EPA

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

(5102G)

EPA 542-R-00-013

February 2001

clu-in.org

Cost Analyses for Selected

Groundwater Cleanup Projects:

Pump and Treat Systems

and Permeable Reactive Barriers

SUMMARY

Groundwater contamination is present at many Superfund and RCRA corrective action sites. Groundwater cleanup

technologies, such as pump-and-treat (P&T) systems and permeable reactive barriers (PRBs), are being used at a

number of those sites. Information about the costs of groundwater cleanup technologies and factors that affect those

costs may be valuable to site managers, technology developers and users, and others involved in groundwater

remediation efforts to identify and evaluate those technologies for new and ongoing projects. This report presents

the results of an analysis, performed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), of costs for groundwater

cleanup incurred at 48 sites (the 32 P&T sites and 16 PRB sites listed in Exhibit 1). The report is based on data in

case studies prepared by EPA and other members of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) and

by the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF), and supplements EPA’s analysis of 28 groundwater

remediation projects (Groundwater Cleanup: Overview of Operating Experience at 28 Sites, September 1999,

EPA 542-R-99-006).

The analysis of the 48 sites found that there is a significant amount of variability in the costs of groundwater

cleanups and that many of the factors that affect costs are site-specific. However, the following overall conclusions

can be drawn:

& The types of contaminant groups in the groundwater affect the capital costs of a P&T system. In general, capital

costs and annual operating costs were lower for sites at which chlorinated solvents are present, alone or with

other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), than for sites at which other combinations of contaminants (such as

VOCs with metals) are present. For sites at which complex combinations are present, it generally was necessary

to use more complex aboveground treatment systems.

& The types of above-ground treatment affect the annual operating costs of a P&T system. For P&T sites at which

chlorinated solvents are present, alone or with other VOCs, and at which air stripping or granular activated

carbon (GAC) treatment only are used, annual operating costs were lower than for sites at which the same

contaminants are present but a wider variety of treatment technologies are used. The additional treatment

technologies sometimes require additional labor and use of both chemicals and energy.

& For the sites in this analysis, the capital costs for PRBs generally were lower than those for P&T systems. 

Decisions about whether a PRB or P&T system would be less expensive for a given site generally are based on

total life-cycle costs for each type of system (including total capital and operating costs); such site-specific

factors as hydrogeology, contaminant type, extent of contamination, and remedial goals often are considered in

making such decisions. In addition, PRBs may not be technically feasible at all sites.

The FRTR includes senior executives of eight agencies that have an interest in exchanging information about remediation

technologies. Primary members include the U.S. Departments of Defense, Energy, and the Interior, and EPA. Other

participants include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Tennessee

Valley Authority, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Information about the Roundtable is available through the FRTR’s web site at

<www.frtr.gov>. Information about the P&T sites was obtained from FRTR case studies.

The RTDF includes members representing industry, government, and academia who have an interest in identifying steps

government and industry can take together to develop and improve the environmental technologies needed to address their

mutual cleanup problems in the safest, most cost-effective manner possible. Information about the RTDF is available through

the RTDF’s web site at <www.rtdf.org>. Information about PRB sites was obtained primarily from an RTDF report; limited

information was obtained from FRTR and other sources.
2

& Economies of scale were observed when the P&T system treats relatively large volumes of groundwater. For

systems treating more than 20 million gallons of groundwater per year, capital and annual operating costs per

volume of groundwater treated per year appear to be lower than those costs for systems treating less than 20

million gallons per year.

CRITERIA FOR SELECTING SITES FOR ANALYSIS

Exhibit 2 provides a description of P&T and PRB technologies. In selecting sites for this analysis, the available

FRTR and RTDF case studies were screened using the following criteria:

& The P&T or PRB system was operated on a full-scale basis (rather than as a pilot-scale or field

demonstration).

& For P&T sites, information was available about the capital cost, the annual average operating cost, and the

amount of groundwater treated per year of system operation; for PRB sites, information was available about

the capital cost.

& For P&T sites, aquifer cleanup goals (not containment-only goals) had been established.

For the analysis, 48 sites were identified (32 P&T sites and 16 PRB sites, including one site at which a PRB

replaced a P&T system), as shown in Exhibit 1.

EXHIBIT 1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF SELECTED SITES

Site Name

P&T Sites (32)

Amoco Petroleum Pipeline, Michigan Mystery Bridge at Highway 20 Superfund Site, DOW/DSI,

Baird and McGuire Superfund Site, Massachusetts Odessa Chromium I Superfund Site, OU 2, Texas

Bofors Nobel Superfund Site, OU 1, Michigan Odessa Chromium IIS Superfund Site, OU 2, Texas

City Industries Superfund Site, Florida Old Mill Superfund Site, Ohio

Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, OU 1, Iowa SCRDI Dixiana Superfund Site, South Carolina

Former Firestone Facility Superfund Site, California Site A (confidential Superfund site), New York

Former Intersil, Inc. Site, California* Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers Superfund Site, Texas

French Limited Superfund Site, Texas Solid State Circuits Superfund Site, Missouri

Gold Coast Superfund Site, Florida Solvent Recovery Services of New England, Inc. Superfund Site,

JMT Facility RCRA Site (formerly Black & Decker), New York Sylvester/Gilson Road Superfund Site, New Hampshire

Keefe Environmental Services Superfund Site, New Hampshire Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant Superfund Site (TCAAP),

King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site, New United Chrome Superfund Site, Oregon

LaSalle Electrical Superfund Site, Illinois U.S. Aviex Superfund Site, Michigan

Libby Groundwater Superfund Site, Montana U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Kansas City Plant, Missouri

McClellan Air Force Base Superfund Site, OU B/C California U.S. DOE, Savannah River site, A/M Area, South Carolina

Mid-South Wood Products Superfund Site, Arkansas Western Processing Superfund Site, Washington

PRB Sites (16)

Aircraft Maintenance Facility, Oregon Industrial Site, Northern Ireland

Caldwell Trucking, New Jersey Industrial Site, South Carolina

Federal Highway Administration Facility, Colorado Kansas City Plant, Missouri

Former Drycleaning Site, Germany Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado

Former Intersil, Inc. Site, California* Marzone Inc./Chevron Chemical Company, Georgia

Former Manufacturing Site, New Jersey Nickel Rim Mine Site, Ontario, Canada

Industrial Site, Kansas U.S. Coast Guard Support Center, North Carolina

Industrial Site, New York Y-12 Site, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee

*Both a PRB and a P&T system were operated at the former Intersil site.
3

EXHIBIT 2. SELECT GROUNDWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

Pump and Treat (P&T)

P&T involves extracting contaminated groundwater through recovery wells or trenches and treating the groundwater by ex situ

(aboveground) processes, such as air stripping, carbon adsorption, biological reactors, or chemical precipitation. Variables in

the design of a typical P&T system include:

& The number and pumping rate of groundwater extraction points (determined by such factors as the extent of

contamination and the productivity of the contaminated aquifer)

& The ex situ treatment processes employed (determined by such factors as system throughput and the contaminants that

require remediation)

& The discharge location for the effluent from the treatment plant (determined by such factors as location of the site and

regulatory requirements)

Additional information about the fundamentals of P&T technology can be found in Design Guidelines for Conventional

Pump-and-Treat Systems.

Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRBs)

A PRB is an in situ (below-ground) treatment zone of reactive material that degrades or immobilizes contaminants as

groundwater flows through it. PRBs are installed as permanent, semi-permanent, or replaceable units across the flow path of a

contaminated plume. Natural gradients transport contaminants through strategically placed media. The media degrade, sorb,

precipitate, or otherwise remove groundwater contaminants. The choice of the reactive media for a PRB is based on the

specific organic or inorganic contaminant to be remediated. Most PRBs installed to date use zero-valent iron (Feo

) as the

reactive medium for converting contaminants to nontoxic or immobile species. Other applications under development use

limestone, organic carbon, or bone char phosphate. The hydrogeologic setting at the site also is crucial; PRBs are best applied

to shallow, unconfined aquifer systems in unconsolidated deposits, as long as the reactive material is more conductive than the

aquifer.

