PB88-113477
COMPENDIUM OF COSTS OF
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AT
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Environmental Law Institute
Washington, DC
Oct 87
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
-------
EPA/600/2-87/087
October 1987
COMPENDIUM OF COSTS OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
AT HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
by
Edward C. Yang, Dirk Bauma, Linda Schwartz, and James D. Werner
Environmental Law Institute
Washington, DC 20036
EPA Contract 68-03-3113
EPA Project Officer
Douglas Anunon
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
HAZARDOUS WASTE ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OH 45268
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/600/2-87 7087
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Compendium of Costs of Remedial Technologies at
Hazardous Waste Sites
5. REPORT DATE
October 1987
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
Edward C. Yang, Dirk Bauma. Linda Schwartz and
James D. Werner
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Law Institute
1616 P Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-3113
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final. 1/85 - 9/86
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Douglas Ammon 513/569-7876
16. ABSTRACT
Accurate estimates of hazardous waste site remedial responses are important in
order to: (1) budget the Superfund Response Fund, (2) estimate costs at specific
sites, (3) cost-effectively select remedial actions, and (4) effectively negotiate
with private response parties for private action or cost .recovery. Unfortunately,
standard engineering costing methodologies have been relatively inaccurate in
estimating actual response costs. This is primarily due to the uniqueness of the
site problems and the uncertainties in eventual effectiveness of the responses.
The purpose of this document is to record and analyze the actual expenses incurred
during remedial responses for seven major types of engineering technologies. The
costs documented here are the "bottomline" numbers showing ithe ultimate cost of
the responses. The data supporting this compendium is derived from a series of 31
case studies of actual hazardous waste remedial responses. ^This report also
investigates the divergence between actual remedial costs and estimates from existing
engineering cost methodologies. In addition, the compendium lists the major factors
that cause the costs' movements. Because of the scope of the report coverage and the
small sample size the data provided here to be viewed as "bench marks" for the
estimation of future response costs. Users are urged to examine the specific site
conditions underlying the reported costs by consulting the case studies from which
these estimates are derived. \
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS [ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. Or PAGES
205
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
Accurate estimates of hazardous waste site remedial responses are important in
order to: (1) budget the Superfund Response Fund, (2) estimate costs at specific sites, (3)
cost-effectively select remedial actions, and (4) effectively negotiate with private
response parties for private action or cost recovery. Unfortunately, standard engineering
costing methodologies have been relatively inaccurate in estimating actual response
costs. This is primarily due to the uniqueness of the site problems and the uncertainties
in eventual effectiveness of the responses.
The purpose of this document is to record and analyze the actual expenses
incurred during remedial responses for seven major types of engineering technologies.
The costs documented here are the "bottomline" numbers showing the ultimate cost of
the responses. The data supporting this compendium is derived from a series of 31 case
studies of actual hazardous waste remedial responses. This report also investigates the
divergence between actual remedial costs and estimates from existing engineering cost
methodologies. In addition, the compendium lists the major factors that cause the costs'
movements. Because of the scope of the report coverage and the small sample size the
data provided here be viewed as "bench marks" for the estimation of future response
costs. Users are urged to examine the specific site conditions underlying the reported
costs by consulting the case studies from which these estimates are derived.
111
-------
CONTENTS
NOTICE ii
ABSTRACT . . . iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 Surface Water Controls
2.1 Surface Sealing 9
2.2 Grading 19
2.3 Drainage Ditches . 23
2.4 Revegetation 27
3.0 Groundwater and Leachate Controls
3.1 Slurry Wall 33
3.2 Grout Curtain (Aspemix) ^.. 44
3.3 Sheet Piling 52
3.4 Grout Bottom Sealing 56
3.5 Permeable Treatment Beds 59
3.6 Well Point System 64
3.7 Deep Well System 67
3.8 Extraction/Injection Well System 71
3.9 Extraction Wells/Seepage Basins 74
3.10 Subsurface Drain. 79
iv
-------
Contents (continued) Page
4.0 Aqueous and Solids Treatment
4.1 Activated Sludge .88
4.2 Anaerobic, Aerobic <5c Facultative Lagoons 93
4.3 Rotating Biological Contactors 99
4.4 Air Stripping 103
4.5 Carbon Treatment 119
4.6 Oil/Water Separator 116
5.0 Gas Migration Control
5.1 Pipe Vents 122
5.2 Trench Vents 125
5.3 Gas Barriers 129
5.4 Carbon Adsorption 133
6.0 Material Removal
6.1 Excavation/Removal, Transportation
and Disposal 139
6.2 Hydraulic Dredging 163
6.3 Mechanical Dredging 168
6.4 Drum Handling 172
7.0 Water & Sewer Line Rehabilitation
7.1 Sewer Line Replacement 178
7.2 Sewer Line Repair 181
7.3 Water Line Repair 185
7.4 Water Main Replacement 188
8.0 Alternative Water Supplies
8.1 New Water Supply Wells 191
8.2 Water Distribution System 194
9.0 REFERENCES . ............. 197
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) prepared this report under a subcontract
with SAIC of McLean, Virginia for the US EPA's Office of Research and Development,
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory and the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. This report was
prepared by Dr. Edward C. Yang, Director of ELFs Resources Program, Dirk Bauma,
Linda Schwartz and James D. Werner. Mrs. Nurhan Giampaolo of ELI and Ms. Diane
Simmons of JRB Associates provided the administrative support for the project. The
report was prepared under the direction of EPA Task Managers, Bruce Clemens (Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response, Policy Analysis Staff - - James Lounsbury,
Director) and Douglas Ammon (Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Land
Pollution Control Division - - Ronald Hill, Director).
The project team greatly appreciates the overall guidance of the JRB Task
Manager Claudia Furman and S. Robert Cochran, and the EPA Task Managers for their
assistance and support.
VI
-------
SECTION 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW
Response cost information is critical to several aspects of implementation of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), known as Superfund. These aspects include:
• Selecting cost-effective response alternatives
• Documenting reasonable costs for cost recovery
• Budgeting for fund balancing
The purpose of this Cost Compendium is to summarize existing cost information for
these uses. Actual expenditures and estimated costs are both given to assemble data
from all available sources into one data base. The immediate use of this centralized
source of cost information is to provide consistency in various site-specific costing tasks
such as: remedial alternative costing as required in the Feasibility Study Guidance
Document (FSGD), and budgeting for immediate and planned removals. This compendium
should be viewed as the first installment of an ongoing data base, which will be updated
periodically as more cost information becomes available from completed Superfund
responses. Cost data in this compendium are organized according to related
technologies, such as "Ground-Water Controls" (see Table of Contents). The costs given
are for technologies that have been most commonly used at uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites, although some rarely used technologies are given because estimates are frequently
cited. Commonly used technologies may have been excluded because of the paucity of
data. Typically, however, the number of estimates and the depth of background
information are often proportional to the frequency of use of the technology. In addition
to the organization of cost data according to technologies, several other features of this
cost compendium merits highlighting.
1-
-------
1.2 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES VERSUS ESTIMATES
Most available cost information is from engineering estimates. Few such estimates
have been field tested, however. Preliminary comparison of these estimates with actual
expenditures has shown significant differences in many cases (ELI/JRB, 1983). Since
merging these two types of data would be misleading to the reader, this compendium
separates, ex ante, engineering estimates from actually observed expenditures* Although
actual expenditure data, which has been "ground truthed", are generally more reliable
than estimated cost data, estimates are useful because they broaden the range of site
characteristics and technical circumstances for which costs are available. The factors
that were included in deriving the cost estimates may reflect a situation that more
closely parallels the intended use of the cost data than any of the situations for which
actual expenditure data are available.
1.3 FOCUS ON UNTT-OOST
Data are given in a unit-cost form, in terms of dollars per unit operation, such as
cost per square foot of slurry wall, or cost per gallon of treated water. Since the units
used are important, consideration was given to the selection to ensure that they were
useful and/or standardized throughout the industry. English measure only is used for
simplicity. These unit costs typically include all related costs such as material, labor,
and equipment and other capital costs. Operation and labor costs are given when they
are applicable and available.
1.4 INCLUSION OF SUMMARY AND RAW DATA
This compendium organizes cost data into two levels: (1) summary data, and (2) raw
data. The first level gives summary data such as range, and when possible, mean and
standard error (see Table 1). This summation of the raw data should be used only for
very general cost screening and budgeting, since the wide ranges of the data presented,
and the lack of background explanation on this level render it unsuitable for more
specific costing purposes. Such specific cost estimation should use raw data, on the
second level, which provides more detail on the data compilation. This detail can be used
for matching to the circumstances at the site for which it is to be used. The user should
compare the site circumstances to the factors given in the raw data to estimate the
effect of these factors on the estimated cost.
-------
TABLE 1
RANGE OF UNIT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Technology
Expenditures
Range of Unit Costs
2
Estimates
4.0 SURFACE CONTROLS
Surface Sealing
Grading
Drainage Ditches
Revegetation
$0.92 to $15.84/yd2
N/A
N/A
N/A
$1.32 to $16.88/ydz
$4,000 to $16,205/acre
$1.27 to $6.04/linear foot
$1,214 to $8,000/acre
5.0 GROUND-WATER AND LEACHATE CONTROLS
Slurry Wall $0.25 to $31.96/ft2
Grout Curtain $6.60 to $14.00/ft2
Sheet Piling
Bottom Sealing by Grout
Permeable Treatment Beds
Well Point System
Deep Well System
Extraction/Injection
Well System
Extraction Wells/
Seepage Basin
Subsurface Drain
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$31,269/system
$24 to $l,733/foot
$4.50 to $13.86/ft2
$5.50 to $75.52/ft2
$8.02 to $17.03/ft2
$9 to$116/ft2
$14 to $267/ft2
$803 to $8,284/weU
$4,862 to $13,513/weU
$37.50/ vertical foot
$33,618 to $53,360/system
$1.94 to $218/foot
6.0 AQUEOUS AND SOLIDS TREATMENT
Activated Sludge
Lagoons
Rotating Biological
Contactors
Air Stripping
Carbon Treatment
Oil/Water Seperator
$6.3 million/mgd
N/A
N/A
$182,540/mgd
$0.10 to $0.40/gallon
$289,200/system $12,720/mgd
$200,000 to $390,000/mgd
$80,000 to $3.4 million/mgd
$0.9 million to $29.6 million/mgd
$607,000 to $7.3 million/mgd
$14,132 to $643,000/mgd
-3-
-------
TABLE 1
RANGE OF UNIT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES (continued)
7.0 GAS MIGRATION CONTROL
Pipe Vents N/A
Trench Vents N/A
Gas Barriers N/A
Carbon Adsorption $188/filter
$445 to $l,310/vent
$ 35 to $646/linear foot
$0.39 to $3.00/ft2
$635/filter
8.0 MATERIAL REMOVAL
Excavation, Transport
and Disposal
Hydraulic Dredging
Mechanical Dredging
Drum Handling
$4.70 to $884/yd3
N/A
N/A
$60 to $l,528/drum
$379 to $434/yd3
$1.25 to $3.54/yd3
$1.37 to $4.09/yd3
N/A
9.0 WATER & SEWER LINE REHABILITATION
Sewer Line Replacement
Sewer Line Repair/
Cleaning
Water Line Repair
Water Main Replacement
N/A
$15/linear foot
N/A
N/A
$53.90 to $141.60/linear foot
$5.75 to $15.9Q/linear foot
$26 to $35.50/linear foot
$58.50 to $119.18/linear foot
10.0 ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLIES
New Water Supply Wells N/A
Water Distribution
System $1,091 to
$10,714/house
$46.25/linear foot
N/A
1
2
See individual technology sections for sources of cost data.
Tinit <-n«!t«? are exclusive of operations and maintenance costs.
£ somfc^sS? no rafgeVgiven since only a single data source was
available.
N/A = Not Available.
-------
1.5 FACTORS FOUND TO AFFECT COSTS
A fundamental concept of estimating costs of technology is that a variety of
factors influence these costs. This compendium discusses these factors for each
technology. This brief discussion of the effects of these factors reflects the descriptive
detail given for each data source in the table of raw data. The essential site
characteristics for actual expenditure data are typically described. These site
characteristics are drawn from a hypothetical site scenario that is usually established for
the purpose of making necessary assumptions for estimating costs. The level of detail
available for actual site characteristics and hypothetical site scenarios varied widely.
1.6 CONSTANT 1982 DOLLARS
Since the source data, on which this compendium is based, originated in different
years between 1975 and 1982, all costs were indexed to constant 1982 dollars using the
Engineering News Record construction cost index. This index relects the weighted cost
trend of common labor (74%), structural steel (15%), lumber (9%), and portland cement
(2%). Data from 1983 documents were not deflated to 1982 dollars for two reasons.
First, most of the costs for 1983 were actually incurred in 1982 or estimated for 1982
dollars. Second, the change in the ENR index between 1982 and 1983 is expected to be
very smalL
1.7 COST OF HEALTH AND SAFETY PROTECTION
One of the key factors affecting the costs of responses at uncontrolled sites is the
level of protection for health and safety of on-site workers. The level of hazard
determines the type of protective measures the workers must take, which ultimately
affects the cost of the response. Many of the data sources used in this compendium,
however, did not explicity note health and safety concerns. The cost data for actual
expenditures include whatever protective measures were taken at the site. Often,
however, the available information on the response action did not fully describe the
protective measures. This defect may be corrected by further research. Health and
safety assumptions for estimates are usually less clear than expenditures. In only one
case did the estimator explicitly consider the cost effect of various protective measures.
SCS Engineers recently completed a study on the cost of health and safety
protection for the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. Six cleanup firms
were asked to bid on six hypothetical uncontrolled site scenarios with five levels of
personal protection for the study (see Table 2). The key results are presented in Table 3,
-5-
-------
TABLE2
LEVELS OF PERSONAL PROTECTION
1. Level A - requires full encapsulation and protection from
any body contact or exposure to materials (i.e., toxic by
inhalation and skin absorption).
2. Level B - requires self-contained breathing apparatus
(SCBA), and cutaneous or percutaneous exposure to
unprotected areas of the body (i.e., below harmful
concentration).
3, Level C - hazardous constituents known; protection
required for low level concentrations in air; exposure of
unprotected body areas (i.e., head, face, and neck) is not
harmfuL
4. Level D - no identified hazard present, but conditions are
monitored and minimal safety equipment is available.
5. No hazard protection - standard base construction costs.
Sources "Interim Standard Operating Safety Guides,"
EPA, 1982.
-6-
-------
TABLES
AVERAGE PERCENT INCREASE FOR TOTAL COSTS AT
FOUR DEGREE-OF-HAZARD LEVELS*
Unit Operation
Surface Hater Controls:
1. Surface Sealing - Sythetlc Membrane
2. Surface Sealing - Clay
3. Surface Sealing - Asphalt
4. Surface Sealing - Fly Ash
5. Revegetatlon
6. Contour Grading
7. Surface Water Diversion Structures
8. Basins and Ponds
9. Dikes and Berms
Ground Hater Controls:
1. Hell Point System
2. Deep Hell System
3. Drain System
4. Injection System
5. Bentonlte Slurry Trench
6. Grout Curtain
7. Sheet Piling Cutoff
8. Grout Bottom Sealing
Gas Migration Controls:
1. Passive Trench Vents
2. Passive Trench Barriers
3. Active Gas Extraction Systems
Haste Controls:
1. Chemical Fixation (Solidification)
2. Chemical Injection
3. Excavation of Hastes/Contaminated Soil
4. Leachate Reclrculatlon
5. Treatment of Contaminated Water
6. Drum Processing
7. Bulk Tank Processing
8. Transformer Processing
teyeru
1141
109X
..
117X
122X
135X
125X
150X
not
«.»
128T
..
109X
..
._
—
„ •
..
1221
..
3071
„„
119%
2011
19SX
.. +
level C
1191
1191
..
.„
124X
133X
144X
138X
1731
117X
—
138X
„_
1141
„
..
--
...
—
129X
._
3371
«,«>
1211
228X
2481.
293X
Level B
1221
124X
—
--
126X
140X
1511
1451
176%
121X
..
143S
..
132S
..
--
~
„
..
--
133X
--
397%
.•
1261
264X
419%
"*
Level A
124X
1271
--
—
1281
146X
154%
1501
1861
1281
--
148%
--
1361
—
-~
*••
..
-.
0.
137X
— •
71 5X
--
1281
3171
S49X
"*
* Values given include 100 percent for base construction costs.
+ This unit operation was deemed appropriate for performance
only at Level C. Costs at Levels D, B, and A were not provided.
Sources "Worker Health and Safety Considerations: Cost of Remedial Actions at
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites", Draft Final Report, 1983.
SCS Engineers for U.S. EPA, Covington, Kentucky.
-7-
-------
and more details are given in the SCS report. Several items should be kept in mind using
Table 3: First, the results are from a final draft version of the SCS report. Additional
changes may be made to the results. Second, the validity of the results depends on how
seriously the bidders took the hypothetical scenarios and whether the bidders were
neutral in providing the estimates (i.e., free from motives that may misrepresent the
costs). And finally, the technologies in Table 3 do not always match the ones given in
this compendium.
-------
Surface-Water Controls
Surface Sealing
SECTION 2
2.0 SURFACE WATER CONTROLS
2.1 SURFACE SEALING
2.1.1 Definition
Surface sealing (capping) involves covering a site with any of a variety of
materials, including clay, asphalt, cement or a synthetnic membrane, to prevent surface
water infiltration, control erosion, and/or mitigate volatilization from contaminated
waste.
2.1.2 Units of Measurement
Cost per unit surface area is used, generally, because area best expresses the
functional attribute of a cap. Cost per square yard is used specifically because it is
readily converted to acres (X 4,840), sq.ft. ($/9) and cubic yard volume (X depth in
yards).
2.1.3 Summary Statistics
2.L3.1 Expenditures
The actual costs of surface seals ranged frorm
$0.92/yd.2 - 4" thick, loam
to
$ 15.84/yd.2 - 6" thick, clay.
The surface seals for which actual costs are given reflect site specific characteristics,
such as design parameters and availability of local material. The most costly seal
involved an engineered cap with carefully controlled clay/water content. The least
costly cap was constructed with on-site clay that required only hauling and compacting.
-9-
-------
Surface-Water Control
Surface Sealing
Operation and maintenance costs included ground-water monitoring, inspection,
surface upkeep and, possibly, costs of repair. These costs are accounted for separately
where information on them exists.
2.1.3.2 Estimates
The eight cost estimates for surface seals ranged from:
$1.32/yd.2 - geotextile, level B protection
to
$16.88/yd.2- sand/hypalonAoam.
Operation and maintenance costs involving monitoring of ground-water and inspection of
the cap were generally not included in the estimates. However, the following in costs for
O&M were included in the Radian estimate:
•
Item Cost
Annual Inspection $500/year
Mowing/Revegetation $600/year/acre
Erosion control and drainage
maintenance $2 00/year/acre
Repairs resulting from shrink
swell or freeze/thaw forces $200 costs/year
construction
•
The extremes of the range of estimated costs are represented by a very simple
temporary cap at the low end and a more complex, three element cap, intended to be
permanent, at the highest cost end.
-10-
-------
Surface-Water Control
Surface Sealing
2.1.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
2.1.4.1 Expenditures
Generally, cap and cap-related materials affected the costs of surface seals:
• Cap materials:
bentonite/clay
asphalt
concrete
synthetic membrane
loam soil
• Cap-Related materials:
top gravel
curbs
membrane soil anchor
The factors influencing the actual costs of surface seals, as outlined above and
given in Table 4, are generally divided into "Material variations" and "Dimensional
variations". They are presented here only to provide a rough background of the costs for
general comparison purposes, and not to specifically delineate the proportional effect of
particular cost components. It is not possible to determine from the data if there was a
significant general cost difference between clay and asphalt caps. Although the costs at
the California site suggest no significant cost difference, other sites had significant cost
differences. These differences, however, may have been due to anomolous availability of
local material or other factors. The number of observations were inadequate to make
any clear conclusions. Variations in the costs for related materials may have affected
the total costs of the various caps. The cost of the bentonite-soil cap at the California
site included the cost of the 6-inch (0.15 m) cover of 3/4-inch (1.9 cm) gravel to prevent
erosion of the cap. The cost of the curbs for run-off control at the California site was
not included in the total reported cap cost, but curb installation may have caused an
increase in the cost not incurred in the other sites lacking this feature. The use of a
synthetic membrane required less heavy construction equipment for deployment,
although soil anchors were used. The cap for the New Hampshire site may be considered
an element of revegetation, but it also had a role in stabilization of the soil.
-11-
-------
TABLE 4
SURFACE SEAL EXPENDITURES
(1982 Dollars)
DATA SOURCE
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1981
Maryland
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1981
California
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1980
Arkansas
MATERIAL
clay
gravel over
bentonite-soil
asphalt
clay
THICKNESS
6 inches
6 inches
4-6 inches
data not
available
1 foot
COVERAGE
data not
available
17,333 sq.yd.
15,000 sq.yd.
11 ,111 sq.yd.
UNIT COST
$15.84
$10.98
$11.18
$10.09
-------
TABLE 4
SURFACE SEAL EXPENDITURES (continued)
(1982 Dollars)
DATA SOURCE
US EPA
CH2 M Hill
1981
New York
US EPA
Weston
1981
New Hampshire
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1983
Utah
MATERIAL
synthetic membrane
loam soil for
re vegetation
clay - fabric
THICKNESS
data not
available
4 inches
2ft
COVERAGE
216,600 sq.yd.
120,520 sq.yd.
26,340 sq.yd.
UNIT COST
$3.75/sq.yd.
$0.92/sq.yd.
$15/sq/yd
I
(—
u>
-------
Surface-Water Control
Surface Sealing
Finally, dimensions cap (thickness and area covered) appeared to affect unit costs
of the cap. Increased thickness and area of the cap generally added to costs by
increasing the volume of cap material and the amount of grading required. An exact
generalized function for this relationship cannot be determined from the available data.
The unit cap cost, however, is also affected by economies of scale.
2.1.4.2 Estimates
Generally, the following factors affected the estimates:
o Component material type:
clay
soil
synthetic liner
sand
• Number of components:
single component
composite
• Dimensional variations:
thickness
area covered
Generally, estimative information (see Table 5) was less detailed than the data for
expenditures; however, salient information usually was available. Scenarios from generic
engineering-construction manuals of cost (JRB, SCS, Radian) and feasibility studies were
unable to predict unexpected changes occurring during the response.
Component material the costs were generally qualitative and quantitative. Four
types of materials were assumed in the various estimates: clay, soil, synthetic liner and
sand. The more significant consideration, however, was the number of components
assumed for the estimates. Typically, additional component costs in composites were
assumed to be additive. Again, the dimensional variations affected both the volume of
surficial material required and the economies of scale. Increased cap thickness requires
more volume per area. Caps with a larger area had the advantage of greater economies
of scale, because previously mobilized grading and compacting equipment could be used
at a relatively small additional marginal cost.
-14-
-------
TABLES
SURFACE SEAL COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
DATA SOURCE
US EPA
JRB-RAM
1980
/
US EPA
Radian
1982
US EPA
SCS
"landfill"
1980
SCS
"impoundment "
1980
MATERIAL
loara over
hypalon over
sand
loam over
hypalon over
sand
bituminous
concrete
bituminous
concrete
THICKNESS
8 inches
30 mil.
1 foot
8 inches
30 mil.
1 foot
3 inches
3 inches
COVERAGE
96,800 sq.yd.
96,800 sq.yd.
66,215 sq.yd.
5,597 sq.yd.
UNIT COST
$16.88/sq.yd.
$9.34/sq.yd.
$6.58-9.13/sq.yd
$4.67-6.90/sq.yd.
Ul
I
-------
TABLES
SURFACE SEAL COST ESTIMATES (continued)
(1982 Dollars)
• DATA SOURCE
US EPA
MERL
1979
New Jersey
US EPA
Weston
Feasibility Study
1982
New Hampshire
US EPA
CH2 M Hill
Feasibility Study
1983
New Jersey
US EPA
CH2 M Hill
1983
Arizona
MATERIAL
bituminous
concrete
PVC liner
earthfill over
geotextile
geotextile
THICKNESS
3 inches
30 rail.
8 inches
not given
not given
COVERAGE
5,597 sq.yd.
96,800 sq.yd.
42,000 sq.yd.
not given
UNIT COST
$6.49/sq.yd .
$4.50/sq.yd.
$1 .83/sq.yd.
$1.32/sq.yd.
-------
Surface-Water Control
Surface Sealing
The Radian estimates given Table 6 are based on using the following list of cost
components to construct a surficial seal, the same specifications were established in the
JRB-RAM scenario.
