost estimate for a given activity must include all costs asso-
ciated with thisactivity, including fully loaded labor costs, any costs
of supervision, fuel and maintenance costs for equipment used, adminis-
1 'i :" " " ' "' ' " ': ' ,' ' ' "I'1'1:, - ; ; | , ; .
trative costs, and provisions for normal contingencies. Administrative
"' in ''' ', , '','!' ' !' "',',' *", H ' ' I'1! l| ' ' " '
cosiis include all costs associated with taxes and insurance, as well
as costs of routine administration, paperwork and reporting. "Provisions
3-2
-------
for normal contingencies" means that the cost estimates should include a
factor for unforeseen events that may increase costs, such as those
routinely put into most initial cost estimates. Such contingencies
include adverse weather and other unanticipated complications. Given
the absence in the post-closure plan of detailed engineering designs,
the uncertain nature of precise facility conditions at the time of post-
closure, and the uncertainty of the kinds of maintenance to be required
during the post-closure period, the provision for contingencies should
be generous. Standard engineering practice shows that.the provision
for contingencies could reasonably be expected to fall within the
range of 13 to 25 percent. As with closure costs, the documentation
for the cost estimate need not break out all of these headings
separately; they must, however, be included in any unit or activity
cost estimates (see Sections 4.0 and 9.0). It is particularly important
in the case of post-closure care to include supervision and inspection
requirements that normally might be neglected in the cost, estimate.
Since labor may no longer be readily available on-site, such routine
functions as facility inspection and supervision and review of work
must be explicitly included.
i
3.6 The post-closure cost estimate covers the period beginning at the
completion of closure of the facility and lasts for 30 years there-
after.
The post-closure cost estimate does not cover the cost of main-
taining any partially closed portions of the facility during facility
life. However, the fact that partial closure has occurred for portions
of the facility does not in any way shorten the period of post-closure
care required for the purposes of the post-closure cost estimates. The
post-closure period begins with the professional engineer's certifica-
tion of adequate closure. As a result, provision should be made for any
normal remedial measures early in the post-closure period, such, as
significant portions of the vegetation failing to develop adequately.
-------
Si,"
f '(' ,,.i , ' " : . ', i L , - .''
3,7 Post-closure expenditures can be expected to occur in two cate
n . ii, ill * pit" .'" ., "!r , , , ,il .n,. i:.1" ,,l i ,i", .' . :, ii ,'':, ' "f: ,i,,,i, i;' I I | i ซ , ;, , ,'
gories; regular annual expenditures and expenditures that occur
(l ' , ' !.[' ,">V" ..:, '' :.; >: *;: -fv,-", .;: it- J, .,*.: ' ; 'V .,,:,:" &\ ; .:' i'fcrli-l;' ': ,. "": '
with less than annual frequency. The written estimate of the
annualcost of post-closure monitoring and maintenance Is equal to
the sum of regular annual expenditures plus the expected number of
ndh~anriual expenditures times their costs.
' ii
!
This can be written as the following formula:
|
V N
i i
. , , , o31
where P is the annual postclosure cost estimate, A is the size of
expenditures occurring annually, F^ is the number of times over 30 year;
non-annual expenditure i is expected to occur, and N^ is the cost of
"" , ' I A, ,' ',| Jl '"'IFIl1 ' , ,?" " ",|| '' ' ' ' I,' ' ,1, ' 1 ;, ' , ''Mi'? ' ! !!l , |. , ', ," - II ' Illi ''
non-annual expenditure i. There may, of course, be several kinds of
:'i!'". I ,"!;! i-, j,:4i! 'fiiir ;;. , . , !:;. .,','. , .; . ' ' .... .1 .;.'! -,- " ... *;' ,iป^\}.[-.ซ ..,,:-. ..'., ., ;
atmual expenditures and several kinds of non-annual expenditures.
Specific types of non-annual expenditures that need to be considered
include provisions for special activities resulting from unusual
weather, replacement of equipment, and provisions for replanting and
other similar activities in the two to five years following closure.
3-4
-------
4.0 PEffiPARING AND DOCUMENTING THE
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATES
'. : " . . ' - ' .
Although written closure and post-closure cost estimates are
required, the regulation does not specify format or documentation suit-
able for this cost estimates. As a result, the ultimate requirements in
this area will be up to the discretion of the Regional Administrator.
Certain general guidance may, however, prove useful. The cost estimate
must ultimately contain at least enough detail so that the Regional
Office can make a reasonable evaluation of its validity at the time
of inspections during interim status.
The overall goal of the cost estimate and its documentation is to
provide an estimate of the costs and the documentation necessary
to demonstrate the reasonableness of the estimate. It is not
required that the cost estimate have the kind of detail and accuracy
appropriate to a contractor preparing a bid for a job. There is little
need for a highly polished cost estimate since these cost estimates are
for a hypothetical task that is to take place in the rather distant
future.
_
-
Four basic approaches which might be used in developing costs for
the activities listed in the closures plan are:
Costs based upon experience of the owner or operator
Contractor estimates
Cost estimation handbooks
Workups from labor material and equipment requirements
I
I
4.1 COSTS BASED UPON EXPERIENCE OF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR
I -
The most directly relevant source of cost information, in many
cases, will be the experience of the owner or operator in operating the
4-1
-------
facility. An example would be the costs of treating or disposing of
inventory on-site, which will normally be a simple continuation of the
normal operating practices of the business. In the simplest case, cost
of treating or disposing of inventory may be computed as the annual
costs divided by the fraction of a year required for adequately
treating or disposing of inventory. Such an estimate could then be
documented by the past year's accounts, the amount of material treated
or disposed" over that year, and evidence that the year had involved
relatively1 "typical activities ' (e.g., if, for a landfill, no trench
had to be dug or covered over the course of the year, then the year
F'l,.)' ", ,;; ;$t>r,ia' " ; .,: ,. i,\i,. , ;;,'". ; ,v" . i"-:,:. ; ',&" !,:;:! IIM^'J,, .'; .*v. ซ; TH -'
might not be considered a suitable example from the viewpoint of
assuming the most expensive closure conditions likely to occur over the
life of the facility). Given that the requirement that a cost estimate
be available on-site is either six or twelve months after notification
f .i T ., . ! !!"y!l til ' ' . , .. !i> ' .; I;1'1 '. , ! . lr> ,", I' ' .;l\, , f'ji .'I,.;1 hi ',*:! lii ' .'"I,: , ' " " ': ,-Uf:
of the cost estimation requirement, a variety of closure activities could
be documented from noting the costs of the activity as they occur over
i
tile interim^period.* For example, for a landfill, the costs and activities
involved in partial closures could be documented and used as a base for
'!! ' -I : ,]!li|!!;l " . : i, .: : . : . i;. ,;i, . r , I . : L , i *n,
urlit cost isti|nates of the cost of final cover.
; Similarly, costs of monitoring tests during post-closure w'ill be
similar tothe costs of monitoring tests during facility life, though
gathering samples will be more expensive due to the need to assume
purchased labor and travel to the facility. Possibly the best source
for costs and frequency of many kinds of post-closure non-routine
expenditures is the actual experience in maintaining currently partially
closed" portions of a landfill.
4.2 CONTRACTOR ESTIMATES
, , ;j
'i|l' . . ''/!'' Ill ''B'l ',iJ!i i , ', ' !,!. ป ij1,, , I i| ' !'
A variety of costs, particularly if services are to be purchased
from a contractor or contractors by the owner or operator, may be
*As discussed in Section 1.0, owners or operators of land disposal
facilities,,,, .are., not, .required to have their cost estimates available
until twelve months after the effective date of;these regulations.
Owners or pperators of other facility types must have an estimate
available within six months of the'effective date of these regulations.
: ::" ' '- ' ' ' 4-2
-------
obtained from contractor estimates. For example, an owner or operator
could ascertain the costs of certification by an independent professional
engineer by asking several professional engineers for estimates of the
costs of certifying the completion of activities listed in the closure
plan. If an owner or operator plans to send either inventory or con-
taminated residues to an off-site TSDF, inquiries to ascertain distances,
hauling costs, and treatment or disposal costs would be in order. It is
not necessary for purposes of documenting,, to have written and validated
cost estimates. Adequate documentation could note who was contacted
and their approximate estimates.
4.3 COST ESTIMATING HANDBOOKS
There are a variety of commercial engineering cost estimation manuals
that provide guides to equipment and labor needs and unit costs of
specific operations that may be relevant to various activities associated
with 'closing hazardous waste facilities. Such manuals may be reasonably
used as a source for-cost estimates for closure costs. Care must be
taken in using such manuals. They vary widely with respect to whether
or not unit costs cited include such factors as administration, normal
contingencies, profits, and whether or not .allowances must be made to
adjust theoretical work rates to normal field conditions.
From the owner's or operator's view, care should be taken that an
overestimate is not produced by using estimates which allow for profits
and capital recovery on equipment when this is not required if he is using
his ownequipment for closure. Distinct underestimates are possible if
attention is not given to the indicated need for adjustment of theore-
tical work rates to normal field conditions and for administrative costs.
As a result, suitable documentation for a cost estimate for an activity
based upon such a handbook would be a copy of the relevant pages of the
handbook, including those pages providing instructions as to the use of
the unit cost estimates and any adjustments from the cited costs used in
arriving at the unit cost estimate employed in the cost estimate itself.
4-3
-------
1 '*
4.4 WORKDPS FROM LABOR, MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
'11 " " ' ' r ' '
,
,i , , -" i , ....... u
In some cases, there may be no way to arrive at a useful cost
estimate other than by a detailed workup of the costs. Such a workup
would include an estimate of the labor, equipment, energy and material
needs for the activity to be estimated, the basis for these assumptions,
and the total time required for the activity. Allowance would then
need to be made for supervision and administrative costs and any
necessary adjustments for fully loaded labor and equipment costs.
4-4
, J.
-------
5.0 ADEQUACY OF THE CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE
For the closure cost estimate to be judged adequate, it must meet
the following criteria:
1. The closure cost estimate must contain cost estimates for all
activities presented in the closure plan. The cost estimate must also
reflect the quantities and methods associated with all of the activities
presented in the closure plan. (Note that the adequacy of the cost
estimate' is therefore dependent on the adequacy of the closure plan.)
2. The closure cost estimate must be documented in order that the
bases for the cost estimate can be checked.
3. The resulting cost estimate must reflect the actual costs of
carrying out closure. This can be determined by a check of the sources
listed for documentation providing that Rule 2 has been met. A cross-
,che,ck can be made by using alternative sources, i.e., if the owner's or
operator's cost estimate is based upon a contractor estimate, this may
be.checked through reference to a cost estimation manual, experience of
other owners or operators, or inquiries to other contractors.
The cost estimate must be available upon the premises for inspec-
tion during interim status. As a result, it will be useful to have
available simple and rapid checks as to the adequacy of the cost esti-
mate. The remainder of this discussion is devoted, in part, to a discus-
sion of simple checks, that could be accomplished in less than an hour or
two with the aid of the closure plan and a visit to the facility to deter-
mine the adequacy of the closure plan (see Section 12.0 of the draft
guidance for Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure Care). These checks
are not intended for use by owners or operators and may not be used as a
method for developing a cost estimate.
5-1
-------
11 -i,, '.". i ; 'I,
If an initial check raises questions as to the adequacy of the cost
, ; ii; , .,, , ;, ;' | .;
estimate, several steps may be taken. First, a copy of the complete
cost estimate may be required and reviewed, and a check made of the
documentation. It is quite possible that the cost estimate could be
accurate and fall outside the ranges indicated in the discussion below.
If, after review, the cost estimate still seems inadequate, the owner or
operator could be specifically requested to make the desired alterations.
If this approach fails to result in a satisfactory cost estimate, there
are two possible recourses during.interim status. The Regional Adminis-
trator could bring an enforcement case or he could request part B of the
permit application and thus revise the cost estimate as part of the permit
fill ' ' ; ;,;)i '.':' , I ; j I . '
application process.
<". . ,|, '^ , . . , , ", ,.'!'
1 /iH , ,11 '
t Unfortupatj&ly, the annual report of the facility, though it must
include the cost estimate, does not contain adequate information to
i
i
determine the accuracy of the cost estimate. For example, the amount
ofinventory on-hand is not a required element of the permit application.
Therefor^, in order to check on the accuracy of the cost estimate, it
may be necessary to visit the facility. An inspector could then obtain
copies of the closure plan and cost estimate, and conduct a quick review
of the key variables for the closure plan, as discussed in Section 12.0
of the draft guidance for Subpart G, Closure and Post-closure Care.
' > I ' ! ' '< . . - ;, ' : I .
:"' :. ' \: ,; , .. ,: :,',: (!:.|
Table 5-1 shows the key elements involved in verifying the closure
cost estimate, listed by major types of activity involved. For each
1, "jJLi ' ,;,'! i M ' ,.!, M,, ,, ' | , f ; ,, ' N, ' ' i, "iir |,1 | , I J,, ,:, I
activity, the major elements required to check the adequacy are the
activity indicator (the variable that determines the degree of the
activity, e.g., quantity of inventory, volume of contaminated soil),
unit costs (estimates of the unit costs for each activity'of the facility
,
in question), and sources for variation in unit costs from facility to
facility. Also included in this table are current typical costs of each
required activity. A relatively wide range is used due to variations
depending upon the region and upon the nature of the wastes (e.g., high
* i ; , ;N. ' .'ii! . . :; ?,, i, :: j r |.,
hazard wastes have greater costs than lower hazard wastes). As these
I ', :' ' ': -i'! . - ' ,i! , M |:
costs are national averages, more accurate estimates would be obtained
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-1
CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE RAPID CHECKS
Ui'
1
u>
Required of All Sites
1. Inventory Disposal
2. Decontamination and
Decommissioning
3. Monitoring
4. Certification
Required of Landfills and
Some Surface Impoundments
1. Cover
ซ. Clay
b. Synthetic Liners
2. Vegetation
Optional
1. Leachate Collection,
Removal and Treatment
2. Gas Monitoring and
Collection
3. Additional closure
requirements
ACTIVITY INDICATOR
Quantity of inventory
Quantity of residues
Volume of contaminated soil
Volume of wastewater
Amount of equipment and
Number of tests
Man-hours of professional
engineer time
Acres not covered, depth of
cover
Acres not covered
Acres not vegetated, type
of vegetation
UNIT COSTS
On-Slte: 30-80Z of average
off-site disposal costs
Off-Site: 100X of average
off-site disposal costs
and hauling
.,
On-Site: 30-80* of average
off-site disposal costs.
Off-Site: 100X of average
off-site disposal costs
and hauling
Average costs of tests
$/liour of professional
engineer time
*In verifying the closure cost estimate, local updated costs are preferable. See Text.
SOURCES OF VARIATION IN
UNIT COSTS
Throughput, type of site.
quality of disposal,
nature of waste
Throughput, type of site,
quality of disposal.
nature of waste
Regional, monitoring plan
requirements
Regional
Terracing, nature of cover.
design of cover, type of
soil
Terracing, liner material,
thickness of liner
material
Terracing, nature of cover,
design of cover, type of
soil, type and density of
seed, provision for
replanting
TYPICAL 1980 COSTS*
Off-site disposal costs by type of
facility:
Incinerator - $100-200/ton
Landfill - $ 80-150/ton
Surface
impoundment - . $ 10- 30/ton
Land treatment - $ 10- 40/ton
Hauling costs - $ .02-$. 10
per ton mile
Off-elte disposal costs by type of
facility:
.Landfill - $ 80-150/ton
Surface
impoundment - $ 10- 30/ton
Land treatment $ 10- 40/ton
Hauling costs - $ .02-$. 10
per ton mile
$200-500/uell**
$SO-100/hour of professional
engineer time
$500-1,500 per foot per acre
$500-20,000 per acre
$400-1,500 per acre
"These costs are for ground-water monitoring analyses as specified In the regulations; air and soil
monitoring are not Included. The 'estimate Is based on the moat extensive monitoring that could be
required within a six month closure period.
-------
i '*
3 must be
ii
. 1 . >, ; . ' \; , , .' ' I ' I . ' " "
using average costs for the specific area. These costs also must be
adjusted annually for inflation. A mechanism for making this inflation
adjustment is discussed in Section 8.0.
I
For example, to check the adequacy of the cost estimate of treating
or disposing of inventory, one would:
,'', V ,',i ; J'.
(1) Determine the adequacy of the estimated amount of inventory
' ' ' ,', '. I, 'I '!. " ' I ' i , "'..i ''' .'ซ' "! .','., IN | ,< i |j I i . ' ,1
(this could most readily be done by examining the closure plan
and facility conditions to determine whether the closure plan
adequately reflects inventory needs of the facility);
(2) Determine whether, in the case of treatment facilities (including
incinerators), provision has been made for treating, disposing,
or removing residues off-site which result from treating inventory;
(3) Multiply the quantity of inventory in the closure plan by the
unit costs given in the .Table; and (
(4) Consult the variability factors listed in the Table (e.g.,
throughput, type of facility., nature of" waste, on- or off-site
disposal), to determine whether the facility should be at the
high or low end of the range for unit costs.
5,1 ACTIVITIES BELEVANT TO AT.T. FACILITIES
5.1.1 Treating, Disposing, or Removing Inventory
For facilities not engaged in disposal requiring post-closure care
" ' ...,.,,, if , , n , .,, .i
(all types of facilities except landfills, and surface impoundments and
land treatment facilities in which hazardous wastes remain after closure),
treating, disposing or removing inventory will frequently be the largest
single cost: element. The exceptions to'this rule of thumb will normally
be situations in which unusual decontamination problems occur, such as
large amounts of waste water accumulating at the facility. The key unit
parametersin determining the costs of treating,disposing or removing
inventory to an off-site TSDF are the amount of inventory on-hand and,
i, :: ^,1! 'ij. 'ป!.., ' '."! . ' ' 'i ' ' " " ' "* h ' * i'1 ' ' i ;' i|" "'' ' "' ,-. r ';' i
for incineration and processes involving treatment, the relationships
i, 1! " . : i , i
.. : 5-4 ' i!
-------
between inventory processes and residues to be disposed of or treated
on-site or removed to an off-site TSDF. The quantity of inventory on-
hand will vary enormously depending on the type of facility, the annual
throughput of the facility, and management practices. For some types of
facilities, inventory can be minimal. For example, some landfills accept
only trucked-in wastes on a. space-available basis. For such a landfill,
there would very seldom be any inventory at all. It is also possible,
however, that start-up problems or, in the case of landfills, failure of
a major cell or cells could lead to a situation in which there is an
enormous amount of invento^ which cannot be quickly worked dff, and this
would have to be accounted for in the cost estimate.
The unit costs of removing inventory are dependent upon whether the
inventory is to be disposed of or treated on-site'or removed to an off-
site TSDF.' In the vast majority of cases at disposal facilities, the
disposing or treating of inventory will take place on-site. If disposal
or treatment takes place on-site, the unit costs can be expected to
fall between 30 and 80 percent of the prevalent Regional costs for
removing the inventory to an off-site TSDF. On-site costs will be less
than off-site costs because closure costs need only include the immediate
operating costs of disposing or treating inventory and not factors for
capital recovery, land, etc,, The variation will depend upon the type of
facility, its normal throughput (because of economies of scale, small
facilities will have higher unit costs than large facilities for almost
all types of facilities), the quality and safety of disposal practices
at the facility, and the nature of the wastes. For a landfill which always
maintains adequate open trench capacity, inventory disposal costs could
be a very small fraction of normal off-site landfill disposal costs. This
is because the costs of building the trench would not need to be included,
and the costs of cover and vegetation are covered separately. Under these
circumstances, costs for treating or disposing of inventory could
be lower than the 30 percent: indicated. For inventory or residue that
must be removed to an off-site TSDF, unit costs will be 100 percent of
normal off-site costs in the Region, plus appropriate hauling costs.
5-5
-------
IB1"!! '^p'lyi BIIIIS';, 111! ; 'i ; , ,=' "!:! I!1"" , ' i"; " I 111 11
S.I.2 Decontaminating the Facility
Under certain circumstances, decontaminating the facility could be
thglargest cost element for the facility. This could be the case if
large quantities of soil are contaminated, as might occur at any poorly
run facility or at many improperly run surface impoundments, or if large
amounts of waste water have accumulated at the facility. Fฐr many
''f11 ! facilities,"1 liowever, decontamination will be a relatively minor cost
element requiring only general cleanup of equipment and facilities. The
key activity indicators for decontaminating the facility are: quantity
of contaminated soil; quantity of contaminated waste water; and amount
of equipment and facilities requiring" cleaning.
;;;. ;. .;. u .; . , , . ^ . ., |
For contaminated soil and waste water, the relevant unit costs will
I
be those cited for disposing or treating inventory, i.e., costs for
disposing or treating the soil and water on-site or off-site. For
equipment and facilities, the costs will depend uponcleaning costs
themselves and whether or not the residues resulting from cleaning will
require treatment as hazardous waste.
: i <"?< ;;;;;' ; ... , . _,,, , ;'!,'
5.1.3 Monitoring
A facility must continue monitoring practices during the closure
period; therefore, some costs must be included for monitoring. The
costs may be estimated using the current lab costs for the tests in
the Region and will vary regionally and according to the monitoring plan
in place for the facility.
, , , , , ,,, i , , |
5.1.4 Professional Engineer Certification
The closure cost estimate must include provisions for the costs of
certification by an independent professional engineer. Like monitoring,
this will normally be a relatively minor'cost element. The activity
i f,, iL : , " ' ,,,,n 'I!;1"!1" 'i i"1, "' ' i ' ", '."'"',,, i ' ' " ,. , ' j1!.,1 i !.! J i r
indicator for certification is the hours spent on~site by the professional
engineer, which will normally depend upon the length of the closure period
and the amount of activity which must take place. The unit cost parameter
is dollars per hour of professional engineer time in the Region.
SI, I ": ; '..',;. , , . . ji: ,| i j
" ' ' " 5-6 ' ' ' :
-------
5.2 COSTS REQUIRED ONLY OF LANDFILLS AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
5.2.1 Cover
Some form of cover will usually be required for both landfills and
surface impoundments which have hazardous wastes remaining after
closure. Cover and the associated vegetation (see Section 5.2.2) will
normally be the dominating element in determining the costs of closure
for a landfill or surface impoundment.
The materials to be used will depend on the types of soil available
on-site as well as the conditions of the facility.' Since purchasing
soil off-site is costly, it :is likely that most owners or operators
will use soil available on-site, if at all possible, for the final cover,
i.er; the layer with low permeability and the layer capable of supporting
vegetation, if applicable. It is possible to improve the quality of
available soil by blending various soils, using soil additives, or making
other-provisions which would provide equivalent protection. For example,
soil blending and synthetic additives may decrease the permeability of
the on-site soil as well as make certain soils more capable of supporting
vegetation. In addition to improving the quality of available soil,
the Agency anticipates that many owners or operators will use membrane
liners protected above and below by buffer soil layers instead of com-
pacted clay for the layer of the cover with low permeability. These
membrane liners may be cost effective if adequate on-site soil material
is unavailable or an acceptable degree of compaction is not possible at
a particular facility, given the wastes disposed or facility conditions.
When clay is used as a liner material, the key activity indicators
are acres not yet covered and the depth of the cover. As noted in the
closure plan, decisions as to the depth of the cover and the adequacy of
on-site materials are dependent on engineering judgment and are not
covered in this guidance document. The costs associated with such cover
may vary from $500 to $1500 per foot per acre of cover. The key sources
of variation are:
5-7
-------
(1) The amount and nature of terracing to be used in the cover;
(2) The depth of the area to be filled in the case of surface
impoundments;
(3) The nature of the cover, including whether or not"treatment
|s required to achieve proper degrees of impermeability; and
(4) The design of the cover.
h"'; For synthetic liners,' the key activity ""indicator" is "the acres not
covered. The costs"associated with: such covers -vary .Videly, depending
'"' ',, ,t , , '.[IIBII i1! if i i" " .,' 'i. i,'1", ' . , i. ' : ;:i ,',;'", f --i ป ','i *>" I .1 t. . . - ' '
op the type of material chosen and the thickness needed to ensure adequate
low permeability, it is not the'purpose of" this" document to" assess
alternative materials of to provide guidance as to the level of per-
nlf^iiity'1''whicl 'is acceptabiel The costs associated1 with "'installed
liner materialJper acrevary from $5,000 to $20,000per acre. The key
sources of variation are:
1 ,.. :: ";;;:: .. . . :;: ., , j
' ' " . '' i
,!!, I1,!' i , ' ,ซ!' Oil!',:!1 , !< iW ' in '' , If1 ' , ป n, ", , , ' ' ljl "' '' ' ,:' - ', /!:il l| ' '. . - '" " . '. '!
(1) Theamount and nature of terracing to be used in the cover;
I;: , ^ "Type'of "liner"material chosen; and
'''' ' ,: '-is!? lii:!0li ' ,'. *.:;:. "!:" , : . '..'1 : ', .'' ' *.,-. H'^:| . ," i !- ' "
(3) Thickness of material necessary to achieve desired degree of
f'"1" ' " '"""jieriieability.
I
5.2.2 Vegetation
For mostfacilities, some vegetation will be required in order to
stabilize thecover and prevent erosion problems. The key activity
indicators are the number of acres in need of vegetation (which may include
areas previously seeded but for which vegetation, has not properly
developed) and the type of vegetation to be employed. Unit costs can
be expected to range from $400 to $1,500 per acre. The lower end of
the range would represent the costs of minimum fertilization and planting
with no provision for reseeding and replanting of any kind. The maximum.
costs, would represent the costs of providing a lawn-type cover. Other
key variables in determining cost of vegetation are:
5-8
-------
(1) The type of soil (including determining the degree of
fertilizer required); and
(2) The type of seed used.
Establishing complete vegetation within the 90 days to six months over
which closure will normally take place cannot be attained. As a result,
some costs associated with developing and establishing vegetation will
probably take place early in the post-closure period. Therefore, the
adequacy of the closure plan with respect to vegetation should be checked
in coordination with an examination of the provisions for maintaining
vegetation in the early years of the post-closure plan.
5.2.3 Optional Measures
Three kinds of optional measures, bearing significant costs, may be
necessary at some facilities: collection, removing and treating leachate;
collecting gas; and additional measures required to protect human health
and the environment. Even for facilities with leachate collection systems,
the cost of leachate collection, removal, treatment and disposal for
closure will normally be the relatively minor cost of occasionally
collecting the leachate and hauling it away to an off-site TSDF. In
certain rare cases, leachate build-up may be great enough to require
an extensive on-site treatment and disposal system. If this is the
case, this could be a significant cost during the closure period.
Maintaining an existing gas collection system normally will be a rela-
tively minor cost. At certain facilities, additional activities may
be required to ensure the protection of human health or the environment,
such as those discussed in Section 9.0 of the draft guidance for Subpart G.
Such measures could be extremely expensive and would constitute a large
share of closure costs; however, the exact combination of necessary
measures will be extremely site-specific.
5-9
-------
y;- ;'
(-, "f
ill :'
.'> ltfl.1:
-------
6.0 ADEQUACY OF THE POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE .
For the post-closure cost estimate to be judged adequate, it must
meet the following criteria:
l
1. The pbst-iclosure cost estimate must contain cost estimates for
all activities presented in the post-closure plan. The cost estimate
must also reflect the quantities and methods associated with all of the
activities,presented in the post-closure plan. (Note that the adequacy
of the cost estimate is therefore dependent on the adequacy of the post-
closure plan.)
2. The post-closure cost estimate must be documented so that the
bases for the cost estimate can be, checked. Documentation may be
performed in a variety of ways; however, it must be provided in such
a way that the .sources can be reviewed and judged by an outside party.
For example, if an owner or operator states that a cost estimate was
taken from an engineering cost estimation manual, the estimate could
be easily verified.
3. The resulting cost estimate must reflect the actual costs of
carrying out post-closure activities. This can be determined by a check
of the sources listed for documentation providing that Rule 2 has been
met. A cross-check can be made by using alternative sources, i.e., if
the owner's or operator's cost estimate is based upon a contractor
estimate, this may be checked through reference to a cost estimation
manual, experience of other owners or operators, or inquiries to other
contractors.
The cost estimate must be available on the premises for inspection
during interim status. As a result, it will be useful to have available
simple and rapid checks as to the adequacy of.the cost estimate. The
remainder of this section is devoted to a discussion of simple checks
of the costs of specific activities that could be used with the aid of
the closure plan and a visit: to the facility to determine the adequacy
of the post-closure plan (sซe Section 12.0 of the draft guidance for
6-1
-------
Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure Care). These checks are not
intended for use by owners and operators and may not be used as a method
for developing a cost estimate.
.. 'ซ !' . " - ' " ""!.: ' ' '-I It'.'" : :. . ': !
If an initial check raises questions as to the adequacyof the cost
estimate, several steps may be taken. First, a copy of the complete
cost estimate may be requested and reviewed, and a check made of the
documentation. It is quite possible that the cost estimate could be
if! !! i,, ,,11 !, ' ""i,,!, . ' . i , ' , , ' i , ' ll1, ' ' . 'i ' ' , ' ,","''', i" I ii.ii, 'jj l,r, ,: ,,.fl|| ' ' ,11 ' '.
acciirate and* "fall outside the ranges indicated in the discussion below.
If, after review, the cost estimate still seems inadequate, the owner or
operator could be specifically requested to make the desired altera-
tions. If this approach fails to result in a satisfactory cost estimate,
thefre are two possible recourses during interim status. If the cost
estimate is obviously completely inadequate, the Regional Administrator
may start an enforcement action or he may request part B of the permit
application and revise the cost estimate aspart of the permit applica-
l:'!!" i ;i, i ' . , , ';' :, ., ' ' ' 'ii |ป- ...;il:|i; :: J p|'r: t"1;1 " ;; , ', ;;,,''/.
tion processJ
Unfortunately, the annual report of the facility, though it must
i," ' :> ' ' '. ! ' ' . . ., 1"ป . .: - , i ... i, .., c - .. ' ..
include the cost estimate, does not contain adequate information to
1. ' i,, i., , :"!P ", .. I!1 .;,,. , , .:. r niji ' , i .1 || ,,,. , ,
determine the accuracy of the cost estimate. Therefore, in order to
check on the adequacy of the cost estimate, it may be necessary to visit
the facility. An inspector could then obtain copies of the post-closure
plan and cost estimate and conduct a quick review of the key variables
for the post-closure plan, as discussed in Section 12.0 of the draft
guidance for Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure Care.
- - " ' . .. :.''.'' ' . i
Table 6-1 shows the costs of certain activities which may be asso-
ciated withpost-closure cost estimates. This is a list of selected
major activities, and is not intended to reflect all possible post-
closure activities . These activities have been broken down by key cost
elements rather than by elements of the post-closure plan. For example,
' . ' >:s: I1' V"! " ' ' ' ' ! ', : , ' , '' ,''' ''!' i "li'i1:' . lln'ii ". '" , ' 'Inl , I ' '."', ' '!' '"! '"
one heading in Table 6-1 is "Inspections and Facility Visits." The table
VI! ' :.-.' , ,'lj.j . , ,. ' , .... - , .;..: ,;'"/*> lit,,,' ,' i,,n (..'..' . .v .
simply shows the expected costs of such visits per hour on-rsite. Deter-
mining the number of inspections and facility visits required will be
: 6-2
-------
highly site-specific and will depend upon the post-closure plan. Further,
these inspections and facility visits may serve a variety of purposes in
the post-closure plan. For example, inspections and facility visits may
be for the purpose of ensuring adequate erosion control, maintaining
surveyed benchmarks, obtaining ground-water monitoring samples, or check-
ing the adequacy of leachate collection facilities.
Table 6-1, for each activity indicated, shows an estimate of unit
costs and notes the sources of variation in these unit costs. The unit
costs are given in 1980 dollars. In order to maintain the accuracy of
Table 6-1, it should be updated on an annual basis to reflect inflation.
A discussion of the methods for adjusting the cost .estimates to account
for inflation is provided in Section 8.0. The sources of variation in
unit costs are specific to the headings listed. Two generic sources of
variation* however, have not been noted. First, all costs can be
expected to vary regionally and locally. Ideally, these national esti-
mates of unit costs should be replaced by costs developed from experience
for the region or state in which the facility is located. Second, all
costs will, vary with the remoteness of the facility. Since most post-
closure activities are relatively small in.scale and may involve only
a few days on-site, significant travel time to and from the facility
will have a noticeable effect on almost all costs.
6.1 INSPECTIONS AND FACILITY VISITS
As noted above, inspections and facility visits may be needed for a
variety of purposes. The unit costs given will thus be relevant in
checking the costs of a variety of activities. The estimated unit, costs
in 1980 dollars are $20 to $100 per hour on-site. The chief source of
variation in these unit costs will be the professional level of the
personnel involved. It will normally be useful to have an inspection or
facility visit by a professional engineer at least once a year. Inspections
and facility visits by less,technically qualified personnel will depend upon
the specifics of the post-closure plan, the climate, and the size and
nature of the facility.
6-3
-------
''"'"I" I I'
":;; r
TABLE 6-1
COSTS OF SELECTED POST-CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
ACTIVITY
UNIT COSTS*
SOURCE OF VARIATION
IN UNIT COSTS**
1, Inspection/Facility
" ';' Visits
2. Reestablishing
Cover and Vegetation
3. Fertilizing
ป;vjป s. Groundfwater
Monitoring
6, Maintaining and
Replacing Fences
7. Collecting, Removing
and Treating Leachate
$20-100/hr. on-site
$300-1500/acre
$50-200/acre
$10-30/acre
$200-600/well
$.20-.80/ft./yr.
$.20-.80/gallon
Professional level
of personnel
Amount of erosion
Nature of cover
Type of soil
Amount & density
of seed
Amount of fertilizer
Method" "of spreading
... . i V '!ป
Monitoring plan
requirements
:.; p. .; ;
Type of fence
Climate
.":;:[ - 'x. ..
Chemical composition
1980 dollars.
**
"All costs of all activities vary by region and with the remoteness
of the facility.
i'l'l
6-4
-------
6.2 REESTABLISHING COVER AND VEGETATION
Reestablishing cover and vegetation may be necessary for a variety
of purposes, including:
o Replanting to establish vegetation not adequately established
during closure;
Replanting to repair minor erosion or rodent control
problems; !
Reestablishing cover lost as a result of a major contin-
gency, such as a major storm or flood; and
Reestablishing cover to correct for subsidence problems.
The costs of this activity in 1980 dollars may range from $300 to
$1,500 per acre. This cost'will vary according to the nature of the
cover, the type of soil used,, and the amount and density of seed. In
addition, the costs can be expected to vary according to the amount of
erosion or subsidence which necessitates replacing the topsoil or cover
material. The lowest costs are for simple replanting, and the highest
are for reestablishing and compacting as well as reseeding substantial
portions of the clay cover and topsoil.
6.3 FERTILIZING
Depending upon the vegetation, topsoil employed, and climate, some
fertilization may be necessary. The frequency will be highly variable.
The estimated range of costs for this activity is $50 to $200 per acre
with the variation dependent upon the amount of fertilizer and the
method of spreading it.
6.4 MOWING
Mowing is necessary in any climate in which deep rooted vegetation
may readily be established. In most cases, it will be the most cost
effective means of preventing such deep rooted vegetation. In some
6-5
-------
climates, mowing requirements may be Tn-f.ni.mal or there may be more cost
i, "i , .. "lllih ''Si I1 I' ' ,M I . ' ;. l' ", ปJi .1 ii"',;,;, ('"'L ' iiii'1 '.iv "'"'i V l^i*!1 "' " ii"l|"' i'i !.'!''*'"' "',''" I '"'"-"" '''
effective methods than mowing for ensuring that deep rooted vegetation
does not become established. The estimated range of costs in 1980
fell1. ..I , , !','!!" ii'S! ft ! , ' , .'., : 4 '',. !*., . :. I ', , , I , j,,.1,,*".''. ;y*;> ' I- ! -it";
dollars is $10 to $30 per acre.
i
i,
6.5 (SOUND-WATER MONITORING
li'i ,,'! , ., ', , '!! || S /Illl , :,' , ' ' , , .. " " , ' ,,
,! , ' Ji'J //ifi . .- , : ' ; ' _ ' ...;,' :";' ; $ ; .
At alฃ facilities, a ground-water monitoring program" of some kind
will be required. In*addition to the costs of associated site visits
togather samples, these costs will be based on the average costs of
the tests required, which are the result of the monitoring plan require-
ments . _, ,, , i I
6.6 MAINTAINING AND REPLACING FENCES
i
Many facilities will be required to have some kind of fence as
security during the post-closure period. Assuming the use of some type
of chain link fence, provision will need to be made for replacing the
fence at least once over the 30-year post-closure period. In addition,
some provision must be made for inspecting and maintaining the fence.
