United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
               Solid Waste and
               Emergency Response
               (5102G)
EPA 542-R-96-005
PB 96-178041
April 1997
vvEPA
Clean Up the Nation's
Waste Sites: Markets and
Technology Trends
           1996 Edition
                                          Recycled/Recyclable
                                          ^Printed with Soy/Canoia Ink on paper
                                          that contains at least 50% recycled fiber

-------
                                            EPA-542-R-96-005
                                            NTIS: PB96-178041
                                                  April 1997
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:

    Markets and  Technology Trends

                  1996 Edition
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
              Technology Innovation Office
               Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
 Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                                         NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under contract number 68-W6-0014 to Environmental
Management Support, Inc. It has been subject to the Agency's peer and administrative review and
has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Copies of this report and the executive summary are available free-of-charge from the National
Center for Environmental Protection and Information (NCEPI), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio,
45242-2419, 800-490-9198 or 513-489-8190 (voice), or 513-489-8695  (fax). Refer to document number
EPA-542-R-96-005A (Executive Summary)  or EPA-542-R-96-005 (full report). These documents also
can be obtained by accessing EPA's Clean Up Information System (CLU-IN) on the Internet
(http://www.clu-in.com) or via modem at 301-589-8366. For voice help call 301-589-8368.

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
Executive Summary
                                      FOREWORD
Over the next several decades, federal, state, and local governments and private industry will
commit billions of dollars annually to clean up sites contaminated with hazardous waste and
petroleum products. This planned investment will result in a continuing demand for site
remediation services and technologies that provide better, faster, cheaper environmental cleanup.
The purpose of this report is to provide technology vendors, developers and investors, and
government officials with improved information on the  demand for cleanup services so that they
may better identify business opportunities and plan technology research and development efforts.
EPA believes that more readily available information on the cleanup market will further the
development and use of new techniques for site remediation.

The study describes the future demand for remediation  services in all of the major cleanup
programs in the U.S., including Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
corrective action, underground storage tanks, state programs, and federal agencies such as the
Departments of Defense and Energy (DOD and DOE). The study updates and expands a 1993
analysis that brought together for the first time valuable information on site characteristics, market
size, and other factors that affect the demand for remediation services and technologies in these
programs.  In addition to providing updates of data in the original version, this report includes
significant new information on cleanup needs related  to underground storage tanks, RCRA
corrective actions, and sites administered by DOD, DOE, and other federal agencies. It identifies
several technology gaps, and highlights technology development priorities set by public and private
sector problem owners.

Comments or questions concerning this report  may be directed to the  U.S. EPA, Technology
Innovation Office (5102G), 401  M Street,  SW, Washington, DC 20460, (703) 603-9910.
                                              iii

-------
 Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                             ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Technology Innovation
Office (TIO). The report would not have been possible without the assistance of staff throughout
EPA, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Energy (DOE). Special thanks go to
staff in EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Office of Solid Waste; Office of
Underground Storage Tanks; Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office; and Office of Federal
Facilities Enforcement. DOD's Office of the Assistant Under Secretary of Defense  for Environmental
Security, DOE's Office of Environmental Restoration, and DOE's Office of Technology Development
were exceptionally generous with their time and expertise.
                                             iv

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
Contents
                               TABLE  OF CONTENTS


NOTICE  	  ii

FORWARD	iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	iv

LIST OF EXHIBITS 	ix

CHAPTER 1:  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  	1-1

    1.1 Introduction 	1-1
    1.2 Market Size	1-2
       1.2.1  Number of Sites	1-2
       1.2.2  Estimated Cleanup Costs	1-5
    1.3 Site Characteristics 	1-8
       1.3.1  Media	1-9
       1.3.2  Contaminants	1-9
    1.4 Technologies	 1-12
       1.4.1  History and Outlook for Technology Applications	 1-12
       1.4.2  Technology Development Efforts	 1-16
    1.5 Cleanup Program Status and Factors Affecting Demand  	 1-19
       1.5.1  Superfund Sites 	 1-19
       1.5.2  RCRA Corrective Action Sites  	 1-20
       1.5.3  Underground Storage Tank Sites 	 1-21
       1.5.4  Department of Defense Sites  	 1-21
       1.5.5  Department of Energy Sites  	 1-22
       1.5.6  Civilian Federal Agency Sites	 1-22
       1.5.7  State and Private  Party Sites	 1-23
    1.6 Using This Document	 1-23

CHAPTER 2  TRENDS IN THE USE OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AT NATIONAL
    PRIORITIES LIST SITES	2-1

    2.1 The Superfund Program	2-1
       2.1.1  The National Contingency Plan  	2-1
       2.1.2  The Superfund Process	2-1
       2.1.3  Program Status	2-3
    2.2 History of Technology  Use in Superfund 	2-4
       2.2.1  Containment and Disposal Technologies  	2-4
       2.2.2  Innovative and Established Technologies for Treatment	2-4
    2.3 Innovative Remedies for Source Control	2-8
       2.3.1  Treatment of Volatile Organic Compounds 	2-9
       2.3.2  Treatment of Semivolatile Organic Compounds	2-9
       2.3.3  Treatment of Metals	2-11
       2.3.4  Waste Matrices and Quantities	2-12
    2.4 Innovative Remedies for Groundwater	2-12
                                              V

-------
 Contents
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
   2.5 Research and Development  	2-12
   2.6 Conclusions on Technology Trends  	2-15
   2.7 References	2-16

CHAPTER 3  DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES  	3-1

   3.1 Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup	3-1
   3.2 Number of Sites  	3-2
   3.3 Site Characteristics  	3-4
       3.3.1 Types of Contaminated Matrices  	3-4
       3.3.2 Types of Contaminants  	3-4
       3.3.3 Estimated Quantities of Contaminated Material	3-7
   3.4 Estimated Cleanup Costs  	3-8
   3.5 Market Entry Considerations  	3-9
       3.5.1 Market Considerations During Remedy Selection	3-9
       3.5.2 Market Considerations During Design and Procurement	3-10
       3.5.3 Research and Development  	3-11
       3.5.4 Disseminating Innovative Technology Information  	3-11
   3.6 References	3-12

CHAPTER 4  DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION SITES  	4-1

   4.1 Program Description	4-1
       4.1.1 Corrective Action Process	4-2
       4.1.2 Corrective Action Implementation  	4-4
   4.2 Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup	4-5
   4.3 Number and Characteristics of Facilities	4-6
       4.3.1 Number  and Types of Facilities  	4-6
       4.3.2 Characteristics and Quantities of Hazardous Waste	4-9
   4.4 Estimated Cleanup Costs  	4-11
   4.5 Market Entry Considerations  	4-13
   4.6 Remedial Technologies	4-13
   4.7 References	4-15

CHAPTER 5  DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES ... 5-1

   5.1 Program Description	5-1
   5.2 Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup	5-2
   5.3 Number and Characteristics of Sites	5-3
       5.3.1 Number  of USTs  	5-3
       5.3.2 Types of Contaminants Found at UST Sites	5-4
       5.3.3 Ownership of Tanks	5-4
       5.3.4 Size and  Age of Tanks	5-4
       5.3.5 Location  of Regulated Tanks  	5-5
       5.3.6 Number  of Sites to be Cleaned Up	5-5
       5.3.7 Quantities of Contaminated Material	5-6
   5.4 Estimated Cleanup Costs  	5-6
   5.5 Market Entry Considerations  	5-7
   5.6 Remedial Technologies	5-7
   5.7 References	5-11
                                                VI

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
Contents
CHAPTER 6  DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SITES  	6-1

   6.1  Program Description	6-1
       6.1.1  Installation Restoration Program  	6-2
       6.1.2  Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)  	6-2
   6.2  Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup	6-3
   6.3  Number and Characteristics of Sites	6-5
       6.3.1  Number and Types of Sites  	6-5
       6.3.2  Contaminated Matrices  	6-6
       6.3.3  Types of Contaminants  	6-8
   6.4  Estimated Cleanup Costs  	6-10
   6.5  Market Entry Considerations  	6-12
   6.6  Technologies Used and Research, Development and Demonstrations	6-14
   6.7  References	6-17

CHAPTER 7  DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SITES	7-1

   7.1  Program Description	7-1
       7.1.1  Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D)	7-2
       7.1.2  Remedial Actions	7-2
       7.1.3  Long-term Surveillance and Maintenance	7-4
   7.2  Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup  	7-4
   7.3  Number and Characteristics of Sites	7-5
   7.4  Estimated Cleanup Costs  	7-15
   7.5  Market Entry Considerations  	7-18
   7.6  Technologies Used and Research, Development, and Demonstration 	7-19
   7.7  References	7-23

CHAPTER 8  DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED WASTE SITES MANAGED
   BY  CIVILIAN FEDERAL AGENCIES  	8-1

   8.1  Civilian Federal Agency Cleanup Programs	8-2
   8.2  Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup	8-2
   8.3  Number of Facilities	8-3
   8.4  Estimated Cleanup Costs  	8-5
   8.5  Remedial Technologies	8-7
   8.6  References	8-8

CHAPTER 9 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED WASTE SITES
   MANAGED BY STATES AND PRIVATE PARTIES	9-1

   9.1  State Hazardous Waste Site Programs  	9-1
       9.1.1  General Operations of State Cleanup Programs	9-2
       9.1.2  Voluntary and Brownfields Programs  	9-2
       9.1.3  Federal Initiatives Affecting State Cleanup	9-4
   9.2  Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanups	9-4
   9.3  Number of Sites 	9-6
   9.4  Estimated Cleanup Costs  	9-8
       9.4.1  Status and Capacity of State Cleanup Funds  	9-8
       9.4.2  Annual and Projected Cleanup Costs	9-9
   9.5  Remedial Technologies	9-12
   9.6  References	9-12
                                              VII

-------
 Contents
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
APPENDIX A: SUPPORTING DATA FOR ANALYSIS OF NPL SITES  	  A-l

APPENDIX B: SUPPORTING DATA FOR ANALYSIS OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE
   TANK SITES	B-l

APPENDIX C: SUPPORTING DATA FOR ANALYSIS OF DOD SITES	  C-l

APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL DATA ON DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SITES	  D-l

APPENDIX E: FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY PROGRAMS  	E-l

APPENDIX F: BIBLIOGRAPHY	F-l

APPENDIX G: DEFINITIONS OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES SELECTED FOR NPL
   SITE CLEANUPS	  G-l

APPENDIX H: ACRONYMS 	  H-l
                                      VIII

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
Contents
                                   LIST  OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1-1:    Estimated Number of Sites to be Remediated 	1-3
Exhibit 1-2:    Estimated Remaining Remediation Cost in 1996 Dollars  	1-6
Exhibit 1-3:    Media to be Remediated  	1-9
Exhibit 1-4:    Contaminants to be Remediated  	 1-10
Exhibit 1-5:    Treatment and Disposal Decisions for Source Control at NPL Sites	 1-14
Exhibit 1-6:    Source Control Technologies Selected for NPL Sites Through FY 1995  	 1-14
Exhibit 1-7:    Groundwater Treatment Remedies at NPL Sites Through 1995	 1-16
Exhibit 1-8:    Percent of States With Increased Use of Treatment Technologies at UST
              Sites: 1993 to 1995  	 1-17
Exhibit 1-9:    Examples of Technology Needs Identified by Users in Selected Federal
              Programs	 1-18

Exhibit 2-1:    Superfund Process Overview	2-2
Exhibit 2-2:    Treatment and Disposal Decisions for Source Control at NPL Sites	2-5
Exhibit 2-3:    Source Control Technologies Selected for Superfund Sites Through
              Fiscal Year  1995	2-6
Exhibit 2-4:    Trends for the Most Frequently Selected Established Technologies for
              Source Control at NPL Sites  	2-6
Exhibit 2-5:    Relative Use of Established and Innovative Technologies for Source
              Control at NPL Sites  	2-7
Exhibit 2-6:    Trends for the Three Most Frequently Selected Treatment Technologies
              at NPL Sites	2-8
Exhibit 2-7:    Groundwater Treatment Remedies at NPL Sites Through Fiscal Year 1995	2-9
Exhibit 2-8:    Status of Innovative Technology Projects at NPL Sites as of August 1995 	2-10
Exhibit 2-9:    Applications of Innovative Treatment Technologies for Source Control
              at NPL Sites	2-11
Exhibit 2-10:   Treatment Trains with Innovative Treatment Technologies Selected for
              Remedial Sites	2-13
Exhibit 2-11:   Estimated Quantities of Soil to be Treated by Innovative Technologies
              at NPL Sites	2-14
Exhibit 2-12:   Examples of Technology Needs Identified by Users Participating in
              Two Federal Programs 	2-15

Exhibit 3-1:    Location  of NPL Sites with Planned Remedial Actions  	3-3
Exhibit 3-2:    Phase of  Remediation of Operable Units at Non-Federal NPL Sites
              with Planned Remedial Actions	3-3
Exhibit 3-3:    Frequencies of Contaminated Matrices at NPL Sites with RODs	3-5
Exhibit 3-4:    Frequencies of Major Contaminant Groups at NPL Sites with RODs	3-5
Exhibit 3-5:    Frequencies of Major Contaminant Subgroups at NPL Sites with RODs  	3-6
Exhibit 3-6:    Frequencies of the Most Common Contaminants at NPL Sites with RODs 	3-7
Exhibit 3-7:    Distribution of Total Quantities of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and
              Sludge at Selected NPL Sites with RODs	3-8
Exhibit 3-8:    Estimated Quantity of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Sludge by
              Major Contaminant Groups  at NPL Sites with Planned Remedial Actions  	3-9
                                                IX

-------
 Contents
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
Exhibit 4-1:    Priority Ranking of RCRA Facilities in Corrective Action Workload Universe	4-3
Exhibit 4-2:    Location of RCRA Corrective Action Facilities in EPA's 10 Regions  	4-7
Exhibit 4-3:    Location of 1,540  High-Priority RCRA Corrective Action Facilities in
              EPA's 10 Regions	4-8
Exhibit 4-4:    Major Processes for Managing Waste at RCRA Facilities	4-8
Exhibit 4-5:    Frequency of Most Common Contaminant Groups at a Sample of RCRA
              Corrective Action Sites  	4-10
Exhibit 4-6:    Frequency of Contaminated Media at a Sample Corrective Action Sites  	4-10
Exhibit 4-7:    Projected Extent of Baseline On-Site Groundwater Contamination at
              2,600 RCRA Corrective Action Facilities  	4-11
Exhibit 4-8:    Predominant Constituents Projected Above Action Levels in Groundwater
              at 2,100 RCRA Corrective Action Facilities  	4-12
Exhibit 4-9:    Predominant Constituents Projected to be Above Action Levels in Soil at
              1,700 RCRA Corrective Action Facilities  	4-12
Exhibit 4-10:   Projected Extent of Baseline On-Site Soil Contamination at 2,600 RCRA
              Corrective Action Facilities 	4-13
Exhibit 4-11:   Remedies Selected for Soil at 86 RCRA Corrective Action Facilities	4-14

Exhibit 5-1:    Contents of Federally Regulated Active and Closed Tanks as of
              Spring 1991  	5-4
Exhibit 5-2:    Size of Federally Regulated Tanks as of Spring 1991	5-5
Exhibit 5-3:    Age of Federally Regulated Tanks as of Spring 1991	5-6
Exhibit 5-4:    Estimated Number of UST Sites Requiring Cleanup  	5-6
Exhibit 5-5:    Status of UST Corrective Actions (Cumulative)	5-7
Exhibit 5-6:    Percentage of UST Sites Using Specific Soil Remediation Technologies	5-8
Exhibit 5-7:    Percentage of UST Sites Using Specific Groundwater Remediation Technologies  	5-9
Exhibit 5-8:    Percentage of States Reporting Increased Use of Alternative Technologies   	5-9
Exhibit 5-9:    Changes in the Use of On-Site and Off-Site Treatment  	5-10

Exhibit 6-1:    Number of DOD  Sites and Installations Needing Cleanup  	6-5
Exhibit 6-2:    Location of DOD  Sites Needing Cleanup	6-6
Exhibit 6-3:    Most Common Types of DOD Sites Needing Cleanup  	6-7
Exhibit 6-4:    Frequency of Contaminated Matrices at DOD Sites Needing Cleanup	6-7
Exhibit 6-5:    Frequency of Contaminated Matrices by Site Type at DOD Sites
              Needing Cleanup	6-8
Exhibit 6-6:    Major Contaminant Groups by Matrix at DOD Sites Needing Cleanup	6-9
Exhibit 6-7:    Frequency of Major Contaminant Groups by Component at DOD Sites
              Needing Cleanup	6-9
Exhibit 6-8:    Frequency of Major Contaminant Groups for the Most Common  DOD
              Site Types Sites Needing Cleanup	6-11
Exhibit 6-9:    Frequency of Contaminant Subgroups at DOD Sites Needing Cleanup	6-11
Exhibit 6-10:   Frequency of the  Most Common Contaminants by Matrix at DOD
              Sites Needing Cleanup  	6-12

Exhibit 7-1:    Estimated ROD Completion Dates for CERCLA Operable Units at
              DOE Installations and Other Locations  	7-5
Exhibit 7-2:    DOE Installations and Other Locations Where Characterization and
              Assessment Activities are ongoing	7-7
Exhibit 7-3:    Percent of DOE Installations and Other Locations Containing
              Specific Contaminants	7-15
Exhibit 7-4:    Life Cycle Cost Profile for DOE's Environmental Restoration Program	7-17
Exhibit 7-5:    Examples of Innovative  Technologies Useful to DOE 	7-21

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
Contents
Exhibit 8-1:    Number of Civilian Federal Facilities Potentially Requiring Cleanup  	8-4
Exhibit 8-2:    Examples of Types of Contaminated Facilities at Civilian Federal Agencies 	8-6
Exhibit 8-3:    Funding for Cleanup at Civilian Federal Agencies  	8-8

Exhibit 9-1:    State Voluntary Cleanup and Brownfields Programs	9-3
Exhibit 9-2:    Cities and States Awarded Brownfield Pilot Programs  	9-5
Exhibit 9-3:    Number of Non-NPL State Hazardous Waste Sites	9-6
Exhibit 9-4:    Comparison of State Funds, Expenditures, and Sites: 1991, 1993, and 1995 	9-9
Exhibit 9-5:    State Hazardous Waste Funds:  1993 and 1995 Expenditure/Obligations
              and Balances 	9-10

Exhibit A-l:   Number of NPL Source Control RODs by Type  	  A-2
Exhibit A-2:   Representative Hazardous Chemicals by Contaminant Group	  A-3
Exhibit A-3:   Distribution of Quantities of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Sludge
              at NPL Sites with RODs  	  A-6
Exhibit A-4:   Estimated Quantity of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Sludge for Major
              Contaminant Groups at Non-Federal NPL Sites With Planned Remedial Actions ....  A-7
Exhibit A-5:   Non-Federal NPL Sites Needing Remediation   	  A-8

Exhibit B-l:    Location of Registered USTs in the United States  	B-2

Exhibit C-l:   Location of DOD Sites Needing Cleanup	  C-2
Exhibit C-2:   Definitions of DOD Site Types   	  C-4
Exhibit C-3:   DOD Sites Needing Cleanup by Site Type	C-10
Exhibit C-4:   Frequency of Matrices by DOD Site Type  	C-12
Exhibit C-5:   Frequency of Major Contaminant Groups by Matrix and DOD Component 	C-14
Exhibit C-6:   Frequency of Major Contaminant Groups by DOD Site Type  	C-l6
Exhibit C-7:   Frequency of Contaminant Subgroup by Matrix Percent of Sites with Data	C-18

Exhibit D-l:   DOE Installations and Other Locations Where Remedial Action is Ongoing
              or Completed    	  D-2
Exhibit D-2:   Contaminants and Contaminated Media Volumes To Be Remediated
              at DOE Installations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing  	  D-7
                                                XI

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
Executive Summary
                                      CHAPTER 1
                               EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1  Introduction
                       Over the next several decades, federal, state, and local governments and
                       private industry will commit billions of dollars annually to clean up sites
                       contaminated with hazardous waste and petroleum products. This
                       commitment will result in a continuing demand for site remediation
                       services and technologies. This report was prepared to aid those who are
                       developing and commercializing new technologies to meet the future
                       cleanup demand. It provides an overview of the market to help  industry
                       and government officials develop research, development, and marketing
                       strategies.