TABLE 6. SURFACE SEAL COSTS: MATERIAL VARIATIONS
Cost
$15/yd.3
Clay hauling, spreading, and compaction $10/yd.3
Sand hauling, spreading, and compaction
Direct Capital Cost Items;
Topsoil (sandy loam), hauling,
spreading, and grading (within 20 miles)
Portland concrete (4 - 6" layer), mixed,
spread, compacted on-site
Bituminous concrete (4 - 6" layer),
including base layer
Lime or cement, mixed into 5" cover soil
Bentonite, material only; 2" layer, spread
and compacted
Sprayed asphalt membrane (1/4" layer and
soil cover), installed
PVC membrane (20 mil), installed
Chlorinated PE membrane (20-30 mil),
installed
$18/yd.3
($9-12,000/acre)
$9-15/yd.2
$4.50- 7.25/yd.2
$2.15 - 3.00/yd.2
$1.90
$2.00 - 3.40/yd."
$1.75 - 2.70/yd.5
$3.25 - 4.30/yd.5
Elasticized polyolefin membrane, installed$3.10 - 4.15/yd.
Hypalon membrane, (30 mil), installed
Neoprene membrane, installed
Ethylene propylene rubber membrane,
installed
Butyl rubber membrane, installed
Tenon-coated fiberglass (TFE) membrane
(10 mil), installed
Fly ash and/or sludge, spreading, grading,
and rolling
$7.40/yd.2
$7.25/yd.2
$3.60 - 4.70/yd.2
$3.60 - 5.10/yd.2
$23/yd.2
$1.50 - 2.50/yd^
_1 7-
-------
Surface-Water Control
Surface Sealing
Expenditure Sources
• ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983
• State and Federal Superfund Work, 1981 - 1983
Estimate Sources
• JRB-RAM, 1980
• Radian, 1983
• EPA, OERR contractor Feasibility Studies, 1981-1983
• SCS Engineers, 1981
-18-
-------
Surface-Water Controls
Grading
2.2 GRADING
2.2.1 Definition
Grading is the general term for the process of reshaping the surface of the ground to
control surface-water runoff and infiltration, as well as to minimize erosion and prepare the
site for revegetation or sealing of the surface. The three basic steps in the process are: hauling,
spreading and compacting. The latter two steps are routinely practiced at sanitary landfills.
The equipment and methods used in grading are essentially the same for all landfill surfaces, but
applications of grading technology will vary on a site-specific basis. Grading is often performed
in conjunction with surface sealing practices and revegetation as part of an integrated plan for
the closure of a landfill.
2.2.2 Units of Measurement
The unit cost is given in dollars per acre because grading is usually performed on the scale
of acres.
2.2.3 Summary Statistics
2.2.3.1 Expenditures
No actual expenditure data were available for grading costs at this time.
2.2.3.2 Estimates
The grading cost estimates ranged from:
$4,000/acre
to
$16,205/acre
-19-
-------
Surface-Water Control
Grading
Operation and maintenance costs involving ground-water monitoring and cap inspection were
generally not included in the estimates. The following in O&M costs, however, were included in
the Radian estimate;
Item Cost
Annual Inspection $500/year
Mowing/Revegetation $600/year/acre
Erosion control and drainage
maintenance $200/year/acre
Repairs resulting from shrink/
swell or freeze/thaw forces
construction $200 costs/year
The lower grading cost estimates ($4,000 - 4,720/acre) reflected the costs of on-
site hauling, spreading and compacting of a one^foot thick soil layer and a 6 inch sand
layer. These estimates assume no material costs for sand or soil. The higher grading
estimates by SCS also exclude material costs, but include the excavation and grading
costs for on-site soil. Additional costs (30%) were included in these estimates to cover
overhead and a contingency allowance. The cost for a diversion ditch, included in the
SCS estimates, was subtracted, for consistency with the other estimates.
2,2.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
2.2.4.1 Expenditures
No expenditure data are available at this time.
2.2.4.2 Estimates
The Following salient factors affected grading costs;
Material:
Source of material
Type of material
-20-
-------
Surface-Water Controls
Grading
Related or additional costs:
Soil compaction testing
Surveying
Overhead
Contingency allowance
Two variables which affected costs of materials are detailed in Table 7. The source of
the material was either on-site or off-site, which affected the costs for hauling. The
type of fill material affected the estimate because sand costs more per unit volume to
handle than soil. However, this estimated difference excludes material costs, and only
includes hauling, spreading and compacting.
The inclusion of related or additional costs varied among the estimates, and hence
affected the costs. The SCS estimates included the following related or additional costs,
which were not included in the JRB and Radian estimates:
Related/Additional
Costs
Surveying (2 days)
Overhead allowance (25%)
Contingency allowance (15%)
Total
Landfill
(13.4 acres)
$17,499-20,402
$10,502-12,237
Impoundment
(1.16 acres)
$ 366-614
$2,655-3,469
$1.593-2,077
$28,001-32,639 $4,614-6,160
Estimates Sources
• JRB-RAM, 1980
• Radian, 1983
• SCS, 1981
•21-
-------
TABLE 7
GRADING COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
DATA SOURCE
US EPA
SCS
"Impoundment"
1980
US EPA
SCS
"Landfill"
1980
US EPA
Radian
1983
US EPA
JRB-RAM
1980
MATERIAL
on-site
soil
on-site
soil
soil
sand
"fill"
sand
COVERAGE
1.16 acres
13.4 acres
not given
1 5 acres
20 acres
ADDED FILL
1 .5 feet
1 foot
not given
1 foot
6 inches
UNIT COST
$12, 563-16, 205/acre
$7,285-8,469/acre
$4, 000 /acre
$4,720
I
ro
-------
Surface-Water Control
Drainage Ditches
2.3 DRAINAGE DITCHES
2.3.1 Definition
Drainage ditches or trenches intercept overland flow or shallow ground-water flow
to control surface discharge and/or minimize contributions to ground-water contamina-
tion. Ditches usually run around the perimeter of a site and may complement ground-
water or surface-water control techniques by collecting water from subsurface drains or
off of caps. They may be lined with a clay or synthetic membrane to prevent infiltration
or with stone to prevent erosion.
2.3.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars per linear foot (LF) because length provides a single
simple trench dimension for performing quick estimates.
2.3.3 Summary Statistics
2.3.3.1 Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.
2.3.3.1 Estimates
The cost estimates range froms
$1.27 - 2.54/LF (1-foot deep)
to
$6.04/LF (6-feet deep)
-23-
-------
Surface-Water Control
Drainge Ditches
The cost estimates seemed to be primarily influenced by the volume of soil excavated.
The Radian scenario assumed excavation of over six times as much soil as the EPA site-
specific estimates. The 1 foot deep trench was similar to a shallow french drain since it
was filled with gravel.
Operation and maintenance costs such as inspection and repair were not
consistently available. The Radian estimate, however, gave the following estimate:
Item Cost
Annual Inspection $500/year
Mowing/Revegetation $600/year/acre
Erosion control and drainage
maintenance $200/year/acre
Repairs resulting from shrink/
swell or freeze/thaw forces
construction $200 costs/year
2.3.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
2.3.4.1 Expenditures
No expenditure data were available at this time.
2.3.4.2 Estimates
The three primary components affecting the cost estimates weres
Depth
Lining
Overhead and contingency costs
The depth was perhaps the most salient factor altering cost estimates (Table 8) since it
was directly related to the volume of material excavated. Excavation is the primary
task of ditch construction, grading and berm construction, but it was proportionally
included in all estimates.
-24-.
-------
TABLES
DIVERSION DITCH COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
1
NJ
tn
DATA SOURCE
US EPA
Radian
1982
US EPA
SCS ( 1 )
"Landfill"
1980
US EPA
ORD-MERL
1979
New Jersey
LINING
none
none
gravel and
stone filled
DEPTH
6 feet
6.5 feet
1 foot
TOTAL COST
$9,060
$13,393 -
$15,741
$8,763
UNIT COST
$6.04/LF
$4.39-5.16/LF
$1.27-2.54/LF
(1 ) Includes overhead (25%) and contingency allowance (15%).
-------
Surface-Water Control
Drainage Ditches
Only the EPA-New Jersey site estimate delineated costs of the lining subtask. This cost
component could become more significant for deeper ditches.
Finally, an overhead allowance (25%) and a contingency allowance (15%) were
included for the SCS estimate. The other estimates did not include any surcharges or
allowances for health and safety considerations, so these additional costs may be
appropriate to include for some sites. The SCS estimate included "grubbing" to clear
vegetation from ditches (28,300 sq.ft.) once a year at $378-779.
Estimates Sources
• Radian, 1983
• SCS, 1981
• US EPA, OERR contractor Feasibility Studies
• 26-
-------
Surface-Water Control
Revegetation
2.4 REVEGETATION
2.4.1 Definition
Re-establishing a vegetative cover may stabilize the surface of hazardous waste
disposal sites, especially when preceded by surface sealing and grading. Revegetation
decreases wind and water erosion, and contributes to the development of a naturally
fertile and stable surface, and reduces infiltration by enhancing evapotranspiration (i.e.,
increased loss of soil moisture). It also can be used to aesthetically upgrade the
appearance of disposal sites that are being considered for re-use. Short-term vegetative
stabilization (i.e., on a semiannual or seasonal basis) also can be used during ongoing
remedial actions.
2.4.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars per acre because revegetation is usually given in terms of
acres.
2.4.3 Summary Statistics
2.4.3.1 Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.
2.4.3.2 Estimates
The revegetation cost estimates ranged froms
Capital: $l,214/acre (1.76 acre site)
to
$8,000/acre (20 acre site)
-27-
-------
Surface-Water Control
Revegetation
Operation and Maintenance:
$51/acre/year
to
$l,267/acre/year
The range of costs for revegetation reflects the differences in the amount of work
needed for different site conditions. The highest cost estimate was for a proposed
restoration of a secondary growth, temperate, deciduous forest, requiring heavy liming to
neutralize the highly acidic soil. The lowest cost was estimated for a hypothetical^
filled and graded fertile soil located on-site.
2.4.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
2.4.4.1 Expenditures
No actual expenditure data were available at this time.
2.4.4.2 Estimates
The following factors were found to affect the revegetation cost estimates;
• Soils
New fill and grading required
Terrain impediments (e.g., slope, berms)
treatment for fertility
• Vegetation:
Grass and/or trees (successional stage), multi-year planting
Mulching and/or jute mesh stabilization
The cost of soil was not included in the estimates (see Table 9). However, for the New
Jersey Feasibility Study, 65,000 cubic yards of fill from off-site was expected to be
necessary for the 72,600 square yard (15 acre) site (0.9 yards deep). Also, the SCS
"landfill" estimate includes excavation, grading and recontouring of the site (27,685
m3). This was about 60% of the total cost of revegetation, including the overhead and
-28-
-------
TABLE 9
REVEGETATION COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
Feasibility Study
1983
New Jersey
US EPA
JRB - RAM
1980
US EPA
Radian
1982
Description
grasses
trees: pine &
hardwoods
grasses, mulching
1,000 evergreens
1,000 shrubs
hydroseeding
only (lime,
fertilizer, field
seed)
Soil
acidic
fill cost
separate
neutralized
tilled
loam
not given
Size
15 acres
20 acres
(5 sloped
15 level)
not given 2
assume 17.5
acres
Capital
$8,000/acre
$6,803
$l,791/acre
Operation &
Maintenance
$l,267/acre/year (1)
$1,022
$829/acre/year
-------
TABLES
REVEGBTATION COST ESTIMATES (continued)
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
SCS
"Landfill"
US EPA
SCS
"Impoundment"
1980
Description
grading
hydroseed,
mulching
hydroseed,
mulching
Soil
fertile
soil
on-site
fertile soil
on-site
Size
13.4 acres
1.16 acres
Capital
$6,420-
$7m889 (2)
$1,214-
$l,827/acre
(2)
Operation &
Maintenance
$51/acre/year
$81-92/acre/year
(1) First 5 years; $140,000} second 5 years: $50,000
(2) Includes overhead (25%) and contingency (10%)
-------
Surface-Water Control
Revegetation
contingency. The terrain was assumed to be flat in all estimates except for the JRB
estimate, which assumed 25% sloped terrain and 75% flat terrain. The JRB estimate also
assumed a three-year planting schedule. Different estimates vary as to the type of
vegetation assumed. Hydroseeding was by far the least expensive means of revegetation
($0.37/sq. yd.) since it provides fertilizer, lime, and seed by mass application of a sprayed
liquid. Trees and shrubbery cost significantly more because of higher material and labor
costs of individual hand-planted nursery stock. This higher cost of plants will also vary
with the type of stock selected. The Radian report provided the following list of various
plant costs (in 1982 dollars), which included materials and installation:
Item Cost ($)
Topsoil, furnish and spread
4" 1.43/sq.yd.
6" 1.90/sq.yd.
Sodding, 1-1/2" thick
Level 2.86/sq.yd.
Slopes 3.74/sq.yd.
Ground Covers
Pachysandra 1.09/sq.ft.
Vinca Minor 1.11/sq.ft.
Privits, 15" tall planted in hedge row 2.34/LF
Barberry, 15" tall planted in hedge row 3.03/LF
Boxwood 16", tall planted in hedge row 2.84/LF
Trees and Shrubs
Flowering Crab 8' - 10' 222.12/ea
Hawthorn 8'-10' 170.90/ea
Junipers, spreading 18" - 24" 33.22/ea
Junipers, upright 4' - 5' 58.63/ea
Yews, spreading 18" - 24" 45.22/ea
Yews, upright 2' - 3' 54.63/ea
Rhododendron 2' 7L16/ea
Fir 8'-10' 251.16/ea
Hemlock 8' - 10' 283.16/ea
Beech 8' - 10' 222.16/ea
Pine 8' - 10' 249.16/ea
Tulip 8'-10' 244.16/ea
Maple 2" diameter 197.15/ea
Maple 3" diameter 362.24/ea
Sycamore 4' - 5' 46.22/ea
Gold Locust 69.22/ea
Source: Radian, Inc., 1982
-------
Surface-Water Control
Revegetation
Estimates Sources
• JRB- RAM, 1980
• Radian, 1983
• SCS, 1981
• US EPA, OERR contractor Feasibility Studies
-32-
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Impermeable barrier
Slurry Wall
SECTIONS
3.0 GROUND-WATER AND LEACHATE CONTROLS
3.1 SLURRY WALL
3.1.1 Definition
A slurry wall is one of several types of subsurface cut-off walls that prevent
leachate formation by redirecting upgradient ground-water away from a contaminated
area, and/or controlling horizontal leachate movement away from the site. A slurry wall
is constructed by filling a trench with a slurry such as bentonite on bentonite-soil-cement
during excavation. The backfilled trench has a much lower coefficient of permeability
than the surrounding soil and thus creates a barrier to flow of ground-water.
3.1.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars per square foot because square feet reflect the functional
area of a cut-off wall. In estimating the cost of a cut-off wall, the length and depth
(facial area) requirements are usually fixed by the extent of the waste and the depth of
the aquiclude. Linear units were not used because they would obscure the effect of
depth on slurry wall costs*
3.1.3 Summary Statistics
3.1.3.1 Expenditures
The slurry wall expenditures ranged froms
$0.25/sq.ft.
to
$31.96/sq.ft.
-33-
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Impermeable barrier
Slurry Wall
The lowest cost for a slurry wall was for a privately constructed, wall .using extensive in-
house equipment and labor. The next lowest cost wall was relatively shallow (14 feet
deep). The highest cost slurry wall was built partly in contaminated soil on a stream
bank. Each scoop of soil required analysis with an organic vapor analyzer and was
disposed at an engineered landfill. The stream bank restricted and delayed access to the
construction area. Operation and maintenance costs involved ground-water monitoring
and, possibly, costs of repair. These costs were accounted for separately where
information on them exists.
3.1.3.2 Estimates
Slurry wall cost estimates ranged from?
$4.50/sq.ft. soil-bentonite
to
$13.86/sq.ft.
The highest slurry wall cost estimate ($11.56/sq.ft.) was for a Wyoming bentonite slurry
wall. The lowest estimate was for a competitively bid soil-bentonite slurry wall, for
which another contractor was deemed more reliable. Operation and maintenance costs
such as inspection, ground-water monitoring, and repair were not included in the
estimates.
-34-
-------
Ground-Water <5c Leachate Control
Impermeable barriers
Slurry Walls
3.1.4 Factors Found to Influence Cost
3.1.4.1 Expenditures
The following factors primarily affected slurry wall expenditures:
• Depth
• Thickness
• Wall material
• Inclusion of related costs:
Staging area set-up
Contaminated trench soil disposal
Perhaps the most salient factor affecting costs (shown in Table 10) was the wall
material. Cement-soil-bentonite walls were the most expensive walls; soil-bentonite was
in the middle of the cost range, and local clay was the least expensive. Much of the local
clay used for the $1.80/sq.ft. California slurry wall was dredged from the adjacent bay.
Depth affected costs since a larger excavator (such as a CAT 215 or clamshell instead of
a backhoe) was necessary for digging deeper trenches. Once mobilized, however, larger
equipment is capable of increasing the trench depth at a reduced marginal cost. Wall
thickness was directly proportional to the volume of soil excavated and the volume of
slurry mixed into the trench. Since costs are given in terms of dollars per square foot,
the cost for this added volume is not precisely reflected in the face-area cost. However,
most of the walls had very similar thicknesses, at between 30-36 inches, with two walls
varying by two feet. The different thicknesses generally stem from different
requirements set forth in a consent decree state or federal agency mandate, and usually
account for the variable permeabilities of different slurry wall materials.
Other related costs played a significant role in at least two cut-off walls. At the
Pennsylvania site, a large volume of contaminated trench soil required disposal at an
engineered landfill. Adding to these disposal costs, was the need to test each excavator
scoop with an organic vapor analyzer, which slowed trench construction.
-35-
-------
TABLE 10
SLURRY WALL EXPENDITURES
(1982 Dollars)
DATA SOURCE
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1981
Pennsylvania
US EPA
JRB/ELI
1979
Colorado
US EPA
JRB
Florida A
(Date unknown)
US EPA
CH2 M Hill
1982
New Hampshire
LENGTH & DEPTH
648 feet
X
17 feet
1 ,500 feet
X
20 feet
2,290 feet
X
30 feet
3,500 feet
X
60 feet
THICKNESS
1 foot
30 inches
30 inches
3 feet
MATERIAL
cement-
bentonite
85% soil-
ben ton ite;
1 5 % cement
soil-
bentonite
soil-
bentonite
UNIT COST
$31.96/sq.ft.
$8.33/sq.ft.
$5.88/sq.ft.
$5.64/sq.ft.
-------
TABLE 10
SLURRY WALL EXPENDITURES (continued)
(1982 Dollars)
.DATA SOURCE
US EPA
JRB
(Date unknown)
Louisiana
US EPA
JRB
(Date unknown)
Florida B
US EPA
ELI /JRB
(1983 Dollars)
California
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1980
Arkansas
LENGTH & DEPTH
1 ,500 feet
X
20 feet
2,900 feet
X
20 feet
2,765 feet
X
14 feet
2,306 feet
X
48 feet
THICKNESS
3 feet
3 feet
5 feet
3.2 feet
MATERIAL
soil-
r
bentonite
soil-
ben ton ite
local
clay
local
clay
UNIT COST
$2.78/sq.ft.
$2.60/sq.ft.
$1 .42/sq.ft.
$0.25/sq.ft.
OJ
•»J
I
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1983
2360 ft
x
30 ft
3 ft
soil -
bentonite
$3.80/sq.ft.
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Impermeable barrier
Slurry Wall
The cost given at the Arkansas site may not reflect all slurry wall costs since significant
in-house labor and equipment were used but not recorded. Other related costs such as
site preparation and geotechnical investigations were inconsistently noted as separate or
included. Generally, these costs were excluded from the slurry wall expenditures.
>.
3.1.4.2 Estimates
The following factors affected the estimated costs for slurry walls:
• Depth
• Thickness
• Material
• Inclusion of related costs:
- Geotechnical investigation
- Overhead and contingencies
Material costs were again the most clear cost factor in the slurry wall cost estimates
(Table 11). The highest cost wall ($10/sq.ft.) was the cement-bentonite wall at the New
York site. Slurry wall depth seemed to be, at best, a secondary factor. The deepest (130
foot deep) slurry wall at the New Jersey site was the second to least costly while the
shallowest (14 foot) slurry wall was the most costly.
However, the construction of the 130 foot deep slurry wall would be greatly
facilitated by the coastal plain sediment of New Jersey for which it was proposed.
Complete hydrogeological assumptions were not given for all of the estimation scenarios,
but a 1980 paper by Ressi di Cervia (see Table 12) gave the following depth-soil condition
cost matrix. The slurry wall thicknesses varied less than did those of the wall studied for
the actual expenditures. Only one hypothetical slurry wail was over 3 feet thick.
-38-
-------
TABLE 11
SLURRY WALL COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
DATA SOURCE
US EPA
CH2 M Hill
1983
New York
US EPA
Weston
1982
New Hampanire
US EPA
Bids
1982
New Hampshire
US EPA
JRB-RAM
1980
LENGTH & DEPTH
7,900 feet
X
14 feet
3,733 feet
X
70 feet (1 )
3,500 feet
X
60 feet
1 ,000 feet
X
40 feet
THICKNESS
over 2 feet
3 feet
3 feet
3 feet
MATERIAL
concrete
soil-
ben tonite
soil-
ben ton ite
soil-
bentonite
UNIT COST
$10/sq.ft.
$8.05/sq.ft.
$7.35/sq.ft.
$7.08-13. 86/sq. ft.
OJ
VD
I
(1) Dimensions assumed for costing
(3,125 feet x 50 feet expected).
-------
TABLE 11
SLURRY WALL COST ESTIMATES (continued)
(1982 Dollars)
DATA SOURCE
US EPA
Radian
1982
US EPA
CH2 M Hill
1983
New Jersey Site A
US EPA
SCS
"Impoundment"
1980
US EPA
SCS
"landfill"
1980
LENGTH & DEPTH
100 feet
X
40 feet
114,715 sq.ft.
911 feet
X
49 feet
2,362 feet
X
49. feet
THICKNESS
4 feet
24-30 inches
•3.28 feet
3.28 feet
MATERIAL
soil-
ben ton ite
soil-
bentonite (5ty
Wyoming
bentonite-
water (1 :12)
bentonite-
water (1:12)
UNIT COST
$6.94/sq.ft.
$6/sq.ft.
$6.49-11.56/sq.ft.
$6.02-10.50/sq.ft.
o
-------
TABLE 11
SLURRY WALL COST ESTIMATES (continued)
(1982 Dollars)
DATA SOURCE
US EPA
Bids
1982
New Hampshire
US EPA
COM, Inc.
1983
New Jersey Site B
US EPA
Bids
1982
New Hampshire
LENGTH & DEPTH
3,500 feet
X
60 feet
4,257 feet
X
130 feet
3,500 feet
X
60 feet
THICKNESS
3 feet
not given
3 feet
MATERIAL
soil-
bentonite
soil-
ben ton ite
soil-
ben ton ite
UNIT COST
$5.44/sq.ft.
$4.88/sq.ft.
$4.50/sq.ft.
-------
TABLE 12
SLURRY WALL COSTS: DEPTH EFFECTS
Slurry Trench Prices
In 1982 Dollars
Soil Bentonite Backfill
(Dollars/Square Foot)
Unreinforced Slurry Wall
Prices in 1982 Dollars
Cement Bentonite Backfill
(Dollars/Square Foot)
Depth Depth Depth
30 30-75 75-120
Fee Feet Feet
Soft to
Medium Soil
N 40 3-5 5-10 10-13
Hard Soil 5-9 6-13 13-25
N40-
Oceasional
Boulders 5-10 6-10 10-32
Soft to Medium
Rock, Sandstone,
Shale 8-15 13-25 25-64
N 200
Hard Rock
Granite, Gneiss,
Schist* _____ ™
Depth
60
Feet
19-25
32-38
25-38
64-76
121-178
Depth
60-150
Feet
25-38
38-51
38-51
76-108
178-222
Depth
150
Feet
38-95
51-121
51-108
108-222
•
222-298
Notes: N = standard penetration value in number of blows of the hammer per foot of penetration
(ASTM D1586-67)
*Normal Penetration Only
For standard reinforcement add $8.00 per sq. ft.
For construction in urban environment add 25% to 50% of price
Reference: Ressi di Cervia 1980.
-42-
-------
Ground-Water <3c Leachate Controls
Impermeable barrier
Slurry Wall
Additional costs were included in at least two of the estimates. Both geotechnical
investigation (impoundment: $11,210-23,010; landfill: $4,543-7,694) costs and overhead
(25%) and contingency costs (30%) were included in the SCS estimates. Geotechnical
investigation and permeability testing costs were grouped together ($23,600-94,400) in
the JRB estimate.
