Costs of Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites — Impacts of
Worker Health and Safety Considerations
SCS Engineers, Inc., Covington, KY
Prepared for
Municipal Environmental Research Lab.
Cincinnati, OH
1983
PB84-128701
-------
EPA-GOO/Q-84-019
1983
COSTS OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS AT UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE
SITES -- IMPACTS OF WORKER HEALTH AMD SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
by
J. Walsh, J. Lippit.t, and M. Scott
SCS Engineers
Covington, Kentucky
EPA Contract 68-03-3028
EPA Project Officer
D. C. Ammon
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OH 45268
-------
IPtcau rtatl Instrucf.cnt on the revtrte 'itfore completing/
I. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/D-84-019
TIT 1.5 ANO SUBTITLE
COSTS OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS OF UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS
WASTE SUES—IMPACTS OF WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETY
CONSIDERATIONS
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORIS)
J. Walsh, J. Lippitt and K. Scott
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AOORESS
0. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
SCS Engineers
El 1 Grandview Drive
Covington, KY 41017
TEJY1A
1. CONTRACT/GRANT HO.
68-03-3028
work Assignment No. 14
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO AOORCSS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Gin. ,OH
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
3. Trf>£ OF REPORT JNO PERIOD COVERED
Conference Paper 6/82 - 6/83
«. SPONSORING AGENCY COOS
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Douglas C. Ammon
C513/684-7871)
IS. ABSTRACT
Cost-effectiveness evaluations of Superfund expenditures require consideration of
additional costs of protecting workers' health and safety. Unfortunately, not much
cost data has been available concerning health and safety considerations. This paper
represents part of the effo>t to identify and estimate costs associated with protection
of worker health and safety. Although the findings and results cannot be considered
the final answer, they will help site management and planning personnel to generalize
health and safety cost impacts. The'paper is for presentation at the Fourth
Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites Conference, October 1983, Washington,
D. C.
17.
KFY WORDS ANO COCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. O6NTIFIERS/OPEN ENOEO TERME c. COSATI Field/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECUS'T'. CUAJS
UNCLASSIFIED
tportl
il. .NO. OP
27
JO. SE
33. PRiCE
EPA Form 2230-1 (R«». 4-77) PKIVIOUJ COITION i*
-------
NOTICE
Th\s document has bean reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trace names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
-------
COSTS OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS AT UNCONTROLLED
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES -- IMPACTS OF WORKER
HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
J. Walsh, J. Uppitt, and M. Scitt
SCS Engineers
Covington, Kentucky
INTRODUCTION
In December 1930, the U.S. Congress passed legislation entitled
"The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act" which is olso known as Superfund. Superfund provides the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the legislative mandate
and the monetary base to assist in the elimination of public health
hazards posed by uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Section 105 of
the Superfund legislation requires the EPA to investigate the costs
of remedial/clean-up actions at uncontrolled waste sites. Specifically,
Item 2 of Section 105 requires the development of cost ranges for va-
rious types of remedial actions.
Responsibility for implementing Superfund actions and response
to uncontrolled hazardous waste sites rests primarily with the EPA
Office of tmergency £nd Remedial Response (OERR). At the request of
OERR, the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORO) has been con-
ducting research on the costs of remedial actions to fulfill the require-
ments of Section 105. Iii support of these activities, several studies
have been conducted to evaluate the types of remedial actions and as-
sociated costs applicable co Superfund c.ites (i.e., sites for which
Superfund monies have been allocated) and other hazardous waste sites.
In these studies, costs associated with health and safety of workers
were either not included or not uniformly identifiable as separate
cost items. As a result, the project conducted and being presented
in this pa^r was designed to specifically address the additional
costs of protecting worker health and safety on a hazardous waste site.
These costs do not include costs associated with addressing concerns
-------
of the public health and safety in the vicinity around an uncontrolled
hazardous waste site. However, the controls and costs associated with
protection of workers en the site should reflect much, if not at all,
of the additional costs of protecting the public in areas removed from
the source of contamination (i.e., the hazardous waste site itself).
The objectives of this project were:
1. Identify categories of health and safety costs.
2. Collect and compile health and safety cost estimates and
determine a range of costs which can be encountered on
hazardous wastes sites.
