DOCKET REPORT
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR THE REGULATORY ANALYSIS
OF THE PART 264 LAND DISPOSAL REGULATIONS
Volume II
August 24, 1982
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
2G9S9
DOCKET REPORT
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR THE REGULATORY ANALYSIS
OF THE PART 264 LAND DISPOSAL REGULATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume I
Chapter I Introduction
Chapter II Profile of Land Disposal Units and Facilities Costed in the
Analysis
Chapter III Assumptions/Costs Included in the Baseline
Chapter IV Summary of Part 264 Regulatory Requirements
Chapter V Ground-Water Protection and Corrective Action Costs
Chapter VI Assumptions and Methodology Used to Calculate Annual Revenue
Requirements
Chapter VII Results of Cost Analysis
Chapter VIII Impacts of the Regulations on Selected Industries
Volume II
Appendix A Regulatory Analysis (Section IX. of the Preamble to the Part
264 Regulations)
Appendix B Unit Costs Used to Develop Baselines
Appendix C Part 264 Engineering Costs for Landfills, Surface Impoundments,
Waste Piles, and Land Treatment areas
Appendix D Cost Estimates for Containment of Contaminated Ground-Water
Plumes
Volume III
Appendix E Printouts of Annual Revenue Requirements and First Year Cash
Requirements for Landfills, Surface Impoundments, Waste Piles,
and Land Treatment areas by Size.
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
APPENDIX A
IX. Regulatory Analysis
A. Executive Order 12291; Regulatory Impact Analysis
Executive Order 12291 requires each Federal agency, "to the
extent permitted by law," to prepare and consider a Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) in connection with every major rule. The
order further requires that a final RIA be transmitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at least 30 days before the
Agency publishes the major rule. EPA has determined that the
land disposal regulation promulgated today is a major rule.
However, EPA has concluded that the existing facility portion
of this rule is exempt from the requirement that a final RIA be
submitted to OMB 30 days prior to promulgation. Section 8 of the
Executive Order, Exemptions, states that the "procedures prescribed
by this Order shall not apply to: ...(2) Any regulation for which
consideration or reconsideration under the terms of this order
would conflict with deadlines imposed by statute or by judicial
order."
Completing an RIA and transmitting it to OMB 30 days before
EPA publishes these regulations for existing facilities would
conflict with judicial deadlines. A court order in State of Illinois
v. Gorsuch (D.D.C., Civil Action No. 78-1689), signed on November
13, 1981, directed EPA to promulgate regulations for existing
hazardous waste land disposal facilities on or before February 1,
1982. Although the order was temporarily stayed, the appeals
court has now ordered that these regulations be promulgated by
July 15, 1982. If EPA were to delay promulgation until completing
the RIA and transmitting it to OMB, it would violate the deadline
ordered by the Court. Therefore, EPA is exempt from compliance.
-------
D. Individual Unit Costs; E. Closure Analysis; F. Total Costs;
G. Industry Analysis; and H. Sensitivity Analysis. The docket for
this rulemaking and the EPA regional libraries contain^
a more extensive report on this _analy..sA3'
Although the Agency has not completed its formal benefits an-
alysis for land disposal regulations, it expects these regulations
to provide important benefits. First, they will promote economic
efficiency. By internalizing the costs of waste management, the
regulations promote the allocation of resources to the area of
their highest social value through the free market pricing sys-
tem. Second, they will promote equity. Currently, people living
near hazardous waste facilities bear some of the cost of disposal
in the form of risk of ground-water contamination and the
damages that can result to property values and to health. These
regulations will provide a uniform, nation-wide protective floor
that requires the owners of hazardous waste facilities to take
steps that will reduce the likelihood that populations will be
exposed to harmful ground-water contamination. They will thus
shift some of the cost of land disposal from those who live near
the sites to users of the products that generate the waste.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 e_t sejj.) re-
quires each Federal agency to prepare a final Regulatory Flexi-
bility Analysis (RFA) when it promulgates a final rule. (5 U.S.C.
604). The purpose of the RFA is to describe the effects the reg-
ulations will have on small entities and examine alternatives that
-------
may reduce these effects. An agency head may delay completing
the analysis for up to 180 days after publishing the rule in
the Federal Register, if he publishes a finding that the final
rule is being promulgated in response to an emergency that
makes timely compliance impracticable. (5 U.S.C. 608).
EPA intends to study the impact of today's regulations on
small entities. However, as in the case of the RIA, developing
an RFA is a difficult and time-consuming task. EPA finds that
the court-ordered deadline constitutes an emergency and that
completing the RFA by the Court-ordered deadline has not been
practicable. EPA will publish the RFA within 180 days of today's
publication, in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U.S.C. 3507), EPA will submit the reporting and recordkeeping
provisions that are included in this final rule to OMB for
approval. They will not become effective until EPA obtains OMB
approval. A notice of the effective date of the reporting and
recordkeeping provisions of this interim final rule will be
published in the Federal Register when OMB approval is obtained.
D. Individual Unit Costs
EPA estimated unit costs using engineering models. A number of
engineering models were developed because the unit costs and costs
per unit of waste vary significantly with the size and type
of unit. The resulting unit costs provide the basis for the
total cost of the design and operating standards. Although we
show costs for corrective action following, EPA based calculations
-------
of the total cost of corrective action on a facility basis rather
than on a unit basis.
1. General Approach. The cost estimation procedure for
model units has three components: estimating costs for design
and operating changes, estimating costs for a range of corrective
action scenarios, and transforming costs into "annual revenue
requirements." All cost estimates are in 1981 dollars.
First, to estimate costs for design and operating measures,
the steps owners and operators of hazardous waste disposal
units might take to comply with the regulations were identi-
fied. Since some of these measures were already required under
the Interim Status Standards (ISS regulations), the analysis
separated these requirements in order to estimate the cost of
the additional requirements resulting from this Part 264
rulemaking.1 The analysis also separated pre-ISS costs for
landfills and surface impoundments. The ISS baseline costs
used in this analysis do not reflect state requirements.
Where the under-liner requirements of the design and operat-
ing standards were applicable, the Agency examined three possibi-
lities: (1) owners and operators would install only the single
synthetic liners needed under the regulations, (2) they would
install the double liner (synthetic/clay) systems suggested by
the guidance, or (3) they would install double synthetic liners
to enable them to avoid monitoring the ground water.
* ISS requirements currently in place were used. No adjust-
ments were made to reflect conforming changes to ISS regulations
published with today's rule.
-------
EPA began work on an RIA for land disposal facilities before
November 13, 1981, but preparing the analysis requires collecting
data that are currently unavailable in-house and then analyzing
these data. The effort is now in its data gathering stages. When
complete, the RIA will examine the need for the regulation,
alternative approaches, and the costs, benefits, and distributional
effects of the alternative approaches. EPA expects to complete a
draft of"this analysis in May of 1983, and will consider these
results to determine whether any changes to the land disposal
standards are warranted.
Within time and data constraints, EPA was able to address
some of the analytical requirements of the Executive Order. The
Agency prepared preliminary estimates for the range of costs these
regulations may impose on regulated units of particular kinds
and sizes, on facilities, and for the total costs of the
regulations. EPA then allocated these costs to particular waste
generating industries and compared them to other economic parameters
to obtain measures of the relative significance of the costs resulting
from this rule. The results are summarized in D through H of this
section:
-------
Second, EPA estimated the costs of corrective action activi-
ties using three different timing assumptions for the length of
corrective action and two counterpumping strategies reflecting
hydrogeologic conditions. Timing will depend on how well units
and facilities perform, and on how quickly ground-water quality
can be restored. The counterpumping strategy used will reflect
the judgments of owner/operators/ Regional Administrators and
State Directors; technical conditions will affect but not control
those decisions.
To Tceep the total number of cost cases presented manageable,
a single set of unit cost estimates and a "median" set of hydro-
geologic assumptions were used. The hydrogeologic assumptions
were used as averages although they do not necessarily reflect
average nationwide conditions. EPA believes that the values used
are the best available for estimating total costs, given time
and resource constraints. However, actual facility costs in
particular cases may be higher or lower than the estimates pre-
sented in this section. To present a more complete picture
of potential costs, the sensitivity analyses examine the
effects of varying key technical assumptions. In addition,
the docket report contains a more detailed description of the
assumptions used in preparing these estimates, and includes analysis
of the sensitivity of results to alternative unit cost assumptions.
Third, the stream of costs over time was converted into
"annual revenue requirements" using discounted cash flow analysis.
Annual revenue requirements are the added revenues a facility
would have to obtain (through increased prices for its products
-------
or for ics waste management services) in each year of facility
operation, in order to cover the costs of these regulations.
This approach provides a consistent "basis for presenting and com-
paring relevant costs. However, it implicitly assumes that
future costs can be predicted, and recovered at an even rate
over a facility's operating life.1 Since each facility will face
great uncertainty about corrective action costs, and different
competitive conditions, revenue requirements estimated using this
perfect amortization assumption are not necessarily good predictors
of actual pricing behavior under Part 264 regulations.
Because annualizing smooths uneven cash flows/ this analysis
also reports first year costs to provide an indication of the
maximum cash flow burden that facilities could face for design
and operating requirements, and for corrective action if necessary.
Costs for regulatory requirements related to bullc and
containerized liquids, and the permitting process are not
included in the estimates reported here. These costs may be
significant, but additional data are needed before reliable
estimates can be made. Costs for floodplain standards are
addressed in the sensitivity analysis.
2. Design and Operating Standards. To comply with the
design and operating standards, new storage and disposal facilities
and lateral expansions of existing units must install liners,
1 In computing annual revenue requirements a 3% real discount
rate and a twenty-year facility operating life were used in all
cases.
-------
and in the case of piles and landfills, leachate collection systems.
While the regulations do not absolutely require a synthetic
liner for landfills, waste piles, and surface impoundments, in
nearly all cases, at least a single synthetic liner is the practical
result of the regulatory requirement. Those installing double
liner systems with a leak detection system between them are exempt
from groundwater monitoring and the other requirements of
Subpart F. Additionally, waste piles may be placed on a sturdy
impermeable base and regularly inspected in lieu of the requirements
of Subpart F.
Owners and operators will choose to install the liner system
that is most advantageous for them. This will not necessarily
lead them to install the lowest cost liner that EPA will allow,
since greater investment in the liner system should lower the
probability that corrective action will need to be taken. The
probability that corrective action will be needed Depends on the
containment system used, and on hydrogeologic conditions, but EPA
is currently unable to quantify these relationships. The Agency
believes that some owners and operators will choose each of the
different liner systems, reflecting their local hydrogeologic
conditions and their differing estimates of the relationship
between liner investments and the probability of having to perform
-------
corrective action. To indicate the range of potential liner costs,
the cost for each of the liner systems is shown.
3. Corrective Action Costs and Timing. The costs associated
with corrective action for a unit or facility depend on when
contamination is discovered, the specific contaminants, the
magnitude of the plume, and numerous site-specific hydrogeologic
factors._ The Agency can estimate corrective action costs for
simple sets of conditions, but does not know what conditions are
actually like for the average of all facilities. For this analysis
it was assumed that ground water begins 10 feet down, that plumes
reach a depth of 75 feet, and that the aquifer can be characterized
by "median" hydrogeologic conditions.1
The Part 264 regulations require removal of contamination
from ground water, at the "waste boundary" for new plumes, and
to the property boundary for existing plumes. For this analysis,
EPA chose to make the conservative assumption that corrective
action would need to deal with well-established plumes. Cost
estimates are based on counteipumping, and include costs for treating
pumped water, preparing corrective action plans, and monitoring
ground water as required in the regulations.
1. Plume depths of 75 feet will be typical only for well-
established plumes; new plumes will be shallower and less expensive
to control. The median hydrogeologic conditions used were hydraulic
gradient (change in ground water "elevation") of 5 feet per mile,
and transmissivity (flow rate across a one square mile cross-section,
per foot of hydraulic gradient) of 100,000 gallons per foot per
day. These assumptions result in an aquifer discharge (total ground
water flow volume) of 0.5 million gallons per square mile of aquifer
cross-section per day.
-------
Costs for corrective action are sensitive to assumptions
about when corrective action begins and how long it must continue
in order to remove all statistically significant contamination.
To bound the range of actual costs an owner or operator could
encounter, EPA developed costs for three scenarios: action
beginning in year zero and continuing 150 years,* action beginning
in year zero and continuing for 20 years, and action beginning in
year 49 and continuing for 20 years. (The 20 year figure was
chosen to match the assumption that operating lives are 20 years.)
The analysis also used two different counterpumping strate-
gies because corrective action costs are also fairly sensitive
to the pumping strategy required. Where hydraulic gradients are
unidirectional, (i.e., in "simple" cases) recovery wells can be
located at the downgradient toe of the plume. This is Strategy 1,
and involves minimum costs for a counterpumping program. The
simple conditions needed for this approach probably are not very
common. Where hydraulic gradients are not unidirectional,2
another strategy is needed to assure that all contamination is
contained. Wells are located inside the plume and pumping is
1 The discounted present value of costs incurred over a long
but finite future period is essentially identical to the dis-
counted costs incurred in pumping "forever," if costs are in-
curred as expenditures are made. A corrective action period of
150 years captures about 99% of the costs of continuing the action
forever.
2 This can occur due to complex hydrogeology, the pressure
of emplaced wastes on the aquifer, or pumping at off-site wells
surrounding the plume.
-------
maintained at a rate sufficient to reverse all gradients in the
vicinity of the plume. This is Strategy 2, and it involves higher
costs.
The range of cost estimates that results from these alterna-
tive assumptions reflects EPA's uncertainty about conditions at
actual facilities.! To display the alternative cases, the rele-
vant tables have columns displaying each timing scenario
discussed above. For each timing case, the range of costs shown
reflects cost differences between Strategy 1 and Strategy 2.
To estimate the cost of counterpumping it was necessary to
estimate the size of the plumes to be contained. Plume width is
1 The unit cost data, hydrogeologic assumptions and
algorithms used here to estimate containment costs have been
subjected to some peer review and testing, and EPA believes the
cost estimates that result from use of this model are the best
estimates available at this time. However, the algorithms and
data must still be considered to be incompletely verified and
validated.
Several key assumptions should be noted. (1) A simplified
treatment cost model was used that may significantly underestimate
costs for higher concentrations and more complex mixtures of con-
taminants, and may somewhat overestimate costs for smaller plumes
and for treatment of volatiles. (2) Cost estimates are probably
less reliable for facilities with small waste piles and the
smallest surface impoundments than for other facilities because
corrective action costs for plumes of less than one-half acre in
area were not modelled. (3) The cost estimating model is directly
applicable only within the limits established by the assumptions
made to facilitate cost estimation. The use of two counterpumping
strategies compensates for this simplification to some extent.
(4J In addition, the algorithms do not account for replacement
or retirement of wells or treatment facilities. Wells can
become unuseable within months, or last for years, depending on
corrosivity and other characteristics of the plume. Treatment
may be required as long as pumping continues, or may be unnecessary
during the latter stages of corrective action. For economic
analysis purposes EPA assumed that wells will last for 30 years
and that treatment facilities will be in use for as long as
remedial action continues.
-------
the most sensitive parameter within the modelling framework used
for corrective action cost estimates, and there is reason to
expect that unit width serves as a conservative estimate of
plume width. If a unit fails because of age, then a general
failure across the unit is likely so that the width of the unit
might approximate the width of the plume; if a unit fails due
to a localized problem or single rupture, then the plume width
should be smaller than the unit width. Thus, using unit width
as a proxy for plume width should result in a conservative measure
of the cost of counterpumping.^
Corrective action costs will occur only to the extent that
ground water is contaminated and to the extent that protection
of the environment requires taking corrective action.
4. Costs for Landfills. Table 1 shows the annual revenue
requirements needed to compensate for the cost of Part 264 require-
ments for on-site landfills of different sizes without corrective
action. It covers the annual revenue requirements associated
with the cost of required liners, final cover and leachate
collection systems. It assumes that waivers are not obtained,
and that no landfills currently use any of the features required
under Part 264. This tends to overstate costs since there are
landfills that are at favorable locations that would qualify for
some site specific waivers or include these features.
When estimating corrective action costs for facilities, EPA
assumed that facility width, rather than unit width, approximates
the plume width.
-------
TABLE 1
Annual Revenue Per Unit Required to Offset Incremental Costs
Due to Part 264 Regulations Without Corrective Action:t
Landfills by Unit Size
Size
(MT*/yr)
500
2,000
5,000
7,000
15,000
35,000
60,000
123,000
Single
Synthetic Liner
per year
(5 000)
31
49
79
98
149
277
379
566
$ per MT*
! 62
25
16
14
10
8
6
5
Double Liner
(Synthetic /Clay)
per year
($ 000)
52
94
164
207
323
622
362
1,306
$ per MT*
1 104
47
33
30
22
18
14
11
Double
Synthetic Liner
per year
($ 000)
43
82
145
184
290
561
779
1,180
1
$ per MT*
86
41
29
26
19
16
13
10
t Costs shown are those estimated for on-site landfills in these size
categories. They are slightly different from costs estimated for
off-site landfills. If costs were based on off-site landfills,
double liner (synthetic/clay) costs would be lower than double
synthetic liner costs.
* MT indicates metric ton.
Table 2 shows the additional annual revenue requirements
associated with corrective action if it is needed.
TABLE 2
Annual Revenue Per Unit Required to Offset Incremental Costs
Due to Part 264 Corrective Action Regulations:
Landfills by Unit Size
1 Detect Year O I
I Pump 150 Years 1
Size
(MT/yr)
500
2,000
5,000
7,000
15,000
35,000
60,000
123,000
1 per yearl 1
1 ($
1138
1149
1172
1178
|194
1216
1232
1252
000) 1
- 1981
- 2251
- 267|
- 2751
- 309|
- 361|
- 3911
- 4221
S per
276 -
75 -
34 -
25 -
13 -
6 -
4 -
2 -
MT |
396)
1131
531
391
211
101
61
31
Detect Year O 1
Pump 20 Years !
per yearl
($
bb
71
82
85
93
104
113
123
000) I
- 951
- 1091
- 1281
- 1321
- 148|
- 1741
- 1901
- 2061
$ per
130 -
36 -
16 -
12 -
6 -
3 -
2 -
1 -
1
MT 1
1901
551
261
191
10 1
51
31
2!
Detect Year 49 1
Pump 20 Years
per yearl
($ 000) I
17 - 241
18 - 27|
21 - 31|
21 - 321
24 - 36|
26 - 42|
28 - 461
30 - 501
$ jser MT
34
9
4
3
2
1
*
*
- 48
- 14
- 6
- 5
- 2
- 1
- 1
- *
* Less than 50 cents.
-------
Thus, if a 15,000 Mr/year landfill with a double synthetic
liner did not contaminate ground water to the extent that correc-
tive action was necessary, the incremental annual revenue require-
ment would be $290,000 or $19 per metric ton. If contamination
were detected immediately resulting in immediate counterpumping
for 20 to 150 years, an additional revenue requirement of between
$93,000 to $194,000, or $6 to $13 per ton would be added to the
basic Part 264 costs {using Strategy 1 counterpumping).
To help put these costs in perspective, costs estimated in
the absence of regulations (pre-ISS) range from $11 to $240 per
metric ton for the large and small on-site landfills, respectively.
ISS incremental cost estimates for these two sizes range from
$6 to $128 per metric ton, Prices at commercial landfills in
1981 ranged from $55 per metric ton to $240 per metric ton,
depending on the type of waste and whether it was in drums or
bulk. This does not include transportation, which averaged about
$0.15 per ton mile.
Table 3 shows the costs that existing landfills could incur
in the first year as a result of the Part 264 requirements. Po-
tential first year costs for design and operating requirements
(D&O) using a double liner (synthetic/clay) and for immediate
corrective action are reported separately for Strategy 1 and
Strategy 2.1 In the example discussed above, the first year
cost is $305,000 if no corrective action is needed, and an additional
$315,000 to $465,000 if counterpumping is undertaken immediately.
1. First year Part 264 D&O costs are approximately the same
as annual revenue requirments because the major incremental cost
element in the cost model is the cell liner, which is installed
for one cell in each year of the landfill's operating life.
-------
TABLE 3
First Year Costs Per Unit Due to Part 264 Regulations:
Landfills by Unit Size
Size
(OT/yr)
500
2,000
5,000
7,000
15,000
35,000
60,000
123,000
Basic Cost
No Corrective
Action/
Double Liner*
($ 000}
50
91
156
196
305
584
310
1,226
Corrective Action Cost
Immediate
Counter? umping
($ 000)
185 - 295
205 - 365
255 - 405
265 - 415
315 - 465
375 - 585
425 - 685
475 - 795
*(Synthetic/clay)
5. Costs for Surface Impoundments. EPA estimated costs for
existing surface impoundments using basically the same methods
that were used to estimate the cost for landfills, but varied some
features to reflect differences in the regulations and the units
affected, and estimated two additional cost cases. It was assumed
that surface impoundments close as landfills in all cases. (Costs
for units where all waste, liners and contaminated subsoils
are removed at closure, and for clay-lined storage impoundments,
are not reported.)
The no-corrective-action case was estimated in much the same
'way as the no-corrective-action case for landfills. However,
surface impoundments generate dredged material that must be
landfilled;1 the incremental cost of disposing of this material
in a Part 264 landfill rather than in an ISS landfill is counted
as a surface impoundment cost in this section.2 In addition,
1. For this analysis it was assumed that dredged material is
disposed of in a 123,000 MT/yr. landfill. Landfill disposal costs
vary depending on the type of liner system. It was assumed that
the landfill would not need corrective action. If corrective
action were necessary, costs would be slightly higher.
2. Because these higher landfilling costs are also included
in the landfill cost estimates, landfill and surface impoundment
costs cannot simply be added to get total costs.
-------
operators of existing surface impoundments may choose to (1)
continue operations without installing liners; (2) close the
existing unit and construct a new impoundment lined with one
of the three liners described earlier; or (3) retrofit the exist-
ing impoundment with any of these three liners. Costs are
estimated for all of these cases. The retrofit case includes
the costs of disposing of contaminated material from the existing
impoundments, and the replacement case includes closure and post
closure care costs for existing units. Neither case includes
land costs nor the economic costs of disrupted plant operations,
which are likely to vary a great deal across sites.
Tables 4, 5, and 6 summarize these results. Costs are reported
on the basis of the size of the impoundment rather than per unit
of waste because the amount of liquid processed through an impound-
ment of a given size can be highly variable. The cost for an
impoundment will depend on the compliance elements that the
unit selects or is required to undertake no scenario would
include more than one kind of corrective action or more than one
kind of alteration.
TABLE 4
Annual Revenue Per Unit Required to Offset Incremental Costs
Due to Part 264 Regulations Without Corrective Action:
Surface Impoundments by Unit Size
1 1 Retrofit Cases I Replacement
1 I Single
1 Base [Synthetic
Size 1 Cost 1 Liner
(Acres) l($ 000) | ($ 000)
0.25 I 4 - 61 9
0.5 |6- 9| 15
1.0 110 - 16! 25
) 2.0 |16 - 25| 48
5.0 |48 - 81| 92
11.0 195 - 157| 228
Double
Liner
($ 000)
13
22
37
71
148
348
Double 1 Single 1
Synthetic 1 Synthetic 1 Double
Liner 1 Liner I Liner
($ 000) I ($ 000) I ($ 000
9| 19 | 23
18 | 26 1 31
34 | 35 1 45
71 | 59 1 78
157 1 106 1 153
374 | 252 1 354
Cases
1 Double
1 Synthetic
1 Liner
)l $ (000)
1 18
1 27
1 42
1 76
I 156
! 367
-------
TABLE 5
Annual Revenue Per Unit Required to Offset Incremental Costs
Due to Part 264 Corrective Action Regulations:
Surface Impoundments by Unit Size
1
Size |
(Acres) 1
0.25 & O.Sfl
1.0 I
2.0 (
5.0 I
11.0 f
Detect Year O
Pump 150 Years
($ 000)
122 - 163
128 - 180
138 - 198
149 - 225
169 - 261
Detect Year 0
Pump 20 Years
($ 000)
58 - 77
61 - 86
65 - 95
71 - 109
81 - 125
Detect Year 49
Pump 20 Years
($ 000)
15 - 19
16 - 22
17 - 24
18 - 27
20 - 31
t Costs far plumes associated with surface impoundments smaller
than 0.5 acre were not estimated. Cost reported is for a 0.5
acre impoundment.
TABLE 6
First Year Costs Per Unit Due to Part 264 Regulations:
Surface Impoundments by Unit Size
Size
(Acres)
.25
.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
11.0
Basic Cost
No corrective
Action
($ 000)
it
1
2
3
8
13
Corrective
Action Costt
Counterpumping
($ 000)
159 - 209
159 - 209
169 - 254
189 - 299
209 - 369
254 - 399
Facility Alterationttl
Retrofit
Liner
($ 000)
123
226
442
862
2,141
4,622
Replace
Facility
(S 000)
142
220
390
718
1,765
3,868
* Less than $500.
t Assumes corrective action is taken in Year Zero.
tt Assumes double synthetic liner
Thus, if a 2-acre surface impoundment did not contaminate
ground water to the extent that corrective action was necessary,
the incremental revenue requirement would be $16,000 to $25,000
per year, depending on the type of liners used by off-site land-
fills where the dredged material is disposed of. If the owner
chooses to retrofit, the incremental annual cost will be $48,000 to
$71,000; if he replaces the impoundment, the incremental annual
-------
cost will be $59,000 to $78,000, depending on the type of liner
system installed.
If corrective action is necessary and counterpumping is under-
taken immediately, an additional annual revenue requirement of
$65,000 to $138,000 would be added to the basic Part 264 cost
(under Strategy 1 counterpumping).
The first year cost for the basic requirement is $3,000;
if counterpumping is undertaken, the first year cost is $189,000
to $299,000; and if the unit elects to retrofit the first year
cost is $862,000.
Current prices that could provide perspective for these .costs
are not readily observed, because most surface impoundments are
on-site. However, it was possible to estimate the total revenue
requirements for new impoundments constructed and operated to comply
with ISS requirements, using assumptions consistent with those use/3
for Part 264 cost estimates. These annualized revenue requirements
ranged from $42,000 for the smallest facility, to $424,000 for the
largest, including revenue requirements of $6,000 to $174,000 in
the absence of any regulation.
6. Costs for Land Treatment Units. The Agency estimated
costs for land treatment units on a model plant basis, as
for landfills and surface impoundments, and calculated corrective
action costs in an identical fashion (i.e. for action by all
facilities in Year Zero or Year 49), though for units of
different sizes. It was necessary to make assumptions about the
numbers of units that would be required to undertake certain
operating modifications under Part 264 rules. EPA assumed that
ten percent of land treatment units would require a pH adjustment,
-------
90 percent would require irrigation and a crop cover to control
wind dispersal, 25 percent would need to increase their soil monitoring
and number of lysimeters. EPA assumed that all units would
conduct one waste field test, and that all would close with hazardous
consituents in the treatment zone. It was also assumed that ten
percent of all units would encounter problems during operation
(i.e., they would fail ongoing tests of soil core and soil pore
liquids), resulting in operating modifications: three percent of
all units (30 percent of those with problems) would adjust their
pH, five percent would expand the treatment area, and two percent
would reduce their waste loadings. Tables 7, 8, and 9 summarize
the results.
TABLE 7
Annual Revenue Per Unit Required to Offset Incremental Costs
Due to Part 264 Regulations Without Corrective Action:
Land Treatment by Unit Size
Size
(Acres)
1.7
6.5
20.1
74.3
247.1
I Basic Co
I (No Corrective
1 Per Year
1 ($ 000)
1 17
1 19
1 45
I 122
I 361
st
Action)
1 per MT*
i m
| 48
1 14
1 11
1 8
1 7
* Based on an average application rate of 206 JfT per acre
per year. In practice the amount of waste processed per acre is
highly variable.
-------
TABLE 8
Annual Revenue Per Unit Required to Offset Incremental Costs
Due to Part 264 Corrective Action Regulations:
Land Treatment by Unit Size
Size
(Acres)
1.7
6.5
20.1
74.3
247.1
1 Detect Year 0
1 Pump 150 Year
1 ($ 000)
I 134 - 187
I 154 - 236
I 178 - 276
I 225 - 371
I 285 - 472
Detect Year 0
Pump 20 Years
($ 000)
63 - 89
73 - 114
^85 - 133
109 - 180
140 - 234
Detect Year 49
Pump 20 Years
($ 000)
16 - 22
19 - 28
21 - 33
27 - 44
34 - 56
TABLE 9
First Year Costs Per Unit Due to Part 264 Regulations:
Land Treatment by Unit Size
Size
(Acres)
1.7
6.5
20.1
74.3
247.1
Basic Cost
No Corrective
Action
($ 000)
76
81
103
134
226
1 Corrective Action Cost
I Immediate
I Counterpumping
1 ($ 000)
I 175 - 265
1 205 - 365
I 265 - 425
1 395 - 625
1 565 - 1,025
Thus, if the operator of an average size (20.1 acre)
land treatment unit applies waste at an average rate (206 MT
per acre per year) and does not contaminate ground water to
the extent that corrective action is necessary, the incremental
annual revenue requirement would be $45,000 or $11 per MT. If
contamination is detected immediately resulting in immediate
counterpumping, $85,000 to $178,000 per year or $21 to $45 per
MT would be added to this basic Part 264 cost (under Strategy 1
counterpumping)
-------
As shown in Table 9, the first year cost if no corrective
action is needed for this size unit is $103,000. If correc-
tive action is needed immediately, the first year cost increases
by $265,000 to $425,000.
To put these costs in perspective, prices for commercial
land treatment in 1981 ranged from $5 to $24 per metric ton.
7. Costs for Waste Piles. Waste pile unit cost esti-
mates assume that all existing waste piles would be managed as
storage rather than disposal units. Accumulated wastes must
periodically be removed and disposed of in a landfill; therefore,
the incremental costs of using a Part 264 rather than an ISS
landfill are included here as a waste pile cost. (These costs
are also reflected in the landfill cost estimates, so unit
costs are not additive.) The analysis assumes that all piles are
*
exposed and are at or above grade. Costs for enclosed piles (includ-
ing the cost of enclosure) could be significantly lower, and
costs for below grade piles are likely to be higher (in practice,
many large below grade piles would probably close as landfills).
The analysis looked at three alternative compliance paths to
reflect the options available to waste pile owners or operators
under the regulations: (1) retain the ISS sturdy impermeable
base and undertake ground-water monitoring; (2) inspect the ISS
base periodically (assumed to mean annually) without ground-water
monitoring; or (3) install a new base with a double liner system
and leachate collection system and dispense with inspections and
ground-water monitoring (until leakage is detected). For waste piles.
-------
it was again assumed that corrective action consists of counter-
pumping in Year Zero or Year 49.
Tables 10, 11, and 12 summarize the results. The annual
revenue requirements shown in Table 10 include the cost of dis-
posing of the waste pile and base at the time of closure in a
Part 264 123,000 MT/yr off-site landfill with a double (synthetic/
clay) liner that does not require corrective action.
TABLE 10
Annual Revenue Per Unit Required to Offset Incremental Costs
Due to Part 264 Regulations Without Corrective Action:
Waste Piles by Unit Size1*
Size
(000 ft3)
2
10
25
100
500
1,000
Compliance Option
Ground-
Water
Monitoring
($ 000)
15
17
21
27
27
26
Base
Inspection
(5 000)
7
9
13
20
23
27
1 Liner and
1 Leach ate
JGollection
1 System
1 ($ 000)
1 7
1 9
1 13
1 19
1 17
1 15
t Costs for waste piles sized at 2,000 to 25,000 cubic feet assume
a 1 year operating life. Costs for a 100,000 cubic foot pile assume
a 2 year operating life, costs for a 500,000 cubic foot pile assume
a 10 year operating life, and costs for a 1,000,000 cubic foot
pile assume a 20 year operating life. Because operating lives
differ, costs as a function of size do not increase monotonically.
-------
TABLE 11
Annual Revenue Per Unit Required to Offset Incremental Costs
Due to Part. 264 Corrective Action Regulations:
Waste Piles by Unit Size*
1
I
'1
1
Size 1
(000 ft3)!
1
2 - 5001
1,000 |
Detect Year O
Pump 150 Years
(? 000}
150 - 196
153 - 207
1 Detect Year O
1 Pump 20 Years
! ($ ooo)
I
1 71-93
1 72-98
Detect Year 49
Pump 20 Years
($ 000)
18 - 23
18 - 24
1 Costs -for plumes associated with waste piles smaller than 500,000
cubic feet were not estimated. Cost reported is for a 500,000 cubic
foot pile.
TABLE 12
First Year Costs Per Unit Due to Part 264 Regulations:
Waste Piles by Unit Size
Size
(000 ft3)
2
10
25
100
500
1,000
1 I Liner and
Ground- 1 1 Leach ate
Water [inspect I Collect ion
Monitoring! Base 1 System
($ 000) |(? 000)) {? 000)
44 1 41 12
44 | 41 12
44 1 4| 12
44 | 4| 12
44 1 4 I 14
44 I 4 I 17
Immediate
Counter? umping
(9 000)
*
*
*
*
165 - 237
170 - 265
* Mot estimated. Costs for 500,000 cubic foot pile provide
an upper bound.
-------
Thus, if the operator of a 100,000 cubic foot waste pile
decides to inspect the unit's ISS base rather than monitor
ground water or change to a Liner and leachate collection and
removal system, and does not contaminate ground water, the addi-
tional annual revenue requirement is $20,000. If contamination
is detected in year zero and counterpumping is necessary, addi-
tional annual revenue requirements of $71,000 to $150,000 would
be added"to the basic Part 264 cost (under Strategy 1 counter-
pumping ).
First year costs for the three Part 264 options are shown in
Table 12. Without corrective action, these costs for the unit
discussed above are $4,000 to $44,000, depending on the D&O option
chosen. Corrective action taken in Year Zero could add up to
$165,000 to $237,000 to these costs.
E. Closure Analysis.
This section examines the economics of closing small on-site
landfills and shipping wastes to commercial sites and replacing
existing on-site surface impoundments. Small on-site landfills
may become uneconomic compared to larger commercial facilities
as a result of these regulations. Small surface impoundments
may close to avoid liability for corrective action (related to
past leakage) that could otherwise be imposed through the permit
process.
If small landfills choose to close or if small surface
impoundments are replaced, a substantial portion of all hazardous
waste units will have been significantly affected by these
regulations. EPA estimates that there are about 255 small (500
-------
MT/yr. or less) landfills; this represents 44 percent of all landfills.
There are about 2,760 small (one acre or less) surface impoundments,
or 65 percent of all surface impoundments.
Results of the analysis on small landfill closures indicate
that operators of small on-site landfills would in many cases be
better off closing and shipping their wastes to off-site commercial
facilities for disposal. For small surface impoundments, the eco-
nomics favor replacing existing units under most circumstances
if closure of the existing impoundment eliminates an obligation to
undertake corrective action. Each of these issues is summarized
below.
Table 13 indicates that under the Part 264 regulations,
owner/operators of small on-site landfills could expect their
annual revenue requirements to increase by about $62/ton assuming
a single synthetic liner design and no corrective action. This is
used as the base case. (With a double liner [synthetic/clay],
this figure would be $104/ton, or 586/ton with a double-synthetic
liner). If corrective action is considered likely, the increases
in expected revenue requirements could range from $96 to $458
per ton. These expected cost increases understate the savings
that could actually be achieved by closing, since major cost
components of ISS like closure, post closure, and financial
responsibility, as well as expenses for basic trench or cell
construction, could be avoided or recovered if the landfill closed.
These incremental costs (which are conservative estimates of
incremental savings from closure) compare with actual 1981 prices
for commercial disposal that range from $55/ton to $240/ton.
-------
This sensitivity analysis assumes that prices for commercial
services will not change as a result of the Part 264 regulations.
This assumption is reasonable if commercial facilities already
meet most design and operating standards and do not face corrective
action requirements, and if commercial capacity is adequate to
meet demand at current prices.