Expenditure Sources
o ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983
o JRB, 1983
o State and Federal Superfund Work
Estimates Sources
o JRB-RAM, 1980
o Radian, 1983
o SCS, 1981
o US EPA, OERR, Feasibility Studies.
-43-.
-------
Ground-Water & Lacheate Controls
Impermeable barrier
Grout Curtain
3.2 GROUT CURTAINS
3.2.1 Definition
Generally, grouting is the injection under pressure of one of a variety of special
fluids into a rock or soil body to seal and strengthen that body. Once this fluid gels in
the rock or soil voids, it greatly reduces the permeability of, and increases the
mechanical strength of the grouted mass. When carried out in the proper pattern and
sequence, this process can result in a curtain or wall that can be a very effective ground-
water barrier. Grouting is rarely used when ground-water has to be controlled in soil or
loose overburden. The major use of curtain grouting is to seal voids in porous or
fractured rock where other methods of ground-water control are impractical. The
injection process itself involves drilling holes to the desired depth and injecting the grout
with the use of special equipment. A line of holes is drilled in single, double, or
sometimes triple staggered rows (depending on the site characteristics) and injecting the
fluid in either descending stages with increasing pressure, or ascending stages with
decreasing pressure. The spacing of the injection holes is also site-specific and is
determined by the penetration radius of the grout out from the holes. Ideally, the grout
injected in adjacent holes should fuse between them. If this process is done properly, a
continuous, impervious barrier (curtain) will be formed.
3.2.2 Unit of Measurement
Costs are given in terms of dollars per unit face-area (square feet) because it best
reflects the functional area of the grout curtain. The effect of other dimensions on costs
is discussed in section 3.2.4 (Factors Found to Affect Costs). Since the units used in
existing engineering estimates have varied widely, the effect of using different
dimensions is an important consideration for comparing estimates.
.44.
-------
Ground-Water
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Impermeable barrier
Grout Curtain
3.2.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
3.2.4.1 Expenditures
The following factors seemed to affect expenditures:
o Market entry losses
o Labor costs.
The cost of grout curtains seemed to be primarily affected by market conditions. The
industrial contacts who supplied the data in Table 13 noted that, compared to the costs
shown, the prices will decrease and stabilize in the future now that the firm has
penetrated the market. They also noted that the cost at the California site was
significantly affected by the relatively high local labor costs. For contrast, a privately
built grout curtain in Dallas, for which no data were available, was said to have cost less
than half the latest California wall.
3.2,4.2 Estimates
The following factors affected grout curtain cost estimates?
o Thickness
o Material composition
o Installation technique
o Inclusion of related costs:
- Geotechnical investigation
- Overhead and contingency.
The most significant cost factor affecting grout curtain cost estimates (Table 14) was
the wall thickness. This was assumed to be equal to the center-to-center distance of the
grout injections for single row walls, which is equal to the diameter for adjacent
injections. The nine foot thick wall, which was expected to be necessary to enclose an
impoundment, was the highest estimate.
=46-
-------
TABLE 13
GROUT CURTAIN EXPENDITURES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
ELI/JRB
California
1982
US EPA
ELI/JRB
California
1980
US EPA
ELI/JRB
Michigan
1980
Length x Depth
2,929 feet
X
17 feet
2,000 feet
X
17 feet
1,465 feet
X
10 feet
Thickness
0.83 feet
0.83 feet
1 foot
Material
ASPEMIX (1)
ASPEMIX (1)
ASPEMIX
Unit Cost
$14/sq.ft.
$8.26/sq.ft.
(1) Asphalt, concrete and sand emulsion installed
with vibrating beam
-------
TABLE 14
GROUT CURTAIN COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
SCS
"Impoundment"
1980
SCS
"Landfill"
1980
' US EPA
JRB/RAM
1982
US EPA
Radian
1982
Length x Depth
902 feet
X
49 feet
7,117 feet
X
49 feet
800 feet
X
20 feet
1,000 feet
X
20 feet
Thickness
9 feet
5 feet
3 feet
3 feet
Material
phenolic
resin
phenolic
resin
silicate
silicate
Portland
cement
Unit Cost
$38.94-75.52/sq.ft.
$33 - 68.44/sq.ft.
$11.54 - 17.17/sq/ft.
$21.80/sq.ft.
$ 11.80/sq.ft.
F
-------
TABLE 14
GROUT CURTAIN COST ESTIMATES (continued)
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
ORD - MERL
1979
New Jersey
US EPA
4 bids
1982
New Hampshire
Length x Depth
4 s 600 feet
X
40 feet
3,500 feet
60 feet
Thickness
3 feet
not given
(assume 1 foot)
Material
not
given
ASPEMIX
Unit Cost
$6.22 - 10.48/sq.ft.
$5.50-$6.86/sq.ft.
vo
I
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Impermeable barrier
Grout Curtain
Comparing the cost estimates based on dollar-per-linear-foot and a dollar-per-cubic-foot
basis is useful for discerning the effect of thickness on the estimates. The following list
shows that the cost ranking is aberrant compared to the depths when measured on a cost-
per-linear-foot basis.
Date Depth Unit Cost Cost Ranking ($/sq.ft.)
1982 60 feet $ 330-412/ LF 6
1980 49 feet $1,908-3700/LF 1
1980 49 feet $l,619-3353/LF 2
1979 40 feet $ 249-419/ LF 5
1982 20 feet $ 230-340/LF 4 a
1982 20 feet $ 420/LF 3
1982 20 feet $ 240/LF 4b
The costs show neither an ordinated ranking according to depth, nor do they show an
evenness (X= $1,102/LF; SE= $365/LFj n=12) that would suggest that simple length was
the most significant cost factor.
Similarly, the effect of thickness and depth on cost can be elucidated by comparing
costs on a per-volume basis. The following list shows that the cost estimates are
relatively even (X= $5.30/cu.ft.; SD= $2.90/cu.ft.; n= 12).
Date Thickness Unit Cost Cost Ranking ($/sq.ft.)
1980 9 feet $4.33-8.26/cu.ft. 3
1980 5 feet $6.61-13.69/cu.ft. 1
1982 3 feet $7.30/cu.ft. 2
1982 3 feet $3.80-5.72/cu.ft. 4 a
1982 3 feet $3.90/cu.ft. 4b
1979 3 feet $2.03-3.43/cu.ft. 5
1982 1 foot $5.50-6086/cu.ft. 6
-50-
-------
Ground-Water <5c Leachate Controls
Impermeable barrier
Grout Curtain
The data are inadequate to provide any accurate generalization about the relative
costs of various grout materials. Plans for use of phenolic resin for grout curtains, gave
rise to the two highest estimates; two plans for silicate walls were each more costly than
plans for portland cement walls, and four bids to construct an ASPEMIX wall, composed
of an emulsion of asphalt, sand and concrete to be installed with a vibrating beam, were
the least costly. Since no "control" estimate was available to contrast the cost of an
ASPEMIX wall installed with a traditional injection technique as opposed to the
prescribed installation technique, techniques and materials cannot be separately judged
as to their individual costs. However, the vibrating beam method may be generally less
expensive than the traditional injection technique.
Finally, the cost of a geotechnical investigation was included only in the JRB and
the SCS estimates. The SCS estimate also included overhead (25%) and contingency
allowance (30%).
Expenditure Sources
•• ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983
Estimates Sources
• JRB-RAM, 1980
• Radian, 1983
• US EPA, OERR contractor bids
• SCS, 1980
-51-
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Impermeable barrier
Sheet Piling
3.3 SHEET PILING
3.3.1 Definition
Sheet piling can be used to form a continuous ground-water barrier of driven steel
piles. Although sheet piles can also be made of wood or precast concrete, steel is the
most effective in terms of cutting off ground-water and ease of installation. The
construction of a steel sheet piling cut-off wall involves driving interlocking piles into
the ground using a pneumatic or steam-driven pile driver. In some cases, the piles are
pushed into pre-dug trenches. Piles are commonly 4 to 40 feet long and 15 to 20 inches
wide. Because of corrosion and leaky joints usually present between piles, this method is
often considered a temporary stop-gap measure.
3.3.2 Unit of Measurement
«
Costs are given in terms of dollars per square foot because area best reflects the
functional units of a cut-off wall.
3.3.3 Summary Statistics
3.3.3d Expenditures
No actual expenditure data for sheet piling cut-off walls were available at this
time.
3.3.3.2 Estimates
The cost estimates for sheet piling cut-off walls ranged froms
$8.02/sq.ft.
to
$17.03/sq.ft.
-52-
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Control
Impermeable barrier
Sheet Piling
The largest site, which was constructed with 116,228 sq.ft. of sheet piling, produced the
lowest estimate for a sheet piling cut-off wall. Costs-per-square-foot of the large wall
was effectively reduced because the cost of mobilization of equipment (a fixed cost)
could be spread over a larger surface area.
3.3.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
3.3.4.1 Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.
3.3.4.2 Estimates
The following components affected the cost estimates for sheet piling cut-off
walls:
• Economies of scale
• Piling type
• Inclusion of related costs:
Geotechnical investigation
Overhead and contingency allowances
As noted above in Comments on the summary statistics, the limited data in Table 15
suggest that economies of scale may be the most significant factor affecting costs.
Experienced personnel using specialized equipment (e.g., pile drivers) may be able to
install sheet piling at decreasing cost-per-unit area as the total area of installed wall
increases. This is due to the high cost of mobilization and erection of sheet piling as
compared to other remedial technologies.
-53-
-------
Ground-Water <5c Leachate Controls
Impermeable barrier
Sheet Piling
Among the estimate scenarios, the piling types varied both in composition and in
thickness. Galvanized steel ($10.48/sq.ft. installed) which provides somewhat greater
corrosion resistance, was slightly more expensive than black steel ($9.41/sq.ft.
installed). The paucity of data on piling thicknesses precludes accurate quantification of
their relationships to costs. However, this variable may often be dictated by the
availability of local material and geological constraints. Piles are typically withdrawn
and reused, and the thickness of the piles may affect the reusability. Hence the rebate
value of piles is affected, since a pile which is too thin may buckle upon insertion. The
effect of thickness and reusability on the cost may be significant since materials may be
80% of the total cost of a sheet piling cut-off wall. The cost estimates given Table 14 do
not include cost credits for reuse of the piles, but do include varying pile types, as
indicated. The cost of a geotechnical investigation as noted in Table 15 ($11,210-23,010)
was included only in the SCS "impoundment" estimate. Additional costs for overhead
(25%) and contingency allowances (25%) were included in this estimate and the SCS
"landfill" estimate.
Estimates Sources
• JRB-RAM, 1980
• Radian, 1983
• SCS, 1980
-54-
-------
TABLE 15
SHEET PILING COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
JRB - RAM
1980
US EPA
Radian
1982
US EPA
SCS (1, 2)
" Impoundment"
1980
US EPA
SCS (2)
"Landfill"
1980
Lenth x depth
1,000 feet
X
20 feet
1,000 feet
X
20 feet
2,372 feet
X
49 feet
2,373 feet
X
49 feet
Weight
186 tons
Not given
487 tons
1,281 tons
Piling
5 guage
black steel
galvanized
5 guage
PMP-22
Unit Cost
$17.03/sq.ft.
$9.41/gq.ft.
$10. 48/ sq.ft;
$8.42-12. 63/sq. ft.
$8.02-11.80/sq.ft.
(1) Includes geotechnical investigation
($11210 - 23,010)
(2) Includes overhead (25%) and contingency
(25%) allowances
-------
Ground-Water «5c Leachate Controls
Impermeable barriers
Grout bottom sealing
3.4 BOTTOM SEALING BY GROUTING
3.4.1 Definition
Bottom sealing by grouting is a direct technique for installing a barrier to
downward leachate migration. Grout is injected through the fill material to form a
bottom underneath the contaminants. The grout is injected horizontally from jets at the
bottom of a pipe, which is inserted with a pneumatic hammer. A grid of injected grout
forms a contiguous bottom seaL Grout materials are typically silicate or portland
cement.
3.4.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in terms of dollars per square foot because area best reflects the
functional characteristics of bottom sealing.
3.4.3 Summary Statistics
3.4.3.1 Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.
3.4.3.2 Estimates
The grout bottom sealing costs ranged from:
$9/sq.ft.
to
$116/sq.ft.
This wide range of estimates seems to reflect the varying thicknesses given for
hypothetical seals. The higher estimate was for a 5.25-foot thick seal vs. a 3.25-foot
thick seal for the lower estimate.
•56-
-------
3.4.4
Ground-Water <5c Leachate Controls
Impermeable barriers
Grout bottom sealing
Factors Found to Affect Costs
3.4.4.1 Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.
3.4.4.2
Estimates
In the designs used for the grouting estimates, the following components varied:
• Grout thickness
• Grout material
• Coverage
• SoH, fill type
Of these components, the thickness of grout appeared to be on direct proportion to the
variation in the cost of the two grouting seals shown in Table 16. The "landfill" seal was
2 feet (61%) thicker than the "impoundment" grout. Thickness appears to affect the
estimates more than does the type of grouting material. Material costs for phenolic
resin are significantly higher than for portland cement grout, but overall, a thicker
cement grout is required for a wall of equivalent permeability.
Economies of scale may have caused the "landfill" grouting to be less expensive on
a cost per-unit-area basis than the impoundment grouting since the landfill scenario
assumed ten times as much coverage. Despite this disparity in task size, the
geotechnical investigation (impoundment: $11,210-23,010; landfill: $15,104-25,559) and
equipment cost were relatively similar.
Overhead (25%) and contingency allowances (40%) were the same for both seals.
The effect of injection through heterogeneous, resistant fill and soil probably is a
significant cost factor in the "landfill" estimates, although it is impossible to quantify
from the available information.
Estimates Source
SCS 1980
-57-
-------
TABLE 16
GROUT BOTTOM SEALING ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
SCS
"landfill"
1980
US EPA
SCS
"Impoundment"
1980
Grout Material
Thickness
cement
5.25 feet
phenolic resin
3.28 feet
Depth
49 feet
49 feet
Coverage
559,704 sqft
5,038 sqft
Unit Cost
$60 - $116/sq.ft.
$9 - $18/sq.ft.
I
Ul
00
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Permeable Treatment Bed
3.5 PERMEABLE TREATMENT BED
3.5.1
Definition
A permeable treatment bed is subsurface bed or wall of a permeable filtering
material, typically constructed as a trench back-filled with activated carbon or
limestone, which is designed to decontaminate shallow ground-water as it flows through
the bed. It is most unusual to "precipitate metalic ions!" This may be the latest on
potential energy storage systems, since ions are, by definition, charged particles (this
renders them soluableX
The principal constituent of Calcium carbonate, chemically acts to neutralize
acidic ground-water. Metal ions, once quite soluable in the more acidic ground-water,
form insoluable metal liquids or precipitates as the ground-water becomes more
alkaline. Alternatively, metals and organics are both removed by physical and chemical
forces through the use of activated carbon, which, through its high surface area to
volume ratio and large number of available surface sites, absorbs dissolved molecules
directly from the ground-water. The six primary component tasks of treatment beds
(generally included in the costs) are:
• Trench excavation
• Spreading
• Well-point dewatering
• Sheet piling
• Walers, connectors, struts
• Bedding (limestone or carbon).
Permeable treatment beds represent a developmental remedial technology, the costs of
which are not well documented to date.
-59-
-------
Ground-Water <3c Leachate Controls
Permeable Treatment Bed
3.5.2 Units of Measurement
Costs of permeable treatment beds are given in terms of dollars per square foot because it bes
expresses the functional value of the treatment bed. The width and depth of the leachate plume fo:
which a bed is to be estimated are usually known.
3.5.3 Summary Statistics
3.5.3.1 Expenditures
No actual expenditure data for permeable treatment was available at this time.
3.5.3.2 Estimates
The cost estimate for permeable treatment beds ranged from:
$14/sq.ft. limestone bedding
to
$267/sq.ft. activated carbon bedding
-60-
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Permeable Treatment Bed
The least costly permeable treatment bed was for a limestone bed; whereas the
high estimate was for a bed of granular activated carbon. Operation and maintenance
costs, when given, consisted of the following two cost items which depend on site
specific variables:
Operation and maintenance
Cost Items
(1) Ground-water monitoring cost
(2) Replacement cost
Site-specific
Variables
contaminants
hydrogeologoy
operational lifetime of
treatment bed
3.5.4
Factors Found to Affect Costs
3.5.4.1 Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.
3.5.4.2 Estimates
The following factors were found to affect the treatment bed estimates:
• Bedding Material
• Size
The estimates made by JRB and Radian shown in Table 17 are very similar except that
17% was added to most of the Radian costs for inflation. However, the same unit cost
for limestone and carbon was assumed. The bedding cost was the most significant (90%)
no-cost out of the total for the carbon treatment bed. The most significant cost (75%)
for the limestone treatment bed was the cost of sheet piling. Conversely, the bedding
cost was 7% of the total for the limestone bed; whereas for the carbon bed, the sheet
piling was 8% of the total cost.
-61-
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Permeable Treatment Bed
Although all estimates of cost are for treatment beds of the same size, the
influence of size on unit costs should be noted briefly: First, increases in the dimensions
of the bed generally will proportionately increase total costs of the treatment bed. The
effect is more pronounced with simultaneous increases in width and depth, in proportion
to the incremental change of width mutiplied by the incremental change in depth. The
cost of a larger carbon trench could be significantly different than any of the estimates
given in Table 17 due to the high cost of activated carbon. Second, economies of scale
could reduce the unit costs of limestone treatment beds over that given in the estimate,
since reusable sheet piling, which has significant one-time set up and mobilization costs,
is the major (75%) component cost. Also, the marginal unit cost of dewatering decreases
as trench size increases.
Estimates Sources
• JRB-RAM, 1980
• Radian, 1983
-62-
-------
TABLE 17
PERMEABLE TREATMENT BED COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
JRB - RAM
1980
US EPA
Radian
1983
US EPA
JRB-RAM
1980
US EPA
Radian
1980
Area
1,000 feet
X
20 feet
1,000 feet
X
20 feet
1,000 feet
X
20 feet
1,000 feet
X
20 feet
Width
4 feet
4 feet
4 feet.
4 feet
Bed Material
activated carbon
bed
coarse size
activated
carbon
"gravel and sand
sized" limestone
"gravel and
sand sized"
limestone
Unit Cost
$267/sq^.ft
\.
$201/sq;ft.
$29/sq.ft.
$14-14.67/
sq/ft.
u>
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Well point system
3.6 WELL POINT SYSTEM
3.6.1 Definition
Well points are generally used to lower the water table or extract leachate. They
differ from drilled and cased deep wells in that they are driven, instead of drilled, into
the ground to just below the leachate plume. Ground-water is then piped to a suction
header, drawn by a centrifugal pump, to a treatment system. In contrast, deep wells
typically use submersible pumps to pump ground-water to a treatment system.
Treatment costs for costing purposes, are considered separately.
3.6.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in terms of dollars per well. The extraction rate (gallons per
minute-gpm) and depth should also be considered. Since these characteristics vary with
site- specific hydrology, however, costs given below do not account for pumping rate.
3.6.3 Summary Statistics
3.6.3.1 Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.
3.6.3.2 Estimates
The cost estimates ranged from
$803/well
to
$8,284/weU
The highest cost estimate (SCS-"impoundment") included the cost of geotechnical
investigation, which comprised 50% of the costs. No related costs were included in the
lowest estimate (Radian).
-64-
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Well point system
3.6.4
Factors Found to Affect Costs
3.6.4.1 Expenditures
No expenditure information are available at this time.
3.6.4.2 Estimates
The foUowing factors affected the cost estimates for the well point systems:
• Depth
• Pumping rate
• Related costs:
Geotechnical investigation
Overhead allowances
Contingency allowances
The costs shown in Table 18 are relatively similar. The effect of depth, which was
expected to be an important cost factor, did not significantly affect the estimates.
Although installation of well point is often charged by the depth, well installation was a
relatively small component of cost compared to pumps and headers. Hence, depth
affected cost estimates in proportion to the impact of well point installation on total
costs, which was a small fraction of the total. The pumping rate, which varied with the
size of the pumps and the header system, should affect both capital, operation and
maintenance costs. However, no relationship could be identified in the data.
The most significant cost factors that could be identified were the related costs.
Over half of the SCS "Impoundment" estimate was for a geotechnical investigation, that
was not included in either of the other estimates. The SCS "Impoundment" and "Landfill"
estimates included overhead (25%) and contingency (25%) allowances.
Estimates Sources
Radian, 1983
SCS, 1980
-65-
-------
TABLE 18
WELL POINT SYSTEM COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
SCS
1980
"Impoundment"
US EPA
SCS
1980
"Landfill"
US EPA
Radian
1983
-
# Wells; Depth; Diameter
5 wells
16 feet deep
__
133 wells
16 feet deep
— —
50 wells
25 feet
4 inches
Pumping rate
Aquifer depth
—
• — •
291-396 gpm
— ,
500 gpm
10 feet
Operation &
Maintenance
$9,160-
$9,970/year
10,000 kwh
$10,460-
$ll,270/year
36,000 kwh
$70.88/Mgd
Capital Unit Cost
$4,413-$8,284/well
(1)
g
$1,109-$!, 855/well
(2)
$803/well
vt
(1) Includes geotechnical investigation cost (55%)
(2) Includes geotechnical investigation cost (3%)
-------
Permeable treatment beds
Deep well system
3.7 DEEP WELL SYSTEM
3.7.1 Definition
Deep wells, aside from going deeper, are typically drilled and cased, in contrast to
shallower, driven well points. The deep well systems considered in this section are
designated to dewater soil at greater depths, to extract leachate or to intercept flow of
ground-water upgradient of a site.
3.7.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in terms of dollars per well. Cost per well per foot may also be
useful but available cost estimates assume the similar depths.
3.7.3. Summary Data
3.7.3.1 Expenditures
No expenditure data was available at this time.
3.7.3.2 Estimates
Cost estimate ranged from
$4; 862/well
to (both wells were at 46 feet deep)
$13,513/weU
It should be noted (see Table 20) that 62% of the low estimate and 85% of the high
estimate were for (1) a geotechnical investigation, (2) an overhead allowance (25%); and
(3) a contingency allowance (30%). On the above range of cost, a cost-per-foot-per-well
basis would be $106-295/foot/welL
-67-
-------
Permeable treatment beds
Deep well system
3.7.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
3.7.4.1 Expenditures
No expenditure data are available at this time.
3.7.4.2 Estimates
The following factor affected the cost estimates:
• WeU depth
• Well diameter
• Pumping capacity
• Related costs:
geotechnical investigation
overhead allowance
contingency allowance
Variations in depth of well are not quantified in the data, but costs of drilling wells
typically vary with depth. Variations in diameters of wells are also not given in the data,
and therefore are not quantifiable, but costs for wells of larger diameter are generally
proportionally higher because of increases in costs of labor, equipment and material. The
effects of pumping capacity on capital expenditures are difficult to quantify because of
the importance of site-specific hydrogeology to well yield (e.g., increasing the pump size,
and hence cost, may have no effect on well yield if the well does not recharge quickly
enough to justify the larger pump). Any consideration of cost functions for'pumping
capacity must regard hydrogeology, pump capacity and well design. Costs of electricity
for pumping comprised about 5-10% of the costs of operation and maintenance. Hence,
this component of cost, which varies directly with pumping capacity has a relatively
small effect on total O&M costs compared to the other cost items of operation and
maintenance such as sampling and analysis.
-68-
-------
Permeable treatment beds
Deep well system
Related costs had the greatest discernible effect on cost estimates since they comprise
the majority of both estimates. Table 19 shows the proportion of total capital cost
involved in these related components for estimates given in Table 20.
TABLE 19
COMPONENT COSTS OF DEEP WELL ESTIMATES
Estimate Geotechnical Overhead Contingency
source Investigation Allowance Allowance Total
SCS 30% 25% 30% 85%
"Impoundment"
SCS 7% 25% 30% 62%
"Landfill"
The reason for the significantly higher proportional and absolute cost estimate for the
smaller impoundment (1.16 acres, 5 wells) compared to the landfill (13.4 acres, 13 wells)
is unclear.
