United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/S2-86/037 Sept. 1986
SERA Project Summary
Costs of Remedial Actions at
Uncontrolled Hazardous
Waste Sites: Worker Health
and Safety Considerations
J. Lippitt, J. Walsh, M. Scott, and A. DiPuccio
The full report was developed as an
aid in evaluating costs associated with
worker hearth and safety at hazardous
waste cleanup sites. Previously avail-
able cost data were inadequate to iden-
tify health and safety costs consis-
tently.
Six hypothetical cost scenarios were
developed based on composites of ex-
isting sites. Experienced cleanup con-
tractors were requested to prepare de-
tailed cost estimates for the six
scenarios. Cost estimates included
both the base construction costs that
would be incurred if no hazardous
wastes were involved and the costs for
each of four degrees of hazard. The haz-
ardous conditions were patterned after
the four levels of personal protection
that have been established for workers
on hazardous waste sites. The impacts
of temperature variations were also
estimated.
Separate cost estimates were ob-
tained for transportation and disposal.
Transportation costs were estimated
based on information from transporta-
tion firms. Disposal costs were ob-
tained from an existing report.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Hazardous Waste Engi-
neering Research Laboratory, Cincin-
nati, OH, to announce key findings of
the research project that is fully docu-
mented in a separate report of the same
title (see Project Report ordering infor-
mation at back}.
Introduction
The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980 requires the deter-
mination of remedial action costs for
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Two basic methods are available for de-
termining such costs:
1. Engineering cost studies that base
their estimates on standard guides
such as the Dodge and Means con-
struction cost manuals.
2. Extrapolation of costs from bids
and case study reports involving
similar activities and problems for
other sites.
The available cost figures seldom iden-
tify and often do not include additional
costs associated with protection of
worker health and safety. Ten cate-
gories of health and safety cost compo-
nents are presented in Table 1.
The purpose of this project was to de-
termine the incremental health and
safety costs associated with worker pro-
tection at hazardous waste sites. The
basic factors evaluated were the im-
pacts of different degree-of-hazard con-
ditions and the effects of temperature
variations on total remedial action
costs. Costs and impacts were evalu-
ated for distinct remedial action activi-
ties, referred to as unit operations.
Approach
Six remedial action scenarios were
developed to obtain and quantify esti-
mates from cleanup contractors for
costs associated with worker health and
safety on hazardous waste sites. This
approach provided a consistent format
for estimating costs, and addressed the
concerns of contractors for confidential
and proprietary information. Each see-
-------
nario was composed of a number of dis-
tinct unit operations. A combination of
these unit operations represented a
complete remedial action program for
each of the hypothetical sites. The site
characteristics and a total of 16 different
remedial action unit operations were
based on cleanup operations at actual
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
The resulting scenarios were reviewed
by selected site contractors to ensure
that they reflected realistic site condi-
tions and provided a reasonable format
for developing cost estimates. The six
scenarios developed were:
1. Surface removal at above-ground
storage sites (drums and bulk
tanks).
2. Surface removal at above-ground
storage site (PCB electrical equip-
ment).
3. Subsurface removal at a trench
burial site.
4. Containment of landfill by leachate
collection and surface sealing.
5. Containment of landfill by surface
sealing and slurry trench.
6. Closure of a surface impoundment
using solidification.
The site contractors that provided cost
estimates for the six scenarios were se-
lected because of their (1) past experi-
ence with sites similar to those pre-
sented in the scenarios, (2) willingness
to participate, (3) availability of person-
nel routinely involved in cost estimates,
and (4) familiarity with health and safety
requirements on hazardous waste sites.
Each scenario was estimated by two dif-
ferent contractors, except for Sce-
nario 5, which had only one estimate.
Contractors provided cost estimates
for four degrees of hazard and base con-
struction costs (i.e., costs associated
with performing the required tasks on a
site that did not involve hazardous
wastes). The four degrees of hazard de-
scribed reflect the conditions associated
with the use of a personal protective
equipment. Table 2 summarizes the lev-
els of protection used in defining sce-
nario conditions.