It is estimated that the cost of such maintenance and replacement will
be $.20 to $.80 per linear foot of fence per year. The variation is
dependent upon the type of fence used and the severity of the climate.
f ,;;;:,; ;; > . " . . v ,:.' , ;. \ -..
.. . i .; . i
6,7 COLLECTING, REMOVING, AND TREATING LEACHATE
' Hill - ,i|l|l"ll[l' " I ,1 ' t'' ' . I. , . . ,. , ''I- :' ' 1 ' . 1 i^l'j . >... Hi | ",
At some facilities, a system for collecting!, removing, and treating
f ' ' '" . !!
leachate may be required during post-closure. The estimate given here is
based on the assumption that a small amount of leachate will be collected
periodically and removed to an off-site TSDF. The costs of an extensive
leachate collection system requiring treatment on-site would normally be
much higher. The estimated range in costs is from $.20 to $.80 per
gallon of ieachate removed, with the range in the costs depending in part
upon the chemical composition of the leachate.
6-6
-------
7.0 REVISING THE CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATES
The closure and post-closure cost estimates must be revised when-
ever a change in the closure or post-closure plan is made that affects
the costs of closure or post-closure care. Changes to closure and post-
closure plans are discussed in Sections 11.1 and 11.2 of the guidance
for Subpart G of the Interim Status standards. Changes in the closure
plan which may cause a revision in the closure cost estimate include:
Change in facility size and/or capacity;
Changes in technology that may affect:treatment and disposal or
decontamination techniques, type of cover chosen, etc.;
Changes in the closure schedule which alter the length of
the closure period by greater than one month (e.g., severe
weather conditions may halt construction activities and
extend the closure period by more than one month);
Changes in the schedule of periodic activities which
affect activities required at closure (e.g., failure to
partially close a facility would mean that a larger area
than previously estimated would need to be closed at
closure; the closure plan must always account for the
maximum extent of the operation open at any time over the
life of the facility);
Changes in types and/or quantities of wastes that affect
activities required at closure (e.g., the type and/or
quantity of waste on-site at closure will affect the
choices of treatment and disposal; for example, the amount
of waste removed to -an off-site TSDF by the owner or operator of
an incinerator depends on the types and quantities of resid-
uals that remain after burning the wastes. The
types and quantities of waste can also affect monitoring
requirements and cover requirements);
7-1
-------
v .. ...... i*,; ....... Mid . ..... n ...... f ' v ..... ihiHi'i ...... 1 ** n1;. , ป , ' ' . ram ...... m< liiii,,1!! im1 | ..... v
Change in maximum quantity of inventory ever expected on-
;.. ' site; " .', ' 'i ' . ' ' " """' ' ' .'.., ' :
Change in cover requirements from what was originally
' ' proposed; ...... ' ' .............. "
Changes in ground-water monitoring requirements as a result
of an owner's or operator's operating experience or new data
which was not: available when the plan was written 1 The ground-
,, ' !}'ป' !.*!!",l * r 'I1'-; ' ...... ,n ....... ' :ซ ; ..... ' '., ..... ,! '* . . I!1,-'!1 '" ''* > . ..... I; | n ..... ',. ! ......... " ' '
water monitoring regulations stipulate that all or part of the.
; " p ;:: ;," :" ; ": ....". "- " .. " ..... . ' ..... : ...... ;. " ..... , ;, !,:'/ ....... ,
requirements may be waived if there is a low potential for
pollution (ง265.90). Revisions will also be likely when the
EPA provides more guidance and technical engineering data on
the kinds of monitoring appropriate for hazardous waste facil-
ities; and
Operating contingencies during closure which may affect closure
requirements (e.g. , inclement weather causes construction
problems; more contaminated soil needs to be disposed
.
at closure than anticipated as a result of problems occurring
during operation) .
Changes in the post-closure plan which may cause" a revision in the
post-closure cost estimate include:
Change in facility size which will affect the extent of
maintenance required;
Changes in monitoring requirements as a result of an
owner's or operator's operating experience, new data which was not
f" , , AS I- ''dUii i ., .. i" ซ i,1!, , , .'.,' i' 'i, ,-.,:' ..... ;; , i ..... 3 'IV , I :i ['.: '! . '
available when the plan was written or modifications approved by
the Regional Administrator (e.g. , changes in the number of wells
:'":," ii| ......... Bi ..... i ii" ...... ......... ' , i ,, ,. i ' ||
monitored and samples, the frequency of analyses, types of
analyses required). During the 30-year post-closure
period, the owner or operator may petition the Regional
Administrator to discontinue or alter the monitoring
i I "iiiiii.1!, "S'ii ' . " ' '' ' , i'1 .) i ' . ..... i, ' '; ..... 'is"' * ..... ' ' i ' II . , - '
re(|tiirements ; alternatively, under certain circumstances,
7^2
-------
the Regional Administrator may require an owner or operator
to continue monitoring beyond 30 years. Revisions will also
be likely when the EPA provides more guidance and technical
engineering data on the kinds of monitoring appropriate
during post-closure;
Changes in annual routine maintenance, including changes
in the nature* and frequency of the activities required
(e.g., a more extensive erosion control program may be
required than originally anticipated);
Changes in activities required on an intermittent basis
or changes in the frequency of these activities (e.g., an
accelerated replanting schedule or more frequent replace-
ment of wells than anticipated);
Operating contingencies which occur during the life of the
facility or post-closure which a'ff'ect post-closure ac-
tivities (e.g., severe weather conditions affecting acti-
vities required for erosion control, cover maintenance,
or maintenance of diversion structures);
Changes in surrounding land use (e.g., if the population
density increased, the measures needed to maintain
facility security might change; .ground-water monitoring
program might be affected);
Changes in monitoring and maintenance technology; and
Modifications approved by the Regional Administrator; the
owner or operator may petition the Regional Administrator
to allow some or all of the requirements for post-closure
to be discontinued or altered before the post-closure period
is ended; any such changes can only be made after the
post-closure period begins and would constitute a revision
to the post-closure plan made during post-closure.
7-3
-------
e desirable that either raise or lower the closure
Post-closure cost estimates. For example, the closure cost estimate
may"need to fie revised and increased if partial closure schedules are
[i11 ' .'.lit ; lit 'i ' *;: "; J ; '. .. , . ' - ',','. :f[" ,, ,f R'XI :f .." , ' 'is
no1^ met or if there is unexpected accumulation of inventory due to
i. i ' ; ; Hi , ' '" '' ''.v',1,1 'ป! ,ซi;i; Si'" '' '' 1;; i '; ', i
temporary problems at the facility. It is quite possible, however, that
the cost estimate may need to be revised downward.. A facility may have
verl larSe inve,n^ory due to temporary start-up problems at the time the
cost,,estimate is first developed which is later reduced to a more normal
inventory. In such a situation, revising the closure cost estimate
downward would be reasonable. It is also possible, given the rapid
development in some types of hazardous waste disposal, that new technol-
111111 ' ' ' 11"1|l!1 " " " ' ' ' "" ' : ! , "::: " ' !i ' "
ogies may offermuch less expensive means of carrying out certain
activities than are now envisioned. This would also be a legitimate
cause for revisions of the plan and cost estimate.
7-4
-------
8.0 ADJUSTING THE COST ESTIMATES
TO ACCOUNT FOR INFLATION
Subpart H of the,Interim Status Standards requires that both the
closure and post-closure cost estimates be adjusted annually for infla-
tion. This adjustment is to take place on the anniversary of the
effective date'of the regulations, November 19, 1980. Although owners
or operators of land disposal facilities are not required to have
estimates available until May 1981 (six months from the effective date
of these regulations), all owners or operators are required to adjust
their estimates beginning in November 1981 and annually thereafter.
Adjustments of the post-closure cost estimate for inflation need not
take place once the facility is closed.
Data for calculating the inflation adjustment factor must be ob-
tained from the "...annual Implicit Price Deflator for Gross National
Product as published by the U.S. Department of Commerce."* This price
deflator is published in the Survey of Current Business, a U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, publication, and in
Economic Indicators, a Council of Economic Advisors publication. These
documents are published monthly and subscriptions may be obtained from
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 20402. This information also may be obtained by
calling the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The GNP price deflator was chosen as an appropriate inflation index
and is more accurate than the more readily available Consumer Price
Index and Wholesale Price Index. However, it is not as widely published
as the other two indices. Thus, the typical hazardous waste facility
owner or operator, in the normal course of his business, will not have
data on the implicit price deflator for GNP or copies of the Survey of
Current Business or Economic Indicators. Copies of these publications
*EPA Interim Status Standards, 40 CFR ง265.142(c)
8-1
-------
also may not be readily available in small libraries to which the
owner or operator might have easy access. As a result, the EPA
:"::!:"': . '. :' "':"" : '. . . ' ":' : ' ' "': " '.''-' t: . . '" '
Regional personnel must have available the most recent editions of
theSurvey of Current Business or Economic indicators,and provide the
necessary adjustment factor to owners or operators who telephone or
write for this Information.
Table 8-1 shows a sample of the section in the Survey of Current
Business in which the GNP implicit price deflator may be found. The
table is constructed to show how this section might appear on 19 Novem-
ber 1981, the "first anniversary of the effective date of the regula-
i
tion." The numbers shown are hypothetical, as this guidance document is
li, : 'iii; ii, filjijiillilll!1 ' : ! 'il"1', ' / ' v , '! ' ;' / '" v j;l|l|li:l '' 'TIS i;1:1! ': /s i;, hf",, i, :,|, : v " ^',
being written in May 1980. The implicit price deflator to be used is
the first for which numbers appear, i.e., the one labeled Gross National
/ i
Product as underlined in Table 8-1. The note "Index, 1972=100" may be
ignored. The method of calculating the inflation adjustment factor
required by the regulation makes the index year chosen and changes in
li- ' ! >[!> .' iaill KJi'ii r |.' , , '.' , ., , "' ~ I'". ..' . '. .'i1 'i,11'! Jillilf1,- 'tf'rt ' ,,'i ':L j ',: '", !' t ;', i,
the index year irrelevant. The regulation states:
/ , '
"The inflation factor must be calculated by dividing the
latest published annual Deflator by the Deflator for the
previous year."*
GNP deflators are normally developed both quarterly and annually. The
regulation requires the use of the deflator listed in the column headed
"annual totals." The quarterly data should be ignored entirely. The
calculation of the inflation adjustment factor should use, for the
latest published annual implicit price deflator, the deflator for 1980
(circled in the chart). The deflator for the previous year will then be
EPA Interim Status Standards, 40 CFR ง265.142(c).
8-2
ill it Ill III In i Hill ill I
-------
TABLE 8-1
HYPOTHETICAL SAMPLE PAGE OF SURVEY OF CURRENT BUSINESS
1978
1979
1980
Annual Total
1978
III
IV
1979
I
II
III
IV
I960
I
II
III
IV
1981
I
GKNBKAL BUS1NUSS INDICATORS Quarterly SeriesContinued
NATIONAL INCOHK AND 1*KODUCT Con."
Quarterly Data Seasonally Adjusted
implicit price deflators;
Cross National product Index, 1972-100....
I'orsoiml consunipt Jon expenditures do....
Grotin private domestic investment:
152.05
(Bป
(nsTu)
153.45
156.68
160.22
163.81
167.20
__
170.74
170.74
175.34
______
176.61
177.41
178.31
II 1 III
_ ._;_
179.46
_-;-___
181.56
-------
>"' Hi*1':!! ' I!,;! i :<: ISIl , -II i:t'*ttm IIUWMKIVB!*IB III'1"!! ilfS'l-.ซSN '"" il'"!:!"! "i' '''('I'll!'": "" S I'll: IF
the deflator for 1979 (also circled in the chart:).* Using the example
provided, the inflation adjustment factor is then calculated as the
annual implicit GNP deflator for 1980 divided by the annual implicit GNP
deflator for 1979, as follows:
||: i ; ' ':?! 5f(j| ..... - , ..... i,. ......... , . . ., ..< ......... - ' -, , ;. ' ..... : i"; , , , ;, -.j,,;;
;:'; i . ; "i '" " . :; . 175.13 " ,""" ', ' [
:>;. . . ;" ";! ' : ..... . ' 165.50' ' " ..... ' ;;; ' "." ;
resulting in an inflation adjustment factor of 1.053. This number is
then multiplied by the last cost estimate to obtain the new current cost
estimate. These numbers are hypothetical and do not represent actual
data; they are presented solely to illustrate how to use the Survey
of Current Business to make the necessary calculation.
*The GNP implicit price deflator for a given year may be subject to
revision. If the figure cited in a previous issue is different from
the figurecited for the samequarter in the currentissue, the owner
or operator should use the current figure. If the owner or operator
is requesting this information by telephone, he should ask for the GNP
implicit price deflator for the previous year and for the year prior
to the previous year.
8-4
::ป.
ii :
' '.; !! ill!
-------
9.0 SAMPLE COST ESTIMATES
9.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides samples of cost estimates for closure of
surface impoundments, land treatment facilities, landfills, inciner-
ators, and a multiple process facility with tanks and small surface
impoundments. A sample post-closure cost estimate for landfills is also
provided. The purpose of these sample cost estimates is to illustrate
the concepts involved in a proper cost estimate and suitable formats
which might be employed. However, neither the cost estimates in total
nor the unit costs are designed to be applicable to any specific
facility. Neither the total, costs.nor the unit costs used in
these cost estimates should be considered targets when the owner or
operator prepares his own cost estimate.
The cost estimates are prepared in the form of a series of work-
sheets. This was considered the simplest mechanism for providing a
careful, easily checked cost estimate. In the sample cost estimates
given, each worksheet is accompanied by an explanation of each item on
the worksheet. These explanations are designed to help indicate how the
worksheet was developed. Explanations of this type would not be appro-
priate in the cost estimate prepared by the owner or operator. Instead,
the owner or operator would include, for each item in the cost estimate,
reference to the appropriate section of the closure or post-closure plan
as applicable, and any necessary documentation as to the accuracy of
specific unit costs.
9-1
-------
'i'JiiTI ' 9 IW" ''III11 ill'1"!' '
"IS
EXAMPLE - SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
Sludge from an industrial wastewater treatment plant is pumped to
a four-acre surface impoundment for stabilization. It is assumed that
at the time of closure, the contents of the impoundment will measure a
depth of 3 feet; this material will be 90 percent water and 10 percent
J.',,M' " ' if'irif ! Hi, ;,! . ,, :;i I ' ' :".. ป', : ..$< ',' , ;; '.ป, .. T*,"K!', :'". '" :<"'::
solidsludges. The total depth of the impoundment will be 5 feet
(allowing 2 feet of freeboard above the surface of the liquids). It
is further assumed that all necessary equipment required to complete
closure wilฃhave to be rented, as none is available on-site (the
costs of equipment rental and manpower will be factored into the unit
I ' I, "'.I ' 1 ,;.i'|l||J! , , ' ' ' " I1 "II t j, l ; | ^f ;, |1| n||, , ii, .ji^ .- ' | i ' I ' ' ' ' , '
cost estimates for various operations). The costs of closure are
developed for two options: 1) completely disposing of wastes on-site,
and 2) removingall hazardous materials from the facility prior to
closure.
(;
13! !. , 'ป!!
I;1':; ! !" ';,
'i t " ''*?
'i : I,
9-2
,!.='
1! .;
*! "f
ป , 'i'
-------
SAMPLE CLOSURE COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEETS:
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS IN WHICH WASTES REMAIN AT CLOSURE
A. Removing Free Liquid and Decontaminating the Facility
In this case, it is assumed that free liquids can be removed by
evaporation. Alternative possibilities that might be necessary and would
result in somewhat different cost estimates are the transporting of free
liquids to an off-site TSDF and the disposing of free liquids into surface
waters after suitable treatment, either through a treatment facility already
in place or a package treatment facility. For this example, all contam-
inated soil is disposed of in the impoundment; therefore, no additional
costs are associated with decontaminating the soil.
1. Method used: As noted above, the method used for removing the
free liquid is evaporation.
2. * Time required to evaporate liquid: . The calculations to justify
this time would be taken from the closure plan. It is assumed that 70 days
would be required for evaporation of free liquids.
3. Cost of routine operations per day: This includes the cost of
inspecting the facility required once a week and any minor maintenance
work that would need to be done as a result of these inspections.
4. Cost of maintenance during evaporation (Line 2 x Line 3): Cost
of routine operations at $10 per day times 70 days results in a total cost
of maintenance of $700.
5. Volume of remaining sludge: The volume of the remaining sludge
is given as 1936 cu. yds. based on the initial assumption that the liquid
in the pond is 10 percent sludge.
6. Source of sorbent materials: In this case, the sludge is to be
solidified and buried on-site in the surface impoundment. As a result,
sorbent materials are needed. It is assumed, for the example, that sorbent
materials must be purchased off-site.
7. Cost of sorbent materials: Assume that sorbent materials (e.g.,
cement kiln dusts) are needed on a one-to-one ratio to the sludge and must
be purchased with a delivered cost of $3.25 per cu. yd. The total cost
is $6,292. ;
8. Unit cost of mixing and stabilization: The unit cost of mixing
sorbent material with sludge is assumed to be $1.60 per cu. yd.
9-3
-------
?' Cost of *^ing and stabmzation: |his is calculated as 1936 cu.
yda" ฐf s*udge plus 1936 cu- ^s. of sorbent material, for a total of 3872
CU! yds> ^is 1s multiPliedtimes ,.$1..60 per cu. yd., to give a total cost
. of $6,195. MI . n| |T_'
10. Total cost of removing free liquids and sludge stabilization
., I ,.J! """' .,' " SfB, 5i I' . ';' . 'A V . '.:'.' . " ",>, ,,...'( ',ป.;. i..'/.sii,; ..ซ*.. i .'iNKiitMr.;;*,; : .*;; :i,
(Line 4 -f- Line 7 + Line 9): The sum of the above costs is $13,187.
11. Decontaminate equipment: The assumed costs for decontaminating
. . ,. ":";,; ;, ,, .,,"",;,,;.' ,;;; ;,;,, ". ;" ,"' . . .' "' ; ...;,;, ,,' ฐ ...;: :,;.;:,,'r|,',;,:',. ,::. ,'; ": .,., ...
{equipment is $500.
12. Decontaminate and flush any pumps or liquid lines: The assumed
costs for decontaminating equipment is $2000.
13. Disposing or treating residues from decontamination: Assume that
f 'it , , |M : ::,K i .:":! ... "' , i N iii.."'' iฐ... , u; .I."1: - . ..... ^ ,; , ir. ;, i, i Mr,,, ; ',1,,'!,! ;.;! 4; in.; , ...'., v ' .'. ; '
the costs for disposing or treating liquids and residues from the above
decontamination processes is $1000.
14. Total costs of all activities on Worksheet: A (Line 10 + Line 11 +
. " I"; "1"1 :v;"illi! .,$ ' "' ;"''. T : . . ,; j'1' ', ': : '.',;;ป:,/" !,"'i 't'-vli ;ll,,.lS!i: I'.',,/ ui ,.',(: j, ,, . ,f ..,'.' ; ! i
'[Line 12 + Line 13) : The sum of these, activities is $16,687.
B. Placing Final Cap
1. Area to be capped: The area directly requiring a cap is 4 acres
(19,360 sq. yds.) In addition, it is assumed that an additional acre of
land area (4840 sq. yds.) surrounding the impoundment, containing dikes,
etc.7 will require vegetation and, therefore, must undergo some prepara-
1 " tionV
i; ;' , ; ; , ..... ; ;,, . , ; ;,'il ; , . .,. . , , ' ''^' ', .'"' ,; ,"."} ',, . : . ' ..... '; ,. . :
2. Required impermeable material: It is assumed that 25,813 cu. yds.
of impermeable material will be required (19,360 sq. yds. x 4 ft. depth).
j ,! ll'W'i I ' ' - I1!,, "ill. n 'i.|, .HLlr ''tV'lllll ,1 .1 'I 'i i Ml ..... ' ......... ''.,. I. . if ' il,' ป 1, ' ,,l|, ., , , , ซ;; 'ป , ,| ' II, ..... ,, ,'.,' ....... ', ..J, .fl,," 1, Ji i|||| ' .liftj" ,!l I fl ' ,(' i , '..' / \ ,.(, ' |, I1. | f I i . Jn." , ..... ซ ,,,| / ,
3. Source of impermeable material: It is assumed that suitable
impermeable material can be obtained through bulldozing dikes and other
, appxir'tenances ............ '6ri~s'ite.
| ;{ :';4. Cost^ bf^jnaterial^:' Since the material,,, is available pn-site, there
I;;11 ..... ' i! "5. Required topsoil: At the sample facility, it is assumed that 2 feet
of the topsoil wiH be required in order to ensure adequate cover so that
roots of the vegetation will not penetrate the cap. It is, therefore,
assumed that 16,13'3 cu. yds. of topsoil (24,200 sq. yds. x 2/3 yd. depth)
ri'wilX ...... be required'." ' ' ........ ......
j ...... 16. Source qf topsoil: In this case, it is assumed that topsoil is
' S.i ' ' lift "!J:;:; .. / . i-'t", * ...... . v , " ....... . i, .; ..:'..' i1. :, ;'ii:1;.-. ..... ' .', " ..... i >, I ' ':'' ", .;. ' ...
available on-site at a relatively short haul.
' ..... ................ 9-4 ..... .......... ' .......
-------
7. Cost of topsoil: Since the topsail ฑs available on-site, there
will be no cost.
8. Cost per cubic yard for hauling, compacting and grading:
It is assumed in this case that the unit cost of those services is
'$1.60.
9. Cost of placing impermeable portion of cap (Line 2 x Line
8): The result of these assumptions is that the cost of the cap
in.place (with suitable grading) is $41,301. :
10. Cost of placing topsoil (Line 5 x Line 8): The cost of
placing the topsoil, given the above assumptions, is $25,813.
11. Total cost of cap (Line 4 + Line 7 + Line 9 + Line 10):
Summing the above elements, the total cost for the capping operation
is $67,114.
C. Planting Final Vegetation
1. Area to be vegetated: The area to be vegetated is assumed to
be 5 acres. .
2. Type of vegetation to be used: The closure plan specifies that
coarse field grass (a mixture of rye grasses and Kentucky fescue) will
'be employed, for final vegetation.
3. Quantity of seed per acre: Based on discussions, with facility
operators, we assume that 150 pounds of seed will be used per acre.
4. Cost of seed per pound: Calls to local suppliers determined
that seed is available at $.50 per pound.
5. Total cost of seed (Line 1 x Line 3 x Line 4): Given the
above assumptions, the total cost of seed will be $375.
6. Type of fertilizer to be used: Given the topsoil and
climatic conditions at the sample site, 10/10/10 fertilizer is
assumed to be adequate.
7. Quantity of fertilizer per acre: Discussions with local
suppliers indicated that .25 tons per acre would be a reasonable
fertilizer application rate.
8. Cost of fertilizer per ton: Calls to local suppliers determined
that fertilizer is available for $200 per ton.:
9. Total cost of fertilizer (Line 1 x Line 7 x Line 8): Given
the above assumptions, the total cost of fertilizer will be $250.
9-5
-------
i|lllllllhili|li, kni.ll'ULI.I.IIIPLdl'jilillliil!!/!
'
10> Cฐ;:S*:,Of so^ Preparation per acre: Soil preparation, including
^^^.^^tate?* -is Assumed to be $135 per acre (including
Equipment rental,costs).
^Total cฐst of Preparing soil (Line 1 x Line 10): The total cost
|f P*e^aSjfeS.. soil ^exp^ud^Lng materials) is assunied to bft,,^675,, ,'
7: ,? ?;:?*?::- TCli^,;per acrf for ?eed*nS: Ifc is .assumed that^seeding the
W1^ S&S.Sri cฐ,st ง200 per acre (including equipment rental costs).
13. Total cost of seeding (Line 1 x Line 12): The total cost of
seeding (excluding materials) is assumed to be $1000.
, Ei:"l, M^ii^,^>^*>ฐฃ* nn^*xg.!., The cost, per acre, of purchasing
and applying a hay mulch is assumed to be $140.
^' Tqlai cost of Aching (Line 1 x Line 14):" The total costs of
mulching (including the costs of hay) are assumed to be $700.
16. Total costs for vegetation (sum of Lines 5, 9, 11, 13, and 15):
Total cฐstsfor establishing vegetation are $2950.
lilillHU ,,i 'ii ' i, ' I'ii/lS'ii,. -, ii'liiiiiiil i i!1',''"' "iiilC : ' ii' C. ' ป '' '',, , "," ,i "ii ' i,|ii:.i!''',',: ' ' ",,i If i'1 '"ป!' ,''.', , .. ' '',' ''' V
D. Ground-water Monitoring
-."' Assume, that .clpsure of the surface impoundment will require a total
ฐf 9ฐ days* ^,order to, d?teri?i^e the maximum possible ground-water
^itoring cosjs, the inp;st .extensive monitoring needed at closure is
a:,SV?ied',:,: :'^SU?ling that ^roun^a-ter Duality analyses are required
annually and ground-water contamination analyses are required semi-
annually, the most expensive case is that in which both sets of analyses
are required during the 90-day closure period.
1" NUmber ฐf wells ^aitored: For the sample surface impoundment,
it,, is assumed jhat^ six, we.lls would need .to be monitored. ' ' \
2' Number of samples^ per well: One sample is taken per well for
both analyses*
fe,; - 3' *i5ai AUmbfr *=. pf, ^ฐurs":;r:equired, for collecting the... sample: It is
assumed that experience has shown that two hours are sufficient to gather
samples from each well.
5. Total number of hours required for collecting the samples
^LSJ% 3. ฃ MS-e ft* ?or six samples, 12 hours would b
-------
6. Number of hours required for preparing and delivering the sample:
It is assumed for the example that this can be done in two hours.
7. Person-hour costs for collecting samples: Assume that the fully-
loaded costs for labor required for sample collection, preparation and
delivery averages $15 per hour.
8. Total sample and collection costs ((Line 5 + Line 6) x Line 7):
This results in total sampling and collection costs of $210.
9. Number of ground-water quality analyses: One analysis must
be made for each well sample, for a total of six.
10. Number of ground-water contamination analyses: One analysis
must be made for each well sample,, for a total of six.
11. Unit cost of ground-water quality analysis: It is assumed
that the cost of an analysis for the following parameters is $77 per
sample:
Chloride - $6.00 per sample
Iron - $12.00 per sample
Manganese - $12.00 per sample
Phenols - $25.00 per sample
Sodium - $12.00 per sample
Sulfate - $10.00 per sample
12. Unit cost of ground-water contamination analyses: It is
assumed that the cost of an,analysis for the following parameters is
$108 per sample:
pHi- $4.00 per sample
Specific Conductance - $4.00 per sample
Total Organic Carbon - $25.00 per sample
Total Organic Halogen - $75.00 per sample
13. Total ground-water quality analysis costs (Line 9 x Line 11):
For six samples at $77 per analysis, this yields a total cost of $462.
14. Total ground-water contamination analysis costs (Line 10 x
Line 12): For six samples at $108 per analysis, this yields a total
cost of $648.
15. Total analyses costs (Line 13 + Line 14): The total analyses
costs, therefore, are $1,110.
9-7
-------
16. Numfeer,of technical hours,for administratipn; This includes all
PR!1 'I1' il.
time necessary to administer and report the data from the analysis and is
estimated as eight hours.
17. Person-hour technical costs: The fully- loaded cost required
for this work is assumed to be $30 per hour.
18. Total technical costs for administration .(Line 16 x Line 17):
Given the above assumptions, total costs for administering the tests are
assumed to be $240.
ii. ....... in. ..... , ........ v ..... ; "yiiii - ;J , . :, ..... ;-, . ..... , . , , (| ...... ,/ i i ... _;> i ..... I ..... -
19. Number of clerical hours: Assume for this cas.e that five hours
of clerical time are required to produce the necessary reports.
20. erspn-hour clerical costs: Assume the .fjujLly- loaded costs for
clerical work are $8 per hour.
i
21. Total clerical costs (Line 19 x Line 20): Given the above
i
assumptions, the total clerical costs are $40.
22. Total administrative costs (Line 18 + Line 21): The sum of
technical and clerical costs are then $280.
23. Monitoring equipment maintenance: It is assumed that an
average of $150 is required for a 90-day period to ensure adequate
maintenance of monitoring equipment and wells.
24. 'Total monitoring costs (Sum of Lines 8, 15, 22, and 23):
Total monitoring costs, excluding administration and contingencies, are
then $1750.
E. Fence Maintenance
In this case, it is assumed that the area to be enclosed is 5 acres
(24,200 sq. yd*)* Assuming that the site is square, each side is 156
yards. The perimeter of the site is then 624 yards.
1. Length of fence to be replaced: Since this facility is to retain
hazardous compounds, the integrity of its security fence is important.
Our estimate is that 10% of the existing perimeter security fence will
!
have to be replaced due to wear and corrosion.
2. Unit cost of replacing fence: The security fence is a galvanized
Mi ' ' III I I 11 " I , .ii'. ..... ,: , -"- " ....... .: *i, ..... I", ... , I I ,', 1 ...
6-Ioqt high chain link fence made of #9 wire. The installed unit cost
of replacement sections is $13.06 per linear foot.
9-8
-------
3. Total cost of replacing fence (Line 1 x Line 2):
The cost of replacing the damaged fence sections is the product of the
length of fencing needing replacement and the unit cost of replacing
the fence, for a total of $2429.
F. Professional Certification
1. Number of person-hours required for inspections: It is assumed
that 80 hours are required for periodically inspecting all aspects of
closure of the surface impoundment.
2. Cost per person-hour: In this case, assume that a registered
independent professional engineer may be hired at a cost of $75 per hour.
3. Total costs of independent professional engineer's time (Line
1 x Line 2): This yields a total cost of $6000 for the independent
professional engineer.
4.. Number of technical hours required for administrative duties:
Assume that eight hours are required from the owner's or operator's staff
for administrative duties connected with employing an independent
professional engineer.
5. Person-hour costs for technical administrative duties: It is
assumed that the total fully-loaded .costs for the owner's or operator's staff
are $30 per hour.
6. Total administrative costs for technical labor (Line 4 x Line
5): Given the above assumptions, the total administrative costs for
technical labor are $240. ...
7. Number of clerical hours required for administrative duties:
Assume that five hours of clerical time are required for the necessary
typing and certification.,
8. Person-hour costs :for clerical administrative duties: Fully-
loaded costs of clerical tijiie are assumed to be $8.
9-. Total administrative costs for clerical labor (Line 7, x Line 8) :
Given the above assumptions, total clerical costs are $40.
10. Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9): Summing
technical and clerical labor,, the total administrative costs are $280.
11. Total certification costs (Line 3 +. Line 10): The total costs
for certification, including the engineer's fees and administrative costs,
is then $6280.
9-9
-------
G, Total Coats Including Administration and Contingencies
Items 1 through 6 give the costs of all activities on each of the
preceding worksheets. 'Line "7 is the"total of Lines 1 through 6,
$97,210. " " : '
8. Administration: For administrative tasks, including taxes,
insurance, and administration and supervision not included elsewhere,
a total of 15 percent of total costs from Line 6 is used.
si,,,', ii ,, ,:.,!,' f '5"! pi'i , > ,i 'I'i'uS '" \. ป >,(. , :,:;",' I ,,A: t n, ./& \ .' | .,i ,iปf 'iiii I . "..i. ,!ป''
*1": , 9. Contingencies: A general "pro vis ion "for contingencies of 15
percent of Line 6 has been included.
ir:V,i 10. fotai 'costs of closure "(line 7 + Line 8 + Line 9): The"
estimated total costs for closing the surface impoundment for the situation
, , " n in |
in which all wastes remain in the impoundment are estimated for the sample
case to be $126,373.
Fill, . ,!
9-10
"'I
-------
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
(All wastes remain in impoundment)
WORKSHEET A - REMOVING FREE LIQUID
.AND DECONTAMINATING THE FACILITY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Method used
Time required to evaporate liquid
Cost of routine operations per day
Cost of maintenance during evaporation
(Line 2 x Line 3)
Volume of remaining sludge
Source of sorbent materials
Cost of sorbent materdlals
($3.25/cu. yd.; 1.1 ratio)
Unit cost of mixing
*
Cost of mixing and stabilization
a
Total cost of removing; free liquids and sludge
stabilization (Line 4 + Line 7 + Line 9)
Decontaminating equipment
Decontaminating and flushing pumps and liquid
liners
Disposing or treating residues from
decontamination
Total costs of all activities
(Line 10 + Line 11 + Line 12 + Line 13)
Evaporation
70 days
$10
$700
1936 cu. yds.
Of f^-site
$6292
$1.60/cu. yd.
$6195
$13,187
$500
$2000
$1000
$16.687
9-11
-------
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
(All wastes remain in impoundment)
WORKSHEET B'-" F'iNAL1 CAP
1. Area to be capped
2. Require! impermeable material (including
provision for suitable slope)
3. Source of material
4. Cost of" material
5. Require! tbpsoil
6. Source of topsoil
7. Cost of topsoil
8. Cost per cu". yd. of hauling, compacting, and
grading impermeable material
9. Cost of impermeable portion of cap
(Line 2 x Line 8)
10. Cost of placing topsoil (Line 5 x Line 8)
11. Total cost of cap (Line 4 + Line 7 + Line 9 + Line 10)
19,360 sq. yds.
25,813 cu. yds.
On-site
" 6
16,133 cu. yds.
On-site
" o" " ' ":"
$1.60
$41,301
$25,813
$67.114
9-12
-------
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
(All wastes remain in impoundment)
WORKSHEET C - PLANTING FINAL VEGETATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1Q.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Area to be vegetated
Type of vegetation to be used
Quantity of seed per acre
Cost of seed per pound
Total cost of seed (Line 1 x Line 3 x Line 4)
Type of fertilizer to be used
Quantity of fertilizer per acre
Cost of fertilizer per ton
Total cost of fertilizer (Line 1 x Line 7 x
Line 8)
Cost of.soil preparation per acre (excluding
materials)
Total cost of preparing soil (Line 1 x Line 10)
Cost per acre of seeding (excluding materials)
Cost of seeding (Line 1 x Line 12)
Cost per acre of mulching
Total mulching costs (Line 1 x Line 14)
Total costs for vegetation
(Line 5 + Line 9 -f- Line 11 + Line 13 + Line 15)
5 acres
Coarse grass
150 Ibs.
$.50/lb.
$375
10/10/10
.25 tons
$200/tor
$250
$135
$675
$200
$1000
$140
$700
$2950
9-13
-------
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
(All wastes remain in impoundment)
WORKSHEET D - GRdUND-WA'TER MONITMllG
1. Number of wells monitored
2. Number of samples per well
3. Total number of samples (Line 1 x Line 2)
4* '' '' Number1' of hours' required for' collecting'"'"the
sample (per sample)
5. Totalnumber of hours required for collecting
the samples (Line 3 x Line 4)
6. Number of hours required for preparing and
;; , delivering'samples^ ' " ', | ' ' ^
7. Person-hour costs for collecting samples
8. Total sampling and collection costs
((Line5+ Line 6) x Line 7)
9. Numberof ground-water quality analyses
10. Number of ground-water contamination analyses
11. Unit cost of ground-water quality analysis
12. Unit cost of ground-water contamination
analysis
13. Total ground-water quality analysis costs
""'"' ' (Line 9 x" Line 11)
14. Total ground-water contamination analysis costs
(Line 10x Line 12)
15. Total analyses costs (Line 13 + Line 14)
16. Number of technical hours for administration
(e.g., reporting data to EPA)
17. Person-hour technical costs
18. Total technical costs for administration
(Line_16 x Line 17)
19. Number of clerical hours
20. Person-hour clerical costs
21. Total clerical costs (Line 19 x Line 20)
:!!ป'?ซ 111 ,, " .. ..fci '.Hij . . .'' i """, " .1 ' , " i1;. -. , '. i"! ;
ii',. 'i, ' , , i vii :!s!?! ' ... , ' , : : "" \ '.<
9-14
6 wells
1 sample
6 samples
2 hrs.
12 hrs.
2 hrs.
:;i' '"$15
$210
6 analyses
6 analyses
$77
$108
$462
1 $648
$1110
8 hrs.
! $30
$240
:, ii '
""' IL'5 hrs.
$40
-------
WORKSHEET D (continued)
22. Total administrative costs (Line 18 + Line 21) $280
23. Monitoring equipment maintenance $150
24. Total monitoring costs $1750
(Line 8 + Line 15 + Line 22 + Line 23)
9-15
-------
SURFACE IMPODNDMENTS
(All wastes relhain in impoundment)
WORKSHEET E - FENCE MAINTENANCE
1. Length of fence to be replaced
2. Unitcost of replacing fence
3. Total cost of replacing fence
(Line 1 x Line 2)
186 feet
$13.06 /linear ft.
