Finanical Requirements Interim Status Standards 40 CFR 265 Subpart H


                                of
     &EPA
               Environment*!
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9^7.00-3
TITLE; Financial Requirements:  Interim Status Standards
     (hO CFR 265, Subpart H)
                APPROVAL DATE: 01-01-81*
                EFFECTIVE DATE: 01-01-8)4
                ORIGINATING OFFICE: office of solid waste
                & FINAL
                D DRAFT
                  STATUS:
              I
    A- Pending OMB approval
[  ]  B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
[  ]  C- For review &/or comment
                             [  ]  D- In development or circulating
                REFERENCE (other documents):       headquarters
'E    DIRECTIVE    DIRECTIVE   D

-------
Name of Contact Person
Nancy McLaughlin
Mail Code
N/A
Office
osw
Telephone Code
N/A .
united states environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
1. Directive Number

91*77.00-3
2. Originator Information
Financial Requirements: Interim Status Standards
CFR 265, Subpart H)
4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose)
To provide guidance to owners/operators of interim status H.W.T.S.D. facility
in complying with requirements for cost estimates of closure/post-closure care,
and to EPA Regional Staff in implementing the requirements.
. Keywords
Cost Estimate/Closure/Post-Closure/Financial
6a. Does This Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s)?
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)?
No
Yes What directive (number, title)
Yes . What directive (number, trtle)
7 Draft Level

A - Signed by AA/DAA
B - Signed by Office Director
C - For Review & Comment
D - In Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?

Yes
X

No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
10. Name and Title of Approving Official
John Skinner, Director, OSW
Date
Date
01-01-81*
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous editions are obsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER O
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE

-------
            DRAFT   GUIDANCE
    STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE/ AND DISPOSAL
  FACILITIES UNDER RCRA, SUBTITLE C, SECTION 3004
 Financial Requirements;  Interim Status Standards
              (40 CFR 265, Subpart H)
This report (SW-913) was prepared under contract no.
      68-01-5794 for the Office of Solid Waste
        U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        1981
                   Reprinted  1984
                  (With Addendum)

-------
this draft guidance document has been prepared by the International Research
and Technology Corporation.  In preparing this document, we have sought and
incorporated the advice of the Office of Solid Waste, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).  The Regional Offices,  the Office of General Counsel, and the
Office of Enforcement have not yet reviewed this draft guidance document;  there-
fore,  this document does not represent EPA'a final views and opinions.

-------
                             PREFACE
     This guidance manual was developed to accompany the May 19,
1980 Subpart H cost estimating interim status regulations and
their technical amendments.  Since this manual was prepared,
additional Subpart G regulations which affect the cost estima-
ting requirements were promulgated.  Therefore, this manual
does not necessarily reflect all the current requirements.  The
Agency is planning to update this manual to incorporate these
additional requirements.  In the meantime, however, an addendum
has been included in this manual to clarify several points.

     This manual is intended to serve as a guide to the types
of cost categories and documentation that are appropriate to
include in a closure and post-closure care cost estimate.  The
sample estimates contained in this document illustrate the format
and level of detail that would he acceptable to the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.  They are not, however, intended to serve
as sample forms required by the Agency.  In addition, these
sample cost estimates do not represent a typical facility
and, as a result, some cost components may be inapplicable to
certain facilities.  Finally and most importantly, these sample
cost estimates do not reflect actual cost estimates and cannot
be used either as substitutes for facility-specific estimates
or as evaluative screens.  The U.S. EPA urges members of the
regulated community to contact their State agency or EPA Regional
Office to discuss the applicability of this guide to their facility
and other facility-specific requirements.

-------
                        SURPART H ADDENDUM
p. 2-3 (Section 2.4), p. 32 (Section 3.5)
   The regulations do not require that a contingency factor be
   included, although it is advisable to do so.

pp. 5-2,  3
    6-4
    The unit costs included in Chapters 5 and 6 are outdated and
    may not be representative of actual costs.

-------
                                     CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES	v

1.0   INTRODUCTION	1-1

2.0   BASIC RULES FOR THE CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE	2-1

3.0   BASIC RULES FOR THE POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE	3-1

4.0   PREPARING AND DOCUMENTING THE CLOSURE AND POST-
        CLOSURE COST ESTIMATES	4-1

      4.1   Costs Based upon Experience of the Owner or
              Operator	4-1
      4.2   Contractor Estimates	4-2
      4.3   Cost Estimating Handbooks	4-3
      4.4   Worlcups from Labor, Material and Equipment
              Requirements	4-4

5.0   ADEQUACY OF THE CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE	5-1

      5.1   Activities Relevant to All Facilities	5-4
            5.1.1   Treating, Disposing or Removing Inventory......5-4
            5.1.2   Decontaminating the Facility	5-6
            5.1.3   Moni toring	5-6
            5.1.4   Professional Engineer Certification	5-6
      5.2   Costs Required Only of Landfills and Surface
              Impoundments.	5-7
            5.2.1   Cover	5-7
            5.2.2   Vegetation	5-3
            5.2.3   Optional Measures	5-9

6. 0   ADEQUACY OF THE POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE	6-1

      6.1   Inspections and Facility Visits	6-3
      6.2   Reestablishing Cover and Vegetation	6-5
      6.3   Fertilizing	6-5
      6.4   Moving	6-5
      6.5   Ground-water Monitoring	.6-6
      6.6   Maintaining and Replacing Fences.	6-6
      6.7   Collecting,  Removing and Treating Leachate..	6-6

7.0   REVISING THE CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATES	7-1
                                  ill

-------
8.0   ADJUSTING THE COST ESTIMATES TO ACCOUNT FOR INFLATION...	8-1

9.0   SAMPLE CWlt ESTIMATES	9-1

      9.1   Itttfotfuc tion	9-1
      9.2   Example - Surface  Impoundments	9-2
      9.3   Example - Land Treatment Facilities	9-31
      9.4   Example - Landfills	9-56
      9.5   Example - Incinerators	«...	9-75
      9.6   Example - Multiple Process Facility With Tanks
                      and Surface Impoundments	9-91
      9.7   Example - Post-Closure Cost Estimates	9-114
                                   iv

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                              Page

5-1   CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE RAPID CHECKS	5-3

6-1   COSTS OF SELECTED POST-CLOSURE ACTIVITIES	6-4

8-1   HYPOTHETICAL SAMPLE PAGE OF SURVEY OF CURRENT
        BUSINESS	8-3

-------
                            i.o
      EPA has developed standards for financial requirement* for owners
 or operators of hazardous waste facilities as part of the Interim Status
 Standards — Subpart H Financial Requirements.  This guidance document
 covers only there portions of Subpart H promulgated on 19 May 1980 and
 the technical amendments to those regulation*.  These portions require
 the owner or operator to prepare cost estimates for closure and post-
 closure.   At later dates, Subpart H will also contain final regulations
 covering liability requirements and financial assurance mechanisms.

      The purpose of the cost estimation requirements Is to determine
 the amount of financial assurance needed.  These requirements are pre-
 sented in 40 CFR S265.142 for closure and 40 CFR 1265.144 for post-
 closure.   Each of these sections contains a requirement for a written
 cost estimate available on the premises (40 CFR $265.142(a) and 40 CFR
 S265.144(a», a requirement for revisions in the cost estimate whenever
 changes are made in the applicable plans (40 CFR S265.142(b) and 40
 CFR S265.144(b)) and a requirement for annual adjustments In the closure
 and post-closure cost estimates to reflect inflation (40 CFR §265.142(c)
 and 40 CFR $265.144(c)).  All owners or operators of hazardous waste
 facilities, except those facilities owned or operated by states and the
 federal goveinmant, must prepare closure cost estimates...  All owners or
WH^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^VM^^^^MMMMM^^MHe«i^Mi^BMBMMMMMH^^HM^^HMM«M^MH^«^«B'W"MIIBH^^^^
 operators of facilities in which hazardous wastes will remain after
  ,ire.  except fhose ^ar^ \ltlCS awnftd QT operated by st'ata5 anH the.
 federal  government^  mst prepare a post—closure cost estimate.  The
 closure  cost  estimates must be available on the premises on the effective
 date  of  these regulations,  i.e.. November i_Q,  19*^  for those facilities
 not required  Co have a post-closure plan.  Owners or operators of .land,
 disposal  facilities, or facilities closed as such, will not be required
 ^^^^      " ^^^^™™^^^^™^^^^
 to  have  their closure and post-closure coat estimates available until
 six months from the effective data of these regulations, i.e., May 19,
                                                                •%^^MMI
 jjSly because of the complexities involved in developing plans and
 estimates  for these types of facilities.
                                    1-1

-------
     The purpose of this documanc is to assist  the Regional Offices  in
implementing those sections of the interim status regulations  relevant
Co closure and post-closure cost estimates.  Since the bases for  the
cost estimates are the closure and post-closure plans, this section
should be read in association with the guidance for closure and post-
closure plans.  The remainder of this document  is divided into eight
sections:  basic rules for the closure cost estimate; basic rules for
the post-closure cost estimate; preparing and documenting the closure
and post-closure cost estimates; adequacy of the closure cost estimate;
adequacy of the post-closure cost estimate; revising the closure and
post-closure cost estimates; adjusting the cost  estimates to account
for inflation; and sample cost estimates for various types of facilities
The emphasis throughout this document is upon interim status,.  This  is
particularly important to the sections on adequacy of cost estimates,
which are designed for rapid review and inspection.

     Sample cost estimates have  been developed  for  several  kinds  of
facilities in  the  final section  of this document.  The purpose of these
samples  is to  illustrate  the  concepts  involved  in  closure and  post-
closure  cost  estimates and the  formats which might be appropriate.   The
samples  are developed  through a  series of  worksheets designed  to  illus-
trate  an appropriate format  for  demonstrating  the  scope  and nature of
the activities involved and  the  key  unit  cost  elements used  in arriving
at  the final  estimate.  Closure  and  post-closure costs will be highly
site-specific, and as  a result,  these  worksheets should  be  viewed as
only general  guidance  and are unlikely to  be applicable  in  any specific
case.  In  no  case  should  the  unit  costs  used  in the  samples  be regarded
as  proper  and accurate costs  to  be used  in developing cost  estimates.
                                   1-2

-------
             2.0  BASIC RULES  FOR THE CLOSURE  COST  ESTIMATE

     la developing closure cost estimates  for  interim status,  the
following concepts should be used for guidance .

2.1  The closure cost estimate is baaed upon the methods  described
     in the closure plan.
     A cost estimate should be prepared for each activity  or
listed in the closure plan.  The coat estimate is based upon  the Ac-
tivities, qtianrjp-tM and methods indicated in the closure  plan.  For
example, a cost estimate should be prepared for treating,  disposing or
removing inventory.  It must account for managing the maximum inventory
expected as indicated in the closure plan.  The method used for treating,
disposing or removing the inventory would be identical to  chat indicated
in the closure plan.  For example, if the closure plan indicates managing
1000 tons of waste, of which 800 tons are to be disposed or treated
on-site and 200 tons removed to an off-site TSDF, the cost estimate
must include estimates for these respective costs.

2 .2  "The estimate must equal the cost of closure at the point in  the
     facility's operating life when the extent and manner  of  its opera-
     tion would make closure the most expensive, as indicated by its
     closure plan."*

     The goal of the cost estimate is to ausure that if at any point in
ti;ne a. facility had to begin closure for reasons unrelated to a catas-
trophe at the site, the_costs _of the closure woujj nor gyqeed  che  cose
£8f^na_ee^  Thus, the conditions on which the cost estimate is predicated
will probably differ significantly from anticipated conditions at  the end
of normal facility life with respect to amounts of undisposed or un-
treated wastes on-hand, status of processing equipment, and area of the
facility in disturbed condition.
*EPA Interim Status Standards, 40 CFR §265.142(a)

                                   2-1

-------
maximum inventory on-sice should include  the maximum normally expected
on-site.  This estimate should take account of any  long-term cycle of
inventory on-hand, and should take account of predictable events which
may occur over the life of the facility,  such as adverse weather condi-
tions preventing normal activity at a landfill and  "down time" to
periodically rebrick the refractory of an incinerator.  The initial
estimate need not, however, include provisions for  highly unusual
contingencies unless they exist at the time the facility submits its
initial cost estimate.  For example, the cost estimate need not include
provision for such unusual contingencies  as the effects of the 50-year
storm or the failure of a liner in a major trench calling for removal of
all waste in that trench.  If such events occur over the life of the
facility and cause the original maximum inventory estimate to be
exceeded, the owner or operator should revise the closure plan to
reflect the current situation unless he can immediately correct the
situation so that his original estimate of maximum  inventory is not
exceeded.  In cases of doubt, the Regional Administrator's office should^
be contacted as to the advisability of revising the cost estimate.  In
no case, however, should the initial cost estimate  list a maximum inven-
tory less than that actually on-site.  If normal operating procedures
include steps which would reduce closure costs, such as dredging of an
impoundment or capping portions of a landfill, it should be assumed that
closure will occur just before these, activities.  Thus,  in the closure
cost estimate all costs associated with such procedures should be
included.  This assumption is to ensure adoguaEe funds in the closure^
cost estii^te jEor the situation of forced closure due to an unforeseen
*   """         **r-     '
event such as business failure of the facility's owner or operator.

    If experience shows that the initial  cost estimate over- or under-
estimated the most expensive conditions likely to occur over the life
of the facility, or if those conditions are no longer possible, then
revisions may be made in the cost estimate as appropriate (see Section
7.0).  For example, if late in the life of the facility the  total
                                   2-2

-------
qf operating costs\
 2.3   Cost estimates are  to be  based  upon the/operating costs) to the
      owner or operator of carrying out the planned activities.

      This means chat in  developing the cost estimate the owner's or
 operator's depreciation  costs,  capital recovery factors, and interest on
 debt  need not be included as part of the costs.  For example,  capital
 recovery and depreciation factors for earth-moving equipment owned by
 the owner or operator and costs  of land already owned need  not  be
 considered as part of the costs  of disposing of inventory at a  landfill.
 If equipment must be rented to  complete closure activities,  however,  the
 costs of this rental must be part of the cost estimate.   If  the owner or
 operator plans to contract out a specific activity (e.g., sandblasting
 and steam-cleaning the equipment on-site, planting vegetation),  the full
 costs of that contract would be  the  correct cost estimate.

 2.4   The cost estimates  should  include all associated costs  necessary to
      carry out closure procedures.

      A cost estimate for a given activity must include all  costs asso-
 ciated with this activity, including fully loaded labor  costs  (i.e.,
 including fringe benefits and overhead),  any costs of supervision,  fuel
 and maintenance costs for the equipment used,  administrative costs,  and
 provisions for normal contingencies.   Administrative costs  include  all
 costs associated  with taxes and insurance,  ts  well as costs of  routine
administration,  paperwork and reporting.   "Provisions  for normal  contin-
gencies" means that the cost estimates  should  include  a  factor  for
unforeseen events that may increase  costs,  such  as  those routinely  put
into most initial cost estimates.  Such contingencies  include adverse
weather and other unanticipated complications.   Given the absence in  the
closure plan of  detailed engineering designs,  the  uncertain  na-ture  of
precise facility conditions at the time  of  closure,  and  the  lack  of
provision for inflation during the closure  period  (which, in some cases,
can be quite lengthy),  the provision for  contingencies should be

                                   2-3

-------
g«m«rou«.  Sc*uid*rd  «mjlu»«iia^  practice  *huw»  Uuit.  LU
a provision for contingencies could reasonably  be  expected  to  fall
within the range of  15 Co 25 percent.  The  lower end  of  the range
is appropriate for smaller facilities which require a short closure
period and have fewer uncertain  variables.   The higher end  of  the
range accounts for larger facilities which  may  require extensive
activities and a longer closure  period, for which  unusual weather
conditions or uncertain decontamination needs could seriously  affect
the cost of closure.

    A cost estimate for treating inventory  In an incinerator would
include fully loaded labor costs, supervision,  maintenance, utilities,
any chemicals and catalysts employed, administration, and provisions
for contingencies.  Although the cost estimate  should include  all of
these cost elements, they need not be document«a separately.   Thus, for
example, well documented unit costs for treating inventory  are
appropriate even If they do not  include separata documentation for
maintenance, utilities, or all energy costs.  This point is further
discussed in Section 4.0 and examples of an appropriate approach
are shown in Section 9.0.

2.5 The cost estimates should be baaed upon CQSCJ  IT.  :ha year  in  which
    the estimate is prepared; there is no need  to  .rovl.de for  inflation
    in developing the cost estimate, as this will  be  provided  for in
    the adjustment procedure.

    Costs should be based upon current costs.   For practical purposes,
this means costs within one year of the time of praoaration of the cost
estimate.   There is no need to adjust data  or cost estimates based
upon data within the current year to the exact  aonch  for which the
cost estimate Is dated.
                                   2-4

-------
          3.0  BASIC RULES FOR THE POST "CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE

     In developing a post-closure cost estimate for interim status, the*
following concepts should be used for guidance.

3.1  A post-closure cost estimate must be prepared for all facilities
     at which hazardous wastes remain on-site after closure.

     Post-closure cost estimates are required for landfills and surface
impoundments and land treatment systems at which any hazardous wastes
remain on-site following final closure.  If an owner or operator of
a surface impoundment originally plans to close, it as a storage or
treatment facility by removing *\l hazardous waste, but later decides to
close it as a disposal facility, he must immediately prepare a post-closure
plan for the facility.  In similar fashion, if the owner or operator of a
land treatment facility originally prepares a closure plan based an the
assumption that treatment will render the waste non-hazardous buc cesua
show this is not the case, he must immediately prepare a post-closure
plan and cost estimate.

3.2  The post-closure cost estimate is based upon the methods described
     in the post-closure plan.

     The post-closure cost estimate is based upon the activities , quan-
tities, and methods indicated in the post-closure plan.  A cost estimate
should be prepared for each activity or s^b-activity listed in the post-
closure plan.  For example, a cost estimate should be prepared to cover
maintenance activities.  It must reflect the methods to be used in the
post-closure plan and the rates of fertilization, mowing, sprinkling,
and other activities listed in the post-closure plan.

3.3  The post-closure cost estimate should be prepared for the entire
     area expected to contain hazardous waste at the time of final
     closure.
                                   3-1

-------
     The post-closure estimate should provide for po«c-clo«ur« care for
che encire facility aa it is expected to exlat at the time of final
cloaure.  Thua, If a ISO-acre facility la expected to be filled at a
rate of 10 acrea par year, the initial poat-cloaure coat eatimate must
reflect the coata of poat-cloaure care for tha full 130 acrea.

3.4 /The poat-cloaura coat eatimata should reflect the coata of
     purchasing all nacaaaary labor, materlala and equipment to carry
     out poat-cloaure raqulrementa.  Unlike the closure coat estimate.
     it may not ba aaaumed that the ovnar or operator already has
     adequate equipment for tha purpoaa.

     It la highly uncertain whether the entire period of post-closure
care will be carried out by the ovnar or operator himself, and whether
on-site labor and equipment will ba available.  Therefore, Che coat eati-
mate should aaauma that al] aervicea required for poat-closure oust be
contracted for in order to ensure financial adequacy.  The poat-cloaure
coat eatimate must therefore include adequate allowance for profits on
che post-closure care aervicea.  For example, if regular moving is part
of the post-closure plan, the costs must reflect che costs of hiring a
service to carry out this moving, rather than the cost of having a laborer
of che owner or operator using mowing equipment already in use elsewhere
by che owner or operator.  Similarly, monitoring costs just be estimated
assuming it is necessary to hire outside help both to take the necessary
samples and to conduct the oecesaary laboratory tests.

3.5  The post-closure coat eatimate must be complete znd include all
     associated coata necessary to carry out poat-cloaure procedures.

     A cost estimate for a given activity must include all coats asso-
ciated with this activity, including fully loaded labor coats, any costs
of supervision, fuel and maintenance coata for equipment uaed, adminis-
trative coata, and provlalona for normal contingencies.  Administrative
costs include all coata aaaociated with taxes and insurance, as well
as costs of routine administration, paperwork and reporting.   "Provisions
                                     3-2

-------
for aoraal contingencies" means that the coat estimates should include a
factor for unforeseen events that any increase coata, such as thoae
routinely put Into most  initial coat estimates.  Such contingencies
include adverse weather  and  other unanticipated complications.  Given
the absence in the post-cLoaure plan of detailed engineering designs,
the uncertain nature of  precise facility conditions at the tine of post-
closure, and the uncertainty of the kinda of "••***«"""*Tni-T to be required
during the poet-cloaure  period,  the provision for contingencies should
be generous.  Standard engineering practice shows that the provision
for contingencies could  reasonably be *jtp+ft*4 to fall within the
range of IS to 25 percent.   Aa with closure coats, the documentation
for the cost estimate need not break out *11 of these headings
separately; they aust, however,  be included in any unit or activity
cost estimates (see Sections 4.0 and 9.0).   It ia particularly important
in the caae of poet-closure  care to include supervision and inspection
requirements that noramlly night be "•gl*"*'^ in the cost 'ssif^"**
Since labor nay no longer be readily available on-site,  such routine
functions aa facility inspection and supervision and review of work
oust be explicitly included.

3»6  The post-closure cost estimate covers  the period beginning at the
     coapletion of closure of the facility  and lasts for 30 years there-
     after.

     The post-closure cost estimate does not cover che cost of eaia-
tainIng any partially closed portions  of che facility during facility
life.  However, the fact that partial  closure has occurred for portions
of che facility does not in  any  way shorten the period of post-closure
care required for the purposes of the  post-closure cost estimates.  The
post-closure period begins with  the professional engineer's certifica-
tion of adequate closure.  As a  result,  provision should be made for any
normal remedial measures early  in the poet-closure period, such as
significant portions of  the  vegetation falling to develop adequately.
                                   3,0

-------
3.7  Pose-closure expenditures can be expected co occur in two cate-
     gories;  regular annual expenditures and expenditures that occur
     with less Chan annual frequency.  The wricten estimate of Che
     annual co«C of post-closure monitoring and maintenance is equal to
     the »ua Ql regular annual expenditures plus the expected number of
     non-annual expenditures times their costs.

     This can be written as the following formrla:
where P is Che annual post-closure cost estimate, A is the size of
expenditures occurring annually, F^ is the number of times over 30 year:
non-annual expenditure i is expected to occur, and N4 is the cost of
non-annual expenditure i.  There may, of course, be several kinds of
annual expenditures and several kinds of non-annual expenditures.
Specific types of non-annual expenditures that need to be considered
include provisions for special activities resulting from unusual
weather, replacement of equipment, and provisions for replanting and
other similar activities in the two to five years following closure.
                                  3-4

-------
                    '• .0  PIUH'AKINU AND DOrUMKNTtNC THK
                 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATES

     Although written closure and post-closure  cost  estimates are
required, the regulation does not specify  format or  documentation  suit'
able for this -ost estimate.  As a result,  the  ultimate  requirements  in
this area will be up to the discretion of  the Regional Administrator.
Certain general guidance may, however, prove useful.  The  cost estimate
must ultimately contain at least •"ou.gj^ dafati  «« that the Regional
Office can make a reasonable evaluation of  its  validity  at the time
of inspections during interim
     The overall goal of the cost estimate and  its documentation  is  to
provide an estimate of the costs and the documentation necessary
to demonstrate the reasonableness of the estimate.  It is not
required that the cost estimate have the kind of detail and accuracy
appropriate to a contractor preparing a bid  for a  job.   There  is little
need for a highly polished cost estimate since  these cost estimates  are
fo>: a hypothetical task that is to  take place in  the rather distant
future.

     Four basic approaches which might be used  In  developing coses for
the activities listed in the closure plan are:

     «  Costs based upon experience of the owner or operator
     <  Contractor estimates
     •  Cose estimation handbooks
     •  Workups from labor, material and equipment requirements

4.1  COSTS BASED UPON EXPERIENCE OF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR

     The most directly relevant source of cost  information, in  many
cases, will be the experience of the owner or operator  in operating  the
                                 4-1

-------
facility.  An example would be Che coses of creating or disposing of
inventory on-site, which will normally be a simpl* oout Intuit ion of  the
normal operating practices of the business.  In the simplest case,  cost
of treating or disposing of inventory may be computed as the annual
operating coses divided by the fraction of a year required for adequately
treating or disposing of inventory.  Such an estimate could then be
documented by the past year's accounts, the amount of material treated
or disposed over that year, and evidence that the year had involved
relatively typical activities (e.g., if, for a landfill, no trench
had to be dug or covered over the course of the year, then the year
might not be considered a suitable example from the viewpoint of
assuming the most expensive closure conditions likely to occur over the
life of the facility).  Given that the requirement that a cost estimate
be available on-site is either six or twelve months after notification
of the cost estimation requirement, a variety of closure activities could
be documented from noting the costs of the activity as they occur over
the interim period.*  For example, for a landfill, the costs and activities
involved in partial closures could be documented and used as a base for
unit cost estimates of the cost of final cover.

     Similarly, costs of monitoring tests during pest-closure will be
similar to the costs of monitoring tests during facility life, though
gathering samples will be more expensive due to the need to assume
purchased labor and travel to the facility.  Possibly the best source
for costs and frequency of many kinds of post-closure non-routine
expenditures is the actual experience in maintaining currently partially
closed port!>ns of a landfill.

4.2  CONTRACTOR ESTIMATES

     A variety of coses, particularly if services are to be purchased
from a contractor or contractors by the owner or operator, .-nay be
*As discussed in Section 1.0, owners or operators of land disposal
facilities are not required to have their cost estinates available
until twelve months after the effective date of these regulations.
Owners or operators of other facility types oiust have an estimate
available within six months of the effective date of these regulations,
                                  4-2

-------
obtained from  contractor estimates.   For  example,  an  owner  or operator
could ascertain  the coats of certiftcation  by  an  Independent  professional
engineer by asking several professional engineers  for estimates  of  ch«
costs of certifying the completion of activities  listed  in  the closure
plan.  If an owner or operator plans  to send either inventory or con-
taminated residues to an off-site TSDF, inquiries  to  ascertain distances,
hauling costs, and treatment or disposal  coses would  be  in  order.   It is
not necessary for purposes of documenting,  to have written  and validated
cost estimates.  Adequate documentation could note who was  contacted
and their approximate estimates.

4.3  COST ESTIMATING HANDBOOKS

     There are a variety of commercial engineering cost  estimation  manuals
Chat provide guides to equipment and  labor needs and  unit costs  of
specific operations that may be relevant  to various activities Associated
with closing hazardous waste facilities.  Such manuals may  be  reasor.aDly
used as a source for cost estimates for closure costs.   Care must be
taken in using such manuals.  They vary widely with respect to whether
or not unit costs cited include such  factors as administration,  normal
contingencies, profits, and whether or not allowances  must  be  made  co
adjust theoretical work rates to normal field conditions.

     From the owner's or operator's view, care should  be caken that an
overestimate is not produced by using estimates which  allow for  profits
and capital recovery on equipment when this is noc required if he is  using
his awn equipment for closure.  Distinct  underestimates  are possible  if
accencion is not given to the indicated need for adjustment of theore-
tical work rates to normal field conditions and for administrative  costs.
As a result, suitable documentation^ for a cos_t estimate  for an activity
biased upon such a handbook would be a copy of the  relevant:  pages af_ tlhe
handbook, including those pages providing instructions as_to  the use  of
_the unit cost estimates and any adjustments from the  cited  costs used_inA
arriving at the unit cost estimate employed in the cost  estimate
                                   4-3

-------
4.4  WORKUPS FROM LABOR, MATERIAL AMD EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS

     In soae CAM*, there nay be no way Co arrive at a useful cost
estimate other t^aa by a datallad workup of Cha coats.  Such a workup
would include aa aacloata of the labor, aquipmant, energy aad material
needs for the activity to be estimated, the baa Is for these assuaptions,
and the total tiae required for the activity.  Allowance would then
need to be made for supervision and administrative coses and any
necessary adjustments for fully loaded labor and equipment costs.
                                   4-4

-------
                5.0  ADEQUACY OF THE CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE

      For  the  closure cost  estimate Co be Judged adequate, it oust meet
 the  following criteria:

      1.   The  closure cost  estimate oust contain cost estimates for all
 activities  presented in  the  closure plan.   The cost estimate must also
 reflect the quantities and methods associated with all of the activities
 presented in  the closure plan.   (Note that  the adequacy of the cost
 estimate  is therefore dependent on the adequacy of the closure plan.)

      2.   The  closure cost  estimate must be  documented in order that the
 bases for the cost estimate  can be checked.

      3.   The  resulting cost  estimate must reflect the actual costs of
 carrying  out  closure.  This  can be determined by a check of the sources
 listed for  documentation providing that Rule  2 has been met.  A cross-
 check can be  made  by using alternative sources, i.e., if the owner's or
 operator's  cost estimate is  based  upon a contractor estimate,  this may
 be checked  through reference to a  cost estimation manual, experience of
 other owners  or operators, or inquiries to  other contractors.