Because of the impact of ambient
temperature on the degree of hazard
and the potential use of these data for
cost estimates in different climates or
seasons, contractors were also re-
quested to estimate the impact of three
temperature ranges on their total cost
estimates for unit operations and reme-
dial action scenarios. The temperature
ranges used were:
Moderate temperatures ranging
from 0 to 18°C (32 to 65°F)
Table 1. Worker Health and Safety Cost Components*
1. Personal Protection
a. Levels of protection
b. Types of protection
foot head
hand respiratory
eyes hearing
body entry/communications
c. Mobile and stationary equipment storage and operation stations
2. Medical Services/Surveillance
a. Medical examinations
baseline physical
respirator program
follow-up to baseline
b. On-site
first aid fexpfcifon
bites, falls, exposure, etc.)
emergency ggmmunication
medical personnel
c. Off-site
transportation (ambulance)
medical facilities
fire department
3. Personnel Training
a. Waste handling
b. Emergency procedures
c. CPR and first aid
d. Protective gear/equipment
e. Monitoring equipment
f. Communication equipment
g. Special/seasonal equipment
4. Manpower Inefficiencies
a. Restricted mobility
b. Waste handling procedures
c. Monitoring requirements
5. Record Keeping
a. Management requirements
b. Labor union requirements
c. Governmental
d. Medical
6. Decontamination
a. Personnel
b. Protective gear
c. Cleanup equipment
7. Site Security
a. Restriction of access by personnel or
vehicles
b. Signs and tags
c. Security personnel
8. Insurance
a. Comprehensive general liability
b. Environmental impairment liability
c. Workman's compensation
9. Emergency Preparedness
a. Fire fighting
chemicals
extinguishers
unscheduled due to illness or accident
follow-up to highly toxic exposures
* rescue equipment
emergency showers/eye washes
emergency medical facilities/equipment
periodic or continuous monitoring while
working
life squad
coordination with health/medical services and
authorities
h. Rehearsals
i. In-house training
j. Outside programs
k. Safety and health practices
I. Entry and exit procedure
m. Technical orientationbasic sciences
d. Buddy system
e. Pre- and post-work activities
f. Heat stress
e. Training
f. Work history
g. Site safety/maps
h. Manifests, receipts, and permits
d. Monitoring equipment
e. Required facilities, equipment,
structures, etc.
f. Change rooms/facilities
d. Security systems/equipment
e. Coordination with law enforcement agen-
cies
d. Specific coverage
e. State and federal requirements
turnout gear
-------
Table 1. (Continued)
b. Spill containment/control
absorbents/chemicals
oil booms/containment devices
containers and collection equipment
10. Hazard Assessment
a. Sample packaging and shipping requirements
special containers chain-of-custody
special packing materials manifests and bills of lading
labels, markings, and placards waste product information sheets
authorized transporters
b.
Monitoring equipment
radiation detectors
field test kits
specialized laboratory equipment
specialized equipment
oxygen detectors
combustible gas detectors
organic vapor analyzers
Sampling equipment
disposable sampling equipment
special material construction
d. Analytical costs (field and contract laboratories)
qualitative quantitative
e. Review and interpretation of data
establishment of levels of protection source identification
assessment of contaminant migration
* This table is the list provided to contractors. Suggested additions to components include cost
of maintaining an industrial hygienist or other qualified and safety expert on-site, computer
ready data for medical and hazard assessments, and epidemiology studies for illnesses that
may occur.
Table 2. Conditions Associated with Levels of Personal Protection
1. Level Arequires full encapsulation and protection from any body contact or exposure to
materials (i.e., toxic by inhalation and skin absorption).
2. Level Brequires self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), and cutaneous or percuta-
neous exposure to unprotected areas of the body (i.e., neck and back of head) is within
acceptable exposure standards (i.e., below harmful concentrations).