TABLE 13
Effects of the Incremental Costs of Part 264 Regulations
on the Economic Viability of Small On-site Landfillst
Base Base Case plus
Case Corrective Action
Low High
Incremental Cost for 500
Metric Ton/Year On-site Landfill $62/ton $96/ton $458/ton
Equivalent Distancett
To Ship Waste for Disposal in 0-47 0 - 273 1453-2687
Commercial Off-site Landfill miles miles miles
t Base case cost assumes single synthetic liner and no corrective
action and that increased demand for off-site services does
not signficantly raise prices. Low cost assumes that the
small landfill undertakes counterpumping under Strategy 1
conditions for 20 years starting in Year 49. High cost
assumes that the small landfill undertakes counterpumping under
Strategy 2 conditions for 150 years starting in Year Zero.
tt Distance calculated using a range of commercial disposal prices
of $55 to $240/ton and a transportation cost of ?.15/ton mile.
Under the base case assumptions used in Table 13, it would
be advantageous for a firm operating a small on-site landfill to
close the landfill and ship its wastes to a commercial facility
for disposal if the firm is quoted disposal prices that are at
the low end of the actual range. Where the firm faces a price of
$55/ton for commercial disposal/ it could afford to ship wastes up
to 47 milesi assuming a transportation cost of $.15/ton mile. If
-------
the firm is quoted prices closer to $240/ton, it would be more
cost-effective for the firm to continue running its landfill.
Where the firm expects that corrective action could be
necessary at its landfill, it could close the landfill and ship
wastes from 273 to 2637 miles for disposal in a commercial landfill
charging $55/ton, instead of bearing the costs and responsibility
for corrective action. Where the commerical disposal price is
closer to $240/ton, it may be more cost-effective for the firm to
continue disposing its wastes on site, but this would depend on
the hydrogeologic conditions existing at the site and the expected
duration of corrective action.
These economic factors may be offset by concerns over liabi-
lity potentially associated with sending wastes off site, or by
concerns over potential price increases at commercial facilities.
Similar comparisons can be made between the costs of replac-
ing small surface impoundments to limit the possibility that cor-
rective action will be needed, or doing nothing and hoping that
corrective action will not be necessary. Actual decisions to
close and replace a surface impoundment will be based on indi-
vidual owner or operators expectations regarding the probability
that their impoundments have been leaking or will leak in the
future.
Table 14 compares the incremental costs of taking corrective
action under various conditions with the costs of replacing 1/4
acre, 1/2 acre and 1 acre surface impoundments.
-------
TABLE 14
Comparison of Corrective Action Costs with
Close/Construct Costs for Small Surface Impoundments
Incremental Annual Revenue Requirements
Impoundment Size
1/4 Acre
1/2 Acre
1 Acre
In Year Zero
for 150 Yrs.
($ 000)
126 - 167
128 - 169
138 - 190
Corrective Actiont
In Year Zero 1 In Yr 49
for 20 Yrs. 1 for 20 Yrs.
($ 000) 1 ($ 000)
62-81 1 19 - 23
64-33 1 22 - 28
71-96 1 26 - 32
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Close and I
Constructttl
($ 000) 1
19 I
26 !
35 1
t Low end of range of Corrective Action costs based on Strategy 1
conditions; high end of range based on Strategy 2 conditions.
tt Assumes double liner design, most expensive of possible systems.
Based on Table 14, it may often be more advantageous to close
existing units and construct new ones where it appears likely
that this would eliminate the need for corrective action. This
may be the case where an impoundment is believed to have been
leaking but has not yet resulted in significant contamination at
the waste boundary. (In this case, the owner/operator would need
to be able to distinguish contamination from the closed and the
new unit, perhaps through use of tracers added to new waste
or based on the arrangement of monitoring wells.) Of the three
corrective action timing cases examined, electing to continue to
operate the existing impoundment when corrective action will be
necessary is only advantageous under the "best" assumptions,
i.e., when action is not needed until Year 49 (the year before
owner/operator responsibility ends) and continues for 20 years.
-------
F. Total Costs
EPA estimates that the total annualized cost of these regula-
tions (for existing facilities1) could range from $150. to $1,145
million. Details on the components of these cost estimates are
reported in table 15.
The broad range covered by these estimates results primarily
from the uncertainty regarding the amount of corrective action
that will be needed. ISS monitoring will eventually provide an
indication of the severity of current environmental problems.
Currently, however, EPA is unable to predict reliably the number
of facilities able to comply with the ground-water protection
standard specified in the regulations. EPA cannot predict when
facilities will fail, or how long corrective action will have to
continue at a typical site. Data on a host of other site specific
factors that will affect the cost of the corrective action are
also unavailable. Finally, EPA cannot predict the number of
facilities affecting ground water that might be able to avoid
corrective action by showing that actual concentrations of Ap-
pendix VIII constituents at the compliance point pose no threat
to human health or the environment.
1. We were unable to estimate total costs for new facilities
due to the difficulty of projecting the number of facilities that
would be affected. Determining incremental costs for a single new
facility is difficult in any event, because EPA has not previously
estimated the costs of the Part 267 regulations that now apply
to these facilities.
-------
To estimate total D&O costs EPA estimated the size distribution
of units from the Part A's1. For each model unit, EPA multiplied
the revenue requirements reported in Individual Unit. Costs by the
number of units, and summed2 to obtain an estimate of total D&O
costs.
The lower bound estimate of D&O costs assumes that landfills
use single synthetic liners, and that waste piles choose to replace
the containment system to avoid the need for groundwater monitoring.
The upper bound D&O estimates assume that landfills have double
synthetic liners, that waste piles monitor ground water, and that
surface impoundments are closed and replaced by new units with
double synthetic liners.
1. Complete details ar.e in the docket report. Based on Part
A of TSDF permit applications, EPA estimates that there are 573
existing hazardous waste landfills, capable of accepting about
12 million tons of waste per year; 4240 surface impoundments
with 11,169 acres of surface area; 241 land treatment facilities
with 12,100 acres of operating area; and 608 waste piles with
87 million cubic feet of wastes. Thus, D&O costs are based on
5,662 units. Surveys to verify these estimates are now underway,
and it is likely that the final estimates will be lower.
We were unable to simply add the capacities reported on
the Part A's, because capacities for some types of units are
reported in different units of measure there than the units of
measure used in this analysis (i.e., landfills in acre-feet rather
than metric tons, and surface impoundments in gallons or liters
rather than acres of surface area. In addition, we assumed that
the remaining operating life of all units was 20 years. Annual
capacity figures for each kind of facility should therefore
be viewed as estimates based on available data, rather than as
aggregates of reported capacities.
2. In adding costs for units to obtain totals an adjustment
was made to avoid double counting the costs of landfilling surface
impoundment sludge and wastes removed from piles.
-------
with double synthetic liner systems, and that in spite of these
actions, all facilities require immediate corrective action lasting
150 years and using an expensive counterpunping strategy.
As the need for corrective action increases, and as owners
and operators install more expensive liner systems the total
cost of the regulations will.increase from the low cost case
toward the high cost case.1
The lower and upper bound costs are shown in Table 15. The
annualized D&O cost for the regulations ranges from $150 to $468
million per year. Depending on the frequency, speed and concen-
tration with which Appendix VIII consituents reach ground water,
total incremental annualized costs could be as high as $1,145
million.
G. Industry Analysis
The economic impacts of these regulations will depend in
part on how the costs of the regulations are distributed across
industries and firms. As described in Total Costs, EPA calculated
upper and lower bound cost estimates. These two cost scenarios
were then applied to selected industries, in order to obtain a
preliminary indication of whether economic impacts might be
significant. The industries examined were selected because there
were large numbers of on-site land disposal facilities in the in-
dustries, or large quantitites of waste shipped off-site, or both.
1 Actually, the high cost case does not reflect the highest
possible costs and the low cost case does not represent the
lowest possible cost that could occur under the regulations,
because waivers are potentially available for some requirements and
because we use median technical assumptions in determining cost.
It is, however, extremely unlikely that the true cost of these
regulations will fall outside these boundaries.
-------
TABLE 15
Total Annual Revenue Requirements for Part 264 Regulations:
All Land Disposal Facilities
($ in Millions)
Baseline Incremental Part 264
(Pre-ISS+ISS)t Low Estimate High Estimate
Landfills D&O 301 81 159
Surface
Impoundments D&O 534 102
(adjustment for
landfilled material) (190) ( 57)
Waste Piles D&O) 16 7
(adjustment for
landfilled material) (10) (3)
Land Treatment D&O 51 20
Corrective Action - -
TOTAL 702 150
The total baseline costs of $702 million includes pre-ISS costs
of about $181 million for landfills and $180 million for surface
impoundments. Similar data are not available for waste piles
and land treatment units. Pre-ISS costs include land, excavation,
and infrastructure costs incurred in establishing a land disposal
facility. ISS costs include more than "good housekeeping"
requirements. Approximately 72 percent of the ISS costs of
$341 million included in the baseline are due to ISS closure
($82 million)/ post closure ($40 million), ground water
monitoring ($42 million), and financial assurance ($82 million)
requirements.
-------
Upper and lower bound costs were allocated to industries
using available information on the use of land disposal of hazar-
dous waste in these industrial sectors. This information is
sufficient to allow EPA to identify the industries on which
these regulations are most likely to impose significant costs.
However/ cost estimates for any given industry are highly
sensitive to the numbers and sizes of facilities attributed to
that industry, and the data base used to derive these factors for
individual' industries is imprecise.
Table 16 lists the industries EPA examined, and their SIC
codes. The range of potential annual revenue requirements is
reported and compared to total costs of production, value added,
and value of shipments in Table 17. The range of potential
first year expenditures is compared to an estimate of annual capital
expenditures for each industry in Table 18. Table 19, at the end
of this section, provides estimates of the range of potential
annual revenue requirements (in excess of pre-ISS costs) for the
combination of ISS (Part 265) and Part 264 regulations. In all
cases cost ranges reflect the upper and lower bound cases used
earlier in this analysis.
These comparisons do not constitute an economic impact anal-
ysis at either the industry or firm level. At the industry level,
they do provide an initial screening to judge whether economic
impacts might be large or small. If the upper bound costs do not
appear significant when compared to economic parameters for an
-------
industry, then the analysis indicates that broad and significant
economic impacts are unlikely. These comparisons are also useful
in identifying those industries where the most significant impacts
are likely to occur. However, the high cost case cannot indicate
that there will in fact be significant impacts, because costs
are probably overstated in the high cost case.
To the extent that economic aggregates such as value added
are representative of firms in the industry sectors, the ratios
reported here could also provide some insight into potential
burdens for "typical" firms in each industry. However, it should
be remembered that costs are likely to be overstated in the high
cost case1, and that there are no truly typical firms. Four-digit
SIC codes include highly diverse operations with widely varying
costs of production, value added and value of shipments per unit
of hazardous waste generated. In addition, facilities will use
different mixes of on- and off-site disposal for these wastes,
and so face different exposure to the regulations.
The docket report contains a full description of the metho-
dology used to construct these tables.
H. Sensitivity Analysis.
The following reports on analysis of the sensitivity of coun-
terpumping costs to the number of units or facilities affected,
plume size, technical assumptions about hydrogeology and treatment
costs, and the use of a confining slurry wall to reduce pumping
1. This scenario is appropriate for a firm with a mix of on-
and off-site disposal, required to undertake corrective action
lasting 150 years at an early date at all of its on-site facilities
after having installed the most expensive technology modelled,
and simultaneously faced with higher off-site costs due to the
need for early corrective action at all available off-site
facilities.
-------
TABLE 16
Industries Examined by SIC Codes
Industry Name
SIC Code
Crop Planting and Protection
Oil and Gas Extraction
Wood Preserving
Alkalies and Chlorine
Inorganic Pigments
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
Plastic Materials and Resins
Synthetic Rubber
Cellulesic Man-Made Fibers
Organic Fibers,Noncellulosic
Medicinals and Botanicals
Paints and Allied Products
Gum and Wood Chemicals
Cyclic Crudes and Intermediates
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Nitrogenous Fertilizers
Phosphatic Fertilizers
Agricultural Chemicals
Explosives
Chemical Preparations, NEC
Petroleum Refining
Lubricating Oils and Greases
Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills
Electro-Metallurgical Products
Steel Wire and Related Products
Gray Iron Foundries
Secondary Nonferrous Metals
Copper Rolling and Drawing
Plating and Polishing, Metal
Coating and Allied Services
Motor Vehicles and Bodies
Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories
0721
1300
2491
2812
2816
2819
2821
2822
2823
2824
2833
2851
2861
2865
2869
2873
2874
2879
2392
2899
2911
2992
3312
3313
3315
33215
3341
33516
34719
3711
3714
-------
TABLE 17
Comparison Of Annual Revenue Requirements Due to
Part 264 Land Disposal Regulations to Selected Industry Measures,
By SIC Code
(Low and High Cost Cases)
Annualized
SIC
Code
0721
1300
2491
2812
2816
2819
2821
2822
2823
2824
2833
2851
2861
2865
2869
2873
2874
2879
2892
2899
2911
2992
3312
3313
3315
33215
3341
33516
34719
3711
3714
Cost
($000)
1.
3,
3.
1.
4,
2.
1.
1,
1.
2,
3,
1.
2,
1.
23,
1,
8,
1,
1.
1,
4,
6,
322
392
774
187
204
079
896
484
640
303
218
996
037
517
756
003
151
595
850
322
939
068
495
593
037
327
984
721
208
930
716
-
-1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,
8,
15,
16,
16,
73,
24,
10,
7,
7,
2,
5,
6,
15,
23,
7,
2,
12.
7,
7,
16,
5,
37,
4,
5,
6,
10,
20,
31,
7,
7,
309
104
572
944
318
034
478
976
242
378
706
739
575
885
435
201
347
793
450
815
687
230
153
010
500
998
337
085
520
086
042
Annualized Cost as a Percentage
Cost of
Production
*
*
.16 - 3.17
.20 - 1.09
.44 - 2.26
.15 - .97
.04 - .22
.18 - .78
.12 - .53
.05 - .27
.02 - .23
.03 - .20
1.74 -11.03
.12 - .73
.04 - .27
.05 - .36
.01 - .15
.23 - 1.13
.36 - 3.19
.23 -
.02 -
.28 -
.04 -
.13 -
.20 -
.12 -
.24 -
.22 -
.65 -
.00 -
.01 -
1.37
.08
1.35
.19
.86
1.07
.66
1.23
.92
3.31
.02
.09
Value
Added
*
*
.38 - 7.61
.26 - 1.37
.68 - 3.49
.19 - 1.27
.08 - .41
.46 - 2.03
.33 - 1.46
.08 - .46
.02 - .19
.06 - .34
2.44 -15.45
.21 - 1.35
.07 - .42
.07 - .49
.02 - .31
.38 - 1.86
.38 - 3.35
.33 -
.09 -
.66 -
.10 -
.38 -
.39 -
.16 -
.94 -
.79 -
.84 -
.01 -
.02 -
1.94
.43
3.24
.44
2.59
2.06
.85
4.91
3.37
4.24
.07
.16
of
Value of
Shipments
*
*
.13 -
.13 -
.31 -
.10 -
.03 -
.14 -
.11 -
.04 -
.01 -
.02 -
1.15 -
.08 -
.03 -
.03 -
.01 -
.18 -
.24 -
.15 -
.01 -
.21 -
.04 -
.11 -
.16 -
.09 -
.20 -
.19 -
.47 -
.00 -
.01 -
2.58
.68
1.57
.64
.16
.62
.48
.20
.12
.14
7.31
.53
.18
.23
.10
.87
2.06
.90
.07
1.04
.16
.76
.84
.48
1.06
.79
2.41
.02
.07
* Necessary data unavailable
-------
TABLE 18
Comparison of First Year Expenditures Due to
Part 264 Land Disposal Regulations to Yearly Capital Outlays
By SIC Code
(Low and High Cost Cases)
SIC
Code
0721
1300
2491
2812
2816
2819
2821
2822
2823
2824
2833
2851
2861
2865
2869
2873
2874
2879
2892
2899
2911
2992
3312
3313
3315
33215
3341
33516
34719
3711
3714
First Year Expenditure
($000)
182 -
991 -
474 -
995 -
754 -
4,556 -
3,090 -
590 -
869 -
435 -
141 -
774 -
333 -
698 -
1,719 -
376 -
106 -
1,115 -
433 -
787 -
15,049 -
863 -
6,671 -
297 -
889 -
949 -
1,380 -
3,216 -
4,424 -
155 -
265 -
9,430
38,997
42,900
128,807
152,243
461,702
123,594
114,029
46,052
53,985
8,507
14,883
44,958
116,540
137,204
43,233
7,358
83,884
31,665
31,433
783,313
11,883
81,084
19,944
17,563
15,039
23,654
84,597
103,817
46,625
29,022
First Year Expenditure as Percentage
Yearly Capital Expenditures
*
*
2.37 -
.25 -
.73 -
.72 -
.23 -
1.14 -
1.51 -
.11 -
.07 -
.12 -
5.31 -
.84 -
.10 -
.04 -
.10 -
.78 -
3.03 -
1.97 -
.35 -
4.97 -
.52 -
.49 -
3.43 -
8.39 -
3.31 -
1.02 -
1.33 -
.02 -
.05 -
124.75
41.58
141.54
65.01
8.05
219.32
90.74
24.31
3.49
4.27
648.31
131.04
6.90
4.17
4.52
64.21
166.98
62.38
17.42
40.56
3.83
50.22
52.33
68.53
34.61
105.25
98.34
4.68
4.38
Necessary data unavailable.
-------
TABLE 19
0721
1300
2491
2312
2816
2819
2821
2822
2823
2824
2833
2851
2861
2865
2869
2873
2874
2879
2892
2899
2911
2992
3312
3313
3315
33215
3341
33516
34719
3711
3714
Comparison Of Annual Revenue Requirements Due to
Part 264 Land Disposal Regulations
And Part 265 Land Disposal Regulations
To Selected Industry Measures
By SIC Code
Annualized
Coat
($000,000)
2
6
6
12
12
4
17
9
5
5
1
4
4
10
15
4
1
9
4
5
89
3
23
2
4
4
7
15
21
4
3
5
- 13
- 21
- 26
- 25
- 106
- 36
- 18
- 11
- 11
4
8
9
- 23
- 35
- 10
4
- 19
- 10
- 11
- 181
7
- 52
6
8
- 10
- 15
- 31
- 46
- 11
- 10
(Low and High Cost Cases)
Annualized
Cost
of
Cost
as
a
Percentage of
Value
Production
1.24
.78
1.65
.59
.15
.64
.38
.19
.12
.13
6.35
.45
.18
.21
.06
.82
1.63
.80
.06
.77
.12
.46
.72
.37
.78
.69
2.20
.01
.04
*
*
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
-
.
4.
1.
3.
1.
.
1.
.
,
.
.
-15.
_
_
.
_
_
-
-
-
1.
.
.
.
1.
4.
1.
.
1.
.
1.
1.
.
1.
1.
4.
.
.
25
66
46
42
32
25
79
41
34
29
64
07
41
52
20
72
45
94
12
84
26
20
59
90
78
39
86
03
13
2.
2.
«
1.
1.
8.
*
1.
1.
1.
1.
»
1.
1.
3.
2.
2.
Added
96
99
54
77
28
68
04
31
10
21
91
84
27
29
12
34
71
13
33
84
27
39
38
48
11
55
81
05
08
*
*
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.
2.
5.
1.
.
3.
2.
.
.
.
21.
1.
.
.
.
2.
4.
2.
.
4.
.
3.
3.
1.
7.
5.
6.
.
.
19
10
34
85
60
25
17
69
23
49
93
98
62
71
42
82
63
74
67
42
61
60
05
17
08
13
22
11
22
Value
o±
Shipments
*
*
1.01 -
.49 -
1.14 -
.39 -
.11 -
.51 -
.34 -
.14 -
.06 -
.09 -
3
1
2
4.21 -10
.33 -
.12 -
.13 -
.04 -
.63 -
1.06 -
.53 -
.05 -
.59 -
.10 -
.41 -
.57 -
.27 -
.67 -
.60 -
1.60 -
.01 -
.03 -
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
.46
.05
.41
.93
.23
.99
.71
.30
.17
.21
.37
.78
.27
.33
.13
.32
.88
.28
.11
.41
.22
.06
.25
.66
.53
.21
.53
.03
.10
* Necessary data unavailable
-------
rates and costs. This section also examines the potential cost
of floodplain requirements.
1. Sensitivity of Corrective Action Costs. Total corrective
action costs are very sensitive to whether corrective action
occurs at individual units within a facility or at the facility
as a whole. As described earlier in this preamble, two distributions
were used to develop total costs in this analysis. The first
distributed individual land disposal units by size and was
used to estimate D&O costs on a unit-by-unit basis and to report
costs by unit. The second distribution combined individual units
to form multi-unit land disposal facilities and was used to estimate
total corrective action costs on the basis of total acreage at
land disposal sites.
If corrective action costs were to be estimated using the
first distribution (on a unit-by-unit basis), instead of on a
facility-by-facility basis, total costs reported would be signifi-
cantly higher. Ranges of corrective action costs using the two
distributions are reported in Table 20.
TABLE 20
Comparison of Corrective Action Costs
Using Units and Facilities
($ 000 000)
Corrective Action Costs
Detect Year 49 & Pump 20Detect Year 0 & Pump 150
Scenario Years Using Strategy 1 Years Using Strategy 2
5,662 units 96 1,176
2,424 facilities 51 646
-------
As table 20 shows, if all 5,662 land disposal units
were to undertake corrective action individually, counterpumping
costs would range from $96 million to $1,176 million per year and
would be 80 to 90 percent higher than the total corrective action
costs reported in Total Costs.
Both of these estimates depend in part on plume sizes, which
in this analysis were necessarily related to the surface areas
used for waste management. However, areas used are not directly
reported on the Part A of the permit application for some units,
and therefore had to be derived. In addition, plumes may be larger
than the facility area when corrective action begins due to irregular
shapes, the orientation of the facility relative to ground water
flow, or site-specific constraints on the location of recovery
wells. The 50 percent area add-on used for sites with more than
one type of unit deals with some of this imprecision. In any
event, corrective action costs are relatively insensitive to plume
size, if hydrogeologic conditions are held constant. As reported
in table 21, the cost of corrective action for a 25 acre plume is
only 23 to 45 percent more expensive than counterpumping for a 5
acre plume, although the size of the plume has increased by 400
percent. Similarly, while a 125-acre plume is 125 times bigger
than a 1-acre plume, the counterpumping cost associated with the
125-acre plume is only 1.9 to 2.6 times greater, depending on the
strategy used and the timing of corrective action.
-------
TABLE 21
Comparison of Increases in Counterpumping Costs
With Increases in Plume Size
Counterpumping Cost
Plume Size
In Acres
Strategy 1 for 20 Years
Starting in Year 49
$ 000
16
18
23
28
30
% Change from
Previous Value
13
28
22
7
Strategy 2 for 150 Years
Starting in Year 0
$ 000
ISO
225
327
420
466
% Change from
Previous Value
25
45
28
11
1
5
25
75
125
In the corrective action scenario where each unit takes
corrective action individually, the average plume size is 7.3
acres. The average plume size increases to 15.6 acres when it is
assumed that corrective action is taken on a facility basis.
Even this difference/ which probably is greater than the range of
error in our plume size estimates, has an insignificant effect on
total corrective action costs.
2. Sensitivity of Costs to Hydrogeologic Assumptions. EPA
examined the effects of alternative assumptions regarding aquifer
transmissivity and gradient on corrective action costs for two
plume sizes.1 The Agency found that changing gradient or trans-
missivity assumptions has almost no effect on costs for small
plumes under Strategy 1 conditions. However, for large plumes
1. In all cases, the small plume (100 ft x 200 ft) is approxi-
mately the size of the plume used to estimate corrective action
costs for a 1/2 acre surface impoundment. This is two and
one-half times as large as the plume size for the smallest (500
MT/yr) landfill modelled. The large plume (1000 ft x 2000 ft) is
close in size to the plume used to estimate costs for a 35,000
metric ton per year landfill. A 20 acre surface impoundment
would involve about the same size plume.
-------
changing the gradient from 0.5 to 50 feet per mile or changing
the transmissivity from 10,000 to 1,000,000 gallons per day per
foot can increase the annual revenue requirement calculated for
counterpumping by about 50 percent. Under Strategy 2 conditions,
the same changes in transmissivity can increase costs for small
plumes by 50 percent and costs for large plumes by about 150
percent. Details of this analysis appear in the docket report.
3. Sensitivity of Costs to Treatment Assumptions. All
corrective action cost estimates displayed in this preamble
assume that the ground water removed through counterpumping is
treated in a facility built on site to deal with a simple mix of
contaminants in low concentrations. EPA used a simple average
of costs for three types of treatment: activated carbon; reverse
osmosis; and a treatment train consisting of coagulation, floe-
culation, sedimentation and filtration. These processes are
capable of addressing the bulk of potential ground water contami-
nants, and except in unusual cases the concentrations of pollu-
tants that are likely to be encountered should be within the
ranges that can be treated by these systems.
On balance, these estimates give a reasonable indication of
likely costs in average situations. Specific scenarios would
need to be addressed to substantially improve on these estimates.
Moving from an average of treatment costs to costs for a sin-
gle approach can change corrective action costs up or down by a
third to a half.
-------
Some cost decreases may be possible if the pumped water con-
tains only volatile pollutants that can be treated through air
stripping. Where the volumes of recovered water are very low
and the contaminants to be removed are of a suitable kind* pre-
engineered treatment equipment can be trucked to the site at
some cost savings. Large cost increases are possible if the
recovered water contains contaminants in high concentrations.
or if L~he recovered water contains a mixture of contaminants.
Mixtures can require use of a combination of the approaches
examined here, or use of more complex chemical or biological
treatment. (Details are contained in the docket report.)
4. Adding a Slurry Wall to Reduce the Pumping Rate. EPA
also examined an alternative strategy for compliance based on use
of a confining slurry wall and a surface cover to minimize the
amount of pumping and treatment required. This approach removes
contamination, but at a very slow rate, so that for purposes of
cost calculation, it must be assumed that the plume will exist
for a very long time. EPA found that this approach could save
money in many cases, compared to pumping at a higher rate over a
shorter period of time. The difficulty in using this technique
may be in demonstrating that the plume will be effectively
contained and removed.
EPA estimated the cost of this strategy for a small plume
(100 ft x 200 ft), since slurry wall costs increase more rapidly
with plume size than do counterpumping costs. EPA determined
that with a slurry wall in place pumping rates would be in the
range of 10,000 to 50,000 gallons per year (38 to 189 MT/year).
Because these rates are very low relative to what they would be
-------
without the slurry wall (4 to 22 million gallons per year under
base case conditions), EPA assumed that the contaminated ground
water would be treated in pre-engineered facilities trucked to
the site, at a cost of $85 per 1,000 gallons or ?22 per metric
ton. At this cost, over 250,000 gallons of recovered waterfive
to twenty-five times the amount expectedcould be treated before
a slurry wall becomes financially unattractive.
Use of a slurry wall would be even more attractive under pes-
simistic assumptions regarding gradient and transmissivity, be-
cause these changes would not affect the costs of the slurry wall
approach. The slurry wall approach would be much less attractive
with deeper plumes, and infeasible at depths greater than 150
feet.
5. Costs of Fioodplain Standards. The Part 264 regulations
require that facilities located in 100-year floodplains be de-
signed, constructed, operated, and maintained to prevent washout
of any hazardous waste by a 100-year flood.
Dike costs were only estimated for surface impoundments.
It was assumed that impoundments are likely to be located in
floodplains because they are often part of systems for treating
industrial effluent before it is discharged in surface water.
It was assumed that dikes are built around 3 sides of the surface
impoundment, that there is a 40' buffer zone between the surface
impoundment and the dike, and that dike construction is entirely
independent from the surface impoundment.
EPA estimated the costs of constructing dikes of various
heights to withstand the effects of a 100-year flood. Actual
dike heights are likely to vary with floodplain topographies,
-------
river depths, and heights during 100-year floods. Costs were
estimated for dike heights of 2, 3, 5, and 9 meters, but
the 3-meter (about 10 feet) height is used as an average cost
estimate. Dike widths varied with height and ranged from 14
meters for a 2-neter high dike to 49 meters for a 9-meter high
dike. The width of the dike significantly increases the amount
of land required for the facility. For example, a 1/4 acre
surface impoundment would need to be situated on 1.5 acres to
accomodate the buffer zone and a 3 meter dike. Similarly, an 11
acre surface impoundment would require about 16 acres to allow
for the buffer area and a 3 meter dike.
Annual revenue requirements for dikes of various heights
were estimated in the same way that other D&O revenue requirements
were estimated for surface impoundments. Costs for a 3 meter
dike ranged from $3,000 for a l/4-acre surface impoundment to
$17,000 for an 11-acre impoundment. For smaller surface impound-
ments, these costs were about 50 percent of the basic costs of
complying with the Part 264 regulations/ and roughly 20 to 25-
percent of the costs of retrofitting or replacing a facility.
For large surface impoundments, a 3 meter dike would add about
15 percent to the basic compliance cost, and about 6 percent to
the retrofit or replacement cost.
If it is assumed that all surface impoundments construct
3-trteter dikes to protect against washout from a 100-year flood,
the total incremental cost would be $29 million.1
1 Costs were estimated on a unit-by-unit basis for all 4240
surface impoundments. Estimating costs on a facility-by-facility
basis for all land disposal sites would increase the total cost
reported here by about 75 percent.
-------
X. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 122, 260, 264, and 265
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 122
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Hazardous materials. Reporting requirements. Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply, Confidential
business information.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 260
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information. Hazardous materials, Waste treatment and disposal.
List of-Subjects in 40 CFR Part 264
Hazardous materials, Packaging and containers, Reporting
requirements. Security measures. Surety bonds, Waste treatment
and disposal.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 265
Hazardous materials. Packaging and containers. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds,
Waste treatment and disposal, Waste supply.
Dated:
Anne M. Gorsuch
Administrator
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
APPENDIX B
UNIT COSTS USED TO DEVELOP BASELINES
This Appendix lists the cost components that were used to develop the cost
baselines for landfills, surface impoundments, land treatment areas and waste
piles. Costs are listed by type of cost and size of unit. The appendix is
organized as follows:
I. Landfill Unit Costs
a. Capital Costs
b. Initial Year Costs
c. Annual Costs
d. Last Year Costs
e. Post Closure Costs
II. Surface Impoundment Unit Costs
a. Capital Costs
b. Initial Year Costs
c. Annual Costs
d. Last Year Costs
e. Post Closure Costs
f. Intermittent Costs
III. Land Treatment Unit Costs
a. Capital Costs
b. Initial Year Costs
c. Annual Costs
d. Last Year Costs
e. Post Closure Costs
IV. Waste Pile Unit Costs
a. Capital Costs
b. Initial Year Costs
c. Annual Costs
d. Last Year Costs
-------
B-2
COST COMPONENT
Pre-ISS Capital Costs
Office
Deuaterlng Pumps
Road Gravel
Revegetation
Heavy Equipment
Truck scale
Water well
Utilities
Clearing & Grading
Subtotal
1. LANDFILL BASELINE COSTS
a. CAPITAL COSTS ($ 000)
(YEAR 0)
FACILITY SIZE IN METRIC TONS PER YEAR
500 2000 5000 7000 15000 35000 60000 123000
31
2
2
1
30
10
3
10
3
31
2
3
2
45
10
3
10
6
31
2
4
3
60
10
3
10
9
31
2
4
3
70
10
3
10
10
31
2
5
4
85
10
3
10
14
35
3
6
5
105
10
3
10
20
35
3
7
6
200
10
3
10
24
35
4
9
7
400
15
3
10
36
92 112 132 143 164
197
300
519
ISS Incremental Capital Costs
Ground-water Wells 30 30
Contingency Equip. 13 13
Subtotal 43 43
ISS BASLINE
CAPITAL COSTS 135 155
30
13
43
175
30
13
43
186
30
13
43
30
13
43
207 240
30
13
43
343
30
13
43
562
-------
B-3
I. LANDFILL BASELINE COSTS (cont.)
b. INITIAL YEAR COSTS ($ 000)
(YEAR 0)
FACILITY SIZE IN METRIC TONS PER YEAR
COST COMPONENT
500
2000
5000
7000
15000
35000
60000
123000
Pre-ISS Initial Yr. Costs
Land
Cell Excavation
Subtotal
ISS Incremental Initial
Detailed Disposal
Records*
Part A Recordkeeping
And Reporting
Waste Analysis Plan
Ground-Hater
Monitoring
Closure/Post Closure
Plan
Systems Design
Regulatory Review
Part A Administration
Inspection
Training Course
Development
Contingency Plan
Development
Permit
Offsite
Onsite
Runoff Control
Fencing
Subtotal
Offsite
Onsite
10
3
13
Yr.
*
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
4
0
7
6
54
50
TOTAL ISS BASELINE INITIAL
OFFSITE
ONSITE
67
63
21
11
32
Costs
*
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
4
0
9
9
59
55
34
27
61
*
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
4
0
10
12
63
59
41
38
79
*
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
4
0
11
13
65
61
63
79
142
1
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
4
0
13
17
71
67
99
189
288
2
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
4
0
16
22
79
75
133
318
451
3
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
4
0
18
26
85
81
197
634
831
6
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
4
0
22
33
96
92
YR COSTS
91
87
124
120
144
140
213
209
367
363
536
532
927
923
less than $500
-------
B-4
I. LANDFILL BASELINE COSTS (cont.)
c. ANNUAL COSTS ($ 000)
(YEARS 1-20)
FACILITY SIZE IN METRIC TONS PER YEAR
COST COMPONENT
Pre-ISS Annual Costs
Cell Excavation
Clerical Labor
Operating Labor
Labor Burden
Supervision
Fuel
Electricity
Equip. Maint. Labor
Overhead
Insurance
G&A
Fees
Cell Closure
Subtotal
ISS Incremental Annual
Runoff Control
Fencing
Ground-water Sampling
& Analysis
Recordkeeping &
Reporting
Personnel Training
Waste Testing
Offsite
Onsite
Cell Closure Costs*
Offsite
Onsite
Subtotal
Offsite
Onsite
500
3
13
20
16
8
3
2
1
21
2
1
21
1
112
Costs
7
6
5
*
4
1
4
7
14
30
40
2000
11
13
20
16
8
4
2
2
21
2
1
25
2
127
9
9
5
*
4
3
4
18
34
48
65
5000
27
13
20
16
8
5
2
2
21
2
1
31
6
154
10
12
5
1
4
5
4
34
66
71
102
7000
38
13
20
16
8
6
2
2
21
2
1
35
8
184
11
13
5
1
4
7
4
44
86
85
124
15000
79
13
20
16
8
9
3
3
21
2
1
52
15
242
13
17
5
1
4
12
4
73
143
125
187
35000
189
13
40
26
13
16
3
4
33
2
1
91
39
470
16
22
5
2
6
22
4
151
297
224
352
60000
318
26
40
33
16
27
3
6
41
2
1
135
62
700
18
26
5
3
6
33
4
214
423
305
485
123000
634
26
60
43
22
46
5
13
54
2
1
245
113
1264
22
33
5
5
6
57
4
336
656
464
731
TOTAL ISS BASELINE ANNUAL COSTS
OFFSITE
ONSITE
142
152
175
192
225
256
269
308
367
429
694
822
1005
1185
1728
1995
Includes fees of 5% for inspection, 10% for engineering, and 15% for contingency.