3. Calculate percentage incremental health and safety cost
adjustment factors.
4. Identify factors which impact health end safety costs and
should be considered for future study and evaluation.
STUDY DESIGN AND APPROACH
Initial data collection was based on reviews of case studies, bid
documents for Superfund sites, and a telephone survey of firms and
regulatory agencies. After reviewing available data and the summaries
of the telephone survey, it wa'; determined that health and safety costs
could not be readily identified. Normal accounting practices did not
distinguish many health and safety costs. Such costs were routinely
incorporated into general categories such as labor rates, equipment
O&M costs, and overhead expenditures. In addition, extensive analysis
of cost data from existing sites was viewed by many contractors as
extremely sensitive due to competitive and proprietary considerations.
On the other hand, most of the contacts felt that general discussions
of costs would be of little value because of site specific considera-
tions which impact on the overall costs and particularly health and
safety costs. As a "esult, it was concluded that realistic, but fic-
ticious, hazardous waste site scenarios would provide the best format
for providing ana evaluating cost estimates for remedial action unit
operations. In fact, several of the contacts indicated they felt it
was the only reasonable approach.
-------
From previous studies and case history reports, 26 discrete reme-
dial action activities (hereafter referred to as remedial action
unit operations) were identified. Table 1 is a list of the 28 remedial
acticn unit operations. Th° basis of classification was the media
that the remedial action-, control. The media include surface water,
ground water, subsurface gas, and waste. Nine of these are classified
as surface water controls, eight as ground water controls, three as
gas migration controls, and eight as waste controls.
Ten health and safety cost components were idertified based on
literature reviews, previous site observations, discussions with field
personnel from state anc* federal regulatory officials, and discussions
with cleanup contractors. Table 2 is a list of the ten health and
safety cost categories identified.
In providing cost estimates, contractors were requested not to
address costs .if transportation and disposal, This approach was taken
due to the amount of information available on transportation and dis-
posal costs and to minimize the amount of cost estimations required
of the contractors responding to the scenarios. A separate telephone
survey was conducted involving 11 transportation firms to identify
current ranges cf transportation costs for hazardous waste.. Disposal
cost estimates were obtained from the 1981 update of the U.S. EPA
report entitled, "Review of Activities of Major Firms Involved in
Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Industry" [1]. Since transportation
and disposal costs are often included as separate line item costs,
separation of these costs in the scenarios is consistent with
normal contractor procedures.
TELEPHONE SURVEY
An extensive telephone survey was made to identify available sources
of data on health and safety costs. The survey included:
-------
TABLE 1
REMEDIAL ACTION UNIT OPERATIONS
Surface Water Control s
1. Surface Sealing with Synthetic Membrane
2. Surface Sealing with Clay
3. Surface Sealing with Asphalt
4. Surface Sealing with Fly Ash
5. kevegetation
6. Contour Grading
'/. Surface Water Diversion Structures
8. Basins and Ponds
9* Dikes and Berros
Ground Hater Controls
1. Well Point System
2. Deep Well System
3. Drain System
4. Injection System
5. Bentonite Slurry Trenches
6. Grout Curtain
7. Sheet Piling Cutoff
8. Grout Bottom Sealing
Ga s _M j g ra t i o n Controls
1. Passive Trench Vents
2. Passive Trench Barriers
3. Active Gas Extraction Wells
Waste
1. Chemical Injection
2. Chemical Fixation
3. Excavation
4. Leachate Recirculation
5. Treatment of Contaminated Water
6. Drum Processing
7. Bulk Tank Processing
8.. Transformer Processing
-------
TABLE 2
HEALTH AND SAFETY COST COMPONENT CATEGORIES
1. Decontamination
2, Emergency Preoaredness
3. Hazard Assessment
4. Insurance
5. Manpower Inefficiencies
6. Medical Services/Surveillance
7. Personal Protection
8. Personnel Training
9. Record Keeping
10. Site Security
-------
• Forty-seven firms with experience in remedial action responses
on hazardous waste sites.
