EPA-600/2-82-035
COSTS OF REMEDIAL RESPONSE
ACTIONS AT UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS
WASTE SITES
By
Howard L. Rlshel
Terence M. Boston'
Curtis J. Schmidt
SCS Engineers
4014 Long Beach Boulevard
Long Beach, California 90807
Contract No. 68-01-4885
Project Officer
Oscar W. Albrecht
Solid and Hazardous Waste. Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
. DISCLAIMER
i 1
i
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmen-
tal Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or com-
mercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use.
r
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created be-
cause of Increasing public and government concern about the
dangers of pollution to the health and welfare of the American
people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are tragic
testimonies to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the Interplay of Its
components require a concentrated and Integrated attack on the
problem.
Research and development 1s that necessary first step 1n
problem solution; 1t Involves defining the problem, measuring
Its Impact, and searching for solutions. The Municipal Envi-
ronmental Research Laboratory develops new and Improved tech-
nology and systems to prevent, treat, and manage wastewater and
solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal
and community sources, to preserve and treat public drinking
water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social,
health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication
1s one of the products of that research and provides a most
vital communications link between the researcher and the user
community.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (PL 96-510) provides for Immediate
attention to mismanaged and uncontrolled hazardous waste
facilities. Section 105 of the Act requires revision and
republlcatlon of the national contingency plan which was
originally prepared and published pursuant to Section 311 of
the Federal Hater Pollution Control Act. The revision estab-
lishes procedures and standards for responding to releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants, Including
methods for evaluating the relative costs for remedying any
releases or threats from facilities which pose substantial
danger to the public health or the environment. This report
provides preliminary estimates of engineering costs for
remedial action operations at uncontrolled landfill and
Impoundment disposal sites. It 1s Intended for use by engi-
neers and officials responsible for Implementing remedial
response actions 1n a cost-effective manner.
Francis T, Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
The primary purpose of this study was to update conceptual
design cost estimates for remedial action unit operations por-
trayed 1n earlier reports.
Thirty-five remedial action unit operation conceptual de-
signs, addressing uncontrolled landfill or Impoundment disposal
sites, were costed for Newark, New Jersey, as well as for U.S.
lower and upper cost averages within the contiguous 48 states.
Such estimates were 1n terms of mid-1980 dollars.
Total component capital costs and operating costs were
, estimated for each unit operation. Total and average life
1 cycle costs were computed. One example was presented to show
,' how to estimate the costs of complete remedial response
scenarios.
I This report was submitted 1n fulfillment of Contract No.
j 68-01-4885 by SCS Engineers, under the sponsorship of-the U.S.
', Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers the period
I from April 11, 1980, to February 18, 1981, and work completed
1 as of April 13, 1981.
1v
-------
CONTENTS
Section Paj
Disclaimer 11
Foreword ....111
Abstract 1v
Figures vl
Tables v11
1 Introduction 1
Background ....1
Objectives 1
Approach 1
Report Organization 3
Qualifications and Limitations of Results 3
2 Conclusions and Recommendations 4
3 Site Profile for Remedial Response Actions at
Landfills 6
4 Site Profile for Remedial Response Actions at
Surface Impoundments... 12
5 Short- and Long.Term Unit Operations ......17
Short-Term Response Action 17
Long-Term Response Action .19
Alternative Unit Operations 20
6 Cost Compilation Methodology 22
Overview 22
Use of Price Lists 22
Life Cycle Costing 23
7 Unit Operations .26
8 Example Remedial Action Scenarios 103
Introduction 103
Hypothetical Problem 104
9 Scale and Regional Cost Variations 109
References 116
Bibliography 117
Appendix A 119
-------
FIGURES
1
J Number Page
t 1 Typical side view of landfill ................ .".. ....... 9
2 Typical top view of landfill .......................... 10
| 3 Side view of surface Impoundment ...................... 15
4
4 Landfill bituminous concrete surface sealing
cost variations ...................................... 110
|
5 Landfill bentonite slurry trench cutoff wall
cost variations ......................... . ............ Ill
6 Landfill excavation and reburlal cost variations ..... 112
7 Impoundment grout curtain cost variations ............ 113
8 Impoundment well point system cost variations ........ 114
v1
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Size of Five Hypothetical Landfill Disposal
Sites 7
2 Summary of Landfill Dimensions..... 11
3 Scale of Operation for Five Hypothetical Surface
Impoundments ...13
4 Summary of Surface Impoundment Dimensions 16
5 List of Unit Operations Used as Remedial Actions 18
6a Unit Operation 1. Contour Grading and Surface
Water Diversion 27
6b Costs of Contour Grading and Surface Hater
Diversion for Medium Size Landfill 28
7a Unit Operation 2. Surface Sealing by Bituminous
Concrete 29
7b Costs of Surface Sealing by Bituminous Concrete
for Medium Size Landfill 30
8a Unit Operation 3. Revegetation 31
8b Costs of Revegetation for Medium Size Landfill 32
9a Unit Operation 4. Bentonite Slurry-Trench
Cutoff Wall 33
9b Costs of Bentonite Slurry-Trench Cutoff Wall for
Medium Size Landfill. 34
lOa Unit Operation 5. Grout Curtain 35
lOb Costs of Grout Curtain for Medium Size Landfill 36
lla Unit Operation 6. Sheet Piling Cutoff Wall 38
vii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
lib Costs of Sheet Piling Cutoff Wall for Medium
Size Landfill 39
; 12a Unit Operation 7. Grout Bottom Sealing 40
i
12b Costs of Grout Bottom Sealing for Medium
i Size Landfill 41
13a Unit Operation 8. Drains 42
| 13b Costs of Drains for Medium Size Landfill 43
14a Unit Operation 9. Hell Point System 45
1 14b Costs of Well Point System for Medium Size
Landfill 46
15a Unit Operation 10. Deep Well System 48
15b Costs of Deep Well System for Medium Size
Landfill ... 49
16a Unit Operation 11. Injection 51
•
j 16b Costs of Injection for Medium Size Landfill 52
17a Unit Operation 12. Leachate Redrculatlon by
I Subgrade Irrigation............ 53
17b Costs of Leachate Redrculatlon by Subgrade
1 Irrigation for Medium Size Landfill 54
18a Unit Operation 13. Chemical Fixation 56
] 18b Costs of Chemical Fixation for Medium Size
1 Landfill 57
j 19a Unit Operation 14. Chemical Injection 58
19b Costs of Chemical Injection for Medium Size
; Landfill ...59
\
20a Unit Operation 15. Excavation and Disposal at
Secure Landfill 60
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number _Page
20b Costs of Excavation and Disposal at Secure Landfill
for Medium Size Landfill 61
21a Unit Operation 16. Ponding 62
21b Costs of Ponding for Medium Size Landfill 63
22a Unit Operation 17. Trench Construction 64
22b Costs of Trench Construction for Medium Size
Landfill 65
23a Unit Operation 18. Perimeter Gravel Trench Vents....66
23b Costs of Perimeter Gravel Trench Vents for
Medium Size Landfill 67
24a Unit Operation 19. Treatment of Contaminated
Ground Water 68
24b Costs of Treatment of Contaminated Ground Hater
for Medium Size Landfill... 69
25a Unit Operation 20. Gas Migration Control (Trench
Vents - Passive) 70
25b Costs of Gas Migration Control, Passive, for
Medium Size Landfill 71
26a Unit Operation 21. Gas Migration Control (Gas
Collection System - Active) 72
26b Costs of Migration Control, Active, for Medium
Size Landfill 73
27a Unit Operation 22. Pond Closure and Contour
Grading of Surface 75
27b Costs of Pond Closure and Contour Grading for
Medium Size Impoundment ...76
28a Unit Operation 23. Bituminous Concrete Surface
Sealing of Closed Impoundment.... 77
28b Costs of Bituminous Concrete Surface Sealing
for Medium Size Impoundment 78
1x
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
29a
29b
30a
30b
31a
31b
32a
32b
33a
33b
34a
34b
35a
35b
36a
36b
37a
37b
38a
Page
Unit Operation 24. Revegetatlon 79
Costs for Revegetatlon for Medium Size Impoundment...80
Unit Operation 25. Slurry Trench Cutoff Wall 81
Costs for Slurry Trench "Cutoff Wall for Medium
51 ze Impoundment 82
Unit Operation 26. Grout Curtain 83
Costs of Grout Curtain for Medium Size Impoundment...84
Unit Operation 27. Sheet Piling Cutoff Wall 85
Costs of Sheet Piling Cutoff Wall for Medium
Size Impoundment 86
Unit Operation 28. Grout Bottom Seal
,87
Costs of Grout Bottom Seal for Medium Size
Impoundment.... 88
Unit Operation 29. Toe and Underdralns
,89
Costs of Toe and Underdralns for Medium Size
Impoundment , 90
Unit Operation 30. Well Point System 91
Costs of Well Point System for Medium Size
Impoundment .*,
,92
Unit Operation 31. Deep Well System 93
Costs of Deep Well System for Medium Size
Impoundment 94
Unit Operation 32. Well Injection System 95
Costs of Well Injection Systems for Medium
S1 ze Impoundment -. 96
Unit Operation 33. Leachate Treatment 97
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Pa ge
38b Costs of Leachate Treatment for Medium Size
Impoundment 98
39a Unit Operation 34. Berm Reconstruction 99
395 Costs of Berm Reconstruction for Medium Size
. Impoundment 100
40a Unit Operation 35. Excavation and Disposal at
Secure Landfill 101
40b Costs of Excavation and Disposal at Secure Land*
fill for Medium Size Impoundment... 102
41 Sample Calculation of Remedial Action Costs for
Hypothetical Landfill 105
A-l Capital and O&M Components Which Contribute
to Unit Operations „ 120
A-2 Average U.S. Low and High Costs of Unit Opera-
tions for Medium-Sized Sites - Metric Units 121
A-3 Average U.S. Low and High Costs of Unit Opera-
tions for Medium-Sized Sites - English Units 123
A-4 Landfill Capital Cost Components - Metric Units 125
A-5 Landfill O&M Cost Components - Metric Units 130
A-6 Landfill Capital Cost Components - English Units....131
A-7 Landfill O&M Cost Components - English Units 136
A-8 Surface Impoundment Capital Cost Components -
Metric Units 137
A-9 Surface Impoundment O&M Cost Components - Metric
Units 140
A-10 Surface Impoundment Capital Cost Components -
English Units 141
A-ll Surface Impoundment O&M Cost Components - English
Units 144
xi
-------
SECTION 1
1
,1 INTRODUCTION
jj BACKGROUND
I
Congress passed "Superfund" legislation 1n 1980, which auth-
{ orlzes EPA to assist 1n the elimination of uncontrolled waste
] sites through remedial response/cleanup actions. The responsible
offices within EPA have requested the Office of Research and De-
I velopment (ORD) to collect and provide technical Information to
I] support this program.
As part of that Information collection process, remedial
| response cost data from earlier reports needed to be reviewed,
i revised, and presented according to a consistent computational
framework. It 1s In response to that need that this project was
• undertaken.
;
^ OBJECTIVES
}The objectives of this study were to review and update reme-
dial response conceptual design cost data from earlier reports,
to enhance such conceptual designs so that each constitutes an
.Independent remedial response activity, and to Integrate this
cost data Into a consistent methodology so that costs of such ac-
tivities can be readily estimated and compared. Additional goals
were to determine the relative Influences which geographic price
differentials and scale economies have on such estimates, and to
provide a methodology for combining costs from the various reme-
dial actions Into complete scenarios of site cleanup. It 1s
recognized that the accomplishment of these additional goals 1s
only partially obtainable under a conceptual approach, and that
further refinements will rely on subsequent research Into the
actual costs of real-life cleanup operations.
APPROACH
The technical approach for this project was divided Into
four tasks:
« Collect and review existing pertinent reports.
e Evaluate and refine conceptual designs.
-------
• Estimate costs of conceptual designs.
• Estimate costs for an example remedial response scenario.
Although a considerable body of literature addresses some
aspect of hazardous waste, the approach taken 1n the first task
was to Identify those source documents which provide a conceptual
design approach to costing discrete types of cleanup activities
for pollution problems at uncontrolled or abandoned sites. For
the purposes of this report, these discrete types of cleanup
activities are termed remedial response "unit operations." Al-
though other documents were consulted, the primary sources for
this type of Information were:
• A. W. Martin. Guidance Manual for Minimizing Pollution
from Waste Disposal Sites.
• The Fred C. Hart Associates. Technology, Prevalence and
Economies of Landfill Disposal in the United States, Vol-
ume II.
• Geraghty and Miller. Surface Impoundments and Their
Effects on Ground Water Quality 1n the U.S.
• JRB Associates. Remedial Actions for Waste Disposal
Sites: A Decision Makers Guide and Technical Handbook.
The second task required that earlier versions of unit oper-
ation conceptual designs be evaluated with respect to the com-
pleteness of their component requirements, and the extent to
which they represent discrete remedial activities. Deficiencies
thus Identified were to be corrected by revision of the component
requirements for each unit operation. Scale economy considera-
tions were addressed in this task, first, by defining the af-
fected landfill and Impoundment sites 1n terms of five scales of
operation, and, second, by estimating unit operation component
requirements which correspond to each scale of site operation.
Size and quantity of components required to Implement each unit
operation were therefore estimated 1n terms of five different
site sizes.
The third task estimated the component costs for each scale
of each unit operation, and adjusted these cost estimates to re-
flect the most likely or typical variations due to geograMc
price differentials. The emphasis in this costing process was to
apply a consistent costing methodology which would allow later
comparison and combination of unit operation cost estimates.
The fourth task showed how the discrete unit operations
could be combined to estimate costs for complete remedial
-------
response "scenarios." This approach Involves summing unit opera-
tion cost estimates.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report begins with a conceptualized description of the
sites requiring cleanup (for site profiles, see Sections 3 and
4), provides generalized discussions of the various unit opera-
tions and the costing methodology (Sections 5 and 6), gives a de-
tailed discussion for each of the 35 unit operations (Section 7),
shows an example of how the cost estimates may be combined for
costing complete remedial response scenarios (Section 8), and
discusses the Impacts which prices of major components can have
on scale economies and regional variations 1n life cycle average
costs. Appendix A provides a matrix of the components that
appear 1n each unit operation (Table A-l); summarizes lower and
upper average costs for each unit operation (Tables A-2 and A-3);
and gives unit prices for all capital and O&M components (Tables
A-4 through A-7).
QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF RESULTS
The overall objective of this study was to estimate the
cleanup costs of hazardous waste sites using a conceptual design
approach. This approach was necessitated by the fact that
"Superfund" remedial response activities are still 1n their In-
fancy, and that real-world feedback on the cost of these hazard-
ous waste cleanup activities 1s largely unavailable.
In using these cost estimates, the reader should exercise
considerable caution. Cost estimates are only as complete as the
unit operations they describe, or as realistic as the various as-
sumptions and site profiles upon which they are based.
A subsequent volume to this report will use real-life ex-
periences In actual hazardous waste site remedial actions to
refine this volume's costing methodology.
-------
i
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The literature review verified that little has been done 1n
estimating the cost of hazardous waste cleanup at uncontrolled or
abandoned sites. Those sources which addressed remedial respon-
ses frequently followed a case study or national* Industry-wide
approach; cost Information, 1f provided, was too highly aggre-
gated for costing separate remedial unit operations. Those
sources which did develop cost estimates at the unit operation
level frequently omitted critical components or allowed substan-
tial overlap 1n the scope of each unit operation. This study has
attempted to overcome such deficiencies, as well as to quantita-
tively bound the effects which scale economies and regional price
differentials are expected to have on the costs of Implementing
35 different remedial response unit operations.
The primary product of this study has been a costing method-
ology which was consistently applied to each of these unit opera-
tions. The resulting cost estimates would seem to lend them-
selves readily to (1) comparing costs for alternative unit opera-
tions which perform the same function, or (2) computing combined
cost estimates for unit operations which comprise a complete
remedial response scenario. The problem with the first type of
use is that such simple cost comparisons do not address technical
differences in the capabil Hies or efficiencies of alternative
unit operations which accomplish the same goal. Such differences
depend on both the Inherent configuration of each respective unit
operation, and the environmental setting under which it is actu-
ally Implemented.
As comprehensive as the site profiles may be, they still
represent a conceptual design of an environmental setting, and
, are no substitute for actual site conditions when choosing among
j alternative unit operations. A subsequent report may expedite
' some of these qualitative considerations.
1 The problem with the second type of use is that the simple
I addition of unit operation costs, when configuring a complete
remedial response scenario, ignores both real-world influences on
conceptually derived costs and the minor joint effects of scale
-------
and agglomeratlve economies. More specifically, some scale eco-
nomies may still be enjoyed when multiple unit operations all
require similar component Inputs. Agglomeratlve economies re-
sulting from minor component overlap or redundancy may also occur
when unit operations are combined Into remedial response scena-
rios. Subsequent research should address these considerations.
Because complete remedial action scenarios for uncontrolled
sites typically consist of several unit operations, much remains
to be done, even from a conceptual design cost perspective, 1n
Identifying the most appropriate short- and long-term remedial
scenarios. Such an effort might Include a systematic evaluation
to determine the most prevalent pollution problems occurring at
uncontrolled landfill and Impoundment sites. Once this set of
"typical" pollution cases has been determined, likely remedial
action scenarios could be configured using unit operations devel-
oped 1n this study. The resulting composite cost estimates for
these scenarios could be configured using unit operations devel-
oped 1n this study. The resulting composite cost estimates for
these scenarios could then be compared to determine the relative
and absolute cost advantages of each alternative scenario.
-------
SECTION 3
SITE PROFILE FOR REMEDIAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AT LANDFILLS
i
To determine the characteristics of remedial actions at
i landfill sites, five sizes of landfill disposal sites were hy-
\ pothesized. Table 1 shows the assumed tons of hazardous waste
contained 1n each of the five selected sizes.
The range in scale of the hypothetical landfill sites was
developed primarily from two sources (2, 7), and the following
assumptions were made:
• The surface area for each landfill 1s square.
• All landfills are cut and cover operations, with cut
slopes at a 2:1 ratio and fill slopes at a 3:1 ratio.
• Operation at each landfill 1s 260 days per year for a
10-year period.
1
I
• The compaction rate 1s 0.596 tonnes/compacted m3.
To help compare remedial actions for each scale of landfill
operation, the following set of environmental conditions was
assumed:
• Ground surface and ground water gradient are at a 1 per-
cent slope.
• Ground water 1s 4.0 m (13.1 ft) from the ground surface.
i • Low permeability strata (<1 x 10*6 cm/sec) 1s 15 m (50
I ft) below the ground surface.
• Unconsoljdated earth materials have a permeability of
1 J>1 x 10"5 cm/sec.
It 1s recognized that no actual landfill will match the
above-listed assumptions; however, these assumptions are neces-
sary to develop conceptual costs later 1n this report.
i
-------
TABLE 1. SIZE OF FIVE HYPOTHETICAL LANDFILL
DISPOSAL SITES
Weight
Material
Tonnes
24,000
120,000
240,000
700,000
1,200.000
of Waste
1 Contained
Tons
26,400
132,000
264,000
770,000
1.320,000
Volume of Waste
Material Contained
•1
40,000
200,000
400,000
1,200,000
2,000,000
yds 3
52,400
260.000
520,000
1,570,000
2,600,000
Waste-to-Son
Ratio
1:1
1.5:1
2:1
3:1
4:1
-------
Figures 1 and 2, respectively, show the typical side view
and top view of the hypothetical landfill. With the design cri-
teria established, and the environmental conditions at each land.
fill given, the dimensions for each of the five sizes of the hy-
pothetical landfills are provided 1n Table 2.
\
\
V ;
i
8
-------
GROUND SURFACE (
3i4 SLOPE
V
GROUND WATER
FLOW OF GROUND WATER
> ism
Low Permeability Strata
Where:
Total volume of refuse 1m3)
Total volume of soil (m )
Height of landfill above ground surface (m)
Depth of landfill below ground surface (m)
Top side of landfill (m)
Bottom side of landfill (m)
Side of landfill at ground surface (ml
Area of landfill at ground surface (m )
Figure 1. Typical side view of landfill.
-------
FLOW OF
GROUND WATER
Figure 2. Typical top view of landfill.
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF LANDFILL DIMENSIONS*
Dimensions
TL (m3)
Di ("* )
hl ("0 *
h2 (m)
Si (m)
S£ («")
S3 (m)
A (m2)
A (acres)
24,000
39,759
39,759
6
5
63.29
79.29
99.29
9,859.0
2.43
Tonnes of Haste
120,000
198,796
132.530
7
5
140.49
162.49
182.49
33,303.0
8.23
Material Contained
240,000 700
397,592 1,192
198,796 397
8
5
184.69
212.69
232.69
54,146.0 128
13.38
1n
T000
,776
,592
9
5
303
337
357
,073
31
Landfill
1,200,000
1,987,960
496,990
10
5
.87 370.24
.87 410.24
.87 430.24
185,108
.65 45.74
- .... ,
See Figures 1 and 2 for legend.
t Per waste-to-soU ratios; Includes final cover.
f Assumed.
** Assumed; Note: bottom 1 m of landfill 1n ground water,
11
-------
SECTION 4
SITE PROFILE FOR REMEDIAL RESPONSE ACTIONS
AT SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
To determine the characteristics of remedial actions at
impoundment sites, five sizes of Impoundment sites were hypothe-
sized. Table 3 shows the assumed waste Influent volume and the
assumed detention time for each of the five selected Impoundment
sizes.
The range 1n size of the hypothetical surface Impoundments
was developed primarily from two sources (3, 4). The sizes of
the surface Impoundments (area requirements and depth) were cal-
culated from the flow and detention time requirements with vary-
ing depths. Based on these calculations, representative pond
dimensions were chosen, consistent with Impoundments of similar
Influent flows.
AlthoTrgh~the~"5TFarter of operation differ for each surface
Impoundment, the following criteria used to design the ponds are
Identical:
• The ponds are square and unlined.
• Berms are constructed from soils excavated during pond
construction, and have 3:1 side slopes.
• Seven days per week (365 days per year) operation for
10 years.
• Sediment removed from pond bottom every 2 years.
• Wastewater contains 100 mg/1 settleable solids.
• Density of solids 1s 2 g/cc.
• Sludge 1s 70 percent moisture by weight when removed.
t Wastewater 1s redrculated after allowing 3 to 10 days
for solids settling.
