540284502
L
                               Environmental Law Institute

                              3346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

                                  Washington D.C. 20036
                   COMPENDIUM OF COST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

                              AT HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES


                                         DRAFT

                                    FEBRUARY 1984
                  A Report to the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
                            U.S. Environ mental Protection Agencv
                                     Project Officer:
                                    Mr. Bruce Clemens
                                        W H - 586
                                    401 M Street, S.W.
                                 Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
                                       DISCLAIMER
I
I
r
      This report has been reviewed by the Office of  Emergency and  Remedial
Response,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  and  approved for  publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  nor  does mention  of trade names or
com merclal products constitute endorsement or recom mendation for use.
I
f

-------
                                   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
i
C
            The Environmental Law Institute (ELD prepared this report under a subcontract
      with JRB  Associates of McLean, Virginia for the  US EPA*s  Office of Research  and
      Development, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Solid and Hazardous Waste
      Research Division and the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.  This report was
      prepared  under the direction of Dr.  Edward  C.  Yang,  Director of ELPs  Resources
      Program, by James D. Werner, Environmental Scientist for the ELI Resources Program.
      Mrs. Nuran Giampaolo of ELI and Ms. Diane Sim mons of JRB Associates provided the
      administrative support for the project.
            The project  team greatly appreciates the overall guidance of the JRB project
      manager, S.  Robert Cochran, and the EPA Task Managers, Bruce  Clemens and Douglas
      A m mon, for their assistance and support.

-------
f
                                   TABLE OP CONTENTS


                                                                             Page

           INTRODUCTION	1

      3LO  Surface Water Controls
            .  2.1 Surface Sealing	7
              2.2 Grading	17
              2.3 Drainage Ditches	21
•              2.4 Revegetation	25

      3JO  Groundwater and Leacbate Contrails
              3.1 Slurry WaH	31
              3.2 Grout Curtain (Aspemlx)	42
              3.3 Sbeet Piling	50
              3.4 Grout Bottom Sealing	54
              3.5 Permeable Treatment Beds	57
              3.6 WeD. Point System	61
,              3.7 Deep WeH System 	64
              3.8 Extraction/Injection Wen System .:	68
r              3.9 Extraction Wells/Seepage Basins	74
'              3.10 Subsurface Drain	76

      4JO  Aqueous and Solids Treatment
              4.1 Activated Sludge	86
              4.2 .Anaerobic, Aerobic & Facultative Lagoons	91
              4.3 Rotating Biological Contactors	97
              4.4 Air Stripping'	;	101
              4.5 Carbon Treatment «. ,..,..„.,.., ,,..».,,,.,,.,	107
["             4.6 OJO/Water Separator	 Il4

-------
                                                                              Page
      Table of Contents (continued)
|     &0  Gas Migration Control
              5.1 Pipe Vents	120
              5.2 Trench Vents	123
              5.3 Gas Barriers	127
              5.4 Carton AdsorbtLon	131
I
f
      6.0  Material Removal
              6.1  Excavation/Removal, Transportation
                   and Disposal	137
              &2  Hydraulic Dredging	160
              6^3  Mechanical Dredging	165
              6.4  Drum Handling	169

      7.0  Water ft Sewer line Rehabilitation
              7.1  Sewer Line Replacement	175
              7.2  Sewer Line Repair	178
t-
}              73  Water Line Repair	182
              7.4  Water Main Repair	1	185
I
      &0  Alternative Water Supplies
              8.1  New Water Supply Wells	188
              8.2  Water Distribution System	191

           REFERENCES	194

-------
                                      LIST OF TABLES
 j          Table*    Title                   '                                   Page

 i          1.         Levels of Personal Protection	5
 i
           2.         Average Percent Increase for Total Costs
                     Iat four Degrees - of - Hazard Levels	6
           3.         Surface Seal Expenditures	.•	10
           4.         Surface Seal Cost Estimates	13
           5.         Surface Seal Costs: Material Variations	16
           6.         Grading Cost Estimates	20
           7.         Diversion Ditch Cost Estimates	23
           8.         Revegetation Cost Estimates	27
 j          9.         Slurry Wall Expenditures	34
           10.        Slurry WaH Cost Estimates	37
           11.        Slurry Wall Costs: Depth Effects	........40
           12.        Grout Curtain Expenditures	.....45
           13.        Grout Curtain Cost Estimates	46
 i          14.        Sheet Piling Cost Estimates	53
           15.        Grout Bottom  Sealing Estimates	.56
(
           16.        Permeable Treatment Bed Cost Estimates	60
           17.        WeH Point System Estimates... 1	63
           18.        Component Cost of Deep Well Estimates	66
           la        Deep Well Cost Estimates	67
           20.        Extraction/Injection Well Cost Estimates	69
           21.        Extraction Wells/Seepage Basin Expenditures	73
           22.        Extraction Wells/Seepage Basin Cost Estimates	75
i          23.     •   Subsurface Drain Expenditures	79
           24.        Subsurface Drain Cost Estimates.,.,.,.»,.,..,..,.....,. 33
f          25.        Activated Sludge Expenditures	89
           26.        Activated Sludge Cost Estimates	90
1          27.        Anaerobic, Aerobic and  Facultative Lagoons
                     Cost Estimates	94
           28.        Rotating Biological Contactor Cost Estimates	..99
           29.        Air Stripping Expenditures	104
           30.        Air Stripping Cost Estimates	105

-------
L
      Table *        TitJp                                                     Page

           31.        Carbon Treatment Expenditures	109
           32.        Carbon Treatment Cost Estimates	Ill
           33.        On/Water Seperator Capital Expenditures	116
           34.        Oil/Water Seperator Expenditures	117
           35.        OU/Water Seperator Cost Estimates	120
I          36.        Pipe Vent Cost Estimates	122
           37.        Trench Vent Cost Estimates	125
f          38.        Gas Barriers Cost Estimates	130
           39.        Gas Treatment Expenditures	  133
           40.        Gas Treatment Cost Estimates	134
           41.        Excavation Expenditures	  141
           42.        PCB Excavation Expenditures	146
           43.        Transportation Expenditures	150
           44.        Excavation Cost Estimates	153
           45.        Estimates from Engineering
                     Construction Manuals	  155
L          46.        Transportation Cost Estimates	156
*          47.        Average Transportation Costs
                     by Type of Transporter	157
'          48.        Averages of Hazardous Waste Management
                     Quoted Prices for AIL Firms in 1980
                     and for Nine Major Firms in 1981	159
           49.        Additional Related Cost Items
                     Estimated for Hydraulic Dredging	162
i           50.        Hydraulic Dredging Cost Estimates	163
           51.        Additional Costs to Basic
                     Mechanical Dredging	167
j           52.        Mechanical Dredging Cost Estimates	168
I                  •
           53.        Drum  Handling Expenditures	173
V          54.        Sewer Line Replacement Cost Estimates	177
           55.        Sewer Line Repair Expenditures	  ISO
'           56.        Sewer Line Repair Cost Estimates	181
           57.        Water Line Repair Cost Estimates	184
           58.        Water Line Replacement Cost Estimates	187
           59.        New Well Cost Estimates	190
           60.        Water Distribution Cost Estimates	193

-------
                                         SECTION 1
                                     LO INTRODUCTION
j     1.1  OVERVIEW
'            Response cost information is critical to several aspects of implementation of the
•-    Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,  Compensation  and  Liability  Act  of 1980
!      (CERCLA), known as Superfund. These aspects include:

             o   Selecting cost-effective response alternatives
             o   Docum enting reasonable costs for cost recovery
             o   Budgeting for fund balancing

 \    The purpose of this Cost  Compendium is  to sum marize existing cost information for
      these uses.  Actual expenditures and estimated costs are both given to assemble data
      from all available sources into this one data base. The im mediate use of this centralized
1     source of cost information  is to provide consistency in various site-specific costing tasks
      such as:  remedial alternative costing called  for in the  Feasibility  Study Guidance
      Document (FSG D), and budgeting for im mediate and planned removals. This compendium
      should be viewed as the first installment of an ongoing data base,  which will be updated
      periodically as  more cost information becomes available from  completed Superfund
      responses.    Cost data in  this compendium  are organized  according to  related
      technologies, such as "Ground Water Controls" (see Table of Contents).  The cost given
      are for technologies that have been most com monly used at uncontrolled hazardous waste
\      sites, although some rarely used technologies are given because estimates are frequently
1      given.  Com monly used technologies may have been excluded because of the paucity of
I      data.   Typically, however,  the number of estimates  and the  depth of background
\     information are often proportional to the freauencv of use of the technology. In addition
      to the organization cf cost data according to technologies, several other features of this
      cost compendium, which merit highlighting are sum marized below.
[
                                            -1-

-------
     12  ACTUAL EXPENDITURES VERSUS ESTIMATES
            Most available cost information is from  engineering esti.ir.a-2S.   Few  such
!     estimates have been ft«»irf tested, however.  Preliminary comparison of these estimates
     with actual expenditures has shown significant differences in many cases (ELI/JRB,
<     1983).   Since  merging these two types of data would be misleading to the reader, this
i     compendium   separates, ex  ante,  engineering  estimates  from   actually  observed
     expenditures.  Although actual expenditure data, which has been "ground truthed", are
     generally more reliable than  estimated cost data  estimates are useful because  they
     broaden the range of site characteristics and technical circumstances for which costs are
I     available.  The factors that were included in deriving the cost estimates may  reflect a
     situation that more closely parallels the intended use of the cost data than any of the
     situations for which actual expenditure data are available.

     U3  FOCUS ON  UNIT COST
            Data are given in a unit cost form, in terms of dollars per unit operation, such as
.     cost per square foot of  slurry wall, or cost per gallon of treated water.  Since the  units
     used are important, consideration was given to the selection to ensure that they  were
     useful and/or standardized throughout the industry.  English measure only are used for
T    simplicity.  These unit  costs typically include aU related costs such as material, labor,
     and equipment and other capital costs.  Operation and labor costs are given when they
^
f     are applicable and available.

(     1-4  INCLUSION OF SUM MART AND RAW DATA
            This compendium organizes cost data into two levels: (1) sum mary data, and (2)
     raw  data.  On the first  level, sum mary data such as range, and when possible,  mean and
     standard error are given. This is simply a sum mation of the raw data and should be used
     only for very general cost screening and  budgeting.  The  wide ranges of these  data
     sum maries, and the lack of background explanation on this level render it unsuitable for
      more specific costing purposes. Such specific cost estimation should use raw data, on the
•     second level, which provides more detail on the data compilation. This detail can be used
     for matching to the orcumstancss at the site for which it is to be used.  The user should
''    compare the site circumstances to  the factors given in the raw data to estLmarte the
     effect of these factors on the estimated cost.
                                            -2-

-------
L
     FACTORS FOUND TO AFFECT COSTS
      A fundamental concept of estimating technology costs is that a vruiety of factors
influence these costs.  This compendium 
-------
      in mind.  First, the results are from a final draft version of the SCS report.  Additional
      changes may be made to the results.  Second, the validity of the result? depends on how
      seriously  the bidders took  the hypothetical scenarios  and whether  che bidders were
      neutral in providing the estimates (Le., free from  motives that  may misrepresent the
      costs).  And finally, the technologies in Table 2 do  not always match the ones given in
      this compendium.
r
r
                                              -4-

-------
I
I
r
i
i
                                          TABLE 1

                            LEVELS OF PERSONAL PROTECTION
1.    Level A - requires full encapsulation and protection
      from any body contact or exposure to materials (Le.,
      toxic by inhalation and skin absorption).

2.    Level B - requires self-contained breathing apparatus
      (SCBA),  and cutaneous  or percutaneous exposure to
      unprotected areas  of  the body  (Le., below  harmful
      concentration).

3.    Level C - hazardous constituents known; protection
      required for low level concentrations in air; exposure of
      unprotected body  areas (Le., head, face, and neck) is not
      harmfuL

4.    Level D - no identified hazard present, but conditions
      are  monitored   and   minimal safety  equipment is
      available.

5.    No hazard protection - standard base construction costs.
           Source:    "Interim Standard Operating Safety Guides,"
                     EPA, 1982.
                                            -5-

-------
L
L
r
                                 TABLE 2.

            AVERAGE PERCENT INCREASE FOR TOTAL COSTS AT
                    POUR  DEGREE-OF-HAZARD LEVELS*
Unit Operation
Surface Hater Controls:
Surface Scaling . Sythetlc Membrane
Surface Seal Ing • Clay
Surface Seating • Asphalt
Surface Scaling - Fly Ash
•evegetatlon
Contour Grading
Surface Hater Diversion Structures
Basins and Ponds
Dikes end Derms
Cround Hater Controls:
Hell Point System
Deep Hell System
Drain System
Injection System
Dentonlte Slurry Trench
•rout Curtain
7 Sheet Pit ing Cutoff
• trout Bottom Sealing
Cas (deration Controls:
1. Passive Trench Vents
2. Passive Trench terriers
3. Active 6*s Extraction Systems
Haste Controls:
1 Chemical Fiiatlon (Solidification)
2 Chemical Injection
3 Etcavation of Hastes/Contaminated Soli
4 leachate ••circulation
S Treatment of Contaminated Hater
t Drum Processing
7 Bulk Tank Processing
8 Transformer Processing
•i^r.
114S
1091
mi
1221
usx
12SS
ISO!
1101
128T
1091
jj-
1222
30*71
1191
2011
USX
UveJC
1191
'11 91
1241
133S
144X
1381
1731
1171
1381
114X
~
1291
3371
1211
2281
248X
293X
Level 8
122S
124X
12«X
140X
1S1X
1451
176X
12U
1431
1321
~
1331
3971
12SX
2»4X
41 91
•»**>
Level X
12«t
1271
128X
146X
1S4X
1SOX
186X
1281
.1481
136X
~
137X
128X
31 7X
S49X
                 Values given include 100 percent for base construction costs.
                 This unit operation was deemed appropriate /or performance
                 only at Level C. Costs at Levels D, B, and A were not provided.
      Source:   "Worker Health  and Safety Considerations:   Cost of
      Remedial  Actions at  Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites",
      Draft  Final Report,  1983.  SCS Engineers  for US EPA,
      Covington, XY
                                        -6-

-------
                                                                Surface '• ater Controls
                                                                Surface Sealing
L
I
                                          SECTION 2

                               2LO SURFACE WATER CONTROLS
      2.1 SURFACE SEALING

!      2.1.1    Definition
      Surface se«llpg (capping) involves covering a site with any of a variety of materials,
i      including clay, asphalt, cement or a synthethic  membrane, to prevent surface water
t
      infiltration, control erosion, and/or mitigate volatilization from contaminated waste.

      2.1*2    Units of Measurement
      Cost per unit surface area is used, generally, because area best expresses the functional
      attribute of  a cap.   Cost per square  yard is used  specifically  because  it is readily
      converted to acres (X 4,840), sq.ft. (S/9) and cubic yard volume (X depth in yards).

      2.L3    Sum mary Statistics

      2.1*3.1     Expenditures
|      The actual costs of surface seals ranged from:
                 $0.92/yd.2 - 4" thick, loam
;                     to
1                 $ 15.84/yd.2 - 6" thick, clay
         «
r
i
      The surface seals for which actual costs are given reflect site specific characteristics,
      such as design parameters and local material availability. The highest cost seal involved
I      an engineered cap with careful quality control for clay/water content.  The lowest cost
      cap  was constructed  with on-«Lte  clay  that required only hauling and compacting
      expenditures.
             Operation  and maintenance costs  Involved sjroundwater  monitoring, Inspection
      and, possibly, repair costs. These costs were either accounted for separately or had not
      yet been encountered in these new caps.
                                             -7-

-------
                                                                Surface v a-=r Control
                                                                Surface Sealing
      2.1.3.2     Estimates
            The eight cost estimates for surface seals ranged from:
                 $1.32/yd.2 -        geotextfle, level B protection
                   to
                 $16L88/yd.2-      'sand/hypalon/loam
f-
      Operation and maintenance costs Involving ground water monitoring and cap inspection
(
      were generally not included in the estimates. However, the following in 0 & M costs were
      Included in the Radian estimate:
1.
I
ir
           Item                                   Cost
           Annual Inspection                       $500/year
           Mowing/Revegetation                   $800/year/acre
           Erosion control and drainage
           maintenance                           S200/year/acre
           Repairs resulting from shrink
t
*           swell or freeze/thaw forces              $200 costs/year
           construction

      The extremes  of the range of estimated costs are  represented  by a  very simple
      temporary cap  at she low end and a more complex, Iftree element cap, Intended to oe
<      permanent, at the highest cost end.
      2.JL4   Factxzs Found to Affect Costs
                   •

      2.1.4.1      Expenditures
      Generally, the following salient factors affected the surface seal costs:
           o  Cap material:
                  bentorxLte/clay
                  asphalt
                  concrete
                  synthetic membrane
                  loam son
                                              .8-

-------
                                                                Surface V'a-:=r Control
                                                                Surface S
           o  Related material costs:
                 top gravel
                 gravel bed
                 curbs
                 membrane anchor soil
           o  Dimensional variations:
                 thickness
                 area covered
      The factors affecting the actual costs of surface seals., as outlined above and given in
      Table 3 are generally divided into "Material variations" and "Dimensional variations".
      They are presented here only to provide a rough background explanation of the costs for
i     general comparison purposes, and not to specifically delineate the proportional effect of
      particular cost components. It is not possible to determine from the data if there was a
1      significant general cost difference between clay and asphalt caps. Although the costs at
      the California site suggest no significant cost difference, other sites had significant cost
 .     differences. These differences, however, may have been due to anomolous local material
i      availability or other factors.  The number of observations were inadequate to make any
                                                    •
      clear conclusions.  Variations in the costs for related materials  may have affected the
]     total costs of the various caps. The cost of the bentonite-soil cap at the  California site
      included  the cost of the  6-inch (0.15  m) cover of 3/4-inch (1.9 cm) gravel to prevent
      erosion of the cap.  The cost of the curbs for run-off control at the California site was
      not Included in the total reported cap  cost,  but curb installation  may have caused a cap
      cost increase not incurred  in the other sites lacking this feature, due to delays for sealing
      these seams.'  The  use of  a synthetic  membrane  required less heavy construction
:      equipment for deployment, although  soil anchors were  used.   The cap for the New
'      Hampshire site may also be considered an element of revegetation, but it also had a role
      in seal stabilization.
                                             -9-

-------
•J
ea
                h
«s
00
0\
                                                -10-

-------
tJ
 01
 e
 o
 u
a
h
at
                  CM
                  CO
          CO
                                    V
                                    03
                                    V
                                    0)

                                   o
                                   o
                                   10
                                   (M
 a -H
4J  0
 0  >
•o  0
                             tG
                                                 v<
                                                 O
                                           o-
                                           CD

                                          (M



                                          O*
                                          g1

                                          O
                                          CM
                                          in
                                                            cw
                          0


                         •c
                                       CM 00     2
                                  CO  X   0*     01
                                  a  u   ^     z
                                                      9
                                                      a.

                                                      9
                       S   I  -   -
                            a  co    >
                       W   01  ON    01
                       »   *  «H   Z
                                                             -11-

-------
 L
 r
                                                        Surface Water Control
                                                        Surface Sealing
Finally, the cap dimensions-thickness and area covered—appeared to affect cap unit
costs.  Increased cap thickness and area generally added to cap costs by increasing the
volume  of  cap material required and the amount of grading.   An exact generalized
function for this relationship cannot be determined from the available data. The unit cap
cost, however, is also affected by economies of scale.
     2.1.4.2     Estimates
     Generally, the following factors affected the estimates:
          o  Component material type:
                clay
                soil
                synthetic liner
.               sand
          o  Number of components:
                single component
w               composite
          o  Dimensional variations:
1               thickne
[               area covered

1     Generally, cost estimate information (see Table 4) was less detailed than the data for
     actual cost; however, salient information usually was available.  Scenarios from generic
     engineering-construction cost manual estimates (JRB, SCS, Radian) and  feasiMlity
     studies were unable to predict unexpected changes occurring during the response.

     As in the actual costs, components affecting the costs were generally qualitative and
     quantitative - "Component  material costs"  and "Dimensional variation," respectively.
u    Four types of materials were assumed in the various estimates: clay, soil, svnthetic liner
     and sand. The  more significant consideration, however, was the number of components
     assumed for the estimates.  Typically, additional component costs in composites were
     assumed to be additive.  Again, the dimensional variations affected both the volume of
     surface material required and the economies of scale.  Increased cap thickness requires
     more volume per area.  By using  mobilized grading and compacting equipment at a
     relatively small additional marginal cost, caps with a larger area had  the advantage of
     greater economies of scale.
                                           -12-

-------



^
M





*
M
2
§»
Q
Q



0)
g
y
M



M
ee
^
if
y





U
a

Q
to





•o
^
a
00
00
•
*0
rH

i
(T
a
o
0
eo

^0
o

B
4) *
"6 5 "g
CEO

o
CD n *•

h
3)
«^
(4 O
O
o o
| S *§
sis






U ' O
33 • CO
W 86 ON
31 ^



,
"5.
|

f*)
,
Si

i
tr
a
o
o
GO
*
to
9)

aa

111
•H «H
O
CD «») «-
-
it
1)
^
W O
4^
S §
tH
§0 *O
a c
o x n
-t f a






< c
O- (0
fid ^^ ?M
•o «
W CO ON
S fit! *H

•o
>•
n-
to
5
I
00
ITl
VO
•to-
i
tr
a
in

CM
«
VO
VO

a

f
•*H

M



a

O O
C X)
IS

2 1





=<
S ^
» CO
CO « 00
CO CJ f-( ON
3 CO 5 tH

•o
X
o-
CO
ON
I

VO
^

'
.
2"

r-
O)
in
*
in

eg
01
1
•^

m



a
9
o a
C ^J
s u
J-> C



X •
4J
C
1
! o
WE®
O -H ON
03 r ^

-13-

-------
P
          •o
           01
           §
           Cl
          s
.a
 i*
CM
CO
ON
                                                                                                                S
                                                                                                            U -H <
                                                               -14-

-------
                                                              Surface v ater Control
                                                              Surface Sealing
     The Radian  estimates given Table 5  are based on using the following list of  cost
     components to construct a surface seal, the same specifications were established in the
     JRB-RAM scenario.
\r
TABLES. SURFACE SEAL COSTS: MATERIAL VARIATIONS
                                                  Cost
                                                  $15/yd.3
                                                    $10/yd.3
          Direct Capital Cost Items:
          Topsail (sandy loam), hauling, spreading,
          and grading (within 20 miles)
          Clay hauling, spreading, and compaction
          Sand hauling, spreading, and compaction

          Portland concrete (4 - 6" layer), mixed,
          spread, compacted on-site
          Bituminous concrete (4-6" layer),
          fiviiifting base layer
          Lime or cement, mixed into 5" cover soil
          Bentonlte, material only; 2" layer, spread
          and compacted
          Sprayed asphalt membrane (1/4" layer and
          scdl cover), installed
          PVC membrane (20 mil), installed
          Chlorinated PE membrane (20-30  mil), installed
          Elastidzed polyolefin membrane,  installed
          Hypalon membrane, (30  mil), installed
          Neoprene membrane, installed
          Ethylene propylene rubber membrane,.installed
          Butyl rubber membrane, installed
          TefLon-coated fiberglass (TFE)  membrane
          (10 mil), installed
          Fly ash and/or sludge, spreading, grading,
          and rolling
                                                    $18/yd.3
                                                 ($9-12,000/acre)

                                                 $9 - 15/yd.2

                                                 $4.50- 7.25/yd.2
                                                    S2.15-3.00/yd.2

                                                 $1.90 yd.2

                                                 $2.00 - 3.40/yd.2
                                                    $1.75 - 2.70/yd.2
                                                    $3.25-4.30/yd.2
                                                    $3.10-4.15/yd.2
                                                    $7.40/yd.2
                                                 $7.25/yd.2
                                                    $3.60-4.70/yd.2
                                                    $3.60 - 5.10/yd.2

                                                 $23/yd.2

                                                 $1.50 - 2.50/yd.2
                                           -15-

-------
                                                                 Surface Water Control
                                                                 Surf ace Sealing
*    Expenditure Sources
f
\r         b  ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983
          o  State and Federal Superfund Work, 1981 -1983
     Estimate Sources
     ~""""~™^^^^^^~"""~
          O JRB-RAM, 1980
          o 'Radian, 1983
          o EPA, OERR contractor Feasibility Studies, 1981 - 1983
          o SCS Engineers, 1981
                                           -16-

-------
L
t
F
                                                             Surface Wat=r Controls
                                                             Grading
22  GRADING

22.1   Definition
Grading is the general term for the process of reshaping the ground surface to control
surface water run-off and infiltration, as well as to minimize erosion and prepare the site
for revegetation or surface sealing.  The three basic steps In the process are: hauling,
spreading and  compacting.  The latter two steps are routinely practiced at sanitary
landfills.  The equipment and methods used in grading are essentially the same for all
landfill surfaces, but applications of grading technology will vary on a site-specific
basis.  Grading is  often performed in conjunction with surface sealing practices and
revegetation as part of an integrated landfill closure plan.

222   Units of Measurement
The unit cost is given in dollars per acre because grading is usually performed on the
scale of acres.

2J23   Sum mary Statistics

2.2.3.1      Expenditures
No actual expenditure data were available for grading costs at this time.

2.2.3.2      Estimates
The grading cost estimates ranged from:
        $4,000/acre
            to
       $16,205/acre
                                            -17-

-------
r
                                                         Surface Water Cor.irol
                                                         grading
      Operation and maintenance costs involving ground water monitoring and cap inspection
      were generally not included in the estimates.  The following in O&M  costs, however,
      were included in the Radian estimate;

                     Item                                 Cost
                 Annual Inspection                      $500/year
                 Mowing/Revegetation                  $600/y ear/acre
                 Erosion control and drainage
                  maintenance                          S200/y ear/acre
                 Repairs resulting from shrink/
                 swell or freeze/thaw forces
                 construction                          $200 costs/year
I
      The lower grading cost estimates ($4,000 - 4,720/acre) reflected the  costs of on-site
      hauling, spreading and compacting of a one-foot thick soil layer and a 6 inch sand layer.
*     These estimates  assume no material costs  for sand  or soil.  The higher grading cost
      estimates by  SCS «iy> exclude material costs, but include the excavation and  grading
      cost for on-site sofl.  Additional costs (30%) were included in these estimates to cover
      overhead and a contingency allowance.  The cost for a diversion ditch, included in the
      SCS estimates, was subtracted, for consistency with the other estimates.

      2J2.4    Factors Found to Iffect Costs

:      2.2.4.1     Expenditures
'      No expenditure data are available at this time.
j
i     2.2.4.2     Estimates
      The Following salient factors affected grading costs:
j          • Material-
              Source of material
              Type of material
           Related or'additional costs:
              Soil compaction testing
              Surveying
              Overhead
              Contingencv allowance
                                            -18-

-------
                                                      Surface 'v ater Controls
                                                      Grading
 material costs varied among the estimates detailed in Table 6.  The source of the
erial was either on-site or off-site, which affected the costs for hauling.  The type of
material affected the estimate because sand costs more per unit volume to handle
; scriL  Again, however, this estimated difference excludes material costs, and only
ides hauling, spreading and compacting.

 inclusion of related or additional costs varied among  the estimates,  and hence
rted the costs. The SCS estimates included the following related or additional costs,
h were not included in the JRB and Radian estimates:
 ted/Additional Costs                Landfill            Impoundment
                                   (13.4 acres)        (1.16 acres)
 eying (2 days)                          —            $ 366-614
      allowance (25%)             $17,499-20,402        $2,655-3,469
   ency allowance (15%)          $10.502-12.237        $1,593-2.077
    Total                        $28,001-32,639        $4,614-6,160
 nates Sources

 o  JRB-RAM, 1980
 o  Radian, 1983
 o  SCS, 1981
                                   -19-

-------
I
«o

w

03
O
u

2
5
CO
h
(Q
         o
         a
        CM
        03
                             u
                             tfl
                            •^
                            1/1
                            o
                            CN
                            Cl
                            \o
                           «M
                                                             u
                                                             to
                                                    00
                                                    oo
                                                    
-------
                                                         Surface Water Control
                                                         Drainage Ditches
a
             DRAINAGE DITCHES
        2L3.1   Definition
        Drainage ditches or trenches intercept overland flow or shallow ground  water flow to
        control surface discharge and/or minimize contributions to ground water contamination.
        Ditches usually run around the perimeter of a site and may complement ground water or
        surface water  control techniques by collecting water from subsurface drains or off of
        caps.  They may be lined  with a clay or synthetic membrane to prevent infiltration or
        with stone to prevent erosion.

        2^.2   Units of Measurement

        Costs are given in  dollars per linear foot  (LF) because length provides a single simple
        trench dimension for performing quick estimates.

        2^3   Sum mary Statistics

        2.3.3.1      Expenditures
              No actual expenditure data are available at this time.

        2.3.3.1      Estimates
              The cost estimates range from:
               $1.27 - 2.54/LF        (1-foot deep)
                  to
               S6.04/LF              (6-feet deep)
                                             -21-

-------
                                                        Surface Water Control
                                                        Drainge Ditches
]     The cost estimates seemed to be primarily affected by the volume of soil excavated.
      The Radian  scenario assumed over six times as much soil as the EPA site-specific
      estimates.  The 1 foot deep trench  was similar to a shallow french drain since it was
      filled with graveL
I.
r
      Operation and  maintenance costs such as inspection and  repair were inconsistently
      available. The Radian estimate, however, gave the following estimate:

                     Item                              Cost
i                 Annual Inspection                     $500/year
                 Mowing/Revegetation                 $600/y ear/acre
                 Erosion control and drainage
f                  maintenance                         S200/y ear/acre
*                 Repairs resulting from shrink/
                 swell or freeze/thaw forces
i            "     construction                         $200 costs/year


f     23A   Factors Found to Affect Costs
                                                   »
 /    2.3.4.1     Expenditures
      No expenditure data were available at this time.

      2.3.4.2     Estimates
f      The three primary components affecting the cost estimates were:
1             Depth
,             Lining
I             Overhead and contingency costs
f      The depth was perhaps the most salient factor affecting cost estimates (Table 7) since it
1      was directly related  to  the volume of  material excavated.  Excavation is the primary
      task of  ditch construction,  grading and harm  construction but it  -vas nroportionalLv
      included in aH estimates.
                                            -22-

-------




.

L
p
G
i
c
c/2
fe
8 ?
^ ^BBI 19
rj ^4
&4k
*
1 U ^*S (M
3 W »
09 ^^
, iS Z 3
r o
55
«y

» ^
(••I
^
« feM4
fi



1












W
O
w
fj
z
3
•

W
s
g


i






^
z
M











U
u
at
g
M
<
•J!
a






b.
^
O
•



O
VO
o
v>


01
 O








01
Z6 W
< U «
Q £ >
CO C£ ff» 01
B O ^H Z

























































in
wance (
o
•-4
<-H
m

-------
                                                         Surface w ater Control
                                                         Drainage Ditches
Only the EPA-New Jersey site estimate included estimates for the lining subtask. This
cost component could become more significant for deeper ditches.

Finally, an overhead allowance (25%) and a contingency allowance (15%) were included
for the SCS estimate.  The other estimates did not include any surcharges or allowances
for health  and safety considerations, so these additional costs may be appropriate to
include for some sites.   The SCS estimated only "grubbing" to clear vegetation from
ditches (28,300 sq.ft.) once a year at $378-779.

Estimates Sources

     o  Radian, 1983
     o  SCS, 1981
     o  US EPA, OERR contractor Feasibility Studies
                                      -24-

-------
I
I
f
                                                          Surface Water Control
                                                          RevegetatLon
2,4 REVEGETATION

2.4,1   Definition
Establishing a vegetative cover may stabilize the surface of hazardous waste disposal
sites, especially when preceded by surface sealing and grading.  RevegetatLon decreases
wind and water erosion, and contributes to the development of a naturally fertile and
stable surface, and reduces infiltration by enhancing evapotranspiration (Le., increased
loss of soil moisture).   It also can be used  to aesthetically upgrade the appearance of
disposal sites that are being considered for re-use.  Short-term vegetative stabilization
(Le., on a semiannual or seasonal basis) also can be used during ongoing remedial actions.

2.4*2   Units of Measurement

Costs are given in dollars per acre because revegetation is usually given in terms of
acres.
        Sum maty Statistics

2.4.3.1      Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.

2.4.3.2      Estimates
The revegetation cost estimates ranged from :
      Capital        $l,214/acre    (1.76 acre site)
                       to
                     $8,000/acre    (20 acre site)
      Operation and Maintenance:
                     351/acre/Fear
                       to
                     $l,267/acre/year
                                            -25-

-------
L
r
                                                          Surface Water Control
                                                          Revegetation
      The range of costs for revegetatlon reflects the differences in the amount of work
      needed for different site condition assumptions.  The highest cost estimate was for a
      proposed restoration of a secondary growth temperate deciduous forest, requiring heavy
      liming to neutralize the highly acidic soiL   The lowest cost  was estimated for a
      hypothetLcalLy filled and graded on-sLte fertOe arrtl.

      2.4.4   Factors Found to Affect Costs
!
1      2.4.4.1     Expenditures
      No actual expenditure data were available at this time.

