United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research -
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268 ,
Research and Development
EPA-600/S2-82-035 Mar. 1983
Project Summary
Costs of Remedial Response
Actions at Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites
Howard L Rishel, Terence M. Boston, Curtis J. Schmidt, and Oscar W. Albrecht
This study updates previously esti-
mated costs for remedial response
actions at uncontrolled and aban-
doned hazardous waste disposal sites.
Costs for 35 remedial action opera-
tions were estimated for the United
States and for the Newark, New Jer-
sey, area. These estimates were based
on mid-1980 price levels.
Cost components for capital and
operating expenses were estimated
for independent unit operations, and
total and life cycle average costs were
computed. An example is included to
show the user how to estimate costs
for complete remedial response
activities.
This Project Summary was de-
veloped by EPA's Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory.
Cincinnati. OH, to announce key find-
ings of the research project that is
fully documented in a separate report
of the same title (see Project Report
ordering information at back).
Introduction
Past disposal of hazardous wastes is
one of the very serious problems facing
the Nation today. Wastes at uncon-
trolled and abandoned disposal sites
contain toxic, reactive, ignitable, corro-
sive, and persistent hazardous sub-
stances that pose significant risks to
public health and the environment.
To deal with potential risks. Congress
passed in 1980 the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion and Liability Act (CERCLA), fre-
quently referred to as the "Superfund."
The Act calls for a broad response and
liability mechanism for dealing with
toxic substances pollution and requires
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to identify the hazardous
substances and reportable quantities of
such substances that may escape to the
environment. The Act further provides
for government response to actual and
threatened releases, determination of
the liability of polluters, and a joint
government-industry response fund to
cover costs for cleanup and restoration.
To assist those involved in estimating
the costs of remedial response actions
(e.g., containment, cleanup, and resto-
ration), EPA sponsored this study to
review and update engineering designs
and related costs. The tasks included
identification of appropriate designs
from the available literature and revi-
sion of the associated capital and oper-
ating costs to reflect recent prices.
Individual costs were estimated for unit
operations (specific types of remedial
actions), and these were then combined
for estimating the costs of complete
remedial action responses at uncon-
trolled or abandoned landfills or
impoundment sites. The full report
includes the following.
Conceptualized descriptions of the
uncontrolled landfill and surface
impoundment disposal sites;
Generalized discussions of the 35
unit operations (21 for landfills and
-------
Table 1. Average U.S. Low and High Costs of Unit Operations for Medium-Sized Landfill Sites
Average U.S. Cost $ Per Unit*
Initial Capital
Unit Operations
1. Contour grading and
surface water diversion
2. Bituminous concrete
surface sealing
3. Revegetation
4. Bentonite slurry trench
5. Grout curtain
6. Sheet piling cutoff wall
7. Grout bottom sealing
8. Drains
9. Well point system
10. Deep well system
11. Injection
12. Leachate recirculation
by subgrade irrigation
13. Chemical fixation
14. Chemical injection
15. Excavation and reburial
16. Ponding
1 7. Trench construction
18. Perimeter gravel
trench vents
19. Treatment of contami-
nated ground water
Unit
Site area, ha
Site area, ha
Site area, ha
Wall face area, m2
Wall face area, m2
Wall face area, m2
Site area, ha
Pipe length, m
Intercept face area, m2
Intercept face area, m2
Intercept face area, m2
Site area, ha
Site area, ha
Landfill volume, m3
Landfill volume, m3
Site area, ha
Trench length, m
Trench length, m
Contaminated water.
Low
15,300
67,300
3,450
54.5
600
73
5,282,000
72.7
62.5
11.6
77
5.270
69, 100
1.67
116
647
12.2
99.2
High
17,900
92,700
16,500
96.1
1,209
108
10,209,000
106
105
18.3
90
8.360
130,000
3.28
120
1,028
14.34
144
Life Cycle Costs
Low
16,300
67,300
14.300
61.2
937
73
5,296,000
357
107
28.6
1,760
19,700
82,500
2.16
116
647
15.11
100
High
19,900
92,700
18,100
103
1.880
108
10,224,OOO
416
153
37.2
1.785
24,000
145,000
3.81
120
1,028
20.32
146
Total Units Used**
5.4 ha site area
5.4 ha site area
5.4 ha site area
10,800 m2 wall face area
10,800 m2 wall face area
10,800 m2 wall face area
5.4 ha site area
260 m pipe length
2,000 m2 intercept face
area
4,800 m2 intercept face
area
550 m2 intercept face area
5.4 ha site area
5.4 ha site area
150,000 m3 landfill volume
596,000 m3 landfill volume
5.4 ha site area
930 m trench length
935 m trench length
L/d
20. Gas migration control -
passive Site perimeter, m
21. Gas migration control -
active Site perimeter, m
1.52 2.57 2.52 4.38 440,740 L/d
contaminated water
161 241 168 256 935 m site perimeter
113 173 167 279 935 m site perimeter
* Mid-1980 dollars, 10-year life cycle, 0 & M costs are discounted at 11.4% to present value, capital costs are not amortized.