-------
B-5
I. LANDFILL BASELINE COSTS (cont.)
d. OTHER LAST YEAR COSTS ($ 000)
(YEAR 20)
FACILITY SIZE IN METRIC TONS PER YEAR
COST COMPONENT 500 2000 5000 7000 15000 35000 60000 123000
Pre-ISS Last Year Costs
Subtotal _______
ISS Incremental Last Yr. Costs
Decontamination &
Certification 2233367 8
TOTAL ISS BASELINE
LAST YEAR COST
-------
B-6
I. LANDFILL BASELINE COSTS (coat.)
e. POST CLOSURE COSTS ($ 000)
(YEARS 21-50)
FACILITY SIZE IN METRIC TONS PER YEAR
COST COMPONENT
ISS Capital Costs
Replanting (year 21)
Fence Replacement
(year 36)
Damage Correction
(year 35)
Leachate Monitoring
& Disposal
ISS BASELINE
CAPITAL COSTS
ISS Annual Costs
Inspection
Mowing
Routine Maintenance
(erosion repair, etc)
Fertilizer
Ground-water Sampling
& Anlaysis
30% Contingency
& Administrative
500
*
1
*
*
1
5
*
*
*
4
3
2000
*
2
1
1
4
5
*
*
*
4
3
5000
1
4
2
3
10
5
*
*
*
4
3
7000
1
4
2
4
11
5
*
*
*
4
3
15000
2
7
5
9
23
5
*
*
1
4
3
35000
5
13
11
22
51
5
1
*
2
4
4
60000
9
18
19
38
84
5
2
1
3
4
4
123000
19
30
38
77
164
5
4
1
7
4
6
ISS BASELINE
ANNUAL COSTS 12 12 13 13 14 16 19 27
less than $500
-------
B-7
II. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT BASELINE COSTS
a. CAPITAL COSTS ($ 000)
(YEAR 0)
FACILITY SIZE IN ACRES
COST COMPONENT
Pre-ISS Capital Costs
Excavation
Access Road
Clearing & Grading
Revegetation
Inlet/Outlet
Fees (at 5%, 10% & 15%)
Subtotal
1/4
4
1
1
-
5
4
15
1/2
12
2
1
-
5
7
27
1
20
2
1
-
5
9
37
2
45
3
1
1
5
18
73
5
139
4
2
1
5
50
201
11
314
6
3
1
5
108
437
ISS Incremental Capital Costs
Ground-water Wells
Fencing
Contingency Equipment
30
9
13
30
12
13
30
16
13
30
21
13
30
32
13
30
46
13
Subtotal 52 55 59 64 75 89
TOTAL ISS BASELINE
CAPITAL COST 67 82 96 137 276 526
Includes fees of 5% for Inspection, 10% for engineering, and 15% for contingency.
-------
B-8
II. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT BASELINE COSTS (cont.)
b. INITIAL YEAR COSTS ($ 000)
(YEAR 0)
FACILITY SIZE IN ACRES
COST COMPONENT
Pre-ISS Initial Yr. Costs
Land
Subtotal
ISS Incremental Initial Yr
Part A Recordkeeping
And Reporting
Waste Analysis Plan
Ground-Water
Monitoring
Closure/Post Closure
Plan
Systems Design
Regulatory Review
Part A Administration
Inspection
Training Course
Development
Contingency Plan
Development
Subtotal
1/4
4
4
. Costs
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
37
1/2
6
6
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
37
1
8
8
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
37
2
15
15
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
37
5
26
26
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
37
11
46
46
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
37
TOTAL ISS BASLINE
INITIAL YR COSTS 41 43 45 52 63 83
-------
B-9
II. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT BASELINE COSTS (cont.)
c. ANNUAL COSTS ($ 000)
(YEARS 1-20}
FACILITY SIZE IN ACRES
COST COMPONENT
Pre-ISS Annual Costs
Subtotal
ISS Incremental Annual
Ground-water Sampling
& Analysis
Recordkeeplng &
Reporting
Personnel Training
Waste Testing
1/4
Costs
5
3
4
4
1/2
5
3
4
4
1
5
3
4
4
2
5
3
4
4
5
5
3
6
4
11
5
3
6
4
Annual Report
Regular Inspections
Subtotal
TOTAL ISS BASELINE
ANNUAL COSTS
*
16
16
16
16
16
16
*
16
16
*
16
16
*
16
16
less than $500
-------
B-10
II. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT BASELINE COSTS (cont.)
d. OTHER LAST YEAR COSTS ($ 000)
(YEAR 20)
FACILITY SIZE IN ACRES
COST COMPONENT 1/4
Pre-ISS Last Year Capital Costs
Fill/ Compact/ Slope T 9
Revegetation ' 3
Subtotal 12
ISS Incremental Last Yr. Capital
Fill/Compact/Slope t 21
Subtotal 21
TOTAL ISS BASELINE LAST
YEAR CAPITAL COSTS 33
Other Pre-ISS Last Year Costs
Subtotal
Other ISS Incremental Last Year
Decontamination &
Certification 2
Subtotal 2
1/2
29
6
35
Costs
33
33
68
-
Costs
2
2
1
47
9
56
88
88
144
-
2
2
2
110
18
128
172
172
300
-
2
2
5
335
41
376
420
420
796
-
2
2
11
900
89
989
853
853
1842
-
3
3
TOTAL ISS BASELINE
OTHER LAST YEAR COSTS
Includes fees of 5% for inspection, 10% for engineering, and 15% for contingency.
-------
B-ll
II. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT BASELINE COSTS (coat.)
e. POST CLOSURE COSTS ($ 000)
(YEARS 21-50)
FACILITY SIZE IN ACRES
COST COMPONENT
ISS Capital Costs
Replanting
Fence Replacement
Damage Correction
Leachate Monitoring
& Disposal
ISS BASELINE
CAPITAL COSTS
ISS Annual Costs
Inspection
Mowing
Routine Maintenance
Fertilizer
Ground-water Monitoring
30% Contingency
& Administrative
1/4
*
*
*
*
1
2
*
*
*
1
1
1/2
*
1
*
*
1
2
*
*
*
1
1
1
*
1
*
*
2
2
*
*
*
1
1
2
*
1
1
1
3
2
*
*
*
1
1
5
1
3
2
2
8
2
*
*
*
1
1
11
2
5
5
5
17
2
*
*
1
2
2
ISS BASELINE
ANNUAL COSTS
8
* less than $500
-------
B-12
II. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT BASELINE (cont.)
£. INTERMITTENT DREDGING QUANITITES
(METRIC TONS)
FACILITY SIZE IN ACRES
YEAR DREDGE OCCURS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1/4
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
1/2
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
1 2
2,400 5,000
2,400
5,000
2,400
2,400 5,000
2,400
5,000
2,400
5,000
2,400
5 11
21,400
49,000
21,400
49,000
21,400
49,000
Pre-ISS intermittent dredging costs, and ISS incremental dreging costs
depend on the estimated pre-ISS and ISS per ton disposal cost.
-------
B-13
III. LAND TREATMENT BASELINE COSTS
a. CAPITAL COSTS ($ 000)
(YEAR 0)
FACILITY SIZE IN ACRES
COST COMPONENT
Pre-ISS Capital
Costs
1
.7
_
6
.5
_
20
.1
_
74
.3
_
247
.1
_
Subtotal
ISS Incremental Capital Costs
Ground-water Wells 30 30 30 30 30
Fencing 10 18 32 61 111
Contingency Equipment 13 13 13 13 13
Runoff Control 9 14 21 38 65
Subtotal 62 75 96 142 219
TOTAL ISS BASELINE
CAPITAL COST 62 75 96 142 219
-------
B-14
III. LAND TREATMENT BASELINE COSTS (cont.)
b. INITIAL YEAR COSTS ($ 000)
(YEAR 0)
FACILITY SIZE IN ACRES
COST COMPONENT
Pre-ISS Initial Yr. Costs
Subtotal
ISS Incremental Initial Yr.
Part A Recordkeeplng
And Reporting
Waste Analysis Plan
Ground-Water Sampling
& Analysis
Closure/Post Closure
Plan
Systems Design
Regulatory Review
Part A Administration
Inspection
Training Course
Development
Contingency Plan
Development
Detailed Disposal Records
1.7
.
-
Costs
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
*
6.5
M
-
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
*
20.1
_
-
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
*
74.3
-
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
1
247.1
_
-
2
4
10
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
3
Subtotal 37 37 37 38 40
TOTAL ISS BASLINE
INITIAL YR COSTS 37 37 37 38 40
-------
B-15
III. LAND TREATMENT BASELINE COSTS (cent.)
c. ANNUAL COSTS ($ 000)
(YEARS 1-20)
FACILITY SIZE IN ACRES
COST COMPONENT
Pre-ISS Annual Costs
Subtotal
ISS Incremental Annual Costs
Annual Report
Ground-water Sampling
& Analysis
Recordkeeping &
Reporting
Personnel Training
Regular Inspections
Soil core, soil pore
liquid, pH, and surface
water analysis
Subtotal
1.7
-
*
5
3
4
*
50
62
6.5
-
*
5
3
4
*
50
62
20.1
-
*
5
3
4
*
50
62
74.3
-
*
5
3
6
*
50
64
247.1
-
*
5
3
6
*
50
64
TOTAL ISS BASELINE
ANNUAL COSTS
62
62
62
64
64
less than $500
-------
B-16
III. LAND TREATMENT BASELINE COSTS (coat.)
d. OTHER LAST YEAR COSTS ($ 000)
(YEAR 20)
FACILITY SIZE IN ACRES
COST COMPONENT 1.7 6.5 20.1 74.3 247.1
Pre-ISS Last Year Costs
Subtotal -
ISS Incremental Last Year Costs
Decontamination &
Certification 66666
TOTAL ISS BASELINE
LAST YEAR COSTS
-------
B-17
III. LAND TREATMENT BASELINE COSTS (coat.)
e. POST CLOSURE COSTS ($ 000)
(YEARS 21-50)
FACILITY SIZE IN ACRES
COST COMPONENT 1.7 6.5 20.1 74.3 247.1
ISS Capital Costs
Wind Dispersal Control - - 13 13 67
ISS BASELINE
CAPITAL COSTS - - 13 13 67
ISS Annual Costs
Soil Pore-Liquid Monitoring 15 15 15 15 15
Ground-Water Monitoring 55 555
Wind Dispersal Control * * 24 90 300
ISS BASELINE
ANNUAL COSTS 20 20 44 110 320
* Less than $500.
-------
B-18
IV. WASTE PILE BASELINE COSTS
a. CAPITAL COSTS ($ 000)
(YEAR 0)
FACILITY SIZE IN 000 OF CUBIC FEET
COST COMPONENT
Pre-ISS Capital Costs
Subtotal
ISS Incremental Capital Costs
Fencing
Contingency Equipment
Runoff Control
Base/Liner
Subtotal 22
TOTAL ISS BASELINE
CAPITAL COST 22
2
losts
2
13
4
3
10
3
13
5
8
25
4
13
6
16
100
6
13
9
39
500
10
13
15
115
1000
13
13
20
181
29
29
39
39
67
67
153
153
227
227
-------
B-19
IV. WASTE PILE BASELINE COSTS (cont.)
b. INITIAL YEAR COSTS (§ 000)
(YEAR 0)
_ FACILITY SIZE IN OOP OF CUBIC FEET
COST COMPONENT 2 10 25 100 500 1000
Pre-ISS Initial Yr. Costs -
Subtotal
ISS Incremental Initial Yr. Costs
Part A Recordkeeping
And Reporting
Waste Analysis Plan
Closure/Post Closure
Plan
Systems Design
Regulatory Review
Part A Administration
Inspection
Training Course
Development
Contingency Plan
Development
2
4
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
2
4
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
2
4
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
2
4
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
2
4
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
2
4
2
1
1
2
1
12
2
Subtotal 27 27 27 27 27 27
TOTAL ISS BASLINE
INITIAL YR COSTS 27 27 27 27 27 27
-------
B-20
IV. WASTE PILE BASELINE COSTS (cont.)
c. ANNUAL COSTS ($ 000)
(YEARS 1-20)
FACILITY SIZE IN 000 OF CUBIC FEET
COST COMPONENT
Pre-ISS Annual Costs
Subtotal
ISS Incremental Annual
Annual Report
Waste Testing
Personnel Training
Regular Inspections
Subtotal
TOTAL ISS BASELINE
ANNUAL COSTS
2
_
-
Costs
*
4
4
*
8
8
10
-
*
4
4
*
8
8
25
_
-
*
4
4
*
8
8
100
_
-
*
4
4
*
8
8
500
_
-
*
4
4
*
8
8
1000
_
-
*
4
6
*
10
10
less than $500
-------
B-21
IV. WASTE PILE BASELINE COSTS (cont.)
d. LAST YEAR COSTS ($ 000)
(YEAR 20)
FACILITY SIZE IN OOP OF CUBIC FEET
COST COMPONENT 2 10 25 100 500 1000
Pre-ISS Last Year Costs - - -
Subtotal - - -
ISS Incremental Last Year Costs
Removal of
Pile &
Disposal
Pile &
Base
of
Base1
*
4
1
12
3
26
7
85
23
355
38
670
Subtotal 4 13 29 92 378 708
TOTAL ISS BASELINE
LAST YEAR COSTS 4 13 29 92 378 708
Less than $500.
1 Pre-ISS disposal costs not estimated. ISS disposal costs assume disposal
in a 123,000 MT offsite landfill at a cost of $15.30 per ton.
-------
APPENDIX
-------
APPENDIX C
PART 264 ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR LANDFILLS, SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, WASTE PILES
AND LAND TREATMENT AREAS
This appendix contains tables listing the engineering cost estimates for
the Part 264 designs described in Chapter IV for landfills, surface impoundments,
waste piles, and land treatment areas. These cost estimates were used to
calculate the incremental annual revenue requirements and first year cash
requirements of the Part 264 regulations. Costs for landfills, surface impound-
ments, and waste piles were developed by Pope-Reid Associates, Inc. Costs
for land treatment areas were developed by K.W. Brown.
-------
DETAILED ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR A SINGLE SYNTHETIC LINER DESIGN
OFF-SITE LANDFILLS (on-site ciay)
($1000)
FACILITY SIZE (MT/Year)
Liner
Excavation
Synthetic membrane
Run-on/run-off control system
Leachate collection system
Drainage tiles
Liner buffer-sand
Gravel
Sump and pump
LINER SUBTOTAL
Final Cover
Fill and slope
Run-off control
Vegetation
Topsoil
Sand drainage layer
Compacted clay layer
COVER SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Plus
Engineering Fees @ 15%
Inspection Fees @ 5%
Contingency @ 25%
TOTAL PART 264 DESIGN COST:
500
2.2
4.9
0.7
0.2
1.6
1.2
12.0
22.8
0.1
0.6
0.3
1.7
1.2
1.6
5.5
28.3
4.3
1.6
8.5
42.7
2000
7.8
11.3
1.1
0.4
3.9
2.9
12.0
39.4
0.5
0.9
0.9
4.1
3.2
4.2
13.8
53.2
8.0
3.0
16.1
80.3
5000
18.5
21.9
1.6
0.9
7.8
5.9
12.0
68.6
1.6
1.3
1.9
8.1
6.7
8.8
28.4
97.0
14.5
5.6
29.3
146.4
7000
25.6
28.4
1.8
1.1
10.3
7.8
12.0
87.0
2.4
1.4
2.6
10.6
8.9
11.8
37.7
124.7
18.7
7.2
37.6
188.2
15,000
52.6
46.3
2.3
1.7
17.0
13.1
12.0
145.0
5.2
1.9
4.4
17.6
15.1
19.9
64.1
209.1
31.4
12.0
63.1
315.6
35,000
120.6
93.3
3.3
3.5
34.9
27.2
12.0
294.8
16.1
2.7
9.2
36.4
32.0
42.2
138.6
433.4
65.0
24.9
130.9
654.2
60,000
202.0
131.5
3.9
4.6
49.5
38.8
12.0
442.3
27.6
3.2
13.2
51.5
45.8
60.3
201.6
643.9
96.6
37.0
194.4
971.9
1 23 ,000
402.5
202.5
4.9
6.3
76.8
60.6
12.0
765.6
o
i
to
53.8
4.0
20.5
79.7
71.5
94.0
323.5
1089.1
163.4
62.6
328.8
1643.9
-------
DETAILED ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR A SINGLE SYNTHETIC LINER DESIGN
ON-SITE LANDFILLS (Off-site Clay)
($1000)
FACILITY SIZE (NT/Year)
Liner
Excavation
Synthetic membrane
Run-on/run-off control system
Leachate collection system
Drainage tiles
Liner buffer-sand
Gravel
Sump and pump
LINER SUBTOTAL
Final Cover
Fill and slope
Run-off control
Vegetation
Topsoll
Sand drainage layer
Compacted clay layer
COVER SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Plus
Engineering Fees @ 15%
Inspection Fees @ 5%
Contingency 0 25%
TOTAL PART 264 DESIGN COST:
500
2.2
4.9
0.7
0.2
1.6
1.2
12.0
22.8
0.1
0.6
0.3
1.7
1.2
5.3
9.2
32.0
4.8
1.8
9.7
48.3
2000
7.8
11.3
1.1
0.4
3.9
2.9
12.0
39.4
0.5
0.9
0.9
4.1
3.2
13.8
23.4
62.8
9.4
3.6
19.0
94.8
5000
18.5
21.9
1.6
0.9
7.8
5.9
12.0
68.6
1.6
1.3
1.9
8.1
6,7
28.9
48.5
117.1
17.6
6.7
35.3
176.7
7000
25.6
28.4
1.8
1.1
10.3
7.8
12.0
87.0
2.4
1.4
2.6
10.6
8.9
38.6
64.5
151.5
22.7
8.7
45.8
228.7
15,000
52.6
46.3
2.3
1.7
17.0
13.1
12.0
145.0
5.2
1.9
4.4
17.6
15.1
65.2
109.4
254.4
38.2
14.6
76.8
384.0
35,000
120.6
93.3
3.3
3.5
34.9
27.2
12.0
294.8
16.1
2.7
9.2
36.4
32.0
138.1
234.5
529.3
79.4
30.4
159.8
798.9
60,000
202.0
131.5
3.9
4.6
49.5
38.8
12.0
442.3
27.6
3.2
13.2
51.5
45.8
197.4
338.7
781.0
117.1
44.9
235.8
1178.8
123,000
402.5
202.5
4.9
6.3
76.8
60.6
12.0
765.6
53.8
4.0
20.5
79.7
71.5
307.7
537.2
1302.8
195.4
74.9
393.3
1966.4
rs
LO
-------
DETAILED ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR A DOUBLE LINER (SYNTHETIC/CLAY) DESIGN
OFF-SITE LANDFILLS (On-site Clay)
($1000)
Liner
Excavation
Synthetic membrane
Run-on/run-off control system
Leachate collection system
Drainage tiles
Liner buffer-sand
Gravel
Sump and pump
Clay
LINER SUBTOTAL
Final Cover
Fill and slope
Run-off control
Vegetation
Topsoll
Sand drainage layer
Compacted clay layer
COVER SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Plus
Engineering Fees @ 15%
Inspection Fees @ 5%
Contingency @ 25%
TOTAL PART 264 DESIGN COST:
FACILITY SIZE
500
3.7
5.4
0.8
0.2
1.8
2.5
12.0
2.9
29.3
0.1
0.7
0.4
2.3
1.2
1.6
6.3
35.6
5.3
2.0
10.8
53.7
2000.
11.1
12.1
1.2
0.5
4.3
6.1
12.0
6.3
53.6
0.5
1.0
0.9
5.1
3.2
4.2
14.9
68.5
10.3
3.9
20.7
103.4
5000
24.8
23.1
1.7
1.1
8.3
12.2
12.0
11.9
95.1
1.6
1.4
1.9
9.5
6.7
8.8
29.9
125.0
18.8
7.2
37.7
188.7
7000
33.7
29.8
1.9
1.5
10.8
16.1
12.0
15.2
121.0
2.4
1.5
2.6
12.2
8.9
11.8
39.4
160.4
24.1
9.2
48.4
242.1
(MT/Year)
15,000
65.8
48.1
2.4
2.4
17.7
26.8
12.0
24.6
199.8
5.2
2.0
4.4
19.6
15.1
19.9
66.2
266.0
39.9
15.3
80.3
401.5
35,000
147.0
95.8
3.4
5.4
35.8
55.2
12.0
49.1
403.7
16.1
2.8
9.2
39.2
32.1
42.2
141.6
545.3
81.8
31.4
164.6
823.1
60,000
239.1
134.5
4.1
7.3
50.6
78.6
12.0
68.9
595.1
27.6
3.3
13.2
55.0
45.8
60.3
205.2
800.3
120.1
46.0
241.6
1208.0
123,000
459.7
206.2
5.1
10.5
78.2
122.3
12.0
105.8
999.8
53.8
4.1
20.5
83.9
71.5
94.0
327.8
1327.6
199.1
76.3
400.8
2003.8
o
I
-------
DETAILED ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR A DOUBLE LINER (SYNTHETIC/CLAY) DESIGN
ON-SITE LANDFILLS (Off-site Clay)
($1000)
FACILITY SIZE (MT/Year)
Liner
Excavation
Synthetic membrane
Run-on/run-off control system
Leachate collection system
Drainage tiles
Liner buffer-sand
Gravel
Sump and pump
Clay
LINER SUBTOTAL
Final Cover
Fill and slope
Run-off control
Vegetation
Topsoll
Sand drainage layer
Compacted clay layer
COVER SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Plus
Engineering Fees @ 15%
Inspection Fees @ 5%
Contingency @ 25%
TOTAL PART 264 DESIGN COST:
500
.3.7
5.4
0.8
0.2
1.8
2.5
12.0
9.4
35.8
0.1
0.7
0.4
2.3
1.2
5.2
9.9
45.7
6.9
2.6
13.8
69.0
2000
11.1
12.1
1.2
0.5
4.3
6.1
12.0
20.6
67.9
0.5
1.0
0.9
5.1
3.2
13.8
24.5
92.4
13.9
5.3
27.9
139.5
5000
24.8
23.1
1.7
1.1
8.3
12.2
12.0
38.9
122.1
1.6
1.4
1.9
9.5
6.7
28.9
50.0
172.1
25.8
9.9
52.0
259.8
7000
33.7
29.8
1.9
1.5
10.8
16.1
12.0
49.8
155.6
2.4
1.5
2.6
12.2
8.9
38.6
66.2
221.8
33.3
12.7
67.0
334.8
15,000
65.8
48.1
2.4
2.4
17.7
26.8
12.0
80.6
255.8
5.2
2.0
4.4
19,6
15.1
65.2
111.5
367.3
55.1
21.1
110.9
554.4
35,000
147.0
95.8
3.4
5.4
35.8
55.2
12.0
160.6
515.2
16.1
2.8
9.2
39.2
32.1
138.1
237.5
752.7
112.9
43.3
227.2
1136.1
60 ,000
239.1
134.5
4.1
7.3
50.6
78.6
12.0
225.5
751.7
27.6
3.3
13.2
55.0
45.8
197.3
342.2
1093.9
164.1
62.9
330.2
1651.1
123,000
459.7
206.2
5.1
10.5
78.2
122. 3 ?
346.2
1240.2
53.8
4.1
20.5
83.9
71.5
307.8
541.6
1781.8
267.3
102.4
537.9
2689.4
-------
Liner
Excavation
Synthetic membranes (2)
Run-on/run-off control
system
Leachate collection system
Drainage tiles
Liner buffer-sand
Gravel
Sump and pump
LINER SUBTOTAL
Final Cover
Fill and slope
Run-off control
Vegetation
Topsoil
Sand drainage layer
Compacted clay layer
COVER SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
DETAILED ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR A DOUBLE SYNTHETIC LINER DESIGN
OFF-SITE LANDFILLS (On-site Clay)
($1000)
FACILITY SIZE (MT/Year)
500
3.1
11.4
0.8
0.2
3.9
2.5
12.0
33.9
0.1
0.7
0.3
2.1
1.2
1.6
6.0
39.9
2000
9.9
25.2
1.2
0.4
8.9
6.1
12.0
63.7
0.5
1.0
0.9
4.7
3.2
4.2
14.5
78.2
5000
22.6
47.4
1.7
1.1
17.1
12.2
12.0
114.1
1.6
1.3
1.9
9.0
6.7
8.9
29.4
143.0
7000
30.9
60.9
1.9
1.5
22.1
16.0
12.0
145.3
2.4
1.5
2.6
11.7
8.9
11.8
38.9
184.2
15,000
61.2
97.9
2.4
2.4
36.1
26.8
12.0
238.8
5.2
2.0
4.4
18.9
15.1
19.9
65.5
304.3
35,000
138.0
194.1
3.4
5.4
72.6
55.2
12.0
480.7
16.1
2.8
9.2
38.3
32.0
42.2
140.6
621.3
60,000
226.5
271.9
4.0
7.3
102.4
78.6
12.0
702.7
27.6
3.3
13.2
53.8
45.8
60.3
204.0
906.7
123,000
440.3
416.0
5.0
10.5
122.3 «
157.9 «
12.0
1164.0
53.8
4.1
20.5
82.5
71.5
94.0
326.4
1490.4
n
i
(Continued on next page)
-------
DETAILED ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR A DOUBLE SYNTHETIC LINER DESIGN
ON-SITE LANDFILLS (On-site Clay) (Continued)
($1000)
FACILITY SIZE (MT/Year)
500 2000 5000
Plus
Engineering Fees @ 15%
Inspection Fees @ 5%
Contingency @ 25%
TOTAL PART 264 DESIGN COST: 60.2 118.0 215.8 278.0 459.3 937.8 1368.6 2249.6
500
6.0
2.3
12.0
2000
11.7
4.5
23.6
5000
21.4
8.2
43.2
7000
27.6
10.6
55.6
15,000
45.6
17.5
91.9
35.000
93.2
35.7
187.6
60.000
136.0
52.2
273.7
123,000
223.6
85.7
449.9
o
I
-------
DETAILED ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR A DOUBLE SYNTHETIC LINER DESIGN
ON-SITE LANDFILLS (Off-site Clay)
($1000)
Liner
Excavation
Synthetic membranes (2)
Run-on/run-off control
system
Leachate collection system
Drainage tiles
Liner buffer-sand
Gravel
Sump and pump
LINER SUBTOTAL
Final Cover
Fill and slope
Run-off control
Vegetation
Topsoil
Sand drainage layer
Compacted clay layer
COVER SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
FACILITY SIZE (MT/Year)
500
3.1
11.4
0.8
0.2
3.9
2.5
12.0
33.9
0.1
0.7
0.3
2.1
1.2
5.3
9.7
43.6
2000
9.9
25.2
1.2
0.4
8.9
6.1
12.0
63.7
0.5
1.0
0.9
4.7
3.2
13.8
24.1
87.8
5000
22.6
47.4
1.7
1.1
17.1
12.2
12.0
114.1
1.6
1.3
1.9
9.0
6.7
29.0
49.5
163.6
7000
30.9
60.9
1.9
1.5
22.1
16.0
12.0
145.3
2.4
1.5
2.6
11.7
8.9
38.5
65.6
210.9
15,000
61.2
97.9
2.4
2.4
36.1
26.8
12.0
238.8
5.2
2.0
4.4
18.9
19.9
65.2
110.8
349.6
35,000
138.0
194.1
3.4
5.4
72.6
55.2
12.0
480.7
16.1
2.8
9.2
38.3
32.0
138.1
236.5
717.2
60,000
226.5
271.9
4.0
7.3
102.4
78.6
12.0
702.7
27.6
3.3
13.2
53.8
45.8
197.3
341.0
1043.7
123,000
440.3
416.0
5.0
10.5
122.3
157.9 ?
12.0 °°
1164.0
53.8
4.1
20.5
82.5
71.5
307.7
540.1
1704.1
(Continued on next page)
-------
Plus
Engineering Fees @ 15%
Inspection Fees @ 5%
Contingency @ 25%
DETAILED ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR A DOUBLE SYNTHETIC LINER. DESIGN
ON-SITE LANDFILLS (Off-site Clay) (Continued)
($1000)
FACILITY SIZE (NT/Year)
500
6.5
2.5
13.2
2000
13.2
5.0
26.5
5000
24.5
9.4
49.4
7000
31.6
12.1
63.7
15.000
52.5
20.1
105.5
35.000
107.6
41.2
216.5
60.000
156.5
60.0
315.1
123 .000
255.6
98.0
514.4
TOTAL PART 264 DESIGN COST:
65.8
132.5
246.9
318.3
527.7
1082.5
1575.3 2572.1
i
VO
-------
Liner
Excavation
Run-on/run-off control system (Berm)
Soil layer
Synthetic membrane
Leachate collection system
Drainage tiles
Liner buffer-sand
Sump and pump
LINER SUBTOTAL
Final Cover
Fill and slope
Run-off control
Vegetation
Topsoil
Compacted clay layer
COVER SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Plus
Engineering Fees @ 15%
Inspection Fees @ 5%
Contingency 0 25%
TOTAL PART 264 DESIGN COST:
DETAILED ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR A SINGLE SYNTHETIC LINER DESIGN
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
($1000)
FACILITY SIZE (Acres)
0.25
5.2
0.8
0.9
10.3
0.3
3.7
12.0
33.2
0.50
10.9
1.1
1.8
19.5
0.5
7.0
12.0
52.8
1
22.5
1.6
3.6
37.1
0.7
13.7
12.0
91.2
2
46.3
2.2
7.0
71.6
2.6
26.8
12.0
168.5
5
162.3
3.4
17.5
173.8
6.5
66.1
12.0
441.6
11
365.5
5.0
38.2
374.1
13.6
143.6
JM ?
952.0 £
5.3
2.9
1.3
12.0
16.8
38.3
71.5
10.7
4.1
21.6
107.9
11.4
3.9
2.4
22.7
31.8
72.2
125.0
18.8
7.2
37.7
188.7
25.0
5.4
4.4
43.5
60.9
139.2
230.4
34.6
13.2
69.6
347.8
55.4
7.5
8.4
84.4
118.1
273.8
442.3
66.4
25.4
133.5
667.6
190.0
11.7
19.9
205.1
287.1
713.8
1155.4
173.3
66.4
348.8
1743.9
490.9
17.3
42.5
444.1
621.5
1616.3
2568.3
385.2
147.7
775.3
«MMM>^>BM
3876.5
-------
Liner
Excavation
Run-on/run-off control system (Berm)
Soil layer
Synthetic membrane
Leachate collection system
Drainage tiles
Liner buffer-sand
Sump and pump
Clay
LINER SUBTOTAL
Final Cover
Fill and slope
Run-off control
Vegetation
Topsoil
Compacted clay layer
COVER SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Plus
Engineering Fees @ 15%
Inspection Fees 0 5%
Contingency @ 25%
TOTAL PART 264 DESIGN COST:
DETAILED ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR A DOUBLE LINER (SYNTHETIC/CLAY) DESIGN
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
($1000)
FACILITY SIZE (Acres)
0.25
7.7
0.8
0.9
10.4
0.3
5.6
12.0
13.0
50.7
5.3
2.9
1.3
12.0
16.8
38.3
89.0
13.3
5.1
26.9
134.3
0.50
15.5
1.2
1.8
19.5
0.5
10.7
12.0
24.0
85.2
11.4
3.9
2.4
22.7
31.8
72.2
157.4
23.6
9.1
47.5
237.6
1
31.4
1.6
3.6
37.1
0.7
20.8
12.0
45.1
152.3
25.0
5.4
4.4
43.5
60.9
139.2
291.5
43.7
16.8
88.0
440.0
2
63.3
2.2
7.1
71.6
2.6
40.5
12.0
86.2
285.5
55.4
7.5
8.4
84.4
118.1
273.8
559.3
83.9
32.2
168.8
884.2
5
203.3
3.4
17.5
173.8
6.5
99.7
12.0
207.8
724.0
190.0
11.7
19.9
205.1
287.1
713.8
1437.8
215.7
82.7
434.0
2170.2
11
453.6
5.0
38.2
374.1
13.6
216.1
12.0
445.4 !
1558.0
490.9
17.3
42.5
444.1
621.5
1616.3
3174.3
476.2
182.5
958.2
4791.2
-------
DETAILED ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR A DOUBLE SYNTHETIC LINER DESIGN
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
($1000)
Linejr
Excavation
Run-on/run-off control system (Berm)
Soil layer
Synthetic membranes (2)
Leachate collection system
Drainage tiles
Liner buffer-sand
Gravel
Sump and pump
LINER SUBTOTAL
Final Cover
Fill and slope
Run-off control
Vegetation
Topsoil
Compacted clay layer
COVER SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Plus
Engineering Fees @ 15%
Inspection Fees @ 5%
Contingency @ 25%
TOTAL PART 264 DESIGN COST:
FACILITY SIZE (Acres)
0.25
6.6
0.8
0.9
22.4
0.3
5.9
3.1
12.0
52.0
5.3
2.9
1.3
12.0
16.8
38.3
90.3
13.5
5.2
27.3
136,3
0.50
13.6
1.1
1.8
41.3
0.5
11.2
5.8
12.0
87.3
11.4
3.9
2.4
27.7
31.8
72.2
159.5
23.9
9.2
48.1
240,7
1
27.7
1.6
3.6
77.6
0.7
21.4
11.3
12.0
115.9
25.0
5.4
4.4
43.5
60.9
139.2
295.1
44.2
17.0
89.1
445.4
2
56.3
2.2
7.0
147.9
2.6
41.4
21.9
12.0
291.3
55.4
7.5
8.4
84.4
118.1
273.8
565.1
84.7
32.5
170.6
852.9
5
186.6
3.4
17.5
354.9
6.5
101.1
53.7
12.0
735.7
190.0
11.7
19'. 9
205.1
287.1
713.8
1449.5
217.4
83.3
437.6
2187.8
11
418.0
5.0
38.2
758.9
13.7
218.2
116.2
1580.2
490.9
17.3
42.5
444.1
621.5
11616.3
2196.5
329.5
126.3
663.0
3315.3
-------
DETAILED ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR A DOUBLE SYNTHETIC LINER DESIGN
WASTE PILES « ISS AND PART 264 REQUIREMENTS
($1000)
Facility Size (cu ft)
2,000 10,000 ;
Liner
Run-on/run-off control
system
Clearing, grubbing,
excavation
Synthetic membranes (2)
Leachate collection system
- Drainage tiles 0.9 1.6 2.0 3.1 7.2 11.3 9
- Sand
- Wet well and sump pump
Miscellaneous
Wind dispersal prevention
Fence and gate
SUBTOTAL
Fees
Engineering and inspection
@10%
Contingency @10%
TOTAL
2,000
2.7
0.3
1.6
0.9
0.4
6.0
0.1
1.9
13.9
1.4
1.5
16.8
10,000
3.5
0.8
4.7
1.6
1.2
6.0
0.2
2.8
20.8
2.1
2.3
25.2
25,000
4.2
1.6
8.9
2.0
2.3
6.0
0.4
3.7
29.1
2.9
3.2
35.2
100,000
5.7
3.9
22.1
3.1
5.7
6.0
0.9
5.4
52.8
5.3
5.8
63.9
500,000
8.7
11.4
64.4
7.2
16.7
6.0
2.6
8.8
125.8
12.6
13.8
152.2
1,000,000
10.6
18.0
101.6
11.3
26.4
6.0
4.1
10.8
188.8
18.9
20.8
228.5
-------
Closure
Remove waste and
containment system
Fees
Inspection/testing @5%
Contingency @10%
SUBTOTAL
Disposal
At secure landfill
TOTAL
DETAILED ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR A DOUBLE SYNTHETIC LINER DESIGN
WASTE PILES "/CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
Facility Size (cu ft)
2,000
0.2
0.01
0.02
0.23
3.5
3.73
10,000
0.6
0.02
0.06
0.7
13.1
13.8
25,000
1.2
0.06
0.1
1.4
29.3
30.7
100,000
3.5
0.2
0.4
4.1
101.9
106.0
500,000
12.8
0.6
1.3
14.7
458.8
473.5
1,000,000
22.9
1.1
2.4
26.4
887.9
914.3
I
I"
-p>
-------
Liner
Run-on/run-off control
system
Clearing, grubbing,
excavation
Impermeable base
Miscellaneous
Wind dispersal prevention
Fence and gate
SUBTOTAL
Fees
Engineering and inspection
@ 102
Contingency @ 10%
TOTAL
DETAILED ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR A STURDY IMPERMEABLE BASE DESIGN
WASTE PILES -- ISS OR PART 264 REQUIREMENTS
($1000)
Facility Size (cu ft)
2,000
2.9
0.4
2.0
0.1
2.2
7.6
0.8
0.8
9.2
10,000
3.9
1.2
5.6
0.2
3.3
14.2
1.4
1.6
17.2
25,000
4.7
2.3
10.9
0.4
4.3
22.6
2.3
2.5
27.4
100,000
6.6
5.6
26.8
0.9
6.3
46.2
4.6
5.1
55.9
500,000
10.2
16.4
78.5
2.6
10.4
118.1
11.8
13.0
142.9
1,000,000
12.4
25.9
123.6
4.1
12.9
178.9
17.9
19.7
216.5
o
-------
Closure
Remove waste and
containment system
Fees
Inspection/testing @5%
Contingency @10%
SUBTOTAL
Disposal
At secure landfill
TOTAL
DETAILED ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR A STURDY IMPERMEABLE BASE DESIGN
WASTE PILES -- CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
($1000) Facility Size (cu ft)
2,000
0.4
0.02
0.04
0.5
5.3
5.8
10,000
1.1
0.06
0.1
1.3
18.4
19.7
25,000
2.2
0.1
0.2
2.5
39.4
41.9
100,000
5.8
0.3
0.6
6.7
126.8
133.5
500,000
19.5
1.0
2.1
22.6
531.6
554.2
1,000,000
33.4
1.7
3.5
38.6
1,002.3
1,040.9
n
-------
Inspection
Waste removal (minimum
is $200)
Inspection and reporting
TOTAL
DETAILED ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR A STURDY IMPERMEABLE BASE DESIGN
WASTE PILES INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
($1000)
Facility Size (cu ft)
2,000
0.2
0.1
0.3
10,000
0.2
0.1
0.3
25,000
0.2
0.1
0.3
100,000
0.9
0.1
1.0
500,000
4.3
0.1
4.4
1,000,000
8.5
0.1
8.6
n
-------
APPENDIX
-------
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
844 West Street
ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 21401
Telephone: (301) 268-7730
CONSULTING GROUND-WATER GEOLOGISTS AND HYDROLOGISTS
May 27, 1982
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Washington, O.C.