 }    2.4.4.2     Estimates
      The following factors were found to affect the revegetatlon cost estimates:
           o  Soil:
f            '   New fill and grading required
	              Terrain impediments (e.g., slope, berms)
?•                treat m ent for fertility
           o  Vegetation:
                                                    «
1                 Grass and/or trees (successdonal stage), multi-year planting
''               Mulching and/or jute mesh stabilization

      Soil cost was not included in the estimates (see Table 8). However, for the New Jersey
      Feasibility Study,  65,000 cubic yards of off-site fill was expected to be necessary for the
      72,600 square yard (15 acre) site (0.9  yards deep).  Also, the SCS "landfill" estimate
      includes excavation, grading and recontouring of the site (27,685 m3) this was about 60%
j      of the total revegetation cost, including the overhead and contingency. The terrain was
      assumed to be flat except for the,JR8 estimate,  wnich assumed 25% sloped terrain and
      75%  flat terrain.   The JRS  estimate also assumed a  three-year staged  planting
                                                                                   •
      schedule. The estimates also vary the type of vegetation assumed. Hydroseeding was by
      far the least expensive vegetation (50.37/sq. yd.) since it provides fertilizer, lime, and
      seed in  mass application  of a sprayed liquid.  Trees and shrubbery cost significantly  more
      because of higher  material and labor costs of individual hand-planted nursery stock.  This
                                             -26-

-------
L
r
J  *
I   §
   I?
                     CO
                     Id
                     <0
                    CM
                    00
                    ON



•a 41
u
e c
O a
•H C
JJ 01
(Q U
S.5
CL CO
O 2




^

4J
•H
O.
eg
U






41
N
•H
CO








fH

U O 41
ca fH fH
09
O m
CM IT) fH
^^







^J
4)
fH B
fH a
•H 0
4J fH
00 CD
> 5 C!
^

41
•H CO
CO &>O
4) •• O
CO CO >
CO OJ -O
CB 4) Id
id h ca
00 4J A
CO
•u X

^ «d
CO f^
jj* 41 ON 4)
pfa fH 2a
•H 4)
f. 41
U Id CO
3 £?"§

CfT 4) 00
CJ
a o o
CO O O
eg o o
Id • •
00 fH fH


s

-------
L
•o
 01
 V
 I     ^
s     %
2     !<
  I/
                CO


                CO
 o
a

CM
eo




yjj at
U
B B
0 K
•H B
4J 01
W JJ
hi B
01 -H
O.SJ
OX


(3
•H
a
u




01
N
^J
^^
CO



fH
•H
O
CO
/—
o
•H
a
•H
U
to
0)
o
u
3
O
vs
CO
4-1
eg
o


l^
a
01
X

0)
L^
u
o
^N-
fH
m
•co-
^
CM
1
C3 (^
CN CO
sr ao
• ^
•co-co-

CO
01
Iri
u
CO
•
fH


01 01
fH AJ
•H -H
4J fH (D
«•> , 3
oo j: E
^
•H
£ "Z
ta c
tn to
eo u J
3 we
co
01
X
^^,
01
li
u
a
^^^
C*J
&*
|
00
•CO-
Ol
o _.
«fl ^5
fH CM
CM CO
fH iH
CO
0)

u
to

tH
tH
fH
•H
O
to
01 Ol
fH 4-1
«H i-1
4J CQ
S C
IM O

„
oi eo
01 B
01 -H
0 J=
b U

Is
-1
«-
as I
U Q.
C/3 E
W CJ.-4
a to:





























•










o
eo
fH
                                                                                               o

                                                                                               §
                                                                                                 *
                                                                                               o
                                                                                               in
                                                                                               •co-
                                                                                                (0
                                                                                                0)
                                                                        u
                                                                        oi
                                                                        ca
                                                                                               O
                                                                                               sr

                                                                                               •CO-
                                                                                               CO
                                                                                               »-
                                                                                               a
                                                                                              m
                                                                                               CO
                                                                                               «-
                                                                                              Ch     HH
                                                                                                      U
                                                                                                      eo
 o
 u

•o

 CO
                                                                                                     in
                                                                                                     rs
                                                                                                     tO
                                                                                                     0)
                                                                                                     a
                                                                                                     01
                                                                      -28-

-------
                                                           Surface Water Control
                                                           Revegetation
       higher stage of plant succession win also vary with the type of stock selected.  The
       Radian report provided the following Ust of various plant costs (in 1982 dollars), which

       included materials and installation:
L
            Item
Cost(S)
       Topsail, furnish and spread
                  4"
                  6"
       Sodding, 1-1/2" thick

                  Level
                  Slopes

       Ground Covers
            Pachysandra
            Vinca Minor
            Privits, 15" taH planted in hedge row
            Barberry, 15" taH planted in hedge row
            Boxwood 16", taH planted in hedge row
       Trees and Shrubs

            Flowering Crab 8' -10'
            Hawthorn 8' -10'
            Junipers, spreading 18" - 24"
            Junipers, upright 4' - 5*
            Yews, spreading 18" - 24"
            'fews, upright 2' - 3'
            Rhododendron 2'
         -  Fir 8'-10'
            Hemlock 8' -10'
            Beech 8! -10'
            Pine 8' -10'
            Tulip 8' -10'
            Maple 1-1/2" diameter
            Maple 2" cttameter
            Maple 3" diameter
            Sycamore 4' - 5'
            Gold  Locust

              Source: Radian, Inc., 1982
1.43/sq.yd.
1.90/sq.yd.
2.86/sq.yd.
3.74/sq.yd.
1.09/sq.ft.
1.11/sq.ft.
   2,34/LF
   3.03/LF
   2,84/LF
222.12/ea
170.90/ea
 33.22/ea
 58.63/ea
 45.22/ea
 54.63/ea
 71.16/ea
251.16/ea
283.16/ea
222.16/ea
249.16/ea
244.16/ea
167.11/ea
197,15/ea
362.24/ea
 46.22/ea
 69.22/ea
                                             -29-

-------
                                                            Surface V ater Control
                                                            Revegetation
      Estimates Sources
      «MBM^M^M«MMHH^^H^^^mM^B

           o JRB-RAM, 1980
           o Radian, 1983
           o SCS, 1981
r          o US EPA, OERR contractor Feasibility Studies
r
                                          -30-

-------
i
                                                              Ground Water & Leachate Controls
                                                              Impermeable barrier
                                                              Slurry Wall
                                          SECTION 3

                       3*0 GROUND WATER AND LEACHATE CONTROLS
f     3.1  SLURRTWALL

      3.1.1   Definition
      A slurry wall is one of several types of subsurface cut-off waHs that prevent leachate
      formation by redirecting upgradient ground  water away from a contaminated  area,
      and/or controlling horizontal leachate movement away from the site.  A slurry wall is
      constructed by frmng a trench with a slurry such as bentonite on bentonite-eoil-cement
i      during excavation.  The backfilled trench has a much lower coefficient of permeability
      than the surrounding '«•*! and thus creates a barrier to ground water flow.
f  .
      3.1.2   Units of Measurement
f     Costs are given in dollars per square foot because square feet reflect the functional area
      of a cut-off walL  In estimating the .cost of a cut-off wall, the length and depth (face
      area) requirements are usually fixed by the extent of the waste  and the depth of the
      aquiclude.  Linear units were not used because they would obscure the effect of thickness
      on grout curtain costs.

      3.1*3   Sum mary Statistics

      3.1.3.1      Expenditures
I            The slurry wan expenditures ranged from:
                  $0.25/sq.ft.
                                                                                  (•
                     to
                  531.96/sq.ft.
                                             -31-

-------
r
                                                       Ground Water & Leachate Controls
                                                       Impermeable barrier
                                                       Slurry Wall
The lowest cost for a slurry wan was for a privately constructed wall using extensive in-
house equipment and labor.  The next lowest cost wall was relatively shallow (14 feet
deep).  The highest cost slurry wall was built partly In contaminated soft on a stream
bank.  Each scoop of y>ft required analysis  with an organic vapor analyzer and was
disposed of at an engineered landfill. The stream  bank restricted and delayed access to
the construction area.

Operation and maintenance costs Involved ground water monitoring and, possibly, repair.
These costs, however, either were accounted for separately or were not yet encountered
at the new sites.
                                  .*

3.1.3.2      Estimates
      Slurry waH cost estimates ranged from:
            $4.50/sq.ft.        scdl-bentonite
               to
            $13.86/sq.ft.
                                              %
The highest slurry wall cost estimate ($11.56/sq.ft.) was for a Wyoming bentonite slurry
walL   The lowest estimate was for a competitively bid soll-bentonite slurry  wall, for
which another contractor was deemed more reliable.
                                  •
Operation and maintenance costs such as inspection, ground water monitoring, and repair
were not included in the estimates.
                                             -32-

-------
r
                                                    Ground Water & Leachate Control
                                                    Impermeable barriers
                                                    Slurry Walls
3.1.4   Factors Found to Affect Cost

3.1.4.1      Expenditures
The following factors primarily affected slimy wall expenditures:
     o  Depth.
     o  Thickness
     o  Wall material
     o  Inclusion  of related costs:
            Staging area set-up
            Contaminated trench soil disposal

Perhaps the most salient factor  affecting costs  (shown in Table  9)  was the  wall
material.  Cement - sofl/bentonite walls were the most expensive waHs; soil bentonite
was in the middle of the cost range, and local clay was the least expensive.  Much of the
local clay used for the $1.80/sq.ft.  California slurry  wall was dredged from the adjacent
bay.  Depth affected costs since a larger excavator (such as a CAT 215 or clamshell
instead  of a backhoe)  was necessary  for digging deeper •benches.  Once mobilized,
however,  larger  equipment is capable of Increasing the trench  depth at a reduced
marginal cost.  WaH thickness was directly proportional to the volume of soil excavated
and the volume of slurry mixed Into the trench.  Since costs are given in terras of dollars
per square foot, the cost for this added volume is not precisely reflected in the face-area
cost. However, most of the walls had very similar thicknesses, at between 30-36 inches,
with two waUs varying by  two feet.  The  different thicknesses generally stem from
different  permeability requirements set forth in a consent  decree,  or by a state or
federal agency.

Related costs plaved a significant role in at least two cut-off walls.  At the Pennsylvania
site, a  large volume of contaminated  trench  soil required disposal  at an engineered
landfQL In addition to these disposal costs, which  were included 'in the operation cost
total, the trench  construction "vas slowed by the need to test each excavator scoop vith
an organic vapor analyzer.
                                             -33-

-------
OT
g

E-
I



^
M
MATER
09
u
M
g
DEPTH
•a
LENGTH

a
o
p
o
•
^
5
g





*
J I
«4

cr
09
v£>
i-l
£

4)
^j
1 -H
1 1
i 1


4J
1
*M


$^
' 0)
iw 0)
00
tf» «-


a
B
(0
^
M — I
ft, -5 03
U ^»- ~* C
l-> CD £
CO J O\ 01
3 U rH CU



*
4J

cr
03
en
*7
00
.. jj
1 0) C

O C 01
.00
* C *
*n * in
GO & t-
O
01
|
O
•
4)
IM ij
O 01
in
• o
•- (M





O

"1

^
CD
CD
*
£


0)
^
, 1
^H AJ
-H e
O 4|
CO ^u
a
f»
o
C
•H
O
0)
.•J
*** 0»
e oi
N X
O


O
5
§
^c ^^
e
— < 'S fl 3
< — «
O. U b
U "v, Cs O
a f*» 1-1
en ae as o
3 i-j IH U


< 13
Cu ^l 01
'13 !- JJ
CO O (0
W O£ i— 1 O
»•-)(». «-»


tr
a

vn
<»


0)
4->
•H
1 0
5 C
o $
CD ^U


4J
01
01
IH
ro
0)
IM 4J
0)
O 01
C3 ^M
in x
• e
n vo


4
01
I*
«H JC
iH 05
•H q.
= £
Sr ^
id IM
(M CO 3
CO E ON 01
9 U -^ Z
*
1
-34-

-------
L

r
           •o
           0)

           e
           §
           u
           u

           CO
 I/
CO
8

EH
M


j
M
OS
I
1
ii
o
M
E

DEPTH
«

jt
O



U
£

£
2
1 i
•
JJ
IM
•
er
n
<
CO
p*
•
CM
v>
0
4J
•H
C
1 0
^H 4J
•H C
8 £


jj
0
0
IM
n

jj
ti
0
IM JJ
0
0 0
0 X IM
in
• o
v- CM
e
8
1 3
3 CO
rf «H
S « »
M iJ -H •
03 (8 3
CO « 0 0
» •-) ^ J

•
JJ
IM
•
1
\
O
0
CM
V>
0
JJ
•H
C
1 0
«-4 JJ
•»< C
S ^


4J
0
0
IM
n
*
4J
•y
0
«. ^ t i
*M *»
0)
S x£
°X o
CM CM
^^
i«
5 n
< -0
P. 0 -H
Cd .
8 ^2
-^ o


JJ
0
0
IM
in

u
T)
0
•. . ii
*M **
0
in 0
vo X IM
p-
• V
CM v-
^n
9
M
«
t-i a
•* — i
«Q C
< OS O
a. n tn IM
W ««* 00 •<-(
M ON fH
CO J rH «
3 W >-* O

*
4J
IW
•
tr
co
*«»
in
C4
•
O


<— 1
C X
8 J2
-H O

JJ
0
0
IM
CM
ro

jj
U
0
*w «tJ
0
1C 0
0 X IM
n
CO
CM V
«

m
BQ a
< Bfi to
0- ""5 C
U ~s. 0 nj
H-l 00 .*
W J 0» ki
E) U rH <
4

                                                    -35-

-------
I
r
f

V
                                                        Ground Water & Leachate Controls
                                                        Impermeable bamer
                                                        Slurry Wall
      At the  Arkansas site the cost given  may not reflect the full slurry  wall costs since
      significant in-house labor and equipment were used but not recorded. Other related costs
      such as site preparation and geotechnical investigations were inconsistently noted as
      separate or included.   Generally, these costs were not included in the slurry  waH
      expenditures.

      3.1.4.2      Estimates
            The following factors affected the estimated costs for slurry walls:
                 o   Depth
                 o   Thickness
                 o   Material
                 o   Inclusion of related costs:
                     -  Geotechnical investigation
                     -  Overhead and contingencies
       Material costs were again the most clear cost factor in the slurry waH cost estimates
       (Table 10).  The highest cost wall ($10/sq.ft.) was. the cement-bentonite waH at the New
       York site.  Slurry waU depth seemed to be, at best, a secondary factor. The deepest (130
       foot deep) slurry wall at the New Jersey site was the second to lowest estimate while the
       most shallow (14 foot) slurry wall was the highest estimate.

       However, the construction of the 130 foot deep slurry  wall would be greatly facilitated
       by the unlithifLed  coastal plain sediment of  New Jersey  for which it was proposed.
       Complete hydrogeological assumptions were not given for aH of the estimation scenarios,
       but a 1980 paper by RessL di Cervia (see Table 11) gave the following depth-eoil condition
       cost matrix. The slurry wall thicknesses varied less than did those of the wall studied for
       Che actual expenditures.  Only one hypothetical slurry wall was over 3 feet thick.  .
                                             -36-

-------
             ^•N


       5C- 5
o     o   =
       o   o



£H




fri
M
Z
D
TERIAL
rf

8
S
o
M

£4


|

•a

3
f"*
U
2
a

o
K
§
(0
•e

i



«
4J
IM
t
CT
a

o

o
e
8
0
0
«. .
•W
(M

w
01
0
4J
0)
0*
IM 4J
•y
0 01
O IM
O^ X
r- «-



1-4
•M Jrf

< 0
&*«"
CM CO 3
=) O *H Z


jj
IM
•
o-
CO

in
o


0
•H
J, 1

*o f
n ^



4J

0

m
jj --
0 «-

^W ^_J
°T)

CO 01 ON 01
=5 3 -H Z
e
< 5
w -o oo »
r/t 
                                                                                                                 O  C.
                                                                                                                 U  X
                                                                                                                    01

                                                                                                                 O  JJ
                                                                                                                v*.  01
                                                                                                                    Ol
                                                                                                                ^o ^^
                                                                                                                 0)
                                                                                                                 E O
                                                                                                                 CO 01
                                                                                                                 C 01
                                                                                                                 O IM
                                                                                                                •H
                                                                                                                 93 ITi
                                                                                                                E ^

                                                                                                                a -^
                                                   -37-

-------
L
r
          1
          8
 r.
 f
 r
      ^r ^   IH
-    O   &
2    u  5
u
CP
           00

p.
8

M
Z
3



^J
M
0»
I
CO
u
2

O
M
2j
£*


a
g
•B
r
3
1



u
o
X

CO
^
2
a


t
IM
cf
*T
9)
*
£


Mt
^
^
. g
-H 4J
•s g
a J3




4J
0)

IM

•w



0 JJ
W 0)
(u fll
^"* ^ t^
o
0 0
^ 5T








CM CO
W -M JM
•o oo
CO (0 9i
S3 OS i-l



JJ
tj j
*M
*v
«

in
0)

^H
A I
1 1
a
X
u
c
•H

O
m
i
CM
-
JJ
IM
g1
in

^V
^
"

•
a-
03
VC
in
i-H
^H
1
•»
•CO-

CM
1 «-
0) "
4J •-
g,.H-
•H O b
6 *J 0)
0 C 4J
>. 01 "0
i ji 5


^


IM

00
CM
M


^j
*J
0) JJ
X IM
«^
^B 0)
Ch V

< r

01
«H
CO

r-4 0?
2 a
oj m
CMOS >
co B cr> oi
=> 0 ^1 Z


-J
c
01
IS
"5
< §
a. o
U Q.O
CO E CO
CO O M 0\
S3 CO ; -H
.
.
o-
CO
s
o'
1
o
*
VO
CM
1 ^
0) ..
4J v-
•H **
0 U
= 5

4J
0)
«
IM

CO
CM
ri



1)
lu ^J
0)
CM 01
VC X 
-------
L


L


r
        o
        u
        03

        IS
                                                -39-

-------
                                         TABLE 11
                          SLDRRY WALL COSTS: DEPTH EFFECTS
              Slurry Trench Prices
              In 1982 Dollars
              Soil Bentonite Backfill
              (Dollars/Square Foot)
Unrednforced SLuny Wall
Prices in 1982 Dollars
    Cement Bentonite BackfOl
(Dollars/Square Foot)
r
Depth Depth Depth
30 30-75 75-120
Feet Feet Feet
S~ftto Medium Soil
N 40 3-5 5-10 10-13
Hard Soil
I40-

jL-julrlers
5-9 6-13 13-25
5-10 6-10 10-32 .
t'tt to Medium Rock
N 200 Sandstone,
Fuale 8-15 13-25 25-64
Hard Rock
* r&nite, Gneiss,
I Schist*
^^^W ^H^M ^^^M
Depth
60
Feet
19-25
32-38
25-38
64-76
121-178
Depth
60-150
Feet
25-38
38-51
38-51
76-108
178-222
Depth
150
Feet
38-95
51-121
51-108
108-222
222-298
]  ytes: N - standard penetration value in number of blows of the ham mer per foot of penetration
(ASTM D1586-67)

i  formal Penetration Only
     For standard reinforcement add $8.00 per sq. ft.
     For construction in urban environment add 25% to 50 * of price
Reference: RessL di Cervia 1980.
                                            -40-

-------
i
E
                                                  Ground Water & Leach£.te Controls
                                                  Impermeable barrier
                                                  Slurry Wan
      Additional costs were included in at least two of the estimates.  Both geotechnical
      Investigation (impoundment: $11,210-23,010; landfill- $4,543-7,694) costs and overhead
      (25%) and contingency costs (30%) were included in the SCS estimates.  Geotechnical
      investigation and filter cake permeability testing costs were grouped together ($23,600-
      94,400) in the JRB estimate.
      Expenditure Sources
           o ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983
           o JRB, 1983
           o State and Federal Superfund Work

      Estimates Sources
           o JRB-RAM, 1980
           o Radian, 1983
           o SCS, 1981
           o US EPA, OERR, Feasibility Studies.
                                           -41-

-------
                                                  Ground Water and Lacheate Controls
                                                   Impermeable barrier
                                                   Grout Curtain
            GROUT CURTAINS
      3J2.1   Definition
      Generally, grouting is the pressure injection of one of a variety of special fluids into a
      rock or gnfl body to seal and strengthen that body. Once, this fl^ri gels in the rock or
|     sou voids, it greatly reduces the permeability of, and  increases the mechanical strength
      of the grouted mass.  When carried out in the proper pattern and sequence, this process
3     can result in a  curtain or  wall that can be  a very effective  ground water  barrier.
      Grouting  is  rarely  used when  ground water  has to be  controlled  in  soil or loose
||     overburden.  The major use of curtain grouting is to seal voids in porous or fractured rock
•'     where other methods of ground water control are impractical.  The  injection process
 [I     Itself involves drilling holes  to the desired depth and injecting the  grout with using
 1     equipment. In curtain grouting, a line of holes is drilled in single, double, or sometimes
      triple staggered  rows (depending on the site characteristics) and injecting the "fl^n in
j     either descending stages with increasing pressure, or ascending stages with decreasing
      pressure.   The spacing of the injection holes is also site-specific and is determined by the
I     penetration radius of the grout out from the holes.  Ideally, the grout injected in adjacent
      holes should  fuse between  them.   If this process is done properly,  a continuous,
ill     impervious barrier (curtain) will be formed.
              Unit of Measurement
I
1      Costs are given In terms of dollars per unit face-area  (square feet) because it best
r      reflects the functional area of the grout curtain. The effect of other dimensions on costs
       is discussed in section 3.2.4 (Factors Found to Affect Costs).   Since  the units used in
       existing engineering estimates have  varied  widely, the effect of using different
I      dimensions is an important consideration for comparing estimates.
                                              -42-

-------
                                                 Ground Water & Leuchate Controls
                                                 Impermeable barrier
                                                 Grout Curtain
3A3    Sum mazy Statistics
3.2.3.1     Expenditures
      The cost of grout curtains (all-ASPEMIX vibrating beam walls) ranged from:
               $ 6.60/sq.ft.
                 to
               $ 14/sq.ft.

The  lowest cost  grout curtain  was the first one installed by  a new company.  The
$14/sq.ft. grout curtain was Instated two years later at the same site as the $8.26/sq.fL.
vaH.  The cost  differences may reflect  the need to recoop  the potential earnings
foregone for the ftarljgr waHs in order to enter the market.  Operation and  maintenance
costs such as Inspection, ground  water monitoring and, possibly, repair either were
accounted for separately or were not yet encountered at the new sites.

3.2.3.2     Estimates
The grout curtain cost estimates ranged from:
        $5.50/sq.ft,          ASPE MIX, vibrating beam installation
           to
        S75.52/ sq.ft.        phenolic resin, standard injection installation

The  order of magnitude difference in cost estimates for grout  curtain cost estimates
largely seems to reflect the widely varying thicknesses thickesses.  The highest estimate
was  for a 9 foot thick wall;  while the lowest (group of  four) estimate was for  an
ASPEMIX waH, which is typically under a foot thick.  Operation and maintenance costs
such as inspection and ground water monitoring costs were not included in the estimates.
                                      -43-

-------
P
                                                       Ground Water & Leachate Controls
                                                       Impermeable barrier
                                                       Grout Curtain
&2L4   Factors Found to Affect Costs

3.2.4.1     Expenditures
The following factors seemed to affect expenditures:

     o  M arket entry loss
     o  Labor costs

The  cost of grout curtains seemed to be primarily affected by market conditions.  The
industry contacts who supplied the data in Table 12 noted that, compared to the costs
shown,  the prices will decrease and stabilize in the  future  now that the firm  has
penetrated the market.  They «i«"> noted that the California site cost was significantly
affected by the relatively high local labor costs.  For Instance, a privately built grout
curtain  in Dallas, for which no data were available,  was said to have been less than half
the cost of the latest California wall

3.2.4.2     Estimates
The following factors affected grout curtain cost estimates:
     o  Thickness
     o  Material composition
     o  Installation technique

     o  Inclusion of related costs:
        -   Geotechnical investigation
        -   Overhead and contingency

The  most significant cost factor affecting grout curtain cost estimates (Table 13) was
the  wall thickness.  For single row  walls this was assumed to be equal to the centerMx>-
center  distance of the grout injections, which is equal to the diameter for adjacent
injections. The nine foot thick  wall, which  was expected to be necessary to enclose an
impoundment, was the highest estimate.
                                             -44-

-------
i

I





iH
a
oa
H
Q
Z
U
eu
2
Z
^
(•*
&




CD
ki
0
i-l
iH
S
(M
OO
ON
i-l
 II


 i
5
O
£
a
4J
CO
O
u
4J
c

-------
li
I







09
O
U
JJ
•H
e

fl
•H
Vi
4J
03
09
e
u
5
H
a
Q
X

60
I
0)
U
Id
3
O
a
4J
(0
Q
JJ
O*
to

u
•H
fH
0 JS
U 03
j; fl)
O. 1-


4J
0)
M"1
in
4J
QJ AJ
IM S
^* ^4
^ X ON


~
rH

•H
iM
-3 3
C CO
SO CD ON
14-1
V '
tn

r*.
.
>H

1
m
iH
•€/>

^
to
u
»H
•H
03


4J
(U
lw_
en "

4J 4-1
01 U

-------
1
I     9
 r
 &
 i
      o
      td

      03






00
0
u
*J
^H
e

09
^^
U
V
4J
03

00
Thlcknes

X
4J
a
Ol
Q
X
x
60
01
Source
a

a e- »
CO K O 01
» 0 ^ Z

^
IW
cr
00
VD
CO
VC
*?"
O
•n
in
X
M
s
Cb
SS
o
o
g "
^i w
dC ^
oj tn
o n
C ^
-
Ol
01 U
•a
§^U
u~i O
• >£>

CD
a
< -a 5
a. -o s
U -H eg
j= oo 3
CO CT> 01
S •» ^ Z
                                                  -47-

-------
                                                           Ground Water & Leachate Controls
                                                           Impermeable barrier
                                                           Grout Curtain
       Comparing the cost estimates based on dollar per linear foot and a dollar per cubic foot
       basis is useful for discerning the effect of thickness on the estimates.  On a cost per
       Itniaar foot b»-g»-s the following list shows that the cost ranking is aberrant compared to
       the depths.
            Date
i,
1982
1980
1980
1979
1982
1982
1982
60 feet
49 feet
49 feet
40 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
                  Unit Cost

                  $330- 412/LF
                  $1,908 - 3700/LF
                  $1,619-3353/LF
                  $249- 419/LF
                  $230- 340/LF
                      $ 420/LF
                      $ 240/LF
                         Cost Ranking (S/sq.ft.)

                                6
                                1
                                2
                                5
                                4a
                                3
                                4b
       On this basis the costs show neither an ordinated ranking according to depth, nor does it
       show an evenness (X* $1,102/LF; SE« $365/LF; n-12) that would suggest that simple
       length  was the most significant cost factor.


       Similarly,  the effect of thickness and depth on cost can be elucidated by comparing costs
       on a per volume  basis.  The following list shows* that the cost estimates are relatively
       even (X- $5.30/cu.ft.; SD- $2.90/cu.ft.; n- 10).
 i
            Date
Thickness
1980
1980
1982
1982
1982
1979
1982
9 feet
5 feet
- 3 feet
3 feet
3 feet
3 feet
Ifoot
Unit Cost

$4.33-8.26/cu^ft.
$6.61-13.69/cu.ft.
$7.30/cu.ft.
$3.80-5.72/cu.ft.
$3.90/cu.ft..
$203-3.43/cu.ft.
35.50-S.86/cu.ft.
Cost Ranking (S/sq.ft.)

      3
      1
      2
      4a
      4b
      5
      6
                                              -48-

-------
I
I
I
F
I
                                                 Ground Water & Leachate Controls
                                                 Impermeable barrier
                                                 Grout Curtain
The mean  of  the Table 14 costs was $22.60/sq.ft (SD= $20.10;  n»10).  The data  are
inadequate to  provide  any generalization about the relative costs of various  grout
materials.  The scenarios that assumed the use of phenolic resin, however, were the two
highest estimates; two silicate wall scenarios were higher than portLand cement, and four
hjris to construct an ASPEMIX wall, composed of an  emulsion of asphalt, sand  and
concrete to be installed with a vibrating beam, was the lowest cost estimate. Since no
"control" estimate was available to consider the cost of an ASPEMIX wall if installed
with a traditional injection technique, the installation technique cannot be accurately
Judged as a cost factor.   However,  the vibrating beam  method  may be generally legs
expensive than the traditional injection technique.

Finally, the cost of a geotechirical investigation was included only in the JRB and the
SCS estimates.   The SCS  estimate also included overhead (25%) and  contingency
allowance (30%).
Expenditure Sources
     o  ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983
U     Estimates Sources
           o JRB-RAM, 1980
t
           o Radian, 1983
           o US EP"A, OERR contractor bids
1          o SCS, 1980
                                            -49-

-------
F
r
i
                                                   Ground Water & Leachate Controls
                                                   Impermeable barrier
                                                   Sheet Piling
           SHEET PILING
      3,3.1   .Definition
      Sheet piling can be used to form a continuous ground water bander of driven steel piles.
      Although sheet piles can also be made of wood or precast concrete, steel is the most
      effective in terms of ground water cut-off and easy installation. The construction of a
      steel sheet piling cut-off wall involves driving interlocking piles into the ground using a
      pneumatic or steam-driven pflft driver. In some cases, the pn«*5 are pushed into pre-dug
      trenches.  Piles are com monly 4 to 40 feet long and 15 to 20 inches wide.  Because of
      corrosion and "windows" usually present between piles, this method is often considered a
      temporary stop-gap measure.
        Unit of Measurement
Costs are given in terms of dollars per square foot because  area best reflects the
functional units of a cu1x>ff wall.
        Sum mazy Statistics
      3.3.3.1      Expenditures
*t'
|i     No actual expenditure data for sheet piling cut-off walls were available at this Urn e.

'      3.3.3.2      Estimates
             The cost estimates for sheet piling cut-off waUs ranged from:
,                  $8.02/sq.ft.
                   to
                  $17.03/sq.ft.
                                             -50-

-------
I
1
I
r
i
                                                    Ground Water & Leachate Control
                                                    Impermeable barrier
                                                    Sheet Piling
      The lowest sheet piling cut-off wall estimate was for the largest site involving 116,228
      sq.ft. of sheet piling. This larger wall may have helped reduce the cost by using already
      mobilized equipment.   This  effect  may have counterbalanced the effect of including
      related costs that were not included in the JRB-R A M estimate.

      33.4   Factors Found to Affect Costs

      &3.4.1      Expenditures
      No actual expenditure data are available at this time.

      3.3.4.2      Estimates
      The following components affected the cost estimates for sheet piling cut-off walls:
           o  Economies of scale
           o  Piling type
           o  Inclusion of related costs:
                  Geotechnical investigation
                  Overhead and contingency allowances
      As noted above In Com ments on the sum mary statistics, the limited data in Table 14
      suggest that economies of scale may  be the most significant factor affecting costs.
* i
41     Although local costs may vary this effect, the specialized equipment (pile drivers) and
      experienced personnel may be able to Install sheet piling at decreasing marginal costs as
'     the total area of installed waH increases.  This relationship may derive from the fact
      that mobilization and set-up are relatively  more significant elements of the total unit
4,     operation for sheet piling than other re m edial technologies.
I
                                             -51-

-------
c
E
f
                                                    Ground Water & Leachate Controls
                                                    Impermeable barrier
                                                    Sheet Piling
Among  the estimate  scenarios, the  piling types vailed both  in  composition and  in
thickness.  Galvanized steel ($10.48/sq.ft. installed) which  provides.somewhat greater
corrosion resistance,   was slightly   more  expensive  than  black  steel  ($9.41/sq.ft.
installed).  The paucity of data on piling thickness precludes accurate quantification  of
its relationship to costs. However, this variable may often be dictated by local material
availability and geological constraints.  Since pri^g are typically withdrawn and reused,
the thickness of the  r*1**1 nay also affect of the reusability and- hence the rebate
revenue, since a too-thin pile  may buckle upon insertion.  Since materials may be 80%  of
the total cost of a sheet piling cut-off wall, the effect of thickness and reusability on the
                   •
cost may be significant.  The cost estimates given Table 14 do  not include cost credits
for reuse of the piles,  but do include varying pile types, as indicated.  As noted in Table
14 the cost of a geotechirfcal investigation ($11,210-23,010) was included only in the SCS
Impoundment"  estimate.    Additional .costs  for overhead (25%)  and  contingency
allowances (25%) were included in this estimate and the SCS "landfDl" estimate.

Estimates Sources
     O JRB-RAM, 1980
     o Radian, 1983
     o SCS, 1980
                                              -52-

-------
1
I
        r«»
        ^
        Cd
 E
u
5
z;
                         B
                         CM
                         eo
                         o\


JJ
CO
0
u

AJ
•H
e
9



00
-S


01
00
eg
00
«n


CO

o
4J
VO
CO
iH



•
4J

iH
0)
0)
4J
CO
•8
J5
J3

•
4J
IM
•
cr
CO

ejo
•»
*
O
•CO-
•a
alvanlze
00

e
0)
>
-H
00
4J
0
z
-

4J
01
0) 4J
«M CU
01
O X «-i
§ 0
• CM
fH

4J
01
0> 4J
IM 01
01
o x m
S 0
« CM
f-H

•
JJ
Uri
•
er
CO
en
\C
•
CM
iH
CN
•*
oo
tO-

OI
00
eg
00
\Ti


CO
C
o
4J
f»
00
«3-

u
01
01
IM 4J
0)
CN 0)
r*. X M-I
en
• ej\
CM «»

•
u
tu
•
cr
B
O
CO
•
1— 1
«H
1
CM
O
CO
•CO-

CM
CM
1

B
§
U
i-H
eo
«M
•
 i
01
01 U
U4 01
0)
en VM
l^ X
en CT\
• «»
CN

                                                                                                                                            u

                                                                                                                                            01
                                                                                                                                            60
                                                                                                                                            c
                                                                                                                                            c
                                                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                                                            u

                                                                                                                                           •0

                                                                                                                                            a
                                                                                                                                           m
                                                                                                                                           CM
                                                                                                                                    •u
                                                                                                                                    CO 03
                                                                                                                                    01 01
                                                                                                                                    f. U
                                                                                                                                    i- c
                                                                                                                                    0) (3
                                                                                                                                    > 3
                                                                                                                                    o o
                                                                                                                                      
en -*




z
jj
e
--v CJ
CM e
•o
• c
< --H s
0*^0
W 0.0
en B eo
w U M a>
=5 W 5 -.







i"
J-f
fH
''^ "*^
< CM IM
o- <~"n
W CO
t/5 co eo
w u -J a>
= 75; -,
a) o
iJ A
Sf-l
CM
60
1
03
•J C

3 CM
^M *<^
i «^
Ctrt-
1-4 >-^
/— \
—4
•— '
                                    1	L
                                                                         -53-

-------
I
fi
I
                                                             Ground Water ft Leachate Controls
                                                                Impermeable barriers
                                                                Grout bottom sealing
      3A GROUT BOTTOM SEALING

      3.4.1        Definition
|     Grout bottom sealing is a direct barrier to downward leachate  migration.  Grout is
      injected through the fill material to form a bottom underneath the contaminants.  The
]     grout is injected horizontally from jets at the bottom of a pope, which is Inserted like a
      well point,  with a  pneumatic hammer.   A  grid  of injected  grout ideally forms a
      continguous bottom seaL Grout materials are typically silicate or portland cement.
                  Units of Measurement
      Costs are given in  terms of dollars per square foot because  area best reflects the
      functional characteristics of bottom sealing.