Estimated Sources
• SCS 1980
-69-
-------
TABLE 20
DEEP WELL COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
SCS
"Impoundment"
1980
US EPA
SCS
"Landfill"
1980
Depth, diameter, // wells
46 feet deep
6 inches pvc
5 wells
46 feet deep
6 inches pvc
13 wells
Pumping
submersible
pumps 574 foot
header to 3 'deep
discharge trench
submersible
pumps. 1 hp,
984 foot header
to gravel
filled discharge
trench
Ooeration &
Maintenance
$9,110-9,9207
year
$9,830-
$10,640/year
Capital Cost
$7,443 - $13,513/well
(1)
$4,862 - $7,976/well
(2)
(1) Includes geotechnical investigation (30%)
overhead (25%) and contingency (30%) allowance.
(2) Includes geotechnical investigation
(7%), overhead (25%) and contingency
(30%) allowance.
-------
Ground-Water «5c Leachate Controls
Extraction/Injection Well System
3.8 EXTRACTION/INJECTION WELL SYSTEM
3.8.1 Definition
Extraction/injection wells are usually well points, which are driven into the
ground, or they are occasionally deep wells, which are drilled and cased. A series of
extraction and injection wells (well points or cased, drilled wells) is given as the basis of
design from which to compare costs. Costs for water treatment are not included. The
system used as a basis of design is sometimes referred to as a leachate recirculation or
plume containment system. In addition to decontamination of ground-water, this system
may be used to control migration of leachate.
3.8.2 Units of Measurement
Total capital costs are given instead of unit costs for two reasons. First, unlike
most other remedial technologies, extraction/injection systems are composed of several
components that are not readily interchanged since they act as a unit. Extraction,
injection and monitoring wells all comprise roughly equal parts of the system. Capacity
in terms of gallons-per-minute was not used because of its dependence on hydrogeology,
and this information was not usually available.
3.8.3 Summary Data
3.8.3.1 Expenditure
No expenditure data was available at this time.
3.8.3.2 Estimates
A range of estimates cannot be given since the units of the two estimates were
not comparable (see Table 21).
-71-
-------
TABLE 21
EXTRACTION/INJECTION WELL COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
JRB - RAM
1980
US EPA
Radian
1983
Extraction
7, six inch
well, 35 feet
deep
pvc casing
10, six inch
wells (1)
average depth
50 feet
Injection
7, six inch
wells (+ four
back up wells
pvc casing
six inch wells
Pumping
4 inch
submersible
pumps
8 inch transfer
pipe, 1,000 feet
submersible
pumps
50 gpm per well
Operation &
Maintenance
Not given
$70.88/Mgd
electricity
and
monitoring
Total Capital
$321,432
Not given (2)
C;$37.50/vertical
foot")
•
(1) Based on "50 gpm per well,
500 gpm/site".
(2) Assuming 20 wells, 50 feet deep, total
capital cost = $37,500
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Extraction/Injection Well System
3.8.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
3.8.4.1 Expenditure
No expenditure information is available at this time.
3.8.4.2 Estimates
The following factors contributed to the cost estimates of the extraction/injection
well systems:
• number of wells
• depth of wells
• diameter of wells
• casing
• submersible pump capacity
• transfer pipe length and diameter
The paucity of data precludes quantification of the effects of these factors.
Estimate Sources
• U.S. EPA, JRB-RAM, 1980
• U.S. EPA, Radian, 1983
-73-
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Extraction Wells/Seepage Basins
3.9 EXTRACTION WELI.S/SEEPAGE BASINS
3.9.1 Definition
A series of extraction wells is used to collect ground-water, and a seepage
basin/trench or recharge basin is used to recharge the ground-water. This system, as
with the extraction/injection well system above, may have a treatment system placed in-
line, or it may be used simply to control flow of leachate. Costs of treatment are not
considered in this section. Seepage basins are often used in permeable soil, such as the
glacial till, where injection wells are not needed for infiltration.
3.9.2 Units of Measurement
Total capital cost is given instead of unit costs because, unlike most other
remedial technologies, extraction well/seepage basins are composed of several
components that are not readily interchanged since they act as a unit. Extraction and
monitoring wells, trench/basin size and pumping/transfer equipment all comprise roughly
equal parts of the system. Capacity in terms of gallons-per-minute was not used because
of its dependence on hydrogeology.
3.9.3 Summary Data
3.9.3 Expenditures
The one expenditure found wass
Total capital $31,269 (9.5 gpm total extraction,
two 100-foot long seepage trenches)
Operation and maintenance $27,500/year
The expenditure was for two extraction trench wells (one 80 x 10 x 4 feet, another 4x10
x 16 feet) and two recharge trenches (100 x 4 x 10 feet).
-74-
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Extraction Wells/Seepage Basins
3.9.3.2 Estimates
The range given in the one available source of estimate was:
Total capital: $33,618 - 53,360
Operation and Maintenance: $10,856 - 11,812/year
This is actually from a single source that predicts a range of costs in the U.S.
3.9.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
3.9.4.1 Expenditures
The following factors affected expenditures:
• Number of wells
• Size of wells
• Depth of wells
• Pumping capacity
• Seepage basin design
Because of inadequate data and the lack of a similiar site, comparison of these factors is
not possible (see Table 22). However, it should be noted that many of the factors
affecting expenditures are similar to those affecting the subsurface drain, especially the
design of the extraction well trench using stone of decreasing size toward the inside of
the trench. This increased capital expenditures, but probably decreased costs of
operation and maintenance.
3.9.4.2 Estimates
The following factors affected cost estimates:
• Overhead allowance
• Contingency allowance
• Well size and number
• Pumping capacity
-75-
-------
TABLE 22
EXTRACTION WELLS/SEEPAGE BASIN EXPENDITURES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1982
New Jersey
Extraction, .
(trench-well)
A. 80x4x10 feet-
12 inches (1)
8.16x4x10 feet-
8 inches pvc
TOTAL: 143 cuyd
Seepage basin
two trenches :
100x4x10 feet
(2)
TOTAL: 296 cuyd
Pumping
9.5 gpm
submersible
pump
Operation &
Maintenance
$27,500 (3)
Total Capital
$ 31,269
($71/cuyd)
(1) Dual media, stone/pebble, filter.
Well slotted 2.5 feet.
(2) Plywood shoring construction
(3) Conservatively assumed
to be 1/3 of water
biotreatment operation
& maintenance
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Extraction Wells/Seepage Basins
The overhead and contingency allowance comprised 25% and 20%, respectively, of the
total estimated capital cost. Size and number of wells would be expected to be
proportional to the cost, but quantification is not possible without other estimates for
comparison (see Table 23). Pumping capacity would also be expected to be proportional
to cost, but hydrogeological factors affect this on a site-specific basis.
Expenditure Sources
• ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983
Estimates Sources
• SCS, 1980
-77-
-------
TABLE 23
EXTRACTION WELLS/SEEPAGE BASIN COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
SCS - "Leachate
Rec ir culat ion—
Landfill"
1980
Extraction
six deep wells
46 feet deep
(drilled, cased)
Injection
2,067 x 2x3
feet
6 inch cement
pipe, perforated
3/4 inch gravel
Pumping
six
submersible
pumps
Operation &
Maintenance
$9,200-
10,010/year
$10,856-
$ll,812/year
•
Total Capital
$33,618-553,360 (1)
I
-J
00
(1) Includes 25% overhead and 20%
contingency allowance
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Subsurface Drain
3.10 SUBSURFACE DRAIN
3.10.1 Definition
A subsurface drain is basically an underground, gravel-filled trench designed to
intercept and transport leachate or infiltrating water away from the waste site. Often,
perforated pipe or tile is laid along the trench bottom, draining to a collection sump or
tank. The sides and bottom of the trench may be lined with plastic or clay before the
trench is backfilled with gravel.
3.10.2 Units of Measurement
The unit costs for subsurface drains are given in dollars-per-unit-length for three
ranges of trench depth because facilitates quick cost estimates from a single trench
dimension. Depth of trench was found to be the greatest single factor affecting costs.
The ranges in depth given in the Summary section 3.10.3.1 were determined by the
aggregation found for the costs of the different trenches. Variations may have been
caused by technical factors discussed in section 3.10.4, such as type of excavator used
and sheet piling required.
3.10.3 Summary Statistics
3.10.3.1 Expenditures
The expenditures for subsurface drains in three groups of depth ranges weres
Cost per Unit Length
$24/LF
X = $370/LF (SE=$208/LF, n=4)
$1,733/LF
-79-
-------
Ground-Water & Leachate Controls
Subsurface Drain
The 2 subsurface drains at the high end of the range involved significant marginal costs
for false-starts, delays, and overdesigning. The lowest cost drain was shallow enough
that it did not require sheet piling or wooden shoring during construction. Costs of
operation and maintenance involve sampling and replacement costs. Drains typically
remain unclogged for 10-20 years, but site conditions and design of drains affects this
operational period. Costs of operation and maintenance accounted for separately, where
they were encountered.
3.10.3.2 Estimates
Estimates of cost for subsurface drains ranged from:
Capital:
$1.94/LF
to
$218/LF
Operation and maintenance:
$10,337/year
to
$ll,293/year
The range of estimates spanning two orders of magnitude resulted from ancillary costs
and variations of depth. The plan for the most costly drain included the cost for a
geotechnical investigation, which accounted for 50% of the estimated cost. The least
costly hypothetical drain was installed 1-2 feet deep. Costs of operation and
maintenance were frequently noted but not consistently quantified.
-80-
-------
Ground-Water <5c Leachate Controls
Subsurface Drain
3.10.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
3.10.4.1 Expenditures
The following factors were found to affect the costs of subsurface drains shown in
Table 24.
1. contaminated soil removal
2. trench length and depth
3. plumbing complexity
4. gravel installation
5. storage tank or sump size
Contaminated soil, which may require secure disposal, may be encountered while
constructing the trench or the sump. Excavation of contaminated soil, which resulted in
additional costs for disposal, occurred when trenches were constructed within a
contaminated area, rather than at the site perimeter. This additional cost was incurred
at the ELI/JRB Wisconsin site #1 where hexavalent chromium-contaminated soil was
disposed of from the hole excavated for a sump. The PCB-contaminated soil at the
ELI/JRB California site #1, however, was returned to the cap because the system was
considered an "Immediate Remedial Measure", not a long term remedy. This provision
eliminated the cost of off-site disposal of the PCB-contaminated soil.
The importance of the trench length and depth is discussed above in connection
with unit costs. The size of trench depended on factors such as type of waste,
permeability of soil, climate and purpose of the system. A relatively large, three-armed
drainage system was used at the most costly site, ELI/JRB California site #1, because of
the compact soil and the strong adhesion of the PCBs to the soil, and because of the
seasonally heavy rains in the Mediterranean climate. The length of the drain at the
ELI/JRB Michigan site reflected its purpose of relieving hydraulic pressure on the asphalt
emulsion cut-off wall. The purpose of the relatively small drain at trench A of the
ELI/JRB New Jersey site, was to collect contaminated water by creating a cone of
depression of the water table. The size of the drains affected costs of construction by
dictating different installation methods between the deepest and the shallowest drains.
Steel sheet piling was driven into place to support the 30 foot (10m) deep trenches
-81-
-------
TABLE 24
SUBSURFACE DRAIN EXPENDITURES
(1982 Dollars
Data Source
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1981
Wisconsin #2
US EPA
ELI/3RB
1982
Wisconsin #1
Length x trench
(filter) depth
240 feet
X
12 ( ) feet
750 feet
X
3 ( 1/3) feet
Width
4 feet
2 feet
Sump depth, etc.
15 feet
2 sumps :
4 feet
6 feet
Operation and
maintenance
$648/year
(a)
72,000 gal.
not given
Unit cost-capital
$36/LF
$24/LF
00'
N5
I
-------
Ground-Water
-------
Ground-Water <5c Leachate Controls
Subsurface Drain
were generally proportional to the size of the collection trench. The storage systems
differed in types as well as size. Large prefabricated concrete sumps were used at the
end of some drains, whereas steel tanks or pipes were used at others.
3.10.4.2 Estimates
The following factors affected the estimates of subsurface drain cost shown in Table 25.
• trench (filter) depth and length
• storage tank or sump size and type
• related costs
Trench and filter depth and length affected drain estimates in a manner similar to that
described in the expenditure section above. However, technical details (such as the
gravel size, thickness, and permeability of the filter and backfill) were often not
available for consideration.
The SCS estimates were significantly affected by the inclusion of related costs such as:
geotechnical investigation
overhead allowance
contingency allowance
The cost of the geotechnical investigation was included only in the estimate for
"Impoundment" drain. This element comprised 50% of the total cost of the drain.
Overhead (25%) and contingency (25%) allowances were added to both the "Impoundment"
and "Landfill" estimates. The variations in the estimated costs of subsurface drains from
JRB and SCS were caused by a combination of two factors. First, the JRB estimates
used unit costs at the high end of the range used by SCS. Second, the JRB estimates
included three components not included in the SCS estimates. However, since these
items were responsible for only $24.70 of the $694/LF difference (11%) in total unit cost
between JRB and SCS, their influence was relatively insignificant. The influence of
component unit costs that were included was therefore more, significant r than the
influence of component costs that were not included in the JRB estimates.
-84-
-------
TABLE 25
SUBSURFACE DRAIN COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
SCS
"Impoundment"
1980
US EPA
SCS
"Landfill"
1980
US EPA
Radian
1982
US EPA
JRB-RAM
1980
Length x trench
(filter) depth -
197 feet
X
16(4) feet (1)
835 feet
X
20(13) feet (1)
1,000 feet
X
20(10) feet (1)
3,300 feet (3)
X
20(2) feet (1) .
Width
3.3 feet
3.3 feet
4 feet
4 feet
Sump depth, etc.
sump depth not
given
cement pipe in
drain
depth not given
4 inch cement
pipe in drain
sump depth not
given
perforated pvc
in drain
4 manholes;
2 wet wells;
15 lateral
drains (20' each)
Operation and
maintenance
$10,337-
$ll,293/year
50 gpm .
$10,337-
$ll,293/year
50 gpm.
$70. 88/
Mgd
50 gpm
not given
2 x 25 gpm
Unit Cost
$113 - 218/LF (2)
$26 - 38/LF
$28/LF
$15/LF
I
'00
Ol !
I
(1) Trench (filter) depth shows excavated
volume vs of gravel installed.,;
respectively
(2) Includes peotechnical
investigation (50%)
(3) Includes laterals
-------
TABLE 25
SUBSURFACE DRAIN COST ESTIMATES (continued)
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
CH2 M Hill
Feasibility Study
1983
US EPA
Feasibility Study
1981
New Jersey
US EPA/NYS DEC
CH2 M Hill
Bids 1982
New York
Length x trench
(filter) depth
3,250 feet
X
15 (?) feet
2,495 feet
X
1-2 (?) feet
3,250 feet
X
15(?) feet
Width
not
given
not
given
not
given
Sump depth, etc.
not
given
4" slotted
not
given
Dperation and
maintenance
not
available
not
available
not
available
Unit Cost
$5.50/LF
$1.94/LF
$12/LF
$11.70/LF
$ 7/LF
$ 5/LF
$ 4/LF
-------
Aqueous & Solids Treatment
Activated Sludge
Expenditure Sources
• ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983
Estimated Sources
• JRB-RAM, 1980
• Radian, 1983
• US EPA OERR contractor bids
• SCS 1980
-87-
-------
Aqueous & Solids Treatment
Activated Sludge
4.0 AQUEOUS AND SOLIDS TREATMENT
4.1 ACTIVATED SLUDGE
4.1.1 Definition
This treatment technology involves introducing organic-laden wastewater into a
reactor where an aerobic bacterial culture is maintained in suspension (mixed liquor).
The bacteria respire a moeity of the organic materials to form carbon dioxide, water,
and metabolic byproducts and assimilate another fraction to form more cells. Oxygen is
supplied to the reactor by mechanical or diffused aeration with air or an oxygen-enriched
gas stream. Intimate contact between wastewater, sludge, and oxygen is maintained in a
properly operating reactor. A portion of the mixed liquor is continuously passed to a
settling tank (clarifier) where sludge (primarily bacterial cells) is separated from
•
wastewater. A portion of the settled sludge is returned to the reactor to maintain the
proper balance of microorganisms, while the remainder is removed from the system.
Typical equipment includes aeration tanks and basins, clarifiers, compressors, aerators
(diffused or mechanical), and recycle pumps and plumbing.
4.1.2 Unit of Measurement
Costs are given in terms of dollars per gallon treated. Estimates from one source
were available only in terms of cost-per-pound of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
reduction. Also, where available, assumptions of the volumetric capacity of a system are
given, but cost-per-unit estimates of reduction of mixed organic contaminants were not
calculable.
-88-
-------
Aqueous or Solids Treatment
Activated Sludge
4.1.3. Summary Data
4.1.3.1 Expenditures
The following expenditure was found:
Capital: $6.3 milUon/Mgd ($87,514/13,680 gpd)
Operation & Maintenance: $0.0165/gal.
This system was a nutrient-enhanced biodegradation system, constructed with retrofitted
5,400-gallon milk trailers for aeration and settling tanks. It was not a standard engineer
designed and activated sludge system, though the cost components were very similar.
The cost of operation and maintenance includes a relatively small expenditure for
nutrient salts ($19.20/day; $0.0014/gallon; 8%). The use of previously used or salvaged
material generally produced significant savings in costs over the expected cost for new
materials.
4.1.3.2 Estimates
Cost estimates ranged from:
Capital: $200,000/Mgd
to
$390,000/Mgd
Operation & Maintenances $18,000/Mgd/year
to
$25,000/Mgd.
The compilation of these estimates is unclear from the available data.
-89-
-------
Aqueous or Solids Treatment
Activated Sludge
4.1.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
4.1.4.1 Expenditures
The following factors were found to contribute to expenditures:
Materials (used and salvaged)
In- house design and maintenance
In-house power and process steam
System flexibility (access holes)
Although no expenditure data for a system constructed of new components is
available for comparison, the cost of this system given in Table 26 may have been
significantly lower than that of a system using new equipment and contractor labor. One
cost item that increased the capital expenditure, possibly unnecessarily, was the
construction of a roller mount and access ports for the pipe air spargers. This part of the
system was intended to allow the spargers to be cleaned of biomass buildup without
sending a technician into the tank. This maintenance has not been necessary in over 2
years of operating the system (as of August 1983).
4.1.4,2 Estimates
The lack of technical detail about the hypothetical systems for which estimates
were given precludes consideration of specific factors affecting the costs (see Table 27).
Expenditure Sources
• ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983
Estimates Sources
• Radian, 1983
• SCS, 1981
-90-
-------
TABLE 26
ACTIVATED SLUDGE EXPENDITURES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1982
New Jersey
0
I
Capacity; rate
0.014 Mgd (1)
Aeration
20 cfm
through stone
pipe diffusers
Design
retrofitted
milk trailers
used for
aeration tanks
Operation &
Maintenance
$2.89/Mgd(2)
$226/day
$0.0165/gal.
Direct Capital
$6.3 million/Mgd
($87,514)
I
VO
(1) Million gallons per day
-------
TABLE 27
ACTIVATED SLUDGE COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
Radian
"Conventional"
1983
US EPA
SCS
February 1981
1980 ;
Capacity; rate
1.0 Mgd (1)
5.0 Mgd
10.0 Mgd
7.2 Mgd (1)
(5,000 gpm)
Aeration
1.1 lb 02/lb
BOD 5 removed
Not given
Design
40 year service
life
detention time
6 hours
10 year service
life
Operation &
Maintenance
$25,000/Mgd
$24,000/Mgd
$18,000/Mgd
Direct Capital
$390,000/Mgd
$250,000/Mgd'
$200,000/Mgd
$358,720/Mgd (2)
$709,180/Mgd
'
I
VO
to
(1) Million gallons per day
(2) First year O&M.
-------
Aqueous & Solids Treatment
Aerobic, Anaerobic, &
Facultative Lagoons
4.2 AEROBIC, ANAEROBIC, AND FACULTATIVE LAGOONS
4.2.1 Definition
Aerobic, anaerobic and facultative lagoons are large, earthen impoundments
designed for microbial degradation of organic wastes. They may be used as detached,
individual treatment devices or, more commonly, in combination with other in-line
treatment systems.
Aerated lagoons are 6 to 20 feet deep. Aeration devices supply supplemental
oxygen and partial mixing. A sludge blanket accumulates on the bottom and undergoes
anaerobic decomposition. A non-aerated cell (clarifier) usually follows to allow solids to
settle before discharge of the supernatant effluent.
Anaerobic lagoons are deep (20 feet). High organic loadings and a gas impervious
layer of grease on the surface promote thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Wastewater
enters near the bottom and exits below the surface. Excess sludge is washed out with
effluent; waste recirculation is unnecessary.
Facultative lagoons are 3 to 8 feet deep basins in which wastewater is allowed to
stratify into aerobic, intermediate, and anaerobic zones. Stratification is enhanced by
settling solids, water temperature and density variations. Oxygen in the surface layer is
provided by diffusion of air across the air-water interface and by photosynthesis.
Mechanical aeration devices are not used to introduce oxygen to facultative lagoons.
4.2.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars-per-million gallons-per-day treated. This cost basis
assumes similarly effective treatment, as well as extrapolative total costs.
-93-
-------
Aqueous <5c Solids Treatment
Aerobic. Anaerobic, &
Facultative Lagoons
4.2.3 Summary Data
4.2.3.1 Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.
4.2.3.2 Estimates
Cost estimates ranged from
Capital: $0.08 million/Mgd (7.2 Mgd)
to
$3.4 million/Mgd (0.14 Mgd)
Operation & $0.005 mtUion/Mgd (10 Mgd)
Maintenances to
$1.23 million/Mgd (0.14 Mgd)
The estimates reflect widely varying scales of operational assumptions. Large (5-10
Mgd) scale scenarios were at the bottom of the range of unit cost estimates, while
smaller operations (under one Mgd) had generally higher estimates. The lower estimates
excluded certain related components such as land, pumping and liners.
4,2.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
4.2.4.1 Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.
-94-
-------
Aqueous <5c Solids Treatment
Aerobic, Anaerobic, &
Facultative Lagoons
4.2.4.2 Estimates
The following factors appeared to significantly affect the cost estimates:
• Scale of operation
land, pumping, liner
containers and overhead
• Effectiveness of Treatment
• Extent of Aeration
• Climate
The estimates were significantly related to the scale of operation, as noted in section
4.2.3.2. This effect results partly from the economies of scale inherent in larger
operations, but it also reflects the different nature of general construction estimating
manuals (see Table 28).
The large hypothetical systems estimated by Radian excluded the costs of
pumping as well as costs of liners and land. These systems were similar in design to
those that would be part of a sewage or industrial treatment plant. A contingency and
engineering cost of 30% was included in the New Hampshire Feasibility Study estimate.
The inclusion of this cost in the other estimates is unclear from the available data.
The estimates include a variety of levels of contaminant removal. These levels
were generally given in terms of BOD or COD. These may not provide accurate
estimates of removal effectiveness for many refractory or highly toxic organics but they
provide useful standards for comparison. In cases where removal efficiency information
was available, no relationship with total unit costs was apparent. However, for similarly
designed systems, effectiveness of removal would probably be proportional to cost.
-95-
-------
TABLE 28
ANAEROBIC, AEROBIC AND FACULTATIVE LAGOONS
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
OERR 1982
Feasibility Study
New Hampshire
US EPA
Radian
1983
US EPA
Radian
1983
US EPA
Radian
(coll climate)
1983
Design
AEROBIC
28 day detention period
4 cells, 12 feet deep
3,500 CFM aeration
AEROBIC
7 day detention time
88% BOD/COD removal
10 feet deep
30 year service life
ANAEROBIC
gravity flow, Excludes
land, pumping, liner
60% BOD removal
50 year service life
FACULTATIVE
gravity flow; excluded
land, pumping and liner
20 Ib BOD5/acre/day
80% BOD/COD removal
Capacity
144,000 gpd
(0.14 Mgd) (2)
1 Mgd
10 Mgd
1 Mgd
10 Mgd
1 Mgd
10 Mgd
Operation &
Maintenance (1)
$1^23 million/
Mgd
$0.03 million/
Mgd
$0.07 million/
Mgd
$0.0125
million/Mgd
$0.005 million
Mgd
$0.015
million/Mgd
$0.006
million/Mgd
Capital
$3.4 million/Mgd
$0.03 million/Mgd
$0.02 million/Mgd
$0.5 million/Mgd
$0.3 million/Mgd
$1.5 million/Mgd
$0.7 million/Mgd
(1) Annual
(2) Million gallons per dav
-------
TABLE 28
ANAEROBIC, AEROBIC AND FACULTATIVE LAGOONS (continued)
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
Radian
(warm climate)
1983
US EPA
cpq
1981
(mid -1978 dollars )
Design
FACULTATIVE
gravity flow; excludes
land, pumping and
liner.