      The  cost estimate must  be  available upon the premises for Inspec-
 tion  during interim status.   As  a  result, ic  will be  useful to have
 available simple and rapid checks  as to the adequacy  of the cost esti-
 mate.  The  remainder of  this  discussion is  devoted, in part, to a discus-
 sion  of simple checks that could be accomplished in less than an hour or
 two with  the  aid of the  closure plan and a  visit to che facility to deter-
 mine  the adequacy  of  the closure plan (see  Section 12.0 of the draft
guidance for  Subpart G,  Closure  and  Post-Closure Care).   These checks
are not intended for  use by  owners  or operators and may not be used as a
method for developing a cost  estimate.
                                5-1

-------
     If an  initial check raises questions as to cuc  *.G
estimate, several steps may be taken.   First, a ,:o.
cost estimate  may be required and reviewed,  anc ~ -_.=ci.
documentation.   It Is quite possible chat the cost rui?--
accurate and fall outaide the ranges IxidicdCec  o ;-;..
If, after review, the cost estimate sell! seems .JT.J. «?-.;'.
operator could be specifically requested  to  cake r,! •  ^
If this approach faila to result in a satisfactory  •'---:
are two possible recourses dui
 ra to r _couJ14_azin«_jn_enf or <
permit application and thus revise tae  ec
                                                                of che cost
                                                                 apiece
                                                                -•_• che
                                                               -julti be
                                                          b:..us»t?:.<. u :>«ilow.
                                                         y~ ;e ,  tne r^r.er or
                                                         e. .«>•'  ...'. ;*-. ations.
                                                                     there
                                                             »'.  -. r  ..he permit
     Unfortunately ,  the annual report of  the radii
include the coat  eat"1"***, ^.oes not
determine the
                                                            u-/h
                       ,»f «*«
of Inventory  on-hand la not a required el
Therefore, in order to check on the accuracy
may be necessary to visit the facility,   Ac
copies of  the closure plan and cost estlaac^   ;.;
of the key variables for the closure plea,  a,-/  •;.".;<:
of the draft  guidance for Subpart G, Closure ^
     Table 5-1  shows the key elements  involved In '
cost estimate,  listed by major types of  active -•
activity, the major elements required  to check •-•»--
activity Indicator (the variable that  dete---^j.::..s :.:
activity, e.g., quantity of Inventory, volume c: ,v
unit costs (estimates of the unit costs  for «aui*. 4<.
in question), and sources for variation  in uai•:  •.-•••
facility.  Also included in this table are current
required activity.  A relatively wide  range i? -i^s-.
depending upon  the region and upon  the oatrure ->f c:
hazard wastes have greater costs chan  lowta. a^-j.j.
costs are national averages, more accurate estxoafj
                                                               he  ciusure
                                                           ••  -c  ..:ia ~2
                                                           a  i_ . ..'.i:.y to
                                                           io.  coats of each
                                                           .-2?:  > i , 4 . ,  high
                                     5-2

-------















§







» II
J 8*
- **
m «»•
«A

*4
* to
& • 1
• M
«« • «4
• K sc:
»• «• • •*
rs J3a
i3
2*
•• *
• *4<
~S
•I.
n»*ntb*»t. »»»•
•ualltr •! •»•!
••lur* •! «••«
?.&.
•:::
• 3 » M
«•-*-«
•»•««
Shi.
8' *5
2-2?
5S2S.J
Ml 1 •« |
-*••««.«
T-8^^1
g S


>k
to •
11
i:
«« to
«« «*
>. Ik
M> •*
^ *+
•rf M
Jl

•^
4J
• 2
-* »»
2 :
;I
to
^
9
!!.^ !S
xl^! I*
| M M ••
i*H* ^i
... • ^<»
, :
i
I M -4
*f2 3 '
i? J §•
j- 2- «
M 7 - • «* «
«• • >*. i ^ «
^ «*t i f «4 V *
§9 «•«• « § «
5a r2 JjJ
= »
5v
2"
«« *
M ••!
-i.
ita«uf>ptti, «r*«
*Mllty •< 41«
Mt«r* •( w«»t
f.a.
s ;:•
> • • •
::*:
•:*:
fiil>
8^*5
2-2|
:^2-; j
V 1 « 1
•* •• 41 *• 
•4
s
M) M
>1
T«rr««l*4. ll**r
thick**** •( 1
Decrial











v
j
w
M
to
i

*
to
2
V
M
|
a
^
^





•
to
to

3
•+

• •»
to *to •
IL*
X • to
*-J.2
• to ' •
Hi!
'Jill
?.-*s
3 3-,' 4
si*:*
to « * * to
5
	 	 _l








t
X
hj
j
S.
• •X
S3
1|
5-s
3

ill 5
I*i -:.
O ^ to •*
! Jl»||
•4 M «l • H • *
2 JfJ|Z£
& S3.=3f
i « iidj?:
1 ...
«• »• «4 M M
*














«
•
•
3
•
•M
«
to
^

•
to
«
•
w

1
M
«
a
•4
«
•4
S
«/
:
5
««
•
i
2
j
»
f
•
«













•4
ol
i|
to
^ w
• M
•Cul*tlo*«; i
oAlCorlag iu
to •
11
•
55
M
V •
V •
*• •«
-4 •
}J
* J
• -
:«
• •«
* «
>» a
•4) «
i:
««
•
3 " TL
-3-
sis
- - S
»:s
;£S
«« -«
* M
?-;*
Ill
**i
to *
-5-
: .2
• 5*
« «*
2 »>
• •
s*I
s^-3
?^
«
5-3

-------
 using average  coses  for  the  specific  are*.   Th««« co«t* also mu«t
 adjusted annually  for  inflation.  A «ech*ut*n for »*kln| ehi* inf
 adjustment ia  discussed  in Section 8.0.

     For example,  Co check the adequacy of  the cost  estimate of treating
 or disposing of inventory, one would:

     (1)   Determine the adequacy of the estimated amount of inventory
          (this could most readily be  done by examining the closure plan
          and facility conditions to determine whether the closure plan
          adequately reflects inventory needs of the facility);
     (2)   Determine whether,  in the case of treatment facilities (including
          incinerators),  provision has been made for treating, disposing,
          or removing residues off-site which result from treating inventory;
     (3)   Multiply the quantity of inventory in the closure plan by the
          unit costs given in Che Table;  and
     (4)   Consult the variability factors listed in the Table (e.g.,
          throughput,  type of facility, nature of waste, on- or off-site
          disposal),  to determine vhether the facility should be at the
          high or low end of  the range for unit costs.

5.1  AClM.ViT.UiS RELEVANT TO ALL FACILITIES

5.1.1  Treating, Disposing, or Removing Inventory

     For facilitates nc< engaged ixffiscosal requiring post-closure c*re
 (all types of  fads^AClfs •• ijii lliilTltl i. and surface  impoundments and
land; CTejdMM^^BBBHli^B^^              was tea  remain after closure),
treatiAf^38|BBBiPWWiovin.j;,JSrventory will frequently be  the largest.
sinale- cMS^f^ffm The exceptions  to this rule  of  thumb will normally
   ^^^   ~™~ »«»^^SSBP>JPS^l^i^>WWv         •
be situations  in which unusual decontamination problems  occur,  such as
large amounts  of waste water accumulating at  the  facility.   The key uafE
parAiters S^aite^SofeV'ths; cost* of treating,  disposing or rwoviaf
                         •      ''-
inv«ntdt?5r '"to 1&M^Rf-«it* 135BP arifhs amount of inventory on-hand
for 'incineration and processes involving treatment,  the  relationships7*

-------
                                         The quantity  of  inventory  on-'
hand will vary enormously depending on  tha  type of  facility,  tha annual
throughput of tha facility, and management  practical.  For some  types  of
facilities, inventory can be minimal.   For  axaaple, some  landfills  accept
only trucked-in wastes on a space-available basis.  For such  a landfill,
there would very seldom be any inventory at all.  It is also  possible,
however, that start-up problems or, in  the  case of  landfills, failure  of
a major call or calls could lead to a situation in which  there is an
enormous amount of inventory which cannot ba quickly worked off, and this
would have to be accounted for in the cost  estimate.
            In the vast majority of cases at disposal facilities, the
disposing or treating of inventory will take place on-site.  If disposal
or treatment takes place on-site, the unit costs can be expected to
fall between 30 and SO percent of the prevalent Regional costs for
removing the inventory to an off-site TSDF.  On-site costs will be less
than off-site costs because closure costs need only include the immediate
operating costs of disposing or treating inventory and not factors for
capital recovery, land, etc.  The variation will depend upon the type of
facility, its normal throughput (because of economies of scale, small
facilities will have higher unit costs than large facilities for almost
all types of facilities), the quality and safety of disposal practices
at the facility, and the nature of the wastes.  For a landfill which always
maintains adequate open trench capacity, inventory disposal costs could
be a very small fraction of normal off-site landfill disposal costs.  This
is because the costs of building the trench would not need to ba included,
and the costs of cover and vegetation are covered separately.  Under these
circumstances, coats for treating or disposing of inventory could
be lower than the 30 percent indicated.  For inventory or residue that
must be removed to an off-site TSDF, unit costs will be 100 percent of
normal off-site costs in tha Region, plus appropriate hauling costs.
                                   5-5

-------
5.1.2  Decontaminating  the Facility

     Under certain circumstances, decontaminating  the  facility  could  be
the largest cose element for the facility.  This could be  the case  if
large quantities of soil are contaminated, as might occur  at any  poorly
run facility or at many improperly run surface  impoundments, or if  large
amounts of waste water have accumulated at the  facility.   For many
facilities, however, decontamination will be a  relatively  minor cost
element requiring only general cleanup of equipment and facilities.   The
key activity indicators for decontaminating the facility are: quantity
of contaminated soil; quantity of contaminated waste water; and amount
of equipment and facilities requiring cleaning.

     For contaminated soil and waste water, the relevant unit costs will
be Chose cited for disposing or treating inventory, i.e.,  costs for
disposing or treating the soil and water on-site or off-site.   For
equipment and facilities, the costs will depend upon cleaning costs
themselves and whether or not the residues resulting from  cleaning will
require treatment as hazardous waste.

5.1.3  Monitoring

     A ..facility must continue monitoring practices during  the closure
period; therefore, some costs must be included  for monitoring.  .The
.costs may be estimated using the current lab costs for the tests  in
_the Region and w^n vary reftigflgllv and aeenrdi-ng  to the monitoring plan
in place for the facility.

5.1.4  Professional Engineer Certification

     The closure cost estimate must include provisions for the  costs  of
certification by an independent professional engineer.  Like monitoring,
this will normally be a relatively minor cost element.  The activity
Indicator for certification is the hours spent  on-site by  the professional
engineer, which will normally depend upon the length of the closure period
and the amount of activity which must take place.  The unit cost  parameter
is dollars per hour of professional engineer time  in the Region.

-------
 5.2  COSTS REQUIRED ONLY OF LANDFILLS AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS

 5.2.1  Cover


.surface impoundment a.which have hazardous M««ta«
 closure.  Cover and the associated vegetation (see Section 5.2.2) will
 normally be the dominating element in determining the costs of closure
 for a landfill or surface impoundment.

      The materials Co be used will depend on the types of soil available
 on-site as well as the conditions of the facility.'  Since purchasing
 soil off-site is costly, it is likely that most owners or operators
 will use soil available on-site, if at all possible, for the final cover,
 i.e., che layer with low permeability and the layer capable of supporting
 vegetation, if applicable.  It is possible to improve the quality of
 available soil by blending various soils, using soil additives, or making
 other provisions which would provide equivalent protection.  For example,
 soil blending and synthetic additives may decrease the permeability of
 che on-site soil as well as make certain soils more capable of supporting
 vegetation.  In addition co improving che quality of available soil,
 the Agency anticipates chat many owners or operators will use membrane
 liners protected above and below by buffer soil layers instead of com-
 pacted clay for che layer of che cover with low permeability.  These
 membrane liners may be cost effective if adequate on-site soil material
 is  unavailable or an acceptable degree of compaction is not possible at
 a particular facility, given the wastes disposed or facility conditions.

      When clay is used as a liner material, the key activity indicators
 are acres not yet covered and che depth of the cover.   As noted in the
 closure plan, decisions as to the depth of the cover and the adequacy of,
 on-site materials are dependent on engineering judgment and are not
 covered in this guidance document.  The costs associated with such cover
 aay vary from $500 co S1500 per foot per acre of cover.  The key sources
 of  variation  are:
                                    5-7

-------
(1) The amount and nature of terracing to be used la the cover;
(2) Th« depth of the area to be filled In the case of surface
(3) The tmttttr* of the cover, including whether or not treatment
is required to achieve proper degrees of impermeability; and
(4) The design of the cover.

For synthetic liners, the key activity indicator is the acres not
covered. The costs associated with such covers vary Videly, depending
on the type of material chosen and the thickness needed to ensure adequate
low permeability. It is not the purpose of this document to assess
alternative materials or to provide guidance as to the level of per-
meability which is acceptable. The costs associated with installed
liner material per acre vary from $5,000 to $20,000 per acre. The key
sources of variation are:

(1) The amount and nature of terracing to be used in the cover;
(2) Type of liner material chosen; and
(3) Thickness of material necessary to achieve desired degree of
permeability.

5.2.2 Vegetation

._ liju*»«iv i *X_.-w-.-*« >w( . xtoi^fStiT^t "3r
•fee> tfea-u&cvd '^Jt-vwAtfOt
The key activity
indicators are the number of acres in need of vegetation (which may include
areas previously seeded but for which vegetation has not properly
developed) and tire type of vegetation to be employed. Unit costs can
be expected to range from $400 to $1,500 per acre. The lower end of
the range would represent the costs of «•««•««»«• fertilization and planting
with no provision for reseeding and replanting of any kind. The maximum
costs would represent the costs of providing a lawn-type cover. Other
key variables in determining cost of vegetation are:
5-8

-------
      (1)   The  type  or  soil  (including determining Che  degree ot
           fertilizer required);  and
      (2)   The  type  of  seed  used.

 Establishing complete  vegetation within  the  90  days  to six months  over
 which closure  will  normally take place cannot be  attained.   As a result,
 some costs associated  with  developing and  establishing vegetation  will
 probably  take  place early in the post-closure period.   Therefore,  the
 adequacy  of the closure plan with respect  to vegetation should be  checked
 in coordination with an examination of the provisions  for  maintaining
 vegetation in  the early years of the  post-closure plan.

 5.2.3  Optional Measures

    Three kinds of  optional measures,  bearing significant  costs, may be
 necessary at some facilities:  e
-------
             6.0
     For Ch« post-closure cost estlaate to be Judged adequate,  it mute
meet the following criteria:

     1.  The poet-closure coat estimate oust contain cost  estimates  for
all activities presented in the pott-closure plan.  The cost estimate
must also reflect the quantities and methods associated with all of  the
activities,presented in the post-closure plan.  (Note that the  adequacy
of the cost estimate is therefore dependent on the adequacy of  the post-
closure plan.)

     2.  The post-closure cost estimate must be documented so  that the
bases for the cost estimate can be checked.  Documentation may be
performed in a variety of ways; however, it must be provided in such
a way that the sources can be reviewed and judged by an outside party.
For example, if an owner or operator states that a cost estimate was
taken from an engineering cost estimation manual, the estimate could
be easily verified.

     3.  The resulting cost estimate must reflect the actual costs of
carrying out post-closure activities.  This can be determined  by a check
of the sources listed for documentation providing that Rule 2  has been
met.  A cross-check can be made by using alternative sources,  i.e.,  if
the owner's or operator's cost estimate is based upon a contractor
estimate, this may be checked through reference to a cost  estimation
manual, experience of other owners or operators, or inquiries  to other
contractors.
     The cost estimate must be available on the premises for  inspection
during interim status.  As a result, it will be useful to have available
simple and rapid checks as to the adequacy of the cost estimate.
                                    &~«U»U£5£..1 5Z^ -  • -•• r1^- -"'"""-**»'
                                    ftcility to de-t ermine the- adequaey
                          (see Section  12.0 of the draft guidance  for
                                   6-1
-------
Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure Care).  These checks are not
intended for use by owners and operators and may not be used as a method
for developing a cost estimate.

                                    itions as to the adequacy of the  eostf?

                                             and a check ma4e of €scT
                It is quite possible that the cost estimate could be
accurate and fall outside the ranges Indicated in the discussion below.
If, after review, the cost estimate still seems inadequate, the owner or
operator could be specifically rsqtrtwrted to make the desired altttrri*
tionsL  If this approach fails to result in a satisfactory cost estimate,
there are two possible recourses during interim status.
                                                     *-* ~,>-^> ^ft^WMAMi
         is obvio^lyco^letely Inadequate. the
may start an enforcement action or he nay request pert V o
appl±cation*fend revise the cost estimate as part of the permit applica-
tion process.
     Unfortunately, the annual report of the facility, though i
include the cost estimates; does not contain adequate information  to
determine the accuracy of the cost estimate.  Therefore, in o*tf*r to*
                                                         A. ...  ,^
check on the adequacy of the cost estimate, it may be necessary to
the facility,.  An inspector could then obtain copies of  the post-closure
plan and cost estimate and conduct a quick review of the key variables
for the post-closure plan, as discussed in Section 12.0  of the draft
guidance for Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure Care.

     Table 6-1 shows the costs of certain activities which may be asso-
ciated with post-closure cost estimates.  This is a list of selected
major activities, and is not intended to reflect all possible post-
closure activities.  These activities have been broken down by key cost
elements rather than by elements of the post-closure plan.  For example,
one heading in Table 6-1 is "Inspections and Facility Visits."  The  table
simply shows the expected costs of such visits per hour  on-site.  Deter-
mining the number of inspections and facility visits required will be
                                   6-2
-------
highly site-specific and vlll depend upon the post-closure plan.  Further,
these Inspections and facility visits 10*7 serve a variety of purposes in
the post-closure plan.  For example, Inspections and facility visits may
be for the purpose of ensuring adequate erosion control, maintaining
surveyed benchmarks, obtaining ground-water monitoring samples, or check-
ing the adequacy of leachate collection facilities.

     Table 6-1, for each activity indicated, shows an estimate of unit
costs and notes the sources of variation in these unit costs.  The unit
costs are given in 1980 dollars.  In order to maintain the accuracy of
Table 6-1, it should be updated on an annual basia to reflect inflation.
A discussion of the methods for adjusting the cost .estimates to account
for inflation is provided in Section 8.0.  The sources of variation in
unit costs are specific to the headings listed.  Two generic sources of
variation, however, have not been noted.  First, all costs can be
expected to vary regionally and locally.  Ideally, these national esti-
mates of unit costs should be replaced by costs developed from experience
for the region or state in which the facility is located.  Second, all
costs will vary with the remoteness of the facility.  Since most post-
closure activities are relatively small in scale and may involve only
a few days on-site, significant travel time to and from the facility
will have a noticeable effect on almost all costs.

6.1  INSPECTIONS AND FACILITY VISITS

     AS noted above, inspections and facility visits may be needed for a
variety of purposes.  The unit costs given will thus be relevant in
checking the costs of a variety of activities.  The estimated unit costs
in 1980 dollars are $20 to $100 per hour on-site.  The chief source of
variation in these unit costs will be the professional level of the
personnel involved.  It wtiMWBfl^'
facility Tlslt by •' rrnrMsfittrssTgrrtee^
so* facility fgttQE.»T3Js»«BstisW^
elwnffwi*tw af ft* pw*-d»s«« ?la«
nature o*- the fatuity-.

                                   6-3
-------
                               TABLE 6-1

               COSTS OF SELECTED POST-CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
     ACTIVITY
UNIT COSTS*
SOURCE OF VARIATION
   IN UNIT COSTS**
  1. Inspection/Facility
     Visits

  2. Reestablishing
     Cover and Vegetation
  3.  Fertilizing
  4.  Moving

  5.  Grounds-water
     Monitoring

  6.  Maintaining and
     Replacing Fences

  7.  Collecting, Removing
     and Treating Laachate
$20-100/hr. on-site
$300-L500/acra
$50-200/acre


$10-30/acre

$200-600/well


$.20-.80/ft./yr.


$.20-.80/gallon
Professional level
of personnel

Amount of erosion
Nature of cover
Type of soil
Amount & density
  of seed

Amount of fertilizer
Method of spreading
Monitoring plan
requirements

Type of fence
Climate

Chemical composition
  1980 dollars.
**
  All costs of all activities vary by region and with the remoteness
  of the facility.
                                 6-4
-------
6.2  REESTABLISHING COVER AND VEGETATION

     Reestablishing cover and vegetation may be necessary  for  a  variety
of purposes, including:

     •  Replanting to establish vegetation not adequately  established
        during closure;
     •  Replanting to repair minor erosion or rodent control
        problems;
     •  Reestablishing cover lost as a result of a major contin-
        gency, such as a major storm or flood; and
     •  Reestablishing cover to correct for subsidence problems.

     The costs of this activity in 1980 dollars may range  from $300 to
$1,500 per acre.  This cost will vary according to the nature  of  che
cover, the type of soil used, and the amount and density of seed.  In
addition, the costs can be expected to vary according to the amount of
erosion or subsidence which necessitates replacing the topsoil or cover
material.  The lowest costs are for simple replanting, and the highest
are for reestablishing and compacting as well as reseeding substantial
portions of the clay cover and topsoil.

6.3  FERTILIZING

     Depending upon the vegetation, topsoil employed, and  climate, some
fertilization nay b« necessary.  The frequency will be highly  variable.
The estimated range of costs for this activity is $50 to $200  per acre
with the variation dependent upon the amount of fertilizer and the
method of spreading it.

6.4  MOWING

     Mowing is necessary in any climate in which deep rooted vegetation
may readily be established.  In most cases, It will be the most  cost
effective means of preventing such deep rooted vegetation.  In some

                                   6-5
-------
cllffiAC.es, mowing  rcqulntMnt* m*v b# minim*!  <>t  Ux«t»  m«v  !<•  mor» <-p«r
effective methods than mowing r'vir enjurlag  that  Jeep rj^ced vegetation
does noc become established.  The estimated range of coses in 19SO
dollars is $10 Co $30 per acre.

6.5  GROUND-WATER MONITORING
                                                             MM kin*
"t H -iMt' rffgg|t
-------
      7.0   REVISING THE CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATES

     The closure and post-closure cost estimates oust be revts^f when-
ever dflHHin che closure or post-closure plan is made that affects*
chsr"C8>8P!WT3BS5re or post-closure care.  Changes to closure and post-
      .  -**r _~...
closure plans are discussed in Sections 11.1 and 11.2 of the guidance
for Subpart G of the Interim Status standards.  Changes in the closure
plan which may cause a revision in the closure cost estimate include:

     •  Change in facility size and/or capacity;
     •  Changes in technology that may affect treatment and disposal or
        decontamination techniques, type of cover chosen, etc.;
     •  Changes in the closure schedule which alter the length of
        the closure period by greater than one month (e.g., severe
        weather conditions may halt construction activities and
        extend the closure period by more than one month);
     •  Changes in the schedule of periodic activities which
        affect activities required at closure (e.g., failure to
        partially close a facility would mean that a. larger area
        than previously estimated would need to be closed at
        closure; the closure plan must always account for the
        maximum extent of the operation open at any time over the
        life of the facility);
     •  Changes in types and/or quantities of wastes that affect
        activities required at closure (e.g., the type and/or
        quantity of waste on-slte at closure will affect the
        choices of treatment and disposal; for example, the amount
        of waste removed to an off-sice TSDF by the owner or operator of
        an incinerator depends on the types and quantities of resid-
        uals that remain after burning the wastes.   The
        types and quantities of waste can also affect monitoring
        requirements and cover requirements);
                                7-1
-------
     •  Change in maximum quantity of inventory ever expected on-
        site;
     •  Change in cover requirements from what was originally
        proposed;
     •  Change* In ground-water monitoring requirements as a result
        of an owner's or operator's operating experience or new data
        which was not available when the plan was written.  The ground-
        water monitoring regulations stipulate that all or part of the
        requirements may be waived if there is a low potential for
        pollution (S265.90).  Revisions will also be likely when the
        EPA provides more guidance and technical engineering data on
        the kinds of monitoring appropriate for hazardous waste facil-
        ities; and
     •  Operating contingencies during closure which may affect closure
        requirements (e.g., inclement weather causes construction
        problems; more contaminated soil needs to be disposed
        at closure than anticipated as a result of problems occurring
        during operation).

     Changes in the post-closure plan which may cause a revision in the
post-closure cost estimate include:

     •  Change in facility size which will affect the extent of
        maintenance required;
     •  Changes in monitoring requirements as a result of an
        owner's or operator's operating experience, new data which was not
        available when the plan was written or modifications approved by
        the Regional Administrator (e.g., changes in the number of wells
        monitored and samples, the frequency of analyses, types of
        analyses required).  During the 30-year post-closure
        period, the owner or operator may petition the Regional
        Administrator to discontinue or alter the monitoring
        requirements; alternatively, under certain circumstances,
                                   7*2
-------
   the Regional Administrator nay require an ovnet 01
   Co continue monitoring beyond 30 years.  Revisivme will «lao
   be likely when the EPA provides more guidance and technical
   engineering data on the kinds of monitoring appropriate
   during post-closure;
e  Changes in annual routine maintenance, including changes
   in the nature and frequency of the activities required
   (e.g., a more extensive erosion control program may be
   required than originally anticipated);
e  Changes in activities required on an intermittent basis
   or changes in the frequency of these activities (e.g., an
   accelerated replanting schedule or more frequent replace-
   ment of wells than anticipated);
e  Operating contingencies which occur during the life of the
   facility or post-closure which a'ffect post-closure ac-
   tivities (e.g., severe weather conditions affecting acti-
   vities required for erosion control, cover maintenance,
   or maintenance of diversion structures);
•  Changes in surrounding land use (e.g., if the population
   density increased, the measures needed to maintain
   facility security might change; ground-water monitoring
   program might be affected);
e  Changes in monitoring and maintenance technology; and
•  Modifications approved by the Regional Administrator; the
   owner or operator may petition the Regional Administrator
   to allow some or all of the requirements for post-closure
   to be discontinued or altered before the post-closure period
   is ended; any such changes can only be made after the
   post-closure period begins and would constitute a revision
   to the post-closure plan made during post-closure.
                             7-3
-------
     Revisions may be desirable that either  raise  or  lower Che  closure
and post-closure cost estimates.  For example,  the closure  cost estimate
may need to be revised and increased if partial closure  schedules are
not met or if there is unexpected accumulation of  inventory due to
temporary problems at the facility.  It is quite possible,  however,  that
the cost estimate may need to be revised downward.  A facility may have
very large inventory due to temporary start-up problems  at  the time  the
cost estimate is first developed which is later reduced  to  a more normal
inventory. In such a situation, revising the closure cose estimate
downward would be reasonable.  It is also possible, given the rapid
development in some types of hazardous waste disposal, that new technol-
ogies may offer much less expensive means of carrying out certain
activities than are now envisioned.  This would also  be  a legitimate
cause for revisions of the plan and cost estimate.
                                   7-4
-------
                    8.0  ADJUSTING THE COST ESTIMATES
                           TO ACCOUNT FOR INFLATION
                                                     •
     Subpart H of the Interim Status Standards requires that both the
closure sod post-closure cost estimates be adjusted annually for infla-
tion.  This adjustment is to take place on the anniversary of the
effective date of Che regulations, November 19, 1980.  Although owners
or operators of land disposal facilities are not required to have
estimates available until May 1981 (six months from the effective date
of these regulations), all owners or operators are required to adjust
their estimates beginning in November 1981 and annually thereafter.
Adjustments of the post-closure cost estimate for inflation need not
take place once the facility is closed.

     Data for calculating the inflation adjustment factor must be ob-
tained from the "...annual Implicit Price Deflator for Gross National
Product as published by the U.S. Department of Commerce.11*  This price
deflator is published in the Survey of Current Business, a U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, publication, and in
Economic Indicators, a Council of Economic Advisors publication.  These
documents are published monthly and subscriptions may be obtained from
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 20402.  This information also may be obtained by
calling the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce.

     The GNP price deflator was chosen as an appropriate inflation index
and is more accurate than the more readily available Consumer Price
Index and Wholesale Price Index.  However, it is not as widely published
as the other two indices.  Thus, the typical hazardous waste facility
owner or operator, in the normal course of his business, will not have
daca on the implicit price deflator for GNP or copies of the Survey of
Current Business or Economic Indicators.  Copies of these publications
*EPA Interim Status Standards, 40 CFR S265.142(c)

                                   8-1
-------
also may not be readily available in small  libraries  Co  which the
owner or operator might have easy access.   Aa  a result ,  ttitit-lljJttf



write
     Table 8*1 shows a sample of the section in the Survey of  Current
Business in which the GNP implicit price deflator may be found.  The
table is constructed to show how this section might appear on  19 Novem-
ber 1981, the "first anniversary of the effective date of the  regula-
tion."  The numbers shown are hypothetical, as this guidance document  Is
being written in May 1980.  The implicit price deflator to be  used  Is
the first for which numbers appear, i.e., the one labeled Gross National
Product as underlined in Table 8-1.  The note "Index, 1972*100" may be
ignored.  The method of calculating the inflation adjustment factor
required by the regulation makes the index year chosen and changes  in
the index year irrelevant.   The regulation states:

     "The inflation factor must be calculated by dividing the
     latest published annual Deflator by the Deflator for the
     previous year."*

GNP deflators are normally developed both quarterly and annually.   The
regulation requires the use of the deflator listed in the column headed
"annual totals."  The quarterly data should be Ignored entirely.  The
calculation of the inflation adjustment factor should use, for the
latest published annual implicit price deflator, the deflator  for 1980
(circled in the chart).  The deflator for the previous year will then  be
EPA Interim Status Standards, 40 CFR S265.142(c).
                                     8-2
-------
   V)

   1
   en
   aa
   u
-i  >
 I  06
00  3
   w
   fe
   O
2
   w
   co

   -J

   CJ
   M

   3


   I
   o.
   >
          n
                       3
                       s
                 3 1
                      H
                 I  J  II
                        I!   JH
                               ..
                             If:
                             4
                                »«  s •;
                                it*  i ^
                         8-3
-------
 Che deflator for 1979 (also  circled in che chare).*  U«ing che example
 provided,  che inflation adjustment factor is then calculated as che
 annual  implicit GNP deflator for 1980 divided by che annual implicit GNP
 deflator for 1979,  as follows:
                                  175.13
                                  165.50
 resulting  in  an  inflation  adjustment  factor of 1.058.   This number is
 Chen multiplied  by  the last cost  estimate  to obtain  che new current cost
 estimate.  These numbers are  hypothetical  and do  not represent actual
 1981 data; they  are presented solely  to  illustrace how  co use  the Survey
 of Current Business to make the necessary  calculation.
*The GNP implicit price deflator for a given year may be subject co
revision.  If che figure cited in a previous issue is differenc from
che figure cited for the same quarter in the current Issue, che owner
or operator should use the current figure.  If che owner or operator
is requesting chls information by telephone, he should ask. for che GNP
implicit price deflator for che previous year and for che year prior
co che previous year.
                                   8-4
-------
                       9.0  SAMPLE COST ESTIMATES

9.1  INTRODUCTION

     This section provides samples of cose estimates for closure of
surface impoundments, land treatment facilities, landfills, inciner-
ators, and a multiple process facility with tanks and small surface
impoundments.  A sample post-closure cost estimate for landfills is also
provided.  The purpose of these sample cost estimates is to illustrate
the concepts Involved in a proper cost estimate and suitable formats
which might be employed.  However, neither the cost estimates in total
nor the unit costs are designed to be applicable to any specific
facility.  Neither the total costs nor the unit costs used in
these cost estimates should be considered targets when che owner or
operator prepares his own cost estimate.

     The cost estimates are prepared in the form of a series of work-
sheets.  This was considered the simplest mechanism for providing a
careful, easily checked cost estimate.  In the sample cost estimates
given, each worksheet is accompanied by an explanation of each item on
che worksheet.  These explanations are designed to help indicate how the
worksheet was developed.  Explanations of this type would not be appro-
priate in the cost estimate prepared by the owner or operator.  Instead,
the owner or operator would include, for each item in che cost estimate,
reference to the appropriate section of che closure or post-closure plan
as applicable, and any necessary documentation as to the accuracy of
specific unit costs.
                                9-1
-------
9.2                  EXAMPLE - SURFACE IMPOUNPMENTS

     Sludge from an industrial wastewater treatment plant ia pumped to
a four-acre surface Impoundment for stabilization.  It is aasumed that
at the time of closure, the contents of the Impoundment will measure a
depth of 3 feet; this material will be 90 percent water and 10 percent
solid sludges.  The total depth of the impoundment will be 5 feet
(allowing 2 feet of freeboard above the surface of the liquids).  It
is further assumed that all necessary equipment required to complete
closure will have to be rented, as none is available on-site (the
costs of equipment rental and manpower will be factored into the unit
cost estimates for various operations).  The costs of closure are
developed for two options: 1) completely disposing of wastes on-site,
and 2) removing all hazardous materials from the facility prior to
closure.
                                    9-2
-------
              SAMPLE  CLOSURE  COST  ESTIMATING WORKSHEETS:
         SURFACE  IMPOUNDMENTS IN WHICH WASTES  REMAIN AT CLOSURE

A.   Removing Free Liquid and Decontaminating  the  Facility
     In this case, it is assumed that free liquids can  be removed by
evaporation.  Alternative possibilities that might be necessary and would
result in somewhat different  cost  estimates  are  the transporting of free
liquids to an off-site TSDF and the disposing  of free liquids  into surface
waters after suitable treatment, either through a  treatment  facility already
in place or a package treatment facility.  For this example, all contam-
inated soil is disposed of in the  impoundment; therefore, no additional
costs are associated with decontaminating the  soil.
      1.  Method used:  As noted above, the method used for removing the
free liquid is evaporation.
      2.  Time required to evaporate liquid:   The  calculations  to justify
this time would be taken from the  closure plan.  It is assumed  that 70 days
would be required for evaporation  of free liquids.
      3.  Cost of routine operations per day:  This includes the cost of
inspecting the facility required once a week and any  minor maintenance
work that would need to be done as a result of these  inspections.
      4.  Cost of maintenance during evaporation (Line 2  x Line  3):   Cost
of routine operations at $10  per day times 70  days  results in a  total cost
of maintenance of $700.
      5.  Volume of remaining sludge:  The volume  of  the  remaining sludge
is given as 1936 cu. yds. based on the initial assumption that  the liquid
in the pond is 10 percent sludge.
      6.  Source of sorbent materials:  In this case, the sludge is to be
solidified and buried on-site in the surface impoundment.  As a  result,
sorbent materials are needed.  It  is assumed,  for  the example,  that sorbent
materials must be purchased off-site.
      7.  Cost of sorbent materials:  Assume that  sorbent materials (e.g.,
cement kiln dusts) are needed on a one-to-one  ratio to the sludge and must
be purchased with a delivered cost of $3.25 per cu.  yd.   The total cost
is $6,292.
      3.  Unit cost of mixing and  stabilization:   The unit cost  of mixing
sorbent material with sludge  is assumed to be  $1.60 per cu. yd.
                                   9-3
-------
       9.   Cose of mixing and stabilization:   This is calculated as 1936 cu.
  yds.  of  sludge plus 1936 cu.  yds.  of sorbent material,  for a total of 3872
  cu.  yds.   This is multiplied  times $1.60 per cu. yd.,  to give a total cost
  of $6,195.
      10. Total  coat  of  removing free liquids and sludge  stabilization
 (Line  4 +  Line  7  + Line 9):  The  sum of  the  above costs  is  $13,187.
      11. Decontaminate  equipment:   The assumed costs for decontaminating
.equipment  is $500.
      12. Decontaminate  and  flush  any pumps or liquid lines:   The assumed
 costs  for  decontaminating equipment is $2000.
      13. Disposing or treating residues  from decontamination:   Assume that
 the costs  for disposing or  treating liquids  and residues from the above
 decontamination processes is $1000.
      14. Total  costs of all  activities on Worksheet  A (Line  10 + Line 11 +
 Line  12 •(•  Line  13):  The sum of these activities is  $16,687.

