vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/625/R-99/001
April 1999
Cost Estimating Tools and
Resources for Addressing
Sites Under the Brownfields
Initiative
-------
-------
EPA/625/R-99/001
April 1999
Cost Estimating Tools and Resources
for Addressing Sites Under
the Brownfields Initiative
Technology Transfer and Support Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of
Research and Development funded and managed the research de-
scribed here under Contract No. 68-D7-0001 to the Eastern Research
Group (ERG). It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and adminis-
trative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress
with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a
mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formu-
late and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and
nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is provid-
ing data and technical support for solving environmental problems
today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage
our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our
health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's
center for investigation of technological and management approaches
for reducing risks from threats to human health and the environment.
The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the
prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water and subsurface
resources; protection of water quality in public water systems;
remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention
and control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to
catalyze development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective
environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering infor-
mation needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions; and
provide technical support and information transfer to ensure effective
implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's
strategic long-term research plan. It is published and made available by
EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user commu-
nity and to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
-------
Contents
Foreword ,.„. ;...iii
Contents . v
Acknowledgments vii
1. Introduction , 1
Background 1
Purpose 1
Introduction to Cost Estimating 2
What Costs are Included in an Estimate... 2
Types of Cost Estimates 2
Order of Magnitude Estimate 3
Budget Estimate 3
Definitive Estimate 3
How Reliable is a Cost Estimate 4
2. Developing an Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate 5
Steps to Organize Cost Information 5
3. Cost-Estimating Information, Models, And Services 7
Cost-Screening Tools 7
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix Guide 7
The Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information (CLU-IN) Web Site 7
Technology Focused Tools 8
Historical Cost-Analysis System (HCAS)... 8
Vendor Field Analytical and Characterization Technologies System
(VendorFACTS) Web Site 8
v
-------
Contents (continued)
The Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment
Technologies (VISITT) 8
Super-fund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) : 9
Environmental Cost-Handling Options and Solutions (ECHOS) 9
Cost-Estimating Models 9
The Remedial Action Cost Engineering and Requirements System
(RACER) • 10
TANK RACER 10
Success and Cost-to-Complete Environmental Cost-Estimating
System (CTC) 10
Unique Services 1^
Cost and Performance Reports (Case Studies) 11
HazRisk 12
SmartSampling 12
Preliminary Estimate of Remediation Costs Service (PERCS) 12
4. Conclusion 14
Appendix A: Example of Cost Estimate: Powers Junction 15
Appendix B: Abbreviations and Acronyms 28
Appendix C: Glossary 29
Appendix D: Bibliography 32
vi
-------
Figures
1.
2.
When an order of magnitude estimate is developed in a brownfields project 3
Expected accuracy of different types of cost estimates at different stages 5
Table
Steps to Organize Cost Information
VII
-------
Acknowledgments
This document was prepared by Eastern Research Group (ERG) for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Center for Environmental
Research Information (CERI) in the Office of Research and Develop-
ment. Linda Stein served as Project Manager for ERG. Joan Colson of
CERI served as Work Assignment Manager. Special thanks is given to
Ann White, Carol Legg, and Jean Dye of EPA's Office of Research and
Development for editing support.
Reviewers of the document included John Abraham of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's National Risk Management Re-
search Laboratory and Kenneth Brown of the National Exposure Re-
search Laboratory. Appreciation is given to EPA's Office of Special
Programs for guidance on the Brownfields Initiative.
VIII
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background
Many communities across the country contain
brownfields sites, which are abandoned, idle, and
under-used industrial and commercial facilities,
where expansion or redevelopment is complicated
by real or perceived environmental contamination.
Concerns about liability, cost, and potential health
risks associated with brownfields sites often prompt
businesses to migrate to "greenfields" outside the
city. Left behind are communities burdened with en-
vironmental contamination, declining property val-
ues, and increased unemployment. The U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Brownfields
Economic Redevelopment Initiative was established
to empower states, site planners, and other com-
munity stakeholders to work together in a timely
manner to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and
sustainably reuse brownfields sites. (EPA Brown-
fields homepage at http://www.epa.gov/brownfields)
The cornerstone of EPA's Brownfields Initiative is
its Pilot Program. Under this program, EPA is fund-
ing more than 200 brownfields assessment pilot
projects in states, cities, towns, counties, and tribes
across the country. The pilot projects, each funded
at up to $200,000 over two years, bring together
community groups, investors, lenders, developers,
and other affected parties to address the issues as-
sociated with assessing and cleaning up contami-
nated brownfields sites and returning them to ap-
propriate, productive use. In addition to the hun-
dreds of brownfields sites being addressed by these
projects, over 40 states have established brown-
fields programs.
Purpose
EPA has developed a series of guides, including
this document, to help communities, states, munici-
palities, and the private sector more effectively ad-
dress brownfields sites. The other guides in this
series contain information on characterizing and
cleaning up different types of brownfields sites (clas-
sified according to former industrial use). This guide
contains information on cost-estimating tools and
resources for addressing cleanup costs at brown-
fields sites and is designed to be used in conjunc-
tion with the other guides in the series. Brownfields
decision-makers may need to estimate the cost of
cleanup to determine if the site is a viable candidate
for redevelopment or to evaluate proposals from po-
tential cleanup contractors. Thus, the purpose of this
document is to provide information about the cost-
estimating process and the specific cost-estimating
tools and resources available. Generally, two key
factors affecting costs are the type and nature of
the contamination present and the intended future
use of the site. These will dictate to a large extent
the appropriate cleanup methods that should be
implemented.
Many planners, developers, and other brownfields
decision-makers may choose to use consultants who
are experienced in hazardous waste site cleanups
to prepare cost estimates at brownfields sites. How-
ever, it is useful for a planner/developer to be able
to provide guidance to individuals performing the
cost estimate and to have enough knowledge to pro-
vide an informed review of proposed cost estimates.
The guidance and resources described in this docu-
ment are based on cost information obtained from
hundreds of cleanup projects.
The guide provides general information on the cost-
estimation process, including summaries of differ-
ent types of cost estimates. The guide also outlines
the process for developing "order of magnitude" cost
estimates. Descriptions of specific cost-estimating
information sources, databases, and models are
provided.
-------
Introduction to Cost Estimating
By definition, brownfields sites have significant en-
vironmental uncertainties about the existence, type,
and extent of contamination; cost of site assessment;
cost of cleanup; cost of demolition; cost of construc-
tion (particularly if some contamination is left on-
site); and possible environmental liability. Site own-
ers, prospective purchasers, investors, lenders, in-
surers, regulators, and others are often hesitant to
enter into a brownfields project in which there is a
high level of uncertainty about key factors, particu-
larly the cost of cleanup. If cleanup costs are known,
or can be estimated accurately, the transaction may
be facilitated.
Generally, the cost of cleaning up a brownfields site
is driven by
• Size of the site
• Type of contamination
• Extent of contamination
• Intended use of the site
• Cleanup goals
• Demolition, removal, and construction
activities undertaken
• Cleanup technologies used
• Time frame of the project
Brownfields cleanups create unique cost-estimating
challenges for a number of reasons. First, expedit-
ing the project planning and cleanup phases is gen-
erally critical to securing and maintaining the inter-
est of site owners, investors, purchasers, and lend-
. ers. Brownfields cleanup cost estimates must be de-
veloped quickly while maintaining as high a level of
accuracy as possible. Second, while some brown-
fields sites are very large, many are smaller, former
industrial sites. Historically, government-organized
cleanup activities have focused on larger, more
heavily contaminated sites, and therefore available
cost-estimating tools typically address these types
of sites.
This cost-estimating guide was developed in part to
help bridge the gap between the tools available to
address larger sites and the need to estimate
cleanup costs at smaller brownfields sites. The other
brownfields guides that EPA has developed (referred
to in the introduction) contain information on cost
ranges for selected characterization and cleanup
technologies (see the Bibliography for specific ref-
erences).
What Costs Are Included in an Estimate
All costs related to a brownfields cleanup and rede-
velopment project must be considered in the overall
project budget. Generally, the cost-estimating tools
discussed in this guide address only those costs
specifically related to the employment of cleanup
technologies. Planners must carefully review char-
acterization cost estimates included in a bid by a
contractor or prepared by a vendor to determine what
cost categories are included. Costs that must be
considered in the overall project budget include:
• Site assessment costs, including sample
collection and analysis (depending on the
type and nature of the contaminants
present)
• Costs incurred setting up cleanup equip-
ment
• Costs incurred operating cleanup equip-
ment
• Costs incurred breaking down cleanup
equipment
• Waste disposal costs
• Costs incurred working with regulators and
complying with reporting requirements
• Costs incurred educating and interacting
with the public and addressing their con-
cerns
• Post-construction care costs (including any
ongoing cleanup technology monitoring and
maintenance). In addition, for all estimates,
a "cost contingency" is included to account
for unknown or unforeseen conditions. The
more defined a project's scope and design,
the less the degree of contingency.
Types of Cost Estimates
Typically, cost estimates are developed throughout
the project planning process, presumably with an
increasing level of accuracy. The three types of es-
-------
timates generally prepared for projects include the
order of magnitude estimate, the budget estimate,
and the definitive estimate. These estimates are
used during different stages of a project with increas-
ing levels of accuracy, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 plots the three types of estimates against
the expected accuracy of the estimate, based on
the amount of information typically available to the
cost estimator at certain stages of the project. For
example, an order of magnitude estimate typically
has the largest margin of error because it is per-
formed in the initial stages of a project when only
relatively little information is known. Conversely, a
definitive estimate typically has a smaller margin of
error because it is performed at a later stage of a
project when presumably most of the needed infor-
mation is known. The percentages provided in the
descriptions of the three estimates below offer an
indication of how much the final actual costs can
vary from those using each type of estimate.
Order of Magnitude Estimate
For an order of magnitude estimate, historical costs
for similar types of projects are often used to calcu-
late a "ballpark" figure for the project. An order of
magnitude estimate is completed at the initial stages
of a cleanup, when minimal information is available.
The cost of a project at this stage is frequently esti-
mated by multiplying the number of "units" of a par-
ticular type of contamination (e.g., the number of
cubic feet of contaminated sludge) by a pre-estab-
lished cost for cleanup per unit (e.g., dollars per cubic
foot) using a particular technology. An order of mag-
nitude estimate is expected to be between +50%
and -30% of the actual cost of the project.
Budget Estimate
The budget estimate is prepared during the inter-
mediate stages of the planning process. A higher
level of accuracy is expected than that achieved with
the order of magnitude estimate because more
project-specific information is known. A budget esti-
mate assesses the cost of each project component
to compute an estimated total project cost. Several
activities and cost items are grouped into a "sys-
tem" that relates to the phase of cleanup. These
systems are generally listed in the order in which
they are employed in the cleanup. Budget estimates
are sometimes referred to as assemblies or systems
estimates. A budget estimate is expected to be be-
tween +30% and -15% of the actual cost of the
project.
Definitive Estimate
A detailed cleanup plan design is required to pro-
duce a definitive estimate. This type of estimate is
typically conducted once site characterization and/
or a substantial portion of the design is completed.