      3.4L3        Sum raary Statistics

      3.4.3.1      Expenditures
      No actual expenditure data are available at this time.

      3.4.3.2      Estimates
            The grout bottom sealing costs ranged from:
                        $9/sq.ft,
                        to
                        $116/sq.ft.

      This  'vide  range  of estimates seems to reflect the varying  thicknesses given  for
      hypothetical seals.  The higher estimate was for a 5.25-foot thick seal vs. a 3.25-foot
      thick seal for the low er estLm ate.
                                             -54-

-------
I
E
                                                              Ground Water 4 Leachate Controls
                                                              Impermeable barriers
                                                              Grout bottor. sealing

       3.4.4       Factors Found to Affect Costs

       3.4.4.1     Expenditures
       No actual expenditure data are available at this time.

       3.4.4.2     Estimates
       In the scenarios for the grouting estimates, the following components varied:
            o     Grout thickness
            o     Grout material
            o     Coverage
            o     Soil, fflltype
       Of these components, the grout thickness appeared to be directly related to the  wide
       variation in the cost of the two grout seals shown in Table 15.  The "landfill" seal was 2
       feet (61%) thicker  than the "impoundment" grout.   Thickness appears to affect the
       estimates more than does the grout material type.  Material costs for phenolic resin are
       significantly higher than for porfland cement grout, but overall, the thicker cement grout
I       has  a higher unit area, and a higher unit volume cost ($11- 22/cu.ft, vs $2-5/cu.ft.)  than
       phenolic resin.
mn                                                   *
l|,      Economies of scale  may have caused the "landfill" grouting to be less expensive than the
       impoundment grouting since  the scenario assumed ten times as much coverage.  Despite
|j      this disparity in task size, the geotechnicalinvestigation (impoundment: $11,210-23,010;
       landfill: $15,104-25,559) and equipment cost were relatively similar.
       Overhead (25%) and  contingency allowances (40%) were the same for both seals.

.      Although it is not possible to quantify from  the  available cost estimates,  the effect of
       injection through heterogeneous,  resistant  fill and  soil probably is a significant  cost
       factor.   However,  the  higher cost  of the  landfill  groutestimate cannot be clearly
       attributed to this factor since co m plete inform ation is unavailable.

       Estimates Source
            SCS 1980

                                             -55-

-------
I
   *n
1   W
i;   1


li'


i

3
Cfl

S
0
r:
0
e:
5
o
n
(0
o
o
00
ON
<-)










JJ
09
0
U
JJ
=


01
BC
a
Ol
o
u

f.
a
Ol
O

a
•H
01
JJ09
(805
SCOI
C

5 U
O*H
uc
OH
01
U
h
jj
IM
cr
03
^^
vO
iH

-------
                                                                Ground water & Leachate Controls
                                                                Permeable Treatment Bed
1
I
      2J5 PERMEABLE TREATMENT BED
      34x1      Definition
      A permeable treatment bed is subsurface wall made of a permeable filtering material
      The intent of these treatment beds is to decontaminate groundwater as it flows through
      the bedding  material.  The most com mon functions of these beds is to neutralize acidic
      ground water, or precipitate metallic ions by using a limestone bed, which increases the
      pH of the groundwater, thereby reducing the solubility of the  metals. The six primary
      component tasks (generally included in the costs) are:
           o     Trench excavation
 IP          o     Spreading
 li          o     W ell-point dewatering
           o     Sheet piling
           o     Walers, connectors, struts
           o     Bedding (limestone or carbon).
i;
      34x2      Units of Measurement
f j!     Costs of permeable treatment beds are given in terms of dollars per square foot because
      it best expresses the functional value of the treatment bed.  The width and depth of the
"'     leachate plume ^> be estimated are usually known.
11:
i     34x3      Sum mazy Statistics
I
      3.5.3.1     Expenditures
^     No actual expenditure data for permeable treatment was available at this time.

      3.5.3.2     Estimates
                                                                                 *
      The cost estimate for permeable treatment beds ranged from:
                              314/sq.rt.         limestone oedcimg
                                    to
                              $267/sq.ft.  .  activated carbon bedding
                                            -57-

-------
1
I
P
E
i
                                                             Ground Water * Leachate Controls
                                                             Permeable Treatment Bed
      The lowest cost permeable treatment bed was  for a limestone  bed;  while the  high
      estimate was for a bed of granular activated carbon. Operation and maintenance costs,
      when given, consisted of the  following two cost items which depend on site specific
      variables:
                  Operation and maintenance                   Site-specific
                  Cost Items                                  Variables
           (1)    Ground water monitoring              -  contaminants
                 cost                                 -  hydrogeologoy
           (2)    Replacement cost                     -  operational lifetime of
                                                         treatment bed
3^.4       Factccs Found to Affect Costs

3.5.4.1     Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.

3.5.4.2     Estimates
The following factors were found to affect the subsurface drain estimates:

           o     Bedding Material
           o     Size
f'      The estimates made by JHB and Radian shown in Table 16 are very similar except that
       17% was added to most of the Radian costs for inflation.  However, the same unit cost
       for limestone and carbon was assumed. For the carbon treatment bed, the bedding cost
       was the most significant (90%) cost out of the total.  For the limestone treatment bed,
       the  most  significant cost (75%) was the cost of sheet piling.  Conversely, the bedding
       cost was  7% of the total for the limestone bed; whereas for the carbon bed, the sheet
       piling was 8% of the total cost.
                                             -58-

-------
f
1
E
11
i
                                                                Ground Water & Leachate Controls
                                                                Permeable Treatment Bed
Although all cost estimates are for the same size treatment bed scenario, the influence
of size on unit costs should be noted briefly.  First increases in the dimensions of the
trench generally will proportionally increase total treatment bed costs.  The effect is
pronounced by increases in width and depth, and for the more expensive carbon bedding
needed to fill the larger trench.  A wider carbon trench could potentially be significantly
different than any of the estimates given in Table 16. Second, economies of scale could
reduce the unit costs of limeston treatment beds over that given in the estimate, since
reusable sheet piling, which has significant one-time set up and mobilisation costs, is the
major (75%) component cost.  Also, the marginal unit cost of dewatering decreases as
trench size increases.
Estimates Sources
           O     JRB-RAM, 1980
           o     Radian, 1983
                                             -59-

-------
I

i
I
                 CO


                 eg
                 O
                 Q
                 oo
                 ox
to
o
U
.4J
•H
C






«H

•H
^4
01

CO

^3
01
03

4J
•o





eg
01
w

0)
u
la
3
0
t/S

co
a
o
U-l
•
cr
CD

t*.
VC
CM
•CO-
c
0

±4
CO
U

•o
u
^
CO
•H
4J 
4J
01
VM
sr
Ol
Ol
Ui4 4J
Ol
0X0)
O UJ
o
o
iH CM


5*
7
•4
U-l
•
cr
CO
^s»
iH
0
CM
<0-





0)
N
•H -0
to oi
•LJ
V CO C
09 > 0
1- -H XI
CO 4J »-
O CJ CO
u «o u
Ol
0)
U-l
•*

cu
U-l 4J
cu
^^ tM
o ^
<— 1 CM




«< s
i, i ! -i. as
u o
03 40
w OS ON
w -rt £
to « ox
U-l
.
03

Ox
CM
•co-

•o cu
c c
CO 0
n JJ
n
•0 Ol
C E
tQ *rt
tH
^H
01 =
> -o
a 01
u tt
00 ^"4
: a
Ol
Ol
UM
*
4J
o>
o>
U-l JJ
Ol
o x oi
O u-
°
f^ k"M




< a
^ J
• U-l
«-i cr
1 CO
•a-

•CO-





2
•a -o
C 01 0)
a N c
•H O
<-( CO W
CU CO
> -o 01
a c E
>- « -H
oo tn <-t
£
0)
0)
Ua
*
cu
0)
U-l U
cu
o x ui
o
0
"




< e
a. i 'a. a
W | O
03 00
cn a: ON
M -H O
•o oo
CO CO os
S OS iH
                                                       -60-

-------
                                                                   Ground-vater & Leachate Controls
                                                                   Well point svstem
U
fl
3.6 WELL POINT SYSTEM

3.6.1       Definition
WeH points are generally used to lower the water table or extract leachate. They differ
from drilled and  cased deep wells in that they are driven, instead of drilled, into the
ground to just below the leachate plume.  Ground water is then piped to a suction header,
drawn by a centrifugal pump, to a treatment system. In contrast, deep wells typically
use submerisble pumps to pump ground  water to a treatment system.   For costing
purposes, treatment costs are considered separately.

3.6*2       Dnits of Measurement
Costs are given in terms of dollars per welL  The extraction rate (gallons per  minute-
gpm) and depth should also be considered. Since these characteristics vary  with site-
specific hydrology, however, costs given below do not factor in pumping rate.

&&3       Sum mary Statistics

3.6.3.1     Expenditures
                                             •
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.

3.6.3.2     Estimates
The cost estimates ranged from
           $803/well
                  to
           $8,284/we31

The  highest  cost estimate (SCS-"impoundment") included  the cost of  geotechnical
investigation,  which comprised 50% of the costs.  No related costs were included in the
                                                                           4
lowest estimate (Radian).
                                            -61-

-------
                                                                Ground water & Leachate Controls
                                                                Well point system
      3.6.4
           Factors Found to Affect Costs
      3.6.4.1     Expenditures
      No expenditure information are available at this time.
I
r
3.6.4.2     Estimates
The following factors affected the cost estimates for the weU point systems:
     o     Depth
     o     Pumping rate
     o     Inclusion of related costs:
                  Geotechnical investigation
                  Overhead allowances
                  Contingency allowances
r
G
£
The costs shown in Table 17 are relatively similar.  The effect of depth, which was
expected to be  an important cost factor, did not appear to significantly affect the
estimates.   Although well point installation is often charged by  the depth,  well
installation  was a relatively small cost component compared to pumps and headers.
Hence depth affected cost estimates in proportion  to the importance  of well point
installation, which was low compared with the importance  of other components such as
pumps and  headers.  The pumping rate, which  varied with the size of the pumps and the
header system,  should affect  both capital  and  operation  and  maintenance  costs.
However, no relationship could be identified in  the gross data.

The  most significant  cost factors that could be identified was the inclusion of related
costs.    Over  half  of the  SCS "Impoundment"  estimate  was  for a  geotechnical
investigation,  that was .not included, in either of  the  other  estimates.   The  SCS
"Impoundmenx" and "Landfill" estimates included  overhead  (25 «)  and oontingencv (25* }
allowances.
                                                                            «

 ZsrLm ates Souress
                 Radian, 1983
                 SCS, 1980
                                            -62-

-------
I          I
             8
             i
    U
             E
CO
I-l
ca
                          CM
                          OO
CO
o
u
JJ
•H
e
a
eg
4J
•H
o.
CO
U

u
cc
•HC
2c
B.W
OS
u C
CO 01
14^3
OOP
c u
•H U-l
f=
a a
o-<
0)
0)
e
c
Q
• •k
^
«
0)


CO

^
£
0)
fj
0
sn
eg
a
a
1-1
iH
01 **.
3 d
00
CN
01
00
1
^4
**
^J,
«>

a a:
0) »
o ^ o
vO 1*. O
•H O\ O
&\ Q\ O



1 1







0.
u
0)
^5

CO 4J
iH 0)
<-l 01 1
ft) IM I
i
vO
4)
•o
< §
a. o
s en i-t ^
i— i
0) x-y
3 CN
• JP
00

fH
1
O
1-1
^^^
-<«•
t-
a
V f.
A - -5
0 0
v£) r» O
•a- CN o
. . o
O i-l «
i-l iH vO
<«•<«• co
B
a
ec
sD
S !
i
CM





^





I-l
1
^^
o
00
•CO-

•o
00
00
o
o-


4J
g 0)
Oi 0)
00 U-l
0 0
O iH
m







V
V
CD -O
^^
iH 4J
0) CU
» 01 1
vu j

i-l rH

<: "^
w o "2
W 00 =
W CJ ON ^
'
a
CO V
i-l U J=
1-1 at u
01 0) C

o m •>»
m CM

< e
a. q
w -H en
•0 00
cc a ON




































^

                                                                                                                            en  %
                                                                                                                            o  o
                                                                                                                            u  u

                                                                                                                            c  e
                                                                                                                            o  o
                                                                                                                            re  es
                                                                                                                            tc oc
                                                                                                                            CO  CO
                                                                                                                            o  01
                                                                                                                                                      c  c
                                                                                                                                                      cc  re
                                                                                                                                                      u  u
                                                                                                                                                     i-l «H
                                                                                                                                                      C  C

                                                                                                                                                     "o "o
                                                                                                                                                      0)  01
                                                                                                                                                     u u
                                                                                                                                                      o  o
                                                                                                                                                      0)  01
                                                                                                                            to  co
                                                                                                                            0>  01
                                                                                                                           "5 "°
                                                                                                                           1—I >—I
                                                                                                                            u  u
                                                                                                                            c  c
                                                                            -63-

-------
                                                                Permeable treatment beds
                                                                Deen well system
3.7 DEEP WELL SYSTEM

3.7.1       Definition
Aside from  going deeper,  deep weUs are typically drilled  and cased, in  contrast to
shallower, driven well points.  The deep well systems considered  in this  section are
intended to dewater soil at greater depths, for extracting leachate or intercepting ground
water flow upradi.ent of a site.

3.7.2       Units of Measurement
Costs are given in terms of dollars per welL  Cost per well per foot may also be useful
but available cost estimates assume the same depth scenario.

3.7.3.      Sum mazy Data

3.7.3.1     Expenditures
No expenditure data was available at this time.

3.7.3.2     Estimates
Cost estimate ranged from
           $4,862
            to                (both weUs were at 46 feet deep)
           $13,513

These  estimates  are the low and high end  of the ranges  of  the  lowest  and highest
estimates.  It should be noted (see Table 18) that 62% of the lowe estimate and 85% of
the high estimate were for (1) geotechnical investigation, (2) overhead allowance (25%);
and '3)  contingency allowance (30$).  On a cost per foot per weH basis, the above cost
range would be S106-295/foot/welL
                                      -64-

-------
                                                                      Permeable treatment beds
                                                                      Deeo well system
1
E
F
I
f;
3.7.4       Factors Found to Affect Costs

3.7.4.1     Expenditures
No expenditure data are available at this time.

3.7.4.2     Estimates
The following factor affected the cost estimates.
     o     Well depth
     o     Well diameter
     o     Pumping capacity
     o     Inclusion of related costs:
                  geotechnical investigation
                  overhead allowance
                  contingency allwance
Variations in weH depth are not quantified by the data, but well drilling costs typically
vary with depth.   Variations in well diameter are also  not given in the data, and
therefore   are  not quantifiable, but costs for larger diameter  wells are generally
proportional because of increases in labor equipment and  material costs.  Submersible
pumping capacity affects  on capital costs  are difficult  to  quantify  because of the
importance of hydrogeology to well yield.  Increasing the pump size may have no effect
on well yield if the well does not recharge quickly enough to justify the larger pump.
Hence,  any consideration  of  cost functions  for pumping  capacity  must  regard
hyrogeology, pump  capacity and well design.  Electricitv costs Jor pumping comprised
about 5-10% of the operation and maintenance costs. Hence, this cost component, which
Caries directly with pumping capacity has a relatively small effect on costs com oared tc
the other operation and maintenance cost items-sampling and analysis.
                                            -65-

-------
I
                                                                 Permeable treatment beds
                                                                 Deep well system
      Related costs had the greatest discernible effect on cost estimates since they comprise
      the majority of both estimates.  Table 18 shows the proportion of total capital cost
      Involved in these related components for cost estimates given in Table 19.
                                         TABLE 18.
                       COMPONENT COSTS OF DEEP WELL ESTIMATES
I
r
Estimate
source
OH""O
Geotechnical
Investigation
or> er
Overhead
Allowance
near
Contingency
Allowance Total
or»cr oecr
      "Impoundment"
1
      SCS
      "Landfill"
                        7%
25%
30%
62%
The reason for the significantly higher proportional and absolute cost estimate for the
smaller impoundment (1.16 acres, 5 weHs) compared to the la.ndfill (13.4 acres, 13 wells)
is unclear.
      Estimated Sources.
           o     SCS 1980
                                           -66-

-------
i
I!

1

 I
I



u
0)
cS
^4
«o
u
"£
cs
u
•40)
u
cc
•HC
JJ41
<0 «8
4) 03 41 j:
E C.T3 U
J5 g 15 CB
3 3 V -H
03 O. J= TJ


U
a. >
J a.
•0 09
01 CD
01 U <-l
4) C 41
«- ^H J
O so IT)

4)
E
< 1

t; § o
t/i S. oo
w p e 2
s

i-H CN
*"^ ^^
01

vO
ON

1

esi
00
a
01

••^
iS
m NO
00 •
• o


W • O «S T3 J:
01 03 vw k> 01 U
Ja eo -H c
6-ff -< «
S S 00 O -H U
05 C. ON AJ u- AJ

-
U
3. >
41 0.
4)
•D 03
01 03 -
01 U <-4
01 CO)
«M fH 3
«o NO n

•
,^
< £
ft" lu
U TJ O
c/} e eo
w U S 2
r
i





















—


















*











































_










i







*
                                                                                                                                                  c   u
                                                                                                                                                  O   C
                                                                                                                                                 •H   0)
                                                                                                                                                  u   tC
                                                                                                                                                  K   C
                                                                                                                                                  ec -i
                                                                                                                                      C
                                                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                                                   41  U

                                                                                                                                   C  T3
                                                                                                                                  •H  C
                                                                                                                                                  w
                                                                                                                                                  n
                                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                   U      41
                                                                                                                                   01  tJ  o

                                                                                                                                   O  i  r
                                                                                                                                   o  ^r  3
                                                                                                                                   to w  o
                                                                                                                                      4) l-H
                                                                                                                                   co  > »-;
                                                                                                                                   41  O  c
                                                                                                                                  •o
                                                                                                                                                  U
                                                                                                                                                  C
                                                                                                                                                     01
                                                                                                                                                     U
                                                                                                                                                     C
                                                                                                                                                     «J
                                                                                                                                  O i-H
                                                                                                                                  C *£
                                                                                                                                  O O
                                                                                                                                  •H  a
                                                                                                                                  •u  C
                                                                                                                                  U  41
                                                                                                                                  a  eo
                                                                                                                                  >  c
                                                                                                                                                     c
                                                                                                                                                 —  o
                                                                                                                                                 ra  u
                                                                                                                                                 u
                                                                                                                                                 i- t3
                                                                                                                                                 C  C
                                                                                                                                                 J=  S
                                                                                                                                                 O  CM

                                                                                                                                                 60 ^
                                                                                                                                                 CO  T3
                                                                                                                                                 O   (5
                                                                                                                                                -3   4)
                                                                                                                                                 C   >
                                                                                                                                                *-<   O
                                                                             -67-

-------
                                                                Ground water & Leachate controls
                                                                Extraction /Injection W ell Svste m
I
1
c
II
I:
          EXTRACTION/INJECTION WELL SYSTEM
3.8.1        Definition
Extraction/injection  weUs are usually weE. paints, which are driven into the ground,
unlike deep weHs which are drilled and cased.  A series of extraction and injection wells
(well points or cased, drilled weUs) is given as the design basis an which to compare
costs.  Costs for a water treatment system , are is not incuded in this system te cost.  This
system  is sometimes referred  to  as  a  leachate recirculation  system  or plume
containment.  In addition to ground water decontamination, this system may be used to
control leachate migration.
           Units of Measurement
Total capital costs are given instead of unit costs for two reasons.  First, unlike most
other remedial  technologies,  extraction injection systems are  composed  of several
components that are not readily sum marized into a simple unit,  Extraction, injection and
monitoring weEs aH comprise roughly equal parts of the system.  Capacity in terms of
gallons per minute was not used because of its dependence on hydrogeologv, and this
information was not usually available.

3&3      Summary Data

3.8.3.1     Expenditure
No expenditure data was available at this time.

3.8.3.2     Estimates
A range of cost estimates cannot be given since die units of rhe ;wo estimates were not
comparable. See Table 20.
                                            -68-

-------
I.
              z
              o


o
es
u
pa
z
o
1
u
I?
CB
 5 g.

0*

5 in ^

X ?i
•H M
09 p-4 a u
• 01 O> j£

i

A 1
U3 O
GO 00
oo a: a\
s "^ «-<
 oi « e
fH
fH
01
2
o>
•H hi
J3 01
•H a
to
hi B
0) 01 0.
E a eo
.0 E
3 3 O
co o« in
09
fH
fH
01

^3
u
c
•H

X
•H
CO
^

u o.
*3 -S
X ^ 01 4J
•H 00 01
co 09 a cu
fH hi «-l
• fH 01
0 V > 0
•H > n m

«^ c
a. a
w -H m
•0 00
t/3 W ON
3 K »H















































































































'





1
                                                                                                                                                 (8
                                                                                                                                                 J_i
                                                                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                                                                 Q.
                                                                                                                                                 0)
                                                                                                                                                 0)
                                                                                                                                                •a
                                                                                                                                                 01
                                                                                                                                                 01
                                                                                                                                                Vh>
                                                                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                                                                C  O
                                                                                                                                                m  m
 en m
r-t -
tH
 0  .,

    u
O  n
«N  O
    u
 u
 C •-!
•H  (8
                                                                                                                                                 03  C.
                                                                                                                                                 m  re
                                                                                                                                                <  o
hi
01



B.
                                                                                                                                                O  ej
                                                                                                                                                in  u
                                                                                                                                                 OJ
                                                                                                                                                 to  o
                                                                                                                                                 n  o
                                                                                                                                                ec  m
                                                                             -69-

-------
T"
                                                                    Ground water & Leachate
                                                                    Extraction/Injection WellSvstt
      3.8.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs

      3.8.4.1     Expenditure
      No expenditure information is available at this time.
f
3.8.4.2     Estimates
The following factors contributed to the cost estimates of the extraction/injection well
systems:
           o     number of weHs
           o     depth of weHs
           o     diameter of wells
           *o     casing
           o     submersible pump capacity
           o     transfer pipe length diam eter
F
      The paucity of data precludes quantification of the effects of these factors.
Estimate Sources
           O      U.S. EPA, JR&-RAM, 1980
           o      U.S. EPA, Radian, 1983
                                             -70-

-------
                                                                    Ground water & Leachate Control;
                                                                    Extraction Wells/Seepage Basins
F
          EXTRACTION WELLS/SEEPAGE BASINS
            Definition
A series of extraction weHs is used to collect ground water, and a seepage basin/trench,
which  is  sometimes  referred to as  "subgrade  irrigation"  is  used to recharge the
groundwater.  As with the extraction/injection wellsvstem  above, this system  may have
a treatment system placed on-3ine, or it may be used simply to control leachate flow.
Treatment costs are not considered in this section. Seepage basins are often applicable
in less permeable soil, such as the glacial till, where injection wells provide inadequate
infiltration.

3J3.2       Units of Measurement
Total capital cost is given instead of unit costs because, unlike  most other remedial
technologies, extraction wen/seepage basins are composed of several components that
are  not readily summarized  into a simple unit.   Extraction and monitoring  wells,
trench/basin size and pumping/transfer equipment all comprise roughly equal parts of the
system.  Capacity in terms of gallons per minute was not used because of its dependence
on hydrogeology.
                                              «
3&3      Sum mary Data

3.9.3       Expenditures
The one expenditure found was:

     Total capital                      $31,269 (9.5 gpm total extraction, two 100-
                                                 foot long seepage trenches)
     Operation and -naintenanca         $27,500/year

The expenditure was for two extraction trench wells (one 80 x 10 x 4 feet, another* 4 x 10
T 16 feet) and two recharge rinjection) trenches f 100 x 4 x 10 feet).
                                            -71-

-------
                                                                    Grour.,1'.vater & Leachate Controls
                                                                    Extraction  Wells/Seepage Basis'-
1
i
E
I
     3.9.3.2      Estimates
     The range given in the one estimate source found was:
           Total capital:                          $33,618 - 53,360
           Operation and Maintenance:             $10,856-ll,812/vear
This is actually from a single estimate source that predicts a range for the U.S.

3A4       Factors Found to Affect Costs

3.9.4.1     Expenditures
The following factors affected the expenditure
     o     Number of wells
     o     Size of weHs
     o     Depth of wells
     o     Pumping capacity
     o     Seepage-basin design       '  •

Because  of  inadequate  data  and  the  lack of  a  comparative  site expenditure,
quantification of these factors is not possible (see Table 21). However, it should be noted
that many  of  the factors affecting this expenditure are similar to those affecting the
subsurface  drain,  especially the design of the extraction well trench using stone of
decreasing  size toward she inside of  zhe trench.  This increased capital, but nrobablv
decreased  O&M costs.

3.9.4.2     Estimates
The following  factors affected cost estimates:

     o     Overhead allowance
                                                                             •
     o      Contingency allowance
     o      Well size and number
     o      Pumping capacity
                                             -72-

-------
1
!
     CM

     w
O

§
c.

&
g
S3
<
CQ
IS
O
<
I    a    g
                 CD
                 U
      o
      o

      CM
      eo
TJ e





r- I
OI
4JU
X*J
&»-'



01
y
Id
3









s**
•n
s >^
VO g
CM 0
» ^^

«> «— '


^^S
n
**mS

O
0
in
«»
r>.
CN
«>




(U
tH
JO
e -H
a co
60 1*
41
m e a
• ja e
O> 33
CD 0.
•O
•• ^ * ^^
•« ^«
eg 4) 3
01 4) o
X «-i
^ 0 ^
01 ^ CM
w x *-"
4J ST CM ..
x J
§0 <
»o H
4J «H O
1 ^ 1 O -3
JJ — < W > -ps
0) "^ 01 C. 3
Ol Ol u
VM CO M-l CD
01 oi en
0 £ 0 J=>»
•HO iH O rH
x e x B
^ -H •» «H ..
X X J
CD CM vO 00 <
00 ^ t-l H
O
< BO H




>%
Ol
CD









































.




%

























3 .33
JO

a
^
a
0
< X M
ft, *, i-j
U -^ CM
1-1 oo 3
W J C* 0)
3 W <-• Z
































t













































































.














E —
3 -u
ce i-i CB
m oi b
tB *J Oi
(B C-
>> 3 0
i-t O
CU UJ 4-1 O
> 0 C C
•H OJ tB
*j o E c
re ^. jj a)
> r-> 13 .U
u u c
Ol 01 W -H
m .a *J re
E C E
o o •*•<
u -u .e *«
^^*
en
^^^



e
o
^H
JJ
U

C
u
M«
C
o
u
DC
C
-H
IM
0
••
CR
•c
C
o
X
1— 1
c.
/^
fM
Nw'





•
u
01
u
1— I
•H
U-i
j»














•
,




0)
-H
£ •
J3 4J
cj a
c. u
•~^ vu
CJ
c m
o •
U CM
in
•o
- 0)
re J-J
1-1 U
^~ ^
^ J
E V3
1— 1 1— t
C3 -H
3 01
a 3

^_^











1
1
1'


s_.




                                               -73-

-------
                                                                Ground water 4 Leachate Controls
                                                                Extraction '.V ells/Seepage Ba=ins
      The overhead had contingency allowance comprised  25% and 20%, respectively, of the
      total estimated capital cost.  Well size and number would be expected to be proportional
      to the cost, but quantification is not possible without other estimates for comparison (see
      Table 22).   Pumping capacity would  also be expected to be proportional to cost, but
      hydrogeological factors affect this on a site specific basis.

      Expenditure Sources
           o      ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983

      Estimates Sources
                 SCS, 1980
i;
ii
                                             -74-

-------
(M
CM


U
E    3
r/5     o
       3    =
       «M
       CO
       c\


a
a
eo
U
^
a
£
u
e e
o a
•H C
JJ 0)
a «
w e
CL CO
OX
60
C
^H


&<

•



e
o
•H

•H
03
JO)
D.
^ E

co eo e.
•o «-<
cy 01
c co a
C1 O I- U
X E 0 60
fM u ^4
O V- J=
X 9) U
*j j= a c
r** v o * ^
vC 01 C 01
o <« »H a -»
CM vo a. f>
•o
09 01
•H a. a
Ol 0) U
> 0)
•o •
CL -0
01 •" 01
01 0) iH
T3 0) -H
LL^ ^_J
*W *M
X 1-
•rt VO T3
« <• ^
0)
W 1
to e
f. O
CJ -H
CO JJ
y 33 :
< = 35
*• («-«-_.
« ssl *
3 en oe J •"•
1





























-



































s
"
































































































^








.
                                                                o
                                                                CM

                                                                •a

                                                                 co

                                                                •O  O)
                                                                 (3  U
                                                                 01  C

                                                                f  §
                                                                 01  O
                                                                 > -H
                                                                 O -H
                                                                    C
                                                                CN  U
                                                                    C
                                                                 03  01
                                                                 01  &3
                                                                •U  C
                                                                 3 -H
                                                                i— I  4J
                                                                 O  C

                                                                H^  U
-75-

-------
I
I
                                                               Ground water fc Leachate Controls
                                                               Subsurface Drains

     3.10 SUBSURFACE DRAIN

     3.10.1       Definition
     A  subsurface drain is basically a gravet-filled trench capped  with a low permeabUitv
     materiaL  Often, broken tile or perforated pipe is laid along the botton, running into a
     collection sump or tank.  The backside and bottom of the trench may be lined  with
I    rJflgflc or clay before being filled with gravel or tile. Subsurface drains are intended to
     Intercept and collect leachate or infiltrating water.

1,
     3.10.2       Units of Measurement
     The unit costs for subsurface drains are given in dollars per unit length for three trench
     depth ranges because it facilitates quick cost estimates from a single trench dimension.
     Trench depth was found to be the greatest single factor affecting  costs. The ranges in
     depth given in the Summary section 3.10.3.1 were determined  by the aggregation found
     for the costs of the different trenches.  This may have been caused by technical factors
     discussed, in section 3.10.4, such as type of excavator used and need for sheet piling.

     3.10J3       Sum mary Statistics
                                                   *
     3*10.3.1     Expenditures
     The expenditures for subsurface drains in three groups of depth ranges were:

                 Cost per Unit Length                     Depth
                       S24/LF                            3 feet
                 X -   S370/LF (SE»$208/LF, n-4)         8.5-14.5 feet
                       $1,733/LF                         22.5 feet
      The 2 subsurface .drains at the high end of the range involved significant marginal costs
      for false-starts, delays, and overdesigning.  The lowest cost drain was shallow enough
      that it aid not require sheet piling or wooden shoring during construction.
                                            -76-

-------
I
                                                                Ground Water & Leachate Controls
                                                                Subsurface drain
      Operation  and maintenance costs involve sampling and  replacement costs.   Drains
      typically remain unclogged for 10-20 years, but site conditions and drain design affects
      this operation period.  No O&M costs were available for expenditures since they were
      either accounted for separately, or were not yet encountered and documented.

      3.10.3.2     Estimates
      Cost estimates for subsurface drains ranged from:
                        Capital
                                    S1.94/LF
                                       to
                                    S218/LF

' •                       Operation and maintenance:

                                    $10,337/year

|                                    $ll,293/year
 It-                                                   .
 i     This two order of magnitude cost estimate range resulted from included costs and depth
      variations.  The highest cost drain included the cost for a geotechnical investigation,
Ij     which accounted for 50% of the estimated cost.  The lowest cost hypothetical drain was
      1-2 feet deep. O&M costs were frequently noted but not consistently quantified.
                                             -77-

-------
i
3.10.4       Factors Found to Affect Costs

3.10.4.1     Expenditures
The following significant factors  were found to affect the costs of subsurface drains
shown in Table 23.
            1.     contaminated soil removal
            2.     trench (filter) length and depth
            3.     plumbing complexity
            4.     gravel installation
            5.     storage tank or sump size

Contaminated soil,  which  may  require  secure disposal,  may -be  encountered  while
constructing the trench or the sump.  Excavation of contaminated soil, which resulted in
additional  costs  for disposal,  occurred  when trenches were  constructed  within  a
contaminated area, rather than at the site perimeter.  This additional cost was incurred
at the ELI/JRB Wisconsin site ?1 where  hexavalent chromium  contaminated soil  was
disposed of from the hole excavated for  a sump.  The  PCB contaminated soil at the
ELI/JRB California site *1, however,  was returned to the drain cap because the system
was considered an 'Immediate Correction Plan", not a long term remedy. This provision
avoided the cost of off-site disposal of the PCB soiL

The importance of the trench length and depth is discussed above in connection with  unit
cost dimensions.   The  trench size  depended on factors such  as waste  tvpe,  soil
permeability, climate and purpose of the system.  At the highest cost site, ELI/JR3
California site •?!, a relatively large three-armed drain system, was used because of the
relatively tight gmii and the strong adhesion of the PCBs to the soil, and because of the
                                                      •
seasonally  heavy rains in the Mediterranean  climate.  The length of the drain at the
ELI/JRB Michigan site reflected its purpose of relieving hydraulic pressure on the asphalt
emulsion cut-off walL  At the ELI/JRB New Jersey site, the purpose of the relativelv
small drain at trench  A was to collect contaminated  water by  creating a cone of
depression.  The size  of me  drains affected construction costs  by dictating different
installation methods between the deepest and the most shallow drains.  At the ELI/JRB
California site * 1, steel sheet piling was driven into place to support the 30 foot (10 m)
aeep trenches during construction; whereas at Site 5  no reinforcement was  necessar:.
For the deeper drains at the SLI/JRB  California sites *1 and 2 which used steel sheet
                                             -78-

-------
r
i
2
                  CD
                  CD
                         oo
                         6
                        a

                        £

f-l
«8
4J
•H
D.
co
U
1
^J
03
O
CJ

4J
•H
C
•o
g
eo aj
r j
Operation
maintenani
•
u
AJ
01

»
J3
4J
O.
Ol
•c

1
CA



J3
AJ
•J3
^H
2

4=
j
p .-
01 AJ
I-CL
AJ V
x'
^•^
— :i-
a 0)
K^^
C<— 1
OH1
J*.


