Guide to Documenting and Managing 

Cost and Performance Information 

for Remediation Projects

Revised Version

Prepared by Member Agencies of the

Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable

Environmental Protection Agency

Department of Defense

U.S. Air Force

U.S. Army

U.S. Navy

Department of Energy

Department of Interior

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Tennessee Valley Authority

Coast Guard

October 1998

 
ii

NOTICE

This document has been subjected to administrative review by all Agencies participating in the Federal

Remediation Technologies Roundtable, and has been approved for publication. Mention of trade names or

commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Preparation of this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency under EPA Contract No. 68-W5-0055.
iii

FOREWORD

A key objective of the Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for

Remediation Projects (the guide) is to provide a tool for improving the collection, documentation, and

management of data by describing a standard set of parameters for reporting cost and performance

information about treatment technologies. Since the first version of the guide was published in 1995,

federal agencies have made significant progress in coordinating efforts to document projects and to share

the results of those efforts. To date, members of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable

(Roundtable) have completed approximately 130 case study reports.

The success of the guide is tied directly to the efforts of the Roundtable agencies. The Roundtable is an

interagency working group that was created to build a more collaborative atmosphere among the federal

agencies involved in remediation of hazardous waste sites. The Roundtable seeks to promote the

exchange of information about the development and use of technologies and works to identify and

publicize more efficient, cost-effective methods of hazardous waste remediation. A Cost and

Performance Work Group was created to discuss the overall scope and specific provisions of the guide

and electronic management of case studies. Member agencies recognize the importance of documenting

the results of cleanups and the benefits to be realized from a coordinated effort. 

The Roundtable and Work Group have met several times since the original version of this document was

published to share the experiences of member agencies in using the guide and to discuss improvements. 

As a result of those efforts, the Roundtable undertook several major revisions to improve and bring the

document up to date. Key changes include:

C Expanding the number and types of technologies to a total of 29, including containment,

to reflect advances in remediation technologies since 1995.

C Adding procedures for documenting results from demonstration-scale projects and

projects that are not yet completed (interim projects). 

C Updating the examples to include new technologies.

C Streamlining the documentation for background information.

C Simplifying the recommended procedures for documenting cost to better reflect

conventions and to facilitate comparison of technologies and unit costs.

C Providing examples of reporting formats used by member agencies.
iv

C Significantly improving the electronic management of data on cost and performance by

developing a searchable database for reports. Although reports have been made

available through the Roundtable’s World Wide Web site (<www.frtr.gov>) for a

number of years, case studies can now be searched by a pick-list of key words designed

to help the user better target searches and improve search results.

Member agencies have indicated a strong commitment to using the guide and to continuing to work

together to collectively improve the process of documenting and managing cost and performance data. 

The Roundtable will continue to solicit information about experiences in using the guide, suggestions for

improving the procedures for documenting remediation projects, and recommendations for improvements

to the Roundtable web site. An Advisory Board will meet annually to evaluate and make

recommendations for improving the Roundtable web site.
v

CONTENTS

Section Page

FOREWORD ................................................................... ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1-1

1.1 SUMMARY OF MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GUIDE .............. 1-2

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDE ........................................ 1-3

2.0 RECOMMENDED COST FORMAT ......................................... 2-1

2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................. 2-1

2.2 ROUNDTABLE COST FORMAT ..................................... 2-2

2.3 EXAMPLES OF USE OF THE RECOMMENDED COST FORMAT ......... 2-12

2.4 COST COMPARISONS ........................................... 2-12

3.0 RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE REPORTING ............................. 3-1

4.0 FACTORS THAT AFFECT COST OR PERFORMANCE ......................... 4-1

4.1 BACKGROUND .................................................. 4-1

4.2 DEMONSTRATION-SCALE PROJECTS ............................... 4-2

4.3 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES .................................... 4-4

5.0 REPORT FORMATS ..................................................... 5-1

6.0 WEB SITE STRATEGY .................................................. 6-1

6.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................. 6-1

6.2 PURPOSES FOR ROUNDTABLE WEB SITE ........................... 6-2

6.3 IMPLEMENTATION .............................................. 6-2

6.4 INTERAGENCY PARTICIPATION ................................... 6-5

6.5 SEARCHABLE DATABASE OF COST AND 

PERFORMANCE CASE STUDIES .................................... 6-5

6.6 KEY WORDS .................................................... 6-6

Appendices

A POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE OF MATRIX

CHARACTERISTICS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS

B MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES FOR MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS

AND OPERATING PARAMETERS

C RECOMMENDED FORMAT FOR CASE STUDY ABSTRACT

D GENERIC FORMAT FOR COST AND PERFORMANCE CASE STUDY REPORT

E ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC WORK GROUP ON COST AND

PERFORMANCE

F MEMBERS OF FEDERAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES ROUNDTABLE
vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2-1 RECOMMENDED COST FORMAT ......................................... 2-3

4-1 SUGGESTED PARAMETERS TO DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS:

MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS THAT AFFECT COST OR PERFORMANCE OF A

TECHNOLOGY ......................................................... 4-5

4-2 SUGGESTED PARAMETERS TO DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS:

OPERATING PARAMETERS THAT AFFECT COST OR PERFORMANCE OF A

TECHNOLOGY ......................................................... 4-7

6-1 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION ON THE ROUNDTABLE WEB SITE ............. 6-4

6-2 RECOMMENDED KEY WORDS FOR MEDIA ................................ 6-7

6-3 RECOMMENDED KEY WORDS FOR CONTAMINANTS ....................... 6-7

6-4 RECOMMENDED KEY WORDS FOR PRIMARY TECHNOLOGIES .............. 6-8

6-5 RECOMMENDED KEY WORDS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES ........ 6-8

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit Page

2-1 SAMPLE WORKSHEET FOR COMPILING TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC UNIT 

COSTS ................................................................ 2-9

3-1 RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE REPORTING ............................. 3-2

3-2 EXAMPLE OF REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

FOR A FULL-SCALE COMPLETED PROJECT ................................ 3-4

3-3 EXAMPLE OF REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

FOR A DEMONSTRATION-SCALE PROJECT ................................ 3-5

3-4 EXAMPLE OF REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

FOR AN ONGOING PROJECT ............................................. 3-6

4-1 EXAMPLE FOR REPORTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT

DEMONSTRATION-SCALE PROJECTS ..................................... 4-3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

6-1 GENERAL SITE MAP FOR FEDERAL REMEDIATION

TECHNOLOGIES ROUNDTABLE WEB SITE ................................. 6-3
vii
1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for Remediation Projects

provides the recommended procedures for documenting the results of completed and on-going full-scale

and demonstration-scale remediation projects. The original version was published by the Federal

Remediation Technologies Roundtable (Roundtable) in March 1995 to more effectively coordinate the

activities of its member agencies and to assist in documenting their experience with remediation

technologies. Member agencies of the Roundtable that were major contributors to this guide are the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE).

Agencies face a number of challenges in their efforts to increase the effectiveness of remediation projects,

while decreasing the costs of cleaning-up sites and the time necessary to do so. Federal agencies are

involved in a variety of activities intended to achieve those ends, including the evaluation of new

technologies through field demonstrations and implementation of full-scale cleanups. Such activities

present important opportunities to gather data that may be valuable in identifying future applications of a

technology. However, the types of information collected about projects may vary widely, making it

difficult to compare cost and performance data. In providing recommended procedures for documenting

remediation projects, the Roundtable’s goals are to:

C Increase the availability of standard cost and performance data on remediation

technologies to facilitate comparison and help improve remedy selection

C Provide a baseline of information about conventional technologies that can be used as a

benchmark in evaluating innovative technologies

C Provide a framework for streamlining future data collection and reporting efforts

Roundtable agencies have made significant progress in preparing cost and performance reports for

remediation projects. Agencies published 37 studies in March 1995 and 17 in July 1997. In September

1998, the Roundtable published 86 additional studies covering a wide range of soil and groundwater

remediation technologies, including conventional processes and such newer applications as permeable

reactive barriers.

Roundtable agencies are committed to using the guide and will continue to explore ways to promote the

adoption of standard procedures for reporting cost and performance. While the guide recommends the
1-2

elements that should be documented, it also provides flexibility in the specific format to be used for

reporting information. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has included the

reporting structure of the guide in a document titled Technical Requirements for Specifications to Report

HTRW [Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste] Environmental Restoration Cost and Performance. 

 In a July 1997 DOE memorandum on technology deployment, Alvin Alm, Assistant Secretary for

Environmental Management, describes DOE's commitment to using the reporting structure identified in

the guide for collection and dissemination of information to help line programs, regulators, and

stakeholders make informed decisions about site remediation. William Quade, former Director of the

Environment, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), issued a memorandum on November

2, 1992, to all NAVFAC field offices recommending the documentation of cost and performance data for

site remediation projects. In addition, EPA encourages inclusion of cost and performance data,

developed using the procedures recommended in the guide, in remedial action reports.

The Roundtable also recognizes the value of obtaining as much information as possible on the cost and

performance of technologies and agrees that the expansion of such efforts beyond federal agencies has

merit. Members of the Roundtable see particular value with involving states in the effort and will

continue to encourage state participation. The Roundtable would welcome case studies prepared by

states that are consistent with the recommended procedures in the guide and would include these case

studies in Roundtable publications as well as the Roundtable web site.

1.1 SUMMARY OF MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE GUIDE

Since the original guide was published, Roundtable members have participated in several meetings during

which they shared their experiences in using the guide and discussed ways to improve procedures for

documenting cost and performance. In addition, members reviewed recommendations provided by the

National Research Council (NRC) in its report Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From

Concept to Commercialization (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1997). 

As a result of those meetings, the Roundtable has revised the guide to expand the number and type of

technologies covered, and to streamline a number of areas to make it easier and more flexible to use. Key

improvements include:

C Adding 16 new technologies (for a total of 29), and expanding the attention given to

conventional technologies to include containment technologies
1-3

C Expanding the scope to address demonstration-scale projects

C Simplifying the procedures for reporting costs to better reflect cost reporting conventions

C Adding a chapter on data management to reflect improvements in dissemination of case

studies through the World Wide Web

C Revising the standard terminology and eliminating reporting of background information

about sites

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDE

This document summarizes the recommended procedures for reporting cost and performance of

remediation projects. Chapter 2 focuses on costs, while Chapter 3 focuses on performance. Both

chapters include examples on how to use the recommended formats. Chapter 4 identifies factors that

affect cost or performance, and Chapter 5 presents information about specific reporting formats. A

discussion about the Roundtable web site strategy is provided in Chapter 6.

Appendices provide additional information related to that presented in Chapters 2 through 6. Appendix

A discusses the effects of matrix characteristics and operating parameters on cost or performance, while

measurement procedures for those parameters are shown in Appendix B. A recommended format for

preparing case study abstracts is provided in Appendix C, and a generic format for full case studies is

shown in Appendix D. Appendices E and F list the active members of the Ad Hoc Work Group on Cost

and Performance, and the members of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, respectively.
2-1

< The Roundtable recommends a new,

simplified cost reporting format. 

< The new format offers several major

benefits, including:

S Simplifying and standardizing

the reporting of costs

S Validating cost models

S Aiding in evaluating specific

technologies

S Aiding in comparing

technologies to evaluate

remedial alternatives

2.0 RECOMMENDED COST FORMAT

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The cost elements recommended in this guide

were developed to be consistent with various

ongoing federal programs under which costs are

collected. The guide recommends a new cost

reporting format based on conventional capital

and operation and maintenance (O&M)

components for reporting costs of specific

remediation technologies (technology-specific

costs). Such technologies typically include

treatment and containment for soil and

groundwater. 

In addition to technology-specific costs, most agencies also account for the overall costs of remediation

efforts (total project costs), and the Roundtable recommends that total project costs also be documented. 

Overall costs may include a range of items, such as management and support activities; various forms of

site work related to security, stormwater control, access, and utilities; permitting; monitoring; and

preparation of various plans. Agencies are working together to improve cost data management and

recognize the need to establish and maintain common structures to efficiently meet growing agencyspecific and interagency reporting requirements. The current work breakdown structure is used to assist

agencies in collecting actual project costs and continues to evolve as the cost data backbone by which

project cost details are collected, analyzed, managed, and reported. 

Identifying costs for a specific technology usually will be undertaken as part of a broad effort to

document total project costs. Some technology-specific costs are subsets of overall project costs that are 

derived by disaggregating project-wide figures. Each agency is responsible for managing its own cost

documentation program. However, by agreeing on the common set of reporting elements in this guide,

the Roundtable agencies will maximize the use of their data by allowing meaningful comparison and

assessment of technologies. Agencies may develop “cross-walk” tables as needed for factoring the

Roundtable elements into their reporting formats.
2-2

2.2 ROUNDTABLE COST FORMAT

The Roundtable cost format was developed with the following objectives in mind:

C Simplicity: The format should be simple, straightforward, and easily understood by

project managers in the field, without the need for extensive training.

C Common conventions: The format should be consistent with the terminology commonly

used by project managers in the field, such as the terms “capital costs” and “O&M

costs.”

C Remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater: The format should be focused on

technology applications used for treatment or containment of contaminated soil and

groundwater.