Most PRBs are installed in one of two basic configurations: funnel-and-gate or continuous trench, although other techniques

such as hydrofracturing also are used. The funnel-and-gate system employs impermeable walls to direct the contaminated

plume through a gate, or treatment zone, that contains the reactive media. In a continuous trench configuration, a trench is

installed across the entire path of the plume and is filled with reactive media. Most PRBs installed to date have had depths of

50 feet (ft) or less. PRBs having depths of 30 ft or less can be installed with a continuous trencher, while those installed at

depths between 30 and 70 ft require a more innovative installation method, such as biopolymers. Installation of PRBs at

depths greater than 70 ft is more challenging.

IMPORTANT DATA CONSIDERATIONS

Several important considerations related to the data and results presented in this report are listed below:

& The sites selected are not a statistically representative sample of groundwater remediation projects; rather,

they present a range of the types of systems that are used to clean up groundwater at Superfund and RCRA

corrective action sites.

& Cost data were provided by EPA remedial project managers (RPMs), site owners, or vendors; include both

actual and estimated costs of groundwater cleanup; and were not verified independently by EPA.

& Groundwater cleanup has been completed at only two of the 32 P&T sites and is ongoing at the other P&T

sites. For the 30 P&T sites where remediation is ongoing, the costs presented in this report do not necessarily

represent the total cost of cleaning up groundwater at the site.

& Because groundwater cleanup is ongoing at most of the sites and the total time necessary to complete cleanup

is not known, this report presents the average annual operating costs rather than the total operating costs

incurred during site remediation. Likewise, no net present value (NPV) was calculated for the remedial costs

because additional costs will be incurred at sites at which remediation is ongoing, and the length of time each

system will operate in the future is not known. Rather, costs are presented as unit costs (cost per year or cost

per 1,000 gallons). The unit costs are described in more detail later in this report.

& The costs for PRB and P&T systems presented in this report may include costs for source control remedies

(such as slurry walls) employed at the sites, when the source control was an integrated part of the groundwater

cleanup. Exhibits 10 and 11 present the components included in the costs for each of the sites included in this

analysis.
4

METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING THE COSTS OF P&T AND PRB TECHNOLOGIES

Total capital and total annual operating costs were provided in the individual case studies by EPA RPMs, site

owners, and vendors. For this analysis, the following methodology was used to calculate unit costs and adjusted

costs for the 48 sites. 

Unit Costs

There are several ways in which unit costs can be calculated for groundwater remediation systems. The following

three types of unit costs were used in this analysis:

& Average operating cost per year of operation: This value was calculated by dividing the total operating cost

to date by the number of years represented by that cost. Several factors affect the average operating cost per

year, including throughput of the system, the treatment processes required to treat the extracted groundwater,

and the operating efficiency of the system. Because a breakdown of annual operating costs by year was not

available for most of the sites, the change in operating costs over the life of a site’s remediation system could

not be evaluated.

& Capital cost per 1,000 gallons of groundwater treated per year: This value represents the relative costs of

installing remedial systems of various capacities, and is influenced by such factors as:

- the complexity of the aquifer (which affect the size and complexity of the system needed to extract the

contaminated groundwater)

- the types of contaminants targeted for treatment at the site (which affect the components of the treatment

plant needed to remove the contaminants)

- the water and air discharge limits for the particular site (which affect the treatment plant components

needed)

- restoration goals (which affect the time frame for cleanup)

& Average annual operating cost per 1,000 gallons of groundwater treated per year: This value represents the

relative costs of operating systems of various capacities and complexities. Similar to the capital cost per

1,000 gallons of groundwater treated per year, this unit cost is highly dependent on such site-specific factors

as the complexity of the aquifer, the types of contaminants targeted for treatment, the water and air discharge

limits, and the restoration goals.

Adjusted Costs

Remediation costs for the selected sites were adjusted for the location of the site (location adjustment) and for the

years in which costs were incurred (inflation adjustment). Those adjustments are described below and in

Appendix A to this report. Appendix A presents the equations used to adjust the total capital and total annual

operating costs; gives equations used to calculate the average annual operating costs; and shows example

calculations for one of the sites.

• Location adjustment: Costs were adjusted for location by multiplying the costs provided for each site by an

Area Cost Factor (ACF) Index published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in PAX Newsletter No. 3.2.1,

dated March 31, 1999 and available at <http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cemp/e/es/pax/paxtoc.htm>.

• Inflation adjustment: The inflation factor used for this analysis was based on the Construction Cost Index

published by Engineering News Record. The most current year that had an annual average inflation

adjustment factor available at the time of preparing this report was for 1999. Costs were adjusted to year

1999 dollars by multiplying the costs provided for each site by an inflation adjustment factor for the year in

which the costs were incurred. For capital cost time adjustment, the inflation adjustment factor for the actual

year that the costs were incurred was used. For annual operating cost time adjustment, the inflation

adjustment factor for the median year of all years over which the costs were incurred was used. The

Construction Cost Index is available at http://www.enr.com/cost/costcci.asp.
5

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

This analysis considered six main factors that affect the cost of P&T and PRB technology applications (discussed

in reference 1): (1) characteristics or properties of contaminants present, (2) system design and operation, (3)

source control, (4) hydrogeologic setting, (5) extent of contamination, and (6) remedial goals. The analysis found

that the costs varied significantly between sites and that many of the factors that affect costs are site-specific. In

addition, the amount of information available about each of the factors varied by site. For the analysis, general

conclusions were identified about the effect of a factor when information related to that factor was available for

five or more sites.

Exhibits 3 through 9 present the results of the cost analysis for the 48 sites, with detailed data for each site

summarized in Exhibits 10 and 11 for P&T and PRB sites, respectively. Exhibit 3 provides an overall summary of

the remedial cost and unit cost data for the 48 sites included in the analysis, while Exhibits 4 through 9 present 25th

percentile, 50th percentile (median), 75th percentile, and average costs, based on the types of contaminants present,

the technologies used, and the volume of groundwater treated each year. General conclusions about the effect of

contaminant property factors and system design and operation factors are presented below.

EXHIBIT 3. SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL COST AND UNIT COST DATA FOR 48 SITES

Cost Category

P&T Sites (32 Sites) PRB Sites (16 Sites)

25th

Percent. Median

75th

Percent. Average

25th

Percent. Median

75th

Percent. Average

Years of system operation (with

data available)

4 5 8 6 NC NC NC NC

Average volume of groundwater

treated per year (1,000 gallons

per year)

7,000 30,000 100,000 120,000 NC NC NC NC

Total capital cost ($)1 1,700,000 2,000,000 5,900,000 4,900,000 440,000 680,000 1,000,000 730,000

Average operating cost per year

($ per year)1

180,000 260,000 730,000 770,000 NC2 NC2 NC2 NC2

Capital cost per volume of

groundwater treated per year

($/1,000 gallons per year)1

23 78 350 280 NC NC NC NC

Average annual operating cost

per volume of groundwater

treated per year ($/1,000 gallons

per year)1

5 16 41 32 NC NC NC NC

Source: FRTR and RTDF; refer to Exhibit 1 for a list of sites.

1

All reported costs were adjusted for site locations and years in which costs were incurred, as described in the text. 2 Two of the case studies at PRB sites (Intersil and USCG) included annual operating costs for the PRB systems. Those costs are

presented in Exhibit 11.

NC = Not calculated; insufficient data available.