• Eleven state and federal regulatory agency rapresentatives
involved with managanent and/or assessment of hazardous waste
site cleanup operations.
e Eight military contacts involved in the management and/or
assessment of military hazardous waste sites.
• Six consulting firms that have conducted studies concerned
with remedial actions on hazardous waste sites.
• Three research oriented institutions involved in hazardous
waste management research activities.
Each telephone interview was recorded on a written telephone sum-
mary report, evaluated, and rated based on the following four general
criteria:
1. Amount of experience in assessment and management of remedial
actions on hazardous waste s.tes.
2. The variety of exoeriences with types of site, and/or remedial
actions.
3. Access to available data.
4. Willingness to cooperate in providing data and discussing
cost allocations.
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE COSTING SCENARIOS
Six hazardous waste site scenarios were developed to be represen-
tative of three basic types of sites:
1. Subsurface Burial
2. Surface Impoundments
3. Above-Grade Storage
Whenever possible, these scenarios were developed based on actual
cleanup operations either completed, in progress, or planned for the
future. This approach was adopted to ensure that the scenarios would
reflect realistic site conditions while providing a means of controlling
site variables which could impact cost estimates.
Each scenario wai composed of a number of distinct unit operations.
The combination of the unit operations represented a complete remedial
-------
action program for each hypothetical site. Site- characteristics
(e.g., size, topography, hydrology, weather, etc.) were defined for
ear.h scenario to provide a detailed profile on the site. Similarly,
the characteristics of the wastes present on each site were defined
such that the degree-of-hazard conditions could be determined for
each unit operation. The degree-of-hazard conditions described re-
presented conditions which parallel four levels of personal protection
recommended in the Interim Standard Operating Safety Guides developed
by the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous Response
Support Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [2] Table
3 provides a brief description of the conditions associated with the
four levels of personal protection (designated as Levels A, B, C,
and D in order of decreasing degree-of-hazard conditions). Contrac-
tors were instructed to utilize the recommended guides in determining
the level of personal protection required.
Contractors providing cost estimates were- instructed to provide
cost estimates for each unit operation under the conditions set forth
in the scenario and costs representative of conducting the same ac-
tivity if the hazardous wastes were not on-site (i.e., base construc-
tion costs). In order to identify the relative impact of variations
in degree-of-hazard conditions, contractors wen; also instructed to
provide cost estimates based on three other modifications of hazard
conditions which were also specified. The modifications were based
only on variations of waste characteristics while all other site con-
ditions and activities remained constant.
One additional factor identified which ifiay significantly impact health
and safety costs is ambient temperature. To identify the relative
impact of temperature, contractors were instructed to provide an es-
.timate of the cost variations of the total scenario, health and safety
costs estimated for each of the four degree-of-hazard conditions.
The cost estimate variations were based on the costs under the range
of temperatures given in the scenario and two additional temperature
ranges. The result was an estimate of total scenario health and safety
-------
TABLE 3
CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH LEVELS OF PERSONAL PROTECTION
1. Level A - requires full encapsulation ami 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 headj is 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 0 - no identified hazard present, but conditions are
monitored and minimal safety equipment is available.
-------
costs under the four degree-of-hazard conditions for low (<0°C), nor-
mal (0-18°C), and high (18-38°C) ambient temperature ranges. The
relative temperature ranges included wind chill considerations.
The selection of contractors to respond to the scenarios was based
on the following criteria:
• Their relative rating provided froni the evaluation of the
telephone survey results.
• A match of their previous exper^nce with sites similar to
one or more of the scenarios. •
• The availability of personnel routinely involved in cost esti-
mation and familiar with health and safety requirements on
a hazardous waste site.
t Project funding limitations for payment of subcontractors
(i.e., site cleanup contractors) to provide cost estimates.
The final selection included seven hazardous waste cleanup contrac-
tors responsible for one to three scenarios apiece. Each scenario
was assigned to two different contractors for cost estimation.
A questionnaire was also sent to the contractors providing cost
estimates. The questionnaire was designed to identify differences
in approaches to health and safety considerations which impact costs.
The purpose of requesting the 'information was to provide additional
information to assist in determining probable reasons for cost vari-
ations anticipated. In addition, contractors were requested tc com-
ment on other considerations or differences, if any, that they con-.-
sidered significant.
