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 water—five
to twenty-five times the amount expected—could 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 study—recovery



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 barriers—application  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 F—2.  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

-------