                       This report updates and expands a 1993 analysis that brought together for
                       the first time valuable information on site characteristics, market size, and
                       other factors that affect the demand for remediation services.3 As with the
                       previous report, the focus of this study is on the potential future appli-
                       cations of remediation  technologies. To provide a realistic estimate of
                       expected contracting opportunities, the demand estimates are limited  to
                       remaining cleanup work  and do not include projects that are underway or
                       completed. While the report considers a broad range of remediation
                       services required in the future, its purpose is to provide insight into the
                       potential application of new treatment technologies.

                       The national cleanup market is comprised of the following seven segments:
                           National Priorities List (Superfund)
                           Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action
                           Underground Storage Tanks (LIST)
                           Department of Defense (DOD)
                           Department of Energy (DOE)
                           Other Federal Agencies
                           States and Private Parties (including brownfields)
                       Most of the data used for this report are from federal databases and
                       published sources. Some of these sources are current through fiscal years
                       (FYs) 1994  and FY 1995, while others are current through FY 1996. Many
                       sites are still undergoing investigation and engineering analyses, and data
                       availability differs from one market segment to another. In addition to
                       providing updates of data in the 1993 analysis, this report includes
                       significant  new information on cleanup needs related to RCRA corrective
                       actions, and sites administered by DOD, DOE, and other federal agencies.
   a    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation
Office, Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends, EPA 542-R-92-012, April 1993.

                                             1-1

-------
 Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
1.2 Market Size
This section describes the estimated size of the market for contaminated
site remediation services in terms of the "remaining" number of sites that
require cleanup and the "remaining" cost of these cleanups. Sites where
cleanup is completed or ongoing are excluded in this definition of the
market. Under the current requirements of federal and state regulations,
the remediation of over 217,000 sites in the seven market segments will
cost about $187 billion, in 1996 dollars.  The  estimated time to complete
most of these  cleanup programs ranges from 10 to 30 years, while others,
such as DOE,  will take considerably longer. In addition,  monitoring and
groundwater treatment programs may continue for longer periods. Many
of the sites to  be remediated in the different programs contain similar types
of contamination. In most programs, about two-thirds of the sites have
contaminated  soil or groundwater,  or both,  and contain volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Metals and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs)
are most prevalent at Superfund and DOD sites, although they also are
present at many of the sites in the other programs.

The reliability of the estimates in this report differs from one market
segment to another because of the availability of data, and because each of
the seven programs is at a different stage of development. Some programs,
such as Superfund, UST, and DOD, are well into the actual cleanup of
contaminated  properties. Other programs, such  as DOE,  have significant
numbers of sites that are not yet fully characterized. In addition, definitions
of basic terms such as "sites,"  "facilities," "installations," and "operable
units"  differ among the programs. Consideration of the narrative
explanations and footnotes in  the exhibits is necessary to fully understand
the implications of the estimates.

1.2.1 Number of Sites

Almost half a  million sites with potential contamination  have been reported
to state or federal authorities over the past 15 years. Of these, over 217,000
still require remediation (Exhibit 1-1). Almost 300,000 other sites were
either cleaned up or were found to require no further action. Regulatory
authorities have identified most of the contaminated sites. Nevertheless,
new ones continue to be reported each year, but at a declining rate. The
"estimated year of completion" shown in the exhibit is approximately the
year in which almost all of the contamination will be remediated, according
to current plans or agency estimates. The definitions of sites and facilities
differ somewhat from one market segment to  another. In this report, the
term "site" is  used to indicate an individual area of contamination, which
can be small or large. The terms "facility" and "installation" identify an
entire tract, including all contiguous land within the borders of a property.
A "facility" may contain one or more contaminated  areas or  "sites." The
status of the sites to be remediated in each market segment is discussed
below.
           Over 217,000
           contaminated sites
           in the U.S. still
           require remediation
           under current state
           and federal
           regulations.
           Regulatory authori-
           ties have identified
           most hazardous
           waste sites.
                                               1-2

-------
Exhibit 1-1: Estimated Number of Sites to be Remediated
Market
Segment
Superfund (NPL)
RCRA,
Corrective
Action
RCRA, UST
DOD
DOE
Civilian
Federal
Agencies
States
TOTAL
Sites
Remaining Estimated
to be Year of
Remediated Completion
547 Not available
3,000 2025
165,000 Not available
8,336 2015
10,500 2070
> 700 Varies
29,000 Varies
217,083
Explanation
The number of sites includes non-federal proposed and final National Priorities List (NPL)
sites that still required at least one further remedial action (RA), as of September 30, 1996.
The NPL also includes 124 federally owned sites with future remedial actions planned. In
addition to currently listed sites, EPA expects to add up to 30 sites to the NPL each year for
the next several years.
The number of sites represents the middle of a range of 2,600 to 3,700 from two EPA studies
of all corrective action facilities that will require cleanup. The year of completion estimate is
an assumption used by EPA in developing the cost estimates. It includes 30 years to
complete construction. An estimated 128 years is required for monitoring and groundwater
treatment. RCRA corrective action costs related to large federal facilities are included in the
DOD, DOE, and civilian federal agencies market segments below.
The underground storage tank site cleanup market may be underestimated because sites
where "cleanups are initiated" are not included, but some of these sites may not yet have
designated cleanup contractors.
The year of completion estimate is for the installation with the longest cleanup period.
DOE has fully characterized about 46% of the sites, and may have completed the evaluation
or cleanup of a few hundred sites. The year of completion estimate does not include cleaning
up wastes for which no proven cleanup technology currently exists, such as contamination at
nuclear test sites and much of the groundwater that needs to be remediated. The estimates
also are based on the assumption that there will be a greater emphasis on containment than
on treatment and other remediation strategies.
The number represents number of facilities, and a facility may contain one or more sites.
The year of completion estimates vary among the agencies.
The number of sites represents sites needing attention, which may not all need remediation.
The year of completion estimates vary among the states.
The total represents sites requiring cleanup, and excludes sites where cleanup work is
ongoing or complete.
                                                                                        0)


                                                                                        Q.
                                                                                        S-
                                                                                        a
                                                                                        o


                                                                                        I



                                                                                        I

                                                                                        I

-------
Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
  The 547 non-federal NPL sites that require one or more future remedial
  actions (RAs) make up a relatively well-defined market for remedial
  technologies. These sites contain an estimated 33 million cubic yards of
  soil. The NPL also includes 124  federally owned sites with future RAs
  planned. These sites are included in the market estimates for federal
  agencies. EPA has recently implemented reforms designed to accelerate
  the assessment and cleanup of Superfund sites.  Until the results of
  these reforms are evaluated, EPA cannot estimate when the remediation
  of currently listed and proposed NPL sites will  be completed.

  EPA estimates that between 2,600 and 3,700 of the regulated hazardous
  waste treatment, storage,  and disposal facilities  (TSDFs) eventually will
  require remediation under the RCRA corrective action program. For
  this report, a middle value of 3,000 sites is used. The number of sites to
  require remediation is less than half of the approximately  6,200 TSDFs
  that currently operate  or have operated. Although EPA has not
  estimated the time to complete this cleanup, it assumes that most of the
  construction would be completed by about 2025 and that monitoring
  and groundwater treatment could continue for 128 years.

  EPA estimates that at least 165,000 LIST sites, containing at least
  31 million cubic yards of soil  and debris, require cleanup under the
  RCRA underground storage tank regulations. This estimate includes
  65,000 confirmed releases that have not yet been cleaned up plus
  100,000 projected releases. The estimate  may understate the actual
  market because  it does not include all sites without designated cleanup
  contractors. LIST sites average an estimated 2.7 tanks per site, although
  the number varies widely from  one site to another. Although USTs
  account for 76 percent of all future cleanup sites, they are  typically the
  smallest and least costly to remediate.

  DOD estimated  that, as of September 1995, 8,336 sites on 1,561
  installations will require remediation of contaminated materials. DOD
  has not yet selected contractors  for most of these sites. The sites are
  distributed almost evenly among the Air Force,  Army, Navy, and
  formerly used defense sites (FUDS). Of the 8,336 sites that need
  remediation,  3,705 (44  percent) are  in six states:  California, Alaska,
  Maryland,  Florida, Texas, and Virginia. DOD estimates that all of these
  sites will be cleaned up by 2015. Of all DOD installations,  including
  those where remedial action has begun, 130 are on the  NPL. DOD has
  been placing greater emphasis on evaluating or cleaning up properties
  that are to  be transferred to other government or private uses.

  DOE  has identified about 10,500 contaminated sites at 137 installations
  and other locations that require some remediation, and the number
  may grow  as assessment and  characterization activities continue.
  Twenty-five DOE installations and other locations in 15 states are on
  the NPL. About 70 percent of the value  of the remediation work is
  expected to be at five installations: Rocky Flats Environmental
             Although USTs
             account for 76% of
             all cleanup sites,
             they are typically
             the smallest and
             least costly to
             remediate.
             Federal and state
             agencies have in-
             creased their empha-
             sis on cleaning up
             sites needed for the
             closure or reassign-
             ment of government
             facilities or econo-
             mic development.
                                              1-4

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                                       Executive Summary
 Interest has grown in
 the redevelopment of
 brownfield sites. EPA
 has awarded grants for
 76 projects, as of
 October 1996.
 Under current regula-
 tions and cleanup goals,
 the cleanup of all known
 sites will cost $187
 billion, in 1996 dollars,
 and will take at least
 several decades to
 complete.
   Technology Site, Colorado; Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
   Idaho; Savannah River Site, South Carolina; Oak Ridge Reservation,
   Tennessee; and  Hanford Reservation, Washington. DOE expects to have
   all its sites cleaned up by 2070, although monitoring and groundwater
   treatment programs may continue beyond that period.

 • As of April 1995, over 700 facilities, distributed among 17 civilian
   federal agencies (non-DOD and non-DOE), were potentially in need of
   remediation. The term "facility" identifies an entire tract, including all
   contiguous land, that is the responsibility of the subject agency. A
   facility may contain one or more contaminated areas or "sites." Because
   investigations of many of these facilities are not complete, the exact
   number of facilities and  sites to be  remediated has yet to be determined
   and reported to EPA. The Department of Interior (DOI), Department of
   Agriculture (USDA), and National Aeronautics  and Space
   Administration  (NASA)  together account for about 70 percent of the
   civilian federal facilities  that potentially need remediation. The
   estimated year of completion varies from one agency to another, with
   the longest period, 50 years, reported by the Department of Agriculture.

 • Based on data provided  by the states in  1995, EPA has estimated that
   about  29,000 sites listed  in state files require some action  beyond a
   preliminary assessment.  However, the actual number of sites that will
   need remediation and the extent of contamination at these sites is
   largely unknown, since some of these data are derived from
   preliminary assessments. In addition, the U.S. General Accounting
   Office (GAO) estimated  that there are between 130,000 and 450,000
   "brownfield" sites, although the number that will require remediation is
   unknown. Brownfields are abandoned, idle, or under-used  industrial
   and commercial facilities where real or perceived environmental
   contamination may be hampering expansion or redevelopment. The
   cleanup of most of these sites will be the responsibility of the property
   owners. Recently, interest in the redevelopment of potentially
   contaminated sites has grown. As of October 1996, EPA had awarded
   grants to support the evaluation  and cleanup of 76 brownfield sites and
   plans to award  additional grants in 1997.

1.2.2 Estimated Cleanup Costs

The estimated cost  for all future work to clean up the 217,000 sites is about
$187 billion, in  1996 dollars  (Exhibit  1-2). Because this estimate does not
include  inflation for future years, the amount expended probably will be
higher than $187 billion. This estimate represents the midpoint of a range
that results from uncertainty regarding the extent and type of contami-
nation at many sites, and the kind of cleanup methods that will be used.

Although most of the activities underlying this cost estimate are for
remedial action, they also include some site assessment and administrative
work where costs are not reported separately. As a cleanup program
matures, a greater portion of the funding shifts from site assessment and
investigation to actual cleanup.
                                             1-5

-------
 Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
           Exhibit 1-2: Estimated Remaining Remediation Cost
                              in 1996 Dollars
                                      Total =  187 Billion
              DOE RCRACA  DOD   UST     CFA    States    NPL


 Notes:
  • Because these costs do not include inflation over the life of the cleanup programs, actual expenditures
   ultimately will be greater.
  • These estimates are based on assumptions and rationale explained in the text.
  • Cost for remedial action at NPL sites does not include: federal facilities, site assessments and studies,
   designs, operations and maintenance, long-term response actions, removals, site management,
   administrative costs (e.g., payrolls), other federal agency support (e.g., ATSDR, NIEHS), oversight of
   PRP-lead cleanups, and enforcement activities.
  • Environmental restoration accounts for 28% of the $227 billion life-cycle cost DOE has estimated for
   all environmental management activities at its facilities. The other 72% of the costs are for activities
   listed in footnote b of the text.
The cost estimate for each market segment is explained below:

 •  The future remedial action cost for currently listed and proposed NPL
    sites not owned by the federal government (non-federal) from the end
    of FY 1997 onward, is estimated to be $6.7 billion. This estimate is
    based on an estimated average cost of $10 million per Fund-lead
    remedial action and $8.5 million for private party-lead sites. About 70
    percent of site cleanups are the responsibility of private parties. The
    NPL site cost estimate does not include costs for site assessments and
    studies, designs, operation and  maintenance, long-term response
    actions, removals, site management, administrative costs such as
    payrolls, other federal agency support, oversight of potentially
    responsible party (PRP)-lead cleanups, and enforcement activities. The
    estimated costs of cleaning up federal facility NPL sites are included
    under the other market segments below.

 •  Under current regulations, the cost of corrective action for soil and
    groundwater for RCRA characteristic  or listed waste will be $38.8
    billion, or an average of $14.9 million per facility, 1996 dollars. This cost
    estimate is based on  a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) prepared in
    1993. Approximately 89 percent of this amount  will be incurred by
    privately-owned facilities and the remaining 11  percent by federal
    facilities. This estimate does not include costs for the very large DOD
    and DOE
                                                  1-6

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                     Executive Summary
  DOE and DOD,
  combined, account
  for one-half of the
  total cleanup market.
facilities. However, since it includes costs for some smaller ones, there
is some overlap with the costs estimated for DOD and DOE below.
Roughly half of the total cost of corrective action will be incurred by
slightly more than 10 percent of the facilities that require cleanup. The
program life-cycle-costs  are likely to be lower under regulations now
being developed than were estimated in the 1993 RIA, because
implementation of the corrective action program has been shifting
toward more risk-based  cleanups. In addition, program costs in the
near term will likely be lower than previously estimated, because of the
emphasis on initial efforts  to stabilize the site.

The remaining UST cleanup market could reach $20.6 billion, or an
average of $125,000 per UST site. This estimate does not include costs
related to replacing, testing, or upgrading tanks, pipes, and related
equipment. Previous studies indicate that the remediation portion of the
cost to clean up one UST site ranges from $2,000 to over $400,000.

DOD estimates that the cost of completing the remaining remediation
work at all DOD sites from FY 1997 onward will be over $28.6 billion,
or over $3.4 million per  site, distributed as follows: Army $10.6 billion;
Air Force $7.4 billion; Navy $5.6 billion; Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA) $0.4 billion; Defense Nuclear Agency $0.1 billion;  and FUDS $4.5
billion. While most past  DOD expenditures for restoration have gone
for site investigation and analysis, most future funds will be used for
cleanup. DOD's cleanup budget for FY 1997 is $2.1 billion.

DOE estimates that environmental restoration of its properties will cost
$63 billion and take about 75 years.5 The estimates do not include the
cost  of cleaning up wastes for which no proven cleanup technology
currently exists, such as  wastes at nuclear test sites and much of the
groundwater contamination the agency is responsible for addressing.
The estimates also are based on the assumption that there will be
greater emphasis on containment than on treatment and other
remediation strategies. Seventy percent of the total estimated cost of
environmental management activities over the 75-year period will be
expended at the five  major installations listed in the previous section.
These costs include those for all environmental restoration required
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980  (CERCLA), RCRA, other federal statutes, and state
laws. DOE's FY 1997 restoration budget is $2.1 billion, and is expected
decline gradually until the program is substantially complete in 2070.

The $15 billion estimated cost for the cleanup of about 700 civilian
federal facilities is based on an extrapolation of life-cycle-costs
   b    Environmental restoration accounts for 28 percent of the $227 billion life-cycle-cost DOE has estimated for
all environmental management activities at its facilities. The other 72% of DOE's environmental management costs
are for the following types of activities: waste management, nuclear material and facility stabilization, national
program planning and management, landlord activities, and technology development.

                                               1-7

-------
 Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
   estimated by DOI, USDA, and NASA, which together account for about
   500 facilities. The estimate is a midpoint of a range of estimates, and
   includes both administrative and remediation costs. Most of these
   federal facilities are still being assessed and have not yet progressed to
   the site remediation stage. The ultimate level and timing of these
   expenditures will depend upon the availability of resources and
   technologies. Some agencies may take 50 years or more to complete the
   cleanup of all their hazardous waste sites. The transfer of public
   properties to private use may require agencies to reallocate resources to
   clean up properties designated for transfer. As  of December 1996,
   budget data for FY 1996 and FY 1997 were available for 14 civilian
   federal agencies. These 14 agencies reported spending a total of $317
   million for cleanup activities in FY 1996, and estimated their combined
   1997 budgetary needs to be  approximately $288 million.

   The cost of state remediation programs is uncertain because of a lack of
   data and the diverse nature  of the various state programs. Based on
   1995 annual expenditure data for 37 states, EPA estimates that these
   states and private parties in these states spent a combined $418 million
   annually for non-NPL site cleanups under state programs, in 1996
   dollars. At this rate, these expenditures will total $12.5 billion through
   2025. Estimates for the remaining 13 states are not available. The level
   of these expenditures also is dependent upon the funds available in
   state cleanup trust funds or  other mechanisms used to pay for cleanup
   activities at non-NPL sites. As of the end of FY 1995, state fund
   balances totaled $1.5 billion. These values indicate that states have the
   capability to continue their current level of expenditures. Based on a
   survey of state officials published in 1994, about half of the cleanup
   expenditures for non-NPL and non-RCRA sites between 1980 and 1992
   were paid by responsible parties.
1.3  Site Characteristics

The selection of remedies at contaminated sites depends largely on the
types of media and contaminants present. This section describes the types
of contaminants and media that are to be remediated in the various market
segments.