$242*9
if". rasl
i is*,,', SJiv,!,.,,, ' i'3
9-16
-------
SUBtfACE IMPOUNDMENTS
(All wasteis remain in impoundment)
WORKSHEET F ~ PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Number of person-hours required for inspections
Cost per person-hour
Total costs of independesnt professional engineer
certification (Line 1 x Line 2)
Number of technical hours required for administrative
ป
duties
Person-hour costs for technical administrative
duties
Total administrative costs for technical labor
(Line 4 x Line 5)
Number of clerical hours required for administrative
duties ;
Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties
Total administrative costs for clerical labor
(Line 7 x Line 8)
Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9)
Total certification c~sts (Line 3 + Line 10)
80 hrs.
$75
$6000
8 hrs.
$30
$240
5 hrs.
$8
$40
9-17
-------
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
III,: ; .*,,';* ;>ฃ . (All wastes remain in impoundment)
'WORKSHEET G - TOTAL" COSTS INCLUDING' ADMINIstRATlbll1"^" CC-NT*INGENCIES
1.
2.
3.
41.
5""t
INI1'1 ' *'
6.
I*
fillli'
8.
*-
10,
i, . i, '
n
Cost of removing free liquid and decontaminating
the surface and ancillary facilities (From Worksheet
Cost of final cap (From Worksheet B)
Cost of planting fdnal vegetation (From Worksheet C)
Cost of ground-water monitoring (From Worksheet D)
Cost of fence maintenance (From Worksheet E)
i' i1 ii"' ' .in mi i ,i ' ' ' ','i:r ซ 'v ' ft I.M " ' ' ,i ' .I, '! ' iiiii'i'1" iป I'll 11 .iiiiir " ni::. , , i i i
Cost of professional certification (From Worksheet F;
Total of Line 1 through Line 6
",i, ', ' . iiiijii , , : . , ";' ,: , ,!"' .'.:'. " . :". " . v , i ' !, ': i I,/!.
Adminis tr at ion
Contingencies
Total costs of closure (Line 7 + Line 8 + Line 9)
,illh ?i , Si' iHIK , ,'!:!"|'|l|j!!| i,i' ' tf ,.,'! ' ป',,. !',,, , , ', , j,, , ', ,. .; ,,,'., "."NiH'ijij!!! l",1 ," 'HUji.,!"!!!
$ 16
W
$ 67
$ 2
$ 1
$ 2
,
$ 6
$97
$ 14
$ 14
$126
,687
,114
,950
, 750
,'429
""' ' 'ii 'iiiji
,280
,210
,"581.50 :":
,581.50
,373
&: - 'i "J'J.!
' . H, ' .,,. i' l :.,"":i|
9-18
-------
SAMPLE CLOSURE COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEETS:
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS FROM WHICH WASTES ARE REMOVED AT CLOSURE
A. Removing All Free Liquids and Sludge
It is assumed in the sample case that free liquids will be removed
through evaporation and that sludge will be placed in a tank truck and
disposed off-site. A variet3r of other options are available. For'removing
free liquids, both transporting to an off-site TSDF and treating and
discharging to surface waters are other options that could be used. For
removing sludge, solidification could take place at the site, and the
solidified sludge either disposed in an off-site landfill or in a landfill
on-site, if there was one with interim status or a permit on-site.
1. Method used: As noted.above, it is assumed in this case that
evaporation is the method used to remove free liquids.
2. Time required to evaporate liquid: Based on calculations that
would be shown in the closure plan, it is assumed for the sample case that
70 days would be required to evaporate liquid.
3. Cost of routine operations per day: This factor includes the
required weekly inspection of the surface impoundment and a minimum allot-
ment for necessary maintenance revealed by such inspections. This is esti-
mated to be $10 per day.
4. Cost of maintenance during evaporation (Line 2 x Line 3): The
total cost of maintenance of the surface impoundment is equal to 70 times
$10 for a total of $700.
5. Estimated volume of sludge: Given the size of the surface impound-
ment and the assumption of 10 percent sludge, 1936 cu. yds. of sludge will
remain after evaporation of free liquids. :
6. Cost per cu. yd. of removing sludge off-site: It is assumed
that off-site removal of sludges can be obtained for $40 per cu. yd. This
cost takes into account the fact that the off-site TSDF facility will
have to mix and stabilize the sludges, and assumes that they will, therefore,
charge a premium for this service.
7. Removal costs per cu. yd.: It is assumed for the sample facility
that removal costs are $1.60 per cu. yd. (including equipment rental).
9-19
-------
8. Hauling costs per cu. yd. : It is assumed that the nearest land-
fill is 20 miles away. Unit costs of trucking the sludge from the impound-
', ..... n ..... *!: ..... , ''fi iMKi1'!! ii'lJih] i1 SI ; , " ..... ป . " ........ ,. ,L , , n , ....... ... ,,i, ...... ..... /, ....... .iin.,,' .'ii'ini, ...... i ' i, ;, iปi| ,,:", ,.,,.'.|," >.,ป, ........ . ,,., ......
meiit" to the landfili is assumed to be $3/cu. yd., based on discussions
with trucking industry personnel.
9. total costs (Per cu- ydซ) of disposal (Line 6 H- Line 7 + Line 8):
Total costs of off-site disposal are $44.60 per cu. yd.
ll^'io. ..... " Cost oi 'removing . sludge (Line 5 x Line'""9)": ........ Given these assumptions,
the cost of removing sludge, is $86,346.
11. Total costs (Line 4 + Line 10): Total costs for removing free
' liir. .1 ' ii-.ii . 'a!1 .illi'.ii. ' "'i mi, 1 1 ' ii , I'll" ,,:",' l! :;'i,,, "" ฅ ' '!, '' ป, iin ' ,', , ! ป ...... ,, ' ..... yiH1 ',|ซ i1 ! i|. " ' ,i ,, ] 'il'i,, ' ' . :': ..,'.'": ', n1!", ' ', !i; il
liquids and sludges is $87,046.
B. Decontaminating the Facility
1. Surface area of contaminated soil: It is assumed that 19,360
sq. yds. (the entire surface area of the surface impoundment) has contami-
nated soil.,' , , ' '
2. Depth of removal: It is assumed in the sample case that this soil
* ii
must be removed to a depth of 1 foot to ensure that no soil contaminated
with hazardous waste remains in the surface impoundment.
ii-i I 3. :?' Total "'voiume''to"''be removed""' (Line 1 x Line 2)": 'the resulting total"'"'
volume to be removed is 6453 cu. yds.
4. Cost of removal per cu. yd.: The assumed cost of removing soil is
$1.60 per cu. yd. (including costs of renting equipment).
161 5. Total cost of removal (Line 3 x Line 4): The resulting costs for
IJiJF ' ' Hi',,1"! ,'iu'Ui,! , r "' , , :; "",';;, M ,;, if! .,, , , ;,, ' Xim,1,1!!, . ",, '"!!, iJi"!1, . iini1".;1:.,!!. J|i,,i 'i":,11' ,' I Ifl!1!,, |i| T ,,!,'": ' '',," ',, ' , ., " ,
the sample case of removing the contaminated soil are $10,325.
6. Cost"of hauling to off-site landfill per cu. yd.: the assumed
hauling costs to an off-site landfill for final' "2'is'posai"of ""the contaminated
, . . , - ,:. - .,. ', .,i(. '. .-i, - ,. , ..-I-,.,;: , . 1
soil are $3 per cu. yd.
7. Total cost of hauling (Line 3 x Line 6): The resulting total
costs of hauling are $19,359.
:" i 8. Fee per cu. yd. for disposal in off-site landfill: It is assumed
I''' , '"' '"' || 'I' "''' " , n i... , M. ป i . i r mi I 11 i" .
that the charge per cu. yd. for off-site disposal at the chosen landfill
has been determined to be $30 per cu. yd.
9. total cost of disposal (Line 3 x Line 8): The total costs for
disposal, excluding hauling and soil removal, are then $193,590.
9-20
-------
10. Decontaminating equipment: It is assumed that equipment can be
decontaminated for $500.
11. Decontaminating and flushing pump and liquid lines: Assume that
this can be done at the sample facility for $2000.
12. Disposing or treating residues from decontamination: It is
assumed that residues resulting from the above decontamination steps
must be disposed of at a cost of $1000. .
13. Total costs (sum of Lines 5, 7,.9, 10, 11, and 12): The total
costs for decontaminating the surface and ancillary facilities
are $226,744.
C. Ground-water Monitoring;
Assume that closure of the surface impoundment will require a total
of 90 days. In order to determine the maximum possible ground-water
monitoring costs, the moat extensive monitoring needed during closure is
assumed. Assuming that ground-water quality analyses are required annually
and ground-water contamination analyses are required semi-annually, the
most expensive case is that in which both sets of analyses are required
during the 90-day closure period.
1. Number of wells monitored: For the sample surface impoundment, it
is assumed that six wells would need to be monitored.
2. Number of samples per well: One sample is taken per well for
both analyses. I
3. Total number of samples (Line 1 x Line 2): Given the above
assumptions, six samples are required.
4. Number of hours required for collecting the sample: It is assumed
that experience has shown that two hours are sufficient to gather samples
from each well.
5. Total number of hours required for collecting the samples: (Line 3
x Line 4): For six samples, 12 hours would be required for collecting
the samples. ,
6. Number of hours required for preparing and delivering the samples:
It is assumed for the example that experience has shown that this can
be done in two hours.
9-21
-------
:" ill*1?"'A1,ii1'!!,,1'!!"!:.I,ill"i
5. Person-hour costs for technical administrative duties: It is
assumed that the total fully loaded costs for the owner's or operator's
staff are $30 per hour. ' ' ' '
:" 6. Total administrative" costs'''for''technical Iab"6r":(Line 4 x Line 5):
Given the above assumptions, the total administrative costs for technical
' " ' ' [ - ;, I ' t , i . \ \
labor are $240.
7, Number of clerical hours required for administrative duties: Assume
that five hours of clerical time are required for the necessary typing and
certifications.
8. Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties: Fully-loaded
costs of clerical time areassumed to be $8.
9. Total administrative costs for clerical labor (Line 7 x Line 8):
G|ven the "aBove assumptions, total clerical cost's are $40.
10. Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9): Summing technical
arid clerical labor, the total administrative costs are $280.
11. Total certification costs (Line 3 + Line 10): The total costs for
certification, including the'engineer's fees and administrative costs, is
: ' II
tfien $4780.
E. Total Costs of Closure Including Administration and Contingencies
Items 1 through 4 summarize the costs of the activities on each of
the previous worksheets.
5. Total of Lines 1 through 4: The totalcosts for'the activities
listed in Lines l through 4 are $320,350.
[. ,. ; ฃ '''A^nistralion: '"The cost's for "administration, which"'includes
insurance, taxes, and supervision and administration not included elsewhere,
are assumed to be 15 percent of Line 5.
7. Contingencies: A provision for contingencies of 15 percent, of
Line 5 has been included.
; 8. Total costs of closure (Line 5'+ Line 6 + Line 7)'": the total
costs of closure including administration and contingencies for the sample
surface impoundment, in the case where all wastes are removed from the
HIM1 i T" '' ,|" 'I '! tf' I,1,'1 !,in&'l JllilliPI'l ', V ' ! , ',.!', 11" ''' '
illliil'i i, ' I ' .i,,i 'I'll' i'1! liiiillH I" lli'ltUi'l V * 'L jf' '
impoundment, are $41o,
:, '-;;9-22
"1-i
.. IP 1
-------
7. Person-hour costs for collecting samples: Assume that the fully-
loaded costs for labor required for collecting, preparing and delivering
the samples averages $15 per hour.
8. Total sample and collection costs ((Line 5 + Line 6) x Line 7):
This results in total sampling and collection costs of $210.
9. Number of ground-water quality analyses: One analysis must be
made for each well sample, for a total of six.
10. Number of ground-water contamination analyses: One analysis must
be made for each well sample, for a total of six.
11. Unit cost of ground-water quality analyses: It is assumed
that the cost of an analysis for the following parameters is $77 per
sample.
Chloride - $6.00 per sample
Iron - $12.00 per sample
Manganese - $12.00 per sample
Phenols - $25.00 per sample
Sodium - $12.00 per sample
Sulfate - $10.00 per sample
12. Unit cost of ground-water contamination analysis: It is assumed
the cost of an analysis for the following parameters is $108 per
sample.
pH - $4.00 per sample
Specific Conductance - $4.00 per sample
Total Organic Carbon - $25 per sample
Total Organic Halogen - $75.00 per sample
13. Total ground-water quality analysis costs (Line 9 x Line 11):
For six samples at $77 per analysis, this yields a total cost of $462.
14. Total ground-water contamination analysis costs (Line 10 x
Line 12): For six samples at $108 per analysis, this yields a total
cost of $648.
15. Total analyses costs (Line 13 + Line 14): The total analyses
costs, therefore, are $1110,,
16. Number of technical hours for administration: This includes
all time necessary to administer and report the data from the analysis
and is estimated as eight hours.
9-23
-------
17. Person-hour technical costs: The fully-loaded cost required for
this ....... work ..... is assumed, .to ......... be $30 per hour.
18. Total technical costs for administration (Line 16 x Line 17):
1 ' ' I
Given the above assumptions, total costs for administering the tests are
assumed to be $240.
;.-' ;19. "'^ ..... ^..Number^'of .clerical "hours : . Assume .. for .."this , case " tfoat .. "five' hours
of clerical time are required to produce the necessary reports.
20. Person-hour clerical costs: Assume the fully-loaded costs for
I I I I I I III I. 'III . I ........ I1 I " ' ' '' : ....... I 'ii' ' '
clerical work are $8 per hour.
21. Total clerical costs (Line 19 x Line 20) : Given the above
assumptions, the total clerical costs are $40.
22. Total administrative costs (Line 18 + Line 21): The sum of
technical and clerical costs are then $280.
23. Monitoring equipment maintenance: It is assumed that an average
of $150 is required for a 90-day period to ensure adequate maintenance
of monitoring equipment and wells.
24. Total monitoring costs (sum of Lines 8, 15, 22, and 23): Total
monitoring costs, excluding administration and contingencies, are then
' ''iK v
-------
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
(All wastes removed from impoundment)
WORKSHEET A - REMOVING ALL FREE LIQUIDS AND SLUDGE
1. Method used Evaporation
2. Time required to evaporate liquid 70 days
3. . Cost of routine operations per day $10
4. Cost of maintenance during evaporation '$700
(Line 2 x Line 3) .
5. Estimated volume of sludge 1936 cu. yds.
6. Cost of removing sludge off-site per cu. yd. $49
7. Removal costs per cu. yd. ; $1.60
8. Hauling costs per cu. yd. $3.00
9. Total costs per cu. yd. of disposal $44.60
(Line 6 + Line 7 + Line 8)
10. Costs of removing sludge (Line 5 x Line 9) $86,346
11. Total costs (Line 4 + Line 10) ' $87,046
9-25
-------
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
(All wastes removed from impoundment)
WORKSHEET B - DECONTAMINATING SURFACE ANDANCILLARY FACILITIES
1. Surface area of contaminated soil
2. Depth of removal
3. Total volume to be removed (Line 1 x Line 2)
4. Cost of removal per cu. yd.
5. Total cost of removal (Line 3 x Line 4)
i;;'!; 'U!" ' ': illllli Hill" , "!,.), :. *,?ป.. 'i ;'.' .,. "',,: ,!,:ซ'. , Vซ. >.. . ; .;, .;
6S Cps,t of hauling to off-site landfill per cu. yd.
7. total cost'o'f hauling (Line 3 x Line 6)
8. Fee per cu. yd. for disposing in off-site landfill
9. Totalcost of disposal (Line 3 x Line 8)
10. Decontaminating equipment
11. Decontaminating and flushing pump and liquid lines
12. Disposing of residues from decontamination
13. Total costs (sum of Lines 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and
:r , 12) ' '
! (Hi/; : ' it
9-26
-------
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
(All wastes removed from impoundment)
WORKSHEET C - GROUND-WATER MONITORING
1. Number of wells monitored 6 wells
2. Number of samples per well 1 sample
3. Total number of samples (Line 1 x Line 2) 6 samples
4. Number of hours required for collecting the 2 hrs.
sample (per sample)
5. Total number of hours required to collect 12 hrs.
the samples (Line 3 x Line 4)
6. Number of hours required for preparing and 2 hrs.
delivering samples
7. Personhour costs for collecting samples $15
8. Total sampling, and collection costs ((Line $210
5 + Lin6 6) x Line 7)
9. Number of ground-water quality analyses 6 analyses
10. Number of ground-water contamination analyses 6 analyses
11. Unit cost of ground-water quality analysis $77
12. Unit cost of ground-water contamination analysis $108
13. Total ground-water quality analysis costs $462
(Line 9 x Line 11)
14. Total ground-water contamination analysis costs $648
CLine 10 x Line 12)
15. Total analyses costs (Line 13 + Line 14) $1110
16. Number of technical hours for administration 8 hrs.
(e.g., reporting data to EPA)
17, Person-hour technical costs $30
18. Total technical costs for administration $240
(Line 16 x Line 17)
19. Number of clerical hours 5 hours
20. Person-hour clerical costs $8
21. Total clerical costs (Line 19 x Line 20) $40
22. Total administrative costs (Line 18 4- Line 21) $280
9-27
-------
I Ill
23. Monitoring equipment maintenance
24. Total monitoring costs
i SAiT Will!1 'HIM" , " " - : /Nil :ii, , i ;, ..,,>.:ซ ; , .l:. !'
(Line 8 + Line 15 + Line 22 + Line 23)
$150
$1750
S'-'/i: 'r ii-
-SS'r'i
na ;:'*
. > ',"ซ "K >; >'. i J I
9-28
-------
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
(All wastes removed from impoundment)
WORKSHEET D - PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
1. Number of person-hours required for inspections 60 hrs,
2. Cost per person-hour $75
3. Total costs of independent professional engineer $4500
certification (Line 1 x Line 2)
4. Number of technical hours required for administrative 8 hrs.
duties
5. Person-hour costs for technical administrative duties $30
6. Total administrative costs for technical labor $240
(Line 4 x Line 5)
7. Number of clerical hours required for administrative 5 hrs.
duties
8. Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties $8
9. Total administrative costs for clerical labor $40
(Line 7 x Line 8)
10. Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9) $280
11. Total certification costs (Line 3 + Line 10) $4780
9-29
-------
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
(All wastes removed from impoundment)
WORKSHEET E - TOTAL COSTS OF CLOSURE INCLUDING
ADMINISTRATION AND CONTINGENCIES
II III I I . li'lil'l li, ' i :ป illPillllllll,1 .ilKi'lifi i ,' ' lit' 'i' ' iป"""
-------
9.3 EXAMPLE - LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES
The following cost estimates were developed for a land treatment
facility consisting of 50 acres of active fields for the"processing of
biodegradable hazardous waste. In addition to the disposal fields, the
land treatment facility is equipped with a surface impoundment for waste
storage and a separate-surface impoundment for collecting run-off water.
The land treatment facility is designed to receive organic industrial
sludge of high liquids content. This waste is applied to the land treat-
ment fields at an application r.ate of 100 wet tons/acre (solids applica-
tion rate ~5 tons/acre).
Waste received by the facility is stored in a lined surface impound-
ment. The surface impoundment is 5 feet deep (3 feet of waste and 2 feet
of freeboard) and has a surface area of 1.23 acres. This corresponds to
a waste holding capacity of 160,700 cubic feet. A pump system is avail-
able for transferring this liquid waste to the tank trucks.
The waste from the waste storage surface impoundment is spread on
the fields using tank trucks. During the first 90 days of the planned
closure period, all of the waste inventory will be disposed on the fields.
This disposal will require one application to the field. Later in the
closure period, run-off water from the separate run-off water surface
impoundment will be disposed of in the same manner. This run-off water
will have a very low concentration of hazardous wastes. Disking of the
fields will be conducted shortly after each spreading to mix the waste
with the soil and a second disking will be done two to three weeks after
each spreading. Periodic disking will continue on a bimonthly basis
thereafter. :
During this prolonged closure period, the surface impoundments will
be closed as well. Each of the two surface impoundments has its own
closure plan as shown elsewhere in this guidance document. Therefore,
the costs of decommissioning the surface impoundments are not computed
in this example.
9-31
-------
SAMPLES CLOSURE COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEETS:
LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES
A. Disposing of Waste Inventory
!
1. Maximum inventory to be disposed: For this case, the waste
storagesurface impoundment is filled to its maximum capacity of 5000
tons of low solids waste (or 1,198,878 gallons with a waste density
similar to water) . ['
2. Amount of r^n-off, water to be disposed: a similar
amount of.somewhati contaminated water, is expected to be disposed of
from the surface water run-off impoundment. This mildly contaminated
water is to be disposed of in the same manner as the inventory.
3. total material to be disposed (Line 1 + Line 2): All of these
impounded liquids (waste and run-off) are to be disposed of on-site by
lii1' ,11111:1' j ' " 1 ;',! l!ii ",'' llllfllf"1!1:,,1'"!",!, llllllliil,:, ^ t!f ."iiilfi; ;"!" :li]!i,i!|| ;, piXI; i: ,ป, ';ii '" m ill's , ,i,,-"Ii ; I'!-!, i11,],!!!1,; 'll'ISriii,,, .li,,,!"!!-, ,"1 , j, :"ii|,li;:l ' "HO1 ,rli SN1,; 1 ilr" "L f |. HI ; '" ' l"s ..'lil'Siss's.; '' < ,.!f!' ' :, - ,"." i! 'fill; lli|il:11'
j;;::;;j:;:: ;';.;.:'; ",'spreading on the land treatment facility fields.
I*1?:'! ' Hf ;'"' !!::!:?rtl:|l4l '"I1"1|-pf|caฃ:j:o^1"ra1tlel; 'the' waste "'is to Be'applied'1 to'Tfie fTeld"t>y"
I1; III: I'' +ii I . fill j. 18;,i 'I:/..,'W. sli^ i ill"1 i in ! :. ป:ซ: ir:i ;'i. ;' .""'if1 ri'-'xjw*""! rii"'1 < '' & i;: i - 'i IIH* ' aiBt : ,!ซ. j(B.iit:,(fiPti.^;.,S"' i ITIF" ';, iXi-i;/ stm:m,'f-t
"'" ' ' '*"'' "! ' mians"" of tank trucks equipped with spray bars. The application rate of
100 tons/acre corresponds to a solids application rate of 5 tons/acre.
This application rate has been found to be acceptable based on the
" :i I I
opeiating experience of the facility.
Ill l||||||||||i| i i i|| i II - , !Jij, "I ijp -'SflitililH. " i PI It,. ': Illlill 'I i!.!, ;:ป" 'f-,;.Ill: .INI" *:(,,'. ป( , "'iiii'lli',:! I; iili'iISB"!," i,,;, W ,
-------
9. Number of diskings required: A total of ten diskings will be
required throughout the closure period. Four of the diskings will be
carried out in the first part of the closure period (immediately after
each of the two applications and several weeks after each application).
Six additional diskings will be conducted throughout the rest of the
closure period.
10. Unit cost of disking: The unit cost for disking the land treat-
ment fields is the sum of tractor and implement costs and equipment
operator labor costs. The equipment cost for disking is $.79 per acre.
The cost is for both the tractor and the tandem disk. It includes
insurance, taxes, repairs, fuel and lubrication but it does not include
interest and depreciation. The labor cost (fully-loaded) is $20 per
hour. The disking is accomplished at the rate-of .167 hours per acre.
In addition, extra labor time is required for related handling and care
of the equipment. Thus, the actual labor time per acre is 1.2 times the
implement time, yielding a. labor rate of $4.01 per acre.
11. Total cost of disking (Line 5 x Line 9 x Line 10): The cost of
disking the land treatment fields is the product of the acreage utilized,
the number of diskings reqiuired during closure and the unit cost of
disking.
12. Total costs for disposing of inventory (Line 8 + Line 11):
The total cost for disposing of the waste inventory and run-off water is
the sum of the total spreading costs and the total disking costs. After
completing the land treatment, the hazardous waste will be completely
decomposed.
B. Decontaminating the Land Treatment Facility ,
1. Area of facility contaminated: It should be noted that the
1200 sq. yds. of contaminated soil does not include any of the land
treatment fields where controlled decomposition is occurring.
2. Depth of material removed: The contaminated so,il is removed
to a depth of 1 foot (.33 yds.). The soil at this land treatment facility
is relatively impermeable. This makes a depth of. 1 foot realistic for
the excavation for the contaminated soil (since the mobility of the
hazardous waste is restricted). The soil density is 90 Ibs./cu. ft.
9-33
-------
1 11 I II
3. Unit cost for removal: The contaminated soil is removed and
i i
loaded into spreaders using rented earth-moving equipment. This excava-
tion and "loading operation is estimated to cost $1.60 per cu. yd. of
contaminated soil.
4. Cost of removing contaminated soil (Line 1 x Line 2 x Line 3):
The cost of excavating, removing and loading the contaminated soil is
' If 1 I I 111 I II II III I Illllli I I ll I I I I I I I 111 ll|lllllll 111 I I 111 II I I I ','''"'',
the product of '"t'ti'e volume of the soil handled and the unit cost of the
I'll I Hi i I I |IF I IIIPIlillI fl I Illllli i I '!' r,, ," ' ! .,!.> " ." ' '* .',' "Illii ป 'I)1 nil1!'1 I ': ' I i |."'': "'ป,. , ' ': T.:,, ," ,,, r
operation. ' " '''' ' '' '
5. Quantity disposed on-site: All of the contaminated soil is to
bedisposed on the land treatment fields (on-site). The contamination
^i,,,^^ ฃ'isp35e3 soil will"'decompose under supervised conditions. This
contaminated soil will be spread after the waste inventory has been dis-
posed. The contaminated soil will be spread on the fields at least
sefi'iral weeksr after the last of the""_waste _inventory~is spread." _ "^
6, Quantity disposed off-site: No contaminated soil is to be
liijll'iil ' "i: i Ii 'iiiliiilllllllliiilii' i jDilillinu j mi 11111:11 ii, sili1, i'1 in i',,*, 1:1,1 ' I'J ., * ll ' 1,11i|]l,,, '" jป';ii' lIMn,;1', ii '"I,1,: III Illllillillillini/'liiiปi'i'"i: ,;ll. ,11. '''li Ill IT1 . ,; ii -I 'lillll: iili'i I'll :IIK '" '|ii','i|l|i'l:i
disposed off-site due to the much higher cost of off-site disposal and
the availability of the land treatment fields.
7. Application rate: An application rate of 10 tons of contami-
nated soil per acre is used. This solids application rate is acceptable
because thewaste concentration in the soil is quite low.
"'I ฃ." ""'Acreage"'utilized":" the contaminated soil Is""spread on the
entire 50 acres of the land treatment facility.
9. Number of applications: Only one application is required to
dispose of the entire Volume of contaminated soil.
10. Unit cost of spreading: The unit cost for the spreading of
the contaminated soil is the sum of tractor and implement costs and
' ' : i . ..:
equipment operator labor costs. The equipment cost for spreading the.
" ' 'i '
waste is $.95 per acre. This cost is for both the tractor and the spreader.
Itincludesinsurance,taxes, repairs, fuel and lubrication but it does
not includeinterestand depreciation. The laborcost (fully-loaded) is
$20" per Itiour'. The""" spreading "of the waste is accompTis'hed' at" the rate of
.211. hours per acre. In addition, extra labor time is required for re-
" '" ' : i : I "
lated handling and care of the equipment. Thus,, the actual labor time
per acre ^s ^'^ fcimes t*16 implement time, yielding a labor rate of $5.06
per acre. " ' :!
i i. V" i.. 'i '.. ,,i i -in t
- 9-34
-------
11. Total cost of spreading (Line 8 x Line 9 x Line 10): The cost
of spreading the soil is the product of the acreage and the unit cost
per acre.
12. Number of diskings: The spread soil is disked to mix it with
*
the soil of the land treatment fields. This one disking is conducted
shortly after the contaminated soil is spread on the fields.
13. Unit cost of disking: The unit cost for disking is $4.08/acre.
This cost includes equipment costs of $.79 per acre for the tractor and
the-tandem disk. This cost includes insurance, taxes, repairs, fuel and
lubrication; but it does not include interest and depreciation. Labor
cost is included at a cost of $20 per hour.
14. Total cost of disking (Line 8 x Line 12 x Line 13): The total
cost for this disking is the product of the acres disked and the unit
cost per acre. .
15. Total cost of disposing of contaminated soil (Line 4 4- Line
11 + Line 14): The total cost of disposing of the contaminated soil is
the sum of the cost of removing the soil, spreading the soil, and disking
the spread soil.'
16. Cost of decontaminating equipment: At the end of the closure
period, the equipment used on-site will be decontaminated by washing
with detergents. The run-off cleaning water will be collected for dis-
posal. A cost of'$1000 is estimated for this task.
17. Disposing or treating of residues from equipment decontamina-
tion: The wastewater from the washing and other cleaning residues will
be disposed off-site at a cost of approximately $1000. Off-site disposal
of this residue is required because the land treatment facility is
ceasing operation.
18. Total cost of decontaminating the facility Line 15 + Line 16 +
Line 17) : The total cost of decontaminating tfhe land treatment facility
is the sum of the costs of soil disposal, equipment decontamination,
and decontamination residue disposal.
9-35
-------
C. Monitoring Activities (Ground-Water and Soil)
i
ground-Water Monitoring
[[[ , n .............. , , ...... ........ ........... ' in ................................... , ,|j , , : ' ................ ' .....
It is assumed that closure of the land treatment facility will re-
_,ji^j ,^ .ฃoซฃ ซ.| ^.u months. In order to determine the maximum possible
[[[ ; [[[ ' ............ ..................... ; [[[ , ....... ;;; ........... |; ............... /:-; - ;n il::1 :;;:";; ....... / "', ....... : ' ":
ground-water monitoring costs, the most extensive monitoring needed
during closure is assumed. Assuming that ground-water quality analyses
are required" annually and ground-water contamination analyses are required
semi-annually , the most expensive case is that in which two ground-water
[[[ [[[ : [[[ : ..... , .......... "' 1 ............ ......................... ............
quality analyses and three ground-water contamination analyses are required
1. Number of wells monitored: Eight sampling wells are operated
to monitor the composition of the ground-water at the land treatment..,
site. Seven of the wells are downgradient from the land treatment fields
and one well is up gradient.
2. Number of samples taken: Thee "cycles" of ground-water samp-
ling will be conducted during the 15-month long closure period. Two
ground-water quality analyses and three ground-water contamination
analyses are to be carried out. One sample may be used for both the
ground-water quality and the ground-water contamination analysis . There-
fore, during the closure period, a total of three samples are taken
..from. .each. well. ..........................
3 . Total number of samples (Line 1 x Line 2) : The total number
i
of ground-water samples taken during the closure period is the product
of the number of monitoring wells and the number of samples taken from
each well.
4. Number of hours for collecting the sample (per sample): Taking
ground-water samples is a. rather time-consuming practice. The well is
-------
6. Number of hours for preparing and delivering the sample: The
ground-water samples must also be prepared and delivered to the labora-
tory for analysis. This work requires about three hours for a set of
eight samples (one from each monitoring well).
7. Total number of hours for preparing and delivering the sample:
(Line 2 x Line 6): The total number of ground-water sample preparation
and delivery hours in the closure period is the product of the number
of sets of samples (cycles) and the unit operation requirement of three
hours labor.
8. Person-hour costs for collecting and handling samples: The
personirhour fully-loaded labor rate for taking and handling the ground-
water sample is $15 per hour. This is the same labor rate as during
the operating period of the land treatment facility.
9. Total ground-water sampling and collection costs ((Line 5 + '
Line 7) x Line 8): The total cost of ground-water sampling is computed
by multiplying the hours required by the labor rate of $15 per hour.
10. Number of ground-water quality'analyses: Sixteen ground-water
quality analyses are required during the closure period. Two analyses : '
are required for each well. .
11. Number of ground-water contamination analyses: Twenty-four
ground-water contamination analyses are required during the closure
period. Three analyses are required for each well.
12. Unit cost of ground-water quality analysis. It is assumed
that the cost of an analysis for the following parameters is $77 per
analysis. ;
Chloride. $ 6/sample
Iron $12/sample
Manganese | $12/sample
Phenols $25/sample
Sodium $12/sample
Sulfate $10/sample
13. Unit cost of ground-water contamination analysis: It is
assumed that the cost of an analysis for the following parameters is
$108 Per analysis:
9-37
-------
. ^
pH $ 4/sample
Specific Conductance $ 4/sample
lllllll I I I Bill III I I "l , ... I,,,: I F , , I,. 1 i
...., . , -, . = Total Organic Carbon $25/sample
Total Organic Halogen $75/sample
147-16. Total ground-water chemical analyses costs: The unit costs
per analysis are multiplied by the number of analyses to yield the costs
for each type of analysis. These two costs are added together to compute
" ! I
the total analyses costs.
Soil Monitoring
17. Number of soil core samples: Soil core samples are taken
"11 throughout tEe "closure period. Four samples1 are ta'k'en" in" each quarter
of the first year. In the fifth quarter of the closure period, 50
al'' ''.'", JH^^^^^^^^^^ f lllllll' ifปI-:; II Hill IE if 1 ^m&> I :;,!ปI!*' WsMrfi SI; la B1 tl-li'Hltt'ii .'M' !}ปป, ; ?' f * IIII1: i: 12: . i*. "-illlKlk ' "Si- /' v "; ' .|>ji lii'iniBi 'jil 11':
: " p'&rSmater", cosTs" $5. Thus, the net cost per soil sample is $60.
9-38
I I III ill
-------
22. Total soil core sample chemical analysis cost (Line 17 x Line 21):
The total chemical analysis cost for the soil core samples is the product
of the number of samples taken and the unit analysis cost per sample.
Lysimeter Sampling of Soil Moisture
23. Number of lysimeter samples: Soil moisture samples are taken by
means of a lysimeter. This extracted water is then analyzed for contami-
nation in the same way that the ground-water samples are chemically analyzed,
Four soil moisture samples are taken during each quarter of the closure
period. Since there are 5 quarters, a total of 20 samples are taken.
24. Labor hours required for each lysimeter collection of soil
moisture: One hour of labor is required for collecting and handling each
sample. This includes time spent moving about.the field.
25. Labor unit cost for collecting samples: The unit labor cost for
collecting these samples is $15 per hour fully-loaded.
26. Total sampling cost for lysimeter collection of soil moisture
(Line 23 x Line 24 x Line 25): The total cost for collecting soil moisture
samples is the product of the number of samples taken, the labor required
for each sample, and the labor rate.
27. Unit cost for moisture sample analysis: The unit cost for each
chemical analysis is $150. This is based on the land treatment facility's
experience with ground-water contamination analysis and soil moisture
chemical analysis.
28. Total cost for moisture sample chemical analysis (Line 23 x
'Line 27): The total cost for the soil moisture chemical analysis is
the product of the number of samples taken and the cost of chemically
analyzing each sample.
I
Administrative Costs
29. Number of technical hours for administration: The land treat-
ment facility also requires the allocation of some technical supervisory
labor to administer the closure monitoring program. Approximately two
days of such supervisory labor will be required in small blocks of time
expended throughout the closure period.
9-39
-------
'" -"'30. iPersfon-hour" technical costs: The' fully-IoaSed' "labor ' cost'"for
II
these technically qualified employees is $30 per hour.
./!, :*
[ ............. ..3.1, ...... ,,|pt,al technical n cost s for administration ....... (Line_ 29 x..Line 30):
The cost of this technical administration is the product of the required
technical administration hours and the technical labor rate.
32. Number of clerical hours: Clerical support is required for the
monitoring administration activity. Two days of clerical labor will be
needed in small blocks of time expended throughout the 'closure period.
::?:."*'";.;. ........ . ..... ; ....... -'"IT.: ...... ;""',: ...... :'::.":: :.":::' ;::::," "::'""::,.:: ",:, ;:,:" i: ;"/:" ...... " ' " .....
ii'iii" 33 . Person-hour clerical .cost: ........... The fully-loaded labor rate for
clerical labor at the land treatment facility is $8 per hour.
,,',ii!i'34. ..... Total 'clerical' costs' (Line 32 x' Line 33) s The total clerical
, "'^ jg^'fo'j.f ..... 'a^minTstering ....... the "monitoring ....... activity" ' Is""" the"" product '" oฃ the
i " IWซ I !l, .);>* ..... , '"> ........ I, ;..;:*' ;" r , 'if
hours required and the clerical labor rate.
. , I!! h i ""(! '!'!' 'i "'! ', ;Jni !lii,'!',:!ปIIIHI:!!iv flll IIIIII I . iilli !,,, VI ,i ซ ' ....... 'C :'!" J1V4I '.'4 ',,'lliii ' '''< ..... 'r,\ ^V\ ....... it:;,)!! ..... v* ill1" , ' I : ' I , I"1 :''..'' ">!l" -!'
