-------
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-
-------