 B.     Placing Final  Cap
      1.  Area to  be  capped:  The  area directly requiring a  cap is 4 acres
 (19,360 sq. yds.)   In addition, it  is assumed that an additional acre of
 land  area  (4840 sq.  yds.) surrounding the impoundment, containing dikes,
 etc.,  will require vegetation  and,  therefore,  must undergo  some prepara-
 tion.
      2.  Required impermeable  material:   It  is assumed  chat  25,813 cu.  yds.
 of  impermeable  material will be required (19,360 sq. yds. x 4 ft. depth).
      3.  Source of impermeable material:  It is assumed  that suitable
 impermeable material can be obtained through bulldozing  dikes and other
 appurtenances  on-aite.
      4.  Cost  of material:   Since the material is available on-site, there
 will  be no cost.
      5.  Required topsoil:   At the  sample facility,  i; is assumed that ~2 feet
 of  the topsoil  will  be  required in  order to  ensure adequate cover so that
 roots of the vegetation will not penetrate the cap.   It  is, therefore,
 assumed that 16,133  cu. yds. of topsoil  (24,200 sq.  yds. x 2/3 yd. depth)
 will  be required.
      6.  Source of topsoil:  In this case, it is assumed that  topsoil is
 available  on-site at a  relatively short  haul.
                                    9-4
-------
      7.  Cose of copsoil:  Since che topsoil la available on-site, there
 will be no cose.
      8.  Coat per cubic yard for hauling, compacting and grading:
It is assumed in. this case that the unit coat of those services is
$1.60.
      9.  Cost of placing impermeable portion of cap (Line 2 x Line
8):   The result jf these assumptions is that the cost of the cap
in place (with suitable grading) is $41,301.
      10.  Cost of placing topsoil (Line 5 x Line 8):  The cost of
placing the topsoil, given the above assumptions, is $25,813.
      11.  Total cost of cap (Line 4 + Line 7 + Line 9 + Line 10):
Summing the above elements, the total cost for the capping operation
is $67,114.

C.    Planting Final Vegetation
      1.  Area to be vegetated:  The area to be vegetated is assumed to
be 5 acres.
      2.  Type of vegetation to be used:  The closure plan specifies that
coarse field grass (a mixture of rye grasses and Kentucky fescue) will
*?e employed for final vegetation.
      3.  Quantity of seed per acre:  Based on discussions with facility
operators, we assume that 150 pounds of seed will be used per acre.
      4.  Cost of seed per pound:  Calls to local suppliers determined
that seed is available at $.50 per pound,
      5.  Total cost of seed (Line 1 x Line 3 x Line 4):  Given the
above assumptions, the total cost of seed will be $375.
      6.  Type of fertilizer to be used:  Given the topsoil and
cliaiatic conditions at the sample site, 10/10/10 fertilizer is
assumed to be adequate.
      7.  Quantity of fertilizer per acre:  Discussions with local
suppliers indicated that .25 tons per acre would be a reasonable
fertilizer application rate.
      8.  Cost of fertilizer per ton:  Calls to local suppliers determined
that fertilizer is available for $200 per ton.
      9.  Total cost of fertilizer (Line 1 x Line 7 x Line 8):  Given
the above assumptions, the total cost of fertilizer will be $250.
-------
      10.  Cost of soil preparation par acre:  Soil preparation,  including
both disking and fertilizing, is assumed Co be $135 per acre  (including
equipment rental costs).
      11.  Total coat of preparing soil (Line 1 x Line 10):   The  total  cost
of preparing soil (excluding materials) is assumed to be $675.
      12.  Cost per acre for seeding:  It is assumed that seeding the
sample site will cost $200 per acre (Including equipment rental costs).
      13.  Total cost of seeding (Line 1 x Line 12):  The total cost of
seeding (excluding materials) is assumed to be $1000.
      14.  Cost per acre of mulching:  The cost per acre of purchasing
and applying a hay mulch is assumed to be $140.
      15.  Total coat of mulching (Line 1 x Line 14):  The total  costs of
mulching (including the costs of hay) are assumed to be $700.
      16.  Total costs for vegetation (sum of Lines 5, 9, 11, 13, and 15):
Total costs for establishing vegetation are $2950.

D.  Ground-water Monitoring
      Assume that closure of the surface impoundment will require a total
of 90 days.  In order to determine the maximum possible ground-water
monitoring costs, the most extensive monitoring needed at closure is
assumed.  Assuming that ground-water quality analyses are required
annually and ground-water contamination analyses are required semi-
annually, the most expensive case is that in which both sets of analyses
are required during the 90-day closure period.
      1.  Number of wells monitored:  For the sample surface impoundment,
it is assumed chat six wells would need to be monitored.
      2.  Number of samples per well:  One sample is taken per well for
both analyses.
      3.  Total number of samples (Line 1 x Line 2):  Given :he above
.—; sumptions, six samples are required.
      4.  Number of hours required for collecting the sample:  It  .is
assumed that experience has shown that two hours are sufficient to gather
samples from each well.
      5.  Total number of hours required for collecting the samples
(Line 3 x Line 4):  For six samples, 12 hours would be required for
collecting the samples.
                                   9-6
-------
      6.  Number of hours required for preparing and delivering  ehe  samples
Ic is assumed for the example chac Chia can be done in  cwo hours.
      7.  Person-hour coses for collecting samples:  Aa«ua«  chat Che  fully~
loaded coses for labor required for sample collection,  preparation and
delivery averages $15 per hour.
      S.  Total sample and collection costs ((Line 5 +  Line 6) x Line 7):
This results in total sampling and collection coats of  $210.
      9.  Number of ground-water quality analyses:  One analysis oust
be made for each well sample, for a total of six.
      10.  Number of ground-water contamination analyses:  One analysis
oust be made for each well sample, for a total of six.
      11.  Unit cost of ground-water quality analysis:  It is assumed
that the cost of an analysis for the following parameters is $77 per
sample:
                         Chloride - $6.00 per sample
                         Iron - $12.00 per sample
                         Manganese - $12.00 per sample
                         Phenols - $25.00 per sample
                         Sodium - $12.00 per sample
                         Sulfate - $10.00 per sample
      12.  Unit cost of ground-water contamination analyses:  It is
assumed chat the cost of an analysis for the following parameters is
$108 per sample:
                         pH - $4.00 per sample
                         Specific Conductance - $4.00 per sample
                         Total Organic Carbon - $25.00 per sample
                         Total Organic Halogen - $75.00 per sample

      13.  Total ground-water quality analysis costs (Line 9 x Line 11):
For six samples at $77 per analysis,  this yields a total cost of $462.
      14.  Total ground-water contamination analysis costs (Line 10 x
Line 12):  For six samples at $108 per analysis, this yields a total
cost of $648.
      15.  Total analyses costs (Line 13 + Line 14):  The total analyses
coses,  therefore,  are $1,110.
                                   9-7
-------
      16.  Nuab«r of technical hours for administration:   This  includes all
time necessary to administer and report the data from  the  analysis  and is
estimated as eight hours.
      17.  Person-hour technical costs:  The fully-loaded  cost  required
for this work is assumed to be $30 per hour.
      IS.  Total technical costs for administration  (Line  16 x  Line 17):
Given che above assumptions, total costs for administering the  tests are
assumed to be $240.
      19.  Number of clerical hours:  Assume for this case that five hours
of clerical time are required to produce the necessary reports.
      20.  Person-hour clerical costs:  Assume the fully-loaded costs  for
clerical work are $8 per hour.
      21.  Total clerical costs (Line 19 x Line 20):  Given the above
assumptions, the total clerical costs are $40.
      22.  Total administrative costs (Line 18 + Line 21):  The sum of
technical and clerical costs are then $280.
      23.  Monitoring equipment maintenance:  It is assumed that an
average of $150 is required for a 90-day period to ensure  adequate
maintenance of monitoring equipment and wells.
      24.  Total monitoring costs (Sum of Lines 3,  15, 22, and 23):
Total monitoring costs, excluding administration and contingencies,  are
then $1750.

E.  Fence Maintenance
      In this case, it is assumed that the area to be enclosed is 5  acres
(24,200 sq. yd.).  Assuming that the site is square, each  side is 156
yards.  The perimeter of the site is then 624 yards.
      1.  Length of fence to be replaced:  Since this facility  is to retain
hazardous compounds, the integrity of its security fence is important.
Our estimate is that 10Z of the existing perimeter security fence will
have to be replaced due to wear and corrosion.
      2.  Unit cost of replacing fence:  The security fence is  a galvanized
6-foot high chain link fence made of #9 wire.  The installed unit cost
of replacement sections is $13.06 per linear fooc.
                                   9-8
-------
      3.  local cost of replacing fence (Line 1 x Lin* 2):
The cost of replacing the damaged fane* section* is the product of Che.
length of fencing needing replacement and the unit coet of replacing
the fence* for a total of $2429.

F.    Professional Certification
      1.  Nuober of person-hour* required for inspections:  It is assumed
that 80 hours are required for periodically inspecting all aspects of
closure of the surface impoundment.
      2.  Cost per person-hour:  In this case, assume that a registered
independent professional engineer may be hired at a cost of $75 per hour.
      3.  Total costs of independent professional engineer's time (Line
1 x Line 2):  This yields a total cost of $6000 for the independent
professional engineer.
      4.  Number of technical hours required for administrative duties:
Assume that eight hours are required from the owner's or operator's sraff
for administrative duties connected with employing an independent
professional engineer.
      5.  Person-hour costs for technical administrative duties:  Ic is
assumed that the total fully-loaded costs for the owner's or operator's staff
are $30 per hour.
      6.  Total administrative costs for technical labor (Line 4 x Line
5):  Given the above assumptions, the total administrative costs for
technical labor are $240.
      7.  Number of clerical hours required for administrative duties:
Assume  hat five hours of clerical time are required for the necessary
typing and certification.
      8.  Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties:  Fully-
loaded costs of clerical time are assumed Co be $8.
      9.  Total administrative costs for clerical labor (Line 7 x Line 3):
Given the above assumptions, total clerical costs are $40.
      10.  Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9):  Summing
technical and clerical labor, the total administrative costs are $280.
      11.  Total certification costs (Line 3 + Line 10):  The total costs
for certification, including the engineer's fees and administrative costs,
is Chen $6280.

                                   9-9
-------
G.   Total Costs Including Administration and Contingencies
     Items 1 through 6 give the coats of all activities on each of  the
preceding worksheets.  Line 7 is the total of Lines 1 through 6,
$97,210.
     8.  Administration;  For administrative tasks, including taxes,
insurance, and administration and supervision not included elsewhere,
a total of 13 percent of total costs from Line 6 is used.
     9.  Contingencies:  A general provision for contingencies of 15
percent of Line 6 has been Included.
     10.'  Total costs of closure (Line 7 + Line 8 + Line 9):  The
estimated total costs for closing the surface Impoundment for the situation
in which all wastes remain in the impoundment are estimated for the sample
case to be $126,373.
                                   9-10
-------
                           SURFACE  IMPOUNDMENTS
                    (All wastes  remain  la i£aent)
                   WORKSHEET A  - REMOVING TREE  LIQUID
                    AND DECONTAMINATING  THE  FACILITY
 1.   Method used
 2.   Time required to evaporate liquid
 3.   Coat of routine operation* per day
 4.   Coat of maintenance during evaporation
      (Line 2 x Line 3)
 5.   Volume of remaining sludge
 6.   Source of sorbent materials
 7.   Coat of sorbent material*
      (53.25/cu. yd.; 1.1 ratio)
 8.   Unit coat of nixing
 9.   Coat of mixing end stabilization
10.   Total coet of removing free liquid* and sludge
      stabilization (Line 4 + Line 7 + Line 9)
11.   Decontaminating equipment
12.   Decontaminating and flushing pumpa and liquid
      liners
13.   Disposing or treating residues from
      decontamination
14.   Total coats of all activities
      (Line 10 + Line 11 + Line 12 + Line 12)
Evaporation
70 days
$10
$700

1936 cu. yds.
Off-site
$6292

$1.60/cu. yd.
$6195
$13,187

$500
$2000

$1000

$16.687
                                   9-11
-------
                           SURFACE  IMPOUNDMENTS
                     \All vasres  remain  In
                                 ii 8 - * I.SAL
 1.   Area to be capped                                         19,360  sq.  yds.
 2.   Required Impermeable material (including                  25,813  cu.  yds.
      provision for suitable slope)
 3.   Source of material                                        On-site
 4.   Cost of material                                          0
 5.   Required topsoil                                          16,133  cu.  yds.
 6.   Source of topsoil                                         On-site
 7.   Cost of topsoil                                           0
 8.   Cost per cu. yd. of hauling, compacting, and              $1.60
      grading impermeable material
 9.   Cost of impermeable portion of cap                        $4^ 301
      (Line 2 x Line 8)
10.   Cost of placing topsoil (Line 5 x Line 8)                 $25,813
11.   Total cost of cap (Line 4 -t- Line 7 + Line 9 + Line 10)    $67.114
                                     9-12
-------
                           SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
                    (All wastes  remain in impoundment)
                 WORKSHEET C  -  PLANTING FINAL VEGETATION
 1.   Area to be vegetated
 2.   Type of vegetation to be  used
 3.   Quantity of seed per acre
 4.   Coat of seed per pound
 5.   Total coat of aeed (Line  1 x Line 3 x Line  4)
 6.   Type of fertilizer to be  uaed
 7.   Quantity of fertilizer per acre
 8.   Coat of fertilizer per ton
 9.   Total coat of fertilizer  (Line 1 x Line  7 x
      Line 8)
10.   Coat of aoil preparation  per acre (excluding
      materials)
II.   Total coat of preparing soil (Line 1 x Line 10)
12.   Cost per acre of seeding  (excluding materials)
13.   Cost of seeding (Line 1 x Line 12)
14.   Cost per acre of mulching
13.   Total mulching costs (Line 1 x Line 14)
16.   Total costs for vegetation
      (Line 5 + Line 9 + Line 11 + Line 13 + Line 15)
5 acres
Coarse grass
150 Ibs.
$.50/lb.
$375
10/10/10
.25 tons
$200/tot
$250

$135

$675
$200
$1000
$140
$700

$2950
                                   9-13
-------
                          SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
                   (All wastes remain in impoundment)
                  WORKSHEET D - GROUND-WATER MONITORING
 1.   Number of wells monicored
 2.   Number of samples per well
 3.   Total number of samples (Line 1 x Line 2)
 4.   Number of hours required for collecting the
      sample (per sample)
 5.   Total number of hours required for collecting
      the samples (Line 3 x Line 4)
 6.   Number of hours required for preparing and
      delivering samples
 7.   Person-hour costs for collecting samples
 8.   Total sampling and collection costs
      ((Line 5 + Line 6) r. Line 7)
 9.   Number of ground-water quality analyses
10.   Number of ground-water contamination analyses
11.   Unit cose of ground-water quality analysis
12.   Unit cost of ground-water contamination
      analysis
13.   Total ground-water quality analysis costs
      (Line 9 x Line 11)
14.   Total ground-water contamination analysis costs
      (Line 10 x Line 12)
15.   Total analyses costs (Line 13 + Line 14)
16.   Number of technical hours for administration
      (e.g., reporting data to EPA)
17.   Person-hour technical costs
18.   Total technical coats for administration
      (Line 16 x Line 17)
19.   Number of clerical hours
20.   Person-hour clerical costs
21.   Total clerical costs (Line 19 x Line 20)
6 veils
1 sample
6 samples
2 hrs.

12 hrs.

2 hrs.

$15
$210

6 analyses
6 analyses
$77
$108

$462

$648

$1110
8 hrs.

$30
$24C

5 hrs.
$8
$40
                                    9-14
-------
WORKSHEET P (continued)


                                                      $280
22.  Total administrative co«t3  (Line 18 +  Lin.  21)
23.  Monitoring equipment maintenance                  $15o
24.  Total monitoring costa
     (Line 8 f Line 15 + Line 22 + Line 23)
                              9-15
-------
                         SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
                  (All wastes remain la impoundment)
                    WORKSHEET E - FENCE MAINTENANCE
1.   Length of fence to be replaced                   186 feet
2.   Unit cost of replacing fence                     $13.06/linear ft.
3.   Total cost of replacing fence                    $2429
     (Line 1 x Line 2)
                                   9-16
-------
                           SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
                     (All va«te« reaeln  la
                 WORKSHEET F - PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
 1.   Number of person-hours required for inspections           80 hrs.
 2.   Cost per person-hour                                      $75
 3.   local costs of independent professional engineer          $6000
      certification  (Line 1 x Line 2)
 4.   Number of technical hours required for administrative    3 hrs.
      duties
 5.   Person-hour costs for technical administrative           $30
      duties
 6.   Total administrative costs for technical labor           $240
      (Line 4 x Line 5)
 7.   Number of clerical hours required for administrative     5 hrs.
      duties
 8.   Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties      $8
 9.   Total administrative coses for clerical labor            $40
      (Line 7 x Line 8)
10.   Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9)
11.   Total certification '•-sts (Line 3 + Line 10)
                                      9-17
-------
                          SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
                   (All wastes remain in impoundment)
  WORKSHEET G - TOTAL COSTS INCLUDING ADMINISTRATION AND CONTINGENCIES
 1.    Cose of removing free liquid and decontaminating       $ 16,687
      the surface and ancillary facilities (From Worksheet A)
 2.    Cost of final cap (From Worksheet B)                   $ 67,114
 3.    Cost of planting final vegetation (From Worksheet C)   $  2,950
 4.    Cost of ground-water monitoring (From Worksheet D)     $  1,750
 5.    Cost of fence maintenance (From Worksheet E)           $  2,429
 6.    Cost of professional certification (From Worksheet F)  $  6,280
 7.    Total of Line 1 through Line 6                         $ 97,210
 8.    Administration                                         $ 14,581.50
 9.    Contingencies                                          $ 14,581.50
10.    Total costs of closure (Line 7 + Line 8 + Line 9)      $126.373
                                    9-18
-------
               SAMPLE CLOSURE COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEETS:
      SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS FROM WHICH WASTES ARE  REMOVED AT

A.   Removing All Free Liquid* and Sludge
     It is assumed in che sample cue that free liquids will be  removed
through evaporation and that sludge will be placed in a tank truck  and
disposed off-site.  A variety of other options are available. For removing
free liquids, both transporting to an off-site TSDF and treating and
discharging to surface waters are other option* that could be used.  For
removing sludge, solidification could take place at the site, and the
solidified sludge either disposed in an off-site landfill or in  a. landfill
on-site, if there was one with interim status or a permit on-site.
     1.  Method used:  As noted above, it is assumed in this case that
evaporation is the method used to remove free liquids.
     2.  Time required to evaporate liquid:  Based on calculations  chat
vould be shown in the closure plan, it is assumed for the sample case chat
70 days vould be required to evaporate liquid.
     3.  Cost of routine operations per day:  This factor includes  the
required weekly inspection of the surface Impoundment and a minimum allot-
ment for necessary maintenance revealed by such Inspections.  This  is esti-
mated to be $10 per day.
     4.  Cost of maintenance during evaporation (Line 2 x Line 3):  The
                                               *
total cost of maintenance of the surface impoundment is equal to 70 times
$10 for a total of $700.
     5.  Estimated volume of sludge:   Given the size of the surface impound-
ment and the assumption of 10 percent slud?°., 1936 cu. yds. of sludge will
remain after evaporation of free liquids.
     6.  Cost per cu.  yd.  of removing sludge off-site:   It  is assumed
 that off-site removal of sludges  can be obtained for $40  per cu. yd.   This
cost takes into account the fact that the off-site TSDF facility will
have to mix and stabilize the sludges, and assumes that they will,  therefore,
charge a premium for this service.
     7.  Removal costs per cu.  yd.:  It is assumed for the sample facility
that removal costs are $1.60 per cu.  yd. (including equipment rental).
                                   9-19
-------
     8.  Hauling coats per cu. yd.:  It is assumed  chat  the nearest  land-
fill is 20 miles away.  Unit costs of trucking  the  sludge  from  the impound-
ment to the landfill is assumed to be $3/cu. yd., based  on discussions
with trucking industry personnel.
     9.  Total costs (per cu. yd.) of disposal  (Line 6 + Line 7 + Line  8):
Total costs of off-site disposal are $44.60 per cu. yd.
    10.  Cost of removing sludge (Line 5 x Line 9):  Given these assumptions,
Che cost of removing sludge is $86,346.
    11.  Total costs (Line 4 + Line 10):  Total costs for removing free
liquids and sludges is $87,046.

B.  Decontaminating the Facility
     1.  Surface area of contaminated soil:  It is  assumed that 19,360
sq. yds. (the entire surface area of the surface Impoundment) has contami-
nated soil.
     2.  Depth of removal:  It is assumed in the sample  case that this  soil
oust be removed Co a depth of 1 foot to ensure that no soil contaminated
vich hazardous waste remains in the surface impoundment.
     3.  Total volume co be removed (Line 1 x Line  2):   The resulting total
volume to be removed is 6453 cu. yds.
     4.  Cost of removal per cu. yd.:  The assumed  cost  of removing soil is
$1.60 per cu. yd. (including costs of renting equipment).
     5.  Total cost of removal (Line 3 x Line 4):   The resulting costs  for
the sample case of removing the contaminated soil are $10,325.
     6.  Cost of hauling to off-site landfill per cu. yd.:  The assumed
hauling costs to an off-site landfill for final disposal of the contaminated
soil are $3 per cu. yd.
     7.  Total cost of hauling (Line 3 x Line 6):   The resulting total
costs of hauling are $19,359.
     8.  Fee per cu. yd. for disposal in off-site landfill:  It is assumed
that the charge per cu. yd. for off-site disposal at the chosen landfill
has been determined to be $30 per cu. yd.
     9.  Total cost of disposal (Line 3 x Line  8):  The  total costs  for
disposal, excluding h&uling and soil removal, are  then  $193,590.
                                  9-20
-------
   10. Decontaminating equipment:  It la assumed  Chat  equipment  can  be
decontaminated for $500.
   11. Decontaminating and flushing pump and liquid lines:  Assume that
this can be done at the •ample facility for $2000.
   12.  Disposing or treating residues from decontamination:   It is
assumed that residues resulting from the above decontamination steps
must be disposed of at a cost of $1000. .
   13. Total costs (sum of Lines 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and  12):  The  total
costs for decontaminating the surface and ancillary facilities
are $226,744.

C.  Ground-water Monitoring
    Assume that closure of the surface impoundment will require a total
of 90 days.  In order to determine the maximum possible ground-water
monitoring costs, the most extensive monitoring needed during  close•  •- is
assumed.  Assuming that ground-water quality analyses  are required annually
and ground-water contamination analyses are required semi-annually,  rhe
most expensive case is that in which both sets of analyses are required
during Che 90-day closure period.
    1. Number of wells monitored:  For the sample surface impoundment:, it
is assumed that six wells would need to be monitored.
    2. Number of samples per well:  One sample is taken per well for
both analyses.
    3. Total number of samples (Line 1 x Line 2):  Given the above
assumptions, six samples are required.
    4. Number of hours required for collecting the sample:  It is assumed
that experience has shown that two hours are sufficient to gather samples
from each well.
    5. Total number of hours required for collecting the samples: (Line 3
x Line 4):  For six samples, 12 hours would be required for collecting
the samples.
    6. Number of hours required for preparing and delivering the samples:
It is assumed for the example that experience has shown that this can
be done in two hours.
                                  9-21
-------
     5.  Person-hour coses for technical administrative duties:  It is
 assumed that the total fully loaded coats for the owner's or operator's
 staff are $30 per hour.
     6.  Total administrative costs for technical labor (Line 4 x Line 5):
 Given the above assumptions, the total administrative costs for technical
 labor are $240.
     7.  Number of clerical hours required for administrative duties:  Assume
that five hours of clerical time are required for the necessary typing and
certifications.
     8.  Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties:  Fully-loaded
costs of clerical time are assumed to be $8.
     9.  Total administrative costs for clerical labor (Line 7 x Line 8):
Given the above assumptions, total clerical costs are $40.
    10.  Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9):  Summing technical
and clerical labor, the total administrative costs are $280.
    11.  Total certification costs (Line 3 + Line 10):  The total costs  for
certification, including the engineer's fees and administrative costs, is
then $4780.

E.   local Costs of Closure Including Administration and Contingencies
     Items 1 through 4 summarize the costs of the activities on each of
che previous worksheets.
     5.  Total of Lines 1 through 4:  The total costs for the activities
listed in Lines 1 through 4 are $320,350.
     6.  AcHinistration:  The costs for administration, which includes
insurance,  axes, and supervision and administration not included elsewhere,
are assumed to be 15 percent of Line 5.
     7.  Contingencies:  A provision for contingencies of 15 percent of
Line 5 has been included.
     8.  Total costs of closure  (Line 5 + Line 6 + Line 7):  The total
costs of closure including administration and contingencies  for  the  sample
surface impoundment, in ehe  case where all wastes are  removed  from  the
impoundment, are $416,455.
                                   9-22
-------
    7. P«rson-hour coats  for collecting samples:   Assume  that  the  fully-
loaded costs for labor required  for  collecting,  preparing and  delivering
the samples averages  $15  per hour.
    8. Total sample and collection costs  ((Line  5  + Liae  6) x  Line 7):
This results in total sampling and collection costs of  $210.
    9. Number of ground-water quality analyses:  One analysis  oust be
made for each well sample, for a total of six.
   10. Number of ground-water contamination analyses:   One analysis must
be made for each well sample, for a  total of six.
   11. Unit cost of ground-water quality analyses:  It  is assumed
that the cost of an analysis for the following parameters is $77 per
sample.
                       Chloride - $6.00 per sample
                       Iron - $12.00 per sample
                       Manganese - $12.00 per sample
                       Phenols - $25.00 per sample
                       Sodium - $12.00 per sample
                       Sulfate - $10.00 per sample
   12. Unit cost of ground-water contamination analysis:  It is assumed
che cost of an analysis for the following parameters is $108 per
sample.
                       pH - $4.00 per sample
                       Specific Conductance - $4.00 per sample
                       Total Organic Carbon - $25  per sample
                       Total Organic Halogen - $75.00 per sample
   13. Total ground-water quality analysis -osts (Line  9 x Line 11):
For six samples at $77 per analysis, this yields a total cost  of $462.
   14. Total ground-water contamination analysis costs  (Line 10 x
Line 12):  For six samples at $108 per analysis, this yields a total
cost of $648.
   15. Total analyses costs (Line 13 + Line 14):   The total analyses
costs, therefore,  are $1110.
   16. Number of technical hours for administration:  This includes
all time necessary to administer and report the  data from the  analysis
and is estimated as eight hours.
                                  9-23
-------
   17.  Person-hour technical costs:  The fully-loaded cost required for
this work Is assused to be $30 per hour.
   IS.  local technical costs for administration (Line 16 x Line 17):
Given che above assumptions, total costs for administering the tests are
assumed to be $240.
   19.  Number of clerical hours:  Assume for this case that five hours
of clerical tine are required to produce the necessary reports.
   20.  Person-hour clerical costs:  Assume the fully-loaded costs for
clerical work are $8 per hour.
   21.  .Total clerical costs (Line 19 x Line 20):  Given the above
assumptions, the total clerical costs are $40.
   22.  Total administrative costs (Line 18 + Line 21):  The sum of
technical and clerical costs are then $280.
   23.  Monitoring equipment maintenance:  It is assumed that an average
of $150 is required for a 90-day period to ensure adequate maintenance
of monitoring equipment and wells.
   24.  Total monitoring costs (sum of Lines 8, 15, 22, and 23):  Total
monitoring costs, excluding administration and contingencies, are then
$1750.