12
-------
TABLE 3. SCALE OF OPERATION FOR FIVE HYPOTHETICAL
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
Influent Volume of Waste
Detention
M3/Day Gallons/Day Time, Days
10 2,640 3
50 13,200 3
500 132,000 10
5,000 1,320,000 10
50,000 13.200,000 10
13
-------
1
!
t Because of short detention time and sludge on bottom,
precipitation, evaporation, and percolation losses are
considered negligible 1n volume calculations.
To help compare remedial actions for each of the scales of
pond operation, the following set of environmental conditions was
assumed:
• Ground surface and ground water gradient are at least
1 percent slope.
• Ground water 1s 4.0 m (13.1 ft) from the ground surface.
• Low permeability strata (aquiclude or aqultard) located
at 15 m (50 ft) from ground surface.
§ Unconsolidated earth materials have a permeability of
2.1 x 10"5 cm/sec.
Figure 3 shows the typical side view of the hypothetical
•impoundments. With the design criteria established and the envi-
ronmental conditions for each pond given, the dimensions for each
of the ponds can be calculated.
Calculations for ponds were made as if ground surface were
level, which does not affect the total surface area requirements
of the impoundment structure.
Table 4 summarizes the dimensions for each scale of opera-
tion for surface impoundments.
14
-------
BERM
GROUND SURFACE
GROUND WATER TABLE
.TOTAL
LENGTH
POND WATER SURFACE
«--
ism
Low Permeability Strata (Aqulclude or Aqultard)
Where: +
o (Total length)* * Impoundment surface area.
* Berm side slopes constructed at 3 horizontal to i
vertical.
• Berm top width nominal 2 m, maximum 3 m.
• 0.5 m freeboard designed Into all ponds.
,• h • pond depth. .
Figure 3. Side view of surface Impoundment.
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT DIMENSIONS
I.
. j
Cubic Meters
Dimensions
Depth (m)
Berm top width (m)
Berm height (m)
Pond depth (m)*
Total surface area (m2)
Surface water area (m2)
10
0.5
2.0
0.5
0.5
376.4
88.4
50
1.0
2.0
0.5
1.0
812.2
342.2
500
2.0
3.0
0.5
2.0
4,678.6
3,181.0
Per Day
5,000
4.0
3.0
1.5
3.0
20,334.8
15,525.0
50,000
6.0
3.0
2.5
4.0
110,755.8
95,357.0
Below ground surface; maximum depth assumed to be 4.0 m.
16
-------
SECTION 5
SHORT- AND LONG-TERM UNIT OPERATIONS
Table 5 lists the unit operations developed as remedial
response actions for uncontrolled landfill and Impoundment haz-
ardous waste sites. These remedial actions can be characterized
for each type of site under one of two response actions.
SHORT-TERM RESPONSE ACTION
A short-term response action was developed for sites where a
temporary action can be Implemented, and a quick response 1s ne-
cessary. The following points better define the characteristics
of short-term remedial actions:
« Cost effectiveness of the remedial action utilized 1s
less Important than the expediency of the action.
t The remedial action results 1n a reduction 1n Immediate
hazardous as opposed to a permanent solution.
• Response time 1s short (weeks) and often 1n the early
stapes of site reclamation.
• Usually limited to small sites or equivalent portions of
larger sites.
Of the remedial actions listed 1n Table 5, the following are
considered to be short-term response actions:
• For landfills:
- Hell point systems
- Chemical Injection
- Perimeter gravel trench vents.
• For surface Impoundments:
- Well point systems
- Toe and underdralns
- leachate treatment
17
-------
TABLE 5. LIST OF UNIT OPERATIONS USED AS REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Landfills
1. Contour grading and surface 22.
water diversion
2. Bituminous concrete surface 23.
sealing
-; 3. Revegetatlon 24.
\ 4. Bentonlte slurry trench cutoff 25.
1 wall 26.
t 5. Grout curtain 27.
I 6. Sheet piling cutoff wall 28.
I 7. Grout bottom sealing 29.
8. Drains 30.
i 9. Well point system 31.
1 10. Deep well system 32.
11. Injection 33.
. 12. Leachate reel reuUtion by 34.
| subgrade Irrigation 35.
» 13. Chemical fixation
14. Chemical Injection
| 15. Excavation and disposal at
I secure landfill
16. Ponding
17, Trench construction
18. Perimeter gravel trench vents
? 19. Treatment of contaminated ground water
20. Gas migration control - passive
21. Gas migration control • active
Impoundments
Pond closure and contour grading
of surface
Bituminous concrete surface
sealing of closed Impoundment
Revegetatlon
Slurry trench cutoff wall
Grout curtain
Sheet piling cutoff wall
Grout bottom seal
Toe and underdralns
Well point system
Deep well system
Well Injection system
Leachate treatment
Berm reconstruction
Excavation and disposal at
secure landfill
18
-------
- Berm reconstruction
- Excavation and disposal at secure landfill.
LONG-TERM RESPONSE ACTION
A long-term response action for a hazardous waste disposal
site consists of remedial actions that respond to problems which
must be dealt with on a permanent, full-scale basis. Character-
istics of long-term remedial actions Include:
« Cost effectiveness.
• A significant hazard exists, but response times are on
the order of months.
• Detailed site Investigations and monitoring data are es-
sential to defining the precise extent of the problem.
• The remedial action results 1n permanent closure of the
site or long-term attenuation of the problem*
Based on the above definition, the following remedial actions are
considered to be long-term responses to pollution problems:
.• For landfills:
- Contour grading and surface water diversion
- Bituminous concrete surface sealing
- Revegetatlon
- Bentonlte slurry trench cutoff wall
• Grout curtain
- Sheet piling cutoff wall
- Grout bottom sealing
• Drains
- Hell point system
- Deep well system
- Injection
• Leachate redrculatlon by subgrade Irrigation
- Chemical fixation
- Excavation and disposal at secure landfill
• Ponding
- Trench construction
- Treatment of contaminated ground -water
- Gas migration control - passive
• Gas migration control - active.
• For surface Impoundments:
- Pond closure and contour grading
- Bituminous concrete surface sealing
19
-------
- Revegetatlon
- Slurry trench cutoff wall
- Sheet piling
• Grout curtain
• Grout bottom seal
• Deep well system
- Well Injection.
ALTERNATIVE UNIT OPERATIONS
When a pollution problem is Identified, various unit opera-
tions can be used singly or in combination to control the same
type of contamination. The following describes the type of pol-
lution problem to be controlled, and provides a 11st of unit
operations which may be used either in combination or as alterna-
tives for each other.
1. For elimination of contaminated site runoff, the preven-
tion of precipitation from entering a landfill or closed
Impoundment, the following are conjunctive/ alternative
unit operations:
• Contour grading and surface water diversion
• Surface sealing
• Revegetatlon
- Bertn construction/reconstruction.
2. For minimization of leachate formation, the following
are conjunctive/alternative unit operations:
- Contour grading and surface water diversion
- Bituminous concrete surface sealing
- Grout curtain
• Sheet piling
- Slurry trench
• Deep well system
- Well point system
• Chemical fixation.
3. For the control of leachate/contamlnated ground water
migration, the following are conjunctive/alternative
unit operations:
- Grout curtain
• Grout bottom seal
• Sheet piling
- Slurry trench
- Well point system
- Well extraction
20
-------
- Well Injection
• Toe and underdrains.
4. For gas (methane and other volatile hydrocarbons), the
following are conjunctive/alternative unit operations:
- Perimeter gravel trench vents
• Gas migration control - passive
- Gas migration control - active.
21
-------
SECTION 6
COST COMPILATION METHODOLOGY
1 ! OVERVIEW
I
To estimate remedial action unit operation costs, it was
. first necessary to define each unit operation 1n terms of Us
I Intended use, Its configuration with respect to the landfill or
1 surface Impoundment site profiles, the extent to which 1t may be
used 1n conjunction with other unit operations, and all other
| pertinent assumptions. The referenced sources were of consider-
1 able assistance 1n developing this description.
I Once this conceptual description was completed, the next
! step was to determine unit operation component requirements, and '
their associated costs, for the median scale at which the land-
fill or surface Impoundment site profiles were portrayed. The
resultant unit operation conceptual designs were then costed at
the component and subcomponent levels using the price lists
^Tables A-4 through A-ll). This process Involved Identifying
i labor, equipment, material, and transportation requirements
I (I.e., subcomponents) for each component of each unit operation
conceptual design. All costs so developed were 1n terms of mid-
1980 dollars for the example location of Newark, New Jersey, as
1 well as for U.S. lower and upper cost averages within the con-
tiguous 48 states. The price lists thus provided a means of
first Identifying and then costing subcomponent requirements, as
well as a tool by which regional cost variations were systemati-
cally Included.
After the price lists were completed, conceptual design cap-
ital and operating cost estimates were accumulated, allowances
for overhead and contingencies were applied, and total and aver-
age life cycle costs were computed. These life cycle cost aver-
ages were In terms of the units (by hectares of site size, m3 of
site volume, etc.) which best typify each unit operation.
USE OF PRICE LISTS
The price lists were developed to Itemize material, labor,
and equipment costs for each of the components used within a unit
operation, for the most part, the 1980 Means and Dodge Guides
22
-------
were used to obtain the costs needed. The source unit prices
shown on these price lists (Tables A-4 through A-ll) were derived
from the Dodge or Means quotation by presenting their estimate 1n
terms of metric and English units.
Regional adjustment Indexes presented 1n the Dodge Guide
were used to modify the metric versions of Dodge or Means esti-
mates for geographical differences. These Indexes were applied
to obtain revised material and labor costs for the U.S. Low, U.S.
High, and Newark, New Jersey, estimates. No such Index was
available for equipment costs, so 1t was assumed that equipment
costs are the same nationwide. Because the Dodge Guide and Means
present costs differently, adjustments were made so that the re-
gional Indexes could be used for both sources. For example, 1n
the Means, labor costs were not Identified as a separate entry,
but were Included as part of Installation. Thus, whenever the
Means was_jused to present costs, the Dodge Guide Regional Adjust-
ment ~IjicLex_ for Labor was applied to Installation costs.
Frequently, both Dodge and Means did not Itemize costs Into
categories of labor, material, and equipment, but simply pre-
sented a "total* estimate. Depending upon which reference was
used, the following rules were applied: In the Dodge Guide, 1f
only a total cost was presented, an average labor/material Index
(assuming 50 percent material and 50 percent Installation) was
applied to the unit cost; 1n the Means, the "total" costs Include
an overhead allowance of 25 percent. This allowance was removed
before the labor/material Index was applied. In all cases, any
cost entered In the shopping list was adjusted so that overhead
allowances were not Included.
The cost of each component presented 1n the unit operation
conceptual design cost tables typically Includes the sum of costs
for any material, labor, or equipment subcomponent. These total
costs for each component do not Include overhead and contingen-
cies. Once all the components within a unit operation were
costed, they were summed, giving a subtotal capital cost for the
unit operation. This subtotal capital cost was then used to
obtain an overhead allowance (always 25 percent), and a contin-
gency allowance (between 10 and 40 percent, depending upon the
extent to which component requirements can be precisely estimated
for each unit operation). The subtotal capital cost was summed
with the overhead, and contingency allowances to obtain the esti-
mate of total unit operation capital cost.
LIFE CYCLE COSTING
Once total capital and operating costs were determined for
lower and upper U.S. and Newark locations, total and average life
23
-------
cycle costs were
parlsons of unit
computed to ensure that any subsequent cost corn-
operations could be equitably accomplished.
Although unit operation O&M cost estimates are for 1980, as
the first year of operation, component quantity requirements were
determined so as to be adequate for each of the first 10 years of
the remedial operation. This attribute of the conceptual designs
means that the 10-year life cycle evaluation of operating costs
was only required to address subsequent Inflation and appropriate
discounting of these O&M component costs to their mid-1980 pres-
ent values.' It was further assumed that capital costs would not
be amortized and discounted, but would be considered as fully
Incurred 1n the first year of operation. As a result of these
assumptions, average annual compounding Inflation rates for elec-
tricity and for all other O&M components were derived using esti-
mates from the April 1980 Survey of Current Business (8). These
Inflation rates were derived as follows:
Type of O&M Input:
Related Published
Cost Index:
March I960 Index Value:
Average Annual Index
Percent Increase Since
Base Year (I.e., 12.75
years since mid-1967,
when Index equaled 100)
Assumed Future
Inflation Rate:
Electricity
All other O&M Inputs
Electric Power Consumer Price (CPI-W)
305.7 23S.9
9.160 percent 7.104 percent
9.2 percent
7.1 percent
It should be pointed out that a similar process was accomp-
lished for estimating a fuel Inflation rate, but that all unit
operations were configured with only electrical equipment.
In determining the present values of future expenditures,
the March 1980 Gross National Product Implicit Price Deflator
(also published 1n the April 1980 Survey of Current Business) of
174.51 was similarly evaluated 1n terms of Its 1972 base year to
estimate an annual general Inflation rate of 7.4 percent. To
this, an assumed 4 percent social time preference rate was added
to create a total annual discount rate of 11.4 percent. The life
cycle cost methodology was then followed, 1n which Inflated opera-
ting costs were discounted to their mid-1980 present values, and
summed with total capital costs, to determine total life cycle
costs over the 10-year life spans of the configured unit opera-
tions. Average life cycle costs were then computed by dividing
24
-------
this total by the number of units which best typify each unit
operation.
25
-------
SECTION 7
UNIT OPERATIONS
Tables 6 through 40 depict the remedial action unit opera-
tlons portrayed 1n this study.
26
-------
TABLE 6a. UNIT OPERATION 1. CONTOUR GRADING
AND SURFACE WATER DIVERSION
Use: Contour grading of a landfill 1s accomplished by reshaping
the land to promote and channel surface runoff.
Configuration; Surface water diversion Involves excavating
ditches and creating earth terms on the upslope side,
. directing dralnways to the downs!ope of the landfill.
Conjunctive Uses; Commonly used with revegetatlon and gas
venting.
Assume; 1. Soil excavated and graded at a depth of 0.5 m.
2. 0.3 m thickness of soil will be added to complete
grading.
3. Diversion ditch extends halfway down each side of
the landfill.
4. Borrow pit for excavating soil 1s adjacent to
landfill.
5. Borrow pit for excavated soil 1s adjacent to site.
6. Soils used are well suited for final cover.
7. Diversion ditch 1s rebuilt two times per year after
major storms.
27
-------
TABLE 6b. COSTS OF CONTOUR GRADING AND SURFACE WATER
DIVERSION FOR MEDIUM SIZE LANDFILL
Dollars
Capital Costs Lower U.S.
Excavation, Grading, and Recon-
tourlng of Site (27,685 m3)
Excavation and Grading Soil
(16,910 m3)
Diversion Ditch Construction (180 m3)
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (15 percent)
Total Capital Cost
0&M Costs
Maintenance & Repair Cost -
Diversion Ditch (180 m3)
Total O&M Cost
Total Life Cycle Cost (over
10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost
Per ha
Per ac
43,820
15,190
310
59,320
14,830
8.900
83,050
620
620
88,280
16,318
6,598
Upper U.S.
50,790
17,720
650
69,160
17,290
10.370
96,820
1,300
1,300
107,780
19,922
8.055
Newark, NJ
49,050
17,090
560^
66,700
16,680
10.000
93,380
1.120
1,120
102.820
19,006
7,685
* For a medium size site (5.41 ha).
28
-------
TABLE 7a. UNIT OPERATION 2. SURFACE SEALING
BY BITUMINOUS CONCRETE
Use; Surface sealing Involves the construction of a seal (or
cap) on the landfill to prevent water Infiltration and to
minimize leachate generation.
Configuration; Caps and seals can be constructed of clays, fly
ash, bituminous concrete, membrane Uners, Hrne, or cement,
Conjunctive Uses: Commonly used with contour grading and revege-
tatlon. Chemical fixation may be used 1f stabilized waste
material 1s a sealing material.
Assume; 1. Seal complete for entire site.
2. Cost Includes transportation and Installation.
3. A 0.6 m soil cover will be placed over each surface
seal.
4. Borrow pit for excavating soil 1s adjacent to site.
5. Subsidence potential Is minimal.
29
-------
TABLE 7b. COSTS OF SURFACE SEALING BY BITUMINOUS CONCRETE
FOR MEDIUM SIZE LANDFILL
\
Dollars
Capital Costs Lower U.S.
Excavation, Grading, and Recon-
tourlng of Site (27,685 m3)
Excavation and Grading, Soil
(for contouring 16,910 m3)
Surface Seal (55,364 m?)
Bituminous Concrete'' Cap
(0.08 m, 3")
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (35 percent)
Total Capital Cost
OSM Costs
No further maintenance needed (10-year
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost
Site Area
Per ha
Per ac
43,820
15,190
168.590
227,600
56,900
79.660
364,160
life span
364,160
67,312
27,217
Upper U.S. Newark, NJ
50,790
17,720
244,990
313,500
78,380
109.730
501,610
before action
501,610
92.719
37,490
49,050
17,090
216.560
282,700
70,680
98.950
452,330
needed).
452,330
83,610
33,806
* For a medium size site (5.41 ha).
t See price 11st for alternative surface sealing materials/Installation.
30
-------
TABLE 8a. UNIT OPERATION 3. REVE6ETATION
Use; Revegetation helps to physically stabilize the earth mate-
"~~" rial and reduce Infiltration; 1t also serves to minimize
erosion of the cover material by wind and water.
Configuration; Revegetation Involves first grading the landfill,
covering 1t with a suitable, fertile soil, adding soil sup-
plements, and then seeding.
Conjunctive Uses; Contour grading, surface sealing, and gas
migration control.
Assume; 1. Entire surface of landfill 1s revegetated.
2. 0.6 m of clay and silt loam will be used for land-
fill cover.
3. Clay and silt loam are easily accessible; transpor-
tation costs are not Included.
4. Mulch will be used to stabilize soil until vegeta-
tion takes hold.
5. Native grasses will be used for seed.
31
-------
TABLE 8b. COSTS OF REVE6ETATION FOR MEDIUM SIZE LANDFILL
Capital Costs
Area Preparation (5.41 ha)
Excavation. Grading, and Recon-
tourlng of Site (27.685 m3)
Hydroseeding (5.41 ha)
Niching (5.41 ha)
Capital cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (10 percent)
Total Capital Cost
OSM Costs
Grass Mowing (5.4 ha)
(6 mowings/yr)
RefertH1zat1on (5.4 ha)
(1 time per yr)
Total O&M Cost
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per ha
Per ac
Lower U.S.
3,710
43,820
4,900
1.450
53,880
13,470
5.390
72,740
320
250
570
77,550
14,335
5.796
Dollars
Upper U.S.
6,440
50,790
6,900
2.080
66,210
16,550
6.620
89,380
650
350
1.000
97,810
18,079
7,310
Newark, NO
5,760
49,050
6,200
1.860
62,870
15,720
6.290
84,880
550
300
850
92,050
17,015
6,880
i
1
1 * For a medium size site (5.41 ha).
32
-------
TABLE 9a. UNIT OPERATION 4. BENTONITE SLURRY-TRENCH
CUTOFF WALL
Use; A slurry-trench cutoff wall 1s an underground barrier used
to prevent leachate formation and horizontal subsurface
movement of leachate.
Configuration; The process entails digging a trench, filling 1t
with Bentonlte slurry as excavation progresses, and back-
filling with excavated material.
Conjunctive Uses; Contour grading and revegetatlon are commonly
used.Surface sealing 1s used as well.
Assume: 1. Extend cutoff wall to low permeability strata
(15 m).
2. Slurry 1s mixed 1 part Bentonlte to 12 parts water.
3. Bentonlte requlrenents.ere 0.039 tonnes/m3 of trench
4. Subcontractor has applicable license for slurry
trench Installation (all patented processes).
33
-------
TABLE 9b. COSTS OF BENTONITE SLURRY-TRENCH CUTOFF
• WALL FOR MEDIUM SIZE LANDFILL
Capital Costs
Geotechnlcal Investigation
Slurry Trench Excavation
(10,800 m3) (720 m (L) x 15 m (d)
x 1.0 (w)) (Includes Installa-
tion of Bentonlte Slurry)
Bentonlte, Delivered (419 tonnes)
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allomnce (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (30 percent)
Total Capital Costs
O&M Costs
Monitoring
Sample collection (12 d/yr,
96 hr/yr)
Analysis
- Primary & secondary parameters
• 12 background/yr
- 12 downgradl ent/yr
24 samples /yr
Total OftM Cost
No maintenance 1s required
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per m2
Per ft2
Lower U.S.
3,850
347,760
27.830
379,440
94,860
113,830
. 588,130
760
7,900
8,660
661 ,900
61.22
5.69
Dollars
Upper U.S.
6,520
588,710
74,20.0
669,430
167,360
200,830
1,037,620
1,570
7,900
9,470
1,117,450
103.47
9.62
Newark, NJ
5,720
516,670
69,570
591 ,960
147,990
177.590
917,540
1,370
7,900
9,270
995,690
92.19
8.57
For a 10,800 m2 wall face at a medium size site (5.41 ha).
34
-------
TABLE lOa. UNIT OPERATION 5. GROUT CURTAIN
Use; A grout curtain solution fills the voids In the soil and
thereby minimizes or stops the flow of ground water and/or
leachate.
Configuration; A grout curtain Is created by Injecting solutions
or water/solid suspensions under pressure Into soils and
underlying earth materials as ground water barrier.
Conjunctive Uses; Contour grading and revegetatlon are commonly
used. SuTface sealing 1s used as well.
Assume; 1. Extend curtain to low permeability strata (15 m).
2. Used a two-row grid chemical grout; phenolic resin
grout.
3. Injection points are on 1.6 m centers.
4. For Injection, use a 5:1 water to chemical grout
ratio.
35
-------
1
I
TABLE lOb. COSTS OF GROUT CURTAIN FOR MEDIUM SIZE LANDFILL
Capital Costs
Drilled holes - cased (test
Injection, prior to use.
Cost Includes excavating hole,
Installation of test well,
and Injection). 1 to 6"
diameter hole (15 m)
Geotechnlcal Investigation
Grout Curtain (32,400 m3).
Cost Includes excavation, In-
jection (720 m (L) x 15 m (d) x
3.0 m (w))
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (30 percent)
Total Capital Cost
OSM Costs
Lower U.S.