Contaminant property factors:

Contaminant properties affect the cost of groundwater remediation systems. These properties define (1) the

relative ease with which contaminants can be removed from the extracted groundwater (by ex situ treatment

technologies), (2) the steps that are required to treat the groundwater, and (3) the complexity of the mixture of

contaminants. Sites analyzed on the basis of contaminant property factors included sites contaminated with

chlorinated solvents, alone or with other VOCs, and sites at which other combinations of contaminants were

present. On the basis of site-specific data, the following conclusions can be made about contaminant property

factors:
6

& The type of contaminant groups in the groundwater affects both the capital and the annual operating cost of a

P&T system, as shown in Exhibit 4. For sites with chlorinated solvents alone or with other VOCs (such as

ethers or ketones), capital costs were lower than those for sites with other combinations of contaminants (such

as chlorinated solvents, BTEX, metals, PCBs, or PAHs). The median capital cost for P&T systems removing

chlorinated solvents, alone or with other VOCs, is $1,900,000, as compared with a median capital cost of

$7,400,000 for P&T systems removing other combinations of contaminants. The type of contaminant groups in

the groundwater has similar effects on the annual operating cost of a P&T system. Sites at which chlorinated

solvents, alone or with other VOCs, were present had lower annual operating costs than sites at which other

combinations of contaminants were present. The median annual operating cost for P&T systems removing

chlorinated solvents alone, or with other VOCs, is $12 per 1,000 gallons treated, as compared with a median

annual operating cost of $39 per 1,000 gallons treated for P&T systems removing other combinations of

contaminants.

EXHIBIT 4. COST COMPARISON OF P&T SYSTEMS THAT TREAT VARIOUS CONTAMINANT GROUPS

Contaminant Group

Cost Range

25 Average Cost Number of Sites th Percentile Median 75th Percentile

Total Capital Cost2

Chlorinated solvents, alone

or with other VOCs $1,200,000 $1,900,000 $4,400,000 $3,600,000 18

Other combinations of

contaminants (solvents,

BTEX, metals, PCBs or

PAHs)1

$4,300,000 $7,400,000 $15,000,000 $8,900,000 9

Average Annual Operating Cost per 1,000 Gallons Treated2,3

Chlorinated solvents, alone

or with other VOCs $3 $12 $40 $26 18

Other combinations of

contaminants (solvents,

BTEX, metals, PCBs or

PAHs)1

$10 $39 $61 $53 9

1 The costs of P&T systems that treat only metals or only BTEX are not included in this exhibit because data were available for only

three such systems. General conclusions were developed about the effect of a factor when information about that factor was

available for five or more sites. 2 All reported costs were adjusted for site locations and years in which costs were incurred, as described in the text. 3 The average volume of groundwater treated per year for the 18 sites at which chlorinated solvents, alone or with other VOCs, were

present and the nine sites at which a combination of contaminants were present are 160,000,000 and 65,000,000 gallons,

respectively.

& The type of above-ground treatment affects the annual operating cost of a P&T system. For sites contaminated

with chlorinated solvents, alone or with other VOCs, Exhibit 5 compares the annual operating costs of treatment

systems using air stripping or GAC only with annual operating costs of treatment systems using a wider variety

of treatment technologies. For P&T sites for which remedial cleanup goals had been established for chlorinated

solvents, alone or with other VOCs, and using air stripping or GAC treatment only, annual operating costs were

lower than those for sites for which remedial cleanup goals had been established for the same contaminants but

at which other combinations of treatment technologies, such as biological treatment or filtration, were used. 

The median average annual operating cost for P&T systems removing chlorinated solvents with air stripping or

GAC only is $3 per 1,000 gallons treated. The median average annual operating cost for P&T systems

removing the same contaminants with other combinations of treatment technologies is $40 per 1,000 gallons

treated. At sites for which remedial cleanup goals had been established for chlorinated solvents, alone or with

other VOCs, treatment technologies besides air stripping or GAC may be necessary because other substances

present in the groundwater may inhibit the effectiveness of the air stripping or GAC units. For example, at Sol

Lynn, the initial treatment system included an air stripper and GAC unit only. However, an iron filter was

added to the treatment train to minimize fouling of the packing of the air stripper. Such additional treatment

technologies may require additional labor and use of chemicals or electricity.
7

EXHIBIT 5. ANNUAL OPERATING COST COMPARISON OF VARIOUS P&T TECHNOLOGIES AT SITES

CONTAMINATED WITH CHLORINATED SOLVENTS, ALONE OR WITH OTHER VOCs

Treatment Technology

Average Annual Operating Cost per 1,000 Gallons Treated1,2

25 Number of Sites th Percentile ($) Median ($) 75th Percentile ($)

AS and/or GAC treatment

only 2 3 12 11

Other combination of

treatment technologies (see

Exhibit 10)

28 40 41 7

All sites with chlorinated

solvents, alone or with other

VOCs

3 12 40 18

1 All reported costs were adjusted for site locations and years when costs were incurred, as described in the text. 2 The average volume of groundwater treated per year for the 11 sites at which air stripping (AS) or granular activated carbon (GAC)

was used, the 7 sites at which other combinations of treatment technologies were used, and the 18 sites at which chlorinated solvents

alone or with other VOCs, were present are 260,000,000; 19,000,000; and 160,000,000 gallons, respectively.

System design and operation factors:

The cost of a groundwater remediation system is affected by a number of factors including the type of treatment

technologies used to remediate the site, the adequacy of a system design to remediate the site, system downtime,

system optimization efforts, the amount and type of monitoring performed, and the use of multiple primary

treatment technologies (for example, P&T and an in situ technology). On the basis of site-specific data, the

following conclusions can be made about system design and operation factors:

& For the sites included in the analysis, the total capital costs for PRBs generally were lower than those for P&T

systems. As demonstrated in Exhibit 6, the 75th percentile of total capital costs for the 16 PRB projects

($1,000,000) was less than the 25th percentile of total capital costs for the 32 P&T projects ($1,700,000). The

data included in the analysis show that the total capital cost of a very large PRB may approach the total capital

cost of a small P&T system. In addition, the median total capital cost for the 32 P&T projects is $2,000,000;

the median total capital cost for the 16 PRB projects is $680,000. Decisions about whether a PRB or P&T

system would be less expensive for a given site generally are based on total life-cycle costs for each type of

system; such site-specific factors as hydrogeology, contaminant type, extent of contamination, and remedial

goals should be considered in making those decisions. Further, PRBs may not be feasible at every site;

therefore, a comparison of P&T and PRB systems may not be appropriate for a given site.

EXHIBIT 6. CAPITAL COST COMPARISON OF P&T AND PRB SYSTEMS

Technology

Capital Cost Range1 Average

Capital

Cost1

 ($)

Number of

25 Sites th Percentile ($) Median ($) 75th Percentile ($)

P&T 1,700,000 2,000,000 5,900,000 4,900,000 32

PRBs 440,000 680,000 1,000,000 730,000 16

1 All reported costs were adjusted for site locations and years when costs were incurred, as described in the text

& Two of the case studies at PRB sites included annual operating costs for the PRB systems. The adjusted annual

operating costs for the PRBs at those sites are $75,000 at the U.S. Coast Guard site and $120,000 at the Intersil

site. The annual operating costs included in the analysis are those for relatively new PRB systems, and

operating costs included monitoring costs only; maintenance was not required during the period of operation for

which data were available. As a PRB system ages, maintenance of the system may be required, including

replacement of the exhausted reactive medium and other repairs of the PRB system. Decisions about whether a

PRB or a P&T system would be less expensive would include an analysis of total life-cycle costs for each type
1 There are several tools available that are used to estimate the costs for use of groundwater (and other) cleanup

technologies, and that address these types of factors. Tools include products such as RACER and RS Means®. 