-------
40., Total administrative costs (Line 35): The total administrative
costs, both clerical and technical, for the monitoring program are repeated
here.
.41. Total monitoring costs (Line 37 + Line 38 t Line 39 -H Line 40):
The total cost for the entire closure period monitoring program is the
sum of the costs of ground-water monitoring, soil core testing, lysimeter
testing,.and .the .administrative costs. All of these costs,are reliably
known from the operating experience of the facility.
! " . ' .'
D. Fence Maintenance
For a land treatment facility consisting of 5.0 acres of active fields,
assuming that the site is square, each side is 1475.8 feet.. The perimeter
of the site is then 5903.2 feet.
1. Length of fence to be replaced: Since the land treatment facil-
ity, has a prolonged closure period and possible post-closure activities,
it is necessary to maintain the security fence along the field perimeters
in good condition. We have estimated that 10% of the fencing will be
corroded and damaged to the point of requiring replacement.
2. Unit cost of replacing fence: The security fence is. a galvanized
metal 6-foot high chain link fence made of #9 wire. The installed unit
cost of replacement sections is $13.06 per linear foot.
3. Total cost of replacing fence (Line 1 x Line 2): The cost of
replacing the damaged fence sections is the product of the length of the
fence needing replacement and the unit cost of replacement, for a total
of $7705. .'.''''
E. Repair of Drainage Channels
1. Length of drainage channels: The land treatment facility's
drainage channels are an important part of the containment system. They
channel run-off water to a surface impoundment. Our estimate is that
500 feet of these channels will have to be replaced during the closure
period.
2. Channel volume per unit length: The channels have a square
cross sectional area measuring 3 feet by 3 feet. "-This results in a
volume of 0.33 cu. yds. per linear foot of. channel length. " ' '
9-41
-------
iil'1; 'tiilllllinif'Lil
., ., ,., j ,,
3. Channel excavation unit cost: The unit cost of excavating the
channels with a backhoe is $.67 per cu. yd. This work wouli be performed
' - * ' J" I]"1 "" -'
by a contractor and is base "4 KI, , , JIVT , f l>, < ' ,11 '<,, >, "' I"
checks the progress of the facility operations: spreading, disking,
1 11 J',,, .i""1 ',,1 *ii!il!!iiliซ|! ' " ill''!!!!!'" ,1-,'' ;" '&';,. : ' '-', ,i ' nil :/,. i,;w . : r " i,It-Ill i -if |i": '. >"' " J! '
sampling, decontamination, etc.
3. Duration of closure period: To allow the hazardous waste to
decompose, theclosure period must be 15 months in duration.
:|::" ' ''',"" ,:::l!!' *'* : ' " '"' ' ': ' ';"" '!9-42
-------
4. Total technical management person-hours required for inspections
(Line 1 x Line 2 x Line 3); The technical hours required for the actual
inspections are the product of the number of hours for each inspection
and the total number of inspections required.
5. Person-hour costs for technical management duties: The person-
hour cost for this technical supervisory labor is $30 per hour (fully-
loaded labor rate).
6., Total technical management costs for inspections (Line 4 x Line
5): The technical cost for the inspections conducted throughout the
closure period is the product of the total inspection technical hours
and the technical labor rate.
7. Additional technical management labor required: A small amount
of additional technical time will be required for managerial tasks
associated with the inspections (such as writing, reports). Approximately
8 percent to 10 percent of the inspection time is required for this
additional work.
8. Total cost of additional technical management labor (Line 5 x
Line 7): The cost of this aidditional technical labor is the product of
the additibnal hours required and the technical labor rate.
9. Total cost of technical management labor (Line 6 + Line 8):
The total cost of all the technical labor required is. the sum of the
labor directly spent on inspections and the labor related to inspections.
10. Number of clerical hours required: Clerical labor is needed to
support the periodic inspections of the land treatment facility. Only
a modest amount of clerical labor is required.
11. Person-hour costs for clerical labor: The labor rate for
clerical labor at this facility is $8 per hour. (This is a fully-loaded
labor rate.) x
12. Total cost for clerical labor (Line 10'x Line 11): The total
cost for the needed clerical labor is the product of the clerical hours
and the clerical labor rate.' '
13. Total inspection cost (Line 9 + Line 12): The total cost of the
inspection program is the sum of the technical labor costs and the cleri-
cal labor costs.
9-43
-------
Gs Professional Certification
1. -Number of person-hours required for inspections: Approximately
111 I i ":, " , Illii! "' : K1 iS'lif !"111 ...... !' i iSiJllr - *!l!li '!> *!' '' !. ' '(: ' ' ....... ' ' ;: * ..... ;" ........... . Rill "i; ......... ;l I . ".' ' '"el ...... il~i 'S!"i: S ..... I " '"'I ...... " ' Hit ............ I ."'& ';"5 Sei!1'!!!!!' >'. "i : i "i* if Lll'tiJIf i illli" : : ';' iSi.' i ' .. 'Sin "if ' t '. "i '
ofie week of professional time will be required to certify the proper
closure of the land treatment facility. Most of this professional work
will be an independent professional engineer as specified by the interim
,, ..... , ,, l' l ' 'l'ป" i '" '""'
status regulations. The professional engineer will be assisted by a soil
specialist who will evaluate the soil samples taken during the closure
. , " ''' ";l E 'r iijซ . 'ป : : i ' ...... i - -I ' '. '""' Vit. ,
period . '
2. Cost per person-hour: The contracted cost of these professionals
ig ง75 per hour based on their current quotes for these services.
'"*^"3^" ..... Totai ....... 'costs"" of"' ..... professional' engineer's time (Line 1 x Line 2):
lluiii'!!!1 l|!:' ' .l|"<'l:||'i.il>l :."":r ' ' lll:!' ' " 'li
The total cost for these contracted professional services is the product
of the number of hours ireSuil:ed ^^ tiie
-------
and the administrative costs.
H" Total Costs Plus Administration and Contingencies
Items 1 through 7 give the costs of each major closure function on
each of the preceding worksheets. Line 8 is the total of Lines 1 through
7, $39,389. '
7. Administration: All additional administration costs are com-
puted by multiplying the subtotal (Line 8) by 15 percent.
8. Contingencies: Allowance for contingencies is computed by
multiplying the subtotal (Line 8) by 15 percent.
9. Total costs of closure (Line 8 + Line 9 + Line 10): A grand
total for land treatment facility closure costs is computed by adding
together the costs from the worksheets and the allowances for additional
administration and other contingencies.
9-45
-------
in inn 11111111 ii illinium iiinini in n in i iiiiiiiiniinnnn in n iiiiiiiiiiinnnn 111111111111111 nininni n niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnn inn nun niiiini n ininiii in in i 11 in mini inn i inn nun nun nun imimmmi n mi minium in
ii 11 n i i mm n linn m inn in I inn i i in nun mi inn in HIM in INI inn i mum HI inn i n in
IIIIIII
i in
LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES
Method of Disposal: Spreading on the Land Treatment Fields
1. Maximum inventory to be disposed
2.
Ill'
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
^!!!'!"
121"!"
Run-off water to be disposed
Total material to be disposed (Line 1 + Line
Application rate (wet weight)
Acreage utilized
'Number" "of applications in'' the closure' period
""Unit'"" cost "of ""spreading
Total cost of spreading (Line 5 x Line 6 x Line 7)
Number of diskings required during the
closure period (excluding one disking for
decontamination)
Unit cost of disking (equipment cost and labor)
Total cost of disking (Line 5 x Line 9 x Line 10)
II I Illll II III II Illlllll III I 1 III II 111 I I (I II III ll I i,l; ill''Weil \iilli ills tin-Hi*::
i nun nun ii n in nil i i n in ill n n j "li""n
Total cost for disposing of inventory and
run-off water (Line 8 + Line 11)
5000 tons of
liquid waste
5000 tons
ll I v'j't;: ''iti'iayi " ,"i
10,000 tons
I ........... , .....
100 tons /acre
i
50 acres
2
acre
o
$4.80/aare
"lJ246d
'.'"!!.!!'; ii'-'S, If is1 ;lil ,-,!!' ',.
$7200
I1! CHU'ilIn ,1 i:;,HlI '. I :'
,1 i1" i1'!1"! in. : '.'iin'iii1!1,, 'iฐ > ' ' i .'*i'',i r
i, JlkLl "IILlLii '.:'' 1H1 ill' iiii'Ll,; ,.,;ป*: ,:i"
i1"1 iiii|,'ซ if, >|i , !,"
9-46
<: i iiiiii,iii
-------
LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES
WORKSHEET B, '- DECONTAMINATING THE FACILITY
1. Area of facility contaminated
2. Depth of material removed
3. Unit cost for removal (including machinery rental)
4. Cost of removing the contaminated soil
(Line 1 x Line 2 x Line 3)
5. Quantity of contaminated soil disposed on-site by
landspreading
6. Quantity of contaminated soil disposed off-site
7. Application rate - !
8. Acreage utilized
9. Number of applications
10. Unit cost of spreading (equipment cost and labor)
11. Total cost for spreading the contaminated soil
on the land treatment fields (Line 8 x Line 9
x Line 10) ,
12. Number of 4-skings carried out to assist
in disposing of contaminated soil
13. Unit cost of disking (equipment cost and labor)
14. Total cost for disking the spread soil into the
land treatment soil (Line 8 x Line 12 x Line 13)
15. Total cost of disposing of the contaminated soil
/
(Line 4f Line 11 + Line 14)
16. Cost ofLfecontaminating equipment
17. Disposing of.residues from equipment decon-
tamination
18. Total eft of decontaminating the facility
(Line iy- Line 16 + Line 17)
1200 sq. yds.
.33 yds. (1 ft.)
$1.60/cu. yd.
$633.60
396 cu. yds.
(481 tons)
0
10 tons/acre
50 acres
1
$6/acre
$300
$4.80/acre
$240
$1173.60
$1000
$1000
$3173.60
9-47
-------
LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES
WORKSHEET C - MONITORING ACTIVITIES
(GROUND-WATER AND SOIL J^^Q^Q)
Ground-Water Monitoring
i
1. Number of wells monitored
Illllll! i-tJWf i'T'
1 Illllll II 1 II
ii ''Wiiiii, i 'if!' M fi ii1,'
! iiflB-it:,1,1!'!',!11;! iir: "'ii!1
Ill II 1 "'iff"!111'! "i'ii
II 1 HI 1 ii ' ill" ibiii
( ill "ill ill
1 1 :,i ' i jlijJB1''
1 III liilF''!!''*!,;1!!,
1 1 III 1 1 'i'i,,, ,1,,,' lit, II
iiiiiii1 vi'li'fi'lii
"i 'Bur ' i*"*1'
ill, 1" fillllP' :I!,\L Liiilli''';!!.!'!!!!!"!
Li.lIB ! ":i'"|!l; I'liil,
iiiiTiiiii'iiiii,,, H,1',,!'"'!'!' iiiiiiiif
Hi, iiiiiiiiii I,;' linn iii'ii .
il^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2.
3.
4.
5.
T Iiiii, *
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,
III II 1
11.
12.
13.
,, ii nil' ;
14.
,! ' iiri,!
ii IE1 11 ;ii
llllllii'il"! if!' '
I!1!1'"''1' ' ' III1'' ,T',ll|| '
15.
16 "' '";
Soil
17.
18.
19.
', ., Fii1' :::
' " i!!!1!1!'1! 1
'' iiii'i, ,! :
ii iiil
Number of samples taken at each well (1 per cycle)
Total number of samples (Line 1 x Line 2)
Number of hours for collecting the sample (per sample)
Total number of hours for collecting the samples
(Line 3 x Line 4)
i,^^^^^^^ IF;,-.! tK;, :.W,& ' ',';; ^l^iU^'EMii li' >;": ,iitI*Si !, 'illiiii iimi h:!f;:j IfflflM:
Number of hours for preparing and delivering sample
(per each sampling cycle of eight wells)
; ; : ; t :
Total number of hours for preparing and delivering
sample (Line 2 x Line 6)
Person-hour costs for collecting and handling samples
Total ground-water sampling and collection costs
((Line 5 + Line 7) x Line 8)
Number of ground-water quality analyses
Number of ground-water contamination analyses
Unit figst of Aground -water quality analysis
1 ""
8 wells
3 samples
24 samples
2 hours
48 hours
.!"! i"'';,1"1, I Si'!11' I?:'" iil;,!1.!:;!:1'!.;:.'^!!!!, Jill IMI
3 hours
9 hours
$15 /hour
$855
i ^i^k.
16 analyses ^M
n ii 1 1 ii in i 1 1 ii n i i mi ^^^^
24 analyses
$77
tjnj.'t cgst of ,n ground-water contamination analysis $108
' ,',i" 'i i'!"' iin , I iiim: ' '!!:,' f i , mi if 'i"1:'"1 'if:! , : if : j> , ? ..s *i ic'i" *'iป ป r **r, : v~ > i w isji,'"?, t1:": ซ ,. iiii^ ww 'iiii> ป wf wis.s rv J fซ w - KV v t'lii,'! ?.. i< iii-'iiir ttsir , ' \m
Tplal ground-water quality analysis costs $1232
i -: si: iiiii ;;!'ii<:i''siii^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "i 'iiiiiii i iia "iif.3 si ii >KnHiL < r B f "' ' * 1 1 ": < "t; ; -SK : . i; '; f ni ; , '< i 'ia^-iwii ' i ' liiiEii ma , i "ill f ' AVK: , 'v-n, " iiiBii, ;. i . m jf *y i"< !; JU' " ;, si f
(Line 10 x Line 12)
Total ground-water contamination analysis costs
,(Llne 11 xLlne 13) i
;: I ; "is 'iiS , liilllK Illllll ' ' iS! i " ,'iiiiiE ',i ,^ ii ;' *\ " t * ; ' VI"-. ,-! ' ^ ii>M' : 1 -JH ซ '"; : ' WSKtfti "i V i ' i IB "!" ":i->3i'i ;| r '| Is i,
Total ground-water chemical analyses costs
(Line 14 -t- Line 15) ' '"'
Monitoring
Soil Core Sampling:
Number of soil core samples taken during the
closure period
Labor hours required for each core sample
(includes movement between sampling locations)
Labor unit cost for collecting core sample
,,!"" ..: 'ifl'l'liil". iiliaiW illllliiil .I!'1'; , ""'if 'Hi'MlifTI" (I .'-'Y'ii;, "'!'![, 'I'l'llli! "i' "if '. ': i IKi I* iiii'iii I'i'.'B 'Ml" -nii i'l'-'lS ilfll-'
"P'in :' |ill,,ui, '!;'''iilll '"', "I 111' ' ซ" i|i: , ,' I ,, v ,n i ,'i'l"' i I"" 'v'ili!,, ' '' '; /'^ ,' I'llii I;,!!! ,"" :''!'i"i "',,'|l|;! ,' ',!',,, II* V' :,:,!' 1 ^ Ijl; .JKI'';!!! 'li||;ii ',
^ 9-48
i, T,, 'Vii'iM 'ir,,''i':i,ii''i: ii'ii ii iii!" '"'i'1'1'1' i'1 i' ",' ,'i", i ii''1 ', i,''"',::r',,iiiiปi'' ''; "'ii1'1' i"hl'ii' !,'!' jii'ii'ii'i'iii, ,;ii;i '"'i1';,, ifiii'ii.'..'!.!"! ii! k'"
"IS r,," jlill''':.!!!!:? > , jiii ,'ii- ,,'ii'!"i , 'i!:,i I',;)"),!' i" :l, ' , "f,,, i"'1"::'!,'.!! i" I';,'!"..! iif :,)"i iLi,!''':!;,;!" " lliii; ilii''i'M ; "''l''!^';^^'!^
'ii, J'SI'!', 'Hii; .iiliiili:', '! "' "'ili, ' li^^^^^ '111!': i'llHii'1 ,!"' :,{ lil'
$2592
::^'; ii!iii-''',,"i:i,,,i iafiปjซ. '$ฅ*&&
$3824
66 samples
.5 hours
$15 /hour ^^
,':,i"'>:::'':|ii,,r" .iiillllill11!: ; " ,,,,'" itr i:ilii'',iii,lflll!,il|):,il ^^V
i;,i:L j,"1,' '"I'lBf, i,'1; " ,,' ' ''.'fMifaK .ffW lii!" 'x! 1
K^^^^^^^^^^^^ ii,,'!,;;:!! id^ ii
-------
WORKSHEET C (continued)
25,
26,
27,
28.
20. Total cost of collecting soil samples for the entire
closure period (Line 17 x Line 18 x Line 19)
21. Unit soil core sample analysis cost (10 parameters)
22. Total soil core sample chemical analysis cost
(Line 17 x Line 21)
Lysimeter Sampling of Soil Moisture;
23. Number of lysimeter samples taken during the
closure period
24. Labor hours required for each lysimeter collection
of soil moisture
Labor unit cost for collecting samples
Total sampling cost for lysimeter collection
of soil moisture (Line 23 x Line 24 x Line 25)
Unit cost for moisture sample analysis
Total cost for moisture sample chemical analysis
(Line 23 x Line 27)
Administrative Costs
29. Number of technical hours for administration
Person-hour technical costs
Total technical costs for administration
(Line 29 x Line 30)
Number of clerical hours
Person-hour clerical cost
Total clerical costs (Line 32 x Line 33)
Total administrative costs (Line 31 + Line 34)
Maintenance Costs
36. Monitoring well maintenance (includes maintenance
of associated equipment)
Cost Summaries for Monitoring
37. Total cost of ground-waiter monitoring for the
closure period (Line 9 + Line 16 4- Line 36)
38. Total cost of soil core sample monitoring for
the closure period (Line 20 + Line 22)
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
$495
$60
$3960
20
1 hour
,$15/hour
$300
$150
$3000
16 hours
$30/hour
$480
16 hours
$8
$128
$608
$750
$5429
$4455
9-49
-------
' " '*" III!!11 ''Wfl' BUI H 'fWOfi, lll:!llM I" II!1" III V' IE1!!1 Ill If' !ih'""" ' "I; l J'3 "' '"' i, "fi II! "ซ I1"'':!!!"1 H!"'S i'i! i 'Will "I /llllfllli:''!1'! "i. 'I11!!!1*:; IT)'!" ESI MV- ii'DTW1.1 ,'li' '. "I I'1' '"H, 'ill Ifflllll111
WOEKSHEET C (continued)
39. Total cost for soil moisture (lysimeter) monitoring
IE i" 1 '''V jt "i ' * ''i11 - ' ' ini1. -JBLV r linn .t ini,"!"s, sv ~
""1' 26 4- Line 28)
$3300
,,, I f.v.
'lib1,,:','|J :,
40. Total administrative costs (Line 35) $608
ii!"'!",! .i, ii'i."ซปtWHซi'uKH'twE'-!iii'iP,!',"';!HBซA.iiiii'51'' " j!?'"-^' ^ S-'iiiy-''-1111 -s;&'.*:'"'"\m&j,.'r>''f." "': i '-'"li1" , kJi' "^X'Si
41. Total monitoring costs for the entire closure ?13,79Z
period (Line 37 + Line 38 + Line 39 + Line 40)
..n |:
ii
.9-50
-------
LAN!) TREATMENT FACILITIES
WORKSHEET D - FENCE MAINTENANCE
1. Length of fence to be.replaced 590 feet
2. Unit cost of replacing fence gn nA/n
, 513.06/linear ft,
J. Total cost of replacing fence (Line 1 x Line 2) $7705
9-51
-------
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
LAND TREATMENT FACILITY
WORKSHEET E - REPAIR OF DRAINAGE CHANNELS
Length of drainage channels requiring excavation
Channel volume per unit length
Channel excavation unit cost
Total channel excavation cost
,ซ!,,,; (Line 1,'x Line^ 2|ii;x, Line"3)
Unit cost for hand grading
Channel surface ""area "to be prepared by hand
Total costof hand grading(Line 5 x Line 6)
Total replanting cost (including ieed,
fertilizer and mulch)
Total channel repair cost
(Line 4 4- Line 7 + Line 8)
500 feet
.33 cu. yds.
per linear ft.
$.67/cu.yd.
$11.05.
$.02"/sq. ft.
4500 sq. ft.
$90
$50
1 "I!'
i'HI
9-52
I I I "
..... iiii ..... in; ' i Jin,, i; ' : ..... 14 ......... t ' ..iiiiH- .iiii'i-:, ฃ ',1:1. is ',( 14 iiiii MI& ,i iiiiiiK ,,L 'i
...... i,!: ...... li! >i!, .'i; a! fiซ ...... :!
-------
LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES
WORKSHEET F - MANAGEMENT INSPECTION OF LAND
TRJSATMENT FACILITY OPERATIONS
1.
2.
3,
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13,
Number,of technical management person-hours
required for each inspection of the land treatment
facility
Inspection frequency
Duration of closure pieriod
Total technical management person-hours required
for inspections during the closure period
(Line 1 x Line 2 x Line 3)
Person-hour costs for technical management duties
Total technical management costs for land treatment
facility inspections (Line 4 x Line 5)
Additional technical management labor required
related to the inspection program
Total cost of the additional technical management
labor (Line 5 x Line 7)
Total cost of technical management labor
(Line 6 + Line 8)
Number of clerical hours required
Person-hour costs for clerical labor
Total cost for clerical labor (Line 10 x Line 11)
Total inspection cost (Line 9 + Line 12)
8 hours
1 per month
15 months
120 hours
$30
$3600
10 hours
*
$300
$3900
9-53
-------
FACILITIES
WORKSHEET G-"PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
n i (
lillili1
1.
2.
,3".
4.,
5.
6.
7
8.
9.
10'
11.
Numberofperson-hours required for inspecting 40 hours
the land '(treatment facility and its operating records
Cost per person-hour $75
Total "costiof professional engineer's time $3000
(Line 1 x Line2)' \""" ' ' '" ^" ^ _^ " "^ \'""^ "_ " "~ [" |' ^^ ]' ^ \ ^'["" ^
Number of technical hours required for administrative 8 hours
duties
Person-hour costs for technical administrative duties $30
Total administrative; costs '"for technical labor | $240
(Line 4 x Line 5)
Number of clerical hours required for administrative
i i inn n in n i i i iiiii i i i i i i i i
duties
Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties
Total administrative costs for clerical labor
4
(Line 7 x Line 8)
Total adtagnฃs'|ya^:j^e;' ""Costs'1 (Line ...... 6 ........ + "'Line""9)
........ i pill " ..... ! , m ซ' MSWI J ...... mm ...... t s ...... >f * E B> $ & PIK i, i. ...... isf ........ iiii!;" ' ...... i m \ ...... i ..... B ,:i ...... (:
Total certification cost (Line 3 + Line 10)
8 hours
$8/hour
$64
$"304
M, : ....... i> m:> ..... ^ i
-------
LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES
WORKSHEET H - TOTAL COSTS PLUS ADMINISTRATION
AND CONTINGENCIES
1. Cost of disposing of inventory (From Worksheet A) $ 7,200
2. Cost of decontaminating the facility (From Worksheet B) $ 3,173
3. Cost of monitoring (From Worksheet C) $13 792
4. Cost of fence maintenance (From Worksheet D) $ 7 705
5. Cost of repairing drainage channels (From Worksheet E) $ 251
6. Cost of management inspections (From Worksheet F) $ 3 964
7. Cost of professional certification of closure $ 3,304
(From Worksheet G)
8. Total of Line 1 through Line 7 $39 339
9. Administration $5 903
10. Contingencies $ 5 908
11. Total costs of closure (Line 8 + Line 9 + Line 10) $51,205
9-55
-------
IlilitBI! 'iii l:" Mil
IB -i,il, f!;,,ป"ป *"inP'',Bป ซ>'!> . 8"",:ป"' I* >,,'i.:!l*:ซ 'I'.; '!'!',"!."? 'i I "ill""!' :.:":" V'Sil!!
"3IE ;
I !' II! !>:;!; i, i
9.4
'"'' "';':''' ;!:EXAMPLE" - ฃANDFILLS:l
illugtratiye purposes, a sample cost estimate has been developed
':,'!iซ il!1:1!,!'1!, ,|J"I I!"?:-11:; JIB Jill HIIW^^ '-ilK" t, ป''"! I' '""' "S'i ' ' I'"'1"!1' "">' "I"'"'1'''"' "ซ" "-1'"' ' '"""i''' !; " I"1' ' ":'S"" '"' V"'Si"'i'" T5" "i * V '' ' ""
for a landfill with the following characteristics: the landfill has been
'la operationfor15years' and covers approximately 75 acres. Sixty-five
i
acres have been partially closed (i.e., they have been filled with waste,
an adequate cap and vegetative cover established and maintained). Ten
acresof the landfill are currently in active use and have not received
final cap"or'cover but are largely filled. Of the 65 acres which have
received final cap and cover, it is assumed that approximately 5 acres
are' 'in need of revegetation due to failure of original vegetation over
the life of the facility. The landfill accepts hazardous solid waste re-
ceived in trucks. Waste is received for this site in 55-gallon drums.
!!' IflFl'J, "!,'":ซ
IF IK' ! ""i I '*(
ilk'111 !' ' i ! l! Hr
1! IN
Si i
liiiitii 'I1* i
III)! 'f
I"'-1!!*!'1' Hi
SI "ill"-" S'-iii!!
'iiiliiT ' '"il'JB
'-i"' .. *
'ij.ii' !
jM"1" '' 'ill
fill
>>'';: ! :ir ; r',11 ' nil';:1 "f, ' ' '-n |ซ ,,'
. :.f > ""' ' '''"'' ,'J 'il<' :J!~ "'
: aif/ill I , I, "I /I1' Ii
.;.. ' r. . iiiVJ'i," '"",]!: ii : !) '"M fi'iiinmni V!i ," 'S"i:i
!':'("', ,,.'1',,;: !i(ซ.,lr 'ffy . ''Hi !'!;(ซ" .'Kf,:?: :{
,-' '-.'t"' . i1!!" i !! 'V.' ,.M ill!'1*'1!.*!1!!!!!' 'tilt'l'"' 'iMliUL'iiii.
!l"'i"lllll il J! '' 'i' 1,11
9-56
-------
SAMPLE CLOSURE COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEETS: LANDFILLS
A. Disposing of Inventory
1. Volume of waste when processed for landfill disposal: It is
estimated from the closure plan that the most expensive closure conditions
likely to occur over the life of facility would result in 900 55-gallon drums
of waste to be disposed and no trench yet constructed for their disposal.'
This situation would occur when existing trenches had been filled but not
yet capped, and waste continued to be accepted for further disposal.
This estimate should be based on the volume of the waste after conducting
the necessary processing prior to disposal. For example, if sludge is
taken in, the proper volume to be used is that of solidified sludge, not
the volume of the sludge as it enters the facility. In this case, since
waste is accepted in drums only, there is no need for further calculation.
2. Estimated volume of contaminated soil residues disposed
of through on-site landfill operations: This volume is determined from
Worksheet B.
3. Total volume of wastes to landfills on-site (Line 1 + Line 2):
In this case, the total volume to be landfilled on-site is the volume of
inventory (800 cu. yds.) plus the estimate volume of residues and con-
taminated material to be disposed of on-site from Worksheet B (600 cu.
yds.). It is possible in some cases that not all inventory could be
disposed of on-site. For example, if two wastes normally are neutralized
by combination, and there is inadequate volume of one of the wastes to
complete neutralizing the second waste at the time closure commences,
some portion of the second waste would have to be disposed of off-site.
4. 'Estimated cost of constructing a trench: The cost of construct-
ing a trench adequate for 1400 cu. yds. of material of the type indicated,
including adequate liner, is estimated as $18,000, based upon past trench
construction experience at the facility.
5. Estimated cost of placing wastes in trench (excluding final
cover and vegetation): Based on the annual volume and operating costs
of the facility (excluding profits and depreciation), it is estimated
that the costs of placing this waste will be $6000.
9-57
-------
6. Total cost of disposing of inventory (Line 4 + Line 5): The
I,
total cost of disposing of inventory are then the sum of Lines 4 and 5.
B. Decontaminating the Facility
1. Area of facility contaminated; It is assumed in the example that
at the end of facility life, approximately 1800 sq. yds. of the surface of
th,ง facility will show sufficient contamination to justify its disposal
;, il i' i'i ;: .1 .'ML i .iii'ii if "Si1 i ,' . ' ' i 'i ii.' '.. . i'5;ป , . i. :* 'i /, . ", i
as hazardous waste.
iij-M I."; i" '" lE:^ [.jjiji '.', : ; ,....,'.' ; ! ". i, ซ i|":i ' ';' k :j"! "- ''
2, Depth of material removed: It'is assumed that removal to 1 foot
willr be necessary.
3. Cost of removal: The assumed cost of removing this material
is $1.40 per cu. yd. for a total cost of $840. This does not include
111!1!1'"1!11' '< "' ', -Ml'"1 IKil! i i .. . / . . . ,... ",' * . ;i/ ' ,, n | . . .
the costs of disposing of the material.
4. Quantity disposed on-site: For the sample problem, it is
assumed that all 600 cu, yds. will be disposed on-site.
5. Quantity disposed at an off-site TSDF: None of the material
i
removed will be disposed off-site.
6. Cost to decontaminate equipment: It is assumed that $1000 will be
sufficient for: decontaminating equipment.
7. Volume of waste resulting from decontaminating equipment: It
is estimated that 25 cu. yds. of material will need to be disposed of
as a result of decontaminating equipment.
8. Unit cost of off-site disposal: Contact with other area
hazardous waste disposal facilities indicates that land disposal for
these wastes would currently cost $40/cu. yd.
9. Unit cost of hauling: Hauling this small quantity of residue
, , , , , , , , il ,
20 miles tonearest landfill will cost $10 per cu. yd. according to
''' ' '' ' i I ' . . ,1 i jj , IM.
local trucking concerns.
1 li;" ,,.10, Total cost of off-site disposal (Line 7 x Line 8): Total costs
of disposing residue are then $1000.
11. Total cost of hauling (Line 7 x Line 9): Total cost of hauling
isthen the unit cost of hauling times the total volume of residues to
;,; " . ; < ;, , - ' , : . , .."., :;;;;,; ;; ; ; - ; ' . ;J ; '
be disposed.
12. Total cost of decontaminating the facility (.Line 3 + Line 6 H- Line
Hf V Line 11) : Total costs are then $2850. " ' """| |/"'_
9-58
-------
C. Placing Final Cap
As noted in the summary of this example, it has been assumed that
the equipment for all necessary earth work is available on-site. As a
result, costs for placing a final cap over the fill area include only
labor, operating costs, and materials, not costs associated with rent-
ing equipment or capital recovery factors for purchased equipment.
1. Area to be capped: The example assumed that 10 acres, or 48,400
sq. yds., will remain open ..and require both a clay cap and topsoil.
2. Type of material used for impermeable layer: Clay is the
impermeable material specified in the closure plan.
3. Depth of impermeable layer: It is assumed that 2 ft. of clay
will provide an adequate cap.
4. Volume of material required (Line 1 x Line 3): The amount of
clay required is 32,428 yds. (48,400 x .67 yds.).
5. Source of impermeable material: It is assumed that clay is
available on-site as a result of previous excavations, at a haul distance
of 800 yds. or less.
6. Cost of impermeable material: Because the material is available
on-site, the cost is zero.
7. Depth of topsoil required: It is assumed that 2 ft. of topsoil
will be adequate to ensure that the roots from vegetation of the fill
area do not penetrate the clay cap.
8. Volume of topsoil required (Line 1 x Line 7): The amount of
topsoil required is 32,428 cu. yds.
9. Source of topsoil: Again, it is assumed that adequate topsoil
is available on-site from previous excavations.
10. Cost of topsoil: The cost in this case is zero, since the
material is available on-site. (If topsoil were not available on-site,
a cost estimate would have to be developed through discussions with local
suppliers, etc.)
11. Cost per cu. yd. for hauling, spreading and compacting clay and
topsoil: In the example, it is assumed that this can be done for $1.20
per cu. yd.
12. Cost of placing impermeable portion of cap (Line 4 x Line 11):
Based on these'assumptions, the costs of placing the impermeable portion
9-59
-------
' I" 'Si'*. '' : M"!:1, '"j
i'!!l .iii'l'l'l'
of the qap would be $38.914.
liii'11" , ,!!lL ' ' , , I'1 ' " ilili '' ' ' ! , !' ' , , I'll!! i ซ ', ' ป, || '. :
13. Cost of placing topsoil (Line 8 x Line 11): Based on the assump-
i1
tions. the costs of placing topsoil are also $38,914.
!ป lllPlWfl ,, i | .;;, ji,, ,. 1p|< ii| ,, , ' ,; ,i , ||,;| ' , , , t |nl,, ,']i "" |l' ซ , 'if ,,>,, , i .. jj , ,> , i ;
14. Total costs of final cap (sum of Lines 6, 10, 12, and 13): The
total costs of the final capping operation will be $77,828. This does
not include administrative expenses or contingency planning, both of
which are calculated on Worksheet G.
D. Planting Final Vegetation. ' "
As in the above worksheets, it is assumed that all necessary equip-
ment: is available on-site, but that material and labor costs will be
accrued during the closure exercise.
i..;;,'"' ; ... f .;..!...ฐ ,-,_.. ,, . , ; ' . .;.(.
1. Area not yet vegetated: The area remaining open at the time
of closing is 10 acres.
|.... i in ;r>. XH . , ,,,,,., ' ,;"' - .. .j!;; , ! " 1 "i : ';
2. Area already closed but requiring replanting: It is assumed
in this case that 5 acres of the closed portion of the landfill require
replanting,- due to the failure of original vegetation efforts.
3. Total area to be planted (Line 1 4- Line 2) : The sample
case provides for 15 acres to be planted during closure.
t ,j. i ' . 'j.'a, HIM : , .' - : -. ' , . , , ; ... ,]!-,..,. ._,; , j. j , . ;,, : .; .
4. Type of vegetation to be used: In this example, it is assumed
i" > i' . . . .'ST!; .; , ' ',' ..' ...; ' ' ป ; "i '.'.i';!." '"i. ' I! ... ;(. :" - '.:' '
that coarse field grass (a mixture of rye grass and Kentucky fescue)
will be employed for final vegetation.
5. Quantity of seed used per acre: According to industry suppliers,
150 Ibs. of seed should be applied per acre.
T :,.. ;;;;[. "."i . '! , ! : ". : ' : ' . . ' :i . .?'.. ;.! I-' ' .. .' '' ' -.
6. Cost oฃ seed per pound: Calls to local suppliers determined that
seed is available at $.50/lb.
7, Total cost of seed (Line 3 x Line 5 x Line 6): Given the above
assumptions, the total cost of seed will be $1125.
I';., '" 'I'll I.'';, i , j ill1!1 > ,:..' ' -1. '"'I ,.' . 'il. ' :!i; '': " " -I ' .1 , !," . :' "
:- 8. Type of fertilizer to be used: Given the topsoil and climatic
conditions, 10/10/10 fertilizer is assumed to be adequate.
9. Quantity of fertilizer per acre: .25 tons is assumed to be
reasonable, given the quality of topsoil and the climatic conditions.
10. Cost of fertilizer per ton: According to local suppliers,
fertilizer is available for $200/ton.
9-60
-------
11. Total cost of fertilizer (Line 3 x Line 9 x Line 10): Given
the above assumptions, the total cost of fertilizer is $750.
12. Cost of soil preparation per acre: Preparing the soil includes
both disking and fertilizing and is assumed to be $100 per acre.
13. Total cost of preparing soil (Line 3 x Line 12): The total
cost of preparing soil, excluding materials such as fertilizers, is,
given the above assumptions, $1500.
14. Cost per acre of seeding (excluding cost of seed): It is
assumed for the sample facility that seeding will cost $150 per acre.
15. Total cost of seeding (excluding seed) (Line 3 x Line 14):
Given the above assumptions,, the total cost of seeding for the facility is
$2250.
16. Cost per acre of mulching: The cost per acre of purchasing and
applying a hay mulch is assumed to be $120.
17. Total mulching costs (Line 3 x Line 16): Given the above assump-
tions, total mulching costs, including costs of hay, are $1800 for the
18. Total costs for vegetation (sum of Lines 7, 11, 13, 15, and 17):
The total costs for establishing vegetation are $7425.
E. Gjound-rUater Monitoring
Assume that closure of the landfill will require a total of 90 days.
In order to determine the maximum possible ground-water monitoring costs,
the most extensive monitoring needed at closure is assumed. Assuming
that ground-water quality analyses are required annually and ground-water
contamination analyses are required semi-annually, the most expensive
case is that in which both set's of analyses are required during the 90-
day closure period,
1. Number of wells monitored: For the sample landfill, it is assumed
that eight wells would need to be monitored.