The data used to develop these estimates vary widely among the market
segments. The Superfund (NPL)  data are available from the Records of
Decision  (RODs) for over 900 sites. The characteristics of these sites are
assumed to be representative of all NPL sites, including those needing
further remediation. The DOD media and contaminant  data are based on
information from over 3,000 of about 9,000 sites to be remediated as of
September 30, 1994. The RCRA estimates are based on data from fewer
than 300  of the estimated 3,000 sites to be remediated. Although the DOE
estimates are based on data  from all 137 installations, the data do not
include information from all 10,500 sites at these installations and other
properties.

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                                         Executive Summary
                        1.3.1  Media

                        Groundwater and soil are the most prevalent contaminated media. In
                        addition, large quantities of other contaminated material, such as
                        sediments, landfill waste, and slag, are present at many sites. Exhibit 1-3
                        shows the most common contaminated media for each market segment.
                        About 70 percent of NPL, RCRA, DOD and DOE sites have contaminated
                        soil or groundwater, or both. Contaminated sediment, sludge, and surface
                        water also are present, but at fewer sites. Soil and groundwater also are a
                        primary concern for UST sites.
                                          Exhibit 1-3: Media to be Remediated
 About 70 percent of
 Superfund, RCRA,
 DOD, and DOE sites
 have contaminated soil
 or groundwater, or both.
 Contaminated sediment,
 sludge, and surface
 water also are present,
 but at fewer sites.
                           90

                           80

                           70
w
   40H
H  30H
o>
a.
                        Notes:
                                                                               NPL

76
/ .f
/
82


X
71


72
/ — 71
^=
=

^EEEz


72
y 	

?
61
/ 	 31
#

67
/—

72(a)










r\i_*r\M uorieuuve
Action

DOD

]DOE
22
/ /|

6 6
                                    _____________
                                                             Soil
                                                           Sediment
                                            ""Ulla'and MarkeFSegment
                           1 ;DOE soil percentages also include sediment and sludge data.
                           12% of NPL sites contain contaminated sludge; 11% of the surveyed RCRA sites contain contaminated
                           sludge, and 10% contain contaminated surface water; 9% of the DOE sites contain contaminated surface
                           water; and about half of the DOE installations contain contaminated rubble and debris.
                           The datasets from which these percentages are estimated are explained in the text.
                        1.3.2  Contaminants

                        Many contamination problems and, therefore, technology needs are similar
                        across the major remediation programs. The contaminant groups that are
                        common to most programs are solvents, petroleum products, and metals.
                        Some markets also have more specialized needs arising from wastes that
                        are unique to a particular industrial practice. For example, DOE has a need
                        for technologies to characterize, treat, and dispose of mixed waste;
                        remediate radioactive tank waste; stabilize landfills; and deactivate
                        facilities. DOD is concerned with remediating soils contaminated with
                        explosives and unexploded ordnance.
                                               1-9

-------
 Executive Summary
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
Exhibit 1-4 shows the frequency of occurrence of the most prevalent
contaminant groups. VOCs, the most frequently occurring contaminant
type, are present at more than two-thirds of Superfund, RCRA, and DOD
sites, and almost half of the DOE sites.

VOCs, primarily in the form of BTEX  (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and
xylene) also are the primary contaminants at UST sites. Large numbers of
sites to be remediated by other federal agencies and states also are believed
to contain VOCs, but only sparse data for these programs are available.

Metals are prevalent in almost  all of the major market sectors.  Metals, not
including radioactive metals, are present at more than two-thirds of the
Superfund and DOD sites,  and about  half of the RCRA and DOE sites.
They also are likely to be found in  the other market segments. Of the 10
contaminants most frequently found at Superfund and DOD sites, more
than half are metals, primarily  lead, cadmium, zinc, nickel, chromium, and
arsenic.
                     VOCs, the most fre-
                     quently occurring
                     contaminant type,
                     are present at more
                     than two-thirds of
                     Superfund, RCRA,
                     and DOD sites, and
                     almost half of the
                     DOE installations.
                     VOCs (BTEX) also
                     are the primary
                     contaminants at
                     UST sites.
              Exhibit 1-4: Contaminants to be Remediated
  w
  0)
     70
     50
                                                       NPL
                                                       RCRA Corrective
                                                       Action
  «  40 H
  "o
  I  30
  H
  0)

-
71


67
X
r
65


38<


a)
65
/ —

69
/ — 7t
7\
46
/ —

7|


55
/—-



61


43
x A ^^i
30
/ —

"7


oox

              VOCs                  Metals
                      Contaminant and Market Segment
SVOCs
 Notes:
   •  DOE figures for VOCs and SVOCs are combined.
   • 22% of the DOD sites contain fuels, 8% explosives, and 1% radioactive contaminants; 90% of the DOE
    installations contain radioactive elements.
   • The datasets from which these percentages are estimated are explained in the text.
                   Almost all of the
                   market sectors have
                   substantial numbers
                   of sites with metals
                   and VOCs.
                                                1-10

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                                       Executive Summary
 Eight percent of the
 DOD sites with avail-
 able data contain
 explosives and one
 percent contain
 radioactive contami-
 nants. In addition,
 information from some
 installations indicates
 that the presence of
 unexploded ordnance
 may be significantly
 greater than these
 percentages indicate.
The contamination characteristics of each market segment are discussed
below.

 • For NPL sites VOCs is the most common contaminant group
   remediated, followed by metals, and SVOCs. Most sites require
   remediation for more than one of these contaminant groups: 25 percent
   of the sites contain two contaminant groups and 41 percent contain all
   three. These contaminants are not necessarily in the same contaminated
   material. Halogenated VOCs are by far the  most common subgroup of
   organic contaminants, followed by  pesticides, polynuclear aromatic
   hydrocarbons (PAHs) non-halogenated VOCs, polychlorinated
   biphenyls (PCBs), and phenols. The most common metal cleaned up at
   NPL  sites is lead, followed by chromium, arsenic, and cadmium. NPL
   data are based on contaminants for which remedies have been selected
   in the past.

 • The most common contaminant groups at RCRA sites are: halogenated
   VOCs, found at 60 percent of sites; metals, found at 46 percent of sites;
   and non-halogenated VOCs, found at 32 percent of sites. These
   estimates are based on two separate studies that used data from fewer
   than nine percent of all the likely corrective action projects.

 • Approximately 96 percent of USTs  contain petroleum products and
   about one percent contain hazardous materials.  For USTs containing
   petroleum products, gasoline accounts for 66 percent and diesel fuel for
   21 percent. The most likely constituents of these products that are of
   concern are BTEX and SVOCs, such as  PAHs, creosols, and phenols.

 • Based on information on 34 percent of  the over 9,000 DOD sites that
   needed remediation as of September 1994, metals are found at 69
   percent of the sites, followed by VOCs  at 65 percent of the sites, and
   SVOCs at 43 percent of the sites. Although  many similar contaminants
   also are frequently found at non-defense related sites, some  DOD sites
   contain contaminants that present unique problems for selecting
   remediation approaches.  For example, about eight percent of the over
   3,000 DOD sites with available data contain explosives, and about one
   percent contain radioactive contaminants. The most frequently found
   specific contaminants in all media are lead, zinc, barium, nickel,
   cadmium, and copper. The most common organic chemicals are
   trichloroethylene (TCE) and benzene. In addition, information from
   some DOD installations  indicates that the presence of unexploded
   ordnance may be significantly larger than the above available
   information indicates. DOD currently is investigating the potential
   extent of unexploded ordnance contamination.

 • Site assessment and characterization are still in progress at 86 DOE
   installations and other locations. Although information about the extent
   of contamination at these installations is incomplete, DOE has made
   substantial progress in identifying specific contaminants of concern.
   Radioactive contaminants are found at  90 percent of the  installations
   and include uranium, tritium, thorium, and plutonium. The  most
                                             1-11

-------
 Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
   frequently present non-radioactive metals, which are found at 55
   percent of the installations, include lead, beryllium, mercury, arsenic,
   and chromium. Organic chemicals are found at 38  percent of DOE
   installations and include PCBs, hydrocarbons from fuel and  other
   petroleum products, and TCE. Mixed waste, containing radioactive and
   hazardous contaminants, also is a problem at many installations. The
   available data do not indicate if a specific contaminant has been
   identified at only one site or at more than one site  on an installation.

   Waste at civilian federal agency and state sites is typical of industrial
   facilities and include organic chemicals, metals, and solvents. However,
   no national compilation of the specific contaminants at these sites is
   available.
             Radioactive contam-
             inants are found at
             90 percent of the
             DOE installations
             and non-radioactive
             metals are found at
             55 percent.
Technologies

Site characteristics, technology development efforts, and trends in remedial
technology use for Superfund sites provide some indication of future
technology demands. This section describes the historical use of specific
technologies; active technology development programs that have identified
and begun to address specific technology gaps; and the outlook for the use
of technologies.

In the Superfund program, the selection of treatment has been declining  for
the past two years, while containment-only remedies have increased. In the
UST program, the use of in situ technologies has been increasing. Some
innovative technologies, primarily soil vapor extraction, thermal
desorption, and bioremediation, now are more routinely used.

Technology development programs have become significantly more
focussed and, in the next few years, may introduce new or improved
methods in the high-demand areas of in situ soil and groundwater
treatment, biotechnology, and metals treatment.

1.3.3 History and Outlook for Technology Applications

       General Trends

The most comprehensive information on technology use at waste sites is
available for the Superfund program. Although Superfund sites represent a
small percentage  of all contaminated sites, experience with technology
applications at these sites is likely to influence technology selection in the
other market segments.

With the enactment of the 1986 amendments to CERCLA, remedies selected
in RODs that address the source of contamination (primarily contaminated
soil,  sludge, and sediment) shifted  away from containment towards
treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume  of a waste. Between
FY 1988 and FY 1993, some treatment for part of the  site was selected for
                                              1-12

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                                        Executive Summary
 Although the use of
 containment-only
 remedies at Superfund
 sites has recently
 increased, treatment
 remedies are still
 more common.
 SVE has become the
 preferred technology
 for both chlorinated
 and nonchlorinated
 VOCs in soil.
almost three-quarters of these source control RODs (source control RODs
account for about two-thirds of all RODs).

In FY 1994 and FY 1995, treatment declined to 59 percent and 53 percent of
the sites, respectively (Exhibit  1-5). Containment-only remedies (capping
and landfilling) at these sites increased to 36 percent and 41 percent,
respectively. The shifts in the distribution of remedies selected may  be
explained, in part, by an increase in the number of remedies selected for
landfills. The concurrent drop  in the selection of solidification/stabilization
remedies suggests that, in some cases, containment may be replacing this
technology as a remedy for metals in soil.

The selection frequencies for 11 types of source control treatment
technologies  are illustrated in Exhibit 1-6. Solidification/stabilization (also
called "fixation" and "immobilization") has been the most common
technology to treat soil and other wastes. It has been the favored
technology to treat metal-containing waste, although its selection has
declined in the last two years.  Relatively few alternative technologies have
been selected for metals. In some  cases, solidification/stabilization is
selected to treat organic contaminants, primarily SVOCs.

Incineration has been the second most frequently selected of any
technology for  treating soil, sludge, and sediment in Superfund. The major
advantage of incineration is its ability to achieve stringent cleanup
standards for highly concentrated mixtures. The selection of on-site
incineration has declined to less than four percent  of source control
technologies  selected from FY  1993 through 1995, primarily because  of its
cost and a lack of public acceptance.  Off-site incineration, the use of which
also has dropped, is feasible for only relatively small waste quantities.

       New  Technologies

New technologies offer the potential  to be more cost-effective than
conventional approaches. In situ technologies, in particular, are in large
demand because they are usually less expensive and more acceptable than
above-ground options. For example, state UST program managers report
significant increases in the use of in situ processes, especially
bioremediation, which is effective because of the inherent biodegradability
of petroleum hydrocarbons. New technology development programs
(Section 1.5.2) include efforts to help meet this demand  by emphasizing in
situ technologies, in particular  bioremediation and  enhancements to  soil
vapor extraction  (SVE).

SVE is a flexible in situ process that has become much less costly than
competing ex situ methods. SVE has become the preferred technology for
both chlorinated  and nonchlorinated VOCs in soil. While the selection of
SVE for Superfund sites had recently decreased, its applicability may
expand as  a result of ongoing efforts to develop enhancements, such as
                                              1-13

-------
Executive Summary
                       Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
              Exhibit 1-5:  Treatment and Disposal Decisions
                      for Source Control at NPL Sites
       100
        80
Percent
        60
   of
Source
Control
        40
                                                    Containment or Disposal Only
                                                    Some Treatment
                                                    Some Innovative Treatment
           82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90  91   92   93   94   95

                                         Fiscal Year
   Exhibit 1-6: Source Control Technologies Selected for NPL Sites
                               Through FY 1995
            Technologies (390) 57%     Innovative Technologies (300) 43%
Off-site Incineration (125) 18%
   On-site
   Incineration (43)6%,
       Solidification/
       Stabilization (206) 30%
         Other Established (16) 2%'
                                               Soil Vapor Extraction (139) 20% '
                                                     Thermal Desorption (50) 7%
Ex Situ Bioremediation (43) 6%

 In Situ Bioremediation (26) 4%
 In Situ Flushing (16) 2%
 Soil Washing (9) 1%
 Solvent Extraction (5) <1%
 Dechlorination (4) <1%
 Other Innovative (8) 1%**
Notes:
  ' Includes two dual-phase extraction projects also listed as in situ groundwater technologies.
  • "Other" established technologies: soil aeration, open detonation, and chemical neutralization.
   "Other" innovative technologies: physical separation, contained recovery of oily wastes (CROW™), cyanide
   oxidation, vitrification, hot air injection, and plasma high-temperature metals recovery.
                                      Although the use of
                                      SVE, bioremedia-
                                      tion, and thermal
                                      desorption at NPL
                                      sites has leveled off,
                                      these technologies
                                      have potential for
                                      the other market
                                      segments.
                                                     1-14

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                                       Executive Summary
 Although metals are
 common at waste sites,
 treatment alternatives
 are limited. More
 effective technologies
 are needed to treat
 metals in soil.
 If more effective in situ
 groundwater technolo-
 gies were available, a
 larger portion of
 contaminated ground-
 water sites could be
 fully remediated.
methods to increase soil permeability or contaminant volatility. Examples
of some enhanced applications include bioventing, directional drilling, and
thermal processes. Also, because the other market segments contain VOCs,
they may represent a significant market for SVE.

Bioremediation is one of the few alternatives to incineration for actually
destroying organic contaminants. The selection of this technology for
Superfund sites has remained relatively constant in recent years. Industry
and government environmental officials have expressed a strong interest in
continuing the development of biotechnology. A  large number of labora-
tory  and field tests are under way on the  use of bioremediation to degrade
commonly occurring chlorinated organics such as TCE and vinyl chloride.

The selection of thermal desorption also has remained relatively constant
over the past several years. Applications for thermal desorption include soil
contaminated with VOCs  (particularly when  SVE is not feasible), SVOCs
(particularly PCBs and PAHs), and potentially for soils containing both
metals and organics. Because other market segments have similar
contamination problems, bioremediation and thermal desorption are likely
to have applications outside the Superfund program.

Although metals are common at sites in most of the market segments,
alternatives to treat metals are limited. Government and corporate owners
of contaminated sites have targeted several technologies to treat metals in
soil for further development, including  electrokinetics and
phytoremediation. Although solidification/stabilization has been the most
widely used technology to treat metals, its use in the Superfund program
has dropped. The decline in the selection of this technology may signal an
opportunity for more cost-effective treatment alternatives.

Groundwater is contaminated at more than 70 percent of the sites  in most
of the market segments. However, not all of these sites will be actively
remediated. Available technology cannot always  meet the desired  cleanup
goals for a site, because the methods leave residual aquifer contamination,
known as non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs). The most frequently used
method for groundwater remediation at Superfund sites is conventional
pump-and-treat technology, which has been  selected  for 98 percent of the
over 600 NPL sites where groundwater is to  be treated  (Exhibit 1-7). The
goal of many of these cleanups is to restore the aquifer to beneficial use.
Other projects are designed to keep the contamination from spreading. In
situ treatment technologies, primarily bioremediation and air sparging,
have been selected at only six percent of Superfund groundwater treatment
sites, most of which also are using pump-and-treat. New management
approaches recently receiving more attention include treatment walls and
selective application of natural attenuation. If more effective in situ
groundwater technologies were available, a larger portion of contaminated
groundwater sites could be fully remediated.

Comprehensive data on remedy use  for UST sites have been compiled from
the responses of state officials to a written survey. Although the
respondents were asked only to provide estimates, without necessarily
                                             1-15

-------
 Executive Summary
                               Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
      Exhibit 1-7: Groundwater Treatment Remedies at NPL Sites
                             Through FY 1995
               Sites with Pump-and-Treat
               and In Situ Treatment
               Remedies (36) 6%
               Sites with In Situ
               Treatment Only (7) 1%
    In Situ Treatment Remedies (45)
    Include:
    - Air Sparging (22)
    - Bioremediation (15)
    - Passive Treatment Wall (3)
    - Dual-Phase Extraction (3)
    - Surfactant Flushing (1)
    - In Situ Oxidation (1)
Sites with Pump-and-Treat
Remedies Only (562) 93%
  Note:
    • Does not include groundwater sites with nontreatment remedies (i.e., monitoring, institutional controls,
     alternate water supply, well-head treatment, closing wells, containment, or natural attenuation).
conducting rigorous file searches, the information is extensive, reflecting
responses from 49 states. For UST sites undergoing remediation of soil at
the time of the survey, the remedial methods used were: landfilling
(34 percent of sites), natural attenuation (28 percent), biopiles  (16 percent),
SVE (9 percent), landfarming (7 percent), thermal desorption (3 percent),
incineration (2 percent), bioventing (0.8 percent), and soil washing (0.2
percent). For sites with groundwater contamination, the most  commonly
used methods were natural attenuation  (47 percent), pump-and-treat (29
percent), air sparging (13 percent), in  situ bioremediation (5 percent), dual-
phase extraction (5 percent), and biosparging (2 percent).

Although many of these percentages appear low, this market segment
includes a substantial number of sites, since over 165,000 UST sites will
require cleanup in the future. Moreover,  the relative usage levels for many
of these technologies have increased substantially over the years prior to
the survey. According to the survey respondents, the use of in situ
processes increased significantly from 1993 to 1995 (Exhibit 1-8). The UST
program technologies include more biological processes due to the inherent
biodegradability of petroleum hydrocarbons.

1.3.4 Technology  Development Efforts

Future technology use will be influenced by current and planned
technology development efforts and the expressed needs of industry and
other entities with responsibility for site cleanups. Federal agencies
                                             The use of in situ
                                             processes at UST
                                             sites has been
                                             rapidly increasing.
                                             More biological
                                             processes are used
                                             for UST sites than
                                             for the other market
                                             segments.
                                                 1-16

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                                       Executive Summary
                           Exhibit 1-8: Percent of States With Increased Use of Treatment
                                      Technologies at LIST Sites: 1993 to 1995
Technology
Soil Washing
Incineration
Thermal Desorption
Landfarming
Biopiles
In Situ Bioremediation of GW
Biosparging
Natural Attenuation of Soil
Dual-Phase Extraction
Natural Attenuation of GW
Bioventing
Air Sparging
Soil Vapor Extraction
C
GW = Groundwater
3f5
i14
i14
^
§19
|26
JJ29
J 30
I32
|34
§43
|45
I I I I I I I I I
) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Percent of
 Government and private
 organizations have
 developed formal pro-
 grams to cooperatively
 ensure that technology
 development efforts are
 directly related to
 cleanup needs.
currently are coordinating several technology development and
commercialization programs. Of these, two cooperative public-private
initiatives are particularly noteworthy because they focus on processes that
private "problem holders" view as most promising for the future. The
involvement of technology users helps to assure that the processes selected
for development reflect actual needs and have a high potential for future
application. The technologies identified by these programs and federal
agencies provide a useful overview of future trends (Exhibit 1-9).

The Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) is a
consortium of partners from industry, government agencies, and academia,
who share the common goal of developing more effective, less costly
hazardous waste characterization and treatment technologies.  RTDF
achieves this goal by identifying high priority needs for remediation
technology development. For each need, RTDF organizes an Action Team,
comprised of organizations who share that interest, to plan  and  conduct
collaborative laboratory and field research and development. Although
federal agencies provide in-kind contributions and funding, the  formation
of teams is driven by the organizations  responsible for site cleanups. Five
Action Teams have been established to  date.

Through the Clean Sites Public-Private Partnerships for technology
acceptance, EPA and Clean Sites, Inc., a nonprofit firm, develop
partnerships between federal agencies (such as DOD and DOE) and private
site owners (responsible parties, owners/operators) for the joint  evaluation
of full-scale remediation technologies. The purpose of this program is to
create a demand among potential users of new technologies by allowing
                                             1-17

-------
 Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
Exhibit 1-9:   Examples of Technology Needs Identified by Users in Selected Federal Programs
Medium
In Situ Management of
Soils
In Situ Management of
Groundwater
In Situ Management of
Soil and Groundwater
Ex Situ Management of
Soil
Ex Situ Management of
Groundwater
Clean Sites
Public-Private
Partnerships
• Lasagna™ (electroosmosis,
hydrofracturing treatment
zones)
• Anaerobic bioremediation
• Permeable treatment walls
• Air sparging
• Rotary steam drilling
• Dual-phase extraction
• Enhanced bioslurry
reactors
• Membrane separation
Remediation Technologies
Development Forum
• Lasagna™
• Co-metabolic bioventing
• Phytoremediation for metals
• Accelerated anaerobic
bioremediation
• Permeable treatment walls
• Intrinsic bioremediation
• Not applicable
• Not applicable
• Not applicable
Department of Energy
• Electrokinetics
• Vitrification
• Recirculating wells
• Microbial filters
• Bioremediation
• Biosorption of uranium
• Dynamic underground
stripping
• Innovative soil washing
• Not applicable
the end-users of the technologies to be involved throughout the demon-
stration process. Typically, Clean Sites, with the assistance of federal agen-
cies, identifies and characterizes a candidate federal facility, solicits indus-
try participation, and brings together the facility and private companies.
Based on common problems identified by these partners, the host facility
arranges for the procurement of technologies for demonstration. The
partners develop evaluation plans and conduct the demonstrations.
Currently, there are  six evaluation projects in this program.

A recent DOE report enumerated 15 new technologies, scheduled to be
available by the year 2000, that may potentially lead to cost savings in
cleaning up DOE sites. These technologies are specific examples of the
types of technologies that DOE expects to need in the near future, such as
bioremediation, electrokinetics, and biosorption of uranium.

The technologies selected for development in these three programs
demonstrate that prospective users are interested in using in situ processes
and biotechnology to meet their future needs (Exhibit 1-9). Various
biological methods often are cited,  especially for chlorinated solvents.
Several technologies rely on SVE as a  component, including dual-phase
extraction, air sparging, dynamic underground stripping, and rotary steam
drilling. Also, several processes entail  the creation of treatment zones
(permeable barriers, microbial filters, and the Lasagna™ process) and the
use of electric fields to mobilize both organics and inorganics.

DOD also has been active in developing and commercializing technologies.
DOD's high priority cleanup technology needs include: detection,
monitoring and modeling (primarily related to unexploded ordnance
             Prospective tech-
             nology users are
             interested in
             applying in situ
             processes for future
             cleanups, because
             they are cheaper,
             more acceptable to
             the public, and pose
             lower risk to
             workers.
                                               1-18

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                     Executive Summary
                       [UXO] and DNAPLS); treatment for soil, sediment, and sludge (primarily
                       related to UXO, white phosphorous contaminated sediments, inorganics,
                       explosives in soil, explosives/organic contaminants in sediments);
                       groundwater treatment (explosives, solvents, organics, alternatives to
                       pump-and-treat, and DNAPLS); and removal of UXO on land and under
                       water.
1.4 Cleanup Program  Status and  Factors Affecting Demand

                       The demand for remediation services is driven largely by federal and state
                       requirements and public and private expenditures. Changes in these
                       conditions will affect each of the seven market segments in a different way,
                       since each market has its own priorities and operating procedures. Thus,
                       successful planning for technology development and marketing of
                       remediation services should include consideration of the program structure,
                       requirements, and site characteristics of the specific market sectors as well
                       as the shifting requirements and budgets. For example, both government
                       and industry are showing an interest in using risk assessment to determine
                       cleanup priorities, as may be done under the Risk Based Corrective Action
                       initiative in the UST program. Similarly, cleanup program decision-making
                       may become more  dependent upon exposure assessments that consider
                       future land use and bioavailability. The most prevalent factors that could
                       alter the scope of the cleanup effort, as well as the technologies to be used
                       in each market, are described below.

                       1.4.1  Superfund Sites
  Super/und is now facing
  reauthorization, and
  budgetary and regula-
  tory changes are likely
  to affect the extent and
  types of cleanup actions.
The Superfund program is the federal program to clean up releases of
hazardous substances at abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Superfund is administered by EPA and the states under the authority of
the CERCLA. The procedures for implementing the provisions of CERCLA
substantially affect those used by other federal  and state cleanup programs.
These procedures are spelled out in the National Oil  and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, commonly referred to as the
National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP outlines the steps that EPA
and other federal agencies must follow  in responding to "releases" of
hazardous substances or oil into the environment. Although the
terminology may differ from one market segment to another, each follows
a process more-or-less similar to this one. Thus, in addition to comprising a
defined market segment, activities in the Superfund program substantially
influence the implementation of the other market segments.

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
made important  changes to the Superfund program that are of particular
importance to technology vendors. These changes stressed the importance
of permanent remedies and support the use of new, unproven treatment
technologies. Superfund is facing reauthorization again, and it is likely that
budgetary and regulatory changes will occur during the next few years.
Some of the  Superfund program changes that have been proposed in
Congress could significantly impact the markets for remediation
                                            1-19

-------
 Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
technologies. For example, proposed modifications would require greater
consideration of land use in setting cleanup standards, emphasize the
treatment and disposal of only the highly contaminated and highly mobile
media, limit the addition of new sites to the NPL, and change the liability
aspect of CERCLA to reduce the cost and time needed to assign the
liability for a cleanup project. Some of these changes are already being
implemented, to some extent, under EPA administrative reforms.

In the past four years, the number of Superfund sites that have progressed
from study and evaluation to actual cleanup has risen steadily.  Thus, a
greater portion of the effort is  going to the  actual cleanup of sites as
compared to study and evaluation. Over its 17 year history, the primary
responsibility for construction  contracting at NPL site cleanups  has shifted
from EPA to responsible parties. In the past few years, 70 percent of
remedial action starts (i.e., actual cleanup activities) have been implemented
by responsible  parties with EPA or state oversight.

1.4.2  RCRA Corrective Action Sites

The remediation of RCRA "characteristic" or listed waste is addressed
under the RCRA corrective action program, which is administered by EPA
and authorized states. The current program strategy stresses stabilizing
contaminated media to prevent the further  spread of contamination before
long-term cleanups can be undertaken, and developing priorities for
directing resources to the highest priority facilities. High-priority facilities
are the main focus of EPA's program to stabilize contaminated  media
because of their perceived risk to human health and the environment.

The demand for remediation of RCRA corrective action sites is  likely to be
influenced by a new rulemaking called the  Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule for Contaminated Media  (HWIR-Media), which was proposed on April
29, 1996. This proposed  rule would modify the RCRA Subtitle C
management requirements that apply to hazardous remediation wastes
generated as a part of government-overseen cleanups (such as RCRA
corrective action, Superfund, and cleanup under other state programs). The
proposal addressed a number  of issues such as: exempting remediation
wastes from certain Subtitle C management requirements; modifying land
disposal restrictions; streamlining requirements for cleanup permits
(including exempting cleanup-only permits from the requirement for
facility-wide corrective action); and streamlining state authorization. EPA
expects  that the final HWIR-Media rule will be an essential complement to
the final RCRA Subpart S  corrective action  regulations.

As part of the President's  initiative for reinventing environmental
regulations, the Administration has, with input from interested  parties,
identified potential legislative  amendments to provide appropriate relief for
high-cost, low-benefit RCRA provisions. The administration believes any
reforms to RCRA should proceed separately from CERCLA reauthorization.
A key area identified for potential  reform is the application of RCRA
Subtitle C to remediation wastes.
             The demand for
             remediation of
             RCRA corrective
             action sites is likely
             to be influenced by
             a major rulemaking
             and forthcoming
             reauthorization.
                                              1-20

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                                       Executive Summary
 After dropping 16% in
 FY 1995, the DOD
 cleanup budget has
 remained steady, and is
 expected to continue at
 its current level. Pro-
 gram activities have
 been shifting from site
 investigations to
 remediation, and from
 general site restoration
 to the cleanup of
 facilities scheduled to
 close.
1.4.3  Underground Storage Tank Sites

Contamination resulting from leaks and spills from underground storage
tanks (USTs) are addressed primarily by the tank owners under state UST
programs established pursuant to Subtitle I of the 1984 Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA. This law has compelled cleanup
activities at many UST sites, providing opportunities for the application of
a variety of remedial technologies. It is  expected that cleanup activities will
increase as a result of the December 1998 deadline for  upgrading tanks for
corrosion  protection.

Because the program is primarily implemented by the  states, funding and
programmatic considerations at the state level determine the extent and
timing of the remediation. All states and territories have passed legislation
for UST cleanups, and 45 have state trust funds. Some states have more
active enforcement programs than others and some have promulgated UST
requirements that are more stringent than the federal standards, such as a
requirement for double-lined tanks, more stringent monitoring procedures,
or earlier  upgrading compliance dates. Although such  requirements may
increase the magnitude of the remediation  work or change its timing, the
requirements of specific states were not included in the estimates of market
size presented in this report.

1.4.4  Department of Defense Sites

The Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for cleaning up
contamination from  numerous industrial, commercial,  training, and
weapons  testing activities. DOD installations typically have multiple
contaminated sites regulated by either CERCLA, RCRA, state laws, two
federal statutes that  mandate base realignments and closings, or a
combination of these. The rate of realignment and closure of DOD facilities
and installations will affect the scheduling of site cleanup. DOD is cleaning
up closing military bases so that the properties can be transferred to local
communities for economic revitalization. Prior to closing or realigning a
base, DOD may be required to clean up the site, although cleanup activity
may continue after closure.

DOD annual funding for site cleanup grew from $150  million in FY 1984 to
$2.5 billion in FY 1994 and declined to $2.1 billion in FY 1995 and 1996.
Although the total budget is expected to remain at this level through FY
1997, the  proportion allocated to remedial  design and  remedial action will
increase. The proportion of restoration funds targeted  for remedial design
and remedial action  grew from 48 percent  in FY 1994 to 61 percent in FY
1995, 64 percent in FY 1996, and 74 percent in FY 1997.

Other factors that will affect the DOD cleanup efforts include proposed
new rules for the remediation of munitions at training ranges and the
implementation of a new system for prioritizing sites for cleanup. Under
this new system, DOD may assign varying levels of priority to different
sites on a given installation. This policy may lead to the acceleration of
                                             1-21

-------
 Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
some projects at a given installation while causing other projects at the
same installation to be postponed.

1.4.5 Department of Energy Sites

DOE is responsible for cleaning up installations and other locations that
have been used for nuclear weapons research, development, and
production for  over five decades. In addition to large, complex
government-owned properties, DOE is responsible for cleaning up
thousands of private residential and commercial properties  that are
contaminated because uranium mill tailings were used as fill for
construction and landscaping or were carried by the wind to open areas.
Environmental  problems at DOE sites include unique radiation hazards,
large volumes of soil and groundwater, and contaminated structures used
to contain nuclear reactors and chemical plants for the extraction of nuclear
materials.

Three key factors could affect the DOE market. First, the cleanup
approaches used will directly determine both specific technologies to be
applied and costs. DOE plans to place greater emphasis on  containment
than on treatment and other  active remediation strategies. Second, the level
of the DOE budget, which has been debated in Congress, could
significantly alter the scheduling of site restoration and technology
development projects. Third, the nature and magnitude of the
contamination at many DOE sites is still only partially known; only about
46 percent of the more than 10,500 sites have been fully characterized. As
sites are further investigated and new technologies to address the
contamination problems become available, it may be necessary to alter
budgets and the demand estimates for specific technologies.

1.4.6 Civilian Federal Agency Sites

"Civilian" federal agencies (CFAs) include all federal agencies except DOE
and  DOD. These agencies are responsible for the cleanup of contaminated
waste at currently or formerly owned facilities. Under SARA, the  federal
government also may be liable for cleaning up contaminated waste at
facilities acquired through foreclosure or other means and facilities
purchased with federal loans. To meet these requirements, civilian federal
agencies have established programs to assess potentially contaminated
sites, and, if necessary, clean them up. Because detailed data on CFA site
characteristics are limited, more site investigation is  needed to fully identify
cleanup needs.  The programs are considerably smaller than those of DOD
and  DOE. The FY 1997 budget for 14 agencies combined is  $288 million,
about 14% of DOD's eenvironmental restoration budget.

In managing their environmental restoration programs, civilian federal
agencies are subject to the same technical and political issues as are DOD
and  DOE. Future funding for site restoration at most civilian federal
agencies is uncertain. To address this uncertainty, program  managers have
recognized the  need to prioritize cleanup activities and to find better,
faster, and less  expensive cleanup approaches.
             The DOE cleanup
             market estimates
             relied on several
             critical assump-
             tions, which makes
             them particularly
             sensitive to budget
             fluctuations,
             cleanup standards,
             and further site
             investigations.
                                              1-22

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                      Executive Summary
  The financial and legal
  commitment to site
  restoration varies from
  state to state. Many
  states have programs to
  encourage voluntary
  cleanups and develop
  brownfield properties.
1.4.7  State and Private Party Sites

All sites not owned by federal agencies that require cleanup, but cannot be
addressed under the federal Superfund, RCRA corrective action, or UST
programs, are addressed by state cleanup programs. The cleanup of these
sites must be financed by the states or private parties. To manage the
cleanup of contaminated sites, many states have created their own
programs patterned after the federal Superfund program. These programs
generally include enforcement authority and state funds to finance the
remediation of abandoned waste sites. Although enforcement activities
vary from one state to another, most states have the legal authority to
initiate or compel the cleanup of sites, recover costs from responsible
parties,  and seek criminal or civil penalties. The extent and pace of a state
cleanup program is ultimately determined by its financial and legal
commitment to environmental restoration.

Voluntary cleanups and "brownfield" sites represent another potential
market for hazardous waste remediation services.  Although the full extent
of this market is unknown,  34 states have developed formal voluntary
programs which are designed to  promote the timely evaluation and
remediation of waste sites with a minimum of state oversight and
expenditure and to allow these properties to return to economically
productive use. "Brownfields" are abandoned, idle, or under-used
industrial  and commercial facilities where real or perceived environmental
contamination may be hampering expansion or redevelopment. The
investigation and cleanup of these sites is a high priority among  both
environmental protection and economic development authorities at both
the state and federal  levels.
Using This Document
                       Chapter 2 describes the recent trends in the use of remedial technologies at
                       Superfund sites. Because many contamination problems are similar across
                       the seven market segments, the Superfund technology information is useful
                       to help understand potential technology trends in the other markets. The
                       remaining seven chapters address each of the market segments.

                       For each market segment, five areas are discussed: (1) the structure,
                       operation, and regulatory requirements of the program; (2) the economic
                       and political factors that may change the size or characteristics of the
                       market segment; (3) the quantitative measures of the market in terms of the
                       number of sites, occurrence of contaminants, and extent of remediation
                       work needed;  (4) remediation cost estimates; and (5)  procurement and
                       technology issues. Citations are referenced at the end of each chapter.

                       Appendices A through H contain supporting data, sources for additional
                       information on the remediation market and technologies, and definitions of
                       terms used in  this report. The acronyms are  on the last three pages of the
                       document.
                                             1-23

-------
Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                                  This page intentionally left blank.
                                                  1-24

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                   Technology Trends at NPL Sites
                                       CHAPTER 2
         TRENDS IN THE USE OF REMEDIAL  TECHNOLOGIES
                   AT  NATIONAL PRIORITIES  LIST SITES
The Nation faces a significant technological
challenge to clean up its contaminated waste
sites efficiently and effectively. The most
comprehensive information on technology use
at waste sites is available for the Superfund
program. Although Superfund sites represent a
small percentage of all contaminated sites,
experience with technology applications at these
sites is likely to influence technology selection
in other market segments. The Superfund
program has made great progress in selecting
and applying new treatment technologies that
are less costly and more effective. Nearly half
of the remedial treatment decisions for source
control (primarily soils) in recent years involve
technologies that were not even available when
the law was reauthorized in 1986. The develop-
ment of new technologies has been driven by a
preference for treatment in the reauthorized law
and the resulting quest for more cost-effective
processes. This chapter describes the historical
trends in the selection  of technologies at
Superfund sites. For new or innovative tech-
nologies, it  describes the status of their
implementation, and the types and quantities of
wastes being addressed.

2.1  The Superfund Program

Superfund is the federal program to clean up
releases of hazardous substances at abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste  sites. The program
is administered by EPA under the authority of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA).  In addition to establishing
enforcement authorities, CERCLA created a trust
fund to be used for site identification and
cleanup. The Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) made three
important changes to the Superfund program that
are of particular importance to technology
vendors: (1) it stressed the importance of
permanent  remedies; (2) it supported the use of
new, unproven treatment technologies; and (3) it
expanded research and demonstrations to
promote the development of innovative treatment
technologies.

Superfund reauthorization is again being
discussed in Congress, and some of the proposed
provisions would affect the types of remedies
selected. Some of the proposals are discussed in
Chapter 3.

2.1.1 The National Contingency Plan

The procedures for implementing CERCLA are
spelled out in the National  Oil and Hazardous
Substances  Pollution Contingency Plan, com-
monly referred to as the National Contingency
Plan (NCP). This plan outlines the steps that EPA
and other federal agencies must follow in
responding to releases of hazardous substances or
oil into the  environment. The goal described in
the NCP  is  to select remedies that protect human
health and the environment, maintain protection
over time, and minimize untreated waste. The
NCP specifies several treatment expectations to
achieve this goal including:

 • Use of treatment for principal threats
   wherever practical;
 • Combination of treatment with containment,
   as necessary; and
 • Consideration of innovative treatment
   technologies to the maximum extent
   practicable.