Additional information on these products is available through the RACER and RS Means® web sites, at

<www.talpart.com/products/racer/racerabout.html> and <www.rsmeans.com>, respectively.

8

of system. Again, such site-specific factors as hydrogeology, contaminant type, extent of contamination, and

remedial goals should be considered in making those decisions.

& Economies of scale were observed when relatively large volumes of groundwater were treated annually by a

P&T system. For sites at which more than 20 million gallons of groundwater per year are treated, the capital

and annual operating costs per volume of groundwater treated per year appear to be lower than at sites where 20

million gallons or less are treated per year. As Exhibit 7 shows, the median capital costs per volume of

groundwater treated per year for P&T sites at which 20 million gallons or less are treated per year and for those

at which more than 20 million gallons are treated per year are $440 per 1,000 gallons per year and $24 per

1,000 gallons per year, respectively. The data show a similar trend in annual operating costs per volume of

groundwater treated per year. The median average annual operating costs per volume of groundwater treated

per year for P&T sites at which 20 million gallons or less are treated per year and for those at which more than

20 million gallons are treated per year are $42 per 1,000 gallons per year and $5 per 1,000 gallons per year,

respectively.

Exhibits 8 and 9 show the distribution of the unit capital costs and the average annual operating costs for the

P&T sites included in the analysis, respectively, as a function of volume of groundwater treated per year. For

sites at which more than 20 million gallons per year are treated, operating and capital costs are lower than costs

for sites at which 20 million gallons or less per year are treated. Unit costs vary more for sites at which 20

million gallons or less per year are treated than for sites at which 20 million or more gallons per year are

treated. Because of the variability in the costs, these data are not intended for use in making estimates of costs

for other sites.

EXHIBIT 7. COMPARISON OF UNIT TREATMENT COST FOR P&T SITES

WITH VOLUME TREATED PER YEAR

Size of Treatment System

Size

(1,000 gallons/year)

Cost Range

Average

Cost

Number of

25 Sites th Percentile Median 75th Percentile

Capital Cost Per Volume of Groundwater Treated Per Year ($/1,000 gallons/year)1

 20,000 $200 $440 $730 $580 14

> 20,000 $14 $24 $62 $49 18

Average Annual Operating Cost Per Volume of Groundwater Treated Per Year ($/1,000 gallons)1,2

 20,000 $33 $42 $64 $62 14

> 20,000 $3 $5 $7 $10 18

1 All reported costs were adjusted for site locations and years when costs were incurred, as described in the text. 2 The average volume of groundwater treated per year for the 14 sites treating 20 million gallons or less of groundwater annually and

the 18 sites treating more than 20 million gallons of groundwater annually are 7,800,000 and 200,000,000 gallons, respectively.

Other Factors - Source control, hydrogeology, extent of contamination, and remedial goals also can have a

significant effect on remediation costs; however, insufficient data were available to develop quantitative

conclusions about the effects of those factors on the costs for the sites included in the analysis.1

 Several sitespecific examples are presented below to demonstrate how each of those factors increase or decrease costs for a

particular site. The examples listed below compare remediation costs for P&T sites at which the groundwater is

contaminated with chlorinated solvents, alone or with other VOCs. The examples also are presented in Exhibits

10 and 11, which include costs and information about the factors that affect the costs for all 48 sites included in the

analysis.
9

0

500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 

Best Fit

Upper Confidence Limit

LowerConfidence Limit

Average Gallons Treated Per Year (1,000 Gallons/Year)

Capital Cost Per Volume of Groundwater Treated Annually 

($/1,000 Gallons/Year)

EXHIBIT 8. CAPITAL COST FOR PUMP AND TREAT SYSTEMS AS A FUNCTION OF QUANTITY TREATED PE

1. All reported costs were adjusted for site locations and years when costs were incurred, as described in the text.2. This chart shows a solid line based on a best fit of the available data for the 32 P&T sites, and dashed lines for the upper and lower confidence intervals using a 95% 

lines were drawn based on the results from a statistical analysis of the available data, using SAS JMP software; the specific methodology used to draw the lines is dreport titled “Year 2000 Remediation Technology Cost Compendium” (under preparation by EPA’s Technology Innovation Office). This chart shows an expanded the ranges shown, and does not include several sites that are treating more than 300,000 gallons per year.
10

0

50

100150200250300350400

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 

Average Gallons Treated Per Year (1,000 Gallons/Year)

Best Fit

Upper Confidence Limit

LowerConfidence Limit

Average Annual Operating Cost Per Volume of Groundwater Treated Annually 

($/1,000 Gallons)

EXHIBIT 9. ANNUAL OPERATING COST FOR PUMP AND TREAT SYSTEMS AS A FUNCTION OF QUANTITY TREAT

1. All reported costs were adjusted for site locations and years when costs were incurred, as described in the text.2. This chart shows a solid line based on a best fit of the available data for the 32 P&T sites, and dashed lines for the upper and lower confidence intervals using a 95% 

lines were drawn based on the results from a statistical analysis of the available data, using SAS JMP software; the specific methodology used to draw the lines is dreport titled “Year 2000 Remediation Technology Cost Compendium” (under preparation by EPA’s Technology Innovation Office). This chart shows an expanded 

the ranges shown, and does not include several sites that are treating more than 300,000 gallons per year.
11

Source control factors:

The method, timing of application, and success of source controls in mitigating contact of non-aqueous phase

liquids (NAPLs) or other sources of contaminants, such as highly contaminated soil, with groundwater affect the

cost of groundwater remediation systems. At several sites, efforts were made to remove NAPL or isolate the

NAPL from contact with the groundwater. Such efforts often involved significant capital expenditures. For

example, at Western Processing, both dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) and light non-aqueous phase

liquids (LNAPLs) were observed in the groundwater. A slurry wall was constructed around the site to contain the

plume and NAPLs and help achieve the cleanup goals in a limited amount of time. Capital costs for construction

of the slurry wall were approximately $1.8 million.

Hydrogeologic factors:

The cost of groundwater remediation systems is affected by the properties of the aquifer. These properties include

hydraulic connection of aquifers that allows for contamination of more than one aquifer, aquifer flow parameters,

influences of adjacent surface water bodies on the aquifer system, and influences of adjacent groundwater

production wells on the aquifer system. The following example illustrates a specific case in which

hydrogeological factors affected the cost of the groundwater remediation technology implemented at the site. At

JMT, the hydraulic conductivity in the contaminated bedrock aquifer was relatively low (0.65 feet per day). To

increase the hydraulic conductivity, controlled blasting was carried out to create an artificial fracture zone, which

served as an interceptor drain in the bedrock around the extraction well. While that approach increased the capital

cost of the system, it allowed effective extraction of the groundwater from the bedrock aquifer by one well

screened in the new fracture zone.

Extent of contamination factors:

The magnitude of the contaminated groundwater plume, including the area and depth of the plume and the

concentration of contaminants within the plume, affect the cost of groundwater remediation systems. Typically,

groundwater contamination that is limited in area and depth is easier and cheaper to remediate than the same mass

of contaminant when it extends deeper and spreads out over a larger area. This factor affects the size of the

extraction and treatment system and the complexity of the system in terms of the quantity of groundwater to be

extracted from the aquifer and treated ex situ. For example, at Gold Coast, the initial areal extent of the

contaminated plume was estimated to be 0.87 acre, and the initial volume of the plume was estimated to be less

than 3 million gallons. The site was remediated at a total cost of less than $800,000.

Remedial goal factors:

Regulatory factors affect the design of a remedial system or the period of time it must be operated. These factors

include aquifer restoration or treatment system performance goals, and specific system design requirements (such

as disallowing reinjection of treated groundwater or specifying the treatment technology to be used). For example,

at Western Processing, a P&T system, consisting of more than 200 groundwater extraction points pumping

approximately 265 gpm, was installed. After approximately seven years of operation, an ESD was issued to

change the focus of remediation efforts from restoration to containment. Because of that change, the system was

modified to a system pumping approximately 80 gpm, which significantly reduced operating costs for the system.

NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared by EPA’s Technology Innovation Office with support provided under Contract Number

68-W-99-003. Information in this report is derived from a variety of references (including personal

communications with experts in the field), some of which have been peer-reviewed. This report has undergone

EPA and external review by experts in the field. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not

constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. For more information about this report, please contact: 

Linda Fiedler, U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation Office, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

(MS 5102G), Washington, D.C., 20460; (703) 603-7194; e-mail: fiedler.linda@epa.gov.
12

EXHIBIT 10. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED P&T SITES

Site Name

and Location

Contaminants With

Remedial 

Cleanup Goals 1

Remediation Technology 2

 Years of Operation/Status 3,4

Gallons Treated Per Year

 (1,000 Gallons) 

 Adjusted Capital Cost

(Reported Capital Cost) 

5

 Adjusted Av.Ann. Oper. Cost

(Reported Av. Ann. Oper. Cost) 5,6

Adjusted Capital Cost Per Volume of

 Groundwater Treated Per Year

 ($/1,000 Gallons/Year) 

5

Adjusted Av. Ann. Oper. Cost Per

Volume of Groundwater Treated

Per Year

($/1,000 Gallons) 5,6 

P&T (with ex situ treatment)7

AS

FPR

ISB

PRB

VCB

BIO

GAC

PHYS/CHEM

OXID

STRIP

CHLORINATED SOLVENTS ALONE OR WITH OTHER VOCs

French, Ltd.,TX

benzene, toluene,chloroform, 1,2-DCA,VC

qqq q q 3.9/A 78,000 $16,000,000

($15,000,000)

$3,200,000

($3,300,000)

$200 $41 Ov

systwafttremecapof 

TCAAP, MN 1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA,

TCE, PCE

q 4.9/O 1,400,000 $12,000,000

($8,000,000)

$810,000

($590,000)

$8.4 $0.58 Co

sys

Firestone, CA 1,1-DCE, TCE, PCE,

1,1-DCA, benzene,toluene, xylene

q q 6.8/C 270,000 $6,900,000

($4,100,000)

$2,000,000

($1,300,000)

$26 $7.3 Fre

cowe

McClellanAFB, OU B/C,CA

None, primarycontaminants of concernare TCE, cis-1,2-DCE,PCE, 1,2-DCA

q 6.8/O 96,000 $5,600,000

($4,000,000)

$1,600,000

($1,200,000)

$58 $17 Fre

cointeffSmsca

incoplevsminssys

U.S. DOE,SavannahRiver, SC

TCE, PCE, 1,1,1-TCA q 8.3/O 240,000 $5,200,000

($4,100,000)

$170,000

($150,000)

$21 $0.71 Co

DN

Des Moines,IA

TCE q 8.8/O 550,000 $2,200,000

($1,600,000)

$140,000

($110,000)

$3.9 $0.25 La

eco

Old Mill, OH TCE, PCE, 1,2-DCE,

ethylbenzene

q q 7.8/O 1,700 $2,100,000

($1,600,000)

$240,000

($210,000)

$1,300 $150 Mo

cogroco
EXHIBIT 10. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED P&T SITES (CONTINUED)

Site Name

and Location

Contaminants With

Remedial 

Cleanup Goals 1

Remediation Technology 2

 Years of Operation/Status 3,4

Gallons Treated Per Year

 (1,000 Gallons) 

 Adjusted Capital Cost

(Reported Capital Cost) 5

 Adjusted Av.Ann. Oper. Cost

(Reported Av. Ann. Oper. Cost) 5,6

Adjusted Capital Cost Per Volume of

 Groundwater Treated Per Year

 ($/1,000 Gallons/Year) 5

Adjusted Av. Ann. Oper. Cost Per

Volume of Groundwater Treated

Per Year

($/1,000 Gallons) 5,6 

P&T (with ex situ treatment)7

AS

FPR

ISB

PRB

VCB

BIO

GAC

PHYS/CHEM

OXID

STRIP

13

Sol Lynn, TX TCE qq q 3.0/S 4,000 $2,000,000

($2,100,000)

$130,000

($150,000)

$460 $31 Co

An trapa

U.S. Aviex, MI 1,1,1-TCA, 1,2-DCA,

DEE, 1,1-DCE, TCE,PCE, BTEX

q 3.4/O 96,000 $1,900,000

($1,400,000)

$230,000

($180,000)

$20 $2.4 Op

finwiare corel

U.S. DOE,Kansas City,MO

None, contaminants ofgreatest concern at thesite are PCE, TCE, cis1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE,and VC.

q 5.8/O 11,000 $1,900,000

($1,400,000)

$450,000

($360,000)

$170 $40 Re

reareqinirep

Keefe, NH PCE, TCE, 1,1-DCE,

benzene, 1,2-DCA

q q 4.1/O 11,000 $1,900,000

($1,600,000)

$280,000

($240,000)

$170 $25 Op

inc

SCRDIDixiana, SC

PCE, TCE, 1,1,1-TCA,1,1-DCE, 1,1,2-TCA,1,1,2,2-PCA, chloroform,carbon tetrachloride,benzene,dichloromethane

q 4.6/O 4,500 $1,900,000

($1,800,000)

$220,000

($220,000)

$420 $48 PR

syscorem

oriberemorirep

JMT, NY TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, TCA,

VC

q 9.6/O 5,200 $1,400,000

($880,000)

$220,000

($150,000)

$280 $42 Mo

caponco

 CityIndustries, FL

1,1-DCA, 1,1-DCE, MC,VC, PCE, TCE, 1,1,1-TCA, benzene, toluene,ethylbenzene, acetone,MEK, MIBK, phthalates,cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE

q 3.0/O 51,000 $1,200,000

($1,200,000)

$160,000

($170,000)

$23 $3.2 Op

incremremMIor reftre
EXHIBIT 10. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED P&T SITES (CONTINUED)

Site Name

and Location

Contaminants With

Remedial 

Cleanup Goals 1

Remediation Technology 2

 Years of Operation/Status 3,4

Gallons Treated Per Year

 (1,000 Gallons) 

 Adjusted Capital Cost

(Reported Capital Cost) 5

 Adjusted Av.Ann. Oper. Cost

(Reported Av. Ann. Oper. Cost) 5,6

Adjusted Capital Cost Per Volume of

 Groundwater Treated Per Year

 ($/1,000 Gallons/Year) 5

Adjusted Av. Ann. Oper. Cost Per

Volume of Groundwater Treated

Per Year

($/1,000 Gallons) 5,6 

P&T (with ex situ treatment)7

AS

FPR

ISB

PRB

VCB

BIO

GAC

PHYS/CHEM

OXID

STRIP

14

Solid State,MO

TCE

q 4.2/O 62,000 $1,000,000

($930,000)

$300,000

($280,000)

$17 $4.9 Ca

insins

Intersil (P&T),CA

TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, VC,Freon 113®

q q 7.2/D 5,000 $510,000

($320,000)

$200,000

($140,000)

$100 $41 Gr

aftopinc

MysteryBridge, WY

trans-1,2-DCE, cis-1,2-DCE, TCE, PCE, 1,1,1-TCA, 1,1-DCE

q 3.6/O 54,000 $340,000

($310,000)

$180,000

($170,000)

$6.3 $3.4 Lo

low

Gold Coast, FL MC, 1,1-DCA, trans-1,2-

DCE, TCE, PCE, toluene

q q 3.7/C 22,000 $290,000

($250,000)

$130,000

($120,000)