C Unit costs: The format should be limited to those cost items that are related directly to

the performance of a technology and to those items that would be useful in a comparison

of unit costs (cost per unit of measure) for technologies and applications.

C Standardization of cost data: The format should include a standardized approach to

reporting technology-specific costs that will aid in comparing data among projects, both

among multiple applications of a single technology and among applications of different

technologies.

C Compatibility with the reporting of project costs: The format should be designed to

allow integration of the data into the reporting structures for total project costs. 

Table 2-1 shows the format recommended by the Roundtable for documenting technology-specific costs. 

The format is based on documentation of capital costs and O&M costs for the technology application. 

Under those major categories, Table 2-1 shows the types of elements that typically should be reported,

such as equipment and appurtenances under capital costs, and labor, materials, and utilities under O&M

costs. 

Capital cost items for technology include many of the fixed costs that are incurred during construction

and startup of a remedial activity, such as mobilization and demobilization of technology equipment and

personnel to and from a site, site preparation, and purchase of equipment. O&M cost items include many

of the ongoing or recurring costs of a remedial activity, such as the costs of labor, materials, and utilities. 

For relatively short-term applications, O&M costs may be reported as a total value for the application;

however, for longer-term applications, annual O&M costs should be reported.

The format is recommended for full-scale and demonstration-scale applications, and for all types of soil

and groundwater remediation technologies, such as in situ and ex situ technologies, innovative and

conventional technologies, and treatment and containment technologies. In addition, the format is

applicable to both short-term and long-term technology applications. 
2-3

TABLE 2-1

RECOMMENDED COST FORMAT

Cost Category/Element Example Items

1. Capital Cost for

Technology *

Technology mobilization, Includes the transportation (freight on board) or delivery of equipment, facilities, and

setup, and demobilization personnel to and from a site, as well as the setup of temporary facilities and utilities necessary

for the construction and startup of the remedial technology.

Planning and preparation Includes permits and licenses including air emission and water discharge permits; license fees

associated with use of a technology; regulatory interaction; and various written plans, such as

work plans, sampling and analysis plans, health and safety plans, community relations plans,

and site management plans.

Site work Includes all work necessary to establish the physical infrastructure for a technology

application and activities necessary to restore a site to pre-remediation conditions or to meet

the specifications of a site restoration plan. Includes activities associated with preparing the

specific site of the technology, such as clearing and grubbing; earthwork; and construction of

utilities, culverts, treatment pads, foundations, and spill control structures. 

Equipment and Includes structures, equipment, and appurtenances; construction or installation of remedial

appurtenances technology components and materials, including technology parts and supplies to make the

- Structures technology and appurtenances operational; ownership (amortization), rental or lease of

- Process equipment equipment; and plant upgrades, modifications, or replacements; for containment, this should

and appurtenances/ be broadly interpreted as including structures such as slurry walls or caps; for pump and treat,

construction this includes construction and installation of extraction wells.

- Other (specify)

Startup and testing Includes activities associated with the startup of the treatment technology, such as

establishment of operating conditions, shakedown, and training of O&M personnel. 

Other Includes all other capital costs associated with the specific technology that have not been

(Includes non-process identified above. Generally, this would include costs for non-process equipment. Nonequipment) process equipment includes office and administrative equipment, such as data processing and

computer equipment, safety equipment, and vehicles. 

2. Operation and

Maintenance (O&M) 

Cost for Technology*

Labor Includes labor to operate and maintain the technology and associated equipment, labor

supervision, and payroll expenses. Covers ongoing operations, as well as preventive and

corrective maintenance activities. 

Materials Includes consumable supplies, process materials, bulk chemicals, and raw materials. Covers

ongoing operations, as well as preventive and corrective maintenance activities. 

Utilities and fuel Includes consumable energy supplies, such as fuel, electricity, natural gas, and water. Covers

ongoing operations, as well as preventive and corrective maintenance activities.

Equipment ownership, Includes ownership (amortization), rental, or lease of equipment necessary for operation and

rental, or lease maintenance of remedial technology components.

Performance testing and Includes monitoring, sampling, testing, and analysis related to identifying the performance of

analysis a technology. Does not include similar activities related to demonstrating compliance with

applicable regulations and permits specific to the technology application. 

Other Includes all O&M costs associated with a specific technology that were not identified above. 

(Includes non-process Costs generally include non-process equipment overhead and health and safety associated with

equipment overhead and the O&M of a technology. Non-process equipment overhead includes maintenance and repair

health and safety) of office and administrative equipment, such as data processing and computer equipment,

safety equipment, and vehicles. Health and safety costs include those for personal protective

equipment and monitoring of personnel for health and safety. 
TABLE 2-1

RECOMMENDED COST FORMAT (continued)

Cost Category/Element Example Items

2-4

3. Other TechnologySpecific Costs

Compliance testing and Includes monitoring, sampling, testing, and analysis related to demonstrating compliance with

analysis applicable regulations and permits specific to the technology application. Does not include

similar activities related to monitoring the performance of a technology. 

Soil, sludge, and debris Includes activities associated with excavation, collection, or control of contaminated soil,

excavation, collection, sludge, and debris, prior to ex situ treatment, including staging of contaminated media. This

and control element includes collection of drums containing contaminated media.

Disposal of residues Includes activities associated with disposal of primary and secondary waste residues from the

operation of the technology, such as treated soil disposed of off site. Covers both on- and offsite disposal of waste residues.

4. Other Project Costs Includes all activities associated with remediation of a contaminated site that are not

attributed directly to a specific technology, such as mobilization and demobilization, site

work, and site restoration activities. These costs may be helpful in comparing costs of entire

remediation projects and in comparing costs for a specific technology to that of the entire

project.

* These items should be included in a calculation of unit cost for a specific technology application at a site. Some activities

are shown on this table under both capital and O&M (e.g., equipment ownership, rental, or lease). The Roundtable

recommends that the costs for those activities be reported as capital if they are related more closely to construction and

startup of a technology, and as O&M if they are related more closely to the ongoing, recurring operation or maintenance

of a technology. In addition, costs for project engineering and management support should be allocated to the appropriate

cost element as an overhead cost, as appropriate.
2-5

For demonstration-scale projects, the Roundtable recommends that the projected costs for full-scale

applications, rather than the costs of the demonstration, be reported. The assumptions used in

extrapolating costs from demonstration-scale projects to full-scale projects also should be documented. 

In addition, it may be useful to report costs incurred for the demonstration and to document how those

costs were used in projecting to full scale. It should be noted that there can be a great deal of uncertainty

with projections to full scale that are based on data from a demonstration project. The degree of

uncertainty will vary based on the background and experience of the organization extrapolating the date. 

Therefore, the Roundtable recommends that the organization extrapolating the data be identified.

Costs should be reported for each of the items specified in Table 2-1, and more detailed reporting of each

element should be provided, when possible. For example, under equipment and appurtenances for a

groundwater pump and treat application, the Roundtable recommends reporting the cost separately for

extraction wells, injection wells, and above-ground treatment equipment that were used to calculate a

total cost for equipment and appurtenances. In addition, for some applications, it might be illustrative to

report the costs for certain O&M elements (such as labor, materials, utilities and fuel, and equipment

ownership, rental, or lease) separately for operation and for maintenance. For example, it would be

useful to report costs separately between operation and maintenance for applications with relatively large

costs for preventive or corrective maintenance. 

Table 2-1 includes capital and O&M costs for technology as well as other technology-specific costs and

other project costs. Other technology-specific costs include costs for excavation of soil, sludge, and

debris (for ex situ processes), disposal of residues, and compliance testing and analysis. As discussed

below, under the section on unit cost, only the capital and O&M costs that are specific to a technology

(items 1 and 2 on Table 2-1) should be included when calculating a unit cost for a technology

application. However, the guide recommends reporting costs for the other elements (items 3 and 4) to

provide additional information that may be useful in comparing technologies. 

Those items shown on Table 2-1 as other technology-specific costs (excavation of soil, sludge, and

debris, disposal of residues, and compliance testing and analysis) are related to use of a technology, and

there is disagreement among remediation professionals about whether to include these items in a

calculation of technology-specific unit costs (for example as part of O&M). The Roundtable suggests

that these other technology-specific costs be reported, but not included in a calculation of unit costs. In

this way, the data will be available and provide flexibility to analysts who may chose to include one or

more of these items in a unit cost or to use in future comparisons of technologies.
2-6

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CALCULATING UNIT COSTS 

OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

Most remedial applications involve on- or off-site testing and analyses of contaminated media and

residues of treatment. Those activities are conducted to monitor the performance of the technology

system (process control and operation) or to establish regulatory compliance. While there is

disagreement among remediation professionals about whether to include the costs of analysis for

both performance monitoring and compliance monitoring in a calculation of unit costs, the guide

recommends including only the costs of analysis for performance monitoring in a calculation of unit

costs for technology applications. This approach is consistent with that recommended in the original

guide, which discussed the significantly site-specific nature of the costs of analysis for regulatory

compliance. However, experience with documenting technology costs has shown that it has been

difficult to separate these two types of costs.

The Roundtable recognizes that some activities, such as project engineering or management support,

could be considered as part of either capital or O&M costs. The Roundtable recommends that the costs

for project engineering and management support should be accounted for as an overhead expense

associated with the appropriate capital or O&M cost element, and generally not as a separate line item

cost element. These activities should be reported as capital if they are related more closely to

construction and startup of a technology, and as O&M if they are related more closely to the ongoing,

recurring operation or maintenance of a technology. It should also be noted that Table 2-1 does not show

profit as a separate cost element. Because there are a number of different ways to account for profit, the

Roundtable recommends that profit be accounted for within cost elements, as appropriate.

In addition, if detailed costs are not available, then costs should be reported at an aggregate level if it can

be verified that the aggregate cost includes only those elements identified in items 1 and 2 of Table 2-1

(capital and O&M costs). For example, a total cost could be reported when data for specific cost

elements are not available. Such data will be useful if the project manager can verify that only capital

and O&M cost elements are included in a total cost and that other activities at a site, not related to the

specific technology application (such as project site work or site restoration), not be included in the total. 

It may be useful to array the total project costs for a site and identify the portion of those costs that

represents technology-specific activities (sometimes referred to as disaggregation of project costs). In

addition, several common elements, such as mobilization and demobilization, and site work and

preparation, may be included in both project- and technology-specific costs. In those cases, as Table 2-1

shows, the Roundtable recommends that the portion of the costs of these activities that is directly

attributed to the technology application be identified and included in the costs of technology-specific

activities.
2-7

INTERAGENCY COST ESTIMATING GROUP WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

In the late 1980s, the USACE, Navy, Air Force, EPA, and DOE formed the Interagency Cost

Estimating Group (ICEG) to develop the Hazardous, Toxic, and Radiological Waste (HTRW)

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The WBS was published in three sections; studies and design

(System 32), remedial actions (System 33), and operations and maintenance (System 34). The

WBS has been used as a common cost structure by federal agencies to assist in collecting historical

costs. The ICEG mission continues with maintaining this structure with upgrades including new

technologies and cost and performance data requirements. 

For technology applications that involve use of a treatment train (several specific technologies grouped

together for sequential treatment of a contaminated media), the guide recommends that the technology

components of the treatment train be considered collectively for cost purposes (i.e., as a “single” specific

technology; generally the dominant technology) and that the costs of all components of the treatment train

be included in the costs for that single collective technology. A common example of a treatment train is a

pump and treat application for groundwater. In these applications, groundwater typically is extracted

and treated above ground through application of several technologies in series, such as chemical

precipitation, air stripping, and UV/oxidation. In this case, the entire treatment train could be considered

“groundwater treatment”, and one cost reported for the collection and treatment of the groundwater. 

Another example of a treatment train is a bioremediation application for soil in which the soil first is

treated by soil washing to separate out larger-sized soil fractions, and then is treated by application of the

bioremediation technology. In this case, the entire treatment train would be considered as ex situ slurryphase bioremediation, with one cost reported for both components.

The recommended cost format described in this guide differs from that in the original guide, but is still

intended for use with an interagency work breakdown structure. The new elements reflect experience

gained to date in collecting cost data, along with adherence to the objectives stated earlier. 

Unit Costs

Calculated unit costs are used to compare and contrast remediation technologies. Therefore, it is

important that such costs be calculated in a manner that allows comparison of different technologies and

of multiple applications that involve the same technologies. In general, unit costs should be expressed as

a total cost for the technology-specific application, divided by an appropriate unit of measure. Unit costs

are highly dependent on site-specific conditions and should be extrapolated to other sites with caution. 

One of the challenges, as cost data become available in the future, is to better understand how site

conditions affect remediation costs.
2-8

To achieve consistency in calculating unit costs, it is important that the basis used to develop the total

cost and the basis used to develop the unit of measure be consistent. To simplify the calculation of unit

costs, the guide provides a worksheet for compiling costs, shown as Exhibit 2-1. The worksheet shows

all the cost elements included on Table 2-1 and specifies that only capital and O&M cost elements should

be included in a calculation of technology-specific unit costs. The total cost for an application should not

include other project phases/activities, such as preliminary assessment/site investigation, remedial

investigation/feasibility study, remedial design, or post-closure surveillance and long-term monitoring. 