Gentlemen:
This information is a documentation of Geraghty &
Miller, Inc.'s analytical efforts in support of EPA's
estimation of costs of containment of plumes of contamina-
tion. The "working papers" which provide explanations of
the technical basis of the cost estimates, are solely for
use in support of EPA's regulatory analysis. They are not
considered to be in suitable form for general publication.
The conceptual basis of the document was developed
in a series of team problem definition meetings with Sobotka
and Company, Inc., and Public Interest Economics Center
with the purpose of augmenting EPA's positon in benefits
assessment. As such, the format and coverage of the in-
formation reflect the results of these meetings and are
intended to form the basis for estimating costs of contain-
ment nationwide.
Sincerely,
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Jeffrey S. Mahan
Senior Scientist
Syosset. NY Tampa. PL West Palm Beach. FL Baton Rouge. LA Hartford. CT
-------
COST ESTIMATES FOR CONTAINMENT OP
PLUMES OF CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER
WORKING PAPERS DEVELOPED FOR
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY UNDER:
CONTRACT NO.: 68-01-5838
SUBCONTRACT NO. 28
MAY 1982
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
844 WEST STREET
ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401
301-268-7730
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
Conceptual Approach 2
Overview of Plume Characteristics 3
Overview of Containment Techniques 5
Summary of Costs 7
Overview of Assumptions........................... 8
COST OF CONTAINMENT BY FLUID REMOVAL/TREATMENT 10
Containment Design Requirements 12
General Approach 13
Strategy 1 Algorithm 22
Strategy 2 Algorithm 25
Values of Driving Variables 26
Output Design Requirements 27
Containment Costs 34
General Approach 34
Cost Algorithms and Input Data 39
Output Cost Data . 54
Sensitivity Analysis. 54
General Approach 55
Sensitivity to Driving Variables 55
Sensitivity to Basic Assumptions 75
COST OF CONTAINMENT BY FLUID ISOLATION 82
General Approach. 83
Development of Unit Costs 88
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES/SENSITIVITIES 99
REFERENCES CITED 101
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. Glossary of Technical Terms
B. Containment Design Requirements for Well/Drain
Fluid Removal Systems
C. Capital Costs for Well/Drain Fluid Removal
Systems
D. Infrastructure Costs
E. Treatment Costs
F. Total Costs for Fluid Removal/Treatment Systems
G. Graphs used in Sensitivity Analysis for Fluid
Removal/Treatment Costs
H. Total Costs for Fluid Isolation Systems
I. Graphs used in Sensitivity Analysis for Fluid
Isolation System Costs
-------
PREFACE
The cost estimates presented in this draft document
were prepared at the request of the EPA in support of
their benefits estimation activities related to regula-
tions promulgated under RCRA.
The format in which costs are presented (e.g.. Capital
and Annual Operation and Maintenance) was selected to
conform to the analytical requirements of the EPA. Both
Capital (K) and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs are
presented in 1981 dollars unless otherwise specified.
Due to the level of generalization required for policy
use, cost estimates developed in this project should be
considered as "model costs" or approximations based en
the conditions/caveats described in the text. As a result,
significant variations in actual containment costs can
be realized at specific sites. Unit costs are presented,
where appropriate, to provide maximum flexibility in the
use of the model costs.
The cost estimation algorithms and resultant model
costs are based on Geraghty & Miller, Inc. s experience
and contact with related industry (e.g., drillers, equip-
ment manufacturers, and slurry wall contractors). A formal
-------
validation procedure has not been performed, however, and
will be required to assure confidence in the model outputs.
This procedure would involve a review of Geraghty & Miller,
Inc., and other projects where these containment techniques
are applied.
Estimates of treatment costs and surface infrastructure
requirements were developed in conjunction with SCS En-
gineers. Data on treatment facility construction and
O&M costs were derived principally from the an EPA document,
"Estimating Water Treatment Costs," by Gumerman, Gulp, and
Hansen (1979) of Gulp, Wesner and Gulp. Principal findings
and assumptions in these areas are presented in Appendices D
and E.
Additional analytical efforts will be required to
fully utilize model costs in regulatory policy analysis.
This may include developing distributions of cost on the
basis of regional variations in ground-water recharge,
aquifer dicharge, plume characteristics and other data
base requirements noted in the text.
Every effort was made in this document to develop
transparent and reproducible cost estimates. However,
since numerous computational algorithms were applied, round-
-------
ing error and lack of resolution in graphically derived
support data can result in +5 percent computational error.
Therefore, when attempting to verify aggregated cost esti-
mates, this type of variation should be anticipated.
In addition to thorough technical documentation,
a glossary of terms is presented in Appendix A in order
to acquaint the reader with frequently used technical
terms.
-------
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to develop model cost
estimates for containment of plumes of contaminated ground
water encountered in the process of EPA regulatory com-
pliance. It is commonly recognized that site-specific plume
and hydrogeologic conditions are highly variable and greatly
influence containment costs. For this reason, a range of
costs were generated over a range of site conditions.
Little effort was applied in developing an "average"
cost or plume condition, as this is largely a function of
specific scenarios to be studied by EPA. Summary cost
tables presented in this introduction should not be con-
sidered as typical, but as examples of costs that would be
incurred for the conditions defined, given the assump-
tions and caveats. Subsequent efforts will be required to
establish statistical distributions for plume sizes, depths,
and other significant driving variables in order to fully
utilize the cost matrices in this study.
Total containment costs and corresponding support data
are presented for various scenarios in Appendices B through
I. Source data for unit costs were derived from the pub-
lished literature and appropriate industry sources as
-------
indicated in the list of references. The costs are primar-
ily developed to be useful to EPA in comparing selected
containment cost elements within techniques and to a lesser
extent among techniques. A rigorous cost comparison of
techniques is possible, but would require further manipula-
tion of the cost data such as capitalization of the O&N
costs or an expression of capital costs over an appropriate
time-stream. However, additional assumptions such as lon-
gevity of structural controls such as walls and wells and
the time-frame for operating recovery well or drain systems
are required to develop comparable life-cycle costs for
fluid isolation and removal systems.
Conceptual Approach
Containment costs are developed through a model
approach where plume and hydrogeological conditions are
substantially simplified. Cost estimates are not based on
empirical data or actual case studies. This should be done
in a formal validation effort in order to more fully support
the study results.
A series of cost estimation algorithms are developed
for a range of plume and hydrogeological conditions.
-------
These algorithms are primarily computational rules and
conventions for calculating containment requirements. Costs
are presented in table form to best reflect the influence
of the primary driving variables. For example, the driving
variables specified in the background cost matrices include:
Plume dimensions - width x length x depth
Hydraulic gradient (I)
Transmissivity (T)
Aquifer discharge (Q)
Treatment requirements
Sensitivity analyses are presented graphically to indicate
key driving variables or conditions affecting total contain-
ment costs (Appendices G, I).
Overview of Plume Characteristics
Most ground-water contamination incidents are local
phenomena affecting only the uppermost aquifers. The
area over which ground-water quality is significantly
degraded is typically less than a mile or two long and a
half a mile wide with pollutants moving at an average
rate of less than one foot per day. These conditions are
reflected in the model plume sizes studied in the project.
-------
Ranges/options for plume related variables considered in the
cost estimation models include:
Plume dimensions
- width: 100 to 2000 feet
- length: 200 to 10,000 feet
- depth: 25 to 200 feet
Hydraulic gradient
- .5 to 500 feet/mile
. Aquifer transmissivity
- 1000 to 1,000,000 galIons/day/foot
Aquifer discharge
- .05 to 5 mgd/mile
These characteristics impact the cost and the relative
effectiveness/efficiency of the containment techniques
costed herein. In addition, factors such as plume depth
and strength of earth materials determine the feasibility
of certain techniques (e.g., drains and slurry walls are
limited to shallow depths and materials that can be exca-
vated) .
Concentrations of contaminants are not explicitly
considered in the cost algorithms, except in the recovery
well approach, where treatment costs assume low concen-
trations of contaminants. Similarly, the algorithms do
-------
not consider the mobility of contaminants within aquifers
which can affect the period of operation of a recovery well
system.
Other factors of significance such as institutional
constraints and land values are not factored into the
costs. Excavation or other source removal requirements
related to the contaminant source are not considered in the
cost model.
Overview of Containment Techniques
This study focuses solely on the containment of contam-
inants in aquifers through fluid removal and isolation
systems. The objective of these systems is not to clean-up
or rehabilitate, for the rehabilitation of aquifers contam-
inated by selected chemicals is often not economically or
technically feasible. A number of techniques for clean-up
have been applied or are under development, but are likely
to be applicable under limited conditions, and attempts at
clean-up are not widespread. In this study, the two princi-
pal techniques considered for achieving containment by
halting migration are:
Fluid removal systems that use wells or drains to
recover and, if needed, treat contaminated ground
water.
-------
Table 1. Total Gontaiiment Costs Cor Three Ranedial Options
Under Median Hydrogeologic Conditions9
Width x Length
' Operating and
Remedial Option
Fluid Isolation
With Slurry Wall
and No Land
Surface Treatment
Fluid Isolation
With Slurry -Wall
and Surface Sealing
Strategy lb
Fluid Removal
Without Treatment
Strategy 1
Fluid Removal
With Reverse
Osmosis Treatment
Strategy 2°
Fluid Renewal
Without Treatment
Strategy 2C
Fluid Removal
With Reverse
Osmosis Treatment
100 x 200 100 x 500 500 x 1000
K OSM X OSM K
240 10 495 10 1041
253 10 528 10 1361
74 15 80 15 120
118 39 124 39 250
75 15 103 18 140
205 63 353 92 540
OSM
10
10
15
63
19
119
Plune Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Maintenance (OSM)/Monitoring Costs (1000's Dollars)
500 x
K
2255
3053
160
290
229
979
2500 1000 x 2000
OSM
10
10
15
63
24
184
K
2045
3325
183
398
192
792
OSM
10
10
16
81
22
165
1000
K
4567
7682
251
466
353
1553
x 5000
OSM
10
10
16
81
33
253
2000 x 4000
K OSM
3963 10
8963 10
297 19
637 109
329 29
1329 224
2000 x 10000
K OSM
8845 10
21565 10
449 20
789 110
766 54
2766 354
a Plune Depth: 75 feet
Transraisswity: 100,000 gpd/ft
Gradient: 5 feet/mile
Aquifer Discharge: 0.5 mgd/mile
Strategy 1 Involves locating recovery wells or drains near toe of plime that is migrating in only one horizontal direction
e Strategy 2 involves locating wells or drains inside a plume that is nigrating in all horizontal directions
g
fir
-------
Fluid isolation systems that use slurry walls, and
if needed, treatment or modifications to the land
surface to contain the contaminated ground water
and limit additional recharge.
Other techniques such as insitu chemical or biological
treatment, pressure grouting, contaminant dilution, deep
injection well disposal, etc., are limited in application
and performance data and are not addressed.
Summary of Costs
The model costs developed in this study are presented
in detail in Appendices F and H with supportive data and
cost sensitivities presented in the other Appendices. A
brief summary of costs representing "mid-range" scenarios
is presented in Table 1. It is clear from the analysis
that capital costs are higher for fluid isolation wall
systems than fluid removal systems. However, operation and
maintenance costs are higher in fluid removal systems due to
treatment, pumping and servicing requirements.
-------
Overview of Assumptions
In order to develop containment costs on a model basis,
a number of simplifying assumptions related to plume and
aquifer conditions were required. Those related to aquifer
conditions include:
Aquifers are single layers of homogeneous and
isotropic porous media.
Aquifers are unconfined with a water table as
the upper boundary of the aquifer.
Aquifer transmissivity is constant in both space
and t ime.
Under pre-response conditions, the water table is
everywhere 10 feet below land surface.
Aquifers are bounded below by impermeable earth
materials at constant depths from land surface.
In lateral directions from the plume, aquifers have
no physical or political boundaries.
The aquifer matrix is a consolidated but poorly-
cemented material which can be drilled, excavated,
or otherwise penetrated with equipment specified
for each containment technique.
8
-------
Further assumptions relating to plume conditions include:
Plumes are single-phase homogeneous fluid mixtures
of ground water and leachate.
. In plan view, plumes are assumed to have ellipical
shapes with minor/major axes ratios of 1:2 or 1:5.
Plumes encompass the surface source of the leachate
and extend away from the source in the direction of
the local hydraulic gradient.
Plumes are located in the general vicinity of
metropolitan areas; however, the land surface above
plumes is accessible for engineering construction
activities.
Additional assumptions related to control measures are
presented in the respective chapters.
-------
COST OF CONTAINMENT BY FLUID REMOVAL/TREATMENT
Model costs for containment by removal and treatment of
plume fluids were determined with the sequence of work-tasks
shown in Figure 1. As shown, there are basically two major
steps in estimating the cost for containment. The first
step is to determine containment design requirements by
applying a set of algorithms for selected scenarios based on
plume and aquifer characteristics. Containment design
requirements are the number, size, and capacity of various
engineered structures needed to remove, transport, and treat
contaminated fluids. In the second step, a conceptual
design and cost estimate are developed for the structures.
This is accomplished by developing unit costs for the
structures and applying a second set of algorithms for the
selected scenarios.
A sensitivity analysis was performed in order to find
the most sensitive variables affecting costs and to serve
as a basis for discussing how the basic assumptions affect
total costs. The analysis was qualitative and based on
visual inspection of graphs of cost versus the driving
variables.
10
-------
FIGURE 1
SEQUENCE OF TASKS FOR COSTING CONTAINMENT
BY FLUID REMOVAL/TREATMENT SYSTEMS
STEP 1
Containment
Design
Requirements
Develop basic
methodology and
algorithms
Select hydrogeologic/
plume scenarios
i
Apply first set of
algorithms to determine
containment design
requirements
Predict ranges
of driving
variables
. Plume
Characteristics
. Aquifer
Characteristics
STEP 2
Containment
Costs
Apply second set of
algorithms to determine
containment costs
1
Tabulate costs for
selected scenarios
i
Develop unit costs
. Well/drain system
. Infrastructures
. Treatment system
Perform sensitivity
analysis
i
\ Report results |
11
-------
Containment Design Requirements
The containment design requirements are basic design
data which include the number, size, and discharge capacity
of various engineered structures. The structures considered
in this study include recovery wells and drains, infrastruc-
ture pipelines, roads, powerlines, etc., and three treatment
options.
The design requirements for recovery wells are the
location and total number of wells of a particular depth
having a calculated discharge capacity. Design requirements
for recovery drains include the location, length, and
calculated discharge capacity for each drain. The well/
drain location is primarily a function of the pre-response
plume movement and the corresponding containment strategy.
Size and discharge capacity are determined with hydraulic
models that translate into mathematical algorithms.
Design requirements for infrastructures are the number,
spacing, and individual discharge capacity of each well or
drain in the system along with plume width and length.
More details about design considerations and costs of
infrastructures are presented in Appendix D. Design
requirements for treatment would normally include total
12
-------
discharge from wells or drains and the identity and con-
centration of contaminants in the waste stream. For this
study, however, the latter two are replaced with the assump-
tion that the contaminants are treatable and can be removed
by techniques such as activated carbon filtration, reverse
osmosis, or coagulation/floculation/sedimentation/filtration
as described in Appendix E.
General Approach
Containment requirements are determined through the use
of simple, conceptual plume and aquifer models with a set of
simple mathematical algorithms. The methodology used
involves the selection of driving variables and scenarios
within a set of well defined assumptions. Two physical
containment strategies were developed and resultant computa-
tional algorithms were used to tabulate design requirements.
Selected classes of driving variables include plume and
aquifer characteristics and engineering constraints as shown
in Figure 2. Within the major components affecting costs is
a hierarchy of variables that become more specific and
quantifiable at lower levels of the diagram with specific
driving variables identified along the lowest level of the
diagram.
13
-------
FACTORS AFFECTING CONTAINMENT
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS
Plume
Characteristics
Aquifer
Characteristics
Engineering
Constraints
Solubility
end Mobility
TieeUblUty
Plume
Depth
Mum*
Length
Plum
Width
Plume
Perimeter
Hydraulic
Gradient
AquHer
Tnnanyaelvtty
Driwina Variables For This Protect
AquHer
TtHOkneu
AquHer
Bouidarlee
Wett
Loeeee
Well
Dleeherpe
Totel
Utt
FIGURE 2. Factors Affecting Containment by Fluid Removal/Treatment Systems
-------
Driving variables were assigned a range of values to
represent site conditions that could be encountered in the
United States mainland. Other variables shown on the figure
were held constant or handled through caveats because of
their smaller relative importance, and the budgetary con-
straints of this study. The possible effects on costs re-
sulting from this is addressed through sensitivity analyses.
As mentioned, a series of assumptions were developed
in parallel with the selection of driving variables and
are fundamental in establishing the containment strategies.
In fact, two basic assumptions with respect to hydraulics
represent the basis of our strategies. First, a uniform
hydraulic gradient is assumed where the plume elongates
in the direction of flow. This "favorable" situation
is a principal requirement in the Strategy 1 containment
approach.
Secondly, a radially-directed gradient is assumed
with the plume spreading in all directions. This "least
favorable" situation of radial-plume movement requires
a Strategy 2 containment method. These two extremes bracket
all possible cases of horizontal plume movement within a
single aquifer. The development of containment costs by
15
-------
fluid removal for these two extremes theoretically estab-
lishes the range of costs likely to be encountered. Details
of Strategies 1 and 2 are presented in the following sub-
sections.
For the purpose of determining the containment design
requirements, a scenario is defined by four driving vari-
ables in Figure 2. These variables and the number of
values assigned to each are as follows:
. Four Hydraulic gradients
Four Aquifer transmissivities
Eight Plume sizes (length x width)
Five Plume depths
The total number of possible scenarios that can be
created is numerous and includes some situations not likely
to be encountered in nature. There are potentially 16 com-
binations of gradient and transmissivity; however, only 10
combinations create aquifer discharges that, in our opinion,
are realistic.
Strategy 1
Strategy 1 is developed to deal with the most favorable
plume migration condition where there is a unidirectional
gradient operating parallel to the major axis of a plume.
16
-------
This strategy takes advantage of the unidirectional gradient
by locating recovery wells or drains at the downstream
end, or "toe" of the plume, a short distance inside the
plume boundary. Technical assumptions applying to the
various mathematical models used in both Strategy 1 and 2
calculations are outlined in Table 2.
Figure 3 shows an example of Strategy 1 conditions
where a single recovery well is used to contain a plume that
is migrating in a unidirectional flow field. The recovery
well must produce at least the same amount of volumetric
discharge occurring in that part of the aquifer which
encompasses the plume. In Figure 3, this would be the
quantity of water flowing per unit time between the flow
lines that bound the sides of the plume. On a specific
site, this "plume discharge" would be estimated with the
Darcy equation:
where.
Q = TIW
Q = Plume discharge, [L /T]
2
T = Aquifer transmissivity, [L /T]
I = Hydraulic gradient, [dimensionless]
W = Width of plume, [L]
17
-------
TABLE 2
HYDRAULIC MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
Wells or drains are completed to the lower imper-
meable boundary of the aquifer and produce water
from the entire saturated thickness of the aqui-
fer.
For predicting drawdowns around pumping wells,
all the assumptions inherent with the Theis
(1935) equation, as modified by Cooper and Jacob
(1946), are in effect.
After 100 days of pumping at a constant rate
from each well or drain, the hydraulic system has
reached steady state, i.e. the drawdowns caused by
pumping will stabilize and no longer change.
Transmissivity does not change due to reductions
in saturated thickness of the water-table aquifer
near pumping wells.
Additional drawdown due to well losses are assumed
to be negligible.
Transport mechanisms involving mechanical dis-
persion and chemical diffusion are negligible.
18
-------
|Y«
LIMITS OF AQUIFER
YIELOINO WATER TO WELL
Nil
:;i
EQUIPOTENTIAL
LINES
-FLOWLINES
PLUME BOUNDARY
LIMITING
FLOWLINE
RECOVERY WELL
-=»-Y
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 3 Ground-water Flow Conditions for Strategy 1.
(a) Plan View of Plume in a Undirectional
Flow Field.
(b) Containment of Plume with One Discharging
Recovery Well.
19
-------
As shown in Figure 3, the limiting flowlines diverge
from each other in an upgradient direction from the re-
covery well. If the well is located a large distance
from the plume and is pumping the plume discharge, Q ,
the flowlines will encompass the plume. If the well is
located near or inside the plume and produces Q , the
flowlines may not encompass the plume at its widest point.
In such a case, the well discharge must be somewhat greater
than Q .
Strategy 2
Strategy 2 is a set of algorithms designed to deal
with the least favorable plume migration condition. As
shown in Figure 4, this strategy is used as a response
to a plume that is spreading in a radial pattern. Radial
flow may be caused by local mounding of the water table
due to recharge of liquid wastes or discharge from off-site
wells surrounding the plume. Under Strategy 2, the recovery
wells or drains are located inside the plume, either along
the major axis itself or in rows parallel to the major
axis.
Like Strategy 1, total discharge from the wells or
drains must at least be as large as the total discharge
through the plume itself. The Darcy equation can be used to
20
-------
GROUND-WATER
DIVIDE
LINES
PLUME
BOUNDARY
FLOWUNES
RECOVERY
WELL
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 4. Ground-water Plow Conditions for Stragegy 2.
(a) Plan View of Plume in a Radial Plow Field;
(b) Containment of Plume with Three Discharging
Recovery Wells.
21
-------
determine the plume discharge. However, under radial flow
conditions, the variable "W" is equal to the perimeter
rather than the width of the plume. Under Strategy 2, the
recovery system must reverse the direction of the hydraulic
gradients around the plume boundaries so that ground-water
flow is toward the wells or drains. As shown in Figure 2,
a ground-water divide is created outside of the plume
boundary.
Strategy 1 Algorithm
This section includes the specific algorithm and
mathematical expressions used under Strategy 1 for deter-
mining containment requirements. In addition, the specific
values of driving variables used as input data to the
algorithm are presented.
Under Strategy 1, containment is achieved by a dis-
charging well or drain that creates a limiting flowline
around a plume. At the theoretical optimum discharge rate,
the limiting flowline is tangent to the plume boundaries and
encompasses the entire plume area in plan view.
The algorithm for finding the optimum discharge from
one or several wells/drains is to use a graphical technique
with the following expression for the limiting flowline
22
-------
(Forchheimer, 1930):
£- = tan ( '"*»" y)
where,
y, x = Rectangular coordinates, [L]
K = Aquifer hydraulic conductivity, [L/t]
b = Aquifer thickness, [L]
I = Hydraulic gradient, [dimensionless]
Q = well discharge, [L3/t]
The graphical technique involves mapping flowlines
for various discharges from one recovery well. The well
is located at the origin of a coordinate system inside
the downgradient limit of each plume. Figure 3 shows the
orientation of the x and y coordinates. The optimum dis-
charge is selected by making the best fit between a limiting
flowline and an elliptical plume. This technique also
approximates the total discharge from several recovery wells
or a single drain located near the toe of the plume.
Drawdown at a pumping well is calculated with the
Cooper and Jacob (1946) equation, where the well radius is
23
-------
set equal to one foot. Interference from other, recovery
wells is estimated with distance-drawdown graphs gener-
ated with the Cooper and Jacob equation.
Although it is possible to draw the water down to the
bottom of the aquifer at a well or drain, maximum drawdown
at a well for this study is arbitrarily limited to 70
percent of the original saturated thickness of the aquifer.
This drawdown constraint is needed to allow for additional
drawdown caused by well losses and to maintain the proper
submergence head above the pump intake to prevent breaking
suction (see Appendix A for definitions of technical terms).
Practical limits on pump capacity are primarily con-
trolled by the optimum well discharge, the total vertical
distance water must be lifted, and the pump efficiency. For
this study, the lower and upper bounds on individual well
discharge are arbitrarily set at 5 and 4000 gpm/well,
respectively. Total lift and pump efficiency affect both
design and O&M costs and are discussed later.
24
-------
Strategy 2 Algorithm
The algorithm for determining the well/drain discharge
for Strategy 2 assumes that the hydraulic gradient is
equal in magnitude at all points along the plume boundary.
Only the direction of the gradient varies under pre-response
conditions. A mathematical expression is used to determine
the optimum discharge needed to create a gradient that is
equal to the pre-defined gradient along the plume boundary.
The expression (Forchheimer, 1930) is written in consistent
units as follows:
Q = 2ffTIr,
where,
Q = Well discharge, [L3/t]
T = Aquifer transmissivity, [L /t]
I = Hydraulic gradient, [dimensionless]
r = Radial distance, [L].
The radial distance from the well to the plume boundary
is set equal to one half the plume width when several wells
are used, or plume length when one well is used. As in
Strategy 1, a drawdown constraint of 70 percent of maximum
thickness of aquifer is imposed under Strategy 2.
25
-------
Values of Driving Variables
The values assigned to the driving variables for
generating containment design requirements are as follows:
Hydraulic gradients: 0.5, 5, 50, and 500 ft/mi.
Aquifer transmissivities: 1,000, 10,000, 100,000,
and 1,000,000 gal/day/ft.
Plume sizes (length x width): 100 x 200, 100 x
500, 500 x 1000, 500 x 2500, 1000 x 2000, 1000 x
5000, 2000 x 5000, and 2000 x 10000 ft.
Plume depths: 25, 50, 75, 100, and 200 ft.
Under Strategy 1, the plume discharge is directly
proportional to discharge through a unit width of aquifer.
To insure that the ranges of gradients, transmissivities and
plume discharges used in this study are reasonable, the 16
possible combinations of gradient, I, and transmissivity, T,
were tested with the Darcy equation. Sixteen hypothetical
calculations were made using all combinations of I and T
with a standard aquifer width equal to one mile. Aquifer
discharges ranged from 0.005 to 500 mgd/mi (million gallons
per day flowing acoss a section of aquifer one mile wide).
Ten of the 16 combinations of gradient and transmissivity
26
-------
yielded aquifer discharges in the range of 0.05 to 5 mgd/mi.
Because this range is considered representative of the
majority of aquifers in the United States, only those
combinations of I and T that create this range were used.
The elliptical shape and range of plume widths and
lengths are considered representative on the basis of
numerous transport model studies (Freeze and Cherry, 1979)
and actual case histories where plumes have been mapped.
The range of depths to the bottoms of plumes is also repre-
sentative of plumes in water-table aquifers in the United
States. There are an increasing number of case histories
that document contamination of the water-table aquifer and
several underlying confined aquifers to greater than
200-foot depths. However, these are considered special
cases and are not considered for the purposes of this study.
Output Design Requirements
Output from the application of Strategy 1 and 2 algo-
rithms are containment design requirements for 400 scenarios
under Strategy 1, and 120 scenarios under Strategy 2.
In Appendix B, the design data are shown in Tables B-l
through B-10 for Strategy 1, and Tables B-ll through B-13
for Strategy 2. These tables show the minimum number
of wells and per-well discharges needed to produce the
27
-------
optimum discharge for plumes of various sizes in a range of
hydrogeologic settings.
Strategy 1
Table 3 shows the format of data in Appendix B and
contains design requirements for 40 Strategy 1 scenarios.
The hydrogeologic setting defined by the aquifer discharge,
transmissivity, and gradient represents median values within
the ranges used for these variables. For each of 20 plume
width-depth combinations. Table 3 shows two numbers that
respectively represent the number of wells and the optimum
discharge per well. Because plume length has no bearing on
the number of wells or discharge under Strategy 1, the 20
pairs of data can be used for 40 scenarios representing 8
plume width-length sizes and 5 plume depths.
Table 3 shows that only one recovery well is needed
to control the specific plume discharges for each of 4
plume widths. The discharge from a single recovery well is
approximately 120 percent of its respective plume discharge.
This relationship holds for all plume and well discharges
under Strategy 1 and is the result of locating the well
inside the plume rather than an arbitrarily large distance
downgradient of the plume.
28
-------
TABLE 3
CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR
FLUID REMOVAL SYSTEMS UNDER STRATEGY 1
FOR MEDIAN AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS3
Plume Width (ft): 100
Plume Discharge (gpm): (6.6)
500
(33)
1000
(66)
2000
(132)
Plume Depth (ft)
25
50
75
100
200
Number of Wells and Discharge (gpm)
1(8)
1(40)
1(80)
1(160)
aHydraulic Gradient = 5 ft/mi; Transmissivity = 100,000 gal/day/ft
bNumber of wells and per-well discharge, in gallons per minute (gpm),
e.g., 1(8): one well with a discharge of 8 gpm
29
-------
The data in Appendix B show that under Strategy 1
conditions the number of recovery wells increases as:
. Hydraulic gradient and plume discharge increase
Plume width increases
. Plume depth decreases
Aquifer transmissivity decreases
These four variables begin to influence the number of wells
when the limit on drawdown occurs at a pumping well or when
drawdown near plume boundaries is too small to overcome
local hydraulic gradients which prevents in-flow to the
well. The above changes in plume discharge, depth, and
transmissivity can cause excessive drawdown at the well.
Changes in plume width and transmissivity can cause insuffi-
cient drawdown near plume boundaries.
All four factors can operate independently or together.
As all factors approach their extreme valves, there is no
reasonable number of wells in a line along the x-axis that
can produce the optimum discharge and satisfy the drawdown
constraints. Under these conditions the design options
available are:
Install a recovery drain near the toe of the plume,
Locate some wells upgradient, inside the plume.
30
-------
For the purposes of this study, the first option was used
when the plume depth was 25 feet, and the second option was
used when the depth was greater than 25 feet. Table B-9 and
B-10 in Appendix B are examples of how the number of wells
is affected by application of this rule.
Strategy 2
Table 4 is an example of design requirements for
40 scenarios under Strategy 2. The hydrogeologic settings
for these data are the same as that for the Strategy 1
example in Table 3. One of the major differences shown
between the two strategies is that under Strategy 2 the
plume length is an important factor in determining design
requirements.
Table 4 shows that under Strategy 2, the total dis-
charge from the fluid recovery system is consistently
(for one or more wells) about 130 percent of the plume
discharge for 1:2 plumes and about 150 percent for 1:5
plumes. This is primarily the result of the plume shape.
As plumes become less elongated, the percentage decreases
and is equal to 100 percent of plume discharge when the
plume is circular.
31
-------
TABLE 4
CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FLUID REMOVAL SYSTEMS
UNDER STRATEGY 2 FOR MEDIAN AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS3
Plume Dimensions (ft)
(width x length): 100x200
Plume Discharge (gpn): (32)
Plume Depth (ft)
25
50
75
100
200
1(41)'
to
100x500 500x1000 500x2500 1000x2000 1000x5000 2000x4000 2000x10000
(72) (158) (349) (316) (723) (638) (1380)
Number of Wells and Per-Well Discharge (gpn)
1(103) 1(206) 1(515)
1(413)
3(343)
1(1030)
2(413)
1(825)
5(413)
3(680)
2(1032)
1(2065)
I
aHydraulic Gradient - 5 ft/mi; Transmissivity = 100,000 gal/day/ft
Minimum number of wells needed to control gradients with a 70 percent limit on well drawdown; discharge units
are gpm
-------
In general, the number of recovery wells needed under
Strategy 2 increases as:
Hydraulic gradient and plume discharge increase
Plume perimeter (width and length) increases
Plume depth decreases
Aquifer transmissivity decreases
Like Strategy 1, these factors take effect when either
excessive drawdown occurs at a well or insufficient draw-
down occurs near plume boundaries. Under exteme conditions,
the rule of installing a drain or locating additional wells
inside the plume is applied.
When all driving variables are set equal and draw-
down constraints are met, a predictable relationship de-
velops between the design requirements of Strategies 1 and
2. The «ptimum discharge for a specific Strategy 2 scenario
can be predicted if the discharge is known for the corres-
ponding Strategy 1 scenario. This can be seen by comparing
data for specific scenarios from Tables 3 and 4. The
Strategy 1 total optimum discharge can be multiplied by a
factor that is a function of plume width to length ratio to
obtain the Strategy 2 discharge. For 1:2 plumes the factor
is approximately 5.2, whereas for 1:5 plumes, the factor is
about 12.9.
33
-------
It was assumed that a similar relationship would exist
between the two strategies when recovery wells or a drain
must be located off the major plume axis to meet the draw-
down constraints. Fewer scenarios were developed for
Strategy 2 because of this assumption and because of the
predictable relationship between the optimum discharge of
each scenario for both strategies.
Containment Costs
This section presents costs for the installation and
operation of fluid removal/treatment systems. Included are
discussions pertaining to the conceptual design of engin-
eered .structures, unit costs, and development of algorithms
for fluid recovery, transmission, and treatment. Cost
curves for infrastructure and treatment were developed in
conjunction with SCS Engineers of Reston, Virginia, and are
presented in Appendices D and E. Tables with total contain-
ment costs for selected scenarios are presented in Appendix
F.
General Approach
A conceptual design is needed for each structure to
derive unit costs for labor and materials used in con-
struction. Figures 5a and 5b show the conceptual design of
34
-------
, .
7* Casing *...*" '
* . \ i
. . : , .: . . .. '
rr!"!.: ; /
l_l''jLi 'X Atirjibft'
'Jey.e> '_»' '
» *, * » ^"*t
' * . ., Drawdown
, > " Screen:. 801 of,
-"original saluj-al
.-".' . ^thickness
- -
PQmp i/i'take- ^'
» ' ' *
" Gravel pack' . ' .
r ' ' ' .
. i
m
ID
n
-p
CO
flj
>
0) C
PfJiH-H
H (0
Tj 0) M
H S Q
0) 0)
«W > >
O O 0
O O
C 0) 0)
-rl
a
o o
(0 -H-H
3 (0 0)
P 0) 0)
0.0 Q
0)
O
5"1«2
^-v^
in
35
-------
U)
£''. Plume boundary
in plan view
FIGURE 5b- Conceptual Design of Recovery Drain
-------
the two fluid removal systems used in this studyrecovery
wells and drains.
All recovery wells were assumed to have a screen and
gravel-pack design. The lengths of well screens were set
equal to 80 percent of the saturated thickness of the
aquifer. Other elements of each well shown on Figure 5a
include a gravel pack around each well screen, a bentonite
plug above the gravel pack, and cement grouting to the
surface. Well casing sizes were selected as a function of
the anticipated aquifer yield and are shown in Table 5. Two
types of pumps were selected for the recovery well system
due to the anticipated variation in well yield. Submersible
pumps were selected for small yields in the range of 5 to
100 gpm, while turbine pumps were used for larger yields in
the range of 100 to 4000 gpm.
The conceptual design of a recovery drain, shown on
Figure 5b, is a gravel-filled trench with wellpoints (small
diameter wells) completed in the gravel backfill. The
length of the drain is equal to the maximum plume width and
is located just inside the downgradient limit of the plume
in Strategy 1, or along the axis of the plume in Strategy 2.
Drains were limited to scenarios involving plume depths
equal to 25 feet.