A definitive estimate is normally prepared by multi-
plying the quantity of each item needed by its unit
price, and summing the line item totals. Developing
a definitive estimate is time-consuming, but it is gen-
erally more accurate than other estimates because
more is known about the site. Definitive estimates
are sometimes referred to as unit price, quantity take-
UJ
w
UJ
u_
O
I
O
Q
Ul
&
UJ
Little Information
->• Complete Information
STAGES OF PROJECT
Figure 1. When an order of magnitude estimate is developed in a brownfields project.
3
-------
off, or bottom-up estimates. It is expected that the
definitive estimate will be between +15% and -5%
of the actual cost of the project.
How Reliable is a Cost Estimate
It can be difficult to develop a reliable cost estimate
at the early stages of a site cleanup, yet this is the
point at which a reliable estimate is most needed,
particularly for brownfields projects. When consid-
ering whether or not it would be financially benefi-
cial to redevelop a brownfields site, stakeholders
must weigh the expected costs associated with
cleanup against the projected market value of the
property early in the process.
In general, cost estimates are more reliable when
The cleanup project is relatively simple and
straightforward in terms of the level of effort
and resources required.
The cleanup design is detailed and specific.
The project has progressed to the point
where most critical information is known.
A cost estimate is usually less reliable when a project
is more complex, the cleanup design is not thor-
oughly developed, and the project is in its initial
stages. This cost-estimating guide is designed to
aid project managers evaluating a potential rede-
velopment site early in the process.
-------
Chapter 2
Developing an Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate
This section contains information important to de-
veloping an order of magnitude estimate. Collect-
ing information for the order of magnitude cost-esti-
mation process can be broken down into five basic
steps. These steps provide only a preliminary frame-
work for developing an order of magnitude estimate.
Planners should remember that site-specific factors
must always be taken into consideration when evalu-
ating the reliability of their estimate.
The order of magnitude estimate is a preliminary
cost estimate and planners should not expect that
estimated costs will equal actual costs. The purpose
of the estimate at this early stage of the project is to
mitigate, not eliminate, the cost uncertainty associ-
ated with most cleanup actions and to screen po-
tential brownfields sites for redevelopment. Figure 2
represents where the order of magnitude estimate
occurs in the brownfields cleanup and redevelop-
ment process and how it contributes to the decision-
making process.
Steps to Organize Cost Information
Planners can use the five steps described below to
organize information for an order of magnitude cost
estimate for brownfields projects. Information gath-
ered from historical site data, a visual site inspec-
tion, and preliminary site assessment data (as avail-
able) is used. The steps are outlined in Table 1.
Step 1: Define the Contamination Issues and
Cleanup Objectives
Succinctly define the contamination problems that
need to be addressed at the site. Identify each con-
tamination issue and corresponding cleanup objec-
tive (e.g., preventing direct contact by people with
contaminated soil; controlling surface water runoff;
preventing contact with harmful building materials).
This helps the planner organize the entire project
into separate components to facilitate cost-estimate
preparation.
BROWNFIELDS COST/BENEFIT DECISION PROCESS
Identify property
for
Redevelopment
-*
Conduct Site
Characterization
->
Develop Order of
Magnitude
Estimate ;
NO
Does not meet criteria
for brownfields
redevelopment; may be
handled by another
program (e.g., RCRA)
YES
Do expected benefits
from cleanup outweigh
expected cleanup
costs?
Develop cleanup plan
and more detailed
cost estimate; agree
on reuse potential and
cleanup levels; clean
up and redevelop
property
Figure 2. Expected accuracy of different types of cost estimates at different stages.
-------
Table 1. Steps to Organize Cost Information
" Step 3
Step 4
i - '-- r , ,
Contamination
Issues
and Cleanup
Objectives
Critical Parameters
Known | Unknown
Impact of
Unknown
Parameters
Cleanup
Alternatives
Estimated
Cost
Step 2: Identify Critical Parameters of
Contamination Issues
For each contamination issue, identify the critical
known and unknown parameters that will affect the
cost. Parameters that should be evaluated are those
that have significant potential to drive costs and may
include contaminant concentration levels, the extent
of contamination, the volume of contaminated me-
dia, anticipated future site use, required cleanup lev-
els, and hydrogeological conditions.
Step 3: Cite Potential Impact of Unknown
Parameters
Determine the extent to which the unknown param-
eters have the potential to impact the total cost of
the project. Uncertainty levels associated with criti-
cal parameters should be described. If the potential
impact of these unknown parameters is substantial,
a large contingency should be included in the esti-
mate.
Step 4: Identify Cleanup Alternatives
Review the contamination issues and identify
cleanup alternatives. For some issues, such as tank
removal, there are few options. For others, there
may be a number of options and planners should
seek advice from knowledgeable professionals to
determine (1) conditions which may affect the
technology's anticipated performance, and (2) the
factors about which regulators are likely to have
concerns. Several databases and models, which are
discussed later in this guide, can be used as sources
of information for identifying alternatives.
Step 5: Determine Cost of Each Cleanup Al-
ternative and Compare Costs
Planners can use the cost information and models
described later in this guide and talk with qualified
cleanup professionals to obtain cost data on the
various cleanup alternatives. In general, the extent
of needed site characterization, the cleanup tech-
nologies used and the completion schedule will drive
the cost of addressing each contamination issue.
Both initial cleanup and operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs should be included. Examples of com-
mon costs include site preparation work, soil exca-
vation, site restoration, and sampling and analysis.
For each major activity, estimate unit costs for each
alternative (which can be done using unit price
books, cost databases, or software tools described
later in this guide). Compare the costs of the alter-
natives to determine which are feasible to imple-
ment. If a cleanup technology or treatment is se-
lected that requires ongoing operation and mainte-
nance (e.g., pumping; monitoring groundwater qual-
ity over time), consideration should be given to how
many years the cost estimate should be carried into
the future and what discount rate should be used.
Appendix A presents a case study of how cleanup
costs were estimated for a brownfields site in New
Orleans, Louisiana. This case study illustrates some
of the guidance provided in this document and shows
how some of the software described later can be
used.
Planners may find it useful to organize the informa-
tion gathered during the steps described above into
an easy-to-read table like that shown in Table 1. Such
a table organizes critical project data and facilitates
development of cost estimates.
-------
Chapter 3
Cost-Estimating Information, Models, and Services
Numerous cost-estimating resources, including web
sites, databases, and software packages, are avail-
able that were developed prior to EPA's Brownfields
Initiative. Many of these resources have some ap-
plicability to brownfields sites.
Because brownfields redevelopment is a dynamic
and growing area, new models, systems and infor-
mation sources are being developed. The web sites,
models, and services described below can be use-
ful when developing order of magnitude, budget, and
definitive estimates. Several of these resources have
been partially or totally developed or funded by the
federal government; others are developed and/or
owned by the private sector. Some are available at
no cost; others are available at varying prices. EPA
does not explicitly endorse the use of any specific
software system or tool described in this guide.
Omission of any software or other tools does not
imply a dismissal or a judgment of the tool's impor-
tance. Check EPA's Internet web site home page at
http://www.epa.gov for additional information on
brownfields, related costs, and other cost-estimat-
ing systems. In particular, see EPA's Office of Pollu-
tion Prevention and Toxics web site at http://
www.epa.gov/opptintr/acctg/rev/toc.htm for an over-
view of cost models.
The cost-estimating resources discussed below are
organized into four categories. First, tools that pro-
vide basic cost-screening information are discussed,
followed by more technology focused tools, avail-
able cost-estimating models, and finally, cost-esti-
mating services.
Cost-Screening Tools
These resources can provide an overview of costs
for site characterization and site cleanup for a wide
variety of technologies. Such information can be
used as a preliminary screening tool to identify tech-
nologies with acceptable costs for a brownfields
project.
Remediation Technologies Screening
Matrix Guide
The Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Guide (Matrix), which was developed by the Fed-
eral Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR),
provides cost information for a number of commer-
cially available alternative remediation technologies.
FRTR was created as a forum for participants to
exchange information on site remediation technolo-
gies and consider cooperative efforts that could lead
to a greater application of innovative technologies.
FRTR member agencies include the EPA, DOD, and
DOE, among others. The U.S. Army has led the
development of the Screening Matrix, with updates
from EPA, DOE, and the Department of the Interior.
The Matrix includes technology descriptions, con-
tacts, and cost information. Profiles on approximately
64 technologies consolidate information on various
technologies' applications and limitations, cost and
performance data, sites at which the technologies
have been employed, and names and numbers of
technical contacts.
For more information about the Remediation Tech-
nologies Screening Matrix, access the Internet at
http://www.frtr.gov.
The Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information
(CLU-IN) Web Site
CLU-IN provides information about innovative treat-
ment technologies. EPA developed and maintains
the site which describes programs, organizations,
publications, and other tools related to hazardous
waste remediation. The site also provides access
to several databases, such as EPA's SITE Program,
-------
and other resources with cost information relevant the cost data in HCAS is historical and is not up-
to brownfields sites. dated.
For more information about CLU-IN, access CLU-
IN on the Internet at http://www.clu-in.org.
Technology Focused Tools
These resources may provide more detailed infor-
mation on costs associated with specific character-
ization and cleanup technologies.
Historical Cost-Analysis System (HCAS)
HCAS is an on-line database that provides informa-
tion on 60 completed remedial projects that were
conducted by different federal agencies. The infor-
mation is useful for developing rough Order of Mag-
nitude estimates through comparisons to similar
projects. HCAS was developed by the Interagency
Cost-Estimating Group for Hazardous, Toxic, and
Radioactive Waste (HTRW-ICEG). HTRW-ICEG
was formed in 1989 under the sponsorship of EPA
and includes representatives from EPA, DOE, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air
Force, and other federal agencies. HTRW-ICEG
uses HCAS to collect and distribute environmental
remediation cost data from public and private
sources. HCAS is free to member agencies.
Users can quickly find analogous projects through
an easy-to-use data query system based on the fol-
lowing five Category Codes:
• Waste Location (e.g., landfills, waste piles,
groundwater)
• Technical Approach (e.g., on-site contain-
ment/collection, off-site treatment)
• Summary Level Work Breakdown Structure
(e.g., site work, surface water collection and
control)
• Contaminated Media (e.g., soil, sludge,
water/other liquid)
• Waste Type (e.g., hazardous, hazardous
and radioactive)
The HCAS database requires minimal input to ex-
tract useful data. HCAS does not normalize or ma-
nipulate data; it simply provides historical informa-
tion that can be analyzed. It should be noted that
For more information about HCAS, contact
On the Internet
http://globe.ltni. org/lmi_hcas
or
Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge
McLean, VA 22102-7805
(703)917-9800
Vendor Field Analytical and
Characterization Technologies System
(VendorFACTS) Web Site
The VendorFACTS web site contains information
provided by over 90 vendors of innovative technolo-
gies for site and waste characterization. The sys-
tem includes cost and performance data on more
than 130 technologies for the detection and quanti-
fication of pollutants in air, soil, and water, as well
as various screening technologies such as immu-
noassay kits. Some of the representative technolo-
gies listed in the system include air measurement
equipment, analytical detectors, gas chromato-
graphs, chemical reaction-based indicators, and soil
gas analyzers. VendorFACTS is a Windows-based,
menu-driven database that is available free of
charge.