Items that may be derived by disaggregation of overall project costs are marked with a double 

asterisk (**) on Exhibit 2-1.

The Roundtable recognizes that the appropriate basis for calculating the unit of measure for each

application will vary by site, depending on the remediation technology used, the media treated, and the

performance data available. In addition, there are differences of opinion among remediation

professionals about the most appropriate basis for calculating unit costs. Agencies use different bases

for calculating unit costs, and there is no universal standard basis for calculating unit costs.

However, for the guide, the Roundtable recommends that the unit cost be stated either as the amount of

medium treated (for example, cost per cubic yard) or as the amount of contaminant removed (for

example, cost per pound) during the remediation. Typical unit costs for groundwater remediation are

cost per 1,000 gallons of water treated and cost per pound of contaminant removed. For soil

remediation, typical unit costs are cost per cubic yard of soil treated and cost per pound of contaminant

removed.

Unit costs should be calculated and reported for each specific technology application. In addition,

enough information should be reported to provide a detailed explanation of the unit cost basis, which will

enable a level comparison of calculated unit costs with those of other remedial technology applications. 

As discussed under Chapter 3 of this guide (Recommended Performance Reporting), this might include

information such as initial and final contaminant concentrations. 

Specific recommendations are provided about the following aspects related to calculating unit costs: 

• Recommendations for calculating unit costs for ex situ applications

• Recommendations for calculating unit costs for in situ applications

• Recommendations for calculating unit costs for groundwater pump and treat applications

• Recommendations for calculating unit costs for containment applications 
2-9

EXHIBIT 2-1

SAMPLE WORKSHEET FOR COMPILING TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC UNIT COSTS

Cost Category/Element Cost ($ Year Basis) Cost for Calculating Unit Cost

1. Capital Cost for

Technology 

Technology mobilization,

setup, and demobilization**

Planning and preparation

Site work**

Equipment and

appurtenances

- Structures

- Process equipment and

appurtenances/

construction 

- Other (specify)

Startup and testing

Other**

(Includes nonprocess

equipment)

Total capital costs

2. O&M for Technology

Labor

Materials

Utilities and fuel 

Equipment ownership,

rental, or lease

Performance testing and

analysis

Other**

(Includes nonprocess

equipment overhead and

health and safety)

Total operation and

maintenance costs

3. Other Technology-Specific

Costs

Compliance testing and

analysis

Soil, sludge, and debris

excavation, collection, and

control

Disposal of residues

4. Other Project Costs

Total cost (year basis for cost)

Total cost for calculating unit cost

Quantity treated

Calculated unit cost

Basis for quantity treated

* 1. Please provide additional details and supporting information for all cost elements as appropriate.

2. For longer-term applications, please modify this worksheet by adding columns to track costs year by year.

** These figures are from apportionment of those costs attributable to the specific technology that may be derived by

disaggregation of overall project costs.
2-10

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CALCULATING UNIT COSTS

FOR EX SITU APPLICATIONS

Ex situ applications, such as thermal desorption and solidification and stabilization, typically involve:

(1) excavating soil or other contaminated media, (2) treating the media, and (3) disposing of treated

residues. While there is disagreement among remediation professionals about whether to include all

three cost elements in a calculation of unit costs, the guide suggests that only costs of treating the

contaminated media be used in calculating the unit costs for comparing among ex situ technology

applications. This approach is consistent with that recommended in the original guide, in which

excavation and disposal of residues were reported separately as before- and after-treatment costs,

respectively, and were not included in the unit cost calculation. One advantage of that approach is that it

allows an analyst the flexibility to include those costs in or omit them from the calculation of unit cost,

as desired. Further, the approach allows more meaningful comparison of ex situ technologies by

eliminating such site-specific costs from consideration. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CALCULATING UNIT COSTS 

FOR IN SITU APPLICATIONS

Several special considerations apply to in situ applications such as soil vapor extraction (SVE) and in situ

bioremediation and should be considered for those applications. These include the basis for the quantity

of material treated, the basis for the quantity of contaminant removed versus treated, and the purpose of

the technology (treatment only, containment only, or treatment and containment), and whether there is a

continuing source of contamination. The Roundtable’s recommendation for each situation is presented

below, along with examples. 

Basis for quantity of material treated: Specify whether the quantity of material treated in situ is the

amount of material that is contaminated (for example, areal extent of contamination) or the amount of

material that was affected by the treatment technology (for example, radius of influence of a technology),

and provide both types of amounts as available.

Example: SVE; for these applications, the amount of material contaminated may differ from the amount

included in the zone of influence of the treatment system. 

Basis for quantity of contaminant removed versus treated: Specify whether the technology included in

situ bioremediation as part of the application. In such cases, the amount of contaminant treated will be

greater than the amount of contaminant removed (also relevant for ex situ applications).

Example: Combination of a pump and treat system and in situ bioremediation

Presence of a continuing source of contamination: Specify whether a continuing source of

contamination, such as non aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs), was identified or suspected at the site. The

presence of continuing sources such as NAPLs sometimes tend to cause the unit costs of an application to

be higher than the costs of similar applications when NAPLs are not present.

Examples: SVE and in situ bioremediation
2-11

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CALCULATING

UNIT COSTS FOR CONTAINMENT APPLICATIONS

Containment projects are typically those involving vertical barrier walls (such as slurry or sheet pile

walls) or caps (such as on landfills). These applications include construction of physical barriers,

and labor and performance monitoring for conducting routine and ongoing maintenance of the

barriers. The Roundtable recommends that the costs for construction of the barriers be included

under capital costs and the routine and ongoing maintenance of the barriers be included under O&M

costs. In this way, the costs for construction and maintenance of the barriers will be included in a

calculation of unit costs for the barriers.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CALCULATING

UNIT COSTS FOR GROUNDWATER PUMP AND TREAT APPLICATIONS

Groundwater pump and treat applications consist of technologies used for extraction of groundwater

from the subsurface and above-ground treatment equipment, such as air strippers, carbon adsorption

units, and chemical treatment systems. Some of the considerations discussed above for ex situ and in

situ applications also are relevant to groundwater pump and treat applications. In addition, the guide

provides the following specific recommendations related to calculating unit costs for groundwater pump

and treat applications:

Cost basis: The costs of all groundwater extraction and above-ground treatment equipment should be

included as a capital cost item in the total cost of groundwater pump and treat applications. The costs of

operating and maintaining all extraction and injection wells, pumps, and treatment equipment should be

included as O&M cost items.

O&M costs: Because implementation of groundwater pump and treat applications often requires an

extended amount of time (for example, 10 years or more), the O&M costs should be provided both as a

total value and on an annual basis. Doing so will aid analysts who choose to calculate a net present

value for such applications.

Quantity of media removed and treated: The Roundtable recommends that unit costs be reported on the

basis of both the quantity of groundwater extracted and the quantity of contaminant removed from the

aquifer. For applications that involve biodegradation of contaminants, the Roundtable recommends

including an accounting of the quantity removed specifically by biodegradation.

Cost of source control: Many groundwater pump and treat applications also include source control

activities, such as excavation of soil (for hot spots), treatment of soil (SVE), and recovery of free

product. The Roundtable recommends including costs of source control activities in the cost basis for

groundwater pump and treat applications only if they are an integral part of the application. 

Purpose of the technology: Specify whether the technology was operated for treatment only,

containment only, or for both treatment and containment. Unit costs for pump and treat systems

operated for containment of an aquifer may differ from unit costs for applications in which a pump and

treat system is operated for both remediation of an aquifer and hydraulic control.
2-12

2.3 EXAMPLES OF USE OF THE RECOMMENDED COST FORMAT

Two examples of actual remediation projects are provided to show how to report technology-specific

costs and how to use the sample worksheet. Example 1, a pump and treat system for treating

contaminated groundwater at McClellan Air Force Base, Operable Unit (OU) B/C, shows that capital

costs are limited to those for equipment and appurtenances, while O&M costs include those for labor,

materials, and analysis. In that example, O&M costs are shown as a total and as an annual value. 

Example 2, in situ enhanced soil mixing at Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, shows that capital costs

include those for equipment and appurtenances, nonprocess equipment, permits, and site work and

preparation, while O&M costs include those for labor, materials, overhead, and analysis. In addition, in

the second example, costs were incurred for disposal of residues and analysis related to compliance

monitoring (separate from that for technology performance); those items are not included in the total cost

when calculating the unit cost.

2.4 COST COMPARISONS

To compare the costs of one technology with those of another, or to compare costs of a technology

application at one location with those at another, federal agencies have developed analytical

methodologies and cost factors. The following sources of information may be useful in evaluating cost

data.

C Standard Life-Cycle Cost-Savings Analysis Methodology for Deployment of Innovative

Technologies, DOE Federal Energy Technology Center, October 30, 1998 (final draft). 

(Note that at the time this guide was published, the DOE methodology was not yet

complete; it will be available soon after publication of the guide.)

C Department of Defense (DoD) Area Cost Factors

C Compendium of Cost Data for Environmental Remediation Technologies, 2nd Edition,

DOE Los Alamos Laboratory, August 1996

C Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, Version 3.0, Federal Remediation

Technologies Roundtable
2-13

Example 1. Pump and Treat System at McClellan Air Force Base, OU B/C

Type of Cost Cost($) Cost($) 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Techno- Calculating

logy Uni t

Cost for

1. Capital

Mobilization/demobilization 0

Planning and preparation 0

Site work 0

Equipment and

appurtenances

Incinerator 300,000 300,000

Air stripper 400,000 400,000

Scrubber 300,000 300,000

Heat exchangers (3) 300,000 300,000

Electric motors (6) 180,000 180,000

Blowers (2) 40,000 40,000

Pumps (6) 180,000 180,000

GAC tanks (4) 360,000 360,000

Water holding tank 40,000 40,000

Berm and foundation 150,000 150,000

Air compressors (2) 60,000 60,000

Water pipes to plant 300,000 300,000

Wells and pumps (10) 300,000 300,000

Control center 140,000 140,000

Indirect costs 910,000 910,000

TOTAL 4,000,000 4,000,000

Startup and testing 0

Other 0

Total capital costs 4,000,000

2. Operation and Maintenance

Labor

Labor, operations

support, staff labor 730,000

Materials

Reimbursables,

electricity, natural gas 320,000

Utilities and Fuel Included

with

materials

Equipment ownership, rental

or lease 0

Performance testing and

analysis 40,000

Other

Equipment overhead

(Other direct costs) 150,000

Total operation and

maintenance costs 1,240,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000

3. Other Technology-Specific

Costs

Compliance Testing and

Analysis 0

Soil, Sludge, and Debris

Excavation, Collection, and

Control 0

Disposal of Residues 0

4. Other Project Costs 0

Total technology cost 5,240,000 4,180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000

Total cost for calculating unit 5,240,000

Quantity treated 660,000,000 gallons groundwater extracted; 42,000 lbs VOCs removed

Calculated unit cost $8 per 1,000 gallons extracted and $120 per pound of VOC removed
2-14

Example 2. In Situ Enhanced Soil Mixing at Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Type of Cost Technology Cost Cost for Calculating Unit

Cost ($)

1. Capital

Mobilization/demobilization 60,000

Planning and preparation 0

Site work 142,000

Equipment and appurtenances

 - Structures 745,000

 - Process equipment and appurtenances

Startup and testing 0

Other 

 - Nonprocess equipment 124,000

 - Management support 199,500

Total 323,500

Total capital costs 1,270,500

2. Operation and Maintenance

Labor 270,750

Materials 56,000

Utilities and fuel Included with materials

Equipment ownership, rental, or lease 0

Performance testing and analysis 73,500

Other

Equipment overhead 50,000

Total operation and maintenance costs 450,250

3. Other Technology-Specific Costs

Compliance testing and analysis *

Soil, Sludge, and Debris Excavation Collection

and Control 0

Disposal of residues 150,000*

4. Other Project Costs 0

Total technology cost 1,870,750

Total cost for calculating unit cost 1,720,750

Quantity treated 10,300 - 15,000 cubic yards soil

(soil density 120 lbs/cubic foot)

Calculated unit cost $115 - $167 per cubic yard of

soil treated

* For this application, information was available only for the sum of items 3 and 5; that sum is shown here in item 5.
2-15

Life-Cycle Cost-Savings Analysis

The DOE methodology is a systematic approach to developing and reporting estimated life-cycle cost

savings achieved through the deployment of innovative technologies. The methodology, which requires

reporting of total project costs and not just technology costs, consists of the following steps: identifying

credible sources of technical data on the innovative technology, identifying the applicable baseline

systems, automating the analysis, performing cost analyses, and identifying organizational roles and

responsibilities. 

The methodology requires that innovative and conventional options be compared on an equitable basis,

with factors common to both options (such as waste volumes) equal to the maximum extent possible, and

that effects “upstream” and “downstream” of an innovative technology (such as monitoring and waste

disposal) be considered in a total life-cycle cost comparison.

Cost analyses described in the DOE methodology include cash-flow schedules, net present value (NPV),

break-even times, uncertainty analyses, and sensitivity analyses. According to the methodology, the

appropriate discount rate established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in OMB Circular

A-94 (revised periodically) should be used in calculating the NPV of each option. Under the DOE

methodology, the cost savings for an innovative technology option compared with a conventional

technology option should be based on the difference between the NPVs of their estimated total life cycle

cost.

