Remediation technology costs

U.S. EPA, Remediation Technology Cost Compendium—Year 2000, EPA 542-R-01-009, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, September 2001. 

Remediation Technology Cost Compendium— Year 2000 EPA-542-R-01-009 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC, 2001. 

With few exceptions, treatment technologies are limited to some extent by the size of the material that they are able to process. These limitations can apply to the throat of the feed devices, the inner workings of the equipment, the treatment mechanisms, or the process elements. To make these remedial technologies efficient and cost effective, separation techniques are used to make the feed stream uniform... 

The feasibility study (FS) utilizes the data on site characterization and remedial technology screening to establish remedial alternatives, in turn, to select the cost-effective remedial actions. The FS may be viewed as occurring in three phases ... 

Table 24.5 summarizes the cost information reported for 127 MTBE remediation technology applications. Only costs reported as total project costs are summarized in this table. Note that these include both completed and ongoing projects. Because of the wide variation in the components that were included in the reported total project costs, these data should only be used as a general reference about costs and should not be used as a sole basis to estimate costs for future MTBE remediation projects or to compare the cost of technologies. In addition, U.S. EPA prepared a more detailed... 

Total Project Cost Data for MTBE Remediation Technology (127 Applications, 2002 USD)3... 

It is relatively low cost compared with other remediation technologies. 

Various soil remediation techniques such as incineration, soil washing, or biological soil treatment were applied in the past, but the microbiological degradation of TNT-contaminated soils is considered to be the most favorable technique as far as costs are concerned [414]. The following is a summary of these TNT remediation technologies ... 

General cost estimates for phytoremediation range from 3 to 100 per cubic meter. The annual costs of using phytoremediation in a cropping system is approximately 0.02 to 1 per cubic meter. These annual costs are significantly less than the costs associated with alternative remediation technologies (D20756H, p. 42). 

According to vendor-supplied information, the INCA system can process aqueous solutions efficiently and greatly reduces costs for two major reasons (1) the technology costs much less than traditional treatment methods, and (2) the value of precious metals recovered during the process could offset the cost of remediation and may even result in a profit (D10759F, pp. 180-181). No specific cost information was available. 

The groundwater at the 2-acre Avco Lycoming Superfund site in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, was contaminated with chlorinated solvents, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium. Following a successful pilot-scale demonstration that lasted from 1995 through 1996, the technology was applied on a fuU-scale. The cost of the pilot-scale demonstration was approximately 145,000. The full-scale remediation system cost about 220,000 to construct. Operation and maintenance costs have been approximately 50,000 per year (D210571, p. 93 D213376, p. A-47). 

The following costs are preliminary bench-scale startup costs for the STRATEX technology [D14167D, p. 6 Personal communication Michael Mann, ARCADES Geraghty and Miller, Inc. (formerly Alternative Remedial Technologies, Inc.), December 1996] ... 

The results of the EPA SITE demonstration also showed that the cost of methane necessary to support trichloroethylene biodegradation is not excessive in relation to the costs of other technologies available for the removal of trichloroethylene from water. Thus, the Biotrol system may prove to be a cost-effective alternative to more traditional groundwater remediation technologies. 

The resale value of the recovered product is not expected to be a significant factor in cost calculation. At best, resale of the product will reduce the overall cost of the process enough to keep it competitive with other remediation technologies (D11846H, p. 976). 

The developer claims that the cost effectiveness of the technology with respect to initial, operating, and maintenance costs makes it a preferred water remediation technology. 

In 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a cost analysis of various remediation technologies, including thermal desorption. Thermal desorption technology costs were analyzed based on operation and maintenance (O M) costs, capital costs, and other site-specific data (D22449H, p. 3-1). 

According to the vendor, Reclaim costs less than more traditional remediation technologies and is the only adsorptive process effective for the treatment of VOCs. 

SDP systems require a gaseous feed, but they can be used in combination with another remediation technology, such as a packed-bed reactor, to treat other waste streams. SDP performance and cost are contaminant specific. 

Reduces the risks, costs, aud effort associated with excavatiou aud ex situ remediation technologies. 

Based on data from the Sandia National Laboratory demonstration, the cost of operating this technology was estimated for treating 4600 m of soil at a single site. The total cost of treatment is estimated to be 160 m of soil remediated. This cost is based on treating the soil in three equal batches of approximately 1500 m. Each batch can be treated in a period of 2 months using a 200-kw-amp RF power source. This cost includes the following parameters ... 

---