For more information about VendorFACTS, call the
hotline at 1 -800-245-4505; or access VendorFACTS
on the Internet at
http://www. clu-in. com/vfacts 1. htm
or
http://www.prcemi. com/vfacts/
The Vendor Information System for
Innovative Treatment Technologies
(VISITT)
VISITT is a free, user-friendly database that provides
data on almost 350 innovative technologies (70 per-
cent of which are commercially available). VISITT
provides cost and performance data and enables
the user to build queries according to the conditions
at a particular site by using several search criteria.
Information in VISITT is provided directly by ven-
dors and is not edited by EPA.
8
-------
For more information about V1S1TT, contact
On the Internet
http://www.clu-in.com/visitt.htmor
http://www.prcemi.com/visitt.
or
U.S. EPA/NCEPI
P.O. Box42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-0419
(800)245-4505
Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE)
EPA's National Risk Management Research Labo-
ratory (NRMRL), part of EPA's Office of Research
and Development (ORD), and EPA's National Ex-
posure Research Laboratory in Las Vegas (NERL-
LV) conduct the SITE Program. Under this program,
EPA enters into cooperative agreements with tech-
nology developers to demonstrate innovative tech-
nologies at hazardous waste sites. EPA collects and
publishes engineering, performance, and cost data
on these technologies. Under SITE'S Demonstra-
tion Program, technologies are field tested and In-
novative Technology Evaluation Reports (ITER),
technology capsule reports, and demonstration bul-
letins are prepared. Cost data included in the re-
ports include approximate capital and operating
costs, and long-term operating and maintenance
costs. The Demonstration Program includes approxi-
mately 112 developers and 119 projects.
For more information about the SITE demonstra-
tion reports, contact
On the Internet
http://www.nttc.edu/env/epasite.html
or
http://www.clu-in.com
or
EPA/ORD Publications
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7562
or
EPA National Exposure Research Labora-
tory (NERL)
Environmental Sciences Division
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, Nevada 89193
(702) 798-2525
Environmental Cost-Handling Options and
Solutions (ECHOS)
Delta Technologies Group, Inc., (DTG), a private
technology firm, and R.S. Means Company, Inc., a
publishing firm, publish the ECHOS detailed cost
books ("hard manuals") and software ("soft books").
The ECHOS Assemblies Cost book, addresses over
60 technologies and provides cost information for
remedial technologies at specified volumes of con-
taminated media. The ECHOS Unit Cost publica-
tion provides detailed labor, equipment, and materi-
als cost information on over 4,000 cost items. The
ECHOS books are particularly well-suited for devel-
oping budget and definitive estimates. The Assem-
blies Cost Book and Unit Cost Book as well as the
soft books are available at a cost. A Unit Price Esti-
mating publication (2nd edition, Catalog no. 67303)
is also available from R.S. Means, and unit price
books may also be available from other sources.
For more information about ECHOS, contact
On the Internet
http://www.rsmeans.com
or
R.S. Means Company, Inc.
63 Smiths Lane
P.O. Box 800
Kingston, MA 02364-9988
(800) 334-3509
Cost-Estimating Models
Cost-estimation models are developed for common
types of cleanup projects or technologies to help
planners forecast the costs of similar types of
projects. Users enter parameters about their cur-
rent project, and the system models estimate a likely
cost by relating/extrapolating cost information from
similar projects. Parameters can include informa-
tion such as contaminant concentrations, soil and
subsurface characteristics, site dimensions, type of
site, and historic usage (e.g., gas station, dry cleaner,
auto repair). A default-driven cost-estimation model
provides default input values for parameters that are
not known by the user. The defaults are typical pa-
rameters that enable a model to develop a cost es-
timate, given limited information.
9
-------
Several of the cost-estimating models discussed be-
low are expensive, and users should be well-versed
in the intricacies of both environmental remediation
and cost modeling to use the models. Some ven-
dors use their cost-estimation tools to provide cus-
tomers with an estimate for a fee.
The Remedial Action Cost Engineering and
Requirements System (RACER)
RACER is a parametric budget estimating system
that uses over 100 cost models to estimate the costs
of 15 "typical" Air Force cleanup projects. The 15
projects are complex and have numerous compo-
nents, and therefore use several different cost mod-
els to compute a project estimate. The cost models
are based on generic engineering solutions derived
from historic project information, government labo-
ratories, vendors, contractors, and engineering
analysis. RACER was designed to produce esti-
mates at early phases of cleanup projects when lim-
ited site information is available. It also produces
progressively more detailed and defensible esti-
mates at each subsequent phase of a project. It is
designed to provide preliminary estimates for clean-
ups, after contaminants and concentrations have
been identified. RACER does not identify the rem-
edy needed at a site; rather, it is used after the rem-
edy, technology, and site approach decisions have
been made, enabling users to model multiple treat-
ment trains to find the most cost-effective solution.
RACER is an engineering design-based model that
uses algorithms in its methodology. The user inputs
all known project parameters, as prompted by the
system (e.g., volume of contaminated material, lev-
els and types of contaminants, site dimensions, well
depth and diameter). Using information from a his-
torical database of similar projects, the system pro-
vides "default" values for any input parameters that
are unknown but necessary to generate the esti-
mate. RACER'S algorithms then produce a design
and generate a cost estimate. RACER can also pro-
vide an estimated cost range that plots the potential
cost values with their probabilities of occurrence.
Federal agencies can use RACER at no cost.
RACER is sometimes referred to as RACER/
ENVEST.
ported by Talisman Partners Ltd. For more informa-
tion about RACER, contact
Talisman Partners Ltd.
5460 South Quebec Street, Suite 100
Englewood, CO 80111
(303)771-3103
TANK RACER
TANK RACER is a variation of RACER that provides
cost estimates for cleanups at underground storage
tank (UST) sites. Produced through an interagency
agreement between the U.S. Air Force and EPA, it
is distributed by Talisman Partners Ltd. TANK
RACER is Windows-based software customized to
address smaller Underground Storage Tank (UST)
sites (e.g., filling stations). It estimates costs for all
phases of UST remediation, including site assess1
ment, tank closure, remedial design, remedial ac-
tion, site work and utilities, and operations and main-
tenance. TANK RACER is able to estimate costs for
alternative technologies including air sparging, soil
vapor extraction, bioventing, groundwater extraction
wells, landfarming, thermal desorption, bioremedia-
tion, and natural attenuation.
Users enter unit costs into TANK RACER's data-
base to generate tailored, location-specific cost es-
timates. Unlike other models in which certain cost
information cannot be altered, TANK RACER pro-
vides great flexibility by allowing the user to change
all default parameters used in calculating the total
cost, including default quantities and unit costs.
TANK RACER training should be considered prior
to using the software.
For more information about TANK RACER, contact
Talisman Partners Ltd.
5460 South Quebec Street, Suite 100
Englewood, CO 80111
(303)771-3103
Success and Cost-To-Complete
Environmental Cost-Estimating
System (CTC)
U.S. Cost, Inc., has developed two cost-estimating
||tools that may be applicable to brownfields sites,
RACER was developed by Delta Research Corpo- Success and CTC. Success is a Windows-based
ration under contract to the Air Force Civil Engineer- package that uses the RACER algorithms also
ing Support Agency. It is now disjrjbuted and sup- known as "RACER 2". Unlike RACER, Success al-
>**":''"' • • , •'•*•„.
10
-------
tows trie user to view its algorithms and alter equa-
tions and calculations if a specific project warrants
it (the user should understand the implications of
the changes being made). Success uses eight ma-
jor decision-tree models to create treatment train
scenarios and select appropriate treatment technolo-
gies. This package also determines the dollar
amount based on the quantities cleaned up at each
node of the decision tree and totals the amounts of
all nodes to develop the overall cost estimate. Much
like a blank electronic spreadsheet, Success must
be attached to a database to generate useful infor-
mation. This software supports most commercial
databases, including the R.S. Means and
Richardson Engineering databases. Success can be
used at the beginning of a project to generate pre-
planning estimates and at later stages of a project
to generate quantity take-off estimates.
Under contract to the U.S. Navy, U.S. Cost, Inc.,
customized Success to develop CTC, which is used
as the environmental estimating model in "cost-to-
complete" exercises for Navy and Army cleanup sites
worldwide. The CTC model uses historical data from
the Navy database as needed.
U.S. Cost, Inc., sells the Success software; CTC is
generally not available to non-government users, but
the data set associated with it can be obtained at no
charge from the U.S. Department of the Navy.
For more information about Success and/or CTC,
contact
On the Internet
http://www.uscost.com
or
U.S. Cost, Inc.
One Premier Plaza, Suite 850
5605 Glenridge Drive
Atlanta, GA 30342
(800) 955-1385 or (404) 252-1385
Unique Services
These resources provide specialized services such
as case studies, cost-contingency information, and
probability estimates. Other specialized services
may also be available; check EPA's home page on
the Internet for additional services.
Cost and Performance Reports
(Case Studies)
Cost and Performance Reports are standard case
study reports prepared by member agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
(FRTR). FRTR member agencies, including the EPA,
DOD, and DOE, have developed and abstracted 37
case studies of site remediation projects. The case
studies present cost and performance information
for full-scale remediation efforts and several large-
scale demonstration projects. They were prepared
retrospectively, based on information and interviews
with project personnel. The reports contain informa-
tion on the site, contaminants and media treated,
technology used, the technology vendor, a summary
of cost and performance data, and points of con-
tact.
Individual case study reports are organized by tech-
nology into a four-volume set, Bioremediation;
Groundwater Treatment; Soil Vapor Extraction; and
Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ Vitri-
fication. A fifth guide, entitled Abstracts of
Remediation Case Studies, presents abstracts of
all case studies in easy-to-read tables and short de-
scriptions. Review of the case study abstract tables
can identify those projects that are applicable to a
particular brownfields project. Planners can then
refer to a particular guide in the four-volume set for
more detailed information. The case studies show
unit costs for some projects and identify which key
factors potentially affect project cost. Where pos-
sible, costs are specified as pre-treatment costs,
post-treatment costs, and actual treatment costs. It
is important to note that several projects in the case
study series represent early applications of technolo-
gies, and therefore the costs for using these tech-
nologies may change in the future as firms gain ex-
perience with design and operation.
For more information about the Cost and Perfor-
mance Reports, contact
On the Internet
http://www.clu-in.com/
or
http://www.frtr.gov
or
National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) Sales
11
-------
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(800) 553-NTIS (6847)
(703) 605-6900 (fax)
HazRisk
HazRisk is a cost-estimating system developed by
Independent Project Analysis, Inc., that predicts how
accurate a cost estimate is. The three main compo-
nents of HazRisk are cost estimating, remediation
scheduling, and contingency analysis; it contains
data from more than 500 environmental remediation
projects conducted by DOE, EPA, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and numerous private compa-
nies. Approximately 50 percent of the projects in the
database are government-managed. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers uses the contingency analysis
portion of the HazRisk model for all other environ-
mental remediation projects such as underground
tank removals; this component of the system may
also be useful when developing brownfields cost es-
timates.