40 Ib BOD5/acre/day
80% BOD/COD removal
AEROBIC
70% removal
100 ppm BOD
Capacity
1 Mgd
10 Mgd
7.2 Mgd
Operation &
Maintenance (1)
$0.015
million/Mgd(22)
$0.006
million/Mgd
$0.03
million/Mgd
Capital
$0.65 million/Mgd
$0.35 million/Mgd
$0.08 million/Mgd
I
VD
(1) Annual
(2) Million gallons per day (3) First year cost
-------
Aqueous &. Solids Treatment
Aerobic, Anaerobic &
Facultative Lagoons
The extent of aeration varied among the treatment systems^ The cost of aeration
equipment, in terms of both capital, and operation and maintenance costs, may be
significant. This difference in design and cost also significantly alters performance. For
example, the hypothetical aerobic system had a presumed efficiency of 88%; whereas the
anaerobic system achieved only 60%. This difference suggests the need to quantify costs
in terms of dollars per unit of contaminant removed per unit of time when comparing
systems for the same waste stream. The climate affects system performance of
facultative systems and hence, it affects costs. The facultative system in a warm
climate was more efficient than the cooler climate system.
Estimates Sources
• Radian, 1983
• SCS, 1983
-98-
-------
Aqueous & Solids Treatment
Rotating Biological Contactors
4.3 ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS
4.3.1 Definition
This system is a form of fixed-film biological treatment. A slime layer of
microorganisms grows attached to polystyrene or polyvinyl chloride disks 6 to 12 feet in
diameter. The disks are mounted vertically on a horizontal axis of rotation in treatment
tanks. Rotation of the disks exposes the slime surfaces alternately to oxygen in the
atmosphere and organic matter in the wastewater. Both oxygen and organic matter are
metabolized, the organic material is assimilated as microbial mass or degraded to form
carbon dioxide, water and other metabolic byproducts by aerobic microorganisms. The
rotation mixes and aerates the contents of the tank and causes excess slime layers to be
sloughed off as growth continues. Sloughed slime is subsequently separated from the
supernatant in a settling system. A complete RBC system usually consists of two or
more trains of disks with each train consisting of several stages.
4.3.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in terms of dollars-per-million-gallons-per-day treated, when
available, for comparison with other water treatment technologies.
4.3.3 Summary Data
4.3.3.1 Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.
4.3.3.2 Estimates
The range of cost estimates was:
Capitals $0.9 million/Mgd (10 Mgd)
to
$29.6 million/Mgd (0.144 Mgd)
-99-
-------
Aqueous & Solids Treatment
Rotating Biological Contactors
Operation & Maintenance: $22,500/Mgd/year (10 Mgd)
to
$4.6 million/Mgd/year (0.05 Mgd)
The range of estimates reflects a widely varying scale of operation assumed for the four
estimates from two sources. The high estimate is derived from dividing the total (capital
or O&M) by the treatment rate, in million gallons per day. This method of scaling up the
estimates of smaller system may result in the multiplication of some fixed costs. The
low estimates are derived from estimates for very large scale sewage treatment
systems. The actual costs can be derived by multiplying the unit cost by the treatment
rate.
4.3.4 Factors Found to Affect Cost
4.3.4.1 Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.
4.3.4.2 Estimates
The following factors appeared to have significant effects on cost estimates.
o Scale of treatment
o Inclusion of related costs
overhead allowance
contingency allowance
settling tanks, etc.
The scale of treatment operation appeared to significantly affect costs (see Table 29).
The estimate may for this reason, be of limited comparability since the Radian estimate
is for a very large system, compatible with flow rates at a municipal sewage treatment
system, or large industrial waste plant.
-100-
-------
TABLE 29
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTRACTOR COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
OERR
1982-
New Hampshire
US EPA
Radian
1983
Design basis
for volatiles removal;
follows neutr. and ppt.
includes nutrient salt
mixing tanks, clarifier
dewatering, sludge
recycle
100,000 sq ft of media
per Shaft
80-90% BOD removal
99% ammonia removal
cost excludes 1° and
2° clarifiers
i
Capacity
0.05 Mgd
0.144 Mgd
1 Mgd (1)
10 Mgd
Operation &
Maintenance
$4.6 million/
Mgd
$3.9 million/
Mgd
$32,500/Mgd
$22,500/Mgd
Capital
$29.6 million/Mgd (2)
$23 million/Mgd
$0.9 million/Mgd
$0.9 million/Mgd
(1) Million gallons per day.
(2) Includes engineering & contingency
(30%), and contractor's overhead
(25%).
(3) Annual
-------
Aquous & Solids Treatment
Rotating Biological Contractors
The effect of inclusion of related costs on the estimates is unclear. The New
Hampshire Feasibility Study assumed an additional 30% for contractor overhead. It is
unclear whether these costs are included in the Radian estimate.
The exclusion of certain systemic components from the Radian estimate may have
produced an underestimation of the costs, compared to those given in the feasibility
study. The Radian estimate included only those particular components used for the
rotating biological contactor and excluded settling tanks, clarifiers and chemical mixing
units. Generally, the Radian estimate gave information on a unit which is to be
retrofitted to a primary treatment plant.
Estimates Sources
• Radian, 1983
• US EPA OERR contractor Feasibility Studies
-102-
-------
Aqueous <5c Solids Treatment
Air Stripping
4.4 AIR STRIPPING
4.4.1 Definition
The air stripping process enhances volatilization of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) by increasing the air-liquid interfactial surface area and the velocity of the air
passing over it. Towers and basins have both been used; however, only towers are
considered here. The typical tower is similar in construction and configuration to a
water cooling tower. Contaminated water enters near the top of the tower and flows
through a distribution plate and then downward over the packing, which may consist of
plastic beads, saddles or piping. A blower forces air in at the lower sides and bottom of
the tower and forces it past the water and packing, and then out through the top.
Stripped water is collected at the bottom of the tower, and exits into the distribution
system (or as effluent). Basins, which consist of a temporary swimming pool with a
series of spray nozzles across them have been used for leachate stripping, but no costs
were available for them at this time (August 1983).
4.4.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars per million gallons per day for ready comparison with
other water treatment technologies.
4.4.3 Summary Data
4.4.3.1 Expenditures
The one source of actual expenditure data indicated the following costs.
Capital: $182,540/Mgd (million gallons per day)
Operation & Maintenance: $9,921 - 11,905/Mgd
-103-
-------
Aqueous & Solids Treatment
Air Stripping
No comparison with other site data is possible at this time since this is the only actual
expenditure information available (August 1983). This expenditure was significantly
lower than those estimated with engineering/construction costing manuals.
4.4.3.2 Estimates
The following range of estimates for air stripping systems was found:
Capital: $607,000/Mgd (1.44 Mgd)
to
$7.3 million/Mgd (0.0504 Mgd)
Operation &
Maintenance: $89,000/Mgd (1.44 Mgd)
to
$3.2 million/Mgd (0.0504 Mgd)
The range given is for two out of the three estimates that were available. The third
estimate is not shown in the above range because the estimate reflects only shipping and
set-nip costs for a borrowed tower, and not construction costs. The above range seems to
reflect the economies of scale for varying size systems. The less costly system on a unit
rate basis ($607,000/Mgd capital; $89,000 O&M) was the larger (1.44 Mgd); while the
more costly system ($7.3 million/Mgd capital; $3.2 million/Mgd) was the smaller system
(0.0504 Mgd). Therefore, in absolute terms the smaller the system, the higher the cost.
4.4.4. Factors Found to Affect Costs
4.4.4.1 Expenditures
The following factors appeared to affect the costs:
• Capacity (VOC reduction and flow rate)
• Blower size
-104-
-------
Aqueous & Solids Treatment
Air Stripping
The relationship of the cost and the capacity of the system considered was nearly
linear (see Table 30). It was stated in the Feasibility Study that the cost would increase
about the same amount for each of the five towers added. The VOC reduction was
expected to be related to costs, but no quantitative comparison is possible without more
expenditure data. The blower size significantly affected the operation and maintenance
(O&M) since most O&M cost was involved in electrical power for the fans. The O&M
expenditure was relatively low since power costs in the northwest U.S. were unusually
low during the estimation period.
4.4.4.2 Estimates
The following factors seemed to affect the cost estimates
• Capacity contaminant (reduction and flow rate)
• Blower size
• Included costs
• Packing material
Estimates of cost varied directly according to rate of flow of the untreated influent (see
Table 31). This variability was reflected in increased size of towers, volumes of packing
and capacities of pumps. Varying economies of scale seemed to be the most significant
factor affecting costs. The least costly system on a cost-per-unit treated-per day basis
($607,000/Mgd capital; $89,000 O&M) was the largest (1.44 Mgd); while the most costly
system ($7.3 million/Mgd caital; $3.2 million/Mgd O&M) was the smallest system (0.0504
Mgd). Hence, in absolute terms tlie smallest system was the least costly, but on relative
cost-per-million-gallons-per-day basis, the economies of scale gave a unit cost advantage
to the larger system.
-105-
-------
TABLE 30
AIR STRIPPING EXPENDITURES
(1982 Dollars)
•Data Source
US EPA
OERR
CH2 M Hill
Washington
1983
*
Design
Five towers:
12 feet dia. x
30 feet high;
60 hp blower;
29,000 cfm/ tower
Capacity
5.04 Mgd
(3,500 gpm)
95% removal
Operation &
Maintenance (1^
$9,921-
11,905/Mgd
(2)
Capital
$182,540/Mgd
I
I—'
o
I
(1) Annual cost
'(2) Estimated, actual expenditures not yet
encountered (8/83)
-------
TABLE 31
AIR STRIPPING COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
OERR - Weston
Faasibllity Study
1982
New Hampshire
US EPA
Radian
1983
US EPA.
OERR-CH2 M Hill
Feasibility Study
1983
Minnesota
Design
23 foot high tower
two 600 cfm blowers
5 hp motors
15 psig steam boiler
20 foot high tower;
sch 80 pvc pipe
packing, cross-stack;
400 cuft/gallon
one tower;
12 feet dia. x 300 feet
30 feet high;
barrowed from other
site; shipping/set up
only
Capacity
0.0504 Mgd
(35 gpm)
0.144 Mgd
(100 gpm)
0.144 Mgd
1.44 Mgd
80% removal
average:
1 Mgd.
maximum :
2.16 Mgd.
95% removal
Operation &
Maintenance (1)
$3.2 million/
Mgd
$2.3 million/
Mgd
$286,000/Mgd
$89,000/Mgd
$60,765/Mgd
$28,131/Mgd
Capital
$7.3 mi 11 ion /Mgd
$3.9 million/Mgd
$1.07 million/Mgd
$607,000/Mgd
$124,610/Mgd (2)
$57,690
o
-J
I
(1) Annual cost
(2) "Capital" costs include only shipping of treatment tower
from Tacoma, Washington, and set up costs (pad, appurtenances, etc.)
-------
Aqueous & Solids Treatment
Air Stripping
The effectiveness of reduction of the contamination in the various systems was
reflected in the costs. Since a variety of factors affect removal efficiency, it is difficult
to relate these many factors to costs. These factors include, but are not limited to:
pumping rate, climate, and air flow rate and packing type.
Increased pumping rates may increase the total amount removed, but decrease the
percentage removed and, in combination with the increase in electrical costs caused by
higher pumping rates, produce both a less efficient system and a less cost-effective
system. Climatic effects are primarily related to ambient temperature; increases in
temperature produce a higher volatilization of contaminants. Correlated to this
phenomenon are the costs of heating the influent stream to offset seasonal cooling or
increase efficiency. Air flow rate, which affects stripping efficiency, is a function of
the size and speed of operation of blowers, each of which affect both capital and O&M
costs.
Packing types also varied among the estimates and had some, unquantified effect
on efficiency and costs. The proportion of costs devoted to tower packing is unclear but
the costs of different packing materials of varying effectiveness were given in one
estimate. ($15/cu.ft. - $95/cu.ft.). Therefore, an optimization is necessary when
choosing a packing type in order to acheive a given level of removal with a certain
system size.
The variation in included costs is especially noteworthy for the system estimated
in the Minnesota Feasibility Study. This cost estimate did not include tower
construction, but rather only included the shipping and erection of a tower borrowed
from the Tacoma, Washington site. Although this system was estimated for a four month
operation (while an alternate water system was to be installed), the cost given are
trebled for annualized comparison. All of the estimates given include engineering
overhead, at about 25 - 30%.
Expenditure Sources
• State and Federal Superfund work
Estimates Sources
• Radian, 1983
• US EPA OERR contractor Feasibility Studies
-108-
-------
Aqueous
-------
Aqueous & Solids Treatment
Carbon Treatment
4.5.3.2 Estimates
The cost estimates range from:
Capital: $643,000/Mgd (complete construction cost)
to
$14,132/Mgd (erection of leased system)
Operation and
Maintenance: $ll,786/Mgd/year
to
$1.5 million/Mgd/year
The wide range of cost estimates reflects a variety of included costs. The lowest cost
system does not include the entire cost of purchased materials, but rather the costs of
rental and erection of the system. The highest estimated cost includes complete costs of
materials and construction.
4.5.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
4.5.4.1 Expenditures
The following factors affected the expenditures for carbon filtration:
• Inclusion of pretreatment costs
• Rental/purchase expenditure
Costs of pretreatment are included in the cost given for the carbon treatment system for
both expenditures detailed in Table 32. Although these costs for pretreatment may have
been necessary for efficient carbon use, and may comprise a minority of the component
costs, it is important to note that they were included. The higher cost system included a
clarifier for removal of suspended solids from the influent, and an air stripping system
for preliminary removal of of methylene chloride from the waste stream. The waste
stream of this system was subsequently filtered through the four cascade carbon
towers. The lower cost system included only pea-gravel and lime for precipitating and
filtering out solids.
-no-
-------
TABLE 32
CARBON TREATMENT EXPENDITURES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
ELI-JRB
1980
New Jersey
US EPA
ELI-JRB
1979
Missouri
•
Design
clarification
air stripping
four cascade
carbon filter
pre-gravel/
lime prefilter;
three stage carbon
2,400 Ib carbon
Capacity
0.25 Mgd
25-150 gpm
Not given
Operation &
Mai n fpnanrp
$0.3
. $0.1
Capital
0 - 0.47/gallon (1)
3 - 0.23/gallon (1)
(1) Rented system and related costs.
-------
Aqueous <5c Solids Treatment
Carbon Treatment
Both expenditures given are for leased systems. The costs generally included
transporting the filter units, erection, and operating labor.
4.5.4.2 Estimates
The following factors affected the cost estimates.
• Size
• Inclusion of related costs
rental/construction
carbon regeneration
additional prefiltering or treatment
The total system cost estimates varied directly with size (see Table 33). The cost-per-
million-gallons-treated-per-day was relatively more constant, though it varied over one
order of magnitude for capital costs, and three orders of magnitude for costs of
operation and maintenance (O&M). No economies of scale were apparent since, even
from the same data source, cost-per-million-gallons-treated-per-day of larger systems
was sometimes higher than for smaller systems.
Renting a system appeared to be less costly than most construction scenarios in
two instances. Quotes for leased systems were obtained from vendors for the feasibility
studies at the Illinois and Minnesota sites. Costs included set-up and operation labor,
materials and equipment. It is unclear whether regeneration costs were included in most
examples. It is presumably included in rented costs of rented systems if a carbon change
was not necessary during the lease period, such as in the Minnesota scenario.
Costs for additional prefiltering and treatment, aside from carbon, were included
only in two estimates. In the second highest systemic estimate (the New Jersey
feasibility study), the costs of sulfur dioxide gas treatment to precipitate out iron,
airstripping to remove volatile organics, and neutralization to stabilize the pH were
-112-
-------
TABLE 33
CARBON TREATMENT COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
Radian
1983
US EPA/NJDEP
COM
Feasibility Study (F.S)
1983
New Jersey
US EPA
CH2 M Hill
(vendor quote for F.S.)
1983
Illinois
US EPA
SCS 1981
(mid 1978 dollars)
Design
30 min. contact time;
1 Ib per 5,000 gal;
off-site regeneration
S02 for Fe ppt.
air stripping
neutralization (3)
1 Ib per 1,000 gall.
sand filters
carbon tanks
rented system
pressurized
pretreated
in situ regeneration
Capacity
0.14 Mgd
(100 gpm)
1.4 Mgd
(1,000 gpm)
2 Mgd
(1,389 gpm)
7 Mgd
(4861 gpm)
0.28 Mgd
(200 gpm)
2.16 Mgd
(1,500 gpm)
7.2 Mgd
(5,000 gpm)
Operation &
Maintenance
$357,000/Mgd
$250,000/Mgd
$1.5 million/
Mgd
$1.3 million/
Mgd
$ll,786/Mgd
(2)
$222,000/Mgd
$883,200
Capital
$143,000/Mgd
$643,000/Mgd
$473,500/Mgd
$471,429/Mgd (4)
$138,000/Mgd (5)
$346,429/Mgd (1)
$476,852/Mgd
$234,600
(1) Includes set-up and breakdown of all major (2) System rental (3) All costs included
equipment, piping, controls, utility, erection, (4) First 5 years
transportation, carbon and sand. No purchase. (5) After 5 years.
-------
TABLE 33
CARBON TREATMENT COST ESTIMATES (continued)
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
U.S. EPA
CH2 M Hill
Feasibility Study
1983
Minnesota
-
Design
pressurized system
13 min. contact time
80,000 Ib carbon
Capacity
2.16 Mgd
(1,500 gpm)
Operation &
Maintenance
$82,000/Mgd
Capital
$!4,132/Mgd (1)
*-
I
(1) Includes set-up and breakdown of all major equipment, pippin, controls,
utility, erection, transportation, carbon and sand. Not purchase.
-------
Aqueous & Solids Treatment
Carbon Treatment
included. The costs of neutralization and clarification were included in the SCS II
estimate. The costs of chemicals and power comprised 90% of the O&M costs for this
system.
Expenditure Sources
• ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983
Estimated Sources
• Radian, 1983
• US EPA OERR contractor Feasibility Studies
-115-
-------
Aqueous and Solids Treatment
Oil/Water Separation
4.6 OIL/WATER SEPARATOR
4.6.1 Definition
An oil/water separator skims oil off of water by taking advantage of the
immiscibility of these liquids. The two general types of oil/water separators are (1) a
floating skimmer-type, and (2) a tank-type, coalescing plate separator. Costs are given
in this section for the second type. This type, which is typically larger, uses a series of
horizontal and vertical hydrophilic and hydrophobia plates to enhance oil globule
flotation. These systems may be used in series with each other and with other treatment
technologies, which may provide "polishing" to remove residual low level contaminants.
4.6.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars-per-million-gallons treated-per-day when data
availability make it possible.
4.6.3 Summary Data
4.6.3.1 Expenditure
The one expenditure available was:
Capital: $289,200 (includes hookup and controls)
Operation and
Maintenance: $50,000/year (capacity unknown)
$2.70-4.16/gallon (1,000-1,500 gallons/month)
-116-
-------
Aqueous and Solids Treatment
Oil/Water Separation
The cost-per-gallon is relatively high because of the low rate of treatment.
4.6.3.2 Estimates
The single estimate available was:
Capital: $91,587 5,000 gpm capacity
$12,720/Mgd (7.2 Mgd)
Operation and
Maintenance: $267,456/lst year
($0.0001/gallon)
The assumptions for this system suggest that it is intended as an auxiliary to a larger
treatment system. Appurtenances and control costs are not included as they are for the
above expenditure. This causes an underestimate for the capital cost because of the
excluded costs and a low estimate for the O&M because the maximum capacity flow rate
was assumed for deriving the unit cost.
4.6.4. Factors Found to Affect Costs
4.6.4.1 Expenditures
The following factors affected estimates:
• Flow rate (utilization of capacity)
• Inclusion of related costs:
appurtenances
controls
tank housing
-117-
-------
Aqueous and Solids Treatment
Oil/Water Separation
Flow rate was probably the most important factor affecting the expenditure (see Table
34). The combination of a locally tight soil with a high organic content, and the natural
adhesion of oil to such highly organic soE resulted in a very low flow rate of only 1,000-
1,500 gallons per month for the California case study site. The effect on operation and
maintenance unit costs by flow rate is even more clear. The relatively low flow rate
divided into the annual operation and maintenance costs results in a relatively high unit
O&M cost.
The expenditure data included a variety of related costs that may not be accounted
for in estimates or other expenditures. They include upgrading of appurtenances to
connect the lines for the treated effluent to the local POTW, a building to enclose the
storage tanks, and a control system for operating the separator. These related fixed
costs may be spread among other systemic components for a larger system in which the
oil/water separator is a minor component, such as in a large POTW or complex industrial
waste (pretreatment operation.
4.6.4.2 Estimates
The following factors affected the estimate (Table 35):
• System capacity
• Related costs
The estimate of unit costs includes only costs of basic materials and assumes a capacity
flow rate. Therefore, it was probably an underestimate of unit costs of an installed
system to the extent that the actual flow rate is generally less than capacity. .
Since this hypothetical system appears to be designed as an auxiliary to a large
POTW or an industrial (pre)treatment system certain related fixed costs may be excluded
or spread among the larger system components. The flow rate variations may
overestimate the actual contaminant removal range because the bulk of the flow through
*
an oil/water separator is water rather than oily contaminant. Therefore, estimates may
be made more accurate by calculating the cost per volume of contaminant removed.
However, the cost of removal of contaminants is very difficult to measure because of the
-118-
-------
TABLE 34
(ML/WATER SEPARATOR EXPENDITURES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US^ EPA
ELI/JRB
1983
California
Design, capacity
Coalescing plate
separator
capacity unknown
1, 000-1, SOOgallons/
month
i
Contaminant
PCB/oil,
10 c oil
in water from
french drain
sump
Operation &
Maintenance
$50,000/year
($2.70-
$4.16/gallon)
-
Capital
$289,200
I
»—'
I—•
co
-------
TABLE 35
OIL/WATER SEPARATOR COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
1
scs
1981
(1978 Dollars)
Design, capacity
Coalescing plate
separator
maximum 5,000 gpm
(7.2 Mgd)
Contaminant
Not given
4
Operation &
Maintenance
1st year =
$267,456
($0.0001/
gallon)
Capital
$91,587 ($12,720/Mgd)
(simple average cost =
$1.98/1,000 gallons)
I
H-
to
-------
Aqueous and Solids Treatment
Oil/Water Separation
variations in contaminants and removal efficiencies. The removal efficiency of an
oil/water separator is affected primarily by oil drop size; retention time, density
differences between the aqueous and the organic phases, and the temperature.
Expenditure Sources
• ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983
Estimate Source
• US EPA, SCS, 1981
-121-
-------
Gas Migration Control
Pipe Vents
5.0 GAS MIGRATION CONTROL
5.1 PIPE VENTS
5.1.1 Definition
Pipe vents are vertical or lateral perforated pipe installed in, through or around the
landfill for controlling gases. They are usually installed at a landfill perimeter on 30 to
60 foot centers and extend down to the water table or the landfill base, sometimes in
combination with trench vents for the control of lateral gas migration. Pipe vents are
usually surrounded by a layer of coarse gravel to prevent clogging by solids or water.
They may discharge passively to the atmosphere or be connected to a negative pressure
collection system for possible treatment.
5.1.2 Unit of Measurement
Unit cost is given in dollars-per-pipe vent. Other units such as depth and diameter
are used to describe each pipe vent.
5.1.3 Summary Data
5.1.3.1 Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.
5.1.3.2 Estimates
The estimates ranged from:
$445 (6 feet deep)
to
$1,310 (30 feet deep)
No information was available about the assumptions for the lowest estimate. But the
highest (capital) estimate included additional items such as PVC casing and a blower fan,
which was not included in the lower estimates.
-122-
-------
Gas Migration Control
Pipe Vents
5.1.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
5.1.4.1 Expenditure
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.
5.1.4.2 Estimates
The following factors affected the cost estimates for pipe vents:
• Depth
• Pipe diameter
• Casing
• Ventilation fan size
The factors affecting cost estimates are very similar to those affecting well points, deep
wells and monitoring well costs, since construction elements are similar. Well costs are
typically proportional to their depth. Costs also increase with pipe diameter because of
increases in costs of materials, installation, labor and equipment. Some estimates for
some components were given in terms of dollars-per-inch diameter-per-foot depth,
indicating diameter (in inches) and depth (in feet) affect cost proportionately.
Casing (pvc) was included in the JRB and Radian cost estimates, but not the more
shallow New Jersey Feasibility Study estimates (see Table 36). This element added $4.50
to 6.50/LF for 4 - and 6 - inch casings, respectively.
The fan affects both capital and operation and maintenance costs. The fan size,
and its capital cost estimate when given was identical. The reason for the differing
operation and maintenance cost from these sources is unclear.
