Cost and Performance Report: Soil Vapor Extraction at the Hastings Superfund Site, Well Number 3 Subsite Hastings, Nebraska

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
• Site Information
• Matrix Description
• Treatment System Description
• Treatment System Performance
• Treatment System Cost
• Observations and Lessons Learned
• References
• Appendix A- Treatability Study

Back to Treatment System Performance | Table of Contents | Forward to Observations and Lessons Learned

Treatment System Cost

Procurement Process [2]

EPA’s ARCS contractor, Morrison-Knudsen Corporation (MK), was assigned the Remedial Design phase work for this action. MK was also retained to develop the A/E bid packages, to provide oversight of the construction of the treatment system, and to operate the SVE system during the shakedown period. MK contracted with a drilling firm as a subcontractor to install the new extraction and monitoring wells and procured the GAC through a vendor. MK also issued subcontracts for fabrication of the skid-mounted vacuum extraction unit and for on-site construction operations support. All of the subcontracts were obtained through competitive bidding.

Treatment System Cost

In order to standardize reporting of costs across projects, the treatment vendor's costs were categorized according to an interagency Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), as shown in Table 10. The WBS contains specific elements for activities directly attributed to treatment. No costs were reported by the vendor for before- or after-treatment activities, including monitoring, sampling, testing, and analysis.

Table 10. Actual Costs Shown According to the WBS [adapted from 21]

Table 11 presents the actual costs for construction, operation, and decommissioning of the SVE system, according to a format provided by the treatment vendor.

Table 11: Actual Costs for Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning [21]

Notes:
a- Work included under the Project Monitoring & Control task included accounting, cost and schedule tracking, labor and cost distribution, and other administrative functions. Procurement Support was primarily associated with purchasing and engineering oversight of the vacuum extraction unit, carbon adsorbers, gas chromatograph, and other supplies. Construction Management involved field installation and decommissioning activities including drilling, construction, system dismantlement, and grouting of the wells. Technical Engineering Services included operations, maintenance, and reporting functions during remediation.
b- Major equipment expenditures included granular activated carbon ($11,364.66), gas chromatograph lease ($475.61 per month), and rolloff bin rental and soils disposal ($1677.66).
c- Subcontracts included:
Initial well installation by Boyles Brother Drilling $31,907.60
SVE construction by Carmichael Construction $65,958.00
Vacuum extraction unit fabrication by Hydrologics $73,810.00
O&M services by Carmichael Construction $ 3,421.00
Decommissioning by Carmichael Construction $ 3,380.00
Well grouting by J& Drilling $ 3,728.00
d- Other direct costs included phone, mail, computer time, reproduction, insurance, and electric bills. Electricity costs were as high as $1,200.00 per month during full time operation.

As shown in Tables 10 and 11, actual costs for this application were approximately $370,000. This value is 17% less than the $447,700 value originally estimated for this application. [21, 22]

The actual total treatment cost value of $370,000 corresponds to $620 per pound of CCl₄ removed (600 pounds CCl₄ removed) and $2.00 per cubic yard of soil treated. The number of cubic yards of soil treated at Hastings is an estimate based on information provided by the vendor; the actual amount of soil treated is not available at this time for comparison with the estimate.

Cost Data Quality

A detailed breakdown of the cost elements and actual cost data were provided by the vendor for this application. Costs were provided for labor, equipment, subcontracts, travel, other direct costs, and fees. Costs were provided for project monitoring and control, procurement support, construction management, technical engineering services, and award fee.

Back to Treatment System Performance | Table of Contents | Forward to Observations and Lessons Learned

References

2. Morrison-Knudsen Corporation. Preliminary Design Report for a Soil Vapor Extraction System, Well Number 3 Subsite, Revision 1, U.S. EPA ARCS, September 1991.

21. Comments submitted by Morrison-Knudsen Corporation, on January 26, 1995.

22. Comments submitted by Diane Easley of EPA Region VII on February 9, 1995.