To use HazRisk's cost contingency analysis com-
ponent, users enter project and site information and
select a confidence level of 10, 25, 50, 75, or 90
percent. The confidence level represents the degree
of certainty that the actual cost will not exceed the
system's cost estimate. For example, choosing a
confidence level of 90 percent means that there
would be only a 10 percent chance that the actual
remedial action cost would exceed the estimated
cost. From this information, HazRisk uses probabil-
ity and statistical methods to compare project infor-
mation and cost items from a remedial action to its
database. Using a contingency allocation model,
HazRisk then presents findings that show the prob-
ability of cost growth versus contingency percent-
age. HazRisk can be obtained at a cost.
For more information about HazRisk, contact
Independent Project Analysis, Inc.
1150 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 300
Reston, VA 22090
(703) 709-0777
SmartSampling
The U.S. Department of Energy (Sandia National
Laboratories and Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
has developed a risk-based method for analyzing
site characterization data to maximize cleanup ef-
fectiveness at the lowest cost. To evaluate alterna-
tive cleanup designs, SmartSampling uses
geostatistics and probability-mapping techniques to
generate maps and cost curves. The probability
maps depict the likelihood of a contaminant level
exceeding a targeted value (action level). The maps
also include quantitative descriptions of uncertainty.
Mapping of probability estimates can assist in iden-
tifying the most cost-effective alternatives for cleanup
design and quantifying the risks associated with each
alternative. The user must input sampling data, ac-
tion levels that represent acceptable human health
risk levels, and costs of cleanup alternatives.
Cleanup costs are compared for each identified ac-
tion level. In addition, SmartSampling can help de-
termine optimal locations for additional samples that
may reduce actual remediation costs and reduce
the risk that undetected contamination is left in place.
The method has been demonstrated on several
projects since 1992 and is ready for large-scale de-
ployment.
For more information about SmartSampling, con-
tact
Sandia National Laboratories, (505) 845-
0011, or
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, (423) 576-
1555
Preliminary Estimate of Remediation Costs
Service (PERCS)
Talisman Partners Ltd. uses RACER to provide the
PERCS estimating service to parties who need to
estimate potential remediation costs and liabilities.
Users complete several forms providing information
about the site, including prior and current use, soil
and groundwater conditions, precipitation, and con-
taminant information; a sketch plan of the site; a typi-
cal boring log of the site; and test results showing
contaminant concentrations. Talisman Partners Ltd.
processes this information and uses it to understand
the site characteristics and nature of the remediation
project, and to select the treatment train and sam-
pling and analysis efforts required to remediate the
site. Talisman Partners Ltd. then uses RACER to
develop a preliminary cost estimate. The user re-
ceives the PERCS Estimate Summary Report, which
includes a technical and cost summary and detailed
estimates of the capital and operations and mainte-
12
-------
nance costs for the installation and operation of the
remedial treatment train.
For more information about PERCS, contact
Talisman Partners Ltd.
5460 South Quebec Street, Suite 100
Englewood.CO 80111
(303)771-3103
13
-------
Chapter 4
Conclusion
Brownfields redevelopment contributes to the revi-
talization of communities across the U.S. Reuse of
these abandoned, contaminated sites spurs eco-
nomic growth, builds community pride, protects pub-
lic health, and helps maintain our nation's
"greenf ields," often at a relatively low cost. This docu-
ment contains information on cost-estimating tools
and resources for addressing cleanup costs at
brownfields sites and is designed to be used in con-
junction with other guidances and references. Ob-
taining an estimate of the cost to cleanup brown-
fields sites is an important component of the overall
decision making process for planners. This docu-
ment has been prepared to present different types
of cost estimates: an Order of Magnitude Estimate,
a Budget Estimate and a Definitive Estimate. These
types of estimates are developed at different stages
of a project and are intended to result in increasing
levels of certainty of the ultimate cost. Cost-estimat-
ing information, models and services are also de-
scribed. The cost of cleaning up a site will be deter-
mined by the accuracy of site assessment data and
the cleanup goals which are based on expected fu-
ture use of the site.
14
-------
Appendix A
Example of Cost Estimate: Powers Junction
Introduction
This appendix presents an example of a brown-
fields cleanup cost estimation. The information in
this appendix is excerpted from the report 'Techni-
cal Assistance for Sampling and Analytical Support;
Powers Junction Brownfield Site, New Orleans, Loui-
siana; Brownfield Assessment and Recommenda-
tions Report" prepared for the Region 6 Office of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Dal-
las, Texas, by PRC Environmental Management,
Inc., received under Work Assignment No. 008-AN-
SP-0600, under Response Action Contract (RAC)
No. 68-W6-0037. Some of the information was ed-
ited for the purposes of this guide.
A) Site Description and History
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
designated the Powers Junction site as a pilot project
under its Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Ini-
tiative. The Powers Junction site is located at 19001
Chef Menteur Highway, New Orleans, LA. The 3-
acre site is composed of several parcels, with the
largest parcel having dimensions of 388 feet by 350
feet by 624 feet. The privately-owned site is sur-
rounded by the Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife
Refuge. Until the early 1970s, a truck stop and
service station were operated at the site. From the
early 1970s to 1995, a truck repair facility was oper-
ated at the site. According to local U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) representatives, some main-
tenance activities associated with the former truck
repair facility were conducted in the northeast sec-
tor of the site, next to a former motel.
PRC Environmental Management, Inc., (PRC)
served as the environmental contractor on the site.
PRC performed sampling and analytical services at
the Powers Junction brownfield site during Febru-
ary 1997. The purposes of the sampling and ana-
lytical work were to (1) determine whether contami-
nants are present at the site, and (2) if they are
present, determine the locations, levels, and extent
of contamination.
Current Site Conditions (as of October 31,1997)
The former truck stop and service station building
(which is the only remaining permanent structure
onsite) and a small inhabited mobile trailer are on
the site. A concrete foundation is all that remains of
a recently demolished motel. Seven underground
storage tanks (USTs) are located at the site. Four
gasoline USTs are located in the fueling area in front
of, and south of, the existing building. A4-inch-thick
concrete pad covers the surface of the front fueling
area. Three diesel fuel USTs are located behind,
and north of, the existing building. Gravel and shell
cover the surface of the rear fueling area. Surface
soil (0 to 2 feet below ground surface [bgs]) charac-
teristics varied horizontally and vertically at the site.
The southern half of the site, where most of the fu-
eling operations were conducted, consisted of (1)
gravelly fill mixed with sand, shell, and some as-
phalt from 0 to 1 foot bgs, and (2) a grey silty clay
mixed with sand and gravel from 1 to 2 feet bgs.
The northern half of the site consisted of (1) a grey
sandy clay mixed with shell and organic material
near the surface, and (2) an olive brown to gray clay
from 1 to 2 feet bgs. According to local FWS offi-
cials, the water table is at about 4 feet bgs at the
site, and local shallow groundwater flow is to the
south and southeast. A surface water body, identi-
fied as a borrow canal, is located next to the site to
the north.
B) Field Sampling Investigation
During the sampling investigation, PRC collected
samples from the following: (1) surface and sub-
surface soil, (2) shallow water table, (3) USTs,
15
-------
(4) borrow canal sediments, and (5) building mate-
rials from the existing building.
(1) Surface and Subsurface Soil
Investigation
PRC conducted soil sampling at 28 of 30 probe lo-
cations for field analyses by using a sampling grid
layout. A Geoprobe was used to probe at each in-
tersection of the sampling grid. PRC conducted field
analyses of each soil increment for the following
parameters:
• Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
- Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes
(BTEX)
- Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE)
- 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene and 1,3,5-
trimethylbenzene
- Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) for
gasoline (TPH-gasoline)
• Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC)
- Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH)
- TPH for diesel fuel (TPH-diesel)
• Total metals
Field analysis for organics was conducted by using
gas chromatography (GC). Field analysis for total
metals was conducted by using X-ray fluorescence
(XRF) spectrometry. Nine confirmatory split samples
including one duplicate sample were collected at
eight soil probe locations and shipped to Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratories to compare
field analytical results to CLP laboratory analytical
results.
(2) Shallow Water Table Investigation
PRC collected a groundwater grab sample for field
analysis to determine whether TPH fuels were
present in the shallow water table.
(3) Borrow Canal Investigation
On February 21, 1997, PRC collected a sediment
grab sample (designated C6-Sediment) from the
shoreline of the borrow canal at a location east-north-
east of Probe C6, for field analysis to determine
whether site runoff had impacted the surface water
body and potentially contaminated the sediments
(Figure 3). Section 4.3 discusses the analytical re-
sults.
(4) Underground Storage Tanks (UST)
Investigation
PRC inspected the seven USTs through their fill ports
(access ports) by using a water level indicator, Kolor
Kut colormetric fuel gauging paste, and Sludge
Judges. PRC determined that each of the four gaso-
line USTs was a 3000-gallon horizontal tank, 18 feet
long and 64 inches in diameter. PRC collected a
grab sample from one of the gasoline USTs for field
GC analysis to confirm the presence of TPH fuels.
The three diesel fuel USTs were not labeled; how-
ever, based on the location of the USTs (behind the
store) and the nature of their contents (diesel fuel
odor), PRC assumed that the USTs stored diesel
fuel. Based on field measurements and industry
standards, PRC determined that two of the three
diesel USTs were 3000-gallon horizontal tanks,
measuring 18 feet long and 64 inches in diameter.
PRC could not determine the dimensions of UST
No. 7 on the basis of field measurements.
(5) Existing Truck Stop and Service
Station Building Investigation
COM Federal Programs Corporation (COM) assisted
the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) in collecting 14 asbestos samples from uni-
form areas within, and outside of, the existing build-
ing. COM also tested 18 different areas within the
existing building for lead-based paint.
C) Investigation Results
This section summarizes the analytical results for
the samples collected at the Powers Junction site.
PRC followed analytical guidelines outlined in the
site-specific quality assurance project plan. Ana-
lytical data were compared to EPA screening levels
16
-------
and LDEQ risk-based corrective action levels (CAL)
to determine areas of concern.
four gasoline USTs are leaking into the shaJJow wa-
ter table.
(1) Surface and Subsurface Soil
Investigation Results
Analytical results indicate three distinct areas of soil
contamination: (1) the gasoline fueling area in the
vicinity of the gasoline USTs, which is contaminated
with benzene and TPH-gasoline; (2) the diesel fuel-
ing area in the vicinity of the diesel USTs, which is
contaminated with TPH-diesel, PAHs, and lead; and
(3) the former truck repair area in the northeast sec-
tor of the site, which is contaminated with metals.
Analytical results indicated that one or more of the
four gasoline USTs were leaking into the shallow
water table. Contamination appeared to be verti-
cally limited to the water table (4 feet bgs) and top 4
feet of soil, and horizontally limited to the gasoline
fueling area. In the vicinity of the diesel fueling area,
several PAHs were detected at (1) concentrations
exceeding the EPA Region 6 Human Health Media-
Specific Screening Levels for residential, and in
some cases industrial, soil from 0 to 1 foot bgs, and
(2) decreasing concentrations from 1 to 2 feet bgs.