$13 $6.2 Op

remthaAS 

BTEX ONLY

Site A, NY BTEX qq q 2.3/O 6,700 $2,200,000

($1,400,000)

$430,000

($290,000)

$330 $65 Us

redthe noco

Amoco, MI None, contaminants of

concern are BTEX andMTBE

q q 5.7/O 150,000 $470,000

($300,000)

$700,000

($480,000)

$3.2 $4.7 Le

fleredno

METALS ONLY

UnitedChrome, OR

Cr

q 8.6/O 7,200 $5,100,000

($3,300,000)

$110,000

($74,000)

$710 $15 Mo

red

Odessa I, TX Cr

q 4.2/O 30,000 $1,900,000

($2,000,000)

$220,000

($250,000)

$62 $7.5 RO

onapco

Odessa II, TX Cr

q 4.1/O 30,000 $1,800,000

($1,900,000)

$160,000

($180,000)

$62 $5.4 RO

onapco
EXHIBIT 10. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED P&T SITES (CONTINUED)

Site Name

and Location

Contaminants With

Remedial 

Cleanup Goals 1

Remediation Technology 2

 Years of Operation/Status 3,4

Gallons Treated Per Year

 (1,000 Gallons) 

 Adjusted Capital Cost

(Reported Capital Cost) 5

 Adjusted Av.Ann. Oper. Cost

(Reported Av. Ann. Oper. Cost) 5,6

Adjusted Capital Cost Per Volume of

 Groundwater Treated Per Year

 ($/1,000 Gallons/Year) 5

Adjusted Av. Ann. Oper. Cost Per

Volume of Groundwater Treated

Per Year

($/1,000 Gallons) 5,6 

P&T (with ex situ treatment)7

AS

FPR

ISB

PRB

VCB

BIO

GAC

PHYS/CHEM

OXID

STRIP

15

OTHER COMBINATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS

WesternProcessing,WA

Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn,Hg, Ag, cyanide, trans1,2-DCE, cis-1,2-DCE

q q 8.2/O 120,000 $19,000,000

($14,000,000)

$4,600,000

($3,600,000)

$160 $39 Re

reavaovwatrepregraremresprecardisof co

Bofors Nobel,OU 1, MI

Remedial goals set foranaline, 2-chloroaniline,selected purgeablehalocarbons, and selectedpurgeable aromatics. Key specificcontaminants arebenzene, benzidine, 2-chloroaniline, 1,2-DCE,TCE, 3,3-dichlorobenzidene,aniline, VC. 

q qq 3.1/O 230,000 $16,000,000

($12,000,000)

$970,000

($770,000)

$70 $4.3 Pre

unwhmeduwato 

Baird andMcGuire, MA

BTEX, acenaphthene,naphthalene, 2,4-dimethyl phenol,dieldrin, chlordane, Pb,As

qq q 3.8/O 21,000 $15,000,000

($11,000,000)

$2,500,000

($2,000,000)

$730 $120 Op

mofor Ortredissufwi
EXHIBIT 10. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED P&T SITES (CONTINUED)

Site Name

and Location

Contaminants With

Remedial 

Cleanup Goals 1

Remediation Technology 2

 Years of Operation/Status 3,4

Gallons Treated Per Year

 (1,000 Gallons) 

 Adjusted Capital Cost

(Reported Capital Cost) 5

 Adjusted Av.Ann. Oper. Cost

(Reported Av. Ann. Oper. Cost) 5,6

Adjusted Capital Cost Per Volume of

 Groundwater Treated Per Year

 ($/1,000 Gallons/Year) 5

Adjusted Av. Ann. Oper. Cost Per

Volume of Groundwater Treated

Per Year

($/1,000 Gallons) 5,6 

P&T (with ex situ treatment)7

AS

FPR

ISB

PRB

VCB

BIO

GAC

PHYS/CHEM

OXID

STRIP

16

Sylvester/Gilson Road,NH

MC, chloroform, MEK,toluene, phenols, Se,methyl methacrylate,1,1,1-TCA, trans-1,2-DCA, 1,1-DCA,chlorobenzene, 1,1,2-TCA, VC, benzene

qqq q 9.5/E 130,000 $11,000,000

($7,200,000)

$2,400,000

($1,800,000)

$85 $19 Re

rea24 opem

LaSalle, IL PCBs, TCE, 1,2-DCE,

1,1,1-TCA, VC, 1,1-DCA, PCE

q q 4.4/O 5,200 $7,400,000

($5,300,000)

$210,000

($160,000)

$1,400 $40 Co

cosminc

SolventRecoveryService, CT

None, contaminants atthe site include TCE, cis1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA,PCBs, Ba, Cd, Ch, Pb,Mn

qqq q 3.0/O 11,000 $5,100,000

($4,400,000)

$660,000

($580,000)

$470 $61 Pre

capincwagro

Libby, MT napthalene,

acenaphthene, fluorene,anthracene, pyrene,fluoranthene,benzo(a)anthracene,chrysene,benzo(b)fluoranthene,benzo(a)pyrene,dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene,As, benzene, PCP

q q 5.3/O 3,000 $4,300,000

($3,000,000)

$520,000

($400,000)

$1,500 $180 Ch

hig

sambevoinc

King ofPrussia, NJ

1,1-DCA, trans-1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, TCE,PCA, PCE, benzene,toluene, ethylbenzene,Be, Cr, Cu, Ni, Cd, Hg,,Zn

qq q 2.7/O 57,000 $1,800,000

($2,000,000)

$290,000

($330,000)

$32 $5.1 Ele

fro
EXHIBIT 10. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED P&T SITES (CONTINUED)

Site Name

and Location

Contaminants With

Remedial 

Cleanup Goals 1

Remediation Technology 2

 Years of Operation/Status 3,4

Gallons Treated Per Year

 (1,000 Gallons) 

 Adjusted Capital Cost

(Reported Capital Cost) 5

 Adjusted Av.Ann. Oper. Cost

(Reported Av. Ann. Oper. Cost) 5,6

Adjusted Capital Cost Per Volume of

 Groundwater Treated Per Year

 ($/1,000 Gallons/Year) 5

Adjusted Av. Ann. Oper. Cost Per

Volume of Groundwater Treated

Per Year

($/1,000 Gallons) 5,6 

P&T (with ex situ treatment)7

AS

FPR

ISB

PRB

VCB

BIO

GAC

PHYS/CHEM

OXID

STRIP

17

MSWP, AR PCP, Cr, As,

benzo(a)anthracene,benzo(a)pyrene,benzo(b+k)fluoranthene,chrysene

q 8.3/O 12,000 $600,000

($470,000)

$120,000

($110,000)

$49 $10 Us

GAcoan opgroanweop

Source: FRTR case studies of ongoing and completed groundwater remediation projects. 1Contaminant Key: As = arsenic, Ba = barium, Be = beryllium, BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes, Cd = cadmium, Cr = chromium, Cu = copper, DCA = dichloroet

ether, MC = methylene chloride, MEK = methyl ethyl ketone, MIBK = methyl isobutyl ketone, Mn = manganese, MTBE = methyl tert butyl ether, NH-SVOLs = nonhalogenated semivhydrocarbons, Pb = lead, PCA = tetrachloroethane, PCB = polychlorinated biphenyls, PCE = tetrachloroethene, PCP = pentachlorophenol, TCA = tetrachloroethane, TCE = tetrachloro

2Remediation Technology Key: AS = air sparging, BIO = biological treatment, FPR = free product recovery, GAC = granular activated carbon adsorption, ISB = in situ bioremediation

of metal, OXID = Oxidation, PRB = permeable reactive barrier, STRIP = air stripping, VCB = vertical containment barrier.