D.  Professional Certification
    1.  Number of person-hours required for inspections:  It is assumed
that 60 hours are required for periodic inspections of all aspects of
closing the surface impoundment.
    2.  Cost per person-hour:  In this case, assume that a registered
independent professional engineer may be hired ac a cose of $75 per
hour.
    3.  Total costs of independent professional engineer's time (Line
1 x Line 2):  This yields a total cost of $4500 for the independent
professional engineer.
    4.  Number of technical hours required for administrative duties:
Assume that eight hours are required from the owner's or operator's staff
for administrative duties connected with employing an independent
professional engineer.
                                   9-24
-------
                           SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
                    (All wastes removed from impoundment)
             WORKSHEET A - REMOVING ALL FREE LIQUIDS AND SLUDGE
 1.   Method used                                              Evaporation
 2.   Time required to evaporate liquid                        70 days
 3.   Cost of routine operations per day                       $10
 4.   Cost of maintenance during evaporation                   $700
      (Line 2 x Line 3)
 5.   Estimated volume of sludge                               1936 cu. yds
 6.   Cost of  removing sludge off-site per cu.  yd.             $40
 7.   Removal costs per cu. yd.                                $1.60
 8.   Hauling costs per cu. yd.                                $3.00
 9.   Total costs per cu. yd. of disposal                      $44.60
      (Line 6 + Line 7 + Line 8)
10.   Costs of removing sludge (Line 5 x Line 9)               $86,346
11.   Total costs (Line 4 + Line 10)                           $87.046
                                     9-25
-------
                         SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
                 (All wastes removed from impoundment)
   WORKSHEET" B - DECONTAMINATING SURFACE AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES
 1.   Surface area of contaminated soil
 2.   Depth of removal
 3.   Total volume to be removed (Line 1 x Line 2)
 4.   Cost of removal per cu. yd.
 5.   Total cost of removal (Lin* 3 x Line 4)
 6.   Cost of hauling to off-site landfill per cu. yd.
 7.   Total cost of hauling (Line 3 x Line 6)
 3.   Fee per cu. yd. for disposing in off-site landfill
 9.   Total cost of disposal (Line 3 x Line 8)
10.   Decontaminating equipment
11.   Decontaminating and flushing pump and liquid lines
12.   Disposing of residues from decontamination
13.   Total costs (sum of Lines 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and
      12)
19,360 sq. yds.
1 ft.
6453 cu. yds.
$1.60
$10,325
$3
$19,359
$30
$193,590
$500
$2000
$1000
$226.774
                                    9-26
-------
                          SURFACE  IMPOUNDMENTS
                   (All wastes removed from impoundment)
                   WORKSHEET C - GROUND-WATER MONITORING
 1.   Number of wells monitored                           6 wells
 2.   Number of samples per well                          1 sample
 3.   Total number of samples  (Line 1 x Line 2)           6 samples
 4.   Number of hours required for collecting  the         2 hrs.
      sample (per sample)
 5.   Total number of hours required to collect           12 hrs.
      the samples (Line 3 x Line 4)
 6.   Number of hours required for preparing and          2 hrs.
      delivering samples
 7.   Person-hour costs for collecting samples            $13
 8.   Total sampling and collection costs  ((Line          $210
      5 + Line 6) x Line 7)
 9.   Number of ground-water quality analyses             6 analyses
10.   Number of ground-water contamination analyses       6 analyse
11.   Unit cost of ground-water quality analysis          $77
12.   Unit cost of ground-water contamination analysis    $108
13.   Total ground-water quality analysis costs           $462
      (Line 9 x Line 11)
14.   Total ground-water contamination analysis costs     $648
      (Line 10 x Line 12)
15.   Total analyses costs (Line 13 + Line 14)            $1110
16.   Number of technical hours for administration        8 hrs.
      (e.g., Deporting data to EPA)
17.   Person-hour technical costs                         $30
18.   Total technical costs for administration            $240
      (Line 16 x Line 17)
19.   Number of clerical hours                            5 hours
20.   Person-hour clerical costs                          $8
21.   Total clerical costs (Line 19 x Line 20)            $40
22.   Total administrative costs (Line 18 -t- Line 21)      $280
                                   9-27
-------
23.   Monitoring aquipnent oaintananca
24.   local monitoring coata
      (Lina 8 + LU» 13 + Lina 22 + Llna 23)
                                 9-28
-------
                           SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
                   (All waste* removed from impoundment)
                 WORKSHEET 0 - PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
 1.   Number of person-hours required for inspections
 2.   Cost per person-hour
 3.   Total costs of independent professional engineer
      certification (Line 1 x Line 2)
 4.   Number of technical hours required for administrative
      duties
 5.   Person-hour costs for technical administrative duties
 6.   Total administrative costs for technical labor
      (Line 4 x Line 5)
 7.   Number of clerical hours required for administrative
      duties
 8.   Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties
 9.   Total administrative costs for clerical labor
      (Line 7 x Line 8)
10.   Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9)
11.   Total certification costs (Line 3 + Line 10)
60 hrs,
$75
$4500

8 hrs.

$30
$240

5 hrs.

$8
$40
                                     9-29
-------
                          SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
                  (All vaatea removed from Impoundment)
             WORKSHEET E - TOTAL COSTS OF CLOSURE INCLUDING
                     ADMINISTRATION AND CONTINGENCIES
1.   Cose of removing free liquids and sludge            $ 87,046
     (From Worksheet A)
2.   Cost of decontaminating facility (From              $226,774
     Worksheet B)
3.   Cost of ground-water monitoring (From Worksheet C)  $  1,750
4.   Cost of professional certification (From            $  4,780
     Worksheet D)
5.   Total of Line 1 through Line 4                      $320,350
6.   Administration                                      $ 48,052.50
7.   Contingencies                                       $ 48,052.50
8.   Total costs of closure (Line 5 + Line 6 + Line 7)   $416.455
                                    9-30
-------
9.3                EXAMPLE - LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES

     The following cost estimates were developed for a land treatment
facility consisting of 50 acres of active fields for the processing of
biodegradable hazardous waste.  In addition to the disposal fields, the
land treatment facility is equipped with a surface Impoundment for waste
storage and a separate surface Impoundment for collecting run-off water.
     The land treatment facility is designed to receive organic industrial
sludge of high liquids content.  This waste Is applied to the land treat-
ment fields at an application rate of 100 wet tons/acre (solids applica-
tion rate ~5 tons/acre).
     Waste received by the facility is stored in a lined surface impound-
ment.  The surface Impoundment is 5 feet deep (3 feet of waste and 2 feet
of freeboard) and has a surface area of 1.23 acres.  This corresponds to
a waste holding capacity of 160,700 cubic feet.  A pump system is avail-
able for transferring this liquid waste to the tank trucks.
     The waste from the waste storage surface impoundment is spread on
the fields using tank trucks.  During the first 90 days of the planned
closure period, all of the waste inventory will be disposed on the fields.
This disposal will require one application to the field.  Later in the
closure period, run-off water from the separate run-off water surface
impoundment will be disposed of in the same manner.  This run-off water
will have a very low concentration of hazardous wastes.  Disking of the
fields will be conducted shortly after each spreading to mix the waste
with c e soil and a second disking will be done two to three weeks after
each spreading.  Periodic disking will continue on a bimonthly basis
thereafter.
     During this prolonged closure period, the surface impoundments will
be closed as well.  Each of the two surface impoundments has its own
closure plan as shown elsewhere in this guidance document.  Therefore,
the costs of decommissioning the surface impoundments are not computed
in this example.
                                   9-31
-------
              SAMPLES JLOS'L'KH COST SSTtJUTlNi:  WOKk.MllfFW
                       LAN'S HiSATMlNT FACILITIES
A.   Disposing of Waste Inventory
     1.   Maximum inventory to be disposed:  For this case,  the waste
storage surface impoundment is filled to its maximum capacity of 5000
tons of low solids waste (or 1,198,878 gallons with a waste  density
similar to water).
     2.   Amount of run-off water to be disposed:  a similar
amount of somewhat contaminated water is expected to be disposed of
from the surface water run-off impoundment.  This mildly contaminated
water is to be disposed of in the same manner as the Inventory.
     3.   Total material to be disposed (Line 1 + Line 2):   All of these
impounded liquids (waste and run-off) are to be disposed of  on-site by
spreading on the land treatment facility fields.
     4.   Application rate:  The waste is to be applied to the field by
means of tank trucks equipped with spray bars.  The application rate of
100 tons/acre corresponds to a solids application rate of 5  tons/acre.
This application rate has been found to be acceptable based  on the
operating experience of Che facility.
     5.   Acreage utilized:  All 50 acres of the land treatment facility
are in active operation and will be available for the disposal of the
waste inventory and run-off.  This is the lowest cost option for disposing
inventory available co this facility.
     6.   Nurber of applications in the closure period:  Two applications
are planned.  One application is the liquid waste inventory  which will
be completed within the first 90 days of the closure period  as required
by the interim status regulations.  Subsequently, an application of the
captured run-off water is planned.
     7.   Unit cost of spreading:  The unit cost of spreading  the
liquids on the land treatment fields is $0.48 per ton or $48 per acre
at the application rate of 100 tons per acre.
     8.   Total cose of spreading (Line 5 x Line 6 x Line  7):  The  total
cost of spreading the waste inventory and the captured run-off water  Is
the product of the acreage treated, the number of applications and  the
unic per acre cost of spreading.
                                   9-32
-------
     9.   Number of diskings required:  A total of ten diskings will be
required throughout the closure period.  Four of the diskings will be
carried out in the first part of the closure period (immediately after
each of the two applications and several weeks after each application).
Six additional diskings will be conducted throughout the rest of the
closure period.
    10.   Unit cost of disking:  The unit cost for disking the land treat-
ment fields is the sum of tractor and implement costs and equipment
operator labor costs.  The equipment cost for disking is $.79 per acre.
The cost is for both the tractor and the tandem disk.  It includes
insurance, taxes, repairs, fuel and lubrication but it does not include
interest and depreciation.  The labor cost (fully-loaded) is $20 per
hour.  The disking is accomplished at the rate of .167 hours per acre.
In addition, extra labor time is required for related handling and care
of the equipment.  Thus, the actual labor time per acre is 1.2 tines the
implement time, yielding a labor rate of $4.01 per acre.
    11.   Total cost of disking (Line 5 x Line 9 x Line 10):  The cost of
disking the land treatment fields is the product of the acreage utilized,
the number of diskings required during closure and the unit cost of
disking.
    12.   Total costs for disposing of inventory (Line 8 + Line 11):
Ihe  total  cost  for disposing of the waste inventory and  run-off water  is
the  sum of the  total spreading costs and the total disking costs.  After
completing the  land  treatment, the hazardous waste will be completely
decomposed.

B.   Decontaminating the Land Treatment Facility
     1.   Area of facility contaminated:  It should be noted that the
1200 sq. yds. of contaminated soil does not include any of che land
treatment fields where controlled decomposition is occurring.
     2.   Depth of material removed:  The contaminated soil is removed
to a depth of 1 foot (.33 yds.).  The soil at this land  treatment facility
is relatively impermeable.  This makes a depth of 1  foot  realistic  for
the excavation  for the contaminated soil (since the mobility of the
hazardous waste is restricted).  The s^il density is 90  Ibs./cu.  f:.
                                  9-:
-------
     3.   Unic cose for removal:  The contaminated soil Is removed and
loaded into spreaders using rented earth-moving equipment.  This excava-
tion and loading operation is estimated Co cose $1.60 per cu. yd. of
contaminated soil.
     4.   Cose of removing contaminated soil (Line 1 x Line 2 x Line 3):
The cost of excavating, removing and loading Che contaminated soil is
the product of the volume of the soil handled and the unit cose of Che
operation.
     5.   Quantity disposed on-sice:  All of Che contaminated soil Is Co
be disposed on the land treatment fields (on-site).  The contamination
in the disposed soil will decompose under supervised conditions.  This
contaminated soil will be spread after che waste inventory has been dis-
posed.  The contaminated soil will be spread on Che fields at lease
several weeks after che last of the waste inventory is spread.
     6.   Quantity disposed off-site:  No contaminated soil is  to be
disposed off-site due to the much higher cose of off-sice disposal and
the availability of che land treatment fields.
     7.   Application race:  An application race of 10 tons of contami-
nated soil per acre is used.  This solids application race is acceptable
because the waste concentration in che soil is quite low.
     8.   Acreage utilized:  The contaminated soil is spread on the
entire 50 acres of the land treatment facility.
     9.   Number of applications:  Only one application is required to
dispose of che entire volume of contaminated soil.
    10.   Unit cose of spreading:  The unit cost for the spreading of
che contaminated soil is the sum of craccor and implement costs and
equipment operator labor coses.  The equipment cost for spreading che
waste  is  $.95 per acre.  This cose is for both che tractor and  che spreader,
It includes insurance, taxes, repairs, fuel and lubricacion  but it  does
not include interest and depreciation.  The labor cost  (fully-loaded) is
$20 per hour.  The spreading of the waste is accomplished at  the rate of
.211. hours per acre.  In addition, extra labor time is  required  for re-
lated handling and care of  the equipment.  Thus,  the actual  labor time
per acre  is 1.2 times the implement  time, yielding a labor rate of  $5.06
per acre.

                                  9-34
-------
     11.  local cost of spreading  (Lin« 8 x Line 9 x Line  10):   The  coat
of spreading ch« soil is tha product of cha acreage and  Che unit cost
per acre.
     12.  Number of diskings:  The spread soil is disked to mix  it with
the soil of the laad treatment fields.  This one disking is conducted
shortly after the contaminated aoil is spread on the fields.
     13.  Unit cost of disking:  The unit cost for disking is $4.08/acrt.
This cost includes equipment coats of $.79 per acre for  the tractor  and
the tandem disk.  This cost includes insurance, taxes, repairs,  fuel and
lubrication; but it does not include interest and depreciation.   Labor
cost is included at a cost of $20 per hour.
     14.  Total cost of disking  (Line 8 x Line 12 x Line 13):  The total
cost for this disking is the product of the acres disked and the unit
cost per acre.
     15.  Total cost of disposing of contaminated soil (Line 4 + Line
11 + Line 14):  The total cost of disposing of the contaminated  soil is
the sum of the cost of removing  the soil, spreading the  soil, and disking
Che spread soil.
     16.  Cost of decontaminating equipment:  At the end of the  closure
period, the equipment used on-site will be decontaminated by washing
with detergents.  The run-off cleaning water will be collected for dis-
posal.  A cost of $1000 is estimated for this task.
     17.  Disposing or treating  of residues from equipment decontamina-
tion:   The wastewater fromtha washing and other cleaning residues will
be disposed off-site at a cost of approximately $1000.   Off-site  disposal
of this residue is required because the land treatment facility  is
ceasing operation.
     18.  Total cost of decontaminating the facility  Line 15 +  Line 16 +
Line 17):  The total cost of decontaminating the land treatment  facility
is the sum of the costs of soil  disposal, equipment decontamination,
and decontamination residue disposal.
                                   9-35
-------
C.   Monitoring Activities (Ground-Water and Soil)
Ground-Water Monitoring
     It la assumed chat closure of Che land treatment facility will re-
quire a total of 19 months.  In order to determine the "«*ylm?Tn possible
ground-water monitoring coats, the most extensive monitoring needed
during closure is assumed.  Assuming that ground-water quality analyses
are required annually and ground-water contamination analyses are required
semi-annually, the most expensive case is that in which two ground-water
quality analyses and three ground-water contamination analyses are required
during the 15-month closure period.
     1.   Number of wells monitored:  Eight sampling wells are operated
to monitor the composition of the ground-water at the land treatment
site.  Seven of the wells are downgradlent from the land treatment fields
and one well is upgradient.
     2.   Number of samples taken:  Three "cycles" of ground-water samp-
ling will be conducted during the 15-month long closure period.  Two
ground-water quality analyses and three ground-water contamination
analyses are to be carried out.  One sample may be used for both the
ground-water quality and the ground-water contamination analysis.  There-
fore, during the closure period, a total of three samples are taken
from each well.
     3.   Total number of samples (Line 1 x Line 2):  The total number
of ground-water samples taken during the closure period is the product
of the number of monitoring wells and the number of samples taken from
each veil.
     4.   Number of hours for collecting the sample (per sample):  Taking
ground-water samples is a rather time-consuming practice.  The well is
pumped dry and allowed to refill.  Then a sample is taken.  The land
treatment facility experience is that approximately two hours are re-
quired for each ground-water sample (including some time for moving about
the fields).
     5.   Total number of hours for collecting the samples  (Line 3 x
Line 4):  During the extent of the closure period, 24 samples will have
to be collected, requiring 48 hours of labor.
                                  9-36
-------
     6.   Number of hours for preparing And delivering  ch* sampl«:   The
ground-water samples must also be prepared and delivered to  the labora-
tory for analysis.  This work requires about three hours for a set of
eight samples (one from each monitoring well).
     7.   Total number of hours for preparing and delivering the sample
(Line 2 x Line 6):  The total number of ground-water sample preparation
and delivery hours in the closure period is the product of the number
of aets of samples (cycles) and the unit operation requirement of three
hours labor.
     8.   Person-hour costs for collecting and handling samples:  The
person^hour fully-loaded labor rate for taking and handling the ground-
water sample is $15 per hour.  This is the same labor rate as during
the operating period of the land treatment facility.
     9.   Total ground-water sampling and collection costs ((Line 5 +
Line 7) x Line 8):  The total cost of ground-water sampling is computed
by multiplying the hours required by the labor rate of $15 per ..cur.
    10.   Number of ground-water quality analyses:  Sixteen ground-water
quality analyses are required during the closure period.  Two analyses
are required for each well.
    11.   Number of ground-water contamination analyses:  Twenty-four
ground-water contamination analyses are required during the closure
period.  Three analyses are required for each well.
    12.   Unit cost of ground-water quality analysis.  It is assumed
that the cost of an analysis for the following parameters is $77 per
analysis.
          Chloride                 $ 6/sample
          Iron                     $12/sample
          Manganese                $12/sample
          Phenols                  $25/sample
          Sodium                   $12/sample
          Sulfate                  $10/sample
    13.   Unit cost of ground-water contamination  analysis:  It is
assumed that the cose of an analysis for the following parameters is
$108 per analysis:
                                   9-37
-------
          pH                       $ 4/sample
          Specific Conductance     $ 4/saaple
          Totml Organic Carbon     $25/sampl«
          Total Organic Halogen    $75/sample
     14-16.  Total ground-water chemical analyses costs:  The unit costs
per analysis are multiplied by the number of analyses to yield the costs
for each type of analysis.  These two costs are added together to compute
the total analyses costs.

Soil Monitoring
     17.  Number of soil core samples:  Soil core samples are taken
throughout the closure period.  Four samples are taken in each quarter
of the first year.  In the fifth quarter of the closure period, 50
core samples are taken (one from each acre of the land treatment facility).
This last set of 50 samples confirms that the waste has decomposed during
the closure period.  Thus, a total of 66 soil core samples are taken in
the closure period (15 months in duration).  Most of these samples are
taken bej.ow the zone of waste incorporation to monitor any waste movement
towards the water table.   A few of the samples are taken from the zone
of Incorporation as well to monitor the decomposition of the waste material.
     18.  Labor hours required for each core sample:  The taking of a
soil core sample is a relatively simple process.  Most of the time allo-
cated to taking each sample is movement between the sample-caking locations
     19.  Labor unit cost for collecting core samples:  The unit cost of
the labor for soil core sampling is $15 per hour fully-loaded.
     20.  Total cost of collecting the soil samples (Line 17 x Line 18 x
Line 19):  The total cost for taking soil core samples is che product of
che number of samples taken, che hours required for each sample, and the
labor rate.
     21.  Unit soil core sample analysis cost:  The chemical analysis of
each soil sample Involves the measurement of 10 parameters (organic matter,
total dissolved solids, total nitrogen, cadmium, arsenic, lead, mercury,
chromium, zinc, and copper).  Preparing each sample costs $10 and each
parameter costs $5.  Thus, the net cost per soil sample is $60.
                                  9-38
-------
     22. Total soil core sample chemical analysis cost  (Line  17 x Line  21):
The cocal chemical analysis cost for the soil core samples is  che produce
of che number of samples taken and che unit analysis cost per  sample.

Lvsimecer Sampling of Soil Moisture
     23. Number of lysimeter samples:  Soil moisture samples are taken  by
means of a lysimeter.  This extracted water is then analyzed for contami-
nation in the same way that the ground-water samples are chemically analyzed,
Four soil moisture samples are taken during each quarter of the closure
period.  Since there are 5 quarters, a total of 20 samples are taken.
     24. Labor hours required for each lysimeter collection of soil
moisture:  One hour of labor is required for collecting and handling each
sample.  This includes time spent moving about the field.
     25. Labor unit cost for collecting samples:  The unit labor cost for
collecting these samples is $15 per hour fully-loaded.
     26. Total sampling cost for lysimeter collection of soil moisture
(Line 23 x Line 24 x Line 25):  The total cost for collecting soil moisture
samples is the product of the number of samples taken,  the labor required
for each sample, and the labor rate.
     27. Unit cost for moisture sample analysis:  The unit cost for each
chemical analysis is $150.  This is based on the land treatment facility's
experience with ground-water contamination analysis and soil moisture
chemical analysis.
     28. Total cost for moisture sample chemical analysis (Line 23 x
Line 27):  The total cost for the soil moisture chemical analysis is
che product of the number of samples taken and the cost of chemically
analyzing each sample.

Administrative Costs
     29. Number of technical hours for administration:  The land treat-
ment facility also requires the allocation of some technical supervisory
labor to administer the closure monitoring program.  Approximately two
days of such supervisory labor will be required in small blocks of time
expended throughout the closure period.
                                  9-39
-------
     30. Par* on-ho or technical coatst  Th« fully-loaded labor coat t^r
these technically qualified employees is $30 per hour.
     31. Total technical costs for administration (Line 29 x Line 30):
The cost of this technical administration is the product of the required
technical administration hours and the technical labor rate.
     32. Number of clerical hours:  Clerical support is required for the
monitoring administration activity.  Two days of clerical labor will be
needed in small blocks of time expended throughout the closure period.
     33. Person-hour clerical cost:  The fully-loaded labor rate for
clerical .labor at the land treatment facility is $8 per hour.
     34. Total clerical costs (Line 32 x Line 33):  The total clerical
costs for administering the monitoring activity is the product of :h
-------
      40.   Total administrative coats (Lin* 35):   The total administrative
 costs,  both clerical and technical,  for the monitoring program are repeated
 here.
      41.   Total monitoring costs (Line 37 + Line 38 + Line 39 + Line 40):
 The total  cost  for the  entire closure period monitoring program is the
 sum of  the costs of ground-water monitoring, soil core testing, lysimeter
 testing, and  the administrative costs.   All of these coats are reliably
 known from the  operating experience  of the facility.

 D.    Fence Maintenance
      For a land treatment facility consisting of SO acres  of active fields,
 assuming that the site  is square, each  side is 1475.3 feet.   The perimeter
 of  the  site is  then 5903.2 feet.
      1.    Length of fence to  be replaced:   Since the land  treatment facil-
ity has  a prolonged closure period and possible post-closure  activities,
 it  is necessary to maintain the security fence along the field perimeters
 in  good condition.   We  have estimated that  10Z of  the fencing will be
 corroded and damaged to the point of  requiring replacement.
      2.    Unit  cost of  replacing fence:  The security fence  is a galvanized
 metal 6-foot high chain link  fence made  of  #9  wire.   The installed unit
 cost  of replacement sections  is  $13.06 per  linear  foot.
      3.    Total cost of replacing fence  (Line  1  x  Line  2):   The  cost of
 replacing  the damaged fence sections  is  the product  of  the length of the
 fence needing replacement  and  the unit coat  of replacement,  for  a total
 of  $77,5.

 E.    Repair of  Drainage Channels
      1.    Length  of  drainage channels:  The  land treatment facility's
drainage channels are an important part of  the containment system.  They
channel run-off water to a surface impoundment.  Our  estimate  is  chat
500 feet of these channels will have  to be  replaced  during the closure
period.
     2.    Channel volume per unit length:  The channels have  a square
cross sectional area measuring 3 feet by 3 feet.  This  results in a
volume of 0.33 cu. yds.  per linear foot of channel length.
                                   9-41
-------
     3.   Channel excavation unit cost:  The unit cost of excavating the
channels with a backhoe is $.67 per cu. yd.  This work would be performed"
by a contractor and is based on contractor estimates.
     4.   Total channel excavation cost (Lin* 1 x Line 2 x Line 3):  This
total cost is the product of the length of the drainage channels required,
the volume per unit length, and the unit excavation cost.
     5.   Unit cost of hand grading:  The inner surface of the channels
must be shaped and prepared for seeding.  This work is performed by hand
at a-unit cost of $.02 per sq. ft.  This work will be performed by a
contractor and is based on contractor estimates.
     6.   Channel surface area:  The inside surface of the new channel
is approximately 4500 sq. ft. in area.  All of this area must be shaped
and prepared.
     7.   Total cost of hand grading (Line 5 x Line 6):  The total cost
of this hand grading is the product of the unit cost and the surface
area of the channels.
     8.   Total replanting cost:  The total cost of seeding, fertilizing
and mulching the channel surface is estimated at $50 by a contractor.
     9.   Total channel repair cost (Line 4 + Line 7 + Line 8):  The
total cost of channel repair is the sum of the excavation cost, hand grad-
ing cost and replanting cost.

F.   Management Inspection of Land Treatment Facility Operations
     1.  Number of technical management parson-hours required for each
inspection '  The prolonged closure period for the land treatment facility
and  the recurring operations of spreading and disking necessitate an
inspection program conducted by facility management throughout the closure
period.  Each one of these inspections requires 8 hours of technical manage-
ment time.
     2.  Inspection frequency:  The inspections are conducted once per
month throughout the closure period.  On each inspection, the manager
checks the progress of the facility operations: spreading, disking,
sampling, decontamination, etc.
     3.  Duration of closure period:  To allow the hazardous waste to
decompose, the closure period must be 15 months in duration.

                                  9-42
-------
      4.    local  technical management  person-hours required for inspections
 (Line 1 x  Line 2  x  Line  3):   The  technical  hours  required for Che actual
 inspections are  the product  of  the  number of  hours for each inspection
 and the total number of  inspections required.
     5.  Person-hour coses for  technical management duties:  The person-
 hour cost  for this  technical supervisory labor  is $30 per hour (fully-
 loaded labor rate).
     6.  Total technical management costs for inspections (Line  4 x Line
 5):  The technical  cost  for  the inspections conducted throughout the
 closure period is the product of  the  total  inspection technical  hours
 and the technical labor  rate.
     7.  Additional technical management labor  required:   A small amount
 of additional technical  time will be  required for managerial  tasks
 associated with the inspections (such as writing  reports).  Approximately
 8 percent  to 10 percent  of the inspection tine  is  required for this
 additional work.
     8.  Total cost  of additional technical management  labor  (Line  5 x
 Line 7):   The cost  of this additional technical labor is  the  product of
 the additional hours  required and the technical labor rate.
     9.  Total cost  of technical management labor  (Line 6  + Line 8):
 The total  cost of all the  technical labor required  is  the  sum of the
 labor directly spent  on  inspections and the labor  related  to  inspections.
    10.  Number of  clerical  hours required:  Clerical  labor is needed  to
 support the periodic  inspections of the land  treatment  facility.  Only
 a modest amount of  clerical  labor is required.
    11.  Person-hour  costs for clerical labor:  The  labor  race for
 clerical labor at this facility is  $8 per hour.   (This  is  a fully-loaded
 labor race.)
    12.  Total cost for  clerical  labor  (Line  10 x Line 11):   The total
 cost for the needed clerical labor  is the product  of  the  clerical hours
 and the clerical labor rate.
    13.  Total inspection  cost (Line 9 + Line 12):   The total cost  of  the
 inspection program  is the  sum of  the technical  labor  costs  and the  cleri-
cal labor costs.
                                   9-43
-------
G.   Professional Certification
     1.  Number of person-hours required for inspections:  Approximately
one week of professional time will be required to certify the proper
closure of the land treatment facility.  Most of this professional work
will be an independent professional engineer as specified by the interim
status regulations.  The professional engineer will be assisted by a soil
specialist who will evaluate the soil samples taken during the closure
period.
     2.  Cost per person-hour:  The contracted cost of these professionals
is $75 per hour based on their current quotes for these services.
     3.  Total costs of professional engineer's time (Line 1 x Line 2):
The total cost for these contracted professional services is the product
of the number of hours required and the quoted hourly rate.
     4.  Number of technical hours required for administrative duties:
The land treatment facility technical staff will need to devote 8 hours
of time to administering this certification.
     5.  Person-hour costs for technical administrative duties:  The
fully-loaded labor rate for the technical staff is $30/hour.
     6.  Total administrative costs for technical labor  (Line 4 x Line 5):
The technical administrative costs for the land treatment facility is the
product of the number of technical hours required and the technical labor
race.
     7.  Number of clerical hours required for administrative duties:
Eight hours of clerical work are required to support the administration
of che certification.
     8.  Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties:  The
fully-loaded labor rate for clerical workers at this facility is $8/hour.
     9.  Total administrative costs for clerical labor (Line 7 x Line 8):
The cotal clerical labor costs are the product of the labor rate and
the number of hours required.
    10.  Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9):   The total adminis-
trative costs are  the sum of the technical labor cost and  the clerical
labor cost.
    11.  Total certification costs (Line 3 + Line 10):   The total cost
for certification  is the sum of the costs of the professional engineer
-------
•ad the administrative coats.