No PAHs were detected at 4 feet bgs. Field and
CLP analysis indicated that the diesel USTs were
not leaking. Surface PAH and TPH-diesel contami-
nation may be attributable to historical diesel fuel
spillage, overflow from one of the tanks, or proxim-
ity to a highway. Analysis of soil samples in the vi-
cinity of the former truck repair area detected chro-
mium and lead at concentrations exceeding the EPA
Region 6 Human Health Media-Specific Screening
Levels for residential soil.
(2) Results of Shallow Water
Table Investigation
Analysis of a groundwater sample collected from the
area immediately south of the gasoline USTs, de-
tected benzene, ethylbenzene, and TPH-gasoline.
Benzene and ethylbenzene concentrations ex-
ceeded EPA drinking water maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) for these VOCs. The TPH-gasoline
concentration exceeded the proposed LDEQ CAL
for groundwater. The shallow groundwater is not
used locally as a drinking water source; therefore
the MCLs may not apply to the shallow water table.
Analytical results indicated that one or more of the
(3) Borrow Canal Investigation Results
Analysis of a sediment sample collected from the
southern shore of the borrow canal did not detect
organic contaminants at concentrations above EPA
Region 6 Human Health Media-Specific Screening
Levels for soil. No metals analysis was conducted.
(4) Underground Storage Tanks
Investigation Results
Analysis of the contents of the USTs confirmed that
(1) the four USTs in front of the existing building
contained gasoline or a mixture of gasoline and
water, and (2) the three USTs behind the existing
building contained diesel fuel or a mixture of diesel
fuel and water.
(5) Truck Stop and Service Station
Building Investigation Results
Asbestos was detected in five of 14 building mate-
rial samples. Lead was detected in three of 18 paint
surfaces tested.
D) Analytical Results
Analytical results were compared to (1) EPA Region
6 Human Health Media-Specific Screening Levels
for industrial and residential soil and (2) proposed
LDEQ risk-based CALs for petroleum hydrocarbons
in industrial and non-industrial soil, in order to es-
tablish remedial action levels for the Powers Junc-
tion site.
Analytical results indicate that the contents of one
or more of the four gasoline USTs are leaking into
the shallow water table. Contamination appears to
be (1) vertically limited to the water table (4 feet bgs)
and top 4 feet of soil, and (2) horizontally limited to
the gasoline fueling area. The data indicated the
following exceedances in soils within the gasoline
fueling area
• EPA Region 6 screening levels and LDEQ
CALs for industrial soil
- Benzene at Probe A1B1
• EPA Region 6 screening levels and LDEQ
CALs for residential or nonindustrial soil
17
-------
- Benzene at Probes A1 and A2
- TPH-gasoline at Probe A1B1
Analytical data indicate that the diesel USTs are not
leaking. Diesel fuel contamination appears to be
limited to the top 2 feet of soil and to the area de-
fined by Probes A3, A4, and B3. Analyses of soil
from Probes B2 and C1 revealed no diesel-related
contamination. The data indicated the following
exceedances in soils within the diesel fueling area
• EPA Region 6 screening levels and LDEQ
CALs for industrial soil
- PAHs at Probes A3 and A4
• EPA Region 6 screening levels and LDEQ
CALs for residential or nonindustrial soil
- PAHs at Probes A3 and A4
- TPH-diesel at Probe B3
- Lead at Probe A4
Surface PAH and diesel fuel contamination within
the diesel fueling area may be attributable to (1) his-
torical diesel fuel spillage from the nearby fueling
island, (2) overflow from diesel UST No. 7, which
has an open fill port, and/or (3) the proximity of U.S.
Highway 11 and its associated roadway paving ac-
tivities, including asphalt resurfacing and road sur-
face runoff.
Analytical results indicate the presence of chromium,
lead, and TPH-diesel from 0 to 1 foot bgs in the vi-
cinity of the former truck repair area. No organic
constituents were detected at concentrations above
the EPA Region 6 Human Health Media-Specific
Screening Levels for industrial and residential soil.
The data indicated the following exceedances in soils
within the former truck repair area
No exceedances in soils of EPA Region 6
screening levels and LDEQ CALs for
industrial soil
EPA Region 6 screening levels and LDEQ
CALs for residential or nonindustrial soil
- Chromium at Probes E2 and E3
- Lead at Probe E1
Analytical results indicate chromium at Probes A6,
B6, and D1 which are not associated with the gaso-
line and diesel fueling areas, or the former truck re-
pair area at concentrations exceeding EPA Region
6 screening level for residential soil. At Probe D1,
the chromium concentration also exceeds the EPA
Region 6 screening level for industrial soil.
Lead-based paint and asbestos-containing material
(ACMs) are in the existing building.
Additional Investigative
Activities Required
Before remedial activities can begin, additional sam-
pling and subsurface investigation may be required
at the site, including the following:
• Determine the extent of contamination, in
the shallow water table and subsurface soil,
resulting from one or more leaking gasoline
USTs.
• Determine the orientation of the diesel fuel
USTs to facilitate removal, and evaluate
surrounding soils for any potential contami-
nation resulting from leaks.
• Before the existing building is demolished,
conduct a thorough assessment for asbes-
tos and lead-based paint.
• If the site is to be developed for residential
use, collect and analyze additional confir-
matory samples from hot spot locations,
such as Probes A6 and B6, to confirm these
areas of potential remedial concern, which
are not associated with historical fueling
and truck repair activities.
• For remedial options other than excavation
and off-site disposal, characterize the soil
matrix to determine their compatibility with
remedial processes.
• In the case of excavation and off-site
disposal, the disposal facility may require
that soils be analyzed for metals using
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) or other off-site disposal require-
ments.
18
-------
E) Cleanup Alternatives and
Associated Costs
FWS is interested in redeveloping the site as an en-
vironmental education center (industrial use) for the
Bayou Sauvage Wildlife Refuge area. However, as
directed by EPA Region 6, PRO evaluated cleanup
options for the site on the basis of both industrial
and residential soil screening levels.
Based on current site conditions, and analytical re-
sults from the field investigation, PRC proposes the
following four cleanup alternatives:
• Cleanup Option 1: Excavation and Off-site
Treatment and Disposal (Risk-based ap-
proach)
- UST removal and decommissioning
- Demolition of existing building
- Excavation and off-site treatment and
disposal of soils contaminated with
benzene and TPH-gasoline
- Risk-based cleanup approach to remain-
ing surface soil contaminated with TPH-
diesel, PAHs, and chromium (industrial
use scenario)
• Cleanup Option 2: Excavation and Off-site
Treatment and Disposal
- UST removal and decommissioning
- Demolition of existing building
- Excavation and off-site treatment and
disposal of soils contaminated with
benzene and PAHs
- Excavation and off-site disposal of soils
contaminated with metals (residential
use scenario); for the industrial use
scenario, surface soil areas contami-
nated with chromium will be revegetated.
• Cleanup Option 3: Excavation, On-site
Bioremediation (Landfarming) and Off-site
Disposal
- UST removal and decommissioning
- Demolition of existing buifcfing
- Excavation and on-site bioremediation
(landfarming) of soils contaminated with
TPH fuels and PAHs; for the industrial
use scenario, chromium-contaminated
soils will be revegetated.
- Excavation and off-site disposal of soils
contaminated with metals (residential
use scenario)
• Cleanup Option 4: Excavation, In situ
Bioremediation (Bioventing) and Off-site
Disposal
- UST removal and decommissioning
- Demolition of existing building
- In situ bioremediation (bioventing) of
soils contaminated with TPH-gasoline
and benzene ,
- Revegetation of surface areas of soil
contaminated with chromium (industrial
use scenario)
- Excavation and off-site disposal of soils
contaminated with TPH-diesel, PAHs,
and metals (residential use scenario)
PRC estimated preliminary costs for the proposed
cleanup options by using (1) the Environmental Cost
Handling Options Solution (ECHOS) Cost Data Book
(Delta Technologies Group 1995), and (2) vendor
price quotes. Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 present the cost
estimate for each of the proposed cleanup options.
The following assumptions apply to all of the pro-
posed remedial options:
• Concrete to be removed is nonhazardous.
• All remedial options include demolition of
the existing building (120 feet long by 50
feet wide by 10 feet high) and concrete
(about 100 cubic yards [yd3]), and removal
pf the seven 300p-gallon USTs.
9 Radius of influence (about 4,000 square
feet [ft2]) for contamination at a probe
19
-------
location is one-half the distance between
probe locations.
• Areas requiring remediation were estimated
on the basis of EPA Region 6 Human
Health Screening Levels for industrial and
residential soils (Attachment D); TPH-
gasoline, TPH-diesel, and PAH cleanup
levels are based on proposed LDEQ risk-
based CALs for industrial and nonindustrial
soil.
• There is natural attenuation of contami-
nated shallow water table (4 feet bgs);
therefore, groundwater remediation will not
be considered in any of the proposed
remedial options.
• The existing building will be demolished
and disposed of as nonhazardous solid
waste (construction debris); however,
special precautions will be taken to mini-
mize airborne distribution of lead-based
paint and ACMs during the demolition.
• The treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities for hazardous and nonhazardous
waste are within a 100-mile round trip of the
Powers Junction site.
Cleanup Option 1: Excavation and Off-Site Treat-
ment and Disposal (Risk-Based Approach)
Cleanup Option 1 involves the following tasks for
industrial cleanup requirements:
• Demolish and dispose of the existing
building and concrete (Site Preparation).
• Excavate and decommission the seven
3000-gallon USTs, including at least one
leaking gasoline UST (UST Decommission-
ing).
• Excavate an estimated 600 yd3 of benzene-
contaminated soil (0 to 4 feet bgs) associ-
ated with the leaking gasoline UST(s)
(Probe A1B1) (Site Earthwork).
• Treat the 600 yd3 of benzene-contaminated
soil off site by using low-temperature ther-
mal desorption, followed by off-site landfill
disposal as nonhazardous waste (Dis-
posal).
• Backfill the excavated area with unclassi-
fied fill from an off-site source (Site Earth-
work).
A risk-based industrial cleanup approach including
revegetation of contaminated surface soils will be
applied to the remaining areas of soil contaminated
with PAHs and chromium from 0 to 2 feet bgs (sur-
face contamination) (Probes A3, A4, and D1), which
will consider the following factors:
• Proposed LDEQ Risk-Based Corrective
Action Plan approach
• Natural attenuation of surface soil contami-
nation with consideration of any potential
migration to receptors
• Future land use and proximity of receptors
Cleanup under Option 1 would require about 1 to 2
months to complete.
Cleanup Option 2: Excavation and Off-Site Treat-
ment and Disposal
Cleanup Option 2 involves the following tasks for
industrial cleanup levels:
• Demolish and dispose of the existing
building and concrete (Site Preparation).
• Excavate and decommission the seven
3000-gallon USTs, including at least one
leaking gasoline UST (UST Decommission-
ing).
• Excavate an estimated 1,200 yd3 of PAH-
and benzene-contaminated soil associated
with the fueling areas (Probes A3, A4, and
A1B1) (Site Earthwork).
• Treat the 1,200 yd3 of PAH- and benzene-
contaminated soil off site by using low-
temperature thermal desorption, followed
by off-site landfill disposal as nonhazardous
waste (Disposal).