3If cost data are not available for the entire period of treatment system operation, then the number of years for which cost data are available is presented. 4Status Key: A = monitored natural attenuation, C = complete, D = P&T discontinued, PRB ongoing, E = shut down pending explanation of significant difference, O = ongoing, S = sh5All reported costs were adjusted for site locations and years when costs were incurred, as described in the text. All unadjusted (reported) costs are presented in parentheses. Adjusted c6Av. Ann. Oper. Cost = Average Annual Operating Cost7The ex situ treatment systems presented in these columns include the treatment units in operation at the time that the case studies were prepared (for systems with and ongoing status) o

before system shutdown (for systems with any status other than ongoing).
18

EXHIBIT 11. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED PRB SITES

Site Name

and Location

Contaminants 

1

Adjusted

Cap. Cost 

2

(Reported

Cap. Cost)

Cost Components

Installation Date

Installation Method 

3

Number of PRBs/Gates

PRB Location

or Function

Reactive Media

Material 

4

Reactive Media Dimensions

Design

Construction

Materials

Reactive Media

Engineering

Haz. Waste T&D

Unspecified Total Mass Width Length De

CHLORINATED SOLVENTS

Kansas CityPlant, MO

1,2-DCE, VC $1,600,000

($1,500,000)

Design =$200,000Other =$1,300,000

qq q q q Apr.

1998

CT 1 Top half of

trench

2 ft Feo, 4 ft

sand

370 tons of

iron

6 ft 130 ft 13-2

Bottom half of

trench

100% Feo 27-

CaldwellTrucking,NJ

TCE $1,400,000

($1,120,000)

qqqq Apr.

1998

HF 2 Permeation

infill

Feo 250 tons 3 in 150 ft 15-

Hydrofrace Feo 3 in 90 ft 15-

FormerManf. Site,NJ

1,1,1-TCA;

PCE; TCE;

DNAPL

$1,100,000

($875,000)

Design =$180,000Iron =$360,000*Other =$560,000

qq q q Sept.

1998

DE,

CT,

SPC

1 DNAPL

excavation

1:1 Feo/

sand

720 tons of

iron

5 ft 127 ft 25 

Top 4 to 7 ft of CT9 3:2 Feo/ sand

Bottom 7 to 21

ft of CT9

4:1 Feo/

sand

FHAFacility, CO

TCA; 1,1-

DCE; TCE;

cis-1,2-DCE

$1,100,000

($1,000,000)

Iron =$210,0009

Other =$890,000

qqqq Oct.

1996

F&G 4 All 4 PRBs Feo 476 tons of

iron*

varies Each

gate is

40 ft

wide

25 

IndustrialSite, NY

TCE, cis-1,2-

DCE, VC

$1,000,000

($797,000)

Iron =$360,0009

Other =$640,000

qqq Dec.

1997

CT 2 Main trench Feo 742 tons 1 ft 370 ft 18 

Upgradient

trench

1 ft 10 ft N
EXHIBIT 11. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED PRB SITES (CONTINUED)

Site Name

and Location

Contaminants 1

Adjusted

Cap. Cost 2

(Reported

Cap. Cost)

Cost Components

Installation Date

Installation Method 3

Number of PRBs/Gates

PRB Location

or Function

Reactive Media

Material 4

Reactive Media Dimensions

Design

Construction

Materials

Reactive Media

Engineering

Haz. Waste T&D

Unspecified Total Mass Width Length De

19

Intersil, CA5 TCE, cis-1,2-

DCE, VC,

Freon 113

®

$760,000

($600,000)10

Iron =$170,000*Other =$590,000

qqq Feb.

1995

F&G 1 NA Feo 220 tons 4 ft 36 ft 11-

AircraftFacility, OR

TCE $710,000

($600,000)

q Mar.

1998

F&G 2 Gate 1 Feo 324 tons of

iron9

Two 9-in

thick layers

50 ft to 24

Gate 2 Feo, sand 3 ft 60 ft to 24

Lowry AirForce Base,CO

TCE $600,000

($530,000)

qqqq Dec.

1995

F&G 1 NA Feo NR 5 ft 10 ft 0-1

IndustrialSite, N.Ireland

TCE; cis-1,2-

DCE

$580,0006

($375,000)

q9 qqq Dec.

1995

F&R 1 NA Feo NR Vessel has 

4-ft diam.

Vessel

has 

4-ft

diam.

33-

IndustrialSite, KS

TCE; 1,1,1-

TCA

$400,000

($400,000)

Iron =$50,000*Other =$350,000

q9 q q Jan.

1996

F&G 1 NA Feo 70 tons 3 ft 20 ft 0-3

IndustrialSite, SC

TCE, cis-1,2-

DCE, VC

$360,000

($400,000)

Design =$45,000Iron =$130,000*Other =$180,000

qq q q Nov.

1997

CT 1 NA Feo, sand

(1:1 ratio)

400 tons of

iron

1 ft 375 ft9 0-2
EXHIBIT 11. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED PRB SITES (CONTINUED)

Site Name

and Location

Contaminants 1

Adjusted

Cap. Cost 2

(Reported

Cap. Cost)

Cost Components

Installation Date

Installation Method 3

Number of PRBs/Gates

PRB Location

or Function

Reactive Media

Material 4

Reactive Media Dimensions

Design

Construction

Materials

Reactive Media

Engineering

Haz. Waste T&D

Unspecified Total Mass Width Length De

20

FormerDrycleanSite,Germany

PCE; 1,2-

DCE

$160,000

($123,000)

Design =$39,000Other =$120,000

qq q June

1998

CW 1 NS 1:1 mass

ratio Feo

/

gravel

69 tons 2-3 ft 33 ft 10 - 

NS IS 85 tons 41 ft 

METALS AND INORGANICS

Nickel RimMine Site,Canada

Ni, Fe,

Sulfate

$43,000

($30,000)

qqqq Aug.

1995

C&F 1 NA OC/

pea gravel

NR 12 ft 50 ft 14 ft 

COMBINATION OF CONTAMINANTS

Y-12 Site,Oak RidgeNationalLab, TN

U, Tc, HNO3 $900,000

($1,000,000)

qqqq Nov.

1997

CT 1 NS 100% iron 80 tons iron 2 ft 26 ft 22-

NS 100% gravel NR 199 ft

Dec.

1997

F&R 5 All 5 reactors iron NR NR NR N

MarzoneInc., GA

alpha-HCB,

beta-HCB,

DDD, DDT,

xylene, EB,

lindane,

methyl

parathion

$650,000

($750,000)

Design =$200,000Other =$450,000

qqqq Aug.

1998

F&G 1 NA AC 0.9 tons NR 400 ft N

U.S. CoastGuardSupportCenter, NC8

Cr+6, TCE $460,000

($500,000)10

Design =$160,000Iron = $150,000Other =$150,000

qqqq June

1996

CT 1 NA Feo 450 tons 2 ft 150 ft 3-2

Primary Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 1999. Field Applications of In Situ Remediation Technologies: Permeable Reactive Barriers. EPA 542-R
EXHIBIT 11. SUMMARY OF COST AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTED PRB SITES (CONTINUED)

21

Additional Sources: Fax Transmittal from Mr. Robert Puls, EPA to Susan Guenther, TTEMI. March 8, 2000. Comments on Exhibit 10: Summary of Cost and Technical Information 

EPA. 1998. Remediation Case Studies: Innovative Groundwater Treatment Technologies. Volume 11. EPA 542-R-98-015. September. 1 Contaminant Key: As = arsenic, HCB = hexachlorobenzene, Cd = cadmium, Cu = copper, Cr+6 = hexavalent chromium, DCE = dichloroethene, DDD = dichlorodiphenyldichloroeth