2. Number of samples per well: One sample is taken per well for
both analyses.
3. Total number of samples (Line 1 x Line 2); Given the above
assumptions, eight samples are required.
9-61
-------
4. Number of hours required for collecting the sample: It is
assumed that experience has shown that 2 hours are sufficient to
gather samples from each well.
5. Total number of hours required for collecting the samples
(Line 3 x Line 4): For eight samples, 16 hours are required for collec-
ting the samples.
I'll I i I . ;,-':! ป' Si!!! I" '( Bl i . ' - !:i: ซ < ! 'V, i '.' , ,-',;, :,i,f "? ' v'i , ,,i '"il !';,*v, 8H',i! h ":,":> I, il'!",!" ill, I" "I'i, i"' .'':, ,'; , ' '",":!, H, ;""
6. Number of hours required for preparing and delivering the
sample: It is assumed for the example that experience has shown that
this can be done in 3 hours.
7. Person-hour costs for collecting samples: Assume that the
fully-loaded costs, for labor required for collecting, preparing and
delivering the sample averages $15 per hour.
il
8. Total sampling and collecting costs ((Line 5 + Line 6) x Line 7):
if'ii.i 'I" ''., i^iliiiii, . Mil ",' 5: '"'' 'ii:i';ปi ,' ::..,.'. ,ir<,:,' ;, ;,.';,' -''i J. v;1; ; ';! 1 , Ai;1'" ;, :.; i >ii>.'iil*ii :''(.': .i-," ".'. it :i*l'i!iiii
This results in total sampling and collection costs of $285.
9. Number of ground-water quality analyses: One analysis must
be made for each well sample, for a total of eight.
10. Number of ground-water contamination analyses: One analysis
must be made for each well sample, for a total of eight.
11. Unit cost of ground-water quality analysis. It is assumed
that the cost of an analysis for the following parameters is $77 per
sample: ' ' ' ' \
Chloride $ 6/sample
Iron $12/sample
Manganese $12/sample
Phenols $25/sample
Sodium $12/sample
: Sulfate ' | i $10/sample ^ ^^ i ^ .
12. Cost of ground-water contamination analysis. It is assumed
that an analysis for the following parameters is $108 per sample:
pH $ 4/sample
Specific Conductance $ 4/sample
Total Organic Carbon $25/sample
y 2,; ; \ , ' ' ' " ' ':;:", i"ฐ ' ;" i"";""i'ii' , L:;I;; ';!,{
Total Organic Halogen $75/sample
13. Total ground-water quality analysis costs (Line 9 x Line 11):
For eight samples at $77 per analysis, this yields a total cost of $616.
I : ' ;>| !"':*;! ;;, : ,/, ,'. , ';9-62
-------
14. Total ground-water contamination analysis costs'(Line 10 x
Line 12): For eight samples at $108 per analysis, this yields a total
cost of $864.
15. Total analysis costs (Line 13 + Line 14): The total analyses
costs, therefore, are $1480!.
16. Number of technical hours for administration: This includes
all time necessary to administer and report the data from the analyses
and is estimated as 8 hours.
17. Person-hour technical costs: The fully-loaded cost required
for this work is assumed to be $30 per hour.
18. Total technical costs for administration (Line 16 x Line 17):
Given the above assumptions, total costs for administering.the tests
are assumed to be $240.
19. Number of clerical .hours: Assume for this case that 5 hours of
clerical time, are required.to produce the necessary reports.
20. Per-hour clerical costs: Assume the fully-loaded costs for
clerical work are $8 per hour.
21. Total administrative costs (Line 19 x Line 20): Given the above
assumptions, the total clerical costs are $40.
22. Total administrative costs (Line 18 + Line 21): The sum of
technical and clerical costs are then $280.
23. Monitoring equipment maintenance: It is assumed that an average
of $150 is required for a 90-day period to ensure adequate maintenance of
monitoring equipment and wells.
24. Total monitoring costs (sum of Lines 8, 15, 22, and,23): Total
monitoring costs, excluding administration and contingencies, are then
$2195. ;
'
F. Fence Maintenance :
For a 75-acre site, assuming that the site is square, each side of
the site is 1807 feet in length. The perimeter of the site is then
7228 feet.
1. Length of fence to be replaced: It is expected that some
sections of the facility's security fence will have corroded and will
have to be replaced. Our estimate is that 10% of the perimeter fence
will have to be replaced. , ;
9-63
-------
2. Unit cost pfreplacing fence: The security fence around the
facility perimeter is a galvanized metal chain link fence 6 feet high.
this fence is made of #9 wire. The unit replacement cost for this
fence is $13.06 per linear foot.
3. Total cost of replacing fence (Line 1 x Line 2): The cost of
fence replacement is the product of the length of fence needing re-
placement andthe unitcostof replacement, for a total of $9442.
G. Professional Certification
1. Number of person-hours required for inspections: It is
assumed that ง0 hours are required for periodically inspecting all as-
pects of closure of the landfill.
2. Cost per person-hour: In this case, assume that a registered
||
independent professional engineer may be hired at a cost of $75 per hour.
V,\ ' * :" ,' ..... ! il,'. T!i'"'!l||,li ' "',!'', "' ' '' ..... I ..... !'" if I'M1 '' ir1 '" I:1!! i '"l|,',iii, ..... "ill:1:,,, 'I!,1 ' III' !'n "iNi:1 i1!1 up , " il'ti Illli IHl'i, "I'll,:, Jib ffi'M ...... .Jnli!1''1 .'l|, "!!,,,i '!' ,i'"l' I III1 ' ปiil|| ,l!!'i ' " '': ,, ...... I'll , , '" ', ' i.
3. Total costs of independent professional engineer's time (Line
,'l x ..... Line 2) :' '""""This yields" a total cost of $6000"" lor" "tie ...... independent ......
""professional "engineer. ............... ......... ....... ................ " ........ ................
4. Number of technical hours required for administrative duties:
liiiLiiiir i ' i i " i"" ..... ;"iii!iir mi w i ..... , ..... . i ..... /iii'i'ik!,' "iLiv;1" ' , , ", ir ni'ii'ii1 ,,. . , i. ? ; ....... ', , : :i'. .inn iin \v '\^i'f."".t',vimtf vi ""," i i,;; '| ' " ' ir, ..... ;,, ...... i* > i* ปii
........ Assume that '8*'" "hours "are ..... required" 'from ...... the ........ owner /operator's staff for
administrative duties connected with employing an independent professional
l!
engineer.
^-5. i ....... Person^hour .costs'' for technical" administrative duties:' It' is
assumed that the total fully-loaded costs for the owner/operator's rtaff
l" ...... [.>!"' -i", , i"i''' >{' ..... '|i jt'l-iill "fi S' ' '" t1 fl'.'.V ..... ' i ", : .' ....... i ;, .. > ' : il: ill1' . i ,'..' .li'iii1"'!' .. ;, I 'i J ' r; ......... t J.
are $30 per hour.
......... e". ' ..... Total "administrative costs " for" "technical ........ labor (tine 4 x Line 5):
Given the above assumptions, the total administrative costs for technical
labor are $240.
7. Number of clerical hours required for administrative duties:
!!
Assume that 5 hours of clerical time are required for the necessary typing
and certifications.
8. Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties:. Fully-
loaded costs of clerical time are assumed to be $8.
'i. '"I '"'ii'l',!*1 Ill" III I ,'" I
, .... , ,, ... , . , ,,, ... ,, ,, . ,,
9. Total administrative costs for clerical labor (Line 7 x Line 8):
........................................ : ......... : .................. ' .......... : ......... : ............................... , ................ | .................
Given the above Assumptions, total clerical costs are $40.
-------
. 10. Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9): Summing technical
and clerical labor, the total administrative costs are $280.
11. Total certification costs (Line 3 -f- Line 10) : The total costs
for certification, including the engineer's fees and administrative costs,
is then $6280.
H. Total Closure Costs Including Administration and Contingencies
Lines 1.through 7 of this Worksheet simply summarize the total closure
costs, excluding administration and contingencies, from each of the prior
worksheets.
8. Total of Lines 1 through 7: The total costs for the activities
listed in Lines 1 through 7 are $130.020.
9. Administration: For administrative tasks, including taxes,
insurance, and administration and supervision not included elsewhere,
a total of 15 percent of total costs from Line 8 is used.
10.. Contingencies: A general provision for contingencies of 15
percent of total costs has been included.
11. Total closure costs (Line 8 + Line 9 + Line 10): The estimated
total closure costs are then $169,026.
9-65
-------
i .' ( ^ if; ' LANDFJLLS;,
WORKSHEET A - DISPOSING OF INVENTORY'
I- ii T :;'
., ซii"ii ป>i , '. i
j : ;;:: ; :fej! f
1. Volume of waste when processed for disposal
2. Estimated volume of residue and contaminated
soil to be disposedthrough on-site landfill
'i .ji'in,;:!!1" i , i! ii i , ,',n;; IFI,,, ,,i ,i i ;, ,n< i < mil1 f i f, %
operation
3. Total volume of waste to be landfilled on-site
(Line 1 + Line 2) ' ' '" ' "
4. Estimated cost of constructing trench
5. Estimated cost of placing waste in
trench
6. Total cost of disposing of inventory
(Line 4 + Line 5)
800 cu. yds.
600 cu. yds.
1400 cu. yds.
$18,000
$ 6^000
$24,000
;'M- 'ill
.11 il
I,,, ",'
III I
! H
9-66
-------
LANDFILLS
WORKSHEET B - DECONTAMINATING THE FACILITY
1ป Area of facility contaminated 1800 sq. yds.
2. Depth of material removed .33 yd. (1 ft.)
3. Cost of removal " $840
4. Quantity disposed on-site (see Worksheet A 600 cu. yds.
to develop cost)
5. Quantity disposed off-site 0
6. Cost to decontaminate equipment $1000
7. Volume of waste resulting from decontaminating 25 cu. yds.
equipment
8. Unit cost of off-site disposal ($/cu. yd.)
9. Unit cost of hauling ($/cu. yd.)
10. , Total cost of disposing off-site (Line 7 x Line 8)
11. Total cost of hauling (Line 7 x Line 9)
12. Total costs of decontaminating the facility
(Line 3 + Line 6 + Line 10 + Line 11)
9-67
-------
i :;
LANDFILLS
WORKSHEET c - PLACING FINAL" CAP
1. Area to be capped (include sum of all portions
of thefacility remains open and any portions of
; ;"""',,the faciiity opened to' dispose" of "inventory' an';!
wastes from the process of decontamination)
2. Type of material used for impermeable layer
i ii
./.Hi
ill,
3. Depth of material of impermeable layer
4. Volume of material to be used for impermeable
|: layer (Line 1 x Line 3)
5. Source of impermeable material
fit
lnl i , IjJl];1 II i"'!;,!!!,! ; I, ', i ' ,| ' ' ' !ป '
6. Cost of impermeable material
7. .''..Depth "of" topsoil
8. Volumegf Jppsoil (Line 1 x Line 7)
9. Source qf topsoil
10. Cost of topsoil
11. Cost per cu. yd. for hauling, spreading and
compacting
12. Cost of impermeable portion of cap
Jiiii,:,!!'1 ' ' ",;i!iLII!ll'illl .1 'iniipr n , urn1, '. ,...',. , !, : r ; , ;'
:':",i (Line 4" x Line 11)
13. Cost of placing topsoil (Line 8 x Line 11)
14. Total costs (Line 6 + Line 10 + Line 12 + Line
ฅ"
"'iiiii, ,i
48,400 sq. yds.
(10 acres)
Clay with perm-
of 10~7
13)
''. .'.: ;;;i; . ..... . ',' ;;
....... f , ' i .I. , , I.
.667 yds. (2 ft.)
32,428 cu. yds.
On-site from
previous exca
II '
yatipns
o ''':
.667 yds, (2 ft.)
32,428 cu. yds.
On-site from
previous exca-
vations
b
$1.20
$38,914"
k "HI U |i < 'i ' i T < .. , .nil
$38,914
$77,828
9-68
t .;
.: .: ::; : 1; '
-------
LANDFILLS
WORKSHEET D - PLANTING FINAL VEGETATION
1. Area not yet vegetated (should be approximately
equivalent to area remaining open)
2. Area already closed but in need of some replanting
prior to final closure
3. Total area to be planted (Line 1 + Line 2)
4. Type of vegetation to be used
5. Quantity of seed per acre
6. Cost of seed per pound
7. Total cost of seed (Line 3 x Line 5 x Line 6)
8. Type of fertilizer to be used
9. Quantity of fertilizer per acre
10. Cost of fertilizer per ton
11. Total cost of fertilizer (Line 3 x Line 9 x
Line 10)
12.' Cost of soil preparation per acre
13. . Total cost of preparing soil (excluding
materials) (Line 3 x Line 12)
14. Cost per acre of seeding (less materials)
15. Cost of seeding (Line 3 x Line 14)
16. Cost per acre of mulching
17. Total mulching costs (Line 3 x'Line 16)
18. Total costs for vegetation
(Line 7 + Line 11 + Line 13 + Line 15 + Line 17)
10 acres
5 acres
15 acres
Coarse grass
150 Ibs.
$.50
$1125
10/10/10
.25 tons'
$200
$750
$100
$1500
9-69
-------
LANDFILLS
WORKSHEET E - GROUND-WATER MONITORING
i i
-------
WORKSHEET E - continued
23. Monitoring equipment maintenance
24. Total monitoring costs; (Line 8 + Line 15 +
Line 22 + Line 23)
$150
$2195
9-71
-------
"I1!
LANi)FILLS
WORKSHEET F - FENCE MAINTENANCE
'''.'' ' ' ' '> ' .' i :" 'I:. ,i""'k'
1. Length of fence to be replaced
2. Unit costof replacing fence
3. Total cost of replacing fence
i|p; ' (Line 1 x Line 2)
723 feet
1 $13.06/
"! '""linear ft.
$9442
11 "nil
9-72
-------
LANDFILLS
WORKSHEET G - PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
1. Number of person-hours required for inspections
2. Cost per person-hour
3. Total costs of independent professional engineer
certification (Line 1 x Line 2)
4. Number of technical hours required for administrative
duties
l
5. Person-hour costs for technical administrative duties
6. Total administrative costs for technical labor
(Line 4 x Line 5)
7. Number of clerical hours required for administrative
duties
8. Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties
9. Total administrative costs for clerical labor
(Line 7 x Line 8)
10. Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9)
11. Total certification costs (Line 3 + Line 10)
80 hrs,
$75
$6000
8 hrs.
$30
$240
5 hrs.
$8
$40
9-73
-------
LANDFILLS
w H- TOTAL COSTS OF CLOSURE INCLUDING
ADMiNISTRATiON AND CONTINGENCIES
" |i "
*':, '
P "V ; " < ( ,, ; i
;, , Hj, : ..j , , ,';'' . ,; ., , ; :' .'a .-'- ,i:* . , ,:,i:is
1. Cost of disposing of inventory (From Worksheet A)
2. Cost of decontaminating the surface and ancillary
facilities (From Worksheet B)
3. Cost of placing the final cap (From Worksheet C)
4. Cost of planting final vegetation (From Worksheet D)
5, Cost of ground-watermonitoring (From Worksheet ,E)
6.' '; Cost ""'""'of''"'fence maintenance ""(From Worksheet F)
7. Cost of professional certification (From Worksheet G)
8." Total of Line I ""through Line"/7 ^
9. /'Administration
10. Contingencies
11. Total costs of closure (Line 8 + Line 9 + Line 10)
'".|, , !|, ซ"i!| I,, jli'1', , 'ซ "'. ' ,
"I" 2l,b8'd
$ 2,850
$ 77,828
' $ 7,425
$ 2,195
$ 9,442
$ 6,280
' $130,020
$ 19,503
''$ 19,503
$169.026
'"si I*
9-74
-------
9.5
EXAMPLE - INCINERATORS
A 12-acre incinerator facility has bulk storage facilities for 120,000
gallons of slop oil, 120,000 gallons of phenolic wastewater, and 1,000ป000
gallons of organic sludge. Waste is also delivered in 55-gallon drums; a
maximum of 600 drums may be stored at the facility. In addition to these
delivered wastes, the facility normally contains an "inventory of 50 drums
of non-combustible ash from, the incinerator.
The incinerator is designed to operate at 16 gpm with the following
feed mixture: 4 gallons of slop oil, 4 gallons,of wastewater, and 8 gallons
of sludge (a 1/1/2 ratio). The total operating horsepower of the incinerator
(including pollution control equipment in the form of a caustic scrubber
used to remove chlorinated compounds emitted from the slop oil) is 350 HP.
The following worksheets are based on this facility description.
9-75
-------
SAM?LE CLOSURE COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEETS: INCINERATORS
i
A. ''''Xl'haracter'i'z'lng the Waste Inventory '"'".
" ป;!': Worksheet:^ A "is used to describe each waste accepted a,t the site, For
the example, woricsheets must be prepared for each of the following wastes:
slopoil,phenolic wastewater, and biological treatment sludges. For each
waste product accepted, the following information is required:
'" |;:1. ''Describing the waste: ' -Describing the origin and general nature
t,, "'i",ill ' i, ' ,' , 'i "'i jiLiij " i'iKi ' " ." I,,,'11'""' ' " ' ป , . : , ' .' , i: V1 ", i i i:l : r " " '. i
of the waste.1"" '"" '' ' . ' ,\'' . ป
2. Chemical composition:- Chemical composition should be expressed
in weight percents for major components and parts per million (ppm) for
tracecomponents. This information should be readily available to the
ppelltbr from the bill of">lading for each waste shipment.
3. Physical state of the waste: this describeswhether the waste is
a liquid, solid, or mixture. This information is utilized in making,estimates
of solid residues requiring disposal (Worksheet B).
4. Heat of combustion of the waste: The heat content (expressed in
BTU/lb., or BTU/gal.) of the waste products. This information is used in
determining auxiliary fuel requirements (if any) on Worksheet C.
5. Specific gravity of the waste: The specific gravity of .the waste
at 60ฐF referenced to water at 60ฐF is used in the exampleproblem.
6. Closure inventory: For the example, it has been assumed that the
operator has identified from experience that the maximum inventory tie has
ill ' ii, , ป i, MM!1 ,i:i:!!lป!,l , j : ' , 1 ' iliiV: J1 ', ! ,,,,! , ,|| !','' ;' : ' ' "i1 ,ป; , " , ; "I
ever, had stored pn-site was a 14-day backlog. We will assume that this
inventory iscomprised of the total components: 224 drums of slop oil
(12,320 gallons), 224 drums of phenolic wastewater (12,320 gallons) and
152" drums of sludges (8,360 gallons); the bulk storage tanks contain 28,000
gallons of slop oil, 28,000 gallons of phenolic wastewater, and 233,560,
gallons of organic sludges. Under these conditions, the incinerator will
be able to treat its inventory through seven days of burning its optimum
feed mixture, and seven days of burning sludges alone (through the addition
" i
of auxiliary fuels). . '
9-76
'i : _ i iJifS, i , :;!!ซ!!
' i , if*' jiifl'1 11' ซ>
-------
B. Treating the Inventory
It is assumed that the Inventory on-hand at the time of closure will
be incinerated on-site. All equipment necessary for the operation of the
incinerator is assumed to be in complete working order.
1. Time required for treating the inventory: It will require 336 hours
(322,560 gallons of waste 4- 960 gallons throughput per hour). If it is'
further assumed that the incinerator is on-stream 90% of the time, the total
time required for treating on-site inventory is 373 hours.
2. Manpower requirements for treating the inventory: The total number
of personnel required to operate this facility (including plant operators,
equipment operators, guards, maintenance persons, and laboratory personnel)
is estimated as six. Therefore, total man-hour requirement for treating
the inventory is 2238 hours.
.3. Cost of manpower: The average hourly wage rate of a plant operator
(including fringe benefits and labor burdens) is assumed to be $20.
4; Total costs of operating labor during inventory treatment (Line 2
x Line 3): Given the above assumptions, labor costs for this phase of
closure are $44,760.
5. Fuel requirements for treating the inventory: These represent both
the cost of utilities consumed in order to treat the waste inventory, plus
any auxiliary fuels which had to be purchased. Each of these items is
separately costed'below. '''''
6. Electricity requirements for treating the inventory: The inciner-
ator is actually in operation for 336 hours. Electricity requirements for
the example'are equal to 350 HP x .746 g- x 336 hours = 87,730 kwh.
7. Costs of electricity: Electricity is assumed to be available at
a cost of $.06/kwh. - ' ..
8. Total costs of electricity (Line 6 x Line 7): Total electricity
costs for the example are $5264.
9. Auxiliary fuel requirements: During the first 168 hours of'inven-
tory treatment, the incinerator will be receiving an input feed of 25% slop
oil, 25% phenolic wastewater, and 50% organic,sludges. This feed has a
heat value of 2900 BTU/lb. and will burn autogenously. During the remaining
168 hours, the feed will be comprised entirely of sludges, with a heat
value of 700 BTU/lb..; this mixture does require auxiliary fuel inputs.
9-77
-------
''; :, j|lp. ^Ty^e of auxiliary fuel used: It is assumed that'"#6 fuel oil is
!! , llllijllll III!1 ''i'l'll ' ',d,"' jit"'",! i'1 jfLlI/Tiji'11 f'Wti 1JI i,n :,. "'j!1'1 ' ป',",' "' "'i1'" ' ซf '" ' : '" iT ..'ป'. "'I ' ' !i" i' '" ' , "!'ป,!!!ป! '''', 'lii.i liiliCli! i;11*1'!!''!]*,* i,," *' 'I "' ""I'1" '!'"."'.,iปป j|u "i||",' ': i , "."f1 !!!< i'i'.
'"'used as the auxiTiary fuel.
11. Quantity of fuel required: Using engineering analysis, and
assuming an average heat value of154,000 BTU/gal. for fuel oil, total
' ' , i, . *
auxiliary fuel requirements are estimated at 10,456 gallons.
": "" ?'ฃฃ'' 'gSst 'ol '&^l^^/&li''i:^''aaami' that' II"" fuel "oil "'Is''"available"
to the operator" at $.90 per gallon.
13. Total cost of auxiliary fuels (Line 11 x Line 12): The total
; |
cost of auxiliary fuel inputs is $94lO.
14. Total fuel costs (Line 8 + Line 13): Total fuel costs are $14,674.
15. Chemical requirements: This category includes all chemicals,
Italy's ts, adsorbents, "and other supplies'" "consumed " during " inventory ""treat-
ment. In theexample, the only chemical required is"the causticconsumed
during flue gasscrubbing of chlorine entrained inthe incinerator waste
i
stream* i i i _ ^ :
I" 16. Type of chemicals used: It is assumed that the caustic will be
i
purchased as a 50% solution.
17. Quantity of chemicals required: There are 40,320 gallons of slop
oil in the Waste inventory'assumed to be present at the time of closure.
This is equivalent to 319,334 Ibs. of slop oil (40,320 x .95 specific
gravity of slop oil x 8.34 Ibs./gal. water). Since the chlorine content
of the slop oil is assumed to" be no greater "than" 3 "percent, "the maximum
quantity of chlorine to be scrubbed is 9,580 Ibs. (270 moles). Assuming
thaf'l ''mo! e"";ol 1|OH is Required"" fcb "neutralize 'i" mole "of chlorine, 270 moles ""
x 40':'ibs. "NaCfk/mole ป l6'",8db'!' Ibs. '"JtaOH cons'ump'tion
18. Cost of chemicals required: Caustic is assumed to cost $.0825/
dry Ib.
-_ ;|j: if:l9.""; Total "cost' of 'chemicals' (Line ^7 x Line 18) {^ The "total" cost of
chemicalsconsumed during inventorytreatment is $891.
20. Disposing or treating residues -generated during inventory treatment:
The residue generated Quiring''''inventory'treatment is" a "powdery solid, inciner-
ator ash. The ash has a specific gravity of 2.5,
21. Amount of residue on-s"ite after treating the inventory:' There
are 50 55^ga":[::Lo~ drjims'of" ash stored "on-site "at th"e"'point of"closure " (each
Weighing":'il56= "iFaV, for" a "total "of 57"",500 Ibs"".)". In addition", residues
9-78
-------
are generated by processing the waste inventory. The sludges incinerated
in the example are assumed to be 10 percent solids; one-third of the solids
are assumed to'be non-combustible. The slop oil and wastewaters processed
.by the incinerator produce no ash. Therefore, the amount of new residue
generated = (total amount of sludge in inventory times specific gravity
of the non-combustible portion of the materials times the portion of the
sludge that is non-combustible), or:
241,920 x (2.5 x 8.34) x .0333 = 167,968 Ibs.
Total residue to be disposed,of is equal to 167,968 Ibs. and 57,500 Ibs. -
225,468 Ibs.
22. Method of disposing |of ash: It is assumed that the incinerator
ash is put into drums and transported to a secure landfill. The residue
.generated during inventory treatment can be placed in 146 drums, making
the total number of-drums to be* disposed of 196.
23. Unit costs of disposing of residue: The costs of disposing in
a landfill are assumed to be $50/drum, according to industry specialists.
24. Total costs of disposing of residue (Line 21 x Line 23): Total
costs for the sample case are $9800.
25. Costs of hauling residue to landfill for disposal: In the example,
it is assumed that the nearest landfill that will accept the drummed
residue is 50 miles away, and that trucks with a carrying capacity.of 40
drums are rented at an hourly! cost of $60. At a speed of 40 mph, and
assuming four hours for loading/unloading each trip, the total hauling
costs are estimated at $1950.
26. Total cost'of treating and disposing of inventory (sum of Lines
4, 14, 19, 24, and 25): Given the above assumptions, the total cost of
inventory disposal will be $72,075.
C. Decontaminating the Facility
In order to completely decontaminate the incinerator facility, the opera-
tor must see to it that all storage tanks and liquid waste feed lines are^
cleaned, that wastewaters from the cleaning process are properly disposed
or treated, that all equipment: structures and containers left on-site are
decontaminated,, and that all contaminated soil is removed properly. These
various activities are individually costed below.
I 9-79
-------
Ji i!
il
Ivnii! ! ',, 'H,,;! J' ' ..'liil'l'I , i, JOi ' ' T ii,,!v ', r ป ,, ' , i, ';>',,;, ' > ' ' /I- i';i!|,'"in; "i'l:|i. , | |,;|i|r ,,',,,, pi <,i< ; ,,J;l ] ป;;i llV! i' , ,,i ' Jh,." ; , ' ; i'
Tank"" 'cleaning " ' ' ' '
1. Storage tank cleaning: The total volume of storage capacity to
becleaned is 1,240,000 gallons (120,000 gallons of slop oil storage,
120,000 gallons of phenolic wastewater storage, and 1,000,000 gallons of
organic sludge storage).
2. Method used: The cleaning method selected for the'sample case
is s team-cleaning.
g. Unit cost of cleaning: Renting equipment, labor, and operating
BIIIP ,l ii"'i,|i,.",11 if IIIEIIII:, HP| "i,Will , ",!, IB,:,,, .Ji I'!!?! IFm "ii!1" .ill!1;::*'"11 iHi,!1"]:,,r i,i''W1' I , 'iiillli'"':!!1!' , "Bliiii/VI. 'llPli' 'Li."!'.'.*.! T "B !'" '""1| 'J1 "' "
edits lor 1ง06gal./hour of cleaning equipment are assumed to be approxi-
matelyง.02/gal. of capacity cleaned, based on information from the Means
construction cost guide.
|l| I 111 Illlllllllll III I ,','!', ; ' :,''! " ' '' >>!'!" lll,l|!'!1! " i'l'i::;.! ,"> J,'-' "I"""1"" ' <.'''', .I,,'!'i 1,1 '" ,,!!!! I' ,,,',"'i'i:' ป Hi' T ,': illl'l" :: ".. 11' "' :_ '
waste treatment sites issued by the Texas Department of Water Resources,
'tig; amount o!f/lcontam^a'ted'll'washwaters '"produced by steam-cleaning can be
assumed to be equal to .125 times the volume of the tank being cleaned.
;'='!' 6. 'Quantity' of cleaning" residue generated (fine"" 1 x"" Line" 5) :
155,000'!gallons' of contamined'washwa'ter''are"'generated in" the example.
7. Method of disposing of residue: In the sample,case, residues are
aiitime'd "to "be transported by tank truck"" to" a surface" impoundment for
" 1 I 11111 II III III II I 111 1 l| I I ill ; 1 111
evaporation.
I 8. Unit costs for disposing of residues: Based on waste disposal
industry estimates, it will cost $.05/gal. to dispose of residues in an
impoundment.
Ill"'" I" ".in1": r l! JIB" in mini'. ,,r '. ;,:'' , ,,",' '", .51 ' .,,":,, ,_ . .. _ . ov _ .. ป
9. Total costs for disposing of residues (Line 6 x Line 8): Total
pin ki'f'h,; ' i ' Jlllllliillliii1, \ '!l!!",,ililllllli,, i'"ii|,'<''i 11 ,' ' i ' '" J.III' ,, , Ii," l' ":, n, "Si,1',,' , ;< ' I/M! '," III!,, ,.ii!|i"! I II I I I 111 II || ':' ,!! , ", ,!<9"|,!l ' , ป , '":
costs of cleaning residue disposal, given these assumptions, are $7750.
10. Hauling costs for residues: In the example, hauling cost esti-
mates ate based on the following assumptions - the distance between the
incinerator and the surface impoundment is 100 milesone-way, a 7000-gallon
trailer is used, the average trip speed is 40 mph, and the hourly rental
1 i i i ill ii i ii i MI ii i n mil ii j Aoftn " " "': "
cost of truck and driver is $60. The cost of one round trip is ?300.
1 11. lumber of trips required: The number of trips required for the
I
c"ase is 23.
liiii I/ 11; :;ป ,,ii
I I 'hll'ii ''I1''1" "I'l'llMhrMiF1,,, ! ' if ,"'. '" . .'! 'Jilih I1',,! ?! i"' ""iT "I
-I K ir,ft',""li:'l"',:,
-------
12. Total hauling costs for residues (Line 10 x Line 11): The hauling
costs for residue disposal are estimated at $6900.
Decontaminating the Facility ' ' .
13. Flush out liquid waste feed lines: The estimated cost of flush-
ing out all liquid residues from feed lines on the facility (before the
storage areas and incinerators are cleaned) is,assumed to be roughly one-
eighth of the costs of tank cleaning, or $3000 /
14. Pump out and backfill sumps: Sumps are to be decontaminated to
prevent the possibility of rain water accumulating and contaminating these
portions of the facility. The estimated costs of this activity are
$2000.
15. Removing contaminated soils: Because of spills and other
accidental releases, certain areas of the waste disposal site such as
the dikes in areas around storage tanks may be contaminated. We have
assumed in this example problem that 2.5 percent of the area of the site
(exclusive of reservoirs, ponds, and basins) is contaminated.
Contaminated area - .025 x 12 acres x 4840 sq. yd./acre
=1452 sq. yds.
16. Depth of soil removal: For this example, the assumed depth of
soil removal is one foot.
17. Total amount of soil removed (Line 15 x Line 16): The total
amount of soil removed in this example is (1452 x .333), or 484 cu. yds.
18. Unit cost of removing soil: Costs of removing soil (including
equipment rental) are estimated at $1.60/cu. yd.
19. Total cost of soil removal (Line 17 x Line 18): Given the above
assumptions, the cost of removing the contaminated soil from the inciner-
ator site is $774.
20; Costs for disposing of contaminated soils: The contaminated soil
is assumed to be disposed in a sanitary landfill. Based on current esti-
mates, the soil can be landfilled at a cost of $30/ton.
21. Total cost of disposing of soil (Line 17 x Line 20): The cost
of disposing of the contaminated soil is $14,520.
22. Hauling costs for contaminated soil: In- this example, the
nearest landfill is assumed to be 50 miles away, the truck used for hauling
9-81
-------
I 111
Ill i i i ,1: ; , , I i i i 1 I II
has a carrying capacity of 44,000 Ibs., and is rented at a hourly cost
;._ _t; , .. ; _ ^ vv;.. . .. . _ _ ,.;_,.;,L. . : ;
23. Number'1 of trips "required: "'"Assuming an average "speed of 40 mph,
22trips will be required.
2*4. xo'taihauling costs for contaminated soil (Line 22 x Line 23):
Given th.:! J, ............. '
2. Number of samples required: The inventory treatment phase of
closure "is "es tฑmate?', ': ,m '":< '. ' V ";i ""i'-1;;1: -I? ; .R , '" ar'f!, 'V Mi' jjii/r ,.. ');,. '. .wv.i
"'siorial,,engineer. i ^ ^ |
L : ,4."' Number7of technical hours required for administrative ^duties :
n" 'iihi'ii, ' ," M | iiM nil , ' ']" i hj', N'ป J , , 'ij, ' j! i,, f 'j,, ,,,[''," '"ijiiii,!! } ^jivift' ''''' '' J' '" ''l""1' ' '""' ' ' t ฑ, -G JS g
IE< r W1 .''j^wSff1' i e,''"" \ I,,,;.,;1 ' "1"1 , ;,|liy . f1' '"" ^ !l ^ ') ^"^ \ ' ^. jni;: i1 ,. i ''txi* i" >: ' y.: 5 " '"j '" '''!":"' *t* '' '' w
duties" connected with employing an independent professional
engineer.
if I
','11
9-82
-------
5. Person-hour costs for technical administrative duties: It is
assumed that the total fully-loaded costs for the owner's or operator's staff
are $30 per hour.
6. Total administrative costs for technical labor (Line 4 x Line 5):
Given the above assumptions, the total administrative costs for technical
labor are $240.
7. Number of clerical hours required for,administrative duties:
Assume that five hours of clerical time are required for the necessary
typing and certifications.
8. Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties: Fully-
loaded costs of clerical time are assumed to be $8.
9. Total administrative costs for clerical labor (Line 7 x Line 8):
Given the above assumptions, total clerical cos,ts are $40.
10. Total administrative costs (Line 64- Line 9): Summing technical
and clerical labor, the administrative costs are $280.
11. Total certification costs (Line 3 + Line 10): The total costs for
certification, including engineer's fees and administrative costs, are
$1780.
Ft Total Costs Including Administration and Contingencies.
Line 1 through 4: These lines simply require the transfer of the
cost information supplied in Worksheets B through E.
5. Preliminary closure ,cost estimate (sum of Lines 1 through 4):
For the sample facility, total worksheet costs are qual to $137,299.
6. Administration: The costs for administration, which include
insurance, taxes, and supervision and administration not included else-
where, are assumed to be 15 percent of Line 5.
7. Contingencies: A provision for contingencies of 15 percent of
Line 5 has been included.
8. Total costs of closure (Line 5 + Line 6 + Line 7): The total
costs of closure, including administration and contingencies, for the
sample incinerator are $178,489.
9-83
-------
::;'.',..; ,,;;' ~.::, ,./. ..;'.,./;;,, " INCINERATORS ;,;;; /."; ";'. %
WORKSHEET A - CHARACTERIZING THE WASTE (#2)
llnf", Illlh ' ill! , , illl'illli '! , Illll, I , ' '' '< " , '<, i " ',/!', 'i '<.,'!" !' il'P ' , '' ! ' I in ' i , '!', I ,,' , ,
This worksheet should be used tq describe each wasteaccepted at the facility,
il!"!; i l;vli
" Siillii flllilj'
1. Description of .the waste:
Phenolic wastewater
2. Chemical composition of the waste:
1000 ppm phenols
3. Physical state of the waste:
I!!!" i',;," * : ' '" t" ' ' , t' ,,ll!!ii,,,i!" " Flilliil '.'I'i - "" ' . ,. , ' '
Liquid
4. Heat of combustion of the waste:
1 - o "'
5. Specific gravity of the waste:
1.0
6. Closure inventory:
40,320 gal.
9-84
-------
INCINERATORS
WORKSHEET A - CHARACTERIZING THE.WASTE (#3)
This worksheet should be used to describe each waste accepted at the facility,
1. Description of the wast
-------
INCINERATORS
III I l mil I Mil MM 111 III III
WORKSHEET B - TREATING THE INVENTORY
1. 3,ime_p required for treating the inventory
2. Manpowerrequirements for treating the inventory
3. Unit cost of labor
4. Total cost of labor - treating the inventory
(Line 2 x Line 3)
:5. Fuel requirements
6. Electricity requirements
""'?. Unit'cost of"""'electricity
8. Total costs of electricity (Line 6 x Line 7)
9. Auxiliary fuel requirements
, ;, II;. 'ป:.,:... II ill:{ ', "..'- ': ' ' ;
10. Type of fuel used
11. Quantity of fuel required
12. Unit cost of fuel oil
13. total "cost of auxiliary fuels
(Line 11 x Line 12)
14. total fuel 'costs' for treating inventory
(Line" 8 T Line "13)
15, Chemicalrequirements
16. Type of chemicals used
17. Quantity of chemicals used
18. Unit cost of chemicals
19. Total cost of chemicals (Line 17 x Line 18)
20. Residues generated during inventory treatment
21. Amount of residue generated
22. Method of treatment
23. Unitcost of disposing of residue
24. Total costs of disposing of residue
(Line 21 x Line 23)
25. Hauling costs for' disposing of"residue
26. total costs of "treating and disposing of
inventory (sum of Lines 4, 14, 19, 24, and 25)
,, ,9-86
373 hours
2238 man-hours
$20/hr-.-
$44,760
Yes
87,730 kwh
""Yes /"for" 'input
feed B
#6 fuel oil'
10,456 gal.