 H.  Total Coat» Plus Administration and Contingencies
     Items 1 through 7 give the costs of each major  closure  function on
each of the preceding worksheets.  Line 8 is the  total  of Lines  1  through
7, $39,389.
     7.  Administration:  All additional administration costs  are  com-
puted by multiplying the subtotal (Line 8) by 15  percent.
     8.  Contingencies:  Allowance for contingencies is computed by
multiplying the subtotal (Line 8) by 15 percent.
     9.  Total cos ts of closure (Line 8 + Line 9  + Line 10):   A grand
total for land treatment facility closure costs is computed by adding
together the coets from the worksheets and the allowances for  additional
administration and other contingencies.
                                   9-45
-------
                        LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES
                WORKSHEET A - DISPOSING OF WASTE INVENTORY

 Macbod of Disposal:  Spreading on the Land Treatment Fields
 1.   Maximum inventory to be disposed

 2.   Rim-off water to be disposed
 3.   Total material to be disposed (Line 1 + Line 2)
 4.   Application rate (vet weight)
 5.   Acreage utilized
 6.   Number of applications in the closure period
 7.   Unit cost of spreading
 8.   Total cost of spreading (Line 5 x Line 6 x Line 7)
 9.   Number of disIcings required during the
      closure period (excluding one disking for
      decontamination)
10.   Unit cost of disking (equipment cost and labor)
11.   Total cost of disking (Line 5 x Line 9 x Line 10)
12.   Total cost for disposing of inventory and
      run-off water (Line 8 + Line 11)
5000 tons of
liquid waste
5000 tons
10,000 tons
100 tons/acre
50 acres
2
$48/acre
$4800
10
$4.80/anre
$2400
$7200
                                    9-46
-------
                       LAND TREATMENT  FACILITIES
                WORKSHEET B -  DECONTAMINATING THE FACILITY
 1.   Area of  facility contaminated
 2.   Depth of material removed
 3.   Unit cost for removal  (including machinery  rental)
 4.   Cost of  removing the contaminated soil
      (Line 1  x Line 2 x Line 3)
 5.   Quantity of contaminated soil disposed on-cice by
      landspreadlng
 6.   Quantity of contaminated soil disposed off-site
 7.   Application rate
 8.   Acreage utilized
 9.   Number of applications
10.   Unit cost of spreading (equipment cost and  labor)
11.   Total cost for spreading the contaminated soil
      on the land treatment fields (Line 8 x Line 9
      x Line 10)
12.   Number of diskings carried out to assist
      in disposing of contaminated soil
13.   Unit cost of disking (equipment cost and labor)
14.   Total cost for disking the spread soil into the
      land treatment soil (Line 8 x Line 12 x Line 13)
15.   Total cost of disposing of the contaminated soil
      (Line 4 + Line 11 + Line 14)
16.   Cost of decontaminating equipment
17.   Disposing of residues from equipment decon-
      tamination
18.   Total cost of decontaminating the facility
      (Line 15 + Line 16 + Line 17)
 1200 sq. yds.
 .33 yds.  (1  ft.)
 $1.60/cu. yd.
 $633.60

 396 cu. yds.
 (481 tons)
 0
 10 tons/acre
 50 acres
 1
 $6/acre
 $300
$4.80/acre
$240

$1173.60

$1000
$1000

$3173.60
                                    9-47
-------
                        LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES
                   WORKSHEET C - MONITORING ACTIVITIES
                   (GROOHD-WATER AND SOIL MONITORING)
 Ground-Water Monitoring
 1.   Number of veils monitored
 2.   Number of samples taken at each well (1 per cycle)
 3.   Total number of samples (Line 1 z Lin* 2)
 4.   Number of hours for collecting the sample (per sample)
 5.   Total number of hours for collecting the samples
      (Line 3 x Line 4)
 6.   Number of hours for preparing and delivering sample
      (per each sampling cycle of eight wells)
 7.   Total number of hours for preparing and delivering
      sample (Line 2 x Line 6)
 8.   Person-hour costs for collecting and handling samples
 9.   Total ground-water sampling and collection costs
      ((Line 5 + Line 7) x Line 8)
10.   Number of ground-water quality analyses
11.   Number of ground-water contamination analyses
12.   Unit cost of ground-water quality analysis
13.   Unit cost of ground-water contamination analysis
14.   Total ground-vater quality analysis costs
      (Line 10 x Line 12)
13.   Total ground-water contamination analysis costs
      (Line 11 x Line 13)
16.   Total ground-water chemical analyses costs
      (Line 14 + Line 15)
 Soil Monitoring
      Soil Core Sampling;
17.   Number of soil core samples taken during the
      closure period
18.   Labor hours required for each core sample
      (includes movement between sampling locations)
19.   Labor unit cost for collecting core sample
8 wells
3 samples
24 samples
2 hours
48 hours

3 hours

9 hours

$15/hour
$855

16 analyses
24 analyses
$77
$108
$1232

$2592

$3824
66 samples

.5 hours

$15/hour
                                   9-48
-------
WORKSHEET C (continued)

20.  Total cost"of collecting soil sample* for cha entire      $495
     closure period  (Line 17 x Line 18 x Line 19)
21.  Unit soil core  sample analysis cost (10 parameters)       $60
22.  Total soil core sample chemical analysis cost             $3960
     (Line 17 x Line 21)
     Lysimeter Sampling of Soil Moisture:
23.  Number of lysimeter samples taken during the              20
     closure period
24.  Labor hours required for each lysimeter collection        1 hour
     of soil moisture
25.  Labor unit cost for collecting samples                    $15/hour
26.  Total sampling  cost for lysimeter collection              $300
     of soil moisture  (Line 23 x Line 24 x Line 25)
27.  Unit cost for moisture sample analysis                    $150
28.  Total cost for moisture sample chemical analysis          $3000
     (Line 23 x Line 27)
Administrative Costs
29.  (lumber of technical hours for administration              16  hours
30.  Person-hour technical costs                               $30/hour
31.  Total technical costs for administration                  $480
     (Line 29 x Line 30)
32.  Number of clerical hours                                  16  hours
33.  Person-hour clerical cost                                 $8
34.  Total clerical  costs (Line 32 x Line 33)                  $128
35.  Total administrative costs (Line 31 + Line 34)            $608
Maintenance Costs
36.  Monitoring well maintenance (includes maintenance         $750
     of associated equipment)
Cost Sundries for Monitoring
37.  Total cost of ground-water monitoring for the             $5429
     closure period  (Line 9 + Line 16 + Line 36)
38.  Total cost of soil core sample monitoring for             $4455
     the closure period (Line 20 + Line 22)
                                   9-49
-------
 WORKSHEET C (continued)
39.  Total cote for soil moisture  (lysineter)  monitoring      $3300
     for the closure period  (Line  26 + Line 28)
40.  Total administrative costs (Line 35)
41.  Total monitoring costs for the entire closure
     period (Line 37 + Line 38 + Line 39 + Line 40)
                                .9-5C
-------
                       LAND TUAXMBIT FACILITIES
                    woucsmT o - mfd N&XHTIIUNCZ

1.   Langth of fanca to ba replaced                        590 faat
2.   Unit coat of replacing f«nc«                         $13.06/llnear ft,
3.   Total cogt of raplaclng fanca (Lin* 1 x Llna 2)       $7705
                                  9-51
-------
                        LAND TREATMENT FACILITY
                WORKSHEET E - REPAIR OF DRAINAGE CHANNELS
1.   Length of drainage channels requiring excavation
2.   Channel volume per unit length

3.   Channel excavation unit cost
4.   Total channel excavation cost
     (Line 1 x Line 2 x Line 3)
5.   Unit cost for hand grading
6.   Channel surface area to be prepared by hand
7.   Total cost of hand grading (Line 5 x Line 6)
8.   Total replanting cost (including seed,
     fertilizer and mulch)
9.   Total channel repair cost
     (Line 4 + Line 7 + Line 8)
500 feet
.33 cu. yds.
per linear ft.
$.67/cu. yd.
$11.05

$.02/sq. ft.
4500 sq. ft.
$90
$50

$250.55
                                   9-52
-------
                         LAND TREATMENT  FACILITIES
                 WORKSHEET F - MANAGEMENT  INSPECTION OF LAND
                        TREATMENT FACILITY OPERATIONS
 1.   Number of technical management per»on-hour»
      required for each inspection of  the  land  treatment
      facility
 2.   Inspection frequency
 3.   Duration of closure period
 4.   Total technical management parson-hours required
      for inspections during the closure period
      (Line 1 x Line 2 x Line 3)
 5.   Person-hour costs for technical management duties
 6.   Total technical management costs for land treatment
      facility inspections (Line 4 x Line 5)
 7.   Additional technical management labor required
      related to the inspection program
 8.   Total cost of the additional technical management
      labor (Line 5 x Line 7)
 9.   Total cost of technical management labor
      (Line 6 + Line 8)
10.   Number of clerical hours required
11.   Person-hour costs for clerical labor
12.   Total cost for clerical labor (Line 10 x Line 11)
13.   Total inspection cost (Line 9 + Line 12)
8 hours
1 per month
13 months
120 hours
$30
$3600

10 hours

$300

$3900
                                  9-53
-------
                        LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES
                  WORKSHEET G - PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
 1.   Number of person-hours required for inspecting           40 hours
      the land treatment facility and its operating records
 2.   Cost per person-hour                                     $75
 3.   Total costs of professional engineer's time              $3000
      (Line 1 x Line 2)
 4.   Number of technical hours required for administrative    8 hours
      duties
 5.   Person-hour costs for technical administrative duties    $30
 6.   Total administrative costs for technical labor           $240
      (Line 4 x Line 5)
 7.   Number of clerical hours required for administrative     8 hours
      duties
 8.   Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties     $8/hour
 9.   Total administrative costs for clerical labor            $64
      (Line 7 x Line 8)
10.   Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9)             $304
11.   Total certification cost (Line 3 + Line 10)              $3304
                                    9-54
-------
                         LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES
               WORKSHEET H - TOTAL COSTS PLUS ADMINISTRATION
                              AND CONTINGENCIES
 1.   Cose of disposing of inventory (From Worksheet A)       $ 7,200
 2.   Cost of decontaminating the facility (From Worksheet B) $ 3,173
 3.   Cost of monitoring (From Worksheet C)                   $13,792
 4.   Cost of fence maintenance (From Worksheet D)            $ 7,705
 5..   Cost of repairing drainage channels (From Worksheet E)  $   251
 6.   Cost of management inspections (From Worksheet F)       $ 3,964
 7.   Cost of professional certification of closure           $ 3,304
      (From Worksheet G)
 8.   Total of Line 1 through Line 7                          $39,389
 9.   Administration                                          $ 5,908
10.   Contingencies                                           $ 5,908
11.   Total costs of closure (Line 8 + Line 9 + Line 10)      $51.205
                                   9-55
-------
9.4                        EXAMPLE - LANDFILLS

     For illustrative purposes, a sample cost estimate has been developed
for A landfill vlch che following characteristics:  the landfill has been
in operation for 10 years and covers approximately 75 acres.  Sixty-five
acres have been partially closed (i.e., they have been filled with wast*,
an adequate cap and vegetative cover established and maintained).  Ten
acres of the Landfill are currently in active use and have not received
final cap or cover but are largely filled.  Of the 65 acres which have
received final cap and cover, it is assumed that approximately 5 acres
are in need of revegetation due to failure of original vegetation over
the life of the facility.  The landfill accepts hazardous solid waste re-
ceived in trucks.  Waste is received for this site in 55-gallon drums.
                                   9-56
-------
A.   Disposing of Inventory
     1.  Volume of waste when processed for landfill disposal:   It  is
estimated from the closure plan that Che most expensive closure  conditions
likely to occur over the life of facility would result In  900  55-gallon  drums
of waste to be disposed and no trench yet constructed for  their  disposal.
This situation would occur when existing trenches had been filled but not
yet capped, and waste continued to be accepted for further disposal.
Th±3 estimate should be based on the volume of the waste after conducting
the necessary processing prior to disposal.  For example, if sludge is
taken in, the proper volume to be used is that of solidified sludge, not
the volume of the sludge as it enters the facility.  In this case, since
waste is accepted in drums only, there is no need for further calculation.
     2.  Estimated volume of contaminated soil residues disposed
of through on-site landfill operations:  This volume is determined from
Worksheet B.
     3.  Total volume of wastes to landfills on-site (Line 1 + Line 2):
In this case, the total volume to be landfilled on-site is the volume of
inventory (300 cu. yds.) plus the estimate volume of residues and con-
taminated material to be disposed of on-site from Worksheet B (600 cu.
vds.).  It is possible in some cases that not all inventory could be
disposed of on-site.  For example, if two wastes normally are neutralized
by combination, and there is inadequate volume of one of the wastes to
complete neutralizing the second waste at the time closure commences,
some portion of the second waste would have to be disposed of off-sice.
     4.  Estimated cost of constructing a trench:   The cost of construct-
ing a trench adequate for 1400 cu. yds.  of material of the type  indicated,
including adequate liner, is estimated as $18,000, based upon past trench
construction experience at the facility.
     5.  Estimated cost of placing wastes in trench (excluding final
cover and vegetation) :  Based on the annual volume and operating costs
of the facility (excluding profits and depreciation), it is estimated
chat the costs of placing this waste will be $6000.
                                  9-57
-------
     6.  local coat of disposing of inventory  (Line A + Line 5):  The
cocal cost of disposing of inventory are then  the sum of Lines 4 and 5.

B.   Deconearningtln$ the Facility
     1.  Area of  facility contaminated:   It is assumed  in  the  example  that
at che end of facility life, approximately 1800 sq. yds. of the surface of
the facility will show sufficient contamination to justify its disposal
as hazardous was te.
     2.  Depth of material removed:  It is assumed that removal to 1 foot
will be necessary.
     3.  Cost of removal:  The assumed cost of removing this material
is $1.40 per cu. yd. for a total cost of $840.  This does not include
the costs of disposing of the material.
     4.  Quantity disposed on-site:  For the sample problem, it is
assumed that all 600 cu. yds. will be disposed on-site.
     5.  Quantity disposed at an off-site TSDF:  None of the material
removed will be disposed off-site.
     6.  Cost to decontaminate equipment:  It is assumed that $1000 will be
sufficient for decontaminating equipment.
     7.  Volume of waste resulting from decontaminating equipment:   It
is estimated chat 25 cu. yds. of material will need to be disposed of
as a result of decontaminating equipment.
     8.  Unit cost of off-site disposal:  Contact with other area
hazardous waste dlspcsal facilities indicates  that land disposal for
these wastes would currently cost $40/cu. yd.
     9.  Unit cost of hauling:  Hauling this small quantity of residue
20 miles Co nearest landfill will cost $10 per cu. yd. according Co
local trucking concerns.
    10.  Total cost of off-site disposal (Line 7 x Line 8):  Total costs
of disposing residue are then $1000.
    11.  Total cost of hauling (Line 7 x Line  9):  Total cost of hauling
is then the unit cost of hauling times the total volume of residues to
be disposed.
    12.  Total cose of decontaminating the facility (Line 3 + Line 6 + Line
10 + Line 11):  Tocai costs are then $2850.

                                   9-58
-------
      Aa  noced in ctic summary of this example, ic has beeu assumed that.
 the equipment for all necessary earth work Is available on-site.  As a
 result,  costs for placing a final cap over the fill area include only
 labor, operating costs,  and materials, not costs associated with rent-
 ing equipment or capital recovery factors  for purchased equipment.
      1.   Area to be  capped:  The example assumed that 10 acres, or 48,400
 sq.  yds., will remain open and  require both a clay cap and topsoil.
      2.   Type of material used  for impermeable layer:  Clay is the
 impermeable material specified  in the closure plan.
      3.   Depth of impermeable layer:   It is assumed that 2 ft. of clay
 will provide  an  adequate cap.
      4.   Volume  of material required  (Line 1 x Line 3):  The amount  of
 clay required is 32,428  yds.  (48,400  x .67 yds.).
      5.   Source  of impermeable  material:  It is assumed that clay is
 available on-site as a result of previous  excavations,  at a haul distance
 of  800 yds. or less.
      6.   Cost of impermeable material:   Because the material is available
 on-site,  the  cost is zero.
      7.  Depth of topsoil required:   It is assumed that 2 ft.  of topsoil
 will be adequate to  ensure that  the roots  from vegetation of the fill
 area do not penetrate the clay  cap.
      8.  Volume  of topaoil required  (Line  1 x Line 7):   The amount of
 topsoil required is  32,428  cu.  yds.
      9.  Source  of topsoil:   Again, it  is  assumed  that  adequate topsoil
 Is  available  on-slte from previous excavations.
     10.  Cost  of topsoil:   The  cost in  this case is zero, since the
 material is available on-site.  (If topsoil were not available  on-site,
 a cost estimate -would have  to be developed through discussions with  local
 suppliers, etc.)
     11.  Cost  per cu.  yd.  for hauling,  spreading and compacting clay and
 topsoil:  In  the  example,  it  is  assumed that  this  can be done  for $1.20
per  cu. yd.
     12.  Cost  of  placing  impermeable  portion  of cap (Line 4 x  Line 11):
Based on these assumptions,  the  costs of placing the impermeable portion
                                   9-59
-------
of che cap would be $38,914.
     13. Cose of placing topsoil (Line 8 x Line 11):  Based on the assump-
tions, che costs of placing topaoil are also $38,914.
     14. local coats of final cap (sum of Line* 6, 10, 12, and 13):  The
total costs of the final capping operation will be $77,828.  This does
not include administrative expenses or contingency planning, both of
which are calculated on Worksheet G.

D.   Planting Final Vegetation
     As in the above worksheets, it is assumed that all necessary equip-
ment is available on-site, but that material and labor costs will be
accrued during the closure exercise.
     1.  Area not yet vegetated:  The area remaining open at the time
of closing is 10 acres.
     2.  Area already closed but requiring replanting:  It is assumed
in this case that 5 acres of the closed portion of the landfill require
replanting, due to the failure of original .vegetation efforts.
     3.  Total area to be planted (Line 1 + Line 2):  The sample
case provides for 15 acres to be planted during closure.
     4.  Type of vegetation to be used:  In this example, it is assumed
that coarse field grass (a mixture of rye grass and Kentucky fescue)
will be employed for final vegetation.
     5.  Quantity of seed used per acre:  According to industry suppliers,
150 Ibs. of seed should be applied per acre.
     6.  Celt of seed per pound:  Calls to local suppliers determined that
seed is available at $.50/lb.
     7.  Total cost of seed (Line 3 x Line 5 x Line 6):  Given the above
assumptions, the total cost of seed will be $1125.
     8.  Type of fertilizer to be used:  Given the topsoil and climatic
conditions, 10/10/10 fertilizer is assumed to be adequate.
     9.  Quantity of fertilizer per acre:  .25 tons is assumed to be
reasonable, given the quality of topsoil and the climatic conditions.
    10.  Cost of fertilizer per ton:  According to local suppliers,
fertilizer is available for $200/ton.
                                   9-60
-------
     11.  Total cost of  fertilizer  (Line 3 x Line 9 x Line  10):  Given
 the above assumptions, the  total coat of fertilizer is  $750.
     12.  Cost of soil preparation  per acre:  Preparing the soil includes
 both disking and fertilizing and is aasuaad to be $100  per  acre.
     13.  Total cost of  preparing soil (Line 3 x Line 12):  The total
 cost of preparing soil,  excluding materials such as fertilizers, is,
 given the above assumptions, $1500.
     14.  Cost per acre  of  seeding  (excluding cose of seed):  It is
 assumed for the sample facility that seeding will cost  $150 per acre.
     15.  Total cost of  seeding (excluding seed) (Line  3 x  Line 14):
 Given the above assumptions, the total cost of seeding  for  the facility  is
 $2250.
     16.  Cost per acre  of  mulching:  The cost per acre of  purchasing and
 applying a hay mulch is  assumed to be $120.
     17.  Total mulching costs (Line 3 x Line 16):  Given the above assump-
 tions, total mulching costs, including costs of hay, are $1800 for the

     18.  Total costs for vegetation (sum of Lines 7, 11, 13, 15, and 17):
 The total costs for establishing vegetation are $7425.

 E.   ground-Water Monitoring
     Assume that closure of the landfill will require a total of 90 days.
 In order to determine the maximum possible ground-water monitoring costs,
 the most extensive monitoring needed at closure is assumed.  Assuming
 that ground-water quality analyses are required annually and ground-water
 contamination analyses are  required semi-annually, the most expensive
 case is that in which both  sets of analyses are required during the 90-
 day closure period.
     1.    Number of wells monitored:  For the sample landfill, it is assumed
 chat eight wells would need to be monitored.
     2.    Number of samples per well:   One sample is taken per well for
both analyses.
     3.    Total number of samples (Line 1 x Line 2):  Given the above
assumptions, eight samples are required.
                                   9-61
-------
     4.   Number of hours required for collecting Che sample:  It Is
assumed that experience has shown that 2 hours are sufficient to
gather samples from each well.
     5.   Total number of hours required for collecting the samples
(Line 3 x Line 4):  For eight samples, 16 hours are required for collec-
ting the samples.
     6.   Number of hours required for preparing and delivering the
sample:  It is assumed for the example that experience has shown that
this can be done in 3 hours.
     7.   Person-hour costs for collecting samples:  Assume that the
fully-loaded costs for labor required for collecting, preparing and
delivering the sample averages $15 per hour.
     8.   Total sampling and collecting coats  ((Line 5 + Line 6) x Line  7)
This results in total sampling and collection costs of $285.
     9.   Number of ground-water quality analyses:  One analysis must
be made for each veil sample, for a total of eight.
    10.   Number of ground-water contamination analyses:  One analysis
must be made for each well sample, for a total of eight.
    11.   Unit cost of ground-water quality analysis.  It is assumed
chat the coat of an analysis for the following parameters is $77 per
sample:
          Chloride                 $ 6/sample
          Iron                     $12/sample
          Manganese                $12/sample
          Phenols                  $25/sample
          Sodium                   $12/sample
          Sulfate                  $10/sample
    12.   Cost of ground-water contamination analysis.  It Is assumed
chat an analysis for the following parameters is $108 per sample:
          pH                       $ 4/sample
          Specific Conductance     $ 4/sampla
          Total Organic Carbon     $25/sample
          Total Organic Halogen    $75/sample
    13.   Total ground-water quality analysis costs (Line 9 x Line 11):
For eight samples at $77 per analysis, this yields a total cost of $616.
                                   9-62
-------
      14.   local ground-water contamination analyst* coses (Lina 10 x
 Line 12):   For aight samples at $108 par analysis,  this yialds a total
 cost of $864.
      IS.   Total analysis costs (Lina 13 + Lina 14):  The total analyses
 costs, therefore,  are $1480.
      16.   Number of technical hours  for administration:  This includes
 all  time necessary to administer and report the data from the analyses
 and  is estimated as 8 hours.
      17.   Person-hour technical costs:   The fully-loaded cost required
 for  this work  is assumed to  be $30 per  hour.
      18.   Total technical costs for  administration  (Line 16 x Line 17):
 Given the  above assumptions, total costs for administering the tests
 are  assumed  to  be  $240.
      19.   Number of clerical hours:   Assume for this case that 5 hours of
 clerical time  are  required to produce Che necessary reports.
      20.   Per-hour clerical  costs:   Assume the  fully-loaded costs  for
 clerical work  are  $8 per hour.
      21.   Total administrative costs (Line 19 x Line 20):   Given the above
 assumptions, the total clerical costs are $40.
      22.   Total administrative costs (Line 18 + Lina 21):   The sum of
 technical  and  clerical costs are then $280.
      23.   Monitoring equipment maintenance:  It is  assumed chat an average
 of $150 is required for  a 90-day period  to ensure adequate maintenance of
 monitoring equipment and walls.
      24.  Total monitoring costs (sum of  Lines  8, 15, 22,  and  23):  Tocal
 monitoring costs,  excluding  administration and  contingencies,  are  then
 $2195.

 F.    Fence Maintenance
      For a 75-acre  site,  assuming that the site  is  square,  each side of
 the sice is  1807 feet  in length.  The perimeter of  the  site is then
 7228  feet.
      1.   Length of fence to be replaced:   It is expected that some
 sections of  che  facility's security  fence  will  have corroded and will
have  co be replaced.   Our estimate is chat 10Z  of the perimeter fence
will have co be  replaced.
                                  9-63
-------
     2.   Unit cose of replacing fence:  The security fence around che
facility perimeter is a galvanized metal chain link fence 6 feet high.
This fence is made of #9 wire.  The unit replacement cost for this
fence is $13.06 per linear foot.
     3.   Total coat of replacing fence (Line 1 x Line 2):  The coat of
fence replacement is the product of the length of fence needing re-
placement and the unit cost of replacement, for a total of $9442.

G.   Professional Certification

     1.   Number of person-hours required for inspections:  It is
assumed that SO hours are required for periodically inspecting all as-
pects of closure of the landfill.
     2.   Coat per person-hour:  In this case, assume that a registered
independent profeaalonal engineer may be hired at a coat of $75 per hour.
     3.   Total coats of independent profesaional engineer's time (Line
1 x Line 2):  This yields a total coat of $6000 for the independent
professional engineer.
     4.   Number of technical hours required for administrative duties:
Assume chat 8 hours are required from the owner/operator's staff for
administrative duties connected with employing an independent professional
engineer.
     5.   Person-hour costs for technical administrative duties:  It is
assumed that the total fully-loaded costs for the owner/operator's rtaff
are $30 per hour.
     6.   Total administrative coats for technical labor  (Line 4 x Line 5):
Given  the above assumptions,  the total administrative costs for  technical
labor  are $240.
      7.  Number of  clerical hours  required  for  administrative  duties:
Assume that  5  hours of clerical  time  are required  for  the necessary  typing
and  certifications.
      8.  Person-hour  costs for clerical  administrative  duties:.  Fully-
loaded costs of clerical  time are  assumed  to be $8.
      9.  Total administrative costs  for  clerical labor  (Line  7 x Line 8):
Given  the above assumptions,  total  clerical coats  are  $40.

                                   9-64
-------
    10.  local administrative co«t«  (Lin* 6 + Line 9):  Sunning  technical
and clerical labor, the total administrative coats are $280.
    11.  Total certification costs (Line 3 + Line 10):  The total  costs
for certification, including the engineer's fees and administrative costs,
is then $6280.

H.   Total Closure Costs Including Administration and Contingencies
     Lines 1.through 7 of this Worksheet simply summarize the  total closure
costs, excluding administration and contingencies, from each of  the prior
worksheets.

      8.   Total  of  Lines  1  through  7:   The  total costs  for the activities
 listed in Lines  1  through  7 are  $130.020.
      9.   Administration:   For administrative  tasks,  including taxes,
 insurance,  and  administration and  supervision not  included  elsewhere,
 a total of 13 percent  of  total costs from  Line  8 is  used.
     10.   Contingencies:  A general provision  for contingencies of  13
 percent of total costs has  been  included.
     11.   Total  closure costs (Line 8 + Line 9 + Line 10):   The estimated
 cocal closure costs are  then $169,026.
                                    9-65
-------
                                LANDFILLS
                    WORKSHEET A - DISPOSING OF INVENTORY
1.   Volume of waste when processed for disposal         800 cu. yds.
2.   Estimated volume of re«idue and contaminated        600 cu. yds.
     soil to be disposed through on-*ite landfill
     operation
3.   Total volume of waste to be landfilled on-site      1400 cu. yds.
     (Line 1 + Line 2)
4.   Estimated cost of constructing trench               $18,000
5.   Estimated cost of placing waste in                  $ 6,000
     trench
6.   Total cost of disposing of inventory                $24.000
     (Line 4 + Line 5)
                                   9-66
-------
                                 LANDFILLS
                WORKSHEET B - DECONTAMINATING TEX FACILITY
 1.   ATM of facilicy contaminated
 2.   Depth of matarial removed
 3.   Cost of removal
 4.   Quantity diapoeed on-aite (see Worksheet A
      to develop coat)
 5.   Quantity diaposed off-eite
 6.   Coat to decontaminate equipment
 7.   Volume of waate reaulting from decontaminating
      equipment
 8.   Unit coat of off-eite diapoaal ($/cu. yd.)
 9.   Unit coat of hauling ($/cu.  yd.)
10.   Total coat of diapoaing off-site (Line 7 x Line 8)
11.   Total coat of hauling (Line  7 x Line 9)
12.   Total coata of decontaminating the facility
      (Line 3 + Line 6 + Line 10 + Line 11)
1800 aq. yda.
.33 yd.  (1 ft.)
$840
600 cu. yda.

0
$1000
25 cu. yda.

$40
$10
$1000
$250
$2850
                                   9-67
-------
                                 LANDFILLS
                    WORKSHEET C - PLACING FINAL CAP
 1.    Area co be capped (Include sum of all portions
      of the facility remains open and any portions of
      the facility opened to dispose of inventory and
      wastes from the process of decontamination)
 2.    Type of material used for impermeable layer
48,400 sq. yds.
(10 acres)
Clay with perm-
eability of 10"7
 3.    Depth of material of impermeable layer
 4.    Volume of material to be used for impermeable
      layer (Line 1 x Line 3)
 5.    Source of impermeable material
 6.    Cost of impermeable material
 7.    Depth of topsoil
 8.    Volume of topsoil (Line 1 x Line 7)
 9.    Source of topsoil
10.   Cost of topsoil
11.   Cost per cu. yd. for hauling, spreading and
      compacting
12.   Cost of impermeable portion of cap
      (Line 4 x Line 11)
13.   Cost of placing topsoil (Line 8 x Line 11)
14.   Total costs (Line 6 + Line 10 + Line 12 + Line 13)
.667 yds. (2 ft.)
32,428 cu. yds.

On-site from
previous exca-
vations
0
.667 yds. (2 ft.)
32,428 cu. yds.
On-site from
previous exca-
vations
0
$1.20

$38,914

$38,914
$77.828
                                    9-68
-------
                                 LANDFILLS
                  WORKSHEET D - PLANTING FINAL VEGETATION
 1.   Area not yet vegetated  (should be approximately
      equivalent to area remaining open)
 2.   Area already closed but in need of son* replanting
      prior to final closure
 3.   Total area to be planted (Line 1 + Line 2)
 4.   Type of vegetation to be used
 5.   Quantity of seed per acre
 6.   Cost of seed per pound
 7.   Total cost of seed (Line 3 x Line 5 x Line 6)
 8.   Type of fertilizer to be used
 9.   Quantity of fertilizer per acre
10.   Cost of fertilizer per ton
11.   Total cost of fertilizer (Line 3 x Line 9 x
      Line 10)
12.   Cost of soil preparation per acre
13.   Total cost of preparing soil (excluding
      materials) (Line 3 x Line 12)
14.   Cost per acre of seeding (less materials)
15.   Cost of seeding  (Lin*  3 x  Line 14)
16.   Cost per acre of mulching
17.   Total mulching costs (Lin* 3 x Line 16)
18.   Total coats for vegetation
      (Line 7 + Line 11 + Line 13 + Line 15 + Line 17)
10 acres

5 acres

15 acres
Coarse grass
150 Lbs.
$.50
$1125
10/10/10
.25 tons
$200
$750

$100
$1500
                                    9-69
-------
                                LANDFILLS
                  WORKSHEET E - GROUND-WATER MONITORING
 1.   Number of wells monitored                               8 wells
 2.   Number of samples per well                              1 sample
 3.   local number of samples (Line 1 x Line 2)               8 samples
 4.   Number of hours required for collecting sample          2 hours
      (per sample)
 5.   Total number of hours required for collecting samples   16 hours
      (Line 3 x Line 4)
 6.   Number of hours required for preparing and delivering   3 hours
      samples
 7.   Person-hour costs for collecting samples                $15
 8.   Total sampling and collection costs                     $235
      ((Line 5 + Line 6) x Line 7)
 9.   Number of ground-water quality analyses                 8 analyses
10.   Number of ground-water contamination analyses           8 analyses
11.   Unit cost of ground-water quality analysis              $77
12.   Cost of ground-water contamination analysis             $108
13.   Total ground-water quality analysis costs               $616
      (Line 9 x Line 11)
14.   Total ground-water contamination analysis costs         $864
      (Line 10 x Line 12)
15.   Total inalyses costs (Line 13 + Line 14)                $1480
16.   Number of technical hours for administration (e.g.,     g ,
      reporting data to EPA)
17.   Person-hour technical costs                             $30
18.   Total technical coses for administration                $240
      (Line 16 x Line 17)
19.   Number of clerical hours                                5 hours
20.   Person-hour clerical costs                              $8
21.   Total clerical coses (Line 19 x Line 20)                $40
22.   Total administrative costs (Line 18 + Line 21)          $280
                                    9-70
-------
WORKSHEET E - continued

23.  Monitoring «quipnant •aintanance
24.  Total monitoring costs (Lin« 8 + Line 15 +
     Line 22 + Line 23)
                                  9-71
-------
                               LANDFILLS
                    WORKSHEET F - FENCE MAINTENANCE
1.   Length of fence to be replaced
2.   Unit cost of replacing fence

3.   Total cost of replacing fence
     (Line 1 x Line 2)
                                   9-72
-------
                                LANDFILLS
                  WORKSHEET G - PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
 1.   Number of person-hours required for inspections
 2.   Cost per person-hour
 3.   Total costs of independent professional engineer
      certification (Line 1 x Line 2)
 4.   Number of technical hours required for administrative
      duties
 5.   Person-hour costs for technical administrative duties
 6.   Total administrative costs for technical labor
      (Line 4 x Line 5)
 7.   Number of clerical hours required for administrative
      duties
 8.   Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties
 9.   Total administrative costs for clerical labor
      (Line 7 x Line 8)
10.   Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9)
11.   Total certification costs (Line 3 + Line 10)
80 hrs,
$75
$6000

8 hrs.

$30
$240

5 hrs.