3. Level Chazardous constituents known; protection required for low level concentrations in
air; exposure of unprotected body areas (i.e., head, face, and neck) is not harmful.
4. Level Dno identified hazardous or toxic substance present, but conditions are monitored
and minimal safety equipment is available.
5. No hazardous or toxic substances on sitestandard base construction costs.
High temperatures ranging from
18° to 38°C (65° to 100°F)
Low temperatures ranging below
0°C (32°F)
Health and safety and base construc-
tion costs per unit were calculated for
each of the remedial action unit opera-
tions included in the scenarios. Health
and safety costs per unit are summa-
rized for the remedial action unit opera-
tions in Table 3.
To calculate increased costs resulting
from health and safety considerations,
the ranges of total costs (per unit) for
each of the four degrees of hazard were
divided by the base construction costs
(per unit) for each of the unit operations.
Cost multipliers for estimating in-
creased costs are shown in Table 4. The
range of values shown, particularly for
unit operations that involve direct han-
dling of contaminated materials and
wastes, reflects the contractors' differ-
ent approaches and experiences involv-
ing protection of worker safety and
health.
Estimates for unit operations not in-
cluded in the six cost estimating scenar-
ios can be determined by comparing
potentials for worker exposures in simi-
lar unit operations. The average varia-
tions for health and safety costs of sim-
ilar unit operations can be used to
estimate those for other unexamined
unit operations.
Average variations in remedial ac-
tions costs were calculated for each of
the three temperature ranges under the
four degrees of hazard. These cost vari-
ations were then compared for the three
temperature ranges to determine the ef-
fects of temperature changes on costs.
Table 5 provides a cost multiplier which
can be used to estimate health and
safety costs when applied to the base
construction cost for the same tempera-
ture conditions. A multiplier for base
construction costs is also provided to
adjust estimates of base construction
costs for the three temperature condi-
tions that are not related to health and
safety considerations (e.g., viscosity of
hydraulic fluid at cooler temperatures
may reduce equipment efficiency). Fi-
nally, a percent increase in health and
safety costs for higher and lower tem-
peratures is provided relative to the
health and safety costs at moderate
temperatures.
Average cost rates for hazardous
waste transportation are listed in Table
6. Disposal costs were obtained from
another EPA document and are summa-
rized in Table 7 which provides an aver-
age of the reported cost ranges.
Applicability of the Data
The incremental costs of health and
safety considerations can be used to
evaluate alternative remedial actions.
Cost estimates for designs of remedial
action unit operations can be adjusted
to reflect the anticipated degree of haz-
ard. This step will permit a more
accurate estimate of relative costs for
alternative remedial action plans.
Though cost multipliers calculated
from this project cannot be considered
all inclusive, they can estimate the im-
pact of health and safety considerations
on costs (see Table 4). The relative im-
pact of temperature (or the percent in-
creases in variations) can also be esti-
mated using the cost multipliers or the
percent increase provided in Table 5.