TRANSPORTATION COST SURVEY
Initial literature search and review was based on (1) in-house
library sources, and (2) the U.S. EPA Research Library in the
Environmental Research Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. The available
literature did not specifically address transportation costs for haz-
ardous waste cleanup sites. Very little current data (1980 to 1982) was
available for hazardous materials transportation costs. Additional
-------
efforts were made to identify cost information from current studies.
Unfortunately, none of the data was available.
In order to obtain current cost data, a telephone survey of trans-
portation companies and services was conducted. A telephone inter-
view questionnaire was developed for data collection from companies
contacted. Eleven companies were contacted. A total of six responses
were obtained and can be categorized into three major groups:
1. Companies concentrating or specializing in transportation
of hazardous wastes.
2. Companies whose main interests and efforts involve general
freight and commodities and only limited involvement in
hazardous waste transportation.
3. Waste disposal and treatment companies who provide trans-
portation services for their customers.
Two responses were obtained from companies in each category.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Responses to Scenarios
A total of eleven completed remedial action costing scenarios
were returned. Two contractors could not proviJe the recj'jcsted cost
estimates within the required time period due to conflicting work
schedules. As a result, cost estimates for Scenario 5 were provided
by only one contractor. The remaining Scenarios 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6
were estimated by two contractors apiece.
The original cost estimates were reviewed and modifications were
made (e.g., assigning travel and per diem costs to bas;e construction
costs instead of health and safety costs, correction of calculation
errors, etc.). Additional information was requested, as necessary,
to reallocate costs to uniformly cover the health and safety cost
component items. Modifications were reviewed with the respective
contractors. Cost estimates were provided for the four degree-of-
hazard conditions which were established in the scenarios. The degree-
10
-------
of-hazard conditions were identified as Levels A, B, C, anr* D which
indicate maximum level of personal protection required based on the
information given in the scenario information/instruction packets ser.t
to the contractors. The degree-of-hazerd condition designated Level
A as the worst case, while Level D is the least hazardous condition.
In Scenario 2, costs were only requested for Level C conditions
which were considered sufficient for worker protection for handling
PCB's. The scenario was included because of the number of sites and
public concern involving electrical equipment containing PCB's and
the special requirements established for PCB's by the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA).
The contractor's cost estimates were compiled and evaluated, then
used to calculate a cost per unit range for each remedial action unit
operation. Cost per unit calculations were made for health and safety
costs at the four degree-of-hazard conditions and for base construction
costs. Table 4 shows the cost per unit ranges calculated. A percen-
tage incremental cost factor was calculated by dividing the health
and safety costs per jnit for each of the I'egree-of-hazard conditions
by the costs per unit calculated for the base construction costs. The
resulting percent range of incremental health and safety cost adjust-
ment factors are presented in Table 5. Estimates for those ramedial
action unit operations not costed as part of the six cost scenarios
can be calculated based on a comparison of potential worker exposures
while conducting remedial action unit operations. The types of ac-
tivities which determine the potential for worker exposures were
identified for each of the 28 remedial action unit operations as pre-
sented in Table 6.