$8
$40
                                   9-73
-------
                                LANDFILLS
              WORKSHEET H - TOTAL COSTS OF CLOSURE INCLUDING
                    ADMINISTRATION AND CONTINGENCIES
 1.   Cost of disposing of inventory (From Worksheet A)       $ 24,000
 2.   Cost of decontaminating the surface and ancillary       $  2,850
      facilities (from Worksheet B)
 3.   Cost of placing the final cap (From Worksheet C)        $ 77,828
 4.   Cost of planting final vegetation (From Worksheet D)    $  7,425
 5.   Cost of ground-water monitoring (From Worksheet E)      $  2,195
 6.   Cost of fence maintenance (From Worksheet F)            $  9,442
 7.   Cost of professional certification (From Worksheet G)   $  6,280
 8.   Total of Line 1 through Line 7                          $130,020
 9.   Administration                                          $ 19,503
10.   Contingencies                                           $ 19,503
11.   Total costs of closure (Line 8 + Line 9 + Line 10)      $169.026
                                    9-74
-------
9.5
                         EXAMPLE - INCINERATORS
     A 12-acre incinerator facility has bulk storage facilities  for 120,000
gallons of slop oil, 120,000 gallons of phenolic wastewater, and 1,000,000
gallons of organic sludge.  Waste is also delivered in 55-gallon drums; a
maximum of 600 drums may be stored at the facility.  In addition to these
delivered wastes, the facility normally contains an Inventory of 50 drums
of non-combustible ash from the incinerator.
     The incinerator is designed to operate at 16 gpm with the following
feed mixture: 4 gallons of slop oil, 4 gallons of wastewater, and 8 gallons
of sludge (a 1/1/2 ratio).  The total operating horsepower of the incinerator
(including pollution control equipment in the form of a caustic  scrubber
used to remove chlorinated compounds emitted from the slop oil)  is 350 HP.
The following worksheets are based on this facility description.
                                   9-75
-------
         SAMPLE CLOSURE COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEETS: INCINERATORS

A.   Characterizing the Waste Inventory
     Worksheet A is used to describe each waste accepted at the site.  For
the example, worksheets must be prepared for each of the following wastes:
slop oil, phenolic vascewater, and biological treatment sludges.  For each
waste product accepted, the following information is required:
     1.  Describing the waste:  Describing the origin and general nature
of the waste.
     2.  Chemical composition:  Chemical composition should be expressed
in weight percents for major components and parts per million (ppm) for
trace components.  This information should be readily available to the
operator from the bill of,lading for each waste shipment.
     3.  Physical state of the waste:  This describes whether the waste is
a liquid, solid, or mixture.  This information is utilized in making.estimates
of solid residues requiring disposal (Worksheet B).
     4.  Heat of combustion of the waste:  The heat content (expressed in
BTU/lb., or BTU/gal.) of the waste products.  This information is used in
determining auxiliary fuel requirements (if any) on Worksheet C.
     5.  Specific gravity of the waste:  The specific gravity of the waste
at 60 F referenced to water at 60 F is used in the example problem.
     6.  Closure inventory:  For the example, it has been assumed that the
operator has identified from experience that the maximum inventory he has
ever had stored on-site was a 14-day backlog.  We will assume that this
inventory is comprised of the total components: 224 drums of slop oil
(12,320 gallons), 224 drums of phenolic wastewater (12,320 gallons) and
152 drums of sludges (8,360 gallons); the bulk storage tanks contain 28,000
gallons of  slop oil, 28,000 gallons of phenolic wastewater, and 233,560
gallons of  organic sludges.  Under these conditions, the incinerator will
be able to  treat its inventory through seven days of burning its optimum
feed mixture, and seven days of burning sludges alone (through  the addition
of auxiliary fuels).
                                     9-76
-------
B.   Treating the Inventory
     It Is assumed that the Inventory on-hand at  the  time of closure will
be incinerated on-site.  All equipment necessary  for  the operation of  the
incinerator is assumed to be in complete working  order.
     1.  Time required for treating the inventory:  It will require 336 hours
(322,560 gallons of waste T 960 gallons throughput per hour).  If it is
further assumed that the incinerator is on-stream 90% of the time, the total
time required for treating on-site inventory is 373 hours.
     2.  Manpower requirements for treating the Inventory:  The total number
of personnel required to operate this facility (including plant operators,
equipment operators, guards, maintenance persons, and laboratory personnel) "
is estimated as six.  Therefore, total man-hour requirement for treating
the inventory is 2238 hours.
     3.  Cost of manpower:  The average hourly wage rate of a plant operator
(including fringe benefits and labor burdens) is assumed to be $20.
     4.  Total costs of operating labor during inventory treatment (Line 2
x Line 3):  Given the above assumptions, labor costs for this phase of
closure are $44,760.
     5.  Fuel requirements for treating the inventory:  These represent both
the cost of utilities consumed in order to treat the waste inventory, plus
any auxiliary fuels which had to be purchased.  Each of these items is
separately coated below.
     6.  Electricity requirements for treating the inventory:  The inciner-
ator is actually in operation for 336 hours.  Electricity requirements for
                                       KW
Che example are equal to 350 HP x .746 {=• x 336 hours - 87,730 kwh.
     7.  Costs of electricity:  Electricity is assumed to be available at
a cost of $.06/kwh.
     8.  Total costs of electricity (Line 6 x Line 7):  Total electricity
costs for the example are $5264.
     9.  Auxiliary fuel requirements:  During the first 168 hours of inven-
tory treatment,  the incinerator will be receiving an input feed of 25Z slop
oil, 252 phenolic wastewater,  and 50Z organic sludges.  This feed has a
heat value of 2900 BTU/lb. and will burn autogenously.  During the remaining
168 hours, the feed will be comprised entirely of sludges, with a heat
value of 700 BTU/lb.; this mixture does require auxiliary fuel inputs.

                                   9-77
-------
     10. Type of auxiliary fuel used:   It  la  assumed  chat  #6  fuel  oil  is
used as  the auxiliary fuel.
     11. Quantity of fuel required:  Using engineering  analysis, and
assuming an average heat value of 154,000  BTU/gal.  for  fuel uil, total
auxiliary fuel requirements are estimated  at  10,456 gallons.
     12. Cost of auxiliary fuel:  It is assumed  that  #6 fuel  oil is available
to the operator at $.90 per gallon.
     13. Total cost of auxiliary fuels  (Line  11  x Line  12):   The total
cose of auxiliary fuel inputs is $9410.
     14. Total fuel coses (Line 8 + Line 13):  Total  fuel  costs are $14,674.
     15. Chemical requirements:  This category includes all chemicals,
catalysts, adsorbents, and other supplies  consumed during  inventory treat-
ment.  In the example, the only chemical required is  the caustic consumed
during flue gas scrubbing of chlorine entrained  in  the  incinerator waste
scream.
     16. Type of chemicals used:  It is assumed  thac  the caustic will  be
purchased as a 50Z solution.
     17. Quantity of chemicals required:   There  are 40,320 gallons of  slop
oil in the waste inventory assumed to be present at che time  of closure.
This is equivalent to 319,334 Ibs. of slop oil (40,320  x .95  specific
gravity of slop oil x 8.34 Ibs./gal. water).  Since the chlorine concent
of che slop oil is assumed Co be no greater than 3 percent, Che maximum
quantity of chlorine to be scrubbed is 9,580  Ibs. (270  moles).  Assuming
thac 1 mole of NaOH is required Co neutralize 1 mole  of chlorine,  270  moles
x 40 Ibs. NaOH/mole - 10,800 Ibs. NaOH consumption.
     18. Cose of chemicals required:  Caustic is assumed to cost $.08257
dry Ib.
     19. Total cost of chemicals (Line 17  x Line 18):   The toeal cost  of
chemicals consumed during inventory treatment is $891.
     20. Disposing or creating residues generaced during inventory treatment:
The residue generated during inventory treatment is a powdery solid, inciner-
ator ash.  The ash has a *pvcffic gravity  of  2.5.
     21. Amount of residue on-s'ite after treating the inventory:   There
are 50 55-galIon drums of ash stored on-site  at  the point  of  closure  (each
weighing 1150 Ibs., for a total of 57,500  Ibs.).  In  addition, residues
                                     9-78
-------
 are generated by processing the waste inventory.   The sludges incinerated
 in the example are assumed  to be 10 percent solids;  one-third of the solids
 are assumed to be non-combustible.   The slop oil  and wastewaters processed
 by the incinerator produce  no ash.   Therefore,  the amount of new residue
 generated  - (total amount of sludge in inventory  times specific gravity
 of the non-combuscible  portion of the materials times the portion of the
 sludge chat is non-combustible),  or:
         241,920 x (2.5 x 8.34)  x .0333 •  167,968 Ibs.
 Total  residue to be disposed of is  equal to 167,968  Ibs.  and 57,500  Ibs.  -
 225,468 Ibs.
     22. Method  of disposing of  ash:   It is assumed  that  the incinerator
 ash is put  into  drums and transported to a  secure landfill.   The residue
 generated during inventory  treatment  can be placed in 146 drums,  making
 the total number of drums to be disposed of 196.
     23. Unit  costs of  disposing  of residue:  The costs of disposing in
 a  landfill  are assumed  to be $50/drum,  according  to  industry specialists.
     24. Total costs of disposing of  residue  (Line 21 z Line 23):  Total
 costs  for the  sample case are $9800.
     25. Costs of hauling residue to  landfill for disposal:   In the  example,
 it is  assumed that the  nearest landfill that  will accept  the drummed
 residue is  50 miles away, and that  trucks with  a  carrying capacity of 40
 drums  are  rented at an  hourly cost  of $60.   At  a  speed of 40 mph,  and
 assuming four hours for  loading/unloading each  trip,  the  total  hauling
 costs  are estimated at  $1950.
     26. Total cost of  treating and disposing of  inventory (sum of Lines
 4,  14,  19,  24, and  25):  Given the above assumptions,  the  total cost  of
 inventory disposal will be $72,075.

 C.   Decontaminating the Facility
     In order  to  completely  decontaminate the incinerator facility,  the opera-
 tor must see  to  it  that all  storage tanks and liquid  waste feed lines  are
 cleaned, that wastewaters from the cleaning process are properly  disposed
 or  treated, that all equipment structures and containers  left on-site  are
 decontaminated, and that all contaminated soil is   removed  properly.   These
various activities are individually cos ted below.
                                   9-79
-------
Tank Cleaning
     1.   Storage tank cleaning:  The total volume of storage capacity to
be cleaned is 1,240,000 gallons (120,000 gallons of slop oil storage,
120,000 gallons of phenolic vastevater storage, and 1,000,000 gallons of
organic sludge storage).
     2.  Mechod used:  The cleaning method selected for the sample case
is steam-cleaning.
     3.  Unit cost of cleaning:  Renting equipment, labor, and operating
costs for 1600 gal./hour of cleaning equipment are assumed to be approxi-
mately $.02/gal. of capacity cleaned, based on information from the Means
construction cost guide.
     4.  Total costs of storage tank cleaning (Line 1 x Line 2):  Total
costs of steam-cleaning the storage facility are $24,800, given the above
assumptions.
     5.  Cleaning residue generation:  According to closure guidelines for
waste treatment sites issued by the Texas Department of Water Resources,
the amount of contaminated vashvaters produced by steam-cleaning can be
assumed to be equal to .125 times the volume of the tank being cleaned.
     6.  Quantity of cleaning residue generated (Line 1 x Line 5):
155,000 gallons of contamined washwater are generated in the example.
     7.  Method of disposing of residue:  In the sample case, residues are
assumed to be transported by tank truck to a surface impoundment for
evaporation.
     8.  Unit costs for disposing of residues:  Based on waste disposal
industry estimates, it will cost $.05/gal. to dispose of residues in an
impoundment. •
     9.  Total costs for disposing of residues (Line 6 x Line 8):  Total
costs of cleaning residue disposal, given these assumptions, are $7750.
    10.  Hauling  costs for residues:  In  the example, hauling cose esti-
mates are based on the following assumptions - the distance between  the
incinerator and the surface impoundment is 100 miles one-way, a 7000-gallon
trailer is used,  the average trip speed is 40 mph, and the hourly rental
          1
cost of truck and driver is $60.  The cost of one  round  trip is $300.
    11.  Number of trips required:  The number of  trips  required  for the
case is 23.

                                   9-80
-------
          r.-fal Tiatt'. tug  ..•«(.*  r^i  i*»Uii^a  iiiue  10 *  Line 11);   In*
costs for residue disposal are estimated at  $6900.

Decontaminating the Facility
     13. Flush out liquid waste feed  lines:  The  estimated cost of flush-
ing out all liquid residues from  feed lines  on the facility (before the
storage areas and incinerators are cleaned)  1* assumed  to be roughly one-
eighth of the costs of  tank cleaning, or $3000.
     14. Pump out and backfill sumps:  Sumps are  to be  decontaminated to
prevent the possibility of rain water accumulating and  contaminating these
portions of the facility.  The estimated costs of this  activity are
$2000.
     L5. Removing contaminated soils:  Because of spills  and other
accidental releases, certain areas of the waste disposal  site such as
the dikes in areas around storage tanks may  be contaminated.  We have
assumed in this example problem that 2.5 percent  of the area of the site
(exclusive of reservoirs, ponds,  and basins) is contaminated.
         Contaminated area •  .025 x 12 acres x 4SAO sq. yd./acre
                           - 1452 sq. yds.
     16. Depth of soil  removal:   For this example,  the  assumed  depth of
soil removal is one foot.
     17. Total amount of soil removed (Line  15 x  Line 16):   The total
amount of soil removed  in this example is (1452 x .333),  or  484 cu.  yds.
     IS. Unit cost of removing soil:  Costs  of removing soil  (including
equipment rental) are estimated at $1.60/cu. yd.
     19. Total cost of  soil removal (Line 17 x Line 18):   Given the above
assumptions, the cost of removing the contaminated  soil from the inciner-
ator site is $774.
     20. Costs for disposing of contaminated soils:  The  contaminated soil
is assumed to be disposed in a sanitary landfill.  Based  on  current esti-
mates,  the soil can be landfilled at a cost  of $30/ton.
     21. Total cost of disposing of soil (Line 17  x Line  20):   The cost
of disposing of the contaminated soil is $14,520.
     22. Hauling coses  for contaminated soil:  In this  example, the
nearest landfill is assumed Co be 50 miles away,  the  truck used for hauling

                                   9-81
-------
h«* * carrying capacity of 44,000 Iba., and la ranted ac a hourJy eo«i
of $60.
     23. Numbar of trlpa required:  Assuming an average speed of 40 mph,
22 crips will be required.
     24. Total hauling coats for contaminated soil (Line 22 x Line 23):
Given the above assumptions, the total costs for hauling the contaminated
soil are $3300.
     25. Total costs of decontaminating the facility (sum of Lines 4, 9,
12, 13, 14, 19, 21, and 24):  The total costs of decontaminating the
sample incinerator are $63,044.

D.   Monitoring
     1.  Cost of air sampling during inventory treatment:  In order to
ensure that the incinerator remains in compliance vith Clean Air Act
regulations during the closure period, it wms assumed that daily sampling
cost of $25 are incurred while the incinerator is operating.
     2.  Number of samples required:  The inventory treatment phase of
closure is estimated to take 16 days at the sample site.
     3.  Total coses of monitoring (Line 1 x Line 2):  Given the above
assumptions, monitoring costs will be equal to $400.

E.   Professional Certification
     1.  Number of person-hours required for inspections:  Ic is assumed
that 20 hours are required for periodically inspecting all aspects of
incinerator closure.
     2.  Cost per person-hour:  In this case, assume that a registered
independent professional engineer may be hired at a cost of $75 per hour.
     3.  Total costs of independent professional engineer's time (Line 1
x Line 2):  This yields a total cost of $1500 for the independent profes-
sional engineer.
     4.  Number of technical hours required for administrative duties:
Assume that eight hours are required from the owner's or operator's staff for
administrative duties connected with employing an independent professional
engineer.
                                   9-82
-------
     5.  P«r»oo-hour  costs  for  techelnsl  aevlaiatcatlve duties:   It la.
assumed chat the  total  fully-loaded  coats for the owner's or  operator's  staff
are $30 per hour.
     6.  Total administrative costs  for  technical labor (Line 4  x Line 5):
Given the above assumptions, the  total administrative  coats for  technical
labor are $240.
     7.  Number of clerical hours required for administrative duties:
Assume that five hours  of clerical tine  are required for the  necessary
typing and certifications.
     8.  Person-hour  costs  for  clerical  administrative  duties:   Fully-
loaded costs of clerical time are as sums d to b* $6.
     9.  Total administrative costs for  clerical  labor  (Line  7 z Line  8):
                                                         •
Given the above assumptions, total clerical costs are $40.
    10.  Total administrative costs (Lioe 6 4-  Line 9):   Summing  technical
and clerical labor, the administrative coats are  $280.
    11.  Total certification costs (Line  3  + Line 10):   The total costs  for
certification, Including engineer's fees  and administrative costs,  are
$1780.

F.   Total Costs Including Administration and  Contingencies
     Line 1 through 4:  These lines simply  require the  transfer  of  the
cost information supplied in Worksheets B through E.
     5.  Preliminary closure cost estimate  (sum of Lines 1  through  4):
For the sample facility, total worksheet  costs  are qual  to  $137,299.
     6.  Administration:  The costs for administration, which include
insurance, taxes, and supervision and administration not included else-
where, are assumed to be 15 percent of Line 5.
     7.  Contingencies:  A provision for  contingencies  of 15  percent of
Line 5 has been included.
     8.  Total costs of closure (Line 5 + Line  6  + Line  7):   The total
costs of closure, including administration  and  contingencies, for the
sample incinerator are $178,489.
                                   9-83
-------
                              INCINERATORS
                 WORKSHEET A - CHARACTERIZING THE WASTE (#2)

This worksheet should be used to describe each waste accepted at the facility.

1.   Description of the waste:
         Phenolic wastewater
2.   Chemical composition of the waste:
         1000 ppm phenols
3.   Physical state of the waste:
         Liquid
4.   Heat of combustion of the waste:
         0
                  •
5.   Specific gravity of the waste:
         1.0
6.   Closure inventory:
         40,320 gal.
                                   9-84
-------
                              INCINERATORS
                WORKSHEET A - CHARACTERIZING THE WASTE (13)

This worksheet should be used to describe each waate accepted at  the facility.

1.   Description of the waste:
         Waste activated sludge
2.   Chemical composition of the waste:

3.   Physical state of the waste:
         Mixture (suspension)  - 10Z solids, 901 water
4.   Heat of combustion of the waste:
         700 BTU/lb.
5.   Specific gravity of the waste:
         1.06
6.   Closure inventory:
         241,920 gal.
                                     9-85
-------
                               INCINERATORS
                   WORKSHZET B - HEATING THE INVENTORY
 1.   Time required for treating the inventory
 2.   Manpower requirements for treating the inventory
 3.   Unit cost of labor
 4.   Total cost of labor - treating the inventory
      (Line 2 x Line 3)
 5.   Fuel requirements
 6.   Electricity requirements
 7.   Unit cost of electricity
 3.   local costs of electricity (Line 6 x Line 7)
 9.   Auxiliary fuel requirements

10.   Type of fuel used
11.   Quantity of fuel required
12.   Unit cost of fuel oil
13.   Total cost of auxiliary fuels
      (Line 11 x Line 12)
14.   Total fuel costs for treating inventory
      (Line 8 + Line 13)
15.   Chemical requirements
16.   Type of chemicals used
17.   Quantity of chemicals used
18.   Unit cost of chemicals
19.   Total cost of chemicals (Line 17 x Line 18)
20.   Residues generated during inventory treatment
21.   Amount of residue generated

22.   Method of treatment
23.   Unit cost of disposing of residue
24.   Total costs of disposing of residue
      (Line 21 x Line 23)
25.   Hauling costs for disposing of residue
26.   Total costs of treating and disposing of
      inventory (sum of Lines 4, 14, 19, 24, and 25)
                                      9-86
373 hours
2238 man-hours
$20/hr..
$44,760

Yes
87,730 kwh
$.06/lcwh
$5264
Yes, for input
feed B
#6 fuel oil
10,456 gal.
$.90/gal.
$9410

$14,674

Yes
Caustic, 50% solution
10,800 Ibs.
$.0825/lb.
$891
Incinerator ash
225,468 Ibs.
(196 drums)
Landfill
$50/dmm
$9800

$1950
$72.075
-------
                               INCINERATORS
                WORKSHEET C - DECONTAMINATING THE FACILITY
 1.   Volume Co be cleaned
 2.   Method used
 3.   Unit costs of cleaning
 4.   Total costs of tank cleaning (Line 1 x Line 2)
 5.   Cleaning residue generation rate
 6.   Amount of residue generated (Line 1 x Line 5)
 7.   Method of disposal
 8.   Unit cost for disposing of residue
 9.   Total costs for disposing of residue
      (Line 6 x Line 8)
10.   Unit cost for hauling residues
11.   Number of trips required
12.   Total coses of hauling residues
      (Line 10 x Line 11)
13.   Cost of flushing liquid waste feed lines
14.   Cost to pump out and backfill sumps
15.   Amount of contaminated soil area
16.   Depth of soil removal
17.   Total amount of soil removed (Line 15 x Line 18)
13.   Unit cost of removing soil
19.   local cost of removing soil (Line 17 x Line 18)
20.   Costs for disposing of contaminated soils
21.   Total cost of disposing of soil (Line 17 x Line 20)
22.   Unit costs of hauling contaminated soils
23.   Number of trips required
24.   Total cost of hauling soils (Line 22 x Line 23)
25.   Total costs of decontamination (sum of Lines
      4,  9, 12, 13, 14, 19, 21, and 24)
1,240,000 gal.
Steam-cleaning
$.02/gal. capacity
$24,800
.125 x volume of tank
155,000 gal.
Surface impoundment
$.05/gal.
$7750

$300/trip
23
$6900

$3000
$2000
1452 sq. yds.
1 ft.
$774
$1.60/cu. yd.
$774
$30/ton
$14,520
$150
22
$3300
$63.044
                                   9-87
-------
                              INCINERATORS
                        WORKSHEET D - MONITORING
1.   Cost of air sampling
2.   Number of samples required
3.   local costs of air monitoring (Line 1 x Line 2)
                                      9-88
-------
                               INCINERATORS
                 WORKSHEET E - PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
 1.   Number of person-hours required for inspecting the     20
      facility
 2.   Coat per person-hour                                   $75
 3.   Total coats of independent professional engineer       $1500
      certification (Line 1 x Line 2)
 4.   Technical hours required for administrative            8 hrs.
      duties
 5.   Person-hour costs for technical administrative duties  $30
 6.   Total administrative costs for technical labor         $240
      (Line 4 x Line 5)
 7.   Number of clerical hours required for administrative   5 hrs.
      duties
 8.   Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties   $8
 9.   Total administrative costs for clerical labor          $40
      (Line 7 x Line 8)
10.   Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9)
11.   Total certification costs (Line 3 + Line 10)
                                    9-89
-------
  UOIKSBBZT F - TOTAL COSTS OKHttWC AJJKDfXSTlATION AND CUTIPI CATION
1.   Coses of treating and disposing inventory (From       $ 72,975
     Worksheet B)
2.   Co*ts of decontaminating the facility (From           $ 63,044
     Worksheet C)
3.   Costs of monitoring (Fro* Worksheet D)                $    400
4.   Costs of professional certification (From             $  1,780
     Worksheet E)
5.   Estimated basic costs of closure (sum of Lines        $137,299
     1, 2, 3, and 4)
6.   Administration                                        $ 20,595
7.   Contingencies                                         $ 20,595
8.   Total costs of closure                                $178,489
                                   9-90
-------
9.6          EXAMPLE - MDLTIPLE PBOCISS FACILITY WITH TAJKS
                         AMD SURFACE BmtOODMHRS

     A 2-ecre hazardous vast* treatment and storage facility haa storage
tanks for 60,000 gallons of vasta sol-wits and 10,000 gallons of slop
oil.  Wasta is received at tha facility both from tank tracks and in
55 gallon druas; tba facility haa a mrrlmn» storaga capacity of 200
drums.  Thara axa two treatment process** emdertaken at tha facility.
There is a 30,000 gallon (SO1 z 20' x 4') concrete-lined surfaca
impoundment used for tha gravity separation of oily wastes into solvent,
slop oil, and sludge phases.  The normal composition of the oil wastes
accepted is 80 percent solvent, 15 percent oil, and 5 percent sludge.
There is a 30,000-gallon clay-lined surface impoundment (also 50* x 20'
x 4') for solidifying pickling liquor wastes.  A storage pile holds
up to 8,000 cu. ft. of solidified pickling wastes; it is surrounded
by a clay-lined surface iapoundaent that collects drainage and run-off.
                                   9-91
-------
   SA.1PLE CLOSURE COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEETS: MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY

A.   Characterizing th« Waste
     Worksheet A  is used to describe each waste accepted at the facility.
For example, separate worksheets must be prepared for each of the following
wastes: oily wastes and pickling liquor wastes (the two types of wastes
processed at the storage facility) and the three end products of the treat-
ment actions performed (waste organic solvents, slop oil, and solidified
pickling liquor wastes).  For each waste product specified, the following
information is required:
     1.  Describing the waste:  Describe the origin and general nature
of the waste.
     2.  Chemical composition:  Chemical composition should be expressed
in weight percents for the various major components, and in parts per million
(ppm) for any trace components.   This information may be readily available
to the operator from the bill of lading for each waste shipment.
     3.  Physical state:  This describes whether the waste is a liquid,
solid, or mixture.  This information is used in making estimates of solid
residues requiring disposal (Worksheet B).
     4.  Heat of combustion of the waste:  Represents the heat content
(expressed in BTU/lb.  or BTU/gal.) of the waste products.   The information
is used to determine auxiliary fuel requirements if the waste is to be
disposed of through incineration.
     5.  Specific gravity of the waste:  The specific gravity of the waste
at 60 F referenced to water at 60 F.
     6.  Closure inventory:  The operator must identify the maximum quan-
tity of each waste that can be present at the facility in storage tanks,
drums, or surface impoundments, during any point in the facility's active
life.  In the example, it is assumed that there are times in which the stor-
age capacity of this facility is completely utilized.  This would therefore
represent the maximum inventory for developing the closure cost estimate.
In the sample case, the closure inventory would consist of 65,500 gallons
of waste solvents, 10,000 gallons of slop oil, 35,000 gallons of oily waste,
30,000 gallons of pickling liquor waste and 8,000 cu. ft. of solidified
pickling wastes.
                                     9-92
-------
 B.   Treating  Inventory
     1.  Waste inventory:  As  noted  in  the waste  characterization section
 of  this example,  the  sample  facility is assumed to  have  the  following waste
 products on-site  at the  time of disposal: 35,500  gallons of  oily waste,
 30,000 gallons of pickling liquor wastes, 65,500  gallons of  recovered waste
 solvent, 10,000 gallons  of recovered slop oils, and 8,000 cu.  ft.  of  solidi-
 fied pickling  wastes.
     2.  Methods  of treatment  or removal:  These  materials will  be removed
 of  in a variety of ways, as  indicated below:
         a.  Solvents -  it is  assumed that the facility  can  find other manu-
 facturing/commercial  establishments  that will use the waste  solvents  (which
 have a BTU content of 135,000  BTU/gal.) as boiler fuel.
         b.  Slop Oils - pumped out  of storage and  hauled to an  Incinerator.
         c.  Oily Wastes - placed in surface impoundment  for separation
 into its component parts.  Solvents  and slop oils recovered  from this  pro-
 cess are disposed of  in  the  same manner as (a) and  (b) above.  Sludges left
 in  the basin are  to be dredged, stabilized.and hauled to  a landfill.
         d.  Pickling Liquor Wastes  - solidify with cement and transfer
 the resulting  solid waste to a landfill.
         e.  Solidified Pickling Liquor Wastes -  transfer to a land-
 fill.
         Since treatnent of  inventory categories  (c) and  (d) will  generate
 additional waste  products in categories (a), (b)  and (e),  these  preliminary
 processing phases will be discussed  first.

Disposing of Oily Waste
     3.  Composition of oily wastes:  It is assumed that  the normal compo-
 sition of the  oily wastes is 80 percent solvent,  15 percent  slop oil,  and
 5 percent sludge.
     4.  Amount of wastes produced after settling:  Using this percentage
mix, settling  out the inventory of oily wastes will produce  28,400 gallons
of  solvent, 5,325 gallons of slop oil, and 1,775  gallons  of  sludge.
     5.  Sorbent requirements:   It is assumed that  the sludge will be mixed
with an equal volume of sorbent material, with a specific  gravity of 1.8.
The specific gravity of the  sludge is estimated at  1.2.
     6.  Cost of sorbent:  It  is assumed that sorbent material is  available
on-site for no cost.
                                    9-93
-------
     7.  Amount of residue generated:  After stabilization, approximately
22 tons of residue will need to be landfilled.
     8.  Unit coat of disposing of residue:  It is assumed that a land-
fill will charge $50/con to dispose of the stabilized residues.
     9.  Total costs of disposing of residue (Line 7 x Line 8):  Given
these assumptions, the total cost of disposing of facility sludge resi-
dues will be $1100.
    10.  Costs of hauling residue:  It is assumed that the nearest land-
fill is 100 miles one-way from the site.  Trucks with a 44,000-Lb.
capacity can be rented at a cost of $60 per hour (including driver);
the average traveling speed of the truck is 40 mph.  For one round trip,
the cost of residue hauling is $300.
    11.  Number of hauls required:  With 22 tons of waste (line 7), only
one trip by a 44,000 Ib. capacity truck will be required.
    12.  Total cost of hauling residue (Line 10 x Line 11):  Given
these assumptions, the total cost of hauling residue is $300.
    13.  Cost of disposing of oily waste (Lin* 6 + Line 9 + Line 12):
The total cost of disposing of oily waste is then the sum of sorbent
material costs, costs of disposal, and costs of hauling for a  total of $1400.

Disposing of Pickling Liquor Waste

    14.  In order to solidify the pickling liquor wastes in the closure
inventory, the waste must be mixed with cement.  It is estimated  that
one sack (94 Ibs/sack) of cement will solidify 10 gallons of waste.
    15.  Amount of cement required:  To dispose of on-site inventory,
3,000  sacks of cement  (282,000 Ibs.) will be required.
    16.  Cost of cement:  Cement  is estimated to cost $2.50/sack.
    17.  Total cost of materials  (Line 15 x Line 16):  Given the  above
assumptions, total material  costs for solidifying the inventoried
pickling liquor waste are $7,500.
    18.  Total amount of residues produced:  Given a specific  gravity
of pickling wastes of 1.05, and the proportions of cement  to waste
assumed, the total solid residues produced by inventory disposed  is
272.4  tons.

                                  9-94
-------
           Liquor  - 30.000 gal x 1.05 S.G.  x 8.34 (vacer weight) •
                    262,800 Ib.
           Cement  • 3,000  sacks x 94  Iba/sack - 282,000 Ibs.
                    262,000 Ibs + 282,000 Ibs - 544,800 Ibs -
                    272.4  tons
     19.   Other on-sita rasiduas:  Wasta catagory (a)  represents
previously solidified pickling wastes stored on-site.   It is assumed
that there is 8,000 cu. ft. of this  material currently in storage,  and
that the material weighs  approximately 135 Ib/cu.  ft  (similar to a
mortar-like cement).  Therefore,  the total weight of  this residue
would be 1,080,000 Ibs. (540  tons).
     20.   Total amount of  pickling residue (Line 18 + Line 19):   Total
solid residues from treatment of  the pickling wastes  are 812.4  tons.
     21.   Unit cost of disposing  of  residue:   As in Line 8 above, it  is
assumed that a landfill will  charge  $50/ton to dispose of such  residues.
     22.   Total cost of disposing of  residue  (Line 20  x Line 21):   Total
disposal costs are estimated  to be $40,620.
     23.   Costs of hauling residues:   The  costs and method of hauling
residues are the  same as Lin* 10  above.
     24.   Number  of hauls  required:   Given truck capacity of 44,000 Ibs.
(22 tons), it will take 37  round  trips to  haul the solidified pickling
wastes.
     25.   Total cost of hauling residues:   Given the above assumptions,
the total  hauling  costs will  be $11,100.
     26.  Cost of  disposing of  pickling  liquor waste  (Line 17 +  Line  22
+ Line 25):  The total coat of  disposing of pickling liquor  waste is
then the sum of costs of materials, residue disposal and  hauling, for a
total of $59,220.
     27.  Amount of solvent on-site:   Including  the solvents recovered
during the settling of inventoried oily  waste,  the total inventory  of
waste solvents at  the sample  facility  are  60,000 gal.  (storage  tank) 4-
5,500 gal.  (drums) 4- 28,400 gal.  (surface  impoundment)  -  93,900  gal.
     28.  Method of disposal:   It is  assumed  that  the  waste  solvents  can
be provided to manufacturers  as a boiler fuel.
                                 9-95
-------
     29.  Coat of disposal:  It Is •••timed  Chat  the users  of  ch« solven&a
will pay che coses of pumping and hauling the solvents  co  cheir facilities.
No additional credit is awarded to the owner/operator of the  tank facility.