Area Cost Factors

All DoD services use area cost factors (ACF) to adjust average historical facility costs to a specific

project location. This approach provides increased accuracy in comparing and projecting costs at a

various locations. According to the DoD methodology, the combination of local labor, material, and

equipment (LME) has the greatest effort on total construction costs. A market basket of 10 labor crafts,

20 materials, and four pieces of construction equipment was selected, and each of the 34 individual items

was given a relative weight to represent its contribution to the total cost of construction at a typical

facility. Once every two years, USACE surveys the prices of the 34 items in the market basket in 188

cities. In addition to the local LME cost, other local conditions that affect construction costs, referred to
2-16

as matrix factors, are included in the ACF. These matrix factors include such items as regional design

loads for seismic activity, wind, snow, and heat. The results of the survey and consideration of the matrix

factors are used in developing the ACF. ACFs are available on the Internet through the USACE’s Cost

Engineering & Programs Formulation Branch web site at <http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cemp/e/ec/

ec_new.htm>. As of October 1998, this web site provides ACFs from April 1998; the ACFs are updated

on a yearly basis.

Compendium of Cost Data

The Compendium of Cost Data for Environmental Remediation Technologies, Second Edition

(LA-UR-96-2205) was compiled in August 1996 under the Environmental Technologies Cost-Savings

Analysis Project (ETCAP) at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The effort was supported by DOE's

Office of Science and Technology, EM-50. The first edition of the compendium was assembled in 1989. 

The second edition is available as hard copy or a searchable database from the Los Alamos National

Laboratory's web site at <http://www.lanl.gov/projects/etcap>.

The compendium provides a representative sample of cost information for both conventional and

innovative remediation technologies for the treatment of hazardous, radioactive, and mixed wastes. The

compendium describes approximately 250 commercial or pilot-scale remedial projects. Cost data for the

projects were gathered from a variety of sources (for example, National Center for Environmental

Publications and Information [NCEPI] repository, the Vendor Information System for Innovative

Treatment Technologies [VISITT] database, and Roundtable remediation case studies) and summarized to

provide actual cost summaries, site characteristics, and comments about details of remedial projects. The

cost information provided varies according to source in level of detail.

Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix

The Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, Version 3.0, prepared under the auspices of the

Roundtable, is a web-based product that allows a user to view information about remedial technologies

from contaminant, media, or technology perspectives. In addition, the screening matrix includes links to

related web sites such as for cost and performance reports. Users can identify the range of technologies

that are applicable to a specific type of contaminant or media, and then draw on the collection of cost and
2-17

performance reports to view historical information about actual field applications of those technologies. 

Roundtable member agencies plan to frequently update the screening matrix web site to keep pace with the

ever-changing range of available technologies.
3-1

< Procedures are recommended for reporting

site remediation project performance

< Analysts should document all cleanup

objectives, and how well a remedial action

met each objective

< Consistency in reporting project performance

will aid in comparing among technologies

and applications

3.0 RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE REPORTING

The recommended procedures for reporting

performance cover full-scale and demonstrationscale projects and address both completed and

ongoing projects. Exhibit 3-1 lists the types of

performance information, by topic area, that

should be reported for a technology application. 

The level of detail and data available for each 

topic will vary by technology type and the

specific application; therefore, the items listed in

Exhibit 3-1 provide a guide to ensure that the important topics related to technology performance are

documented. For example, performance often is characterized only in terms of a removal percentage or

the level of concentration attained. However, that information alone, in the absence of information about

the other topics listed in Exhibit 3-1, may not be adequate to assess the overall performance of the

technology. Exhibit 3-2 presents an example that shows how to document performance for a completed

remediation project.

The parameters to be documented for demonstration-scale projects are similar to those for full-scale

projects, taking into account the following additional parameters (developed by DOE for its reports):

commercialization issues, including market influences and patents, and competing technologies. Exhibit

3-3 presents an example that shows how to document performance for a demonstration-scale project. A

primary goal of reporting on demonstration-scale projects is documentation of performance information.

For ongoing projects, such as a groundwater pump and treat applications, it is useful to document interim

results, including information about the progress and status of the project that gives an indication of how

well a technology is performing over time, whether problems arose during the technology application, and

how such problems were or are being resolved. Interim reports should be updated when new data are

available or when the project is completed. One benchmark for updating a report would be periodically

scheduled reviews, such as the five-year Superfund review process. However, decisions about when it is

appropriate to update a report should be made on a case-by-case basis. Exhibit 3-4 presents an example

that shows how to document performance for an ongoing project.
3-2

EXHIBIT 3-1

RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE REPORTING

Performance Topic Type of Information

Types of samples collected C Types of media sampled

C Types of constituents analyzed

C Use of surrogates (for example, soil gas as a

surrogate for soil borings)

Sample frequency and protocol C Where samples were collected

C How samples were collected

C When samples were collected

C Who collected samples

Quantity of material treated C Quantity of material treated during application

C For in situ technologies, area and depth of

contaminated material treated

Concentrations of untreated and treated C Measurement of initial conditions (even if not

contaminants required to demonstrate compliance with

cleanup criteria)

C Measurement of concentrations of

contaminants during or after treatment (noting

whether there are matched pairs of data on

treated and untreated contaminants or whether

there are operating data that correspond with

performance data)

C Assessment of percent removal achieved

(noting procedure used to derive percent

removal)

C Correlations of performance data with other

variables

Cleanup objectives C Cleanup goals or objectives

C Criteria for ceasing operation

Comparison with cleanup objectives C Assessment of whether the technology

operation achieved the cleanup objectives

C Assessment of whether the technology was

operated to achieve reductions in

concentrations of contaminants beyond the

established cleanup objectives

Method of analysis C Method of analysis used (including field

screening or analyses, portable instruments,

mobile laboratory, off-site laboratory,

laboratory procedures, nonstandard methods)

C Exceptions to standard methodology
EXHIBIT 3-1 (continued)

RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE REPORTING

Performance Topic Type of Information

3-3

Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)* C Who was responsible for QA/QC

C Type of QA/QC measures performed

C Level of procedures

C Exceptions to QA/QC protocol or data quality

objectives

Other residues C Types of residues generated (for example, offgases, wastewaters, or sludges)

C Measurement of mass or volume, and

concentration of contaminants in each

treatment residue

* Note that only very general QA/QC information is recommended; any exceptions to the QA/QC

procedures should be documented.
3-4

EXHIBIT 3-2

EXAMPLE OF REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

FOR A FULL-SCALE COMPLETED PROJECT

Dubose Oil Products Co. Superfund Site, Cantonment, Florida

Types of samples collected Soil analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs),

including trichloroethene (TCE); pentachlorophenol

(PCP); and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Sample frequency and protocol Soil in each 165-cubic yard batch analyzed prior to and

after 14-day treatment

Quantity of material treated 19,705 tons of contaminated soil were treated in 165-

cubic yard batches

Untreated and treated contaminant Average Concentrations:

concentrations Total PAHs Initial - 50.8 to 576.2 mg/kg

Final - 3.3 to 49.7 mg/kg

PCP Initial - 7.67 to 160 mg/kg

Final - 16.5 to 36.3 mg/kg

Total Xylenes Initial - 0.07 to 69.5 mg/kg

Final - 0.03 to 1.05 mg/kg

TCE Initial - 0.01 to 1 mg/kg

Final - 0.01 to 0.04 mg/kg

Benzene and 1,1-dichloroethene (DCE) were not

reported above detection limits in any samples

Cleanup objectives Cleanup goals for soil:

Total PAHs - 50 mg/kg

PCP - 50 mg/kg

Total Xylenes - 1.5 mg/kg

Benzene 10 mg/kg

TCE - 0.05 mg/kg

1,1-DCE - 0.07 mg/kg

Comparison with cleanup objectives Cleanup objectives were met for all treated soil batches

Method of Analyses EPA Method 8270 for PAHs and PCP

EPA Method 8010 and 8020 for VOCs

Quality assurance and quality control QAPP prepared for project

(QA/QC)* Remediation contractor was responsible for QA/QC

Trip blanks, field blanks, matrix spike and matrix spike

duplicate samples were taken; no exceptions to data

quality objectives were noted

Other residues None generated
3-5

EXHIBIT 3-3

EXAMPLE OF REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

FOR A DEMONSTRATION-SCALE PROJECT

In Situ Air Stripping of Contaminated Groundwater at U.S. Department of Energy,

Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina

Types of samples collected Soil vapor and groundwater; analyzed for VOCs

Sample frequency and protocol - Soil vapor monitored for VOCs continually

during demonstration

- Groundwater monitored weekly

Quantity of material treated Area of VOC-contaminated groundwater has an

approximate thickness of 150 feet and covers

about 1,200 acres

Untreated and treated contaminant concentrations - Substantial changes in groundwater VOC

concentrations measured during demonstration

- Increased microbial numbers and metabolic

activity exhibited during an air injection period 

Cleanup objectives No specific cleanup goals identified for the field

demonstration (total VOC removal to be

measured)

Comparison with cleanup objectives 139 day demonstration removed nearly 16,000

pounds of VOCs

Method of Analyses VOCs monitored using a FID

Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) None identified for field demonstration

Other residues - Decontamination fluids

- Off-gas

Additional Information for Demonstration-Scale Project — Refer to Exhibit 4-1
3-6

EXHIBIT 3-4

EXAMPLE OF REPORTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

FOR AN ONGOING PROJECT

Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, New Brighton, Minnesota

Project status Ongoing; report covers period October 1987

through September 1992

Types of samples collected Groundwater; analyzed for VOCs

Sample frequency and protocol Sample frequency from 17 groundwater

extraction wells was not specified

Quantity of material treated 1.4 billion gallons of groundwater were treated

from October 1991 to September 1992

Untreated and treated contaminant concentrations - Chlorinated VOCs (CVOCs) were detected in

the aquifer

- TCE was the most prevalent with

concentrations up to 10,000 μg/l

- No substantial change in the contaminant

concentrations in the aquifer has been noted

Cleanup/remediation objectives - Cleanup goals for groundwater (based on the

site ROD):

TCE - 5 μg/l

PCE - 6.9 μg/l 

1,2-DCE - 70 μg/l

1,1,1-TCA - 200 μg/l

- Containment of the contaminant plume

Comparison with cleanup objectives - Cleanup goals have not been met to date

- Plume containment has been achieved

Method of Analyses Not identified in interim report

Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) Not identified in interim report

Other residues Not identified in interim report
4-1

< Specific parameters are identified for

documenting matrix characteristics and

operating parameters of 29 remediation

technologies

< Parameters were selected as those items most

important for influencing a technology's cost

or performance

4.0 FACTORS THAT AFFECT COST OR PERFORMANCE

4.1 BACKGROUND

As discussed in the original guide, a number of

parameters, including matrix characteristics and

operating parameters can affect the cost or

performance of a treatment technology. Tables

4-1 and 4-2 presented at the end of this chapter

list, by technology, the key parameters that affect cost or performance and that should be documented for

a specific application. The matrix characteristics to be documented include soil types, soil properties, and

organic contaminants that may be present in a matrix. The operating parameters include system

parameters, such as residence time and system throughput.

The recommended reporting factors were developed with the following objectives and basic principles in

mind:

C Only technologies used in large-scale field projects are included: The guide is limited

to an evaluation of technologies that have been used in a relatively large-scale field

demonstration and are considered ready for full-scale application; technologies that have

been used only in relatively small bench- or pilot-scale research studies were not included.

C Matrix characteristics are limited to soil types and media properties: In identifying

the matrix characteristics that are most important for documenting technology

applications, only those characteristics that represent soil types and media properties

(such as hydraulic conductivity) were included. Other parameters that affect the cost and

performance of remedial technologies are addressed elsewhere. The other parameters

include items such as the types and concentrations of specific contaminants, the

environmental setting (for in situ technologies), the quantity of material treated, and

cleanup goals or requirements.

C Operating parameters are those items that can be modified or changed: Several of

the parameters referred to below, such as moisture content, might be considered either

matrix characteristics or operating parameters, depending on when and how they are

discussed. Items were considered to be operating parameters when they could be

modified or changed by an engineered process, such as adding nutrients for in situ

bioremediation.
4-2

The original guide recommended reporting factors that affect cost or performance for 13 specific

technologies. Since that time, several technologies have become ready for full-scale remedial

applications. 

This guide includes recommended reporting factors for 29 specific technologies, including both treatment

and containment technologies. The following specific technologies are listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2.

In Situ Soil Remediation and Containment Groundwater Remediation and Containment

Bioventing Pump and treat system

Soil flushing Dual-phase extraction

Soil vapor extraction Air sparging

Bioslurping Circulating wells (UVB)

Phytoremediation Dynamic underground stripping

In situ heating Steam flushing

Vitrification Cosolvents and surfactants

Capping Natural attenuation (chlorinated compounds)

Natural attenuation (nonchlorinated 

hydrocarbons)

Bioremediation

Phytoremediation

Vertical barrier walls

Reactive permeable barriers

In situ oxidation (Fenton's reagent)

Ex Situ Soil Remediation

Land treatment

Composting

Soil washing

Stabilization

Incineration

Thermal desorption

Slurry-phase bioremediation

Appendix A presents information about the potential effects on cost or performance of each of the matrix

characteristics and operating parameters listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. This appendix provides additional

background information about how specific parameters may affect the cost or performance of a

technology.