• Fertilize, seed, and sprig the 4000-square
foot (ft2) area of chromium-contaminated
20
-------
soil (0-2 feet bgs) (Probe D1) (Site Prepara-
tion).
• Backfill the excavated area with unclassi-
fied fill from an off-site source (Site Earth-
work).
Costs will increase considerably to meet residential
cleanup levels, based on the following variations:
• Excavate an estimated 1,500 yd3 of TPH-,
PAH-, and benzene-contaminated soil
associated with the fueling areas (Probes
A3, A1B1, and B3) (Site Earthwork).
• Treat the 1,500 yd3 of TPH-, PAH-, and
benzene-contaminated soil offsite by using
low-temperature thermal desorption, fol-
lowed by off-site landfill disposal as nonhaz-
ardous waste (Disposal).
• Excavate an estimated 2,100 yd3 of soil (0
to 2 feet bgs) contaminated with PAHs,
chromium, and lead (Probes A4, A6, B6,
D1, E1, E2, and E3) (Site Earthwork).
• Dispose of the 2,100 yd3 metals-contami-
nated soil off site, in a Class I hazardous
waste landfill (Disposal).
• Backfill the excavated area with unclassi-
fied fill from an off-site source (Site Earth-
work).
If the metals-contaminated soil passes TCLP analy-
sis for barium, chromium, and lead, disposal costs
will be substantially lower, based on off-site treat-
ment forTPH-diesel and PAHs, followed by disposal
as nonhazardous waste.
Cleanup under Option 2 would require about 1 to 2
months to complete.
Cleanup Option 3: Excavation, On-Site Biorerne-
diation and Off-Site Disposal
Cleanup Option 3 involves the following tasks for
industrial cleanup levels:
• Demolish and dispose of the existing
building and concrete (Site Preparation).
• Excavate and decommission the seven
3000-gallon USTs, including at least one
leaking gasoline UST (LIST Decommission-
ing).
• Excavate an estimated 1,200 yd3 of PAH-
and benzene-contaminated soil associated
with the fueling areas (Probes A3, A4, and
A1B1) (Site Earthwork).
• Fertilize, seed, and sprig the 4000 ft2 area
of chromium-contaminated soil (0 to 2 feet
bgs) (Probe D1) (Site Preparation).
• Treat the 1,200 yd3 of PAH- and benzene-
contaminated soil on-site by using bioreme-
diation (land treatment 2 feet deep by 0.4
acre) (On-Site Bioremediation).
• Backfill the excavated areas with 1,500 yd3
of bioremediated soil (soil volume increases
20 percent [+300 yd3] after land treatment)
(On-Site Bioremediation).
Costs will increase considerably to meet residential
cleanup levels, based on the following variations:
• Excavate an estimated 1,500 yd3 of TPH-,
PAH-, and benzene-contaminated soil
associated with the fueling areas (Probes
A3, A1B1, and B3) (Site Earthwork).
• Treat the TPH-, PAH-, and benzene-con-
taminated soil on site by using bioremedia-
tion (landfarming) (On-Site Bioremediation).
• Excavate an estimated 2,100 yd3 of soil (0
to 2 feet bgs) contaminated with PAHs,
chromium, and lead (Probes A4, A6, B6,
D1, E1, E2, and E3) (Site Earthwork).
• Dispose of the 2,100 yd3 of metals-contami-
nated soil off site in a Class I hazardous
waste landfill (Disposal).
• Backfill the excavated areas with the 1,800
yd3 of bioremediated soil (soil volume
increases 20 percent [+300 yd3] after land
treatment) (Site Earthwork).
• Use off-site unclassified fill to supplement
backfilling any remaining areas (Site Earth-
work).
Chromium concentrations are not reduced by using
this method; however, mixing with soils not contami-
21
-------
nated with chromium may reduce the metals con-
centration by dilution. Treated soils are returned to
the excavation from where they originated. Dura-
tion of treatment can last from 6 to 18 months, de-
pending on the degradation rates of the contami-
nants that are being treated.
Cleanup Option 4: Excavation, In Situ Bioreme-
diation and Off-Site Disposal
Cleanup Option 4 involves the following tasks for
industrial cleanup levels:
• Demolish and dispose of the existing
building and concrete (Site Preparation).
• Excavate and decommission the seven
3000-gallon USTs, including at least one
leaking gasoline LIST (LIST Decommission-
ing).
• Excavate an estimated 600 yd3 of PAH-
contaminated soil from the diesel fueling
area (Probes A3 and A4) (Site Earthwork).
• Treat the 600 yd3 of PAH-contaminated soil
off site by using low-temperature thermal
desorption, followed by disposal as nonhaz-
ardous waste (Disposal).
• Fertilize, seed, and sprig the 4,000-ft2 area
of chromium-contaminated soil (0-2 feet
bgs) (Probe D1) (Site Preparation).
• Treat the area contaminated with TPH-
gasoline and benzene (Probe A1B1) by
using in situ bioremediation (bioventing) (In
Situ Bioremediation).
As an alternative, land treatment may be used to
treat, on site, the soil contaminated with PAHs.
Costs will increase considerably to meet residential
cleanup levels, based on the following variations:
• Excavate an estimated 600 yd3 of soil
contaminated with TPH-diesel and PAHs
from the diesel fueling area (Probes A3 and
B3) (Site Earthwork).
• Treat the 600 yd3 of TPH- and PAH-con-
taminated soil off site by using low-tempera-
ture thermal desorption, followed by dis-
posal as nonhazardous waste (Disposal).
• Excavate an estimated 2,100 yd3 of soil (0
to 2 feet bgs) contaminated with TPH-
diesel, PAHs, chromium, and lead (Probes
A4, A6, B6, D1, E1, E2, and E3) (Site
Earthwork).
• Dispose of the 2,100 yd3 of metals-contami-
nated soil off site in a Class I hazardous
waste landfill (Disposal).
• Treat the area contaminated with TPH-
gasoline and benzene (Probe Aland B1) by
using in situ bioremediation (bioventing) (In
Situ Bioremediation).
• Backfill excavated area with unclassified fill
from an off-site source (Site Earthwork).
If the metals-contaminated soil passes TCLP analy-
sis for barium, chromium, and lead, disposal costs
will be substantially lower, based on disposal as non-
hazardous waste. As an alternative, land treatment
may be used, on site, to bioremediate the soil con-
taminated with TPH-diesel, PAHs, and metals; this
will eliminate the costs of transportation, off-site dis-
posal, and off-site backfill. Metals concentrations
are not reduced by using this method.
Duration of treatment can last from 6 to 18 months,
depending on the degradation rates of the contami-
nants that are being treated.
Appendix A References
Delta Technologies Group. 1995. Environmental
Cost Handling Options and Solutions (ECHOS) Cost
Data Book.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ). 1997. Proposed LDEQ Risk-Based Correc-
tive Action Program (Draft). March 14.
PRC Environmental Management, Inc., (PRC).
1997a. Field Sampling Plan for Powers Junction
Brownfield Site, New Orleans, LA. February 4.
PRC Environmental Management. 1997b. Quality
Assurance Project Plan for Powers Junction
Brownfield Site, New Orleans, LA, February 14.
22
-------
Tata\e M. Cost Estimate for Cleanup Option 1: Excavation and Off-site Treatment and Disposal (Risk-Based Approach)
Item/Description
Site Preparation
Demolish reinforced concrete
Demolish existing building
Load and haul debris
Fertilize, seed, and sprig surface soil
Preparation Subtotal
Unit
CY
CF
CY
SY
Unit Cost
51.06
0.06
3.57
1.10
Industrial
Quantity
100
60,000
1,000
1,350
Industrial
Cost ($)
5,106
3,600
3,570
1,485
$13,761
UST Decomissioning
Excavate and load on trailer, 3000-gallon Each
Remove sludge Each
Dispose of sludge Gallon
Known leaking UST excavation Each
Haul tank to salvage dump, 100-mile RT Each
UST Subtotal
Site Earthwork
1 CY hydraulic excavator CY
Loading into truck CY
Backfill, unclassified fill, 6-inch lift, offsite CY
Earthwork Subtotal
Sampling, Testing, and Analysis
Soil lab analysis: TCLP metals Sample
Soil lab analysis: BTEX Sample
Soil lab analysis: PAHs Sample
Soil lab analysis: metals, each (8) Sample
Analytical Subtotal
Disposal
Transportation 100-mile RT, 20-CY loads Mile
Waste stream evaluation fee Each
Low-temperature thermal desorption Ton
Dump charges for construction debris CY
Landfill nonhazardous waste disposal CY
Disposal Subtotal
Total Cost
465.00
172.00
2.45
465.00
525.00
3.14
1.55
7.35
693.81
123.69
298.37
148.41
3.38
494.71
69.41
18.42
44.00
7
7
200
1
7
600
600
675
5
10
10
5
3,000
1
810
1,000
600
3,255
1,204
490
465
3,675
$9,089
1,884
930
4,961
$7,775
3,469
1,237
2,984
742
$8,432
10,140
495
56,222
18,420
26 ,400
$111,677
$150,734
Notes
Unit costs were obtained from the ECHOS Environmental Restoration Unit Cost Book and vendor price quotes.
Hazardous waste disposal at Class I Landfill.
Soil density is assumed to be 100 pounds/CF.
BTEX Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes.
CF Cubic foot.
CY Cubic yard.
ECHOS Environmental cost handling options and solutions.
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
RT Round trip.
SY Square yard.
TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure.
UST Underground storage tank.