Ol
u
^
3
o
to

a
A.
CO
a





fa.
*—
m
m
r^.
«
iH
. «-i
v> **


i-H
01 03
> 01
AJ 01 C.
01  .- w
CM AJ -O



AJ
01
01
iw
n

/— »
CO *-*• -
•*-* m AJ
• 0)
AJ -1 O>
Ol CM lw
Ol -*
u-i x
m
o
fH CM
CM CM


l^k
1«
CO
•^

a -
< * .s
a. n *"
K 	 	 ''
»- so ^
C/3 U! 0< ™
3 CsJ fH U






fa.
J
»>.
\0
en
ON
. T3 E -HCO
£^3 EW
o u a o
S X U -4
£ e « ~

1-1
1-4
Ol
9

AJ
AJ O>
01 .*
01 U
m 3
o -0
CM +


AJ
QJ
Ol
u> ,
\O
1
•*
u
9)
Ol
lu

AJ X-N
o o
0) i-H
<*- x •>-'

IH m
\o
CM «tr
rH

CM
%e
CO
•^

3S ^
< as o
a. — i >A-
U ^ C n
i-i oo n
cyj J tr> a
S3 W ^1 U






fa.
J

•ff
CM
-3-

<—\
•
«H
^s eo
O X> eo
•* *•" J
^ iH
1- •*
ON CO E
00 Ol
<£ x oj
N^

AJ
.« 01
01 .*
1-1 a o
oi 11 a
> G.T-)
a eg
E i- T; •-!
s QO e oi
03 3 >
co o eo
O 01 U t-
e a. s eo




AJ
Ol
Ol
^,

•3-

^^
U
*•— ' 
01 U.
01 X
1*4 /— .
\c
o ^
00 O
CN fl



X
11
vy
•V!
A M
< as o
C- -3 -1
CiJ --. ^H
M 00 5
W J ^ il
.3 Id -H z





<— X
•^3


fa.
J
^^
m
00




01
•VI
CX
4J
O
c


e
•H
CO
d
•c

u
1— ( ^s
•H T3
3 ^
J=
Ol
P
C
0>
>
11
u
^J
o
c


JJ
01
Ol
u vw
01
01 X ^
u* vo
«M^
o m
c*
o oo

«


,.
e co
< as oo
a. "t —
U ^. O J3
i-l 00 U
M J a\ "i
3 U rH Z
                                                                                                                               c
                                                                                                                               o
                                                                                                                    S3
                                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                                    u
                                                                                                                                     o
                                                                                                                                     c
                                                                                                                                     o
                                                                                                                                     I-

                                                                                                                                     -3
                                                                                                                                     C
                                                                                                                               .U «O  i
                                                                                                                                 .=  -3
                                                                                                                               O  AJ  -
                                                                                                                               O —i  f
                                                                                                                               I-  S  U
                                                                                                                              £     C
                                                                                                                              O c. s
                                                                                                                              •H !B «-S
                                                                                                                              M    O
                                                                                                                                 AJ
                                                                                                                              • • SJ AJ
                                                                                                                              •3 O  C
                                                                                                                              3     C
                                                                                                                              K -3   1
                                                                                                                              C     r:
                                                                                                                              —  to 3
                                                                                                                              re  s
                                                                                                                              U  -i-  !C
                                                                                                                              •3  C. J
                                                                                                                              U  U  w
                                                                                                                             —  >  c
                                                                    -79-

-------
I

















f.
•o
o
e
•H
4J
C
o
u
^^r
en
esj
bi
CO
£
























0*
r^
2
D
H
t
a
i
U
&
xr
H

2*-s
£
1!
3 :
ec
H 2
u -
;<
E
• 55
A*
ta^
S'
c«
4
*







t-» I
a I
u I
o-l
«3 1
U I
1 1
»\ 5
ol -J
CJ I ^~
1 ^
4j 1 en
•H 1 *"•
C I
*o 1
C Oil
W CJJ ^|
gS s^ s
•H al ^ w o
AJ 4Jl ^» **^ Q
2^ « °
*• "^ 1 ^* *
S.I S ^
0 I <0- ^
• I
u|
4-1 1
o> 1
•»•
^m 1
^M 1
*j| 4J
0.1 01
Oil 01
T3j IM
O.I in
1 *^




b.
»J
^
•a-
CN
•tO-


Ol
>
^^
eo
u
0
c


• •
n
O. 4J 4J
S U 01
S Ol Ol
(0 Ui lu '

w 1 cw ^ vo


u
X U
u o
*C u*
•H
2 -*





u
Ol
Ol
U-l
CM

- ! . i
o* S
C4J ^
01 C. AJ
i- a at ~v
U-o o>
U-l
*~ o x -
c oi ^
01 CM
U «fc
6 •*
w <== g
c — ee, o
J W -5 0

oi m
«w «».
o x ^
m »—•
r^
m

*e
Z

-------
                                                              Ground Wat?r «; Leachate Controls
                                                              Subsurface Or.un
      pililng and the New  Jersey, site which used plywood shoring, the cost of shoring  was
      perhaps the most important factor in the different case study drain costs.  The available
      cost data breakdowns are inadequate to quantify this relationship, but the cost difference
      among these shown in Table 23 suggests its significance.

I     In addition to trench depth, the filter depth varied among the sites.  The depth of the
      filter affects the amount of stone on gravel fill installed, which is much more expensive
j     than the same volume of backfilling.

I!     The plumbing complexity of the collection pipe running the length of the trench ranged
      from a single pipe to multi-level pipes.  At most of the case study sites a single pipe ran
r     the length of the trench and either drained into a collection sum p or as in .the case of the
«••     New Jersey site, was drained by an extraction pump.  At the ELI/JRB California Site--*!,
..     three levels of slotted PVC piping were installed  in  each  of three trench arms, with
      valves into the  sump at each level to  control the  flow from the different cril-lense
      depths.  The cost for design, materials and installation of the trench plumbing part of the
I;     system at the California Site ^1, was significantly higher than the other case study sites.

f|     The gravel fill installation procedure affected the costs of the drain at one site where a
      different design  was used.  At the  New Jersey site, an outer layer of 1/4""inch (0.6 cm)
*'     -washed stone »as placed around an inner laver of 1 1/2" inch f3.2 cm> stone,  which
*'     surrounded the collection pipe*  The purpose of this relatively complex design  was to
i     provide  filtration by the outer layer and high collection rates from the  coarser inner
      layer.  This added expense was intended to obviate the need for future operation and
      maintenance  costs for clearing the clogged pipe.  Reconstruction  of a drain installed in
      1976 that had become clogged was necessary at the Michigan site.  Drains at the other
      case study sites used a. single -size of stone or gravel.

      The second cost item included in the costs of  the subsurface  drains is for storage of
      collected  'vater in sumps or tanxs.  The New  Jersey site was "-he only sLte for vnien
      leachate storage costs  were  not  included because the collected  water was pimped
      directly into the treatment system.  The inclusion of sumps in the other case studv site
                                             -81-

-------
                                                          Ground Water & Lexchate Controls
                                                          Subsurface drai .
I
li
      cost  assumes  that the size  and cost  of sumps and storage  ta.nks were generaHv
      proportional to the size of the collection trench.  The storage svstems differed in types
      as well as size. Large prefabricated concrete sumps were used at the end of some drains;
      whereas steel tanks or pipes were used at others.

      3.10.4.2    Estimates
]     The following factors affected the subsurface drain cost estimates shown in Table 24.
     o     trench (filter) depth and length
     o     storage tank or sump size
     o     inclusion of related costs

Trench and filter depth and length had effect on drain estimates similar to that described
in the expenditure section above.   However, technical details' such as the filter/jacket
gravel size and the depth of the filter vs. the backfill were less often available for
consideration.

A wider varietv of storage tanks and sump sizes was found for the estimates scenarios
over the actual expenditure sites.   In most cases"however, no information was available
about sump and tank sizes.  The influence of this cost factor on total capital costs as
well as on operation and  maintenance costs  from varying storage capacities may be
significant.
ii
f     The SCS estimates were significantly affected by the inclusion of related costs such as:
 i

,                -      geotechnical investigation
*                -      overhead allowance
                 -      contingency allowance
                                             -82-

-------
•a-
CM

te
_:
0
CM
eo
       <«H
       fH
tf    Ǥ
Q

fc£
U

2
g
»•*
c/a
c:
3
cfl




JJ
CO
o
u
JJ
^H
B
3

•o
BO)
to u

BfQ
OB
•HOI
JJJJ
COB
«H-H
0)ro
C.E
o

U
JJ
01
*
J=
JJ
B.
01
•o
o.
3
CO




J=
JJ
•o
•fH
2


"y
C_ff
M^n*
01 JJ
b Q.
JJ 01
•o
X
l*"\
JS l-
JJ 01
QQl '
BiH
OH*
— 3u-
^^
01
U
s
o
tn
(5
JJ
cc
O
1
<•">
CM

U.
J

eo
fH
CM
1
CO
1— 1
f— 1
w

u
eo
0)
X
i "x.
f~ CO E
co ON a
co CM eo
» «»
O «H O
i— i i— i m
to  oi a
E -H E K
3 eo oi -u
to u


jj
01
0)
U-I
co
•
CO


/^
fH
^^

JJ
01
JJ 01
01 U-I
01
U-I ,— ^
X •»
r«. *~*
ON NO
i-l i-l

"jj
B
5
•5
B
< 3
e. o
u a c
en E eo
tn u i-i ON
3 tn r — *





b.
J

00
CO
I
VC
CNJ

e
0) E
> *J -H
•H B a
eo ai i-i
JJ 01
o u B
B -H
JZ
4= U 01
JJ CD.
O. -H ft
oi a
TJ «»


jj
01
01
U-I
CO "
•
CO


.**.
fH

JJ
01
01
JJ U-I
01
01 <-^
U-i CO
X fH
in ^
CO 0
00 CM


~
i— 1
•H
< £
a- T2 o
td B oe
tn *5 ON
tn u J »H
3 tn s








£*,
S
00
CM







^^
eo E
eo a.
. -u eo
o eo
r*. X 0
 10


JJ CJ
2 >
B a.
J= -0
jj 01 B
O. JJ ii
01 CO (C
•a E b t-
ai o -o
O. > Ua
e -H i-i c
3 eo w -H
CD a



jj
01
01
Uri
'•»


fH
v.^

JJ
JJ 01
at oi
a u-i
u*
*^
0 0
O X *H
0 «-*
o
fH CNJ




<
a- c
U CO
•fi CM
tn "o oo
3 re ON
as — i
J 1








u.
c^
»n
fH

•H in
eo CM
*-" X
o
S CM
,—
u
re
.» 01
•«• t8 fH
tn fH rg -
01 fH b O
i— 1 0) 01 CM
O $ JJ N-'
JB co
E JJ fH 0)
CO 01 E
E 3 in -H
fH n
•>» «N £




JJ
- 01
01
U-i
•ff


<•"<. <— v
CO fH
^•^ ^^

JJ JJ
&l 01
0) 01
U-I Iw

O --.
O X CM
CO N-'
o
CO CM

'


y
< ^
e. os
U 1 O
ca co
tn o£ o>

.


ai
^•N
c
u
CJ
u
n
*-H
05
0
•c
*.d
u
c
f-<

fl




fH
ra
y
—1
C
•C
y
01
jj
c
CJ
ec
tn
o
"2
^«
CJ
("^
/— »
fM
^^




"U
u
c
>
u
X
:j
tn
3
C
f
U3

^
^
u
c;
»"^
•f*
u~
C
—
H


^




                                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                                         <¥H
                                                                                                                         <_J
                                                                                                                         n
                                                                                                                         tc
                                                                                                                         •fH
                                                                                                                         JJ
                                                                                                                         tn
                                                                                                                         o>
                                                                                                                      tn «-i
                                                                                                                      3 ~i
                                                                                                                      C R
                                                                                                                      J= .u
                                                                                                                      en tn
                                                                                                                         c
                                                                                                                      C. ~H
                                                                                                                         O
                                                                                                                         K
                                                                                                                         k-
                                                                                                                         CC
                                                                                                                             o
                                                                                                                         tn  >
                                                                                                                         > iH
                                                                                                                             4J
                                                                                                                      _  O  O
                                                                                                                      •w  E  Oi
                                                          -83-

-------


.^
t3
e
^H
4-1
c
0
u
^/
CN
J
cc
<
H







H
en
O
U
Z
i
o
12
u
<
t-
tf
s
en
es
D
en




^
09
l^
CO
fH
fH
o
(M
oo
ON
^J
^^
N-X








4J
01
0

4J
^•4
c
»
TJ
C 01
CO U
c
e a
o c
•H 0)

a c
.-•H
0) CO
ne
u
oi
.
jC
4-1
a
01
•o

g-
CO

4J
•c

s
e*J
oi a.
Id 0)

.C 01

60-1
C— 1
lilu



01
u
^ri
•j
2
CO

?a
CO
a


fa.
^
0
"I
m
01
i-i
j3
CO
4J ^""1
O i-l
e A

CO




e
01

0 -H
C 00

„

e
Ol
u ^
O -H
C 00

4V 4J
Ol 01
01 U
IM U.
0 X /^
in e>-
tM »— •
«
n m
fH
t)
3
CO

&\
^H *"
f^ *^
p«« "^
•C ^"^
< 5
£3 CO PH
CM CO GO
C/5 S ^ ^^
3 CJ fc ^

fa.
J
^
o>
s
o>
4=
CO
4J fH
O ^H
C CO

CO



•w
01
4J

O
fH
03

**
C
Cv

O -H
c efi
V
4-1 01
01 IH
01
a x ^
«ff CN
" 1
CM fH


3
4-1
CO

^1
4J fH ^>
—'03 11
— • ov a
•rH ^^ ^
< JO 01
C. "^ "^
u 01
co s
CO Ol 01
3 fa- Z
fa.

[fa O fc. U. fa.
j r» _: _: M
CM »-- r«. in «ff
fH f— !
01
fH
^^
CO
4J fH
0 ^
C CO
J>
CO s






c
o>

O fJ
e eo

c
0
4J >
O -H
C 60

4.J
Ol 4-1
01 01
U- 01
lu
s x ^
CN <>••
* s.^
c*^ in
fH
i

U
U
£5

tO fH
*>• "^ .^)
£ _H 03 ji

"< "~ 2 0
a. z >
CN -5 3
CO B -H 01
3 U CO Z

-------
                                                      Ground Wat=r k Leachat.e Controls
                                                      Subsurface drun
The cost of the geotechnical investigation was included only in the "Impoundment" drain
scenario estimate.  This element comprised 50% of the total cost of the drain.  Overhead
(25%) and contingency (25%) allowances were added to both the 'Impoundment" and
"Landfill" estimates.  The variations in the estimated subsurface drain costs from JRB
and SCS were caused  by a combination of two factors.  First, the JRB estimates used
unit costs at the high end of the range used by SCS.  Second, the JRB estimate included
three components not  included in the SCS estimates.  However, since these items were
responsible for only $24.70 of the S694/LF difference (11%) in total unit cost between
JRB  and SCS, their influence was relatively insignificant. The influence of component
unit  costs  that were  included was therefore more significant than the  influence of
component costs that were not included in the JRB estimates.

Expenditure Sources

     o     ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983

Estimated Sources

     O     JRB-RAM, 1980
     o     Radian, 1983
     o     US EPA OERR contractor bids
   . o     SCS 1980
                                      -85-

-------
                                                       Aqueous ft solids Treatment
                                                       Activated clu .ge
                     4.0 AOUEODS AND SOLIDS TREATMENT
4.1 ACTIVATED SLDDGE

4.1.1       Definition
This treatment technology involves Introducing organic-laden wastewater into a reactor
where  an aerobic bacterial culture is maintained in suspension  (mixed liquor).   The
bacteria convert organic materials to carbon dioxide, water, metabolic intermediates and
am monia. Oxygen is supplied to the reactor by mechanical or diffused aeration with air
or oxygen-enriched stream. Intimate contact between wastewater, sludge, and oxygen is
maintained.   A portion of the mixed liquor is continuously passed to a settling tank
(clarifier) where sludge is separated from  wastewater. A portion of the settled sludge is
returned  to the  reactor to  maintain the proper  microorganism  balance,  while the
remainder is removed from the  system.  Typical equipment includes  aeration tanks
basins, clarifiers, compressors,  aerators (diffused or mechanical), and recycle pumps.

4.1*2       Unit of Measurement
Costs are given in terms of dollars per gallon treated. Costs estimates from one source
were  available only in terms of cost per pound of biological oxygen  demand  (BOD)
reduction.  Also, where available, system volume capacity assumptions are given, but
cost per unit of mixed organic contaminant reduction estimates were not calculable.

4.1*3.      Sum maxy Data

4.1.3.1     Expenditures
The following expenditure was found:

           Capital:              $6.3 million/Mgd ($87,514/13,680 gpd)
     Operation & Maintenance:       S0.0165/gaL
                                      -86-

-------
r
                                                  Aqueous or Solids Trt.xtment
                                                  Activated sludge
This system was a nutrient-enhanced biodegradatiDn system, constructed with retrofitted
5,40(7" gallon milk trailers for aeration and settling tanks.  It was not a standard factory
constructed activated sludge system, though the cost components were very similar.  The
operation and maintenance cost includes a relatively small expenditure for nutrient salts
($19.20/day;  $0.0014/gallon; 8%).   The  use of used  or salvaged  material generally
produced significant costs savings over the expected cost for new materials.

4.1.3.2      Estimates

Cost estim ates ranged fro m:
     Capital:                        $200,000/Mgd
                                        to
                                     $390,000/Mgd

     Operation & Maintenance:        $i8,000/Mgd/year   .
                 »
                                        to
                                     S25,000/Mgd
                                              *
      The  compilation of these estimates is unclear from the available data

4.1.4       ?actors Found to Affect Costs

4.1.4.1      Expenditures
The following factors were found to contribute to expenditures.
            Materials (used and salvaged)
     -      In- house design and m aintenance
     -      in-house power and process steam
            System flexibility (access holes)
                                       -87-

-------
1
                                                      Aqueous or Solids
                                                      Activated Sludge
Although no expenditure data is for a newly constructed system available for comparison,
the cost of this system given in Tahle 25 may have been significantly lower than if new
equipment and contractor labor had been used.  One cost item that increased the capital
expenditure, possibly unnecessarily, was the construction of a roller mount and access
ports for the pipe air spargers.  This system was intended to allow the spargers to be
cleaned of bio mass buildup without sending a technician into the tank. This maintenance
has not been necessary in over 2 years of operating the system (as of August 1983).

4.1.4.2      Estimates
The lack of technical detail about the hypothetical systems for which estimates were
given precludes consideration of specific factors affecting the costs (see Table 26).

Expenditure Sources
     o      EU/JRB Case Studies, 1983

Estimates Sources
          o     Radian, 1983
          o     SCS, 1981
                                            -88-

-------
C
u-i
           td

           09

           !S
                                 CO

                                 03
                     00
I
                                              to
                                              CJ
                                           yO «
                                              U
                                           c c
                                           O CO
                                          •H e
                                           4J 01
                                           CO 4J
                                           i- e
                                           O--H
                                           D. co
                                          OZ
                                              CO
                                              01
                                              o
                                              0
                                             en
                                              co
                                             O
                                                     CO
                                                      o
                                                     E   IT)
                                                            »


                                                      •   00
                                          •o
                                          60
                                                X
                                                CO
                                          00   O

                                          CM   CM
                                                      co
                                                      60
           o
           o
                                                         CO
                                                         >-
                                                                CO
                                                                e
                                                    *T3   ft)      CO
                                                     01  -H     4J
                                                    w   a
                                                            n  e
                                                            o  o
                                          O         4J
                                          bi  Jt  T3  CO
                                          JJ  f-l  01  Id
                                          0)  

    M 00
en  «J a\
3  b3 ^H
                                                                     01
                                                                     •fl
                                                          cu
                                                         Z
                                                                                  -89-

-------
£
[! O
li U
U
u
S Q
ii 3
l.*5 c^
fi
CsQ
I H
<
r >•
1 e
<



^N
CO
14
a
fH
1-4
O
o
CM
00
o»
^4
\^





iH
•H
a
u

AJ
o
01
1-1
•H
0



•4 0)
U
e c

•H C
4J 01
MM
Id C
OI-H
as
ox







e
60
•H
ca
2




c
0
73
n
0)


5)
M


,ft
^~
i-l
U
«
a
«U
U
i

0)
u
3
•5
V3

re

a
0

•o -o •«
60 60 60
•2E -2: -5
o" o" o"
o o o
o o o
* •» •»
O O 0
CT* m o
p*\ CM CM
   «/>
01
u a
«* 6
> -H
t. ^J
01
co e
o
Vi O> -H CD
CB ^J 4J W
0) -rt C 3
>> 
a. to e <••>
i! — < 3 CO
^D CJ C^
co ra s r-i
= K
•

<->
^

•o -D
6C 60
^^, <^
O O
CM 00
f-. i-(
A M
00 O\
«n o
en r»










01
u
•H
>
01
CD

Id 01
a «u
01 -H
>> 1-1
o
"•


c
01
*^
60

0



r? ^
>-^ a.
60
T>
60 0
z o
o
CM •
. in
r**. '*»'



00
C^
.H
X































































^
a
< 3 -
0. I- C
M —00
CO 01 9t
CO CJ &. iH
S CO

































































!
*




t






                                                       u
                                                       a.
                                                       o js
                                                      rH C
                                                      <—I
                                                       re t
                                                       so 7:

                                                       c ><
                                                       o
                                                      ^ CM
-90-

-------
F
                                                           Aqueous & Solids Treatment
                                                           Aerobic, Anaerobic, &
                                                          facultative Lagoons
       4.2  AEROBIC, ANAEROBIC, AND FACULTATIVE LAGOONS
            Definition
 Aerobic, anaerobic and facultative lagoons are large, usually earthen basins, which relv
 primarily on long retention times for hiodegradation of organic wastes.

 Aerated lagoons are 6 to 20 feet deep.  Aeration devices supply supplemental oxygen and
 partial  mixing.  A sludge blanket accumulates on the bottom  and undergoes anaerobic
 decomposition.  A non-aerated cell usually  follows to  allow  solids to settle  before
 discharge.

 Anaerobic lagoons are deep (20 feet).  High organic loadings and an impervious layer of
 grease promote thermophilic anaerobic digestion.  Wastewater enters near the bottom
 and  exits  below the surface.   Excess  sludge  is washed  out  with  effluent;  waste
 recirculation is unnecessary.

 Facultative lagoons are  3  to 8  feet deep.   Wastewater is stratified into aerobic,
intermediate,  and anaerobic zones because of settling solids  and water temperature-
 density  variations.   Oxygen in the surface laver is provided bv  diffuse reaeration and
 photosynthesis, not aeration devices. The aerated layer also reduces odors.
                  Units of Measurement
      Costs are given in dollars per million gallons per day treated.  This cost basis assumes
      similar treatment effectiveness, as well as the use of extrapolation from total costs.
                                             -91-

-------
                                                         Aqueous & Solids Treatment
                                                         Aerobic, Anaerobic, &
                                                         Facultative Lagoons
                 Sum raary Data

      4.2.3.1     Expenditures
      No actual expenditure data are avaflable at this time.

f     4.2.3.2     Estimates

j     Cost estimates ranged from

 I!     Capital                       $0.08 mfllion/Mgd         (7.2 Mgd)
 :                                     to
.,                                   S3.4 million/ Mgd      (0.14 Mgd)
II
      Operation &                   $0.005  million/ Mgd        (10 Mgd)
      Maintenance:                    to
i                                                                          .      ~
                                    SL23 raffiion/Mgd         (0.14 Mgd)

      The cost estimates reflect widely varying  scales ^of operation assumptions.  Large (5-10
I!     Mgd) scale  scenarios were at the-bottom of the unit cost estimate range, while smaller
*'     operations  (under one  Mgd)  were generally  the higher estimates.   Also, the lower
               excluded certain related components such as land, pumping and liners.
      42.4       Factors Found to Affect Costs

      4.2.4.1     Expenditures

      No actual expenrtiture data are available at this rL
                                            -92-

-------
i:
r
                                                      Aqueous & Solids Treatment
                                                      Aerobic, Anaerobic, &
                                                      Facultative Lagoons
 4.2.4.2     Estimates
 The following factors appeared to significantly affect the cost estimates:
      o     Scale of operation
                  land, pumping, liner
                  containers and overhead
      o     Removal effectiveness
      o     Aeration extent
      o     Climate
 As noted in section 4.2.3.2, the cost estimates were significantly related to the scale of
 operation of the scenario.  This results partly from the economies of scale inherent in
 larger  operations,  but  it also  reflects  the  nature  of these  papers for specific
 technologies, and general construction estimating manuals (see Table 27).

 The large hypothetical systems estimated by Radian excluded the costs of pumping, liner
 and land.  These systems were similar in design to those that would be part of a sewage
 or industrial treat m ent plant.

 A  contingency and  engineering cost of  30%  «as  included in  the  New Hampshire
. Feasibility Study estimate. The inclusion of this cost in the other estimates is unclear
 from the available data.

 The estimates include a varietv of contaminant removal effectiveness levels.   These
 levels were generally given in terms of BOD or COD.  These may not provide accurate
 estimates of removal effectiveness for many refractorv  or highly toxic organics but thev
 provide useful standards for comparison.  In cases where removal efficiency information
 was available, no relationship  with total unit costs was apparent. However, for similarly
 designed systems," re mova^ effectiveness wouui procaniy be proportional co cosz.
                                            -93-

-------
I

i
f



<-s
CO
|
M
U
%^
r»
CM
s
03
ss



H
<
H
*J
D
U
<
b
Q
Z
<

y
5
o
S
                 U
                 S
                 o







iH
(0
_J
^^
CL
a


•JS 01
u
C B
O (Q
•H B
u a)
C84J
Wi B
OI-H
a. ts
oz





•^
JJ
•H
U
ffl
a
a








e
30
n
Ol
O




.
0)
u
^
3
O
m

53
4J
n
2

•O
00

%^,
c
0
•H
fH
iH
•H
E
•3-
e
f>

O
iH
•H
e
•c
CM X
iH

CM
•O •**>
O. *•>
00 T>
60
o z
0
o •*
• IH
•if .
-a1 o

0
•H D.
«W 4)
01 Ol
c. -a e
0
e u » tH
BS 0 fH 0
O TJ 0) O
os u m
W CO
< CM •» f>
X
'"H
en u

X -H
CM iH 09
eo IH a
O\ -H E

e o 01 u
v o 01 a>
-» y -a a
U T3 O *J t<
H ova
aa vx a ai ai
O a iw x
W 00 O O
< f>. 00 fH PO








•< 3
— a
U -H  to-
•a o
00 -H
Z iH
•^ iH TJ
C iH 00
0 E Z

CM fH in — •*"
fH fH O
O -H O
• E •
0 0
W 






•e
•O 00
oo z
Z
0
fH fH
n
Ol
-a u a)
3 01 U-i
fH C -H
U *H tH
X fH
01 fH Ol
• «0 O
• 00 > -H
3 c o >
o -H e i-
•H a. 01 ai
^J *4-< e W 33
^ 2
CO X 0,0 »W
O JJ O «
oi -H « pa 01
B > -0 >.
< «8 B X
Z »- 0 O O
< 60 fH SO in








•£ 2
M 5
U -H fO
T! 00
3 ec fH

"^ ^3
00 OC
z z^

B E
0 0
•H -H
fH fH
•H -H
E E
m i*-
c «
fH O
«/> v>
•D «0
60 60
Z Z

E B
0 0
in IH \o IH
fH fH O fH
O IH O fH
« -H .i-l
OBOE








•o ^
60 60
Z Z

fH O
iH
'03 01
01 E

3 fH XfH
iH «o eo
0 T3 T3 >
X E ^. 0
01 O 01 E
Wi Ol
.. 60 U W
3 E C8
W O -H •>. Q
> IH o. m o
— 4 '-W == *^ "J
r* 3 O —
< >. o. oa Q
H JJ O
J -H . .O B3
9 > t3 fH
t5 to B X
< 1- to O C
b. 00 fH CM 00


Ol

n
^
fH
U
«< C
a. a — «
^ p oo
S Q£ si «
                                                                                                                        Ui
                                                                                                                        Ol
                                                                                                                        c.

                                                                                                                        ce

                                                                                                                        o
-H O

(C -H
3 iH

C «H
C -H

< Z
                                                             -94-

-------
•o
 0)

 c
 c
 o
 u
CM



U
          Z
          C
          o
          I
          1
          O
          5
          §
                  CM

                  03








lH
O. CO
0£
>>
4J
•H
CJ
a
o.
a
o








60
«H
0)
w
0



0)
u
1*
9
O
W
a
4J
CD
a


•a -a
60 60
£ £

"B" "c"
0 0
•H -H
tH .H
o ro
• *
0 0
«> v>
CM
(M
•** *O
•0 60
I f
in c so o
tH O O-H
0 M 0^
• J5 «fH
o 3 o3
o ^i o-e
B


•O T3
60 60
£ £

rt O
.H
a
CJ
•o
3 >%^H
t-l CO tfl
O T5 T3 >
X B --I
0) 03 O> ']
t- U
••60 U U
> c a
W 0 -H •»* Q
> i— 3. '> O
IH IM e a u
H 3 O --
< >» a. eo o
H w o
(Ji 1-1 • w ^> a
S > -e 01 ^
o a c c M
< W tfl -H O O
h 60f-l iH >» 00

X— 4
«
AJ
a
e
5
.H
'J
^ I e «
M ? i s
§ 5 3 -
•o
60
£

C
O
•H

•o
60
.£
B
O
•H
«n iH
0 "
* V4
0 B
— '
















4





























^














































•



«






 Cfl
 O
 U


 u

 c
 0)
fc.

/^
m
                                                                                                                      re
                                                                                                                      •o
 0)


 en

 o
                                                                                                                      to
                                                                                                                      ec
                                                                                                                      c
                                                                                                                      o
 C
 c
                                                          -95-

-------
1
I
I
                                                      Aqueous & Solids Treatment
                                                      Aerobic, Anaerobic &
                                                      Facultative lagoons
Finally, the extent of aeration varied  among  the estimate scenarios.  The cost of
aeration equipment, in terms of both capital, and operation and maintenance costs, may
be significant. This difference in design and cost also sjgnny.fl.ntiy affects
performance.  For example,  the hypothetical aerobic system  had a presumed efficiency
of 88%; whereas the anaerobic system achieved only 60%.  This difference suggests the
need to quantify costs in terms of dollars per unit of contaminant removed per unit of
time when comparing systems for the same waste stream.  For facultative systems the
climate affects system performance and hence, costs.  The  system  in a warm climate
                                                           s
was more effective than the cooler climate system.

Estimates Sources
           o     Radian, 1983
           o     SCS, 1983
                                            -96-

-------
                                                        Aqueous & Solids Treatment
                                                        Rotating biological contactors
n
E
t
           ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS
      4*3.1       Definition
      This  system  is  a  form  of fixed  film  biological treatment.    A  slime layer  of
      microorganisms grows attached to polystyrene or polyvinyl chloride disks 6 to 12 feet in
      diameter.  The disks are mounted vertically on a horizontal rotatahle axis in treatment
      tanks. Rotation of the disks exposes the slime surfaces alternately to both oxygen in the
      atmosphere and organic matter in the wastewater.  Both oxygen and organic matter are
      adsorbed; the organic material is degraded by aerobic microorganisms. The rotation also
      mixes and aerates the contents of the tank and causes excess microorganisms to  be
      sloughed off as growth continues.  Excess solids are subsequently separated from the
      effluent in a clArifler. A complete RBC system usually consists of two or more trains of
      disks with each train consisting of several stages.
            Units of Measurement
Costs are given in terms of dollars per million gallons per day treated, when available,
for comparison with other water treatment technologies.

4»&3        Sum mary Data

4.3.3.1      Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.

4.3.3.2      Estimates
Therange of cost estimates was:
     Capital;,                        S0.9 million/ Mgd          (10 Mgd)
                                       to
                                     $29.6 mfflion/Mgd         ((5.144 Mgd)

     Operation & Maintenance:        $22,500/Mgd/year         (10 Mgd)
                                       to
                                     34.6 million/ Mgd/year        (0.05 Mgd)
                                             -97-

-------
                                                       Aqueous & Solids Treatment
                                                       Rotating biological contactors
1
1
I
I"
III
E
i
i;
The range of estimates reflects a widely varying scale of operation assumed for the four
estimates from two sources. The high estimate is derived from dividing the total (capital
or 0& M) by the treatment rate, in million gallons per day.  Hence this method of scaling
up the smaller system estimates may result in multiplication of some fixed costs.  The
low cost estimates are derived  from estimates for very large sewage  treatment scale
systems. The actual costs can be derived by multiplying the unit cost by the treatment
rate.

43.4       Factors Found to Affect Cost

4.3.4.1     Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.