4.2 DEMONSTRATION-SCALE PROJECTS

The parameters listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 constitute a standard set of data that will facilitate the

comparison of cost and performance among technologies. The need to collect information about

additional parameters should be decided on a site-specific basis, and such information should be included
4-3

in the project documentation, as appropriate. For demonstration-scale projects, the information in Tables

4-1 and 4-2 should be documented, when possible. The following additional information (obtained from

DOE’s Innovative Technology Summary Reports on demonstration-scale projects) also should be

documented if possible to address specific issues associated with the demonstration aspects of the

technology, as follows:

C Applicability of the technology: Include information about the suitability and

limitations of the technology in light of such factors as hydrogeologic setting or specific

considerations related to the matrix or contaminant. Discuss information related to

commercialization and intellectual property.

C Competing technologies: Include information about other technologies currently in use

that may compete with the technology of concern. Identify the organization providing

the information on the baseline and any competing technology and whether the

organization is a vendor, developer, investor, or other entity that may have an interest in

the technology.

C Maturity of the technology: Include information about the development status of the

technology, including the types of demonstrations that have been performed and the

extent to which there are current applications of the technology.

Exhibit 4-1 presents an example for reporting additional information on issues associated with a specific

demonstration-scale project (demonstration of in situ air stripping [ISAS] using horizontal wells at

DOE's Savannah River site in Aiken, South Carolina).

EXHIBIT 4-1

EXAMPLE FOR REPORTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT

DEMONSTRATION-SCALE PROJECTS

Applicability of the Technology

• ISAS has been demonstrated to remediate soils, sediments, and groundwater contaminated with

VOCs, both above and below the water table.

• Quantitative modeling and bench- and pilot-scale work indicate that ISAS would be effective at

removing light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL). It is not suitable for dense nonaqueous phase

liquids (DNAPL).

• ISAS is not well suited to sites having highly stratified soils with low permeability layers, fractured

rock or clay geologies. ISAS does not effectively remediate large dilute plumes, but would be useful

near source areas.

• Similar to pump and treat, ISAS may not be able to attain drinking-water standards (without such

enhancements as addition of nutrients to promote biodegradation).

• For this project, 19 licenses have been applied for and 8 licenses have been granted.

• ISAS is commercially available through the Westinghouse Savannah River Company Technology

Transfer Center.
EXHIBIT 4-1 (continued)

EXAMPLE FOR REPORTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT

DEMONSTRATION-SCALE PROJECTS

4-4

Competing Technologies

• ISAS competes with conventional baseline technologies of pump and treat and pump and treat

combined with SVE. Numerous other thermal, physical and chemical, and biological technologies

that treat VOC-contaminated soils and groundwater in situ or aboveground are available or under

development.

• This analysis was prepared by an environmental services company under contract to DOE’s

Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program (HAZWRAP). The environmental services company

identified no potential interests in the technology of concern (in situ air stripping) or the baseline

technology (pump and treat).

Maturity of the Technology

• Air sparging with vertical wells is a relatively established technology offered by dozens of vendors. 

Variations of the technique have been implemented at hundreds of sites.

• ISAS using horizontal wells currently is being applied at an airport in New York and at industrial

sites in North Carolina, Minnesota, and Missouri. The technology also is being implemented at full

scale at two locations at the Savannah River Site.

4.3 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES

Because the use of different methods of measurement can cause results to vary, documentation of

measurement procedures for many of the matrix characteristics and operating parameters is important to

allow a comparison of results among projects. It is especially important to document measurement

procedures when different methods are available or when less standardized methods are used for

measuring an individual parameter (e.g., for clay content). In these cases, measurement procedures

should be documented. Appendix B provides information about the measurement procedures

recommended for documentation.
4-5

TABLE 4-1

SUGGESTED PARAMETERS TO DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS:

MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS THAT AFFECT COST OR PERFORMANCE OF A TECHNOLOGY

Matrix Characteristics

In Situ Soil Remediation Ex Situ Soil Remediation

BioventingSoil FlushingSoil VaporExtractionBioslurpingPhytoremediationIn Situ HeatingVitrificationCappingLand Treatment CompostingSoil WashingStabilizationIncinerationThermalDesorptionSlurry-PhaseBioremediation

SOIL TYPES

Soil Classification M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

Clay Content and/or Particle Size

Distribution M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

AGGREGATE SOIL MATRIX PROPERTIES

Hydraulic Conductivity M M M M

Moisture Content M M M M M M M M M M M M M

Air Permeability M M M M M

pH M M M M M M M M

Porosity M M M M

Depth bgs or thickness of zone of

interest M M M M M M M

ORGANIC PROPERTIES

Total Organic Carbon M M M M M M M M M M

Oil and Grease or Total Petroleum

Hydrocarbons M M M M

Presence of NAPLs M M M M M

MISCELLANEOUS M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7

Nonmatrix Characteristics that Affect Cost or Performance:

Contaminants: Type and concentration of contaminants Quantity of material treated: Cubic yards or 1,000 gallons of groundwater

Environmental Setting for in situ technologies: Geology, stratigraphy, Cleanup goals and requirements: Cleanup levels, schedules, sampling and analysis

and hydrogeology (primarily)

Electrical conductivity (for electrical heating) BTU value, halogen content, and metal content 1

Lower explosive limit, glass forming materials, electrical conductivity, and presence of inclusions Bulk density 2

Future use; rainfall or infiltration rate; and permeability of clay liner, geomembrane, or other polymer 3

layers

Field capacity 4

Cation exchange capacity of soils 5

6

7
4-6

TABLE 4-1 (continued)

SUGGESTED PARAMETERS TO DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS:

MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS THAT AFFECT COST OR PERFORMANCE OF A TECHNOLOGY

Matrix Characteristics

Groundwater Remediation

Pump and TreatDual-Phase ExtractionAir SpargingCirculating Wells (UVB)Dynamic UndergroundStrippingSteam FlushingCosolvent/SurfactantsNatural Attenuation(chlorinated compounds)Natural Attenuation(nonchlorinated hydrocarbons)BioremediationPhytoremediationVertical Barrier Walls Permeable Reactive BarriersIn Situ Oxidation(Fenton’s reagent)

SOIL TYPES

Soil Classification M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

Clay Content and/or Particle Size

Distribution M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

AGGREGATE SOIL MATRIX PROPERTIES

Hydraulic Conductivity M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

Moisture Content

Air Permeability M M M M M M

pH M M M M M M

Porosity M M M M M

Depth bgs/thickness of zone of

interest M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

ORGANIC PROPERTIES

Total Organic Carbon M M M M M M

Oil & Grease or Total Petroleum

Hydrocarbons M M M M M

Presence of NAPLs M M M M M M M M M M M

MISCELLANEOUS M8 M9

Redox conditions, electron acceptors (oxygen, nitrate, iron, sulfate, methane), electron donors (carbon source, for example, presence of toluene). 8

Dissolved oxygen levels and electron acceptors (oxygen, nitrate, iron, sulfate, methane). 9
4-7

TABLE 4-2

SUGGESTED PARAMETERS TO DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS:

OPERATING PARAMETERS THAT AFFECT COST OR PERFORMANCE OF A TECHNOLOGY

Operating Parameters

In Situ Soil Remediation Ex Situ Soil Remediation

BioventingSoil FlushingSoil Vapor ExtractionBioslurpingPhytoremediationIn Situ HeatingVitrificationCappingLand TreatmentCompostingSoil WashingStabilizationIncinerationThermal DesorptionSlurry-PhaseBioremediation

SYSTEM PARAMETERS

Air Flow Rate M M M M M M

Mixing Rate/Frequency M M M

Operating Pressure/Vacuum M M M M

pH M M M M M M M M

Pumping Rate M M

Residence Time M M M M M M M

System Throughput M M M M M M

Temperature M M M M M M M M M M M M

Washing/Flushing Solution

Components/Additives and M M M

Dosage

BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY

Biomass Concentration M

Microbial Activity

Oxygen Uptake Rate M M M

Carbon Dioxide Evolution M M

Biodegradation Rate for Organics M M M M M

Nutrients and Other Soil

Amendments M M M M M M

MISCELLANEOUS M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

Plants per unit area and plant type Moisture content 1

Electrical or radio frequency (RF) power input Moisture content and soil loading rate 2

Power consumption per unit volume Curing time, compressive strength, volume increase, and permeability 3

Design infiltration rates Density of slurry and volume fraction of water 4

5

6

7

8
4-8

TABLE 4-2 (continued)

SUGGESTED PARAMETERS TO DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS:

OPERATING PARAMETERS THAT AFFECT COST OR PERFORMANCE OF A TECHNOLOGY

Operating Parameters

Groundwater Remediation

Pump and TreatDual-Phase ExtractionAir SpargingCirculating Wells (UVB)Dynamic Underground Stripping Steam FlushingCosolvent/SurfactantsNatural Attenuation(chlorinated compounds)Natural Attenuation (nonchlorinated hydrocarbons)BioremediationPhytoremediationVertical Barrier WallsPermeable Reactive BarriersIn Situ Oxidation (Fenton’s reagent)

SYSTEM PARAMETERS

Air Flow Rate M M M M

Mixing Rate/Frequency

Operating Pressure/Vacuum M M M M M

pH M M M M M M M M

Pumping Rate M M M M M M M

Residence Time M

System Throughput

Temperature M M M M M M

Washing/Flushing Solution

Components/Additives and Dosage M M M

BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY

Biomass Concentration

Microbial Activity M M M M

Oxygen Uptake Rate M M

Carbon Dioxide Evolution M M M

Biodegradation Rate for Organics M M M

Nutrients and Other Soil Amendments M M M M

MISCELLANEOUS M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15

For the treatment component of the pump and treat system, the operating Efficiency of recovery and recycling 9

parameters will vary by the specific type of treatment used (for example, carbon Presence of breakdown products and levels of ethene, ethane, or methane

adsorption, air stripper). For a more extensive list of operating parameters Plants per unit area and plant type

for those treatment technologies, please refer to Technical Requirements to Report Permeability of wall material and depth of key

HTRW Environmental Restoration Cost and Performance, USACE Flow rate through the gate (for funnel-and-gate system) and type of reactant (for example, iron

(EP 1110-1-19), November 15, 1996 granules)

10

11

12

13

14

Injection rates and cost of chemicals 15
5-1

5.0 REPORT FORMATS

As discussed above, the guide recommends a minimum set of reporting elements for documenting the

cost and performance of remediation projects; however, agencies may use formats of their choosing for

preparing reports. Those formats may include additional information beyond the minimum set of items

recommended by the guide. For example, formats might include detailed descriptions of treatment

technologies.

The technology vendor or developer (provider) is a valuable resource for providing information on the

cost and performance of technologies. While the Roundtable encourages these sources to continue to

provide information, there should be independent preparation or review of cost and performance reports.

Several agencies have developed report formats that incorporate items recommended in this guide,

including formats prepared by USACE, DOE, the U.S. Air Force, and EPA. Information about the report

formats listed below, prepared by USACE and DOE, are available on the Internet at the addresses

indicated:

C USACE. 1996. Engineering and Design - Technical Requirements for Specifications to

Report HTRW Environmental Restoration Cost and Performance. Publication Number

EP 1110-1-19. CEMP-RT. November 15. 

<http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-pamphlets/ep1110-1-19/toc.htm>

C DOE Office of Environmental Management. 1996. Documenting Cost and Performance

for Environmental Remediation Projects. DOE/EM-0302. August 8. 

<http://www.em.doe.gov/costperf/index.html>

Some agencies are considering more streamlined formats that are adapted to specific purposes, such as for

reporting summary information about cost and performance for relatively common treatment applications.

For all reports prepared under the cost and performance effort, an abstract should be prepared that

extracts key information from the report. The abstract allows a user to quickly screen key information

about a particular remedial application and decide whether to obtain the full case study report. Appendix

C to this guide presents a format recommended for preparing abstracts.
5-2

Appendix D presents a generic format that illustrates how to prepare cost and performance reports. The

generic format includes all the key features identified in this guide and was developed as a composite of

the reporting elements identified by EPA, USACE, and DOE in their case study reports. The format is

intended for documenting full-scale technology applications, but also includes elements specific to

demonstration-scale applications, which are identified as such in the format.
6-1

< The Roundtable web site is a primary means

for dissemination of information on

remediation case studies

< A key word based search function is

included on the web site

< Ready access to targeted case studies helps

facilitate their use by remediation

professionals

6.0 WEB SITE STRATEGY

The Roundtable will use its web site at

<http://www.frtr.gov> as a primary means of

distributing case studies. The Roundtable will

publish and distribute printed copies when a

sufficient number of reports are available. 

(Some case study reports will be published first

as separate documents by the sponsoring agency

and then collated with other, similar reports and

published again under a Roundtable cover.) The

Work Group discussed electronic management of the case studies as part of a broader effort to improve

the web site. This chapter presents the strategy for managing this site.