235
3,850
6,479,900
6,483,980
1,620,990
1,945.190
10,050,160
Dollars
Upper U.S.
400
6,520
13,050,400
13,057,320
3,264,330
3,917,200
20,238,850
Newark. NJ
350
5,720
11,388,800
11,394,870
2,848,720
3,418,460
17,662,050
Monitoring 760 1,570 1,370
Sample Collection (12 d/yr)
(labor rate) (96 hr/yr)
Analysis 7,900 7,900 7,900
- Primary and Secondary Parameters
($3 30/sainple)
• 12 background/yr
- 12 downgrad1ent/yr
24 samples/yr • ___ _—
Total O&M Cost 8,660 9,470 9,270
No maintenance 1s required over
10-year period.
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years) 10,123,170 20.318,680 17,740,200
36
-------
TABLE lOb (continued)
Dollars
Capital Costs Lower U.S. Upper U.S. Newark. NJ
*
Average Life Cycle Cost
Perm* 937 1,881 1,643
Per ft2 87 175 153
* For a 10,800 m2 wall face area at a medium size site (5.41 ha).
37
-------
I TABLE lla. UNIT OPERATION 6. SHEET PILING CUTOFF WALL
' i
Use; A sheet piling cutoff wall 1s a physical barrier, which
i will lower the water table 1n and around the landfill so
| that the refuse Is no longer saturated, and leachate gen-
; eratlon 1s reduced.
"| Configuration; A sheet piling cutoff wall Involves driving
' lengths of steel sheet piling permanently Into the ground
i with a p1ledr1v1ng hammer.
i
, 1 Conjunctive Uses; Contour grading and revegetatlon may be used.
surface sealing 1s also used.
Assume; 1. Extend wall to low permeability strata (15 m).
2. Facility surrounded by piling.
38
-------
TABLE lib. COSTS OF SHEET PILING CUTOFF HALL FOR MEDIUM
SIZE LANDFILL
Dollars
Capital Costs Lower U.S. Upper U.S. Newark. NJ
Sheet piling (PMP-22) (1,162 tonnes)
Cost Includes construction, In-
stallation and shipping.
(720 m (L) x 15.0 m (d)) 526.850 776.700 686.300
Capital Cost (subtotal) 526,850 776,700 686,300
Overhead Allowance (25 percent) 131,700 194,170 171,570
Contingency Allowance (25 percent) 131.700 194.170 171.570
Total Capital Cost 790,250 1,165,040 1,029,440
O&M Costs
No further maintenance 1s necessary.
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years) 790,250 1,165,040 1,029,440
Average Life Cycle Cost
Per nr? 73 108 95
Per ft2 6.80 10.03 8.86
For a 10,800 m2 wall face area at a medium size site (5.41 ha).
39
-------
,i
L
TABLE 12a. UNIT OPERATION 7. GROUT BOTTOM SEALING
Use: Bottom sealing Involves creating a bowl-shaped bottom seal
beneath the site for the purpose of Isolating the landfill
from the ground water.
Configuration; The seal 1s constructed by pumping or pressure
injecting grout under the existing landfill through tubes
placed through the fill at regular Intervals.
Conjunctive Uses; Contour grading and revegetatlon are commonly
used.
Assume
2,
3,
Use of an exploratory boring hole to test the strata
below the landfill
• 0.03 m (4 1n) diameter holes
- 30 m centers
- extended 5.0 m below surface.
Grid on 2 m centers.
Cement bottom Uner, 1,6 m thick.
4. Soil - 25 percent voids.
40
-------
TABLE 12b. COSTS OF GROUT BOTTOM SEALING FOR
MEDIUM SIZE LANDFILL
Capital Costs
Exploratory Boring (930 m)
Material Testing (see Exploratory
Prior to Installation Boring)
15 m deep • 4M diameter hole
Surveying (2 days)
Grout Curtain Bottom Seal
(83,046 m3)
a) Piping costs
b) Material costs
c) Shipment of materials
d) Installation of pipe
e) Labor
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (40* percent)
Total Capital Costs
02M Costs
Monitoring
Sample Collection 12 days/yr
(96 hr/yr)
Analysis (24 samples)
Total O&M Costs
No maintenance 1s required.
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per ha
Per ac
Lower U.S.
12,800
210
310
17,306,790
17,320,110
4,330,030
6.928,040
28,578,180
760
7.900
8,660
28,651,190
5,295,969
2,141,345
Dollars
Upper U.S.
21,660
400
520
33,450,930
33,473,510
8.368,380
13.389,400
55,231,290
1,570
7.900
9,470
55,311.120
10,223,867
4,133,865
Newark, NJ
19,010
350
460
29,190,670
29,210,490
7.302,620
11.684.200
48,197,310
•
1.370
7.900
9,270
48,275,460
8.923,375
3,608,031
For a medium size site (5.41 ha).
41
-------
TABLE 13a. UNIT OPERATION 8. DRAINS
Use; The purpose of drains 1s to Intercept ground water and
carry 1t away.
Configuration; Drains are constructed by excavating a trench,
partially backfilling 1t with sand or gravel, placing a
drain pipe In the sand and gravel bed, and completing the
backfill.
Conjunctive Uses: Contour grading and revegetatlon are commonly
used.
Assume; 1. Drains are used to channel and collect leachate to
prevent s1deh1ll seeps and seepage Into surface
water bodies.
2. Drain 1s sloped 2 percent downgradlent to submersi-
ble pump.
3. Electrical service available.
-------
TABLE 13b. COSTS OF DRAINS FOR MEDIUM SIZE LANDFILL
Capital Costs
Trench Excavation (1,560 m3)
260 m (L) x 6 m (d) x 1 m (w)
Gravel (1,050 m3) (Includes
Installation)
Cement Pipe, 4" (perforated)
(260 m) (Cost Includes
Installation)
Submersible Pump (1)
Drilled holes - cased (casing
for sub pump) (7 m) 6" hole
Backfill Costs (510 m3)
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (25 percent)
Total Capital Cost
O&M Costs
Monitoring
Sample Collection 12 days/yr
(96 hr/yr)
Analysis
- Primary I Secondary Parameters
• 12 background/yr
• 12 downgrad1ent/yr
TT samples
Because drains have a 10-year life
span, no maintenance 1s necessary.
Power cost (electrical)
Total O&M Costs
Lower U.S.
2,070
7,460
1,510
550
110
890
12,590
3,150
3,150
18,890
760
7.900
100
8,760
Dollars
Upper U.S.
2,360
11,420
2.420
900
180
1,070
18.350
4,590
4.590
27.530
1.570
7,900
100
9,570
Newark, NJ
2,290
10,080
2,130
790
160
1.030
16.480
4.120
4,120
24.720
\
1,370
7,900
100
9,370
43
-------
TABLE 13b (continued)
Capital Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost11
Per m
Per ft
92,810
357
109
Dollars
Lower U.S. Upper U.S. Newark, NJ
108,280
416
127
103,780
399
122
* For 260 m of drain pipe at a medium size site (5.41 ha).
44
-------
TABLE 14a. UNIT OPERATION 9. HELL POINT SYSTEM
Use; Hell point systems are used to lower the water table and/or
collection leachate.
Configuration; Hell points are placed upgradlent to the land-
fill, and are connected to a suction header. The header 1s
connected to a pump which evacuates the air from the well
points and the header, This vacuum results 1n external
pressure which forces the ground water to flow through the
well points.
Conjuctlve Uses: Contour grading and revegetatlon are commonly
used.
Assume: 1. No leachate collects with ground water.
*
2. Pumping area upgradlent from landfill.
3. Dewaterlng down 5 m.
4. Electrical service available.
45
-------
TABLE 14b. COSTS OF WELL POINT SYSTEM FOR MEDIUM
SIZE LANDFILL
Dollars
Capital Costs Lower U.S. Upper U.S. Newark. NJ
Well Point System (1,010 m) (133 wells)
Installation of Wellpoints and
Well point Fittings (Cost
Includes Installation) 43,040 72,860 63,950
1.100-1,500 L/m1n centrifugal
pump (l) standby centrlflgal
pump (2) 3,200 3,200 3,200
Discharge Pipe (300 m) (Materials
and Installation) 8" 12,770 22.110 19,390
Recharge Trench (1,650 m3) 1,850 3,130 2,750
Header Pipe (400 m) 17,030 29,490 25,850
Geotechnlcal Investigation 3,850 6.520 5,720
Spread Excavated Material (1,650 m3) 1,050 1,250 1,200
Sand (133 bags) (1 bag/well) 600 820 720
Capital Cost (subtotal) — 83,390— 139,380 122,780
Overhead Allowance (25 percent) 20,850 34,850 30,700
Contingency Allowance (25 percent) 20.850 34.850 30.700
Total Capital Costs 125,090 209,080 184,180
O&M Costs
Monitoring
Sample Collection 12 days/yr
(96 hr/yr) 760 1,570 1,370
Analysis 7,900 7,900 7,900
• Primary & Secondary Parameters
- 12 background/yr
- 12 downgrad1ent/yr
24 samples/yr
Power Costs 36,000 kWh 9 40 hp
(0.05/kWh) Pump runs 2,400
hr/yr 1.800
Total O&M Costs 10,460
Pumps have 10-year life.
46
-------
TABLE 14b (continued)
Dollars
Capital Costs Lower U.S. Upper U.S. Hexark. NJ
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years) 214,580 305,400 278,810
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per m* 107.29 152.70 139.40
Per ft* 9.97 14.19 12.96
For a 2,000 m? Intercept face area at a medium size site (5.41 ha).
47
-------
TABLE 15a. UNIT OPERATION 10. DEEP WELL SYSTEM
Use; Deep well systems are useful for dewateMng soils 1n cases
where a large vertical Interval must be dewatered.
' Configuration; Each well 1s equipped with Its own pump.
1 Conjunctive Uses; Contour grading and revegetatlon are commonly
I used with deep well systems.
• Assume; 1. DewateHng to 12 m.
2. Deep wells are 14 m deep.
) 3. Electrical service available.
48
-------
TABLE 15b.
COSTS OF DEEP WELL SYSTEM FOR MEDIUM
SIZE LANDFILL
Capital Costs
Lower U.S,
DewateMng System (13 wells) Installed:
Deep Wells (dr1!1ed/1nstalled/cased)
14 m deep, 6" PVC (182 m) 2,670
1 hp submersible pump and wiring
(13 pimps) 7,150
Discharge Pipe (300 m) 4" PVC 6,270
Recharge Trench (1,650 m3) 1,850
Geotechnlcal Investigation (In-
cludes exploratory boring,
surveying, mobilization, drill-
Ing additives, pump test, report)
Spread Excavated Material (1,650 m3)
firavel for Recharge Trench (1,650 m3)
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead ATTowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (30 percent)
Total Capital Cost
O&M Costs
Monitoring
Sample Collection 12 days/yr
(96 hr/yr) 760
Analysis 7,900
- Primary & Secondary Parameters
- 12 background/yr
- 12 downgradlent/yr
24 samples/yr
Power Costs 1,800 kHh 9 1 hp x 13
pumps - 23,400 kWh/yr ($0.05/kWh)
pumps run 2,400 hr/yr
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years) 137,280
Dollars
Upper U.S.
4,570
11700
11,560
3,130
1,570
7,900
Newark. NJ
3,960
10,270
10,100
2,750
3,850
1,050
11.710
34,550
8,640
10.370
53,560
6,520
1,260
17.950
56,690
14,170
17,010
87,870
5,720
1,200
15.430
49,430
12,360
14.830
76,620
1,370
7,900
178,420
165,480
49
-------
TABLE 15b (continued)
Dollars
Capital Costs
Average Life Cycle Cost
i Per m2
I Per ft2
Lower U.S. Upper U.S. Newark. NJ
28.60
2.66
37.17
3.46
34.48
3.20
For a 4,800 m2 Intercept face area at a medium size site (5.41 ha).
50
-------
TABLE 16a. UNIT OPERATION 11. INJECTION
Use; Injection 1s used to provide a barrier to leachate move-
ment.
Configuration; Water or leachate may be Introduced through well
points or deep wells. The leachate must either be attenu-
ated on Its new course and mixed with ground water to harm*
less concentrations, or discharged at some point where 1t
causes no harm to the receiving water body.
Conjunctive Uses; Contour grading and revegetatlon are commonly
used.
Assume: 1. Deep wells to make water barrier, placed downgra-
dlent.
2. Depth of barrier 1s 15 m.
3. Assume water supply present at site.
4. Electrical service available.
5. Interim measure; used for 5 years.
51
-------
TABLE 16b. COSTS OF INJECTION FOR MEDIUM SIZE LANDFILL
Capital Costs
Deep Wells, Drilled and In-
stalled (13 wells 6" 14 m
deep) (182 m)
Centrifugal Pump (13)
Geotechnlcal Field Investigation
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (30 percent)
Total Capital Cost
OSM Costs
Monitoring
Sample Collection 12 days/yr
(96 hr/yr)
Analysis
Lower U.S.
2.670
20,800
J3.850
27,320
6,830
8.200
42,350
760
7,900
Dollars
Upper U.S.
4,570
20,800
6.520
31,890
7,970
9.570
49.430
1,570
7.900
Newark, NO
3,690
20,800
5.720
30,210
7,550
9.060
46,820
1,370
7,900
- Primary and Secondary Parameters
• 12 background/yr
- 12 downgradi ent/yr
24 samples/yr
Power Costs 4,032 kWh f 3/4 hp x
13 pumps « 52,416 kWh/yr
(0.05 kWh) (7,200 hr/yr
operation) 2,620 2,620 2,620
Hater Costs ($3.50/1,000 gal)
7,200 gal/pump/day x 13 pumps)
(300 days of operat1on/yr)
(Pump rate of 5 gpm Is for
costing purpose only)
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per mz
Per ft2
98.280
109,560
967,870
1,760
164.05
98.280
110,370
981 ,780
1.785
166.40
98.280
110.170
977.490
1,777
165.68
For a 550 m2 Intercept face area at a medium size site (5.41 ha).
52
-------
TABLE 17a. UNIT OPERATION 12. LEACHATE RECIRCULATION
BY SUBGRADE IRRIGATION
Use; Once leachate has been Intercepted, subgrade Irrigation 1s
used to spread the leachate over the landfill. This helps
to decrease stabilization time.
Configuration; Subgrade Irrigation uses perforated pipe lined
in gravel-lined trenches.
Conjunctive Uses;
Assume; 1. Electrical service available.
53
-------
TABLE 17b. COSTS OF LEACHATE RECIRCULATION BY SUB6RAOE
IRRIGATION FOR MEDIUM SIZE LANDFILL
Capital Costs
Excavation of Drainage Trench
(0.6 m wide, 1.0 m deep, with
backhoe loader) (630 m3)
Gravel - 3/4" (630 m3) includes
Installation
Cement Pipe - 6"
- Perforated (960 m)
- Non- perforated (90 m)
Deep Hells (drilled and cased)
(6 wells) (14m deep)
Submersible Pumps & Wiring (6 pumps)
Spread Excavated Material (630 m3)
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (20 percent)
Total Capital Costs
OSM Costs
Monitoring
Sample Collection 12 days/yr
(96 hr/yr)
Analysis
- Primary 2 Secondary Parameters
- 12 background/yr
- 12 downgrad1ent/yr
24 samples/yr
Power Costs 1,800 kWh 9 1 hp x
6 pumps • 10,800 kWh ($0.05/kWh)
(2,400 hr/yr)
Total O&M Costs
Lower U.S.
1,830
4,480
7,780
630
1,230
3,300
400
19,650
4,910
3,930
28,490
760
7,900
540
9,200
Dollars
Upper U.S.
3,280
6,860
12,040
1,010
2,110
5,400
480
31,180
7,800
6,240
45,220
1,570
7,900
540
10,010
Newark, NO
2,840
5,880
10,610
890
1,830
4,740
460
27,250
6,810
5,450
39,510
1,370
7,900
540
9,810
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years) 106,440 130,000 122.600
54
-------
TABLE 17b (continued)
Dollars
Capital Costs Lower U.S. Upper U.S. Reverie. NJ
.*
Average Life Cycle Cost
Per ha 19,675 24,030 22,662
Per ac 7,955 9,716 9.163
* For a medium size site (5.41 ha).
55
-------
TABLE 18a. UNIT OPERATION 13. CHEMICAL FIXATION
Use; Chemical fixation relies on the reactions of cementation/
setting/reactive agents (such as cement, 11 me, silicates,
etc.) with the waste material, by the process of mixing.
This application of chemicals 1s quite waste-specific, and
1s done to destroy or stabilize hazardous materials.
Configuration; Because the above method 1s too costly for most
landfills, the configured alternative 1s to chemically sta-
bilize only the upper portion of landfill waste materials
for use as a cover.
Conjunctive Uses; Contour grading and vegetation are commonly
used.
Assume; 1. Stabilized waste materials are not releasing toxic
levels of pollutants.
2. No cost of obtaining stabilized waste material.
3. Only top 1/2 m of landfill is mixed with fixation
agents.
56
-------
TABLE 18b. COSTS OF CHEMICAL FIXATION FOR MEDIUM
SIZE LANDFILL
Capital Costs
Excavating, Grading* and Recon-
tourlng of Site (27,685 m3)
Excavation and Grading, Soil
(16,910 m3)
Application of Stabilized Haste
Material (33,218 m3) (Includes
spreading and hauling)
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (35 percent)
Total Capital Cost
O&M Costs
Monitoring
Sample Collection 12 days/yr
(96 hr/yr)
Analysis
• Primary I Secondary Parameters
- 12 background/yr
• 12 downgrad1ent/yr
24 samples/yr
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per ha
Per ac
Lower U.S.
34.970
15.190
183,320
233,480
58,370
81.720
373,570
760
7,900
8,660
446,580
82,547
33,377
Dollars
Upper U.S.
41,940
17,720
381,200
440,860
110,220
154,300
705,380
1,570
7,900
9,470
785,210
145,140
58,685
Newark, NO
40,200
17,090
331.730
389,020
97,260
136,160
622,440
' 1,370
7,900
9,270
700,590
129,499
52,361
For a medium size site (5.41 ha),
57
-------
TABLE 19a. UNIT OPERATION 14. CHEMICAL INJECTION
Use; Chemical Injection destroys or 1nso1ub1l1zes a pollutant.
Configuration; This process entails Injecting reactive chemicals
into the landfill. The process 1s highly waste specific.
1 Conjunctive Uses; None listed.
Assume; 1. Landfill received cyanide salts in drums.
j 2. Use sodium hypochlorite to 1nsolub1l1ze cyanide.
3. Initial probing shows drums destroyed, material
| dissolved.
4. Only 1/4 landfill affected.
; 5. Only temporarily effective.
6. Hater supply available.
7. Concentration gradients well defined.
58
-------
TABLE 19b. COSTS OF CHEMICAL INJECTION FOR MEDIUM
SIZE LANDFILL
Casual Costs
Exploratory Boring 16-13 m (d)
(208m)
Drill Rig Rental (53 days)
Chemicals, Sodium Hypo chlorite
(140,000 1)
Drilled Holes - Cased (2-1/2"
pipe) 4 m Centers (841 Injection
wells - 13 m deep)
Surveying (2 days)
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (30 percent)
Total Capital Cost
OSM Costs
Monitoring
Sample Collection 12 days/yr
(96 hr/yr)
Analysis
-Primary & Secondary Parameters
• 12 background/yr
- 12 downgrad1ent/yr
24 samples /yr
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per m3,
Per ft3
Lower U.S.
2,870
14,840
17,200
126,820
310
162.650
40,510
48,610
251,160
760
7,900
. 324,170
2.16
0.0612
Dollars
Upper U.S.
4,860
24.910
23,700
263,050
520
317,040
79,260
95,110
491,412
1.570
7,900
571,240
2.81
0.108
Newark, NO
4,260
22,260
21,000
228,390
460
276,370
€9,090
82,910
428,370
1,370
7,900
506,521
3.38
0.0957
For 150,000 m3 of landfill volume at a medium size site (5.41 ha).
59
-------
TABLE 20a. UNIT OPERATION 15. EXCAVATION AND
DISPOSAL AT SECURE LANDFILL
Use; The excavation and reburlal of a landfill Involves digging
up the existing material, loading and transporting the
waste to secure site, and reburylng.
Configuration; None.
Conjunctive Uses; None listed.
Assume: 1. Removal of entire landfill, and transporting to a
new landfill 20 miles away (32 km).
2. New site already has permit to receive wastes.
3. Operational monitoring wells 1n place at receiving
landfill.
4. Hazardous waste surcharge of 50 percent for excava-
tion and transportation Includes Increased costs due
to;
Personnel safety equipment
Increased labor rest time
Equipment modification and decontamination
Increased Insurance costs
Transportation permits.
60
-------
TABLE 20b. COSTS OF EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL AT
SECURE LANDFILL FOR MEDIUM SIZE LANDFILL
Capital Costs
Total. Cost Includes: (596,388
m3, 357.832 tons). Excavation/
grading (Includes truck loading)
Transportation, 30-ton dump truck
(64 km RT)
Hazardous Waste Surcharge for
Excavation and Transportation
(50 percent)
Tipping Fee
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (40 percent)
Total Capital Cost
O&M Cost
Honltorfng (at new site)
Sample Collection 12 days/yr
(96 hr/yr labor)
Analysis (24 samples/yr)
- Primary & Secondary Parameters
• 12 background/yr
- 12 downgrad1ent/yr
24 Samples/yr
Total O&M Costs
No maintenance 1s necessary.
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per m3
Per ft3
Lower U.S.
944,140
687,040
815,590
39,361,520
41,808,290
10,452,070
16,723,320
68,983,680
760
7.900
8.660
69,056,690
116
3.28
Dollars
Upper U.S.
1,094,190
1,465,680
1,279,940
39,361,520
43,201,330
10,800,330
17.260,530
71.282,190
1,570
7 .SOP
9,470
71.362,020
120
3.39
Newark, NJ
1,056,680
1,248,120
1,152,400
39,361,520
42,818,720
10,704,680
17,127,490
70,650,890
«
1,370
7,900
9,270
70,729,040
119
3.36
* For a 596,390 m3 total landfill volume at a medium size site (5.41 ha).
61
-------
TABLE 21a. UNIT OPERATION 16. PONDING
Use; Ponding 1s a method for controlling surface water runoff at
both municipal and Industrial landfills.