$.90/gal.
$94ll)
- I
$14,6'74
Yes !
Caustic, 50% solution
10,800 Ibs.
$. 08*25 /lb.
$891
Incinerator ash
225,!468 Ibs.
i
(196 drums)
Landfill
$507drum
$9800
$1950
$72,075
IIUM, t ,.,ป It, Si i :
IIIIH^
IliilHiTlj:' II JILhiif11
'" ...... t . , ifllut.-'tJiBi, *!*
,i. ...... liiilM^^^^^^^ ..... Jll!i,.i
, "it ..... 't i"! ' :" '.HI!1 ,,' i i > .3"t> -iii'i" ; v. (I.!*;, <:':!'iri:! - 1 ] ..... Ovilli'l ..... IbE <
ii,.ti^^^^^^ ..... ........ IJB^^^^^^^ ....... liliiM^^^
ii/vi:!::-! .i-i1! 'flif .jiiiiiBftjs:11
fiiiir SJ
-------
INCINERATORS
WORKSHEET C -- DECONTAMINATING THE FACILITY
1. Volume to be cleaned
2. Method used
3. Unit costs of cleaning
4. Total costs of tank cleaning (Line 1 x Line 2)
5. Cleaning residue generation rate
6. Amount of residue generated (Line 1 x Line 5)
7. Method of disposal
I
8. Unit cost for disposing; of residue
9ซ Total costs for disposing of residue
(Line 6 x Line 8)
10. Unit cost for hauling-residues
11. . Number of trips required
12. Total costs of hauling residues
(Line 10 x Line 11)
13. Cost of flushing liquid waste feed lines
14. Cost to pump out and backfill sumps
15. Amount of contaminated soil area
16. Depth of soil removal
17. Total amount of soil removed (Line 15 x Line 18)
18. Unit cost of removing soil
19. Total cost of removing soil (Line 17 x Line 18)
20. Costs for disposing,of contaminated soils
21. Total.cost of disposing of soil (Line 17 x Line 20)
22. Unit costs of hauling contaminated soils
23. Number of trips required
24. Total cost of hauling soils (Line 22 x Line 23) .
25. Total costs of decontamination (sum of Lines
4, 9, 12, 13, 14, 19, 21, and 24)
1,240,000 gal.
S team-cleaning
$.02/gal. capacity
$24,800 .
.125 x volume of tank
155,000 gal.
Surface impoundment
$.05/gal.
$7750
$300/trip
23
$6900
$3000
$2000
1452 sq. yds.
1 ft.
$774
$1.60/cu. yd.
$774
$30/ton
$14,520
$150
22
$3300
$63,044
9-87
-------
INCINERATORS
WORKSHEET D - MONITORING
"",": (!:''";;1., Cost'of'"air" sampling ' ' " "" ' ' i "" _ $25/day
2, Number of samples required 16
3ฃ Total costs of air monitoring (Line 1 x Line 2) $400
II1"'";1' K; ,.,, ',.
9-88
-------
INCINERATORS
WORKSHEET E - PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
1. Number of person-hours required for inspecting the 20
facility
2. Cost per person-hour $75
3. Total costs of independent professional engineer $1500
certification (Line 1 x; Line 2)
4. Technical hours required for administrative 8 hrs.
duties
5. Person-hour costs for technical administrative duties $30
6. Total administrative costs for technical labor $240
(Line 4 x Line 5)
7. Number of clerical hours required for Administrative 5 hrs.
duties
8. Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties $8
9. Total administrative costs for clerical labor $40
(Line 7 x Line 8)
10. Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9)
11. Total certification costs (Line 3 + Line 10)
9-89
-------
1 iTiniiii Illlllllll II
INCINERATORS
-TOTAL COSTS INCLUDING ADMINISTRATION AND CERTIFICATION
' idji li, .', . "' it ' ',!,"
n p n ih
1. I c?sts 'I of, treating and disposing inventory'" (From
Worksheet B)
2. Costs of decontaminating the facility (From
Worksheet C)
3. Costs of monitoring (From Worksheet D)
4. Costs of professional certification (From
Worksheet E)
5. Estimated basic costs of closure (sum of Lines
1, 2, 3, and 4)
IP ; ''I'lNiiS'' uiiirii nim is ' ; < i ii'Mi1!. I ; , . M ; 'ป - :
6. Administration
7. Contingencies
8. Total costs of closure
$ 72,075
' " |!
$ 63,044
$ 400
'4 1,780
ii
$137,299
|! '
''.'"Jl,j '[!!." , \, , ' T
$ 20,595
"J 20,595
^178,489
\
9-90
I,
-------
9.6 EXAMPLE - MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY WITH TANKS
AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
A 2-acre hazardous waste treatment and storage facility has storage
tanks for 60,000 gallons of waste solvents and 10,000 gallons of slop
oil. Waste is received at the facility both from tank trucks and in
55 gallon drums; the facility has a maximum storage capacity of 200
drums. There are~"two"tre,atment processes undertaken at the facility.
There is a 30,000 gallon (50' x 20' x 4') concrete-lined surface
impoundment used for the gravity separation of oily wastes into solvent,
slop oil, and sludge phases. The normal composition of the oil wastes
accepted is 80 percent solvent, 15 percent oil, and 5 percent sludge.
There is a 30,000-gallon clay-lined surface impoundment (also 50' x 20'
x 4') for solidifying pickling liquor wastes. A storage pile holds
' + '
up to 8,000 cu. ft. .of solidified pickling wastes; it is surrounded
by a clay-lined surface impoundment that collects drainage and run-off.
9-91
-------
ll(i|l!i!9!ซIW 'Iliimi', 'tmf liSi'lii11!!!!' IW "PlI III!!!1!!'!!''! '!""; >! I ', ;! IIUIK^^^^^^^ !1Rm !*''!:1K^^^^^^ i!W^^ Ill1- fiTMUW Slii ' ''
SAMPLE CLOSURE COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEETS: MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
jf" ' '- i1 ' ii ii iii iii 'i i i J|| i ' I
' i l n i II il 11 i1 i '(
A. Characterizing the Waste
'"' "" , i"1 ' '
Worksheet A is used to describe each waste accepted at the facility.
For example, separate worksheets must be prepared for each of the following
wastes: oily wastes and pickling liquor wastes (the two types of wastes
processed at the storage facility) and the three end products of the treat-
'" ment^actions performed (waste organic solvents, slop oil, and solidified
pickling liquor wastes). For each waste product specified, the following
i ,
information is required:
::1. Describing "the waste: 'Describe the origin and general nature
of the waste.
2. Chemical composition: Chemical composition should be expressed
in weight percent's for the various major components, and iii parts per million
(ppm) for any trace components. This information may be readily available
to the operator from the bill of lading for each waste shipment.
3. Physical state: This describes whether the waste is a liquid,
illllk'l!1 . " Illlll II III II . 'in n , "i,11!"1,. i" ',''i 'I ! |'''I..:.N ป Mililiii"! '.i i,1 A '!', ,;ii< i '':,, I!1 !,i; ii'lliiii v V nil I'll /ill i:,"i!'" i.'!1:,." i,,!, "I ilillilillijl'iiiii' M ;.'ป. ,',!. '; ' IM1',,. ,:'l". ',; ,!,",:,;ป ; .'S1 ,i X; .|
solid, or mixture. This information is used in making estimates of solid
residues requiring disposal (Worksheet B).
^. ,.Heat oฃ combustion, of .the waste: Represents the heat content
(expressed in ^jj-^b. or BTU/gal.) of the waste products. The information
is used to determine auxiliary fuel requirements if the waste is to be
disposed of through incineration.
'. f-%., Specific gravity of the waste: The specific gravity of the waste
at 60 F referenced to water at 60ฐF.
n
IEVซ ,1 I'J'i,,;1' . , ป ' ป i1:, i'; !:, < i .jinl'i'M, ;I||J| i1 lll'il'ijiiiH.'liii"!' 'II il B . ;:|< |.,,I'.'i,,!,!;.' J '", '.l:,,.', : 'i ,i " ii, * i il
tity of each waste that can be present at the facility in storage tanks,
drums, or surface impoundments, during any point in the facility's active
life. In the example,it is assumed that there are times in which the stor-
age capacity of this facility is completely utilized. This would therefore
represent the maximum inventory for developing the closure cost estimate.
,;ป "- 5itป i"' .'i.' .' .'\r.-i ii ill !1 ". : ',,, I","'"' /"'"ii ' ' '' ' .'"ป'. ':"( ',"" , u'.r; L^;T /.tV'V f.if"s':j(|:ie?i''''-ซ^ i:r tii"'iป;|.'J',f1; jjifi'i1' '. ".'
In the sample case, the closure inventory would consist of 65,500 gallons
of waste solvents, 10,000 gallons of slop oil, 35,000 gallons of oily waste,
30,000 gallons of pickling liquor waste and 8,000 cu. ft. of solidified
"pickling wastes.
9-92
i
I-
a \Lisa>jfi .i iii i,4a^^^^^ h,^^^ ''ji iii^^^^^ iiiiiiia^^^^^^^^^^^ i,i:<'a;ii iiii^ ;..i m^,^ 'aiiiii 11^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ,. iiiB Jiii^^^ ii i
-------
B. Treating Inventory
1. Waste inventory: As noted in the waste characterization section
of this example, the sample facility is assumed to have the following waste
products on-site at the time of,disposal: 35,500 gallons of oily waste,
30,000 gallons of pickling liquor wastes, 65,500 gallons of recovered waste
solvent, 10,000 gallons of recovered slop oils, and 8,000 cu. ft. of solidi-
fied pickling wastes.
2. Methods of treatment or removal: These materials will be removed
of in a variety of ways, as indicated below:
a. Solvents - it is assumed that the facility can find other manu-
facturing/commercial establishments that will use the waste solvents (which
have a BTU content of 135,000 BTU/gal.) as boiler fuel.
b. Slop Oils - pumped out of storage and hauled to an incinerator.
c. Oily Wastes - placed in surface impoundment for separation
into its component parts. Solvents and slop oils recovered from this pro-
cess are disposed of in the same manner as (a) and (b) above. Sludges left
in the basin are to be dredged, stabilized.and hauled to a landfill.
d. Pickling Liquor Wastes - solidify with cement and transfer
the resulting solid waste to a landfill.
e. Solidified Pickling Liquor Wastes - transfer to a land-
fill. ;
Since treatment of inventory categories (c) and (d) will generate
additional waste products in categories (a), (b) and (e), these preliminary
processing phases will be discussed first.
Disposing of Oily Waste
3. Composition of oily wastes: It is assumed that the normal compo-
sition of the oily wastes is 80 percent solvent, 15 percent slop oil, and
5 percent sludge.
4. Amount of wastes produced after settling: Using this percentage
mix, settling out the inventory of oily wastes will produce 28,400 gallons
of solvent, 5,325 gallons of slop oil, and 1,775 gallons of sludge.
5. Sorbent requirements: It is assumed that the sludge will be mixed
with an equal volume of sorbent material, with a specific gravity of 1.8.
The specific gravity of the sludge is estimated at 1.2.
6. Cost of sorbent: It is assumed that sorbent material is available
on-site for no cost.
9-93
-------
UK: ilUI, 'ill: 4!': iiriilJ
7. Amount of residue generated: After stabilization, approximately
!
22 tons of residue will need to be. landfilled.
8. Unit cost of disposing of residue: It is assumed that a land-
fill will charge $50/ton to dispose of the stabilized residues.
9. Total costs of disposing of residue (Line 7 x Line 8): Given
these assumptions, the total cost of disposing of facility sludge resi-
dues will be $1100.
10. Costs of hauling residue: It is assumed that the nearest land-
fill1 is 100".miles one-way from' the site". Trucks" with' a 44,000-lb.
capacity can be rented at a cost of $60 per hour (including driver);
the average traveling speed of the truck is 40 mph. For one round trip,
i
the cost of residue hauling is $300.
i i ii i in iiiiiiii i
11. Number of hauls required: 1
one trip by a 44,000 Ib. capacity truck will be required.
11. Number of hauls required: With 22 tons of waste (line 7), only
12. Total cost of hauling residue (Line 10 x Line 11): Given
these assumptions, the total cost of hauling residue is $300.
13 Cost of disposing of oily waste (Line 6 + Line 9 + Line 12):
jii1:1!;1;'!1,, i: "if I I u i i -, i, i i j i ป i in i i ,, m- ,!,,.
The total cost of disposing of oily waste is then the sum of sorbent
material costs, costs of disposal, and costs of hauling for a total of $1400.
Disposing of Pickling Liquor Waste
14.- In order to solidify the pickling liquor wastes in the closure
II I I ,i iH"ill, T .I ' ". HniillllR'1 , lyillllll ''"run IJl,li ,ii'l J "I,1 - ,t ,'H, ',' , i ' , "lii,, '"ป ,-' I ' '''"' ,4' 'i'1:,"!, ' i"|, ":i,H,,1"!!T, ft
-------
Liquor =30,000 gal x 1.05 S.G. x 8.34 (water weight) =
262,800 Ib.
Cement = 3,000 sacks x 94 Ibs/sack = 282,000 Ibs.
..--- 262,000 Ibs + 282,000 Ibs = 544,800 Ibs =
272.4 tons
19. Other on-site residues: Waste category (e) represents
previously solidified pickling wastes stored on-site. It is assumed
that there:is 8,000 cu. ft. of this material currently in storage," and
that the material weighs approximately 135 Ib/cu. ft (similar to a
mortar-like cement). Therefore, the total weight of this residue
would be 1,080,000 Ibs. (540 tons).
20. Total amount of pickling residue (Line 18 -f Line 19): Total
solid residues from treatment of the pickling wastes are 812.4 tons.
21. Unit cost of disposing of residue: As in Line 8 above, it is
assumed that a landfill will charge $50/ton to dispose of such residues.
22. Total cost of disposing of residue (Line 20 x Line 21): Total
disposal costs are estimated to be $40,620.
23. Costs of hauling residues: The costs and method of hauling
residues are the same as Line 10 above.
24. Number of hauls required: Given truck capacity of 44,000 Ibs.
(22 tons), it will take 37 round trips to haul the solidified pickling
wastes.
25. Total cost of hauling residues: Given the above assumptions,
the total hauling costs will be $11,100.
26. Cost of disposing of pickling liquor waste (Line 17 + Line 22
+ Line 25): The total cost of disposing of pickling liquor waste is
then the sum of. costs of materials, residue disposal and hauling, for a
total of $59,220. ;
27. Amount of solvent on-site: Including the solvents recovered
during the settling of inventoried oily waste, the total inventory of
waste solvents at the sample facility are 60,000 gal. (storage tank) +
5,500 gal. (drums) + 28,400 gal. (surface impoundment) = 93,900 gal.
28. Method of disposal: It is assumed that the waste solvents can
be provided to manufacturers as a boiler fuel.
9-95
-------
29. Cost of disposal: It is assumed that the users of the solvents
pay the costs of pumping and hauling the solvents to their facilities.
No additional credit is awarded to the owner/operator of the tank facility.
' i Treating Slop Oil
H'Vi iiซ! I'll ill
I
30. Mount of slop oil on-site: Including the slop oils recovered
during the 'settling of inventoried oily waste, the total inventory of
slop oils are 10,000 gal. (storage tank) + 5,325 gal. (surface impound-
ment) =ป 15,325 gal.
Illlllllll I I I 111 I ' ' i .11,,. , r .. i":1. .,.' i,ri,,ii!.., .'.si.:'.,, ' i ,r; ,t: , ' u : ',-, n. ",i|! i . :." ซi i , i, ,!!,, jks f ,",;<
31. Method of treatment: It is assumed that the slop oils will be
11 in i i i I I 11 i i ii i ii ii niiiiiii j /"-, i':' i 'it ' si!1 i!1:11 ซ i ,'"", :i'n * ''' . 'ii ! J *' , i.."":' 'M; i SL sii :| "Tur:ii11 - u "MiiiH1, "t" ^ ' i '' ,,lr r" , ซ v ; * s ini: r,,, : ' if , 'n i1 'ซปl' s> i hiiii', c .1 ftrป, vn: if H
trucked to an incinerator.
:;'-'32. Cost of treatment: The estimated fee paid to the incinerator
for treating the wastes is $0.60/gallon.
'!', 33". Total costs of treatment" (Line" 3'0" x" Line 32): Given the above
11 III | I I ji i r'iV , f ijitj' > fjjii ;.. i'' , '" J, B :,a i ,":i j I ii)' r. i j. i, i v j: ii i'' i,i :,iiii l'';.,; Tii' t i i '<', I "'ป i!;-,'-iii,, Mljm iif ii. S;'|i im 'i 4 i' iii 'liiiw'i/1 ii), i ."- si ;.i: .1 > " : <' "inii i-i i; v. :; .ii>] 5
l||,( i|| I i 11 '"assumptions. It will cost $9,195 to treat the slop oil inventory.
34. Costs of hauling: It is assumed that the nearest incinerator
"ls'50 'miles away,' that the'wastes 'will be'transported in a 7,bOO-gallon
1 "capacity truck," at"" an'average'" speed" of'""4'0'mpti". The hourly" rental cost
for truck and driver is $60.
;;;,; I;=35. Number of hauls required: Given trailer capacity, ' it will
require three trips to haul the slop oils to the incinerators.
36. Total costs of hauling:Given the above assumptions, hauling
costs'" a'r"! "estimated at $450.
37. Total costs of treating slop oil (Line 33 + Line 36): The total
bf treating slop oil are then the sum of the costs of disposal and
hauling, for a total of $9,645.
38, Total costs of disposing of inventory (sum of Lines 6, 9, 12,
17, 22, 25, 29, 33, and 36): The total costs of the above activities
are estimated to be $70,265.
IK' i!1;. ' ' I I II I 11
ill ' : II II III I I 111
9-96
-------
C. Decontaminating the Facility
Tank Cleaning
1. Cleaning method: In this example, the storage tanks are
steam cleaned.
2. Volume: In the sample case, there are 60,000 gallons of
solvent storage capacity and 10,000 gallons of oil storage capacity
to be cleaned, for a total of 70,000 gallons.
3. Unit cleaning costs: For a 2,000 gallon-per-hour steam cleaning
unit (capable of washing a 16,000-gallon area of storage capacity/hour),
costs of equipment rental, labor, and operation are equal to $.02/gallon
of capacity cleaned.
4. Total costs of steam cleaning (Line 2 x Line 3): Total cleaning
costs for the storage tanks is,$1400.
5. Type and quantity of residues generated: Steam cleaning
generates residues in the form of contaminated washwaters. The rate of
residue generation is 1 gallon of waste/8 gallons of tank volume. In
the example, total residues are 70,000 -5- 8, or 8750 gal.
6. Method of disposal: It is assumed that the residues are hauled
to a surface impoundment and evaporated.
7. Cost of disposal: Impoundment disposal of washwaters is
estimated to cost $.05/gallon.
8. Total cost of disposal (Line 5 x Line 7): Costs of disposing
of these cleaning residues will be $438.
9. .Cost of hauling cleaning residues: For one round trip, the
cost of hauling residues is $600. The cleaning residues will be hauled
in a 7,000-gallon tank truck, with an average truck speed of 40 mph.
The hourly rental cost for truck and driver is $60; the nearest
available surface impoundment is'assumed to be 200 miles away.
10. Number of hauls required: Given the assumption on residue
generation and truck capacity, two trips will be required, at $600/trip.
11. Total costs of hauling: Total hauling costs are $1200.
12. Total costs: The sum of the costs of steam cleaning, disposal
and hauling yields a total of $3038.
9-97
-------
m * "!, si ,.v
Decontaminating the Impoundment
13. Cleaning method for Impoundment 1: It is assumed that the
concrete-lined impoundment will be sandblasted.
14. '' 'Area of concrete impoundment to be cleaned: The area requiring
sandblast ing"! ............ based" on "the '"sample "facility ...... "description", ....... Is"" equal "'to the
base area (50.' x 20', or 100 sq. ft.) plus the area of the site
walls (2' x 50' x 4' + 2' x 20' x 4', or 560 sq. ft.), for a total of
1560 sq. ft.
;; ,'*.:" :' ' IS."""' ..... Costs pi "sandblasting:" ....... A' 6" cu." "ft", "capacity compressor "will
be used in the sample estimate. The unit rents for a $Ibo7week, and
costs $1.75/hour to operate; labor costs are estimated at $20/hour.
1:11 ' '' ' ';iil"" ' ' ' f The unit' 'can ""clean' 40 "sq. ...... ft. of concrete/hour. Consequently, sand-
blasting costs are estimated at $.60/sq. ft.
'it'1'!11: ..... a ....... F'lHi11! " I'lv1*' ' in ..... mil ma ..... iiWW jซ ..... ' ..... '"*', ...... i,'"'1: ". i ..... ..... ', > ' , " a '", ......... , ., .""i11";, ...... : f<\ ' i1'1'. ',,,'pi ^iip1 ii,,:,'1 ..... ; ! \ 'i; i m,"1 j/, ..... .",ii',;i ....... ..iiW',,!"1.,, ,
16. Total costs of sandblasting (Line 14 x Line 15): Sandblasting
.................................. costs ...... are .......... estimated to be $936.
17. Type and quantity of residue generated: The residues will
'" .......... ' ' '""Xnsis'l o? contaminated' sanSs. ..... It" was' ....... as'sSmeS ....... that ......... 4000"" 'ibsT (2 ....... tons)
It!1 'I .: fit!':1!'1" ...... ">:. 'iifl: 'Mill ';;". ..... Bui". 4? ; T .if :' ......... .'.":! .-.,' .,,*.' " .......... f, t:"'! ..... Lll.'.r.^i': -i'v ' I ii. ::\-"f> ........ Si ..... t.i" *J>V ........ ซ ..... ,T' i III1 .i !';', ........... :,l
..... "" ..... o:f sand residue will" be" generated.
18. Unit costs of disposal: The sands will be landfilled at a
"'I .' ., "disposal ....... cost" of $50 /ton". " ' " . [[[
Si] i J ; ,:: i'V ; ...... '::i9. ........ ^ Total, costs of disposal (Line 17 x' Line ........... IS)": ..... Total disposal
costs will be equal to $100.
20. Cleaning method for Impoundment 2: All contaminated clays
from the clay-lined impoundment will be removed and hauled to a landfill.
21. Area of clay impoundment to be decontaminated: Since the dimen-
sions of this impoundment are the same as those of the concrete-lined
-,; . Jl-Lmpoundment ""discussed ......... above, the ..... surface area to be contaminated is the
same as that estimated in Line 14 of this worksheet, or 1560 sq. ft.
" " i;
"'22.'' ................. 'Amount """ofciay" removed:' "it" ""is '"assumed ..... that "the clay in the
| , , ..... ' ;,
pickling liquor impoundment has been contaminated to a depth of one
foot. Therefore, 1560 cu. ft. of clay, or 57.8 cu. yds., must be
I
-------
23. Unit cost of removing clay: Clay removal will be performed
with a backhoe. Including costs of equipment rental and labor, the
costs of removing the clay is estimated to be $1.60/cu. yd.
24. Total costs of removing clay (Line 22 x Line 23): Given the
above assumptions, the costs of removing the soil are $92.
25. Disposing of contaminated clays: Clays will be hauled to a
landfill for disposal. The costs of disposal are estimated to be
$30/cu. yd.
26. Total costs of disposal (Line 22 x Line 25): The total costs
of disposal are $1734.
Removing Soil and Miscellaneous Activities
27. Removing contaminated soils: Because of spills and other
accidental releases, certain areas of the waste disposal facility, such
as diked-in areas around storage tanks will be contaminated. It is
assumed for the sample facility that 2.5 percent of .the total site area
is contaminated.
Contaminated area = 2 acres x 4840 sq. yd./acre x .025
rate of contamination - 242 sq. yd.
28. Amount of soil removed: The depth of soil removal required
to remove all hazardous contaminants is assumed to be 1 foot. Thus,
the total amount of soil removed - 242 sq. yd. x .33 yd. =80.7 cu. yds.
29. Unit cost of removing soil: As in Line 23, removing soil can
be accomplished at a cost of $1.60/cu. yd.
30. Total cost of removing soil (Line 28 x Line 29): Total cost
of removing soil is $129.
31. Disposing of contaminated soils: Contaminated soils are also
hauled to a landfill, where they may be disposed at a cost of $30/
cu. yd.
32. Total costs of disposal (Line 28 x Line 31): Given the above
assumptions, disposing of soils will cost $2421..
9-99
-------
tJKT'74 '"fUl'SH1' "* fl IIF'I'l !', " ';: !. 'I !' i ':"l ii1 l!l:,liS!1 "!' 'ป' HI ill'1. '!< \V-"mii'f"'Wat Si', Sf I III* " I "Hill: ,(!!. JKaKf't.ytHl f. !!"' Kill1!' I". fillli:' ll'f "li 1
(i i; 33. Hauling costs for decontamination wastes: The wastes described
in Lines 17, 22, and 28 of this Worksheet will be hauled to the landfill
in a 44,000-lb. truck. The landfill is assumed to be 100 miles away; the
hourly cost of truck and driver is $60 and the average trip speed is
40 mph. Adequate dividers will be supplied so that mixed loads can be
carried. " ]
Illiiir .;, I I ill III ill i1 'i "i. VM' . '" " ,::' ','|n ' ', '",' 'II1, ir. I, i ,. '. !,. ' .'Vlillillipl, IliilliL'''" J, ''11 "' "'IIUl' 'MI! 'I1. '
34. Number of trips required: If it is assumed that a cu. yd. of
* i
earth weighs approximately 2000 Ibs., the hauling of these waste residues
will require seven trips.
35,Costs of hauling decontamination residues (Line 33 x Line 34):
At $300 per round trip, total hauling costs would be $2100.
j!
36. Flush pumps and transfer lines: All pumps and piping used to
transfer hazardous waste are flushed to remove contaminants. This '
process is assumed to cost $2000.
37. Decontaminate equipment: All materials handling equipment
used on-site must be decontaminated. This is assumed to cost $500.
38. Decontaminate containers: In the example, it is assumed that
I
all drums kept on-site will be crushed and buried in a landfill, at a
total cost of $1000.
39. Total costs ofdecontaminating facility (sum of Lines 4, 8,
11, 16, 19, 24, 26, 30, 32, 35-38): Total costs of decontaminating the
facility, based on the above assumptions, are estimated to be $14,070.
~ '" .'"' !" , I',,, ' ' , ' ' ' ,. ".'".,'_',' ,'.".",!.' ',, ,''. , , '
D.Professional Certification
1, Number of person-hours required for inspections: It is assumed
that 16 hours are required for periodically inspecting all aspects of
closing the tanks and impoundments.
2. Cost per person-hour: In this case, assume that a registered
independent professional engineer may be hired at a cost of $75 per hour.
3. Total costs of independent professional engineer's time (Line 1
x Line 2): This yields a total cost of $1200 for the independent pro-
fessional engineer.
9-100
-------
.4. Number of technical hours required for administrative duties:
Assume that 8 hours are, required from the owner's or operator's staff for
administrative duties connected with employing an independent professional
engineer.
5. Person-hour costs for technical administrative duties: It is
assumed that the total fully-loaded costs for the owner's or operator's
staff are $30 per hour.
6. Total administrative costs for technical labor (Line 4 x Line 5):
Given the above assumptions, the total administrative costs,for technical
labor are $240.
7. Number of clerical hours required for administrative duties:
Assume that 5 hours of clerical time are required for the necessary
typing and certifications.
8. Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties: Fully-
loaded costs of clerical time are assumed to be $8 per hour.
9. Total administrative costs for clerical labor (Line 7 x Line, ,8):
Given the above assumptions, total clerical costs are $40.
10. Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9): Summing technical
and clerical labor, the administrative costs are $280.
11. Total certification costs,(Line 3 + Line 10): The total costs
for certification, including engineer's fees and administrative costs, are
$1480.
E. Total Costs Including Administration and Contingencies .
,.. .Items 1 through 3 give the costs of all activities on each of the
preceding worksheets. Line 4 is the total of:Lines 1 through 3, .$85,815.
5. Contingencies: A general provision for contingencies of 15
percent of Line 4 has been included.
6. Administrative and supervisory cost: For administrative tasks,
including taxes,. insurance,, and administration and supervision not included
elsewhere, a total of 15 percent of total costs from Line 4 is used.,
7. Total costs of closure (Line 4 4- Line 5 + Line.6): The
total costs for closing the tanks and impoundments are estimated for
the sample case to be $111,559.
9-101
-------
MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
WORKSHEET A - CHARACTERIZING THE WASTE (#i)
1. Description of the waste
Organic solvent
2. Chemical composition
(Not given)
3, Physical state of the waste
Liquid
4. Heat of combustion of the waste
18,000 BTU/lb.(135,000 BTU/gal.)
< I1 :i'i ! i' ',< "' in i 1 ii 1 mi n inn in in ii ii i ii '.?": ,, !!!
5. Specific gravity of the waste
: : .9 '''"'::''
6. Maximum inventory of the waste
60,000 gallons bulk storage
5,500 gallons in drums
7. ID numbers forareas holding these wastes
Tanks T-l to T-4
.Tiii!1;:11):'1!! ure ''npin,,,,
ill ' 111
(i 111 Illlllill
( I 1 Illlllill
1111 I Illlllill I II III I 111
II Illlllill I III I II 111 Illlllill I 111 III III Illlllill Illlllllllll
9-102
: JU:' : ',-1 !ซ,"M
ij: ,; , " ,ii''"mill11 li'snip i ,v ';' ,:'Viaiiii
^III;:!,:!,!,':;!:,; I
-------
MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
WORKSHEET A - CHARACTERIZING THE WASTE (#2)
Description of the waste
Slop oil
Chemical composition
(Not given)
Physical state of the waste
Liquid
Heat of combustion of the waste
16,000 BTU/lb.(126,720 BTU/gal.)
Specific gravity of the waste
.95
Maximum inventory of the-waste
10,000 gallons bulk storage
ID numbers for areas holding these wastes
Tank T-5
9-103
-------
MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
WORKSHEET A - CHARACTERIZING THE WASTE (#3)
1. Description of the waste
:;:; ^.i' :|,:, ,\,0:iiy wastes
2. Chemical composition
(Not given)
3. Physical state of the waste
Mixture]~(95Z 'liquids'',' 5% sludge)
4. Heat of combustion of the waste
(Not given)
5. " Specific""" gravity "of the' waste
(Not given)
Maximum inventory of the waste
Ml 111 I 111111 III II III I II ;; ":'!'' , "
30,000 gallons in holding basin
5,500 gallons in drums
'.7. "!pi'^n?^ซ.i3. ^l?111"??.'81 kฐ?-dillS these wastes
Impoundment S-l
iii,"" :Ai,:"!:"ii
9-104
in ' v ' list: "t .' ' iii 11
.'" '' ' - I'* 'i/':, " '"'I'
i', 'II!1-,1,: : Hill W> i ,il ,)',- I ', |,
I, ' I' " lit "I1 ! lin, I'1"1 I,, 'I "lj|
ill Hi'
111 iii1
-------
MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
WORKSHEET A - CHARACTERIZING THE WASTE (#4)
1. Description of the waste
Pickling liquor waste
2. Chemical composition
(Not-given)
3. Physical state of the waste
Liquid
4. Heat of combustion of the waste
0
5. Specific gravity of the waste
1.05
6. Maximum inventory of the waste
30,000 gallons in holding basin
7. ID numbers for areas holding these wastes
Impoundment B-l
9-105
-------
^^^^ !
!
i
MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
WORKSHEET A - CHARACTERIZING THE WASTE (#5)
1. Descriptionof the waste
Solidified pickling liquor wastes
2. Chemical composition
(Not given)
3. ' ""^hys'ica^C 'siiEate 'of the waste
Solid
4. l J'"He,at of""' combustion of the waste
;;: ;/' ;': (Not given)'
5. Specific gravity of the waste
2.2
6. Maximuminventory of the waste
8,000 cu. ft. in storage pile
7. ID numbers for areas holding these wastes
None
?.' I'
I!"
9-106
-------
1
MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
WOBKSHEET B - TREATING THE INVENTORY
1. Waste inventory at time of closure
Waste solvents
Slop oil
Oily wastes
Pickling liquor wastes
Solidifed pickling wastes
2. Methods of treatment or removal
Waste solvents
Slop oil
Oily wastes
5,
6.
7,
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Pickling liquor wastes
Solidified pickling wastes
Disposing of Oily Waste
3. Composition of waste
80% solvent, 15% slop oil, 5% sludge
4. Amount of waste produced
28,400 gal. solvent, 5,325 gal. slop oil,
Amount of sorbent used in sludge treatment
Cost of sorbent used
a. Cost of materials
Amount of residue generated
Unit cost of disposing or removing residue
Total cost of disposing or removing residue
(Line 7 x Line 8)
Costs of hauling residue .
Number of trips required
Total cost of hauling residue (Line 7 x Line 10)
Costs of disposing or removing oily waste
(Line 6 + Line 9 + Line 11)
65,500 gal.
10,000 gal.
35,500 gal.
30,000 gal.
8,000 cu. ft.
Reuse as boiler fuel
Incinerate
Separate; recover solvents,
incinerate slop oils, landfill
sludges
Solidify, landfill
Landfill
1,775 gal. sludge
1:1 ratio with oils
0
0
22 tons
$50/ton
$1100
$300/trip
1
$300
$1400
9-107
-------
WORKSHEET B (continued)
Treating or Removing Pickling Liquor Waste
14". ................. :'imiSinii: "of cement required' for 'solidification
15. Total amount of cement required
16. Cost of cement
17. Cost of materials (Line 15 x Line 16)
18. Amount of residues produced by treating inventory
Amount of other residues already ori-site
19.
20.
Total amount of pickling residues
(Line 18 * Line 19)-
21. Unit"'cost: of disposing or removing residue
22. Total cost of disposing or removing residue
(Line 20 x Line 21)
23. Costs of hauling residues
. , ii ii i in i mini ..',:, ' ' to1' , ,! i'1:1 ','w M '"','' ''. . n| i1* i ' . i ' ,;,'i, , ,! ""' .
24. Number of trips required
25. Total costs of hauling (Line 23 x Line 24)
26". Costs' of "disposing or removing"pickling' liquor
waste (Line 17 + Line 22 + Line 25)
Removing Waste Solvent
27. Amountof waste solvent
' ซ""S!a.":: "ASSun't1 of solvent in inventory
E-:ii'b. Amount of solvent obtained from oily
""' "_'""_ "_ waste" inventory treatment
28. Method of removal
29. Cost of removal
Treating Slop Oil
30. Amount of slop oil-on-site
a. Amount in inventory
b. Amount generated from disposing or
treating oil waste inventory
31. Method of treatment
32. Unit costof treatment
33. Total cost of treatment (Line 30 x Line 32)
34. Unit costs of hauling residues
Isack/10 gal.
3000 sacks
$2.50/sack
$7,500
27 2.4 tons'
540 tons
812.4 tons
$50/ton
$40,620
$300/trip
^37 '"
$11,100
$5*9,220
93,900 gal.
64,500 gal.
28,400 gal.
Recovery and reuse
as boiler fuel
15,325 gal.
10,000 gal.
5,325 gal.
Incinerate
$0.60/gal.