37
-------
TABLE 5
WELL CASING DIAMETERS1
Anticipated Well Well Casing
Yield (gpm) Diameter (inches)
<50 4 ID
50-85 6 ID
75 - 175 8 ID
150 - 400 10 ID
350 - 650 12 ID
600 - 900 14 OD
850 -1300 16 OD
1300 -1800 20 OD
>1800 24 OD
1Source of data: Johnson Division, UOP, Inc.,
Ground Water and Wells, 1980
38
-------
As mentioned, containment design requirements were
generated for numerous scenarios under each of the two
containment strategies. From these scenarios, a total of
128 scenarios under Strategy 1, and 24 under Strategy 2 were
selected for developing cost scenarios. For each "no
treatment" cost scenario, three possible treatment options
were also costed in order to allow estimation of a range of
total costs, development of a relationship between Strategy
1 and 2 costs, and performance of a qualitative sensitivity
analysis of variables that affect costs.
Cost Algorithms and Input Data
This section presents the development of unit costs
and associated cost algorithms for fluid removal, infra-
structure, and treatment systems.
Fluid Removal Systems
The supportive capital cost elements involved in
the installation and operation of a fluid removal system
include:
Delineation of plume boundaries
Design engineering
Well/drain system installation/operation
Construction engineering
39
-------
The cost for each element is determined with a separate
algorithm described below. The algorithm may be in the
form of a cost curve or a simple mathematical equation.
After each element is determined, they are summed to yield
the total capital cost for the well or drain fluid removal
system.
Plume Delineation
A model approach was used to determine the cost of
delineating a plume of a given size in an aquifer. In this
approach, the cost for a subsurface field investigation,
including drilling and installation of monitor wells, is
required. Pairs of test borings are placed along the perim-
eter of the plume to establish its areal extent. Approxi-
mately one-third of all borings are converted to monitor
wells. All wells are completed to the lower impermeable
boundary of the aquifer. The investigation does not involve
a search for the maximum plume depth which is assumed to
coincide with the bottom of the aquifer.
To perform this approach, the following assumptions
were made in addition to those identified in the intro-
ductory chapter of this report:
Local aquifer parameters are known or can be
estimated.
40
-------
Local hydraulic gradients and ground-water flow
directions are known.
The age and location of the facility, its waste
characteristics, and operational procedures are
known and indicate the approximate waste loading
rates.
The boundaries of the plume can be approximately
determined with the above information.
The delineation cost is the sum of seven cost elements:
(1) a ground-water quality assessment plan; (2) test bor-
ings; (3) conversion of test borings to monitor wells; (4)
test boring abandonment; (5) ground-water sampling; (6)
ground-water sample analysis; and (7) consultant fee. These
cost elements were combined to provide a unit cost per
vertical foot of plume depth.
Total delineation costs were derived using the unit
cost per vertical foot for the 5 depths selected for this
study and are shown on Figure 6. The number of borings
required for the selected plume sizes was determined on the
basis of Geraghty & Miller, Inc.'s field experience.
As shown on Figure 6, the number of borings is related only
to plume area and ranges from 10 to 50 borings. The number
of monitor wells installed for each plume ranges from 4 to
17. As an example, a plume occupying 200 acres with a depth
of 100 feet would be delineated with 40 borings at a cost of
$135,000. 41
-------
200 ft. depth
:IGURE 6. Cost Curves and Number of Test Borings
for Plume Delineation
-------
Design Engineering
A design engineering fee is needed in assessing the
hydrogeologic parameters and designing a fluid removal
system capable of containing the downgradient migration of
the plume. This element includes only a conceptual design
of the well/drain system and not detailed plans and specifi-
cations. Figure 7 is a cost curve showing the cost of
design engineering as a function of plume area.
Well/Drain System
Unit costs for the well/drain structures are primarily
functions of the optimum discharge per well or drain. Well
casing diameters are determined by anticipated discharge
based on these data and are shown on Table 5. For recovery
wells, the unit cost per foot for well drilling, and con-
struction, is a function of well diameter and the per-well
discharge rate. The unit costs include preparation of plans
and specs for the wells/drains. Unit costs also represent a
drilling contractor's cost for labor and materials for
mobilization, drilling, construction, development, and
pump-testing. Unit costs are based on data in the Robert S.
Means cost guide (Means, 1980), manufacturer's catalogues, a
survey of well costs performed by the National Water Well
43
-------
FIGURE 7. Cost Curve for System Design
Engineering
-------
Association (Water Well Journal, 1981) and Geraghty &
Miller, Inc.*s experience.
Capital cost curves for recovery wells are shown on
Figure 8. As an example, if the anticipated well yield is
300 gallons per minute to contain plume migration, a 10-inch
diameter recovery well could be installed. The unit cost
for the well is $385 per vertical foot. For a 100-foot deep
plume, the well would cost $38,500.
The total cost for a recovery drain is determined
with the following algorithm:
Drain Cost = $16/lineal ft + $240/well point
+ pump cost + $15,200
The lineal foot charge represents union labor, operation of
a trenching machine, and backfill or gravel material placed
in the trench. The cost per well represents a contractor's
costs for labor and materials involved in wellpoint instal-
lation. Figure 9 presents the cost curve for centrifugal
pumps with cost shown as a function of total discharge from
the system of wellpoints. The final cost element in the
algorithm represents an average mobilization/ demobilization
charge incurred in using track-mounted equipment for trench-
ing and a drilling rig for well-point installation.
45
-------
Iff I
o.
' '
VI
O
j_^r
- _0
I I
I I I I I
(U
I 111 I I
-rt
_|__L
i
0)
i : i i
0) .
en
.
r
L: I I 1.
pumps
"V^
s with submersible
' i II , J , ill
rrm
i i-ii
i 11
i \
-o-
4-
i I i l i
i ! i i _: ! . i I .:,,..
I Well Casing Diameter, in Inches
l
1
i i i . i i i
T
~.it.: i..j . J i . ^ .^ * . i i J i . 1 ... i . . < .
i t i
FIGURE 8. Recovery Well K-Cost Curves-
' i
AC.
-------
I T
I , i I
/ I : ! I
-------
In addition to the capital costs for the installation
of a fluid removal system, operation and maintenance costs
(O&N) were calculated. The algorithm used for both wells and
drains is as follows:
O&M Cost = $11,000 + N(0.11)QL + 0.1 C
where,
N = number of recovery wells or well points
Q = discharge rate, in gpm per well
L = total lift, in feet
C, = capital cost of wells or drain, in dollars
The $11,000 fee covers annual field sampling and laboratory
analysis of water samples from monitor wells. The 0.11
constant is a power consumption factor talcing into account a
pump efficiency of 75 percent, a power cost of $0.05 per
kilowatt hour, and a unit conversion factor. The total
pumping lift is set equal to the calculated drawdown in a
pumping well, plus the 10 feet depth to the water table,
plus an arbitrary 100 feet of above-ground lift at the
wellhead.
Construction Engineering
The final capital cost element for construction engin-
eering is expressed as one of the following two algorithms:
Engineering Cost for Wells = $10,000 + $25.00/lineal
foot drilled
48
-------
Engineering Cost for Drains = $10,000 + $l/lineal
foot trenched + $100/well
point
The $10,000 figure covers the documentation of installing
the fluid removal system including a record of pump and
aquifer testing, and laboratory water sample analyses. For
well systems, the graduated cost ($25/LF) covers the cost of
field inspecting and supervising the installation. For
drain systems, the graduated cost ($1/LF + $100/well point)
covers similar construction management services.
Infrastructure
The infrastructure is a system of engineered structures
needed for maintenance of the well/drain system and for
transport of pumped fluids. The fluids would be trans-
ported in buried pipelines to either an acceptable point
of discharge or to an on-site water treatment plant.
The capital and OiM costs for the infrastructure
were determined with a conceptual model of a hypothetical
system involving roads, powerlines, and a manifold and
service piping system. Details of the conceptual design
and assumptions associated with the development of unit
costs were prepared by SCS Engineers of Reston, Virginia.
These are presented with tables of cost data and cost
curves in Appendix D.
49
-------
Infrastructure capital costs for both containment
strategies are controlled by plume and removal system
characteristics. Strategy 1 capital costs are a function of
plume length, the ratio of plume width to length, the total
number of wells or wellpoints, and the discharge from each
individual well. Strategy 2 capital costs are a function of
plume length, the number of wells, and the per-well dis-
charge. The width to length ratio does not affect costs
under Strategy 2 because the locations of roads, powerlines,
and pipelines coincide with the long axis of the plume under
Strategy 2 (see Appendix A).
Figure D-l in Appendix D and Table 6 were used to
determine mean capital costs for Strategy 1. For example,
the infrastructure capital costs read from Figure 0-1 for a
1:2 plume with total length of 2,000 feet would be $67,000.
If the fluid removal system involves one well with a dis-
charge rate of less than 66 gpm, this capital cost would be
adjusted by a 0.84 multiplier from Table 6. The adjusted
cost would equal $56,280. For Strategy 2, Figures D-2, D-3,
and D-4 were used to calculate the capital infrastructure
costs.
Infrastructure O&M costs are relatively small compared
to capital costs and are treated as a function of two
variables: plume length and the number of wells for both
50
-------
TABLE 6
RECOVERY WELL INFRASTRUCTURE
CAPITAL COST FACTORS
FOR STRATEGY 1
Total
Number of
Wells (N)
N=l
N=l
N=l
18
Discharge
Per-Well (Q) ,
in gpm
Q<66
66660
Q<66
66660
Q<66
66660
Q<66
Multiplier
W:L W:L
1:2 1:5
0.84
0.92
1.00
0.98
1.08
1.16
1.14
1.16
1.18
1.18
0.90
0.95
1.00
0.99
1.05
1.10
1.08
1.10
1.12
1.14
51
-------
TABLE 7
INFRASTRUCTURE O&M COSTS FOR
STRATEGIES 1 AND 2
0&M(1,000 s
Plume length (ft) No. of wells Dollars)
200 to 2500 1 to 3 3
4000 to 5000 1 3
>1 4
10,000 1 4
>1 5
52
-------
strategies. Three O&M cost curves developed by SCS Engi-
neers are shown on Figure D-5 in Appendix D. Table 7 is the
schedule of O&M costs, rounded to the nearest thousand
dollars, for scenarios selected for costing in this study.
Treatment
Capital and O&M costs for four treatment options were
costed for this study by SCS Engineers. These included
the following:
Activated Carbon Filtration
Reverse Osmosis
. Coagul a tion/Flocul at ion/Sedimentation/Filtration
Ultrafiltration
The assumptions associated with development of these costs
are presented with tables and cost curves in Appendix E.
Capital and O&M costs were treated only as functions of
total discharge (gpm) from the fluid removal system. Cost
curves for all four water treatment options are presented in
Figures E-l and E-2. Ultrafiltration was not used in
developing the cost scenarios because its cost was very
similar to that for reverse osmosis and costs for larger
flows could not be determined.
53
-------
Output Cost Data
The containment design requirements were used as
input to a costing model comprised of the above cost algo-
rithms to yield output in the form of capital and annual
O&M costs for containment structures. Costs representing
512 Strategy 1 scenarios and 94 Strategy 2 scenarios are
presented in a series of tables in Appendices C and F.
Tables in Appendix C contain capital costs only
for fluid removal systems composed of one or more recovery
wells or drains. The cost elements which.are summed to
\
yield these capital costs are also shown and include plume
delineation, design engineering, well/drain construction,
and construction engineering. Capital costs shown in
tables of Appendix C are support data for the costs in
tables in Appendix F.
Tables in Appendix F contain the capital and annual
O&M costs for fluid removal, infrastructure, and treatment
systems. The sum of these three elements represents the
total cost of containment for a particular scenario. Each
table in Appendix F represents 32 scenarios.
Sensitivity Analysis
Figure 2 showed the major factors affecting containment
costs: plume characteristics, aquifer characteristics,
54
-------
and engineering constraints. This figure also showed
the driving variables that were allowed to take on a range
of values for costing selected scenarios in this study.
A qualitative sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate
the relative importance of these variables on total con-
tainment costs.
General Approach
The general approach was to graph the total contain-
ment costs against each driving variable while holding
all other variables constant whenever possible. The graphs
were used to test for linearity between costs and driving
variables and to show the direction in which costs increase
or decrease with changes in the variables. In addition
to the graphing exercise, calculations of total change
in cost for a given change in a driving variable were
used as a general quantitative indicator of sensitivity.
Graphs and calculations were prepared with cost data
representing the total cost scenarios for Strategies 1 and 2
tabulated in Appendix F. Additional sensitivity graphs
not presented in the main body of this report,
are compiled in Appendix G.
Sensitivity to Driving Variables
Total containment costs are generally most sensitive
to plume size and plume discharge. Under special plume
55
-------
and aquifer conditions, however, costs also become sensitive
to limits on drawdown and pumpage in wells or drains. Sen-
sitivity to driving variables under these cost-influencing
factors are discussed below.
Plume Size
The driving variables for plume size are depth, width,
length, and perimeter. Increases in these variables have
the greatest impact on the no-treatment cost scenarios
(those that exclude treatment of pumped fluids). This
is due to the fact that the capital costs associated with
fluid removal and infrastructures are directly affected
by plume size, whereas treatment is totally independent
of size.
This relationship is illustrated in Figures 10 and 11,
which are graphs of capital costs versus plume depths for
selected treatment and no-treatment options. These figures
show that, when plume discharge is held constant, costs
increase linearly with depth. The graphed parallel lines
for different treatment options indicate that treatment
costs are independent of depth. The percent change in cost
over the depth range is virtually the same for both no-
treatment and treatment options. For the no-treatment
option, increases in plume depth have a greater effect on
small plumes, of limited areal extent, than on large plumes.
56
-------
1 I I
I I i I
' '
; i
10,000 gal/day/ft
5 ft/mi
0.05 mgd/m1
ru
i
J__L
r-r
'
J L
m
m
t j t
1
t it ,
i t i i .
ll
Plume depth (ft)
M!
Mil
i~r~rr
1 1
_L^
i ' i
1
FIGURE 1Q. Plume depth vs capital costs for
a 100 x 200 foot plume under Strategy 1
-------
^y
10,000 gal/day/ft
5 ft/mi
0.05 mgd/mi
14-
^
4+
In!'
' i
z
TT
f
i ! ' I ',
I i I
i ' : i i i
i itUi
1 .IT^i. l. i i J..J
! | '
Plume depth (ft)
TT^ l
1
TT-
!
1
JJ.
,1
1 ' I !
i.i I j.j L_: ! J ! I l .;...-. J-
!
FIGURE 11. Plume depth vs capital costs for
a 2000 x 10000 foot plume under Strategy 1
i i 1 1
_1_L
-------
Figure 12 illustrates the sensitivity of costs to plume
area, a function of width and length. The cost curves shown
represent an average of the three treatment options for
Stragety 1 and 2 scenarios. The curves represent 1:2 plumes
with the same plume depth and aquifer characteristics.
Values selected for the driving variables represent the
middle of the range of values used in this study. As
shown on the figure, these are:
Plume depth equal to 75 feet
Aquifer thickness equal to 65 feet
Aquifer transmissivity equal to 100,000 gal/day/ft
Hydraulic gradient equal to 5 ft/mi
Figure 12 shows that costs under Strategy 2 conditions
are more sensitive to plume area than are costs under
Strategy 1 conditions. This is primarily because Strategy
2 costs are more, sensitive to plume length and perimeter
than are analogous Strategy 1 costs. Increasing length
will increase the plume perimeter which results in larger
plume discharge, other things being equal. Larger dis-
charge must be controlled by larger wells, pumps, etc.,
which require higher O&M costs.
Plume Discharge
As shown in Figure 2, plume discharge is a function
of both plume and aquifer characteristics. This can most
59
-------
4 5 6 7 8 9 JO
4 5 6 7 8 9 IP
5 6 7 H
10)0
9
8
7
6
5
«...
3..
o\
o
160.
9
8
7
6.
5.
3.
'. Plume area In plan view, ft
Plume depth
T
I
75 ft
100,000 gal/day/ft
5 ft/ml
i 1! "'
FIGURE 12. Plume area vs capital and
O&M costs for selected Strategy 1 and
2 scenarios (average of three
treatment options)
67891
I i I I
7891
5 6 7891
-------
easily be shown with the Darcy equation used earlier and
repeated here in three different forms:
Q = TIW = KbIW = K(d-10)IW
where,
Q = Plume discharge, [L /t]
2
T = Aquifer transmissivity, [L /t]
I = Hydraulic gradient, [dimensionless]
W = Plume width (Strategy 1) or
plume perimeter (Strategy 2), [L]
K = Hydraulic conductivity, [L/t]
b = Aquifer thickness, [L]
d = Plume depth, [L]
From the above, the following relationships should be clear:
T = Kb, and b = d-10.
A series of cost scenarios involving increases in
discharge due to transmissivity and gradient alone are
fairly reliable for studying the effect of plume discharge
on costs. The increase in discharge essentially requires
only an increase in discharge capacities of the fluid
removal, infrastructure, and treatment systems.
Figures 13, 14, 15, and 16 are examples of these types
of cost scenarios for Strategies 1 and 2. These figures
show that, when plume size is held constant, increases in
plume discharge have the greatest influence on scenarios
involving expensive treatment and relatively large plumes.
61
-------
t
Plume depth
Ii Aquifer thickness
' !!: T
75 ft
65 ft
104, 105, 106 gal/
day/ ft
5 ft/mi across plume
Plume discharg
1 1
II
J_L
i i i ; i
iiii
i i
FIGURE 13. Plume discharge vs capital costs
for a 100 x 200 foot plume under Strategy 1
1 I ' r ; ry | I y l ri < ' '
I I I I I I I I
TT
-------
Plume depth
Aquifer thickness
; :- T
75 ft
65 ft
104. 105,
day/ft
gal/
1=5 ft/mi across plume
Plume discharge,
"1
1
1 1
R
L_LL
1 1
FIGURE 14. Plume discharge vs capital costs
for a 2000 x 10000 foot plume under Strategy
1
:
IT
: r '
1 1
-------
i i i i i ,i
i i ,_!_.>
Plume depth = 75 ft
Aquifer thickness = 65 ft
j T - 104, 105, 106gal/day/
i , ' : I ft
!
I I I t s
5 ft/mi around plume i i yX !"
FIGURE 15. Plume discharge vs capital costs
for a 100 x 200 foot plume under Strategy 2
1 1
64
-------
1
MCtt
9
g
7
c
R
4
3.
2
CTi
in
1000
9 .
8
7..
6.
5
4
2.
Plume discharge, gpm >^
DO 2 3 456789 10OO 2 3 4567 8/
(O t
0
re
.
-
--
-
-
- :
-
_. :
-
-
: - . .
_ L p
: : T
: -
' [
r r i : £ : [ :
H\l\' tf
i : _ '.. . - . '
:-..: ' .
;!!||;; .
. / .
1
\ r ; ' f t ' "
."^ \r\.\i3mtttJtt'
r:::::::^|-'| :
s*
p----------:------ r &j5M§ff| ; "
^***4h" - Jllll till III] 1 till 1 1 '
r ' ' - -
Plume depth
Aquifer thlc
f
;| :
-- ::::--;;. | .. i
JURE 16. Plume discharge vs capital cos1
a 2000 x 10000 foot plume under Strate
* fi 7 8 9 1 2 3 4567891
i l!j !|j [{I !}{! ; ij iji' : .
_l! jii.. . iljii il||ii|ikijijLjjl
! ! aim p] i!!h:i!
II [I j 111
1 !' '"'
_ ; + -4- - ,i.i.. -'trl *V-
.'_,.,__-.. - 1 i « . a . j 1....
^
- ' __...... ; ....L . ! !!
^ . ... t- i iii
.-* 1 44 |*|'
i ''i*
.
1
g;il:;:::::i;:;::: : E| 1
P :- liiMjlli;
i 1 l!| I
4- *4- * i* * ' '
= 75 ft i 1 11
kness » 65 ft
T = 104, 105, 10° gal /day/
ft
I = 5 ft/ml around plume
"--"- I'i " ' iil:
" " I t t( 1 ll
BElffl!!:;: ; ijZi'iift
ts :.:: :...
gy j ': |il| '
-r-r- i l! S:i"i
H.__ i . - -IL L ': -
2 3 456789
-------
plume discharge have the greatest influence on scenarios
involving expensive treatment and relatively large plumes.
Strategy 2 costs are more sensitive to plume discharge than
Strategy 1 costs. This is because the total discharge from
a well/drain system must be greater under Strategy 2 (other
factors being equal) which leads to larger unit costs for
treatment (see Appendix E).
When plume discharge is increased by increasing plume
width (Strategy 1) or perimeter (Strategy 2), the following
"hidden costs" are increased in addition to increases
in discharge capacity:
. More borings and wells for plume delineation
Longer roads, pipelines, and powerlines for
infrastructures
More recovery wells with more manifold piping
Increases in plume depth may have a similar set of
hidden costs if transmissivity increases with depth.
This variable was held constant for creating Figures 10 and
11 by allowing hydraulic conductivity to decrease as depth
and aquifer thickness increased (see Darcy equations above).
At many sites, the vertical spreading of contaminants
with time will cause a thicker plume and contamination
of more than one aquifer. This type of scenario was costed
66
-------
as a special case where both transmissivity and plume
discharge are allowed to increase in direct proportion
to depth. Figures 17 and 18 show capital costs becoming
increasingly sensitive to depth/plume discharge as plume
depth increases. Figures 19 and 20 show that O&N costs are
essentially linear with depth for the no-treatment option
and decelerate with depth for all treatment options.
Drawdown and Pumping Limits
Figure 2 showed that drawdown limits and pump capac-
ity are engineering constraints that are related to both
plume and aquifer characteristics. Both factors are also
related to, and may restrict, well discharge which is
calculated from plume discharge.
To test sensitivity of costs to these constraints
in a rigorous way, it would be necessary to generate costs
for a range of drawdown and pumping limits. As discussed
earlier, the limits were arbitrarily held constant with the
following values:
Drawdown was limited to 70 percent of saturated
thickness
Lower and upper bounds on pump capacity were
set equal to 5 and 4000 gpm per well, respectively
67
-------
310
gLSifZL; Plume depth (ft)
7_
6_
5_
2_
^~/Se<^ -nte*
Wfr
K»constant, 667 gal/day/ft'
increases with depth
>Qa increase with depth
FIGURE 17. Plume depth vs K-costs for 100
x 200 foot plumes under Strategy 1 condi-
tions where plume discharge increases with
depth
-------
Iff
Plume depth (ft)
310
iK-constant, 667 gal/day/ft'
:T Increases with depth
Qp,Qa increase with depth^
3_
FIGURE 18. Plume depth vs K-costs for
2000 x 10000 foot plumes under Strategy 1
conditions where plumes discharge increases
with depth
-------
No treatment
K»constant, 667 gal/day/ft
T increases with depth
Qp,Qa increase with depth
----
Plume depth (ft)
i i
FIGURE 19. Plume depth vs O&M-costs
for 100x200 ft plumes under Strategy:
1 conditions where plume discharge }
increases with depth i
"TTT
'II'1
I I
i-ll
zn
: i i
rt
-------
;K-constant, 667 gal/day/ft2
T increases with depth
!Qp,Qa increase with depth
TT
Plume depth (ft)
FIGURE 20 Plume depth vs O&M-costs
for 2000x10,000 ft plumes under
Strategy 1 conditions where plume
discharge increases with depth
71
TT
J_L
l i
! i
-------
The drawdown constraint serves to increase the number
of wells and decrease the per-well discharge up to a point
where drains must be used to meet the constraint. In
our costing model, this occurs when plume depth is small
(lower end of its range) and plume discharge is large (upper
end of its range). A rough measure of maximum sensitivity
can be obtained by comparing scenarios involving drains to
those involving wells. For example, by comparing total
containment costs for scenarios where plume size and dis-
charge are held constant (see Tables P-10 and F-13), the use
of drains rather than wells can increase capital costs as
much as 22 percent but has virtually no effect on total O&M
costs.
The lower limit on pump capacity results in slightly
larger well discharges and associated costs for scenarios
involving small plume discharges. The upper limit causes
the number of recovery wells to be increased when plume
discharge exceeds 4000 gpm. In our study, this only occurs
with relatively large plumes and plume discharges under
Strategy 2, but can cause a significant increase in capital
costs, especially for the no-treatment option.
In general, costs are more sensitive to the drawdown
constraint than the pumping constraint. The drawdown
constraint has a moderate effect on fluid removal system
72
-------
costs which are generally more sensitive to plume size
and discharge.
Sensitivity to Basic Assumptions
The containment costs presented in this report are
considered to be at the low end of the possible range
of costs that may be encountered in implementing the EPA
regulations. These costs are minimal because they are
based on simplified, idealized assumptions that are re-
quired for cost modeling. The following section will
discuss how the basic assumptions affect costs in a qualita-
tive way. Actual numerical factors for adjusting the costs
must rely on a later validation phase where model-generated
costs would be compared to actual case history costs.
Plume Characteristics
Under the major cost factor of plume characteristics,
several important assumptions were made regarding the
mobility, solubility, and treatability of contaminants
in the plume. The contaminants were assumed to be soluble
in ground water and to form a homogeneous aqueous solution.
Contaminants that are partially soluble in ground water will
form a second phase in the subsurface. Containment of this
second phase will require special engineering considerations
for collection, handling, and disposal.
73
-------
For example, if a separate waste oil phase is present in
addition to contaminated ground water, it will be necessary
to remove both the ground water and oil and provide struc-
tures for separating oil from water. A special facility
might be required for drumming the waste oil, along with
arrangements for off-site transport and incineration of the
oil. The existence of a separate insoluble phase in the
ground-water system therefore requires a separate set of
costs in addition to the removal and treatment of the
contaminated ground water.
It was assumed that the contaminants in the plume are
in fact mobile and are not strongly adsorbed onto the solid
soil particles in the subsurface. In cases where contam-
inants are significantly less mobile, different remedial
actions may be taken. The most common type of remedial
response may be excavation of the soils and buried wastes
with some collection of fluids during the excavation process,
Excavation with fluid removal is much more expensive than
fluid removal alone. Therefore, if a site is found to
contain both immobile and mobile species, the costs esti-
mated in this report would only cover fluid removal activi-
ties, not excavation of soils and wastes.
74
-------
A third important assumption made under plume char-
acteristics is that the contaminants can be treated, i.e.,
removed, from the contaminated plume of ground water.
This assumption was extended in the sense that only three
treatment options were costed. However, on many sites
it is possible that more than one type of treatment system
may be necessary to handle a variety of contaminants.
In such cases, our estimate would be significantly less than
the actual cost. For example, it is common to use the
activated carbon system to remove organics from the waste
stream in conjunction with an air stripping system to remove
the more volatile organic species. Besides the consid-
eration of additional treatment facilities, the costs
ignored disposal of residue from a treatment facility.
Additional costs for treatment systems not included in
the estimates are listed in Appendix E.
Aquifer Characteristics
The basic assumptions under aquifer characteristics
that have the greatest effect on costs are as follows:
A single layer system, i.e., only one aquifer
Aquifer is homogeneous and isotropic
Water table is everywhere 10 feet deep
Simple aquifer boundary conditions.
75
-------
The assumption of only one aquifer may be violated
on sites where strong vertical gradients have transported
contaminants into deeper aquifers or have increased the
depth of a plume within an arbitrarily thick aquifer.
The costs for plume delineation and recovery of fluids
would be greatly impacted under these circumstances. When
more than one aquifer is contaminated, the delineation
model can be applied separately to each aquifer. Delin-
eation efforts would involve additional wells drilled
to greater depths with additional sampling and laboratory
analysis.
The cost of fluid removal would also be roughly pro-
portional to the number of aquifers contaminated. Contain-
ment by pumpage from wells completed in deeper aquifers
involves higher drilling costs and, in many cases, larger
capacity wells. At many sites a deeper confined aquifer may
be the water-supply aquifer in the region and may therefore
be subject to steeper hydraulic gradients affecting plume
movement and discharge rates.
Under the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy,
relatively simple hydraulic models are justified for esti-
mating the optimum discharge from recovery wells or drains.
76
-------
If this assumption is not valid, there will be more uncer-
tainty regarding the directions and rates of transport
of contaminants through the aquifer. To deal with this
uncertainty, recovery drains may be selected over wells
for shallow plumes, and additional recovery wells will
be required for deeper plumes. In addition, the total
discharge from the well/drain system may also be increased
to handle the uncertainty of plume movement. This will
impact O&M costs for both fluid removal and treatment.
The assumption regarding a constant 10-foot depth
to the water table will be representative of most industrial
facilities; however, some selected sites (especially in the
arid west) will have significantly deeper water tables. At
these sites, the costs that will be most impacted will be
those involving drilling, well construction, and O&M for
pumping fluids from the wells.
Aquifer boundary assumptions influence costs for
plume delineation, well/drain discharge, and associated
infrastructure and treatment costs. For our costing model
the lower boundary of the aquifer was assumed to be imperme-
able. This type of idealized boundary is very favorable
for delineating a plume because it eliminates the need to
77
-------
search for the bottom of the plume. Only a search for the
lateral extent of the plume is required under this assump-
tion. Relaxing this assumption would probably result in at
least a doubling of the delineation costs predicted by our
model. Delineation costs are also influenced by lateral
boundaries on the aquifer. The plume's proximity to either
barrier boundaries or recharge boundaries can significantly
influence delineation. Just as the impermeable boundary
limits the search for the bottom of the plume, these lateral
boundaries would also limit the lateral extent of a plume.
Therefore, a relaxation of the infinite lateral boundary
condition could reduce the cost for delineation.
The assumption of a lower impermeable boundary on
the aquifer will create a lower bound estimate on the
discharge from recovery wells and drains. The phenomena of
leakage through or from underlying poorly-permeable mater-
ials is well known and well documented in the literature.
Significant leakage across this boundary to wells in the
aquifer can increase capital and O&M costs.
When barrier or recharge boundaries are imposed
in lateral directions, the discharge from the well/drain
system may be significantly smaller or greater, respective-
ly, than that predicted by the hydraulic model. Costs will
78
-------
be correspondingly influenced in a manner that is analogous
to increases in plume discharge shown in Figures 13, 14, 15
and 16.
Engineering Constraints
The arbitrary constraints set in our cost model for
engineering activities were governed primarily by aquifer
characteristics. There are additional aquifer and plume
characteristics that may affect engineering constraints
on selected sites. In addition to these, the inclusion
of safety factors, which may be influenced by legal con-
straints, can serve to increase containment costs.
The assumption that earth materials must be drillable
or excavatable for engineering activities is the basis for
estimating costs for well and drain installations. As
aquifer materials become more indurated, the costs for
"drilling and excavation will increase. Cost increases
result from more expensive machinery, methods (such as
blasting), and labor.
Under plume characteristics, the degree of hazard of a
contaminant can affect costs adversely. Although a safety
factor was included in our well/drain unit costs for
on-site protection of personnel, it is possible that this
was underestimated in certain special cases. Higher costs
79
-------
may also be incurred with the disposal of excavated mate-
rial, contaminated drilling fluids, and contaminated
equipment and clothing. These are poorly defined costs
and difficult to predict.
Host engineered structures have safety factors built
into the design criteria. while our costing model relied
upon an optimum discharge calculated from a hydraulic model,
safety factors could be applied to increase significantly
the number of wells/drains and the total discharge from
the fluid removal system. In cases where contaminated
fluids are highly corrosive or cause incrustation on well
screens and piping, recovery wells/drains may be out of
service more frequently for maintenance and repairs. At
many sites, therefore, it will be wise to include several
backup wells or drains in order to maintain a constant
pumping rate.
Some safety factors may be related to legal constraints
beyond the control of those in charge of remedial actions.
These may include compliance with orders from regulatory
agencies, compliance with agreements made with concerned
citizen groups, or concern over pending lawsuits.
80
-------
A final cause of safety factors in the well/drain
discharge may result from a lack of legal control over other
pumpage from the same aquifer. Without aid from a govern-
ment agency to control other pumpers, the facility operator
may have to increase discharge from the well/drain system to
counteract increased pumpage off-site. Additional capital
and O&M costs could be realized over time as new structures
are added to cope with increasing discharge by other ground-
water users.
81
-------
COST OF CONTAINMENT BY FLUID ISOLATION
Isolation of contaminant plumes using slurry wall
systems is possible within a variety of geohydrological
conditions. In addition to wall installation, proper
land surface treatment such as sealing may be necessary in
order to limit recharge into the contaminated area. The
degree of leakage and longevity of the slurry wall system is
not specifically addressed in this study. However, it is
assumed that wall materials will be appropriately matched to
containment requirements. Further, since empirical data on
wall longevity are not available, structural integrity
cannot be assured in the long run. A risk factor must
eventually be derived and included in comparative cost
analyses.
Wall leakage can occur without structural failure
if differences in ground-water elevations across the wall
are allowed. The addition of a small capacity fluid removal
system inside the plume can provide the necessary management
of water levels to prevent outward leakage of plume fluids.
For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that fluid
removal/treatment would be added for gradient control
without significantly affecting total costs based only on
installation and maintenance of the encapsulating materials.
82
-------
The implication of any leakage in the slurry wall contain-
ment strategy is dependent upon site specific conditions
including proximity to discharge points, transport rates,
and resultant concentration/toxicity of the contaminant
outside the wall.
Various factors affect the feasibility of slurry
wall containment systems. In particular, the media in which
the wall is to be installed must be compatible with rapid
excavation and be underlain by an adequate confining layer
less than about 125 feet deep. In general, containment
requirements/costs are functionally related to slurry wall
area, land surface treatment requirements, ease of excava-
tion, and contaminant characteristics as they impact the
quantity and characteristics of wall materials and the cost
of placement.
General Approach
The cost estimation approach used for slurry wall
systems is similar to the preceeding discussion of fluid
removal systems. Containment scenarios were first de-
veloped, then, through the use of unit costs, total cost
of containment was derived. The same range of plume sizes
were used as in the preceeding section; however, the diver-
sity in hydrogeological variables is not maintained as
83
-------
they do not directly impact system cost. Background cost
matrices for slurry wall systems are presented in Appendix
H.
Cost estimates were developed for two principal com-
ponents: wall materials/installation and the treatment
of the land surface above a plume (e.g./ modification of
slope, integrity, vegetation, etc.). Included in these
estimates are the costs of engineering, site investigations,
monitoring and field work. Other ancillary costs such
as legal fees and land acquisition are not readily quanti-
fied and are specifically excluded. For each of the model
plumes, the perimeter, land surface area and vertical
wall area were calculated (Table 8) and represent the
principal driving variables.
Wall area is based on a slurry wall completely sur-
rounding the plume as indicated by the estimates of plume
perimeter presented in Table 8. The maximum depth of wall
installation was set at 100 feet/ although installation
depths as great as 125 feet have been achieved.
Total capital costs were calculated using slurry wall
and land surface treatment unit costs. These unit costs
were selected for establishing reasonable cost ranges, and
84
-------
TABLE 8
PLUME AND SLURRY WALL DIMENSIONS
Plume
Dimensions Plume
WidthxLength Perimeter
(ft) (1000's ft)
100
100
500
500
1000
1000
2000
2000
x 200
x 500
x 1000
x 2500
x 2000
x 5000
x 4000
x 10000
.48
1.1
2.4
5.3
4.8
11.0
9.7
21.0
Land
Surface
Area
(1000's ft"
16
39
390
980
1600
3900
6300
16000
Vertical Area of _
Slurry Walls (1000's fO
at Various Depths (ft)
') 25
12
26
61
130
120
260
240
530
50
24
53
120
260
240
530
480
1100
75
36
83
180
400
360
830
730
1600
100
48
110
240
530
480
1100
970
2100
85
-------
do not represent specific wall designs. Examples of spe-
cific slurry wall/surface treatment design are offered in
the next section in order to demonstrate the basis for the
selected range. In addition to installation costs, the
costs for plume delineation and perimeter soil borings were
developed specifically for fluid isolation systems. Costs
for delineation, soil borings, and engineering are presented
in Appendix H, Table H-10.
The primary element in annual O&M costs is $10,000 for
ground-water monitoring around and inside the encapsulated
plume. No maintenance cost are anticipated for the slurry
wall system, although maintenance costs are incurred in the
low-cost land treatment scenario.