6.1 INTRODUCTION

In 1996, the Roundtable established a web site to provide general information about its activities, to

provide information and documents related to site remediation, and to provide a central point of entry for

users to connect to member agencies’ web sites.

The Roundtable web site contains information about remedial and site characterization technologies; case

studies of field remedial applications; and information about the business of the Roundtable, such as

meeting summaries and published reports. Use of the Roundtable web site has increase substantially over

time, and it has been used by U.S. government sources, such as the military service; educational

institutions; agencies of other countries; and private consulting and engineering firms.

In late 1997, the members of the Roundtable identified a need to update and revise the format and

functionality of the web site. On April 2, 1998, members of an ad hoc Web Site Task Force, including

representatives of DoD, DOE, and EPA, met to review the current status of the web site and to develop

plans for updating it. The task force recommended that the web site be revised to update its design and

improve its functionality, including expansion of the search capabilities. The members of the task force

recommended that all member agencies of the Roundtable participate in supporting the site. The task

force also recommended that an “advisory board” be established to provide direction and leadership to

those responsible for maintaining the site.
6-2

6.2 PURPOSES FOR ROUNDTABLE WEB SITE

The Web Site Task Force recommended that the purpose of the site be clarified, that is the scope be

narrowed, and that certain functions be improved. The following purposes for the Roundtable web site

were identified:

C Provide information about the Roundtable and its products, such as recent remedial

technology and site characterization screening guides.

C Serve as a point of entry to the web sites of member agencies and direct users to site

characterization and remediation links on those web sites.

6.3 IMPLEMENTATION

Figure 6-1 presents a general site map of the Roundtable web site. As the figure shows, the main

components of the web site, which is coordinated by USACE, are:

C Remediation technologies screening matrix

C Field sampling and analysis technologies matrix

C Cost and performance case studies

C Roundtable business items

C Roundtable publications

C Links to other agencies

Table 6-1 provides a brief description of each of these components and identifies the responsible member

agencies for maintaining them. In addition, member agencies have agreed to identify key points of contact

to assist in keeping information on the web site current.
6-3

Figure 6-1. General Site Map for Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Web Site
6-4

TABLE 6-1

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION ON THE ROUNDTABLE WEB SITE

Web Site Responsible

Component Member Agency Information Included

Remediation The remediation technologies screening matrix (Version 3.0) is a Army

Technologies web-based product that allows a user to view information about Environmental

Screening Matrix remedial technologies from contaminant, treatment, or technology Center (AEC);

perspectives. This product is updated weekly to incorporate maintained and

current information about specific remedial technologies and links updated by AEC

to appropriate web sites.

Field Sampling The field sampling and analysis technologies matrix provides U.S. Navy and EPA

and Analysis users with an introduction to site characterization technologies to prepared matrix 

Technologies promote the use of potentially cost-effective methods for on-site USACE created

Matrix monitoring and measurement. For a variety of field sampling and web version of

collection techniques and sample analysis tools, the matrix matrix and may

summarizes such items as applicability, status of the technology, maintain web

certification and validation, and relative cost. At the time this version

guide was prepared, no plans had been made to update the matrix.

Cost and Cost and performance case studies document actual full-scale and All member

Performance Case demonstration-scale applications of innovative and traditional agencies prepare

Studies technologies used to remediate sites having a wide variety of case studies;

contaminants. The case studies support the remediation searchable database

technologies screening matrix by providing detailed information developed and

about actual field experiences in application of remedial maintained by EPA 

technologies included in the matrix.

Roundtable Roundtable business items include information about the mission All member

Business Items and objectives of the Roundtable; Roundtable meetings, such as agencies

announcements of upcoming meetings and minutes of previous

meetings, and items distributed at meetings, as well as similar

information about meetings of work groups of the Roundtable,

such as the Cost and Performance and Accelerated Site

Characterization and Monitoring workgroup.

Roundtable Roundtable publications include Site Remediation Technology All member

Publications InfoBase: A Guide to Federal Programs, Information Resources, agencies

and Publications on Contaminated Site Cleanup Technologies

(EPA/542/B-98/006)

Links to Other The Roundtable web site provides links to the web site of the All member

Agencies following member agencies: AEC; U.S. Air Force Environmental agencies

Management; Department of the Navy Environmental Program;

U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center; DOE; EPA

Cleanup Information (Clu-In); USACE Environmental Division;

and the U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. In

addition, the FRTR web site provides links to other related web

sites.
6-5

The task force recommended that the advisory board meet annually to provide guidance to those

responsible for maintaining the Roundtable web site. The advisory board will review information about

the use of the web site during the preceding year, including statistics on use and comments from users on

format and functionality. In addition, the advisory board will help keep links provided on the web site

current, and help to keep the information web site consistent with the priorities and responsibilities of the

member agencies.

The Roundtable web site has a search function that allows a user to search the site or portions of the site,

as follows: (1) the entire web site, (2) the remediation technologies screening matrix only, (3) the field

sampling and analysis technologies matrix only, or (4) the cost and performance case studies only. The

search functions are text-based (open-ended indexed search), allowing a search based on terms selected by

the user.

6.4 INTERAGENCY PARTICIPATION

The Roundtable web site provides access to information about innovative environmental technologies that

is available from member agencies of the Roundtable. The site also encourages communication and

collaboration among member agencies, regulatory and academic personnel, and the general public. 

Member agencies are encouraged to submit comments to update information included on the web site and

identify information to be added to it.

6.5 SEARCHABLE DATABASE OF COST AND PERFORMANCE CASE STUDIES

The cost and performance case studies have been compiled into a database that can be searched through

the Roundtable web site. The web site allows a user to complete a text-based or key word (pick list)

search (see the discussion of key words below). Key word searches prompt the user for categories of

information based on a selection of key words. The key words were chosen to facilitate searches by

allowing the user to select such topics as medium treated, contaminant type, and technology. Once a

selection has been made, the search will return basic information about applications that meet the search

criteria, including site name, location, and primary technology type. The results will be organized by

categories selected by the users (for example, project scale or lead agency). The user then will be able to

view a two-page abstract of the case study or the complete case study.
6-6

The system for searching case studies on the Roundtable web site may be expanded to incorporate related

information from other sources. For example, programs such as EPA’s SITE program, the report

Completed North American Innovative Remediation Technology Demonstration Projects, the Advanced

Applied Technology Demonstration Facility (AATDF) program at Rice University, and DoD’s Strategic

Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) program all have information about

technology evaluation. By developing a flexible system, the Roundtable hopes to be able to incorporate

studies prepared under these type of programs.

6.6 KEY WORDS

To facilitate storage and retrieval of information in the case studies through the Roundtable web site, a list

of key words has been developed. The key words are commonly used terms that describe media,

contaminants, and primary and supplemental technologies. As Tables 6-2 through 6-5 show, the key

words are organized as pick-lists; the user can search for projects of interest by one or more combinations

of the key words from the lists.

In developing the lists of key words, the Roundtable examined several systems currently in use for projects

related to remediation and reviewed the lists of key words used in those systems. For example, the

Roundtable reviewed the Programs and Project Management Information System (PROMIS) developed by

USACE; the Installation Restoration Information System (IRIS) developed by the U.S. Army; NORM

developed by the U.S. Navy; AFRIMS developed by the U.S. Air Force; the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) developed by

EPA; and the Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT) developed by

EPA.

Most of the systems examined include key words for medium, contaminant, and primary technology. 

However, since many of the primary technologies listed may be qualified further or have residue

management components of interest, it is important to identify any supplemental technologies used in the

application. Such systems include those used in pretreatment and post-treatment. Dewatering solids

before treatment is an example of a supplemental technology. Table 6-5 lists the terms to be used to

document supplemental treatment systems.
6-7

TABLE 6-2

RECOMMENDED KEY WORDS FOR MEDIA

Media

Soil (in situ) Groundwater

Soil (ex situ) Free product

Sludge Organic liquids

Solid (for example slag) Light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) 

Sediment (in situ) Dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) 

Sediment (ex situ) Surface water

Debris

Off-gases

Wastewater

Leachate

TABLE 6-3

RECOMMENDED KEY WORDS FOR CONTAMINANTS

Contaminants

C Organic Compounds (all) C Inorganic Compounds (all)

 -- Volatiles—halogenated (all) -- Asbestos

 - Chlorinated solvents -- Heavy metals (for example, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Pb,

 PCE, TCE, DCE Ni, Se, Zn)

 -- Volatiles—nonhalogenated (all) -- Inorganic cyanides

 - BTEX -- Inorganic corrosives

 Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene -- Nonmetallic elements (for example, As)

 - Ketones -- Radionuclides (for example, tritium)

 - MTBE

 -- Semivolatiles—halogenated (all) C Radon

 - Dioxins/furans

 - PCBs C Explosives/propellants

 - Organic corrosives

 - Organic cyanides C Organometallic compounds (all)

 - Organic pesticides/herbicides Pesticides/herbicides

 -- Semivolatiles—nonhalogenated (all)

 - Phthalates

 - Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

 - Organic pesticides/herbicides

 -- Petroleum Hydrocarbons (all)

 - Gasoline range hydrocarbons

 - Diesel range hydrocarbons

 - Residual range hydrocarbons 
6-8

TABLE 6-4

RECOMMENDED KEY WORDS FOR PRIMARY TECHNOLOGIES

Soil In Situ Soil Ex Situ Groundwater In Situ Groundwater Ex Situ

Bioslurping Bioremediation (ex situ) - Aeration Free Product Recovery

Biosparging Composting Air Sparging (in situ) - Pump and treat with:

Bioventing Bioremediation (ex situ) - Groundwater Air Stripping

Bioremediation (in situ) - Land Treatment Bioremediation (in situ) - Bioreactors

 Soil Bioremediation (ex situ) - Groundwater Carbon Adsorption

Cap Slurry Phase Chemical Reduction/ Chemical Reduction/

Dual-Phase Extraction Chemical Reduction/ Oxidation Oxidation

Dynamic Underground Oxidation Circulating Wells (UVB) Chemical Treatment -

 Stripping Contained Recovery of Cosolvent Flushing Groundwater

Electrokinetics Oily Waste (CROW) Dual-Phase Extraction Distillation

Hot Air Injection Critical Fluid Extraction Dynamic Underground Electrochemical

In Situ Heating Cyanide Oxidation Stripping Treatment 

Phytoremediation Dehalogenation Electrokinetics Filtration

Soil Flushing (in situ) Incineration (off-site) Hot Water/Steam Precipitation

Soil Vapor Extraction Incineration (on-site) Flushing/Stripping Reverse Osmosis

Solidification/ Physical Separation In Situ Oxidation Solar Detoxification

 Stabilization Plasma High Temperature Monitored Natural Solvent Extraction

Steam Extraction Metals Recovery Attenuation Supercritical Water

Thermally Enhanced Pyrolysis Permeable Reactive Oxidation

 Recovery (e.g., EM, RF, Solar Detoxification Barrier UV/Oxidation

 ISTD) Soil Washing Phytoremediation

Vitrification Solidification/ Surfactants/Surfactant 

 Stabilization Flushing

Solvent Extraction Vertical Barrier Wall

Thermal Desorption

Vitrification

TABLE 6-5

RECOMMENDED KEY WORDS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES

Pretreatment Augmentation Post-Treatment Post-Treatment Post-Treatment

(Solids) (for In Situ Process) (Air) (Solids) (Water) *

Crushing Horizontal Wells Baghouse Compaction Air Stripping

Dewatering Fracturing - Hydraulic Biofiltration Quench Biological

Milling Mixing Carbon Adsorption Stabilization Carbon Adsorption

Mixing Fracturing - Pneumatic Catalytic Oxidation Centrifugation

Screening Drilling Condenser Chemical

Shredding Corona Decanting

Cyclone Filtration

Photolytic Ion Exchange

Destruction Neutralization

Scrubber

Thermal Destruction

* Other than for treatment of primary contaminants as part of a pump and treat system
APPENDIX A

POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE OF MATRIX

CHARACTERISTICS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS
A-1

APPENDIX A

POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE

OF MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*

Parameter Potential Effects on Cost or Performance

Matrix Characteristics

Soil Types

Soil classification Soil classification effects the relative ease of treating soil and

groundwater. For example, in soil vapor extraction, sandy soils

typically are more amenable to treatment than clayey soils. (See

related information under clay content or particle size distribution

below.)

Clay content or particle size Clay and particle size distribution affect the flow of air and fluid

distribution through contaminated media. In slurry-phase bioremediation

systems, particle size affects ability to hold media in suspension. In

soil washing, the relationship between particle size and

contaminant concentration affects the potential for physical

separation and reductions of volume. For thermal desorption

systems, clay and particle size affect mass and heat transfer,

including agglomeration and carryover to air pollution control

devices.

Aggregate Soil Properties

Hydraulic conductivity/ This characteristic is important to groundwater remediation

water permeability technologies, including in situ groundwater bioremediation,

groundwater sparging, and pump and treat systems. Hydraulic

conductivity and water permeability affect the zone of influence of

the extraction wells and therefore affect the number of wells needed

for the remediation effort and the cost of operating the extraction

wells.