Cost estimates obtained from engi-
neering cost studies using standard
guides can be adjusted to reflect health
and safety costs. Standard cost refer-
ence guides such as Means and Dodge
-------
Table 3. Median Cost Per Unit Operation
Incremental Health and Safety Costs Per Unit
Unit Operation
Surface Water Controls:
Surface Seal Synthetic Mem-
brane
Surface Seal Clay
Revegetation
Contour Grading
Surface Water Diversion
Basins and Ponds
Dikes and Berms
Ground-Water Controls:
Well Point System
Drain System
Bentonite Slurry Trench
Unit of
Measure
m*
sqyd
sqyd
ha
acre
m3
cu yd
m3
cu yd
m3
cu yd
m3
cuyd
mi
sqyd
cu yd
m3
cu yd
Base Construction
Cost Per Unit
$17.03 ± 2.62
$20.37 ±3.13
$2.74
$2.29
$63,701.00 ±
57,329.00*
$25,480.50 ±
22,931.50*
$4.63 ± 1.41
$3.31 ± 1.09
$8.98 ± 7.07
$6.87 ± 5.41
$6.36 ± 7.84
$4.87 ± 1.41
$14.30 ± 1.52
$10.94 ± 1.16
$113.36
$11.50
$44.05 ±5.18
$33.68 ± 3.96
$50.96
$38.97
Level D
$2.66 ± 7.43
$3.06 ± 7.77
$0.26
$0.22
$30,587.50 ±
30,245.50*
$7£235.00 ±
12,099.00*
$1.24 ± 1.86
$0.95 ± 0.66
$4.68 ±4.55
$3.58 ± 3.41
$1.87 ± 1.46
$1.43 ± 1.12
$7.72 ± 6.38
$5.53 ± 4.88
$77.70
$9.78
$73. 75 ±9.84
$70.06 ± 7.53
$4.46
$3.47
Level C
$3.35 ± 1.29
$4.00 ± 7.54
$0.52
$0.43
$37, 7 72.50 ±
35,897.50*
$74,845.00 ±
74,359.00*
$7.70 ± 0.97
$7.30 ± 0.74
$5.55 ±5. 77
$4.25 ± 3.96
$2.66 ± 7.73
$2.03 ± 1.32
$10.08 ± 7.43
$7.71 ± C.68
$79.63
$76.47
$77.96 ± 77.79
$73.74 ± 9.02
$6.97
$5.33
Level B
$3.95 ± 7.54
$4.72 ± 7.34
$0.66
$0.55
$38,082.50 ±
36,867.50*
$75,233.00 ±
14,747.00*
$1.99 ± 7.03
$7.52 ± 0.79
$6.40 ± 5.94
$4.90 ± 4.55
$2.87 ± 7.59
$2.20 ± 7.22
$70.28 ± 7.24
$7.89 ± 5.56
$24.06
$20.72
$79.99 ± 72.48
$75.28 ± 9.54
$76.40
$72.54
Level A
$4.21 ± 1.73
$5.03 ± 2.06
$0.74
$0.62
$39,926.00 ±
38,777.00*
$75,970.50 ±
75,484.50*
$2.34 ± 7.37
$7.79 ± 7.04
$6.97 ± 6.44
$5.28 ± 4.92
$3.09 ± 7.50
$2.36 ± 7.75
$11. 47 ±8.12
$8.78 ± 6.21
$31.34
$26.20
$22.33 ± 11.73
$17.07 ± 8.97
$78.24
$73.94
No. of Cost
Estimates
2
2
1
1
5
5
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
Waste Controls:
Chemical Fixation (Solidification)
Excavation of Contaminated Soil
Treatment of Contaminated Water
Drum Processing
Bulk Tank Processing
Transformer Processing
cu yd
cuyd
I/day
god
2081155
gal
drums)
303801
(8,000 gal
tanks)
innsformor
$83.36 ± 58.30
$63.53 ±44.57
$17.53 ± 74.73
$727.67 ± 779.24
$7.77 ±7.02
$26.92 ± 26.57
$304.86 ± 268.68
$2,627.00 ±
7,405.00
$23.79 ± 27.04
$18.19 ± 16.09
$58.55 ±44.03
$44.78 ± 33.67
$2.68 ± 2.67
$70.75± 70.72
$447.98 ± 396.04
$2,604.50 ±
7,557.50
$37.70 ±26.98
$23.77 ± 20.62
$77.55 ± 65.65
$54.77 ± 50.20
$2.73 ± 2.72
$10.23 ± 10.27
$564.65 ± 495.02
$3,743.00 ±
7,877.00
$32.08 ± 27.79
$24.52 ± 27.24
$97.75 ± 67.05
$70.76 ±57.28
$3.08 ± 3.06
$77.64 ± 77.58
$682.77 ±593.22
$6,374.00:
644.00
$270.00 ± 60.00 $
$622.29 ± 573.72' $
$35.27 ± 30.63
$26.96 ± 23.47
$704.57 ± 75.52
$79.92 ± 57.75
$3.50 ± 3.48
$13.23 ± 13.15
$796.83 ±694.15
$8,394.00 ±
40.00
$
'Higher than likely costs shown here are result of one contractor's costs being far higher than balance of cost figures obtained for this unit operation.
tThis unit operation was deemed appropriate for performance only at level C. Costs at Levels D, B, and A were not provided.
construction cost manuals do not in-
clude additional costs for health and
safety considerations. Thus these cost
estimates represent base construction
costs. They can be adjusted by using the
health and safety cost multipliers for the
anticipated degree of hazard and by
adding those costs to the base construc-
tion costs.