** For 5.4 ha site.
14 for surface impoundments), and
the methodology for cost
estimation;
Detailed cost information for each
of the 35 unit operations and their
components;
Cost estimation examples for com-
plete remedial/response scena-
rios;
Evaluation of scale economies and
regional variation of costs; and
Unit costs for all capital and O&M
components.
Findings
The updated cost estimates are use-
ful for preliminary comparisons of costs
for alternative unit operations that per-
form the same function. The unit opera-
tion costs can be combined to estimate
total costs of complete remedial
response actions. The user is cautioned
however, that the approach is only a
first approximation of total costs, as
many components are affected by site-
specific considerations. Considerable
additional research in evaluating tech-
nical cost differences is needed. As
more remedial response activities at
uncontrolled and abandoned sites are
undertaken, the cost estimates should
be modified to reflect more nearly the
actual conditions. Average cost esti-
mates for medium-sized sites are pre-
sented in Tables 1 and 2for landfills and
surface impoundments, respectively.
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Little is known about the actual costs
involved in cleanup at uncontrolled and
abandoned hazardous waste disposal
sites. The literature on remedial
response activities refers mostly to a
national and industrywide approach.
Cost information, where available, is
highly aggregated. Critical components
of cost are frequently omitted. This
study attempts to overcome some of
these deficiencies.
The primary product of this study is a
cost estimating methodology that can
be consistently applied to each of the
identified unit operations. The resulting
cost estimates can be used to compare
costs for alternative remedial response
actions that perform the same function
(e.g., prevent infiltration) and to com-
pute combined cost estimates for oper-
ations that constitute a complete
remedial response scenario. The user is
cautioned, however, that a simple com-
parison of these costs does not address
the many technical differences in the
capabilities or efficiencies of alternative
operations under site-specific condi-
tions. The site profiles used for this
study were conceptualizations of gen-
eral environmental settings; thus they
-------
Table 2. Average U.S. Low and High Costs of Unit Operations for Medium-Sized Surface Impoundment Sites
Average U.S. Cost $ Per Unit*
Initial Capital
Life Cycle Costs
Unit Operations
Unit
Low
High
Low
High
Total Units Used**
22. Pond closure and contour
grading of surface
23. Bituminous concrete
surface
24. Revegetation
25. Slurry trench cutoff wall
26. Grout curtain
27. Sheet piling cutoff wall
28. Grout bottom seal
29. Toe and underdrains
30. Well point system
Site area, ha
Site area, ha
Site area, ha
Wall face area, m2
Wall face area, m2
Wall face area, m2
Site area, ha
Pipe Length, m
Intercept face area, m2
26.900 35,100 35,900 53,500 0.47 ha site area
31. Deep well system Intercept face area, m2
32. Well injection system Intercept face area, m2
33. Leachate treatment
34. Berm reconstruction
35. Excavation and disposal
at secure landfill
Contaminated water,
L/d
Replaced berm, m3
Impoundment
volume, m3
48.500
2,540
60.1
326
76.8
868,000
316
62.3
33.2
31.3
1.16
2.98
260
70
1.621
700 48,500 70,700 0.47 ha site area
3\820 3,970 5,450 0.47 ha site area
106 60.1 106 4,165 m2 wall face area
631 343 649 4.104 m2 wall face area
115 94.6 135 4,100m2 wall face area
000 1,024,000 1,792,000 0.47 ha site area
609 1.550 1,960 60 m pipe length
117 321 398 300 m2 intercept
face area
60.3 114.4 149 950 m2 intercept
face area
55.5 109 141 950 m2 intercept
face area
1.96 4.49 8.14 51,870 L/d
contaminated water
3.80 4.00 5.85 410 m3 berm
268 260 268 5,000 impoundment volume
11.4% to present value, capital costs are not amortized.
* Mid-1980 dollars, 10-year life cycle, 0 & M costs are discounted a
** For 0.47 ha impoundment.
do not necessarily represent actual site
conditions.
Complete remedial response action
for uncontrolled or abandoned hazard-
ous waste disposal sites typically con-
sists of at least several unit operations.
Scale economies may exist when multi-
ple unit operations requiring similar
component inputs are performed, but
the extent of these economies is
unknown and needs to be researched.
Furthermore, additional research is
needed on short- and long-term reme-
dial response actions to address the net
benefits as well as the costs to society.
The full report was submitted in ful-
fillment of Contract No. 68-01-4885 by
SCS Engineers under the sponsorship
of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Howard L. Rishel, Terence M. Boston, and Curtis J. Schmidt are with SCS
Engineers, LongBeac
EPA Project Officer, s
mental Research Lab
The complete report, er
trolled Hazardous W,
subject to change) wi
National Techn
5285 Port Roya
Springfield, VA
Telephone: 70c
, CA 90807; the EPA author Oscar W. Albrecht {also the
ee below for contact) was with the Municipal Environ-
atory, Cincinnati. OH 45268.
titled "Costs of Remedial Response Actions at Uncon-
ste Sites," (Order No. PB 83-164 830; Cost: $16.00,
be available only from:
cal Information Service
Road
22161
487-4650
For information contact Donald E. Banning at:
Municipal Envi,
onmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
AU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1983-659-017/7008
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED
------- |