Treating Slop Oil

     30.  Amount of slop oil on-site:  Including the alop  oils  recovered
during the settling of inventoried oily waate, the total Inventory of
slop oils are 10,000 gal. (storage tank) +  5,325 gal. (surface  impound-
ment) - 15,325 gal.
     31.  Method of treatment:  It is assumed chat the slop oils will he
trucked co an incinerator.
     32.  Cost of treatment:  The estimated fee paid Co the Incinerator
for creating the wastes is $0.60/gallon.
     33.  Total costs of treatment (Line 30 x Line 32):  Given  che above
assumptions, ic will cost $9,195 to treat the slop oil inventory.
     34.  Costs of hauling:  It is aaaumed  that the nearest incinerator
is 50 miles away, that the wastes will be transported in a 7,000-gallon
capaclcy truck, ac an average speed of 40 oph.  The hourly rental  cost
for truck and driver is $60.
     35.  Number of hauls required:  Given  trailer capacity,  it will
require three trips to haul the slop oils to the incinerators.
     36.  Total costs of hauling:  Given the above assumptions, hauling
costs are estimated at $450.
     37.  Total coets of treating slop oil  (Line 33 + Line 36):  The total
costs of creating slop oil are then che sum of the costs of disposal and
hauling, for a total of $9,645.
     38.  Total coses of disposing of inventory (sum of Lines 6, 9, 12,
17, 22, 25,  29, 33, and 36):  The total costs of che above activities
are estimated to be $70,265.
                                9-96
-------
 C.    Decontaminating the Facility

 Tank Cleaning

      1.   Cleaning method:   In tola example,  the storage tanks are
 steam cleaned.
      2.   Volume:  In the sample  case,  there  are 60,000 gallons of
 solvent storage capacity and  10,000 gallons  of  oil  storage  capacity
 to be cleaned, for a total  of 70,000 gallons.
      3.   Unit cleaning  costs: For a 2,000 gallon-per-hour  steam cleaning
 unit (capable of washing a  16,000-gallon area of storage capacity/hour),
 costs of  equipment rental,  labor,  and  operation are equal to $.02/gallon
 of capacity  cleaned.
      4.   Total costs of steam cleaning (Line 2  x Line 3):   Total cleaning
 costs for the storage tanks is $1400.
      5.   Type and quantity  of residues generated:   Steam cleaning
 generates residues in the form of  contaminated  vashvaters.   The rate of
 residue generation is 1 gallon of  waste/8 gallons of tank volume.  In
 the  example,  total residues are  70,000 *  8,  or  8750 gal.
      6.   Method of disposal:   It Is assumed  that the residues are hauled
 to a surface impoundment and  evaporated.
      7.   Cost of disposal:  Impoundment disposal of washwaters is
 estimated to cost $.05/gallon.
      8.   Total cost  of  disposal  (Line  5 x Line  7):   Costs cf disposing
 of these  cleaning residues  will  be $438.
      9.   Cost of hauling cleaning  residues:  For one round  crip,  che
 cost of hauling residues is $600.   The cleaning residues will be hauled
 in a 7,000-gallon tank  truck,  with an  average truck speed of 40 mph.
 The  hourly rental cost  for  truck and driver  is  $60;  the nearest
 available surface impoundment is assumed  to  be  200  miles away.
     10.   Number of hauls required:   Given the assumption  on residue
 generation and truck capacity, two trips  will be required,  at 3600/crip.
     11.   Total costs  of hauling:   Total hauling costs are $1200.
     12.  Total costs:  The sum of  the  costs  of  steam cleaning,  disposal
and hauling yields a  total of  $3038.
                                 9-97
-------
Decontaminating the
     13.  Cleaning method for Impoundment 1:  It 1* attuned  that  che
concrete-lined impoundment will be sandblasted.
     14.  Are* of concrete impoundment to be cleaned:  The aree requiring
sandblasting, based on the sample facility description, is equal  to the
base area (5Q1 z 20', or 100 sq. ft.) plu« the area of che site
walls (21 x 50' x 4' + 2' x 20' x 4', or 560 *q. ft.), for a total of
1560 sq. ft.
     13.  Coses of sandblasting:  A 6 cu. ft. capacity compressor will
be used In the sample estimate.  The unit rents for a $lOO/week,  and
coets $1.75/hour to operate; labor costs are estimated at $20/hour.
The unit can clean 40 sq. ft. of concrete/hour.  Consequently, sand-
blasting coets are estimated at $.60/sq. ft.
     16.  Total costs of sandblasting (Line 14 x Line 15):   Sandblasting
costs are estimated to be $936.
     17.  Type and quantity of residue generated:  The residues will
consist of contaminated sands.  It was assisted that 4000 Ibs.  (2  tons)
of sand residue will be generated.
     18.  Unit coets of disposal:  The sands will be landfilled at a
disposal cost of $50/ton.
     19.  Total costs of disposal (Line 17 x Line 18):  Total disposal
costs will be equal to $100.
     20.  Cleaning method for Impoundment 2:  All contaminated clays
from che clay-lined Impoundment will be removed and hauled to a landfill.
     21.  Area of clay impoundment to be  decontaminated:   Since the dimen-
sions of this Impoundment are the same as those of the concrete-lined
Impoundment discussed above, the surface area to be contaminated  is the
same as that estimated in Line 14 of this worksheet, or 1560 sq.  ft.
     22.  Amount of clay removed:  It is assumed that the clay  in the
pickling liquor impoundment has been contaminated to a depth of one
foot.  Therefore, 1560 cu. ft. of clay, or 57.8 cu. yds., must be
removed.
                                9-98
-------
      23.  Ifctit  coat  of raaiiTtag clip:  Clay feature T  will be performed
with  e backhoe.   Including coats of equlpaent rental and labor, the
coata of  removing the  clay la eatiaatted to be $1.6C/cu. yd.
      24.  Total  coata  of  removing clay (Line 22 * Line 23):  Given the
above aaeueptlona, the eoata  of reap*Ing the soil are $92.
      23.  Dispoeing  of contaainated clay*:  Claya will be haaled to a
landfill  for diapoaal. The eoata of diayoaal are eatlaated to be
$30/cu. yd.
      26.  Total  eoata  of  diapoaal (Line 22 x Line 25):  The total coata
of diapoaal are  $1734.

Eeaoving  Soil and Miscellaneous Activitiea

      27.  Removing contaainated aoila:   Becauae of spill* and other
accidental releaaaa, certain  areaa of the waate diapoaal facility, such
aa diked-ln areaa around  atorage tank* will be contaaineted.   It ia
aaauaad for the  aaaple facility that 2.5 percent of  the total alte area
la contaainated.
          Contaainated area « 2 acraa x  4840 sq.  yd./acre x .025
             rate of contamination - 242 aq.  yd.
      28.  Aaount of  aoil  removed:   The depth of aoil removal  required
to remove all hasardooa contaainanta ia  aaaoaed to be 1 foot.   Thus,
the total aaount  of  soil  reaoved  - 242 aq.  yd.  x .33 yd.  - 80.7 cu. yds.
      29.  Unit coat of  removing aoil:  Aa  in  Line  23,  reaovlog soil can
be accomplished at a coat of  $1.6O/cu. yd.
      30.  Total coat of removing aoil (Line  28 x Line 29):  Total  coat
of removing soil  la $129.
      31.  Disposing of  contaminated  aoila;   Contaminated  soils are also
hauled to a landfill, where they may be  diapoaed at  a coat of  $30/
cu. yd.
      32.  Total coata of diapoaal  (line  28 x Line  31):   Given  the  above
assumptions, diapoalng of aoila will coat  $2421.
                                9-99
-------
     33.  Hauling cose* for decontamination traacee:  The veates described
In Linea IT, 22, and 28 of thla tforkaheet will be hauled Co the landfill
in a 44,000-lb. truck.  The landfill la assumed to be 100 milea away; the
hourly coat of truck and driver ia $60 and the average trip speed is
40 mph.  Adequate dividera will be auppliad ao that mixed loada can be
carried.
     34.  Number of tripa required:  If it ia assumed that a cu. yd. of
earth weighs approximately 2000 IDS., the hauling of these waste residues
will require seven trips.
     35.  Coats of hauling decontamination reeiduee (Line 33 x Line 34):
At $300 per round trip, total hauling coata would be $2100.
     36.  Flush pumps and tranafer linea:  All pumps and piping used to
transfer hazardoua waate are flushed to remove contaminants.  This
process ia assumed to coat $2000.
     37.  Decontaminate equipment:  All materials handling equipment
used on-sice must be decontaminated.  Thia ia aaaumed to cost $500.
     38.  Decontaminate containers:  In the example, it is assumed that
all drums kept on-site will be crushed and buried in a landfill, at a
total coat of $1000.
     39.  Total costs of decontaminating facility (sum of Lines 4, 8,
11, 16, 19, 24, 26, 30, 32, 35-38):  Total coata of decontaminating the
facility, baaed on the above aaaumptiona, are. estimated to be $14,070.

D.   Professional Certification

     1.   Number of person-hours required for inspections:  It is assumed
chat 16 hours are required for periodically inspecting all aspects of
closing the tanka and impoundments.
     2.   Coat per person-hour:  In this case, assume that a registered
independent professional engineer may be hired at a cost of $75 per hour.
     3.   Total coats of independent professional engineer's time  (Line 1
x Line 2):  This yielda a total coat of $1200 for the independent pro-
fessional engineer.
                                  9-100
-------
      4.   Number of  c*cftnic*l  hour*  required  fo;  iUnauj.aCidCi.vii
Assume chat 8 hours  are required  from  the owner's  or  operator's staff  for
administrative duties connected with employing an  independent professional
engineer.
      5.   Person-hour costs  for technical administrative  duties:   It is
assumed  that the total fully-loaded  costs for the  owner's  or  operator's
staff are $30 per hour.
      6.   Total administrative costs for technical labor  (Line 4  x Line  5):
Given the above assumptions, the  total administrative costs for technical
labor are $240.
      7.   Number of  clerical hours required for administrative duties:
Assume that 5 hours  of clerical time are required  for the  necessary
typing and certifications.
      8.   Person-hour costs  for clerical administrative duties:   Fully-
loaded costs of clerical  time are assumed to  be $8 per hour.
      9.   Total administrative costs for clerical  labor (Line 7 x Line 8):
Given the above assumptions, total clerical costs  are $40.
    10.   Total administrative costs (Line 6  + Line 9):   Summing  technical
and clerical labor,  the administrative costs  are $280.
    11.   Total certification costs  (Line 3 + Line 10):  The  total  costs
for certification, including engineer's fees  and administrative costs, are
$1480.

E.   Total Costs Including Administration and Contingencies

      Items 1 through 3 give the costs of all  activities on each of  the
preceding worksheets.  Line 4 is  the total of Lines 1 through 3,  $85,315.
     5.   Contingencies:  A general provision for  contingencies of  15
percent of Line 4 has been included.
     6.   Administrative and supervisory cost:  For administrative  casks,
including taxes, insurance, and administration and supervision not  included
elsewhere, a total of 15 percent of total costs from  Line  4 is used.
     7.    Total costs of closure  (Line 4 + Line 5  + Line 6):   The
total costs  for closing the tanks and impoundments  are estimated  for
the sample case to be $111,559.

                                  9-101
-------
                    MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
          WORKSHEET A - CHARACTERIZING THE WASTE  (#1)
Description of th« waste
    Organic solvent
Chemical composition
    (Not given)
Physical state of the waste
    Liquid
Heat of combustion of che waste
    18,000 BTU/lb.(135,000 BTU/gal.)
Specific gravity of the waste
    .9
Maximum Inventory of the waste
    60,000 gallons bulk storage
     5,500 gallons in drums
ID numbers for areas holding these wastes
    Tanks T-l to T-4
                                 9-102
-------
                         MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
               WORKSHEET A - CHARACTERIZING  THE  WASTE (92)
1.   Description of the watte
         Slop oil
2.   Chemical composition
         (Not given)
3.   Physical state of the waste
         Liquid
4.   Heat of combustion of the waste
         16,000 BTU/lb.(126,720 BTU/gal.)
5.   Specific gravity of the waste
         .95
6.   Maximum inventory of the waste
         10,000 gallons bulk storage
7.   ID numbers for areas holding these wastes
         Tank T-5
                                   9-103
-------
                       MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
               WORKSHEET A - CHARACTERIZING THE WASTE (13)
1.   Description of the waste
         Oily was CM
2.   Chemical composition
         (Mot given)
3.   Physical state of the waste
         Mixture (95Z liquids, 51 sludge)
4.   Heat of combustion of the waste
         (Not given)
5.   Specific gravity of the waste
         (Not given)
     Maximum inventory of the waste
         30,000 gallons in holding basin
          5,500 gallons in drums
7.   ID numbers for areas holding these wastes
         Impoundment S-l
                                     9-104
-------
                  MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
           WORKSHEET A - CHARACTERIZING THE WASTE  (#4)
Description of the waste
    Pickling liquor wait*
Chemical composition
    (Not given)
Physical state of the waste
    Liquid
Heat of combustion of the waste
    0
Specific gravity of the waste
    1.05
Maximum inventory of the waste
    30,000 gallons in holding basin
ID numbers for areas holding these wastes
    Impoundment B-l
                                9-105
-------
                       MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
               WORKSHEET A - GBAEACTZBlZBiG THE WASTE  (15)
1.   Description of the vasts
         Solidified pickling liquor wastes
2.   Chemical composition
         (Hot given)
3.   Physical state of the waste
         Solid
4.   Beat of combustion of the waste
         (Hot given)
5.   Specific gravity of the waste
         2.2
6.   Mariana inventory of the waste
         8,000 cu. ft. in storage pile
7.   ID numbers for areaa holding these waatea
         Rone
                                     9-106
-------
                        MULTI7L1 PiOCBSS  FACILITY
                   WODCSRBET 1 - TBATXHG THE  UIVBfTUU
 1.   Vast* Inventory at  time of  closure
          Waste solvents
          Slop oil
          Oily wastes
          Pickling liquor wastes
          Solidifed pickling wastes
 2.   Methods of treatment or removal
          Waste solvents
          Slop oil
          Oily wastes
          Pickling liquor wastes
          Solidified pickling wastes
 Disposing of Oily Waste
 3.   Composition of waste
          80Z solvent, 15Z slop oil, SZ sludge
 4.   Amount of waste produced
          28,400 gal. solvent, 5,325 gal. slop oil,
 5.   Amount of sorbent used in sludge treataent
 6.   Cost of aorb*nt used
      a.  Cost of materials
 7.   Amount of residue generated
 8.   Unit coat of disposing or removing residua
 9.   Total cost of disposing or removing residue
         (Line 7 z Line 8)
10.   Costs of hauling residua
11.   Number of trips required
12.   Total cost of hauling residue (Line 7  x Line 10)
13.   Costs of disposing or removing oily waste
         (Line 6 + Line 9 + Line 11)
65,500 gal.
10,000 gal.
35.500 gal.
30,000 gal.
 8.000 cu. ft.

Reuse as boiler fuel
Incinerate
Separate; recover solvents,
incinerate slop oils, landfill
sludge*
Solidify, landfill
Landfill
               1.775 gal. sludge
               1:1 ratio with oils
               0
               0
               22 tons
               $50/ton
               $1100

               $300/trip
               1
               $300
               $1400
                                   9-107
-------
WORKSHEET B (continued)
Treatias or Removing Pickling Liquor Waste
14.  Amount of cement required for solidification
15.  Total amount of cement required
     Cost of cement
     Cost of materials (Line 15 x Line 16)
     Amount of residues produced by treating inventory
     Amount of other residues already on-site
16
17
18
19
20
     Total amount of pickling residues
       .(Line 18 + Line 19)
21.  Unit cost of disposing or removing residue
22.  Total cost of disposing or removing residue
        (Line 20 x Line 21)
23.  Costs of hauling residues
24.  Number of trips required
25.  Total costs of hauling (Line 23 x Line 24)
26.  Costs of disposing or removing pickling liquor
        waste (Line 17 + Line 22 + Line 25)
Removing Waste Solvent
27.  Amount of waste solvent
     a.
     b.
28.
         Amount of solvent in inventory
         Amount of solvent obtained from oily
            waste inventory treatment
     Method of removal
29.  Cost of removal
Treating Slop Oil
30.  Amount of slop oil on-site
     a.  Amount in inventory
     b.  Amount generated from disposing or
            treating oil waste inventory
31.  Method of treatment
32.  Unit cost of treatment
33.  Total cost of treatment (Line 30 x Line 32)
34.  Unit costs of hauling residues
1 sack/10 gal.
3000 sacks
$2.50/sack
$7,500
272.4 tons
540 tons
812.4 tons

$50/ton
$40,620

$300/trip
37
$11,100
$59,220
93,900 gal.
65,500 gal.
28,400 gal.
Recovery and reuse
as boiler fuel
                                                          15,325 gal.
                                                          10,000 gal.
                                                          5,325 gal.

                                                          Incinerate
                                                          $0.60/gal.
                                                          $9,195
                                                          $150/trip
                                  9-108
-------
WORKSHEET B (continued)


35.  NuMbar of crip* raquirad                             3
36.  Total coat* of haullog (Una 34 x Una 35)           $450

37.  Coata of craating slop oil                           $9,645

38.  Total coata of treating invmntory                    ^70.265
        (Sua of Llnaa 6, 9, 12, 17, 22, 25, 29,
         33 *nd 36)
                                   9-109
-------
                        MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
                WORKSHEET C - DECONTAMINATING THE FACILITY
 Tank Cleaning
 1.   Cleaning method used
 2.   Capacity to be cleaned
 3.   Unit cleaning costs
 4.   Total costs of steam cleaning
      (Line 2 x Line 3)
      Quantity and type of residues generated
 5.

 6.
 7.
 8.

 9.
10.
11.
12.
      Method of disposal
      Cost of disposal
      Total cost of disposal
      (Line 5 x Line 7)
      Cost of hauling residues
      Number of trips required
      Total costs of hauling (Line 9 x Line 10)
      Total costs of tank cleaning
Decontaminating the Impoundment
13.   Cleaning method used - Surface Impound-
              ,               ment 1
14.   Area to be cleaned
15.   Unit costs of sandblasting
16.   Total costs of sandblasting
      (Line 14 x Line 15)
17.   Quantity of residues generated
18.   Unit cost* of disposing of residue
19.   Total coats of disposing of residue
      (Line 17 x Line 18)
20.   Cleaning method used - Surface Impound-
                             ment 2
21.   Area to be cleaned
22.   Amount of clay removed
23.   Unit cost of removing clay
24.   Total cost of removing clay
      (Line 22 x Line 23)
Steam cleaning
70,000 gallons
$.02/gallon

$1,400
8,750 gallons of contaminated
washwaters
Surface impoundment
$.05/gallon

$438
$6007trip
2
$1200
$3038

Sandblasting
1560 sq. ft.
$.60/aq. ft.

$936
2 tons of contaminated  sand
$50/ton
$100

Clay removal  and  landfill
  disposal
1560 &q. ft.
57.8 cu. yds.
$1.60/cu. yd.
S92
                                   9-110
-------
WORKSHEET  C  (continued)
 25.  Unit cose of disposing of residue  (clay)
 26.  local  coses of disposal
     (Line  22 x Line  25)
 Soil Removal and Miscellaneous Site Cleanup
 27.  Soil area contaminated

 23.  Amount of soil removed
 29.  Unit cost of removing soil
 30.  Total cost of removing soil
     (Line 28 x Line  29)
 31.  Unit costs of contaminated soil
     disposal
 32.  Total costs of dispoalng of soil
     (Line 28 x Line  31)
 33.  Hauling costs for decontamination
     wastes (including impoundment cleanup)
 34.  Number of trips  required
35.  Total costs of hauling
36.  Costs of flushing pump and transfer
     lines
37.  Decontaminate equipment
38.  Decontaminate containers
39.  Total costs of decontaminating the
     facility
$30/cu. yd.
$1734
2.5Z of site area
(242 sq. yd.)
80.7 cu. yd.
$1.60/cu. yd.
$129

$30/cu. yd.

$2421

$300/trip

7
$2100
$2000

$500
$1000
$14,070
                                   9-111
-------
                        MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
                 WORKSHEET D - PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
 1.   Number of person hours required for Inspections     16 hours
 2.   Cost per person-hour: engineer                      $75
 3.   Total costs of independent profession*! engineer's  $1200
      time (Line 1 x Line 2)
 4.   Number of technical hours required for              8 hours
      administration
 5.   Cost per person-hour: technical                     $30
 6.   Total administrative costs for technical            $240
      labor (Line 4 x Line 5)
 7.   Number of clerical hours required for               5 hours
      administration
 8.   Costs per person-hour: clerical                     $8
 9.   Total administrative costs for clerical labor       $40
      (Line 7 x Line 8)
10.   Total administrative costs (Line 6 + Line 9)        $280
11.   Total certification costs (Line 3 •»• Line 10)        $1480
                                  9-112
-------
                       MULTIPLE PROCESS FACILITY
                  WORKSHEET E  - TOTAL  COSTS  INCLUDING
                   ADMINISTRATION AND  CONTINGENCIES
1.   Costs of disposing of inventory                        $  70,265
     (From Worksheet B)
2.   Costs of decontaminating the facility  (From            $  14,070
     Worksheet C)
3.   Costs of professional certification  (From              $   1,480
     Worksheet D)
4.   Subtotal                                               $  85,815
5.   Contingencies                                          $  12,872
6.   Administration                                         $  12,872
7.   Total closure costs                                    $111,559
     (Line 4 + Line 5 -I- Line 6)
                                   9-113
-------
9.7               OCAMPLI - FOST-CLOSUM OOtT fS TWITES

     4 large flat landfill of 200 acre* he* bean closed  la accordance
with the 04 interim status regulations.  This  landfill  consists
of rather closely spaced oarrow trenches that are protactad by clay
covers and cover vegetation.  The facility soil is a  soil vttich is
mostly clay in content.  All of the facility is planted  vlth grass to
resist erosion.
     The post-closure operations at this facility have been planned to
carry out the requirements of Che interest status regulations.  The ac-
tivities planned are as follows:
     e  periodically inspecting the facility
     •  coving
     •  routine erosion repairs
     e  replacing security fences (*»  needed)
     •  fertilising
     •  leach*te pumping and disposal
     •  ground-vatar monitoring
     •  monitoring well replacement (as needed)
     •  repair of severe erosion caused by storms
     •  post-closure administrative services
These activities are costad in the attached annotated worksheets.   All of
these activities are coated based on the assumption  that the facility is
completely closed sad that no "free" assistance is available from an
active portion of the facility.  This  mesas that some of the supporting
facilities such as office space that are available during closure are
not automatically available during the post-closure  period.
                                   9-114
-------
              SAMPLE POST-CLOSURE COST BSTD1ATTNG WORKSHEETS

A.   Periodically Impacting the Facility
     1.  Number of technical management person-hours required  for each
inspection:  Each inspection at this closed hazardous waste facility
will be conducted by two people in a rented vehicle.  We are of  the
opinion that two people are needed to conduct the inspection of  the
large closed waste disposal area (200 acres) and that an extra measure
of safety is afforded by having two inspectors.  Each inspection takes
a full day of work by two technically trained managers.
     2.  Annual number of routine inspections:  Six routine inspections
will be conducted during each year of the post-closure period.  These
will be conducted on a bimonthly basis.
     3.  Person-hour costs for technical management labor:  The fully-
loaded labor rate for this technically trained labor is $30 per hour,
     4.  Technical labor costs for annual routine inspections  (Line 1 x
Line 2 x Line 3):  The technical labor cost for these annual routine
Inspections is the product of the person-hours required for each inspec-
tion, the number of inspections planned, and the technical labor rate.
     5.  Annual number of engineer-supported inspections:  In  addition
to the routine inspections described above, two annual engineer-supported
Inspections are planned.  These inspections use a team of professional
engineers and one of our technical managers.  The engineer is  a state-
certified professional engineer from an independent firm that  is contracted
co supply professional services to the hazardous waste disposal  facility.
     6.  Number of independent state-certified engineering hours for each
engineer-supported inspection:  For each inspection, eight hours of the
engineer's time is required.
     7.  Number of technical management hours for each engineer-supported
Inspection:  For each inspection, eight hours of technical labor is
required.  This requirement is in addition to the engineering  labor chat
is required.
     8.   Person-hour cost for a professional engineer:  The quoted cost
of engineering services is $75 per hour.  These services will  be obtained
from an Independent engineering firm.

                                   9-115
-------
       9.  Engineering  labor  costs  for ehe  engineer-supported inspections
 (Line  5 x Line 6 x Line 8):  The  cose of  che  engineering labor is Che
 product of  che number of engineer-supported inspections, che number of
 engineering hours needed for each inspection,  and  the person-hour cost
 of engineering services.
     10.  Technical labor coats for Che engineer-supported inspections
 (Line  3 x Line 5 x Line 7):  The  technical managerial labor costs for
 the engineer-supported inspections is che produce  of  Che labor race for
 technical labor, the  number of inspections required,  and che technical
 labor  hours required  for each inspection.
     11.  Labor costs  for the engineer-supported  inspections (Line 9 +
 Line 10):   The total  labor costs  for  the  engineer-supported inspections
 is the sum  of the engineering labor  and technical  labor  costs.
     12.  Cost of renting the truck for each inspection:   A rented pick-
 up truck  is used for  transporting the inspectors throughout the hazardous
waste  disposal facility.  The quoted  rate for  che  truck  is  $25  per day and
 $.14 per  mile.  In addition, the  renter must supply gasoline.   The mileage
 for each  inspection is 50 miles including the  trips between che facility
 and the rental agency.  This results  in a total  cose  for the truck of
 $36 per day ($25 rental, $7 mileage,  and  $4 gasoline).   The gasoline
 value  is  estimated based on a truck mileage of 15  mpg and a gasoline
 price  of  $1.20 per gallon.
     13.  Annual cost  of renting the  truck for  inspections (Line 2 -f- Line
 5 x Line  12):  The total annual truck rental  cost  is  the product  of the
 total  numbe  of inspections needed (both  routine and  engineer-supported)
 and the daily truck rental  cost.
     14.  Total annual inspection  cost (Lin* 4  +  Line  11  + Line  13):  The
 total  cost  of conducting this post-closure inspection program is  the sum
 of che annual total labor coses for  Che routine  inspections, che  annual
 labor  coses for che engineer-supported inspections, and  che annual rental
 costs  for the truck.
                                   9-116
-------
B.   Routine Monitoring and Maintenance Activities
Mowing Operations
     1.  Facility acreage:  The waste diapoaal area of  thia hazardous
waste facility is 200 acree.  This area includes the cover of  the waste
disposal trenches and land cloae to the trenchea.
     2.  Moving labor:  The vaate diapoaal area is to be mowed periodically
to promote the growth of cover vegetation and to inhibit the growth of
large deep-rooted vegetation such as young trees.  This moving is to be
carried out on a contract basis by a moving service.  The quoted labor
rate for this service is $14.28 per acre moved.
     3.  Moving equipment:  The quoted rate for the moving equipment is
$5.37 per acre moved.  Thia rate includea fuel and all equipment coats.
     4.  Unit moving coat (Line 2 + Line 3):  Adding the labor rate and
the equipment rate yielda the total contracted moving rate (unit cost) for
each acre mowed.  Cheaper agricultural methoda cannot be used  because of
the impact of the heavier equipment on the cover.
     5.  Annual frequency of moving:  Moving of the waate disposal area
is required once a year during the post-closure period.  This  frequency
of mowing will encourage the growth of cover vegetation and will suppress
the growth of trees and other deep-rooted vegetation.
     6.  Annual coat of mowing (Line 1 x Line 4 x Line 5):  The annual
cost of mowing is the product of the facility acreage, the unit mowing
cost, and the annual frequency of mowing.

Routine Erosion Damage Repair
     7.  Annual routine eroaion rate:  The annual routine loss of soil
from the facility ia computed using the Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USUE) .
             A • RKLSCP
         A - Average soil loss, tons/acre
         R - Rainfall and run-off eroslvity index
         K • Soil erodibility factor
         L • Slope - length factor
         S - Slope - steepness factor
         C - Cover/management factor (type of vegetative cover)
                                   9-117
-------
         P * Practice factor (terracing, contour plowing)
This equation computed for the sample facility's location yields an
annual soil loss of 0.12 tons per acre.  With a soil density of approxi-
mately 100 Ibs. per cu. ft., 0.089 cu. yds. are lost from each acre.  In
our subsequent computations, we make the very conservative assumption
that all of the lost soil will have to be replaced and reseeded.
     8.  Total annual routine erosive loss (Line 1 x Line 7):  The total
annual routine soil loss is the product of the acreage times the annual
soil loss per acre.
     9.  Unit cost for land excavation of soil:  Replacement soil will be
obtained on-site at the facility.  Since the amount of soil required is
very small compared to the daily capacity of earth-moving machinery,
hand labor will be used to excavate the soil.  The rate stated here is
a fully-loaded rate for union labor working for an independent contractor.
This unit cost is based on contractor quotes.
    10.  Unit cost for on-site transportation of soil:  The excavated
soil is transported by truck on-site to the location where the erosion
repair is to be made.  This service will be provided by an independent
contractor.
    11.  Unit cost for compacting the soil by hand:  The unit cost of
hand compacting the new soil as a repair for erosion damage is estimated
co be the same as for hand excavation of the soil.  This service will
be provided by an independent contractor.
    12.  Unit cost of seeding:  The cost of seeding is a function of
the surface area of the new bare soil.  In our estimates, we assume
that a small gully (or gullies) have formed.  The ratio of surface area
to soil volume is small.  This new soil is seeded with the same type of
grass as is used for the original cover vegetation.
    13.  Aggregate unit cost of repairing routine soil erosion damage
(Line 9 4- Line 10 + Line 11 + Lin* 12):  The aggregate unit cost of
repairing the routine soil erosion is the sum of the excavation unit
cost, the on-site trucking, the hand compacting of the soil, and hand
seeding of the bare soil.
    14.  Total annual cost for repairing erosive damage of a routine
nature (Line 8 x Line 13):  The total annual cost of such routine erosive

                                   9-U8
-------
repairs under average rainfall condition* is  the product of  the  amount  -
of soil loec and the unit aggregate coat for  erosion damage  repairs.
     15. Adjustment factor to account for unusually vet seasons:  The
above cost (Line 14) is computed for average  rainfall  conditions  at  the
facility location.  A safety factor of 2 is applied which is  the  equiva-
lent of increasing the rainfall and runoff erosivity index (within the
Universal Soil Loss Equation) from 150 to 300.  This changes  the  facility's
rainfall from its actual aid-Atlantic level to the high southern  levels.
This conservative assumption is required to allow for  the annual  variation
in routine rainfall-caused erosion.
     16. Adjusted annual cost for repairing routine erosion damage (Line
14 x Line 15):   The adjusted annual cost for erosion  repair  of a routine
nature is the product of the average annual cost and the adjustment  fac-
tor.