2.1.2 The Superfund Process

The site characterization and cleanup process
established  by the NCP is depicted in Exhibit
2-1. If more than one cleanup action is needed at
a site, several steps in this process are repeated
for each action. The process begins with the
discovery of a potential hazardous waste site, and
includes the following general steps:

-------
 NPL Sites
                       Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                                Exhibit 2-1: Superfund Process Overview
             Original Superfund Process
                  Superfund Accelerated
                  Cleanup Model
                      Site Discovery
                 Preliminary Assessment (PA)*
                    Site Inspection (SI)*
                 [Expanded Site Inspection (ESI)*
                    Removal Evaluation
                Hazard Ranking System (MRS)
             National Priorities List (NPL) Designation
                       Site Screening and
                          Assessment
                        (PA, SI, ESI, Rl)
                         'Assessments
                          Combined
                       Removal Evaluation
                  Remedial Investigation (Rl)*
                    Feasibility Study (FS)
                    Selection of Remedy
                  Record of Decision (ROD)
Enforcement
 Activities/

  State
Participation/

Community
Involvement
                   Remedial Design (RD)
                   Remedial Action (RA)
               Operation and Maintenance (OSM)
                      NPL Deletion
         * Indicates assessment phase of pipeline.
        Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
1)   A "preliminary assessment" (PA) is
    conducted to determine the existence of
    potential threats to human  health or the
    environment that require a "removal action"
    or further study. If the PA  indicates an
    emergency requiring immediate or short-term
    action to reduce the risk to the public, a
    removal action is conducted to stabilize or
    clean up the site.

 2)  If a hazard is identified or remains after a
    removal action is performed, a "site
    inspection"  (SI) is  conducted to determine
          whether a site warrants scoring under the
          Hazard Ranking System (HRS). EPA uses the
          HRS to score sites on the basis of potential
          human health and environmental effects from
          contamination and determine a site's
          eligibility for the National Priorities List
          (NPL). Sites  with an HRS score of 28.5 or
          higher are proposed for the NPL, which is
          EPA's national list of sites with the worst
          contamination problems. Inclusion  on the
          NPL means that the cleanup of the site can be
          accomplished using the Superfund Trust
          Fund.

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                    Technology Trends at NPL Sites
3)  When a site is added to the NPL, an in-depth
   planning and investigation phase begins,
   during which the nature and extent of
   contamination and site risks are determined,
   and treatment alternatives are evaluated. This
   phase is known as  the "remedial investi-
   gation/feasibility study" (RI/FS). EPA
   requires the results of the RI/FS, including
   the rationale for selecting a remedy, to be
   presented to the public, and documented in a
   "Record of Decision" (ROD). Some sites
   require a series of RI/FSs and RODs to
   address different "operable  units," which are
   portions of a site reflecting pathways of
   exposure (e.g., soil, water) that require
   separate cleanup actions.

   RODs provide useful information for
   technology vendors interested in gaining
   access to the hazardous waste cleanup
   market. First, RODs specify the technology
   type determined to be the appropriate
   remedy for a site. Second, technology vendors
   can use RODs to determine why EPA selected
   or rejected a specific remedy. EPA must
   consider nine criteria for remedy selection:
   overall protectiveness; compliance with other
   environmental laws and regulations; long-
   term effectiveness and permanence; short-
   term effectiveness;  implementability; cost; and
   reduction of toxicity, mobility,  or volume of
   wastes. State and community acceptance also
   are considered.

4)  Following the ROD, detailed engineering
   specifications for the selected cleanup
   approach are developed. This phase is called
   "remedial design"  (RD). The designs are used
   to solicit competitive bids to perform the
   "remedial action" (RA). In the RD phase,
   waste is actually treated, disposed, or
   contained. If necessary, "operation and
   maintenance" (O&M) begins at the conclusion
   of the RA. This phase can include such
   actions as groundwater monitoring and
   periodic site inspections to ensure continued
   effectiveness of the RAs. The final step in the
   process is to delete the site from the NPL.
   This step is initiated when all necessary
   cleanup responses  under CERCLA are
   completed.
At any point in this process, an emergency
requiring a removal action can occur at a site. In
addition, community involvement activities take
place throughout the process to ensure that all
interested parties participate in the decision-
making process. Enforcement actions that compel
those responsible for the contamination to clean
up the site also occur throughout the cleanup
process to ensure optimal use of Trust Fund
resources.

EPA is now implementing the Superfund Acceler-
ated Cleanup Model (SACM). The purpose of
SACM is to  make hazardous waste cleanups
more timely and efficient by integrating Super-
fund's  administrative components. The process is
illustrated in Exhibit 2-1. Under SACM, EPA has
adopted a continuous process for assessing site-
specific conditions  and the need  for action. Risks
will be reduced quickly through early action
(removal or remedial). SACM operates within the
existing statutory and regulatory structure.
Superfund priorities will remain the same: deal
with the worst problems first; aggressively
pursue enforcement; and involve the public at
every stage of the work.

As part of its responsibility for implementing the
Superfund program, EPA is responsible for
determining the best way to clean up each site.
Other federal agencies such as the Department of
Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE)
are responsible for cleaning up NPL sites at their
facilities in accordance with the requirements of
the NCP and with  EPA  concurrence and over-
sight. Under the Superfund program, states also
may take the lead to determine remedial
alternatives  and contract for the  design and
remediation of a site.

2.1.3 Program Status

Since its beginning in 1980, efforts under
Superfund have included the identification and
ranking of sites, detailed site investigation,
mitigation of immediate threats,  and selection
and implementation of remedies to clean up the
worst sites (those listed  on the NPL). As of
September 30, 1996, EPA had conducted
preliminary assessments at 88 percent of the
12,657 potentially hazardous sites listed on the

-------
 NPL Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS), EPA's Superfund site tracking
system.3 EPA had listed 1,387 sites on the NPL,
and proposed another 52 sites. Of these, 118 sites
were deleted from the NPL, and six were referred
to another authority leaving a total of 1,263 final
NPL sites. As additional sites are studied and
ranked, they may be added to the NPL.

In the past four years, the number of sites that
have progressed from study and evaluation to
actual cleanup has grown. By September 30, 1996,
remedial construction activity was complete at
410 sites and construction was underway at 491
sites. Another 140 sites were in the RD phase and
the remainder were in various stages of site
investigation or remedy selection. In addition,
EPA had conducted removal actions at 3,450
sites, over 80 percent of which are not currently
NPL sites.111

The analyses of technology trends presented in
this chapter are based on data from RODs signed
between fiscal years (FYs) 1982 and 1995, which
ended on  September 30, 1995. During this period,
EPA made cleanup decisions in 1,669 RODs for
1,070 NPL sites. The analyses described in this
chapter are based primarily on these sites. Fiscal
year 1995  is the latest year for which detailed
ROD and  site data are available.

2.2 History of Technology Use in Superfund

The types of remedial approaches selected have
changed over time, partly in response to changes
in regulatory authority and EPA policy and also
as a result of the  availability of specific tech-
nologies. This section reviews the broad trends in
the use of hazardous waste remediation tech-
nologies at NPL sites.

2.2.1 Containment and Disposal Technologies

Since Superfund was established, the approach to
cleaning up  contaminated sites has evolved from
emphasizing containment of waste to promoting
waste treatment. Prior to 1987, the most common
methods for remediating hazardous waste were
to excavate the contaminated material and
dispose of it in an off-site landfill, or to contain
the waste on site by means of containment
systems (e.g., caps or slurry walls). Because SARA
provided a preference for the use of permanent
remedies for site cleanup, known as "alternative
treatment technologies," the number of remedies
that included treatment began to increase.

Of the 1,669 RODs signed between FY 1982 and
FY 1995, 1,126 (67 percent) address the source of
contamination: typically soil, sludge, sediment, or
solid waste. Prior to 1987, more than half of these
"source control" RODs specified the containment
or disposal of  the waste from the sites. From 1988
through 1993,  almost three-quarters of all source
control remedies involved some treatment to
reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of waste
(Exhibit 2-2). In the past two years, remedies
have shifted toward containment used alone. This
decline can be explained  in part by an increase
in the number of RODs for landfill sites and
other difficult-to-treat wastes. Overall, more than
60 percent of all source control RODs signed
between FY 1982 and FY 1995 included the
treatment of some portion of the waste at the
sites. In the future, the relative use of con-
tainment compared to treatment will greatly
depend on the provisions of a forthcoming
Superfund reauthorization.

2.2.2  Innovative and Established Technologies
for Treatment

EPA's Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual
Status Report (8th Edition) contains information on
each planned,  ongoing, and  completed treatment
technology project selected for use in the
Superfund program through FY  1995.[21 It also
contains data on a limited number of non-
Superfund federal facility sites (i.e., DOD and
DOE sites). Most of the discussion on the
selection and use of innovative and established
technologies presented in the remainder of this
chapter is derived from this  report.
a   As of September 30, 1996, EPA removed and archived 28,008 sites from CERCLIS, in order to promote economic
redevelopment at these sites by removing the stigma that may be associated with the presence of a site in CERCLIS.
EPA, states, or tribes have completed evaluations at these sites, and no further work under the federal Superfund
program is required.'11
                                                2-4

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                       Technology Trends at NPL Sites
           Exhibit 2-2: Treatment and Disposal Decisions for Source Control at NPL Sites
                 100
       Percent
          of
       Source
       Control
        RODs
                                                                     -O- Containment or Disposal Only
                                                                     -«- Some Treatment
                                                                     -*- Some Innovative Treatment
                     82    83    84   85   86   87
    89   90   91   92    93    94   95
Fiscal Year
        Notes: Data for innovative technologies are derived from Records of Decision (RODs) for fiscal years 1982-1995 and anticipated
              design and construction activities as of August 1996. A site may use more than one technology. Appendix Exhibit A-2 contains
              supporting data. Data for fiscal year 1995 are preliminary.

        Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies:
              Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA 542-R-96-010, November 1996.
The frequency of use of established and
innovative source control treatment technologies
at NPL sites is shown in Exhibit 2-3. The
technologies are grouped into 20 technology
types, including 11 selected most frequently and
nine "others." Fifty-seven percent of the 690
treatment technologies selected  for source control
are considered "established." Established
remediation technologies are those that have
sufficient published cost and performance data to
support their regular use for site cleanup. The
most frequently used established technologies are
solidification/stabilization and incineration.
"Innovative" remediation technologies are those
for which sufficient published cost and perfor-
mance data to support their regular use for site
cleanup are not readily available.15 In practice, the
use of a number of remedial technologies that are
considered innovative has increased at Superfund
 and other contaminated sites. In particular, a
 number of soil vapor extraction  (SVE)  and
 thermal desorption projects have been completed,
 and these technologies have become more
 accepted. However, because the  results of most of
 the projects are not widely known, these two
 technologies are considered innovative for this
 report.

 Solidification/stabilization (also  called "fixation"
 and "immobilization") has been  the most com-
 mon technology to treat soil and other wastes. It
 accounts for 30 percent of all technology applica-
 tions for source control at NPL sites between FY
 1982 and FY 1995. However the  use  of this
 technology has declined since 1992 (Exhibit 2-4).
 Solidification/stabilization usually is selected to
 remediate metal containing waste and continues
 to be the favored technology to treat metals,
b   Brief definitions of innovative technologies selected at Superfund sites, such as soil vapor extraction, soil washing,
and dechlorination, are provided in Appendix G. Additional information on innovative technologies is provided in a
technical screening guide published by several federal agencies.'31 Many other publications on both innovative and
established remedial technologies are listed in a bibliography compiled by EPA,'41 and another compiled jointly by EPA
and other federal agencies.'51
                                                   2-5

-------
NPL Sites
                                                  Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                           Exhibit 2-3: Source Control Technologies Selected
                              for Superfund Sites Through Fiscal Year 1995
                    Technologies      57%


             Off-site Incineration (125) 18%



        On-site Incineration (43) 6%,
      Solidification/Stabilization (206) 30%
                         Other Established (16) 2%
                            Innovative Technologies (300) 43%

                                       Soil Vapor Extraction (139) 20% *





                                               Thermal Desorption (50) 7%



                                                Ex Situ Bioremediation (43) 6%

                                               In Situ Bioremediation (26) 4%
                                               In Situ Flushing (16) 2%
                                               Soil Washing (9) 1%
                                               Solvent Extraction (5) <1%
                                               Dechlorination (4) <1%
                                               Other Innovative (8) 1%**
Notes:  *  Includes two dual-phase extraction projects also listed as in situ groundwater technologies.
       ** "Other" established technologies: soil aeration, open detonation, and chemical neutralization.
         "Other" innovative technologies: physical separation, contained recovery of oily wastes (CROW™), cyanide oxidation, vitrification,
         hot air injection, and plasma high-temperature metals recovery.

Source:   U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual
         Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA 542-R-96-010, November 1996.
                   Exhibit 2-4:  Trends for the Most Frequently Selected Established
                              Technologies for Source Control at NPL Sites
                    50
                    40 -
                    30
       Percent
        of All
      Treatment    20 -
    Technologies
      Selected

                    10 -
                                          46%
                                                        Solidification/Stabilization
                                                        Off-Site Incineration
                                                        On-Site Incineration
                            31%
                                                                         15%
13%
                            85    86      87     88     89     90     91
                                                       Fiscal Year
                                                  92     93
94     95
    Note:  Few treatment technologies were selected in the earlier years of the Superfund Program: one in 1982,  none in 1983, four in 1984,
          and 12 in 1985.

    Source: Adapted from U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment
          Technologies: Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA542-R-96-010, November 1996.
                                                       2-6

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                   Technology Trends at NPL Sites
although some compounds are not easily solidi-
fied. In some cases, it is selected to treat organic
contaminants, primarily semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs). Although solidification/
stabilization has several advantages, including
low cost, questions remain concerning its
effectiveness over time. Consequently, it may
require long-term monitoring.

Incineration has been the second most frequently
selected technology for treating soil, sludge, and
sediment in Superfund and was the first techno-
logy available for treating organic contaminants
in these matrices. The major  advantage of inci-
neration is its ability to achieve stringent cleanup
standards for highly concentrated mixtures. On-
site and off-site incineration together accounted
for 24 percent of all treatments selected for source
control through FY 1995.  However, based on
recent  project data, on-site incineration is seldom
being used (Exhibit 2-4). Off-site incineration is
more applicable to smaller quantities (typically
less than about 5,000 cubic yards) of highly
contaminated material and for residuals of pre- or
post-treatment technologies that separate and
concentrate contaminants.
                               While solidification/stabilization and incineration
                               (both established technologies) have accounted
                               for a decreasing share of all technologies selected
                               for source control for Superfund sites, the share
                               accounted for by innovative treatments has
                               grown (Exhibit 2-5). In FY 1993,  for the first time,
                               over half of the treatment technologies selected
                               for source control were innovative; and about 20
                               percent of all sites with RODs are  using at least
                               one innovative technology. The most widely
                               selected innovative technology, SVE, was selected
                               for 20 percent of source control technologies
                               selected through FY 1995 (Exhibit  2-3). The other
                               most common innovative technologies are
                               bioremediation, thermal desorption, in situ
                               flushing, and soil washing. Trends in selection of
                               the three most commonly used innovative
                               technologies are shown in Exhibit  2-6.

                               Seventy-six percent of Superfund sites with RODs
                               require some sort of groundwater  remediation.
                               In most cases groundwater is being addressed by
                               pump-and-treat technology, in which ground-
                               water is pumped to the surface to  be treated by
                               physical/chemical methods  (Exhibit 2-7). For this
                       Exhibit 2-5: Relative Use of Established and Innovative
                           Technologies for Source Control at NPL Sites
                 80
                 70 —
                 60 -
                 50
     Percent
      of AH      40
    Treatment
  Technologies  __
    Selected
                 20 -
                 10 —
                                                                            -•- Established Technologies
                                                                            -O- Innovative Technologies
                        67%
33%
                                                                                              60%
                                                                       40%
                              24%
                                      21%
                       85
        86
87
88
89     90     91
    Fiscal Year
92
93
94
95
              Note:   A site may use more than one technology.
              Source: Adapted from U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative
                    Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), E PA 542-R-96-010, November 1996.
                                                 2-7

-------
 NPL Sites
                                   Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
report, all above-ground treatment of ground-
water is considered established, although some
innovative approaches are being developed for
aqueous treatment. All in situ treatment
technologies for groundwater are considered
innovative. In situ groundwater remedies have
been selected for fewer than six percent of
groundwater sites. Of 603 sites for which ground-
water remedies have been selected, pump-and-
treat technology alone  is being implemented at 93
percent and is combined with in situ treatment at
5 percent of the  sites. In situ treatment alone has
been selected for only nine sites.

2.3 Innovative Remedies for Source Control

EPA closely tracks the  status of innovative
technology projects at NPL sites. Exhibit 2-8
provides the implementation status of innovative
treatment technologies selected for Superfund
sites. Fifty-six projects using innovative
technologies have been completed as of August
1996. Consequently, operating experience is
limited but growing for innovative technologies
chosen at Superfund sites.
                   The innovative treatment projects now in design
                   will be implemented within the next several
                   years. As of August 1996, innovative treatment
                   technologies for source control and groundwater
                   were designed, or being installed for 174 projects,
                   and operational for 99 projects. Another 114
                   projects were at the predesign or design stages.
                   As these projects are implemented and
                   completed, EPA will make  available more
                   complete information on full-scale cost and
                   performance for many sites.

                   Exhibit 2-9 presents a cumulative account of how
                   often the seven most commonly used types of
                   innovative remedies for source control have been
                   selected to treat each of the three major
                   contaminant groups: VOCs, SVOCs, and metals.
                   Although  not reflected here, the presence of other
                   contaminant groups or specific site conditions
                   also may affect the technology selection. Since
                   technologies may target more than one
                   constituent, these numbers  are not additive. The
                   following  subsections address each of the three
                   contaminant groups.
                     Exhibit 2-6: Trends for the Three Most Frequently Selected
                                Treatment Technologies at NPL Sites
     Number
                  35
                  30
                 25 —
                 20
                                                                             -»• Soil Vapor Extraction
                                                                             -O Bioremediation*
                                                                                Thermal Desorption
        of
    Treatment
  Technologies   15
    Selected
                           85
86
87
89
   Notes: * Also includes in situ groundwater treatment.
   90     91
Fiscal Year
92
93
94
95
   Source:  U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies:
          Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA 542-R-96-010, November 1996.

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                                       Technology Trends at NPL Sites
       Exhibit 2-7: Groundwater Treatment Remedies at NPL Sites Through Fiscal Year 1995
                   Sites with Pump-and-Treat
                   and In Situ Treatment
                   Remedies (36) 6%
                                                            Sites with In Situ Treatment
                                                            Only (7) 1%
                                             Sites with Pump-and-Treat
                                             Remedies Only (562) 93%
In Situ Treatment Remedies (45)
include:
- Air Sparging (22)
- Bioremediation (15)
- Passive Treatment Wall (3)
- Dual-Phase Extraction (3)
- Surfactant Flushing (1)
- In Situ Oxidation (1)
  Notes:  Does not include groundwater sites with nontreatment remedies (i.e., monitoring, institutional controls, alternate water
        supply, well-head treatment, closing wells, containment, or natural attenuation).

  Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office.
2.3.1  Treatment of Volatile Organic Compounds

Of the three major contaminant groups, NPL sites
with VOCs are the most frequently treated with
innovative technologies (Exhibit 2-9). SVE has
become the preferred technology for both
chlorinated and nonchlorinated VOCs in soil.
Despite its frequent selection, SVE is still
considered innovative in this report because its
effectiveness has not been confirmed for many
types of sites,  and because the  results of many
projects are not yet widely known. The selection
of SVE for Superfund sites has decreased recently
(Exhibit 2-6).