Configuration: Drainage trenches are excavated and constructed
along with the pond.
Conjunctive Uses; Contour grading and revegetatlon are commonly
used.
Assume: 1. A 2"-24 hr rainfall event.
2. Evaporation and percolation are the methods by which
water leaves the pond.
3. Adjacent land for pond 1s already available.
52
-------
TABLE 21b. ^COSTS OF PONDING FOR MEDIUM SIZE LANDFILL
Dollars
Capital Costs Lower U.S. Upper U.S. Newark. NJ
Excavation and Grading, Soil
(Pond & Drainage Area) (625 m?) 570 660 640
Berm Construction (5,280 m3) 1.850 3.170 2.750
Capital Cost (subtotal) . 2,420 3,830 3,390
Overhead Allowance (25 percent) 600 960 850
Contingency Allowance (20 percent) 480 770 680
Total Capital Cost 3,500 5,560 4,920
O&M Costs
Pond has 10-year life span;
no maintenance required.
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years) 3,500 5,560 4,920
Average Life Cycle Cost
Per ha of site size
Per ac of site size
647
262
1,028
416
909
368
* For a medium size site (5.41 ha).
63
-------
TABLE 22a. UNIT OPERATION 17. TRENCH CONSTRUCTION
Use; A trench 1s constructed around the landfill to control
surface discharge escape of leachate.
Configuration; A trench 1s constructed to a depth of 2.0 m,
using 2:1 slopes, around the perimeter of the landfill.
Conjunctive Uses; None noted.
Assume; 1. The trench 1s placed around the perimeter of the
landfill.
64
-------
TABLE 22b. COSTS OF TRENCH CONSTRUCTION FOR
MEDIUM SIZE LANDFILL
Cajtftal Costs
Excavation and Grading, Soil
(5,260 m3)
Spread Excavated Material
(5,260 m3)
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (15 percent)
Total Capital Cost
OSM Costs
Grubbing (clearing) (1 time
per year) (2,630 m?)
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per m
Per ft
Lower U.S.
4,740
3,360
8,100
2,030
1,220
11,350
320
320
14,050
15.11
4.61
Dollars
Upper U.S.
5,530
4.000
9,530
2,380
1.430
13.340
660
660
18,900
20.32
6.20
Newark, NJ
5,320
3.840
9,160
2,290
1.370
12,820
570
570
17,630
18.96
5.78
* For a 930 m trench at a medium size site (5.41 ha).
-------
TABLE 23a. UNIT OPERATION 18. PERIMETER GRAVEL TRENCH VENTS
Use; Perimeter gravel trenches help to minimize migration and
manage the escape of gases from landfills to the
atmosphere.
Configuration; A trench 1s excavated around the perimeter of
the landfill and backfilled with gravel material.
Conjunctive Uses; None listed.
Assume; 1. Gravel trench 1s placed around the perimeter of the
" landfill.
-------
TABLE 23b. COSTS OF PERIMETER GRAVEL TRENCH VENTS FOR
MEDIUM SIZE LANDFILL
Capital Costs
Trench Excavation (7,300 m3)
(935 m (L) x 6 m (d) x 1.3m (w))
Gravel Material (7,300 n»3)
Spread Excavated Material (7,300 m3)
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (15 percent)
Total Capital Cost
02M Costs
Grubbing (Surface of Trench)
(1 time per year) (935 m2)
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost
Per m
Per ft
Lower U.S.
9,710
51,880
4.670
66,260
16,560
9.940
92.760
110
110
93,690
100
30.52
Dollars
Upper U.S.
11,050
79.430
5.550
96,030
24,010
14.400
134,440
240
240
136,460
146
44.45
Newark. NO
10,720
70,050
5.330
86,100
21,520
12.910
120,530
200
200
122,220
131
39.81
* For a 935 m trench at a medium size site (5.41 ha).
67
-------
TABLE 24a. UNIT OPERATION 19. TREATMENT OF
CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER
Use; Treatment facilities are used to treat contaminated ground
} water so 1t can be safely discharged Into a receiving
• stream.
] Configuration; The treatment system Includes the following pro-
j cesses:
, 1. Influent piping from extraction wells.
2. Treatment plant (chemical, biological, and/or physical
treatment).
3. Treated water discharge system.
. Conjunctive Uses; Well point systems or deep well systems are
; used to collect the ground water.
Assume; 1. Ground water has a high concentration of a contami-
1 nant and must be treated before 1t can be discharged
< Into a receiving stream.
2. The costs presented here are not considered fixed.
The cost of treating ground water can vary consider-
ably depending on what unit processes and flow rates
are used to treat the water.
i
3. The landfill 1s close to treatment facilities.
68
-------
TABLE 24b. COSTS OF TREATMENT OF CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER
FOR MEDIUM SIZE LANDFILL
Capital Costs
Treatment System (440,740 1/d)
Includes Influent piping
(6" - 300 m)
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (40 percent)
Total Capital costs
O&M Costs
Operating Cost (3 operators)
(2.080 hr/yr) (6,240 hr/yr total)
Power Cost (electricity)
(32,000 kWh/yr)
Chemical cost (16,922/d) x
260 d/yr
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per I/day
Per gal /day
Lower U.S.
406,000
406,000
101,500
162,400
669,900
39,300
1,600
11.000
51,900
1,108,590
2.52
9.52
Dollars
Upper U.S.
687,300
687,300
171,830
274,920
1,134,050
81,740
1,600
11,000
94,340
1,930,520
4.38
16.58
Newark, NO
603,200
603,200
150,800
241,280
995,280
71,100
1,600
11,000
83,700
1,702,060
3.86
14.62
* For treating 440,740 1 of contaminated ground water/day at a medium size
site (5.41 ha).
69
-------
TABLE 25a. UNIT OPERATION 20. GAS MIGRATION CONTROL
(Trench Vents - Passive)
Use: Trench vents are used primarily to attenuate lateral gas or
vapor migration. This 1s a passive means of controlling
gas migration.
Configuration; Trench vents are constructed by excavating a
deep, narrow trench surrounding the waste site or spanning
a section of perimeter. The trench 1s backfilled with
gravel. There are five types of trench vents:
1. Open trench (see Perimeter Gravel Trenches).
2. Open trench with liner.
3. Closed trench with laterals and risers and liner (see
below).
4. Induced draft (see Gas Migration Control, Active).
5. Air injection.
Conjunctive Uses; Well point system is used.
Assume: 1. Use of lateral risers and a synthetic liner.
2. Well point dewatering done for one month.
3. Laterals with risers: Laterals 0.3 m (12 in) PVC;
risers 0.15 m (6 1n) PVC pipe by 4.5 m long, placed
every 15 m along the lateral.
4. Liner consists of hypalon (36 mil) bracketed with
heavyweight geotextile fabric.
70
-------
TABLE 25b. COSTS OF GAS MIGRATION CONTROL, PASSIVE,
FOR MEDIUM SIZE LANDFILL
Capital Costs
Trench Excavation (4,255 m3)
935 m (L) x 3.5 m (d) x 1.3 m (w)*
Spread Excavated Material (2,850 m3)1"
Gravel (2,850 m3)1"
Pipe, PVC: 12" Lateral (935 m);
Riser Pipe. 6" (290 m)
Liner (5,700 m2)
Backfill (1,405 m3)1"
Monitoring Program
Monitoring Equipment
Monitoring Wells, Gas (32)
(1/2" PVC, 3.6 m deep)
Capital Costs (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (20 percent)
Total Capital Costs
O&M Costs
Monitoring
24 t1mes/yr (4 hr/t1me)
(96 hr/yr) (labor costs)
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per m
Per ft
Lower U.S.
5,660
1,820
18,750
40,670
8,380
24,820
2,470
500
760
103,830
25.960
20,770
150.560
760
156,970
168
51.2.6.
Dollars
Upper U.S.
6,440
2,160
28,950
56,190
14,820
42,010
2,960
500
1,500
155,530
38.880
31,110
225.520
1,600
239,010
256
78.10
Newark, NO
6,250
2,080
25,520
49,650
13,170
36,870
2,840
500
1,300
138,180
34,540
27,640
200,360
1,370
211,910
227
69.26 .
* For 935 m of trench length around a medium size site (5.41"ha)
t Also components 1n active gas migration control.
71
-------
TABLE 26a. UNIT OPERATION 21. GAS MIGRATION CONTROL
(Gas Collection System - Active)
Use; Gas collection systems are used when forced ventilation of
trench vents 1s needed.
Configuration; They consist of pipe vents connected to a blower
and directly discharging to the atmosphere or treatment
device.
Conjunctive Uses: None listed.
Assume; 1. A collection system 1n which a blower 1s connected
to pipe vents.
2. All manifold components are sized for 0.15 m (6 1n)
piping diameters.
3. Costs 'Include Installation.
72
-------
TABLE 26b.
COSTS OF GAS MIGRATION CONTROL, ACTIVE.
FOR MEDIUM SIZE LANDFILL
Capital Costs
Trencht
Blower 1,250 cfm (2 hp)
PVC Pipe: Risers (290 m) 4 1n;
Laterals (935 n) 8 1n
PVC Pipe Tees 8 1n (25)
Butterfly Valves 8 1n (5)
Flow Meter 8 1n (1)
PVC Pipe Elbows 8 1n (25)
Moisture Traps (10)
Monitoring Program
Monitoring Equipment
Monitoring Wells, Gas (32)
Capital Costs (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (30 percent)
Total Capital Costs
O&M Costs
Monitoring
24 hr per time, 24 times
per year (96 hr/yr) (labor costs)
Power Cost
1.5 kWh * 2 hp - 12,900 kWh/yr
(0.05/kWh) (8,600 hr/yr operation)
Operating Cost
40 hr/mo (480 hr/yr)
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Lower U.S.
28,700
1,110
6,080
26,720
2,370
1,060
650
1,680
3,360
500
760
72,990
18,250
14-. 600
105,840
760
645
4,540
5,945
156,430
Dollars
Upper U.S.
40,510
1,870
11,160
40,670
3,920
1,800
1,360
2,530
5,700
500
1,500
111.520
27,880
22,300
161,700
1,600
645
9,430
11,675
260,590
Newark, NJ
36,690
1,640
9,770
36,000
3,440
1,580
1,180
2,230
4,990
500
1,300
99.320
24,830
19,860
144,010
1,370
645
8.210
10,225
230,680
73
-------
Table 26b (continued)
Dollars
Capital Costs Lower U.S. Upper U.S. Newark. NJ
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per m 167 279 _247
Per ft 50.95 _J5jl2 Z5.36
* For 935 m of trench length around a medium size site (5,41 ha).
t Trench excavation, spreading excavated material, gravel, and backfill per
previous unit operation of passive gas migration control.
74
-------
TABLE 27a. UNIT OPERATION 22. POND CLOSURE AND CONTOUR
GRADING OF SURFACE
Use: To enhance and control runoff from the disposal area and
thereby reduce percolation (and consequently leachate pro-
duction) and erosion.
Configuration: Pond berms and local borrow are utilized to fill
emptied pond (sludge retained 1n pond bottom). Grading and
• compacting of this surface result 1n a profile of between 6
and 12 percent slope on crown, with side slopes of fill no
steeper than 18 percent.
Surface water diversion Is Included 1n unit operations con-
slstlng of upgradlent runoff berm and drainage channels to
. . direct runoff around fill and downslope side.
Conjunctive Uses: Surface sealing, revegetatlon.
Assume; 1. Suitable soil from terms and adjacent borrow pit.
2. Final slope 1s 0.5 n above average grade.
75
-------
TABLE 27b. COSTS OF POND CLOSURE AND CONTOUR GRADING
FOR MEDIUM SIZE IMPOUNDMENT
Dollars
Capital Costs Lower U.S. Upper U.S. Newark. NJ
Excavation and Grading, Soil
(3,910 m3)
Soil Compaction (3,910 m3)
Diversion Ditch, Construction (140 m3)
Surveying (2 days)
Capital Costs (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (15 percent)
Total Capital Costs
O&M Costs
* For a nedlum size Impoundment (0.468 ha).
Assume twice annual ditch repair.
Maintenance & Repair Cost -
Diversion Ditch (140 m3) 500 1,020 880
Total O&M Costs 500 1,020 880
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years) 16,820 25,040 22,810
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per ha
Per ac
35,940
14.500
53,504
21,586
48,739
19,664
76
-------
TABLE 28a. UNIT OPERATION 23. BITUMINOUS CONCRETE
SURFACE SEALING OF CLOSED IMPOUNDMENT
Use: An Impermeable cap placed on closed graded surface of pond
(with sludges retained) eliminates Infiltration of water
and thus eliminates any leachate production. Especially
useful under condition where residual sludges must be
encapsulated and/or Isolated from the environment.
Configuration; Either a cementaceous substance (Hme, fly ash,
or portland cement) 1s mixed with cover soils and allowed
to set or-an Impermeable layer 1s used 1n conjunction with
soil cover materials of the latter variety Include clay,
asphalt (bitumen), plastic membranes, and concrete. Used
only on closed graded Impoundment covering sludge residues
or contaminated soil.
Conjunction Uses; Contour grading and revegetatlon.
Assume; 1. Seal complete for entire site.
77
-------
TABLE 28b. COSTS OF BITUMINOUS CONCRETE SURFACE SEALING
FOR MEDIUM SIZE IMPOUNDMENT
Capital Costs
Surface Seat, Bituminous Concrete*
(4,680 m') 3 1n, 0.08 m thick
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (35 percent)
Total Capital Costs
O&M Costs
Assume 10-year life span.
Total O&M Costs
Lower U.S.
14^180
14,180
3,540
4,960
22,680
*
0
Dollars
Upper U.S.
20,680
20,680
5,170
7,240
33,090
0
Newark, NJ
18.300
18,300
4,580
6,400
29,280
0
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost1"
Per ha
Per ac
0
22,680
48,462
19,552
0
33,090
70,705
28,526
0
29.280
62,564
25,461
* See price 11st for alternative surface sealing materials/Installation.
t For a medium size site (0.468 ha).
78
-------
TABLE 29a. UNIT OPERATION 24. REVE6ETATION
Use; Revegetatlon acts as an erosion retardant and also reduces
Infiltration of water by enhancing transpiration loss of
soil moisture.
Configuration; Two configurations are possible - First; On con-
tour graded closed (and perhaps capped) pond. Second;
revegetatlon of berms or other surface water diversion
structures to reduce erosion.
Conjunctive Uses; Contour grading and surface sealing.
Assume; 1. Use with closed contour graded pond.
2. Native grasses used for seed variety.
3. Soil will be mulched to add stability and moisture
retention until vegetation takes hold.
79
-------
TABLE 29b.
COSTS FOR REVEBETATION FOR MEDIUM
SIZE IMPOUNDMENT
Capital Costs
Area Prep (4,680 m2)
Hydroseedlng (4,680 m2)
Mulching (4,680 m2)
Capital Costs (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (10 percent)
Total Capital Costs
O&M Costs
Grass Mowing Cost (m1n $10
visit, 6 times /yr)
Refert1l1z1ng Cost (4,680 m2)
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per ha
Per ac
Lower U.S.
330
430
120
880
220
90
1,190
60
20
80
1,860
3,974
1,603
Dollars
Upper U.S.
550
600
180
1,330
330
130
1,790
60
JO
90
2,550
5,449
2,198
Newark, NJ
500
510
160
1,170
290
120
1,580
60
JO
90
2,340
5,000
2,017
For medium size site (0.468 ha).
80
-------
TABLE 30a. UNIT OPERATION 25. SLURRY TRENCH CUTOFF WALL
Use; Cutoff wall Is used to lower ground water table below site.
Configuration; A bentonlte slurry or bentonlte soil-cement
slurry 1s pumped Into trench as excavation progresses.
Trench 1s then backfilled with excavated material which has
been mixed with the slurry. The effect of this construc-
tion practice 1s that the backfilled trench has a much
lower coefficient of permeability than the surrounding soil
and thus represents a barrier to ground water flow.
Conjunctive Uses; Contour grading, surface sealing, revegeta-
tlon, extraction wells.
Assume; 1. Slurry consists of 1 part Wyoming Bentonlte mixed
with 12 parts water.
2. Contractor 1s licensed for Installation of all parts
of process which are patented.
3. Testing of wall ($2,000} SCS estimate.
1 4. Site 1s graded and surface 1s sealed.
5. Trench extends at former be mi perimeter around 4
sides to 15 m 1n depth.
6. Geotechnlcal Investigation.
7. Monthly monitoring of upgradlent and downgradlent
wells.
81
-------
TABLE 30b. COSTS FOR SLURRY TRENCH CUTOFF WALL
FOR MEDIUM SIZE IMPOUNDMENT
Dollars
Capital Costs Lower U.S.
Geotechnlcal Investigation
Trench Excavation (4,165 m3)
Bentonlte, Delivered (165 tonnes) .
Slurry Wall Installation (4,165 m3)
Slurry Hall Testing
Capital Costs (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (30 percent)
Total Capital Costs
O&M Costs
No maintenance required over 10-year
life span.
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per m2
Per ft2
9,500
5,540
11,000
134,110
1,260
161,410
40,350
48,420
250.180
0
250,180
60.07
5.58
Upper U.S.
19,500
6,290
29.200
226,990
2,620
284,600
71,150
85,380
441,130
0
441,130
105.90
9.84
Newark, NJ
16,950
6,080
27,400
199,090
2,260
251 ,780
62.945
75,534
390,259
0
390,259
93.70
8.70
* For 4,165 m2 of wall face area at a medium size site (0.468 ha),
82
-------
TABLE 31a. UNIT OPERATION 26. SROUT CURTAIN
Use; Grout curtain provides a barrier used to lower the ground
"""""" water table below site.
Configuration: Cementaceous chemical solutions are Injected Into
tne subsurface through drilled Injection borings under high
pressure. Soil pores are filled and ground water movement
Impeded by tubellke structures of grouted soil-grouted
Injections are spaced so that they Intersect to form an
Impermeable barrier.
Conjunctive Uses: Contour grading, surface sealing, revegeta-
tlon, and extraction on wells.
Assume; 1. Chemical grout Injected on 2 row gap pattern, Injec-
tions spaced on 3 m centers, 15 m deep rows, soil
porosity 25 percent, and phenolic resin grout
$185/yd3.
2. Patented process license held by contractor.
3. Zn-place testing, $2,000 SCS estimate.
4. 6rout curtain surrounds site aloj?gjfQjrme_r_b*i?!
perimeter.
5. Geotechnlcal Investigation.
6. Monthly monitoring of upgradlent and downgradlent
wells.
63
-------
TABLE 31b. COSTS OF 6ROUT CURTAIN FOR MEDIUM
SIZE IMPOUNDMENT
Capital Costs
Geotechnlcal Investigation
Grout Curtain (4,465 m3)
j Capital Costs (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
i Contingency Allowance (30 percent)
1 Total Capital Cost
OSM Costs
Lower U.S.
9,500
930,530
940,030
235,010
282,010
1.457,050
Dollars
Upper U.S.
19,500
1,798,510
1,818,010
454,500
545.400
2,817,910
Newark, NO
16,950
1,569,450
1,586,400
396,600
475,920
2,458,920
Monitoring
Sampling 12 days/yr (96 hr/yr) ~760 1,570 1,370
Analysis, 24 samples/yr (12 back-
ground /yr, 12 downgrad1ent/yr)
Total OSM Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per m2
Per ft2
Tj-900-
8,660
1,530,060
373
34.6
7.900
9,470
2,897,740
706
65.6
7.900
9,270
2,537,070
618
57.4
For 4,104 m2 of wall face area at a medium size site (0.468 ha)
84
-------
TABLE 32a. UNIT OPERATION 27. SHEET PILING CUTOFF WALL
Use; As with grout curtain and slurry trench, purpose 1s to
lower and/or divert ground water table below site.
Configuration; Interconnecting steel sheets are driven Into the
ground upgradlent of the facility to lower ground water
below site.
Conjunctive Uses; Contour grading, revegetatlon, and extraction
systems (deep wells, well points).
Assume; 1. Sixty foot depth (15 n) possible.
2. Facility surrounded with piling.
3. Price of sheet piling 1s F.O.B. site.
4. fieotechnlcal Investigation.
5. Honthly nonltorlng of upgradlent and downgradlent
wells.
85
-------
TABL'E 32b. COSTS OF SHEET PILING CUTOFF WALL
FOR MEDIUM SIZE IMPOUNDMENT
e
4
\
\
i
I
1
4
\
Capital Costs
6eotechn1cal Investigation
Sheet Piling (442 tonnes)
Capital Costs (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (25 percent)
Total Capital Cost
OSM Costs
Monitoring Sampling 12/days
(96 hr/yr)
Analysis (24 samples/yr)
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per m2
Per ft2
Lower U.S.
9,500
200.450
209,950
52,490
52.490
314,930
760
7.900
8,660
387,940
95
8.80
Dollars
Upper U.S.
19,500
295.400
314,900
78,720
78,720
472,340
1,570
7,900
9,470
552,170
135
12.52
Newark, NO
16,950
261,090
278,040
69,510
69,510
417 ,060
1,370
7,900
9,270
495,210
121
11.23
* For 4,100 m2 of wall face area at a medium size site (0.468 ha),
86
-------
TABLE 33a. UNIT OPERATION 28. GROUT BOTTOM SEAL
Use; Bottom of closed filled 1n pond Is sealed with chemical
cementing agent. Procedure Involves Injecting grout Into
the soil beneath the bottom of pond through numerous prop-
erly spaced, cased bore holes.
Configuration: Sludges burled 1n clpsed pond are Isolated from
ground water or are prevented from leaching contaminants to
ground water, by properly spacing grout fn soil underneath
.filled pond.
Conjunctive Usest Contour grading, surface sealing, and revege-
tation.
Assume: 1. Sludges 1n pond bottom are either contacting or
leaching contaminants to ground water.
2. Pond has been closed and filled 1n.
3. Chemical grout Injected 1n gap pattern on 5 IB
centers.
4. Soil porosity 25 percent; phenolic resin grout.
6. Seal 1 m thick.
7. Contour grading.
8. Assume 4 holes/day /drill Hg.
9. Monthly «on1tor1ng of upgradlent and downgradlent
wells.
