EP 1110-1-19
30 Jun 01
Exhibit 4-9
Example Summary of Project Costs (Section 8)
The table below provides a summary of the total project costs and a comparison of the actual costs with the ROD
estimate. Appendix B provides additional project cost breakdown.
Cost Summary
ROD Estimate
ROD Estimate
Actual Cost
Cost Item
1
(1996 $$)
(1998 $$)
(1998 $$)
RA Capital Cost
6,000
2,000
3,026
RA Operating Cost
258,000
273,000
132,497
Total Cost
524,000
555,000
435,523
2
21,000
Projected Future O & M Cost
Difference between total project cost
-9,000 or -22%
3
and total ROD cost estimate
1
ROD Cost was adjusted from 1996 $$ to 1998 $$ using average 1996 and 1998 ENR building cost index factors.
2
Groundwater monitoring was not included in original ROD. Assumed length of monitoring = 5 years
3
Difference between project cost and ROD estimate is largely attributable to 18 months of actual treatment instead of 24 months
planned in the ROD.
4-10. Observations and Lessons Learned. This section should discuss site- or OU-specific
observations and lessons learned, highlighting successes, problems and their resolutions. The
discussion of the problems and their resolutions will be included in the useful technical
information that will be extracted by the government and compiled for use in future remedy
selections. The information presented should be technical in nature and specific to the site.
Observations or lessons learned relating to both cost and performance of the remedial action are
important to note. An example section is provided in Exhibit 4-10.
Exhibit 4-10
Example Observations and Lessons Learned (Section 9)
♦
The project cost 22% less than the adjusted ROD estimate, largely due to reduced labor and materials costs
associated with achieving remediation objectives in 18 instead of 24 months. Use of an on-site laboratory
also contributed to savings.
♦
The land treatment application was found to be more effective at remediating soils on the site when the soils
were tilled once every two weeks, rather than once every four weeks, as was originally planned.
♦
Application of fertilizers to the soils at the site proved to be unnecessary because of the naturally high
concentrations of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorous in the soil.
4-12
Previous Page