Estimates Sources
• JRB-RAM, 1980
• Radian, 1983
• US EPA OERR contractor Feasibility Studies
• US EPA OERR contractor bids
-123-
-------
TABLE 36
PIPE VENT COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
JRB - RAM
1980
US EPA
Radian
1983
US EPA-NH State
CH2M Hill
Bids
1982
New Hampshire
US EPA
CH2M Hill
RI/FS
1983
New Jersey
Depth
30 feet; incl.
mushroom cap
30 feet; incl.
mushroom cap
Not given
6 feet
90° elbow + T
Diameter
pipe: 4 inches
pvc casing:
6 inches
pipe: 3 inches
pvc casing:
4 inches
Not given
4 inch
pvc, sch 40
Ventilation
one fan/pipe-
0-136 cfm
@ 3 inches
H20
one fan/pipe-
0-136 cfm
@ 3 inches
H20
Not given
none
Operation &
Maintenance
$18/year
$85/year
Not given
none
given
Capital Unit Cost
$1310each
$975 iftch
$520 each
$500 "
$500 "
$445 each
I
I—I
bo
I
(1) Includes 800 LF of vent piping; + 10% contingency
-------
Gas Migration Control
Trench Vents
5.2 TRENCH VENTS
5.2.1 Definition
Trench vents are deep, narrow trenches backfilled with gravel, forming a path of
least resistance through which gases migrate upward to the atmosphere or to a collection
manifold. They are typically constructed around the perimeter of a waste area, or across
a section of the site to form a barrier against lateral migration of methane or toxic
vapors. Trenches can be open, or capped with clay and fitted with collection laterals and
riser pipes, venting to the atmosphere or connecting to a negative pressure fan or blower.
5.2.2 Unit of Measurement
Unit cost is given in terms of dollars-per-linear foot because it reflects the
functional value of mitigating gas migration across an area.
5.2.3 Summary Data
5.2.3.1 Expenditures
No actual expenditure data are available at this time.
5.2.3.2 Estimates
The cost estimates for trench vents ranged from:
$35/LF (20 feet deep)
to
$646/LF (20 feet deep)
-125-
-------
Gas Migration Control
Trench Vents
The highest estimate included significant costs for sheet piling, geotextile trench lining
and well-point dewatering of the excavated trench, none of which were included in any of
the other three estimates. The lowest estimate was for a simple passive trench vent
with no piping or ventilation.
5.2.4 Factors to Affect Costs
5.2.4.1 Expenditures
No expenditure data are available at this time.
5.2.4.2 Estimates
The following factors were found to affect the trench vent estimates:
• Trench size
• Pipe vent size
• Ventilation for size
• Inclusion of related costs:
sheet piling
geotextile lining
overhead allowances
contingency allowances
well point dewatering
Trench depth seemed to have the most significant effect on costs (see Table 37).
The 20-foot depth scenario used for the JRB-RAM estimate required sheet piling, which,
despite reuse assumptions, comprised 81% of the total capital cost. Also, well-point
dewatering (14% of total capital cost) was considered necessary for this deep trench
vent.
Pipe vents, added to the trench vent designs, varied among the estimates given.
The pipe vents for the highest and lowest estimates were not detailed in the design
plans. However, the length of laterals and risers for the'two SCS "Landfill" estimates
was identical; only the pipe diameter varied. This did not appear to significantly affect
the costs.
-126-
-------
TABLE 37
TRENCH VENT COST ESTIMATESA
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
JRB - RAM
1980
US EPA
SCS-active
control
"Landfill"
1980
US EPA
SCS-gravel
trench vent
"Landfill"
1980
US EPA
SCS-gravel trench
vent
"Landfill"
1980
Trench Size
500 feet (1)
X
20 feet (d)
X
4 feet (w)
3,068 feet (1)
X
12 feet (d)
X
4 feet (w)
3,068 feet (1)
X
12 feet (d)
X
-4 feet (w)
3,068 feet (D
X
20 feet (d)
X
4 feet (w)
Pipe vents
laterals
and risers=
500 feet
risers-
951 feet x
4 inches
laterals -
3,068 feet x
8 inches
risers- 951
feet x 6 inches
laterals-3,068
feet x 12 inch
none
Ventilation fan
none
2 hp
1,250 cfm
none
none
Operation &
Maintenance
not
given
$7,015 -
$13,777/year
$897 -
$l,888/year
$130 -
$283/year
Capital unit cost
$646/LF (1)'
$41 - 63/LF
$40 - 87/LF
$35 --^2/LF
to
(1) Includes sheet piling construction
and geotextile lining
-------
Gas Migration Control
Trench Vents
The operation and maintenance costs were significantly higher (by an order of magnitude)
for the estimate which included a ventilation fan. This increased cost was presumably to
cover additional electricity and maintenance. The cost of synthetic trench lining (12% of
total capital costs) was included only in the JRB-RAM estimate, which assumed $2.38/sq
ft for hypalon.
The SCS estimates included allowances for overhead and contingencies as follows:
Estimate Scenario Overhead Contingency
Active control 25% 30%
Passive control 25% 20%
Gravel trench 25% 15%
Estimates Sources
• JRB-RAM, 1980
• SCS, 1980
-128-
-------
Gas Migration Controls
Gas Barriers
5.3 GAS BARRIERS
5.3.1 Definition
A synthetic membrane can be used in combination with other technologies to form
a barrier against horizontal or vertical gas migration. Clay or concrete slurry walls and
grout curtains may also perform a similar function, but at a higher cost; these
technologies are usually reserved for barriers to migration of ground-water. Synthetic
membranes may be installed during construction of a trench vent or a subsurface drain,
each of which involve digging a trench. The cost of the trench and other tasks may be
derived from the section on that technology. Similar information on barriers to vertical
migration may be taken from the surface sealing section. Considering costs of materials,
synthetic membranes may need to be doubled or layers of sand may need to be included
to prevent punctures from gravel and stones. Also, an additional several feet should be
allowed for the membrane at the top of the trench to allow for proper anchoring. Trench
bottoms should also be lined.
5.3.2 Unit of Measurement
Costs are given in terms of dollars per square foot because it best expresses the
functional value of gas barriers.
5.3.3 Summary Data
5.3.3.1 Expenditures
No expenditure data are available at this time.
-129-
-------
Gas Migration Control
Gas Barriers
5.3.3.2 Estimates
The cost estimates ranged from:
Capital $0.39/sq.ft. asphaltic concrete
to
$3.00/sq.f.t hypalon (36 mil)
Operation and
Maintenance $900/year (24 four hour inspections/year)
The information source does not explicitly state whether both installation and material
costs are included in these estimates.
5.3.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
5.3.4.1 Expenditure
No expenditure data are available at this time.
5.3.4.2 Estimates
The following factor primarily affected gas barrier cost estimates:
• Installation
• Material type
• Material amount
The inclusion of installation costs is the most important factor affecting these cost
estimates. Although the references for estimates drew data from the same sources,
Table 38 shows that there are significant differences that may have been caused by the
*
inclusion or exclusion of installation costs.
-130-
-------
TABLE 38
GAS BARRIERS COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Barrier Material
Synthetic liners:
Hypalon
Teflon
Geotextile backing
Gunite
Asphaltic concrete
Clay
Design assumptions
36 mil thickness
10 mil thickness
heavy weight, 2 layers
4 inch, layer with
wire mesh
4-6 inch layer
including base
Material cost, hauling,
backfill by dozer,
vibratory compaction
every 6 inches for
trench vent only.
JRB - RAM, 1980
,$0.71-0.77/
sq.ft.
$2.62/sq.ft.
$1.77-2.367
sq. f t.
$5.45-$9.91/
sq.ft.
Sfl. 39-0. 667
sq.ft.
$0.51/cu.ft.
Radian, 1983
$2.40-3/sq ft
$2.22/sq ft
$1.50-2/sq ft
$5.50-10.307
sq ft
$0.33-0.567
sq ft
$0.43/cu ft
Operation & Maintenance (1)
$900 - 1,062/year
I
I—I
CO
t—»
I
(1) Operation and maintenance cost estimated by Radian only
-------
Gas Migration Control
Gas Barriers
The types and amount of materials affected cost estimates, but the data were
inadequate to quantify these effects.
Estimates Sources
• JRB-RAM, 1980
• Radian, 1983
-132-
-------
Gas Migration Control
Carbon Adsorption
5.4 CARBON ADSORPTION (GAS)
5.4.1 Definition
Carbon filters are added to vents to collect gaseous contaminants (typically
volatile organics) from the vent gases. Large gas filtration systems (10,000 and 100,000
cfm - roughly 1,000 cu.ft. of carbon) used in manufacturing processes are available, but
this section includes information on relatively small systems (7 cu. ft. of carbon) for
passive venting systems.
5.4.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in terms of dollars per filter. Units such as volume of air filtered
or amount of contaminant collected are important for describing a given filter unit, when
available.
5.4.3 Summary Data
5.4.3.1 Expenditures
One expenditure for carbon gas filtration was available:
$188/filter
This cost does not include the cost of the used 55 - gallon drums that were retrofitted, or
the cost of labor to fill these drums with carbon. Only the cost of materials for the
granular activated carbon is included. Each of four improvised filters was saddled over
the vents of 5,400 gallon activation and settling tanks used to biodegrade butanol and
acetone from contaminated ground-water.
Operation and maintenance costs include carbon testing and regeneration/replacement
costs.
-133-
-------
Gas Migration Contronl
Carbon Adsorption
5.4.3.2 Estimates
One estimate was available from price quote sheets (this may be considered similar
to expenditures except that no record of an expenditure is available).
$635/Ventsorb (for orders of 1-3)
Ventsorb is a commercial carbon filter, very similar to the improvised filter for which
costs are given above. Related costs of construction (drum cutting, filling, painting) are
included in the delivered cost.
5.4.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
The following factors affected the cost of the carbon vent adsorber (see Tables 39
and 40):
•
• Size
• Related costs
• Flow rate
Cost increases due to increases in the size of the filters were correlated only to the
amount of activated carbon filler used, since the drums used were reconditioned waste
barrels. Any containment structure would affect costs at a relatively small incremental
proportion of the cost, since the cost of carbon (roughly $1.00Ab) is more significant.
The vent filters were mounted on the cylindrical tanks using wooden pallets, and in-
house labor was used to retrofit and fill the drum canisters. The cost of these related
components would be expected to increase the cost of a factory-built carbon filter, as
noted below.
-134-
-------
TABLE 39
GAS TREATMENT EXPENDITURES
(1982 Dollars
Data Source
US EPA
ELI - JRB
New Jersey
1982
«
Filter Size
55 gallon drum (1)
Contaminant
butanol
acetone
Operation &
Maintenance
not
available
Total Cost
$188/each (2)
-135-
(1) Retrofitted use drum
(2) Includes carbon cost only
-------
TABLE 40
GAS TREATMENT COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
Industry vender
quote (1983)
•
Filter Size
55 gallon drum
Contaminant
not given
Operation &
Maintenance
not given
varies with
contaminant
concentration
Total Cost
$635 each
i
t—>
o>
-------
Gas Migration Control
Carbon Adsorption
The air flow rate affects costs in general, because of the specific costs of a fan and
the higher rate of adsorption. The fan would not only add to the capital cost, but would
add to the operation and maintenance costs in two important ways: First, the fan itself
would require electricity and maintenance to keep running. Second, the higher rate of
adsorption would increase the frequency of replacement for the filter. The paucity and
similarity of available data obviates contrast of factors between sources. However, the
following brief listing of factors is appropriate:
• Filter size
• Flow rate (use of ventilation fan)
• Contaminant concentration
Flow rate is probably the most important independent factor of the above factors.
Neither of the passive-type vent filters for which costs are given above included
costs for a fan, which would significantly increase costs of operation and maintenance.
JRB Remedial Action Manual (Rogoshewski, et al., 1980) included the relationship shown
in Figure 1. The hypothetical system for which these costs were estimated is a large
carbon filtration unit, several orders of magnitude larger than the ventsorbs noted above.
Expenditure Sources
• ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983
Estimates Sources
• US EPA OERR contractor bids
-137-
-------
100
to
Ctf
o
o
PL,
o
to
a
z
<
to
3
O
K
E-"
E-
to
o
u
a
UJ
H
O
90
80
70
60
50
40
H 30
C/D
2
20
10
Figure 1. CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
FOR NONREGENERATIVE CARBON GAS VENT FILTER
Total
Installed
Annual
Operating
1000
900 >
2
G
800
700
600
500
400
o
m
H
i—i
2
n
o
H
a:
o
c
C/3
300 §
C/3
200
100
o
•n
o
o
r1
8
FLOW RATE (X1000 CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE)
OF VENT GAS CONTAINING 50 PPM TRICHLOROETHYLENE
SOURCE: CALGON, 1980
-138-
-------
Material Removal
Excavation/Transportation/
Disposal
6.0 MATERIAL REMOVAL
6.1 EXCAVATION/REMOVAL TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL/TREATMENT
6.1.1 Definition
Excavation, transportation and disposal costs are grouped here because, (1) similar
factors are involved in all three tasks, and (2) some actual expenditure data are available
only in terms of the three aggregated tasks. Excavation refers to the work necessary to
remove and load the hazardous material, ready for transport from its found position.
(This may involve significant digging and waste classification, or only surface scraping.)
Transportation involves hauling loaded materials off-site to a disposal/treatment
facility. Disposal/treatment may include landfilling, incineration or treatment.
6.1.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars per cubic yard (cy) because it serves as a standard soil
excavation measure. A cubic yard is assumed to weigh one ton, which is a common
assumption at landfills. Disposal and transportation costs in several cases are given in
terms of dollars/ton because haulers and landfills used weight measures.
6.1.3 Summary Statistics
6.1.3.1 Expenditures
The following ranges of excavation/removal, transportation and disposal/treatment
expenditures were found:
Excavation/Removal: $15 - $460/cuyd
Transportation: $29 - $145/cuyd
Disposal Treatment: $17 - $356/cuyd
-139-
-------
Material Removal
Excavation/Transportation/
Disposal
These cost elements cannot necessarily be summed, since the extremes of the ranges are
derived from different sources with different scenarios and assumptions. The sum of the
three unit operations from the highest and lowest cost sites, results in the following site
total
Excavation, Transportation and Disposal:
• $4.70 - $884/cuyd
The lowest cost site (Texas-$6.06/cuyd) required only pumping a liquid into a tank truck
for removal, while the highest cost site reflected the use of boats and level A protective
gear to retrieve floating pails from a canal. The salient reasons for the low cost of
transportation at the lowest cost site were unclear, but at the highest cost site
(Massachusetts -$145/cuyd), a relatively high demurrage (compensation for delay) was
charged because of sample analysis delays. The disposal/treatment costs varied greatly
with the waste compatibility. The lowest disposal cost (New York City - $17/cuyd) was
charged for oil heavily contaminated with highly volatile solvents, which facilitated
incineration. The highest disposal cost (Florida - $356/cuyd) was for disposal of
extremely caustic "super tropical bleach" (calcium oxide-chlorinated lime), which
required treatment and neutralization prior to disposal. Costs of operation and
maintenance may involve monitoring of ground-water or site inspections or
implementation security measures to prevent illegal dumping, which is often repeated at
former sites. These costs were accounted for separately when they were encountered.
6.3.1.2 Estimates
The following ranges of cost estimates for excavation/removal, transportation, and
disposal/treatment were found:
Excavation/removal: $0.85 - 4.09/cuyd
Transportation: $1.67 - 94.40/cuyd
Disposal/treatment: $ 12 - 283.20/cuyd
Site Total: $ 379 - 434/cuyd
-140-
-------
Material Removal
Excavation/Transportation/
Disposal
The lowest estimates (SCS "impoundment" - $0.85 - 1.27/cuyd) required use of a front-
end loader for excavation/removal, whereas the highest estimate (SCS "landfill" - $3.42-
4.09/cuyd) required an excavator for deeper excavation. The low transportation estimate
was extrapolated from a construction-engineering manual, whereas the high estimate
reflected actual bids from different types of hauling firms. Disposal costs varied from
$12/cu.yd. at a sanitary landfill, to $283.20/cu.yd. for contaminated sediment at an
engineered landfill.
No operation and maintenance costs were assumed for the excavation/removal,
transportation and disposal/treatment cost estimates.
6.1.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
6.1.4.1 Expenditures
The following technical factors were found to affect the costs of
excavation/removal, transportation and disposal/treatment:
Excavation or On-site Transfer:
1. Excavation depth
2. Site surface characteristics
3. Health and Safety requirements
4. Material - liquid/solid/drums
5. Waste quantity
Transportation:
1. Distance to disposal facility
2. Accessibility to road
3. Material - liquid vs. solid
4. Waste quantity
-141-
-------
Material Removal
Excavation/Transportation/
Disposal
Disposal:
1. PCB Waste
(a) Concentration-over/under 500 ppm
(b) Material-solid vs. liquid
2. Non-PCB RCRA Hazardous Waste
(a) Solid vs. liquid
(b) Aqueous vs. organic
In addition, the following primary non-technical factors affected costs:
A. Community relations
B. Interstate relations
C. Inflation and regulatory factors.
The effect of excavated depth on the costs shown in Tables 41 and 42 is probably
non-linear, since the most significant changes in cost resulted from differences in
equipment. For example, the depth of excavation at the Case Study sites in Idaho, New
Jersey and Massachussetts #1 necessitated the use of a Caterpillar 235, which is a large,
treaded backhoe, with a 30 foot (10 m) arm, which rents for about $70/hour without
crew. A smaller, less expensive backhoe such as a Case 580C was used at other sites
where the excavation depth was shallower. A front loader, which is generally even less
expensive, was used at sites where only surface scraping was performed.
Excavation was performed at a relatively quicker pace, which reduced labor and
rental costs, at sites with sandy and unconsolidated soil. No excavation costs were
incurred at the New York City #1 and California #2 Case Study Sites, because removal
involved pumping liquid waste into trucks from tanks and ponds, respectively. Surface
characteristics of the site probably had a relatively small effect on the costs of
excavation at most of the case study sites. The waste was excavated from a steep
embankment at Case Study Massachussetts #1. Clean fill was removed from the top of
the embankment to prevent its cross-contamination with the wastes that were buried at
the toe of the slope during the excavation. This process added a small amount to the
labor and rental charges.
-142-
-------
TABLE 41
EXCAVATION EXPENDITURES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
EEI/JRB
1981
California //I
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1980
California #2
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1981
New Jersey
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1980
Michigan
Length x trench
(filter) depth
216 feet (a)
X
22.5 (21.5)
feet
261 feet
X
14. 5 (10) feet
280 feet (c)
X
10(6) feet
990 feet
X
8.5(6) feet
Width
3 feet
4-6 feet
4 feet
not given
Sump depth, etc.
29.5 feet
triple level
drain pipes
20 feet
+ bucket well
no sump
pea gravel
around pipe;
gravel jacket
rebuilt drain
(d)
Operation and
maintenance
$54,000/
year (b)
(1,000-1,500)
gallons
$307/year
excludes
treatment
(10 mil,
gallon)
$89,640
year (b)
(19 mil. gal.)
not given
Unit Cost-capital
$1,733/LF
$936/LF
$424/LF
$85/LF (d)
it*
CO
(a) Three drain arms summed; slotted
pvc piping stacked 3 feet apart
(b) Includes water treatment O&M
(c) Three trenches summed: 2 injection,
1 withdrawal
(d) Includes original and renovation costs
-------
TABLE 41
EXCAVATION EXPENDITURES (continued)
(1982 Dollars)
Data
Source
US EPA
OERR
1982
Florida
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1981
Calif.
US EPA *
ELI/JRB
1981
Mass.
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1981
Idaho
Material
liquid;
5 gal.
pails
bottles,
pellets
soil
sludge
soil
sludge
Quantity
18.7 cuyd;
757
pails
430 cuyd
1,052 cuyd
and
151 drums
(3)
817 cuyd
Contaminant
Ca oxide
chlorinated
lime
pesticides
(DBCP, etc.)
chlorinated
solvents
pesticides
solvents
Excavation
Depth
surface
15 feet
3-15 feet
13 feet
Excavation
Removal
$460/cuyd
$158/cuyd
$ 51/cuyd
'Trans.
(Distance)
$0.17/cuyd/
mi.
(2 trucks)
$68/cuyd (4)
Disposal
Treatment (1
$356/cuyd
$119/cuyd
(140 miles)
$145/ton
(513 mi.)
$90/ton
$207/cuyd
(254 mi.)
Total
$18,155
(2,4)
$884/cuyd
$276/cuyd
$285/ton
$207/cuyd
1
(1) Landfilled unless other wise noted
(3) 615 cuyd disposed; cuyd:ton ratio (4) If 400 miles assumed
-------
TABLE 41
EXCAVATION EXPENDITURES (continued)
(1982 Dollars)
Data
Source
US EPA
ELI/JRB
Mass .
1981
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1979
Missouri
US EPA
ELI/JRB *
1978
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1982
NYC
Material
drums
soil
soil
drums
soil
oil
Quantity
A 81 cuyd
2,635cuyd
4,770 cuyd
229 cuyd
Contaminant
solvents
pentachloro-
phenol
solvents
metals
solvents
Excavation
Depth
surface
surface
3-13 feet
surface
Excavation
/Removal
Not
Available
$39-87/
cuyd
$15/cuyd
Not
Available
Trans .
(Distance)
$77/cuyd
(480 miles)
$29/cuyd
(170 miles)
$92/ton
u
(497 mi.)
$89/ton
(818 mi.)
Disposal/
Treatment (1
$91/ton
$61/ton
$55/ton
$17/cuyd
(2)
Total
__
$110-
159/cuyd
$164/ton
-------
TABLE 41
EXCAVATION EXPENDITURES (continued)
(1982 Dollars)
Data
Source
U.S. EPA
OERR
1982
Indiana
U.S. EPA
1982
OERR
Texas
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1981
Calif.
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1981
New
Jersey
Material
liquids
sludges
liquid
soil
drums ,
soil
Quantity
2,500 gal.
27 cuyd.
Tot. =55
cuyd
99,000
gallons
3,185
cuyd
5,101
cuyd
Contaminant
solvents
still
bottoms
adhesives
metals
PCB (4)
xylene
pesticides
solvents
metals
Excavation
Depth
surface
surface
15 feet
15-26 feet
Excavation
/Removal
$89/cuyd
$0.03/gal.
vacuum
truck
$158/cuyd
$37-74/
cuyd
Trans.
(Distance)
Not
Available
Not
Available
Disposal/
Treatment) (1)
$28/cuyd
(2)
(landfill,
recycle)
Not
Available
$38/cuyd
(140 miles)
$62 /cuyd
(440 miles)
$43/ton
Total
$10,362
(3)
$3,186
(3)
$19 5 /cuyd
$124-
171/cuyd
(1) Landfilled unless otherwise noted
(3) State waste category
-------
TABLE 41
EXCAVATION EXPENDITURES (continued)
(1982 Dollars
-a
i
Data
Source
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1982
Wise.
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1980
Calif.
US EPA
ELI/LRB
1980
Calif.
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1980
Calif.
US EPA
OERR
1982
Arizona
Material
soil
waste-
water
waste-
water
waste -
water
liquid
Quantity
100 cuyd
46,037
cuyd
9.3 x 106
gal
190,950
cuyd;
38.6 x 106
gal
268,114
cuyd
54.2 x 106
gal.
10,000 gal.
Contaminant
hexavalent
chromium
pesticides
class I (3)
carbamate
fungicide
class II-I
(3)
ammonia
fertilizer
sulfuric
acid
Excavation
Depth
4 feet
pumped from
lagoons
pumped from
lagoons
i
pumped from
lagoons
leaking
tank
Excavation
/Removal
$15/cuyd
Trans.
(Distance)
Disposal/
Treatment (1)
$61/cuyd
(227 miles)
$35.75/cuyd
(15 miles)
$28 /cuyd
(50 miles)
$4.70-7/cuyd
(60 miles) (2)
$0.70/ gal.
$141/cuyd
vacuum
truck
$2.56/mile/
truckload
$0.40/gal
$80/cuyd
landfill
Total
$76/
cuyd
$35.'75/
cuyd
$28/
r 11 vd
!
i
$4.70-77
cuyd
$17,000
(1)
(1) Landfilled unless otherwise noted; Total includes other tanks (2) Landfarmed, USEPA subsidized project
(3) State waste category
-------
TABLE 42
EXCAVATION COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data
Source
US EPA
JRB-RAM
1980
SCS
"impound."