The estimated impacts of temperature on remedial action costs ars
summarized in Table 7. The original estimates did provide costs for
each unit operation, b'it the specific component costs which contractors
Considered temperature sensitive and the amount of the impact were not
11
-------
TABLE 4
RANGE OF HEALTH AND SAFETY COSTS PER UNIT*
ro
Unit Operation
Surface Water Control;:
Surface Seal - Synthetic Kenbrane
Surface Seal - Cloy
fle-'flqc tat Ion*
Contour Grading
Surface Water Diversion
Basins and Ponds
Dikes and Berrr.s
Ground Water Controls:
Wall Point System
Drain System
Bentonite Slurry Trench
Waste Controls:
Crenlcal Fixation (Sol idlf lea tlon)
Encovc'.ion of Wastes/Contaminated Soil
Treatment of Contaminated Watsr
OI-UTI Processing
Sulk Tank Processing
Transformer Processing
UnH of
Heaijre
nZ
ST. yd
m*
sq yd
ha
acre
m3
cu yd
n3
cu vd
m-l
cu vd
m3 '
cu yd
m2
sq yd
n3
lu yd
.1,3
cu yd
m3
cu yd
ml
cu yd
V My
&•
208 1 (b5
98 1) drums
30.280 1
(8,000 gal)
tinks
Transforrer
Bas? Construction
Costs Per Unit
JU.11-J19.65
J17.24-J23.50
SZ.74
52.29
J6.373-J124.000*
S2.549-J49.600
«. 95-15. 76
J2. 22-54. 40
Jl .91-516.05"
•J. 45-512. 28
J4.S.VSK.53
J1.46-S5.5Z
J'iZ.78-J15.96
$9.78-$12.21
J133
Jill
J38.87-J49.22
J29.72-J37.63
S50.95
$38.97
J25.06-J147.33
J19.16-J112.63
J3.10-J324.41
J2.37-J248.08
J0.09-J14.31
S0.35-J53.49
JJ5.1S-J630.89
J1.ZZ2-J4.032
J2IO-S330
level D
J1.13-J3.99
S1.35-J4.77
JO. 26
JO.JJ
l;43-J65,115
SI36-J26.046
SO. 38- J2. 10
S0.29-SI.61
J0.23-S9.13
J0.17-S6.99
J0.4I-J3.45
J0.31-J2.54
JO. 34-J14. 68
S0.65-J11.23
J11.70
S9.78
J3.31-J22.99
J2.53-J17.58
J4.46
J3.41
(2.7S-J46.6Z
S2.10-S35.64
$14. 53-5112. 10
$11.11-585.72
J0.01-J5.35
J0.03-SJ0.27
SS1.91-J928.42
51,047-54,162
•~
Health and Safety Costs Per Unit
level C
J2.06-J4.63
J2.46-J5.53
JO. 52
50.43
J1.215-J73.342
J486-J29.337
JO. 73-52.66
J0.56-J2.03
JO.i8-J10.7Z
tO.29-J8.20
J0.93-J4.60
50.7I-J3.SZ
J2.65-J19.94
52.03-J15.26
S19.63
516.41
S5.1/-S29.7S
S4.72-J22.75
J6.97
55.33
$4.12-560.97
J3.I5-J46.S1
J5.90-524S.42
54.51-5188.44
50.01-55.44
50.05-120.59
569.63-51.165.63
Tl 925-55.560
J48. 57-51. 195
Le/cl 8
JZ.41-J5.19
J2.88-J6.56
JO. 66
JO. 55
JI.ZI5-J74.940
J485-J29.976
S0.96-J1.02
JO. 73-52. 31
JO. 46-512. 34
>u. 35-59. 44
;i. 28-J5. 22
J0.98-J3.99
J3.04-V20.91
J2. 33-516. 00
J24.06
J20.12
J7.51 -J12. 46
J5.74-j:'l.8Z
J15.40
J12.51
J4. 29-570. 04
J3.Z8-5S3.S4
J24. 70-5169. 38
J18.E8-JI29.53
SO.OZ-S5.14
JO. 05-523. 22
SS8. 89-51. 402. 8G
55,570-56,358
leve^ A
52.48-55.93
J2 97-57. OC.
50.74
50.62
5I.2J5-578.6V7
5435-;31.455
SO. 97-53. 7C
50.75-52.83
SO. 47-513. 34
J0.36-S1C.20
SI.59-J5.58
J1.21-J4.Z7
J3.35-J23.3.
J2.57-J17.83
531.34
$25.20
S10.60-S34.06
58.10-526.04
518.24
513.94
54. 64-580. 38
53.55-561 45
JZ2. 99-5198. OZ
JZZ.17-J1S1.4J
J0.02-J6.97
JO.C8-S26.37
S10i.68-J1.690.07
58,354-58,414
• Cost ranges are not adjusted for economy of scale or regloial variations.
» .'ange Includes cost estimates fron one contractor which were significantly hlghor than the others.
* A coroosite of base construction costs for revegdallon from previous SCS report [3] y'.elds a r»nje of 53,974 - 5"i8,0'9 per ha (51,6Cj • 57,300 p*r acre).