When cost estimates are based on
case studies of other sites with similiar
activities, costs of health and safety con-
siderations are generally included. To
adjust these costs, for a specific site, the
degree of hazard would have to be de-
termined. For case history reports, the
temperature range would also need to
be determined. The costs could then be
adjusted on each unit operation to re-
flect the differences in costs above base
construction costs for the degree of haz-
ard associated with the case study sites.
versus the anticipated degree of hazard
of the site being examined.
Cost differences for various regional
and seasonal temperature conditions
can be calculated by using the cost mul-
tipliers or percent difference of health
and safety costs for trje temperature
conditions provided in Table 5.
Limitations off the Data
Several factors that affect cost were
identified but not addressed in this proj-
ect. These include scale economies, re-
gional differences, management poli-
cies and procedures, and type and size
of company.
Previous studies have shown that
scale economies and regional varia-
tions are significant factors in construc-
tion costs, and they can be assumed to
have significant impacts on health and
safety costs as well. The existing data
made it impossible to quantify the im-
pacts of these factors.
This project identified differences in
management procedures and policies
that affect cost estimates. Such differ-
ences currently exist because regula-
tory standards and guidelines are evolv-
ing and are not uniformly enforced on
hazardous waste sites. Thus the safety
management policies and procedures
of individual contractors can signifi-
cantly affect health and safety costs.
These costs can also be affected by the
emphasis that a contractor places on
using equipment instead of manpower
to accomplish a task. The reason is that
workers operating machinery have a
smaller potential for exposure than
workers directly handling containers
and contaminated materials.
Guidance was provided to minimize
differences in the assumptions on
-------
Table 4. Cost Multipliers for Total Costs at Four Degree-of-Hazard Levels
Dogroe-of-Hazard Conditions
Level D
Unit Operation
Surface Water Controls:
Surface Sealing Synthetic Membrane
Surface Sealing Clay
Revegetation
Contour Grading
Surface Water Diversion Structures
Basins and Ponds
Dikes and Berms
Avg. Cost
Multiplier9
1.14
1.09
1.16
1.23
1.3S
1.2S
1.47
Range
1.801.20
7.057.50
1.091.46
1.121.57
1.09-1.41
1.071.86
Level C
Avg. Cost
Multiplier*
1.19
1.19
1.24
1.33
1.44
1.37
1.66
Range
1.141.24
1.121.60
7.777.57
1.201.67
7.277.53
7.272.77
LovelB
Avg. Cost
Multiplier'
1.22
1.24
1.26
1.40
7.57
7.47
7.68
Range
1.171.28
1.131.62
7.227.65
1.241.77
7.287.54
7.242.77
Level A
Avg. Coat
Multiplier'
1.24
1.27
1.28
1.46
7.54
7.46
7.75
Range
1.171.30
7.747.65
1.241.80
1.241.83
1.351,56
1.262.24
Number of
Estimates
2
1
S
2
2
2
2
Ground Water Controls:
Well Point System
Drain System
Slurry Trench
1.09
1.28
1.09
1.091.47
7.75
7.38
7.74
7.767.60
7.78
7.43
7.32
7.797.66
7.23
7.48
7.36
1.271.69
Waste Controls:
Chemical Fixation {Solidification)
Excavation of Wastes/Contaminated Soil
Treatment of Contaminated Water
Drum Processing
Bulk Tank Processing
Transformer Processing
1.22
3.08
1.19
2.01
7.95
f
1.111.32
7.336.45
7.077.38
7.342.66
7.862.03
7.29
3.37
7.27
2.28
2.48
2.93
7.767.47
7.447.73
7.737.38
7.442.92
2.382.58
7.23-4.63
7.30
4.09
7.26
2.64
4.19
t
1.171.42
7.508.85
7.747.43
7.523.77
2.735.64
7.33
7.29
7.28
3.77
5.49
f
7.797.47
7.5620.90
7.747.49
7.58-453
3.077.90
2
6
3
4
2
2
'Values given include 100 percent for base construction costs.