Moisture content The moisture content of the matrix typically affects the

performance, both directly and indirectly, of such in situ

technologies such as bioventing and soil vapor extraction and such

ex situ technologies such as stabilization, incineration, and thermal

desorption. For example, air flow rates during operation of soil

vapor extraction technologies are affected by moisture content of

the soil. Thermal input requirements and air handling systems for

incineration and desorption technologies also can be affected by soil

moisture content.

Air permeability This characteristic is important to in situ soil remediation

technologies that involve venting or extraction. Air permeability

affects the zone of influence of the extraction wells and therefore

affects the number of extraction wells needed for the remediation

effort and the cost of operating the extraction wells.
APPENDIX A (continued)

POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE

OF MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*

A-2

Parameter Potential Effects on Cost or Performance

pH The pH of the matrix can affect the solubility of contaminants and

biological activity. Therefore, this characteristic can affect such

technologies as soil bioventing, soil flushing, land treatment,

composting, stabilization, and in situ groundwater bioremediation. 

In addition, pH can affect the operation of treatment technologies. 

pH in the corrosive range (<2 and >12) can damage equipment and

typically requires use of personal protection equipment and other

special handling procedures.

Porosity This characteristic is important to in situ technologies, such as soil

bioventing, soil vapor extraction, and groundwater sparging, that

rely upon use of a driving force to transfer contaminants into an

aqueous or air-filled space. Porosity affects the driving force and

therefore the performance achieved by the technologies.

Transmissivity This characteristic is important for groundwater pump and treat or

fluid cycling systems. Transmissivity affects the zone of influence

in this type of remediation, thereby affecting the number of wells

needed and the cost of operating the wells.

Organics

Total organic carbon (TOC) TOC affects the desorption of contaminants from soil and affects in

situ soil remediation, soil washing, stabilization, and in situ

groundwater bioremediation. TOC content may differ in

uncontaminated and contaminated soil.

Oil and grease (O&G) or total O&G and TPH affect the desorption of contaminants from soil. For

petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) thermal desorption, elevated levels of TPH may result in

agglomeration of soil particles, resulting in shorter residence times.

Nonaqueous phase liquids (NAPL) NAPLs may be a continuing source of contaminants for in situ

technologies. The presence of NAPLs may lead to increased

contaminant loads and therefore to increases in the costs or length

of operating periods necessary to achieve cleanup goals. Under

certain conditions, NAPLs may interfere directly with the operation

of the treatment process.
APPENDIX A (continued)

POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE

OF MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*

A-3

Parameters Potential Effects on Cost or Performance

Operating Parameters

System Parameters

Air flow rate Air flow rate affects the rate of volatilization of contaminants in

technologies that rely on transferring contaminants from a soil or

aqueous matrix to air, such as soil bioventing, soil vapor extraction,

and groundwater sparging. For technologies that involve oxidation

processes, this parameter affects the availability of oxygen and the

rate at which oxidation occurs (for biotreatment or incineration

processes).

Mixing rate/frequency The mixing rate affects the rate of biological activity (through

increased contact between oxygen and contaminants) and

volatilization of contaminants.

Moisture content The moisture content affects the rate of biological activity in soil

bioventing, land treatment, composting, and slurry-phase

bioremediation technologies. Contaminants must be in an aqueous

phase if biodegradation is to occur, and water typically is added to a

soil to maintain a level of moisture sufficient to support

biodegradation.

Operating pressure/vacuum Operating pressure or vacuum affects the rate of volatilization of

contaminants in technologies that rely on transferring contaminants

from a soil or aqueous matrix to air, such as soil bioventing, soil

vapor extraction, and groundwater sparging.

pH pH affects the operation of technologies that involve chemical or

biological processes, such as soil flushing, soil washing, and

bioremediation processes. For example, in soil washing,

contaminants are extracted from a matrix at specified pH ranges on

the basis of the solubility of the contaminant at that pH.

Pumping rate Pumping rate affects the amount of time required to remediate a

contaminated area and is important to technologies that involve

extraction of groundwater, such as soil flushing, and pump and

treat systems.

Residence time Residence time is important for ex situ technologies, such as land

treatment, composting, slurry-phase soil bioremediation,

incineration, and thermal desorption, to measure the amount of

time during which treatment continues.

System throughput System throughput affects the costs of capital equipment required

for a remediation and operating labor for such ex situ technologies

as slurry phase soil bioremediation, soil washing, incineration, and

thermal desorption.
APPENDIX A (continued)

POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE

OF MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*

A-4

Parameters Potential Effects on Cost or Performance

Temperature In bioremediation technologies, temperature affects the rate of

biological activity. In stabilization, incineration, and thermal

desorption, temperature affects the physical properties and rate of

chemical reactions of soil and contaminants.

Washing/flushing solution For soil flushing and washing technologies, the types and dosages

components/additives and dosage of additives affect the solubility and rate of extraction of

contaminants and therefore affect the costs of constructing and

operating flushing and washing equipment.

Biological Activity

Biomass concentration Biomass concentration is an important parameter for slurry-phase

soil bioremediation and in situ groundwater biodegradation. 

Biomass is necessary to effect treatment and therefore the

concentration of biomass is related directly to performance.

Microbial activity Microbial activity is an important parameter for soil bioventing,

 Oxygen uptake rate (OUR) land treatment, composting, and slurry-phase soil bioremediation

 Carbon dioxide evolution technologies. Hydrocarbon degradation commonly is used as an

 Hydrocarbon degradation indicator of treatment performance for these technologies, while

OUR and carbon dioxide evolution are used in specific applications

to supplement the data on hydrocarbon degradation.

Nutrients and other soil amendments Nutrients and other soil amendments can affect ex situ soil

remediation technologies, such as land soil bioventing, treatment,

composting, and slurry-phase soil bioremediation, and in situ

groundwater biodegradation, since this parameter directly affects

the rate of biological activity and therefore biodegradation of

contaminants

Soil loading rate The soil loading rate affects the rate of biological activity and can

affect the costs of operation of the technology.

* The parameters shown here are in addition to the items identified on Table 4-1 as important for affecting a

technology’s cost or performance. These additional parameters are:

1. Contaminants: type and concentration (initial and final, organic and inorganic, as appropriate)

2. Environmental setting: geology, stratigraphy, and hydrogeology

3. Quantity of material treated

4. Cleanup goals and requirements: cleanup levels, schedules, sampling and analysis
APPENDIX B

MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES FOR MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS

AND OPERATING PARAMETERS
B-1

APPENDIX B

MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES FOR MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS

AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*

Parameter Measurement Procedures Procedure?

Important to

Document

Measurement

Matrix Characteristics

Soil Types

Soil Classification Soil classification is a semiempirical measurement of Yes

sand, silt, clay, gravel, and loam content. Several soil

classification methods are in use, including the ASTM

Standard D 2488-90, the Practice for Description and

Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), and

the USDA and CSSC systems.

Clay Content and/or Particle Clay content or particle size distribution is measured by Yes

Size Distribution application of a variety of soil classification systems,

including ASTM D 2488-90 under soil classification.

Aggregate Soil Properties

Hydraulic Conductivity/ Hydraulic conductivity/water permeability can be Yes

Water Permeability determined through several procedures. Hydraulic

conductivity, which is a measure of the ease with which

water flows through soil, typically is calculated as a

function of permeability or transmissivity. ASTM D

5126-90, Guide for Comparison of Field Methods for

Determining Hydraulic Conductivity in the Vadose Zone,

is a guide for determining hydraulic conductivity. Water

permeability is often calculated by pumping out

groundwater, measuring groundwater draw-down rates

and recharge times through surrounding monitoring

wells, and factoring in the distance between the wells and

the pump. Method 9100 in U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency SW-846 is used to measure

permeability, as well as several ASTM standards: D 2434-

68 (1974), Test Method for Permeability of Granular

Soils (Constant Head); D 4630-86, Test Method for

Determining Transmissivity and Storativity of Low

Permeability Rocks by In Situ Measurements Using the

Constant Head Injection Test; and D 4631-86, Test

Method for Determining Transmissivity and Storativity of

Low Permeability Rocks by In Situ Measurements Using

the Pressure Pulse Technique. 

Moisture Content Procedures for measuring soil moisture content are No

standard. Soil moisture content typically is measured

according to a gravimetric ASTM standard, D 2216-90,

Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water

(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock. 
APPENDIX B (continued)

MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES FOR MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS

AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*

Parameter Measurement Procedures Procedure?

Important to

Document

Measurement

The measurement of hydraulic conductivity is important to document; since transmissivity is a product of hydraulic 1

conductivity and thickness of the aquifer, it would not be necessary to document the measurement procedure for this

characteristic.

B-2

Air Permeability Air permeability is a measure of the ease with which air Yes

flows through soil and is a calculated value. For example,

air permeability may be calculated by applying a vacuum

to soil with a pump, measuring vacuum pressures in

surrounding monitoring wells, and fitting the results to a

correlation derived by Johnson et al., 1990.

pH pH is a measure of the degree of acidity or alkalinity of a No

matrix. Procedures for measuring and reporting pH are

standard and include EPA SW-846 Method 9045 and

ASTM methods for soil (ASTM D 4972-89, Test Method

for pH of Soils) and groundwater (ASTM D 1293-84).

Porosity Porosity is the volume of air- or water-filled voids in a No

mass of soil. Procedures for measuring and reporting

porosity are standard. Porosity is measured by ASTM D

4404-84, Test Method for Determination of the Pore

Volume and Pore Volume Distribution of Soil and Rock

by Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry.

Transmissivity Transmissivity, the flow from a saturated zone, is the No

product of hydraulic conductivity and aquifer thickness.

1

Organics

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) TOC is a measure of the total organic carbon content of a No

matrix. Measurement of TOC is standard (for example,

Method 9060 in EPA SW-846).

Oil & Grease (O&G) or Procedures for measuring O&G and TPH are standard. No

Total Petroleum O&G is measured by Method 9070 in EPA SW-846, and

Hydrocarbons (TPH) TPH is measured by Method 9073. A TPH analysis is

similar to an O&G analysis, with an additional extraction

step. TPH does not include nonpetroleum fractions, such

as animal fats and humic and fulvic acids.

Nonaqueous Phase Liquids There is no standard method of measurement for Yes

(NAPLs) determining the presence of NAPLs; rather, their presence

is determined by examining groundwater and identifying

a separate phase. NAPLs are reported as present or not

present.
APPENDIX B (continued)

MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES FOR MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS

AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*

Parameter Measurement Procedures Procedure?

Important to

Document

Measurement

B-3

Operating Parameters

System Parameters

Air Flow Rate The air flow rate is a parameter set for a vapor extraction No

or treatment system. The measurement of air flow rate is

standard (for example, measured by flow meters).

Mixing Rate/Frequency Mixing rate or frequency is the rate of tilling for land No

treatment, the rate of turning for composting, and the

rotational frequency of a mixer for slurry-phase

bioremediation. 

Moisture Content Procedures for measuring soil moisture content are No

relatively standard. Soil moisture content typically is

measured according to a gravimetric ASTM standard: D

2216-90, Test Method for Laboratory Determination of

Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock. Moisture

content as are operating parameter of a treatment system

characterizes the amount of water and aqueous reagent

added to the soil (for example, moisture content for slurryphase bioremediation refers to the ratio of solid to liquid).

Operating Pressure/Vacuum Operating pressure or vacuum is measured by a pressure No

or vacuum gauge, such as a manometer. The

measurement of this parameter is standard.

pH Procedures for measuring and reporting pH are standard No

(for example, Method 9045 in EPA SW-846). During

ex situ treatment, the pH of soil and groundwater is

adjusted as an operating parameter by the addition of

acidic and alkaline reagents.

Pumping Rate Pumping rate is the volume of groundwater extracted No

from the subsurface. The pumping rate is measured

through a production well or treatment system by a flow

meter or a bucket and stopwatch.

Residence Time Residence time is the amount of time during which a unit No

of material is processed in a treatment system. Residence

time is measured by monitoring the length of time that a

unit of soil remains in the treatment system. 

System Throughput System throughput is the amount of material that is No

processed in a treatment system per unit of time.
APPENDIX B (continued)

MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES FOR MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS

AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*

Parameter Measurement Procedures Procedure?

Important to

Document

Measurement

B-4

Temperature Temperature is measured by a thermometer or No

thermocouple.

Washing/Flushing Solution The components and dosages of washing and flushing No

Components/Additives and solutions are site- and waste-specific "recipes" of

Dosage polymers, flocculants, and coagulants. The types and

concentrations of additives for a particular treatment

application are determined by site and waste

characterization, conducted of treatability and

performance tests, and application of the operator’s

judgment. The actual amounts added are measured by the

volume and concentration of additive solutions metered

into the treatment system.

Biological Activity

Biomass Concentration Biomass concentration is the number of microorganisms Yes

per unit volume in a treated or untreated aqueous matrix. 

Biomass concentrations typically are measured by direct

plate counts. Portable water test kits are available for

field tests. Methods 10200 through 10400 from Standard

Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater

are used in laboratory analyses of biomass concentration.