Numerous assumptions and limiting conditions were
needed for developing slurry wall cost estimates. Although
these are mentioned throughout the text, they are summarized
in Table 9. Limitations of slurry wall containment systems
that are not inherent in fluid removal systems are listed in
Table 10.
Development of Unit Costs
The cost estimation algorithm for fluid isolation
systems combines a series of supportive unit costs into
86
-------
TABLE 9
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS/ASSUMPTIONS
OF SLURRY WALL INSTALLATIONS
Walls extend from the land surface to the bottom
of the aquifer and are keyed into existing, underlying
"impermeable" materials.
Walls are elliptical in plan view, coincide with plume
boundaries, and have constant thickness and height.
A geotechnical investigation must be performed in order
to generate design criteria for the wall.
Monitoring of ground-water quality around the plume is
required during the life of the wall; no other main-
tenance of the wall is anticipated.
Wall composition is designed to be chemically compat-
ible with the contaminant plume, e.g., materials may
include bentonite/soil mix, cold asphalt emulsion,
and special chemical additives.
Mobilization/demobilization costs are considered to
be included in the costs per vertical square foot.
Site conditions are assumed to be amenable to slurry
wall construction. The perimeter of the plume is
accessible, with no excessive vegetation or grades.
Also, accessway construction is not required.
Site ownership and management is assumed and is the
responsibility of the owner. No costs will be incurred
for legal access, fencing, or control.
Land surface treatment costs assume minimal clearing
requirements before grading and recontouring.
Costs of disposal of any excavated material is not
included. This may be required if contaminated mater-
ial is encountered and where conventional excavation
methods are used.
87
-------
TABLE 10
LIMITATIONS OF SLURRY WALL SYSTEMS
Wall installation is limited to unconsolidated
or soft consolidated materials (no hard rock).
Emplacement is limited to maximum depths of 125
feet, using the vibrating beam method and less than
100 feet with more conventional excavation equipment,
Wall systems maintenance is not technically feasible,
Full control of surface rights may be required
to limit recharge.
88
-------
Slurry Wall
Land Surface
Treatment
Total
c
C
K Costs
A I
C I
O&M Costs
1 B |
1 D |
FIGURE 21. Format of Cost Components for Fluid Isolation
Systems.
89
-------
major capital and O&M component costs. Figure 21 shows the
major cost components in the format used for presenting data
in Appendix H. Each component of the matrix is identified
by letter to facilitate the following discussion.
Slurry wall capital costs presented as Block A of
Figure 21 include unit costs for:
slurry wall materials and installation
plume delineation
perimeter borings
. engineering
Unit costs of slurry walls used in this analysis are $2.50,
$5.00, and $10.00 per vertical square foot and include
materials, installation and mobilization/demobilization.
This range was derived from prices estimated by various
U. S. contractors* and does not correspond to a particular
wall type. In specific applications, unit wall costs will
be related to economies of scale, permeability requirement,
depth, slurry material, accessibility of the site, and
other factors such as union labor rates. Due to these
* Unit Costs for slurry wall systems were generally reported
for the "vibrating beam" method of installation. Details
of wall installation using this method are available. See
reference under Slurry Systems, 1981.
90
-------
complexities and a general lack of consistency in the
reported cost estimates, a well defined cost curve could not
be developed.
In general, a number of conditions can be combined to
result in the unit costs used herein. For example, instal-
lation of a relatively deep wall around a small plume using
Asperaix*, an asphalt based slurry, could be in the range of
$10.00 per vertical square foot, whereas, installation of a
relatively shallow bentonite slurry wall around a large
plume may be in the range of $2.50 per vertical square foot.
Most slurry wall applications range in cost between $4.00
and $7.50 per vertical square foot as represented in the
mid-wall case where $5.00 per vertical square foot was used.
Specific placement methods and isolation characteristics of
various slurry material options are presented in Tables 11
and 12, respectively.
Plume delineation costs were determined by the same
algorithm as described in the chapter on fluid removal
systems and were derived from Figure 6. Delineation costs
range between $20,000 and $175,000 for slurry walls as
specified in Table H-10 of Appendix H.
*Aspemix: Trade name of slurry material developed by
Slurry Systems, 1981.
91
-------
TABLE 11
SLURRY WALL SYSTEMS: INSTALLATION OPTIONS
Backhoe and Crawler Tractor
Up to 30 feet deep and several feet wide
Soil/bentonite or bentonite/cement slurry
Poor quality control over slurry mixture
No control over sluffing
Trencher
Up to 25 feet deep by 1 foot wide
Bentonite and asphalt slurries
Good quality control over mixture
Vibrating Beam
Up to 125 feet deep by minimum width of
1/2 feet
Bentonite and asphalt slurries
Good quality control over mixture
92
-------
TABLE 12
SLURRY WALL SYSTEMS: WALL
MATERIALS, PERMEABILITIES
Bentonite-Based Slurries
- Cement as additive
Other chemical additives
Permeabilities on order of 10 cm/sec
Asphalt-Based Slurries
"Aspemix" is brand name
Cold asphalt emulsion
Permeabilities on order of 10 cm/sec
93
-------
Once the contaminant plume is delineated and the
slurry wall containment option is selected, additional
soil borings are required to further define wall placement
and to design the slurry composition. Borings are placed
along the perimeter of the plume to the approximate depth
of the confining unit. Actual boring spacing will be
a function of the complexity or homogeneity of the media
and can vary from 50 to 250-foot spacing. For the pur-
poses of this study, 100-foot spacing was assumed. This
results in a range of boring costs between $2,000 and
$25,000 over the range of plume sizes (perimeters) used
in this study. Specific boring costs are presented in
Table H-10.
The unit costs for plume delineation, perimeter
soil borings, and slurry wall installation represent basic
contracting costs exclusive of engineering fees. Block
A of Figure 21 includes engineering fees calculated as a
percentage of these costs. Figure 22 is a standard curve
(developed by ASCE) which was used to determine this per-
centage. As shown, the percentage can range from 5.7 to
11.7. Costs not included in Block A include capital financ-
ing and protection of the facility if necessary (e.g.,
fencing or guards).
94
-------
14
13
12
11
10
5 9
C
fi
0.
o
M
I 8
\
\
^
\
\
\
\
s
^
III 1 1 I 1 III
Net construction % from
cost Curve A-1974
$100.000
200.000
500.000
1.000.000
5.000,000
10.000.000
50.000,000
100.000.000
^
*
1
\
\
\
s
s
>
11.63
10.25
8.52
7.53
6.42
6.03
5.70
5.64
,,
^*^
"^.
*
1 1
- .
1
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10
Net construction cost, in millions of dollars
50 100
FIGURE 22. Median Compensation for Engineering Services
Expressed as a Percentage of Construction Cost
95
-------
Slurry wall operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
are included in Block B of Figure 21. These are assumed to
be negligible for this analysis. Any notion of "design life"
of slurry walls must be accomodated externally to this study
because little empirical data regarding wall longevity in a
hazardous waste environment are available.
An average monitoring cost of $10,000/year was imposed
as an O&M cost for each slurry wall. This cost, held
constant for plumes of all sizes, includes monitor well
sampling and analysis only for selected indicator parameters,
It is assumed that a partial chemical analysis is adequate
because all ground-water contaminants are assumed to be
identified during the delineation phase. In cases where
leakage is detected, the cost of troubleshooting can be
substantially higher than $10,000/year. Also included in
the monitoring cost is the cost of reporting laboratory
analytical results and maintaining the monitor wells.
Block C of Figure 21 includes capital costs for land
surface treatment. As indicated in Table 13, three surface
treatment options were considered in this study. Land
surface treatment is performed in order to limit recharge of
surface water into the encapsulated plume. It is judged
necessary because without a surface treatment option, the
96
-------
TABLE 13
SURFACE TREATMENT OPTIONS AND ASSIGNED COSTS
Land Surface Treatment Cost
1. None None
2. Grading, recontouring, and re- Low Cost: $.15/
vegetation foot
3. Grading, recontouring, and surface High-cost: $.75/
sealing foot
97
-------
walled area can accumulate fluids faster than they can be
lost by leakage across the wall boundaries.
Several treatment options were discussed in a recent
report by SCS Engineers (1981) which is based on the Means
1980 cost guide. The low cost option includes initial
grading and recontouring the area. About 1.5 feet of soil
is applied to the surface area which is then mulched
and seeded (soil is assumed to be available at the site) .
In the high cost option, the grading and recontouring
process is followed by the application of a 3-inch bitum-
inous concrete cap. Actual selection of a land surface
treatment option for a given site will be based on local
conditions such as existing recharge potential, contours and
the existence of surface structures. In addition, other
more costly sealing options such as plastics are available
but are not considered in this analysis. It is assumed for
this analysis that the surface is accessible and free of
major obstructions.
In addition to basic land treatment costs, an engi-
neering cost is incurred based on percentage determined
with Figure 22.
Operation and maintenance costs for land surface
treatment are included in Block D. These costs are minimal
98
-------
and are incurred only in the grading and revegetation
option (the low capital cost option) . Costs in this area
correspond primarily to fertilizing and mowing of vege-
tation.
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES/SENSITIVITIES
Slurry wall containment costs vary with plume perim-
eter, surface area, and depth. Containment costs are
presented in Appendix H for eight different plume sizes
and four different depths. Graphs indicating sensitivity
to perimeter size, depth, and land surface treatment re-
quirement are also included in the Appendix.
The cost summary presented in Table 14 indicates total
containment costs for four plume sizes and several contain-
ment options. It is clear from the table that land surface
treatment, and in particular, surface sealing becomes
a dominant cost as plume area increases.
99
-------
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF SLURRY WALL
CONTAINMENT COSTS ($1000's)
o
o
Slurry wall
Containment
Design area
dimensions
perimeter
(feet^) :
(feet) :
(feet) :
100
16
x 200
480
,000
500 x 2500
5,300
980,000
2000
x
9,
6,300,
4000
700
000
2000
16,
x
21
000
10,000
,000
,000
CONTAINMENT DESIGN
Mid-cost 25 foot slurry wall
with no land surface treat-
ment
Mid-cost 75 foot slurry wall
with no land surface treat-
ment
Mid-cost 25 foot slurry wall
with surface sealing
Mid-cost 75 foot slurry wall
with surface sealing
90
770
1,382
2,928
240
103
253
2,255
1,568
3,053
3,963
6,382
8,963
8,845
15,648
21,565
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Cooper, H. H.f Jr., and Jacob, C.E., 1946, A generalized
graphical method for evaluating formation constants
and summarizing well field history: Trans. Amer.
Geophys. Union, Vol. 27, p. 526-534.
Forchheimer, P., 1930, Grundwassenbewegung: Hydraulik, 3rd
Edition, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, p. 51-110 (also in
Todd, D. K., 1959, Ground Water Hydrology, John Wiley,
p. 86) .
Freeze, R. Allen, and Cherry, John A., 1979, Groundwater:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 604 p.
Gumerman, R. C., Gulp, R. C., and Hansen, S. P., 1979,
Estimating water treatment costs, Volumes 2 and 3:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, document EPA-600/2-79-162 b and c.
Johnson Division, United Oil Products, 1980, Ground water
and wells; Johnson Division, St. Paul, 440 p.
Means, Robert S., 1980, 1980 Means guide to construction
cost estimating; R. S. Godfrey, editor, Robert Snow
Means Company, Inc., 330 p.
SCS Engineers, 1981, Costs of remedial response actions at
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites: draft document,
U.S. EPA, p.24-30.
Slurry Systems, 1981, Vibrated beam technique for thin
slurry wall barriersapplication in construction
and environmental situations: unpublished paper
prepared by Slurry Systems Contractors & Consultants,
Division of Thatcher Engineering Corporation, Gary,
Indiana, 10 p.
Theis, C. V., 1935, The relation between the lowering of
the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of
discharge of a well using ground-water storage: Trans
Amer. Geophys. Union, Vol. 2, p. 519-524.
Water Well Journal, 1981, The water well industry; A study:
Water Well Journal, Vol. 35, No. 1, p. 79-97.
101
-------
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
-------
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
Aquifer
Aquifer,
confined
Aquifer,
unconfined
Barrier
boundary
Drawdown'
Equipotential
line
Flow field
Ground water
Ground water
flow
Rock or sediment which is saturated and
sufficiently permeable to transmit eco-
nomic quantities of water to wells and
springs.
An aquifer that is overlain by confining
strata. The confining strata have a sig-
nificantly lower hydraulic conductivity
than the aquifer.
An aquifer in which there are no confining
strata between the zone of saturation and
the surface. There will be a water table
in an unconfined aquifer. Water-table
aquifer is a synonym.
An aquifer-system boundary represented
by a rock mass that is not a source of
water.
A lowering of the water table of an un-
confined aquifer or the potentiometric
surface of a confined aquifer caused by
pumping of ground water from wells.
A line in a two-dimensional groundwater
flow field such that the total hydraulic
head is the same for all points along the
line.
The set of intersecting equipotential
lines and flowlines representing two-
dimensional steady flow through porous
media.
The water contained in interconnected
pores located below the water table in
an unconfined aquifer or located in a
confined aquifer.
The movement of water through openings in
sediment and rock which occurs in the zone
of saturation.
A-l
-------
GLOSSARY (continued)
Head, total
Hydraulic
gradient
Isotropy
Recharge
boundary
Submergence
head
Tr ansm i ss i v i ty
Water table
Well inter-
ference
Well losses
The sum of the elevation head, the pressure
head, and the velocity head at a given
point in an aquifer.
The change in total head with a change
in distance in a given direction. The
direction is that which yields a maximum
rate of decrease in head.
The condition in which hydraulic properties
of the aquifer are equal in all directions.
An aquifer system boundary that adds water
to the aquifer. Streams and lakes are
typical recharge boundaries.
The minimum pressure head required at a
submerged pump intake to permit operation
of the pump. Measured in feet of water
above the intake structure.
The rate at which water-of a prevailing
density and viscosity is transmitted
through a unit width of an aquifer or
confining bed under a unit hydraulic
gradient. It is a function of properties
of the liquid, the porous media, and the
thickness of the porous media.
The surface in an unconfined aquifer or
confining bed at which the pore water
pressure is atmospheric. It can be meas-
ured by installing shallow wells extending
a few feet into the zone of saturation
and then measuring the water level in those
wells.
The result of two or more pumping wells,
the drawdown cones of which intercept.
At a given location, the total well inter-
ference is the sum of the drawdowns due
to each individual well.
Head losses, or drawdown, in a pumping
well that result from turbulent flow inside
the well and across the well screen.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B: CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR WELL/DRAIN
FLUID REMOVAL SYSTEMS
-------
TABLE B-1
CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FLUID REMOVAL SYSTEMS UNDER STRATEGY 1
Hydraulic Gradient =0.5 ft/mi
Plume Width (ft) 100
Plume Discharge (gpm) (0.66)
Transmissivity a 100,000 gal/day/ft
500 1000 2000
(3.3) (6.6) (13)
Plume
Depth
(ft)
25 1(5)a 1(5) 1(8) 1(16)
50
75
100
200 <
r
i
i \
r \
t
Number of wells and per-well discharge, in gal/min, e.g. 1(8): one well
with a discharge of 8 gpm
TABLE B-2
CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FLUID REMOVAL SYSTEMS UNDER STRATEGY 1
Hydraulic Gradient =0.5 ft/mi
Plume Width (ft) 100
Plume Discharge (gpm) (6.6)
Transmissivity = 1,000,000 gal/day/ft
500 1000 2000
(33) (66) (132)
Plume
Depth
(ft)
25 1(8)a 1(40) 1(80) 1(160)
50
75
100
200
i
i '
, >
r >
f
a Number of wells and per-well discharge, in gal/min, e.g. 1(8): one well
with a discharge of 8 gpm
B-1
-------
TABLE B-3
CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FLUID REMOVAL SYSTEMS UNDER STRATEGY 1
Hydraulic Gradient - 5 ft/mi
Plume Width (ft) 100
Plume Discharge (gpm) (0.66)
Transmissivity = 10,000 gal/day/ft
500 1000 2000
(3.3) (6.6) (13)
Plume
Depth
(ft)
25 1(5)a 1(5) 1(8) 1(16)
50
75
100
200 <
r
i
f
\
f i
r
Number of wells and per-we11 discharge, in gal/min, e.g. 1(8): one well
with a discharge of 8 gpm
TABLE B-4
CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FLUID REMOVAL SYSTEMS UNDER STRATEGY 1
Hydraulic Gradient = 5 ft/mi Transmissivity = 100,000 gal/day/ft
Plume
Plume
Plume
Depth
(ft)
Width (ft) 100 500 1000 2000
Discharge (gpm) (6.6) (33) (66) (132)
25 1(8)a 1(40) 1(80) 1(160)
50
75
100
200
f ^
f \
f \
f
a
Number of wells and per-well discharge, in gal/min, e.g. 1(8): one well
with a discharge of 8 gpm
-------
TABLE B-5
CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FLUID REMOVAL SYSTEMS UNDER STRATEGY 1
Hydraulic Gradient = 5 ft/mi Transmissivity - 1,000,000 gal/day/ft
Plume Width (ft) 100 500 1000 2000
Plume Discharge (gpm) (66) (330) (660) (1320)
Plume
Depth
(ft)
25 1(80)a 1(400) 1(800) 1(1600)
50
75
100
200
> <
r 1
r >
t
a Number of wells and per-well discharge, in gal/min, e.g. 1(8): one well
with a discharge of 8 gpm
TABLE B-6
CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FLUID REMOVAL SYSTEMS UNDER STRATEGY 1
Hydraulic Gradient = 50 ft/mi
Plume Width (ft) 100
Plume Discharge (gpm) (0.66)
Transmissivity = 1,000 gal/day/ft
500 1000 2000
(3.3) (6.6) (13)
Plume
Depth
(ft)
25 1(5)a 1(5) 1(8) 2(8)
50
75
100
200
> ,
i
f >
»
a Number of wells and per-well discharge, in gal/min, e.g. 1 (8): one well
with a discharge of 8 gpm
-------
TABLE B-7
CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FLUID REMOVAL SYSTEMS UNDER STRATEGY 1
Hydraulic Gradient = 50 ft/mi
Plume Width (ft) 100
Plume Discharge (gpm) (6.6)
Transmissivity = 10,000 gal/day/ft
500 1000 2000
(33) (66) (132)
Plume
Depth
(ft)
25 1(8)a 1(40) 8(10)b 16(10)b
50
75
100
200 ,
f \
2(<
K*
f \
10) 1(1
JO)
1 \
60)
l
Number of wells and per-we11 discharge/ in gal/min, e.g. 1(8): one well
with a discharge of 8 gpm
Wells installed in gravel-filled drain
TABLE B-8
CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FLUID REMOVAL SYSTEMS UNDER STRATEGY 1
Hydraulic Gradient = 50 ft/mi Transmissivity = 100,000 gal/day/ft
Plume Width (ft) 100 500 1000 2000
Plume Discharge (gpm) (66) (330) (660) (1320)
Plume
Depth
(ft)
25 1(80)a 1(400) 2(400) 160(10)b
50
75
100
200
f i
1(800) 1(1600)
t \
f \
f
Number of wells and per-well discharge, in gal/min, e.g. 1(8): one well
with a discharge of 8 gpm
Wells installed in gravel-filled drain
3-4
-------
TABLE B-9
CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FLUID REMOVAL SYSTEMS UNDER STRATEGY 1
Hydraulic Gradient = 500 ft/mi
Plume Width (ft) 100
Plume Discharge (gpm) (6.6)
Transmissivity = 1,000 gal/day/ft
500 1000 2000
(33) (66) (132)
Plume
Depth
(ft)
25 2(4. O)3 4(10)b 8(10)b
50 1(8.0) 3(13.2) 5(16)C
75
100
200 ,
2(20) 3(26.4)
1(40) 2(40)
1(80)
16(10)b
9(18)°
6(26.4)
4(40)
2(80)
a Number of wells and per-well discharge, in gal/min, e.g. 1(8): one well
with a discharge of 8 gpm
b Wells installed in gravel-filled drain
° Some wells located upgradient inside plume
TABLE B-10
CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FLUID REMOVAL SYSTEMS UNDER STRATEGY 1
Hydraulic Gradient = 500 ft/mi
Plume Width (ft) 100
Plume Discharge (gpm) (66)
Transmissivity = 10,000 gal/day/ft
500 1000 2000
(330) (660) (1320)
Plume
Depth
(ft)
25 2(40)a 40(10)b
50 1(e
75
100
200 ,
iO) 10(40)
4(100)
2(200)
, K400)
80(10)b
15(53)°
10(80)
4(200)
1(800)
160(10)b
18(89)°
12(133)°
8(200)
2(800)
a Number of wells and per-well discharge, in gal/min, e.g. 1(8): one well
with a discharge of 8 gpm
b Wells installed in gravel-filled drain
-------
TABLE B-11
CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FLUID REMOVAL SYSTEMS UNDER STRATEGY 2
Hydraulic Gradient » 5 ft/mi Transmissivity » 10,000 gal/day/ft
Plume Dimensions(ft)
(width x length)
Plume Discharge
(gpm)
100x200 100x500 500x1000 500x2500 1000x2000 1000x5000 2000x4000 2000x10000
(3.3) (7.3) (16) (35) (33) (73) (65) (138)
25 1(4,
50
Plume
Depth 75
(ft)
100
200
.1)a 1(10) 1(21) 1(52) 1(41) 3(34) 2(41) 5(41)
f »
' ^
f \
.
KK
r >
)3) 1(E
r 1
»3) 3(1
1(2C
r ,
8)
6)
r
Minimum number of wells needed to control gradients with a 70% limit on well drawdown; discharge units
are gpm
-------
TABLE B-12
CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FLUID REMOVAL SYSTEMS UNDER STRATEGY 2
Hydraulic Gradient - 5 ft/mi Transroissivity - 100,000 gal/day/ft
Plume Dimensions(ft)
(width x length) 100x200 100x500 500x1000 500x2500 1000x2000 1000x5000 2000x4000
Plume Discharge
(gpm)
(32)
(72)
(158)
(349)
(316)
(723)
(638)
2000x10000
(1380)
25 1(41)& 1(103) 1(206) 1(515) 1(413) 3(343) 2(413) 5(413)
50
Plume
Depth 75
(ft)
100
200 ,
f \
r i
f \
f *
1(1030) 1(825) 3(680)
r <
^
2(1032)
1(2065)
i
a Minimum number of wells needed to control gradients with a 70% limit on well drawdown; discharge units
are gpm
-------
TABLE B-13
CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FLUID REMOVAL SYSTEMS UNDER STRATEGY 2
Hydraulic Gradient = 5 ft/mi Transmissivity « 1,000,000 gal/day/ft
Plume Dimensions(ft)
(width x length)
Plume Discharge
(gpra)
100x200 100x500 500x1000 500x2500 1000x2000 1000x5000 2000x4000 2000x10000
(316) (723) (1580) (3490) (3160) (7230) (6380) (13,800)
25 1(410)a 1(1030) 1(2060) 2(2575) 1(4000) 3(3433) 2(4000) 5(4000)
50
Plume
n Depth 75
» (ft)
100
200 ,
f *
> \
' \
r \
r <,
f
f «
f
Minimum number of wells needed to control gradients with a 70% limit on well drawdown; discharge units
are gpm
-------
APPENDIX C: CAPITAL COSTS FOR WELL/DRAIN FLUID
REMOVAL SYSTEMS
-------
Table C-1. Supportive Capital Costs for Fluid Removal Systems
o
i
Total Containment Support Cost
Cost Table Element
F-l Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-2 Delineation
Design Eng.
Hell/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-3 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-4 Delineation
Design Eng.
Hell/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
Width x Length
100 x 200
28.0
20.0
7.4
11.9
67.3
15.0
20.0
2.4
10.6
48.0
28.0
20.0
7.4
11.9
67.3
60.0
20.0
19.6
15.0
114.6
(ft) and Associated
100 x 500
28.0
20.0
7.4
11.9
67.3
15.0
20.0
2.4
10.6
48.0
28.0
20.0
7.4
11.9
67.3
60.0
20.0
19.6
15.0
114.6
Capital Costs
500 x 1000
50.0
22.0
7.4
11.9
91.3
30.0
22.0
2.4
10.6
65.0
50.0
22.0
7.4
11.9
91.3
110.0
22.0
19.6
15.0
166.6
(1000's dollar)
500 x 2500
62.0
25.0
7.4
11.9
106.3
38.0
25.0
2.4
10.6
76.0
62.0
25.0
7.4
11.9
106.3
138.0
25.0
19.6
15.0
197.6
-------
Table C-1. (Continued)
Total Containment Support Cost
Cost Table Element
F-l Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-2 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-3 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-4 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
Width x Length
1000 x 2000
70.0
28.0
7.4
11.9
117.3
41.0
28.0
2.4
10.6
82.0
70.0
28.0
7.4
11.9
117.3
150.0
28.0
19.6
15.0
212.6
(ft) and Associated
1000 x 5000
80.0
35.0
7.4
11.9
134.3
48.0
34.5
2.4
10.6
95.5
80.0
35.0
7.4
11.9
134.3
178.0
35.0
19.6
15.0
247.6
Capital Costs
2000 x 4000
90.0
39.5
7.4
11.9
148.8
50.0
39.5
2.4
10.6
102.5
90.0
39.5
7.4
11.9
148.8
198.0
39.5
19.6
15.0
272.1
(1000's dollar)
2000 x 10000
140.0
50.0
7.4
11.9
209.3
80.0
50.0
2.4
10.6
143.0
140.0
50.0
7.4
11.9
209.3
300.0
50.0
19.6
15.0
384.6
-------
Table C-2. Supportive Capital Costs for Fluid Removal Systems
o
to
Total Containment Support Cost
Cost Table Element
F-5 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-6 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-7 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-8 Delineation
Design Eng.
Hell/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
Width x Length
100 x 200
25.2
20.0
6.9
11.8
63.9
28.0
20.0
7.4
11.9
67.3
48.0
20.0
15.7
14.0
97.7
176.1
20.0
30.4
17.8
244.3
(ft) and Associated
100 x 500
25.2
20.0
6.9
11.8
63.9
28.0
20.0
7.4
11.9
67.3
48.0
20.0
15.7
14.0
97.7
271.6
20.0
30.4
17.8
339.8
Capital Costs
500 x 1000
48.0
22.0
6.9
11.8
88.7
50.0
22.0
7.4
11.9
91.3
95.0
22.0
15.7
14.0
146.7
640.7
22.0
41.5
17.8
722.0
(1000's dollar)
500 x 2500
59.6
25.0
6.9
11.8
103.3
62.0
25.0
7.4
11.9
106.3
116.0
25.0
15.7
14.0
170.7
1174.8
25.0
41.5
17.8
1259.1
-------
Table C-2. (Continued)
Total Containment Support Cost
Cost Table Element
F-5 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-6 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-7 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-8 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
Width x Length
1000 x 2000
67.0
28.0
6.9
11.8
113.7
70.0
28.0
10.0
11.9
119.9
126.0
28.0
21.4
14.0
189.4
1333.2
28.0
119.4
17.8
1498.4
(ft) and Associated
1000 x 5000
76.8
35.0
6.9
11.8
130.5
80.0
35.0
10.0
11.9
136.9
145.6
35.0
21.4
14.0
216.0
3403.9
35.0
119.4
17.8
3576.1
Capital Costs
2000 x 4000
86.8
39.5
9.4
11.8
147.5
90.0
39.5
28.9
11.9
170.3
164.8
39.5
61.6
14.0
279.9
3403.9
39.5
119.4
17.8
3580.6
(1000's dollar)
2000 x 10000
134.0
50.0
9.4
11.8
205.2
140.0
50.0
28.9
11.9
230.8
248.0
50.0
61.6
14.0
373.6
8499.6
50.0
119.4
17.8
8686.8
-------
Table C-3. Supportive Capital Costs £or Fluid Removal Systems
i
tn
Total Containment Support Cost
Cost Table Element
F-9 Delineation
Design Eng.
Hell/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-10 Delineation
Design Eng.
Vfell/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-ll Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-12 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
Width x Length
100 x 200
28.0
20.0
10.0
11.9
69.9
15.0
20.0
2.4
10.6
48.0
15.0
20.0
3.4
10.6
49.0
28.0
20.0
10.0
11.9
69.9
(ft) and Associated
100 x 500
28.0
20.0
10.0
11.9
69.9
15.0
20.0
2.4
10.6
48.0
15.0
20.0
3.4
10.6
49.0
28.0
20.0
10.0
11.9
69.9
Capital Costs
500 x 1000
50.0
22.0
30.4
11.9
114.3
30.0
22.0
2.4
10.6
65.0
30.0
22.0
10.1
10.6
72.7
50.0
22.0
30.4
11.9
114.3
(1000's dollar)
500 x 2500
62.0
25.0
30.4
11.9
129.3
38.0
25.0
2.4
10.6
76.0
38.0
25.0
10.1
10.6
83.7
62.0
25.0
30.4
11.9
129.3
-------
Table C-3. (Continued)
r>
i
at
Total Containment Support Cost
Cost Table Element
F-9 Delineation
Design Eng.
Hell/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-10 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-ll Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-12 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
Width x Length
1000 x 2000
70.0
28.0
35.2
11.9
145.1
41.0
28.0
34.4*
11.8
115.2*
41.0
28.0
20.0
11.3
100.3*
70.0
28.0
35.2
11.9
145.1
(ft) and Associated
1000 x 5000
80.0
35.0
35.2
11.9
162.1
48.0
34.5
34.4*
11.8
128.7*
48.0
34.5
20.0
11.3
113.8*
80.0
35.0
35.2
11.9
162.1
Capital Costs
2000 x 4000
90.0
39.5
45.0
11.9
186.4
50.0
39.5
52.4*
13.6
155.5*
50.0
39.5
92.2*
28.0
209.7*
90.0
39.5
45.0
11.9
186.4
(1000's dollar)
2000 x 10000
140.0
50.0
45.0
11.9
246.9
80.0
50.0
52.4*
13.6
196.0*
80.0
50.0
92.2*
28.0
250.2*
140.0
50.0
45.0
11.9
246.9
*Gravel-filled trench with small diameter wells
-------
Table C-4. Supportive Capital Costs for Fluid Removal Systems
Total Containment Support Cost
Cost Table Element
F-13 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-14 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-15 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-16 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
Width x Length
100 x 200
15.0
20.0
4.9
11.2
51.1
15.0
20.0
4.9
11.2
51.1
28.0
20.0
10.0
11.9
69.9
60.0
20.0
26.8
15.0
121.8
(ft) and Associated
100 x 500
15.0
20.0
4.9
11.2
51.1
15.0
20.0
4.9
11.2
51.1
28.0
20.0
10.0
11.9
69.9
60.0
20.0
26.8
15.0
121.8
Capital Costs
500 x 1000
30.0
22.0
25.4*
10.9
88.3*
30.0
22.0
35.0*
14.5
101.5*
50.0
22.0
111.0
17.5
200.5
110.0
22.0
81.0
15.0
228.0
(1000's dollar)
500 x 2500
38.0
25.0
25.4*
10.9
99.3*
38.0
25.0
35.0*
14.5
112.5*
62.0
25.0
111.0
17.5
215.5
138.0
25.0
81.0
15.0
259.0
* Gravel-filled trench with small diameter wells
-------
Table C-4. (Continued)
oo
Total Containment Support Cost
Cost Table Element
F-13 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-14 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-15 Delineation
Design Eng.
Well/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-16 Delineation
Design Eng.
Hell/Drain
Const. Eng.
Totals
Width x Length
1000 x 2000
41.0
28.0
34.4*
11.8
106.2*
41.0
28.0
55.0*
19.0
143.0*
70.0
26.0
100.5
28.8
227.3
150.0
28.0
94.0
15.0
287.0
(ft) and Associated
1000 x 5000
48.0
34.5
34.4*
11.8
128.7*
48.0
34.5
55.0*
19.0
156.5*
80.0
35.0
100.5
28.8
244.3
178.0
35.0
94.0
15.0
322.0
Capital Costs
2000 x 4000
50.0
39.5
52.4*
13.6
155.5*
50.0
39.5
92.2*
28.0
209.7*
90.0
39.5
333.0
32.5
495.0
198.0
39.5
188.0
20.0
445.5
(1000's dollar)
2000 x 10000
80.0
50.0
52.4*
13.6
196.0*
80.0
50.0
92.2*
28.0
250.2*
140.0
50.0
333.0
32.5
555.5
300.0
50.0
188.0
20.0
558.0
* Gravel-filled trench with small diameter wells
-------
Table C-5. Supportive Capital Costs for Fluid Removal Systems
Total Containment Support Cost
Cost Table Element
F-17 Delineation
Design Eng.
Wells/Pumps
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-18 Delineation
Design Eng.
Hells/Pumps
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-19 Delineation
Design Eng.
Wells/Pumps
Const. Eng.
Totals
Width x Length
100 x 200
28.0
« 20.0
7.4
11.9
67.3
28.0
20.0
7.4
11.9
67.3
28.0
20.0
30.4
11.9
90.3
(ft) and Associated
100 x 500
28.0
20.0
7.4
11.9
67.3
28.0
20.0
27.8
11.9
87.7
28.0
20.0
41.2
11.9
101.1
Capital Costs
500 x 1000
50.0
22.0
7.4
11.9
91.3
50.0
22.0
28.9
10.9
112.8
50.0
22.0
45.0
11.9
128.9
(1000 'a dollar)
500 x 2500
62.0
26.0
10.0
11.9
109.3
62.0
26.0
34.1
11.9
134.0
62.0
26.0
90.0
13.6
191.6
-------
Table C-5. (Continued)
Total Containment Support Cost
Cost Table Element
F-17 Delineation
Design Eng.
Wells/Pumps
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-18 Delineation
Design Eng.
Wells/Pumps
Const. Eng.
Totals
F-19 Delineation
Design Eng.
Wells/Pumps
Const. Eng.
Totals
Width x Length
1000 x 2000
70.0
28.0
7.4
11.9
117.3
70.0
28.0
30.4
11.9
140.3
70.0
28.0
45.0
11.9
154.9
(ft) and Associated
1000 x 5000
80.0
34.0
27.8
11.9
154.2
80.0
34.5
41.2
11.9
167.6
80.0
34.5
135.0*
15.6
265.1
Capital Costs
2000 x 4000
92.0
39.5
10.0
11.9
153.4
92.0
39.5
35.2
11.9
178.6
92.0
39.5
90.0*
13.6
235.1
(1000 's dollar)
2000 x 10000
140.0
50.0
28.9
11.9
230.8
140.0
50.0
82.5
13.6
286.1
140.0
50.0
225.0*
19.4
434.4
* Costs- affected by maximum limit on per-well pumpage,
-------
APPENDIX D: INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
-------
APPENDIX Q
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
APPROACH
Infrastructure costs (IFC) are those associated with con-
structing supporting roadways, bringing in electric power, and
installing the manifold and service piping from the wells to the
treatment plant. IFC were developed for two strategies:
t Strategy 1: Wells placed along the toe of the
plume in the traverse direction.
Strategy 2: Wells placed along the length of
the plume.
Strategy 1 encompasses approximately 40 scenarios while Strategy
2 covers approximately 30. Cost estimates were developed for each
scenario.
To estimate IFC, hypothetical facility layouts were developed
for both strategies. The two layouts chosen for Strategy 1 and
Strategy 2 are shown in Tables D-l and D-2, respectively. These
tables demonstrate the approach used to estimate the IFC. The
IFC results for each scenario were then analyzed to determine
the controlling variables.
ASSUMPTIONS
The assumptions made in developing the IFC are presented below:
t Flat topography
Extensive earthwork for road subgrade not included
t Access roads to wells and treatment plant begin at the
plume source
Roadways are 12 feet wide and constructed of gravel or
crushed stone
Overhead electric lines brought in along roadway and poles
placed every 200 feet
t Treatment plant located at toe of plume for both strategies
D-l
-------
Each well equipped with a check valve, gate valve and flow
meter.
0 All underground piping provided with a minimum 3 feet of
cover. Unit price for pipe includes excavation.
t Pipes sized to minimize head loss to 100 feet or less
(not practical in all cases).
0 Engineering (costs not included).
0 Contingency of 30 percent on cost estimate assumed to
arrive at total IFC.