87
-------
TABLE 33b. COSTS OF GROUT BOTTOM SEAL FOR
MEDIUM SIZE IMPOUNDMENT
Capital Costs
Geotechnlcal Investigation
Surveying (2 days)
Grout Injection Well System:
(160 days - Drill R1g + 1,600 m -
Drilled Holes Cased)
Grout Curtain (800 n»3)
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (40 percent)
Total Capital Costs
O&M Costs
Monitoring
SampTtfKrt2/days (96 hr/yrh
Analysis (24 samples /yr)
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per ha
Per ac
Lower U.S.
9,500
300
69,760
166,720
246,280
61,570
98.510
406,360
76Q._.
7.900
8,660
479,370
1,024,295
413,250
Dollars
Upper U.S.
19,500
520
117,500
322.280
459,800
114,950
183.920
758,670
1,570
7.900
9,470
838,500
1,791,667
723,000
Newark. NJ
16,950
460
104,300
281.240
402,950
100,740
161.180
664,870
1,370
7.900
9,270
743,020
1,587,650
640,534
For a medium size site (0.468 ha).
88
-------
TABLE 34a. UNIT OPERATION 29. TOE AND UNDERORAINS
Use: Interceptor drain collects percolating leachate from
facility and conveys contaminated water away from facility.
Configuration; Perforated asbestos and cement pipe 1s placed in
gravel packed trench at a depth of 4.5 to 5 m with pipe in
bottom. This Intercepts leachate plume. A header pipe
collector conveys collected leachate away from site.
Conjunctive Uses: Contour grading, surface sealing, revegeta-
tlon, bottom sealing, grout curtain, slurry trench, and
leachate treatment.
Assume; 1. Active or closed pond leaching high concentration of
contaminants to top of ground water table.
2. Single Interceptor trench parallel to pond
downgradlent from berm.
3. Leachate pumped to adjacent sewer.
4. Trenching costs Include covering of Installed drain
pipe and gravel.
5. Sump Installation costs Include sump and discharge.
89
-------
TABLE 34b. COSTS OF TOE AND UNDERDRAINS FOR
MEDIUM SIZE IMPOUNDMENT
Dollars
Capital Costs Lower U.S.
Geotechnlcal Investigation
Trench Excavation (300 m3)
5 m (d) x 1 m (w) x 60 m (L)
Cement Pipe (70 m)
Gravel (70m3)
Sump (1)
Pump, Submersible (1)
Capital Costs (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (25 percent)
Total Capital Costs
OSM Costs
Monitoring
Sampling 12 days (96 hr/yr)
Analysis (24 samples/yr)
Electric Power - 1*800 kWh
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per m
Per ft
9,500
400
570
500
1,100
550
12,620
3,160
3.160
18,940
760
7,900
100
8,760
92,860
1.548
471
Upper U.S.
19,500
450
880
760
1,870
900
24,360
6,090
6.090
36,540
1,570
7,900
100
9,570
117,290
1,955
595
Newark, NJ
16,950
440
770
710
1,630
790
21,290
5,320
5.320
31,930
1,370
7,900
_igp
9,370
110,990
1,850
563
For 60 m of trench length at a medium size site (0.468 ha).
90
-------
TABLE 35a. UNIT OPERATION 30. WELL POINT SYSTEM
Use: A well point system 1s utilized to collect and remove
leachate plume from ground water.
Configuration; A row of well points are driven Into soil and
extend just below bottom of leachate plume. A system of
headers and pumps conveys leachate away from site.
Conjunctive Uses; Contour grading, revegetation, surface seal-
ing, cutoff walls (grout, slurry, sheet piling), and
leachate treatment.
Assume; 1. Bottom of leachate plume 1s within 5 m of surface.
2. Seotechnlcal Investigation.
3. Discharge to adjacent sewer.
91
-------
TABLE 35b. COSTS OF HELL POINT SYSTEM FOR
MEDIUM SIZE IMPOUNDMENT
L-
Capital Costs
Geotechnlcal Investigation
Drill Rig Rental (1 day)
Well Points (26 m)
Hell Point Fittings (5)
Pump, Centrifugal (1)
Capital Costs (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (25 percent)
Total Capital Costs
0*M Costs
Monitoring
Sampling 12 days (96 hrVyr) .
Analysis (24 samples/yr)
Electricity (10,000 kWh)
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost
Per m*
Per ft2
Lower U.S.
9,500
280
1,040
40
1.600
12,460
3,120
3.120
18,700
760
7,900
500
9,160
96,280
321
28
Dollars
Upper U.S.
19,500
470
1,760
70
1.600
23,400
5,850
5.850
35,100
1,570
7.900
500
9,970
119,510
398
35
Newark, NJ
16,950
420
1,540
60
1.600
20,570
5,140
5.140
30,850
1,370
7,900
500
9,770
113,580
379
33
For a 300 m2 Intercept face area at a medium size site (0.468 ha).
92
-------
TABLE 36a. UNIT OPERATION 31. DEEP HELL SYSTEM
Use; DewateMng soils where greater depths than can be managed
by well point systems are required.
Configuration; A system of extraction wells, each with Its own
pump is placed downgradlent of the pond facility to extract
contaminated ground water.
Conjunctive Uses;' Pond closure practices (I.e., grading, seal-
Ing, surface water diversion), and leachate treatment.
Assume; 1. Pond leachate plume extends below 5 m 1n depth.
2. Geotechnlcal Investigation.
3. Dewaterlng to 12 m.
4. Hells 14 * deep.
5. One day per well for Installation.
6. 150 m discharge pipe to water treatment.
7. Assume all necessary fittings for each well cost
equivalent to (1) 90" elbow and (1) tee connection.
8. 1m deep trench for discharge pipe.
93
-------
TABLE 36b. COSTS OF DEEP WELL SYSTEM FOR
MEDIUM SIZE IMPOUNDMENT
Capital Costs
fieotechnlcal Investigation
Drill R1g Rental (5 days)
Drilled Holes - Cased (70 m), 6 1n
Pumps, Submersible (5)
Hell Fittings - 5 Wells
Header and Discharge Pipe (175 m)
Discharge Trench (175 m3)
Capital Costs (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (30 percent)
Total Capital Costs
O&M Costs
Monitoring
Sampling 12 days (96 hr/yr)
Analysis (24 samples/yr)
Electricity - 9,000 kWh
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(Over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per •*
Per ft2
Lower U.S.
9,500
1,400
1,090
2.750
800
4.320°
490
20,350
5,090
6.100
31,540
760
7,900
450
9,110
108,670
114.39
10.65
Dollars
Upper U.S.
19,500
2,350
1,850
4,500
1,320
6.690
730
36,940
9.240
11.080
57.260
1,570
7,900
450
9,920
141,220
148.65
13.85
Newark, NJ
16,950
2,100
1,620
3,950
1,150
5,880
660
32,310
8,080
9.690
50,080
1,370
7,900
450
9,720
132,350
139.32
12.98
For a 950 m* Intercept face area at a medium size site (0.468 ha).
94
-------
TABLE 37a. UNIT OPERATION 32. WELL INJECTION SYSTEM
Use; Injection wells are used to either dilute leachate plume or
to cause a local ground water gradient reversal to stop the
movement of leachate plume. Can also be used to Inject
chemicals to treat leachate 1n the ground.
Configuration; Leachate barrier 1s provided by Inducing a local
ground water gradient reversal through water Injection
wells, combined with extraction wells.
Conjunctive Uses; Contour grading, surface sealing, revegeta-
tlon.
Assume; 1. Same system as Unit Operation 31.
2. Only difference 1s water 1s Injected.
3. No submersible pumps.
4. One centrifugal pump for 6 wells.
5. Water available at no cost.
95
-------
TABLE 37b. COSTS OF WELL INJECTION SYSTEMS FOR
MEDIUM SIZE IMPOUNDMENT
Capital Costs
Geotechnlcal Investigation
Drill R1g Rental (5 days)
Drilled Holes - Cased (5 holes,
6 1n, 70 m)
Pump, Centrifugal (1)
Hell Fittings (5 wells)
Header and Discharge Pipe (175 m)
Discharge Trench (175 n>3)
Capital Costs (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (30 percent)
Total Capital Costs
O&M Costs
Monitoring
Sampling 12 days (96 hr/yr)
Analysis (24 samples/yr)
Electricity (2,000 kWh)
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Perm*
Per ft2
Lower U.S.
9,500
1,400
1,090
1,600
800
4,320
490
19,200
4,800
5.760
29,760
760
7,900
100
8,760
103,680
109
10.16
Dollars
Upper U.S.
19,500
2,350
1.850
1,600
1,320
6,690
730
34,040
8,510
10.210
52,760
1,570
7,900
100
9,570
133,510
141
13.09
Newark. NJ
16,950
2,100
1,620
1,600
1,150
5,880
660
29,960
7,490
8.990
46,440
1,370
7,900
100
9,370
125,500
132
12.30
For a 950 m2 Intercept face area at a medium size site (0.468 ha).
96
-------
TABLE 38a. UNIT OPERATION 33. LEACHATE TREATMENT
Use; Leachate and contaminated ground water removed by extrac-
tion. (Deep well system needs treatment prior to discharge
to receiving body of water.)
Configuration; System Includes treatment plant and discharge
system to nearby body of receiving water.
Conjunctive Uses; None listed.
Assume; 1. Ponds leak 8.14 litres of contaminated water per
square meter per day.
2. Extraction wells draw twice the volume of
contaminated water as leaks from pond.
3. Land costs for treatment plant not Included.
4. Leachate easily treated with/by chemical treatment
processes (conventional).
97
-------
TABLE 38b. COSTS OF LEACHATE TREATMENT FOR
MEDIUM SIZE IMPOUNDMENT
1
1
1
1
1
"•
I.
j
Cajjltal Costs
Treatment Plant (51,780 I/day)
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (40 percent)
Total Capital Costs
jj*M Coste
Operator (1) (2,080 hr/yr)
Chemicals (51,780 Influent L/d)
Electricity (50,000 kWh)
Total O&M Costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per L/d
Per gal/d
Lower U.S.
36.250
36,250
9,060
14.500
59,810
16,470
1,290
2.500
20,260
232,420
4.49
16.99
Dollars
Upper U.S.
61.360
• 61,360
15,340
24.540
101,240
34,010
1,290
2.500
37,800
421,720
8,*14
30.83
Newark. NJ
53.850
53,850
13,460
21.540
88,850
29,680
1,290
2.500
33,470
372,830
7.20
27.25
For treating 51,780 1 of contaminated water/day at a medium size site
(0.468 ha).
98
-------
TABLE 39a. UNIT OPERATION 34. BERM RECONSTRUCTION
Use; Eroded and leaking pond berm 1s reconstructed to properly
contain wastes.
Configuration; A 3 m wide section of berms outer slope 1s re-
bunt through excavating and regradlng of berm.
Conjunctive Uses; None listed.
Assume: 1. Berns will be reconstructed to original size.
2. Equivalent of 1.5 n of berm outer slope has eroded
away.
3. Additional 1.5 m of outer slope removed and recon-
structed In place.
4. Suitable borrow soil available adjacent to site at
no cost.
99
-------
TABLE 39b. COSTS OF BERM RECONSTRUCTION FOR
MEDIUM SIZE IMPOUNDMENT
Capital Costs
Excavation and Grading, Soil
(410 m3)
Soil Compaction (410 m3)
Capital Costs (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (15 percent)
Total Capital Costs
O&M Costs
Grubbing (once per year 380 m2)
Total O&M Costs '
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per m3
Per yd3
Lower U.S.
360
510
870
220
130
1,220
IP.
50
1,640
4.00
3.06
Dollars
Upper U.S.
420
690
1.110
280
170
1,560
100
100
2,400
5.85
4.48
Newark, NO
400
640
1,040
260
160
1,460
80
80
2,130
5.20
3.97
For 410 m3 of berm reconstruction at a medium size site (0.468 ha).
100
-------
TABLE 40a. UNIT OPERATION 35. EXCAVATION AND
DISPOSAL AT SECURE LANDFILL
Use; Excavation of hazardous sludges and contaminated soil from
site unsuitable for final disposal and removal to secure
landfill to prevent ground water contamination.
Configuration; Berms, sludges, and 1 m of contaminated soil
are excavated from site and hauled to and disposed of at
secure landfill.
Conjunctive Uses; None listed.
Assume; 1. Sludges hazardous and pose potential threat of
leachate entering ground water.
2. Soil 1s not contaminated below a depth of 1 m.
3. Ponds are dry and sludge 1s dry.
4. No extreme recautlonary measures necessary during
excavation and transportation.
5. Transported 1n transfer trailers 15 m3 capacity.
6. Thirty-two km one way between pond and secure
landfill.
7. Costs of backfilling excavated ponds not Included.
8. Soil and sludge weight 2.08 ton/m3,
9. Hazardous waste surcharge of 50 percent for
excavation and transportation Includes Increased
costs due to:
a. Personnel safety equipment
b. Increased labor rest time
c. Equipment modification and decontamination
d. Increased Insurance costs
e. Transportation permits.
101
-------
TABLE 40b. COSTS OF EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL AT
SECURE LANDFILL FOR MEDIUM SIZE IMPOUNDMENT
Capital Costs
Excavation (3,340 m3) Using
Front-End Loader to Load Trucks
Transportation, 30-Ton Dump Truck
(6,950 tons, 64 km RT) 4 Haz-
ardous Waste Surcharge for
Excavation and Transportation
Tipping Fee (6,950 ton)
Capital Cost (subtotal)
Overhead Allowance (25 percent)
Contingency Allowance (40 percent)
Total Capital Costs
O&M Costs
Assume no O&M costs
Total Life Cycle Cost
(over 10 years)
Average Life Cycle Cost*
Per m3
Per gal
Lower U.S.
2,500
1.300,630
260
0.985
Dollars
Upper U.S.
2,870
1,338,990
268
1.014
Newark. NJ
2,770
7,920
764.500
788,260
197,070
315,300
1,300,630
15,670
764.500
811,510
202,880
324.600
1,338,990
13,510
764,500
805,020
201,260
322,010
1,328,290
1,328,290
266
1.006
For a 5,000 m3 Impoundment volume at a medium size site (0.468 ha).
102
-------
SECTION 8
EXAMPLE REMEDIAL ACTION SCENARIOS
INTRODUCTION
This section 1s Intended to show how this report may be used
to help develop an estimated cost for a remedial action scenario.
The purposes of undertaking corrective action-at a disposal site
are to correct existing environmental problems, to prevent their
occurrence 1n the future, and to bring the site Into compliance
with current regulations. It 1s Important to emphasize that sel-
dom, 1f ever, will the Implementation of a single corrective ac-
tion unit operation be effective 1n correcting all of the envi-
ronmental problems that may exist at a given site. Rather, 1t
will usually be necessary to design and Implement an Integrated
corrective action program or strategy consisting of several unit
operations.
The selection and design of a corrective action plan should
be carefully evaluated 1n terms of Its regulatory requirements,
technical considerations, operational ramifications, and short-
and long-term economic feasibility. Except 1n the most straight-
forward cases, a corrective action plan should be established by
a mu1t1d1sc1p!1nary team of professionals, Including environmen-
tal, civil, and soils engineers, geologists, hydrogeologlsts,
chemical engineers, and other specialists as warranted. The fol-
lowing 1s a partial 11st of Important considerations.1n any cor-
rective action plan:
• Implementation of a corrective action plan can represent
a substantial Investment.
• Site-specific factors will have a profound Influence on
the practicality and effectiveness of the various correc-
tive action techniques.
« Following Implementation of the plan, the site must us-
ually be maintained and monitored over the long term.
In the following subsections, a hypothetical remedial action
scenario 1s presented, Involving a combination of unit opera-
tions. The estimated cost for the hypothetical remedial action
103
-------
1s then calculated using the cost data presented earlier in this
report.
HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEM
Description of Site Conditions
? An abandoned hazardous waste site has been Investigated and
I 1s found to be contaminating surface and ground water. It 1s de-
cided that the site must be Isolated by (a) preventing surface
k runoff from entering the stored hazardous waste, (b) preventing
1 ground water migration through the site, and (c) implementing a
* monitoring program to confirm the effectiveness of the steps
taken. The unit operations required are as follows:
1 • Contour grading and surface water division (see Unit
Operation 1 1n Section 7).
' • Surface sealing (see Unit Operation 2 in Section 7).
• Bentonite slurry trench cutoff wall. Monitoring 1s
Included 1n unit operation (see Unit Operation 4 1n
Section 7).
Description of Site Size .
For example purposes, it 1s assumed that the hypothetical
site has the following dimensions:
» • Surface area * 4 hectares (10 acres).
| • Site 1s square, 200 meters (218 yards) each side.
• Average depth of bentonlte slurry trench cutoff wall must
be 10 meters (11 yards) to Impervious material.
• Hydrological Investigation Indicates that bentonlte
slurry trench cutoff wall must extend around three sides
\ of site to cut off ground water migration through the
: site.
Surface Cost Estimation
The procedure for estimating the cost of this hypothetical
, remedial action scenario 1s as follows:
; 1. Refer to the pertinent tables 1n Section 7, and 11st the
components of the unit operations selected. This step
1s shown in Table 41, first column.
104
-------
TABLE 41. SAMPLE CALCULATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION COSTS FOR HYPOTHETICAL LANDFILL
o
tn
Col unit No. I
Source of Information for thla Col tun Appendix
Unit of
Holt Operation and Component! Heaioreeient
Vnlt Operation 1. Contotr trading
and torface water diver* Ion, from
Table
a) Excavation, trading, and recontourlnt «3
of *1te - labor plus equlpxent
b) Excavation and ortdtng toll, *'
labor plot equipment
c) Diversion ditch *'
d) Capital coat (tottotat)
o) Overhead allowance, 2S«
f) Contingency allowance, IfiS
t) Total capital coat
h) Maintenance and repair cott. m?
dlvertlon ditch (2 tllMS ptp ytir)
1) Total DIM eotti ('resent worth In HBO dollar*)
J) Total ton-year life cycle cott
3 4
Section 8 Appendix
Calculate V.S. HI oh
No. of Vnltt Component
This Scentrlo Mr Unit - $
O.S.I, »••'!
40.000 m, •
20,000 m3
0.3 • x , 1.05
40.000 m, •
12.000 m3
4 • x t m 3.63
x 200 m,-
1.600 m3
1,600 m1 3.60
x 2 •
3,200
« 5 6
Col. 3 x 4 Col. 5
Cott
Component Vnlt Operation
Total • t Total - i
36.600
12*600
5,800
55,000
13,750
8,250
77,000
11.520
t7,000
174.000 :
-------
TABLE 41 (continued)
o
en
Co1u«n No.
Source of Information for this Colunn
Unit.Operation and.Components
Unit Operation 2. Bentonlte concrete
surface sealing
a) Excavation, grading, and recontourlng'
of site « Included In unit operation
No. 1, thus not duplicated here
b) Excavation and grading toll - Included
In unit operation No. I, thus not
duplicated here
c) Surface teat, bituminous concrete cap
(0.08 •. 3") Installation I Materials
d) Capital cost (subtotal)
e) Overhead allowance. 25f
f) Contingency allowance, 31*
g) Total capital cost
h) Maintenance and operation cost - none
I) Total 10-year life cycle cost
Appendix
Section 8
Jlppendlx_
Col. 3 x 4
Unit of
Measurement
Calculate
No. of Units
This Scenario
U.S. Nigh
Component
Per Unit - |
40.000 m*
«.S5
Cost
Component
Total - I
182.000
182.000
4S.SOO
63.700
Col. 5
Unit Operation
Total - t
291,200
291,200
-------
01
9
O
U
k I
0~
85 *!
«•• w w
w< v e
1
i !
: 2
S S
M ^
8. S
! *
US
s g S
k O.
•
•»
^
K
•
B
«•
•
•
e
*i
i
i
«
•»
•
>
e
»
w
IA
u «
• E
1
i
k
k •
• •
S— *
(rt^*
«•
•
•
«
U k
5 =
m ?
5 S
• •
w • u
V • M
• •* *»
> e e
e b. ~* «K «.
s«* • « u
107
-------
2. Refer to the price 11st 1n the Appendix, and determine
what units will be required to measure the cost of each
component (e.g., hectares, square meters, etc.). This
step 1s shown 1n Table 41, second column.
3. Calculate the number of units (e.g., hectares, square
meters, etc.) of each cost component required for the
site. This step 1s shown 1n Table 41, third column, for
the hypothetical site used 1n this example.
4. Refer to the price 11st in the Appendix, and 11st the
unit cost for each cost component required (e.g.,
S/hectare, $/square meter, etc.). A decision will have
to be made on whether to use U.S. high, U.S. low, or New
Jersey costs. For this example scenario, U.S. high
costs were used, and are shown 1n Table 41, fourth col-
umn.
5. The final cost calculation requires multiplication of
the number of units (Step 3 above) by the unit cost
. (Step 4 above), as appropriate, and summation of the
cost components to arrive at a total cost. For this
example, see Table 41, fifth and sixth columns.
For the hypothetical remedial action scenario used here as
an example, the estimated costs were calculated as follows:
Total capital cost
Total 0&H cost, during 10 years
Total 10-year life cycle cost
$1,006,300
$177,200
$1.183,500
108
-------
SECTION 9
SCALE AND REGIONAL COST VARIATIONS
In addition to other site-specific considerations, unit
operation cost estimates nay vary substantially 1n response to
scale economies and regional price differences. To demonstrate
the extent to which these factors can affect unit operation cost
estimates, lower U.S., upper U.S., and Newark, New Jersey, aver-
age life cycle costs for each of the five scales of site size
were estimated for the following unit operations:
• No. 2, Landfill Bituminous Concrete Surface Sealing.
• No. 4, Landfill Slurry Trench Cutoff Hall.
• No. 15, Landfill Excavation and Disposal.
t No. 26, Impoundment Grout Curtain.
• No. 30. Impoundment Hell Point System.
These life cycle averages were plotted and graphically Interpo-
lated to show the effects of scale and regional cost variations
for these unit operations. Graphical Interpolation by visually
fitting curves to the points was used 1n preference to statisti-
cal curveflt techniques. The resulting curves appear 1n Figures
4 through 8.
In Figure 4, landfill bituminous concrete surface sealing
shows negligible scale economies when the life cycle averages are
expressed 1n terms of site area. This 1s because site area 1s
the primary factor affecting costs of Initial capital Investment.
Regional cost differentials, however, are large for all compon-
ents, and thus result 1n widely spaced cost curves. Regional cost
variations were especially prominent for the Installed cost of
the surface seal component, bituminous concrete.