*This unit operation was deemed appropriate for performance only at Level C.
Costs at Levels D, B. and A were not provided.
Table S. Health and Safety Cost Multipliers and Percent Increased Costs at Different Temperatures
Level D Level C Level B
Level A
Temperatures
°C
0-78°
18-38°
-------
Table 7. Averages o
Type of Waste
Management
Landfill
Land Treatment
Incineration
Chemical Treatment
Resource Recovery
Deep Well Injection
f Hazardous Waste Management Quoted Prices for All Firms in 1980 and for Nine Major Firms in 1981*
$/Metric Ton $/English Unit
Type or Form of Waste
Drum
Bulk
All
Relatively clean liquids, high
Btu value
Liquids
Solids, heavily toxic liquids
Acids/Alkalines
Cyanides, heavy metals, highly
toxic wastes
All
Oily wastewaters
Toxic rinse waters
1980
$144.00
$49.50
$ 14.50
$145.00
$145.00
$521.50
$47.50
$290.50
$130.50
$ 28.00
$198.00
1981
$204.00
$ 69.00
$ 14.50
$33.00*
$145.00
$593.00
$ 56.50
$428.50
$165.00
$28.00
$198.00
1980
$30/55 gal drum
$45/ton
$ 0.06/gal
$ 0.55/gal
$ 0.55/gal
$ 1.80/gal
$ 0.18/gal
$ 1.10/gal
$ 0.50/gal
$ 0.11 /gal
$ 0.75/gal
1981
$42.50/55 gal drum
$62.50/ton
$ 0.06/gal
$ 0.13/galf
$ 0.55/gal
$ 2.25/gal
$ 0.22/gal
$ 1.63/gal
$ 0.63/gal
$ 0.11 /gal
$ 0.75/gal
"Interviews were conducted in May of 1980 and February of 1982.
fSome cement kilns and light aggregate manufacturers are now paying for wastes.
Source: US EPA, Review of Activities of Major Firms in Commercial Industry: 1981 Update, SW-894.1, Washington, D.C., May 1982.
current estimates of base construction
costs. However, because of inflation
and market changes, the original 1982
cost estimates will soon be outdated.
Ongoing efforts are needed to validate
and update the costs provided in this
Summary.
The full report represents a starting
point for identifying the impacts of
health and safety considerations on the
cost of remedial action at the hazardous
waste sites. Future activities should in-
clude continued efforts to update and
validate estimating methods that accu-
rately reflect the impacts of regional
variations, scale economies, health and
safety considerations, inflation, and
market changes.
The full report was submitted in fulfill-
ment of Contract No. 68-03-3028 by SCS
Engineers under the sponsorship of the
U.S Environmental Protection Agency.
J. Lippitt, J. Walsh, M. Scott, and A. DiPuccio are with SCS Engineers, Inc.,
Covington. KY41017.
Doug/at C. Ammon is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Costs of Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites: Worker Health and Safety Considerations," (Order No.
PB 86-176 344/AS; Cost: $16.95. subject to change) will be available only
from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
,-r\r«,v X < >, " ^ .,.
Ai- X-V,.-,j
fV; -'\ - .
'"" CLPJ386 j ,.:'^ c, (; C j'
\ /.
\ / ,1 :' '"
\ nu \ix r ' . .- - "
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES P,
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/600/S2-86/037
0000329
* U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 1986 646-017/47154
------- |