•• Costi fron previous SCS report [3] yield cosl ranges of 51.75 - $3.63 per n>J (51.34 • $2.78 per cu yd) for surface x»tcr diversion base construction.
-------
TABLE 5
INCREMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY COSTS — RANGE OF PERCENTAGE
ADJUSTMENTS OVER BASE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Degree -of -Hazard Conditions
CnH Operation
Surface War^r Controls:
1. Surface Sealing - Synthetic MtiTiorane
2. Surface Selling - Clay
3. Surface Sealing - Asphalt
4. Surface Seating - Fly Ash
5. Revegetatlon
6. Contour Grading
7. Surface Water Diversion Structures
8. !as1ns ard Ponds
». Dikes and Berns
Ground V'ater Controls:
1. Well Point System
2. Deep Well System
3. Drain iysten
4. Injection Systcn
5. Gentonlte Slurry Trench
6. Orout Curtain
7. Sheet Piling Cutoff
8. Grout Bottora Sealing
Gas Migration Controls:
1 . Passive Trench Verts
2. Passive Trench Barriers
3. Active Gas Extraction System
Wjs'.c Co-trols:
'. Chemical FinsMon (Solidification)
2. Chtfcilcal Injection
3. Excavation of Wsstes/Centa.Tlnated Soii
4. leacha'.e P.eclrculatlon
5. Treatnent of Contaminated Water
6. Drun Processing
7. Bulk Tank Processing
8. TransfOmer Processing
Level 0
8-20t
91
•-
-.
5-53S
9-«5l
12-57X
9-401
7-921
IDS
•-
9-47X
--
9*
--
•-
~~
11-3JI
"-
32-S45J
--
11-3Bt
3M66I
86-103J
~~
Lsvel C
14-26X
19t
--
--
12-591
17-57:
20-671
21-541
21-1251
171
••
16-601
••
141
•-
•-
"
16-411
*-
4«-6Ut
--
11-381
75-1921
138-1581
23-36 I
Level b
17-281
241
--
•>-
13-601
22-651
24-771
28-511
24-1311
211
•-
19-651
--
321
•-
--
--
17-481
--
50-785S
--
22-43X
50-2771
173-4641
--
Level A
17-301
271
•-
--
u-63:
24-80;
25-831
35-65X
26-1461
28T
--
27-691
•-
361
--
19-551
--
58-19901
--
?2-*9t
58-3:31
209-6 SCI
-•
-------
TABLE 6
ACTIVITIES WHICH IMPACT POTENTIAL WORKER EXPOSURES WHILE
CONDUCTING REMEDIAL ACTIONS ON HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES"
— CO
o TJ —
I C TJ
IMt Operation
Surface Viler Controls:
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Gro,
1.
2.
3.
4.
•5.
6.
7.
a.
Gas_
I.
j.
3.
V'«S
1 .
z.
».
b.
6.
7.
a.
Surface Sealing - Synthetic Menbrane
Surface Sealing - Clay
Surface Selling - Asphalt
Surface Sea1 ing - Ply Ash
Reve gelation
Contour Grading
Surface Wau>r Divert ion Structures
Sasins an< Ponds
OUes
-------
TABLE 7
IMPACT OF TEMPERATURE ON REMEDIAL ACTION COSTS
HeiUn and
Contrictor-
1-1
11-1
1-2
in-2
U-3
IV- 3
III-4
IY-4
IV-i
III-6
V-6
Temperature
~**C
0-18'
18-33°
-------
idr-ntified. Therefore, revisions of original cost estimates, after
ceviaw of data and follow-up telephone contacts, prevented direct
modification of individual unit operations. However, general indica-
tions of temperature impacts can be drawn from the data provided.
The percent variations were based on increases above base construction
costs estimated for the moderate 0 to 18°C range. As shown in Table
7, base construction costs and health and safety increased with higher
or lower temperatures. Use of an average variation (as shown in Table
8) would enable general estimate adjustments relative to the impact
of anticipated seasonal or climatic temperature differences.