In Figure 5, the landfill bentonlte slurry trench cutoff
wall shows some scale economies. Again, these gradual slopes
result because the unit of measurement, wall face area, 1s
expected to be highly correlated with total life cycle costs;
regional differentials (I.e., relative distances between curves)
are large because nearly all components are subject to regional
price variations. Only the cost of monitoring sample analysis
was assumed to be Invariant with geographic setting.
109
-------
40
o
o
2 30
III
N
M
III
tlL
O
c
V
0.
O
U
at
d
u
III
Ik
III
(9
K
III
95
M
III
N
.O
IT
III
a.
u
u
AVERAGE
••
M
O
UPPER U.S.
NEWARK
LOWER U.S
4 8 12
SXTE SXZE XN HA
16
20
10 20 30
SXTE SXZE IN AC
40
SO
Figure 4. Landfill bituminous concrete surface sealing cost
variations.
110
-------
12
411
ui
u
Ik
Q. «
Ul
M
o
u
UJ
d
u
u
lit
a:
u
-. 120
10
Ul
ft
< 100
Ul
U
Ik
* 80
It
Ul
a «0
o
u
40
£
Ul
20
UPPER U.S
.LOWER U.S.
12
,2
Itf
20
VAU. FACE AREA 2N M (1000'S)
40
• 0
220
160 200
WALL PACE AREA IN FT (1000'S)
Figure 5. Landfill bentonlte slurry trench cutoff wall cost
variations.
Ill
-------
«o
c
IV
0»
9
o.
f»
X
O
t»
2
3
o.
•»
IT
C
1
P*
o
o
Vt
fl*
_>.
M
o
a
(A
AVERAGE LIFE CYCLE COST PER FT OP SITE VOLUME U*S)
o
•
w
•
O
*
III
M
*
01
w
•
O
w
•
in
AVERAGE LIPE CYCLE COST PER M OP SITE VOLUME (t*S)
o
w
,,1
•HI
m §tl
O
^
rj
1*
C
1 *
M O
z
Irf
** I*
M S
• ^
O
o
o
•
o
g »
. 0
in
0
o
c
* o
M
M O
-1 •
. m w
<.
o
r
c M
M
Z
X
*• (*
M
b
.._
» r^
0 o
0 °
o
w
" r
M M
HI *• ^ • 0 10
>. o o o o o o
• ills
—
1
/
o
m
»
c
* '
01
•
-
1
>
x
HI i|
5 w
> »
A 5
Ul
*
-
-------
80
i
<
o
•I
ft.
ff 4-0
ttl
ft.
0)
o
u
III
u
u
e
~ 800
0)
IU
III
u
h.
«oo
I
«L
o
M
400
o
u
IU
IU
II.
200
K
SI
LOWER U.S.
4 a 12 16 20
MALI. FACE AREA XN M2 (1,000*5)
40 BO .120 160 200
•ALL FACE AREA XN FT2 (1,000'S)
Figure 7. Impoundment, grout curtain cost variations
113
-------
80
M
III
K
IB
V
ft
u
IE
u
6-0
e
u
0.
8
U 20
01
o io
900
u
-------
In Figure 6, landfill excavation and reburlal has negligible
scale economies when the average life cycle costs are expressed
1n terms of site volume. There 1s also only minor regional
variation because an Invariant tipping fee was used. Further
research 1s needed to refine the tipping fee to reflect regional
price differences.
In Figure 7, Impoundment grout curtain shows moderate scale
economies and substantial regional cost differentials due to
price variations 1n Its largest component, the grout material
Itself. This 1s another example of the Influence that a major
component can have on scale economies and regional cost differ-
ences*
Figure 8 shows another example of the pervasive Influence
which a single component can exert. In this case, there are
large economies of scale and negligible regional cost variation
due to the overpowering Influence of costs for analyzing moni-
toring samples. Because such costs were not assumed to change
when the Intercept face area Increased, substantial scale eco-
nomies appeared. Because this major component was assumed to be
Invariant from one part of the country to another, the regional
variation 1n average life cycle cost was suppressed.
115
-------
REFERENCES
1. Tolman, A. U, A. P. Ballestero, Jr., W. W. Beck, Jr., and G.
- H. Emrich. Guidance Manual for Minimizing Pollution from
Waste Disposal Sites. EPA-600/2-2-78-142, A. H. Martin Asso-
ciates, King of Prussia. Pennsylvania, August 1978. 95 pp.
2. SCS Engineers. Remedial Actions at Hazardous Waste Sites:
Survey and Case Studies. EPA Contract No. 68-01-4885, Long
Beach, California, January 1981. 230 pp.
3. SCS Engineers. Surface Impoundment Assessment 1n California.
EPA Contract No. 68-01-5137, Long Beach, California, June
1980. 235 pp.
4. Geraghty * MHIer. Surface Impoundments and Their Effects on
Ground Water Quality 1n the United States - A Preliminary
Survey. EPA-570/9-78-004, Syosset, New York, June 1978. 284
PP- . . _
5. McMahon, L. A. 1980 Dodge Guide to Public Works and Heavy
Construction Costs. McGraw-Hill, New York. 1979. 221 pp.
6. Robert S. Means Company. Building Construction Cost Data
1980. Duxbury, Massachusetts, 1979. 371 pp.
7. Fred C. Hart Associates. Analysis of the Technology, Preva-
lence and Economics of Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste 1n
the United States. EPA Contract No. 68-01-4895, Boston,
Massachusetts, 1979. 97 pp.
8. Survey of Current Business. Volume 60, Number 4, April
1980. 67 pp.
116
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abron - Robinson, L. A., and E. J. Martin. Treatment Alterna-
tives for Hazardous Waste Management 1n Nine Industry
Groups. EPA Contract No. 68-01-5098, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Haste, Washington, D.C.
1979. 366 pp.
Arthur D. Little. Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Guide-
lines: The Ore Mining and Dressing Industry. EPA-230/1-75-
062, Boston, Massachusetts, 1975. 389 pp.
Booz, Allen, and Hamilton. Cost Estimating Handbook for Trans-
fer, Shredding and Sanitary LandfllUng of Solid Haste. EPA
Contract No. 68-01-3121, Bethesda, Maryland, August 1976.
77 pp.
Emcon Associates. Environmental Impact Statement: Criteria-for
Classification of Solid Haste Disposal Facilities and Prac-
tices. SW-821, San Jose, California, December 1979.
830 pp.
Fred C. Hart Associates. Preliminary Assessment of Cleanup Costs
for National Hazardous Haste Problems. EPA Contract No. 68-
01-5063, New York, 1979. 47 pp.
Gas and Leachate from Landfills: Formation, Collection and
Treatment; Proceedings of a Research Symposium Held at Rut-
gers University, March 25-26, 1975. EPA-600/9-76-004.
189 pp.
Geraghty and Miller. Surface Impoundments and Their Effects on
Ground-Hater Quality 1n the United States. EPA-570/9-78-
004, Syosset, New York, June 1978. 284 pp.
Ghasseml, M. Technical Environmental Impacts of Various Ap-
proaches for Regulating Small Volume Hazardous Haste Genera-
tors. Volume I. Technical Analysis. EPA Contract No. 68-
02-2613 and 68-03-2560, TRW Environmental Engineering Divi-
sion, Redondo Beach, California, December 197,9. 114 pp.
117
-------
Ghasseml, M. Technical Environmental Impacts of Various Ap-
proaches for Regulating Small Volume Hazardous Waste Genera-
tors. Volume II. Appendices. EPA Contract No. 68-02-2613
and 68-03-2560, TRW Environmental Engineering Division,
Redondo Beach, California, December 1979. 114 pp.
Hansen, W. G., and H. L. Rlshel. Cost Effectiveness of Treatment
and Disposal Alternatives for Hazardous Wastes. EPA Con-
tract No. 68-03-2754. SCS Engineers, Long Beach, California,
1979. 256 pp.
JRB Associates. Remedial Actions for Waste Disposal Sites: A
Decision Maker's Guide and Technical Handbook. EPA Contract
No. 68-01-4839, New York, New York, 1980. 270 pp.
McMahon, L. A. 1980 Dodge Guide to Public Works and Heavy Con-
struction Costs. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1979. 221 pp.
Robert S. Means Company. Building Construction Cost Data 1980.
Duxbury, Massachusetts, 1979. 371 pp.
SCS Engineers. Remedial Actions at Hazardous Waste Sites: Sur-
vey and Case Studies. EPA Contract No. 68-01-4885, Long
Beach, California, January 1981. 230 pp.
SCS Engineers. Surface Impoundment Assessment 1n California.
EPA Contract No. 68-01-5137, Long Beach, California, June
1980. 235 pp.
Survey of Current Business. Volume 60, Number 4, April 1980.
67 pp.
Tolman, A. L., A. P. Ballestero, Jr., W. W. Beck, Jr., and 6. H.
Emrlch. Guidance Manual for Minimizing Pollution from Waste
Disposal Sites. EPA Contract No. 600/2-78-42, A. W. Martin
Associates, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, August 1978. 95
PP.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste.
Draft Economic Impact Analysis, Subtitle C, Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act of 1976: Regulatory Analysis Sup-
plement. Washington, D.C., 1979. 309 pp.
118
-------
APPENDIX A
119
-------
TABLE A-l. CAPITAL AND OftH COMPONENTS WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO UNIT OPERATIONS
INJ
O
I. t»«t«»r jrt«««t
I. Url««t »»»lt«t
t. f».IMT»«< MUM M»»j«r
«. XII »«»t tHH»"~
It. »t«» ntll »II1»«
' IIMIH*
ll.Ui 1MI..I-MI1.1
r r
It. l»r
ii.B. ». I
it. M. ».
». J...I
I>.»M«I
.
it. it. M
TTHTiT
It. »lH
n.n«» »«i
tf»>««
l«Hltl««
n-n. u
II-H,
nTHT
». !«•••< iM/tiym
IUIIM (Hit
• I • inn
-------
TABLE A-2.
AVERAGE U.S. LOW AND HIGH COSTS OF UNIT OPERATIONS
FOR MEDIUM-SIZED SITES - NETRIC UNITS
MtftfMV V*v* Utf CM* Wf will _ NMHTMv
i.
t.
t.
4.
t.
(.
7.
1.
9.
to.
11.
It.
II.
14.
19.
Mult OMTMlM*
• ACG tMttl^ fffVtrfloM
iwrfic* iMlInf
OMtwtlte tlwry trmch
Cutoff Mil
Orwt cwrtel*
SItNt *ltl*o cvteff Milt
0*Mt tottal Mill*
>•!**
Mill Mint tjntM .
OM* mil tyttw
InltctlM
UMtote twImUMM N
MbirtM IrrlMtlM
OlMlClt flutlM
dwrtcat InjMtl**
te*Mt1MMrfrM^m
Ultlil
T»«e«1 . Civltel
lite WM. to 19,100
Slte.tr**, to 07,900
Site «r«, to 1,4(0
Mill f*c* «rM, •..' M.9
Mill fK* trM, •.* 000
Mitt f*c* irti, «. 79
Site irw, to . (4W.OOO
ftl«A laMaftk M 99 •
* *^V IVl^U,, •. vC.f
1
1
2
Site irtt. to Sitro
Site trttf M * CVfivO
iMtrni voiMM. •.' 1.47
u-iiiiMi-....' no
rint
VtMrOM
114
*
'109
O.OM
•.00
§
1.000
M.7
9.M
I.I
199
Ir7»
1,000
; .0(77
0.019
L»ta Cyet*
C»U
14.300
07.100
14.100
01 .<
917
71
S*tM*QOO
197
107
n.o
I.7M
19.700
Ot.MO
I.'M
110
Initial
17,900
M.700
IO.MO
|99.1
I.t09
101
10.109.009
109
109
19.1
90
1.3*0
110.000
I.H
IM
0.9. Ml* CMt tor »«U
rint
ttairOM
t40
•
109
0.077
0.09
t
1.7(0
99.0
9.94
t.tt
Ml
I.9SO
1.7M
.09U
0.010
lift C>c1*
CMt
19.900
M.700
• 10.100
1 103
IOM
100
IO.tM.000
410
191
37.1
1.709
M.odo
149,000
1.91
IM
-------
k-
o
u
CVJ
! 1 3 i !
! I § s s s !• ! : z s E ;
* !
?*J 885 = -.
*J1-"' - •
S -
!
8 .
§ I S !i 3 s i ! Sii i i : ! ;
«
* ! s ». = § » S ?. « 5 S
• - • s*^«:»s»«: • «; o •
! ! S s 2 Is S S S 5 ! j
i!
*
^
i i
" •
••
i i i u ii u
Z 5 S •> *> 2 X
i I
i i
«#
I.
i!
! i
t * c s ic *
ff if! i' ^Mliilj
llillMilHiiIliiiJifii
s
•
£ S 8 8
122
-------
00
oac
(9 I
z v»
UJ
OH-
« I/I
Out
—INI
UJO
C0 UJ
! SB'S
S 3«S
«ij 2
Cfc«J 6
S* I
2*1 2*32
^v
1
i
J
§ In
i
8
ilJ s I § « •r*-szs2
«• n •* »?^« ••••-•!•."^
£5 I • S.••••«•«• C — — •»••
etc
1
••*•*• •*• ^r *
* * * till * «
*«; i 11 *; 4 s 11 *; «: H
! i in
i ill i I il
*
1
i
i i 5 i If i
! r . 5 R if 8
-=aJj - « . IS s
r» J i I I 1 J s< •=
lii^^ifiiiii
illljlilllfi
1
J
2 S S S S
123
-------
2 ~ § §
i
i
5 i S . ?
IH 5 3 I 5 s s I I § i 3 5 3it S I 5 ! 3 !
. _ I
*•
S
i
2 :
R a -
* *
I ! 5. a 5 s
s S «•>(•.
s s
e
u
*^
J 4 - "«-."-•
eelc- «.«
*fc««« •«.«•
»: f f I ! ! »: «: * m '. J i
S ! ! I i 1 i 5 i i i i i 1 f
JI1
» 1
SSSS 8 S
124
-------
SZI
s s
I
i i
U
iii r f
S t n S .R
, ! f • ft 11 r
I f S? £| ~ -
8
1| = =
f *
1 i
r i
ri
I
f
I
x
f
s-
f n ! H
i ifffi i
f f f 5 J f f f
illl U 1
ff » ff ff S-
a
£
5
f
* an* S *f f f If f I a
% * V*8 ? 9f I I 5 I I * S
I !
i
r
s
2 2
s S
f
*
2
s
f f f i
III I
R » ft *
f r f
jf!
i i
?•• •• *vft.
.HI
S
a.
a
n r r r r r F r r i n f n r r i f
i i
i i i i I i I
It i i i i !
i! -: =
i s s ; . i : s s •
S ?
: J5iz;
s z : r: J 3
-------
921
ff 9 V I
1
I
f
r ?
I i
• •
«*
•
! M f f
f
*
I
?
3 S
f If i[ I I-Ml ill
I f.» }.* f | r f * 11
*1 *1 1 1 f t f f
I* if * i | I • ?
l i I I
I I I
• ? »
Hi
f!
S 2
|ll
*f f
f f
I* U s f
Li
•3?
8
f
BII
sa <« i
23
'•i?
S
?
Ill
ii!
ft
?2
if
,*?i ?&
;f;f a I? QIII
r! n wv f l if i
f "i.
I ^
. • .
51 S
31
?t ?£
'lll
i S J
» 5
*
f
i<
ij
|
f
i i i i
S *• "*
* 3 c
s s z
i I I
I i
§ 1
i
f Ff f f fH
o
3
r r f i f r r rrr rir
ii i i. i i i iii iii
w « s s a » s
a s s " a « »
8 « u 3 - - s
.&:_:_ 3LJE
-------
LZl
l
»
s
3 X « I *
• f???--2--
! MMlII f
r «s«5^*;"-";"r
« * •: m. ^
1 S
u
'I 1
fill
if m m Z
ff r r
I ! *
I ;
? 1 ? 5 S S
I: i i i f
u*
If i
i!
7 If
s : =
• i*«
n
f-1
i * 1 ! 1
ft i i i i
T ? 3T ? ? ST
* •«
P s* 5l 1 i fs
hi!? lit it;
i
if f f
ill
iii
til
I I £
iii
II
s s
mi
Iff?
r rrrrnniif r r
I I i I 111 i i I i i i I
§ f
if
3
3
V»
£ 9
sssssaarsscaisgs - r § s
•>M«a»«a»b<»MV. S 2 **
SS2!S?f5?225rr §i
ur!^vvvL.U-^?*' 2 tt 88
fTf f ???!££
** * * * ff
«•
fiiiff,
i i i i i i i
t « » » E 5 I
5 5 3 I r =
5 3 S ?
-------
821
if
f
I
•
a-
:
-
f ?
f f
I?
If
"I
*
s
ff
I
i
i S
I I If f I I f I f
I ? i ! 5 ! I ! f f
• s
f !
ff ?
f f
•to
!
^ *
s s t
•t • " ' a 4 •, w w w m 9
!!!!sltc8ccc
£&&&?! £ f £ £ •
ff»»«»2* «"»«»?ff
ffffff 8 5«55
ff
«
if?
S.8 8!
•• *I
III
3 3
? rif ?3 r
t i
"^ •"» —a
e ff » S. n .•
I
!| ^|
it
I
8
I !
8^.
"t F i
I
i i
II f r r r r
i i i i I
;!
f * r
Ml
a -v-
«r s? S
II.1
Ill
III
»»••••«* 9^*^tv *>*•*» it
S , , ^ ? ^ t ^ ?jf1 ?
2 77it«*«tf*«
£•*•• » •-••!•••
; ; -; I | E i s ih s
: I i * ! ' s s:i? J
ff 5 1 2 S C •• ••£••• «•
ill i f s r in r
5 - - ^
7
* S t
-*
FFFFFFFH
fe
rrrrnrnr
i i i i i i i i i i i
(t
O
s s
-------
62T
IS I
i
M
p II if 1
Ullii l
• « •« •
£ a - '"
! I
f f 9 9 9
* t f 5 I
o
0
I I I
&
•^
i
f f *
5 g g
i E i
f f i
9
?
s
s
i
i
I
8 . 8 9 S g | « « k «• k k
??::;| s |s8kikk
«•«••»•« ft a » ^ » •
-------
(X)
fr-
hl
O
s 2 I ' * i
I S !• 9 5
3! ! 5 5 S
Si ! ; 5 !! s 5 J !
«
•
8 S X »
i 1
•
a i i i i I
:
I
i i
* i j i
£11 |
i I ! I I !
i i ii
1 I
a I t - - I
11! J11 § I
* S fl C ** 5 5 • m m fe V
1 J Ii i i I i i I 11
130
-------
C9
UJ
I
V)
trt
o
11.2
3 *
8 * 5 5 3*5
» •• § 5
513 31183 2 2 5 S 2
2 s s
* 8
I
8
s
111 I
!lf
II I
,
^ S * « • •« *
s s
•2
«. 8
S •
• • -^ •
1 1 .1 S
i
—" ~" V
! ! i
I
1
S 5 s S
C C S 5
* 1
{"'••••• « « 5 «• ••
, a K K 1111 ! i
I J s
» • «•
1
3 1
* *
5 3 2 2
Hi!
s 111
i jiiii iiiii
ii i
I i
Ii
II
< *
I
s s 2
ill
i
JiitliMHHi
ii
• •
ii
5 S
131
-------
0
(J
«e
i
Ul
I
|2Zj*2S8>?S8S*aS-. § SS as..-:
*'«a«.sssw-»-
-------
TABLE A-6 (continued)
ta
CMWMMt
NtMW *lM. 0-
MMtr p>lM, ••
MviffoMoMoifloM
MrMtt*l«9
NylrMMllM,
llMT.
Hattrlali tMtliig
feliUro trapl
HmUarfNf tMlMa«t
NMltortM; Milt. Ml
NMttorlM, Mill, Ml
McM*
MulcklM,
feUMnt
MM. we UIMM). o*
MM. WC (ilMM). I*
MM. we (ttMM), o*
MM. we (tibwt). o*
MM. we (TMI). ••
MM. we (TMI). ••
MM. we (TMI). i"
MM. we (TMI). o-
MM. WCi Uttrtlt. 0*
Swc
Natarteli
iMtollatlM
l*tr
Mtttrtati
tMtMMt
iMar/MUrltll
Mtttrlili/lMtlllitlM
•Mtrlili/lMUIUtlM
CMlMMt
fetor lilt
iMttllltlM
labtr
MUrlttt
tM«MMt
MitirUli
iMtlllttlM
Mittrtali
iMttltltlM
HittrUlt
iMUIIltlM
Mttrtali
ImUllitlM
feUrfati
Nflnltltn
WCSCMA.1.40
W^. fc. — a .•— A|B
XIOWUVIV W
iMlwlM IM4 Ml Mil IVMlMMtl
iMlMII IMl Ml Mil iMMtMMtt
iHCtMtt IMl Ml Mil IMflMMtt
30 •tlt| vncpttMl wltvj HMvyMlyn%
tMUntllt fabric, HyawlM
rtr raiting. IM tulorttory Mrlnf
OiaiHui Mttr frM MI CMtrot lyitM
Ml MtKtlM iMtrMMUtlM to
mnltar MI cenlrol lyitCM (*BA
Itodtl S3 6aic«M)
O.I* (1.3 «.). It U (3.0 •.) MM,
for Undflll MI MMlterlii9
O.I' (1.3 a.). It tt (3.0 •.) MM,
for lamtflll f«i MM 1 tor luff
May MtcMM,
My Mlchlnf
my Mlchtnt
90* flUli*
90* flttlnt
90* mui*
90* flttlNO
T-NttlHff f«T Mt Milt
t-flttlMi tor Ml Mill
t-mtlNft f*r 911 Mill
T-mtlMft tor MI Mill
far MI ntmtlM Mill. IcMAilo 40
tWtfik -
Unltl
I/H.
l/tert
t/Kro
l/MTt
t/yl.*
l/MCk
l/MCk
1/y*.
I/H.
l/ttra
I/MM
l/Krt
t/OKk
1/tMfc
l/tacfc
l/MCk
l/MCk
l/MCk
1/tKk
1/tKk
l/yl.