0 Means Cost Estimating Guide and Richardson's Cost Esti-
mating Guide used for unit price information.
RESULTS
The results of the cost analysis are summarized in the following
Tables and Figures:
0 Table Q-3
0 Table D-4
STRATEGY 1 - INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
STRATEGY 2 - INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
(with O&M)
0 Figure 0-1 STRATEGY 1 - INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
VERSUS PLUME LENGTH
0 Figure D-2 STRATEGY 2 - INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
VERSUS PLUME LENGTH (1 Well)
0 'Figure 0-3 STRATEGY 2 - INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
VERSUS PLUME LENGTH (3 Wells)
0 Figure D-4 STRATEGY 2 - INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
VERSUS PLUME LENGTH (5 Wells)
0 Figure D-5 O&M COSTS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
The analysis of the cost estimate results show that for
Strategy 1, plume length and the plume length to width ratio
appear to be the controlling variables affecting construction
costs, while plume length, total well output, and the number
of wells appear to be the controlling variables for Strategy 2.
Operation and maintenance costs are primarily a function of the
length of the plume arid the number of wells. The larger plumes
will require longer access roads. Road maintenance will be a
large percentage of the O&M costs; however, the number of wells
also will add to the O&M costs, since periodic maintenance and
repair of pumps is to be expected.
D-2
-------
Jan. 1982
RBG/SCS Engineers
TABLE D.I- Example Infrastructure Cost
Calculation for Strategy 1
500 ftrH
<
I
/
t
_j
o
y
I*;
«*
f
K*5"5^V^f'V'O<'X ^
' a ..
IT
2500
ORIENTATION Strategy 1
NO. OF WELLS 1 at 330 gpm and 660 gpm per well
M-l
in. pipe
Description
Gate Valve Size 6"
Quantity : Unit Cost
1 $ 530/ea
Total Cost ($)
530
i
Check Valve 6"
1 /570/ea
i
Tees 6" x 6"
1 ,270/ea
270
;
Meters 6"
1 ea 1.3,430/ea
3,430
i . 1 .
i 1 '
Pipe S"
350 If ; "12.60/lf
4,410
\
6 inch -Potable Water Main 1
Fire Hydrant
Gravel Road (12 ft]
Overhead Electricity
No. of Poles
Transformer Type 50 kva
Switchgear and Controls
2900 7/1 f.
2900 4/lf '
15 300/ea
; 2^300/ea
1 ea 1,000/ea
Sub- total
Contingency
20,300
11,600
4,500
2,300
1,000
48,910:
(30%) 14,673
TOTAL $63,583
D-3
-------
58085
Jan. 1982
RBG/SCS Engineers
TABLE D.2- Example Infrastructure Cost
Calculation for Strategy 2
.
i
i
i ,
ii
« r» W-l
ir2 in. ]
| lj O
!- w~*
i
'
-------
TABLE D-3. CONSTRUCTION COST FOR STRATEGY I INFRASTRUCTURE
Plume Length Average Cost Plume Length to
(ft) ± Standard Deviation Width Radio
s
1,000 33,700* 6,700 2:1
2,000 73,600 * 15,600 2:1
4,000 144,600 * 23,700 2:1
500 13,600 * 0 5:1
2,500 59,900 * 8,500 5:1
5,000 126,200 * 11,700 5:1
10,000 242,200 ± 24,200 5:1
0-5
-------
TABLE Q-4. CONSTRUCTION COST FOR STRATEGY 2
Plume Length (Ft.) Mo. of Wells
200 1
1
1
3
3
3
1 ,000 1
1
1
3
3
3
5,000 1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
10,000 1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
Flow (gpra)
5
50
500
5
50
500
10
100
l.OOC
10
100
1,000
20
200
2,000
20
200
2,000
20
200
2,000
40
400
4,000
40
400
4,000
40
400
4,000
Capital Cost ($)
8,400
8,400
14,700
11,700
12,400
21 ,700
24,400
26,400
43,900
31,000
34,800
60,700
106,700
131,800
182,800
122,200
150,300
212,600
127,400
163,900
216,400
217,400
255,400
401,000
239,700
319,300
481,156
252,400
322,200
476,400
0 & M ($)
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,700
2,700
2,700
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,700
2,700
2,700
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,500
3,500
3,500
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,500
4,500
4,500
5,000
5,000
5,000
D-6
-------
FIGL'IE D-l
STRATEGY 1 - INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION
COST VERSUS PLUHE LEMZIH
1E8
AVERAGE COSTtt)
&1PIJUME
LA RATIO
ilPUUHE
UV RATIO
1E5
1E4
1E2
I 111111
9 4 5 6 788
I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I
3 456788
3 4 5 8 788
1E4
1ES
FUME LENGTMffD
-------
o
CO
LEGEND
aw 5-40
GALLONS
FUW58-4B8
GALLONS
FUW50B-4K
GALLONS
FIGURE D-2.
STRATEGY 2 - INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION
COST VERSUS PLUME LENGTH (1 VELD
1E6
AVERAGE COSTCD
1ES
1E4
1E2
» I 111
//.
r
' I I I 111
3 458780
3 4 5 8 789
1E4
PLUME LENGTH(FT)
' ' » ' I II
3 4 5 8 7 89
1E5
-------
o
I
LEGEND
FUW5-40
GALLONS
FLOY 58-408
GALLONS
FUW5W-4K
GALLONS
FIGURE D-3.
STRATEGY 2 - INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION
COST VERSUS PLUME LENGTH G YELLS)
AVERAGE COSTCft)
1E4
1E2
3 4 5 8 789
2 3456780
1E3
1E4
3 458780
1E5
PLUME LENGTH(FT)
-------
FIGURE D-4.
STRATEGY 2 - INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION
COST VERSUS PLUME LENGTH (5 YELLS)
AVERAGE COST(I)
LEGEND 1CO
FLOW 20-40 6
GALLONS 6
7
6
FLOV 200-400
GALLONS 5
" 4
FUW20B0-4K
GALLONS 3
2
IK _
ICO
t
1
/
X
/
f
/
/
/
/
56780
1E4
PLUXE LENGTH
-------
LEGEND
ONE VEIL
THEE YELLS
FIVE VEILS
FIGURE D-5.
0 & M COSTS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
VERSUS PLUME LENGTH
COST(I)
1E2
2 34587
2 3 4 5 8 789
1E4
PUIC LENGTWFD
2 3 4 5 6 789
1ES
-------
APPENDIX E: TREATMENT COSTS
-------
APPENDIX E
TREATMENT COSTS
APPROACH
Four treatment processes were selected for cost evaluation:
1) Activated Carbon, 2) Coagulation/Floculation/Sedimentation/
Filtration, 3) Ultrafiltration and 4) Reverse Osmosis. These
processes were chosen to demonstrate the range of treatment
costs that may be encountered in treating contaminated ground
water, and cover a broad range of treatment capabilities.
Construction, engineering, and operational and maintenance
costs were developed for each treatment process as a function
of plant capacity (in gallons per minute (GPM}).. Six treatment
plant capacities were investigated: 6gpm, 250 gpm, 2,600 gpm,
4,000 gpm, 8,000 gpm, and 20,000 gpm. These capacities relate
to the well pumping scenarios developed in this report. Cost
data was taken from Reference E.-1 and engineering fees were
estimated using Reference E.2.
ASSUMPTIONS
Along with the assumptions outlined in Reference E.I, the
following assumptions were made in developing the treatment
costs:
Treatment plants placed a.t toe of plume
t Discharge piping (if lengthy) not included
Site work and contractor overhead not included
ENR Construction Cost Index (CCI) used = 391 (Date: Jan., 1981)
ENR-CCI of reference = 219
t Sludge treatment and disposal not included-
t Activated carbon replaced 3 times per year at $0.60/lb
t Minimum labor requirements of activated carbon plant
above 2,600 gpm equals 2,000 hours (1 man year).
Chemical costs not.included
No contingency included in cost estimates
E-l
-------
RESULTS
The results of the treatment cost analysis are summarized
in the following Tables and Figures:
0 Table E.I
t Table E.2
Table E.3
Table E.4
t Figure E.I
Capital, Engineering and O&M
Costs for Activated Carbon
Capital, Engineering, and O&M
Costs for Coag/Floc/Sed/Filt
Capital, Engineering and O&M
Costs for Ultrafiltration
Capital, Engineering and O&M
Costs for Reverse Osmosis
Capital, Plus Engineering
Costs for Treatment versus Flow Rate
Figure E.2 O&M Costs for Treatment versus Flow Rate
It should be noted that the cost data for ultrafiltration
only extends through 250 gpm. Reference E.I does not cover
the ultrafiltration treatment costs above one million gallons
per day (MGD) capacity. The purpose of the estimates is to
show the order of magnitude that can be expected in construct-
ing and operating a treatment system. The estimates are not
exact and careful attention should be given to the stated as-
sumptions when interpreting the results.
E-2
-------
TABLE E-l. CAPITAL, ENGINEERING AND O&M COSTS FOR ACTIVATED CARBON
low, gpro
apital ($)
ngr. ($)
ut> total ($)
I&M ($/yr)
'low, gpm
'apital (4)
:ngr. ($)
ubtotal ($)
«M ($/yr)
5
15,700
10,000
25,700
3,400
TABLE
5
78,200
10,000
88,200
38,500
250
76,200
10,000
86,200
49,940
2,600
441 ,800
40,100
481,900
169,000
4,000
626,000
56,300
682,300
438,000
E-2. CAPITAL, ENGINEERING AND O&M COSTS
COAG/FLOC/SED/FILT
250
180,900
20,000
200,900
60,500
2,600
940,000
72,000
1,012,000
100,000
4,000
1,522,800
112,700
1,635,500
121,280
8,000
710,200
60,400
770,600
600,000
FOR
8,000
2,166,800
149,500
2,316,300
137,800
20,000
1 ,059,000
79,400
1,138,400
1,085,800
20,000
3,030,000
197,000
3,227,000
177,900
E-3
-------
TABLE E-3. CAPITAL, ENGINEERING AND O&M COSTS FOR ULTRAFILTRATION
Flow, gpm
:apital ($)
tngr. ($)
Subtotal ($)
O&M ($/yr)
How, gpm
Capital ($)
:ngr. ($)
Subtotal ($)
O&M ($/yr)
5
21,900
10,000
31,900
5,900
TABLE
5
21,900
10,000
31,900
17,800
250
301 ,000
28,800
329,800
42,500
E-4f CAPITAL, ENGINEERING AND O&M COSTS FOR
REVERSE OSMOSIS
250 2,600 4,000 8,000
421,200 2,407,400 3,600,000 5,500,000
38,200 163,300 234,000 346,500
459,400 2,570,700 3,834,000 5,846,500
100,800 333,800 1,158,000 1,996,000
20,000
15,000,000
900,000
15,900,000
5,573,000
E-4
-------
LEGEND
ACTIVATED
CARBON
CQAG/FLOC/
SED/FILT
ULTRA
FILTRATION
REVERSE
OSMOSIS
1E8
COSTtt)
1E7
1E6
1E5
1E4
FIGURE E.I
CAPITAL PLUS ENGINEERING COSTS
FOR TREATMENT VERSUS FLOY RATE
1E0
I I I I MM
I I I II
X
0
X XI
I I »«M"
X
X
I I I Mill
I I I II
5 25 25
IE1 1E2
FUMttPM)
1E4
1E5
-------
LEGEND
ACTIVATED
CARBON
COAC/FLOC/
SED/FILT
m
i
rr»
ULTRA
FILTRATION
REVERSE
OSMOSIS
1E7
COST (I)
1E6
1E5
1E4
1E0
I I I I III!
0 & H COST FOR TREATMENT
VERSUS FLOH RATE
lI INN
I I II Illl
I I I I I III
I I I I Illl
5 2
1E1
1E2
1E4
1E5
FUAKGPM)
-------
REFERENCES
E.I R.C. Gumerman, R.C. Gulp, and S.P. Hansen. Estimating
Water Treatment Costs. Volumes 2 and 3. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA-600/2-79-162 b and c, August 1979.
E.2 ASCE. Consulting Engineering, A Guide for the Engagement
of Engineering Services, No. 45. American Socity of
Civil Engineers. 1981.
E-7
-------
APPENDIX F: TOTAL COSTS FOR FLUID REMOVAL/
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
-------
Table F-1. Total Containment Costs for Fluid Removal/Treatment Systems?
Strategy* « 1 Hydraulic Gradient - 0.5 ft/mile
Depth of Plume « 75 ft. Transmissivity » 100,000 gpd/ft
Aquifer Discharge =0.05 mgd/mile
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed. , and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
100 x
K
67
7
-
74
67
7
26
100
67
7
32
106
67
7
86
160
200
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
3
18
12
3
18
33
12
3
38
53
100 x
K
67
13
-
80
67
13
26
105
67
13
32
112
67
13
86
166
500
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
3
18
12
3
18
33
12
3
38
53
500 X
K
91
29
-
120
91
29
26
146
91
29
32
152
91
29
86
206
1000
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
3
18
12
3
18
33
12
3
38
53
500 x
K
106
54
-
160
106
54
26
186
106
54
32
192
106
54
86
246
2500
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
3
18
12
3
18
33
12
3
38
53
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-1. (Continued)
Width x Length
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Cost
Element
\
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure0
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K)
Operating and Maintenance
1000 x
K
117
57
1?4
117
57
27
201
117
57
44
218
117
57
90
264
2000
O&M
12
3
15
12
3
5
20
12
3
22
37
12
3
40
55
1000 x
K
134
108
-
242
134
108
27
269
134
108
44
286
134
108
90
332
and
(O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
5000
O&M
12
3
15
12
3
5
20
12
3
22
37
12
3
40
55
2000 x
K
149
116
265
149
116
28
293
149
116
70
335
149
116
100
365
4000
O&M
12
3
15
12
3
8
23
12
3
30
45
12
3
44
59
2000 x
K
209
207
416
209
207
28
444
209
207
70
486
209
207
100
516
10000
O&M
12
4
~
16
12
4
8
24
12
4
30
46
12
4
44
60
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F2. Tocai. containment *~
-------
Table F-2. (Continued)
Type of
Treatment
Cost
Element
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
1000 x 2000 1000 x 5000 2000 X 4000 2000 x 10000
K O&M K O&M K O&M K O&M
None
Fluid Removal
Inf restructure4*
Treatment
Totals
82
57
11
3
96
108
11
3
102
116
11
3
139
14
204
14
218
14
143
207
350
11
4
15
Activated
Carbon
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
82
57
26
165
11
3
5
19
96
106
26
230
11
3.
5
19
102
116
27
245
11
3
8
22
143
207
27
377
11
4
8
23
Reverse
Osmosis
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
82
57
44
183
11
3
24
38
96
108
44
248
11
3
24
38
102
116
70
288
11
3
30
44
143
207
70
420
11
4
30
45
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
82
57
90
229
11
3
40
54
96
108
90
294
11
3
40
54
102
116
100
318
11
3
43
57
143
207
100
450
11
4
43
58
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-3. Total Containment Costs for Fluid Removal/Treatment Systems s
Strategy8 » 1 Hydraulic Gradient - 5 ft/mile
Depth of Plume = 75 ft. Transmissivity - 10,000 gpd/ft
Aquifer Discharge - 0.05 mgd/mile
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure0
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
tiu id Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
100 x
K
67
7
-
74
67
7
26
100
67
7
32
106
67
7
88
162
200
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
3
18
12
3
17
32
12
3
38
53
100 x
K
67
13
-
80
67
13
26
106
67
13
32
112
67
13
88
168
500
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
3
18
12
3
17
32
12
3
38
53
500 x
K
91
29
-
120
91
29
26
146
91
29
32
152
91
29
88
208
1000
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
3
18
12
3
17
32
12
3
38
53
500 x
K
106
54
-
160
106
54
26
186
106
54
32
192
106
54
88
248
2500
O&M
12
3
15
12
3
3
18
12
3
17
32
12
3
38
53
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Hell System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-3. (Continued)
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed.f and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure0
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Operating and Maintenance
1000 x
K
117
57
-
174
117
57
26
200
117
57
44
218
117
57
90
264
2000
O&H
12
3
-
15
12
3
5
20
12
3
24
39
12
3
40
55
1000 x
K
134
108
-
242
134
108
26
268
134
108
44
286
134
108
90
332
(O&M) /Monitoring Costs (1000's Dollars)
5000
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
5
20
12
3
24
39
12
3
40
55
2000 x
K
149
116
-
265
149
116
27
292
149
116
70
335
149
116
100
365
4000
O&M
12
3
15
12
3
5
23
12
3
30
45
12
3
43
58
2000 x
K
209
207
416
209
207
27
443
209
207
70
486
209
207
100
516
10000
O&M
12
4
16
12
4
8
24
12
4
30
46
12
4
43
59
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-4. Total Containment Costs foe Fluid Removal/Treatment Systemss
Strategy 1
Depth of Plume » 200 ft.
Hydraulic Gradient » 5 ft/mile
Transmissivity - 10,000 gpd/ft
Aquifer Discharge 0.05 mgd/mile
Width x Length
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulationf
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure0
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance
100 x
K
115
7
122
115
7
26
148
115
7
32
154
115
7
88
210
200
O&M
13
3
16
13
3
3
19
13
3
17
33
13
3
38
54
100 x
K
115
13
128
115
13
26
154
115
13
32
160
115
13
88
216
(O&M) /Monitor ing Costs ( 1000*s Dollars)
500
O&M
13
3
16
13
3
3
19
13
3
17
33
13
3
38
54
500 X
K
167
29
196
167
29
26
222
167
29
32
228
167
29
88
284
1000
O&M
13
3
16
13
3
3
19
13
3
17
33
13
3
38
54
500 X
K
198
54
252
198
54
26
278
198
54
32
284
198
54
88
340
2500
O&M
13
3
16
13
3
3
19
13
3
17
33
13
3
38
54
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-4. (Continued)
Width x Length
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K)
Operating and Maintenance
1000 x
K
213
57
-
270
4
213
57
26
296
213
57
44
314
213
57
90
360
2000
O&M
13
3
-
16
13
3
5
21
13
3
24
40
13
3
40
56
1000 x
K
248
108
-
356
248
108
26
382
248
108
44
400
248
108
90
446
and
(O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
5000
O&M
13
3
-
16
13
3
5
21
13
3
24
40
13
3
40
56
2000 x
K
272
118
-
390
272
118
27
417
272
118
70
460
272
118
100
490
4000
O&M
13
3
-
16
13
3
8
24
13
3
30
46
13
3
43
59
2000 x
K
272
207
-
592
385
207
27
619
385
207
70
662
385
207
100
692
10000
O&M
13
4
-
17
13
4
8
25
13
4
30
47
13
4
43
60
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table P-5. Total Containment Costs for Fluid Removal/Treatment Systemsi
Strategy - 1
Depth of Plume 70 ft.
Hydraulic Gradient - 5 ft/mile
Transmissivity - 40,000 gpd/ft
Aquifer Discharge 0.2 mgd/mile
Width x Length
Type of
Treatment
None
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal1*
Infrastructure0
Treatment
Totals
Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance
100 x
K
64
7
-
71
200
O&M
12
3
-
15
100 x
K
64
13
-
77
(O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
500
O&M
12
3
-
15
500 x
K
89
29
-
118
1000
O&M
12
3
-
15
500 x
K
103
54
-
157
2500
O&M
12
3
-
15
Activated
Carbon
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
64
7
26
97
12
3
3
18
64
13
26
103
12
3
3
18
89
29
27
145
12
3
8
23
103
54
27
184
12
3
8
23
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed. , and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
64
7
32
103
64
7
88
159
12
3
17
32
12
3
38
53
64
13
32
109
64
13
88
165
12
3
17
32
12
3
38
53
89
29
70
188
89
29
100
218
12
3
30
45
12
3
43
58
103
54
70
227
103
54
100
257
12
3
30
45
12
3
43
58
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-5. (Continued)
Type of
Treatment
None
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)/Monitoring Costs (IQOO's Dollars)
1000 x 2000 1000 x 5000 2000 x 4000 2000 x 10000
K O&M K O&M K O&M K O&M
114
57
12
3
130
108
12
3
148
118
13
3
171
15
238
15
266
16
205
207
412
13
4
17
Activated
Carbon
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
114
57
33
204
12
3
13
28
130
108
33
271
12
3
13
28
148
118
44
310
13
3
21
37
205
207
44
456
13
'4
21
38
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed. i and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
114
57
110
281
114
57
110
281
12
3
42
57
12
3
47
62
130
108
110
348
130
108
110
348
12
3
42
57
12
3
47
62
148
118
180
446
148
118
130
396
13
3
58
74
13
3
51
67
295
207
180
592
205
207
130
542
13
4
58
75
13
4
51
68
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-6. Total Containment Costs for Fluid Removal/Treatment Systemsi
Strategy8 - 1
Depth of Plume - 75 ft.
Hydraulic Gradient - 5 ft/mile
Transmissivity » 100,000 gpd/ft
Aquifer Discharge - 0.5 mgd/mile
Width x Length
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation/
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure0
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance
100 x
K
67
7
-
74
67
7
26
100
67
7
44
118
67
7
90
164
200
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
5
20
12
3
24
39
12
3
40
55
100 x
K
67
13
-
80
67
13
26
106
67
13
44
124
67
13
90
170
(O&H) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
500
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
5
20
12
3
24
39
12
3
40
55
500 x
K
91
29
-
120
91
29
36
156
91
29
130
250
91
29
115
235
1000
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
15
30
12
3
48
63
12
3
48
63
500 x
K
106
54
-
160
106
54
36
196
106
54
130
290
106
54
115
275
2500
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
15
30
12
3
48
63
12
3
48
63
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-6. (Continued)
Width x Length
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed . , and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K)
Operating and Maintenance
1000 x
K
120
63
-
183
120
63
49
232
120
63
215
398
120
63
145
328
2000
O&M
13
3
-
16
13
3
25
41
13
3
65
81
13
3
53
69
1000 x
K
137
114
-
251
137
114
49
300
137
114
215
466
137
114
145
396
and
(O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
5000
O&M
13
3
-
16
13
3
25
41
13
3
65
81
13
3
53
69
2000 x
K
170
127
-
297
170
127
70
367
170
127
340
637
170
127
170
467
4000
O&M
16
3
-
19
16
3
40
59
16
3
90
109
16
3
57
76
2000 X
K
231
218
-
449
231
218
70
519
231
218
340
789
231
218
170
619
10000
O&M
16
4
20
16
4
40
60
16
4
90
110
16
4
57
77
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient accoss plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
. axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-7. Total Containment Costs for Fluid Removal/Treatment Systems*
Strategy8 1 Hydraulic Gradient - 5 ft/mile
Depth of Plume » 160 ft. Transmissivity » 100,000 gpd/ft
Aquifer Discharge -0.5 mgd/mile
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removalb
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
100 x
K
98
7
-
105
98
7
26
131
98
7
44
149
98
7
90
195
200
O&M
13
3
-
16
13
3
5
21
13
3
24
40
13
3
40
56
100 x
K
98
13
-
111
98
13
26
137
98
13
44
155
98
1-3
90
201
500
O&M
13
3
-
16
13
3
5
21
13
3
24
40
13
3
40
56
500 x
K
147
29
-
176
147
29
36
212
147
29
130
306
147
29
115
291
1000
O&M
13
3
-
16
13
3
15
31
13
3
48
64
13
3
48
64
500 x
K
171
54
-
225
171
54
36
261
171
54
130
355
171
54
115
340
2500
O&M
13
3
-
16
13
3
15
31
13
3
48
64
13
3
48
64
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/
drain system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-7. (Continued)
Type of
Treatment
None
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)/Monitoring Costa (1000*8 Dollars)
1000 x 2000 1000 x 5000 2000 x 4000 2000 x 10000
K O&M K O&M K O&M K O&M
189
63
14
3
216
114
14
3
280
140
19
3
252
17
330
17
420
22
374
230
604
19
4
23
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
189
63
49
301
189
63
215
467
189
63
145
397
14
3
25
42
14
3
65
82
14
3
53
70
216
114
49
379
216
114
215
545
216
114
145
475
14
3
25
42
14
3
65
82
14
3
53
70
280
140
70
490
280
140
340
760
280
140
170
590
19
3
40
62
19
3
90
112
19
3
57
79
374
230
70
674
374
230
340
944
374
230
170
774
19
4
40
63
19
4
90
113
19
4
57
80
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/
drain system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-8. Total Containment Costs for Fluid Removal/Treatment Systemst
Strategy » 1
Depth of Plume - 310 ft.
Hydraulic Gradient = 5 ft/mile
Transmissivity - 200,000 gpd/ft
Aquifer Discharge » 1 mgd/mile
Type of
Treatment
None
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)/Monitoring Costs (1000's Dollars)
100
K
200
O&M
100
K
500
O&M
500
K
1000
O&M
244
7
14
3
340
13
14
3
722
31
16
3
251
17
353
17
753
19
500
K
1259
32
1291
2500
O&M
16
3
19
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
244
7
27
278
244
7
70
321
244
7
100
351
14
3
8
25
14
3
30
47
14
3
43
60
340
13
27
380
340
13
70
423
340
13
100
453
14
3
8
25
14
3
30
47
14
3
43
60
722
31
49
802
722
31
215
968
722
31
145
898
16
3
25
44
16
3
65
84
16
3
53
72
1259
32
49
1340
1259
32
215
1506
1259
32
145
1436
16
3
25
44
16
3
65
84
16
3
53
72
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-8. (Continued)
Type of
Treatment
None
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure1
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&tt)/Monitoring Costs (1000's Dollars)
1000 x 2000 1000 x 5000 2000 x 4000 2000 x 10000
K O&H K O&M K O&H K O&H
1498
63
25
3
3576
114
25
3
3581
129
27
3
1561
28
3690
28
3710
30
8687 27
218 4
8905
31
Activated
Carbon
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
1498
63
70
1631
25
3
40
68
3576
114
70
3760
25
3
40
68
3581
129
205
3815
27
3
52
82
8687
218
105
9010
?7
4
52
83
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
1498
63
340
1901
1498
63
170
1731
25
3
90
118
25
3
57
85
3576
114
340
4030
3576
114
170
3860
25
3
90
118
25
3
57
85
3581
129
540
4250
3581
129
240
3950
27
3
122
152
27
3
63
93
8687
218
540
9445
8667
218
240
9145
27
4
122
153
27
4
63
94
.
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume ,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and power lines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table P-9. Total Containment Costs for Fluid Removal/Treatment Systems*
Strategy8 - 1 Hydraulic Gradient - 5 ft/mile
Depth of Plume - 75 ft. Transmissivity - 1,000,000 gpd/ft
Aquifer Discharge - 5 mgd/mile
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed . , and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure0
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&H)/Monitoring Costs (1000's Dollars)
100 x
K
70
7
-
77
70
7
49
126
70
7
215
292
70
7
145
222
200
O&H
13
3
-
16
13
3
25
41
13
3
65
81
13
3
53
69
100 x
K
70
13
-
83
70
13
49
132
70
13
215
298
70
13
145
228
500
O&M
13
3
-
16
13
3
25
41
13
3
65
81
13
3
53
69
500 x
K
114
30
-
144
114
30
120
264
114
30
625
769
114
30
275
419
1000
O&M
19
3
-
22
19
3
54
76
19
3
140
162
19
3
65
87
500 x
K
129
57
-
186
129
57
120
306
129
57
625
811
129
57
275
461
2500
O&M
19
3
-
22
19
3
54
76
19
3
140
162
19
3
65
87
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-9. (Continued)
Type of
Treatment
None
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal .
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)/Monitoring Costs (1000*8 Dollars)
1000 x 2000 1000 x 5000 2000 x 4000 2000 x 10000
K O&M K O&M K O&M K O&M
145
68
24
162
120
24
186
140
35
247
230
35
213
27
282
27
326
38
477
39
Activated
Carbon
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
145
68
200
413
24
3
62
89
162
120
200
482
24
3
62
89
186
140
330
656
35
3
88
126
247
230
330
807
35
4
88
127
Reverse
Osmosis
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
145
68
1050
1263
24
3
190
117
162
120
1050
1332
24
3
190
117
186
140
1800
2126
35
3
250
288
247
230
1800
2277
35
4
250
269
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
8ed.f and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
145
68
403
616
24
3
73
100
162
120
403
685
24
3
73
100
186
140
750
1076
35
3
88
126
247
230
750
1227
35
4
88
127
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Hell System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-10. Total Containment Costs for Fluid Removal/Treatment Systernai
Strategy* » 1
Depth of Plume - 25 ft.
Hydraulic Gradient - 50 ft/mile
Transmissivity » 10,000 gpd/ft
Aquifer Discharge 0.5 mgd/mile
Type of
Treatment
None
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructurec
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)/Monitoring Costs (1000's Dollars)
100
K
200
O&M
100
K
500
O&M
500
K
1000
O&M
500
K
48
7
11
3
48
13
11
3
65
29
12
3
76
54
55
14
61
14
94
15
130
2500
O&M
12
3
15
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
48
7
26
81
48
7
44
99
48
7
90
145
11
3
5
19
11
3
24
38
11
3
40
54
48
13
26
87
48
13
44
105
48
13
90
151
11
3
5
19
11
3
24
38
11
3
40
54
65
29
36
130
65
29
130
224
65
29
115
209
12
3
15
30
12
3
48
63
12
3
48
63
76
54
36
166
76
54
130
260
76
54
115
245
12
3
15
30
12
3
48
63
12
3
48
63
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
. axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
c system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
d Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-10. (Continued)
Type of
Treatment
None
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)/Monitoring Costs (1000's Dollars)
1000 x 2000 1000 X 5000 2000 x 4000 2000 x 10000
K O&M K O&M K O&M K O&M
115d
7
16
3
129d
13
16
3
156d
29
16
3
196d
54
16
3
422
19
142
19
185
19
ro
o
250
19
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed. , and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
115
7
26
148
115
7
44
166
115
7
90
212
16
3
5
24
16
3
24
43
16
3
40
59
129
13
26
168
129
13
44
186
129
13
90
232
16
3
5
24
16
3
24
43
16
3
40
59
156
29
36
221
156
29
130
315
156
29
115
300
16
3
15
34
16
3
48
109
16
3
56
75
196
54
36
286
196
54
130
380
196
54
115
365
16
3
15
34
16
3
48
109
16
3
56
75
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-11. Total Containment Costs for Fluid Removal/Treatment Sy stems t
Strategy3 - 1 Hydraulic Gradient « 50 ft/mile
Depth of Plume - 25 ft. Transmissivity « 100,000 gpd/ft
Aquifer Discharge » 5 mgd/mile
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed . , and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&H) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
100 x
K
49
7
-
56
49
7
49
105
49
7
215
271
49
7
145
201
200
O&H
11
3
-
14
11
3
25
39
11
3
65
79
11
3
53
67
100 x
K
49
13
-
62
49
13
49
111
49
13
215
277
49
13
145
207
500
O&H
11
3
-
14
11
3
25
39
11
3
65
79
11
3
53
67
500 x
K
73
31
-
104
73
31
120
224
73
31
625
729
73
31
275
379
1000
O&H
17
3
-
20
17
3
54
74
17
3
140
160
17
3
65
85
500 x
K
84
57
-
141
84
57
120
261
84
57
625
766
84
57
275
416
2500
O&M
17
3
-
20
17
3
54
74
17
3
140
160
17
3
65
85
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/
drain system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table P-11. (Continued)
i
ro
IM
Width x Length
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed. , and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal13
Infrastructure0
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K)
Operating and Maintenance
1000 x
K
100d
73
-
173
100
73
200
373
100
73
1050
1223
100
73
403
576
2000
O&H
23
3
-
26
23
3
62
88
23
3
190
216
23
3
73
99
1000 x
K
114d
126
-
240
114
126
200
440
114
126
1050
1290
114
126
403
643
and
(O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
5000
O&H
23
3
-
26
23
3
62
88
23
3
190
216
23
3
73
99
2000 x
K
210d
165
-
375
21 Od
165
330
705
210d
165
1800
2175
210
165
750
1125
4000
O&H
41
4
-
45
41
4
88
133
41
4
250
295
41
4
88
133
2000 x
K
25 Od
262
-
712
250d
262
330
842
250d
262
1800
2312
250
262
750
1262
10000
O&M
41
5
-
46
41
5
88
134
41
5
250
296
41
5
88
134
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/
drain system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-12. Total Containment Costs for Fluid Removal/Treatment Systems:
Strategy8 * 1 Hydraulic Gradient 50 ft/mile
Depth of Plume - 75 ft. Transmissivity 100,000 gpd/ft
Aquifer Discharge -5.0 mgd/mile
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed. , and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removalb
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
100 x
K
70
7
-
77
70
7
49
126
70
7
215
292
70
7
145
222
200
O&M
13
3
-
16
13
3
25
41
13
3
65
81
13
3
53
69
100 x
K
70
13
-
83
70
13
49
132
70
13
215
298
70
13
145
228
500
O&M
13
3
-
16
13
3
25
41
13
3
65
81
13
3
53
69
500 X
K
114
31
-
145
114
31
120
265
114
31
625
770
114
31
275
420
1000
O&M
19
3
-
22
19
3
54
76
19
3
140
162
19
3
65
87
500 x
K
129
57
-
186
129
57
120
306
129
57
625
811
129
57
275
461
2500
O&M
19
3
22
19
3
54
76
19
3
140
162
19
3
65
87
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
. axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/
c drain system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
d Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-12 (Continued)
Type of
Treatment
None
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure*
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)/Monitoring Costs (1000*8 Dollars)
1000 x 2000 1000 x 5000 2000 x 4000 2000 x 10000
K O&M K O&M K O&M K O&M
145
68
26
3
162
120
26
4
186
140
40
3
213
29
282
30
326
43
247
230
40
4
477
44
Activated
Carbon
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
145
68
200
413
26
3
62
91
162
120
200
482
26
4
62
92
186
140
330
656
40
3
88
131
247
230
330
807
40
4
88
132
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed . , and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
145
68
1050
1263
145
68
403
616
26
3
190
219
26
3
73
102
162
120
1050
1332
162
120
403
685
26
4
190
220
26
4
73
103
186
140
1800
2126
186
140
750
1076
40
3
250
293
40
3
88
131
247
230
1800
2277
247
230
750
1227
40
4
250
294
40
4
88
132
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/
drain system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-13. Total Containment Costs for Fluid Removal/Treatment Systems:
Strategy = 1
Depth of Plume
25 ft.