Transportation and Disposal Costs
The costs of transportation of ha?ardous wastes varies widely
with respect to specific jobs and the type of company employed to
transport the wastes. In addition, the lack of standardized rates
con result in evi-.n more variation depending on the amount of compe-
tition for a given job. The ranges obtained from this survey should
re'Hect cost for most of the hazardous waste transporcation, but will
not reflect unusual costs associated with some sites.
Rates can be based on costs per mile, cost per unit measure (i.e.,
volume and/or weight of cargo) or a cost per hour. A cost per mile
rate assumes full use of vehicle load capacity. Economies of scale
will apply to cost per mile and cost per unit measure rates. This
is true for ..lileage rates because the cost effectiveness of operation
is greater when the ratio of time on the road increases over the down
time spent for mobilizing, loading, and unloading. When rates are
based on cost per unit measure, the cost per unit will decrease as
load capacity is appror.ched since the cost of transporting (i.e.,
costs previously identified) are divided a;7
-------
TABLE 8
AVERAGE PERCENT COST VARIATIONS DUE TO TEMPERATURE
Temperature
•c
0-18°
18-33-
-------
unloading periods, and for additional costs of detention times ex-
ceeding the time allocated (included in the cost per mile or cost
per unit measure rates). Table 9 contains the ranges of rates obtained
during the survey. Table 10 is a range of costs provided by one of
the general freight transporters which provides an indication of the
impact of distance on rates.
The disposal costs used for this project (shown in Table 11) were
obtained from an EPA publication "Review of Activities of Major Finns
ir; the Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Industry: 1981 Update",
SW-894.1. As indicated on the table, the data was based on interviews
conducted in May 1980 and February 1982. The assumptions made to
convert estimates to $/wet metric tons (KMT), when conversion factor
estimates were not available, were reported to b<>:
• Volumes in gallons were con-.^rted to WMT a.-suming the waste
density was that of water (i.e., 8.34 Ib/gal or 0.0037 WMT/gai).
• Cubic yards were converted to WMT on the assumption of density
equal to water at 62.4 Ib/cu ft or 0.76 WMT/cu yd.
• Volumes disposed of in landfills were assumed to be bulk ma-
terials unless drum and bulk distribution was stated.
t Capacity reported in acres was converted to WMT by assuming
available capacity of 430,000 cu ft/acre or H disposal ca-
oacity of 12,100 WMT/acre.
SUMMARY MD COUCH'S I ON
Cost-effectiveness evaluations of Superfund expenditures require
consideration of additional costs of protecting workers' health and
safety. Unfortunately, not much cost data has been available concerning
health and safety considerations. This study represents part of the
effort to identify and estimate costs associated with protection
of worker health and safety. Although the findings and result? of
this project cannot be considered the final answer, they will enable
site management and planning personnel to generalize hec.lth and safety
cost impacts.
18
-------
TABLE 9
RANGES OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS BY TYPF OF TRANSPORTER
Type of Transporter
Kates
Treatment, Storage, aid Disposal facilities
Prodding Service to Cultcurers
General Freight Transportation Companies
Wtilch Pay Haul Hazardous Wastes on Request
Hditrdous Waste Transportation Cotrpintes
Sptctalitinj in Hazardous. Wastes
J0.75-J2.57
tt.75-J3.7J
J1.99-J2.60
• Range twijd on 3M to 1,609 k» (100 to 1.000 n\les) <»it«nco for one-
«> shipment nt. JJ/2M.i tj (100 Ibs).
TABLE 10
RATE SCHEDULES FOR VARIOUS DISTANCES AND GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS
QiiUncc
(inl
370
C60
7W
1.110
l.«BO
1.8M
>4.630
Cast of the
Hississi(,ol
il.6?
1.3-',
1.1C
0.96
O.B6
G.81'
0.81
iii-si '.nation kales'
One-kJy
Utst of tne
C.isstsslppi
J1.78
1.S1
I.i4
Mb
1.05
1.00
O.W«
"
Round
Trip
J1.J7
1.01
O.B6
0.74*
0.74
0.74
.0.14
• Rales tuoted (n dollars per km.
« Minlnun rate-n-mains constant for all dlstai.ces above that shown.