Microbial Activity Oxygen uptake, carbon dioxide evolution, and Yes

 Oxygen Uptake Rate (OUR) hydrocarbon degradation are used to measure the rate of

 Carbon Dioxide Evolution biodegradation in a treatment system. Oxygen uptake is

 Hydrocarbon Degradation measured according to ASTM D 4478-85, Standard Test

Methods for Oxygen Uptake. Carbon dioxide evolution is

measured with a carbon dioxide monitor. Hydrocarbon

degradation is measured by sampling the influent to and

effluent from the treatment system and analyzing samples

for organic constituents, such as TPH (EPA SW-846

Method 9073).
APPENDIX B (continued)

MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES FOR MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS

AND OPERATING PARAMETERS*

Parameter Measurement Procedures Procedure?

Important to

Document

Measurement

B-5

Nutrients and Other Soil Nutrients usually consist of nitrogen and phosphorus (and Yes

Amendments trace inorganic constituents such as calcium and

magnesium) and typically are reported as a ratio of carbon

to nitrogen to phosphorus. Carbon is measured as total

organic carbon by with EPA SW-846 Method 9060. 

Nitrogen is measured as both ammonia nitrogen

according to using ASTM D 1426-89, Test Methods for

Ammonia Nitrogen in Water, and as nitrite-nitrate

according to ASTM D 3867-90, Test Method for NitriteNitrate in Water. Phosphorus is measured according to

ASTM D 515-88, Test Methods for Phosphorus in Water. 

Calcium and magnesium are measured according to

ASTM D 511-88, Test Method for Calcium and

Magnesium in Water. Other soil amendments may

include bulking agents for composting (for example,

sawdust).

Soil Loading Rate Soil loading rate is the amount of soil applied to a unit No

area of a composting system.

* The parameters shown here are in addition to the items identified on Table 4-1 as important for affecting a

technology’s cost or performance. These additional parameters are:

1. Contaminants: type and concentration (initial and final, organic and inorganic, as appropriate)

2. Environmental setting: geology, stratigraphy, and hydrogeology

3. Quantity of material treated

4. Cleanup goals and requirements: cleanup levels, schedules, sampling and analysis
APPENDIX C

RECOMMENDED FORMAT FOR CASE STUDY

ABSTRACT
C-1

APPENDIX C

RECOMMENDED FORMAT FOR CASE STUDY ABSTRACT

TECHNOLOGY AT SITE NAME, LOCATION

Site Name: Contaminants: Period of Operation:

Type and concentration

Location: Cleanup Type:

Full-scale, demonstration-scale

Vendor: Technology: Cleanup Authority:

Name, address, phone no. Type, design, and operations Type, date, lead

Additional Contacts: Regulatory Contacts:

Name, address, phone no. Name, address, phone no.

Waste Source: Type/Quantity of Media Treated:

Type, quantity, properties

Purpose/Significance of

Application:

Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:

C Bulleted information

Results:

C Bulleted information

Cost:

C Bulleted information

Description:

Brief text description of site, technology application, results, and lessons learned
APPENDIX D

GENERIC FORMAT FOR COST AND PERFORMANCE

CASE STUDY REPORT 
APPENDIX D

GENERIC FORMAT FOR

COST AND PERFORMANCE CASE STUDY REPORT

Site Name

D-1

SITE INFORMATION

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION:

Site Name:

Location:

CERCLIS ID No.:

Regulatory Context: (for example, date for Record of Decision)

TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION

Period of Operation:

Quantity of Material Treated during Application: (also provide basis for estimate)

BACKGROUND

Waste Management Practice That Contributed to Contamination: (for example, leaks and spills

from waste storage)

Site History: (brief, focusing on sources of contamination)

Remedy Selection: (brief summary of the selected remedy and the basis for selection)

SITE LOGISTICS/CONTACTS

(Provide name, address, telephone, e-mail)

Site Lead:

Oversight:

Regulatory Contact:

Technology System Vendor/Consultant:

Additional Contacts:
Site Name

D-2

MATRIX DESCRIPTION 

TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

MATRIX IDENTIFICATION

Type of Matrix Processed Through Technology System: (for example, soil or groundwater)

CONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION

Primary Contaminant Groups and Concentrations Measured During Site Investigation:

Identify nature and extent of contamination; include site map showing locations, as appropriate

Contaminant Properties:

Include tabular list of properties such as solubility, partition coefficients, boiling points

MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING TECHNOLOGY COST OR PERFORMANCE

(Provide information on relevant parameters for the application)

Parameter Value Measurement

Procedure

Soil Classification

Clay Content and/or Particle Size Distribution

Additional Soil Characteristics (specify)

SITE GEOLOGY/STRATIGRAPHY

Describe heterogeneity, depth to groundwater, size and characteristics of applicable aquifers and units

(especially important for in situ technologies) 

PRIMARY TECHNOLOGY

Technology name

SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNOLOGY TYPES

Example - Post-Treatment (Air): Technology name(s)

Example - Post-Treatment (Water): Technology name(s)
Site Name

D-3

TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION

System Description

(Include a description of system; provide a process flow diagram if available; identify key design

criteria)

System Operation

(Include a description of system operation, identify the remediation technology plan and how operation

compared with the plan, including any operational problems; describe activities used to perform system

optimization)

OPERATING PARAMETERS AFFECTING TECHNOLOGY COST OR PERFORMANCE

(Provide information on relevant operating parameters for the application.)

Parameter Value

Example: Temperature

Others (as appropriate)

TIMELINE

(Provide dates for key activities for the application, focusing on events related to technology.)

Start Date End Date Activity

CLEANUP GOALS/STANDARDS

Please specify for media treated as well as applicable standards for related parameters such as air

emissions and effluent discharges.

PERFORMANCE DATA

Tabular and/or graphical presentation of analytical data for media treated before, during, and after

technology application, as appropriate. (Include site map showing sampling locations, as appropriate)
Site Name

D-4

COST OF THE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM

REGULATORY/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

TECHNOLOGY APPLICABILITY AND ALTERNATIVES

PERFORMANCE DATA ASSESSMENT

Objective comparison of performance data, including direct comparison of performance data with

cleanup goals and standards.

PERFORMANCE DATA QUALITY

Briefly describe quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures used in application, and note any

exceptions to those procedures.

PROCUREMENT PROCESS

Number of bids, competitive nature of procurement process, names and roles of selected contractors.

COST DATA

(Identify organization that provided cost data and whether cost data are actual or estimated costs)

Item Cost ($ Year Basis) Actual or Estimated

(A or E)

Capital (specify cost/activity)

Operation and maintenance (specify cost/activity)

Other (specify)

(For relatively short-term applications, O&M costs may be reported as a total value for the application;

however, for longer-term applications, annual O&M costs should be reported.)

Identify the approvals, licenses, and permits required to operate the technology at the site.

(Provide only for demonstration-scale reports)

Identify technology applicability, competing technologies, and technology maturity; may also discuss

commercialization and intellectual property issues.
Site Name

D-5

OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

REFERENCES

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

COST OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

Provide observations and lessons learned related to cost of the application.

PERFORMANCE OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

Provide observations and lessons learned related to performance of the application.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

Provide additional observations and lessons learned for the application, and an assessment about

potential use at other sites.

List of references used in preparation of the cost and performance report.

Name of organization(s) that prepared case study report, and corresponding contract number (as

appropriate).
APPENDIX E

ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC WORK GROUP ON COST AND PERFORMANCE
E-1

APPENDIX E

ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC WORK GROUP

ON COST AND PERFORMANCE

Listed below are members of the Work Group who participated in revising the Interagency Guide. The

members listed may also be involved in efforts to collect cost and performance data.

William Anderson Stan Hanson

American Academy of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Environmental Engineers CEMRD-ET-E

130 Holiday Court, Suite 100 12565 West Center Road

Annapolis, MD 21401 Omaha, NE 68144

Maria Bayon Steve Hirsh

NASA (Code JE) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

300 E Street, SW Region 3

Washington, DC 20546 841 Chestnut Building (3HW50)

Skip Chamberlain

U.S. Department of Energy John Kingscott (Chairman)

EM-53, Clover Leaf Bldg. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

19901 Germantown Road Technology Innovation Office

Germantown, MD 20874-2290 401 M Street, SW (5102G)

Scott Edwards

OADUSD Donna Kuroda

3400 Defense Pentagon U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Washington, DC 20301-3400 CEMP-RT

Edward Engbert Washington, DC 20314 

U.S. Army Environmental Center

ATTN: SFIM-AEC-ETD Mac Lankford

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010 U.S. Department of Energy (EM-55)

Gordon Evans Washington, DC 20585

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ORD/NRMRL Kelly Madalinski

26 W. Martin Luther King Drive U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cincinnati, OH 45268 Technology Innovation Office 

Bob Furlong Washington, DC 20460

HQ-USAF/CEVR

1260 Air Force Pentagon Jeff Marqusee

Washington, DC 20330-1260 ODUSD (ES)

Mike Goldstein Washington, DC 20301-3400

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, SW (5202G)

Washington, DC 20460

Philadelphia, PA 19107

Washington, DC 20460

20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

1000 Independence Ave., SW

401 M Street, SW (5102G)

3400 Defense Pentagon
APPENDIX E (continued)

ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC WORK GROUP

ON COST AND PERFORMANCE

E-2

Mary McCune Ken Skahn

U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EM-43), Clover Leaf Bldg. OERR (5203G)

19901 Germantown Road 401 M Street, SW

Germantown, MD 20874-1290 Washington, DC 20460

Steven McNeely Bryan Skokan

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of Energy

OUST EM-42

401 M Street, SW (5403G) Cloverleaf Building

Washington, DC 20460 Washington, DC 20585

David Morganwalp Rob Smith 

U.S. Geological Survey Code ENV-CLEANUP

412 National Center Naval Facility Engineering Command

Reston, VA 22092 Washington Navy Yard

Robert Nash Washington, DC 20374-5065

Naval Facilities Engineering

Service Center (ESC414RN) Dennis A. Teefy

1100 23 Avenue U.S. Army Environmental Center rd

Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370 ATTN: SFIM-AEC-ETD

Margaret Patterson

U.S. Air Force Stephen Warren

129 Andrews Street, Suite 102 U.S. Department of Energy (EM-43)

ACC CEVRW 19901 Germantown Rd.

Langley AFB, VA 23665 Germantown, MD 20874

Kate Peterson Stan Wolf

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Energy (EM-55)

CEMRD-ET-E 100 Independence Ave., SW

12565 West Center Road Washington, DC 20585

Omaha, NE 68144

Johnnie Shockley

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CEMRD-ET-E

12565 West Center Road

Omaha, NE 68144

1322 Patterson Avenue, S.E., Suite 1000

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
APPENDIX F

MEMBERS OF FEDERAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES ROUNDTABLE
F-1

APPENDIX F

MEMBERS OF FEDERAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES ROUNDTABLE

James Arnold Lt. Col. Ray Knight

U.S. Army Environmental Center USAF/ILEVR

SFIM-AEC-ET Building E4430 1260 Air Force Pentagon

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010 Washington, DC 20330-1260

Gerald Boyd Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D. (Chairman)

Deputy Assistant Secretary U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Department of Energy Technology Innovation Office

ERWM (EM-50) 401 M Street, SW (5102G)

1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20460

Washington, DC 20585

Col. James Dries DAIM-ED U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Asst. Chief of Staff - Installation Management ORIA

600 Army Pentagon Center for Remediation, Technology & Tools

Washington, DC 20310-0600 401 M Street, SW (6602J)

James Fiore

U.S. Department of Energy (EM-40) Timothy Oppelt

1000 Independence Avenue, SW U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20585 ORD

Brian Harrison 26 West Martin Luther King Drive

Code ENV Cincinnati, OH 45268

Naval Facility Engineering Command

Washington Navy Yard John Powell 

1322 Patterson Avenue, S.E., Suite 1000 U.S. Geological Survey

Washington, DC 20374-5065 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 404

Dr. Joe Hoagland, Manager

Land and Water Sciences and Remediation Patricia Rivers

Tennessee Valley Authority Environmental Division

Environmental Research and Services/CTR-2R U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Muscle Shoals, AL 35662 CEMP-RT

Craig Hooks Washington, DC 20314-1000

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

OFFE Col. John Selstrom

401 M Street, SW (2261) AFCEE/ERT

Washington, DC 20460 3207 North Road

Dr. Tom Houlihan, Director

Interagency Environmental Technologies Office Edward Wandelt (G-HCV-1)

730 Jackson Place, NW U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters

Washington, DC 20503 2100 Second Street, SW, Room 6109

Phillip Newkirk, Acting Center Director

Washington, DC 20460

National Risk Management Laboratory

Reston, VA 20192

20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Brooks AFB, TX 78235

Washington, DC 20593-0001
APPENDIX F (continued)

MEMBERS OF FEDERAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES ROUNDTABLE

F-2

James Woolford Dr. Robert J. York

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Army Environmental Center

FFRRO SFIM-AEC-IR, Building E4480

401 M Street, SW (5101) Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010 

Washington, DC 20460

Dr. James Wright 

Code ENV

Naval Facilities Engineering Command

Washington Navy Yard

1322 Patterson Avenue, S.E., Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20374-5065