SUMMARY - doerc270015

ERDC TN-DOER-C27

July 2002

1,067 m (3,500 ft) ranged from $1.25 to $2.50/cubic yard mile, with the lower cost reflecting

volumes greater than 7,646 m3 (10,000 yd3). Transport by truck, or truck/rail combination, ranged

from $80- $110/ton, with direct rail costs being lowest, but access dependent. Offsite disposal costs

ranged from $50 to $150/ton (U.S. FY 2000), with the highest disposal costs including the

transportation costs.

SUMMARY: The economic viability of separation as a dredged material management alternative

is largely dependent upon the benefits to be derived by reducing the volume or the weight of material

requiring onsite or offsite disposal. Preliminary estimates of recoverable volume can be made on

the basis of bench-scale sediment characterization data. More quantitative estimates of potential

volume recovery can be obtained by calculating a fractional bulking factor based on material

properties in situ and following bench- or pilot-scale process testing. The benefit of this volume

reduction can be determined by calculating an average annual cost for the base condition, and

comparing the average annual cost for the selected separation alternative. This information will be

useful in making planning level decisions, and determining what alternatives merit detailed cost

analysis. Among cost-comparable alternatives, intangible benefits may also be factored in.

POINTS OF CONTACT: For additional information, contact the authors, Trudy J. Olin-Estes

(601-634-2125, TrudyJ.Olin-Estes@erdc.usace.army.mil); Susan E. Bailey (601-634-3932,

Susan.E.Bailey@erdc.usace.army.mil); Shana Heisey (703-428-9088, shana.a.heisey@WRC01.

usace.army.mil); Keith Hofseth (703-428-6468, keith.d.hofseth@WRC01.usace.army.mil); or the

Program Manager of the Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program, Dr. Robert

M. Engler (601-634-3624, Robert.M. Engler@erdc.usace.army.mil). This technical note should be

cited as follows:

Olin-Estes, T. J., Bailey, S. E. , Heisey, S. A., and Hofseth, K. D. (2002). "Planning level

cost-benefit analysis for physical separation at confined disposal facilities," DOER

Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-C27), U.S. Army Engineer Research and

Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/doer

REFERENCES

McCorquodale, A., Selvidge, R., and Bennett, A. (2000). " Shipyard environmental dredge technology user's guide,"

University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, and Art Anderson Associates, http://www.uno.edu/~engr/meric/

MDDraftUsersGuide.html

Olin-Estes, T J. (2000). "Determining recovery potential of dredged material for beneficial use - Site characterization:

Statistical approach," DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-C15), U.S. Army Engineer Research

and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/doer

Olin-Estes, T J., and Palermo, M. R. (2000a). "Determining recovery potential of dredged material for beneficial use -

Site characterization: Prescriptive approach," DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-C14), U.S.

Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/doer

Olin-Estes, T J., and Palermo, M. R. (2000b). "Determining recovery potential of dredged material for beneficial use -

Soil separation concepts," DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-C13), U.S. Army Engineer

Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/doer

Sevenson Environmental Services. (2002a). "Cumberland Bay Site, Plattsburgh, New York," Project Experience,

http://www.sevenson.com/exp_cumberland.php3