23
-------
Table A2. Cost Estimate for Cleanup Option 2: Excavation and Off-site Treatment and Disposal
Item/Description
Site Preparation
Demolish reinforced concrete
Demolish existing building
Load and haul debris
Fertilize, seed, and sprig surface soil
Preparation Subtotal
UST Decomissioning
Excavate and load on trailer, 3000-gallon
Remove sludge
Dispose of sludge
Known leaking UST excavation
Haul tank to salvage dump, 1 00-mile RT
UST Subtotal
Site Earthwork
1-CY hydraulic excavator
Loading into truck
Backfill, unclassified fill, 6-inch lift, offsite
Earthwork Subtotal
Sampling, Testing, and Analysis
Sol lab analysis: TCLP metals
Son lab analysis: BTEX
Soil lab analysis: PAHs
SoM lab analysis: metals, each (8)
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
Analytical Subtotal
Disposal
Transportation 100-mile RT, 20-CY loads
Waste stream evaluation fee
Low-temperature thermal desorption
Dump charges for construction debris
Landfill nonhazardous waste disposal
Landfill hazardous waste disposal
Disposal Subtotal
Total Cost
Notes
Unit
CY
CF
CY
SY
Each
Each
Gallon
Each
Each
CY
CY
CY
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Mile
Each
Ton
CY
CY
Ton
Unit Cost
51.06
0.06
3.57
1.10
465.00
172.00
2.45
465.00
525.00
3.14
1.55
7.35
693.81
123.69
298.37
148.41
116.67
3.38
494.71
69.41
18.42
44.00
233.32
Industrial
Quantity
100
60,000
1,000
450
7
7
200
1
7
1,200
1,200
1,425
5
10
10
5
0
6,000
1
1,620
1,000
1,200
0
Industrial
Cost ($)
5,106
3,600
3,570
495
$12,771
3,255
1,204
490
465
3,675
$9,089
3,768
1,860
10,474
$16,102
3,469
1,237
2,984
742
0
20,280
495
112,444
18,420
52,800
0
$204,439
$250,832
Residential
Quantity
100
60,000
1,000
0
7
7
200
1
7
3,600
3,600
4,450
5
10
10
5
10
16,000
2
2,025
1,000
1,500
2,835
Residential
Cost ($)
5,106
3,600
3,570
0
$12,276
3,255
Inn A
,<2U4
490
465
3,675
$9,089
11,304
5,580
32,708
$49,592
3,469
1,237
2,984
742
1,167
-------
Tatrte A3. Cost Estimate for Cleanup Option 3: Excavation, On-site Bioremediation (Landfarming) and Off-site Disposal
Item/Description
Site Preparation
Demolish reinforced concrete
Demolish existing building
Load and haul debris
Fertilize, seed, and sprig surface soil
Preparation Subtotal
LIST Decomissioning
Excavate and load on trailer, 3000-gallon
Remove sludge
Dispose of sludge
Known leaking UST excavation
Haul tank to salvage dump, 1 00-mile RT
UST Subtotal
Site Earthwork
1-CY hydraulic excavator
Loading into truck
Backfill, unclassified fill, 6-inch lift, offsite
Earthwork Subtotal
Sampling, Testing, and Analysis
Soil lab analysis: TCLP metals
Soil lab analysis: BTEX
Soil lab analysis: PAHs
Soil lab analysis: metals, (8)
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
Analytical Subtotal
Disposal
Transportation 100-mile RT, 20-CY loads
Waste stream evaluation fee
Dump charges for construction debris
Landfill hazardous waste disposal
Disposal Subtotal
Onsite Bioremediation
Land treatment, 2 feet deep
Backfill, unclassified fill, 6-inch lift, onsite
Onsite Bioremediation Subtotal
Total Cost
Notes
Unit
CY
CF
CY
SY
Each
Each
Gallon
Each
Each
CY
CY
CY
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Mile
Each
CY
Ton
Acre
CY
Unit Cost
51.06
0.06
3.57
1.10
465.00
172.00
2.45
465.00
525.00
3.14
1.55
7.35
693.81
123.69
298.37
148.41
116.67
3.38
494.71
18.42
233.32
8,762.22
4.78
Industrial
Quantity
100
60,000
1,000
450
7
7
200
1
7
1,200
1,200
0
5 .
10
10
5
0
0
0
1,000
0
0.40
1,500
Industrial
Cost ($)
5,106
3,600
3,570
495
$12,276
3,255
1,204
490
465
3,675
$9,089
3,768
1860
0
$5,628
3,469
1,237
2,984
742
0
$8,432
0
0
18,420
0
$18,420
3,505
7,170
$10,675
$64,520
Residential
Quantity
100
60,000
1,000
0
7
7
200
1
7
3,600
3,600
2,600
5
10
10
5
10
10,500
1
1,000
2,835
0.50
1,800
Residential
Cost ($)
5,106
3,600
3,570
0
$12,276
3,255
1,204
490
465
3,675
$9,089
11,304
5,580
19,110
$35,994
3,469
1,237
2,984
742
1,167
$9,598
35,490
495
18,420
661,462
$715,867
1,752
8,604
$10,356
$793,181
Unit costs were obtained from the ECHOS Environmental Restoration Unit Cost Book and vendor price quotes.
Hazardous waste disposal at Class I Landfill.
Soil density is assumed to be 100 pounds/CF.
BTEX Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes.
CF Cubic foot
CY Cubic yard.
ECHOS Environmental cost handling options and solutions.
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
RT Round trip.
SY Square yard.
TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure.
UST Underground storage tank.
25
-------
Table A4. Cost Estimate for Cleanup Option 4: Excavation, In situ Bioremediation (Bioventing) and Off-site Disposal
Item/Description
Site Preparation
Demolish reinforced concrete
Demolish existing building
Load and haul debris
Fertilize, seed, and sprig surface soil
Preparation Subtotal
UST Decomlssionlng
Excavate and load on trailer, 3000-gallon
Remove sludge
Dispose of sludge
Known leaking UST excavation
Haul tank to salvage dump, 100-mile RT
UST Subtotal
Site Earthwork
1-CY hydraulic excavator
Loading into truck
Backfill, unclassified fill, 6-inch lift, offsite
Earthwork Subtotal
Sampling, Testing, and Analysis
Sofl lab analysis: TCLP metals
Soil lab analysis: BTEX
Soil lab analysis: PAHs
Soil lab analysis: metals, (8)
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
Analytical Subtotal
Disposal
Transportation 100-mile RT, 20-CY loads
Waste stream evaluation fee
Low-temperature thermal desorption
Dump charges for construction debris
Landfill nonhazarclous waste disposal
Landfill hazardous waste disposal
Disposal Subtotal
In situ Bioremediation
Bioventing, 5 feet deep
In situ Bioremediation Subtotal
Total Cost
Notes
Unit
CY
Cubic foot
CY
SY
Each
Each
Gallon
Each
Each
CY
CY
CY
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Mile
Each
Ton
CY
CY
Ton
Lump sum
Unit Cost
51.06
0.06
3.57
1.10
465.00
172.00
2.45
465.00
525.00
3.14
1.55
7.35
693.81
123.69
298.37
148.41
116.67
3.38
494.71
69.41
18.42
44.00
233.32
12,163.08
Industrial
Quantity
100
60,000
1,000
450
7
7
200
1
7
600
600
750
5
10
10
5
0
3,000
1
810
1,000
600
0
1.00
Industrial
Cost ($)
5,106
3,600
3,570
495
$12,771
3,255
1,204
490
465
3,675
$9,089
1,884
930
5,513
$8,327
3,469
1,237
2,984
742
0
$8,432
10,140
495
56,222
18,420
26,400
0
$111,677
12,163
$12,163
$162,458
Residential
Quantity
100
60,000
1,000
0
7
7
200
1
7
2,700
2,700
3,370
5
10
10
5
10
13,500
2
810
1,000
0
3,645
1.00
Residential
Cost ($)
5,106
3,600
3,570
0
$12,276
3,255
1,204
490
465
3,675
$9,089
8,478
4,185
24,770
$37,433
3,469
1,237
2,984
742
1,167
$9,598
45,630
989
56,222
18,420
0
850,451
$971,713
12,163
$12,163
$1,052,272
Unit costs were obtained from the ECHOS Environmental Restoration Unit Cost Book and vendor price quotes.
Hazardous waste disposal at Class I Landfill.
Soil density is assumed to be 100 pounds/CF.
BTEX Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes.
CY Cubic yard.
ECHOS Environmental cost handling options and solutions.
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
RT Round trip.
SY Square yard.
TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure.
UST Underground storage tank.
26
-------
15) H -
Former Motel Foundation
! Foundation'
— «»___!
•
/
*
Existing Building
(See Figure 4)
/
1234
AA1B1-CV''
0 25 50
Scale in Feet
Legend:
UST - Underground Storage Tank
+ Soil Probe Location
|^j Gasoline UST and Fill Port
J2| Diesel UST and Fill Port
• Sediment Sample Location
A Ground Water Sample Location
$ Fuel Island
• No Recovery Soil
Figure A1. Soil probe location map.
27
-------
Appendix B
Abbreviations and Acronyms
bgs below ground surface
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene,
and Xylene
CAL corrective action levels
CLP Contract Laboratory Program
CLU-IN The Hazardous Waste Clean-Up
Information Web Site
CTC Success and Cost-To-Complete
Environmental Cost Estimating
System
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DTG Delta Technologies Group, Inc.,
(DTG)
ECHOS Environmental Cost Handling
Options and Solutions (ECHOS)
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
FRTR Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable
ft2 square foot
GC gas chromatography
GPR Ground-Penetrating Radar
HazRisk A cost estimating system developed
by Independent Project Analysis,
Inc., that predicts how accurate a
cost estimate is
HCAS
Historical Cost Analysis System
HTRW-ICEG
Developed by the Interagency Cost
Estimating Group for Hazardous,
Toxic, and Radioactive Waste
ITER Innovative Technology Evaluation
Report
LDEQ Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
MTBE Methyl tertiary-butyl ether
NERL-LV EPA's National Exposure Research
Laboratory in Las Vegas
NRMRL EPA's National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
O&M Operations and Maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon
PERCS Preliminary Estimate of Remediation
Costs Service
RAG Response Action Contract
RACER Remedial Action Cost Engineering
and Requirements System
RCRA Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
SITE EPA's Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation
SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
UST Underground Storage Tank
VISITT Vendor Information System for
Innovative Treatment Technologies
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
XRF X-ray fluorescence
yds cubic yard
28
-------
Appendix C
Glossary of Key Terms
The following is a list of specialized terms that are
useful to understanding the Cost Estimating Tools
and Resources for Addressing Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative.
Air Sparging- In air sparging, air is injected into the
ground below a contaminated area, forming bubbles
that rise and carry trapped and dissolved contami-
nants to the surface where they are captured by a
soil vapor extraction system. Air sparging may be a
good choice of treatment technology at sites con-
taminated with solvents and other volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). See also Soil Vapor Extrac-
tion and Volatile Organic Compound.
Bioremediation - Bioremediation refers to treatment
processes that use microorganisms (usually natu-
rally occurring) such as bacteria, yeast, or fungi to
break down hazardous substances into less toxic
or nontoxic substances. Bioremediation can be used
to clean up contaminated soil and water. In situ bio-
remediation treats the contaminated soil or ground-
water in the location in which it is found. For ex situ
bioremediation processes, contaminated soil must
be excavated or groundwater pumped before they
can be treated.
Bioventing - Bioventing is an in situ cleanup tech-
nology that combines soil vapor extraction methods
with bioremediation. It uses vapor extraction wells
that induce air flow in the subsurface through air
injection or through the use of a vacuum. Bioventing
can be effective in cleaning up releases of petro-
leum products, such as gasoline, jet fuels, kerosene,
and diesel fuel. See also Bioremediation and Soil
Vapor Extraction.
Brownfields- Brownfields sites are abandoned, idled,
or under-used industrial and commercial facilities
where expansion or redevelopment is complicated
by real or perceived environmental contamination.
Clean up - Clean up is the term used for actions
taken to deal with a release or threat of release of a
hazardous substance that could affect humans and/
or the environment.
Contaminant- A contaminant is any physical, chemi-
cal, biological, or radiological substance or matter
present in any media at concentrations that may re-
sult in adverse effects on air, water, or soil.
Disposal- Disposal is the final placement or destruc-
tion of toxic, radioactive or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted soils;
and drums containing hazardous materials from re-
moval actions or accidental release. Disposal may
be accomplished through the use of approved se-
cure landfills, surface impoundments, land farming,
deep well injection, ocean dumping, or incineration.
Dual-Phase Extraction - Dual-phase extraction is a
technology that extracts contaminants simulta-
neously from soils in saturated and unsaturated
zones by applying soil vapor extraction techniques
to contaminants trapped in saturated zone soils. See
also Soil Vapor Extraction.