{••ret
14.9
31.0
M.I
351
M
l.tt
400
MO
l.tt
0.03
34.1
01.00
7.3.1
17.0
N.O
tt.O
39.0
37.0
41.0
n.o
19.0
t4.9
ll.t
19.1
43.1
173
M
3.H
331
MO
0.94
1.05
7.1.7
11.4
»3.t
n.o
17.1
40.0
(4.0
to.s
w.o
17.7
37.1
I9.t
Milk
N.4
40.1
M.I
371
M
0.19
170
MO
i.to
10.11
45.1
M.I
t3.t
n.o
31.7
19.1
M.t
39.1
M.3
•79.1
77.3
M.I
Hariri
(3.4
35.4
70.0
333
M
1.43
MO
MO
1.11
9.11
39.3
79.9
M.T.
15.4
31.9
40.9
44.1
34.0
U.4
70.1
17.3
13.4
-------
o
u
•
. *• £ * s
SI "• 5 *• S "• ~.
•I = s s ^ = =
a
s c s
i
i
-~- 8
i !
i f I i i t i
I I I I I i I
1 I I 1 I I 1
SSSSSSS
i i i i i i i
« i
•'!•
! !
I I i
•
f
«*
5
b
•
!
J I
ii <
«2 3
55 5
II I I
• •>•••• •
8
&
ti 91
9m ft if
?-
1m
cv
III
5
3
53
I 5
v v
11 I 5 1 I
i
I I I I I
i 1 £ * £
II
1
s s i
t
ii
23s
i Ji
s
l
s
134
-------
S I\ * ! s l! ! I 5! 5 =
S 3 . 3 .o . 8 S
• • s » 2 I » •
5 3 5 3 s i S
i 2
:! S I
i 3 ! « 5
5 5 5 ;. l B | I
3! * I
«•««••>
i I l i I I
e
u
1
f
nil
I I ! I
i Sr 2? >
335"
ill
M * £ *
i
II it i
11 .
i \ Is
- -^ -
ii if it
| 5! 5: r
i
3.
a
s
I l
Hi
135
-------
TABLE A-7, LANDFILL OIN COST COMPONENTS - ENGLISH UNITS
C •*••••••••, ft Cuke •••••AM' ft
•nomii vfi^ T VOT wnvH %
CkMlcili NitarliU
tlactrlclty fmar caiti
OnMla, later/....*...*
NilNtaMnca/raMlr. ImtallitlM
4l*ar«hM ditch
MMltarl*o ' later
»-*
U»
o» ftmltwlna (M»IM| •) lateratary caiti
^It^la, (i^lM l-Wr
•rait amlnfl Later/Mtartali
Oaaritlnfl catt later
•aarallno eatt later
MfartltlMtlaii later/Mtwtali
Mtar Mttrlilt
OafUUIan
MMtaMlar/lMdMtt traitimit flMt
chMlcalt
Far Mtar traataant alwit. ntractlan,
luJKtloN. *M ail cantral Mlt/aM*i
amfc
AiiMa dtwrtlM 4ltck nta4i rttelltf*
In* t tlMi a year aftar Mjar itarM
Far aat aMltarlHf at actlv* aM
MM!** Oil contra! Imtaltitlaiw
Far mr**4 Mtar/laKkato amiltar-
tdf (DM «MltOrlN| Mill
Far arauM Mtar/laactet* aMltar-
Inf rnM annltorlnf Milt
• Via M* KMT rWt «oMr, ana
apwator
Far Mtar traitaMt alint aaaratlnf
Far MI tatlactlM tyitai aaaratln|
AIIMI rafaHlllutlaik aura aar yair
ludmtrlal aracaii Mtar
InfH*k
Unltl
KHt./wf
nflaant)
l/Mi
I/H.«
I/H.J
l/kr.
l/kr.
l/tcra
l/kr.
l/kr.
l/Mra
1/103 o*1.
Saarca
Cat!
e.ojs
o.os
o.u
t.w
130
tt.l
31
10.0
11.0
130
i.M
its
*.OM
•.OS
•.10
t.tt
l.M
130
1M
n
•,30
•.41
100
l.M
Silk
•.on
o.os
o.n
f.n
110
H.I
4S
13.10
It.*
in
l.M
o.on
o.os
0.10
1.40
14.1
in
14. t
40
11.4
U.I
140
l.M
-------
3 §
! 2 *
85
S. « 3 S
•• - •• *
i
V)
*-
Ul
o
a.
o
5
00
00
I I fl I I I i I I I I I I I I
I t il i I I I I I ! i ! f f i
S 3 5 H
i ! !
i
2
i i I
l
i
i!
S?
Jfi
21
ii
iill
11 S S
ft
a f
£
i
£
!
k -: ^
3 Jt «
ii i
!,y
-•* -•* i
00*
*!.?s. ii\\i It ijnp Uti l1.l!.i
u m \ \ f 11 11 i! fe {i ill i h !i i?
il IM I 11 » i i ! i ! 11 Jl IH I U si 11
HiiilhU,
H
n.
i«|
ill!
H!s
o
Ik
ee
ee
i
.
i
• =
i!
! £ i
II If. I
ii iiii!
i i i
I
W
5
* j *
I 3 •
M
.
S
S
S 5 5
iS 38
5
2
137
-------
8CI
I f I I | if I I I f f
j i i H i i I
I I ff ? I I 1 I
IHH
"i
8
I
H ?
1
s s
I- f I
§.« f I
f jf I I
f
s-r
r z s r s- y f r
I*}'!*!!!
2 3
* I
*
J 5
i
3
«!
» *
ik
i
!!
5
V ff ST ff 5
^ I Z Z Z 1
?i!
-I
1
l'l i i I
i 1 ft
r
5 i
£ C
r r
f I
i i i i
- « s
IS?
r r Frriffif 11 i i 11
i i iiiiiiii i i i i i
s s&xrf??? >
5 '••I1SII S i
P P 2 £|?S
3 S -M S I*
'
**
52S
3
s s s
-------
gtH8»X8t:!t
S S « o
• - s s a
«
a »
Jlaaaaaaaaaie
I..
f.jsRRjsciBs
Isssssss
"2~£S£S£££.
I i i i i i i I ! I
i I
i i
i
i
o
u
ii ********£
m
« i- * *
* £ £ is £ ~>.
U t5 8lfc|SlSfT?I-V-
5 I £J £| £| £J IS I s I- |
i
S
- ic
? i Z* •* u =
• ""I* f« *^» 2 •
i ii «s li 3 i
If
i
i
5
2
i
I!
II
KC « »
1
I
ft
*
i
I
si
i 11
! li
1 I
ft
Ilil
l
ti
Si I g
: i
*f
i
! I I I I I !
| I | I | I i
'm^'Z'm'm^'m'm
jiiiiiiiii
Z***l***lS
*»
C £
III 5 S S ll »= '» f
If If I I I I Ii I| if 1
ii ii i i is j» is il i! i
i
F
i
|
§
-
I
1
t
i
- . S
i • £
1 fc 2
i I 1
2
S 2
3 s
fe ^
* i
i i :
I I iiii
139
-------
TABLE A-9. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT OftM COST COMPONENTS - METRIC UNITS
v VflPVMVn* 9HvCvHPvnVti%
OiMlcill Nittrllll
lltctrlcltf rowtr ctiti
fttftrtHtttftf Ubor/Mttrlitl
»H, «,«„ t*H++m*
•"*""• l*-*-lp--*
NitnttMiiM/rtMlr. ImUllitlM '
4lvtr*ton «teli
NMilterlnf (imljnti) UbtMttry cwti
NMlttrlnf (MMUM) libtr
Optrtttr ytnimtl libtr
PtflnlttM
MMttiMttr/ltttliitt trtltMllt ptMt
chMlcilt
f«r Mttr trtitMiit ptmt tr titrtc-
tlmt InjMtlon, in4 tn cantrtl
AitoM ftrtllltliii tnct/yttr
AIIMH frill WMlnf f tlMi/ytlr.
•iMlw* 110 ptr «UU
AllMI MMMlt fnMlNf (ctMrfM,)
•f bmk
AIMM twlet MMMl tfltcb rtMlr
rtr trowM Mttr/lticfcitt •MltorlHO
frai Mnl tor Inf ntlll
Ftr 1tvn4 Mtw/ltKMtt wwlUrliif
frm MnttM-Int Mill
rtf t|MrttltN tw Mttr trtAtHMt pllttt
Nttrlc
UBltt
t/i./*r
(InrtuMt)
I/Ml
I/*.1
IA..1
i*.1
lAt.1
l/M-1.
l/kr.
l/hr.
tenrtt
SCS IMO
SCS IMO
Oodft IMO
H ,. jj» |^A
Oodft IMO
HtMt IMO
SCS IMO
SCS IMO
SCS IMO
Sttrct
cm
O.Otl
o.os
0.00(0
O.OOIS
O.H
t.lB
110
it.l
tt.o
o.on
o.os
O.OOM
O.OOMI
O.It
I.IS
330
».M
f.n
BM
o.on
o.os
0.00(4
o.oot
o.ts
1.01
110
ll.l
M.I
Miwirt
O.OTS
o.os
O.OOM
0.0017
o.tt
!.!•
110
14.1
14.1
-------
TABLE A-10. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT CAPITAL COST COMPONENTS • ENGLISH UNITS
CM ••• I
Aral praMrittai
AmtraHntlM
DMtMltl.Mllmrt
CMMt *lM. •"
CMMt »IM. 0"
Oltdwrft trwiek
pUckarft traftck
OlMnlM 4IUk,
camtractlM
•Mil* MM, •'
Drill rlo
EKivitlM
EMIVltlM
Mil
EicmtlM/frM'lM.
Mil
•MtKMtCll taWttlM*
tlM
OMtMMlttl ImmttM-
tlM
OriMl
9rtml
OrMt cwUI*
Uktr
twlMMt
MUr,,,,,rt,M,.
mtirliU
iMtlllltlW
Ukor
EMlMMt
iMUtlltlM
MUrUll/lMUIUtlM
OMtal (f*lpMHt/
IMM-
IwlMMt
IM^
tWlMMt
wit etiU
Wit CMtt
iMMT/lMUItotlM
MtWltll
L«k«r
OtfUltlM
ClCM M, IVtT«ft
ClftMl W* AVflfTMM
Jok iiu, liKlirfti MttrUlt w4
Mllmy
Clm 4000, MrfMrtttl, (ikMtoi
Cllll 4009, Mrf«r«M, OlktltM
INCMIHI kKkflll 3 ft |l •.) WM
iMMlHf Mckfllt 3 ft (I •.} MM
CM.tmtlMMl.tatMMc^m.lr
OrlllH «n4 cmtf Mltk flM .
Crw M* Htkt-Mty rlf
On. MMl^Mt ^.r.Ur
f rant M4 IMMT
CMHM karroM (ttrtk). 1000 ft
(JOS •.) hml
CMM» korrw (•wtk), 1000 ft
(MS •.} kMl
InclMM Mntyliio, Wit karlM*.
fttyMlpMM*i> •OvIllitfttlOMf) BOollWrloU
Mil*. MM taitt, rwort
Slwrry Mil Uitliio
3/4" «cr**n*4 «•*«•! . M* «nr
Mtrttor, «M Imck 4rlwr
3/4" tcrMMl friMl. MI MMT
Mtritor. MI track wlvtr
CfcMlCll fTMt. |
-------
TABLE A-10 (continued)
Crwt cwtita
vVWvV* VnV W9CN9vfV
plM/O- rf>
NytYM.e4l.Nj
WTMM,,,,
MytVMMJlM
Nttckhnj
Mlckl*
fetchlHf
tat), CMtrlftMl
POM). MbMTtlMt
ho*, ubomltt*
SfcMt ^tltnf
SMMt ^lllllfl
sttrnr MM.
iMUllatlM
Sttrry wit tMllinj
Mil CtMOCtlM.
Mil COBMCtlM.
$-»
St»
Mttrlilt
NitorUlt
tMUItltlM
Itbor
NitorUfi
twlMMt
tabor
wttrliti
t«lMMt
CwlDMHt/lMUttltlM
UMr/lMUIUUM
Ibjttrlolf
lOMr/t«lMMt/
ImUllatlM
Nttrliti
tMUtUtlM
VHltCOtt
UMT
iMlpowit
l
-------
5 5 s s
£35355533 *3 ill i 2 i !
s * ••
jl! S 5 2 5 S S J ! s i! ! 2 2 ! S5
s s
e
u
5 I
ll I 2 I "i III!
i i
|
7
l
t.
i
s
*
x
fi
i
i
s
•
» i
** S
- t
I'
i- t *3 '«
j? * =i=:
Ulli -JH<3
3? S5 JS
5" T!" C'
7
I?
?I ?I 11
ct
f * *«-j -55 L8 -»« -7
!!Hll!l«£(e
Sf i J S?I 1?I li «* *
ia I 1 *i± s!2 51 s! s
: i
i
5
!
I 1
s s
|
!i
I
2
iih
h
ll
i
!
S S ?
*
IT
ll
S
f
i
« j i *
I
• &
5= 5| 5? 1 1
* mil! Il
2 5 2 t
* I
J llii !
143
-------
TABLE A-ll. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT 0AM COST COMPONENTS - ENGLISH UNITS
Component SofccraooMftt
Cknlcalt Material*
Electrlcltir toner eettt
Nefertllltlnff Labor/fcaterlals
•ran *».ln. toter/e*!,..!
•nttln, l^/M-.^t
Maintenance repair/ IntUftatlott
4l*en1on 41 Uh
MMltorlnf (anatytlal taborotory tetU
MMliorlni (uofllnf) totor
AHBI ttor MrtoMwl t.Mwr
OaflnUloii
1MS%CNvUI*f IMC*NI*w *|T9BQM>fl% ^KH%
cticMlcalt
Far nater trtttoMl plant or tiitrae-
tlon. Injection, an4 fit control
wells/|NM|ts
AMMM fartllliliif once/jreir
AISM* fran omlnff • HoM/|«ar»
•InlMM 110 per vlilt
AtnM anmnl frabblof (ctoarlnf)
or bran
ns$ov0 twlco annoil oltcn reo4li*
For fromrf water/taKkat* awiltorlni
fro* wnllorlttf Milt
For yi»on4 natef/ltacUU MMltorlnf
Fro* mnltorlnf Milt
For oMratfon of Mater treitoent olanl
.Unltt
(tnrioantl
t/Mi
I/H.*
«/H.*
I/H.'
I/H.J
«/••»'•
. t/*^.
t/hr.
Soiree
Cott
O.OM
O.OS
o.ooso
0.0013
0,11
Ml
330
It.S
lt.l
•.09S
•.OS
•.0039
0.00001
0.10
1.33
330
r.M
Mf
Bill
O.ON
•.OS
O.OOS4
o.ooiy
O.tl
*'»
330
M.I
M.3
Hawarlt
0.095
•.OS
O.OM;
•.0011
0.10
1.30
330
H.t
14.3
-------
PROTECTION'
AGENCY
TFIANSb 'JTTAL
Addressee
1440.3
July 24, 1981
PROTECTIVE SERVICES - SAFETY
MATERIAL TBANS?v1lTT£D:
EPA Order 1440.3 - Respiratory Protection.
- MATcfllAL SUPERSEDED:
None.
FILING INSTRUCTIONS:
File the attached material in numerical order in a three-ring binder established
for the EPA Directives System.
Cist:
EPA Ftum 13)5-12 (1-73)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
1440.3
July 24, 1981
PROTECTIVE SERVICES - SAFETY
RESPIRATOPy PROTECTION
1. PURPOSE. This Order establishes Agencywide policy, responsibilities,
ard basic requir*ir.ents for the protection of employees whose jobs require
the use of respiratory protective de/ices.
2. REFERENCES.
a. Occupational Safety and Health Act, P.L. 91-506, 29 USC 651,
et.seq.
b. 29 CFR 1910, Subpart I, Subsection 134, General Industry Standards
c. Title 30 CFR Part II, U.S. Bureau of Mines
d. American National Standards Institute standards Z88. 2-1930 ard
K 13.1-1973.
e. EPA Order 3100.1, Uniforms, Protective Clothing, and Protective
Equipnent
f .
ive Supplement: NIOSH Certified Equipment, June. 1980 or
current issue.
3. E&CKGKXSD . Agency personnel frequently encounter atrosphero.r. *Aich
contain unhealthy quantities of airborne contaminants or are susp<--.Jt,
oxycan deficient atiroscheres, or corxUtions of imrinent release of toxic
agents. Wherever it is feasible, the EPA uses accepted engineering con-
trols to protect employees from such hazardo: atmospheres or ccrxlitions.
V,hen effective engineering and other controls >\:n not feasible, such as
during field operations, employees use appropriate certified respiratory
protective devices.
t—
Gist:
Initiated by:
-------
OfiDEft
1440.3
July 24, 1931
4. POLIcy.' Ihe EPA shall provide .-v propriate certified respiratory
protective devices, ard employees r '.1 use theso devices vhenever nec-
essary to protect their health due ~; the nature of the working environment.,
s.
a. Assistant Administrators, Regional Administrators , ar.d Directors
of Research Centers and Laboratories^
These officials as Officers-in-Charge of Reporting Units or Establishments
are responsible within their jurisdictions for the implementation of the
provisions of this Ordar, for assuring that funds are available for the
required training and purchasing and maintaining respiratory protective
devices, and for providing for occupational medical monitoring.
b. Supervisors. Supervisors are responsible, to the extent of their
authority, for ensuring that:
(1) Appropriate respiratory protective devices are provided, in-
spectel, and maintained;
(2) Employees -wear the respiratory protective devices v,hen they
zire required;
(3) Employees ara properly trained;
(4) Records are !
-------
ORDER
1440.3
July 2-, 1931
d. Occupational Health and Safety Designers. Cccupation.2l health and
safety desigr.ee..- are responsible for assisting the Officer-in-Charge in • >
fulfilling his or her responsibilities under this Order, and for providing • yi
advice and assistance to supervisors in the areas of training, selection I f
and maintenance, recordkeeping, and occupational medical monitoring. \ \
t*
e. Personnel Officers ••;rxl Supervisors. Personnel officers and super- r "
visors together shall ensu.-j that"all job applicants and employees reas- |
signed to positions which require the use of respiratory protective devices c
are a-.vcire of and fully lascierstard the provisions of this Order. '*
I
f. Director, Office of Occupational Health and Safety. The Director, |
Office of Occupational Health ani Safety, is responsible for establishing £
policy and guidelines, evaluating the effectiveness of the Agency's . |
respiratory protection program, and for furnishing technical advice and ~;
assistance to Agency programs on implementing the requirements of jj
this Order. ' I
6. RESPI?ATORy HAZA5D3. There are two types of atmospheres which present
respiratory hazards:
a. Contaminated atmospheres - Toxic materials can enter the body prinarily
in three ways: (1) by ingestion, through the gastro-intestinal tract, (2) by
ebsorption through the skin or through cuts and punctures and (3) by inhalation
through the respiratory system. Tne respiratory system not only presents the
quickest and most direct avenue of entry into the body, but for many agents
the lungs are also the critical target. Airborne contaminants include solid
and liquid particulata matter and caseous naterial, whether a true gas or
vapor, or a combination of these.
b. Oxygerv-deficient atmospheres - Air normally is 20.9 percent oxygen ^
by volume. Current legislation requires that oxygen percentage in a work- £
place be not less than 19.5 percent. Oxygen concentrations below 16 per- J
cent are considered unsafe to humans. Oxygen—.leficient atmospheres can f-
occur when air is displaced by gasos and vapors or where there are oxi- !'
dation processes such as fire, rusting, aerobic bacterial action, etc. !
7. REQUIREMENTS FOR RE£?TR\TORY PROTECTIVE DEVICES. Respiratory protect- I
ive devices shall be required in the following types of situations: f ,
-------
ORDER
1440.3
July 24, 1981
a- Wh-- there is high potential for a sudden release of toxic gases
or vapors or there ha=s ^een such a release, e.g., connection anhydrous
anraonia tanks or egress from a fire area.
b. When making entries into environments or locations where it is
known or there is a reasonable belief that'toxic airborne contaminants
are present; e.g., entering hazardous waste or spill sites and ranholes.
c. During infrequent but routine operations, primarily in a laboratory
where err-Lneerir.g controls are not feasible or adequate for the toxicity of
the mate, ".al ir: 'Ived; e.g., bulk solvent transfers in a raro'ce storage
building.
It is important to assess the potential hazards and the degree of control
that can be exercised over each situation. The respiratory protective
device selected in each situation will depend on the information ^fron
the qualitative and quantitative determination of the hazard.
8, SELECTION. The selection of certified respiratory protective devices
shall be bas-xl on these considerations:
a. The nature of the hazardous operation or process.
b. The type of respiratory hazard.
c. The location of the hazardous area in relation to the nec-.rast,
area having respirable air.
d. The period of tiira the respiratory protection will be needed.
e. The employee's activities in the hazardous area.
f. The physical characteristics, functi & capabilities, pro-
tection factors and limitations of the respir -.bory protective
devices.
Attachment A is a Decision Logic Table for Respiratory Protective Device
Selection. These are general guidelines. Written standard operating
proce3ures governing the selection and use of respiratory protective
devices shall be establish •: for specific situations.
-------
ORDER
1440,3
July 24, 19S1
9. TRAINING. For safe use of respiratory protective devices, it is
essential that employees be instructed in their sele.r'-.ion, use, fit.,
artl maintenance. Training shal . include b . not be ... . ad to th
fcllowing:
a. Instructions in the nature of hazards, whether acute, chronic,
or both, and an honest appraisal of what may happen if the improper
device is worn.
b. Explanation of why respirators ara a reasonable requirement
when positive control is ,not iwmaiiately feasible. This shall include
recognition that every reason^ole effort should be made first to reduce
or eliminate the need for respiratory protection or dependency on it.
c. A discussion of why a given respirator is the proper type of
unit for the particular purpose.
d. A discussion of the device's capabilities and especially its
1 invitations.
e. Instruction ard training in actual use, to include fit and
seal testing.
f. Other special training as needed.
.A niniinun of six hours of training shall be provided initially, and
two to four hours annually thereafter. This training can be a part of
occupational health and safety training for other reasons, and it can
ccunt as credit for both prcgr^s. Records of training and fit testing
shall be raaintai. .-'.1 by the supervisor.