$9,195
$i50/trip
9-108
-------
WORKSHEET B (continued)
35. Number of trips required
36. Total costs of hauling (Line 34 x Line 35)
3
$450
37. Costs of treating slop oil $9 645
38. Total costs of treating inventory $70 265
(Sum of Lines 6, 9, 12/17, 22, 25, 29, T
33 and 36)
9-109
-------
Si! i'lUWWIiMHi Jim I-'::'1}!'!]-!.!);1"!! lllliH^^^ KV-V I''"!!; i I tHVtfW'i |I|IH^ Illi'^ SI!!!' If">:;!" III! IS!' '{*MT'lW
MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
WORKSHEET C - DECONTAMINATING THE FACILITY
Tank Cleaning
1, Cleaning method used Steam cleaning
i| |i i :li ;:ซ; :2. C4ซฑ5 tฐ be cleaned" ' " 70,000 gallons
ซ'ซ' * ' ปป" !:"!3.' ;;i "'tfn'ircTeanlni' costs1 '""":' ::" ':":''": : ' : ": '';: $ 02/gallon '
r!'1 ;.:':";'..""ป :4.: Total costs of steam cleaning
iiijii! * iiii,'is(Line 2 x Line 3) * ป
I;:: ::::, ' 3. Quanti'ty' '^nd type of residues generated 8,750 gallonk of contaminated
i i|lT(,ijl|f','j;:,,' vf'i," JP ilflf, lilt' '' '''iiii I'liiiiiitv,!,',!i ijl" t ':'!#'.',. i ;> '"j"'in t , ' : ซ "S":1 ',",, ) I1 '',-'." ; : 'Xi-'iKrt 7'J-v--}i-i
i 9. Cost of hauling residues $6007 trip
" I i1/ '! Illll]' '111 11 < "Hi; tMW''aป i.j:i:l;l!i 1 ,!''!'",:W, iii:lis1" . ' : ,1, i.H. "!" :. ' Ji.1* ,,ป-'"'i, wt , '-'; .t I "is-" '-i " ' ; ".", ' '.'* (,' i1:,' ', J
10, Number of trips required 2
!"".:'! : :':. iii Total' costs" o'f hauling (Line 9 x" Line 10) $1200
:ป1-::L";:;;;.;; 12!"" ^Totei'1 costs' "of tank" cleaning $3538
Decontaminating the Impoundment
;S'i 'il'l% 'is" cleaniig method u-d _ Svirฃaee Impound- Sandblasting
*t r"::,;, U". Ar'ea"ฃo be cleaned ;' mSnt 3.560 sq. ft.
'itijl'^l- 15 " unit'cosS of sandblasting''"'1" " " "' "'i":';":: :"$-60/sq. ft.
lgI" Total costs of sandblasting
(Line 14 x Line 15) $936
;'::;r';;:;;\;if: : Quantity of residues generated' : "!'"'''"'' ' """"^ tons of ""contaminated sand
''.I ''":,;" """""is Unit ""costs of" disposing"'of residue $50/ton
!;|!:|^:' if "! " ffl1 m&!ฎ^w&i*ฐ*ti& "" !" " '^m
,! '"i/ir'i'l, \A . ' m'f't, (Line 17 x" "Line 18) '
20. Cleaning method used - Surface Impound- Clay removal and landfill
2 disposal
21. Area to be cleaned 1560 sq. ft.
iiiii i i i linn mi iiii i n i i i '.:,' * "i-i. "'j|" c^ o ซ,, trHa
22. Amount of clay removed =>' -s cu- yas-
23. Unit cost of removing clay ^V?^" ?'
11 inn i i i n 'i,,' ' i "ii J'11
24. Total cost of removing clay
Hi, ^Line" 22^ Line""23) ^ ^ ^ ^ | ^ ^ ^
Illll I 'W I,':, lift iiiail!'1 f.', v: ;-i ' .'i'1 ,' ',' " ..si", r" '' Q110
-------
WORKSHEET C (continued)
25. Unit cost of disposing of residue (clay)
26. Total costs of disposal
(Line 22 x Line 25)
Soil Removal and Miscellaneous Site Cleanup
27. Soil area contaminated
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Amount of soil removed
Unit cost of removing soil
Total cost of removing soil
(Line 28 x Line 29)
Unit costs of contaminated soil
disposal
Total costs of disposing of .soil
(Line 28 x Line 31)
Hauling costs for decontamination
wastes (including impoundment cleanup)
Number of trips required
Total costs of hauling
Costs of flushing pump and transfer
lines
Decontaminate equipment
Decontaminate containers
Total costs of decontaminating the
facility
$30/cu. yd.
$1734
2.5% of site area
(242 sq. yd.)
80.7 cu. yd.
$1.60/cu. yd.
$129
$30/cu. yd.
$2421
$300/trip
7
$2100
$2000
$500
$1000
$14,070
9-111
-------
MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
WORKSHEET D - PROFESSIONAL CEBIlfTfiiTIOS'
1. Number of person hours required for inspections 16 hours
2. Cost per person-hour: engineer $'5
3. Total costs of independent professional engineer's $1200
time (Line 1 x Line 2)
i
4. Number of technical hours required for 8 hours
'. 1 : " ' "" : '"::,' M :'- :" ' :;"". ".: :'. " " :' i"1"" ;'.:':," "; .": r: "I " :;-...:
administration
5. Cost per person-hour: technical ?30
fi". T"ot.a.ฃ adniniistrative costs for technical ^ $240
" "i 'i , labor (Line 4' x'tine 5)
1(I a Number of _,clerical hours ^ required ^ f or 5 hours
administration
8. Costs per person-hour: clerical ?8
9. Total administrative costs for clerical labor $40
(Line 7 x Line" 8) ^ [' ^ ^ "^ " "'^ ^ ^ ^ *^ ] ^ | ' ^
10. Total administrative costs (Line 6 + tine 9) $280
11. Total certification costs (Line 3 + Line 10) 51480
n i ill in 1 i in i i in i i i i
9-112
;A Will lllilL ilniiiifr1' IH^
ii^^^^^^^
l|
I
-------
MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
WORKSHEET E - TOTAL COSTS INCLUDING
ADMINIST3JATION AND CONTINGENCIES
1. Costs of disposing of Inventory $ 70 265
(From Worksheet B)
2. Costs of decontaminating the facility (From $ 14,070
Worksheet C)
3. Costs of professional certification (From $ 1,480
Worksheet D)
4. Subtotal $ 85j815
5. Contingencies $ 12 872
6. Administration $ 12 872
7. Total closure costs $111 559
(Line 4 + Line 5 + Line 6)
9-113
-------
9.7
I,' ! , I"!1!'
EXAMPLE - POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATES
large flat landfill of 200 acres has been closed in accordance
I""
the EPA interim status regulations. This landfill consists
ol rather closely spaced narrow trenches that are protecte'cl by clay
covers and cover vegetation. The facility soil is a soil which is
mostly clay in content. All of the facility is planted with grass to
resist erosion.
The post-closure operations at this facility have been planned to
carry out therequirements of the interim status regulations. The ac-
tivities planned areas follows:
periodically inspecting the facility
:; , mowing _ '
routine erosion repairs
replacing security fences (as needed)
fertilizing
* leachate pumping and disposal
ground-water monitoring
monitoring well replacement (as needed)
repair of severe erosion caused by storms
post-closure administrative services
These activities are costed in the attached annotated worksheets. All of
these activities are costed based on the assumption that the facility is
completely closed and that no "free" assistance is available from an
active portion" of the facility. This means that some of the supporting
facilities such as office space that are available during closure are
not automatically available during the post-closure period.
9-114
-------
SAMPLE POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEETS
A. Periodically Inspecting; the Facility
1. Number of technical management person-hours required for each
inspection; Each inspection at this closed hazardous waste facility
will be conducted by two people in a rented vehicle. We are of the
opinion that two people are needed to conduct the inspection of the
large closed waste disposal .area (200 acres) and that an extra measure
of safety is afforded by having two inspectors. Each inspection takes
a full day of work by two technically trained managers.
2. Annual number of routine inspections: Six routine inspections
will be conducted during each year of the post-closure period. These
will be conducted on a bimonthly basis.
3. Person-hour costs for technical management labor: The fully-
loaded labor rate for this technically trained labor is $30 per hour.
4. Technical labor costs for annual routine inspections (Line 1 x'
Line 2 x Line 3): The technical labor cost for "these annual routine
inspections is the product of the person-hours required for each inspec-
tion, the number of inspections planned, and the technical labor rate.
5. Annual number of engineer-supported inspections: In addition
to the routine inspections described above, two annual engineer-supported
inspections are planned. These inspections use a team of professional
engineers and one of our technical managers,. The engineer is a state-
certified professional engineer from an independent firm that is contracted
to supply professional services to the hazardous waste disposal facility.
6. Number of independent state-certified engineering hours for each
engineer-supported inspection: For each inspection, eight hours of the
engineer's time is required.
7. Number of technical management hours for each engineer-supported
inspection: For each inspection, eight hours of technical labor is
required. This requirement is in addition to the engineering labor that
is required. ;
8. Person-hour cost for a professional engineer: The quoted cost.
of engineering services is $75 per hour. These services will be obtained
from an independent engineering firm.
1 9-115
-------
...... I
9. Engineering labor costs for the engineer-supported inspections
ii ii inn i ii MI i nil in i hiTr'" IT ฐ
li SI, . l !!'! .(Line 5 x Line 6 x Line 8): The cost of the engineering labor is the
If I llllll I I I III llllll I I I !
product of the number of engineer-supported inspections, the number of
engineering hours needed for each inspection, and the person-hour cost
::::::"::": ::::'::: "of ""engineering services.
II, '. "I "'. ! II 10 i Teciinical' labor costs for the'" eng"inee r-supporfed inspections
jj^l (JLlne's'x "Line 3 x Line 7): The technical managerial labor costs for
theengineer-supported inspections is the product of the labor rate for
^^^'-"yy ^'ec|^^c~'j[i'ฃa5orj tne number "of inspections'" required, and the technical
"":!~r';',';;""'Sl" laSor"' hours required for" "each ins'pection.
11. Labor costs for the engineer-supported inspections (Line 9 4-
Line 10): The total labor costs for the engineer-supported inspections
*'is tne'sum of" 'the eng^^eVi!ngllh labor'''anei!1' tecnnl''cal'lliabbo1r1'costs: ' ' '
'I 'EC1^." Cost'ol "renting"'"1 the truck for"each inspection: A rented pick-
iiiiiii:; i"s iii i ' 9 s, i fii" n i si iiiiiiiiiiiiij. ปii!; 'i jiiiiiiiiiij'. ,i; fiii: iiiiii'1 ...' ^' \iiHh ifinii1 L i f! >' iiiiii " 'l!i i;, i'ii'' .i*" P" "i . iiiiii, liiii.; i', i ' ' i; i;1,' v ,, ":.'.. !i:' i,' i:, lijiiiiii'i;;' 'j 'i: ,'iii''. i? iiiiii? i "ii'. 'i ,A iiป m i' ii liiiiii;, 4iii!i liviiiisi1ซ. I1 i,: i' riiii1.: i ni in i! ^ 'i:'"'"ซ'J ' -" - !|1 ' h'''
uptruck isuged fortransporting the inspectors throughout the hazardous
pilte disposal facility. The q^ted rate for the truck is $25 per day and
^ ซ|^|gj^ ฃke'''Center"1 must supply gasoline. The" mileage
each inspection"'1^^ 'miles' '^^ll^''''^^^'''^^^ facility
therentalagency. This results in a total cost for the truck of
':;S36 per day ($25 rental^'$7" mileage," and"" $"'4 gasoline) . The gasoline
,'i iiif1!; lililil ,' ป.: 'iiRi f .ป" ซn
value is estimated based on a truck mileage of 15 mpg and a gasoline
;i'.';i: ;:;:"":price of $1.20 per gallon.
!'== [^"j" ' ' :, *f!':Vl|I ^AnnuaT"co'itlof ^renting _the truck for inspections (Line^ 2 + Line
'liiisi'..! .iiii"i11'.rii" .ii'.,; TtiiiLi!..i-isiiiiiTiiiii.! iiiiii ' iinii.!jw.'ih'i1.1!. s; vc1.''-K''< v in", mn^s, i:'sawiป^('.i.'..'!^!!" ? M C'Ow^ajp'wti^ruwfk.'iaJi?'i:jwf*iflM: i1* r.;/. WKI:IL '.. s i'jj. " " ' " '' 'ซ "
'!;,ซ 'inspections needel (both routine and engineer-supported)
;';'";;| |;;;;":"": ^ M|; "the Jaily ,truck rental cost ;_ ^^
l^l^jjitl,: 14 .ป^,^7"^^^~^niMl':^spe1cticป cost (Line 4 + Line 11 + Line 13): The
total cost of conducting this post-closure inspection program is the sum
si f .,j i' plil:.ti?eปฃ 'tie' "Innlal'" total' laij'or'" costs ' for" "the routJn'e ^spect'ibns"", the annual
I llllBs; I'liili. i,1!' iiVlll1 ' li mi: .:' iiiiiiini Ill -'li1; .nil1 ill..: 11.1 iiiiiiiinE^^^^^^^^^ " iiiiiiii1' .-1:1 nil. i Bui..;;1!! n ..;i l:!1!"!11 r ill' > .ii,,:)'!. IR 'i. .-.'ii'i- iiiPii.'!! l1., l ir <' m .1;..."! 'im! < i""].1- iriiiiiiiiVjiiiLiaii. iiiiiffi....!!.:.':!!!^^^^^^^^^^^ .iti'. 'nKi i .IBIHI iiiiiw ,>iiiis.|i. . "iintii.". i . i i'- .1 -i."; iiKi' i 'iiiiiii..!. ".mil i ,>i ' " ..i
] ~ ', .! I 1" cost s f or the truck.
9_ll6
-------
B' Routine Monitoring and Maintenance Activities
Mowing Operations
1. Facility acreage: The waste disposal area of this hazardous
waste facility is 200 acres,, This area includes the cover of the waste
disposal trenches and land close to the trenches.
2. Mowing labor: The waste disposal area is to be mowed periodically
to promote the growth of cover vegetation and to inhibit the .growth of
large deep-rooted vegetation such as young trees. This mowing is to be
carried out on a contract basis by a mowing service. The quoted labor
rate for this service is $14.28 per acre mowed.
3. Mowing equipment: The quoted rate for the mowing equipment is
$5.37 per acre mowed. This rate includes fuel and all equipment costs.
4. Unit mowing cost (Line 2 + Line 3): Adding the labor rate and
the equipment rate yields the total contracted mowing rate (unit cost) for
each acre mowed. Cheaper agricultural methods cannot be used because of
the impact of the heavier equipment on the cover.
5. Annual frequency of mowing: Mowing of the waste disposal area
is required once a year during the post-closure period. This frequency
of mowing will encourage the growth of cover vegetation and will suppress
the growth of trees and other deep-rooted vegetation.
6. Annual cost of mowing (Line 1 x Line 4 x Line 5): The annual
cost of mowing is the product of the facility acreage, the unit mowing
cost, and the annual frequency of mowing.
Routine Erosion Damage Repair
7. Annual routine erosion rate: The annual routine loss of soil
from the facility is computed using the Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE).
A = RKLSCP
A ป Average soil loss, tons/acre
R = Rainfall and run-off erosivity index
K = Soil erodibility factor
L = Slope - length factor
S = Slope - steepness factor
C = Cover/management: factor (type of vegetative cover)
9-117
-------
I ili II
llllllllll
P ซ Practice factor (terracing, contour plowing)
I iHijiiplf ! iiii,,i ii.,i, if t1 'i" '"I Iii! i':' I*.:! 'fljrtfflC ""I i!!l!>ill!!!''liiiiti!!ii 'I!:'*'' ! 1 Mftt: IS!1! ''ii'SSi 'I!' """'P1!1! 'iii!1' ! 'i;,'f>;illM.i J'Siii1'""'i' MH'Mi!: WMIMSlH''*"'i: .(H't i' I'1 i"i* ,* Ii," :"i ifM'j '" -i" 'Sit,I
1JS^'HJ i '''!:"'' This 'ejquatio'n 'comp'ute"d ' f of the'"sample facility's location yields an
annual soil loss of 0.12 tons per acre. With a soil density of approxi-
mately 100 Ibs. per cu. ft., 0.089 cu. yds. are lost from each acre. In
oursubsequent computations, we make the very conservative assumption
thatall oฃ the lost soil will have to be replaced and reseeded.
8. Total annual routine erosive loss (Line 1 x Line 7): The total
annual routine soil loss is the product of the acreage times the annual
II",1 Ili'lj1 i Jii i"'i||!i||li"''!'i|.' I'.ljli ' l; ,,! ,llซl!|llllilf S.li'Mii PUi: WiAJH^^ I'Mllli'1:,!!11'!1!,!' miE: ,'!' W, miiiM1 ,: '!"l!|i:''!'i,,|l , ill1 i:i"l|i|iillll!JI .PlOJli'iil'P1 I!:1' ' i,'1" ,!!!! ',< !K Illllllilil11"J"11! 'll'IH!1'; 'l.iil'i'MPiCl^ II :U#i'U nlnii'EKhil'iii,'! '+!!1!,vt/,, ' iiu'illi'liHi"!'!!1, " , \\"\':"\i ",
"ซป'' "fii i'i'i'ii ^oil loss per acre.
9. Unit cost for land excavation of soil: Replacement soil will be
obtained on-site at the facility. Since the amount of soil required is
very small compared to the daily capacity of earth-moving machinery,
' ft'm-.-M'vji nan(f i^or will be used to excavate the soil. The rate stated here is
JiSLPi'i! i:'/1'!1'' "'ii'!"'1: I I1
^^''"''::'= a'fully-loaded rate for union labor working for an independent contractor.
Thisunit cost is based on contractor quotes.
?*r*;T"!.,!;;^ '^"16. Unit cost for on-site transportation of soil: The excavated
soil is transported by truck on-site to the location where the erosion
," '"",,,, " i,r"|/",p rep"^r" ""is ฃ0" be" Jjjjฃie". "^'is service''will' b"e provid"e3 by an iiiae'pendent
ill"' i f i1'In llilL 'Liiii11 , i'1!1' "U ! :> illllllllllillfr ' 91k , ? UK:, l' ll, I'll ''IBII'i'illllllilii,ป illlliilH' Ii : in i * < il 11 :'i: , < -1! ' ,i,P"l :l ,,,i"! ',< IH "', >' , I1"1!" iiinliป <" ,Jln|l In-!" ',111 ' I! iH1ซ: I"., ",,i' s 'nil, JI1!:'' "I11'1' I, III! ;iill|lill li ' J1111!!,: lllllili Ji ll'tlil' 'i!:",' "II!,, 4 ,i Jlili'i! nil 11,1, ! tfiiil118' "if1"' 11 lilllllll,'' i -ti'1!1' I !l|i"i Pi"' !i", " '' ' ." lllh ,
fi'lirj-fiij1'c^pLJeractpr.
11. Unit cost for compacting the soil by hand: The unit cost of
hand compacting the new soil as a repair for erosion damage is estimated
'" ' ' ' l|"l!" to bVthe sSe as 'for hand excavation of"'the""so:itl." ""'This service will
be provided by an independent contractor.
12. Unit cost of seeding: The cost of seeding is a function of
: aiiiiiiiiiiifii'i I'l'vi ji n: ii1" , < ipppiiiPi:' iiprcu,1 > R'i-'.iHiiU'i iniii'iiiniiiiiiiiinii; uIIPIIIPIIIIIIIIII .HKIU'"!,!"!! .i.'iiiiip1 i!111:!;""1:1;;!**'1 in ," " riiii'"Hi ni,:K, 'ifrii/'iiiimiir";: -u i1,^"!!!'"!!:!!!! iriiw i * IPP: IITINIIII,.!iP,i,Miv^ iiiUBPi'iw in1, iiipaiL"'*'!!'! ', "mill,;: di1 i"";iv /'i/."ii,1 ii'iiiiii'; PIP' ii'vimnm1 '!ซ
:; ii, i, ii - gies^ surface area of the new bare" soil. In our estimates, we^ assume
!:'"::: ';"" ':"::,":, tha't" a small gully" (or 'gullies') Have 'formed'. The ratio of "surface area
J!:1!ifi i"!!!1'!/1 Illy ":i """'' 'Ili"!! '"I !|lli:T!, i'!1' ''['IK JVWWKciJ, ; ( J[ iii VI t;'" i:i""!'i"ii1 f ::S:;KiiJSit'/i'.'Wi'ia! H1('tft8KปfttJ*'ifซlilซ!WHn*ปi!"lilS 8tiliiiHS' nt'K: 'iiiiirl'lllii'';^'" ' ':" 'in '"'''"'-"ii'" ," ' ,'"'i"' ' '' i
'sratit. i .'to'Ibll'volume is small. This new soil is seeded with the same type of
;:ซ W! il Fii'IliE "ii' "R' lllllil ft: j? '*v4;'T*i''.aiB(i \mi "I m, W^> ซ:: W, :- ; i >( T>,i S> fl ซR"ir'.'!f1K :!i"'ปWW!i ''Iii!! 'liFiFfi, -'f I il'' tl!'fii!!;.;"fll. "'i :ir W-i if! I I'm, n IF m\t', ,l:'"i
grass as is used for the original cover vegetation.
~'~::;:;:,";'"'":::::', V^Z'lS. AggregVte 'unit' cost of repairing' routine soil erosion damage
i , I! ' ,. -
':'.";7ri;':.^""'i(LJS,e"^ +"Line"""10"+' Line"'ll"+ Line 12): The aggregate unit cost of
IS. '::1,,1 lit le'|liri^g""t:h"e': fo:u:g'|n'e": :|oii" erosion is tfie "sum of the excavation unit
jiiiiiiT'ii'' 'iliri'iiii "in iLijiriiiii'iiiyiii;! liijiiniiiiiiiiii'':!' "''iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii! wi'ifVL ,:!,'! fnii s "if!11 'L'ii'ii1,!;",;!"!!1 ป,.'! In1!11
-------
repairs under average rainfall conditions is the product o.f the amount
of soil lost and the unit aggregate cost for erosion damage repairs.
15. Adjustment factor to account for unusually wet seasons: The
.above cost (Line 14) is computed for average rainfall conditions at the
facility location. A safety factor of 2 is applied which is the equiva-
lent of increasing the rainfall and runoff erosivity index (within the
Universal Soil Loss Equation) from 150 to 300. This changes the facility's
rainfall from its actual mid-Atlantic level to the high southern levels.
This conservative assumption is required to allow for the annual variation
in routine rainfall-caused erosion.
16. Adjusted annual cost for repairing routine erosion damage (Line
14 x Line 15): The adjusted annual cost for erosion repair of a routine
nature is the product of the average annual cost and' the adjustment fac-
tor.
Replacing the Fence
17. Frequency of replacing the fence: Security at the facility is
provided by a 6-ft. high chain link fence that has been established along
the entire perimeter of the facility (11,808 ft. in length).' This fence
is made of galvanized #9 wire. Operating experience-at this hazardous
waste facility indicates that: the fence must be replaced every 15 years.
Thus, during the anticipated 30-year duration of the closure period, the
fence will have to be replaced once.
. 18. Facility perimeter: ; The length of the security fence is the
length of the facility perimeter (11,808 ft.).
19. Unit cost of replacing the fence: .Quotes were obtained from
fencing suppliers for a new fence of equal specifications. The value
given here is a unit cost per linear foot for an installed fence.
20. Total cost of fence replacement (Line 18 x Line 19): The cost
of replacing the perimeter security fence is the product of the perimeter
footage and the unit cost of the installed fencing.
21. Pro-rated annual cost of fence replacement: The total cost of
replacing the security fence is pro-rated to each year by dividing the
total cost (Line 20) by the number of years in the post-closure period
(30 years). -
9-119
-------
Fertilizing
22 ..... . ...... Unit ...... cost of 'fertilizing: ' The hazardous" waste ...... disposal ........ facility'"
has relatively poor soil resulting in the experienced necessity of annual
:- 'fertilizer applications -until the vegetation has Become established, &
" litiiiii,; : i,; ; " III* II! i!lil";l;= *MM lllllll1-!,.! I1;" B": 1,5 . ' * "W i ": :!ii," r v..':.? u::!f:i w ;ปTlas;",;;' ;.'i:":iii" :'\mi 'ปj\\ \ f-sx^ ,,ura' -i * :, -1 i; ป i
i ............ . ........ "
........ ' ........
'lit:]!. ' i >i ', !! ...... it
;Lfi:
,
Equipment $ 5. 00 /acre
Preiiqus ......... ejcperience ..... at this ' "facility ..... ftas ' Sfi0'^ ...... ttiat ...... tn'is application ..........
..... .' jmvซ ........ : '. ..... liffi >" "f>mฃ: ; Jllllll !" 1 ..... .'" '!, ,ซ ซ'!;; ซซ||;i ., ,;( ...... Ei - ' v", J- , ! ' f ! .; : , ; ...... .; JitE ....... j ..... ; ', , iri? i, ป: .......... ,i,: at! ' ".! "SB ' !M ..... "C i!!liป!!1 , ป: ..... lEiii! ..... ;l|i S : ', ' 3 ' ". Si! ; . , ' '-. lii ........ I .......
rat! for fertilizer is satisfactory to maintain the vegetation.
P
23. Number of applications of fertilizer for the first 3 years: One
application of fertilizer is needed each year for a total -of 3 applications.
24. .Number of applications of fertilizer for remaining. -years of post-
closure (fears 4 through 30):- One application of fertilizer is needed every
5 years, ....... or .......... a" total of 5 applications for the remainder of post-closure.
25. lotal costs of fertilizing for the first 3 years oฃ post-
closure (Line 1 x Line 22 x Line 23): The cost of fertilizing for the
: f'l,rat;.n,3, ..... year's" ........... is ......... the ...... product "oฃ the acreage fertilized, the unit cost of
.fertilization .......... and the .......... frequency of application during the first 3 years.
The'" costs "o'f .......... fertilizing '"for"" the first 3 years are then $80,460.
ii,-26. Total costs of fertilization for years 4 through 30 of post-
, , IllijSr f: '"'iiiiit:!!!,!1! 'iiiiiiii 'i^ >:9 ...... "j1"1"1!; "Pf'i ' i;iniB;''DBSIt;"''|aiftl ft,"1"".""' ...... ;tIv:"Mi" ms^Aiiir^ni^jjfii 'it&nramn.}' ..... iSfiiiiNitiisi'] ;;'. ""Li; ..... ;:"' ''.HAIII.
eilqsure ....... (Line 1 x Line 22 x Line 24) : The "cost "of fertilizing is the
-- ...... O'f"
t'"i: till1 : :-fH
..... acre'ag'e ....... fertilized, the unit cost ..... of fertilizing, and
the frequency of application during the years 4 through 30. The costs
....... ...... .,
'for ......... fertilizing ......... for the: ..... "remainder "of ..... pbst-cibsure 'is ........ th"en
' iiiiirl? . " Tot'ai 'cos'ts" of" fertilizing ......... during' ..... poist-'closure*. (Line 25 + Line
' ,: iliiiil'il. ซ" JB;'1' .ii ' li|j';:i: ..... i ''"I""1 Willillli1 , liiiiliilll! '' ..... I "'I1 .""iHiliil'liniK''!!'!'!1 ..""'Illi'1!' !|i|i|,i,iji'l!!'i, :!' .Lun!'1!' : '1JP'iป,.'.!i!;i:i ...... Nil' '!l i.i:"i'iilii# ,ifi, ,'A<, ... ii iihihiiiilBIM!,:,!!1!!^ "I:!i:11!!!:,!!!,:1 VL!T"l:!:!!!E!i,:i!!r\!!:1 '"' ,,,"',; ! :!L;T!'!,!!!!|!i 'I11 11''1'!,:',, ,' ',,:'!':', .i!!!'::!!!!1,,,," ' r :,! I!1!!"1 ,;:!!'!,: ' ' :!,
26) : The total fertilization costs are the sum of ..... the costs' for ferti-
,':! ...... , '''B^WITW. ifSป ...... 'jWW'FVi; ir^W?**'?.^1''1''?^''^^': \'^ ..... *..''.' ....... I ...... *i ......... B1*?* ...... iifflsiiiJBiwh, ........ <**, ......... >& < ....... fw
lining "'during'" the first 3 years and the 5 applications required durzng
j^^ remainder of post-closure. The total costs for fertilizing
I
the, .......... entire ..... 3,0-year period are then $214,560.
: :::: 28. Total annual costs of fertilizing (Line 27 4- 30): The
:. ; ' , iiiiJ ...... iv*. ...... 'fiw ...... :; ซr.4n Wft ....... t ........ KM: ; ........... V1 ....... KL: ..... r , .J1 1 ..... 'ii? t"r ...... i ....... ;' ..... i ..... ..... ' < i ..... mm ........... - * ..... . ..... w< ..................... as :,ซf ;; ......... K ...... ^ . * ....... *< ...... <
total ....... costs ..... [for ............. fertilizing for the 30-year period .......... is .......... divided by ..... the
for
, ....... , ............... L ................. :
rfm ! f||1|i|i| ( J r| ( , ,_ r,Tt
;~ i;/:;:-',,- .;.., ;--:- ;; ,,",|::"," ' ::'[*
,
j,!"! | ||f 'I.Jijji | ; i < ! |i if, f'i1 ,,!;!. ' J!1;;; 'i"i' , ;,i' ' i|>j||
,, IIIIIIIB^^^^^^^^^^ ! ."M,. "" 'H'r'i,;' , ' lE.U,,,, '/ 'K,,,, ' /lilllii
1 i||| Illlllllllllllllii , Jllihillllli'l 1 liHI'Vf, .Inllilllill i ,r!P ''111" " < illilrrilllli, ,, fiti V ,111! illiillllp;11 : i jlh 'illlPilllllllllllllll,, "
|lrj| , lh| h|||| , if || ,,,, ,, 1 ,, , , _ H ^ ., ,||r ,|||,,||, 11(.,| ,,,,,, , ^ ...
:;:i=i: :,' ", ,: ;:,-.. ... : "' ..- 9-120
, , ,,,,, ,, |
i*!! : ', , , ; ' ; i,j; ! -: , " ' ' , ,'""' ;, "! i '!, " , i, i "s si,", > is , ' ' , '',* ' ,w, ' "PM IV't 5 1 * , s IF i!ซ ,, ', i ;;;!
" " - '" i !
IIIIH"!!, ' II, '; !',',' I'f, ,: ), i1",!-!!- ,; 'pill Jl'.'.I , ,, , i till!,,;! , ; !,:,],, 1 ,iji, I ,', HI'1!"1;, I i. " ,f-if. 'i,|, !"l lllSm- I', ',i, ,'
, 'IIPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ,n ',..:];.,: !:,|:1! " J Pllllllill ll't'lii, ป,! .PIPPII Ullllllll , pill III! 'I 'nllPi.PIH :!!,! llll'l'llll: 1 1 1, !,. , i , IJI! "It! ,iinl .IPIIIII 1 Illlf'lJiiiPh I!.! 1*111!, I ,' ' IIP ' !ซ,,! ' : "PI'll !: IP! III!' t! !" Illil I1 illll ' lli..lllllllll|lllป:l!!'ll:: PlIIIIIPP !!, ,! llllll IP ' PIIIIIIPI I Illlll IlLllllllllllll! II 1 'iPlllillllllllllllllll'p
| ^
>'1HW-
:'is?ฃt;
,,! fifn
;
," ,'iซ.iiปrrijป
', ',,1,1 ,; ',ซ" ,",,ii in;; i!
,.;;,:.,;, ;ซ:!',
-------
30 years oฃ the post-closure period to yield an annual cost of $7152.
Ground-Water Monitoring Well Replacement
29. Unit cost for-well replacement: The lowest observed depth of
the water table has been closer to the surface than 50 ft. throughout the
active operation of the facility. A replacement well to a depth of
aprpoximately 50 ft. will cost $425 when installed by an independent
contractor ($8.50 per vertical linear ft.). This quoted price includes
a suitable casing.
30. Number of wells needing replacement: The monitoring wells have
a relatively long useful lifetime as do residential wells. It is antici-
pated that two wells will have to be replaced during the post-closure
period.
31. Total cost of monitoring well replacement (Line 29 x Line 30):
The total post-closure period cost of well replacement is the unit cost
of each well multiplied by the number of wells required in the post-
closure period.
Leachate Pumping and Disposal
32. Frequency of removing the leachate: Leachate is removed perio-
dically from the hazardous waste facility risers by means of a vacuum truck.
Every month, the truck circulates to each riser Dumping out the collected
leachate. This service is performed by an independent contractor.
33. Average total monthly leachate withdrawal: Since the facility's
cover system is quite effective in reducing infiltration, only 2000 gals.
of leachate (average value) will have to be removed each month. This
leachate Is removed to an off-site disposal area.
34. Unit cost of removing the leachate to an active off-site disposal
area: The unit cost of removing the leachate includes driving the vacuum
truck to each riser at the facility and removing the leachate and deliver-
ing the truckload of leachate to the off-site disposal area. A relatively
high per-gallon removal cost is quoted because of the necessity of collec-
ting a small amount of leachate from each of the. widely dispersed risers
throughout the large facility.I This cost includes, transportation to the
TSDF.
9-121
-------
1 11
I II II I II11 II I11 I ' V, 'I , , , 'il ' ' , 111 ;ป' ,, ' , ' ซ HI < i 'Til''!',,ill I , , J'! "'Bill I 'i;l lllll'"l'l''ll|l|!l 'I ' I ,."i':i"ll' ll'iill,,;, ,i ," ,'i|i,'i|i||n I, 'ii'.'ll'hiii jjH"' '.' nl"
35. Total annual cost of removing the leachate (Line 32 x Line 33 x
Line 34 x 12):" The annual leachate'rimbval'cost is the product of the
monthly leachate volume removed, the number of months in a year, and the
unit cost per gallon removed.
Ill IIII III II III III I II IIIIIIIIII III 11 III Illlll III I I III II I II I I I II 11 ' . 1!, "' 1,1 ,ป,..' '"''i,!,,, lii ,,,! .'i:1,,',,:!! 'i,', , , |. .SViilMMi"1',11 ,,I"'!!H "." t1 " I'iMlliinli'"!11:,'*! I" ^lijjii.^i'is.ii'i'i iW' "'-"" ป''' '- _. - '
36. Unit cost for removing leachates to an off-site TSDF: The unit
cost for off-site disposal of the leachate."%nia"teritai is $.05/gal. This
material is disposed of in a surface impoundment.
37. Annual costs for off-site^ disposal" ^(Line ^ 32 "x" Line ' 133 ^ x ^ Line 36
x 12): The cost of disposing of the material in the off-site surface
Impoundment is the product of the amount of leachate disposed and the
.unit,, cost for the.disgosal.
38. Total annual cost for removing and disposing of leachates (Line
|3 + 'Line'37")': The "total cost for leachate removal and disposal is the
sum of the .removal cost and the disposal cost.
Ground-gatefMonitoring
!''^39?'' NtSber of wells monitored: " This hazardous waste'facility has
,'|jT |row5-|a|er monitoring' wells.''""' One "'we'll 'Is'11uygซฃฃent iH<| 11 wells
:; : are"'"downgradient from the disposal area.
;"ฃJ ] flSSe? of" samples 'laken'per'well (annual) : Two"" ^cycies" of
ground-water sampling will be conducted annually. One ground-water
quality"" analysis "and'"two""'ground^water ' conFaininatibn analyses are to be
carried out. One sample may be used for both the ground-water quality
and ground-water contamination analyses. Therefore, two samples are
takenfromeach well annually.
41. Total number ^of^ sables ^annual) _ "(Line_"39 ^^ Line "46) V jTbe^ total
numberof ground-water samples taken annually is^theproduct ofthe
number of monitoring wells and the numberofsamplestakenannually from
I Illlll I I I I Illlll Illlll Illlll I i,,,' ';,;,; !..., I1:,,,,;,,, ',;;"! IW J illtt! ::: vt- If"' I '.it;"!" .nHS :' :l!'*"!;,'", : ;' ,111 ft ;".'' it iilJIII,,
each well.
42. Number of hours forcollecting the sample(persample): Each
sample requires two hours of collection time. The well must be pumped
dry andallowed1 to refill. Then a sampleis taken.The facility ex-
perience is that approximately two hours are required for each well
ie some" tine" for "moving about" "tie fields).
9-122
inn ii 11111 ii 11 iigi in nig inn 11 n i
-------
43. Total number of hours for collecting the sample (Line 41 x
Line 42): Annually, 24 samples will have to be collected, requiring
48 hours of labor.
44. Total number of hours for preparing and delivering the sample:
The total number of hours required for packaging and delivering the
samples is six hours per year.
45. Total sample handling hours (Line 43 + Line 44): The annual
total time for collecting and delivering the ground-water samples is
54 hours.
46. Person-hour costs for handling ground-water samples: The
person-hour costs for handling the samples is based on the facility ex-
perience of $15 per hour fully-loaded.
47. Total sample handling costs (Line 45 x Line 46): The total
labor cost for handling the samples is the product of the hours required
and the unit labor costs.
48. Unit cost of ground-water quality analysis: The unit cost
of an analysis for the following parameters is $77 per analysis:
Chloride $ 6/sample
Iron $12/sample
Manganese $12/sample
Phenols $25/sample
Sodium $12/sample
Sulfate $10/sample
49. Unit cost of ground-water contamination analysis: The unit
cost of an analysis for the following parameters is $108 per analysis:
pH $ 4/sample
Specific Conductance $ 4/sample
Total Organic Carbon $25/sample
Total Organic Halogen $75/sample
50. Total cost of ground-water quality analysis (annual) (Line 39
x Line 48): The annual cost for analysis of water quality is the product
of the number of wells and the unit cost of the analysis.