19
-------
TABLE 11
COMPARISON OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT QUOTED PRICES FOR
ALL FIRMS IN 1980 AND FOR NINE MAJOR FIRMS IN 1981*
Type of Waste Management
landfill
Land Treatment
Inclnerat/on
Chemical Treatment
f"O Resource Recover/
O
Deep Well Injection
7rsnsnorta?1on
Type Or Form of Vjste
D-um
Bulk
All
Relatively clean liquids, high
Blu value
Ltqu
-------
Several factors which impact cost were identified, but not addressed
within the scope of this project. These include:
• Scale Economies
• Regional Differences
• Management Policies and Procedures
f Type and Size of Company
Previous studies have shown scale economies and regional variations
to be significant in construction costs. It would be reasonable to
assume similar impacts on health and safety costs, however, it was
not possible to quantify the impact cf these factors based on the
existing data.
During the course of this project, differences in the management
procedures and policies were identified which impacted the cost esti-
mates provided. Currently, there are no regulatory standards which
are uniformly enforced on hazardous waste sites. Therefore, the impact
of safety management policies and procedures of individual contractors
can significantly impact health and safety costs. In addition, the
emphasis placed by a given contractor on the use of equipment versus
manpower to accomplish the tasks required, can also impact the health
and safety costs due to the differences in the exposure potential
for workers operating machinery versus workers directly handling con-
tainers arid/or contaminated materials.
The type and size of companies involved will impact their ability
to make most efficient use of equipment and personnel. Large companies
with deep resources and a backlog of work projects can coordinate
the use of equipment and personnel ;among projects to be more cost-
efficient. However, smaller companies or specialty firms with smaller
resources and fewer projects may incur higher costs in order to main-
tain a qualified staff, and cover overhead expenses of idle equipment.
21
-------
Use of the data from this report should include evaluation of pos-
sible impacts of these factors.
The primary result of this report is a means to adjust remedial
action cost estimates to reflect additional costs of health and safety
considerations. This may involve adding these health and safety costs
to engineering study cost estimates based on standard construction
cost estimates, or adjusting cost estimates from actual sites. Adjust-
ments made will reflect the costs associated with variations in the
degree-of-hazard conditions on the site being evaluated. Additional
applications may include:
• Calculation of costs for various applications of unit opera-
tions. For example, the cost of constructing a drain system
for leachate collection could be evaluated for en-site versus
off-site locations. The added costs for increasing the inter-
cept area off-site could be compared with the added costs cf
worker safety and health considerations for a smaller system
installed in (.he contaminated areas on-site.
• Planning of site assessment activities prior to initiation of
remedial action activities. The worst degree-of-hazard con-
dition which is anticipated, based on available information,
• would determine the cost of worker health and safety protection
which would be provided. The potential savings of reduced health
and safety costs for le^ hazardous conditions could be calcu-
lated. The cost-effectiveness evaluation of conducting more
detailed site characterization and waste stream identifications
to define degree-of-hazard conditions could then include con-
sideration of potential savings if conducted prior to initiation
of remedial actions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project discussad in this paper was performed under U.S. EPA
Contract No. 68-03-3028, Directive of Work No. 14, The authors would
like to thank the U.S. EPA Project Monitors, D. Ammon and D. Banning
of the U.S. EPA Municipal Fnvirormental Research Laboratory, Solid
and Hazardous Waste Research Division in Cincinnati, Ohio.
22
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information and data presented in this paper do not necessarily
reflect the views and policy of the U.S. EPA. This paper was based
on the Draft Final Report - Costs of Remedial Actions at'Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites -- Worker Health and Safety Considerations which
is currently in the U.S. EPA peer review process.
REFERENCES
1. Review of Activities of Ma^,or Firms Involved in the Commercial
Hazardous Waste Management Industry: 1981 Update. SW-894.1, U.S.
Enivornmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. May 1982. 17
PP.
2. Interim Stande'-d Operating Safety Guides, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous
Response Support Division, Edison, New Jersey, September 1982.
119 pp.
3. Remedial Actions at Hazardous Waste Mtes: Survey and Case Studies.
EPA 430/9-81-05 SW-910. Oil and Special Materials Control Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. January
1981.
23
------- |