4.3.4.2     Estimates
The following factors appeared tc^have significant effects on cost estimates.

     o     Scale of treatment
                                              •
     o     Inclusion of related costs
                  overhead allowance
                  contingency allowance
                  settling tanks, etc.
    •  As  noted above  in section  4.3.3.2, the  scale  of treatment  operation  appeared to
      significantly acffect costs (see Table 28).  For this reason the estimate may be of limited
|     comparability since the Radian estimate is for a verv large system , compatible with flow
           at a. sewage treatment, or large Industrial waste plant.
      The effect of inclusion of related costs on the estimates is unclear.  The New Hampshire
      Feasibility Study assumed an  additional 30%  for contractor overhead.  Whether these
      costs are included in the Radian estimate is unclear.
                                             -98-

-------
i


I


I
        eo
        CM
        S-
I
                H
                ^    £
                O    «
                w    g
u
o
f-l
o
5
a
2
H

5
                        CM
                        cc









ffl
4J
-H
a
a
u


te 01
u
cc
o a
•H C
JJ 0)
tQ u
ti C
01 -H
an
OZ

•H
U
CO
c.
a
u








(0
•H
.3
^3
c
•ft
eo
01
a


u
t*
•3
O
en
to
eg
O

CM
•a

«C ^3
^ eo
C Z
o -^
•H C
f-( O
•H fH
E fH

^D £
•
ON (0
CM CM

C C -0
O T3 O 60
•H eo -HZ
fH Z «H
fH fH
•H -H
E E

SO ON
• •
•crt- 
•C 60
60 Z

•a-

O -H

o 6
• fc^
• " 4j JJ 01
a <-\ CB u-i
> CO fl
§*o u 01
c AJ a eo
01 (0 C fH *O
l-r 0) U 3
. -H  C Q C
a to 4j -H ai
fH CO 01 1- fH
o 3 -o ec a> u
? 0 3 C *J >»
fH fH -H (9 U
b fH y x 3 o»
O O C -H 01 P
iw IM -H E *O
01
^J
^
^


•o -o
eo eo
Z Z

e e
0 O
•H T-l
fH fH
*H *H
E E

O^ G^
• •
0 O

iw > O o
O O E ^^
E 0)
u 01 «- to eo
co -c 01
0- O -H 3 -H
CO *J O C fH vw
iu ca o a -H
o « e x i->
o f, x E 01 n
o eo o to 
                                                                                                                       O  O
                                                                                                                       u
                                                                                                                          05
                                                                                                                      -B -
                                                                                                                          I-
                                                                                                                       eo o
                                                                                                                       c  w
                                                                                                                      «H  O
                                                                                                                       w  a
                                                                                                                       CJ  1-
                                                                                                                       u  u
                                                                                                                       c  c
                                                                                                                      •H  o
                                                                                                                       ex  u
                                                                                                                       c
                                                                                                                       01 -O
                                                                                                                          c
                                                                                                                       X  a
                                                                                                                       a
                                                                                                                       t! O U1
                                                                                                                       c m CM
                                                                                                                                       (0
                                                                                                                                      •o
                                                                                                                                       CJ
                                                                                                                                       0
                                                                      -99-

-------
                                                        Aquous & Solids Treatment
                                                        Rotating Biological contractors
       Finally, the exclusion of certain system components from  the Radian estimate scenario
       may have significantly underestimated the cost estimate, compared to that given in the
       feasibility study.  The Radian estimate included only those components strictly used for
       the rotating biological contactor, excluding settling tanks, clarifiers and chemical mixing
       unit.  Generally, the Radian estimate hypothesized a unit to be retrofitted to a larger
       primary treatment plant.
       Estimates Sources
I
I
o     Radian, 1983
o     USEPAOERR contractor Feasibility Studies
 ]
                                             -100-

-------
                                                         Aqueous & Solids Treatment
                                                         Air Stripping
I
I
I
      4.4  AIR STRIPPING
4.4.1        Definition
The air stripping process enhances volatilization of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
generally by increasing the liquid surface area and the velocity of the air passing by it.
Towers and basins have both been used; only towers are considered here.  The typical
tower is similar in construction and configuration to a water cooling tower.  Waste water
enters at the top of the tower and flows downward over the packing, which  may consist
of pKgffr. beads or piping.  An induced draft fan draws air in at the lower sides and
bottom of  the  tower and out through the top.   Basins, winch consist  of a temporary
swimming pool with a series of spray nozzle across them  have been used forleachate
stripping, but no separate costs were avail a hie for them  at this time (August 1983).
           Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars per minion gallons per dav for ready comparison  with other
water treatment technologies.

4.4J3       Summary Data

4.4.3.1     Expenditures
The one source of acroal expenditure data indicated the following costs.

     Capital:                         $182,540/Mgd (million gallons per day)
     Operation & Maintenance:        $9,921 - 11,905/Mgd

No comparison with  other site data is possible at this time since this is the only actual
expenditure iniormaziDn available (August 1983).   This expenditure  was significantly
lower than those estimated with engineering/construction costing manuals.
                                            -101-

-------
I
1,
I
E
1
I
                                                        Aqueous & Solids Treatment
                                                        Air Stripping
4.4.3.2     Estimates
The following range cost estimates for air stripping svstems was found:.
     Capital:                    $607,000/Mgd          (1.44 Mgd)
                                    to
                                $7.3 mUHon/Mgd        (0.0504 Mgd)

     Operation & Maintenance:        S89,000/Mgd        (1.44 Mgd)
                                    to
                                $3.2 miHion/Mgd        (0.0504 Mgd)

The range given is for two out of the three estimate that were available. The third cost
estimate is not shown in the above range because the cost estimate reflects only shipping
and set-up costs for a borrowed tower, not construction costs.  The above range seems to
reflect the economies of scale for varying size systems.  The lowest cost system on a
unit rate basis ($607,000/Mgd capital; $89,000 O&M) was  the largest (1.44  Mgd);  while
the highest cost system ($7.3 million/Mgd  capital; $3.2 million/Mgd) was the  smallest
system estimated (0.0504  Mgd).  Hence, in absolute terms the smallest system had the
lowest cost estimate, but on a relative, per million gallons  per day, basis, the economies
of scale gave a significant cost advantage to the larger systems.

4.4.4.      Factors Found to Affect Costs

4.4.4.1     Expenditures
The following factors appeared to affect the costs:
     o     Capacity (VOC reduction and flow rate)
     o     Blower size
                                           -102-

-------
1
L
I
                                                      Aqueous & Solids Treatment
                                                      Air Stripping
For the system considered (see Table 29), the capacity was estimated to bear almost a
straight linear relationship with cost.  Hence, on a relative, per rate basis, the cost for
different sized systems would be expected to be similar.  The Feasibility Study estimated
that the cost would increase about the same amount for each of the five towers added.

The VOC reduction was expected to be related to costs, but no quantitative comparison
is possible without more expenditure data.

The blower size significantly affected the operation and maintenance (0& M) since most
O&M  cost was involved In electrical power for the fans.   The O&M expenditure was
relatively low  since power costs in the  northwest U.S. were unusually low during  the
estimation period.
                                                             »
4.4.4.2      Estimates
The following factors seemed to affect the cost estimates

     o~     Capacity contaminant (reduction and flow rate)
     o      Blower size
     o      Included costs
     o      Packing material
      Cost estimates varied directly according co flew mte of ~2ie Created effluent rsee Table
      30).  This variation reflected  increased tower size, packing volume and pump capacity.
      However, on a per flow rate  basis,  of dollars per million gallons per day ($/Mgd), the
      costs were inversely related to syste-n size. This relationship apparently reflected the
      varying economies of scale, which seemed  to be the most significant factor affecting
      costs. The least cost system  on a unit rate basis ($607,000/Mgd capital; $89,000 O&M)
      was che largest (1.44 Mgci); while tne nignest cost system (37.3  iniHion/Mga canal; ^C.-
      million/Mgd O&M) was the smallest system  estimated (0.0504 Mgd). Hence, in absolute
      terms the smallest system was the lowest cost estimate, but  on relative per million
      gallons per day oasis, the economies of scale gave a unit cost advantage co the larger
      system.
                                           -103-

-------
I


I
  u
S
r   -i



fH
a
u
•H
a
a
u
1-1
^0 a)
U
C C
0 
Q. O
•Q 60 E
60 O>
SO hi
0
-a- m K
o • m
• f*"l ON
hi
Ol
K »
.« .. O
O tQ 60 01 "^»
hi ^ -H S E
o) 13 j: 6 u-
» »H U
O JJ U J3
4J Ol 01 O
0) 01 0.0
a) «M vw x o
•H M O O ON"



-J -




























-


















-








































































                                                                                                        O
                                                                                                        c

                                                                                                        CR
                                                                                                        01
                                                                                                        I*
                                                                                                        "0

                                                                                                        01
                                                                                                        c.
                                                                                                        X
                                                                                                        01
                                                                                          «a oo
                                                                                          3 -*>
                                                                                          u 00
                                                                                          u «-/
                                                                                          c
                                                                                            ^3
                                                                                          • Q)
                                                                                         •-j w
                                                                                          01 01
                                                                                                        E a
                                                                                                        •rt O
                                                                                                        JJ o
                                                                                                        v. c
                                                                                                        K Oi
                                                                                                        C
                                                                                                        c
                            o
                            to
              (9
             O
                                           60
                                              oo
                                                    -104-

-------
                 CD

                 a
fa     S
i;«     r
55    1
               • oo
                ON







i-H
03
4J
^H
O.
IS
U
£4
•a o)
u
g§
•H C
1 » 4)
to *J
i- c
01 11
o. a
OX


^^
•H
u
to
a
(0
u










—
60

en
u
c







01
u
5

a
^j
a
a

^3 *T3
60 60
^ ^
C C
0 0
•H i-l
1-4 1-4
il il
E E
fO ^^
• *
f* fo
| |
3 60 «H 60
£j X £ X
E E

CM CO
i ,
CO CM
w •


•o -^
60«-s -O E
X E ep o.
O« 2t« 00
-3- 60
O sr o
in m •» o
O en iH IH

o ^ o ^

^J
0) Q)
W W *H

? § ,2
•M 1-4
UD £
00 € CD V
•^^ ^4 

4J O O 60
0 0 E n
O \O CO
<*H a o.
o j:
en 3 in
«M u m 1-1

•a
a
4J
§CA 0)
tJ
CO 4J «C
•J -< ••]
"* £ e"
< ! A ID
a. i- =
U OS CO ^
os n oo $
Cfl W 0) ON 0)
3 O to -H Z
•o
60
x^
e

•H 60
1-1 X
i-l O
" §.
O r-T
O
i-l \O
•o
60 T3
X 60
*"*^ X
§ £
0 0
• o
^D «
00 ^^
CM 00
4W ^>

rH
(0
•0 >
60 T3 O
X 60 E
X «
-a- ia
^f ^f
^H «a- K
0
O 1-1 00

..
,££
.. o-
v re

o o> i e
4J 0. « 0
•H 03 1-4
J= a O iH
60 h n
— 'J J 30
i > "-»
e. . u
4J 60 U-l
O O C S
O ao -H u
*" X "tJ 0
OUR) O
(M 03 a. -»








< c
•-J J^fc
•a oo
1O CO O"*
a es ^H

^^*
es

•o
60
X
Q
i-H O
«* •
CM r.
i-< in
•o -a
60 60
X X
in IH
\o n
P^ ^H
* *
O OO
SO CM
4/V •

a
* ^
•• •• ^3 Q
01 E 60 E
60 - 3 X 01
a •a E h
W 60 11 vO
01 X X <-l K
> to . m
O iH E fM ON

01
01 O.
V^H 3
w
0 0 d at >*
C O W> *J -H
O ^^ CO CQ ^^ C
i-i ^ en o
•o
3
 U3
 c  «
 o ra

s  o
i-1 O
 re re
                                                                                                                     C. E
                                                                                                                     re o
                                                                                                                    u t-
                                                                                                                    c
                                                                                                                    <
                                                          -105-

-------
I
1
li
                                                  Aqueous & Solids Treatment
                                                  Air Stripping

The  contaminant reduction effectiveness of the various  systems estimated  was also
reflected in the costs. Since a variety of factors in turn affect removal effectiveness, it
is difficult to relate these many factors to costs. These factors and components include:
pumping rate  (higher rates may create higher dilution resulting in lower percentage
removal but higher molar reductions); climate (effectiveness increases with ambient
temperature);  and  heating of treatment stream (may be  necessary to offset seasonal
cooling or increase effectiveness; significantly increases 0 & M).

The  variation in included costs is especially noteworthv for the system  estimated in the
Minnesota  Feasibility Study.  This cost estimate did not include tower construction, but
rattier only included shipping  and set-up  of  a tower  borrowed  from the  Tacoma,
Washington site.  Although this  system was estimated for a four month operation (while
an alternate water was to  be installed), the  cost given are trebled for annualized
comparison. All of  the estimates given include engineering  overhead, at about 25 - 30%.

Finally, packing types varied among the estimates and had some, unquantifiable  effect on
costs.   The proportion of costs devoted to  tower packing is unclear but  the costs of
different  packing  materials  of varying  effectiveness was given  in one estimate.
($15/cuft - $95/cuft).  Hence, an optimization is necessary when choosing a packing type
                                              *
in order to acheive  a given level of removal with a certain system size.
      Esti. m ates Sources
           o      Radian, 1983
           o      USEPAOERR contractor Feasibility Studies

      Expenditure Sources
           o      State and ?ederai Superfunri wore
                                            -106-

-------
                                                       Aqueous & Solids Treatment
                                                       Carbon Treatment
r
i
f:
          CARBON TREATMENT
4.5.1        Definition
Carbon treatment systems generally filter contaminated  water through a carbon bed,
which selectively adsorbs organic compounds with physical and/or chemical action.  When
the carbon in the filter reaches breakthrough, that is, when the rate of desorbtion, equals
the rate  of adsorbtion,  the carbon is replaced,  and the old  carbon  is disposed of,
destroyed, or regenerated  with heat or solvents.   Carbon adsorbtion is often used in
combination with other treatment technologies such as filtration and flocculatLon.

45.2        Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars per million gallons per day, when available.  In some cases,
where no rate information was available, costs are given in dollars per gallon.

4Jx3        Sum mary Data

4.5.3.1      Expenditures
Costs for carbon treatment were found to range from:
            $ 0.10/gaHon
                  tc
            $ 0.40/gaHon

These costs included system  rental,  carbon,  transportation,  and set-up labor  and
equipment.  The higher cost system includes a greater accounting of all of these related
costs, while the lower cost system was operated for a short period and did not include
car-Don aispcsai or regenerations ccsrcs.
                                            -107-

-------
                                                   Aqueous ft Solids Treatment
                                                   Carbon Treatment
t
I
I
t
4.5.3.2     Estimates
The cost estimates range from:

Capital:                 $643,000/Mgd      (complete construction cost)
                              to
                        $14,132/ M gd   (set-up of leased syste m)

Operation and
Maintenance:            $ll,786/Mgd/year
                              to
                        $1.5 million/Mgd/year

The  wide  range of cost estimates reflects variety of included costs.  The lowest cost
system does not include complete material purchase cost, but rather the rental cost and
set-up of the system.   The highest  estimated  cost includes complete material and
construction costs.
            Factors Found to Affect Costs
4,5.4.1      Expenditures
The following factors affected the expenditures for carbon filtration:

     o      Inclusion of pretreatment costs
     o      Rental/purchase expenditure

For both expenditures given in Table 31, pretreatment costs are included in the cost
given for the carbon treatment system. Although these costs for pretreatment may -have
been necessary for efficient carbon use, and may comprises a minority 01 ihe component
costs, it is important to note that they were included.  The higher cost system included a
                                                                            «
settling  pool for clarlflying out  suspended  solid, and  an  air  stripping system  for
preliminary removal of methyiene  chlorine before running  chrouga  the  IOUT cascace
carbon  towers.   The lower cost  svstem  included  only   pea-gravel and Hme  for
precipitating and filtering out solids.
                                            -108-

-------
1
i



co
^4
O.
to
u




tfl 0
e c
O 0
ft C
•U 0
l-i C
01 -r
C.R
OS

u
^•4
U
(0
a
a
u
















e
00
•H
n
o

u
Vi
3
O
"
J
(0
o












I
•a oo
00
3u O
in
U1 r-l
CM |

O CM









C 00 Id
o e CD ai
•H «H T3 4J
u a. * — i
3 a. u •«
U «H CO vu
•H b «0
U-l 4J O C
•H 00 O
h U J3
CO h 3 h
iH -H O «
u co u-i u




•








01
^
•H
00

. JJ
o
z




e .
0
.a
h e
••CO O
Vi CJ XI
01 U
^ ft) <0
•«s. ^H 00 0

4) **^ *i ^2
> 01 03 i-H
CO U
U Q. 0) O
OO 01 O
i a w •«•
0) I J=
l-l 
-------
                                                        Aqueous & Solids Treatment
                                                        Carbon Treatment
I
L
IE
0
I
Both  expenditures given  are  for leased  systems.    The  costs generally included
transporting the filter units, set-up, and operating labor.  Also, regeneration costs for the
lower expenditure (Missouri) did not include carbon regeneration.

4.5.4.2      Estimates
The following factors affected the cost estimates.
     o     Size
     o     Inclusion of related costs
                  rental/construction
                  carbon regeneration
                  additional prefiltering or treatment

In absolute terms, the total system cost estimates varied directly with size (see Table
32). In relative terms, the cost per million gallons per .day treated was relatively more
constant, though it varied over one order of magnitude for capital, and three orders of
magnitude for operation  and maintenance (O&M).  No economies of scale effect was
apparent since, even from  the same  data source, cost per million gallons per day of
larger systems was sometimes higher than for smaller systems.

The cost of reming a. system appeared to oe lass, costly tnan most construction scenarios
in two instances. For the feasibility studies at the Illinois and Minnesota sites, quotes for
leased systems were  obtained from vendors.  These costs included set-up and operation
labor, materials and equipment. It is unclear if regeneration costs -vere included in most
examples.   For rented systems, it is presumably included in rental costs if a carbon
change was not necessary during the lease period, such as in the Minnesota scenario.

Costs for additional prefiltering and treatment, aside from carbon, were included only in
two cost estimates.  In the second highest cost system estimate, for the New Jersev
feasibility otuay, che costs oi sulfur dioxme  gas treatment co precipitate out iron,
airstripping to remove volatile organics, and neutralization to stabilize the pH were
                                             -110-

-------
   CM
   CO

   U

   ea
         H   2
         Z   5
I


.





1-1
co
4*j
•H
a
a
u




01
•& C,
C
e co
o c
•H 0
« C
1- i-l
Oi eg
fi*2
o



4J
U
co
Q.
CO
U







60
03
01
O









Ol
;>ourc
CO
CO
a




T3 -0
60 60
3E 2u
^^ ^^
o o
O 0
O 0
«* ft
t^ CO
^T ^T
i-t vD
• 



^3 ^3
60 60
£ r
o o
§0
0
r*T cj*
in in
CO CM
m- m-



^^
•o *e eo
eo a *o
X 60 000
tH O -3- •
• iH • iH
O ^ tH <->


e
Ol O
6 •« tH
•H tH 4-1
4-i to to
60 I-1
I 1 ^^ HI
4J O)
U O C
CO O U
- 0^ M
o m £
u
• (U 
CO  <«••«>


^^ ^^
c e
0 0
•H «H
tH tH
•H -O iH T3
in co
• •
iH tH
 to Q.
*w CO IH
4J J3
CM b 3 tH
O «H  in-



^^
•o 'E'-O eo
60 Q. 60
£ 60 £ O
O
oo o vo m
CM O tH «
• CM • tH
0 N-'CM -~>







e
v "G m
*J « X
tH iJ 00
•H
UH C  ON i-4
s u ^-i _







o
o
vO
M
«^>
CO
CM







O
o
CM
CO
00
eo
CO*




a.
60
60 O
Z O'
o
CM »
« in



c
o
4J
CO
01
 -H
03 JJ 03
0) Ol
U >- C
O. C. -H






03
CO

0
35 -a
ON P»
tH ON
Cu *O
U "H
CO E
CO CJ ^
= CO

•a
at
•a
y
i— i •
U 03 V3
C «- fc.
•H co re
0) U
0) X X
Jj
03 in m
o
U 4-1 W
03 O
^H — U_
< Su <
co •* m
S.^ X^1 >w^


tH
CO
C
0>


E
01
03
CO
CM
»
O •
tH 0)
4J X
V- CJ S3
O 01 f
•_. t, rj
~> ) *• W
re 01 IH

- c.
t-i u O
a •* z
i— i
Vu «H •
C -1 -5
3 C
i . S
O 03
•O tH T3
.* O C
re u c
U 4J
k- C C
J= O O
U Jl
*O k<
c • re
re ac u
c
C. -H •

•U O. IH
D . 4-1
x * re
4J 4^
H3 C l-i
D 0) O
•c E e.
3 i. 03
u 3 re
c p* u
— 0/4-
<^-
                                                   -111-

-------
1,

L
f'B
11.^
i». "
   W
          i
          w    ?
          H    ^3
                  es
                  oo



eg
4J
a
CO
cj
•« 01
o
e e
O CB
•H C
4J 0)
M e
c.a
OS

4J
•H
U
co
a
a
u








00
•H
00
01
0


at
u
^
0
w

so
^
a
o

1-4
•o
60
z
CN
n
.
*Q*
iH
TS
CO
z

o
o
o
A
00
.

1
* §
\O IO
^ »
• ^"H
CM ^*
at
J5
*J C
00 U O
>> o us
00 CO hi
"O C «
-i — • -3
< •* ^H «
Bu S *H O
W 43 CO
£ -H 01
CO fl C
CO CMCB 00 C
. s 01 ON -H
» 0 b. ^ s
•





















*




















i



































"*










































*









                                                                                                                                   in
                                                                                                                                  ^^
                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                   C  Oi
                                                                                                                                   o  tn
                                                                                                                                   u  re
                                                                                                                                   o. c.

                                                                                                                                  i"  j-j
                                                                                                                                   c. o
                                                                                                                                   c   -
                                                                                                                                   01 "O
                                                                                                                                   E  C
                                                                                                                                   c. ra
                                                                                                                                  •ft  «3
                                                                                                                                   3
                                                                                                                                   CTT3
                                                                                                                                   01  e
                                                                                                                                      ra
                                                                                                                                   b
                                                                                                                                   o  c
                                                                                                                                  i-i O
 CO  «
   c

*0 •"
   u
 C CB

 i"
T3 O
^ C.
 a 03
 Ol C
 Wi c;
j: i-

T3
 c  •
 a c
   o
                                                                                                                                   I   o
                                                                                                                                   jj  s
                                                                                                                                  •o  "
                                                                                                                                   U i-(
                                                                                                                                   C •u
                                                                     -112-

-------
                                                       Aqueous & Solids Treatment
                                                       Carbon treatment
    Included.  In the SCS n estimate the costs of neutralization and clarification were
    included.  The costs of chemicals and power comprised 90%  of the O&M costs for this
    system.

    Expenditure Sources
          o     ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983

    Estimated Sources
         o     Radian, 1983
         o     US EPA 0ERR contractor Feasibility Studies
£
                                          -113-

-------
                                                              Aqueous and Solids Treatment
                                                                 Oil/ W ater separator
      4,6 OIL/WATER SEPARATOR
I
t
4.6.1       Definition
An oil/water separation slams oil off of water by taking advantage of the im miscihUitv
of these liquids.   The two general types of oil/water separators are (1)  a floating
skim mer-type, and (2) a tank-type coalescing plate separator.  Costs are given In this
section for the second type.  The latter type, which is typically larger, uses a series of
horizontal  and  vertical  hydrophilic and hydropholic plates to  enhance oil globule
flotation. These systems  may be used in series with each other and with other treatment
technologies, which may provide "polisking" to remove residual low level contaminants.

4.6L2       Units of Measurement
Costs  are given in dollars per  million  gallons per day  when data availability make it
possible.
      4.6L3
            Sum maty Data
      4.6.3.1      Expenditure
      The one expenditure available was:
      Capital:
                  $289,200
(includes hookup and controls)
      Operation and
      Maintenance:'     $50,000/year
                     .   S2.70-4.16/gallon
                                            (capacity unknown)
                                            (1,000-1,500 gallons/month)
                                             -114-

-------
                                                          Aqueous and Solids Treatment
                                                          Oil/ w ater spjearator
I
I
The cost per gallon is relatively high because of the low treatment rate.  The oil/water
mixture is collected into a sump from tight soil with a subsurface drain system.

4.6.3.2      Estimates
The single estimate available was:

Capital:             $91,587          5,000 gpm capacity
                    $12,720/Mgd     (7.2 Mgd)

Operation and
Maintenance:        $267,4 56/lst year
                    ($0.0001/gaHon)

The assumptions for this system suggest that it is intended as an add-on to a larger
treatment system.  Appurtenances and control cost are not included as they are for the
above expenditure.  This causes an underestimate for the capital cost because of the
excluded costs and a low estimate for the 0& M because the maximum capacity flow  rate
was assumed for deriving the unit cost.
       4.6.4,      Factors Found to Affect Costs
f'
In
       4.6.4.1     Expenditures
II
"      The following factors affected estimates:
            o     Flow rate (utilization of capacity)
            o     Inclusion of related costs:
1
                     appurtenances
                     controls
                     tank housing
                                             -115-

-------
                                                            Aqueous and Solids treatment
                                                            Oil/water separation
      Flow rate was probably the  most important factor affecting the expenditure (see Table
      34). The combination of a locally tight soil with a nigh organic content, and the natural
      adhesion of oil to such high  organic soil resulted in a very low flow rate of only 1,000-
      1,500 gallons per month for the California case study site.  The effect on operation and
      maintenance  unit costs by flow rate is even  more clear.  The relatively low flow rate
•     divided into the  annual operation and maintenance costs results in a relatively high unit
      O&M cost.
1
1
     The expenditure data included a variety of related costs that may not be accounted for in
     estimates or other expenditures.  These related costs are shown In Table 33.  They
     include appurtenance upgrading to connect the lines for the treated effluent to the local
 I.    POTW, a building to enclose the storage tanks, and a control system for operating the
 :    separator.  These related fixed costs may be spread among other system components for
     a larger system in which the oil/water separator is a minor component, such as in a large
)     POT W or complex dndusttLal waste (pre)treatment operation.

I                     TA BLE 33. Ofl/ W ater Separator Capital Expenditures

I'         o     Treatment system                            .      S49.200
 1         o     Plumbing modifications on
                 existing tank farm to receive
F                material before treatment to test
•'                for treatment need                                $8,000
.          o     Tank farm budding                                 $50,000
          o     Sanitary sewer system modifications
                 to discharge treated effluent to
                 POTW                                            833,000
|         o     Electrical and instrumental oil
                 recovery system                                   8117,000
          o     Monitoring equipment for POTW  discharge           S 12,000
                                                                                 *
          o     Project management for POTW dishcarge
                 modifications                                     8 20,000

                                          Total                   8289,200
                                           -116-

-------
I






8
^^^
^•^
^^
fc
a
z
w
§

^^^
CM
1 1

S o
« < £
| a 5
H Cfl
ft!
U
H
<
M^^
^^^
^^
^^

-


,






s
^j
•H
U
CB
a.
to
u
6C
•H
03
O
Q

01
U
3
O
5/3
(0
U
s
a

c
0
CM
•
CO

<••>.
c
w o
CS •> a
•«*. ec
^5 ^5 ^D
O («~ lH
» • •
C cvi ^
in •
o e
U- CB
u
• ^H t- -0
»H -H 0)
•H o jj j:
o a u
^ u 3 c a
BO ftt E
u o e ^ 3
C. i-H -H VM gj

0)
0) COj:
u 3 ^H AJ
CB O <-l C
iH C CB O
* ^«E
ec so
e «- m
•rt O >s -
y -, — 1-1
CO CB i-l t
a> P o o
fH CB CB O
CB a. e.o
O 0) CO •
CJ 0) U <-i


to
e
ea w
•<: ae o
U ^» fH -H
I-l CO -H
CA _3 C7^ fQ
3 U i-l U




















»



























f V.






























































                                            -117-

-------
                                                         Aqueous and Solids Treatment
                                                         Oil/water separation
4.6.4.2     Estimates
The following factors affected the estimate (Table 35):

     o     System capacity
     o     Inclusion of related costs

The unit cost estimate includes only basic material costs and assumes a capacity flow
rate and, therefore, was probably an underestimate of an actual installed systems cost.
To the extent that this capacity flow rate is an unrealistic assumption, this unit cost is
an underestimate.

Since this hypothetical system appears to be intended as an add-on to a large POT W or an
industrial (pre)treatment system  certain related fixed costs may be excluded or spread
among the larger system.

Since the bulk of the flow through an oil/water separator is water rather than  oily
contaminant, the flow rate variations may overestimate the actual contaminant removal
range.  Therefore, cost estimates may be made more accurate by calculating the cost per
volume of contaminant removed.  As with other.treatment technologies, however,  this
contaminant  removal cost is  very difficult to  measure because of the variations in
contaminants and removal levels.  The removal effectiveness of an Qfl./water separator is
affected primarily by oflL drop size; retention  time,  density -differences between the
aqueous and the organic phases, and the temperature.
Expenditure Sources
     o      ELJ/JRB Case Studies, 1983
 Estimate Source
            US EPA, SCS; 1981
                                      -118-

-------
L        s
<     g
r—"*     «H
00     ~
                                       o.

                                      u
                                        u

                                      on
                                     •HC
                                      AJOI

                                      we
                                     OS
                             eg


                             eg


                             o
                            u
                                       u
                                       cs
                                       a
                                       33
                                       U
                                       60
                                      •H
                                       CO

                                      a
                                       V
                                       u

                                       3
                                       O
                                      w
                                       n
                                      a
                                             •o
                                              60
                                             O
                                             CN
                                             CM


                                             
                                             00
                                             in
                                   ON
                                   
                                          CO  CO
                                          o  c
                                          u  o
                                             «H
                                          0) fM
                                          60  03
                                          n  60

                                          CU O
                                          > O
                                          a o

                                          CU «H
                                          iH ^.
                                          O. 00
                                                      '•CO-
                                    I-
                                    a
                                    cu
      vO i-H C
      moo
      «» O «H
        «o ^
      r»  • en
      ^O O 60
       *~"
                                              CU
                                              60
                                              2
 ai        a
 AJ        60

5        O

 °-        §
 30

5  S
 U  AJ
 o)  q        	
 ej  v.     E
i-l  CO     *H CM
 a  a.    x  •
 o  «     a r*.
cj  a     B ^
                                                       •n *~*

                                                        e^o
                                              &.
                                              u
                                                    CO
                                                    hi
                                                    a
                                                       u o> <-i
                                                       W i-l ^^
                                                                    -119-

-------
                                                                 Gas Migration Control
                                                                 Pipe Vents
 I
 F
•E
 I
                                5.0  GAS MIGRATION CONTROL
5.1 PIPE VENTS

5.1.1        Definition
Pipe vents are vertical or lateral perforated pipe installed in the landfill for controlling
gases.  They are  usually installed at a landfill perimeter on 30 to 60 foot centers and
extend down to the  water table or the landfill base, sometimes in combination with
trench vents for the control of lateral gas migration. Pipe vents are usually surrounded
by a layer of coarse gravel to prevent clogging bv solids or water.  They may discharge
passively to the atmosphere or be connected to a negative pressure collection system for
possible treatment.

5.1.2        Unit of Measurement
Unit cost is given in dollars per pipe vent.  Other units such as depth and  diameter are
used to describe each pipe vent,

5.1.3        Sum mary Data

5.1.3.1      Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.
 r      5.1.3.2     Estimates
       The estimates ranged from:
                  S445 LS      (6 feet deep)
                     +o
                  $1,310 LS    (30 feet deep)

       No informaticn  *vas  available about the assumptions for the lowest estimate. But the
       highest (capital) estimate included additional items such as PVC casing and a blower fan,
       which was not included in the lower estimate.
                                             -120-

-------
                                                                          Gas Migration Control
                                                                          Pipe Vents

      5.1.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs

      5.1.4.1      Expenditure
      No actual expenditure data are available at this time.

      5.1.4.2      Estimates
i     The following factors affected the cost estimates for pipe vents:
           o      Depth
j          o      Pipe diameter
           o      Casing
           Io      Ventilation fan size
      The factors affecting cost estimates are very similar to those affecting well points, deep
.,     weHs and monitoring well costs, since construction elements are similar.  Well costs are
I
|,     typically proportional to their depth, for both well point type installation and drilled
      weHs.  Costs also increase with pipe diameter because of affects on both material, and
      installation labor and. equipment.  Some estimates for some cost components were given
      in terms of dollars/inch  diameter/foot depth, indicating that diameter (in inches) and
      depth (in feet) affect cost at the same function.

|!     Casing  (pvc) was included in the  JRB  and Radian cost estimates, but not the  more
^     shallow  New Jersey Feasibility  Study estimates (see  Table 36).   This element added
r     $4.50-- 6.50/LF for 4 - and 6 - inch casings, respectively.
I
      The .fan affects both capital and  operation and maintenance costs.  The fan size, and its
      capital cost estimate was identical for the two sites that included it. The reason for the
      differing operation and  maintenance cost from these sources is unclear.

               Sources
           o     JRB-RAM.1980
           o     Radian, 1983
           o     TJS HP\ OERR contractor Feasihflitv Studies
           o     US EPA OERR contractor bids
                                            -121-

-------
II
|



H
                    CO
                    V4
                    eg
                    o
                   Q
   0

 if
8
        H^^
        C
                   es
                   so
            r-,1
 r
CO
cS
4J
•H
»-l
eg
JJ
«H
D.
eg
u
•d 01
u
e e
O Q
•H C
eg jj
H C
01 -H
O. eg
OS


e
o
«H
jj
a

•H
^
C
01





Id
0)

I
eg
1-4
O






.e
D.