The overall popularity of this technology is due
to its low cost and the frequent occurrence of
VOCs at Superfund sites. Although performance
varies from one application to another, SVE
usually is the most  cost-effective  means of
reducing VOC concentrations. SVE has been
selected in some cases to pretreat soils prior to
excavation or subsequent treatment. At some
sites,  SVE may be modified to enhance in situ
bioremediation (called "bioventing"). Bioventing
optimizes SVE performance by maximizing the
biodegradation of certain organics by controlling
                                                   the air flow. Bioventing also may lead to
                                                   increased use of SVE when VOCs and SVOCs are
                                                   present. Other means of expanding the range of
                                                   application of SVE include integrating with
                                                   groundwater treatment technologies such as dual-
                                                   phase extraction and air sparging,  improved well
                                                   placement,  and improved recovery through
                                                   hydraulic or pneumatic fracturing  and thermal
                                                   processes. Further developments that  may expand
                                                   the application  of SVE include radio frequency
                                                   heating, horizontal well techniques, and other
                                                   methods to increase soil permeability. Overall, 18
                                                   SVE projects have been completed at NPL sites
                                                   and 52 are operational.

                                                   Thermal desorption and bioremediation also are
                                                   commonly used to treat VOCs. Bioremediation is
                                                   usually  applied to non-halogenated VOCs, such
                                                   as benzene  (Exhibit 2-9).

                                                   2.3.2  Treatment of Semivolatile Organic
                                                   Compounds (SVOCs)

                                                   Bioremediation and thermal desorption are the
                                                   most frequently selected innovative technologies
                                                   for NPL sites with SVOCs. In addition, soil vapor
                                                   extraction has been selected for some  of the more
                                                 2-9

-------
 NPL Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
         Exhibit 2-8: Status of Innovative Technology Projects at NPL Sites as of August 1995
Technology
Source Control Technologies
Soil Vapor Extraction
Thermal Desorption
Ex Situ Bioremediation
In Situ Bioremediation
In Situ Flushing
Soil Washing
Solvent Extraction
Dechlorination
Vitrification
Cyanide Oxidation
Hot Air Injection
Contained Recovery of Oily
Wastes (CROW™)
Physical Separation
Plasma High Temperature
Metals Recovery
Total
Groundwater Technologies
Air Sparging
In Situ Bioremediation
Passive Treatment Wall
Dual-Phase Extraction
In Situ Well Aeration
In Situ Oxidation
Total
Predesign/
In Design

36
14
16
9
7
6
2
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
96 (32%)

6
7
3
1
1
0
18 (40%)
Design Complete/
Being Installed

33
8
8
5
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
61 (20%)

8
5
0
2
0
1
16 (36%)
Operational

52
4
14
10
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Completed

18
24
5
2
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
86 (29%) 57 (19%)

8
3
0
0
0
0
11 (24%)

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total

139
50
43
26
16
9
5
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
300

22
15
3
3
1
1
45
Notes: Data are derived from Records of Decision for fiscal years 1982-1995 and anticipated design and construction
activities as of August 1996.
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment
Technologies: Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA-542-R-96-010, November 1996.
volatile SVOCs (e.g., phenols and naphtha-
lenes).'61 Other technologies used to treat SVOCs
are dechlorination, vitrification, and contained
recovery of oily waste (CROW™).'61

Bioremediation methods selected include land
treatment, in situ treatment,  and slurry-phase
treatment. Bioremediation has been selected for
47 projects to treat poly aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and 10 projects to treat other SVOCs.161
Overall, seven bioremediation projects for source
control have  been completed and 24 are
operational. From 1992 to 1995, bioremediation
for source control was chosen 10 times per year,
on average.121
Since bioremediation destroys organic conta-
minants, it has a major advantage over other
innovative technologies that rely on separation
techniques. Nevertheless, bioremediation has not
been selected more often at Superfund sites,
probably because,  in its current state of
development,  it addresses a limited number of
biodegradable compounds; and many site
conditions (such as the presence of metals and
clayey soil) inhibit performance. Bioremediation
also may have difficulty meeting  stringent
cleanup levels or may require long periods of
time to achieve the required reductions. Current
research efforts are focused on biodegradation of
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, such as
                                                2-10

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                         Technology Trends at NPL Sites
                                Exhibit 2-9: Applications of Innovative
                      Treatment Technologies for Source Control at NPL Sites
                          138
                  140
                  120
               w
               0  100
               **
               m
               u
               Q.
               Q.
               «D
               .a
               E
                   80
                   60
                   40
                   20
36
                                              181
                       Soil Vapor   Thermal    Ex Situ
                       Extraction  Desorption   Biorem.
       In Situ
      Biorem.*
  Soil
Washing
 In Situ
Flushing
 Solvent
Extraction
  Notes:
         Includes technologies selected in Records of Decision for fiscal years 1982-1995.
         * Does not include in situ groundwater bioremediation.
  Source:  U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual
         Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA542-R-96-010, November 1996.
trichloroethylene (TCE) and vinyl chloride, which
occur at many sites.

Thermal desorption treats a broad spectrum of
SVOCs, most frequently PAHs and PCBs. In all,
24 thermal desorption projects have been
completed and four are operational (Exhibit
2-8). Thermal desorption  may be particularly
well-suited for pretreating organics prior to
metals treatment. Soil washing has been selected
five times to treat SVOCs, such as PAHs, phenols
and pesticides, and one soil washing project has
been completed. Dechlorination, a form of
chemical treatment, also has been selected to treat
PCBs for four projects, two of which have been
completed.[5U61

2.3.3  Treatment of Metals

The most frequently selected  technology for metal
waste is solidification/stabilization, which has
been selected for 206 projects (Exhibit 2-3). In the
past two years, its selection has decreased
substantially. Of the innovative technologies, soil
washing is being used to remediate metals at six
sites, three of which also  contain organics. In situ
    flushing has been selected for three projects to
    treat metallic wastes, two of which also contain
    organics, and at one site  to treat arsenic. The
    application of in situ flushing is largely depen-
    dent on site hydrogeology, which must carefully
    be considered to reduce the possible spread of
    contamination. In this process, contaminants may
    leach into underlying groundwater, from which
    they are typically recovered by pump-and-treat
    methods. Some new methods under development
    to remediate metals include phytoremediation
    and electrokinetics.

    No treatment technologies have yet been selected
    at NPL sites with low-level radioactive metals
    combined with other hazardous constituents
    (known as "mixed wastes"). In the past, the
    selected remedy has been excavation and on-site
    storage, or disposal in an on- or off-site landfill
    permitted to accept such waste. DOE is testing
    and implementing several technologies, such as
    vitrification, to address radioactive contaminants.

    Often, "treatment trains" are use to address
    media and wastes containing both metals and
    organics. A "treatment train" is the combined use
                                                  2-11

-------
 NPL Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
of several treatment technologies in a series in
order to: reduce the volume of material requiring
subsequent treatment; prevent emission of vola-
tile contaminants during excavation and mixing;
or address multiple contaminants within the
same medium. Treatment trains  that use innova-
tive technologies have been selected at 32  Super-
fund sites (Exhibit 2-10), 18 of which use estab-
lished technologies as part of the treatment train.

2.3.4  Waste Matrices and Quantities

Of the 345 innovative technology projects  selected
at Superfund sites, 300 address source control
and 45 are for the treatment of groundwater in
situ. Of the innovative technology applications for
source control, soil is addressed  at 99 percent of
the sites, sludge at six percent, sediments  at five
percent, and solids at less than one percent.'61 The
total exceeds 100 percent because each technology
may be used to treat more than  one waste matrix
at a site.  As shown in Exhibit 2-11, the quantities
of soil treated by the various innovative tech-
niques vary widely from one site to another. In
general, in situ technologies such as in situ
flushing, SVE, and in situ bioremediation have
been chosen to treat larger volumes of soil. These
three technologies account for over 90 percent of
the soil and other material to be treated by
innovative technologies for those sites where  data
are available. Technologies that treat excavated
wastes or require waste postprocessing (e.g., soil
washing, thermal desorption, and solvent
extraction) generally are selected to treat smaller
amounts of soil.

2.4 Innovative Remedies for Groundwater

Of the 45 applications of innovative technologies
to groundwater at 44 sites, 36 address VOCs, 17
address SVOCs, and two address metals. The
most frequently selected innovative groundwater
technologies are air sparging, selected 22 times,
and bioremediation, selected 15  times.

Previous EPA studies have shown that pump-
and-treat technology alone is often insufficient to
meet cleanup levels selected.'71 Until recently,
contaminants in unsaturated soils were
considered to be the most significant source of
groundwater contamination. However, studies
indicate that nonaqueous phase  liquids (NAPLs)
and contaminants captured or absorbed by soils
in the aquifer are released slowly into the
groundwater. Consequently, improved in situ
groundwater remediation technologies are
needed to treat this residual subsurface
contamination.[8'

Three recent efforts have further expanded the
information available on new technologies for
groundwater and other media. The first is the
establishment of the Groundwater Remediation
Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC) at the
National Environmental Technologies Appli-
cations Center (NETAC) in association with the
University of Pittsburgh. This center develops
and disseminates information on current in situ
research, development, and demonstration efforts,
and analyzes technology development trends.
Section 3.5.4 describes how to contact the center.
The second effort is the 1995 EPA publication of
six technology status reports that describe
existing research, demonstrations, and references
for in situ abiotic groundwater technologies.'91
These efforts identified over 90 research and
demonstration projects involving the six technolo-
gies: thermal enhancements (18 projects), surfac-
tants (19 projects), treatment walls (23 projects),
fracturing (12 projects),  cosolvents (four projects),
and electrokinetics (16 projects). Interest in these
technologies, particularly treatment walls, is
increasing rapidly. The third effort is the develop-
ment of a database called the Bioremediation  in the
Field System, which was developed by the
Bioremediation Field Initiative,  an affiliation of
government and industry representatives
working jointly to document the use of
bioremediation for soils and groundwater. This
database includes data on more than 400 sites for
which public information is available.'101

2.5  Research and Development

Future technology use also will be influenced by
technology development efforts, and the
perceived needs of industry. EPA and other
federal agencies currently are coordinating two
technology development programs directed
toward identifying and  implementing research,
development, and demonstration projects based
on user needs. Under these programs, the
Remediation Technologies Development Forum
(RTDF) and the Clean Sites Public-Private
Partnerships, 11 different technologies have
been identified for further efforts  (Exhibit 2-12).
                                                2-12

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                     Technology Trends at NPL Sites
                             Exhibit 2-10: Treatment Trains with Innovative
                         Treatment Technologies Selected for Remedial Sites
                                     Total Treatment Trains = 32
                                                               Incineration
                                        Bioremediation (3 sites)      (1 site)
                                     Solidification/
                                     Stabilization
                                       (2 sites)
                                        In Situ                               Soil
                                       Flushing          Solidification/        Washing   Bioventing
                                        (1 site)       Stabilization (3 sites)      (1 site)     (1 site)
                             Followed   _—_  or  ___         ___  or  === or 	
                                           Solidification/Stabilization (5 sites)
                                         Soil Vapor
                                         Extraction
                                           (1 site)
                                                                 Dechlorination
                                                                    (2 sites)
                                                                  Incineration    Vitrification
                                                                    (1 site)       (1 site)
                                                              or     BBBBBI   or
   Solidification/
Stabilization (3 sites)
   Solidification/
   Stabilization
     (3 sites)
                                         In Situ Bioremediation
                                               (3 sites)
                                     Soil Washing
          Note:   Includes technologies selected in FY 1982-1995 Records of Decision.

          Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office,
                 Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA-542-R-96-010,
                 November 1996.
All except one are technologies for in situ
treatment of soil or groundwater, and five
are bioremediation methods. The RTDF is
a consortium of partners from industry,
government, and academia who share the
common goal to develop more effective, less
costly hazardous waste characterization and
treatment technologies.'111 RTDF achieves this
               goal by identifying high priority needs for
               technology development. For each priority need,
               the RTDF organizes an Action Team composed of
               organizations who share that interest, to plan and
               conduct collaborative laboratory and field
               research and development. Although federal
               agencies provide in-kind contributions and
               funding, the formation of teams is driven by the
                                                    2-13

-------
 NPL Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                     Exhibit 2-11: Estimated Quantities of Soil to be Treated by
                               Innovative Technologies at NPL Sites

Technology
Soil Vapor Extraction
In Situ Bioremediation
In Situ Flushing
Soil Washing
Ex Situ Bioremediation
Dechlorination
Solvent Extraction
Thermal Desorption
Cyanide Oxidation
Contained Recovery of Oily
Wastes (CROW™)
Physical Separation
Plasma High Temperature
Metals Recovery
Vitrification
Total
Number of
Total Sites
137
26
16
9
43
4
5
50
1
1
1
1
3
297
Notes: Does not include sites conducting ex situ
Year 1992-1995 Records of Decision.
NPL Sites
Sites with
Data
118
12
12
8
35
4
5
43
1
1
1
1
1
242
Quantity
Range
11 -6,200,000
5,000 - 484,000
5,200 - 750,000
5,500 - 62,000
400 - 208,000
700 - 48,000
7,000- 100,000
250- 180,000





(Cubic Yards)
Average
250,130
106,108
97,383
23,263
34,591
27,700
27,540
26,813






Total
29,515,300
1,273,300
1,168,600
186,100
1,210,700
110,800
137,700
1, 153,000
3,000
200
8,000
65,000
4,600
34,836,300
SVE or treating sediments or sludge. Includes technologies selected in Fiscal
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment
Technologies: Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA-542-R-96-010, November 1996.
organizations responsible for site cleanups. Five
Action Teams have been established to date.
More information on the RTDF is available from
EPA's Technology Innovation Office (703-603-
9910).

Through the Clean  Sites Public-Private Partner-
ships for technology acceptance, EPA and Clean
Sites, Inc., a nonprofit firm, develop partnerships
between federal agencies, such as DOD and DOE,
and private industry site owners (responsible
parties, owner/operators) for the joint evaluation
of full-scale remediation technologies.'111 The
purpose of this program is to create demand for
new technologies by allowing the end users of
the technologies to  be involved throughout the
demonstration process. Typically, Clean Sites,
with the assistance  of federal agencies, identifies
and characterizes a candidate federal facility,
solicits industry participation, and brings together
the facility and private companies. Based on
common problems identified by these partners,
the host facility arranges for the procurement of
technologies for demonstration. The partners
develop evaluation plans and conduct the
demonstrations. Currently, there are six
evaluation projects under this program. More
information is available from the Technology
Innovation Office (703-603-9910).

Based on the technologies listed in Exhibit 2-12,
prospective users of innovative technologies are
interested in in situ processes that are generally
viewed as being cheaper, more acceptable to the
public, and posing lower risk to workers. There is
considerable interest in the use of SVE in
conjunction with several other technologies,
including dual-phase extraction, air sparging,
dynamic underground stripping, and rotary
steam drilling. Several processes entail the
                                                2-14

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                    Technology Trends at NPL Sites
                      Exhibit 2-12: Examples of Technology Needs Identified
                          by Users Participating in Two Federal Programs
Medium
In Situ Management of Soils
In Situ Management of
Groundwater
In Situ Management of Soil and
Groundwater
Ex Situ Management of Soil
Ex Situ Management of
Groundwater
Public/Private Partnerships
Lasagna™ (electroosmosis,
hydrofracturing treatment
zones)
• Anaerobic bioremediation
Permeable treatment walls
Air sparging
Rotary steam drilling
Dual-phase extraction
Enhanced bioslurry reactors
Membrane separation
Remediation Technologies
Development Forum
Lasagna™
Co-metabolic bioventing
Phytoremediation of metals
• Accelerated anaerobic bioremediation
Permeable treatment walls
Intrinsic bioremediation
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
creation of treatment zones (permeable barriers,
microbial filters, and the Lasagna™ process) and
the use of electric fields to mobilize both organics
and inorganics.

EPA and other federal agencies have other
active research and demonstration programs for
most types of innovative cleanup technologies.
Through the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) program, EPA has, for a
decade, been evaluating field-ready and emerging
innovative technologies offered by specific
companies. Under SITE, the Agency develops
reliable engineering, performance, and cost data
on these  technologies by field testing them on
hazardous wastes at existing sites or in a test
that duplicates site conditions. EPA selects
participants by soliciting and evaluating propo-
sals, and enters into cooperative agreements with
technology developers. By September  1996, EPA
had completed 86 field demonstrations and 53
bench-scale or early pilot-scale projects.1121
Section 3.5.4 describes how to access SITE  reports
and other information. The program has less
funding than in the past, and future funding
may depend on a new Superfund law. More
information on this program is available from
the National Risk Management Research
Laboratory (513-569-7696).

Lastly, to encourage the acceptance and use of
innovative cleanup technologies, the Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable sponsors a
coordinated effort by federal agencies to
document the cost and performance of remedia-
tion technologies. Case studies of selected
ongoing and completed remediation projects are
available on the Internet (http://www.frtr.gov).

2.6  Conclusions on Technology Trends

After a significant increase in the selection of
treatment technologies, especially innovative
technologies, in the early 1990s, the selection of
several technologies has levelled off or decreased
in the past two years, and the selection of
containment has become more common. Most of
the applications of innovative technologies for
Superfund cleanups have been to treat organic
contamination in soil. Three innovative
technologies account for over 75 percent of
innovative  technology applications:

 • SVE, which is primarily used to treat VOCs,
   is the most  commonly used innovative
   technology. The selection  of SVE relative to
   other technologies grew rapidly from 1986 to
   1989, fluctuated for the next few years, and
   declined in  1995. Enhancements, such as
   methods to increase soil permeability or
   contaminant volatility, may expand its
   applicability and improve performance.

 • Bioremediation  is the second most frequently
   selected innovative technology, and its
   selection has remained fairly constant over
                                                2-15

-------
 NPL Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
    the past several years. This trend may reflect
    a limit in the number of sites with contami-
    nants that can be treated by bioremediation in
    its current state of development. The
    contaminants most often treated by
    bioremediation are petroleum hydrocarbons
    and PAHs. Current bioremediation research
    could lead to improved performance and
    expand the types of contaminants amenable
    to biological degradation.

 •  Thermal desorption is the third most
    frequently selected innovative technology.
    The frequency of selection for this technology
    has remained relatively constant over the past
    five years. It is used primarily to treat VOCs,
    (particularly when  SVE is not feasible), and
    SVOCs, primarily PAHs and PCBs. Soils
    containing both metals and organics present
    another major treatment opportunity, since
    organics will volatize at  relatively low
    temperatures. Residuals  containing metals
    then can be treated by another technology,
    such as solidification/stabilization.

Relatively few innovative treatment methods are
being selected for metals-contaminated soils. The
most widely used technology for the treatment of
metals is solidification/stabilization, which has
been selected for 30 percent of the source control
projects at Superfund sites. The selection of this
technology has declined during the past two
years. Although solidification/stabilization has
several advantages, including low cost,  questions
remain concerning its effectiveness over time.
Consequently, the sites may require long-term
monitoring. New separation technologies such as
electrokinetics could provide alternative methods
for remediating metals in the future. Additional
field tests of these and other technologies are
needed.