DNAPL = dense nonaqueous-phase liquid, EB = ethylbenzene, Fe = Iron, HNO3 = nitric acid, Ni = Nickel, Pb = lead, PCE = tetrachloroethene, Tc = technetium, TCA = trichloroethvinyl chloride, Zn = zinc. 2 All reported capital costs were adjusted for site locations and years when costs were incurred, as described in the text. All unadjusted (reported) costs are presented in parentheses. A

3 Installation Method Key: C&F = cut and fill, CT = continuous trencher, CW = continuous wall, DE = dense nonaqueous-phase liquid (DNAPL) extraction, F&G = funnel and gate, 

hydraulic fracturing, SPC = Sheet piling construction. 4 Reactive Media Material Key: AC = activated carbon, AFO = amorphous ferric oxyhydroxide, Feo = zero-valent iron, IS = iron sponge (wood shavings or chips impregnated with hy

organic carbon (municipal/leaf compost and wood chips), PO4 = bone char phosphate. 5 Adjusted average annual operating costs for Intersil are $120,000. Information was obtained from EPA 542-R-98-015. 6 An adjustment factor for Northern Ireland is not available. Therefore, an adjustment factor for the United Kingdom was used. 7 The lower boundary of the continuous wall was not reported. However, the aquifer extends to 33 ft. 8 Adjusted average annual operating costs for the U.S. Coast Guard Support Center are $78,000. Information was obtained from EPA 542-R-98-015. 9 Information provided by Mr Robert Puls, EPA.

10 Information obtained from EPA 542-R-98-015.

NA = Not applicable, NR = Not reported, NS = Not specified
22

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Groundwater Cleanup: Overview of Operating

Experience at 28 Sites. EPA 542-R-99-006. <http://www.clu-in.org>. September. 

2. EPA. 1999. Field Applications of In Situ Remediation Technologies: Permeable Reactive Barriers. EPA

542-R-99-002. <http://www.clu-in.org>. June. 

3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. PAX Newsletter No. 3.2.1.

<http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cemp/e/es/pax/paxtoc.htm>. March.

4. EPA. 1998. Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for Remediation

Projects, Revised Version. EPA 542-B-98-007. <http://www.frtr.gov>. October.

5. EPA. 1998. Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and Treat (Chlorinated Solvents, Volume 9). 

EPA 542-R-98-013. <http://www.frtr.gov>. September.

6. EPA. 1998. Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Pump and Treat (Nonchlorinated Contaminants,

Volume 10). EPA 542-R-98-014. <http://www.frtr.gov>. September.

7. EPA. 1998. Remediation Case Studies: Innovative Groundwater Treatment Technologies, Volume 11. EPA

542-R-98-015. <http://www.frtr.gov>. September.

8. Battelle. 1998. Performance Evaluation of a Pilot-Scale Permeable Reactive Barrier at Former Naval Air

Station Moffett Field, Mountain View, California. June.

9. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment. EPA-542-R-95-003. <http://www.frtr.gov>. 

March.

10. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. <http://www.frtr.gov>.

11. Remediation Technologies Development Forum. <http://www.rtdf.org>.

12. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index.

<http://stats.bls.gov/datahome.htm>.

13. EPA. 1997. Cleaning Up the Nation’s Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends (1996 Edition). EPA542-R-96-005. April.

14. Cohen, R.M., J.W. Mercer, and R.M. Greenwald. 1998. EPA Groundwater Issue, Design Guidelines for

Conventional Pump-and-Treat Systems. EPA 540/S-97/504. <http://www.epa.gov/ada/issue.html>. 

September.

APPENDIX A. COST EQUATIONS AND EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS

The equations used to normalize the total capital and total annual operating costs and to calculate the average annual

operating costs are presented below. 

Adjusted Total Capital Cost = (Total Capital Cost)(ACF)(IF)

Adjusted Total Annual Operating Cost = (Total Annual Operating Cost)(ACF)(IF)

Average Annual Operating Cost = (Adjusted Total Annual Operating Cost)/(# of Years)

Example calculations are presented below for the Former Firestone Superfund Site, which is one of the 32 P&T sites

included in the analysis. The site is located in Salinas, California (California ACF = 1.15). The groundwater

treatment system at the Former Firestone Superfund Site was installed in 1985 (IF = 1.44). Annual costs were

incurred from 1986 to 1992, for a total of 6.8 years. 1989 was used as the median year in which annual costs were

incurred (IF = 1.31). The total unadjusted capital cost and total annual operating cost for the site are $4,100,000

and $8,800,000, respectively.

Adjusted Total Capital Cost = ($4,100,000)(1.15)(1.44) = $6,900,000

Adjusted Total Annual Cost = ($8,800,000)(1.15)(1.31) = $13,000,000

Average Annual Operating Cost = ($13,000,000)/(6.8) = $2,000,000
23

Case Studies and Related Publications 

Ordering Instructions and Form

The following documents are available free-of-charge from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Service Center

for Environmental Publications (NSCEP). To order, mail this completed form to: EPA NSCEP, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242;

or fax the form to (513) 489-8695. Telephone orders may be placed at (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190.

Title Number

Please

Send

FRTR Publications

Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 1 EPA-542-R-95-001; March 1995 *

Remediation Case Studies, Volume 1: Bioremediation EPA-542-R-95-002; March 1995 *

Remediation Case Studies, Volume 2: Groundwater Treatment EPA-542-R-95-003; March 1995 *

Remediation Case Studies, Volume 3: Soil Vapor Extraction EPA-542-R-95-004; March 1995 *

Remediation Case Studies, Volume 4: Thermal Desorption, Soil

Washing, and In Situ Vitrification

EPA-542-R-95-005; March 1995 *

Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 2 EPA-542-R-97-010; July 1997 *

Remediation Case Studies, Volume 5: Bioremediation and Vitrification EPA-542-R-97-008; July 1997 *

Remediation Case Studies, Volume 6: Soil Vapor Extraction and Other In

Situ Technologies

EPA-542-R-97-009; July 1997 *

Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 3 EPA-542-R-98-010; September 1998 *

Remediation Case Studies, Volume 7: Ex Situ Soil Treatment

Technologies (Bioremediation, Solvent Extraction, Thermal Desorption)

EPA-542-R-98-011; September 1998 *

Remediation Case Studies, Volume 8: In Situ Soil Treatment

Technologies (Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal Processes)

EPA-542-R-98-012; September 1998 *

Remediation Case Studies, Volume 9: Groundwater Pump and Treat

(Chlorinated Solvents)

EPA-542-R-98-013; September 1998 *

Remediation Case Studies, Volume 10: Groundwater Pump and Treat

(Nonchlorinated Contaminants)

EPA-542-R-98-014; September 1998 *

Remediation Case Studies, Volume 11: Innovative Groundwater

Treatment Technologies

EPA-542-R-98-015; September 1998 *

Remediation Case Studies, Volume 12: On-Site Incineration EPA-542-R-98-016; September 1998 *

Remediation Case Studies, Volume 13: Debris and Surface Cleaning

Technologies, and Other Miscellaneous Technologies 

EPA-542-R-98-017; September 1998 *

Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information

for Remediation Projects, Revised Version

EPA-542-B-98-007; October 1998 *

Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, Volume 4 EPA-542-R-00-006; June 2000 *

FRTR Cost and Performance Remediation Case Studies and Related

Information (CD-ROM)

EPA 542-C-00-001; June 2000 *

EPA Publications

Field Applications of In Situ Remediation Technologies: Permeable

Reactive Barriers

EPA-542-R-99-002; June 1999 *

Groundwater Cleanup: Overview of Operating Experience at 28 Sites EPA-542-R-99-006; September 1999 *

Name Date 

Organization 

Address 

City/State/Zip 

Telephone 

E-mail Address 

Individual remediation case studies and abstracts also are available on the Internet at http://www.frtr.gov/cost or at

http://clu-in.org. EPA publications are available at http://clu-in.org.