1980
SCS
a
"landfill"
1980
US EPA
CH2MHill
1983
New
Jersey
Material
sediments
soil,
sludge
soil
topsoil
fill
Quantity
10 cuyd
4,368 (2)
cuyd
780,000
cuyd
100 cuyd
51,876
cuyd
Contaminant
not given
"hazardous"
"hazardous"
none;
solvents,
Hg, Be
Excavation
Depth
not given
not given
not given
not given
Excavation
/Removal
$1.77/cuyd
$0.85-1.27/
cuyd
$44.84-7
67.26
$3.42-
4.09/cuyd
$2.49/cuyd
$1.18/cuyd
Trans.
(Distance)
$94.40/cuyd
(200 miles)
$1.67*4.397
ton
(20 miles)
$5.27-11.96
cuyd
(20 miles)
not given
Disposal/
Treatment (1
$283.207
cuyd
$214.177
ton
$214.177
ton
not given
Total
$379.377
cuyd
$216,69- !
219,237
ton
(2)
$222.87-
230.237
ton
—
oo
I
(1) Landfilled
(2) SCS assumes one cuyd = 1.89 tons
-------
TABLE 42
EXCAVATION COST ESTIMATES (continued)
(1982 Dollars)
Data
Source
US EPA/
NJ DEP
Dames &
Moore
1982
N.J.
US EPA/
NJ DEP
Dames&
Moore
1982
N.Jersey
US EPA/
NJ DEP
Dames &
Moore
1982
US EPA
SCS
1983
Material
soil,
sediment
soil,
sediment
soil,
sediment
not
given
Quantity
not
available
not
available
not
available
not
given
Contaminant
solvents
solvents
solvents
not
given
Excavation
Depth
not
available
not
available
not
available
not
given
Excavation
/Removal
not
available
not
available
not
available
not
given
Trans.
(Distance)
$17.50/ton
.32/ton/mi.
(55 miles)
$17.50/ton
(100 miles)
$70/ton
(400 miles)
$52-76
$0.13-19/
cuyd (2)
(see text)
Disposal/
Treatment (1
$12-20/
cuyd;
sanitary
landfill
$30-50/
ton/mi.
interme-
diate
landfill
$60-80/
cuyd
engineered
landfill
not given
Total
I
I—•
ilk
to
(2) Assumption: 20 tons/truckload,
400 miles
-------
Material Removal
Excavation/Transportation/
Disposal
Muddy conditions at the Missouri Case Study site caused some delays in excavation
work. The pails at the US EPA, OERR cleanup in Florida, were in a canal. Technicians
in full level A protective gear had to retrieve them by boat.
Health and safety requirements and costs were rarely documented and hence, their
actual effects on costs are not accurately quantifiable. Since the relative effects of
these requirements are potentially greater for excavation/removal than from other
technologies, their approximate effect warrants brief recapitulation here.
Given the following level of personal protection:
1. Level A - requires full encapsulation and protection from any
body contact or exposure to materials (i.e., toxic by inhalation
and skin absorption).
2. Level B - requires self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA),
and cutaneous or percutaneous exposure to unprotected areas of
the body (i.e., neck and back of head) be within acceptable
exposure standards (i.e., below harmful concentrations).
3. Level C - hazardous constituents known; protection required for
low level concentrations in air; exposure of unprotected body
areas (i.e., head, face, and neck) is not harmful.
4. Level D - no identified hazard present, but conditions are
monitored and minimal safety equipment is available.
5. No hazard - standard base construction costs.
Source: "Interim Standard Operating Safety Guides," EPA 1982
The following levels of productivity have been assumed for other estimates:
Site Level Productivity Equipment
A 10%- 15% 50%
B 25%- 50% 60%
C 25%- 50% 75%
D 50%- 70%
E 70%-100%
Source: CH9 M Hill, Inc.
-150-
-------
Material Removal
Excavation/Transportation/
Disposal
This effect on productivity is already reflected in the expenditure data, but inadequate
technical data was available to detail the protection levels for each site.
The loading costs for liquids were lower than for solid, and were generally too low
to be significant. But costs of solidification or incineration may have negated the
savings. Liquid wastes at the New York City #1 and California #2 Case Study sites were
quickly and continuously pumped into trucks or trains instead of by the bucket load as
with contaminated soil and sludge. Drum handling was most efficiently performed with a
hydraulic drum grappler at the Case Study Massachusetts # 1 and New Jersey sites. This
backhoe attachment rented for over $200/day, but use of it reduced labor costs and other
equipment charges by speeding up the loading process. The net effect on cost is unclear
from the available case study data, but the use of this apparatus by experienced removal
contractors suggests an economizing value.
Waste quantity probably affected excavation costs through unquantifiable
economies of scale. Larger sites such as the Maryland and California # 1 Case Study sites
could maximize the use of backhoes because of the greater amount of waste present and
thus reduce the cost-per-unit removed. However, this effect does not appear to be
significant since waste quantity and unit excavation cost among the case study sites does
not appear to be related.
Transportation -
The distance between the removal and disposal sites is generally the most
significant factor affecting transportation costs. Since the costs for transportation of
PCB waste did not appear to vary significantly from non-PCB RCRA waste,
transportation costs for both waste types are listed together in Table 43. The average
cost for the twelve sites for which separate transportation costs were available was
$0.17/ton/mile (SD = $0.04/ton/mile).
-151-
-------
TABLE 43
TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES
(1)
Data Source
ELI/JRB-Massachussetts #1
ELI/JRB-New Jersey
ELI/JRB-Massachussetts #2
ELI/JRB-Missouri
ELI/JRB-Connecticut
ELI/JRB-N.Y. City #1
ELI/JRB-Minnesota
ELI/JRB-N.Y. City #1
ELI/JRB-N.Y. City #1
ELI/JRB-N.Y. City #2
EPA,OERR-Florida
EPA,OERR-Arizona
Unit
Weight Cost
(divided by)
$135 /ton
$ 57/ton
$ 72 /ton
$ 24/ton
$ 67/ton
$ 90 /ton
$ 34/ton
$250/ton
$242/ton
$ 94/ton
$ 68 /ton
$ 38/ton
Distance =
513 mUes
440 miles
480 miles
170 miles
497 miles
818 miles
140 miles
1,740 miles
1,420 miles
400 miles
400 miles
(2)
400 miles
(2,3)
Unit
Distance Cost
$0.26/ton/mile
$0.13/ton/mile
$0.15/ton/mile
$0.14/ton/mile
$0.13/ton/mile
$0.11 /ton/mile
$0.24/ton/mile
$0.14/ton/mile
$0.17/ton/mile
$0.19/ton/mile
$0.10/ton/mile
$0.17/ton/mile
(1) assume 1 cuyd = 1 ton unless specified other wise by contractor or hauler.
(2) assumed; actual distance unknown
(3) 15 cu yd/3,000 gallon truckload assumed
-152-
-------
Material Removal
Excavation/Transportation/
Disposal
The accessibility of the site to major roads was found to affect costs of
transportation at the California Case Study site #1. The contractor stated that a lower
price was charged because the site was near a major interstate highway which led to the
disposal site. This proximity to the highway minimized the distance travelled on
secondary roads and was said to cause less wear and tear on the trucks. This factor may
have affected transportation costs at other sites where it was not stated explicitly.
The type of waste material affected transportation costs by dictating the
transportation method. Liquid wastes were most economically transported in bulk using
truck or train tankers. Solid waste was generally transported via truck, which required
extra costs for plastic lining and sealing of tailgate. Sealing of bulk liquid tanks was
quicker because it only required closing and checking valves, instead of silicon foam or
asphalt sealing necessary on dump truck tailgates. Relative costs of transporting roll off
dumpsters was not distinguishable.
The cost of transportation was also affected by the waste quantity, which
influenced the type of transportation used. Economies of scale were achieved by using
bulk tank trucks and rail cars for large quantitites of liquid waste at sites New York City
#1 and California #2 Case Study sites. Rail tankers, which carried several times as much
as trucks, provided the lowest unit transportation cost, as shown by the New York City
#1 Case Study site. Economies of scale with solids transportation costs were generally
limited by state laws regarding weight per axle. Hence, the five axle, 20 cubic yard (15
o
m ) tractor-trailer dump truck was generally used.
Disposal/treatment -
The most significant factor affecting disposal costs was whether the wastes were
PCB contaminated. The disposal of cost for PCB waste was roughly double the disposal
cost for non-PCB RCRA hazardous waste. Among the PCB wastes, waste oil with over
500 mg/1 PCB at the New York City Case Study Site #1 was disposed of separately from
PCB oil with between 50-500 mg/1. The disposal cost alone was the same for waste oil
above and below 500 mgA, but the required separate handling affected other costs
because of economies of scale. Liquids from this site were disposed of by incineration,
at a slightly higher unit cost than disposal of solids, which were landfilled.
-153-
-------
Material Removal
Excavation/Transportation/
Disposal
A wide variation in disposal costs for non-PCB RCRA hazardous waste is shown in
Table 44. Liquid wastes that were solidified prior to landfilling> such as the ELI/JRB
Missouri case study site, cost more per excavated weight because the weight and bulk
increased due to the added solidification material such as sawdust or lime. Aqueous
wastes such as those at Case Study California site #2 had lower tipping rates than the
organic wastes at other sites.
The non-technical factors affecting costs are difficult to quantify fully. An
increase in disposal cost was encountered at Case Study Minnessota site when community
opposition blocked five initial proposals, which required a more expensive disposal option
to be used. Delays and more expensive disposal options were encountered at the Case
Study New York City site # 1 when an out-of-state landfill refused to accept wastes.
The city's consultant stated that this problem "had less to do with waste characterization
data discrepancies as with inter-state regulatory political factors" (CH2M HILL, 1982).
Pre-1981 costs were significantly lower than the post-1981 costs. This may have been
primarily due to the anticipated RCRA landfill regulations, and secondarily to inflation.
6.1.4.2 Estimates
The following factors affected the cost estimates for excavation/removal,
transportation, transportation and disposal/treatment:
• Excavation:
depth
method
• Transportation:
distance
contractor
• Disposal:
Method
Generally, the factors affecting estimates (Table 44) were similar to those the affecting
the expenditures, which was of significantly less technical detail was available for the
estimates scenarios.
-154-
-------
TABLE 44
PCB EXCAVATION EXPENDITURES
(1982 Dollars)
Source
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1982
N.Y.C.
US EPA"
ELI/JRB
1981
Mass.
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1980
N.'Y.C.
Material
OIL
pump able
sludge
soil
sludge
f lyash/
oil,
soil
Quantity
163
tons
240 tons
82 tons
2,793 tons
Contaminant
PCB
(3)
PCB
(3)
PCB
(3)
PCB
(3)
Excavation
Depth
surface
tanks
surface
tanks
3-15 feet
surface
Excavation
/Removal
Not
Available
Not
Available
%51/cuyd
Not
Available
Trans.
(Distance)
$248/ton
(1,740 mi.)
$240/ton
(1,420 mi.)
$145/ton
(513 miles)
$86/ton
(400 mi.)
Disposal
Treatment O
$249/ton
(2)
$233/ton
ton
(2)
$221/ton
$226/ton
Total
$498/ton
$473/ton
$425/ton
$313/ton
(1) Landfilling unless otherwise noted
(2) Incineration
(3) 50-500 ppm
-------
TABLE 44
PCS EXCAVATION EXPENDITURES (continued)
(1982 Dollars)
Data
Source
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1982
N.Y.C
*
Material
solidifi-
ed
sludge
Quantity
7 tons
Contaminant
PCS
Excavation
Depth
surface
tanks
Excavation
/Removal
not
available
Trans.
(Distance)
Disposal/
Treatment
$238/ton
(400 miles)
Total
$238/ton
I
k-
tn
I
-------
Material Removal
Excavation/Transportation/
Disposal
Excavation -
Excavation cost estimates seemed to reflect primarily varying depths. The SCS
"impoundment" estimate and the New Jersey RI/FS assumed that a frontloader would be
adequate to scrape up the contaminated soil. The need for a shovel excavator to dig
deeper at other sites caused higher estimates. The excavation estimates in all cases
were about an order of magnitude lower than the expenditures given above. The reason
for this difference may be that excavation of hazardous material does not simply add
costs to the estimate for additional tasks such as health and safety protection
requirements. Rather it affects all tasks involved in excavation, such as reduced labor
productivity due to encumberances from protective gear and delays due to slow
turnaround time for chemical analyses. Standard Construction-Engineering manual
estimates (see examples Table 45) fail to account for the effect of these factors.
Transportation -
The transportation cost estimates ranged from $1.42 - 94/ton as shown in Table
46. The distance strongly affected the cost of transportation for a ton of waste. The
cost-per-ton-per-mile estimates are given in Table 46. They ranged from $0.07 -
0.51/ton/mile. The mean was $0.25/ton/mile (SE=$0.04/ton/mile, n=10), which was
almost twice the average expenditures found for transportation. However, the distances .
assumed for the estimates were significantly lower (3.6 times) than those found to be
necessary for actual sites. (Average distance found for transportation expenditures = 618
miles, SD=485 miles; average distance assumption given for transportation estimates =
168 miles, SE=65, n = 7).
-157-
-------
TABLE 45
ESTIMATES FROM ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MANUALS
Item
Design Basis:
Cost
Excavation with
dragline
3/4 yd bucket, 90 swing,
rating 33 yd/hr
1.5 yd bucket, 90 swing,
rating 65 yd/hr
$2.47/cuyd
$1.76/cuyd
Excavation with
backhoe
Hydraulic, crawler mounted
1 yd bucket, rating 45 yd/hr $2.17/cuyd
1.5 yd bucket, rating
60 yd/hr $1.96/cuyd
2 yd bucket, rating
75 yd/hr $1.93/cuyd
3.5 yd bucket, rating
150 yd/hr $1.48/cuyd
Wheel Mounted
0.5 yd bucket, rating
20 yd/hr $3.95/cuyd
0.75 yd bucket, rating
30 yd/hr $2.92/cuyd
Excavation with
clamshell
0.5 yd bucket, rating
20 yd/hr
1 yd bucket, rating
35 yd/hr
$4.34/cuyd
$2.93/cuyd
Source: Radian, Inc., 1983
-158-
-------
TABLE 46
TRANSPORTATION COST ESTIMATES
Data Source
JRB-RAM
SCS
"impoundment"
SCS
"landfill"
New Jersey # 2
RI/FS #2
New Jersey
RI/FS #2
New Jersey
RI/FS #2
SCS 1983
Unit Weight
Cost (divided by)
$94/ton
$1.42-3.27/ton
$4.47-10.14/ton
$17.50/ton
$17.50/ton
$70/ton
$52-76/ton
Unit Weight
Distance = Distance Cost
200 miles $0.47/ton/mile
20 miles $0.07-0. 19/ton/mile
20 miles $0.22-0. 51/ton/mile
35 miles $0.32/ton/mile
100 miles $0.18/ton/mile
400 miles $0.18/ton/mile
400 miles(l) $0.13-0.19/ton/mile
(1) Assumed: 400 miles, see text
The hauling cost estimates were also found to depend on the type of transporter as shown
in Table 47. These specific costs are not necessarily representative but do show a
pattern of relative costs.
-159-
-------
TABLE 47
AVERAGE TRANSPORTATION COSTS BY TYPE OF TRANSPORTER
Type of Transporter
Unit distance
cost/ntruckload"
Unit weight
distance cost (1)
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities Providing Servic
to Customers
$2.67/mile
($1.66/km)
$0.13/ton/mile
($0.09/Mt/km)
General Freight Transportation
Companies Which May Haul
Hazardous Waste on Request
$3.60/mile
($2.24/km)
$0.18/ton/mile
($0.12/Mt/km)
Hazardous Waste Transportation
Companies Specializing in
Hazardous Waste
$3.70/mile
($2.30/km)
$0.19/ton/mile
($0.13/Mt/Km)
Source: SCS Engineers, 1983.
(1) Assume 20 tons (18 Mt)/truckload
-160-
-------
Material Removal
Excavation/Transportation/
Disposal
Disposal/Treatm ent
The most salient factor affecting disposal cost estimates was the method used in
the disposal. Cost estimates from the RI/FS from the New Jersey site show a doubling of
disposal. Cost for each increase in landfill security. However, since hazardous waste
cannot be safely or legally disposed in a sanitary landfill, this cost is inappropriately
compared with other estimates for engineered landfills. Also, the other estimates are
significantly higher than the actual costs found. Table 48 shows price quotes from a
sample of disposal/treatment firms.
Expenditure Sources
• ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983
• State and Federal Superfund work
Estimates Sources
• JRB - RAM, 1980
• Radian, 1983
• US EPA OERR contractor Feasibility Studies
• SCS 1980
-161-
-------
Table 48
AVERAGES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT QUOTED PRICES FOR ALL
FIRMS IN 1980 AND FOR NINE MAJOR FIRMS IN 1981* (in 1982 Dollars)
TYPE OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT
INCINERATION
CHEMICAL TREATMENT
DEEP WELL INJECTION
LANDFILL
LAND TREATMENT
TYPE OF FORM OF
WASTE
clean liquids
high BTU value
liquids
solids; heavy
toxic liquids
acids/
alkalines
dyanides , heavy
metals (2)
oily
waste water
toxic
waste water
Drum
Bulk
All
UNIT COST
1980 1981
$0.65/gal
$131/cuyd
$2.12/gal
$429.50/cuyd
$0.21/gal
$42.50/cuyd
$1.30/gal
$262/cuyd
$0.13/gal (1)
$26/cuyd
$0.59/gal
$119.90/cuyd
$2.43/gal
$490/cuyd
$0.24/gal
$47.50/cuyd
$1.76/gal
$355/cuyd
$0.13/gal
$26/cuyd
$0.88/gal
$179/cuyd
$35.40/55?gal.
drum
$53/ton
$45.90/55 gal.
drum
$67.50/ton
$0.07/gal
$14/cuyd
(1) Some cement kilns and light aggregate
manufacturers are now paying for waste
(2) Highly toxic waste
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
"Review of Activities of Major Firms in the
Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Industry:
1981 Update". SW-894.1. May 1982.
-162-
-------
Material Removal
Hydraulic Dredging
6.2 HYDRAULIC DREDGING
6.2.1 Definition
Hydraulic dredges are used to remove liquid, slurry, or semi-solid (sludge) wastes
from waste impoundments, bays, lakes, ' and channels containing contaminated
sediments. Once removed, the wastes can be pumped to treatment and dewatering
facilities, or transported to acceptable nearby land disposal sites.
6.2.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars per cubic yard because it provides a useful standard
measurement that is comparable to excavation.
6.2.3 Summary Statistics
6.2.3.1 Expenditure
No expenditure data are available at this time.
6.2.3.2 Estimates
The hydraulic dredging cost estimates ranged from:
$3.54/yd3 Contractor dredging only
to
$1.25/yd3 Includes related fixed costs: sheet piling, silt curtain, coffer
dam etc.
The lowest cost estimate includes only contractor prices for the dredging and pumping
phases of the operation.
-163-
-------
Material Removal
Hydraulic Dredging
6.2.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
6.2.4.1 Expenditures
No data was available at this time.
6.2.4.2 Estimates
The following factors affected estimates of cost for hydraulic dredging:
• Equipment type
• Pumping system capacity
• Sludge density
• Transportation of slurry
• Related costs
The most important factor affecting costs was the inclusion of related costs. The
Feasibility Study for the Illinois site included a variety of necessarily related tasks that
are listed in Table 49. These tasks accounted for $119 cu/yd of the total $125/cu/yd unit
price (see Table 50). Assuming similar included costs, other site specific factors affect
costs. Among these are the type of equipment, which varied with the site. Land based,
floating and barge-mounted hydraulic dredges represent increasing costs with increasing
depths and waterway sizes. The JRB-RAM and Radian estimates did not specify the
dredger type, but the Illinois feasibility study assumed a barge-mounted dredger.
-164-
-------
TABLE 49
ADDITIONAL RELATED COST ITEMS ESTIMATED FOR HYDRAULIC DREDGING-
EPA OERR, CH2 M HILL, ILLINOIS, 1983.
Task/Cost Item
Pipeline to lagoon
Sheet pile caisson -
double ring-13400 SF
PS 27
Remove sheet -
pile cofferdam
Replace existing piles
& floating docks
New boat hoisting
facility
Sediment control -
2 x silt curtain
Quantity Unit Cost
1,200 LF $11.97/LF
181 tons $23.36/ton
181 tons $11.68/ton
690 LF $195/LF
1LS $15,000
600 LF $ 95/LF
Total
$14,364
$422,816
$211,408
$134,550
$15,000
$ 57,000
$855,138
$855,138/7,200 cuyd = $119/cuyd related costs + hydraulic
dredging ($6.12/cuyd) = $125/cuyd
-165-
-------
TABLE 50
HYDRAULIC DREDGING COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
JRB-RAM
1980
EPA - OERR
CH2 M Hill
Feasibility Study
Illinois
US EPA
Radian
1983
Quantity /design
694/yd3/day
suction or cutter head
925/yd3/day
Not specified
Contaminant
Not
specified
PCB
contaminated
sludge
Not
specified
1
Pumping
Distance
1,000 ft
900 ft
1,000 ft
Cost
$3.54 - 5.90/yd3
$6.12/yd3
(excludes significant
fixed and related costs)
$4-8/yd3
o>
05
I
-------
Material Removal
Hydraulic Dredging
The system capacity likely affected unit costs through economies of scale.
Inadequate data were available to confirm this effect.
The sludge density affects unit costs because, after dewatering, low density sludge
may yield less contaminated sediment volume than a higher density sludge. This effect
must be considered in light of the higher suction rate possible with a lower density
sludge.
The different means of transporting the sludge affected costs, since the JRB-RAM
and Radian scenarios assumed that only piping would be necessary; whereas the Illinois
feasibility study assumed the need for a barge-mounted hopper as well as a pipeline.
Estimated Sources
• JRB-RAM, 1980
• Radian, 1983
• US EPA, OERR contractor Feasibility Studies
-167-
-------
Material Removal
Mechanical Dredging
6.3 MECHANICAL DREDGING
6.3.1 Definition
Mechanical dredging with draglines, clam shells, or backhoes is used to remove
contaminated sediments from shallow streams, rivers, lakes, and other basins of water.
The stream is usually diverted with temporary cofferdams; the sediments are dewatered,
excavated, then loaded onto haul vehicles for transport to a disposal site.
6.3.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars per cubic yard because it provides a useful standard
measurement that is comparable to excavation.
6.3.3 Summary Statistics
6.3.3.1 Expenditures
No expenditure data are available at this time.
6.3.3.2 Estimates
Mechanical dredging cost estimates ranged from
$1.37
to
4.09/yd3.
The range reflects varying equipment assumptions derived from a single estimate
source. The low end involves use of a simple backhoe, while the high end involves use of
a clam shell. Mobilization and demobilization costs for the backhoe added $1.50.
Hauling and disposal costs of the dredge material was not included (see excavation,
transportation and disposal).
-168-
-------
Material Removal
Mechanical Dredging
6.3.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
6.3.4.1 Expenditures
No expenditure data are available at this time.
6.3.4.2 Estimates
The following factors appeared to affect the cost estimates from mechanical
dredging:
• Equipment
Use of Barge
Excavation method (backhoe, clam shell, or dragline)
• Site condition
Depth of sediment
Water table
Additional costs: Barge
Sheet piling (pile driver).
Since mechanical dredging is most suited to dredging shallow water, the cost will rise in
proportion to the depth of the water and the size of the dredging surface. The use of a
barge would double or triple the unit cost for mechanical dredging; hence, the
accessibility of the sediments has a significant effect on costs. Also, wet excavation
may require sheetpiling or a cofferdam to support the dredging. Table 51 shows the
estimated cost for these additional tasks and the pile driver is shown to be significant.
The basic costs of dredging equipment varied with the scenario (see Table 52).
Dredging using a hydraulic backhoe (1-3.5 cu/yd bucket) the lowest cost scenario, was
$1.37-2.10/cu/yd. Intermediately, a dredging operation with a 0.75-1.5 cu/yd dragline
was estimated at $1.64-2.43/cu/yd. The highest cost scenario was estimated with a 0.5-1
cu/yd clamshell at $2.74-4.09/cu/yd.
-169-
-------
TABLE 51
ADDITIONAL COSTS TO BASIC MECHANICAL DREDGING
q
Barge-mounted dragline or $5.31-7.67/yd
clamshell, hopper dumped,
pumped 1000' to shore dump
Sheet piling, steel, high
strength (55,000 psi); temporary
installation (pull and salvage):
20' deep $9.72/ft?