U
CO
01
o
I— 1
en
 vO
a a
^
U a.
e «
^4 y
IT e
Tr O
a 2
•» «C
° 1


u
eg
01
£
s>






CO
01
m
00
v>
1
Ol
a.
•H CO
a E cu
^^ u^ JZ
c u u
a e
U-l O -H O
en esi
cu t-t en as
O O CS;
CO
01
^g
U ••
C 00
•H C CO
•H CU
en _ co tC
a u
u e
0) -H
O. U
•H > <•
a a

iH
u a
C eg
•H U
L- |
01 O
Ol li
^ *c
0 |


o s t
eg
HI
O O 0
e«a O O
in m in
•••




e
01
•H
00
4J
o



e
01
^
•H
00

^
0


u
eg
cu
m
•co-






ot 01
C 00






01
c
0
c







e
01
^
•H
00
iJ
0
z



e
0)
•H
00
u
o
z




o
^y

^z
f. u
U CO
c
• *rt *
u
^T ^
CL

H

a
o
^5
CU 01
01
lu e
O
                                                                                                                                           u
                                                                                                                                           c
                                                                                                                                           c
                                                                                                                                           o
                                                                                                                                           u
                                                                                                                                          o
                                                                                                                                          1H


                                                                                                                                          +
                                                                                                                                          ec
                                                                                                                                          c
                                                                                                                                c.
                                                                                                                               •TH
                                                                                                                                C.
                                                                                                                                c
                                                                                                                                ai
                                                                                                                               o
                                                                                                                               o
                                                                                                                               as

                                                                                                                                ca
                                                                                                                                o>
                                                                                                                               •c
                                                                                                                                3


Ol
u
2
O
C/3
eg
eg
o




S
*J
<
U ' 0
S3 00
3-1 — <






< C
Cx2 ,.j f^
3 * -
0)
m 01
•U l-l
W -j
as I-H "«
Z -* O.
< x n
fer as*
S 5 S^z
-



t-l 01
•-H 03
< S Ol
" ^Si 3
3 0 »oe *" z
-122-

-------
                                                                 Gas Migration Control
                                                                 Trench vents
 I
I
       5J2 TRENCH VENTS

       &2.1       Definition
       Trench vents are deep, narrow trenches backfilled with gravel, forming a path of least
       resistance through which gases  migrate  upward to the atmosphere or to a collection
       manifold.  They are typically constructed around the perimeter of a waste area, or across
       a section of the site to form a barrier against lateral migration of methane (flam mable)
       or toxic vapors. Trenches can be open,  or capped with clay and fitted with collection
       laterals and riser pipes, venting to the atmosphere or connecting to a negative pressure
       fan or blower.

       5.2.2       Unit of Measurement
5       Unit cost is given  in terms of dollars per linear foot because it reflects the functional
       value of mitigating gas  migration across an area.

I       S.2J3       Summary Data

Jf|      5.2.3.1     Expenditures
       No actual expenditure data are available at this time.
r
*      5.2.3.2     Estimates
«       The cost estimates for trench vents ranged from:

                         $35/LF  (20 feet deep)
                           to
                         3846/LF (20 feet deep)
                                             -123-

-------
I
                                                                      Gas Migration Control
                                                                      Trench vents
      The highest cost estimate included significant costs for sheet piling, geotextile trench
      lining and well point dewatering of the excavated trench, none of which were included in
      any of the other three estimates.  The lowest estimate was a simple passive trench vent
      with no piping or fan ventilation.

      5*2.4       Factors to Affect Costs

      5.2.4.1      Expenditures
      No expenditure data are available at this time.

      5.2.4.2      Estimates
      The following factors were found to affect the trench vent cost estimates:
          o      Trench size
          o      Pipe vent size
          o      Ventilation for size
          o      Inclusion of related costs:
                    sheet piling
                    geotextile lining
                    overhead allowances
                    contingency allowances
                    well point dewatering
t!
^     Trench depth seemed to have the most significant effect on costs (see Table 37). The 20-
      foot deep scenario used for the JRB-R A M estimate required sheet piling, which, despite
      reuse assumptions, comprised 81% of the total capital cost.  Also, wellpoint dewatering
      (14% of total capital cost) was considered  necessary for this deep trench vent.

      Pipe vents  which  were added to the trench vent designs estimates.  Varied am on? the
      estimates given. The pipe vents for the highest and lowest estimates were not specified,
      and not included,  respectively.   However, length of the laterals and risers for the two
      SCS "Landfill" estimates  was congruent; onlv the  pipe  diameter varied.  This did not
      appear significantly affect costs.
G
                                            -124-

-------
II
f i
o    ?
u    «
en

w

CO

H
                       O
                      a
                      00
                      ej\
li.
         U
4J
n
o
o
u
§
!
eg
a
co
u
icration &
ilntenance
or
B
a
IM
B
O
•H
4J
a

•H
4J
B
01



CO

B
a


0)
a.
•H
(U



01
N
•H
M

U
01

H


0)

.^
O
""*
ffl
eg
a




~
*-"
fe
•si
3
"
CU
H






01

o






n
CO

CO CU 0)
i-H CO 0)
CO -H U-l
ll kl
01 O
•u -0 O
eg E m
•H eg


O "^ ^


4-1 4J 4-1
cu eg 01
CU 0) CU

0 0 -T
O CM


•



y"
* ^
£* L
W 0
CO 00
V) ez &
S <-)  CM
en ^H ^r
•


fH
01 O
> u
4-1 E Vl
— ;3 J T-
Cd 1 u-
to -o o
en y E so
Ed CO CO C7^
•J •— 1




fc.
^
OO
1
o
•ff
•to-
CO
V
1 00
00
rs, eo
00 «-T
 B —1
eg oi «H
-< '--i Vi —
p. , .^ .J ^J
U 1 -00
CO E 00
to O eg c?\
3 W »J iH




J
CM

1
m
en
to-
co
0)
1 >s
^>
O en
en oo
#H CM
v>  J ON
=5 to r *H
                                                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                                                            u
                                                                                                                                            a
                                                                                                                                      CO
                                                                                                                                      E
                                                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                                                      u
                                                                                                                                         60
                                                                                                                                      00  E
                                                                                                                                      E il
                                                                                                                                     -rt  E
                                                                                                                                01
                                                                                                                             u  <—I
                                                                                                                             0)  -H
                                                                                                                             01  4J
                                                                                                                            ^  X
                                                                                                                             CO  CU
                                                                                                                                ^J
                                                                                                                             f.  O
                                                                                                                             CU  01
                                                                                                                            TJ  SC
                                                                                                                             2
                                                                                                                            <-<  -3
                                                                                                                             U  E
                                                                                                                             E  CO
                                                                       -125-

-------
I
I
c
                                                                  Gas Migration Control
                                                                  Trench vents
For the  one estimate for which a  ventilation fan  was Included, the  operation and
maintenance costs were significantly higher by an order of magnitude than the other
estimates for  which these costs were estimated,  presumably to cover electricity and
maintenance costs.

Geotertile trench lining (12% of total capital costs) was included only in the JRB-RA M
estimate, which assumed $2.38/sq ft for hypalon.

The SCS estimates included allowances for overhead and contingencies as follows:

     Estimate Scenario               Overhead          Contingency
     A ctive control                     25 %                   30 %
     Passive control                     25%                   20%.
     Gravel trench                     .25%                   15%
      Estimates Sources
lr
     o     JRB-RAM.1980
     o     SCS, 1980
                                           -126-

-------
c
L
                                                                          Gas Migration Controls
                                                                          Gas Barriers
      &3 GAS BARRIERS
5*3.1       Definition
TypicaHy, a synthetic membrane is used in combination with other technologies to form a
barrier against horizontal or vertical gas migration.  Clay or concrete slurry walls and
grout  curtains may  also perform a similar  function, but at a higher cost; these
technologies are usually reserved for ground water barriers.  Synthetic membranes  may
be installed during construction of a trench vent or a subsurface drain,  which both
Involve digging a trench.  The cost of the trench and other tasks may be derived from the
section on that conjunctive technology.  Similar barriers to vertical migration  may be
taken  from the surface  sealing section.  For material costing  purposes, synthetic
membranes may need to be doubled to prevent punctures from gravel and stones. Also,
an additional several feet should be allowed for the membrane at the top of the trench to
allow for proper anchoring. Trench bottoms should also be lined.
                 Unit of Measurement
      Costs are given in terms of dollars per square  foot  because it best expresses the
      functional value of gas barriers.
                 Sum roary Data
»r
L
      5.3.3.1     Expenditures
*     No expenditure data are available at this time.
                                            -127-

-------
T"
                                                                            Gas Migration Control
                                                                            Gas Barriers
      5.3.3.2      Estimates
      The cost estimates ranged from:

           Capital      $0.39/sq.ft.                  asphalCLc concrete
                           to
                        53.00/sq.f.t                  hypalon (36 mil)
      Operation and
      M aintenance      S900/year                (24 four hour inspections/year)
      The information source does not explicitly state whether Installation as well as material
      costs are included in these estimates.

      5.3.4       Factors Found to Affect Costs

      5.3.4.1      Expenditure
      No expenditure data are available at this time.
.n     5.3.4.2      Estimates
ill
The following factor primarily affected gas barrier cost estimates:
Id          o     Installation
           o     Material type
T          o     Material a mount

|     The inclusion of installation costs is the most important factor affecting these  cost
      estimates.  Although the estimates references drew data from the same sources, Table
      38 shows that  there  are significant  differences that  may  have been  caused by the
      • inclusion/exclusion of installation costs.
                                             -128-

-------
                                                                         Gas Migration Control
                                                                         Gas Barriers
      The  material types and  amount  affected  cost  estimates, but inadequate  data was
      available to quantify these effects.
      Estimates Sources

           o     JRB-RAM.1980

           o     Radian, 1983
I
£
                                           -129-

-------
1        I
I        I
I        ?
.  u
 " rJ


"I

 [
I
          <
          «A



          CO
/•^
rH
w*
01
u
§

c
V
AJ
e
•H
re
£
i£

e
0
•H
U
9
IH
0)
O.
o
en
00
A\
W»
^J,

re
•H
•o
a
as

o
00
ON
l-H
•
w
^3
K
|

03
OS
•-3



03
J
•H
AJ
CL
73
ft
9
£
^H
03
01
0
rH
aj
— *
hi
0)
AJ
£

IH
01
hi
hi
re
CO



hi
a
01
>%
"s.
CM
VO
O
rH
1


ON




AJ AJ
UH UH
AJ
cr UH cr
03 03
en 03 CM
O CM O
«» CM \r\
CM CM i-H
v>  

to
U
V
5?
0) 03 rH
03 01
01 01 CM
S & J
5 5 -S
rC ^ 11
AJ AJ 01
^ ^ *
•H i-l >,
s e >
a
vD O 0)
m 
.


j:
AJ
^H
»
hi
01
>>
a j:
rH 00
0)
r='B
U 01
C r<
•H -r)
•»








01
AJ
^
e
3
u


^
sD
irt
•
O AJ
1 UH
en
en o-
• fft
• W
O
•
»
6C
e
•H e
rH O
3 • -* hi
a hi AJ o •
j: a> u UH >•,
N (0 rH
• o o. a c
AJ -0 E 01 O
0} Of
o x y u u
U -3 S 3
rS iH 01
rH rH IH >
03 rH O sp
iH -H AJ «C
hi «H a >» y
01 * hi hi C
AJ U X) 01 01
re a IH > hi
S J3 > 
-------
                                                                     Gas Migration Control
                                                                     Carbon Adsorption
1,
I
I
      5.4 CARBON ADSORPTION (GAS)
5.4.1       Definition
Carton filters are added to vents to collect gaseous contaminants (typically volatile
organics) from the vent gases.  Large gas filtration systems (10,000 and 100,000 cf m -
roughly 1,000 cu.ft. of carbon) used in manufacturing processes are available, but this
section includes information on relatively small svstems (7 cu. ft. of carbon) for passive
venting systems.

5.4.2       Units of Measurement
Costs are given in terms of dollars per filter.  Units such as carbon filter volume of air
filtered or amount of contaminant collected are important for describing a given filter
unit, when available.

5*4-3       Sum mazy Data

5.4.3.1      Expenditures
One expenditure for carbon gas filtration was available:

            $188/filter

This cost does not include the cost of the used 55 - gallon drums that were retrofitted, or
the labor cost of filling these drums with carbon.  Only the  material cost for the granular
activated  carbon is incliided. Each of four improvised filters was saddled over the vents
to the 5,400 gallon activation and settling tanks used to hiodegrade butanol and acetone
:from contaminated grcunriwater, using a 
-------
                                                                           Gas Migration Contronl
                                                                           Carbon Adsorption

     5.4.3.2      Estimates
     One estimate was available from price quote sheets (this may be considered similar to
     expenditures except that no record of an expenditure is available).

                 S635/vent sorb (for orders of 1-3)

 '    This cost is for a com mercial carbon filter, which is very similar to the improvised filter
     for which costs are given above.  Related costs of construction (drum  cutting, filling,
-I    painting) are included in the delivered cost.

•    5.4.4       Factors Found to Affect Costs

g.    The following factors affected the cost of the carbon vent adsorber (see Tables 39 and
i    40):
»
          o      Size
f
          o      Related costs
I         o      Flow rate
IE
The size of the filters affected only the cost of the activated carbon filler, since the
drums used  were reconditioned waste barrels.  The containment structure would affect
costs at a relatively small incremental proportion of the cost, sines the carbon costs
(roughly $1.00/lb) is a more significant cost factor.

As noted  above, and in the comments section, the expenditure includes only material
costs for the carbon.  The vent filters were  mounted on  the cylindrical-tanks using
wooden pallets, and in-house labor was used to retrofit and fill the drum  canisters.
Hence, ;he cost of these related components -vouki be expected to increase the cost of a
factory-built carbon filter, as noted below.
                                            -132-

-------
i
H
E
            H    «
    ON
    cn


    Cd


    09
      O
      a
            rvi
w
o
u
1— 1
n

^

t« 41
U
C C
O «
•H C
4J 4)
tV u
1- C

C.C5
or
e
(9
e
•**
E
tg
^
e
o
u



41
N
V)
41
^
•H
b.

4)
U

a
_o
«
n
o
CM
>•*'
—
"y
n
41
00
00
41
co
^4
•H
. -u a
o >
C 9



-H 41
O C
9 2
w 41
5 U
.n to


E
3
hi
T3
C
i-H
U
in
m



























-









t

^,
CO 41
OS 05
•-> hj
"*" ' ncj
it J 0)0



















*

















































]




























                                                                                                               >N

                                                                                                               r~>


                                                                                                               C
                                                                                                               o
                                                                                                               u

                                                                                                               c
                                                                                                               o
                                                                                                               u
                                                                                                               c
                                                                                                              II
                                                                                                              U5
                                                       -133-

-------
I
          ^^ *

          8,
                 0)
                1-4
                f-t
                 O
     ea
                «M
                eo
Is
           CO
en
o
cj
o
4J
o
H

w
e c
o n
•»•• c
u 41
CQ ^
I- C

CaQ
os
c
13
C
"e
to
c
o
u


V
N
tn
«
»H
b.

0)
U
bl
3
O
trt
-;
^
to
o

u
a

IP
vO
•CO-

g
C JC JJ 1-1
0) JJ C •"
> -H «0 (0

"So 3 -5 *3
nee
^ OJ CO V
O -H U O
c ti c e
a o o
> 0 U
c
u
>
eo
« i
*•
0
c •


§
w
•o
e
tH
(0
00
in
4)
•O <-^
C n
V 00
> ^
i-H
u1 ***
-j .*;
93 —
9 O

c cr
M



























*













































































(


















*












                                                       -134-

-------
L
                                                                      Gas Migration Control
                                                                      Carbon Adsorption
The flow rate affects costs In general, because of the specific costs of a fan and the
higher rate of adsorbtion. The fan would not only add to the capital cost but would add
to the operation and maintenance costs in two important  ways.   First, the fan itself
would require electricity and  maintenance to keep running.   Secondj the higher rate of
adsorbtion  would increse the  necessary frequency of replacement for the filter.  The
paucity and similarity of available data obviates contrast of factors  between sources.
However, the following brief listing of factors is appropriate.
                                                             >,
     o     Fitter size
     o     Flow rate (use of ventilation fan)
     o     Contaminant concentration

Of these, flow rate is probably the most important independent factor.
Neither of the passive^type vent filters for which costs are given above included costs
for a fan, which would significantly increase operation and maintenance costs.  JRB
Remedial Action  Manual (Rogoshewsto, et aL,  1980) included the relationship shown in
Figure 1.  The hypothetical system  for  which these  costs were estimated is  a large
carbon filtration  unit, several orders of magnitude larger  than  the  vent-sorbs noted
above.
      Expenditure Sources

           o     ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983

      Estimates Sources

           o     US EPA OERR contractor bids
                                            -135-

-------
f

1

I
II

•»!

I
         100
   90
o
o

B.
O
80
   70
(O
g  60
       l-
       w
       o
       u
       EU
CO
z
          SO
          40
          so
   20
o
«-  10
                  FIGURE 1. CAPITAL AND  OPERATING COSTS


                 FOR NONREGENERATIVE  CARBON GAS VENT FILTER
                             Total
                             Installed
                       Annual
                       Operating
000



900 >
    z
    c

    r«

    o

    tn

700 ^
    H
    ix
    Z
                                                       800
                                                       '600
                                                           n
                                                           o
                                                           en
                                                       500 H

                                                           <—^
                                                           H

                                                       400 5
                                                           c
                                                           CO

                                                           z
                                                                 300
                                                          200
                                                              o
                                                              •n
                                                       100  ?
                                                      8
                    FLOW RATE  (X1000  CUBIC  FEET PER MINUTE)
                OF VENT GAS  CONTAINING  SO  PPM TRICHLOROETHYLENE
      SOURCE: CALGON, 1980
                                    -136-

-------
                                                        Material Removal
                                                        Excavation /transportation /disposal
                                 MATERIAL REMOVAL
6.1 EXCAVATION/REMOVAL TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL/TREATMENT
6,1.1       Definition
Excavation, transportation  and disposal costs are grouped here because, (1) similar
factors affect all three tasks, and (2) some actual expenditure data are available only in
terms of the three aggregated tasks.  Excavation refers to the work necessary to load the
hazardous  material, ready  for transport from  its found  position.  (This  may involve
significant digging and waste classification, or onlv surface scraping.)  Transportation
involves hauling loaded materials off-site to a disposal/treatment  facility.   Disposal
treatment may include landfilllng, incineration or treatment.

6.1.2       Units of Measurement
Cost are given in dollars per cubic yard (cuyd) because  it serves as a standard sofl.
excavation measure.   A" cubic yard  is assumed to  weigh one ton,  which is a common
assumption at landfills.  In  several cases disposal and transportation costs are given in
terms of dollars/ton because haulers and landfills used weight measures.

6,1.3       Sum raary Statistics

6.1.3.1      Expenditures
       The   'following   ranges    of   excavation/removal,    transportation    and
disposal/treatment expenditures were found:

      Excavation/Removal:      $15 - $460/cuyd
      Transportation:           $29 - $145/cuyd
      Oisnosal Treatment:       $17 - $356/cuvd
                                      -137-

-------
                                                   Material Removal
                                                   Excavation/transportation/disposal
  These cost elements cannot necessarily be sum med, since the extremes of the ranges are
  derived  from  different sources  with different scenarios and  assumptions.   Hence,
  sum raing the three unit operations from the highest and lowest cost sites, results in the
  following site total

       Excavation, Transportation and Disposal:
                   $4.70 - $884/cuyd

  For excavation/removal, the lowest cost site (Texas-S6.06/cuyd) required only pumping a
  HqnM into a tank truck, while the highest cost site reflected the use of boats and level A
  protective gear to retrieve floating pads from  a canal.  For transportation, the salient
  reasons for the lowest cost site were unclear, but at the highest .cost site (Massachusetts
  -S145/cuyd), a relatively high demurrage (compensation for delay) was charged because
  of sample analysis delays.   The disposal/treatment cost varied greatly  with the waste
  compatibility. The lowest disposal cost (New York City - 817/cuyd) was charged for oil
  heavfly contaminated  with highly volatile solvents, which facilitated  incineration.  The
  highest disposal cost (Florida - 5356/cuyd) was for disposal of extremelv caustic "super
•  topical bleach"  (calcium  oxide-chlorinated  lime),  which  required  treatment  and
  neutralization prior to disposal.  Operation and maintenance costs may involve ground
  water monitoring and, possibly, site  inspections or security  to  prevent future illegal
  dumping, which is often repeated at former sites.  These costs wers aitner accounted -or
  separately, or were not encountered for the sites.

  6.3.1.2     Estimates
        The  following ranges of cost estimates for excavation/removal, transportation,
  and disposal/treatment were found:

             Excavation/removal;       $0.85-  4.09/cuvd
             Transportation:            $1.67 - 94.40/cuyd
             Disposal/treatment:       3 12 - 283.20/cuyd
             Site Total:                $222.87 - 379.37/cuyd
                                        -138-

-------
                                                        M aterial R e m oval
                                                        Excavatlon/transportation/dlsposal
For excavation/removal, the lowest estimates (SCS "impoundment" - $0.85 - 1.27/cuyd) a
front-end loader was assumed to be  feasible,  while for the highest estimate (SCS
"landfill" - $3.42-4.09/cuyd) assumed an excavator scenario for the deeper excavation.
The low  transportation estimate was an extrapolation from a construction-engineering
manual, while the high estimate reflected actual hlris from different types of hauling
firms.  Disposal costs varied from  512/cu.yd. at a sanitary landfill, to $283.20/cu.vd. for
contaminated sediment at an engineered landfill.

No operation  and  maintenance  costs were  assumed for  the  excavation /removal,
transportation and disposal/treatment cost estimates.

6.1.4  Factors Found to Affect Costs .

6.1.4.1     Expenditures
The following technical factors were found to affect the costs of excavation/removal,
transportation and disposal/treatment:

     Excavation or On-site Transfer.
           1.     Excavation depth
           2.     Site surface characteristics
           3.     Health and Safety requirements
           4.     Material-iiqukl/soiia/drums
           5.     Waste quantity

     Transportation:
           1.     Distance to disposal facility
           2.     Accessibility to road
           3.     Material-liquid vs. solid
           4.     Waste quantity
                                      -139-

-------
t;
                                                        Material Removal
                                                        Excavation/transportation/disposal

     Disposal
           1.     PCB Waste
              (a)    Concentration-over/under 500 ppm
              (b)    Material-solid vs. liquid

           2.     Non-PC B RCRA Hazardous Waste
              (a)    Solid vs. liquid
              (b)    Aqueous vs. organic
                   i

In addition, the following primary non-technical factors affected costs:
     A.    Com munity relations
     B.    Interstate relations
     C.   . Inflation and regulatory factors.

The effect of excavation depth on the costs shown In Tables 41 and 42 is probably non-
linear, since the most significant cost changes resulted from equipment differences.  For
example, the depth of excavation at the Case Study sites in Idaho,  New Jersey  and
Massachussetts $1 necessitated  the use of a Caterpillar 235, which is  a large, treaded
backhoe, with a 30 foot (10  m)  arm, which rents for about $70/hour without  crew. At
other sites where the excavation depth was shallower, a smaller, less expensive backhoe
such as a Case 580C was used.  At sites where only surface scraping was performed,  a
iront loader,  -vhich .is generally aven less expensive, was used.

Excavation was performed at a relatively quicker pace, which reduced  labor and rental
costs,  at sites with sandy and  unconsolidated soil.   At the New York City #1  and
California  $2  Case Study Sites no excavation costs  were incurred  because removal
involved pumping  liquid waste into, trucks from  tanks and ponds, respectively.  Site
surface characteristics probably had a relatively small effect on the excavation COSTS at
most of the case study sites. At Case Study Massachussetts 11 the waste was  excavated
from  a steep embankment.  Clean fall was removed from  the top of the embankment to
prevent its cross-con lamination  with the Bastes that were buried at the toe of the 'd
during the excavation. This process added slightly to the labor and rental charges.
                                            -140-

-------







i-l
sr
u
aa
H





S
0
z
t:
&
x
^
z
0
.H
<
>
<
U
X
ti





^^
CO
u
a
^^
— ^
3
d
CM
eo
o>
^H
N^





1-1
to
0

iH C
<0 01
CO E
O u
e. w
co 01

a H

^
s.
tance
B CO
ca n
M O
H <-»
e
o
M r*4
co co
a o
U E
X Ol
U 0£
c
o
ft
t8
CO U
u a
X Ol
U Q
4J
to
a
4J
o

x
• *jj
u
e
a
0-
rt
Materia
•o
in >»
in 3
^ C? 41
co* • •»
~ CM eo
 »- **»•

•a
3
u
o
vO
•a-
co-



ot
u
CO
^1
3
09
•c




c ^
o M
-tl 6
to r^
^y ^^
f-t m


•o
X
3
0
iH


*0-

jj
01
Ol
lu

^.
1


V
Ben
^i
ii
s =
(j 09
•o
X g
u 3 *~*
JM C i >^
m to
O i-l
• in
i— 1 -H

0)
eo
 M — S
GQ
< as
Bu <-j O
U ^-. i-( ^
I-H eo a
C/5 J O> -o
2 W,— —
-141-

-------
I
[   5
      3
i     O
      U
r   ^
     u
            Z   *3
            O   °
            P   §
             ^   «H
            X



^^
8
C
H
«o e
W 01
0 E
CO CO
O 1-

*o7
u
• n
CO JJ
c eo
a «H
c
o
iH 1-4
JJ Q
to >
> o
a E
y u
X ee
Id-v.
e
o
*j
a
> JS.
(0 JJ
U C.
X CI

4J
n
B
•H
eg
«j
0
u


^s
JJ
•H
4J
B
Q

2 <


01
U
(9
ttri
^
3
CO


to
4J
01
— ^
o


•o
^t
3
U

iH
GO

CO
E ~«
3 -H
U 0
•0 CO
a
< Oi
Bu n o, s
3
U
1 *^
C3 &*
i— t in
si^
§
4J
vO
<«.
9)
"* ~
s i
I §


SI
1 U
ON
cn


01
u
a

^
3
n
6
u
0
.C ~H
U O
a c
JJ CJ
2 «^
01 —
B.

•s
^n
3
U
*n
tn
vO



^H
^^
0
CO
•H
GO U
a. •-> o
U ^- ON CO
1-1 f- a
CO J ON ^H

e
o

•3-
VO
<— 1
O
m
•CO-

^
O *g
«N ^


3
U
m
 ea
o w
09 E

•a

3
u

o

„"

CO
E ^
3 -H
k> O
•D CO
ea
23
b3 **^ CO C
1-1 r*. e
W U ON o
3 M -i y




1
1


•o
3 CM
7^r
•CO-

*~>
G -H
•>^ eo
ON i-4
eo eo

v4
ja
<3
10
z

cu
a

.
_
Z


CO
c
cu
o
CO


^^
3
u

ON
CM
CM

«
.— 1

O
eo
£2;
U -X. CM
M CO U
oo J cr> v
S -U«—< z
                                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                                 u
                                                                                                                 c
                                                                                                                 M
                                                                                                                "5
                                                                                                                 i)
                                                                                                                 4J
                                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                                 cn
                                                                                                                 c;
                                                                                                                 c
                                                                                                                C
                                                                                                                ts
                                                        -142-

-------
•o
 01
 3
 O
 u
u

to
X     *•
ri     *
LsJ     ce
                 O
                o

                CM
                00


l-H
n
^j
o
H
iH
•H a
CO C
a a;
0 €
o. «
n to
•H 01
O Si
H

^
01
u
• c
en a
G JJ
a en
U i-l
H C
cavation
Removal
x ^»
'J3
e
o
•^
4J
rj
> J
a *->
u c
X U
u o
4J
e
(3
C
i-<
a
^
c
o
u

>
AJ
•H
U
e
10
5
C
l-l
<0
1-1
u
01
u
(3
Z
Data
Source



c^
\o
«n r^
• c*i
O ^"
IM

o<
•a
x
u
o»
00




01
u
<3
UH
U
3
CO

CO
01
co en >
u E ••* '-N
C O to en «a-
01 •-! 4J 01-1 ^^


VO
CO *^
•^ P^
r»»
IA-
OI
•— i
US
o
<-t
•f*
n
AJ >
O <
z


01
«-4
J2
C3
•-I
IH
«3

O <
•
i-l
C5
U
^* S J£
n s u
0 33
U U
O «3 *J




Ol
u
c
u*
Id
3
CO




Ol
c
> -* J i fl a
•-* i-c O ~ iJ S
o *j ja (3 o u
CO 03 E C.
•-5 -o
10 X
60 -O 3
x m u
OS m
o u a
m •
. • r- u
CN or O
09 CO
•0 01
•H 60
3 -O
0- 3
»H »H
•-I CO

c*
«
M g i i
= § s -

^H
X
• x

0)
o c
§0
^H
> l-t
ffv Q
O> 60


•a
iH
3
tr
IH
i-i

S
u
s S 1 1
2 3 £-» !
1
•o
x
3
y

*n
as
w*
f— 1


•


*^s
•n 03
>, QJ
a <-<
1 1
S o
tri. •&
**• 5
s^
•o
-». x
•» 3
f*. U
1^
C^
 a
CO
Ol
o.


• ^3
m x
00 3
iH CJ
•

a. <-) co
u *^ ^H w
l-l 00 » 4)
W ^- 5< 0) -5
r> u -H z
                                                                                                                                      w
                                                                                                                                      3)
                                                                                                                                      C3
                                                                                                                                      01
                                                                                                                                      09
                                                                                                                                      u
                                                                                                                                      T3

                                                                                                                                      ^•1

                                                                                                                                      U


                                                                                                                                      •5   E


                                                                                                                                      AJ   O.'
                                                                                                                                      09
                                                                                                                                      O  O  '
                                                                                                                                      «    01
                                                                                                                                      u   -o

                                                                                                                                     •°
                                                                                                                                      o>
                                                                                                                                      w
                                                                                                                            .c
                                                                                                                             «j
                                                                                                                             o

                                                                                                                             en
                                                                                                                             in
                                                                                                                             01
                                                                                                                                     •a
                                                                                                                                      ai
                                                                                                                                         i-H

                                                                                                                                          U
                                                                                                                                          u

                                                                                                                                          £
                                                                                                                                          rs
                                                                                                                                         11
                                                                                                                                     13   u

                                                                                                                                      ,   <3
                                                                                                                                     -3  O.
                                                                -143-

-------
   •o
    cu

    c
    e
    o
    u
    U
                  CM

                  00
I

^^
2
1-1
1-1 U

> 0
a E
u cu
xee
e
o

*J
(3
0 §"
tga
JJ
n
e
"E
03
4J
e
o
u


£
4J
e

3
O*
•a
«p4

cu
^
(Q
Z


U
4J 3

0«»

•O
•». 3
VO U




T3
X
3
U
^J-
VO *—
 ID
CU
"E
rx
CM
CM

•o
X
3
u

in
^4
u>




JJ
CU
cu
u*
*
JJ
^
5 E
•-I 3
> H
n o
X Wi
aj j:
— ^

•o

u
o
o
i-H




•H
^4
O
03

in -o
in u
cn






•o
3
- 1
S "E
**" 2
^









o
tw
en
• T> C
CU 0
c. o
§I
c"*~l
cn ^^
cu ^<^
•o

u
»« w

cn n
i] — •
& u
•o
X M3 -^
3 on
rx u 1-1 cc
O X
M3 Cn
^ •

jj ^ M m
«3 •« i-l «-'
• U
n •"« co
J2 CO 3]
b C R3
.33-1
u *• u
0
— 0
•0 i-l
.OX i-l
*n 3 x n
«JN u eo
. \o
o
G\ 00
^ 0

1

u Si
cn w

? 3
1 1
03
< oe.
a. ^
[13 — .CM CJ
i-i eo co
CO iJ ON -rt
S U -H 3
ea
< cfi
A, »»^ tW
£ ««i o -H
M OO iH
CA *«3 ^^ ^0
S U *H CJ
03
CL «J u-i
.U **- O -H
I-l 00 iH
CO J 0> 0]
n u 1-1 o
T3
r^ 3
1 u
O
•CO-






T3 _.
>• c7
U *^
^» O
I "
-L flj
O ~
• "S
*°" 0
sO









O

^4
cn
•a c
cu o
c. o
E eo
3 a
Ui
cu
N
R} ^
C — <
O JJ
i u

a u-
NO
O •
•O fi ~4
««r x n
— ' 3 X SO
«-i U
• CM
ao

CM m

1

CU hi *
4j CU
cn M
a 03

03
< oi
Cu i-j u.
W ->^ O -H
I-l 00 -H

S U ^ CJ
                                                                                                                             o

                                                                                                                             60

                                                                                                                             
-------
1,
r    -
t:    •«
       §
       o
       u
ti.    OJ


      CB
                     CO
                     Id
                     CO
                     o
                     Q

                     «N
                     00
z
o
h    3
              u
              X

•H
eg
o
H
i— i
C9
CO
0
D.
ca
•rt
O

CJ
VI
• c
CB CO
e u
C3 CO
Id «H
H 0
0
•H ^S
u eg
CO >
> o
a E
U CJ
X OS
u -^
e
o
^H
.u
Q
> JS
co jj
u a.
X 01
w o
4J
C
eg
c
•rt
eg
c
o
u
>•
4J
•H
u
B
co
3
0
I—I
eo
id
-•
l-H
, -H
-K. g Ud
O O «O
«»•>-. e
O (0
O 00 >H
V> tf>
V
*H T3
•H CO
E 0
"^ t-(
vO ^
iri y
• 3
CM b>
«> 4J
•
f-H
CB -o
60 X
3
"-» CJ E
O »^ 3 ^
P» *-( 3 U
• vr 03
O «H CO Id
 > u


60
e
**
^ JA
co c
V CO
1-1 U

u
*-l
1^
^*
Ud T3
- U
a ca

•
iH
eo
60
0
O
0
*
O
t— I
•a
3
tr
^H
iH
< (1
e- ^,o
u ei ^ N
CC 2 -H
cn u c^ id
3 0 -1 <



























































1








B















































,













-









































*





1 • 1
                                                                                                                             en
                                                                                                                             to
                                                                                                                             o

                                                                                                                             en
                                                                                                                             u
                                                                                                                             c
                                                               -145-

-------
CM
 «    O   3
.0
 tg
      ^T    (M
      z^    °°
      ^^^b    ^^


«

o
V— •
u
•H C
eg u
ca E
0 «
C. eg
co cu
•H U
0 f-

01
u
• a
n 4-.
c x
«B •»*
ki a
o
•H ^^
S) >
> O
CQ £
u o
rX K
C
o
•rt
«8
is "5
U C.
X 41
u o
e
eg
c
"E
a
s
o
w



^t
4J
•p^
4J
e
(0
*
l-l
eg
•P*4
I*
0)
4J
CQ
0
^
eo
§
0

«» CM
CM *-*

~
0
eo f.
CM 1-4
JS
.0
•3
0 >
Z <


9J
u
(3 0)
*u ^-
9 5




ea — v
fiu >"







CO

SO §
^M 4J




^J
t-l
0

o
^^
f*^
s
e
o

-»- C x-s
r> o CM
CM

-
0 O
^ CM
*•*- «3"

Z <


V
u
a n
Uri .*
bt C
3 CO
CO 4J
*



>-K
CJ s^
CU


09
e
o


o

CM

4)
l-H
ft CU
eg eo
a. -u
9 ""•
™ ! -L 33
1
| Source
oa
cu *•> CM cj
W ••-co .
to -J —i .
^3 iri *yr
O
»n
CM

§
4J

t-l
CM
CM

CO
CU
e «-«
S 1
in , en

u
in

dj
cu
CM
in
en




>— .
ea ^
u
0.