Despite recent advances, about 93 percent of
remedies selected for groundwater continue
to rely on conventional pump-and-treat
technologies. Bioremediation and air sparging
are the most widely  used innovative in  situ
approaches. Usually, these  technologies are
applied in conjunction with pump-and-treat.
Research and demonstration efforts to develop
innovative methods for the treatment of ground-
water, which are enumerated in  Chapter 3,
include both biological and abiotic in situ
processes. Chapter 3 addresses additional factors
that may affect the demand for innovative
technologies for Superfund cleanups.
2.7  References

1.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Annual FY 96
    Superfund Management Reports, Draft, February 1997.

2.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA-542-R-96-
    010, November 1996.

3.   Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable, Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference
    Guide, Second Edition, EPA/542/B-94/013, NTIS PB95-104782, October 1994.

4.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation Office, Bibliography for Innovative Site Clean-up Technologies, EPA-542-B-96-003, September 1996.

5.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation Office, Federal Publications on Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective
    Action and Site Remediation, Fourth Edition, EPA-542-B-95-004, 1995.

6.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report Database  (ITT Database), EPA-
    542-C-96-002, Draft, January 1997.
                                                2-16

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
Technology Trends at NPL Sites
7.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Evaluation of Ground
    Water Extraction Remedies: Phase II, Volume 1, PB92-963346, February 1992.

8.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation  Office, In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Ground Water: An Inventory of Research and Field
    Demonstrations and Strategies for Improving Ground Water Remediation Technologies, EPA/500/K93/001,1993.

9.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste  and  Emergency Response,  In  Situ
    Remediation Technology Status Report:  Surfactant Enhancements, EPA542-K-94-003; Treatment Walls, EPA542-
    K-94-004;  Hydraulic  and  Pneumatic  Fracturing,  EPA542-K-94-005;  Cosolvents,  EPA542-K-94-006;
    Electrokinetics, EPA542-K-94-007; and Thermal Enhancements, EPA542-K-94-009; April 1995. A four-page
    summary report for these projects is also available: Emerging Abiotic In Situ Remediation Technologies for
    Ground Water and Soil, EPA542-S-95-001; April 1995.

10.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and Office  of
    Research and Development, Bioremediation in the Field, No. 12, EPA540-N-95-500, 1995.

11.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation Office, Partnerships for the Remediation of Hazardous Wastes, EPA-542-R-96-006, February 1997.

12.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Site Program Quarterly Status
    Report, October  11, 1996.
                                                2-17

-------
NPL Sites
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                                    This page intentionally left blank.
                                                    2-18

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                 NPL Sites
                                       CHAPTER 3
                        DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION  OF
                      NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST  SITES
This chapter presents estimates of the number,
location, size, characteristics, and cleanup costs of
hazardous waste sites placed on the Superfund
National Priorities List (NPL) and describes the
implications of these factors for the demand for
specific cleanup technologies. Because many
Superfund sites have  undergone detailed site
assessments, much information is available on
their characteristics. In addition, to the extent  that
Superfund sites are similar to those in other
cleanup programs, the remediation technologies
demanded for the Superfund program are likely
to reflect needs in other programs.

This chapter is closely related to the previous
chapter, which describes historical trends in the
selection of technologies and their
implementation at Superfund sites, the statutes
that authorize the Superfund program, the
history of the program, and the process used to
manage Superfund sites. While Chapter 2
addresses Superfund  sites for which remedies
have been selected and documented in Records of
Decision (RODs), Chapter 3 focuses primarily on
the  characteristics and potential remediation
technologies for sites  for which remedies have not
been selected.

3.1  Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup

Many technical, economic, public policy, and
legal factors have combined to determine the
number of sites currently included in the
Superfund program, the cleanup standards and
technologies to be used, and work schedule.
Because Superfund is facing reauthorization, it is
likely that legislative, budgetary, and regulatory
changes will occur during the next few years.
Some factors that could alter the scope of the
cleanup effort, as well as the technologies to be
used, are described below.

 •  EPA has added few sites to the NPL in recent
    years, and currently does not plan to change
    this policy. In addition, EPA has been
emphasizing the completion of remedial
designs and cleanup actions at sites already
listed, and is spending somewhat less effort
on the  conduct of remedial investigations and
feasibility studies (RI/FSs). The rate of
addition of new sites also may be influenced
by Congress through the EPA budget process
and the forthcoming reauthorization of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

In planning and implementing its cleanup
programs, EPA coordinates extensively with
various EPA offices, potentially responsible
parties (PRPs), state and planning authorities,
and local communities. These requirements
may influence the sequence of work and
types of technologies selected for a site.

Federal, state, and PRP funding for
Superfund site cleanups may fluctuate in the
future. For  Superfund remedial actions, the
states contribute 50 percent of the
construction and operation costs where they
own the site and 10 percent of operations and
maintenance (O&M) costs for all Superfund
actions in their state. Also, PRP contributions
to site remediation  may be affected  by
business conditions and EPA's enforcement
program activities.

Changes to the Superfund process proposed
in Congress over the past several years, as
well as EPA administrative reforms, could
significantly impact the total amount and
schedule of remediation work required, and
the types of technologies to be used. Some of
the proposals are listed below:

 — Change the federal and state cleanup
   standards that apply. For example,
   proposed  legislative changes may
   reinforce existing EPA administrative
   reforms to consider future land  use in
   setting cleanup goals.
                                               3-1

-------
 NPL Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
    — Emphasize the treatment and disposal of
       only the highly toxic or highly mobile
       contamination at a site. In this proposal,
       other waste could be contained and the
       current preference for permanent
       remedies would be removed or reduced.
       Changes to the mandate for permanent
       remedies could cause changes in the types
       of treatment technologies used.

    — Change the liability aspect of CERCLA to
       reduce the cost and time  needed to assign
       the liability for a cleanup project. This
       proposal would reinforce and build upon
       initiatives under EPA administrative
       reforms. If PRP liabilities are reduced,
       more funds may be needed from the
       Superfund or other federal programs,
       thereby creating additional competition
       for limited federal funds. Nevertheless,
       because of the expected reduction in
       litigation,  site cleanup decisions may
       occur more quickly.

    — Limit the addition of new sites to the
       NPL. This proposal may reduce the size
       of the future federal Superfund cleanup
       market and cause some sites to be
       transferred to other federal and state
       programs. Although some sites not listed
       on the  NPL are addressed under other
       programs, others may be addressed only
       minimally. In addition, the emphasis
       placed on innovative technologies by state
       programs  varies. As described in Chapters
       6 through 9 of this report, state and other
       federal cleanup actions are significantly
       affected by current budget conditions.

3.2  Number of Sites

The market for cleanup at NPL sites includes
those sites where  remedial action (RA)  is
scheduled, but has not yet begun. Remedial
action is the phase of cleanup that typically
involves construction, and in some cases
operation, of the remedial technology. As of
September 30,  1996, 547 proposed and final NPL
sites not owned by the federal government still
required at least one further remedial action.1'1
The location of these sites is shown in Exhibit 3-1.
An additional  124 NPL sites located at federal
facilities require one or more RAs. Federal
facilities on the NPL are included in the market
estimates provided in Chapters 6, 7, and 8.

For some of the 547 sites EPA has identified more
than one operable unit (OU) or part of the site for
which an RA is planned; the total number of OUs
with planned RAs is 726. Over one-third of these
OUs are undergoing remedial investigations and
feasibility studies (RI/FSs), and still awaiting the
selection of remedial technologies (Exhibit
3-2). For 53 percent, remedies have been selected,
but not implemented (i.e,. RA has not begun).
Although the specific technologies selected are
not included in this report, Chapter 2 enumerates
the treatment technologies selected through fiscal
year (FY) 1995 and provides references for
additional site-specific information. Appendix
Exhibit A-5 lists the names of the sites, OU
number, state, EPA  identification number, and
phase of the project.

Cleanup contractors for EPA-lead sites typically
are selected  after  the remedial design (RD) has
been completed. For PRP-lead sites, some PRPs
select a vendor to conduct both the RD and RA.
EPA estimates that PRPs will conduct RDs and
RAs at about 70 percent of the 547 sites.

This report does not estimate the smaller market
for remediation technologies in the Superfund
removal program. As of the end of FY 1996, the
EPA had conducted removal actions  at 3,450
sites, over 80 percent of which are not currently
NPL sites.'21  It is difficult, however, to predict
the number, type, and timing of the cleanup of
these sites. Removals are usually limited to one
year and $2  million, and historically have relied
less on innovative technologies  than have longer
term remedial actions. The innovative
technologies addressed in this report have been
used 32 times in 27  removal actions.131

Future NPL  Sites

The estimate of the future NPL market in this
report does not include future listings on the
NPL, which also represent a market for
remediation technologies.  The number of sites
that eventually will be listed is uncertain and
may depend upon forthcoming legislation to
reauthorize CERCLA. Between 1993 and July
1996, the Agency listed a total of 120 sites, or an
average of 30 per year. The characteristics of NPL
                                                3-2

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                                               NPL Sites
                 Exhibit 3-1: Location of NPL Sites with Planned Remedial Actions
                                                                                       31 to 66
                                                                                       11 to 30
                                                                                       6 to 10
                                                                                       1 to 5
                                                                                       0
     ,O
     Note:
     Source:
           HI
Includes 547 proposed and final National Priority List (NPL) sites not owned by the federal government.
U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, CERCLA Information System, September 30, 1996.
sites vary with the basis for listing and when the
listing occurs. The three basic mechanisms for
adding sites to the NPL are the following:

 •  Each state may nominate a total of one site
    without regard to its Hazard Ranking System
    (HRS) score;

 •  The Agency may propose for listing sites
    recommended by the Agency for Toxic
    Substances and Disease Registry; and
                                          • A site may be evaluated with the HRS, and if
                                            the score is above 28.5, that score could be
                                            used to support adding that site to the NPL.

                                         This  third mechanism is the primary tool used to
                                         add sites. Most of the sites currently listed on the
                                         NPL were ranked under the original HRS, which
                                         emphasized exposure to contaminated ground-
                                         water. The revised HRS also considers soil and
                                         sediment exposure and additional pathways.'41
                       Exhibit 3-2: Phase of Remediation of Operable Units at
                       Non-Federal NPL Sites with Planned Remedial Actions
Remedial
Assessment
Not Begun
76
Study
Under Way
263
Remedy
Selected
87
Design
Under Way
300
Total
Operable
Units
726
Note: Total sites equals 547; each site may contain more than one operable unit.
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, CERCLA Information System, September 30, 1996.

-------
 NPL Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
    Potential for Innovative Technology Use

Using trends from past years, EPA estimates that
about 15 percent of remedial actions for which
EPA has not selected remedies will  incorporate at
least one innovative technology. About 15 percent
of all RODs signed between FY 1990 and FY 1995
included at least one innovative technology,
primarily for source control (e.g., treatment of
soil). This percentage has varied widely from
year-to-year, from  six percent to 32  percent. This
percentage is greater if only source  control RODs
are considered (Exhibit 2-4). In  FY 1995, 22
percent of source control RODs included an
innovative technology.

3.3 Site Characteristics

This section describes how frequently certain
waste matrices and contaminants  are being
remediated at NPL sites. This information can be
used to estimate the potential to use certain
remedial technologies at NPL sites where RAs are
planned.

The analysis is based on a study of  sites with past
RODs. Out of 994 NPL sites with  RODs as of the
end of FY 1994, data on contaminants and
contaminated matrices are available for 944
sites.'51 Data are not available for the other 50
sites with RODs, many of which had "No
Action" RODs which did not call  for remediation.
Because these 944 sites represent 70 percent of the
1,355 sites ever listed or proposed for listing on
the NPL as of the end of FY 1994, EPA believes
that their characteristics are representative of
those of other NPL sites.

Exhibit 3-1 presents the  geographical location of
the 547 NPL sites for which future RAs are
planned. The data reflect the industrialized
nature of these regions and the number of
abandoned industrial and commercial facilities.
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, California,
and Michigan alone account for approximately 44
percent of these NPL sites.

3.3.1 Types of Contaminated Matrices

Exhibit 3-3 shows the percentage of NPL sites
remediated for various contaminated matrices: 76
percent of sites require remediation  of
groundwater, 72 percent of soil, 22 percent of
sediments, and 12 percent sludge. Because too
few sites with RODs contain data on other types
of wastes, such as waste piles, mine tailings, and
liquid wastes, a meaningful analysis for those
types of wastes could not be done.

3.3.2 Types of Contaminants

Sites with RODs were analyzed for the presence
of three major contaminant groups: volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), and metals. These broad
groups of contaminants were further divided into
more specific treatability subgroups (discussed
below) that better coincide with the application of
certain technologies, such as bioremediation. The
12 most frequently occurring  contaminants also
are identified. Appendix Exhibit A-2 lists
common chemicals in each group. With the
exception of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
and pesticides, which are grouped with SVOCs,
chemicals and elements are grouped in
accordance with EPA test methods for evaluating
solid waste.161

       Major Contaminant Groups

Exhibit 3-4 presents the frequency of cleanup of
the major contaminant groups. VOCs are to be
remediated at 71 percent of sites, followed by
metals (65 percent) and SVOCs (61 percent). For
this analysis the occurrence of a contaminant
group at a site is counted only once, whether or
not it was found in more than one matrix. These
data also indicate that the NPL sites tend to be
complex: all three groups (VOCs, SVOCs, and
metals) are to be remediated at 41 percent of the
sites and two groups are to be remediated at 25
percent of the sites, but not necessarily in the
same matrix. The sites listed as "others" only
contain contaminants described as radioactive
elements, non-metallic inorganics such as nitric
oxides, explosives and asbestos, or unspecified
organics  or inorganics.

   Subgroups of Volatile and Semivolatile
   Organics

Two of the major contaminant groups, VOCs and
SVOCs, were subdivided into more specific
treatability subgroups that better coincide with
the application of certain technologies, such as
bioremediation. Exhibit 3-5 shows the frequency
                                                3-4

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                               NPL Sites
             Exhibit 3-3: Frequencies of Contaminated Matrices at NPL Sites with  RODs
onn


800 —
700-
w
at
±i 600 -
CO
0 500-
1™
-Q 400™
-.2 300 —

onn


100-
X







X
A t£ I
>-
76%^







X"






X









KQA

rx-
j____l







X





s



206
X^ ^
I22%l 1 °9

	 fX" ^
12%l
x> 	 ' xi
                            Groundwater
Soil           Sediment         Sludge

      Matrix
Notes:  Based on data available for 944 National Priorities List sites with fiscal year 1982-1994 Records of Decision (RODs). A site may contain
       more than one contaminated matrix.

Source:  U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, ROD Information Directory, December 1995.
          Exhibit 3-4: Frequencies of Major Contaminant Groups at NPL Sites with RODs

_^, | | One Group
400 	
350 —

» 300
W 250 —
!„, ^00 °"™°™
•° 150 —
c
z 100 —

OU
n 	










| | Two Groups
[ Three
Groups
1 	 1 Others


25%
I
103


J
*"-4 "^S*1





^ 45
- L


Total VOCs = 674(71%)
Total Metals = 616(65%)
Total SVOCs = 574(61%)



25%
I!
93 90
in -— •" 	 3PH .^i ^JPM
41%







I

1^1- M -
: J U
^*2f* jfi*^ x5^*
^j|> i***^ WS**
L
388
«
-------
 NPL Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                           Exhibit 3-5: Frequencies of Major Contaminant
                                 Subgroups at NPL Sites with RODs
700—,

600—

w 500—
-S
55 400—
"o
»- 300—
01
J3
E 200—
3
Z
100—
n —
i***"














/
601
(64%)
x













?»












X
497
(53%)
^— —











5S"










i£
                                                                                     616
                                                                                    (65%)
                                                360    ,4n
                                               /oQo/ \   OHU
                                               (J«/oj  /ORO/,'
>/
%
!S»
r
-* 	 j
r**^
— •
y
r
227
(24°y
-*• 	
                        -4


                                        Contaminant Subgroups
                                                              (24%)   (24%)   (|°25/o)
 Notes:  Based on data available for 944 National Priorities List sites with fiscal year 1982-1994 Records of Decision (RODs). Contaminant information
       for 90 of the sites with data does not fall into these subgroups. A site may contain one or more of the nine contaminant subgroups.

 Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, ROD Information Directory, December 1995.
of cleanup of these subgroups as well as the
metals group. The subgroups are described
below, grouped according to the three major
contaminant groups:

 •  VOCs include: halogenated, BTEX (benzene,
    toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene), and other non-
    halogenated VOCs (ketones and alcohols).
    The most prevalent class of organics,
    halogenated VOCs, which are widely used as
    solvents, are being remediated at 601  (64
    percent) of the sites. With regard to BTEX,
    although many of these compounds result
    from petroleum products, CERCLA prohibits
    listing sites on the NPL that are  contaminated
    with petroleum products alone.

 •  SVOCs include: polychlorinated  biphenyls
    (PCBs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
    (PAHs), pesticides, phenols (including
    pentachlorophenol), and other SVOCs, which
    include chlorobenzene and phthalates. The
    most common SVOCs are PAHs and
    pesticides, to be addressed at 36 percent and
    24 percent of sites, respectively.

 •  Metals include: lead, arsenic, chromium,
    cadmium, zinc, nickel, and other less
    frequently found metals.

For this analysis, each subgroup was counted
only once per site, regardless of whether it
occurred alone, with other types of contaminants,
or in more than one matrix. Because more than
one contaminant subgroup can be present at a
site, the total number of occurrences is greater
than the total number of sites.

    Most Common Individual Contaminants

Exhibit  3-6 shows  the 12 contaminants most
commonly found to need remediation at NPL
sites. The  list contains five VOCs, six metals,
and one SVOC. Again, a contaminant is only
counted once for each site, even if it occurs in
more than one matrix; and more than one
contaminant can occur per site.

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                      NPL Sites
                           Exhibit 3-6: Frequencies of the Most Common
                               Contaminants at NPL Sites with RODs
            500
                     0    ,»     ^S>     s&
                                                   *>*   ^   ^    ^   :J>   .A^  ^
                                               Contaminants
    Notes:  Based on data available lor 944 National Priorities List sites with fiscal year 1982-1994 Records of Decision (RODs). A site
          may contain one or more of these contaminants.

    Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, ROD Information Directory, December 1995.
3.3.3  Estimated Quantities of Contaminated
Material

The market also can be described in terms of the
quantity of contaminated material to be
remediated. Fewer RODs contain quantity data
than the number that contain  contaminant and
matrix information. The RODs for ^2 percent of
the 994 sites with RODs contain information on
the quantities of soil, sludge, or sediment to be
remediated using any method (i.e., treatment,
containment, or off-site disposal). The data from
these sites  are used to characterize the quantities
of material requiring some type of remediation.

   Distribution of Quantities

Exhibit 3-7 presents  the distribution of the total
quantities per site of contaminated soil, sediment,
and sludge requiring remediation. Based on these
estimates, approximately 40 percent of the sites
are expected to contain 10,000 or fewer cubic
yards, and only 18 percent of the sites are
expected to contain  100,000 or more cubic yards
of contaminated material. These data indicate an
appreciable market for technologies that can
effectively treat small quantities of contaminated
media. These data include all available data on
material to be treated, contained, or disposed.
However, because reviews of RODs indicate that
quantities of waste to be capped often are not
documented in the ROD,  the proportion of sites
that contain large quantities of wastes may be
greater than the data indicate. The quantity
distributions for soil, sediment, and sludge,
which are shown in Appendix  Exhibit A-3,
indicate that about 90 percent of the sites with
data involve contaminated soil to be remediated.