25' deep $7.82/ft2
Pile driver; mobilize
and demobilize:
50 mile radius $ 6,726 total
100 mile radius $11,151 total
Source: EPA, Manual for Remedial Actions at Waste Disposal Sites
625/6-82-006
Estimate Source
• JRB-RAM, 1980
-170-
-------
TABLE 52
MECHANICAL DREDGING COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Source
US EPA
JRB-RAM
1980
*
Volume
10 yd3
Contaminant
unspecified
Site
Dimension
7.5 feet
X
30 feet
stream bed
Unit Cost
$1.37 - 4.09/yd3
I
I—"
-4
(-•
I
-------
Material Removal
Drum Removal/Transportation/
Disposal
6.4 DRUM REMOVAL, TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL/TREATMENT
6.4.1 Definition
Drum handling includes excavation in cases where the drums (bucket, pails,
containers etc.) were buried and/or staging, overpacking and loading for transport.
Transportation involves hauling loaded material to an off-site disposal or treatment
facility. Disposal/treatment may include landfilling and/or other technologies such as
neutralization, solidification or treatment. These are combined here because the cost
for all three tasks are often combined into a unit price.
6.4.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are usually given in terms of dollars per drum (bucket, pail, containers, etc.)
for comparison purposes. However, these costs may include other component tasks such
as overpacking and handling adjacent contaminated soil, as noted.
6.4.3 Summary Statistics
6.4.3.1 Expenditures
The following ranges of expenditures were found from drum removal,
transportation and disposal/treatment:
Drum removal: $60-l,168/drum
Transportation: $15-261/drum (30-480 miles)
Disposal/treatment: $36-360/drum
These cost elements cannot necessarily be summed, since the extremes of the ranges are
derived from different sources with different scenarios and assumptions.
*
Site Total: $60-l,528/drum
-172-
-------
Material Removal
Drum Removal/Transportation/
Disposal
Some of the costs for the above three tasks may have been combined in the new data.
The high expenditures for the removal costs, may reflect the use of overpacking and
containerization. Transportation cost of a drum likely varied with distance, but distance
information was rarely available. Some of the disposal costs given also include disposal
of contaminated soil. Operation and maintenance costs may include groundwater
monitoring and, possibly, site inspections or security to prevent future illegal dumping,
which is often repeated at former sites. These costs were accounted for separately,
when they were encountered.
6.4.3.2 Estimates
No handling cost estimates data are available at this time.
6.4.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
6.4.4.1 Expenditures
The following factors were found to affect drum removal expenditures given in
Table 53 in the Raw Data section.
Removal - Waste type
Drum condition
Drum size
Drum situation, depth
Adjacent soil contaminant
Demurrage
Economies of scale
Transportation - Distance
Disposal -
Waste type
-173-
-------
TABLE 53
DRUM HANDLING EXPENDITURES
(1982 Dollars)
Source
US EPA
OERR
Date
unknown
PMla.
US EPA
OERR
Date
unknown
Calif. -
#1
RI.DEM
US EPA
1981
Rhode
Island
US EPA
OERR
Date
unknown
Florida
Material
solid
liquid
drums
soil
one, 30
gal.
pail
Quantity
0. 6 cuyd.
one
55 gal.
drum
4,500
unknown
0.15 cuyd
Contaminant
caustic
soda
unidentified
solvents
Calcium-
Excavation
Depth
surface
surface
average
20 feet
(3-35 feet)
surface
Excavation
/Removal
$400/drum
$1,468/
cuyd
(2,4)
$686/drum
(5)
$363/
drum
$129/drum
Tans.
(Distance)
$230/drum
Disposal/
Treatment
$75/drum
not
available
$ 106/drum
$10.20/mile
$300/drum
Total
$1,410
(1)
$686/
drum
$469/
drum
$453
(1)
(l)Total cost may include other tasks
(2)Overp acking
(3) 50-500 ppm? minor component
(4) drum = 0.27 cuyd
—
-------
TABLE 53
DRUM HANDLING EXPENDITURES (continued)
(1982 Dollars)
Data
Source
US EPA
OERR
1982
Florida
ELI/JRB
1981
New
Jersey
ELI/JRB '
Conn.
1978
ELI/JRB
Massach.
1978
Material
liquid;
5 gal.
pails
drums,
soil
drums
soil
drums
Quantity
18.7 cuyd;
757
pails
5,101
cuyd
4,770 cuyd
481 cuyd
(3)
Contaminant
Ca oxide
chlorinated
lime
solvents
metals
solvents
metals
solvents
Excavation
Depth
surface
15-20 feet
3-13 feet
surface
Excavation
/Removal
$460/cuyd
$34-69/
cuyd
$ll/cuyd
Not
Available
Trans.
(Distance)
$0.17/cuyd/mi
(2 tucks)
$68/cuyd (4)
$57/cuyd
(440 miles)
$67/ton
(494 mi.)
$7 I/ cuyd
(480 miles)
Disposal/
Treatment (1)
$356/cuyd
$40/ton
$40/ton
$84/ton
Total
$18,155
(2,4)
$24/pail
($884/cuyd
$119/ton
-a
en
I
(1) Landfilled unless other wise noted
(2) Total cost may include other tasks
(3) 615 cuyd disposed; cuyd: ton ratio used by
T^nn0*?? = 1:1'3; 276 Cuyd aerated on-site
If 400 miles assumed
-------
Material Removal
Drum Removal/Transportation/
Disposal
Removal -
The waste types found at the Michigan, California #2, Florida, Vermont and
Philadelphia sites seemed to have had a significant effect on the removal costs. In all
cases, the cyanide, caustic soda, ethyl ether (highly flammable), aromatic hydrocarbons
and super tropical bleach (calcium oxide-chlorinated lime), required that Level A or B
protective gear, treatment (solidification or neutralization) and recontainerization be
added to the removal costs. Careful management of these more hazardous wastes
generally increased the time necessary for the various elements of the operation such as
labor and equipment. Inadequate technical detail was available, however, to quantify its
effect.
Poor drum condition increased removal costs because it necessitated overpacking.
In cases where waste had leaked out increased costs were incurred for transferring the
waste and emptying and crushing the drums. Overpacking 30 and 55 gallon drums
required 55 and 80 and gallon overpacks at increased costs.
Most drums were removed from the surface. The removal actions requiring
excavation did not cost significantly more than the removals of drums on the surface,
suggesting that the added costs of backhoes and drum grapplers were less significant than
other items of cost such as treatment or protective gear necessary for hazardous waste.
Also, a drum of an unidentified liquid floating in a Los Angeles, California river required
additional expenditures for a boat, but was not significantly more expensive than other
surface removal actions.
The extent of soil contamination varied among the sites given. The total cost in
some cases included removal of bulk soil, but the unit cost is derived by dividing only this
total by the intact or overpacked drums. Hence, the removal cost per drum may be an
overestimate in some cases. For the ELI-JRB sites in New Jersey, Connecticut, and
Massachusetts, the drums were emptied, crushed and bulked along with contaminated soil
necessitating a bulk volume unit cost. More analysis of technical details is necessary to
reaggregate these costs.
-176-
-------
Material Removal
Drum Removal/Transportation/
Disposal
Based on two observations the economies of scale appeared to affect the unit costs
of removal. First, there was a general inverse relationship between the total site costs
and the unit cost-per-drum. Second, certain minimum costs were charged for component
tasks such as mobilization of technicians and equipment. Mminimum charges also apply
to transportation as noted in the discussion of excavation cost factors in the previous
section. However, the Michigan site cost for transportation ($2/truck/mile; $60 one
truck, 30 miles) was lower than many minimum hauling charges.
Transportation -
Inadequate information was available to compare cost per mile of transportation,
but the effect of distance, as well as the rates can be expected to be similar to those
found in the above excavation section. Demurrage was not found to significantly affect
the costs since it was explicitly charged only at the Philadelphia site ($50 out of $1,410-
4%).
Disposal -
The reasons for the widely varying disposal costs were unclear because of
inadequate technical detail availability, but they parallel those given in the material
removal section.
6.4.4.2 Estimates
No cost estimate data are available at this time.
Expenditure Sources
• ELI/JRB Case Studies, 1983
• State and Federal Superfund work
-177-
-------
Sewer & Water Line Rehabilitation
Sewer Line Replacement
7.0 WATER AND SEWER LINE REHABILITATION
7.1 SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT
7.1 Definition
The process of sewer line replacement, required when damage and/or
contamination of piping is extensive, involves the excavation and removal of existing
pipework and bedding and replacement with new materials. The remaining trench is then
backfilled and compacted to restore the repair site. Preliminary inspection and location
of affected sections are considered part of this sewer system rehabilitation method.
7.1.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars per linear foot (LF) because it provides a simple and
standardized measure of sewer lines.
7.1.3 Summary Data
7.1.3.1 Expenditures
No actual cost data are available at this time.
7.1.3.2 Estimates
Cost estimates for storm sewer (reinforced conrete) pipe replacement ranged
(Table 54) from:
$ 55.46/LF (36 inch diameter)
to
$141.60 (60 inch diameter)
*
These estimates included preliminary inspection, trench excavation, pipe placement,
backfill and compaction. Allowances for removal of surface pavement and the
-178-
-------
TABLE 54
SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
JRB - RAM
1980
US EPA
Radian
1983
*
Design
Inspection, excavation
section removal, pipe
and bedding replacement
backfill and compaction
Inspection, excavation
section removal,
pipe and bedding
replacement , backfill
and compaction
Pipe Type
reinforced
concrete
reinforced
concrete
Pipe Dia.
36 incb
42 inch
48 inch
54 inch
60 inch
36 inch
42 inch
48 inch
54 inch
60 inch
Unit Cost
$55.46/LF
$68.44/LF
$87.32/LF
$107.38/LF
$141.60/LF
$53. 90/ LF
$66. 60/ LF
$85/LF
$104.50/LF
$137.90/LF
-a
-------
Sewer & Water Line Rehabilitation
Sewer Line Replacement
dewatering of trenches have not been made and may increase costs considerably. Costs
of handling and disposal of contaminated soil excavated from sewer-line-replacement
sites have not been calculated as they are site specific.
7.1.4 Factor Found to Affect Cost
7.1.4.1 Expenditures
No actual cost data available at this time.
7.1.4.2 Estimation
The following factors affected sewer line replacement cost estimates:
• Pipe size
• Pipe composition
• Depth of excavation
Pipe size and depth seemed to be most directly related to the replacement costs
for sewer lines. The cost of excavation, which is a major component of replacement, was
affected by the depth and size of the pipe. The cost of the new pipe, which is the major
material cost factor, was largely a function of the pipe size and composition. Since
reinforced concrete pipe was assumed for both estimates, cost estimates vary mostly
with size.
Estimates Sources
• JRB-RAM, 1980
• Radian, 1983
-180-
-------
Sewer & Water Line Rehabilitation •
Sewer Line Repair
7.2 SEWER LINE REPAIR
7.2.1
Definition
Sewer lines contaminated by migrating leachate may be reconditioned in place if
pipe damage is limited. The procedure includes interior inspection, cleaning (mechanical,
hydraulic or chemical means) and repair of damaged sections. The upgradient source of
contamination is assumed to have been removed or encapsulated for the purpose of this
section.
7.2.2
Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars per linear foot (LF) because it provides a simple and
standardized measure of sewer lines.
7.2.3
Summary Statistics
7.2.3.1 Expenditures
The only expenditure for cleaning and flushing contaminated sewer lines was:
$15/LF.
The cost per foot for cleaning sewer lines was the same for all piping sizes, which ranged
in diameter from 10-21 inches. No cost comparison was possible since only one actual
expenditures was available.
7.2.3.2 Estimates
Cost estimates to recondition 12 - inch diameter sewer lines ranged from:
$5.75
to
$15.90/LF
-181-
-------
Sewer <5c Water Line Rehabilitation
Sewer Line Repair
Cost estimates for repair included cleaning, interior inspection and internal grouting for
pipe in average condition. Higher estimates were expected for larger diameters and/or
more extensive grouting. Disposal costs of removed contaminated material were not
included in these estimates.
7.2.4 Factors Found to Affect Cost
7.2.4.1 Expenditures
The paucity of data regarding expenditure precludes quantification of component
costs and the factors affecting total unit costs (see Table 55).
7.2.4.2 Estimates
The following factors affected cost estimates for sewer line reconditioning (see
Table 56):
• Diameter of piping
• Extent of damage
Although the paucity of data hinders quantification of the cost factors, the above two
factors appeared to directly affect the level of effort required for repair, and hence, the
cost. The extent of the damage was probably the primary factor affecting costs since it
was directly related to the amount of repair that was required. The size of the pipe was
less directly related to costs, but still affected the area to be repaired. These costs of
contaminant handling and disposal were not included in the estimates and must be
considered as a site specific factor.
Estimates Sources
• JRB-RAM, 1980
• Radian, 1983
-182-
-------
TABLE 55
SEWER LINE REPAIR EXPENDITURES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
CH2 M Hill
1983
New York
Design
Cleaning and
Flushing
Total Length
29,426 feet
Pipe Dia.
10 - 21
inches
Unit Cost
$15/LF
oo
CO
I
-------
TABLE 56
SEWER LINE REPAIR COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
JRB - RAM
1980
US EPA
Radian
1982
Design
Cleaning, T.V.
inspection and
grout repairs
Cleaning,
T.V. inspection and
grout repairs
Length
not
specified
not
specified
Pipe Dia.
12 inches
12 inches
Unit Cost
$5.90/LF (1)
•"
$5.75/LF (1)
I
I—•
OD
i
(1) Avprage Cost; cost will vary with
pipe diameter and extent of grouting
repairs.
-------
Sewer & Water Line Rehabilitation
Water Line Repair
7.3 WATER LINE REPAIR
7.3.1
Definition
Municipal water lines, contaminated by infiltration of contaminated ground-water
or runoff, may be repaired and reconditioned if damage and potential health hazards are
limited. After location and inspection of faulty sections, cleaning procedures followed
by pipe relining (where necessary) can rehabilitate an effected system. This work may be
done in place, without costly excavation.
7.3.2
Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars-per-linear foot (LF) because if provides a simple and
standardized measure of water main lines.
7.3.3. Summary Statistics
7.3.3.1 Expenditures
No actual cost data was available at this time
7.3.3.2 Estimates
Cost estimates for water main repair ranged from:
$26/LF 8" diameter
to
$35.50/LF 24" diameter
Restoration of 24 inch diameter concrete pipe was in the same range as smaller diameter
iron pipe. Included in the cost-per-linear foot estimate was provision for preliminary
T.V. inspection.
-185-
-------
Sewer & Water Line Rehabilitation
Water Line Repair
7.3.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
7.3.4.1 Expenditure
No actual cost data are available for water main repair.
7.3.4.2 Estimates
The following factors affected cost estimates for water main repair:
• Pipe size
• Extent of damage and contamination
• Accessibility
Pipe size was the primary factor which directly affected the cost estimates for repair
(see Table 57). Site specific factors such as accessibility of damaged sections and degree
of contamination and damage would directly affect costs, but the cost estimate data
were inadequate to quantify these factors.
Estimates Sources
• JRB-RAM, 1980
• Radian, 1983
-186-
-------
TABLE 57
WATER LINE REPAIR COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
JRB - RAM
1980
US EPA
Radian
1983
»
Design
In-Place cleaning,
and cement relining
of pipes
In-Place cleaning
and cement relining
of pipes
Lilne Type
ductile iron
ductile iron
concrete
ductile iron
ductile iron
concrete
Pipe Dia.
8 inch
12 inch
24 inch
8 inch
12 inch
24 inch
Unit Cost
$29.50/LF
$35.40/LF
$29. 50/35. 40/LF
$28.75/LF
$34.50/LF
$28-34. 50/LF
00
-3
I
-------
Sewer & Water Line Rehabilitation
Water Line Replacement
7.4 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT
7.4.1 Definition
Water main replacement involves the excavation and removal of extensively
damaged and contaminated water pipe sections and bedding, sleeving new sections with
polyethelene sheet and relaying them. This is followed by backfilling and compaction of
the trench. Preliminary investigation by inspection and analysis is required prior to the
replacement procedure.
7.4.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars-per-linear foot (LF) because it provides a simple and
standardize measure of water lines.
7.4.3 Summary Statistics
7.4.3.1 Expenditures
No actual cost data are available at this time.
7.4.3.2 Estimates
Water line replacement cost estimates ranged from:
$ 58.50/LF 8" diameter
to
$119.18/LF 24" diameter
These estimates covered all basic pipe replacement costs including preliminary
inspection procedures. Costs were generally proportional to pipe size.
-188-
-------
Sewer
-------
TABLE 58
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
JRB - RAM
1980
US EPA
Radian
1983
*
Design
Inspection, excavation,
old line removal,
Polyethylene sleeving ,
pipe laying, backfill,
and compaction
Inspection, old line
removal, Polyethylene
sleeving, pipe laying,
backfill, and com'?
paction
Material
Iron
Iron
Iron
Concrete
Iron
Iron
Iron
concrete
Size (Dia.)
8 inch
12 inch
16 inch
24 inch
8 inch
12 inch
16 inch
24 inch
Unit Cost
$60.8/LF
$71.98/LF
$95.58/LF
$119.18/LF
$58.50 /LF
$70.00/ LF
$93.00/ LF
$116,00/LF
CD
o
I
-------
Alternative Water Supply
New Supply Wells
8.0 ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLIES
8.1 NEW WATER SUPPLY WELLS
8.1.1 Definition
New water wells usually involve drilled rather than driven wells, and are typically
cased with a PVC sleeve. The costs of providing and operating a pump, and the cost of
storage tanks may also be included in the operation. Bottled water from outside sources
may also serve a temporary water supply, although cost information on this source is not
included in this section.
8.1.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars per linear foot depth because it provides a standard unit
for comparison within the water well industry.
8.1.3 Summary Data
8.1.3.1 Expenditures
No expenditure data was available at this time.
8.1.3.2 Estimates
The single cost estimate found for new well installation was:
Capital: $46.25/LF
Operation and
Maintenance: $265/year
The capital cost estimate covers labor, equipment and materials. However, costs for
preliminary geologic investigations for well siting were not included. The operation and
maintenance figure has been calculated for a well 200 feet deep.
-191-
-------
Alternative Water Supply
New Supply Wells
8.1.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs:
8.1.4.1 Expenditures
No data was available at this time.
8.1.4.2 Estimates
Due to the limitations of well cost estimation data (see Table 59), no comparison of
cost factors can be made. As noted above, however, well depth and diameter as well as
hydrogeologic site conditions are general determinants in total costs for well installation.
Estimates Sources
US EPA, OERR contractor Feasibility Studies.
-192-
-------
TABLE 59
NEW WELL COST ESTIMATES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
Radian
- 1973
(1978 dollars)
Design
4 inch diameter
pvc casing
submersible pump
5gpm
Depth
200 feet
Operation &
Maintenance
$265/year
Capital
$46.25/LF
($9,250 Total)
to
CO
-------
Alternative Water Supply
Water Distribution
8.2 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
8.2.1 Definition:
Water distribution, systems consist of a network of pressurized pipes connecting
individual households with existing water sources, such as mains or reservoirs, and
municipal hydrants to a common water source. No source costs for wells or reservoirs
are assumed in this section; only connection costs are given.
8.2.2 Units of Measurement
Costs are given in dollars per household connected as this is a common factor in the
available data and allows an approximation of the numbers of people served by a new
water system.
8.2.3 Summary Data
8.2.3.1 Expenditures
The range of expenditures was:
$1,091/household
to
$10,714/household
The costs components of the higher expenditure include fire hydrants and all
appurtenances; while the lower cost system did not include these costs. Operation and
maintenance costs, which may be significant, were not available.
8.2.3.2 Estimates
No estimates data are available at this time.
-194-
-------
Alternative Water Supply
Water Distribution
8.2.4 Factors Found to Affect Costs
8.2.4.1 Expenditures
The following factors were found to affect the costs of new water distribution
systems (see Table 60):
• Size (pipe length/diameter)
• Inclusion of related costs
The inclusion of related costs was probably the most important factor that affected
costs. The more costly system included design work and fire hydrants along all
connected streets. The less costly system included only the costs of construction for
basic domestic water supply. The two systems shown vary somewhat in size, in terms of
both length and diameter. The lower cost Minnesota system connected houses that were
closer together than the California system. Also the California system was built to allow
for connection of more houses in the future, by using oversized mains that exceeded
present system needs. Operation and maintenance costs, which may be significant, are
not included. Also excluded is the fee usually charged by a municipality for a
connection.
8.2.4.2 Estimates
No estimates data are available at this time.
-195-
-------
TABLE 60
WATER DISTRIBUTION EXPENDITURES
(1982 Dollars)
Data Source
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1979
Minnesota
US EPA
ELI/JRB
1982
California
e
Design
domestic
water distribution
system
Includes construction,
services, fire
hydrants
Units served
11 houses
28 houses
fire hydrant
system
Total Cost
$12,000
$200,000
$300,000
Unit Cost j
$l,091/house
$7, 143-10, 714/house
to
a>
-------
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
CH2M HILL, December 1982. "Draft Engineering Services Report/Quanta Resources
Clean-up" Reston, Va. For New York City Department of Environmental
Protection. Invoices and daily logs were used to assemble actual removal
expenditures.
ELJ/JRB Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. and JRB Associates, McLean,
Va. Case Studies of Remedial Responses at Hazardous Waste Sites. 1983/85. Invoices,
correspondence, reports and vouchers were used as part of this compilation of 23
case studies around the U.S.
JRB - RAM, 1980. These cost estimates were drawn from the "Manual for Remedial
Actions at Hazardous Disposal Sites" Draft final report by JRB Associates, McLean,
Va. June 20, 1980. This manual was subsequently published by U.S. EPA as the
"Manual for Remedial Actions at Hazardous Wastes Sites." EPA 625/6-82-006.
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1982, and again by Noyes Publishing Company, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, 1983. The initial draft final report was used because it contained the
greatest cost detail. These estimates were drawn principally from construction
estimation manuals such as (1) the Means Manual (Godfrey, R.R. (Ed.), 1980, Building
Construction Cost Data 1980, 38th Annual Edition, R.S. Means Company,. Inc.; (2)
Dodge Manual (McMahon, L.; Pereira, P. (Ed.) 1979. 1980 Dodge Guide to Public
Works and Heavy Construction Costs. McGraw-Hill Information Systems Co., New
York, N.Y.; (3) Richardson Rapid Construction Cost Estimating System (Richardson
Engineering Services, 1980); and supplemented with a large number of price quotes
drawn directly from industry and commercial sources. Hypothetical site scenarios
are given for many of the technologies.
Radian, 1983. These estimates are drawn from the last section of "Evaluating Cost-
effectiveness of Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites" - Draft
Methodology Manual by the Radian Corporation, Austin, Texas, January 10, 1983.
These estimates were indexed to constant dollars for March 1982. Many of the
estimates were derived from EPA's "Handbook for Remedial Action at Hazardous
Waste Sites." EPA 625/6-82-006. Cincinnati, Ohio, 1982. This source was always
-197-
-------
supplemented or supplanted by many other estimation sources, including specialized
papers for specific technologies, and general construction estimating manuals.
SCS (Engineers), 1980. These cost estimates came from "Costs of Remedial Response
Action at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites" by SCS Engineers, Long Beach
California, April 1981. According to this methodology: "For the most part the 1980
Means (Godfrey, R. (Ed.) 1979. Building construction cost data: 1980. Robert Snow
Means Company, Inc. Kingston, MA. and Dodge Guides McMahon, L., Pereira, P. (Ed.)
1979. 1980 Dodge Guide to Public Works and Heavy Construction Costs.; McGraw-
Hill Information Systems Co. New York, N.Y. were used to obtain the costs needed."
SCS (Engineers), 1981. These cost estimates are derived from Cost Comparison of
Treatment and Disposal Alternatives for Hazardous Materials (EPA - 600/52-80-188)
published in February 1981 by the US EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory. The estimate compilation was performed by SCS Engineers for a greater
Chicago area scenario using the 1978 Means Construction Cost Manual. Hence, mid-
1978 costs were originally estimated. For comparison purposes these cost estimates
were converted from simple average costs, and the raw data on capital and operation
and maintenance costs were used in stead.
US EPA, OERR contractor Bids. Losing bids for Superfund work are used here as
estimated costs since they did not serve as the basis for actual construction.
However, these estimates reflects a higher level of detail than many other estimates
since specific local capabilities are considered. Most of the cost estimates are from
1982 and 1983 estimates.
US EPA, OERR contractor Feasibility Studies. Cost estimates from feasibility studies
are generally drawn from non-bid estimates from contractors. Most of these cost
estimates are from 1982 and 1983.
US EPA, OERR State and Federal Superfund Work. Records from initial Superfund work,
such as bid and change order reports, and spread sheet printouts. All sites are
numbered for anonymity, but state locations are given because of its relevance to
cost factors such as labor and materials, and site characteristics such as climate.
-198-
------- |