Hydraulic Gradient - 500 ft/mile
Transmissivity 1,000 gpd/ft
Aquifer Discharge 0.5 mgd/mile
i
ro
in
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocc illation,
Sed. , and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal15
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Operating and Maintenance
100 x
K
51
9
-
60
51
9
26
86
51
9
44
104
51
9
90
150
200
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
5
20
12
3
24
39
12
3
40
55
100 x
K
51
14
-
65
51
14
26
91
51
14
44
109
51
14
90
155
(O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
500
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
5
20
12
3
24
39
12
3
40
55
500 x
K
88d
33
-
121
88
33
36
157
88
33
130
251
88
33
115
236
1000
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
15
30
12
3
48
63
12
3
48
63
500 x
K
99d
59
-
158
99
59
36
194
99
59
130
288
99
59
115
273
2500
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
15
30
12
3
48
63
12
3
48
63
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/
drain system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
-------
Table F-13. Continued
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure0
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Operating and Maintenance
1000 x
K
106d
78
-
184
106
78
49
233
2000
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
25
40
1000 x
K
a
130
-
258
128
130
49
307
(O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
5000
O&M
12
4
-
16
12
4
25
41
2000 x
K
156d
163
-
319
156
163
70
389
4000
O&M
13
4
-
17
13
4
40
57
2000 x
K
196d
262
-
458
196
262
70
528
10000
O&M
13
5
-
18
13
5
40
58
Reverse
Osmosis
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
106
78
215
399
12
3
65
80
128
130
215
464
12
4
65
81
156
163
340
659
13
4
90
107
196
262
340
798
13
5
90
108
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed. , and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
106
78
145
329
12
3
53
68
128
130
145
394
12
4
53
69
156
163
170
489
13
4
57
74
196
262
170
628
13
5
57
75
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/
drain system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Hell System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
71
ro
Table F-14. Total Containment Costs for Fluid Removal/Treatment Systems:
Strategy3 - 1 Hydraulic Gradient - 500 ft/mile
Depth of Plume = 25 ft. Transmissivity - 10,000 gpd/ft
Aquifer Discharge 5 mgd/mile
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
100 x
K
51
9
-
60
51
9
49
109
51
9
215
275
51
9
145
205
200
O&M
13'
3
-
16
13
3
25
41
13
3
65
81
13
3
53
69
100 x
K
51
14
-
65
51
14
49
114
51
14
215
280
51
14
145
210
500
O&M
13
3
-
16
13
3
25
41
13
3
65
81
13
3
53
69
500 x
K
102d
40
-
142
102
40
120
262
102
40
625
767
102
40
275
417
1000
O&M
17
3
-
20
17
3
54
74
17
3
140
160
17
3
65
85
500 x
K
113d
68
-
181
113
68
120
301
113
68
625
806
113
68
275
456
2500
O&M
17
3
-
20
17
3
54
74
17
3
140
160
17
3
65
85
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-14. (Continued)
Type of
Treatment
None
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)/Monitoring Costs (1000's Dollars)
1000
K
2000
O&H
1000
K
5000
O&H
2000 x
K
4000
O&M
2000 x
K
143"
80
23
3
157d
137
23
4
21
-------
Table F-15. Total Containment Costs for Fluid Removal/Treatment Systems:
Strategy8 - 1 Hydraulic Gradient - 500 ft/mile
Depth of Plume « 75 ft. Transmissivity = 10,000 gpd/ft
Aquifer Discharge » 5 mgd/mile
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
100 x
K
70
7
-
77
70
7 N
49
126
70
7
215
292
70
7
145
222
200
O&M
13
3
-
16
13
3
25
41
13
3
65
81
13
3
53
69
100 x
K
70
13
-
83
70
13
49
132
70
13
215
298
70
13
145
228
500
O&M
13
3
-
16
13
3
25
41
13
3
65
81
13
3
53
69
500 x
K
200
37
-
237
200
37
120
357
200
37
625
862
200
37
275
512
1000
O&M
28
3
-
31
28
3
54
85
28
3
140
171
28
3
65
96
500 x
K
216
63
-
279
216
63
120
399
216
63
625
904
216
63
275
554
2500
O&M
28
3
-
31
28
3
54
85
28
3
140
171
28
3
65
96
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-15. (Continued)
Type of
Treatment
None
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure0
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)/Monitoring Costs (1000's Dollars)
1000 x 2000 1000 x 5000 2000 x 4000 2000 X 10000
K O&M K O&M K O&M K O&M
227
80
34
3
244
137
34
4
495
165
73
4
307
37
381
38
660
77
556
262
818
73
5
78
Activated
Carbon
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
227
80
200
507
34
3
62
99
244
137
200
581
34
4
62
100
495
165
330
990
73
4
88
165
556
262
330
1148
73
5
88
166
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed. , and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
227
80
1050
1357
227
80
403
710
34
3
190
227
34
3
73
110
244
137
1050
1431
244
137
403
784
34
4
190
228
34
4
73
111
495
165
1800
2460
495
165
750
1410
73
4
250
327
73
4
88
165
556
262
1800
2618
556
262
750
1568
73
5
250
328
73
5
88
166
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-16. Total Containment Costs for Fluid Removal/Treatment Systemsi
Strategy - 1
Depth of Plume
200 ft.
Hydraulic Gradient - 500 ft/mile
Transmissivity » 10,000 gpd/ft
Aquifer Discharge » 5 mgd/mile
Type of
Treatment
None
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure*
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)/Monitoring Costs (1OOP's Dollars)
100 x 200 100 x 500 500 x 1000 500 x 2500
K O&M K O&M K O&M K O&M
122
7
15
3
122
13
15
3
228
34
27
3
259
60
129
18
135
18
262
30
319
27
3
30
Activated
Carbon
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
122
7
49
178
15
3
25
43
122
13
49
184
15
3
25
43
228
34
120
382
27
3
54
84
259
60
120
439
27
3
54
84
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed . , and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
122
7
215
344
122
7
145
274
15
3
65
83
15
3
53
71
122
13
215
350
122
13
145
280
15
3
65
83
15
3
53
71
228
34
625
887
228
34
275
537
27
3
140
170
27
3
65
95
259
60
625
944
259
60
275
594
27
3
140
170
27
3
65
95
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-16. Continued
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K)
Type1 of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure0
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Operating and Maintenance
1000 x
K
287
68
-
355
287
68
200
555
2000
O&M
42
3
-
45
42
3
62
107
1000 x
K
322
120
-
442
322
120
200
642
and
(O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
5000
O&M
42
3
-
45
42
3
62
107
2000 x
K
446
162
-
608
446
162
330
938
4000
O&M
76
4
-
80
76
4
88
168
2000 x
K
558
253
-
811
558
253
330
1141
10000
O&M
76
5
-
81
76
5
88
169
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed.f and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
287
68
1050
1405
287
68
403
758
42
3
190
235
42
3
73
118
322
120
1050
1492
322
120
403
845
42
3
190
235
42
3
73
118
446
162
1800
2408
446
162
750
1358
76
4
250
330
76
4
88
168
558
253
1800
2611
558
253
750
1561
76
5
250
331
76
5
88
169
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Fluid Removal System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well/drain
system design, well/drain construction, and engineering for construction and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-17. Containment Costs for Recovery Well/Treatment Systems?
Strategy 2
Depth of Plume
75 ft.
Hydraulic Gradient
Transmissivity
Aquifer Flux
5 ft/mile
10,000 gpd/ft
Varies
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Operating and Maintenance
100 x
K
67
8
-
75
67
8
26
101
67
8
26
101
67
8
85
160
200
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
3
18
12
3
16
31
12
3
36
51
100 x
K
67
15
-
82
67
15
28
110
67
15
50
132
67
15
95
177
(O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
500
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
6
21
12
3
24
39
12
3
41
56
500 X
K
91
25
-
116
91
25
29
145
91
25
80
196
91
25
100
216
1000
O&M
12
3
-
15
12
3
13
28
12
3
34
49
12
3
47
62
500 x
K
110
65
-
175
110
65
40
215
110
65
150
325
110
65
120
295
2500
O&M
13
3
-
16
13
3
19
35
13
3
52
68
13
3
50
66
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Well System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well system
design, well installation, and engineering for testing and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-17. (Continued)
Type of
Treatment
None
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure c
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)/Monitoring Costs (1000'a Dollars)
1000 x 2000 1000 x 5000 2000 x 4000 2000 x 10000
K O&M K O&H K O&H K O&M
117
44
12
3
154
130
15
3
153
105
13
3
161
15
284
18
258
16
231
260
491
17
4
21
Activated
Carbon
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
117
44
36
197
12
3
16
31
154
130
55
339
15
3
30
48
153
105
50
308
13
3
26
42
231
260
80
571
17
4
45
66
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
117
44
130
291
117
44
110
271
12
3
48
63
12
3
49
64
154
130
250
534
154
130
145
429
15
3
74
92
15
3
56
74
153
105
200
458
153
105
135
393
13
3
67
73
13
3
55
71
231
260
400
891
231
260
190
681
17
4
100
121
17
4
59
80
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Well System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well system
design, well installation, and engineering for testing and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-18. Containment Costs foe Recovery Well/Treatment Systemst
Strategy = 2
Depth of Plume
75 ft.
Hydraulic Gradient » 5 ft/mile
Transmissivity 100,000 gpd/ft
Aquifer Flux = Varies
Type of
Treatment
None
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal b
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
100 x
K
67
8
75
67
8
36
111
67
8
130
205
67
8
110
185
200
O&M
12
3
15
12
3
16
31
12
3
48
63
12
3
49
64
100 x
K
88
15
103
88
15
55
158
88
15
250
353
88
15
145
248
500
O&M
15
3
18
15
3
30
48
15
3
74
92
15
3
56
74
500 x
K
113
27
140
113
27
80
220
113
27
400
540
113
27
190
330
1000
O&M
16
3
19
16
3
45
64
16
3
100
119
16
3
59
78
500 X
K
134
95
229
134
95
150
379
134
95
750
979
134
95
300
529
2500
O&M
21
3
24
21
3
57
81
21
3
160
184
21
3
69
93
c
d
Strategy i controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Hell System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well system
design, well installation, and engineering for testing and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-18. Continued
Type of
Treatment
None
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)/Monitoring Costs (1000's Dollars)
1000 x 2000 1000 x 5000 2000 x 4000 2000 x 10000
K O&M K O&M K O&M K O&M
140
52
19
3
168
185
30
3
179
150
26
3
192
22
353
33
329
29
286
480
49
5
766
54
Activated
Carbon
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
140
52
120
312
19
3
54
76
168
185
230
583
30
3
67
100
179
150
200
529
26
3
63
92
286
480
380
1146
49
5
118
172
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed. , and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
140
52
600
792
140
52
280
372
19
3
143
165
19
3
66
88
168
185
1200
1553
168
185
500
853
30
3
220
253
30
3
78
111
179
150
1000
1329
179
150
420
749
26
3
195
224
26
3
75
104
286
480
2000
2766
286
480
900
1666
49
5
300
354
49
5
95
149
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Nell System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well system
design, well installation, and engineering for testing and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-19. Containment Costs for Recovery Hell/Treatment Systems:
Strategy - 2
Depth of Plume = 75 ft.
Hydraulic Gradient
Transmissivity
Aquifer Flux
5 ft/mile
1,000,000 gpd/ft
Varies
Type of
Treatment
None
Cost
Element
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)/Monitoring Costs (1 OOP's Dollars)
100 x 200 100 x 500 500 x 1000 500 x 2500
K O&H K O&M K O&M K O&M
90
9
19
3
101
25
28
3
129
43
41
3
99
22
126
31
172
44
192
128
320
87
3
90
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed., and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
90
9
120
219
90
9
600
699
90
9
280
379
19
3
54
76
19
3
143
165
19
3
66
88
101
25
230
356
101
25
1200
1326
101
25
500
626
28
3
67
98
28
3
220
251
28
3
78
109
120
43
380
552
129
43
2000
2172
129
43
900
1072
41
3
118
162
41
3
300
344
41
3
95
139
192
128
800
1120
192
128
5000
5320
192
128
2000
2320
87
3
520
610
87
3
1450
1540
87
3
130
220
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume,
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Well System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well system
design, well installation, and engineering for testing and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
Table F-19. Continued
Type of
Treatment
None
Cost
Element
Fluid Removalb
Infrastructure0
Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)/Monitoring Costs (IQOO's Dollars)
1000
K
x 2000
O&M
1000
K
5000
O&H
2000
K
4000
O&H
2000 x
K
10000
O&M
155
78
70
3
265
230
162
4
235
190
131
4
434
470
318
5
233
73
495
166
425
135
904
323
Activated
Carbon
Reverse
Osmosis
Coagulation,
Flocculation,
Sed. , and
Filtration
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
Fluid Removal
Infrastructure
Treatment
Totals
*
155
78
600
833
155
78
4000
4233
155
78
1700
1933
70
3
500
573
70
3
1350
1423
70
3
130
203
265
230
810
1305
265
230
7000
7495
265
230
2500
2995
162
4
610
776
162
4
2400
2566
162
4
140
306
235
190
775
1200
235
190
6000
6425
235
190
2400
2825
131
4
600
735
131
4
2000
2135
131
4
137
272
434
470
1140
2044
434
470
15000
15904
434
470
3100
4004
318
5
1100
1423
318
5
5500
5823
318
5
180
503
a
c
d
Strategy 1 controls unidirectional gradient across plume with wells located at downgradient toe of plume(
transverse to major axis of plume
Strategy 2 controls radial gradients around plume boundary with wells located inside plume along major
axis of plume
Well System cost includes delineation of plume boundaries with drilling program, recovery well system
design, well installation, and engineering for testing and start-up
Infrastructure includes manifold piping, meters and valves, influent piping, roads, and powerlines
Well System includes gravel-filled drain with small diameter wells
-------
APPENDIX G: GRAPHS USED IN SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR FLUID
REMOVAL/TREATMENT COSTS
-------
.iARITHMTC 1 9 CYCLES
EL 4 CO <
>2C
4 5 6 7 8 9 1
1 _
-------
4 567891
7*'
1 _
-------
LOGARITHMIC 3 « S CYCl FS
IL a CO i
" ~>20
3 4 S 6 7 8 9 1
-------
-------
LOGARITHMIC IK} rvr. rS
FCL ICO. i to
'52'
-------
3 4 S 6 7 8 9 1
I.
-------
ll«- ' H » C*
L * IJ H.
'20
10
-------
4 567891
10
5 6 7891
-------
LOGARITHMIC 1x9 CYCLES
U » 'O.K. I
46
ICO 260 3 4 56789,
1O * 3466789
-------
t-t
-------
co. r
7KOO
100
leu
I
4 56789
! !
1 4 t
i
I <
> '
' 1
I i
1
1
1
MM
i'li
1
ill;
-------
\oc
3 4 5 6 7 B 9
456789
3 4 5 6 7 89 .
5 6 7 8 9 |
i ; i i !
3 4 567891
HIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHMIIIIIIIIIIIIIHHIIIUIIIIH
Kill: lIHiilMlflUIHI IllliUlllllnlll mi!!!l!iU«tttt
2 :;:
/.
- /
-------
APPENDIX H: TOTAL COSTS FOR FLUID ISOLATION SYSTEMS
-------
u ucuiu u&.aue L B men
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Low
Mid
High
Low
High
Cost
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)/Monitoring Costs (1000's Dollars)
Cost
Element
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
100
K
60
60
97
97
140
140
180
180
Cost Wall: $2.5/Vertical Foot2
Cost Wall: $5.00/Vertical Foot
Cost Wall: $10.00/Vertical Foot
Cost Surface Treatment: S.15/Foot (e.
Cost Surface Treatment: $.75/Foot (e
Includes: Engineering, installation,
x 200
O&M
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
g. grading,
.g. grading
materials,
100 x
K
93
93
185
185
274
274
359
359
500
O&M
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
recontour ing , and
, recontour ing, and
plume delineation
500
K
210
210
380
380
561
561
750
750
x 1000
O&M
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
500 x
K
413
413
793
793
1196
1196
1560
1560
2500
O&M
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
revegetation)
surface seal)
-------
raole n-i. (ixmcineuj r
Width x Length
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
Cost
Element
Slurry Wallb
Surface Treatment0
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
1000 x
K
387
-
387
733
_.
733
1083
-
1083
1427
-
1427
2000
O&M
10
-
10
10
-
10
10
-
10
10
-
10
1000 J
K
789
-
789
1559
-
1559
2383
-
2383
3162
-
3162
c 5000
O&M
10
-
10
10
-
10
10
-
10
10
-
10
2000 x
K
733
-
733
1426
-
1426
2116
-
2116
2845
-
2845
4000
O&M
10
-
10
10
-
10
10
-
10
10
-
10
2000 x
K
1575
-
1575
3186
-
3186
4610
-
4610
6029
-
6029
10000
O&M
10
-
10
10
-
10
10
-
10
10
-
10
Low Cost Wall: $2.5/Vertical Foot
Mid Cost Wall: $5.00/Vertical Foot
High Cost Wall: $10. OO/ Vertical Foot
Low Cost Surface Treatment: $.15/Foot 2(e.g. grading, recontouring, and revegetation)
High Cost Surface Treatment: $.75/Foot (e.g. grading, recontouring, and surface seal)
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials, plume delineation
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials
-------
Table H-2. Containment Costs for Slurry Wall Systems: Low Cost Wall, Low Cost Land Surface Treatment8
Width x Length
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance
Cost
Element
Slurry Wallb
Surface Treatment0
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
100 x
K
60
2
62
97
2
99
140
2
142
180
2
182
200
O&M
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
100 x
K
93
7
100
185
7
192
274
7
281
359
7
366
(O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
500
O&M
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
500 x
K
210
66
276
380
66
446
561
66
627
750
66
816
1000
O&M
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
500 x
K
413
164
577
793
164
957
1196
164
1360
1560
164
1724
25000
O&M
10
1
11
10
1
11
10
1
11
10
1
11
$2.5/Vertical Foot .
$5.00/Vertical Foot'
Low Cost Wall:
Mid Cost Wall:
High Cost Wall: $10.00/Vertical Foot"
grading, recontouring, and revegetation)
b
c
$.15/Foot (e.g.
$.75/Foot (e.g. grading, recontouring, and surface seal)
Low Cost Surface Treatment:
High Cost Surface Treatment:
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials, plume delineation
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials
-------
Table H-2. (Continued)
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
Cost 1000 x
Element K
Slurry Wallb 387
Surface Treatment0 264
Totals 651
Slurry Wall 733
Surface Treatment 26^
Totals 977
Slurry Wall 1083
Surface Treatment 264
Totals 1347
Slurry Wall 1427
Surface Treatment 264
Totals 1691
2000
O&M
10
2
12
10
2
12
10
2
12
10
2
12
a Low Cost Wall: $2.5/Vertical Foot2
Mid Cost Wall: ?5.00/Vertical Foot
High Cost Wall: $10.00/Vertical Foot2
Low Cost Surface Treatment: $.15/Foot (e.g. grading,
b High Cost Surface Treatment: $.75/Foot (e.g. grading
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials,
1000 x
K
789
630
1419
1559
630
2189
2383
630
3013
3126
630
3792
5000
O&M
10
5
15
10
5
15
10
5
15
10
5
15
recontouring, and
, recontouring, and
plume delineation
2000 x
K
733
1015
1748
1426
1015
2441
2116
1015
3121
2845
1015
3860
4000
O&M
10
9
19
10
9
19
10
1
19
10
9
19
2000 x
K
1575
2550
4125
3186
2550
5736
4610
2550
7160
6029
2550
8579
10000
O&M
10
21
31
10
21
31
10
21
31
10
21
31
revegetation)
surface seal)
Engineering, installation, materials
-------
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
75
100
a Low
Mid
High
Low
High
Cost
0 Cost
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
Cost 100 x 200
Element K
Slurry Wallb 60
Surface Treatment 13
Totals 73
Slurry Wall 97
Surface Treatment 13
Totals 110
Slurry wall 140
Surface Treatment 13
Totals 153
Slurry Wall 180
Surface Treatment 13
Totals 193
Cost Walls $2.5/Vertical Foot2
Cost Walls $5.00/Vertical Foot
Cost Walls $10.00/Vertical Foot
Cost Surface Treatments S.15/Foot _(<
Cost Surface Treatments $.75/Foot
Includes s Engineering, installation
Includes s Engineering, installation
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
100 x
K
93
33
126
185
33
218
274
33
307
359
33
392
500
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
e.g. grading, recontouring, and
(e.g. grading, recontouring, and
, materials, plume delineation
, materials
500
K
210
320
530
380
320
700
561
320
881
750
320
1070
x 1000
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
500 x
K
413
798
1211
793
798
1591
1196
798
1994
1560
798
2358
2500
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
revegetation)
surface seal)
-------
Table h-3. (Continued)
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
Cost 1000
Element K
Slurry Wallb 387
Surface Treatment 1280
Totals 1667
Slurry Wall 733
Surface Treatment 1280
Totals 2013
Slurry Wall 1083
Surface Treatment 1280
Totals 2363
Slurry Wall 1427
Surface Treatment 1280
Totals 2707
x 2000
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
a Low Cost Wall* $2.5/Vertical Foot2
Mid Cost Wall: $ 5. OO/ Vertical Foot2
High Cost Wall: 510.00/Vertical Foot
Low Cost Surface Treatment: $.15/Foot (e.g. grading,
High Cost Surface Treatment: $.75/Foot (e.g. grading
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials,
0 Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials
1000 x
K
789
3115
3904
1559
3115
4674
2383
3115
5498
3162
3115
6277
5000
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
recontouring, and
, recontouring, and
plume delineation
2000 x
K
733
5000
5733
1426
5000
6426
2116
5000
7116
2845
5000
7845
4000
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
2000 x
K
1575
12720
14295
3186
12720
15906
4610
12720
17330
6029
12720
18749
10000
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
revegetation)
surface seal)
-------
Table H-4. Containment Costs for Slurry Wall Systemsi Mid Cost Wall, No Land Surface Treatment
Width x Length
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance
Cost
Element
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
100 x
K
90
-
90
161
-
161
240
-
240
310
-
310
200
O&M
10
-
10
10
-
10
10
-
10
10
-
10
100 x
K
165
-
165
333
-
333
495
-
495
652
-
652
(O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
500
O&M
10
-
10
10
-
10
10
-
10
10
-
10
500 x
K
374
-
374
700
-
700
1041
-
1041
1385
-
1385
1000
O&M
10
-
10
10
-
10
10
-
10
10
-
10
500 x
K
770
-
770
1500
-
1500
2255
-
2255
2969
-
2969
2500
O&M
10
-
10
10
-
10
10
-
10
10
-
10
a Low Cost Wall: $2.5/Vertical Foot
Mid Cost Wall: $5.00/Vertical Foot
High Cost Wall: $10.00/Vertical Foot2
Low Cost Surface Treatment: S.15/Foot (e.g. grading, recontouring, and revegetation)
High Cost Surface Treatment: $.75/Foot (e.g. grading, recontouring, and surface seal)
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials, plume delineation
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials
-------
Table H-4. (Continued)
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&H) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
Cost 1000 x
Element K
Slurry Wallb 705
Surface Treatment0
Totals 705
Slurry Wall 1365
Surface Treatment
Totals 1365
Slurry Wall 2045
Surface Treatment
Totals 2045
Slurry Wall 2705
Surface Treatment
Totals 2705
2000
O&H
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
a Low Cost Wall: $ 2. 5/ Vertical Foot2
Hid Cost Wall: $ 5. OO/ Vertical Foot2
High Cost Wall: $10.00/ Vertical Foot2
Low Cost Surface Treatment: $.15/Foot (e.g. grading.
High Cost Surface Treatment: $.75/Foot (e.g. grading
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials.
1000 x
K
1550
1550
3110
3110
4567
4567
6080
6080
5000
O&H
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
recontouring, and
, recontouring, and
plume delineation
2000 x
K
1382
1382
2623
2623
3963
3963
5405
5405
4000
O&M
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2000 x
K
2928
2928
6103
6103
8845
8845
11557
11557
10000
O&M
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
revegetation)
surface seal)
-------
Table H- 5. Containment Costs for Slurry Wall Systems: Mid Cost Wall, Low Cost Surface Treatment*
Width x Length
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance
Cost
Element
Slurry Wallb
Surface Treatment0
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
100 x
K
90
2
92
161
2
163
240
2
242
310
2
312
200
O&M
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
100 x
K
165
7
172
333
7
340
495
7
502
652
7
659
(O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
500
O&M
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
500 x
K
374
66
440
700
66
766
1041
66
1107
1385
66
1451
1000
O&M
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
10
<1
10
500 x
K
770
164
934
1500
164
1664
2255
164
2419
2969
164
3133
2500
O&M
10
1
11
10
1
11
10
1
11
10
1
11
$2.5/Vertical Foot .
§5.OO/Vertical Foot'
Low Cost Wall:
Mid Cost Wall:
High Cost Wall: $10.00/Vertical Foot'
Low Cost Surface Treatment:
b
c
grading, recontouring, and revegetation)
grading, recontouring, and surface seal)
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials, plume delineation
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials
$.15/Foot* (e.g.
High Cost Surface Treatment: $.75/Foot (e.g.
-------
Table »-5. (Continued)
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Operating and Maintenance
Cost
Element
Slurry Wallb
Surface Treatment0
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
1000 x
K
705
264
969
13*5
264
1629
2045
264
2309
2705
264
2969
2000
O&M
10
2
12
10
2
12
10
2
12
10
2
12
1000 x
K
1550
630
2180
3110
630
3740
4567
630
5197
6080
630
6710
(O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
5000
O&H
10
5
15
10
5
15
10
5
15
10
5
15
2000 x
K
1382
1015
2397
2623
1015
3638
3963
1015
4978
5405
1015
6420
4000
O&M
10
9
19
10
9
19
10
9
19
10
9
19
2000 x
K
2928
2550
5478
6103
2550
8653
8845
2550
11395
11557
2550
14107
10000
O&M
10
21
31
10
21
31
10
21
31
10
21
31
b
c
$2.5/Vertical Foot .
$5.00/Vertical Foot'
Low Cost Wall:
Mid Cost Wall:
High Cost Wall: $10.00/Vertical Foot'
Low Cost Surface Treatment: $.15/Foot (e.g. grading, recontouring, and revegetation)
High Cost Surface Treatment: 5-75/Foot (e.g. grading, recontouring, and surface seal)
Cost Includes:
Cost Includes:
Engineering, installation, materials, plume delineation
Engineering, installation, materials
-------
Table H-6. Containment Costs for Slurry Wall Systems: Mid Cost Wall, High Cost Land Surface Treatment
a
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
Cost
Element
Slurry Wallb
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
100 x
K
90
13
103
161
13
174
240
13
253
310
13
323
200
O&M
10
0
10
10 '
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
a Low Cost Wall: $2.5/Vertical Foot2
Mid Cost Wall: §5.00/Vertical Foot
High Cost Wall: $10.00/Vertical Foot
Low Cost Surface Treatment: $.15/Foot (e.g. grading,
High Cost Surface Treatment: $.75/Foot (e.g. grading
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials,
100 x
K
165
33
198
333
33
366
495
33
528
652
33
685
500
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
recontouring, and
, r econ tou r i ng , and
plume delineation
500 x
K
374
320
694
700
320
1020
1041
320
1361
1385
320
1705
1000
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
500 x
K
770
798
1568
t
1500
798
2298
2255
798
3053
2969
798
3767
2500
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
revegetation)
surface seal)
-------
Table H-6. (Continued)
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
a Low
Mid
High
Low
b High
D Cost
c
Cost
Operating and Maintenance
Cost 1000
Element K
Slurry Wallb 705
Surface Treatment0 1280
Totals 1985
Slurry Wall 1365
Surface Treatment 1280
Totals 2645
Slurry Wall 2045
Surface Treatment 1280
Totals 3325
Slurry Wall 2705
Surface Treatment 1280
Totals 3985
Cost Wall: $2.5/Vertical Foot2
Cost Wall: $5.00/Vertical Foot2
Cost Wall: $10.00/Vertical Foot2
Cost Surface Treatment: $.15/Fcot (e.
Cost Surface Treatment: $.75/Foot (e
Includes: Engineering, installation.
Includes: Engineering, installation,
x 2000
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
g. grading.
.g. grading,
1000 x
K
1550
3115
4665
3110
3115
6225
4567
3115
7682
6080
3115
9195
(O&M) /Monitor ing
5000
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
recontouring, and
recontouring, and
2000
K
1382
5000
6382
2623
5000
7623
3963
5000
8963
5405
5000
10405
Costs (1000's Dollars)
x 4000
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
2000 x
K
2928
12720
15648
6103
12720
18823
8845
12720
21565
11557
12720
24277
10000
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
revegetation)
surface
seal)
materials, plume delineation
materials
-------
Table H-7. Containment Costs for Slurry Hall Systems: High Cost Wall, No Land Surface Treatment9
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Cost
Element
Slurry Wallb
Surface Treatment0
Totals
Slurry Hall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Hall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Hall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000*8 Dollars)
100 x
K
153
153
290
290
435
435
566
566
200
O&M
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
100 X
K
305
305
626
626
936
936
1183
1183
500
O&M
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
500 X
K
680
680
1341
1341
2000
2000
2662
2662
1000
O&M
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
500 x
K
1471
1471
2907
2907
4357
4357
5767
5767
2500
O&M
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Low Cost Wall: $2.5/Vertical Foot
Mid Cost Wall: 55.00/Vertical Foot2
High Cost Wall: $10.00/Vertical Foot
Low Cost Surface Treatment: $.15/Foot2 (e.g. grading, recontouring, and revegetation)
b High Cost Surface Treatment: S.75/Foot (e.g. grading, recontouring, and surface seal)
c Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials, plume delineation
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials
-------
Table H-7. (Continued)
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
Cost 1000 x
Element K
Slurry Wallb 1347
Surface Treatment0
Totals 1347
Slurry Wall 2642
Surface Treatment
Totals 2642
Slurry Wall 3879
Surface Treatment
Totals 3879
Slurry Wall 5156
Surface Treatment
Totals 5156
2000
O&M
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
a Low Cost Wall: §2.5/Vertical Foot2
Mid Cost Wall: $ 5. OO/ Vertical Foot2
High Cost Wall: $10.00/Vertical Foot2
Low Cost Surface Treatment: $.15/Foot (e.g. grading,
High Cost Surface Treatment: $.75/Foot (e.g. grading
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials,
1000 x
K
2863
2863
5775
5775
8935
8935
11877
11877
5000
O&M
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
recontouring, and
, recontouring, and
plume delineation
2000
K
2670
2670
5280
5280
7896
7896
10512
10512
x 4000
O&M
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2000 x
K
5791
5791
11898
11898
17000
17000
22624
22624
10000
O&M
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
revegetation)
surface seal)
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials
-------
Table H-8. Containment Costs for Slurry Wall Systems: High Cost Hall, Low Cost Land Surface Treatment8
Width x Length
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance
Cost
Element
Slurry Wallb
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
100 x
K
153
2
155
290
2
292
435
2
437
566
2
568
200 -
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
100 x
K
305
7
312
626
7
633
936
7
943
1183
7
1190
(O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
500
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
500 x
K
680
66
746
1341
66
1407
2000
66
2066
2662
66
2728
1000
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
500 x
K
1471
164
1407
2907
164
3071
4357
164
4521
5767
164
5931
2500
O&M
10
1
11
10
1
11
10
1
11
10
1
11
§2.5/Vertical Foot .
$5.00/Vertical Foot4
Low Cost Wall:
Mid Cost Wall:
High Cost Wall: $10.00/Vertical Foot'
Low Cost Surface Treatment: $.15/Foot .(e.g. grading, recontouring, and revegetation)
High Cost Surface Treatment: $.75/Foot (e.g. grading, recontouring, and surface seal)
Cost Includes:
Cost Includes:
Engineering, installation, materials, plume delineation
Engineering, installation, materials
-------
Table H-8. (Continued)
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
a Low Cost Wall:
Mid Cost Wall:
High Cost Wall:
Low Cost Surface
Width x
Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K)
Operating and Maintenance
Cost 1000 x
Element K
Slurry Wallb 1347
Surface Treatment0 264
Totals 1611
Slurry Wall 2642
Surface Treatment 264
Totals 29 Q£
Slurry Wall 3879
Surface Treatment 264
Totals 4143
Slurry Wall 5156
Surface Treatment 264
Totals 5420
$2.5/Vertical Foot2
$5.00/Vertical Foot
$10.00/ Vertical Foot22
Treatment: $.15/Foot (e.g.
High Cost Surface Treatment: $.75/Foot~ (e.g
Cost Includes:
2000
O&M
10
2
12
10
2
12
10
2
12
10
2
12
grading.
. grading
Engineering, installation, materials.
1000 x
K
2863
630
3493
5775
630
6405
8935
630
9565
11877
630
12507
and
(O&M) /Monitoring Costs (1000's Dollars)
5000
O&M
10
5
15
10
5
15
10
5
15
10
5
15
recontouring, and
, recontouring, and
2000 x
K
2670
1015
36B5
5280
1015
6295
7896
1015
8911
10512
1015
11527
4000
O&M
10
9
19
10
9
19
10
9
19
10
9
19
2000 x
K
5791
2550
8341
11898
2550
14448
17000
2550
19550
22624
2550
25174
10000
O&M
10
21
31
10
21
31
10
21
31
10
21
31
revegetation)
surface
seal)
plume delineation
-------
Table H-9. Containment Costs for Slurry Hall Systems: High Cost Wall, High Cost Land Surface Treatment0
Width x Length
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance
Cost
Element
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
Slurry Wall
Surface Treatment
Totals
100 x
K
153
13
166
290
13
303
435
13
448
566
13
579
200
O&H
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
100 x
K
305
33
338
626
33
659
936
33
969
1183
33
1216
(O&H) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
500
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
500 x
K
680
320
1000
1341
320
1661
2000
320
2320
2662
320
2982
1000
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
500 x
K
1471
798
2269
2907
798
3705
4357
798
5155
5767
798
6565
2500
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
$2.5/Vertical Foot
$5.OO/Vertical Foot .
$10.00/Vertical Foot''
b
c
Low Cost Wall:
Mid Cost Wall:
High Cost Wall:
Low Cost Surface Treatment:
High Cost Surface Treatment!
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials, plume delineation
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials
$.15/Foot 2(e.g. grading, recontouring, and revegetation)
$.75/Foot (e.g. grading, recontouring, and surface seal)
-------
Table B-9. (Continued)
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000'8 Dollars)
Cost 1000
Element K
Slurry Wallb 1347
Surface Treatment0 1280
Totals 2627
Slurry Hall 2642
Surface Treatment 1280
Totals 3922
Slurry Hall 3879
Surface Treatment 1280
Totals 5159
Slurry Hall 5156
Surface Treatment 1280
Totals 6436
x 2000
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
1000 x
K
2863
3115
5978
5775
3115
8890
8935
3115
12050
11877
3115
14992
5000
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
a Low Cost Wall: ?2.5/Vertical Foot2
Mid Cost Nail: $5.00/Vertical Foot
High Cost Hall: $10.00/Vectical Foot
Low Cost Sue face Treatment: $.15/Foot (e.g. grading, recontouring, and
High Cost Surface Treatments $.75/Foot (e.g. grading, recontouring, and
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials, plume delineation
Cost Includes: Engineering, installation, materials
2000 x
K
2670
5000
7670
5280
5000
10280
7896
5000
12896
10512
5000
15512
4000
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
2000 x
K
5791
12720
18511
11898
12720
24618
17000
12720
29720
22624
12720
35344
10000
O&M
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
revegetation)
surface seal)
-------
Table U- 10. Containment Costs for Slurry Hall Systems: Supportive Data
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)/Monitoring Costs (1000's Dollars)
Cost
Element
Boring3
Delineation
Totals
Borings
Delineation
Totals
Borings
Delineation
Totals
Borings
Delineation
Totals
100 x 200
K O&M
2
15
17
3
24
27
5
28
43
6
40
46
100 x 500
K O&M
3
15
18
7
24
31
10
28
38
13
45
58
500 x 1000
K O&M
7
30
37
14
42
56
22
50
72
28
70
98
500 x 25000
K O&M
16
38
54
32
45
77
48
62
110
64
80
144
Assumes one boring every 100 feet of plume perimeter
Includes boring, well completion, reporting and testing
-------
Table H-10. (Continued)
Width x Length Plume Dimensions (ft) and Associated Capital (K) and
Plume
Depth
(feet)
25
50
75
100
Cost
Element
Boring*
Delineation
Totals
Borings
Delineation
Totals
Borings
Delineation
Totals
Borings
Delineation
Totals
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) /Monitor ing Costs (1000's Dollars)
1000 x 2000
K O&M
14
41
55
29
50
79
45
70
115
56
90
146
1000 x 5000
K O&M
33
48
81
66
62
128
99
80
179
132
100
232
2000 x 4000
K O&M
29
50
79
60
70
130
90
90
180
120
110
230
2000 x 10000
K O&M
63
80
143
126
110
236
189
140
329
252
170
422
a
Assumes one boring every 100 feet of plume perimeter
Includes boring, well completion, reporting and testing
-------
APPENDIX I: GRAPHS USED IN SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR FLUID
ISOLATION SYSTEM COSTS
-------
KE
> - CYC1
i ESS »
-------
4 5 6 7 B 9 I
Mid-cost walll and low-cost
land surface treatment
Mid-cost wall and high-cost
land surface treatment
:IGUREI-2. Sensitivity of Slurry Wall Cost
to Land Surface Treatment Requirement
-------
- LOGARITHMIC 1 » < CYCI «=«
Kl k ES MUM
46 * D
4 567891
High-cost wall and low-cost
land surface treatment
High-cost waT and high-cost
land surface treatment
IGUREI-3. Sensitivity of Slurry Wai1 Cost
to Land Surface Treatment Requirement
2 .
-------
T A
-------
-------
FIGURE 1-6. Slurry Wall Cost as a Function
1-6
------- |