Replacing the Fence
     17. Frequency of replacing the fence:  Security at the  facility is
provided by a 6-ft. high chain link fence that has been established  along
the entire perimeter of the facility (11,808  ft. in length).  This fence
is made of galvanized #9 wire.  Operating experience- at this  hazardous
waste facility indicates that the fence must  be replaced every 15 years.
Thus, during Che anticipated 30-year duration of the closure  period, the
fence will have to be replaced once.
     lc. Facility perimeter:  The length of the security fence is the
lengca of the facility oerimeter (11,808 ft.).
     19. Unit cost of replacing the fence:  Quotes were obtained  from
fencing suppliers for a new fence of equal specifications.  The value
given here is a unit cost per linear foot for an installed fence.
     20. Total cost of fence replacement (Line 18 x Line 19):  The cost
of replacing the perimeter security fence is  the product of  the perimeter
footage and the unit cost of the Installed fencing.
     21. Pro-rated annual cost of fence replacement:   The total  cost of
replacing the security fence is pro-rated to  each year by dividing the
total cost (Line 20) by the number of years in the post-closure  period
(30 years).

                                   9-119
-------
Fertilizing
     22. Unit cose of fertilizing:  The hazardous waste disposal  facility
has relatively poor soil resulting in the experienced necessity of annual
fertilizer applications until the vegetation has become established,  &  periodic
applications .thereafter.  Type 10/6/4 fertilizer costing $0.12 per Ib.  (in
50-lb. bags) is applied at a rate of 500 Ibs. pe-r acre.  This corresponds
to a nitrogen application rate of 50 Ibs. per acre.  The unit cost of ferti-
lization is the sume of the labor, materials and equipment costs.
         Labor                      $69.10/acre
         Materials                  $60.00/acre
       .  Equipment                  $ 5.00/acre
Previous experience at this facility has shown that this application
rate for fertilizer is satisfactory to maintain the vegetation.
     23.  Number of applications of fertilizer for the first 3 years:   One
application of fertilizer is needed each year for a total of 3 applications.
     24.  Number of applications of fertilizer for remaining -years of post-
closure (Years 4 through 30):  One application of fertilizer is needed  every
5 years, or a total of 5 applications for the remainder of post-closure.
     25.  Total costs of fertilizing for the first 3 years of post-
closure (Line 1 x Line 22 x Line 23):  The cost of fertilizing for the
first 3 years is the product of the acreage fertilized, the unit cost of
fertilization and the frequency of application during the first 3 years.
The costs of fertilizing for the first 3 years are then $80,460.
     26. Total costs of fertilization for years 4 through 30 of post-
closure (Line 1 x Line 22 x Line 24):  The cost of fertilizing is the
product of the acreage fertilized, the unit cost of fertilizing, and
the frequency of application during Che years 4 through 30.  The costs
for fertilizing for the remainder of post-closure is then $134,100.
     27. Total costs of fertilizing during post-closure (Line 25 + Line
26):  The total fertilization costs are the sum of the costs for ferti-
lizing during the first 3 years and the 5 applications required during
the remainder of post-closure.   The total costs f°r fertilizing for
the entire 30-year period are then $214,560.
     28. Total annual costs of  fertilizing (Line 27 i- 30):  The
total costs for fertilizing for the 30-year period is divided by  the

                                   9-120
-------
30 years of the post-closure period to yield an annual cose of  $7152.

Ground-Water Monitoring Wall Replacement
     29. Unit cost for well replacement:  The lowest observed depth of
the water table has been closer to the surface than SO ft. throughout the
active operation of the facility.  A replacement well to a depth of
aprpoximately SO ft. will cost $425 when installed by an independent
contractor ($8.50 per vertical linear ft.).  This quoted price  includes
a suitable casing.
     30. Number of wells needing replacement:  The monitoring wells have
a relatively long useful lifetime as do residential wells.  It  is antici-
pated that two wells will have to be replaced during the post-closure
period.
     31. Total cost of monitoring well replacement (Line 29 x Line 30):
The total post-closure period cost of well replacement is the unit cost
of each well multiplied by the number of wells required in the  post-
closure period.

Leachate Pumping and Disposal
     32. Frequency of removing the leachate:  Leachate is removed perio-
dically from the hazardous waste facility risers by means of a  vacuum truck.
Every month, the truck circulates to each riser pumping out the collected
leachate.  This service is performed by an independent contractor.
     33. Average total monthly leachate withdrawal:  Since the  facility's
cover system is quite effective in reducing infiltration, only  2000 gals.
of leachate (average value) will have to be removed each month.  This
leachate is removed to an off-site disposal area.
     34. Unit cost of removing the leachate to an active off-site disposal
area:  The unit cost of removing the leachate includes driving  the vacuum
truck to each riser at the facility and removing the leachate and deliver-
ing the truckload of leachate to the off-site disposal area.  A relatively
high per-gallon removal cost is quoted because of the necessity of collec-
ting a small amount of leachate from each of the widely dispersed risers
throughout the large facility.  This cost includes- transportation to  the
TSDF.
                                   9-121
-------
     35. local annual cost of removing the laachate (Line 32 x Line 33 x
Line 34 x 12):  The annual laachate removal cost Is the product of the
monthly leachate volume removed, the number of months in a year, and the
unit cost per gallon removed.
     36. Unit cost for removing leachates to an off-site TSDF:  The unit
cost for off-site disposal of the leachate material is $.05/gal.  This
material is disposed of in a surface impoundment.
     37. Annual costs for off-site disposal (Lin* 32 x Line 33 x Line 36
x 12):  The cost of disposing of the material in the off-site surface
impoundment is the product of the amount of leachate disposed and the
unit cost for the disposal.
     38. Total annual cost for removing and disposing of leachates (Line
35 + Line 37):  The total cost for leachate removal and disposal is the
sum of the removal cost and the disposal cost.

Ground-Water Monitoring

     39. Number of wells monitored:  This hazardous waste facility has
12 ground-water monitoring wells.  One well is upgradient and 11 wells
are downgradient from the disposal area.
     40. Number of samples taken per well (annual):  Two "cycles" of
ground-water sampling will be conducted annually.  One ground-water
quality analysis and two ground-water contamination analyses are to be
carried out.  One sample may be used for both the ground-water quality
and ground-water contamination analyses.  Therefore, two samples are
taken from each well annually.
     41. Total number of samples (annual) (Line 39 x Line 40):  The total
number of ground-water samples taken annually is the product of the
number of monitoring wells and the number of samples taken annually from
each well.
     42. Number of hours for collecting the sample (per sample):  Each
sample requires two hours of collection time.  The well must be pumped
dry and allowed to refill.  Then a sample is taken.  The facility ex*
perience is that approximately two hours are required for each well
sampling (including some time for moving about the fields).
                                   9-122
-------
     43.  local number of hours for collecting  the sample  (Line 41 x
Line 42):  Annually, 24 samples will have  to be collected, requiring
48 hours of labor.
     44.  Total number of hours for preparing and delivering the sample:
The total number of hours required for packaging and delivering the
samples is six hours per year.
     45.  Total sample handling hours (Line 43 + Line 44):  The annual
total time for collecting and delivering the ground-water samples is
54 hours.
     46.  Person-hour costs for handling ground-water samples:  The
person-hour costs for handling the samples is based on the facility ex-
perience of $15 per hour fully-loaded.
     47.  Total sample handling costs (Line 45 x Line 46):  The total
labor cost for handling the samples is the product of the hours required
and the unit labor costs.
     48.  Unit cost of ground-water quality analysis:  The unit cost
of an analysis for the following parameters is $77 per analysis:
          Chloride                  $ 6/sample
          Iron                      $12/sample
          Manganese                 $12/sample
          Phenols                   $25/sample
          Sodium                    $12/sample
          Sulfate                   $10/sample
     49.  Unit cost of ground-water contamination analysis:  The unit
cost of an analysis for the following parameters is $108 per analysis:
          pH                        $ 4/sample
          Specific Conductance      $ 4/sample
          Total Organic Carbon      $25/sample
          Total Organic Halogen     375/sample
     50.  Total cost of ground-water quality analysis (annual)  (Line 39
x Line 48):   The annual cost for analysis of water quality is the product
of the number of wells and the unit cost of the analysis.
     51.  Total cost for ground-water contamination analysis (annual)
(Line 41 x Line 49):  The annual cost for analysis for ground-water
contamination is the product of the number of sample sets to be analyzed
and the unit cost of the analysis.
                                  9-123
-------
     52.  Total annual ground-water monitoring coats  (Line 49 + Line 50 +
Line 51):  The total annual cost for ground-water analysis is the sum of
the ground-water quality analysis cost, the ground-water contamination
analysis cose, and the sample handling cost.

Routine Maintenance Summation

     53-60.  The annual cost for each of Che routine maintenance and
monitoring operations are added together to yield the total cost (annual).
This cost does not include administrative costs which .are computed on a
separate worksheet (Line 53 + Line 54 + Line 55 + Line 56 + Line 57 +
Line 58 + Line 59).
                                    9-124
-------
C.   Erosion Daaape Contingency Scenario
     1.  Percentage of vegetation removed:  Some unplanned events  that
will create additional demands for care will occur during the duration of
the post-closure period.  This worksheet computes the additional cost
that would result from such an unplanned evenC that removes 30% of the
vegetative cover from the hazardous waste facility.  After the vegetation
is removed, the soil remains bare for one month exposed to normal  rainfall.
Resulting erosive damage is repaired and the bare acreage is revegetared.
The one month lapse between the damaging event and the revegetation allows
for delays in the discovery of the damage and the time required for the
revegetation steps.
     2.  Facility acreage:  The entire facility is impacted by the event.
     3.  Acreage reduced co bare soil (Line 1 x Line 2):  The acreage
stripped of vegetation is the product of the percentage of vegetation
removed and the total acreage of the facility.
     4.  Annual per acre soil loss rate (without vegetative cover):  The
annual soil loss for each acre of bare soil is computed using the  Univer-
sal Soil Loss Equation (USLE).
             A - RKSLCP
         A * Average soil loss, tons/acre
         R » Rainfall and run-off erosivity index
         K - Soil erodibility factor
         L • Slope - length factor
         S » Slope - steepness factor
         C - Cover/management factor (type of vegetative cover)
         P - Practice factor (terracing, contour plowing)
This equation is for erosion resulting from rainfall subsequent to the
event  that removed the vegetation.
     5.  Monthly bare ground soil loss rate:  The annual loss rate
computed in Line 4 is converted to a one month loss rate.  This conver-
sion is accomplished by dividing the annual loss rate by 12.
     6.  Amount of soil lost before repairs are instituted:  The amount
of soil lost from the bared ground is the product of the monthly loss
race per acre and che acreage of the facility that is exposed.  This
product is then multiplied by two to allow for soil lost during the
                                   9-125
-------
removal of Che vegetation.  The ground is assumed to be bare for about
one month before the repairs and replanting are completed.  The conversion
to volume of soil lost is carried out assuming a soil density of 100 Ibs.
per cu. ft.
     7.  Unit cost for excavating and loading soil:  The unit cost for
excavating and loading replacement soil is computed using a 2 cu. yd.
front end loader.  This operation will be performed under contract.
     8.  On-site haul of excavated soil to the area needing repair:  The
excavated soil is transported on-aite over a 2000 ft. distance by trucks
operating under contract.
     9.  Filling and compacting eroded areas of the facility:  The replace-
ment soil is filled and compacted into the eroded areas using a dozer
operating under contract.
    10.  Total unit cost for replacing soil (Line 7 + Line 8 + Line 9):
The total unit cost of replacing soil is the sum of the excavation-
loading, hauling and filling unit costs.  These unit coats were obtained
from estimates made by a local contractor.
    11.  Cost of replacing the lost soil (Line 6 x Line 10):  The total
cost for replacing the lost soil is the product of the amount of soil
lost times the unit cost for soil replacement.
    12.  Unit cost for seeding the bare soil:  The unit cost for seeding
the bare acreage is computed from the sum of the labor, materials and
equipment costs.
             Labor                  $69.10/acre
             Materials              $13.90/acre
             Equipment              $ 5.00/acre
The grass planted is Kentucky bluegrass available from a local supplier
at $0.32 per Ib. in 50-lb. bags.  The application rate for  this seed is
1 Ib. per 1000 sq. ft. (or 43.56 Ibs. per acre).  This is less than one-
third of che seed application rate used for home lawns.  Experience has
shown this seeding rate  to be satisfactory.
    13.  Unit cost for fertilizing:  Since the soil at this hazardous
waste facility is quite poor, fertilization is necessary.   Type  10/6/4
fertilizer costing $0.12 per Ib. (in 50-lb. bags) is applied at  a  rate
of 500 Ibs. per acre.  This corresponds to a nitrogen application  rate

                                    9-126
-------
of 50~-lbs. per acre.  The unit cost of fertilization is the sum of the
labor, materials and equipment costs.
         Labor                      $69.10/acre
         Materials                  $60.00/acre
         Equipment                  $ 5.00/acre
Previous experience at this facility has shown that this application
rate for fertilizer is satisfactory.
     14. Unit cost for mulching with straw:  Since the soil is bare, pro-
tection from erosion must be provided while the grass starts to grow.
This is achieved by using straw mulch at an application rate of 1 ton
per acre.  The unit cost of mulching is the sum of the labor, materials
and equipment costs.
         Labor                      $34.50/acre
         Materials                  $85.00/acre
         Equipment                  $ 5.00/acre
     15. Total unit replanting cost (Line 12 + Line 13 + Line 14):  The
total unit replanting cost is the sum of the seeding, fertilizing, and
mulching costs.  Lime is not applied at this facility because it is not
recommended by the Agricultural Extension Service (DSDA).
     16. Total replanting costs (Line 3 x Line 15):  The total replanting
cost for the facility is the product of the acreage to be replanted and
the unit cost of replanting each acre.
     17. Number of erosive incidents expected in the post-closure period:
It is anticipated that such highly erosive incidents will occur twice
during the post-closure period.  These will be either major storms or
floods.
     18. Total cost for repairing damage from erosive incidents (Line 11
+ Line 16 x Line 17):  The total post-closure cost for repairing the damage
from such incidents is the sum of the repair costs for each incident
(soil and vegetation) multiplied by the number of incidents expected in
the 30-year post-closure period.
     19. Total annual cost for repairs required by erosive incidents
(Line 18 r 30 years):  The total cost of repairing the damage from the
two incidents is divided by the 30 years of the post-closure period to
yield the annual cost for contingency repairs.

                                   9-127
-------
D.   Initial Replanting to Establish Vegetation
     1.  Percentage failure of vegetation per year:  It is estimated
chat in this climate, 10 percent of the vegetation will fall per year due
Co inadequate initial establishment.
     2.  Number of years required for full vegetation:  It ia estimated
chat three years will be necessary for full establishment of vegetation
to the point replanting will no longer be necessary.
     3.  Facility acreage:  Facility acreage is 200 acres.
     4.  Total acres to be replanted due to initial failure of vegetation
(Line 1 x Line 2 x Line 3):  Total acres co be replanted are then 60
acres.
     5.  Annual per acre soil loss:  The annual soil loss for each acre
of bare soil is computed using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE).
             A - RKLSCP
         A - Average soil loss, tons/acre
         R « Rainfall and run-off eroslvity index
         K • Soil credibility factor
         L • Slope - length factor
         S • Slope - steepness factor
         C • Cover/management factor (type of vegetative cover)
         P « Practice factor (terracing, contour plowing)
This equation is for erosion resulting from rainfall subsequent to the
event that removed the vegetation.
     6.  Monthly bare ground soil loss rate:  The annual loss rate com-
puted in Step 4 is converted to a one-month loss rate.  This conversion
is accomplished by dividing the annual loss rate by 12.
     7.  Amount of soil lost before repairs are instituted (Line 4 x
Line 6):  The amount of soil lost from the bared ground is the produce
of the monthly loss race per acre and the acreage of the facility that
is exposed.  This product is then multiplied by cvo to allow for soil
lose during the removal of the vegetation.  The ground is assumed to be
bare for about one month before the repairs and replanting are completed.
The conversion to volume of soil lost is carried out assuming a soil
density of 100 Ibs. per cu. ft.
                                   9-128
-------
     S.  Unit coat for excavating and loading toil:  Th« unit cost for
excavating and loading raplacaaant aoil ia computed uaing a 2 cu. yd.
front and loadar.  Thia operation will ba parforaad undar contract.
     9.  On-eite haul of azcavatad soil to area naading repair:  The
excavated soil ia transported ou-«ite over a 2000 ft. distance by trucks
operating under contract.
    10.  Filling and compacting eroded areas of the facility:  The replace-
ment soil is filled and compacted into the eroded areas using a dozer
operating under contract.
    11.  Total unit coat for soil replacement (Line 8 + Line 9 + Line 10):
The total unit cost of soil replacement is the sum of the excavation-
loading, hauling and filling unit costs.  These unit costs vere obtained
from estimates made by a local contractor.
    12.  Cost of soil replacement (Line 7 x Line 11):  The total cost for
replacing the lost soil is the product of the amount of soil lost times
the unit cost for soil replacement.
    13.  Unit cost for seeding bare soil:  The unit cost for seeding the
bare acreage is computed from the sum of the labor, materials and equip-
ment costs.
             Labor                  $69.10/acre
             Mate rials              $13.90/acre
             Equipment              $ 5.00/acre
The grass planted is Kentucky bluegrass available from a local supplier
at SO.32 per Ib. in 50-lb. bags.  The application rate for this seed is
1 Ib.  per 1000 sq. ft. (or about 40 Ibs. per acre).  This is less Chan one-
third of the seed application race used for home lawns.  Experience has
shown this seeding rate to be satisfactory.
    14.  Unit cost for fertilizing:  Since the soil at this hazardous
waste facility is quite poor, fertilization is necessary.  Type 10/6/4
fertilizer costing $0.12 per Ib. (in 50-lb. bags) is applied at a rate
of 500 Ibs. per acre.  This corresponds to a nitrogen application rate
of 50 Ibs. per acre.  The unit coat of fertilizing is the sum of the
labor, materials and equipment costs.
         Labor                      $69.10/acre
         Materials                  $60.00/acre

                                  9-129
-------
         Equipment                  $ 5.00/acra
Previous experience at this facility has shown that Chi* application
race for fertilizer is satisfactory.
     15. Unit cost for mulching with straw:  Since the soil is bare,
protection from erosion must be provided while the grass starts to grow.
this is achieved by using straw mulch at an application rats of 1 ton
per acre.  The unit cost of mulching is the SUB of the labor, materials
and equipment costs.
         Labor                      S34.50/acre
         Materials                  $83.00/acre
         Equipment                  $ 5.00/acre
     16. Total unit replanting cost (Line 13 + Lin* 14 + Line 15):  The
total unit replanting cost is the sum of tbe seeding, fertilizing, and
mulching costs.  Lime is not applied at this facility because it is not
recommended by the Agricultural Extension Service (USDA).
     17. Total replanting costs (Line 4 x Liae 16):  The total replanting
costs for the entire 30-year period are then $20,796.
     18. Total costs for initial replanting to establish vegetation (Line
12 + Line 17):  The total costs for the initial replanting to establish
vegetation are Chen $20,847.
     19. Tocal annual cose (Line 18 r 30):  The total cost for the initial
replanting to establish vegetation is divided by the 30 years of the post-
closure period to yield the total annual cost, for s total of $695.

E.   Administrative Services
     1.  Number of technical hours required for administrative duties
(annual):  Since the facility is closed, all of the required administration
is an extra cost that must be carefully accounted for.  This facility  esti-
mates that an average of three weeks of labor by a manager is required to
administer the complete set of specified post-closure activities.  This
average administrative requirement includes the administration of  the
occasional contingent events described in Worksheet C.
     2.  Person-hour cost for technical administrative duties:  The labor
rate for facility technical labor is $30 per hour fully-loaded.
     3.  Total administrative costs for technical lai t>r  (Line 1 x Line 2):

                                   9-130
-------
Tiu total cose for administrative technical labor ti  tba product of  the
hours required and tha labor rata.
     4.  Number of clerical houra required for administrative dutiaa:
Thraa weeks of clerical vork la required to support the technical adminis-
trator.
     5.  Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties:  The  fully-
loaded labor rate for clerical labor at the facility  is $8 per hour.
     6.  Total administrative costs for clerical labor (Line 4 z Line  5):
The total cost for administrative clerical labor is the product of the
hours required and the labor rate.
     7.  Office or trailer rental:  The total annual  administrative  cost
also includes che rental of office space during the busier times of  each
post-closure year.  This includes typewriter, telephone and supplies.
     8.  Total annual administrative costs for post-closure activities
(Line 3 + Line 6 + Line 7)i  The total coet of administration is the
sum. of the costs of technical labor, clerical labor,  and office rental.

P.   Total Costs Tflg3.udiin Vfulfistration sfld Contingencies
     Items 1 through 5 summarise the total annual costs of the post-
closure functions taken from the cost worksheets.  The erosion contingency
repair cose (Line 3) uaed is the annual cost of the two major erosion
events expected in the post-closure period (30 years).
     6.  Total of Lines 1 through 5:  The total costs of che activities
listed in Lines 1 through 5 are $40,206.
     7.  Contingencies:  Fifteen percent of the sum of the above costs is
taken as an allowance for contingencies.  This contingency allowance is
made in addition to the coats expected from the two major post-closure
erosion events.
     8.  Administration:  An additional 10 percent of Line 6 is included
for fees, insurance and related needa.
     9.  Total annual costs of post-closure (Line 6 + Line 7 + Line  8):
The total sum of the annual post-closure costs is $50,258.
                                  9-131
-------
                               POST-CLOSUH2
                WORKSHEET A - PERIODIC FACILITY INSPECTION
 1.   Number of technical management person-hours              16 hours
      required for each routine inspection of the
      doted facility
 2.   Annual number of routine inspections                     6
 3.   Person-hour coses for technical management labor         $30
 4.   Technical labor costs for annual routine inspections     $2880
      (Line 1 x Line 2 x Line 3)
 5.   Annual number of engineer-supported inspections          2
 6.   Number of independent state-certified engineering        8 hours
      hours for each engineer-supported inspection
 7.   Number of technical management hours for each            8 hours
      engineer-supported inspection
 8.   Person-hour cost for a professional engineer             $75
 9.   Engineering labor costs for the engineer-supported       $1200
      inspections (Line 5 x Line 6 x Line 8)
10.   Technical labor costs for the engineer-supported         $480
      inspections (Line 3 x Line 5 x Line 7)
11.   Labor costs for the engineer-supported Inspections       $1680
      (Line 9 + Line 10)
12.   Truck rental cost for each inspection                    $36
13.   Annual truck rental cost for inspections                 $288
      (Line 2 + Line 5 x Line 12)
14.   Total annual inspection cost (Line 4 + Line 11 +         $4848
      Line 13)
                                   9-132
-------
        WORKSHEET B - ROUTINE MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
 Mowing Operations
 1.   Facility acreage
 2.   Mowing labor (per acre)
 3.   Mowing equipment (per acre)
 4.   Unit mowing cost (Line 2 + Line 3)
 5.   Annual frequency of mowing
 6.   Annual cost of mowing (Lin* 1 x Line 4 x Line 5)
 Routine Erosion Damage Repair
 7.   Annual routine erosion rate
 3.   Total annual routine erosive loss  (Line 1 x Line 7)
 9.   Unit cost for hand excavation of soil
10.   Unit cost for transporting of soil on-site
11.   Unit cost for hand compacting soil (repairing
      erosive damage)
12.   Unit cost of seeding
13.   Aggregate unit cost of repairing routine soil
      erosion damage (Line 9 + Line 10 + Line 11 + Line 12)
14.   Total annual cost for repairing erosive damage of
      a routine nature (Line 8 x Line 13)
15.   Adjustment factor to account for unusually wet seasons
16.   Annual cost for repairing routine erosive damage
      (Line 14 x Line 15)
 Fence Replacement
17.   Frequency of replacing fence

13.   Facility perimeter
19.   Unic cost of replacing fence
200 acres
$14.28
$5.37
$19.65
Once a year
$3930

0.12 tons
per acre
(.089 cu.
yds./acre)
17.8 cu. yds.
$21.21/cu. yd,
$2.13/cu. yd.
$21.21/cu. yd.

$l/cu. yd.
$45.55/cu. yd.

$810.79
S1621.58
Once during
post-closure
period
11,808 ft.
$13.06/linear
ft.  (installed)
                                    9-133
-------
WORKSHEET B  (continued)
20.  Total cost of fence replacement (Line 18 x Line 19)
21.  Pro-rated annual cost of fence replacement
Fertilizing
22.  Unit cost for fertilizing
23.  Number of fertilizer applications for first 3 years
24.  Number of fertilizer applications during remainder
     of post-closure (Years 4-30)
25.  Total costs of fertilizing for first 3 years
     (Line 1 x Line 22 x Line 23)
26.  Total costs of fertilizing for post-closure
     years 4-30 (Line 1 x Line 22 x Line 24)
27.  Total fertilizing costs (Line 25 + Line 26)
28.  Annual cost of facility fertilization (Line 27 T 30)
Ground-water Monitoring Well Replacement
29.  Unit cost for replacing well
30.  Number of wells needing replacement during the
     post-closure period
31.  Total cost of monitoring well replacement during
     the entire post-closure period (Line 29 x Line 30)
Leachate Pumping and Disposal
32.  Frequency of removing the leachates
33.  Average monthly total leachate withdrawal
34.  Unit cost of removing the leachate to an active
     off-site TSDF
35.  Total annual cost of removing leachate
     (Line 32 x Line 33 x Line 34 x 12)
36.  Unit coat for disposing of leachate off-site  (at
     a surface impoundment)
37.  Annual costs for disposing off-site (Line 32  x
     Line 33 x Line 36. x 12)
38.  Total annual costs for removing and disposing of
     leachates (Line 35 + Line 37)
$154,212.48
S  5,140.41

$134.10/acre
    3
    5

$ 80,460

$134,100

$214,560
$  7,152

$425/well
2

$850


Once/month
2000 gals.
$0.l8/gal.

$4320

$.05/gal.

$1200

$5520
                                   9-134
-------
WORKSHEET B  (continued)

Ground-Water Monitoring
39.  Number of veils monitored                              12 wells
40.  Number of samples taken per well  (annual)              2 samples
41.  Total number of samples per well  (annual)              24 samples
     (Line 39 x Line 40)
42.  Number of hours for collecting the samples  (per        2 hours
     sample)
43.  Total number of hours for collecting samples           46 hours
     (Line 41 z Line 42)
44.  Total number of hours for preparing and delivering     6 hours
     samples
45.  Total sample handling hours (Line 43 + Line 44)        54 hours
46.  Person-hour costs for handling ground-water samples    $15
47.  Total sample handling costs (Line 45 x Line 46)        $810
43.  Unit cost of ground-water quality analysis             $77
49.  Unit cost of ground-water contamination analysis       $108
50.  Total cost for ground-water quality analysis           $924
     (annual) (Line 39 x Line 48)
51.  Total cose for ground-water contamination analysis     $2592
     (annual) (Line 41 x Line 48)
52.  Total annual ground-water monitoring cost (Line 49     $4326
     -t- Line 50 + Line 51)
Routine Maintenance Summation
53.  Annual moving cost (Line 6)                            $3930
54.  Annual cost for repairing routine erosive              $1621.58
     damage (Line 16)
55.  Annual cost for replacing fence (Line 21)              $5140.41
56.  Annual cost for fertilizing (Line 28)                  $7152
57.  Annual cost for replacing well (Line 21 T 30)          $28
58.  Annual cost for removing leachates (Line 38)           $5520
59.  Annual cost for ground-water monitoring (Line 52)      $4326
60.  Total annual cost for routine activities               $27.717.99
                                   9-135
-------
                                POST-CLOSURE
             WORKSHEET C - EROSION DAMAGE CONTINGENCY SCENARIO
 1.
 2.
 3.
 4,
 8.

 9.

10.

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

18,

19.
Percentage of vegetation removed
Facility acreage
Acreage reduced to bare soil (Line 1 z Line 2)
Annual per acre soil loss rate (without
vegatative cover)
Monthly bare ground soil loss rate
Amount of soil lost before repairs are instituted
(Line 3 z Line 5 z 2) (The factor of 2 adjusts for
immediate soil losses)
Unit cost for excavating and loading soil (on-site
operations using a 2-cu. yd. front end loader)
On-site haul of ezcavated soil to area needing
repair
Filling and compacting the eroded areas  (using
a dozer)
Total unit cost for soil replacement
(Line 7 + Line 8 + Line 9)
Cose of replacing lost soil (Line 6 z Line 10)
Unit cost for seeding the bare soil
Uait cost for fertilizing
Unit cost for mulching with straw
Total unit replanting cost (Line 12 * Line 13 + Line
Total replanting cost (Line 3 z Line 15)
Number of erosive incidents expected in  the post-
closure period
Total cost for repairing damage from erosive
incidents (Line 11 + Line 16 z Line 17
Total annual cost for repairs required by erosive
incidents (Line 18 4- 30)
    30Z
    200 acres
    60 acres
    12 tons
    per acre
    1  ton per
    acre
    (.741 cu.
    yds./acre)
    120 tons
    (89 cu. yds.)

    $0.21 per
    cu. yd.
    $0.85 per
    cu. yd.
    $1.25 per
    cu. yd.
    $2.31 per
    cu. yd.
    $205.59
    $88/acre
    $134/acre
    $124.50/acre
14) $346.50/acre
    $20,790
    2

    $41,580

    S1386
                                    9-136
-------
                                POST-CLOSU1Z
         WORKSHEET 0 - INITIAL REPLANTING TO ESTABLISH VEGBTATIOH
 1.   Percentage failure of vegetation par
 2.   Number of years required for full vegetation
 3.   Facility acreage
 4.   Total.acres to be replanted due to initial
      failure of vegetation (Lin* 1 z Lisa 2 z Lin* 3)
 .5.   Annual p«r acre soil lose rate (for areas with
      inadequate vegetative cov«r)
 6.   Monthly bare ground aoil loss rat*

 7.   Amount of toil lost b«fora repairs are
      instituted (Line 4 x Line 6)
 8.   Unit cost for soil ezcavation and loading
      (on-site operations using a 2-cu. yd. front end loader)
 9.   On-sitfe haul of excavated soil to area needing
      repair
10.   Filling and compacting eroded areas (using a
      dozer)
11.   Total unit cost for soil replacement
      (Line 8 + Line 9 + Line 10)
12.   Cost of soil replacement (Line 7 x Line 11)
13.   Unit cost for seeding bare soil
14.   Unit cost for fertilizing
15.   Unit cost for mulching with straw
16.   Total unit replanting cost (Line 13 •*• Line 14 + Line 15)
17.   Total replanting coses (Line 4 x Line 16)
18.   Total costs for initial replanting to establish
      vegetation (Line 12 + Line 17)
19.   Total annual cost (Line 18 r 30)
10 percent
3
200 acres
60

6 tons/acre

.5 tons
(.3706 cu.
yd./acre)
30 tons
(22 cu. yds.)
$0.21 per
cu. yd.
$0.85 per
cu. yd.
$1.25 per
cu. yd.
$2.31 per
cu. yd.
$50.82
$88/acre
$134.10/acre
$124.50/acre
$346.60/acre
$20,796
•$20,847

$695
                                    9-137
-------
                               POST-CLOSURE
                  WORKSHEET E - ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1.   Number of technical hour* required for administrative    120 hours
     duties (annual)
2.   Person-hour cost for technical administrative duties     $30
3.   Total administrative costs for technical labor           $3600
     (Line 1 x Line 2)
4.   Number of clerical hours required for administrative     120 hours
     duties
5.   Person-hour costs for clerical administrative duties     $8
6.   Total administrative costs for clerical labor            $960
     (Line 4 jc Line 5)
7.   Office or trailer rental (includes equipment and         $1000
     supplies)
3.   Total annual administrative costs for the post-closure   $5560
     activities (Line 3 + Line 6 + Line 7)
                                   9-138
                                                                          u
-------