10. iNSppcrnc-y, MMSTEMAKCE, STORAGE, AND REPAIR. Proper inspection,
maintenance, storag-s, and repair of respiratory protective devices are
mandatory to insure -chat these devices protect the health and safety of
employees when in use.
a. Inspection. All equip.Tv»nt must be inspected before and after
each use. Equipment used only for emergencies shall be inspected at
least monthly. A record shall be kept by date with the results of all
inspections.
i .
*• j
*• i
s
5?
-------
ORDER
1440.3
July 24, 1981
b. Maintenance. All respiratory protective devices shall be cleansd
and -iinfectt^l after each use. Maintenance includes replacenent of dis-
posed ,e elements such as filters and cartridges vhencv^r necessary.
c. Repair. Replacement of other than disposable parts and any repair
shall be done only by personnel with adequate training and test equipr.ent
to insure the equipcsr-t will function properly after the work is accomplish-
ed. Only certified parts supplied by the nianufacturer for the product being
repaired shall be used.
•
d. Storage. Respirators shall be stored in atnospheres that will
protect then fron clust, sunlight, extreme heat or cold and from sources
of damaging csvauicals.
11. OCCL'PATIOlvAL MSDIC-.L MC^ITOKPTG. Employees shall not be assigned
to tasks requiring the use of respiratory protective devices unless they
have had a medical evaluation, as defined in the Agency's Occupational
Medical Monitoring guidelines, and it has been determined that .they are
physically capable of performing the work while wearing the devices. An
annual meiical review shall be scheduled for these employees.
12. LIMITATIONS. Respiratory protective devices have protection factor
limitations that nust be understood by all employees required to wear the
devices. These limitations are surarari^ad in Appendix B - Decision Logic
Icfole - Respiratory Protective Device Limitations.
13. SPECIAL
a. Respiratory protective devices shall not be worn when any
condition prevents a good face seal. Specific conditions not perndttad
are as follows:
(1) Any facial hair lying between the sealing surface of a
respirator facepiece and ths wearer's skin that will prevent a good
seal shall not be allowed. This includes stubble, a moustache, side-
burns, or a beard that extends outward between the face and the seal-
ing surface of the respirator.
-------
ORDER
1440.3
July 24, 1981
(2) Spectacle temple bars or strops that pass between the seal-
ing surface of a facepiece and the wearer's face prevent a good seal .and
shall not be permitted with a full-face respiratory protective device.
(Individualised eyeglasses mounted to the facepiece will be furnished by
the Agency.)
b. Employees with perforated ear drums shall not wear respirators.
c. Contact lenses shall not be permitted while wearing a respirator.
d. Gum and tobacco chewing shall not be permitted while wearing
a respirator.
14. OLHER CCMSIDEPATICMS.
a. Where practicable, respiratory protective devices shall'be in-
dividually assigned to employees for their exclusive use.
b. Appropriate surveillance of work-area conditions and degree of
employee exposure or stress shall be maintained.
15. SAVIiTC-3 PROVISION. " Changes in the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 or in its standards and regulations which occur after the
effective data of this Order will a^anatically cone under the purviev
of this Order on the effective date of the change.
Edv&tbd 0. Kanley
" Director, Office of
Management Information and Support Services
• •
r '
I ,
'
t r '.
-------
I • Decision Logic Table ' '2
Reuplrutory Protective Device Selection Cuido gj'
lluznnt
Typo ot Kc-rplrntor
[-Contained Breathing'Apparatus
Purifying, full fuccplece
11 tli appropriate filter
JltU appropriate chemical canister
Vlth appropriate chemical canister and filter
Purify inn, half-mack
>tLth appropriate chemical cartridge
With appropriate filter
Ulth appropriate chemical cartridge and filter
f-Rescue, mouthpicca (escape only)
-lino
•-line abrasive-blasting
iblnation Air-lino with auxiliary solf-coittaincd
air supply or. an .air-storage receiver with
alana
IDLII - Immediately dangerous to *llfe or huiilth.
NlDLII - Not Immediately dangerous to life or health.
Oxygen Cns
Del' 1 HellOy
Yes
Mo
H»
No
No
tic
(to
Ho
Ko
No
Yes
iiiul Vapor Con r um fn.ints
ir.ui*
Yes
No
Yos
No
Mo
llo
Ko
Yes
No
No.
Yes
H10J.II**
No
No
llo
Nu
Yes
No
No
No
Yos
No
Nu
I'lirtlculate
1 hl.ll*
Yes
Yes
No
Ho
.
No
Nu
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
CiKiililniit Inn G.IS, Vapor, uud
Cotntni.ilii.mta »',n-l lcul:itt» Ciuir.imln.-iiirN
N10l.lr>* 1DIH-- i.'inl.ii--'
Mo Yea Mo
Ho No No
No No Ko
No ' Yi:u Ho
Yes '
Yus ' No No
Ho No Yen '
No Yes No
Yes No Yus '.
Yes No Mo
No Yes No f
.t
1
o *
This refers to any atmosphere that poses an immediate hazard to Ufa or produces limned la to J
Irreversible affects on health that will bo debilitating, j
Hi is refers to any
hazardous atmosphere which
chrouic poisoning after repeated exposure, or
•
•
•
prolonged exposure
•
•
• *
i '
»
•
may produce
physical dlscunfort liunvdlately. r
ucute tidversu physiological symptoms alter . |
;
I
&g |
^ i
» i !
/3 i i
VO H-* J
CO -^ i '
t_j (fy |
-------
-~" Be* """""• to*!"" 'It
H««pir4iti>ry FraiticUwc limitation*
AiM..4i4ivre-Suf».il\liii> Alr-iwiiylnp
LIMITATIONS
Mo protection againat *kin irritation or
aorpelon
Ho eye protection provided
Special problem* (or precctlption Sen**
wearer*
lla* United rcaplrablt air (upply
Uulght and bulk
Kcnrement (eicrlcted
limited to atmotphar** not iimedlately
dangurou* to 11C« or health (except
•peel at condition* ipacUUd In
ANSI Ib8.2)
Cbe* not protect *s»ln»t all contaminant*
N» protection *gain*C oxygen-deficient
atfioaphere*
Protection dependent on proper cartridge.
canlatcr, or (iUec
frotectton dependent on «onctatr*tlon of
contaminant
Ser/i:t tlm* dependent on wearer'*
respiratory rate
Contaminant mutt contain lufticitnC
warning properties
No protection iigalimt partlculat*
coiiliialiunte
BltcoxiCurt and objuctlonablf realatenct
to Uruii thing
Ho protection agatnat ge«a« anil vapor*
Amount oE training required for auiintcniinct
and u.v
_1/ Self-Contained Breathing A)
Van
Si: If -Contained and i
Hue ruuplrJlur with • Mwll
ti..ui-|; >-••»-' V *lr '.i"pi>ly quiilKt
, "!.rT.'--'-'I^_
Cuui liiu«>*Kd air
:• tliv ru*|ilr«lur (or u«« In
ttM^OHpUerca*
«:
V
•^ 4*
•J U
•J «
Iu IK
Ye*
lio
Ye*
No
No
No"
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
V «
« » • a
V *** V U U
V .1 J r*. « tl f*
*• >* V4 w U v* U
e« • •• n K r. v
•*U r< Ji-« %<•«•-»
tf« « 3 *4 *• y *t
ItaW 95 Ou« VO|M
Ye* Y.» Yet
No Ye* Ye*
• Ye* Ho Ho
Ho Ho Ho
Ho Mo No
No Ho No
Yea Ye* Ye*
Ye* Ye* Ye*
Ye* Y** Yt*
Ye* Vc* Ye*
Ye* Ye* Ye*
Y*« Y*. Ye*
Ko Ko No
No Ho No
Ya* Ytt Y*t
Ye» Ytt Yt*
lit Mo No
Yet
Y*|
Ko
No
No
No
Ye*
Ye*
Yet
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
KO
Ho
Ye*
Ya*
Ho _
CtabtiKtton fartlculet* and ^
to pruvtdu an
tutucdlutcly
• 111* ttUW
urn id* 1
laltMtl
Vjpor and C«a-Kc iiwlng f^j
udviiltt.Kti* *• dvvcrl
• «•.•».. vlll nonly..
un« (ur tlittia
1)OO ^
— . M
(0
0}
-------
'fcNVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION TFtANSfc'ITTAL
AGENCY
Addressee
1440.3
July 24, .1981
PROTECTIVE SERVICES - SAFETY
r ^
MATERIAL TRANSMITTED:
EPA Order 1440.3 - Respiratory Protection.
SUPfRSSDcO:
None.
FILING INSTRUCTIONS:
File the attached material, in numerical order in a three-ring binder established
for the EPA Directives System.
fl
Cist:
EPA form 13)5.12 (1-73)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION ORDER
AGENCY
1440.3
July 24, 1981
SERVICES - SAFETY
RESPIRATOR* PROTECTION
^
1. PURPOSE. This Order establishes Agencywide policy, responsibilities, I
and basic requirements for the protection of employees uticse jobs require
the use of respiratory protective devices.
2. REFERENCES.
a. Occupational Safety and Health Act, P.L, 91-596, 29 USC 631,
et .seq.
b. 29 CITS 1910, Subpart J, Subsection 134, General Industry Standards
c. Title 30 CFRPart II, U.S. Bureau_of JiLnes _____________ — — -..
d. A-nerican National Standards Institute standards Z88. 2-1930 ard
K 13.1-1973.
e. EPA Order 3100.1, Uniforms, Protective Clothing, and Protective
Equipment
f . Cumulative Suppler.ent: NIOSH Certified Equipment, J^ane. 1980 or
nvost current issue.
3. BACKGROUND. Agency personnel frequently encounter atn-ospheroc. -.v^iich i
contain unhealthy quantities of airborne contaminants or are suspect, I
oxygen deficient atmospheres, or conditions of imrinent release of toxic ?_
agents. Wherever it is feasible, the EPA uses accepted engineering con- ;
trols to protect employees from such hazardo<: .ihrospheres oe: cctxlitions. '•
V.hen effective engineering and other controls «re not feasible, such as I
during field operations, enployees use appropriate certified respiratory j
protective devices. j "
t
I
j -
i—
Dtst: Initiated by:
-------
ORDER
1440.3
July 24, 1931
4. POLICY.' The EPA shall provide V nropriate certified respiratory
protective devices, arrl employees r '.1 use theso devices v-henever n*
essary to protect their health due u. the nature of the workir.g environment.
5. RESPONSIBILITY.
a. Assistant Adrdnistrators, Regional Administrators, and Directors
of Research Cer.tsrs and Laboratcriss.
These officials as Officers-in-Charge of Reporting Units or Establishments
are responsible within their jurisdictions for the implementation of the
provisions of this Ordar, for assuring that funds are available for the
required training ar/d purchasing and maintaining respiratory protective
devices, and for providing for occupational medical monitoring.
b» Supervisors. Supervisors are responsible, to the extent of their
authority, for ensuring thats
(1) Appropriate respiratory protective devices are provided, in-
spected, ~ana maintained; ~~~~ ~~ ~~ -"
(2) Employees wear the respiratory protective devices v,herv they
are required;
I. ^ (3) Employees ara properly trained;
(4) Records are k^pt of eraployee training and on the inspection
ard 3nair canance of chese devices;
(5) Written standard operating procedures governing the selection
and use of respiratory protective devices are established for specific sit-
uations; and
(6) Employees required to use respiratory protective devices are
included in the Agerscy's occupational medical i- -Itoring program-and they
are melically approved for wearing the devices.
c. Employees. Employees are responsible for using and maintaining
the respiratory protective devices provided them in accordance with the
. instructions and training they recsive/ and for reporting a malfunction
of a device to thair supervisors.
-------
ORDER
1440.3
July 2-. 1931
d. Occupational Health and Safety Designees. Occupational health and
safety designee^ are responsible for assisting the Officer-in-Charge in \ \
fulfilling his or her responsibilities under this Order, and for providing • \-*i
advice and assistance to supervisors in the areas of training, selection I- {
and maintenance, recordkeeping, and occupational medical monitoring. [ •
e. Personnel Officers ond Supervisors'. Personnel officers and super- ?
visors .together shall ensu.-j that all job applicants and employees reas- I
signed to positions vfaich rj?quire the use of respiratory protective devices 5
are a'-vare of and fully ur.derstard the provisions of this Order. I
I
£. Diractor, Office of Occupational Health and Safety. The Director, |
Office of Occupational Health and Safety, is responsible for establishing f
policy and guidelines, evaluating tho effectiveness of the Agency's ' |
respiratory protection program, and for furnishing technical advice and £
assistance to Agency programs on implementing the requirenents of jj
this Order. ^ " S
6. RE3PI?ATOSY KA2A5D3. There are two types of ataospheres which present '
respiratory hazards:
a. Contaminated atmospheres - Toxic materials can enter the body primarily
in three.-Vrays: (1) by ingestion, through the gastro-intestinal tract, (2) by
ebsorption through the skin or through cuts and punctures and (3) by inhalation
through the respiratory system. The respiratory systen not only presents the
quickest and most direct avenue of entry into the body, but for many agents
the lungs are also the critical target. Airborne contaminants include solid
and liquid particulata matter and caseous material, whether a true gas or
va^or, or a combination of these.
b. Oxygers-deficienh atmospheres - Air normally is 20.9 percent oxygen *
by volune. Current legislation requires that oxygen percentage in a work- |
place be not less than 19.5 percent. Oxygen concentrations below 16 per- *
cent are considered unsafe to humans. Oxygen-.leficient atmospheres can p
occur When air is displaced by gasos and vapocs or where there are oxi- [
dation processes such as fire, rusting, aerobic bacterial action, etc.
7. REQUIREMENTS K)R RES?IR.\TOFIY PROTECTIVE DEVTCFS. Respiratory protect-
ive devices,, shall be required in the following types of situations:
-------
ORDER
1440.3
July 24, 1931
a- Wh- there is high potential for a sudden release of to>:ic gases
or vapors c; there haa ceen such a release, e.g., connection anhydrous
arcrronia tanks or egress fron a fire area.
b. When making entries into environments or locations where it is
known or there is a reason±>le belief that'toxic airborne contaminants
are present; e.g., entering hazardous waste or spill sites and manholes.
c. During infrequent but routine operations,-primarily in a laboratory
where err-i.neerir.g controls are not feasible or adequate for the toxicity of
^tha mate. -.aL ir: »lved; e.g., bulk solvent transfers in a rsr-ote storage
building.
It is important to assess the potential hazards and the degree of control
that can be exercised over each situation. The respiratory protective
device selected in each situation will depend on the information fran
the qualitative and quantitative determination of the hazard.
,8. SELECTION. The selection of certified respiratory protective devices
shall be based on these considerations: : ^
a. The nature of the hazardous operation or process.
b. The type of respiratory hazard.
c. The location of the hazardous area in relation to the neeirest
area having respirable air. ' ,/'".. "-
d. The period of time the respiratory protection will be neetlecL -!
f™*C' "'e
e. The artployse's activities in the hazardous area. : .i.;.™ '
%-.~'i>Ft\-c: -;.:
f.' The physical characteristics, functi J. capabilities,
tection factors and limitations of the respir -tory protective '
devices.
Atfmchment A is a Decision Logic Table for Respiratory Protective
Selection. Tnese are general guidelines. Written standard operat^hjr dt-v-"-
proceiures go'/erning the se!. act ion and use of respiratory protec&ve^^2 ^
devices shall be establish •• for specific situations.
f V \ f-*~ "«•}.!.•:, • ' ,-•-,
•:••? ' •-v- i •••.-
-------
ORDER
1440.3
July 24, 1931
9. TRAINIIsG. For safe use of respiratory protective devices/ it is
essential that employees be instructed in their selerMon, use, fvt,
anrl maintenance. Training shal . include b : not be ... xl to th
following:
a. Instructions in the nature of hazards, whether aeate, chronic,
or both, and an honest appraisal of what may happen if the improper
device is, worn.
b. ,,Explanation of why respirators ars a reasonable requirement
when positive control is .not iransiiately feasible. This shall include
recognition that every rsason^Dla effort should be made first to reduce
or eliminate the need for respire, tory protection or dependency on. it.
c.^A discussion of vhy a given respirator is the proper type of
unit for/the particular purpose.
d. A discussion of the device's capabilities and especially its
liioitations.
e. Ir^tructiofremd"training in actual use, to include fit and ^
_seal testing. ' .- / ^ _ % .=— —
f. Other special traiaing as needed.
.A miniinan of six hours of training shall be provided initially, and
two tCKfour, hours annually ther Drifter. This training can be a part of
occupational health and safety training for other reasons, and it can
count as cradit for both programs. Records of training ar*3 fit testing
shall bg,spj,ntai. .-i! "by the supervisor.
10. INSPECTION, MMNTEN.AKCS, STORAGE, AND REPAIR. Proper inspection,
maintenance, storage, and "repair of respiratory protective deviccjs are
o insure -chat these devices protect the health and safety of
" when in use.
a. Inspection. All equiprosnt must be inspected before and after
each jus^ej. e.Equipuent us-ad only for emergencies shall be inspected at
least -mphfitiLy. A record shall be kept by date with the results of all
J-:
-------
ORDER
1440.3
July 24, 1981
b. Maintenance. All respiratory protective devices shall be cleanad
and ~infect«:d after earih. use. Maintenance includes replacement of dis-
ci _e elements such as filters and cartridges whenever necessary.
c. Repair. Replacanent of other than disposable parts and ariy repair
shall be done only by parsofir.el with adequate training and test equipment
to insure the. equipr^tt will function properly after the work is accomplish-
ed. Only certified parts supplied by the manufacturer for the prpduct being
'
j repaired shall be used.
d. Storage. Respirators shall be stored in atmospheres that'will
protect ther.i from dust, sunlight, extr^:ne heat or cold and frqn,sources
of damaging chemicals.
11. OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL H3NITORISG. Employees shall not be assigned
to tasks requiring the use of respiratory protective devices unless -they
have had a medical evaluation, as defined in the Agency's Occupational
Mertical Monitoring guidelines, ami it has been determined that.th^y.ijre
physically capable of performing the work while wearing the devices^'"An
~annua.t"meitea3rre'/iew shall be scheduled for these employees,..,..,..„.
12. LirUTATIC'TS. Respiratory protective devices have protection" factor
limitations that nust be understood by all employees required, to,ye^c; the
devices. These limitations are sursrarized in Appendix B - '
Table - Respiratory Protective Device Limitations.
13. SPECIAL CJK:SIDEF!ATI3iTS.
a. Respiratory prctective devices shall not be worn when any
condition prevents a good face seal. Specific conditions not permitted
are as follows:
(1) Any facial hair lying between the sealing surface of a
respirator facepiece and ths wearer's skin tliat will prevent a good
seal shall not be allowed. This includes stubble, a moustache, side-
burns, or a beard that extends outward between the face and the seal-
ing surface of the respirator.
-------
ORDER
1440.3
July 24, 1981
(2) Spectacle temple bars or straps that pass between the seal-
ing surf ace 'Of a facepiece and the wearer's face prevent a good seal and
shall not, be permitted with a full-face respiratory protective device.
( Individual ited eyeglasses mounted to the facepiece will be furnished by
the
b.~WiESiployees with perforated ear drums shall not wear respirators.
c,x. Contact lenses shall not be permitted while wearing a respirator.
-------
• Decision Logic Table
Retiplrutory Protective Device Selection Guide
tin card
Typo of
:-Contalnod Breathtng'Apparatus
Purifying, full fuccplece
Utli appropriate filler
Jitli appropriate chemical cantoter
Jith upproprijce chcnilcul canister and filter
Purifying, half-mack
Mich appropriate chemical cartridge
With appropriate filter
Ulth appropriate chemical cartridge and filter
f-Hcscue, mouthpiece (escape only)
-line
-line abrasive-blasting
iblnatlon Mr-line with auxiliary lelf-contalncd
air supply ori an .air-storage receiver with
alarm
O w i* i**n
WK /I*1-11
Dui'lr Itttiry
Yes
Ho
Hi)
Mo
H.>
lla
Uo
Ho
Ko
No
Yes
Cn s unit
I i*i*i
Yes
No
Yen
No
Ho
No
No
Yes
No
No.
Yes
Vapor CoiifHiiilngntjt
„„
No
HII
Ho
Yen
No
No
No
Yus
No
Ho
I'nrtieulnts?
1!)1.M*
Yen
Yen
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ho
Yes
No
No
Yes
Grant nmfll-inCil
Njnui**
Ho
No
No
Ho
Yes
Ye»
Ho
No
Yen
Yes
No
Cixtiltlntit Ion G,
IL'Ui*
Yea
Ho
No
Y.iu
No
Mo
Yes
No
Ko
Yes
is. Vapor, und
I.'IDMI-"
Ho
No
N'o
Uo
No
Yen
No
Yvs
No
No
IOUI - lumcdlaccly dangerous to \lft or health.
NlDLII - Not Immediately dangerous to Ufa or health.
This refers to any atmosphere that poacs an lumedlate hazard to life or produces limnudlate
Irreversible effects on health that will be debilitating.
I1il:i refers to any haxurdous atmosphere which nuiy produce physical dlscunfort Ituncdl.itoly,
chronic poisoning after repeated exposure, or ucutu udvcrsu physloloblcal uympumis utter
prolonged exposure. •
f
CO •**
l— i iti
o
-------
•8|t
It
r -
I'l
B«
•«:
.
•
Tf.
n
Cff
,
r. «.»
y ,: 9 .,
|i si i
»
-|
t«
» .
5. iS. ' 5. «
» ' ' e - * s J» '.
m ft «t •" (
•1
"**,
-|
I "I
«V "W
O *t
•*
1
III
~
•»
t
X
I
f^
««
v> as «
•» e e
a
TSSS
-
I
I
s
"1
8
ft
t*
8
•s
- *
r!
i;
IS
5!
* ••
i r
IP
•• « n
CUM
•t V
el.^
?"!
c. c •»
t- < S
B •««
» C.
Hflf
t s *- n «%
« n ,v»
C » » fr *O
~x n 9 I
is •<
"•.' S
- S?
*- . z.
= • a.;:
s o i;
f f
f -
? 'i f f f
•* f
jp ?
f ? ?
x
s .
.
g
s o on
j
Circuit
« l1^"
1?:
' j fell
r«s«p>«««
rS«i!&;;i«.e
rS
k
' •
§,.'
M-
« o
(i JC
T86T 'frfc ^i^ i
Dfc^T HSCcO
------- |