CO
e
0


CM
eo


V
u

•H 3
O ^
CO CQ

ea
"
bl ^ fH 0)
M 00 »
vs -: a> ^
a u ^ z
c
o
(*1
^




O
u
eg
Z




.-*
ea •-'

cu
CO
e
o
4J

cn
ON
-^
^
CM

^^
^*
0)
eg • i-t
^4 «w^ O
« 3 V) (
no
< JS
CU "^ O
td ^ 0
1-4 eo >.
CO *M vA •
*•) IU* **H 21
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                  c
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                  •H
                                                                                                                                  eu
                                                                                                                                  u
                                                                                                                                  c
                                                                                                                                 "O
                                                                                                                                  0)
                                                                                                                                  0)
                                                                                                                                  co
                                                                                                                                 •H
                                                                                                                                  3

                                                                                                                                  U
                                                                                                                                 JI
                                                                                                                                 4^
                                                                                                                                  o

                                                                                                                                  w

                                                                                                                                  01
                                                                                                                                 eo
                                                                                                                                 c
                                                             -U6-

-------
t
i
i:
*•»
•o
u
I! I
\ 1
o
CJ
*~*
(M
«ff
rH
J3
a
H
U

[
II1
lf.
s
i
Q
Z
U
a-
X
u

z
o
1
s
X
ro
ss
u
&





*^
CO
b
C8
i-(

a E
U 01
x as
w •>*
e
o
•H
U
(8
ca w
u c.
X 0)
u o
e
co
•H
•**
G
O
U
X
•H
4J
e
CB
a
_j

0)
£J
CB
•s

U
U
CB 1-
" 3
n o
C M
§
^^
eo
n
Si





c
o

eo
CM (0
v> 
G CB


0)
U
ffl CO
1. . ^
^W ^b
>- C
3 CB
CO ^




^
u
ft. '


05
e
0
r»
IM
•o eo
•H -0
«-< -O 3
O U f-4
a -a
09
< tc
ft. •-) CJ
W ^ «M
M CO >.
en j o\
3 M ^ Z




























.
































•





































'



















































,





























^






•
-147-

-------
                                                         Material Removal
                                                         ExcavatLon/transportatLon/dlsposal
      Muddy conditions at the Missouri Case Study site caused some delays in excavation
      work.  However, at the US EPA, OERR cleanup in Florida, the pails were in a canal,
      which required that technicians retrieve them by boat, while in full level A protective
      gear.
i
      Health and safety requirements  and  costs were rarely documented and hence, their
      actual effects on costs are not accurately quantifiable.  Since the relative effects of
I     these requirements are potentially greater for excavation/removal than from other
      technologies, their approximate effect warrants brief recapitulation here.
      {Given the following level of personal protection:
 i
           1.    Level A - requires full encapsulation and protection from any
I i                body contact or exposure to materials (Le., toxic by inhalation
L]                and skin absorption).
T          2.    Level B -requires self-contained  breathing apparatus (SCBA),
'                and cutaneous or percutaneous exposure to unprotected areas
4                of the body (Le., neck and back of head) is within acceptable
                 exposure standards (Le., below  harmful concentrations).
|          3.    Level C - hazardous constituents known; protection required
                 for low level concentrations in air, % exposure of unprotected
                 body areas (Le., head, face, and neck) is not harmful.
|j          4.    Level D  - no identified  hazard  present, but conditions  are
                 monitored and minimal safety equipment is available.
           5.    No hazard - standard base construction costs.
i
           Source:     "Interim Standard Operating Safetv Guides," EPA 1982
         «»


      The following levels of productivity have been assumed for other estimates:
           Site Level                Productivity          Equipment
                  A                 10% -  15%               50%
                  B                 25% -  50%               60%
                  C                 25% -  50%               75%   .
                  D                 50% -  70%
                  E                 70%-100%
      Source: CH2 M Hill, Inc.


                                            -148-

-------
I
I
f
                                                        Material Removal
                                                        Excavation /transportation /disposal

This productivity effect is already reflected in the expenditure data,  but inadequate
technical data was available to detail the protection levels for each site.

The loading costs for liquids were lower than for solid, and were generally too low to be
significant. But solidification costs for transportation or incineration costs for disposal
may have negated this lower cost.  Liquid wastes at the New York City *1 and California
*2  Case Study sites were quickly and continuously pumped into trucks or trains instead of
by  the bucket load  as  with contaminated  soft and sludge.   Drum handling was most
efficiently  performed with a hydraulic drum grappler at the Case Study Massachusetts
#1  and New Jersey sites.   This backhoe  attachment rented for  over $200/day,  but
reduced labor costs and other equipment charges by speeding up the loading process.  The
net cost effect is unclear from  the available case  study data, but  the use of this
apparatus by experienced removal contractors suggests an economizing value.
      Finally, waste  quantity  may  have  affected  excavation costs through unquantifiable
      economies of scale. Larger sites such as the Maryland and California ?1 Case Study sites
      could maximize the use of daily rental charges of backhoes because of  the  greater
p     amount of waste present.  However, this effect does not appear to be significant since
1     waste quantity and unit excavation cost among the case study sites does not appear to be
      related.
i
      Transportation-
      The distance between the removal and disposal sites appeared to be the most significant
      factor affecting transportation  costs.  Since PCB waste  transportation costs did not
      appear to vary significantly from  non-PCB  RCRA  waste, traasportation costs for both
      waste types are listed together in Table 43. The average  cost for the twelve sites for
      which  separate  transportation  costs  were  available   was  S0.17/ton/mile (SD  =
      3Q.G4/ton/mile;.
                                            -149-

-------
                     TABLE 43. TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES
1
L
I
f!
i
f;
[i
t
i
CD
Data Source
ELI/JRB-Massachussetts *1
ELJ/JRB-New Jersey
ELI/JRB-Massachussetts *2
ELI/JRB-MissourL
EU/JR B-Connecticut
ELI/JRB-N.Y. City *1
EU/JR B-Minnesota
ELI/JRB-N.Y. City *1
SLI/JRB-N.Y. City *i
ELI/JRB-N.Y. City *2
EPA.OERR-FTorida
EPA.OERR-Aiizona
Unit
Weight Cost
(divided by)
$135/ton
$ 57/ton
$ 72/ton
$ 24/ton
$67/ton
$90/ton
$ 34/ton
$250/ton
3242/ton
$94/ton
$ 68/ton
$ 38/ton
Distance »
513 miles
• 440 miles
480 miles
170 miles
497 miles
818 miles
140 miles
1,740 miles
1.420 miles
400 miles
400 miles
(2)
400 miles
(2,3)
Unit
Distance Cost
S0.26/ton/mile
$0.13/ton/mile
50.15/ton/mJle
S0.14/ ton/ mile
$0.13/ton/mile
$0.11/ton/mile
S0.24/ton/mile
S0.14/ton/mile
S0.17/ton/mile
S0.19/ton/mile
S0.10/ton/mile
$0.17/ton/miLg
•
(1)    assume 1 cuvd « 1 ton unless specified other vise by contractor or hauler.
(2)    assumed; actual distance unknown
(3)    15 cu yd/3,000 gallon truckload assumed
                                -150-

-------
                                                                 Material Removal
                                                                 Excavatton/transportation/dlsposal
      The accessibility of the sLte to major roads was found to affect transportation costs at
      the California Case Study site *1. The contractor stated that a relatively lower price
      was charged because the site was near a  major interstate highway  which led  to the
      disposal site.  This proximity  to the  highway minimized the distance travelled on
      secondary roads and was said to cause less wear and tear on the trucks. This factor  may
T     have affected transportation costs at other sites where it was not stated explicitly.
1
I
r
i
The type of waste material affected transportation costs by dictating the transportation
method.  Liquid wastes were most economically transported in bulk using truck or train
tankers.  Solid waste was generally transported via truck, which required extra costs for
plastic lining and tailgate sealing. Sealing of bulk liquid tanks was quicker because it
only required  closing and checking  valves, instead of silicon foam or asphalt sealing
necessary on dump truck tailgates. Relative costs of transporting roll off dumpsters was
not distinguishable.  The cost of transportation was also affected by the waste quantity
by influencing the type of transportation used.  Economies of scale were achieved by
using bulk tank trucks and rail cars for large quantttLtes of liquid waste at sites New
York City *1  and California *2 Case Study sites.  Rail tankers, which carried several
times as much as trucks, provided the lowest unit transportation cost, as shown by the
New York City *1 Case Study  site.  Economies of scale with solids transportation costs
were generally limited by state laws regarding weight per axle.  Hence, the five axle, 20
cubic yard (15 m^) tractor-trailer dump truck was generally used.

Disposal/treat m ent -
The  most significant factor affecting disposal costs was whether the wastes were PCB
contaminated.  The disposal of cost  for PCB waste was roughly double the disposal cost
for non-PCB RCRA hazardous  waste.  Among the PCB wastes, waste oil with over 500
mg/1 PCB at the New York City Case Study Site *1 was disposed of separately from PCB
aQ. with between 50-500 ag/1.  The disposal cost alone  was the same for waste oil above
and below  500 mg/1, but the required separate handling affected other costs because of
economies of scale.  Liquids from  this site were disposed of bv incineration, at a slightly
nigner umx cost than .?nHrig; ynich  ^ere landfilLed.
A wide variation in disposal costs  for non-PCB RCRA hazardous waste is shown in Table
41. Liquid wastes that were solidified prior to landfllling, such as the ELI/JRB Missouri
                                            -151-

-------
I
I
E
                                                              Material Removal
                                                              Excavation/transportation/disposal
case study site, cost more perexcavated  weight because the weight and bulk increased
due to the added solidification material such as sawdust or lime. Aqueous wastes such as
those at Case Study California site *2 had lower tipping rates than the organic wastes at
other sites. The non-technical factors affecting costs are difficult to quantify fuILy.  An
increase in disposal cost was encountered at Case Study Minnessota site when com munity
opposition blocked five initial proposals, which required a more expensive disposal option
to be used.  At the Case Study New York City site ?1 delays and more expensive disposal
options were encountered when an out-of-state landfill refused to accept wastes.
The cityfe consultant stated that this problem "had less to do with waste characterization
data discrepancies as  with inter-state regulatory  political factors"  (C1^ M  Hill,  1982).
Pre-1981 costs were significantly lower than the  post-1981 costs.   This may have been
primarily due to the anticipated R C R A landfill regulations, and secondarily to inflation.

6.1.4.2      Estimates
The   following  factors   affected  the   cost  estimates  for  excavation/removal,
transportation, transportation and disposal/treatment:
     o      Excavation:
              depth
               method
     o      Transportation:
               distance
              contractor
     o      Disposal:
               Method
Generally, the factors affecting estimates (Table 44) were similar to those the affecting
the expenditures,  which  was of significantly less  technical detail was available for the
estimates scenarios.

Excavation -
Excavation cost  estimates  seemed  to reflect  primarilv  varving denths.   The  SCS
"Impoundment" estimate and the New Jersey RI/FS assumed that a frontloader would be
adequate to scrape up the contaminated  soil and  topsoil, respectively. In the  analgous
estimates scenarios, however, the need for a shovel excavator to dig  deeper caused
                                            -152-

-------
i
If
      •a-
      •^

       01
                    B
                    hi
                    to
 O
o

CM
eo
E

li

f4
to
4J
Q
£

fl
^
**>^ JJ
1-1 e
a a)
2 e
O u
a. a
to 01
•H hi
Q H


^+*
U
U
. c
a to
B u
to 03
hi «H
H O
>~*
0
•H fl
w a
a >
> 0
to E
U 01
x ee
W-».
e
o
•H
U
to
> .e
a .u
u a
X 01
u o
U
C
a
*H
3
3J
4J
§
U
X
jj
•H
4J
a
3
cr
^_j
^^
a
•H
hi
4)
4J
m


01
u
a hi
JJ 3
(0 O
o en
r«.
en «o
• x
er» 3
r» u
en
•CO-

•^ 13
O X
CM 3
• U
tn
00
CM
co-
^^
•e ^T
X at
3 ,2
U -H
0 B
•3- o
• 0
2 N
o\ ^»*


e
01 •

•H
00

u
0
c
c
«
•H
^0

4J
o
g

•0
>>
U
0
.H '

a
^J
e
&i
E
^4
t>
01
n

< 3
Ou K
«J, § .
r.-3 ae w
3 t-j fl
1 -^
O\ «n
NO CM
• • C '*•»
\O O> O CM
iH f( 4J N^
CM CM
 ^
t*»
CM .~
• TJ


'e
0)

•H
00

XJ
o
c
"to
o
T3
'•)4
r« m
00 CM
• • e
CM O O
CM en .u
CM CM
•CO-

-».
f^
1 §
•» 4J
iH
CM

VO
0 TJ
• X >-»
»H 3 0)
•HO v
1 «H
l>- -H
CM 6
in o
,
u
CM CJ\
^ O
• •
CO *»
•CO

c
01
>
•rt
00

4J
0
e
"to
§
•o
u


1



g
01
•H
00
u
o



g>
0) '
^H
CO
AJ
0
•D -O
X X
3 3
U U
cr\ oo

^4
00

u
o
c
•
to
u
C 01
U as
3 =3 41 >
N
to
£
***
CM
*•/
eo "5L
S 3

»»


0)
• eo
ft -a
•H 3
O iH
3 3
•
•o

i s
CO Q. £
o •= w
W 11 —I j
N
CO
£

O
8,
C9£
00 U
r>-




i-i
-H
O
B
ft
ft
•H
% o
M c 00
-0 9J ON
tfl fl fl I
C 
-------
I
I
r    i
* '     4J
•O
 eu

 c
       o
       u
              O    5
                     CM
 0
 £

 -e
 f
fH
a
4J
o
H
c
^*n U
fH e
W Q)
en E
O 4J
o. ca
a eu
•H l-
QH

0)
u
e
• co
09 .U
c a
CO -H
w o
I-"-*
e
0

u a
to >
> 0
to E
u eu
xes

e
o
•rt
4J
CO
> f,
CO ±J
u a
X 01
u o
c
a
e
•H
E

^
e
o

>^
^
^^
4^
c
(3
3
o*
^
CO
•H
^
Ul
4J
2
2

0)
u
CO I*
U 3
••3 O
QW
1
1
1




>•» fH
"*«• 1- fH
O •• tfl «H
CM -O 4J IW
C^ * *G 1
fH u eo co
 CO fH
•
C -H /-s
OB ca

•il C fH
o o «H
in w E
• ^^
r- CM in
•H en in
v> • *--
eu
^^
.0
eo
fH
1-1
AJ eo
O >
C CO
V
fH
^
es
f^
•H
W CO
o >
e a



CO
JJ
c
eu
>
•H
O
08
eu
&
a
fH
1-4
U CO
O >
c a

G
V
fH B

i-t TJ
O eu
w w
|

|



•
-H 1 0) pH

O *•••• £ to *H
iO C M ^-4 >*J
10 eu -o-c
O 4-1 4J C
en C eo
 11 fH
C ca
O eu
^ fH
^«. "H
0 E
in
0
I-. 0
fH «H

(U
tH
^3
CO
fH
^4
W 
G CO
eu
• fH
j*%
a
fH
i-l
jj co
O >
e a


•
a
^
c
OJ
>
»*---1
o
a
eu
A
a
fH
•H
U CO
0 >
C eg

4J
e
eu
• E
fH -H
•H T3
o eu
9) £3
!
td
^ cu w
a. u eu eu
WOE hi rsi •
co O eo «-,
en "? c o a* •
53 Z £ ,H Z
x
< Ou ta ca
eu 3 cu eu •-
(B O 00 "^
V3 ^ L"*( 0 ^^ •
= Z ZfH Z
1

1


•o
eu
*«- W fH
o ej -H
oo *a cu -H
1 S*% C *H
O 3 iH *O
\O CJ 60 C
4^ C CO
CJ fH
n
cu
fH
e 
c «o
u
fH
ja
to
fH
1-1
•w to
O >
c to



CD

e
u
>
fH
O
09
CU
^O
CO
rH
1-t
U CO
O >
G ' eg

C
eu
• E
fH iH
•H -O
O U
CO «

X)
< 6b 0)
Q a o "

=> z Z ^
1
1
1
1

e
cu
^
IH
eo

o
CN4 *•«.
^^» ^^ 4J
ey^ ' x
fH -o eu
vO 1 X -u
^^ ^"^ 3
I f-< o eu
CM • eu
mo ca
0- <0- ^



e
cu
u >
O in
c eo





G
CU
•u >
O -H
c eo





e
eu
.u >
O "H
c eo




e
eu
^ ^
O -H
• c eo



e
eu •

O -H
C SO


ss
Cu ^^
en co
i* r*rt *>^
.
                                                                                                                          T3
                                                                                                                          eg
                                                                                                                          O
                                                                                                                                 U
                                                                                                                                 3
                                                                                                                                 1_
                                                                                                                                 •" 05
                                                                                                                                "^ CU
                                                                                                                                 CO -^
                                                                                                                                 C -4
                                                                                                                                 c
                                                                                                                                 c.
                                                                   -154-

-------
                                                             Material Removal
                                                             Excavation/transportation/disposal
I
higher estimates.  In all cases the excavation cost estimates were about an order of

magnitude lower than the expenditures given above.  The reason for this difference may
be that excavation of hazardous material does not simply add costs to the estimate for

additional tasks such as health and safety protection  requirements.   But, rather it

necessarily affects all tasks involved in excavation such as reduced labor productLvitv

while to of encumberances from protective gear and delays due to waiting for analyses.
Standard Construction-Engineering manual estimates (see examples  Table 45) fail to

consider adequately the effect of these factors.
E
I
                                    TABLE 45.

            ESTIMATES PROM ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MANUALS
     Item
Design Basis:
Cost
I;
E
I
           Excavation with
           dragline
                                 3/4 yd bucket, 90 swing,
                                 rating 33 yd/hr

                                 1.5 yd bucket, 90 swing,
                                 rating 65 yd/hr
                                        $2.47/cuyd


                                        S1.76/cuyd
     Excavation with
     backhoe
Hydraulic, crawler mounted
1 yd bucket, rating 45 yd/hr

   1.5 yd bucket, rating
   60 yd/hr

   2 yd bucket, rating
   75 yd/hr

   3.5 yd bucket, rating
   150 yd/hr

Wheel Mounted
   0.5 yd bucket, rating
   20 yd/hr

   0.75 yd bucket, rating
   30 yd/hr
  S2.17/cuyd


  S1.96/cuyd


  $1.93/cuyd


  $1.48/cuvd



  $3.95/cuvd


  $2.92/cuyd
           Excavation with
           clamshell
                                 0.5 yd bucKet, raung
                                 20 yd/hr

                                 1 vd bucket, rating
                                 35 yd/nr
                                        $4.34/cuyd


                                        S2.93/cuvd
           Source:  Radian, Inc., 1983
                                            -155-

-------
                                                              Material Removal
                                                              E xcavatio n /transportation /disposal
I
t
E
Transportation -
The transportation cost estimates ranged from S1.42 - 94/ton as shown in Table 46 .  The
distance strongly affected the cost of transportation for a ton of waste.  The cast
estimates  per  ton  per  mile  are given in Table 46.   They  ranged from S0.07 -
0.51/ton/m£Le.   The mean  was $0.25/ton/mHe (SE*$0.04/ton/m£Le,  n=10), which  was
almost twice the average expenditures found for transportation.  However, the distances
assumed for the estimates were significantly lower (3.6 times) than those  found to be
necessary for actual sites, (average distance found for transportation expenditures = 618
miles, S0*485 miles; average distance assuration given for transportation estimates = 168
miles, SE-65, n » 7).

                       TABLE 46. TRANSPORTATION COST ESTIMATES
Data Source
Unit Weight
Cost        (divided by)
                                                        Distance
                Unit Weight
                Distance Cost
c
(I
      JRB-RAM
                    $94/ton
                               200 miles
               S0.47/ton/mile
scs
'impoundment"
      New Jersey 3 2
      RI/FS *2
$1.42-3.27/ton
                    $17.50/ton
      (1) Assumed: 400 miles, see text.
20 miles
                               35 miles
S0.07-0.19/ton/mile
scs
"landfffl."
S4.47-10.14/ton
20 miles S0.22-O.51 /ton/ mile
                80.32/ton/mile
New Jersey
RI/FS *2
New Jersey
RI/FS *2
SCS 1983
$17.50/ton
$70/ton
$52-76/ton
100 miles
400 miles
400 mJles(l)
$0.18/ton/miLe
S0.18/toft/mile
$0.13-0.19/ton/ mile
                                           -156-

-------
                                                            Material Removal
                                                            Excavation /Transportation / Disposal
     The hauling cost estimates were also found to depend on the type of transporter as shown
     Table 47.  These specific costs are not necessarily representative but do show a pattern
     of relative costs.

                                         TABLE 47
                  AVERAGE TRANSPORTATION COSTS BY TYPE OF TRANSPORTER
I
I
c
f
i
Type of Transporter
Unit distance
cost/"trucKLoad"
Unit weight
distance cost (1)
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities Providing Service
to Customers
General Freight Transportation
Companies Which May Haul
Hazardous Waste on Request
Hazardous Waste Transportation
Companies Specializing in
Hazardous Waste
$2.67/mfle
($1.66/km) .
$3.60/mile
($2.24/Km)
$3.70/mile
(S2.*30/km)
SO.lS/ton/mile
(S0.09/Mt/km)
«
SO.lS/ton/mile
(S0.12/Mt/km)
S0.19/ton/miLe
(S0.13/Mt/Km)
Source: SCS Engineers, 1983.
(1) Assume 20 tons (18 Mt)/truckload
      Disposal/Treat m ent
      The most salient factors affecting disposal cost estimates was the method used in the
      disposal cost estimates from the RI/FS from the New Jersey site shown a doubling of
      disposal cost  for each increase in landfill securitv.  However, since hazardous waste
      cannot be safely or legally disposed of in a sanitarv landfill, this cost is inappropriate to
      compare with other estimates for engineered landfills.  Also, the other estimates are
      significantly higher than the actual costs found.  Table 48 shows price quotes from  a
      sample of disposal/treatment firms.
                                           -157-

-------
                                                              Material Removal
                                                              Excavation/transportation/disposal
i
I
If
      Expenditure Sources

           o     ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983
           o     State and Federal Superfund work
Estimates Sources

     O     JRB- RAM, 1980
     o     Radian, 1983
     o     US EPA OERR contractor Feasibility Studies
     o     SCS 1980
                                           -158-

-------
                                     Table 48

              AVERAGES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT QUOTED PRICES FOR ALL     ;

              FIRMS IN 1980 AND FOR NINE MAJOR FIRMS IN 1981*  (in 1982 Dollars)
TYPE OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT
INCINERATION
CHEMICAL TREATMENT
DEEP WELL INJECTION
LANDFILL
LAND TREATMENT
TYPE OF FORM OF
WASTE
clean liquids
high BTU value
liquids
solids; heavy
toxic liquids
acids/
alkalines
cyanides, heavy
metals (2)
oily
waste water
toxic
waste water
Drum
Bulk
All
UNIT COST
1980 1981
$0.65/gal
$131/cuyd
s
$2.12/gal
$429.50/cuyd
$0.21/gal
$42.50/cuyd
$1.30/gal
$262/cuyd
$0.13/gal (1)
$26/cuyd
$0.59/gal
$119.90/cuyd
$2.43/gal
$490/cuyd
$0.24/gal
$47.50/cuyd
$1.76/gal
$355/cuyd
$0.13/gal
$26/cuyd
$0.88/gal
$179/cuyd
$35.^0/55 gal.
drum
$53/ton
$45.90/55 gal.
.dr-oa
$67.50/ton
$0.07/gal
$14/cuyd
I
I
I
      Source:
    (1)  dome cement kilns and light aggregate
          manufacturers are now paying for waste

    (2)  Highly toxic waste

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
"Review of Activities of Major Firms in the
Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Industry:
1981 Update".  SW-894.1.  May 1982.
                                           -159-

-------
                                                                      Material Removal
                                                                      Hydraulic  Dredging
      6L2 HYDRAULIC DREDGING
      6L2.1       Definition
      Hydraulic dredges are used to remove liquid, slimy, or semt-soUrf (sludge) wastes from
|     improperly constructed or improperly sited disposal sites.  Once removed, the wastes can
      be pumped to treatment and de watering facilities, or transported to acceptable nearbv
I     land disposal sites.

.,     6uL2       Units of Measurement
I     Costs are given in dollars per cubic yard  because it provides  a useful standard
      measurement that Is comparable to excavation.
C
      6.23       Sum mary Statistics

      6.2.3.1     Expenditure
IT

      6.2.3.2     Estimates
      No expenditure data are available at this time.

f
      The hydraulic dredging cost estimates ranged from:

                 $3.54/yd3    Contractor dredging only
                    to
                 S1.25/yd3    Ihclides related fixed costs: sheet piling, sILt curtain, coffer
                              dam etc.

      The lowest cost estimate includes only contractor prices for the dredging and  pumping
      phases of the operation.
                                            -160-

-------
I
1
i
E
I!
                                                                           Material Removal
                                                                          jjydraiilic Dredging
&2.4       Factors Found to Affect Costs

6.2.4.1      Expenditures
No data was available at this time.

6.2.4.2      Estimates
     o      Equipment type
     o      Pumping system capacity
     o      Sludge density
     o      Transportation of slurry
     o      Inclusion of related costs
                                     *
The  most important  factor affecting costs was the inclusion of related tasks.   The
Feasibility Study for the Illinois site included a variety of necessarily related taste that
are listed in Table 49. These tasks accounted for $119 cuyd of the total $125/cu.yd. unit
price (see Table 50).  Assuming similar included  costs, other site specific and equipped
factors «1sn affect costs.
The equipment assumptions varied with the site condition scenario. Land based, floating
and barge-mounted hydraulic dredges represent increasing costs for varying depths and
waterway aLzes.  The JR3-RAM and Radian «?stLmates did  not specify the dredger type,
but the u"!1noi.s feasibility study assumed a barge-mounted dredger. .
                                            -161-

-------
i
I
I
f
                                          TABLE 49.

           ADDITIONAL RELATED COST ITEMS ESTIM ATED FOR HYDRAULIC DREJJGING-
                             EPA OERR, CH2 M HILL, ILLINOIS, 1983.
      Task/Cost Item
Quantity
Unit Cost
      $855.138/7,200 cuyd - $119/cuyd related costs + hydraulic

      dredging ($6.12/cuyd) - $125/cuyd
Total
Pipeline to lagoon 1,200 LF
Sheet pile caisson -
double ring-13400 SF
PS 27 181 tons
Remove sheet -
pflg cofferdam 181 tons
Replace existing pilps
& floating docks 690 LF
New boat hoisting
facility 1LS
Sedim ent control -
2 x sEt curtain 600 LF
S11.97/LF
$23.36/ton
$11.68/ton
$195/LF
$15,000
$ 95/LF
$14,364
$422,816
$211,408
$134,550
$15,000
$ 57,000
$855,138
                                         -162-

-------
t
 f
I
 I       1
         Q   c













CO
o
u

eg
ecu
ec
•HC8
cSo

^
e
«
0
a
AJ
C
o






c
a
CO
•o
^^
•H
i
8-


,
•*«.
O
ey>
in
i
-a-
«n
•
tn
4J
itu
0
o
o
"*



"8 •
•H
^4
o
W A)
O D.
Z CO

•o
C9
V
U
CU
•0 3

73 V4
^* O
•» e
^^ o
u
CO



i
U I 0
03 CO
en OB ov

CO
u CO
c o
co u
u
•H -H
VM Ot
^H 4J
c a
00 i-H
1-1 eu
CO hi
en co t3
•o u e
X -O 9
•-. 3
CM i-( 73
iH U CU
X X .
•o eu -H

IM
0
o

•a
«
4J
*B «

ea S "S
00^
Cu a co



*

^
s
•3
Pt
7p
^^
CM
CTv


3
en
£J - u
fcj iH i-(
<=£ S 45
<* S 1
2 ^ «o ^H
S3 Z « i-i
U £*. M












•o
^^
CO
5L,


**
0
§
•k
iH



2
• it
u
. AJ CU
O Q.
Z CO




•a
vw
•H
U
CU
a.
m
4J
o






(d i-i m
73 CO
en QJ o\
3' OS -i


B






































*



*
                                              -163-

-------
I:
             The system  capacity likely  affected  unit  costs  through economies of scale.
      Inadequate data were available to quantify or confirm this effect.
             The sludge density affects unit costs because, after dewatering, low density sludge
      may yield legs contaminated sediment volume than a higher density sludge. This effect
      must be considered in light of the higher suction rate possible with a lower density
      sludge, however.
             Sludge transportation variations affected costs, since the JRB-R A M and Radian
      scenarios assumed that only piping would be  necessary; whereas the Illinois feasibility
      study assumed the need for a barge-mounted hopper as well as a pipeline.

      Estimated Sources
           O    JRB-R AM, 1980
           o     Radian, 1983
           o     US EPA, OEKR contractor Feasibility Studies
                                             -164-

-------
                                                                    Material Removal
                                                                    Mechanical Dredging
6L3 MECHANICAL DREDGING
6L3.1       Definition
Mechanical  dredging with  draglines, clamsheels, or backhoes  Is  used to  remove
contaminated sediments from shallow streams, rivers, lakes, and other basins of water.
The stream is usually diverted with temporary cofferdams; the sediments are dewatered,
excavated, then loaded onto haul vehicles for transport to a disposal site.

6L3.2       Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars  per cubic yard because  it provides a useful standard
measurement that is comparable to excavation.

&&3       Sum mary Statistics

6.3.3.1     Expenditures
No expenditure data are available at this time.

6.3.3.2     Estimates
Mechanical dredging cost estimates ranged from
           31.07

           4.09/yd3
                                                                     •
The  range reflects varying  equipment assumptions  derived from  a single  estimate
source.   The low end Involves a simple backhoe, while the  high end a clam shelL
MobHizaTicn and demobilization costs for the backhoe  added $1*50.  Hauling and disposal
costs of the dredge material was  not included  (see  excavation, transportation  and
disposal).
                                      -165-

-------
                                                                              Material Removal
                                                                              Mechanical Dredging
      6L3.4       Factors Found to Affect Costs

      6.3.4.1      Expenditures
      No expenditure data are available at this time.

*     6.3.4.2      Estimates
      The following factors appeared to affect the cost estimates from mechanical dredging:
1
I
I
           o  Equipment
                  Use of Barge
                  Excavation method (backhoe, clam shell, or dragline)
           o  Site condition
                  Depth of sediment
                  Water table

                  Additional costs:  Barge
                  Sheet piling (pile driver)

Since mechanical dredging is most suited to dredging shallow water, the cost will rise in
                                              •
proportion to the depth of the water and the size of the dredging surface. The use of a
barge  would  double  or triple  the  unit cost for  mechanical dredging; hence,  the
accessibility of the sediments has a significant effect on costs.  Also,  wet excavation
may require sheetpfling or a cofferdam to support the dredging.

Table 51 shows the estimated  cost for these additional tasks and the pile driver is shown
to be significant.
       The ^wrfc dredging equipment costs varied with the scenario (see Table 52).  Dredging
       using a  hydraulic backhoe (1-3.5  cuyd bucket) the lowest  cost scenario, was ^$1.37-
       2.10/cuyd.   Intermediately, a dredging operation  with  a 0.75-1.5  cuyd dragline was
       astimated at Sl.S4-2.43/euyd.  The highest cost scenario was estimated with a 0.5-1 cuvd
       clamshell at S2.74-4.09/cuvd.
                                             -166-

-------
                                 TABLE 51

            ADDITIONAL COSTS TO BASIC MECHANICAL DREDGING
Barge-mounted dragline or da mshell,                            $5.31-7.67/yd3
hopper dumped, pumped 1000' to shore dump
i


•
i.
I
m,

i

Sheet piling, steel, high strength
(55,000 psi); temporary installation
(pull and salvage):


PHe driver; mobilize and
demobilize:

•
Source: EPA, Manual for



20' deep
25' deep


50 mile radios
100 mile radius
Remedial Actions at



$9»72/ft2
$7.82/ft2


$ 6,726 total
$11,151 total
Waste Disposal Sites
                      625/6-82-006


Estimate Source
          JRB-RAM, 1980
                                   -167-

-------
i
U
U
S     2

9     1
                 «N
                 00
          a    S
          3
                            CB
                           5
                             o
                            «H
                             01
                          « £
                                   WO
                                     a

                                     •H

                                     Q
                                     w

                                     O
                                     u

                                                O
                                                 •
                                                *»

                                                 I

                                                r«.
                                                PI
                                                 •
                                                iH
                                                O-
          01    4J
          0)    01
          >
                                                o
01
U

3
O
                                            a.
                                            u
                                         I
                                        BO
                                        ec
                                                        O
                                                        00
                                                                     -168-

-------
I
                                                                    Material Removal
                                                                    Drum removal/transportation/
                                                                    disposal
                                                     4
      6.4 DRUM REMOVAL, TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL/TREATMENT
6.4.1       Definition
Drum handling includes excavation in cases where the drums (bucket, pans, containers
etc.) were  buried;  or,  simply  staging,  overpacking and loading  for transport.
Transportation involves hauling loaded material to an off-site disposal treatment facDitv.
Disposal/treatment  may  include  landfiHing and/or  other  technologies  such  as
neutralization, solidification or treatment.  These are combined here because the cost
for all three tasks are often combined into a unit price.
                  Units of Measurement
      Costs are usually given in terms of dollars per drum (bucket, pafl, containers, etc.) for
      comparison purposes. However, these costs may include other component tasks such as
      overpacking and adjacent contaminated soil, as noted.