Electromagnetic (EM) Geophysics - EM geophys-
ics refers to technologies used to detect spatial (lat-
eral and vertical) differences in subsurface electro-
magnetic characteristics. The data collected pro-
vide information about subsurface environments.
Gas Chromatography - Gas chromatography is a
technology used for investigating and assessing soil,
water, and soil gas contamination at a site. It is used
for the analysis of VOCs and semi-volatile organic
compounds (SVOC). The technique identifies and
quantifies organic compounds on the basis of mo-
lecular weight, characteristic fragmentation patterns,
and retention time. Recent advances in gas chro-
matography considered innovative are portable,
29
-------
weather-proof units that have self-contained power
supplies. See also Semi-Volatile Organic Com-
pound.
Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) - G PR is a tech-
nology that emits pulses of electromagnetic energy
into the ground to measure its reflection and refrac-
tion by subsurface layers and other features, such
as buried debris.
Groundwater- Groundwater is the water found be-
neath the earth's surface that fills pores between
such materials as sand, soil, or gravel and that of-
ten supplies wells and springs.
Hazardous Substance - A hazardous substance is
any material that poses a threat to public health or
the environment. Typical hazardous substances are
materials that are toxic, corrosive, ignitable, explo-
sive, or chemically reactive. If a certain quantity of
a hazardous substance, as established by EPA, is
spilled into the water or otherwise emitted into the
environment, the release must be reported. Under
certain federal legislation, the term excludes petro-
leum, crude oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids, or
synthetic gas usable for fuel.
Hydrocarbon - A hydrocarbon is an organic com-
pound containing only hydrogen and carbon, often
occurring in petroleum, natural gas, and coal.
Landfarming- Landfarming is the spreading and in-
corporation of wastes into the soil to initiate biologi-
cal treatment.
Lead - Lead is a heavy metal that is hazardous to
health if breathed or swallowed. Its use in gasoline,
paints, and plumbing compounds has been sharply
restricted or eliminated by Federal laws and regula-
tions. See also Heavy Metal.
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)-LUST
is the acronym for "leaking underground storage
tank." See also Underground Storage Tank.
Natural Attenuation - Natural attenuation is an ap-
proach to cleanup that uses natural processes to
contain the spread of contamination from chemical
spills and reduce the concentrations and amounts
of pollutants in contaminated soil and groundwater.
Natural subsurface processes, such as dilution, vola-
tilization, biodegradation, adsorption, and chemical
reactions with subsurface materials, reduce concen-
trations of contaminants to acceptable levels. An in
situ treatment method that leaves the contaminants
in place while those processes occur, natural attenu-
ation is being used to clean up petroleum contami-
nation from leaking underground storage tanks
(LUST) across the country.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) - O&M refers to
the activities conducted at a site, following remedial
actions, to ensure that the cleanup methods are
working properly. O&M activities are conducted to
maintain the effectiveness of the cleanup and to en-
sure that no new threat to human health or the envi-
ronment arises. O&M may include such activities
as groundwater and air monitoring, inspection and
maintenance of the treatment equipment remaining
on site, and maintenance of any security measures
or institutional controls.
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) - A PAH is a chemi-
cal that contains more than one fused benzene ring.
They are commonly found in petroleum fuels, coal
products, and tar.
Pump and Treat- Pump and treat is a general term
used to describe cleanup methods that involve the
pumping of groundwater to the surface for treatment.
It is one of the most common methods of treating
polluted aquifers and groundwater.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
- RCRA is a Federal law enacted in 1976 that es-
tablished a regulatory system to track hazardous
substances from their generation to their disposal.
The law requires the use of safe and secure proce-
dures in treating, transporting, storing, and dispos-
ing of hazardous substances. RCRA is designed to
prevent the creation of new, uncontrolled hazard-
ous waste sites.
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (SVOC) - SVOCs,
composed primarily of carbon and hydrogen atoms,
have boiling points greater than 200 C. Common
SVOCs include PCPs and phenol.
Site Assessment - A site assessment is the process
by which it is determined whether contamination is
present on a site.
Soil Boring - Soil boring is a process by which a soil
sample is extracted from the ground for chemical,
30
-------
biological, and analytical testing to determine the
level of contamination present.
Soil Gas - Soil gas consists of gaseous elements
and compounds that occur in the small spaces be-
tween particles of the earth and soil. Such gases
can move through or leave the soil or rock, depend-
ing on changes in pressure.
Superfund- Superfund is the trust fund that provides
for the cleanup of significantly hazardous substances
released into the environment, regardless of fault.
The Superfund was established under Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) and subsequent amend-
ments to CERCLA. The term Superfund is also used
to refer to cleanup programs designed and con-
ducted under CERCLA and its subsequent amend-
ments.
Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) - SARA is the 1986 act amending Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) that increased the size
of the Superfund trust fund and established a pref-
erence for the development and use of permanent
remedies, and provided new enforcement and settle-
ment tools.
Thermal Desorption - Thermal desorption is an in-
novative treatment technology that heats soils con-
taminated with hazardous wastes to temperatures
from 200 to 1,000 F so that contaminants that have
low boiling points will vaporize and separate from
the soil. The vaporized contaminants are then col-
lected for further treatment or destruction, typically
by an air emissions treatment system. The technol-
ogy is most effective at treating VOCs, SVOCs, and
other organic contaminants, such as PCBs, PAHs,
and pesticides. It is effective in separating organics
from refining wastes, coal tar wastes, waste from
wood treatment, and paint wastes. It also can sepa-
rate solvents, pesticides, PCBs, dioxins, and fuel
oils from contaminated soil. See also Semi-Volatile
Organic Compound and Volatile Organic Com-
pound.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) - TPH refers to
a measure of concentration or mass of petroleum
hydrocarbon constituents present in a given amount
of air, soil, or water.
Underground Storage Tank (UST) - An UST is a tank
located entirely or partially underground that is de-
signed to hold gasoline or other petroleum products
or chemical solutions.
Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) - A VCP is a for-
mal means established by many states to facilitate
assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of brown-
fields sites. VCPs typically address the identifica-
tion and cleanup of potentially contaminated sites
that are not on the National Priorities List (NPL).
Under VCPs, owners or developers of a site are en-
couraged to approach the state voluntarily to work
out a process by which the site can be readied for
development. Many state VCPs provide technical
assistance, liability assurances, and funding sup-
port for such efforts.
31
-------
Appendix D
Bibliography
Site Assessment
U.S. EPA. 1998. Field Sampling and Analysis Tech-
nologies Matrix and Reference Guide (EPA/542/B-
98/002)
U.S. EPA. 1997. Road Map to Understanding Inno-
vative Technology Options for Brownfields Investi-
gation and Cleanup. OSWER. (PB97-144810).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Portable Gas Chromatograph/Mass
Spectrometers (GC/MS), Technology Verification
Program: Fact Sheet (EPA 542-F-96-009c).
U.S. EPA. 1998. Quality Assurance Guidance for
Conducting Brownfields Site Assessment (EPA 540-
R-98-038) September.
Cleanup
U.S. EPA. 1998. Technical Approaches to Charac-
terizing and Cleaning Up Automotive Repair Sites
Underthe Brownfields Initiative (EPA625 R-98-008).
U.S. EPA. 1998 Technical Approaches to Charac-
terizing and Cleaning Up Metal Finishing Sites Un-
der the Brownfields Initiative (EPA 625 R-98-006).
U.S. EPA. 1998. Technical Approach to Character-
izing and Cleaning up Iron and Steel Mill Sites un-
der the Brownfields Initiative (EPA 625 R-98-007).
U.S. EPA. 1997. Road Map to Understanding Inno-
vative Technology Options for Brownfields Investi-
gation and Cleanup. OSWER. PB97-144810).
U.S. EPA. 1997. The Tool Kit of Technology Infor-
mation Resources for Brownfields Sites. OSWER.
(PB97-144828).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Introducing TANK Racer (EPA 510-
F96-001).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Accessing Federal Data Bases for
Contaminated Site Clean-Up Technologies, Fourth
Edition (EPA 542-B-95-005, PB96-141601).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable: 5 Years of Cooperation (EPA 542-F-
95-007).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Guide to Documenting Cost and
Performance for Remediation Projects (EPA 542-
B-95-002, PB95-182960).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remedial Design/Remedial Action
Handbook (PB95-963307-ND2).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remedial Design/Remedial Action
Handbook Fact Sheet (PB95-963312 NDZ).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Fact
Sheet and Order Form (EPA 542-F-95 003); Four
Document Set (PB95-182903).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies:
Groundwater Treatment (EPA542-R-95-003, PB95-
182929).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Technologies Screen-
ing Matrix and Reference Guide, Second Edition
(PB95-104782; Fact Sheet: EPA 542-F-95-002).
Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable. Also
see Internet: http://www.frtr.gov/matrix/top-
page.html.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) En-
hancement Technology Resource Guide Air Sparg-
ing, Bioventing, Fracturing, Thermal Enhancements
(EPA542-B-95-003).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Soil Vapor Extraction Implementa-
tion Experiences (OSWER Publication 9200.5-
223FS, EPA540-F-95-030, PB95-963315).
32
-------
U.S. EPA. 1993-1995. Technology Resource Guides:
• Bioremediation Resource Guide (EPA 542-
B-93-004)
• Groundwater Treatment Technology Re-
source Guide (EPA 542-B-94-009, PB95
138657)
• Physical/Chemical Treatment Technology
Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-94-008, PB95-
138665)
• Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Enhancement
Technology Resource Guide: Air Sparging,
Bioventing, Fracturing, and Thermal En-
hancements (EPA 542-B-95 003)
• Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Treatment
Technology Resource Guide (EPA 542-B
94-007)
U.S. EPA. 1994. Bioremediation: A Video Primer
(video) (EPA 510-V-94-001).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Bioremediation in the Field Search
System (EPA 540-F-95-507; Fact Sheet: EPA 540-
F-94-506).
U.S. EPA. 1994. How to Evaluate Alternative
Cleanup Technologies for Underground Storage
Tank Sites: A Guide for Corrective Action Plan Re-
viewers (EPA 510-B-94-003, S/N 055-000-00499-
4); Pamphlet (EPA510-F-95-Q03).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program: Technology Profiles,
Seventh Edition (EPA540-R-94-526, PB95-183919).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Bioremediation Resource Guide
and Matrix (EPA 542-B-93-004, PB94 112307).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Bioremediation: Using the Land
Treatment Concept (EPA 600-R-93-164, PB94-
107927).
U.S. EPA. 1987. Compendium of Costs of Reme-
dial Technologies at Hazardous Waste Sites (EPA
600-2-87-087).
U.S. EPA. 1986. Costs of Remedial Actions at Un-
controlled Hazardous Waste Sites (EPA/640/2-86/
037).
U.S. EPA. Clean-Up Information (CLU-IN) Bulletin
Board System. (CLU-IN can be accessed by mo-
dem at (301) 589-8366 or by the Internet at http://
clu-in.com).
Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment
Technologies (VISITT), Version 4.0 (VISITTcan be
downloaded from the Internet at http://
www.prcemi.com/visitt or from the CLU-IN Web site
at http://clu-in.com).
33
I. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1999-750-101/00047
-------
-------
-------
rn
-
•wo t
Jr orj —
------- |