Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup From Concept to Commercialization (1997) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
6 COMPARING COSTS OF REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
6 COMPARING COSTS OF REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
Pages 252-270
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 252... ...
This chapter recommends a strategy for developing and analyzing cost data to allow valid comparisons of different types of remediation technologies. LIMITATIONS OF EXISTING COST REPORTING STRUCTURES For a variety of reasons, it is currently difficult to impossible to develop accurate comparisons of remediation technology costs in many situations.
|
From page 253... ...
This loss of compiled cost information greatly hinders the dissemination of consistent cost information and makes it difficult for a new technology provider to develop comparative cost information. Further, even where cost information is made available to private users, it is extremely rare to see detailed cost breakdowns that would allow the reviewer to judge the realism of the cost elements.
|
From page 254... ...
Nevertheless, a variety of steps can be taken to enable technology providers and users to gather information on the costs of different remediation options and develop meaningful cost comparisons to evaluate the options. Development of Template Sites for Cost Comparisons The most difficult problem in developing sound, comparable cost information is in the application of in situ remediation technologies, for which site-specific conditions determine the way in which a technology (or technique)
|
From page 255... ...
TABLE 6-2 Detailed Information Needed for Template Sites for Comparing Costs of Ground Water Remediation Technologies Site Characteristics · Conditions of site access · Access to power, utilities · Vadose zone soil classification . Soil classification of ground water-bearing zone to be remediated · Dimensions of contaminated zone; volume of contaminated area Contaminated Ground Water Characteristics · pH, dissolved oxygen concentration · Total dissolved solids concentration, hardness, iron concentration, manganese concentration, concentrations of other potential foulants · Redox potential · Soil adsorption/desorption properties Contaminant Characteristics · Contaminant concentration profile · Character/quantity of source materials (DNAPL, etc.)
|
From page 256... ...
. The porosity is 0.25; ground water velocity is 150 m/year (500 ft/yr)
|
From page 257... ...
It is also important to specify the environmental end point achieved by the remediation technology and to compare costs based on achieving equivalent end points. Although development of template sites for cost comparisons adds another level of complexity to the analysis of technology performance, this strategy will help reduce the problems associated with comparing in situ technologies.
|
From page 258... ...
Table 6-3 shows examples of common cost measures. Cost measures reported by technology providers vary depending on whether the technology treats the contaminants in situ or ex situ, whether it is designed for containment or remediation, and whether the contaminated material is soil, other solid material, or ground water.
|
From page 259... ...
Documentation of Costs Using Consistent Procedures Much of the uncertainty in evaluating the costs of remediation technologies, especially in comparing an emerging technology against an established one, is brought about by inconsistencies in the way the costs are derived and reported. Different assumptions used in calculating costs can lead to vastly different conclusions about the relative economic merits of one technology versus another, yet it is extremely rare to see detailed cost breakdowns that would allow the reviewer to judge the realism of the cost elements.
|
From page 260... ...
Table 6-4 shows the types of cost elements that need to be included in capital and operating cost estimates (Herriksen and Booth, 1995~. The Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable has developed a guide to documenting the costs of remediation projects carried out at federal facilities (Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, 1995~.
|
From page 261... ...
Regulatory reporting * Information typically supplied in reports from the Superfund Innovative Technologies Evaluation Program.
|
From page 262... ...
The role of the WBS in standardizing remediation technology costs should be reevaluated, and the WBS process should be documented in a form that facilitates better understanding and use by the private sector. Present Worth Calculation In documenting the capital and operating costs of a remediation technology, developers need to indicate clearly their assumptions about interest rates and taxes.
|
From page 263... ...
In the example in Box 6-2, different assumptions about discount rates and taxes would lead a government agency to conclude that an accelerated bioremediation system requiring 5 years to complete a cleanup would be more cost-effective than using intrinsic bioremediation over 30 years, while a business would reach the opposite conclusion. Thus, financial performance measures are powerful tools in strategic technology development and planning, but they should not be used mechanically.
|
From page 265... ...
Inclusion of Cost Data in National Technology Performance Data Bases Once cost information for a technology is developed, it should be made available to other potential technology users. The coordinated national data bases on remediation technologies recommended in Chapter 3 should include information on technology costs.
|
From page 267... ...
should be required to provide cost data for the data base as soon as the cleanup is under way. The EPA should advertise the data base and make it available electronically, on the Internet, as is already being done for technology assessments by the Ground Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center.
|
From page 268... ...
Currently, costs of technologies for cleaning up contaminated ground water and soil are not reported in formats that allow comparison of one technology to another or extrapolation of costs from one site to another. Inconsistent calculations and unstated assumptions made in estimating costs can remove a remediation technology from the menu of options being considered by a client.
|
From page 269... ...
and technology developers should be convened under the auspices of an umbrella organization, such as the Remediation Technologies Development Forum or American Academy of Environmental Engineers, to develop and refine a standardized template system that can be used to compare the costs of different remediation technologies. For contaminated ground water, a workable number of templates should be developed to represent the range of conditions of contaminant depth, aquifer thickness, and aquifer permeability.
|
From page 270... ...
Assumptions about discount rates and tax benefits should be clearly stated in estimates of present costs of a technology that operates over an extended time period. In developing cost estimates for technology users, technology providers should tailor their assumptions about discount rates and taxes to the needs of the user.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.