      6.
-------
                                                                Material Removal
                                                                Drum removal/transportation/
                                                                disposal
      Some of the costs for the above three tasks may have been combined in the new data.
      For the removal costs, the high  expenditures may reflect the use of overpacking and
      containerization. Transportation cost of a drum likely varied with distance, but distance
      information was rarely available.   Some  of the  disposal costs given  also include
      contaminated  soil disposal expenditures for  bulk soil disposal.    Operation  and
      maintenance costs may include ground water monitoring and, possibly, site inspections or
      security to prevent future illegal dumping, which is often repeated  at  former sites.
      These costs were either accounted for separately, or were not encountered for the sites.

      6.4.3.2     Estimates
      No handling cost estimates data are available at this time.
      6L4.4
           Factors Found to Affect Costs
      6.4.4.1
           Expenditures
I,.
      The following factors were found to affect drum removal expenditures given in Table 53
in the Raw Data section.
           Removal-
                  Transportation
                  Disposal-
Waste type
Drum condition
Drum size
Drum situation, depth
Adjacent soil contaminant
Demurrage
Economies of scale  .
Distance
Wastetype.
                                            -170-

-------
I
r
r
E
                                                          Material Removal
                                                          Drum removaytransportation/
                                                          disposal

Removal - The waste types found at the Michigan, California *2, Florida, Vermont and
Philadelphia sites seemed to have had a significant effect on the removal costs.  In all
cases, the cyanide, caustic soda, ethyl ether (highly flam mable), aromatic hydrocarbons
and super tropical bleach (calcium oxide-chlorinated lime), required that Level A or B
protective gear, treatment (solifti.fication or neutralization)  and recontainerization be
added to the removal costs.  In addition, careful management of these more hazardous
waste generally increased the time necessary for the various elements of the operation
such as labor and equipment. In adequate technical detail was available, however, to
quantify its effect.

Poor drum  condition increased removal costs because it necessitated overpacking.  In
cases where  waste had leaked out increased costs were incurred for transferring the
waste and emptying and crushing the drums.  A variety of drum  sizes are given in Table
16.  Overpacking 30 and 55  gallon drums required 55 and 80 and gallon overpacks at
increased costs.
                                                                      ?

Most drums were removed from the surface.  The drum removals requiring excavation did
not cost significantly more than the surface drums suggesting  that the added costs of
                                              *
backhoes and drum  grapplers  were  less significant than  other  cost  items such as
treatment or protective gear  necessary for high risk waste.  Also,  a drum of an
unidentified liquid floating in a Los Angeles, California river required additional costs for
a boat, but was not significantly more expensive than other surface removal.

The extent of adjacent soil contamination varied among the sites given.  In  some cases
the total cost included removal of bulk soil, but the unit cost is derived by dividing onlv
this total hy  the Intact or overpacked drums.  Hence, the removal.cost per drum may.be
an overestimate in some cases.  For the ELJ-JRB sites in New Jersey, Connecticut, and
Massachusetts, the drums were emptied, crushed and bulked along with contaminated soil
                                                                           «
necessitating a bulk volume unit cost. More analysis of technical details is necessary to
reasrgregate these costs.
                                      -171-

-------
f
1
I
r
li
                                                       Material Removal
                                                       Drum removal/transportation/
                                                       disposal

Based on two observations the economies of scale appeared to affect the unit costs of
removal.  First, there was a general inverse relationship between the total site costs and
the unit cost per drum.   Second, certain minimum costs were charged for component
tasks such as mobilization of technicians and equipment. M minimum charges also apply
to transportation as noted in the discussion of Excavation cost factors in the previous
section.   However, the Michigan site cost for transportation ($2/truck/mile; $60 one
truck, 30 miles) was lower than many minimum  hauling charges.

Transportation - Inadequate  information was available to compare cost  per mile of
transportation, but the effect of distance, as well as the rates can be expected to be
similar  to those found in the above Excavation section.  Demurrage was not found to
significantly affect the costs  since it was explicitly charged only at the Philadelphia site
(S50 out of $1,410-4%).

Disposal - Although the  reasons  for the widely varying disposal costs were unclear
because of inadequate technical detail availability, they parallel these given in the
m aterial re m oval section.

6.4.4.2     Estimates
No cost estimate data are available at this time.

Expenditure Sources
r        -o     EU/JRB Case Studies, 1983
'           o     State and Federal Superfund work
                                             -172-

-------
1


I
        CO
       E-

<0

o
H
a cu
co E
0 w
a a
09 A)
•H U
a e-

u
(0
a to

CO Q
H >-
e
o
•H fH
•U (0
CO >
> o
« E
U CU
X 06
u -^
c
o

^
a
> JS
a 4j
y a
x cu
u a
e
CO
e
•H
E
CO

1


X
•H
e
CO
£
-*«*
•H
1+
4)
W
CQ
z


ource
'/>
o
l"71 ^^
«» fH
• ^^
fH

§

U1

g
73
O

CM
V>
8 • "Q
3 X
W --3
73 co y *^
•v. NO -a-
O -ST •
0 «N




eu
y
Q

«^j
3
CO




u
1-1
JJ
s
NC U
OO 73
NO



eu
CO
• • W fH
c «
CO




-
§
b
^-s
NO m
00 N-*
NO
•CO


CU
y
co

b
3
CO

73
•H
^4
1^
^
e
CU

^•^ B
0 3
-J b
«• 73


b
73
NO
O
rH






8
b
«n "°
^D
jj.

^
eu

eu u IM
. 60 V
CO C*' ^^
^ tfcrf f^
CU 1
•> O d
CO CM «^

a
AJ
e
V
>

«n- '*~>
m »H
^^ ^^
v>-
E
73
O
eu
fH
•r*
,8
O
.
O
rH
<0-

B
b
73
ON
(M
rH



V
y
CO
^4
b
3
CO



1
Q
3
•H
a 33 -? — -J
3 "0
CO O
y en

•
1
y
NO
* •
O

73
•H
fH
O
CO


E_
< 0
Cu C CO
M OS U .* fH
to w co 3 .c
3 O Q Qu

c


fH
<9
00 S
eu 3
e m b
o »n 73
73

3
cr
•H
rH


E
< 0 ^ -H
u oc eu ^ -H **
06 U C fH
CO U CO 3 CO
a o a u
CO


C
c 5
o e
• c
«* 3

m
§rH
•H
b o
73 n



j; < • rj 73
u eu 5 si e
a bi 2 "° m
^ 3 rH
IM co — eo
a
u

73
y
in
rH
•
0
0 rH
n *.<

«













w
"^f
C!
b
0)
0
0)
•a
3
U
C
•H
a
B
60
•<-> C
n -H
O J4
y u
•^ —
es b
O >
H 0
-^ CM

                                                                                                                                33
                                                                                                                                O


                                                                                                                                03
                                                                                                                               73


                                                                                                                                03



                                                                                                                                O
                                                                                                                                I-
                                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                                                o.
                                                                                                                                w

                                                                                                                                S3
U
C
03
O
                                                                -173-

-------
i
I!


1-4
03
4J
O
H
^C
IH4J
« e
09 01
o e

09 CO
•H 01
O hi

01
u
• c
09 03
G •*•>
a 09
hl-H
HS

e
0
•HiH
4j a
a >
> 0
KB:
e
o
•H
a
^ J3
ttj 4J
u a
X Ol
tt Q

C
a
e
*H
g
-
cS


X
^J
•H
4J
C
a
°"
j
^^
hi
0)
a
X
01
u
ea hi
•U 3
eo o
o en
^ -o
in -H 3
in ^» eo o
i-i <• a -»*
eo CN _<• CM 00
•a
X
3
O
0
m
£
a —.
T3 ^. s^
X 09
U CJ X
*•• 3 3
f«» 4J O

. CM 00
O •— • VO
<»• <0-
^
X
U
o
•fl-


at
u
(0
U-l
Vrf
3
09
•o
4J
4) CO
•o e
O O 4)
^H E
3 .£ -»
U SJ >-*
..
•o
X
3
U
09

. r«» -H
ao m a
^ rv a
• m
•H a en
3 OOiH
•H m Q
-H a
CO
£ 3
U OS tN hi
CS CO O
C/9 U O> i— I
=3 O ^ b.








O
^^
O
•co-

co
X -H
13 8
»^ o
«n «»
•CO- v^
•
•o
^D U
1
•CO-
4J
0)
*<
o
C^4
1
in
^H

.

09
^
C 09
eg •-!
•H U

-j> a




•o
^•^ ^.
0 3
i-l CJ
.
m

3 *H
hi 0
•O CO
S 57
•-9 09
M eo eu oi
fj ON 2 -5
U ^^
c
o

««^.
2
1— (


0
*^
f^
«ar
•CO-

^
i4
o
^^* O\
VO >^


•O
X
u

^H
iH
to-
4J
Ol
Ol
*W
ry
^^
i




00
4J
S ^
> a
M^ » »
^^ *•
7 TJ
a e
•o

3
U

o

•^
*

03
E ^
3 • -H
hi' O
T3 03
03
^ • 00
'M C ^
J 0 2



I
I



o
^^
^—
oo

03
01
•a i-i
X *H

**• O
iH CO
•CO- ***
01

JD
a
•H
^ co
0 >


, v
ca
Uri

g
03



09

01
*i
M

•o
X
3
U .— >

^H ^^
00


r •

•o
ca ^
Bfi U
<-i cc oo
I-I 03 O>
J 10 ^H
U Z
                                                                                                                                                         •o  c
                                                                                                                                                          01  O
                                                                                                                                                          en
                                                                                                                                                          3 -O
                                                                                                                                                              01
                                                                                                                                                          O u
                                                                                                                                                         •H  CO
                                                                                                                                                          U  U
                                                                                                                                                          CO  Ol
                                                                                                                                                          h>  n

                                                                                                                                                          e -o
                                                                                                                                                          O  X
                                                                                                                                                         u  3
                                                                                                                                                              U
                                                                                                                                                          • •
                                                                                                                                                         •O vO
                                                                                                                                                          X P*-
                                                                                                                                                          3 CX
                                                                                                                                                          U   -
«0   .  3
 01 i-i  en
 en  ••  en
 O —*  co

 co  u  n
•H     0)
*O  hi >-l
     O -H
•O u  E
 X  O
 3  8J O
 U  hi O
    •u <•
«n  e
>H  O 1*4
SO  O i-i
                                                                                                                                                        •H   03
                                                                                                                                                             03
                                                                                                                                                             Q
                                                                                                                                                         V  hi
                                                                                                                                                         0)  01
                                                                                                                                                         *J   V
                                                                                                                                                        JZ  *C
                                                                                                                                                        •U   3
                                                                                                                                                         O  «H
                                                                                                                                                             U
                                                                                                                                                         w   c
                                                                                                                                                         en  *H
                                                                                                                                                         01
                                                                                                                                                        T3  JJ
                                                                                                                                                        Oi  en
                                                                                                                                                        i-i  O
                                                                                                                                                        i-t  U
                                                                                                                                                        •3  (0
                                                                                                                                                        C  u
                                                                                                                                                        (0  O
                                                                               -174-

-------
I
I
                                                                   Sewer & Water Line Rehabilitation
                                                                   Sewer Line Replacement
      7.1.4       Factor Found to Affect Cost

      7.1.4.1     Expenditures
      No actual cost data available at this time.

J     7.1.4.2     Estimation
      The following factors affected sewer line replacement cost estimates:

L          o     Pipe size
           o     Pipe composition
           o     Depth of excavation

      Pipe size and depth  seemed to  be most directly related to  the cost  of  sewer line
      replacement costs.  The cost of excavation, which is a major component of sewer line
      replacement, was affected bv the depth and size of the pipe.  The cost of the new pipe,
                                                                           r
      which is the major material cost factor, was largely a function of the pipe size and
      composition.   Since reinforced  concrete pipe was assumed for both estimates,  cost
      estimates vary mostly with size.
      Estimates Sources
           o     JRB-RAM,1980
           o     Radian, 1983
                                            -176-

-------
1
        m

        0)
        CQ
        H
                   a

                   a
0)
o
u
4J
•fl
e
CO
•H
o
01
a
•H
ft.
0)
^
H
0)
a
•H



ab
a>
01
O
01
u
3
O

(8
4J
O
PC. b.
fib fiw bh ^3 ^J
\o •* e>j n so
•ff «* PI • •
. • • ^» i— i
»n eo r- o «»
m vo co i-i i-i
j: J= J= J= J=
u u u u u
B C C C B
\o cs co vr o
•a
U 4)
o «
u- Vi
B U
•H B
01 O
u o
B CO
• O tt) 0) -H
•H a. E *J
4J 1-1 01 O
a a. o a
> 9 a.
a oi-i e
u IH a o
X « 41 U
01 > 1-
o -o
« 3 00 C
5 ^ .5 3
O b 
<
BC
al - =

§ * "
pb Pb Cb bi
»J ,-J J J
o"o" S °
O\ sO ^J • •
r*j so in O n
in \o co I-H r-i
j: j: j= j: j:
u u u u u
C S B B B
sO «M CO -» O
41
U 01
O 01
B U
•H B
41 O
U U
g

a -H
> VH
a • BO JA
O i-t B O
x o -H o e
41 > T3 JJ o
0 T3 -^
« e 41 j-> u
o »- — i a
•H -060.
U C 6 01 B
u o a u g
41 -H eg u
a w o» f-t
a> a & a^
C 41 -H 41 e
M CO Q. p 3



^ ^-,
* 5 -a
u «H a*
^ rH
vi a
a at



-























-





.






                                                 -177-

-------
                                                            Sewer & Water Line Rehabilitation
                                                            Sewer Line Repair
      7.2  SEWER LINE REPAIR
      7.2.1       Definition
      Sewer lines contaminated by migrating leachate may be reconditioned in place if pipe
      damage is limited.  The procedure includes interior inspection, cleaning (mechanical,
      hydraulic or chemical means) and repair of damaged sections. The upgradient source of
      contamination is assumed to have been removed or encapsulated for the purpose of this
      section.
                 Units of Measurement
u
      Costs are given in dollars  per linear foot (LF) because  it provides a  simple and
['     standardized measure of sewer lines.

      7.23       Sum mary Statistics

      7.2.3.1     .Expenditures
    - The only expenditure for cleaning and flushing contaminated sewer lines was:
                 S15/LF. •
LI
      The cost per foot for cleaning sewer lines was the same for all piping sizes, which ranged
|      in diameter from 10-21 inches.  No cost comparison  was possible since only one actual
      expenditures was.
t
i
1      7.2.3.2     Estimates
-•     Sewer Line recondition cost estimates for 12 - inch diameter pipe ranged from:

                 $5.75
                                                                                *
                   to
                 S15.90/LF
                                           -178-

-------
E
F
E
                                                                 Sewer & Water Line Rehabilitation
                                                                 Sewer Line Repair
Cost estimates for repair included cleaning, interior inspection and internal grouting
repairs for 12 inch diameter pipe in average condition.  Higher estimates were expected
for larger diameters  and/or more extensive grouting.   Disposal  costs  of removed
contaminated material were not included in these estimates.

7.2*4        Factors Found to Affect Cost

7.2.4.1      Expenditures
The paucity  of expenditure data precludes quantification of component costs and the
factors affecting total unit costs (see Table 55).

7.2.4.2      Estimates
The following factors affected cost estimates for sewer line reconditioning  (see Table
56):

     o      Diameter of piping
     o      Extent of damage
                                              *
Although the paucity of data hinders quantification of the cost factors, the  above two
factors appeared to directly affect the level of effort required for repair, and  hence, the
cost.  The extent of the damage was probably the primary factor affecting costs since it
was directly related to the amount of repair that  was required. The size of the pipe vas
less directly related to costs, but still affected the area to be repaired.

These costs of contaminant handling and disposal  were not included in the estimates and
 must be  considered as a site specific factor.

 Estimates Sources
            O     JRB-RAM, 1980
            o     Radian. 1983
                                             -179-

-------
  f
fcs
a
2
:C
                       a
                       u
                       9
  i!
I
                                a
                               •JT
                               P.
                 eo

                 j
                                00
                               «H
                                a
                                01
                               o
                                        Du
                                        CM «
                                           01
                                         I  f
                          o>
                          o>
                                        ON
                                        CM
                        a
                          30
                        M e
                        e -H
                       •H ^
                        e m
                        C9 S
                        01 —I
                                    cn  s
                                           O
                                           CO
                                                      -180-

-------
1,

i
    vO
    in
     a
    H
I
fl          £2
li          3
            1
            p
fe

8    2
^^    BJ

3   1
«»     ^
PN   eo

K   "

2
            ^•^
            I
00
o
o
4J
c
9
09
O
0)
•H
Ou
pm
*•
00
c
a







g.
•H
00
01
o
0)
u
9
O
V3
09

CO
Q

l-H
Ch
S
in
00
o>
•g
c
CM
iH
1
•H
O
4J 01
0 &
e oo



•Q
> C *
fcj * «H
^^ •• ^9
oo 5 «
c « n
•* ° .1
e 01 *i
S & g
0 -S «


jq
?
?i
0- 1
Ed O
CO CO
en ac o^

i-H
a
^
m
00
0)
|
•H
CM
t-l
•o
01
u
4J 01
0 CL
C 09
C
09
e
. o
•H 00
U i-l
y ^5
eJ « oT
c _5
*M ^^
1 =•!
G H M




^
eu S
W ^H CM
TJ CO
CO 09 O\
9 aS iH





S





































f












*







4
                                                                                                                                     60
                                                                                                                                     e
                                                                                                                                     eo
                                                                                                                                  (0
                                                                                                                                 •H  D
                                                                                                                                 T-  «J


                                                                                                                                     at
                                                                                                                                 4J
                                                                                                                                 03  -3
                                                                                                                                 O  S
                                                                                                                                 u  to
                                                                                                                                 -O  5J
                                                                                                                                 U  =
                                                                                                                                     a  •
                                                                                                                                  s.  — i
                                                                                                                                  30 "3 -
                                                                                                                                    -H 01
                                                                                                                                 <  CL t-
                                                                 -181-

-------
                                                              Sewer & Water Line Rehabilitation
                                                               Water Line Repair
        7.3 WATER LINE REPAIR
        7.3.1       Definition
        Municipal water lines, contaminated by infiltration of contaminated ground water, may be
        repaired and reconditioned if damage and potential health hazards •are limited.   Upon
        inspection and location  of faulty sections, cleaning  procedures,  followed, in  more
        complicated instances, by pipe relining, can rehabilitate an effected system. This work
        may be done in place, withour costly excavation.
  f
     7A2       Units of Measurement
     Costs  are given in dollars  per linear  foot  (LF)  because if provides a simple  and
     standardized measure of water main lines.
        7.3,3.
                 Sum mazy Statistics
  1:
  i
     7.3.3.1      Expenditures
     No actual cost data was available at this time
i     7.3,3.2      Estimates
     Cost estimates for water main repair ranged from:
                   $26/LF       8" diameter
                      to
                   335.50/LF    24" diameter
        Hestoration of 24 inch diameter concrete cine was in the same range as smaller diameter
1       iron pipe.  Included.in the cost per linear foor estimate was provision for preliminary T.V.
        inspection.
                                              -182-

-------
                                                                Sewer i Water Line Rehabilitation
                                                                Water Line Repair
      7.3.4       Factors Found to Affect Costs


      7.3.4.1     Expenditure
      No actual cost data are available for water main repair.


      7.3.4.2     Estimates
I     The following factors affected cost estimates for water main rapair:


j          o     Pipe size
           o     Extent of damage and contamination

I!          o     Accessibility
I

 fi     Pipe size was the primary factor which directlv affected the cost estimates for repair
 '
      (see Table 58).  Site specific factors such as accessibility of damaged sections and degree

      of contamination and damage would  directly affect costs, but the cost estimate data

      were inadequate to quantify these factors.
      Estimates Sources
F
           O     JRB-RAM.1980
|          o     Radian, 1983
                                             -133-

-------
1
             £
             s
             o
             u  ~
         js   2   a
         3   S   i
         H   A^   OV
4J
CO
o
u
. u
^4
e
a


CO
o
at
a
Pu



O.
X
H
01
&





00
•H
a
01
Q
01
U
u
6
w

CO

a
Q
•»*
«»

to to *A
.J iJ f>
O O O
m ^y m
* • •
ON m ON
osi en 

§ g
t- b
^4 ^4

0) 0) 2
*4 2 *
W *J 0
U u e
3 3 §
•0-05
• if

•S 1
c 3
CO Q)
0) g a,
2 s S
tH * a
i ' *
£ c «M
M CO O


X
*

0- 1 o
w S
O3 a\
tn ec ,H
a •-j


to to to
i-3 J J
m o* o"
r- \rt m

oo -* -T
€N Cn cn
CM

U U U
e e e
•H «H -H
00 CM •>»
«-t es
§ §
«-> Ui
^J ^J
^^ ^^
01
01 01 W
»-t i-t 01
44 4J U
u u e
330
•o -o u
M
M
00 =
c e
c ^
ea oi
0) h
w W
0> 0) 08
u g 01
CO 0)0.
^( 0 •*
cu e.
1 -O
e e «-i
M CO O




< e
a. a
w -H n
•0 00
en eo o\
a ec -*














































-



















.









                                                 -184-

-------
I
I
E
                                                               Sewer & Water Line Rehabilitation
                                                               W ater Line R eplace m ent
      7.4  WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT
7.4.1       Definition
Water  main replacement involves the excavation and removal of extensively damaged
and  contaminated  water  pipe  sections  and  bedding,  sleeving  new  sections  with
Polvethelene sheet and relaying them. This is followed by backfilling and compaction of
the trench.  Preliminary investigation by Inspection and analysis is required prior to the
replacement procedure.
                 Units of Measurement
      Costs are given in dollars per linear foot  (LF)  because it provides a simple and
      standardize measure of water lines.

      7.4J       Sum nary Statistics
! >     7.4.3.1     Expenditures
      No actual cost data are available at this time.
      7.4.3.2     Estimates
      Water line replacement cost estimates ranged irom :

                 $ 58.50/LF         8" diameter
                   to
                 S119.18/LF         24" diameter

      These  estimates  covered  aH  basic pipe replacement costs  including preliminary
      inspection procedures.  Costs were generally proportional to pipe size.
                                            -185-

-------
I
I
I
                                                               Sewer & Water Line Rehabilitation
                                                               Water line Replacement
7.4.4       Factor Pound to Affect Cost

7.4.4.1     Expenditures
No actual cost data are available for water line replacement.

7.4.4.2     Estimation
The following factors affected water line replacement cost estimates (see Table 59):

           o  Pipe size
           o  Depth of excavation

Pipe size and depth seemed to  be  most  directly related to the  cost of  water line
replacement costs.  The cost of excavation, which is a major component of 'water line
replacement, was affected by the depth and size of the pipe.  The cost of the new pipe,
which is the major material  cost factor, was largely a function of the pipe size.   No
significant cost difference  between iron and concrete pipe was shown by the  limited
available data.

Estim ates Sources
           o  JRB-RAM,  1980
            3  Radian, 1983
                                            -186-

-------
I
I
I
f]
         eo

         oi
It
I
co
u
eg
                      o
                      Q

                      CM
                      00
en
o
u
•H
e
9
/"S
eg
•H
Q

01
N
tn


eg
^4
a
w

0


Cb
Cb Cb -3
Cb nJ kJ "».
H] **» •"» 00
*». eo oo i-i
00 ON in .
o  vt-

A a j: j=
u u u u
e e e e
CO C^ ^0 ^7
r-l l-l CM
0)
01
^
e e e u
o o o e
hi hi hi O
M M M CJ

t^ • •
O 00-4
•H C >H
4J -H i-l
eg > u-i
> • 01 .*
eg iH 01 u
o « t^ eg
X > eo ja c
01 O O
I 01 --H
- 0) 3 .10 iJ
i * a 3 u
o «H M eg
i-i o> x >> a.
w e £ eg e
O -H 4J i-l O
01 iH 0) U
a x 41
CO *O ^H CL*O
e ^H o -H (5
>-i o £u a. eg



jg
5
•c

w o
aa oo
to ec o\
B -5 iH
tb (b Cb tb
O 0^ O 0
m o o •
oo o n 1-1



&£.£.£.
u u a o
c c e e
00 CM NO «T
fH i-l CM
01
01
hi
e e e u
o o o e
hi hi hi O
M M I-l CJ

oi eo
oi e B
C 0) -H - .
•H -H >» 1
^ &.S 5
•M ^J ^^ U
f-4 01 01 _
o x a. ^
j. o a •
5 *" - .J
1-1 • eo 2 i-
w f-i e ^1 5
a eg 45 Jj 5
§ § ,3 eg «
M hi eo -° &





< a
cu a

^ S
en eg ON
3 as ^

















—

















-













r




















                                                       -187-

-------
                                                               Alternative Water Supply
                                                               New Supply Wells
                             &0  ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLIES
      &1 NEW WATER SUPPLY WELLS

      8.1.1       Definition
      New water weTIs usually involve drilled rather than driven wells, and are cased with a pvc
      sleeve.  The cost of providing and operating a pump, and the cost of storage tanks may
          be included in the operation.
I     8.3-2       Units of Measurement
      Costs are given in dollars per linear foot depth because it provides a standard unit for
f"     comparison within the water well industry.

      8.L3       Sum mary Data
!
      8.1.3.1     Expenditures
|      No expenditure data was available at this time.
                                                    «
f     8.1.3.2     Estimates
      The single cost estimate found for new weH. installation was:

      Capital:           $462/LF

      Operation and
      Maintenance:      $265/year

      The capital cost estimate covers labor, equipment and materials.  However, preliminary
      geologic investigation costs required for wen siting were not included. The operation and
      maintenance figure has been calculated for a well 200 feet deep.
                                            -188-

-------
                                                             Alternative Water Supply
                                                             New Supply Wells
8.1.4       Factors Found to Affect Costs

8.1.4.1     Expenditures
No data was available at this time.

8.1.4.2     Estimates
Due to the limitations of well cost estimation data (see Table 59), no comparison of cost
factors can be made.  As noted above,  however, well depth arid diameter as well as
hydrbgeologic site conditions are general determinants in total costs for well installation.

Estimates Sources
US EPA, OERR contractor Feasibility Studies.
                                      -189-

-------
1
             v
             eg
            H
W) 0)
   u
 e c
 o a
•H C
   01
                                         w c
                                         OI-H
                                         a. a
                                         oz
                                           \(D
                                           01
                                           O
                                                  -^    o
                                                  m    m
                                                  es    CM
                                                    •      •
                                                  vO    O^
                                                  <•        ***
a

         *J
         0)
         a
                                                         3
                                                         O.
         •o
             a  ea
         f  «o  u
         U  U  01
         c     E e
         •H  CJ .O O.
             >  3 00
         <•  a 03 m
                                                 b
                                                 w

                                                 c/i
                                                               at
                                                               u
                                                               a
                                                               i-H
                                                               i—I
                                                               O
                                                               •H

                                                               eo
                                                        ea o* IH
                                                        as ^ >-'
                                                                        -190-

-------
                                                               Alternative Water Supply
                                                               Water Distribution
I
E
      8L2 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
SL2.1       Definition:
Water distribution systems consist of network of pressurized pipes connecting individual
households with existing  water sources such  as mains or reservoirs and  municipal
hydrants to a common water source.   For this section no source  costs for wells or
reservoirs are assumed, only connection costs are given.
           Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars per household connected as this is a com mon factor in the
available data and allows an approximation of the numbers of people sewed by a new
water system.

8^3      Sum raary Data

8.2.3.1     Expenditures
The range of  expenditures was:
           Sl,091/household
              to
           $10,714/household

The costs components  of  the higher  expenditure  include fire  hydrants  and  all
appurtenances; while  the lower cost system did not include these costs, operation and
maintenance  costs, which  may be significant, were not available.

8.2.3.2     Estimates
No estimates data are available at this time.
                                            -191-

-------
                                                                Alternative Water Supply
                                                                Water Distribution
8L2.4      Factors Found to Affect Costs

8.2.4.1     Expenditures

The following factors were found to affect the costs of new water distribution systems
(see Table 60):

           o Size (pipe length/diameter)
           o Inclusion of related costs

The  inclusion of related costs was probably the most important factor that affected
costs.  The higher cost system included design work and fire hydrants along all streets
connected.   The lower cost system included only the basic domestic water supply
connection construction costs.  The two systems shown vary somewhat in size, in terms
of both length and diameter.  The lower cost Minnesota system  connected houses that
were closer together than the California system. Also the California system was built to
allow for connection  of more  houses in  the future, by  using  oversized mains that
                                              *
exceeded  present system needs.   Operation and  maintenance  costs,  which  may  be
significant, are not included. Also excluded is the fee usually charged by a municipality
for a connection.

8.2.4.2     Estimates
No estimates data are available at this time.
                                      -192-

-------
1
             5   ?
        o    Q    S
 F
a
t-t
A
OJ
H
2

CM
CO
O\







w


U
4J
^
e
a
4J
CD
O
U
1-1
9
^J
O
H
"8
E
41
CO
CO
^J
^4
e
a








QC
^4
09
4>
O
o
u
u
o
en

O
o
o
CM
t-4
<«•
OB
U
03
§
£
 «- «
a> ai 09
S ** >•
S g «
•o •»

a
4J
aa o
< at e)
a. i-) at
U "v- ON C
*H f*K ^
~J5 ~i ^T» -^
1 a w 
§O
0
0 0
«•» *
§ §
CM m
 
4J
. S
0) W
00 t)
§ ^§
JS U
9) 00
eo u >%
CM ^H 05
IW
e
0
•H
4J
U
a
• .
jj 4)
09 U
§-H
tw
U
00 09 09
0) 41 U
"3 ••> -
3 -H «
fH » b
U U ,
IH 00 f.
a
v4
03 b
< ec o
0- -1 /) «u ^ 3
a w tH cj














-
,























*
» •

















'











•



                                                       -193-

-------
                                 ANNOTATED REFERENCES
i
r
c
CH2  M  Hffl,  December 1982.   "Draft  Engineering  Services  Report/Quanta
Resources Clean-up" Reston, Va. For New York City Department of Environmental
Protection.   Invoices  and  daily logs were used to  assemble actual removal
expenditures.

ELI/JRB Environmental  Law  Institute, Washington, D.C. and JRB  Associates,
McLean, Va. Case Studies of Remedial Responses at Hazardous Waste Sites. 1983.
Invoices, corresponddence,  reports  and  vouchers  were  used  as  part  of this
compilation of 23 case studies around the U.S.

JRB -  RAM,  1980.   These cost  estimates were drawn  from the "Manual for
Remedial Actions at  Hazardous  Disposal Sites"  Draft final  report by  JRB
Associates, McLean, Va. June 20, 1980. This manual was subsequently published by
U.S. EPA as the "Manual for Remedial Actions at Hazardous Wastes Sites."  EPA
625/6-82-006.   Cincinnati,  Ohio, 1982, and again by Noyes  Publishing Company,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1983. The Initial draft final report was used because
it contained the greatest cost detaiL  These estimates were drawn principally from
construction estimation manuals such as (1)  the Means Manual (Godfrey, R.R. (Ed.),
                                        •
1980,   Building Construction Cost Data  1980,  38th  Annual Edition,  R-S. Means
Company, Inc.; (2) Dodge Manual (McMahon, L.; Peredra, P. (Ed.) 1979.  1980 Dodge
Guide to Public Works and  Heavy  Construction Costs.   McGraw-Hill Information
Systems Co.,  New  "fane,  N.Y.; (3) Richardson ftapari Construction Cost Estimating
System  (Richardson Engineering Services,  1980); and supplemented with a large
number of price quotes drawn directly from industry  and  commercial sources.
Hypothetical site scenarios are given for many of the technologies.

Radian,  1983.  These estimates are drawn from the last section of  "Evaluating
Cost-effectiveness of Remedial Actions at  Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites" -
                                                                      •
Draft Methodology  Manual by the Radian Corporation, Austui, Texas, January 10,
1983.  These estimates were indexed to constant dollars for March 1982.  Many of
the  estimates were derived from  EPAs  "Handbook   for  Remedial  Action  ac
Hazardous  Waste Sites."  EPA 625/6-82-006.  Cincinnati, Ohio, 1982.  This source
                                            -194-

-------
r
I!
i
was always supplemented or supplanted by many other estimation sources, including
specialized papers for specific, technologi.es, and general construction estimating
manuals.                                                              .'

SCS (Engineers), 1980.   These cost estimates  came  from "Costs of  Remedial
Response  Action at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites" by SCS Engineers, Long
Beach California, April  1981.  According to this  methodology:  "For the  most part
the 1980  Means (Godfrey,  R.  (Ed.) 1979.   Building construction cost data: 1980.
Robert Snow Means Company, Inc. Kingston, MA. and Dodge Guides McMahon, L.,
Pereira, P. (Ed.) 1979.  1980 Dodge Guide to Public Works and  Heavy Construction
Costs.; McGraw-Hill Information Systems Co. New York, N.Y.  were used to obtain
the costs needed."

SCS (Engineers), 1981.  These cost estimates are derived from  Cost Comparison of
Treatment and Disposal Alternatives for Hazardous Materials (EPA - 600/52-80-
188) published in February  1981 by the US EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory.   The estimate compilation was performed by SCS Engineers for a
greater Chicago area scenario using the  1978 Means  Construction Cost  Manual.
Hence, mid-1978 costs  were originally estimated.  For comparison purposes these
cost estimates were converted  from simple average costs, and the raw  data on
capital and operation and maintenance costs were used in stead.
                                         *
US EPA, OERR contractor Bids. Losing bids for Super-fund work are used here as
estimated  costs since  they did not serve as the basis for actual construction.
However, these estimates reflects a  Mgher level of detail than  manv other
estimates  since specific local capabilities are considered.   Most of the  cost
estimates are from 1982 and 1983 estimates.
            US EPA, OERR contractor Feasibility Studies.  Cost estimates from feasibility
I           studies are generally drawn from non-bid estimates from contractors.  Most of
            caese cost ssimatas are -from 1982 and 1983.
                                                                                 *
            US EPA, OERR State and Federal Superfund Work. Records from initial Super-fund
            *orx,  3uch .as bid ind cnange order reports, and spread sheet printouts.  131 sites
            are numbered for anonymity, but state locations are given because of its relevance
            to cost factors such as labor and materials, and site characteristics such as climate.
                                            -195-

-------