51. Total cost for ground-water contamination analysis (annual)
(Line 41 x Line 49): The annual cost for analysis for ground-water
contamination is the product of the number of sample sets to be analyzed
and the unit cost of the analysis.
9-123
-------
Ill Illllll 1 IlilliSl^KB
r.ปi! *"ซll| II":'! ,1
INlllll1
11 Illllll1
rsiiiiii- if.'i iif H ; ii if.;;
lifll:, SI I ;: liliit! ,1;,'! JtK*:
:,/,'ill,,:'"! "!,"!-:,I1;;, nc.'if; ..'ii ?m,"
J*1: :rili;"4 1 iJi^t*if
l^n'^i; ฃ m ililSfi > i
;ji ,,,, ];:i,;ii:i;iii::i, _; ,,
'liai'lllllll:,! Illllll!", Illllll;, 'W'H^
Tglal annual, ground-water monitoring costs (Line 49 + Line 50 +
^ I _'' ~ _ | Line n_ 51) (: The ^ total ^ annual i_ co s t for ^ ground-water | analy sis | is the sum pp f ^ ^
contamination
I'1 a I, I :i'll!!iJ"
!' '.H.1 I nt'tt!
i: 11''II!::, 1 I,'?'
iiii-il'lliii'lilW!lISIlMI'lii 'lii-llfli!!! .'I'llHl .' ' ' ""M":I"':;,,,1, ]'.(, ';"'! '',!! ::"!"";] :I'!11,',::"!' Ill,", I;.', " ; III,,!,;,!, :":"ill,:ilt, .,'illi'lli "I'i'llll (KIF.T^!'i: (I,ซ('rt :*":ซ,, , '!" '! ;!',,lli,i!!',,i!l i,,1 ','.,'" .
Ill,; |'1,11!!1! I C I; III!!,' ;; lull!!' illl'lltl' ' ! i1 ;,'I:!'1' ' gill;, ,,,, ' I',1!,;!!!!!',;' ,,li" a,,'1':' !' ' li;!!,:;ii!'i' 3! ii, ,!",,: :;'l ,,,:,'"!'' I,;,,!,::,;::1 MIKiiuli; ", 'iiiill!,'!,, I, Jill,1 ,,|;!!!'rill; "",'', '", I,,'!;,,! Hi,;,,, : :',; ''',':' ."Hi;;!"!!:'1, :",;:
,,::;,: ",.::gputSHe. Maiijtfinan'c'i SnnrniatiQn "." .".'".'."..'. .." '".."."'".' ' '",'''',','"' "',"' , "" '"' '
mill r it,,1 ',"ii ,i ' iiiiiinnniiiiH^^ iiiiii'ii'i'iiiinniii1',:, i ,,,i, n,, , jiai'i""'1,,1;; HIT i* iiinnnni ', r? i<
'ilii'ill I*': ' ' iiii,'iilliir"M ""liii'iiiiiiiiiiii,; h,,, if' ;;iii,,;,!';w^ !'ii""ii:,i,""',''';' ,::'iin:"i'ii,''ii,, i";,'1'! ,IMI ';;'i ; "',;;i,",ii,,,:''ii
ili'llli IIIIH lilill M, ,1'l'i,,,"''" I :, l:l!,':' lulti" " i'li > ,,11, >,';; II; ," iMV'* "'.I,,'!"
II i jr:1, a ' '||!, , ft1, ',',!, H ,:|,i| lliplllR, Li "'"Hi I
IllJIliilllilEL
It'll'! 'lillll'i: I ',,,|,
Illllll:'!]' I ''i,:
*1!|,;';""' ';S,rtj^7ijปU 'w^!friaJH^$Q>\ iP,3 I' f -f $$&ป S^T^n; ..f^jM^S^BfRฎ? f^im
,4^'^iiitoring1' operations" are "added" together 'to yield the"'1" total''cost ('annual).
.,,..__
,!! 7IIS1; , Ililllt 'I' ','|,|,
ill, -in, (lips it ,
yield the total cost (annual)
."iiijB iiliiii'iJiii^^ iriiiiiwIV ',' i1:
tive costs which .are computed on a
ill'i'll'"!!'!'!: I! WIV* "SI' I.'IM i"iiaปSซ EWWri' kHSl;,;1 Jr.' 'I li:,l!",'i|S,., ,".,
I'll,),''!, {'" !',i"ii; ' ::r "i:: 7f i iqil!: Irllfl .'I'liiilillii'lllB^ I'.')';!!.!!!'!:!!' IIR,:]' i ;'Mm .fj'';'' :li,i!' f, '';',''i:|l"l i'.!;!!1::: ",! :t
!ป:,!'.' '''' liillii"'-"!!',-'!
.ng operations are added togethe
I'llldrlillA^ <,,ซ r,, I "M, ' n, ,: n n' : in ' ' i,,'' ii' ' " ,;i ', !' i'
ii.':',:"[! iiiii'iii,'iiiiii|iB i 'Biiiiii',',:' > JIIIIIIB 11 i,iii:ii,:iit,i' :i:,iiiiii!' i'u, laiiiiiw^ iiiisii'ii'ii, 'i',,," 'i, nil" M',;H""";i"' 'ii, m ,",<
cost does not include administra_.
irn^^^ li'i 'illlllM^^^^^^^ '1'imS', HI t; :l"illii!"ปl I! I K itl" 'iilllif:':"" Il<"'':: ^ " ^ -
,, H||l;!! !iซ^^^^ i iJllH .1' ,li! i! i 'liiii!1,' 'III' B ,'IK^^^^^^ IB!:! !'' "i!!' 1 f Vป* IIEIIIH'''!
parade worksheet (Line 53 + Line 54 + Line 55 4- Line 56 + Line 57 +
Hi: i:iiiif::mum ^.si*i"'^ ?;,ซ!'ซ" j. ^ ' ^ r an iii K .* rT . i i a i m F i%ซ.;' m w;i B NM-' m
,;,;,;-.Lijae 58. Jh Line 59).
,;:i 'Vki. ' " ii',' iiiill!1"!"1" up1" iii"".:in,i .. innniiiniiiir' iiiiiiiiiiiu;1:,;,ป,;;ii'.\ u:,"ป \ ,,,', h, .xitun11:, ,
ll i ii'tii, 'i iliiiiiiiii) u,,i, 'i!:,!"1!.!
.illlUII!"'" iltllllilll"!''!"1 ."it ",S1
i" ill Iliii'llll1"!'1'1!1!1'1;"!,,*1!"!,"! ill!,':!,!)..',' F, I'1'1 I '! JfWVi1 -t!'i,,;,i '
,1.1 Nr '" ilfll1 'I'I""
'"mil, " iiui"" ii1: Hi'
,,1,1 'I III" I I' I ' i, I'll * 'I' Illill'
11111 u'liii:' n'1' 11 UN .iniiiii1 '"Vii:
IWi! Illllll lllh V i Thl" liilli'tlii:
' li'ltH'l' " ' 'I'ill Ill1 III." 'I'iliiill'K1'!'' , I'l'iiIllllii Ill'1 ',
ji 'ill1'11 ": "i'11', 'ป.; ii|1J'i,r!',i ,
<1HBL,|:!:U'| l"Hu ''i ซ!, i '* !ป,,,; \_ W*,; ป**': ' ')", ,'! I1;,; "i!:|"l|:';'; \ ..""f1 :| : 'i:;'i
'" ' ,,:':;ii i r iT \ . ^ * iiiEitii; k *":!''!': ' A \' :;;" ''OIF iii!;:;iJ i', "i";: i;:1:"!"': ':;;i > ' 'i i' '^ $f . i'! ,. *%
lii,,!::,f'''. I,'!. !' , , iliiiri i,'i'" '11,*.? ..- '.iHiI: I'1 illllll .>.-> L>. i1" ''* ' , '
' in i' * ,' "':,in , , i iii " "t, ', 'ijiii, mi n,,',i i' i !',i M , "mi:
.
lfl' :>'*.':ซ;'.ป? ii'
V:,;!1 i'!' , Ii"'!,1"'1!,,;1!, iill I II
;;1, ,,,; unfii' 'im , I'll mi, , '
iMuT'l'1"!! "1|!'i"
i i i inn in in
i I,.
liUiH1,1!!1
l,;l: !l,::"i ajililill;'' ''I'llilll '*';,'":'!' it-. ' ,"1:',' >Si ' !.'
Sill! "l if llUli!1,,, '!' 'ifc'vltll^'JlV1** :,'*' I'',:, ',i''"i:"ll
;'' nil IIIIH I,, ''Hlllllllll
III'1,,!!,''',,'I ll j,,", ' i' ''[tilh1"!'1
: 9-124
-------
C. Erosion Damage Contingency Scenario
1. Percentage of vegetation removed: Some unplanned events that
will create additional demands for care will occur during the duration of
the post-closure period. This worksheet computes the additional cost
that would result from such an unplanned event that removes 30% of the
vegetative cover from the hazardous waste facility. After the vegetation
is removed, the soil remains! bare for one month expos'ed to normal rainfall.
Resulting erosive damage is repaired and the bare acreage is revegetated.
The one month lapse between the damaging event and the revegetation allows
for delays in the discovery of the damage and the time required for the
revegetation steps. '
2. Facility acreage: The entire facility is impacted by the event.
3. Acreage reduced to bare soil (Line 1 x Line 2): The acreage
stripped of vegetation is the product of the percentage of vegetation
removed and the total acreage of the facility.
4. Annual per acre soil loss rate (without vegetative cover): The
; ~ j-
annual soil loss for each acre of bare soil is computed using the Univer-
sal Soil Loss Equation (USLE).
A - 5KSLCP
A = Average soil loss, tons/acre
R = Rainfall and run-off erosivity index
K = Soil credibility factor
L = Slope - length factor
S = Slope - steepneiss factor
C * Cover/management factor (type of vegetative cover)
P = Practice factor (terracing, contour plowing)
This equation is for erosion resulting from rainfall subsequent to the
event that removed the vegetation.
5. Monthly bare ground soil loss rate: The annual loss rate
computed in Line 4 is converted to a one month loss rate. This conver-
sion is accomplished by dividing the annual loss rate by 12.
6. Amount of soil lost before repairs are instituted: The amount
of soil lost from the bared ground is the product of the monthly loss
rate per acre and the acreage of the facility that is exposed. This
product is then multiplied by two to allow for soil lost during the
i 9-125
-------
removal of the vegetation. The ground is assumed to be bare for about
one month before the repairs and replanting are completed. The conversion
to volume of soillost is carried outassuming a soil density of 100 Ibs.
per cu. ft.
_ "7. ".tTnit Icoit for "excavating'and loading' soil: The unit 'coat"for
excavating and loading replacement soil is computed using a 2 cu. yd.
frontend loader. This operation will be performed under contract.
8. On-site haul of excavated soil to the area needing repair: The
excavated soil is transported on-site over a 2000 ft. distance by trucks
.; ;;;;;;;;;: ;,;.; .'::. .;;=;.'.; -.". . ' , .... , ,;.. ii:,.;.... ;,:,. 4,;., ,::i,:. . , ..
operating under contract.
9. Filling and compacting eroded areas of the facility: The replace-
ment soil is filled and compacted into the eroded areas using a dozer
operating under contract.
10. Total unit cost for replacing soil (Line 7 + Line 8 + Line 9):
The totalunit cost of replacing soil is the sum of the excavation-
loading, hauling and filling unit costs. These unit costs were obtained
""' !:
from estimates made by a local contractor.
11. Cost of replacing the lost .soil (Line 6 x Line 10): The total
best for replacing the lost soil is the product of the amount of soil
losttimes,the unit cost for soil replacement.
12." Unit cost for seeding the bare soil:' ' '.The .unit.^ cost ..'.for seeding
' j,
the bare acreageis computed from the sum of the labor, materials and
equipment costs.
..!' !;;,!". '' ;': " !,liงbqr , . ,$69.10/acre ]
: "Materials $13.90/acre: ' ' '
'^ "'- ">' (" .Equipment $ 5.00/acre '"
The grass planted is Kentucky bluegrass available from a local supplier
at $0.32 per Ib. in 50-lb. bags. The application rate for this seed is
1 Ib. per 1000 sq. ft. (or 43.56 Ibs. per acre). This is less than one-
" , mi: 'Hi1"!, , "'h'lii'i . I'liiii ' iri'Bii i " i, ' " ! LI,/ 14 !'! ' '' ;;!i, i,!1. .(''!"" ซi " ii '", /i,," i' Hi1;: IPS :,: .i'i''n,, irtiiirii,,/!' jniiiu11'1!: r iiFi, li i.:!iii,,'i*v MI t^vit "!;' , : '"Mil
thirdof the seedapplication rate used for home lawns. Experience has
shown this seeding rate to be satisfactory.
2,3. Unit cost for fertilizing: Since the soil at this hazardous
wast facility is quite poor, fertilization is necessary. Type 10/6/4
fertilizer costing $0.12 per Ib. (in 50-lb. bags) is applied at a rate
v . i1
of 500 Ibs. per acre. This corresponds to a nitrogen application rate
i, ., ii!'11' ; i r , ''"'iijii ii/wi, v ,,'!. ' ' ,,r , * , ,, , ,, , ., ., P , i F ,, ,,., .I,
9-126
i <; in '
-------
of 50-lbs. per acre. The unit cost of fertilization is the sum of the
labor, materials and equipment costs.
Labor $69.10/acre
Materials $60.00/acre
Equipment $ 5.00/acre
Previous experience at this facility has shown that this application
rate for fertilizer is satisfactory.
14. Unit cost for mulching with straw: Since the soil is bare, pro-
tection from erosion must be provided while the grass starts to grow.
This is achieved by using straw mulch at an application rate of 1 ton
per acre. The unit cost of mulching is the sum of the labor, materials
and equipment costs.
Labor $34.50/acre
Materials $85.00/acre
Equipment $ 5.00/acre .
15. Total unit replanting cost (Line 12 + Line 13 + Line 14): The
total unit replanting cost is the sum of the seeding, fertilizing, and
mulching costs. Lime is not applied at this facility because it is not
recommended by the Agricultural Extension Service (USDA).
16. Total replanting costs (Line 3 x Line 15): The total replanting
cost for the facility is the product of the acreage to be replanted and
the unit cost of replanting each acre.
I .
17. Number of erosive incidents expected in the post-closure period:
It is anticipated that such highly erosive incidents will occur twice
during the post-closure period. These will be either major storms or
floods.
I
18. Total cost for repairing damage from erosive incidents (Line 11
4- Line 16 x Line 17) : The total post-closure cost for repairing the damage
from such incidents is the sum of the repair costs for each incident
(soil and vegetation) multiplied by the number of incidents expected in
the 30-year post-closure period. ,
19. Total annual cost for repairs required by erosive incidents
(Line 18 -r 30 years): The total cost of repairing the damage from the
L
two incidents is divided by the 30 years of the post-closure period to
yield the annual cost for contingency repairs'.
9-127
-------
ni
D. InitialReplanting to Establish Vegetation
1. Percentage failure of vegetation per year: It is estimated
,I;F!!I , , iisii, i ,|, , .1,1," ''I* iiiiiii"::1 |L iiiiiiii 'i ; 111 -'I11: n.< ' ; ,; i,1? , ป - nfc. ', f "inn"? ' "i1 in!:',iii, ""'..i'liU'; i iiiiiiiiii^^^^ :. i,,"1* n uiriiiiiii' uiw wsniiii11 r. 'niiiJinpi ป '' J:
":[tha^',in, thi^^^cliia.te"^ 10 percent "of the' vegetation will fail per" year ""due
,,"to' inadequate initial establishment.
2. Number of years required for full vegetation: I-t is estimated
',. , i,].',' .! in1 i,, i ^inmui' , ' 'Uiiini11::' <:!'iiiiiiiiini iiซ ! "!!!,!'*ซ., i1" ',# i".' ,; !ป!:, in i i HI HI mil i inn in i i i ||j nil i i - ,':''
that three years will be necessary for full establishment of vegetation
to the point replanting will no longer be necessary.
3. Facility acreage: Facility acreage is 200 acres.
lln in ; n I
4. Total acres to be replanted due to initial failure of vegetation
(Line 1 x Line 2 x- Line 3): Total acres to be replanted are then 60
limn inn in mi in mi i i i in || i i '"
acres.
5. Annual per acre soil loss: The annual soil loss for each acre
i
of bare soil is computed using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE).
A - RKLSCP
I
A * Average soil loss, tons/acre
R * Rainfall and run-off erosivity index
K ซ Soil erodibility factor
i." L' ซ slope' _ length 'factor
' \
S ป Slope - steepness factor
G ป Cover/management factor (type of vegetative cover)
P Practice factor (terracing, contour plowing)
This equation is for erosion resulting from rainfall subsequent to the
mveiit that removed the vegetation.
6. Monthly bare ground soil loss rate: The annual loss rate com-
puted in Step 4 is converted to a one-month loss rate. This conversion
inn ii i mi n i in i mi mi nun i in i n mi i i i i i HIM inn i i i n 11 , 'i. ij|vi i t; ' < iji|iHn<<
is accomplished by dividing the annual loss rate by 12.
7. Amount of soil lost before repairs are instituted (Line 4 x
' ' j!
Line6): Theamount of soil lost from the bared ground is the product
of the monthly loss rate per acre and the acreage of the facilitythat
is exposed. This product is then multiplied by two to allow for soil
lost during the removal of the vegetation. The ground is assumed to be
bare for about one month before the repairs and replanting are completed.
The conversion to volume of soil lost is carried out assuming a soil
I
density of 100 Ibs. per cu. ft.
9-128
',,',,, ' ,:!" , , ,!!' '! ,'" !,!! !!',!!' ' ' ,,!,,"' , jl
,,, , , ' I ' '" 'nil, ' Ill' ii
'i ;:': ::" ':~ : : :"": : "": ' : ' :': " """ - : : :: : ; F;:
-------
8. Unit cost for excavating and loading soil: The unit cost for
excavating and loading replacement soil is computed using a 2 cu. yd.
front end loader. This operation will be performed under contract.
9. On-site haul of excavated soil to area needing repair: The
excavated soil is transported on-site over a 2000 ft. distance by trucks
operating under contract.
10. Filling and compacting eroded areas of the facility: The replace-
ment soil is filled and compacted into the eroded areas using a dozer
operating under contract.
11. Total unit cost for soil replacement (Line 8 + Line 9 + Line 10):
The total unit cost of soil replacement is the sum of the excavation-
loading, hauling and filling unit costs. These unit costs were obtained
from estimates made by a Iqcal contractor.
12. Cost of soil replacement (Line 7 x Line 11): The total cost for
replacing the lost soil is the product of the amount of soil lost times
the unit cost for soil replacement.
13. Unit cost for seeding bare soil: The unit cost for seeding the
bare acreage is computed from the sum of the labor, materials and equip-
ment costs.
Labor $69.10/acre
Materials $13.90/acre
Equipment $ 5.00/acre
The grass planted 'is Kentucky bluegrass available from a local supplier
at $0.32 per Ib. in 50-lb. bags. The application rate for this seed is
1 Ib. per 1000 sq. ft. (or about 40 Ibs. per acre). This is less than one-
third of the seed application rate used for home lawns. Experience has
shown this seeding rate to be satisfactory.
14. Unit cost for fertilizing: Since the soil at this hazardous
waste facility is quite poor, fertilization is necessary. Type 10/6/4
fertilizer costing $0.12 pซir Ib. (in 50-lb. bags) is applied at a rate
of 500 Ibs. per acre. This corresponds to a nitrogen application rate
of 50 Ibs. per acre. The unit cost of fertilizing is the sum of the
labor, materials and equipment costs.
Labor ! $69.10/acre
Materials : $60.00/acre
9-129
-------
Equipment $ 5.00/acre
Previous experience at this facility has shown that this application
ratefor fertilizer is satisfactory.
15. Unit cost for mulching with straw: Since the soil is bare,
protection from erosion must be provided while the grass starts to grow.
This is achieved by using straw mulch at an application rate of 1 ton
per acre. The unit cost of mulching is the sum of the labor, materials
and equipment costs.
Labor $34.50/acre
Materials $85.00/acre
Equipment $ 5.00/acre
16. Total unit replanting cost (Line 13 + Line 14 + Line 15): The
total unit replanting cost is the sum of the seeding, fertilizing, and
mulching costs. Lime is not applied at this facility because it is not
recommended by the Agricultural Extension Service (USDA).
17. Total replanting costs (Line 4 x Line 16)': The total replanting
costs for the entire 30-year period are then $20,796.
I!
18. Total costs for initial replanting to establish vegetation (Line
12 + Line 17): The total costs^ for the initial replanting to establish
vegetation are then $20,847.
19. Total annual cost (Line 18 4- 30): The total cost for the initial
i1
replanting toestablish vegetation is divided by the 30 years of the post-
closure period to yield the total annual cost, for a total of $695.
E. Administrative Services ,
ซ I. Number of technical hours required for administrative duties
(annual): Since the facility is closed, all of the required administration
is an extra cost that must be carefully accounted for. This facility esti-
mates that an average of three weeks of labor by a manager is required to
administer the complete set of specified post-closure activities. This
average administrative requirement includes the administration of the
occasional contingent events described in Worksheet. C.
2, Person-hour cost for technical administrative duties: The labor
rate for facility technical labor is $30 per hour fully-loaded.
3. Total administrative costs for technical labor (Line 1 x Line 2):
II i'7 , 1.1,1 , S III ' lilii"'Ml! ill ' . ', ,' , i" . '" ' i, '' ... " ,i, ' , ,; "'I1 " ป '. . . ? Ail.' ', lif'Si .iiE 'iii"i ' ',. In1!.,, II1 I"! '' ill,' ' i' , ''I;1 .U""1
9-130
-------
The total cost for administrative technical labor is the product of the
hours required and the labor rate. ;
4v Number of clerical hours required for administrative duties:
Three weeks of clerical work is required to support the technical adminis-
trator.
5. Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties: The fully-
loaded labor rate for clerical labor at the facility is $8 per hour.
6. Total administrative costs for clerical labor (Line 4 x Line 5):
The total cost for administrative clerical labor is the product of the
hours required and the labor rate.
7. Office or trailer rental: The total annual administrative cost
also includes the rental of office space during the busier times of each
post-closure year. This includes typewriter,- telephone and supplies.
8. Total annual administrative costs for post-closure activities
(Line 3 + Line 6 + Line 7): The total cost of administration is the
sum.of the costs of technical labor, clerical labor, and office rental;
F. Total Costs Including Administration and Contingencies
Items 1 through 5 summarize the total annual costs of the post-
closure functions taken from the cost worksheets. The erosion contingency
repair cost (Line 3) used is the annual cost of the two major erosion
events expected in the post-closure period (30 years).
6. Total of Lines 1 through 5: The total costs of the activities
listed in Lines 1 through 5 are $40,206.
7. Contingencies: Fifteen percent of the sum of the above costs is
taken as an allowance for contingencies. This contingency allowance .is
made in addition to the costs expected from the two major post-closure
erosion events.
8'. Administration: An additional 10 percent of Line 6 is included
for fees, insurance and related needs.
9. Total annual costs of post-closure (Line 6 + Line 7 + Line 8):
The total sum of the annual post-closure costs is $50,258.
9-131
-------
POST-CLOSURE
WORKSHEET A - PERIODIC FACILITY INSPECTION
1. Number of technical management person-hours
required for each routine inspection of the
closed facility
2. Annual number of routine inspections
3. Person-hour costs for technical management labor
4. Technical labor costs for annual routine inspections
(Line 1 x Line 2 x Line 3)
5. Annual number of engineer-supported inspections
6, Number of independent state-certified engineering
nil i i i in in n inil inn i n ill
hours for each engineer-supported inspection
7. Number of technical management hours for each
engineer-supported inspection
8. Person-hour cost for a professional engineer
9. Engineering labor costs for the engineer-supported
inspections (Line 5 x Line 6xLine8)
10. Technical labor costsfor theengineer-supported
,. inspections (Line 3 x Line 5 x Line 7)
11. Labor costs for the engineer-supported inspections
(Line 9+ Line 10)
12. Truck rental cost for each inspection
13, Annual truck rental cost for inspections
(Line 2 + Line 5 x Line 12)
14. Total ^mu^i inspection cost (Line 4 + Line 11 +
Line 13)
Labor
16 hours
6
$30
$2880
2
8 hours
8 hours
$75
$1200
$480
$1680
$36
$288
$4848
9-132
ii -
ii I i ill
-------
POST-CLOSURE
WORKSHEET B - ROUTINE MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
Mowing Operations
1. Facility acreage :
2. Mowing labor (per acre)
3. Mowing equipment (per acre)
4. Unit mowing cost (Line 2 + Line 3)
5. Annual frequency of mowing
6. Annual cost of mowing (Line 1 x Line 4 x Line 5)
Routine Erosion Damage Repair
7. Annual routine erosion rate
8. Total annual routine erosive loss (Line 1.x Line 7)
9. Unit cost for hand excavation of soil
10. Unit cost for transporting of soil on-site.
11. Unit cost for hand compacting soil (repairing
erosive damage)
12. Unit cost of seeding
13. Aggregate unit cost of repairing routine soil
erosion damage (Line 9 + Line 10 + Line 11 4- Line 12)
14. Total annual cost for repairing erosive damage of
a routine nature (Line 8 x Line 13)
15. Adjustment factor to account for unusually wet seasons
16. Annual cost for repairing routine erosive damage
(Line 14 x Line 15)
Fence Replacement
17. Frequency of replacing fence
18. Facility perimeter
19. Unit cost of replacing fence
200 acres
$14.28
$5.37
$19.65
Once a year
$3930
0.12 tons
per acre
(.089 cu.
yds./acre)
17.8 cu. yds.
$21.21/cuป yd.
$2.13/cu. yd.
$21.21/cu. yd.
$l/cu. yd.
$45.55/cu.'yd.
$810.79
$1621.58
Once during
post-closure
period
11,808 ft.
$13.06/linear
ft. (installed)
9-133
-------
WORKSHEET B (continued)
20. total cost of fencereplacement(Line 18 x Line 19)
21. Pro-rated annual cps,t qf fence replacement
Fertilizing
22. Unit cost for fertilizing
23. Number of fertilizerapplications for first 3'years
24. Number of fertilizer applications during remainder
of post-closure (Years 4-30)
25.Total costs of fertilizing for first 3 years
(Line 1 x Line 22 x Line 23)
26. Total costs of fertilizing for post-closure
years 4-30 (Line 1 x Line 22 x Line 24)
27. Total fertilizing costs (Line 25 + Line 26)
28. Annual cost of facility fertilization (Line 27 4- 30)
Ground-water Monitoring Well Replacement
29. Unit cost for replacingwell
30. Number of wells needing replacement during the
$154,212.48
$ ...... 5,140.41
,' III,,,!!1;,,, !,. j, "Bl, :.,'' "!' ,;,, ."Hi .iff1 "','!.,' ,|i '" *' 'I1' HKiJIiHI1/
$134.10/acre
..... ............ '3" ........... ' .......
$ 80,460
$134,100
$214,560
$ 7,152
$425 /well
2
post-closure period
31. Total, cost of^monitoring well replacement during ' $850
the entire post-closure period (Line 29 x Line 30)
Leachate Pumping and Disposal
32. Frequency of removing the Ieachates Once/month
33. Average monthly total leachate withdrawal 2000 gals.
i
34. Unit cost of removing the leachate to an active $0.18/gal.
off-site TSDF
35. Total annual cost of removing leachate $4320
(Line 32 x Line 33 x Line 34 x 12)
36. Unit cost for disposing of leachate off-site (at $.05/gal.
a surface impoundment)
37. Annual costs for disposing off-site (Line 32 x $1200
Line 33 x Line 36 x 12)
38. Total annual costs for removing and disposing of $5520
i
Ieachates (Line 35 + Line 37)
9-134
-------
WORKSHEET B (continued)
Ground-Water Monitoring
39. Number of wells monitored 12 wells
40. Number of samples taken per well (annual) 2 samples
41. Total number of samples per well (annual) 24 samples
(Line 39 x Line 40)
42. Number of hours for collecting the samples (per 2 hours
sample)
43. Total number of hours for collecting samples 48 hours
(Line 41 x Line 42)
44. Total number of hours for preparing and delivering 6 hours
samples
45. Total sample handling hours (Line 43 + Line 44) 54 hours
46. Person-hour costs for handling ground-water samples $15
47. Total sample handling costs (Line 45 x Line 46) $810
48. Unit cost of ground-water quality analysis $77
49. Unit' cost of ground-water contamination analysis $108
50. Total cost for ground-water quality analysis $924
(annual) (Line 39 x Line 48)
51. Total cost for ground-water contamination analysis $2592
(annual) (Line 41 x Line 48) :
52. Total annual ground-water monitoring cost (Line 49 $4326
+ Line -50 + Line 51)
Routine Maintenance Summation
53. Annual mowing cost (Line 6) $3930
54. Annual cost for repairing routine erosive $1621.58
damage (Line 16)
55. Annual cost for replacing fence (Line 21) $5140.41
56. Annual cost for fertilizing (Line 28) $7152
57. Annual cost for replacing well (Line 21 4- 30) $28
58. Annual cost for removing leachates (Line 38) $5520
59. Annual cost for ground-water monitoring (Line 52) $4326
60. Total annual cost for routine activities $27.717.99
9-135
-------
' ','L, ".!i,il|i|iiซi]" ปl|llilirill|ii!l .1:' ill, illlllihr M.HIII i
,|,|,|, ! I'!!',1!''"!,,!!'"!,,"",''!'!'!''I!!'",",,!''
POST-CLOSURE
III nil ill i ' i i i in ซ i i ' i I
TOKSHEET C - EROSION DAMAGE cONTINGENCt
ill 'I
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
IS.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Percentage of vegetation removed
Facility acreage
Acreage reduced to bare soil (Line 1 x Line 2)
Annual per acre soil loss rate (without
vegatative cover)
Monthly bare ground soil loss rate
ป i ,, ,,,ซ,
, -, ; , - , , , i
111 i i i i HUM i i in i ,,,i, ^ ,, , , ,,; i u, i1 , v , ' ,,'',,,, " i , j1 ,,,,:! v ,1,1, ;, n ,;,,|ii' ii iiiiiiiiiii' i,,,,in ,; ,,
Amount of soil lost before repairs are instituted
(Line 3 x Line 5 x 2) (The factor of 2 adjusts for
,,,, ,,,, ,, , , , , ',
immediate soil losses)
Unit cost: for excavating and loading soil (on-site
operations using a 2-cu. yd. front end loader)
On-site haul of excavated soil to area needing
repair
Filling and compacting the eroded areas (using
a dozer) '/ , "_ , ."'" " _ , ' " "_ ' _
Total unit cost for soil replacement
" i (Line 7 + Line 8 + Line 9)
' II III * 1 1 1 1 , , , , , .J. 1 . ;
Cost of replacing lost soil (Line 6 x Line 10)
Unit cost for seeding the bare soil
II ' '!' "'"'1 1!1 1" "' "I' ป '' ' ' "' 1'* ' '''ป "'
Unit cost for fertilizing
Unit cost for mulching with straw
Total unit replanting cost (Line 12 + Line 13 + Line
Total replanting cost (Line 3 x Line 15)
Number of erosive incidents expected in the post-
closure period
Total cost for repairing damage from erosive
incidents (Line 11 + Line 16 x Line 17
Total annual cost for repairs required by erosive
lii incidents "(Line1 18 4 30)
30%
i
200 acres
; II " '"
60 acres
' | 't ' , ,; . ,
12 tons
per acre
! '' ,
1 ton per
I acre1 :
(.741 cu.
. yds. /acre)
u.ji.,1 ' Hi ' i, ' ' , ' > . .;,,i,l,|i.lii "'i1 " .. ." '" ,!L"!!ป i'1' !! 'U!*1'1 ,!!!ป!:' .ป
120 tons
(89 cu. yds.)
, j| , ,;, , ,
II
' ' "
cu. yd.
$0.85 per ^j
cu . yd .
$1.25 per
,, ii,,-,, , ' ' , ,,
cu. yd.
. "| ^ $2.31 per _ ' t ^ ^ ' '
cu. yd.
lil:" "' "I1 ; '|I'!!'IJ ' 'l!- "" ' "
$205.59
$88/acre
'I'""!,!' ' 'ij! .'"| '''""' 1 ' " 'lll! '. II ' 'I'1
" '"'I::"$i34/acre
$124.50/acre
14) $346.50/acre
$20,790
li
2
' 1!
j
$41,580
$1386 m
: ,, ,.. :, . : ^
9-136
-------
POST-CLOSURE
WORKSHEET D - INITUiL REPLANTING TO ESTABLISH VEGETATION
1. Percentage failure of vegetation per year
2. Number of years required, for full vegetation
3. Facility acreage
4. Total.acres to be replanted due to initial
failure of vegetation (Line 1 x Line 2 x Line 3)
5. Annual per acre soil loss rate (for areas with
inadequate vegetative cover)
6. Monthly bare ground soil loss rate
7. Amount of soil lost before repairs are
instituted (Line 4 x Line 6) -
8. Unit cost for soil excavation and loading
(on-site operations using a 2-cu. yd. front end loader)
9. On-site haul of excavated soil to area needing
repair
10. Filling and compacting eroded areas (using a
dozer)
11. Total unit cost for soil replacement
(Line 8 + Line 9 + Line 10)
12. Cost of soil replacement (Line 7 x Line 11)
13. Unit cost for seeding bare soil
14. Unit cost for fertilizing
15. Unit cost for mulching with straw
16. Total unit replanting cost (Line 13 H- Line 14! + Line 15)
17. Total replanting costs (Line 4 x Line 16)
18. Total costs for initial replanting to establish
vegetation (Line 12 + Line 17)
19. Total annual cost (Line 18 T 30)
10 percent
3
200 acres
60
6 tons/acre
.5 tons
(.37p6;cu.
yd./acre)
30 tons
(22 cu. yds.)
$6.21 per
cu. yd.
$0.85 per
cu. yd.
$1.25 per
cu. yd.
$2.31 per
cu. yd.
$50.82 '
$88/acre
$134.10/acre
$124.50/acre
$346.60/acre
$20,796
$20,847
$695
9-137
-------
POST-CLOSURE
i' w MI ป& if i ;rv. ! ; ;>f vf ::i F , i tf ;* if.. WK, 8 v ,*ii!! ill .:.ซ:
WORKSHEET E - ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Vila \.C ii! 1 J
i '''
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Number" of ""technical hours'" required"'for 'administrative'' . '120 hours
duties (annual)
Person-hour cost for technical administrative duties $30
Total administrative costs for technical labor $3600
""(Line 1 x Line 2) ' . .. . ' ' '
1 .1 I! ''' ,;, < , I'lilllll i , l,ซl " Jif" Jii, |ji . Jl ' IJ ,! I > , , III! il,
Number of clerical hours required for "a&"l5is tratlve 12"0 hours
duties'"
|l| I || 111 | ll || 111| 11 , | |l| ,i|l. /.. .1, ,,1 ,n,' , , '"in" ,Jซi llihillN " ll 11'"i,"', I ,, I"! II* Hill ,.|i'IU,i .1!,' Ov, 'i llfilllmiJ'!1'"* S ,lป,". ป' frW i ".ll'i'ii"1! ,'""'. '|ir Hr'li ' 'Ifl!
Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties $8
Total administrative costs for clerical labor $960
(Line "4 x "Line 5) " " '
Office or trailer rental (includes equipment and $1000
supplies)
Total annual administrative costs for the post-closure $5560
activities (Line 3 + Line 6 + Line 7)
"" 'ii"
9-138
-------
POST-CLOSURE
WORKSHEET F - TOTAL COSTS INCLUDING
ADMINISTRATION AND CONTINGENCIES
1. Cost of inspections (From Worksheet A) $ 4,848
2. Cost of routine monitoring and maintenance $27,718
(From Worksheet B)
3. Cost of contingency erosion repairs (From Worksheet C) $ 1,386
4. Cost of initial replanting to establish vegetation $ 695
(From Worksheet D)
5. Cost of post-closure administrative services $ 5,560
(From Worksheet E)
6. Total of Line 1 through Line 5 . $40,207
7. Contingencies $ 6,031
8. Administration, including fees, insurance, etc. $ 4,021
9. Total annual costs of post-closure $50,259
(Line 6 + Line 7 + Line 8)
va 1990
SW-913
9139 *U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981 345-932/8290 1-3
-------
I mi"',11, ,: ' /"SI': .iijllil1"!!!"1!1",1,,:1!1, ป'' IP ,
-------
-------
I
-------
-------
-------
-------
I* 1 ".!' '- i" ,;:J|f ซ:
iik: "!" .V . i.tf '-"JUt ::'*
)
------- |