    Quantities by Major Contaminant Group

The quantities of contaminated material  (soil,
sediment, and sludge) at the 547 non-federal NPL
sites with planned RAs  were estimated for the
three major contaminant groups (i.e., VOCs,
SVOCs, and metals) from estimates contained in
the RODs for sites containing similar
contaminants. The average quantity for each
contaminant group at the sites  with ROD data
was multiplied by the estimated number of sites
                                                 3-7

-------
 NPL Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                  Exhibit 3-7: Distribution of Total Quantities of Contaminated Soil,
                       Sediment, and Sludge at Selected NPL Sites with RODs
                                 >100,000 (18%
                                                                  < 1,000 (12%)
                  50,001-,100,000 (9%
               30,001-50,000(11%)
                         10,000-30,000(21%)
                                                                             1,000-5,000(16%)
                                                                 5,001-10,000(13%)
                                                         Cubic Yards

  Notes:  Based on data available for 944 National Priorities List sites with fiscal year 1982-1994 Records of Decision (RODs). See Appendix
        Exhibit A-3 for supporting data.

  Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, ROD Information Directory, December 1995.
that contain the same contaminant groups based
on the percentages in Exhibit 3-4. Statistical
outliers were not included in the calculation.

Exhibit 3-8 indicates the estimated quantities of
contaminated materials at NPL sites by
contaminant group. An estimated 33 million
cubic yards of soil, sludge, and sediment are to
be remediated at the sites.  Much of this material,
24 million cubic yards, is accounted for by
materials contaminated by metals, alone and in
combination with other contaminants. VOCs,
alone and combined with other contaminants,
total 23 million cubic yards; and  SVOCs total 21
million cubic yards.

In developing these estimates, it was assumed
that all of the contaminated material at a site
contained the contaminant groups present. The
average site quantities by contaminant group
varied from a low of 19,000 cubic yards for VOCs
alone to a high of 93,000 cubic yards for metals
alone. The details of the calculations are shown in
Appendix Exhibit A-4.
3.4 Estimated Cleanup Costs

EPA has estimated the value of the market for
746 OUs at the 547 non-federal facility NPL sites
with planned RAs. The estimated total RA cost
for non-federal Superfund sites that have not
begun RA is $6.7 billion in 1996 dollars. This
estimate does not include costs for federal facility
NPL sites, which are described in Chapters 6
through 8. The NPL site cost estimate also does
not include costs for site assessments and studies,
designs, operation and maintenance, long-term
response actions, removals, site  management,
administrative costs such  as payrolls, other
federal agency support, oversight of potentially
responsible party (PRP)-lead cleanups, and
enforcement activities. This estimate is based on
the following assumptions:

 •  EPA assumes that PRPs will be responsible
    for at least 70 percent of future RA starts.
    Seventy percent of the 746 OUs yields 522
    PRP-lead OUs: the remaining  224 OUs are
    fund- or state-lead.

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                       NPL Sites
          Exhibit 3-8: Estimated Quantity of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Sludge by
              Major Contaminant Groups at NPL Sites with Planned Remedial Actions
       Millions
          of
     Cubic Yards
14 —
12 —
A r\
i U
6 —
2 —
^
1
Total = 33.1 Million Cubic Yards
I \ One Group
I I Two Groups
I \ Three Groups
| | Others
4.6
L=E! ,^
3.0



--- —
3.6

r***l
arf«*
1.2
15.2
.**
p-
3.8


                          0%
                                                  •b-
                                        Contaminant Groups         ^o

  Notes:  These estimates are the quantities for 547 non-federal NPL sites that require remedial action. A site is counted only once. These values
        are derived from estimates in fiscal year 1982-1994 Records of Decision (RODs) for 420 sites containing similar contaminants. See Appendix
        Exhibit A-4 for supporting calculations.

        "Other" includes 52 sites that contain only radioactive elements, non-metallic inorganics, or unspecified organics or inorganics.

  Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, ROD Information Directory, December 1995.
 •  Based on a study sponsored by DOE, the
    costs of cleaning up PRP-lead sites are about
    15 percent less than those of fund-lead sites,
    on average.'71 These costs include site
    investigations, design, and construction.

 •  For fund-lead sites, the average RA cost is $10
    million per OU.[81 Using the previous
    assumption, the RA cost for a PRP-lead OU
    will average $8.5 million ($10.0  million minus
    15 percent). RA cost includes work conducted
    by the cleanup contractors,  oversight by EPA,
    and initial operation and maintenance costs.

Multiplying the above figures (224 OUs X $10
million + 522 X $8.5 million) results in the $6.7
billion total costs for both Fund-lead and PRP-
lead sites noted above.

Another indication of the amount of cleanup
effort needed is the size of the EPA Superfund
budget. Congress allocated $1.4 billion for FY
1997. These funds are allocated for direct and
indirect site activities,  oversight of PRP activities,
research and development, and program support.
The EPA budget does not include costs incurred
by PRPs, states, or other federal agencies.

3.5  Market Entry Considerations

Technology decisions for Superfund sites are
based on the specific information available for
each site and the state-of-the-art of the available
technologies. Information on new technologies is
particularly critical at two points in the decision-
making process: during remedy selection, and
during remedy design and procurement.
Technology vendors must be aware of the
information sources used as well as how site
managers consider their options during these two
cleanup phases.

3.5.1  Market Considerations During Remedy
Selection

The Superfund RI/FS process is an integrated,
phased approach to characterizing the site risks
and evaluating remedial alternatives. Early in
the RI/FS stage, technologies are identified

-------
 NPL Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
and screened with respect to technical
implementability, effectiveness, and relative cost.
To ensure that Superfund site managers and
consulting engineers consider a given technology,
it is important to make them aware of the
technology at this early stage. During the final
technology evaluation, later in the RI/FS,
technologies are compared  and evaluated using
the nine evaluation criteria specified in the
National Contingency Plan (NCP). Information on
technology performance and cost is particularly
important during this final evaluation. EPA and
engineering consulting firms (who usually
conduct the RI/FSs for EPA, states, and PRPs)
use a variety of information sources, many  of
which are described in Section 3.5.4, to identify
potential technologies. Since information for
innovative technologies may be limited,
treatability studies or on-site demonstrations may
be used to assess cost and performance.

While Superfund policies encourage the selection
and implementation of new technologies, the
Superfund remedy selection process can present
some hurdles for innovative technology vendors:

 • Information on many innovative technologies
   is limited. Superfund site managers and
   consulting engineers may not have as much
   information on the performance and cost of
   an innovative technology as for an established
   technology. The Agency and others have
   developed reports and databases to
   disseminate information about remedial
   technologies. Nonetheless, Superfund site
   managers may have difficulty comparing the
   merits of an innovative and a conventional
   technology if they do not have information on
   a technology's cost, implementability, short-
   and long-term effectiveness, and ability to
   reduce the toxicity, volume, or mobility of the
   contaminants.

 • Treatability studies and on-site
   demonstrations may be impractical. The NCP
   and EPA policy encourage the use of bench-
   or pilot-scale treatability studies, when
   appropriate and practical.'41  Furthermore, EPA
   policy stipulates that: promising new
    technologies should not be eliminated from
   consideration solely because of uncertainties in
    their performance and cost, particularly when
    timely treatability study could resolve those
    uncertainties.1^ In reality, the funding and
    schedule for site cleanup, as well as
    contracting and regulatory impediments,
    may preclude the use of studies and
    demonstrations.

 •  The RI/FS contractor may be prohibited from
    bidding on the RA. Also, for EPA-  and state-
    lead sites, the remedial design contractor at a
    site usually does not conduct the remedial
    action. A technology vendor that also
    provides RI/FS services should determine the
    relative value of the two opportunities before
    deciding which service to provide.

To make their capabilities more widely known,
technology vendors should consider participating
in the programs cited in Section 3.5.4, and
contacting remedial project managers (RPMs) and
consulting engineers. A vendor who  is interested
in a particular NPL site, may contact the assigned
EPA RPM for more information. The appropriate
EPA regional office,  listed in Appendix E, can
provide the identity of the RPM for a specific site.
Also, information on specific technologies may be
provided to consulting engineers for their
consideration in the  analysis of cleanup options.
Consulting engineers include firms under the
Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
(ARCS) or Remedial Action Contracting Strategy
(RACS) to conduct RI/FSs. A current list of
regional service contracts also is provided in
Appendix E. The Agency expects to award
additional RAC contracts in the future.

3.5.2 Market Considerations During Design and
Procurement

Once a remedy has been selected and
documented in a ROD, the project enters the
design process, where the details of the cleanup,
such as waste quantities and performance
standards, are more  clearly defined. At this stage,
federal and state agencies can make use of
technology information for preparing requests for
proposals and evaluating bids.

All  Superfund sites requiring cleanup for which
EPA has  the lead currently are funded by one of
the  following mechanisms:

 •  Remedial Action Contracting Strategy (RACS)
    and Alternative Remedial Contracting
                                                3-10

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                     NPL Sites
    Strategy (ARCS): EPA contracts with
    architecture/engineering (A/E) firms for the
    remedial program.

 •  Emergency Remedial Contracting Strategy
    (ERCS): EPA contracts with A/E firms for the
    removal program.

 •  Interagency Agreements (lAGs): EPA enters
    into agreements with the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, or other
    federal agencies.

 •  Cooperative Agreements (CAs): EPA enters
    into agreements with states, political
    subdivisions, or Native  American Tribes.

As previously stated, a list of regional service
contracts is included in Appendix E.

The three most definitive sources of information
on selected remedies for sites entering RD  and
RA are the ROD, the ROD Annual Report,[W] the
ROD CD-ROM, [111 and the Innovative
Technologies: Annual Status Report Database  (ITT
Database).1121 The ROD and the ROD Annual
Report provide detailed information on the site
contaminants and risks posed, the selected
remedy, estimated costs,  and associated cleanup
levels. The latest publication of the ROD Annual
Report is for FY 1992. The RODs on disk and
paper copies are available through the Superfund
automated phone request line (800-775-5037 or
202-260-8321) For innovative treatment and
selected established technologies, the ITT Database
provides more current summary information on
the contaminants and media to be remediated,
anticipated or actual cleanup schedule, and
expected site lead (EPA, state, PRP).

A vendor may use these publications to identify
opportunities. Vendors also may provide cost,
performance, and availability information to the
EPA RPM or state site manager and the site
remedial design firm or agency. Vendors can
enhance their responsiveness to requests for
proposals (RFPs) for site  remedial actions by
keeping abreast of site activities. Once an RFP has
been issued, the award of a contract may take
weeks or months.

3.5.3  Research and Development
Recent cuts in funding have reduced the number
and scope of research, development, and
demonstration programs conducted by federal
agencies, particularly those at EPA. Some
opportunities still exist for vendors who want to
work cooperatively with EPA, and the
Departments of Defense (DOD)  and Energy
(DOE). In many cases the programs involve other
industry partners as well. Some of the more
important efforts include the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program, the Remediation Technologies
Development Forum (RTDF), and the Clean Sites
Public-Private Partnerships project. These
programs involve on-site demonstration projects.
The three are discussed  in Section 2.5. Section
3.5.4 describes how to access SITE program
reports and other published information. In
addition, there is a coordinated  effort by federal
agencies to document the cost and performance
results of completed remediation projects.

3.5.4  Disseminating Innovative Technology
Information

Several sources of information on innovative and
established treatment technologies have been
developed to help potential technology users
identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives and
technology vendors. Some of the primary
resources of importance to both technology users
and suppliers are listed  below. Most of these
resources are available for downloading from the
Clean-Up Information System (CLU-IN) via
internet (http://www.clu-in.com) or modem (301-
589-8366). Voice help is  available at 301-589-8368.
The sources listed below also may be available
from EPA's National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI) voice (800-
490-9198 or 513-489-8190), or fax (513-489-8695).

 • Bioremediation in the  Field Search System
    (BFSS).[n] BFSS is a computer database of
   information on over 400 waste sites across the
   U.S. where bioremediation is being tested or
   implemented, or has been completed.  It is
   available for downloading from CLU-IN. To
   provide data for input into the next system
   update, vendors may call 617-674-7329, or fax:
   617-674-2851.

 •  Vendor Information System on Innovative
    Treatment Technologies (VISITT).[141 This
                                               3-11

-------
 NPL Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
   computer database allows users to quickly
   screen innovative technologies for particular
   applications. The EPA's Technology
   Innovation Office (TIO) released the latest
   version in August 1996, and updates the
   system annually. Version 5.0 contains current
   vendor-supplied information on 346 innova-
   tive treatment technologies to treat soil, both
   above ground and in place, groundwater in
   situ, and off-gas generated by innovative
   treatment systems. The information provided
   on each method includes contaminants and
   matrices treated, performance data, and
   project experience. VISITT is available from
   CLU-IN and NCEPI. Information on how to
   be included in VISITT is available from the
   VISITT/VendorFACTS Hotline at 800-245-
   4505 or 703-883-8448, or  on the internet at
   http: / /www.prcemi.com/visitt.

   Vendor Field Analytical and Characterization
   Technologies System (VendorFACTS).[l5]
   VendorFACTS is a computer database that
   provides information on innovative
   technologies used to measure or monitor
   hazardous contaminants at contaminated
   sites. The 128 technologies in the system
   address air, water, and soil.  VendorFACTS is
   available from CLU-IN and NCEPI.
   Information on how to be included in
   VendorFACTS is available from the
   VISITT/VendorFACTS Hotline (see above).
   TIO released the second  version of the
   database in March 1997.

   Groundwater Remediation  Technologies Analysis
   Center (GWRTAC). In 1995, EPA established
   GWRTAC at the National Environmental
   Technologies Applications Center (NETAC) in
   association with the University of Pittsburgh.
This center develops and disseminates
information on current research development and
demonstration efforts related to in situ
groundwater technologies. The Center also
analyzes trends in technology development.
GWRTAC operates a homepage at http://
www.gwrtac.org.

 •  Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
    (SITE) Program. Under this program, which is
    described in Section 3.5.3, EPA provides
    reports on completed SITE evaluations. The
    SITE Profiles describes each project and lists
    available reports.'161 The document may be
    ordered from the ORD publications office
    (513-569-7562) or viewed on the  internet  at
    http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE. Information
    on how to participate in the program is
    available from EPA's National Risk
    Management Research Laboratory at 513-569-
    7696.

 •  Technical Guidance. EPA, often jointly with
    other organizations, develops  guidance on
    specific types of innovative technologies. A
    list of selected references on innovative
    technologies is found in Bibliography for
    Innovative Site Cleanup Technologies, available
    from CLU-IN or  NCEPI.1171

Since these sources are often used in the
preparation of lists of cleanup alternatives or bid
documents, it is important that technology
vendors and developers ensure that information
on their products and services are represented. In
addition, joining and participating in activities of
various professional  societies and trade groups
may help a vendor promote specific capabilities.
3.6  References

1.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Annual FY 1996
    Superfund Management Reports, February 1997, Draft.

2.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Office  of  Emergency and Remedial Response,  CERCLA
    Information System (CERCLIS), 1996.

3.   U.S. Environmental protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA-542-R-96-
    010, November 1996.
                                               3-12

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
NPL Sites
4.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Hazard Ranking System; Final Rule," 55 Federal Register 51532,
    Vol 55, No. 241, Part II, December 14, 1990.

5.   U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office Emergency and Remedial Response, Record of Decision
    Information Directory, 1995.

6.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Test Methods for
    Evaluating Solid  Waste,  Physical/Chemical  Methods,"  Third  Edition,  Proposal  Update II,  PB94-170321,
    November 1992.

7.   U.S. Department  of Energy,  Office of Environmental Restoration and  Waste Management, Project
    Performance Study Update April 1996, prepared by Independent Project Analysis, Inc., 1996.

8.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, The Facts Speak for
    Themselves: A Fundamentally Different Superfund Program, November 1996.

9.   U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Initiatives to
    Promote Innovative Technology in  Waste Management,  OSWER Directive 9380.0-25, April 29, 1996.

10.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, ROD Annual Report
    FY 1992, PB93-963349, December 1993.

11.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Records of Decision
    (RODs), 1982-1994, (on CD-ROM), PB96-593551.

12.  U.S. Environmental protection Agency, EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report Database, EPA-542-C-95-002,
    September 1995.

13.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Bioremediation
    in the Field Search System (BFSS), EPA-540-R-95-508B, 1995.

14.  U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,  Office of Solid  Waste  and  Emergency  Response,  Vendor
    Information System for Innovative  Treatment Technologies, Version 5.0, EPA-542-C-96-003, 1996.

15.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,  Technology
    Innovation Office, Vendor Field Analytical & Characterization Technologies System (VendorFACTS), Version
    2, EPA-542-C-97-001, March 1997.

16.  U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office of Research and Development, Superfund Innovative
    Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program Profiles, Ninth Edition, EPA/540/R-97/502, December 1996.

17.  U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office Solid Waste  and  Emergency Response,  Technology
    Innovation Office, Bibliography for Innovative Site Clean-Up Technologies, EPA-542-B-96-003, August  1996.
                                                3-13

-------
NPL Sites
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                                    This page intentionally left blank.
                                                    3-14

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                          RCRA Corrective Action
                                       CHAPTER 4
                        DEMAND FOR  REMEDIATION  OF
                      RCRA  CORRECTIVE ACTION SITES
EPA estimates that over 6,000 facilities currently
operate or have operated as treatment, storage, or
disposal facilities (TSDFs) regulated under the
Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act (RCRA)
(42 U.S.C. UU6901-6922k). Prior to the creation of
RCRA, facilities that treated, stored, or disposed
of hazardous wastes often experienced releases of
wastes into the environment. Much of that waste,
which is similar to the hazardous wastes found at
Superfund sites, was disposed of intentionally or
unintentionally on the land. While not all RCRA
facilities will require remediation, this program
represents a substantial market for environmental
site characterization and remediation services.
EPA is authorized under RCRA and fully
committed to oversee the correction of past
contamination.

RCRA assigns the responsibility of corrective
action to facility owners and operators and
authorizes EPA to oversee  corrective action.
Unlike Superfund, RCRA responsibility is
delegated to states. EPA and authorized states
have completed initial assessments of potential
environmental contamination at over 70 percent
of RCRA facilities required by statute to address
corrective action, but are still examining the
extent of that contamination and the scope of
remediation needed. Environmental
contamination at many  RCRA facilities is
expected to be less severe than that at Superfund
sites, but a number of RCRA facilities have
corrective action problems  that could equal or
exceed those of many Superfund sites. EPA and
states authorized by EPA to provide corrective
action oversight expect  remediation of existing
contamination at RCRA facilities to extend into
the next century.

4.1  Program Description

RCRA mandates several regulatory programs, but
the largest is the waste  management program,
known as Subtitle C, which sets forth the
comprehensive national requirements for
managing the treatment, storage, disposal, and
recycling of solid and hazardous waste. Among
other provisions, Subtitle C establishes a
management system to control new hazardous
waste from the time of its generation to its
ultimate disposal ("cradle-to-grave"). Although
its primary purpose is to prevent releases of
wastes into the environment by minimizing waste
generation and by creating reuse and recycling
incentives, Subtitle C contains important require-
ments to address releases of contaminants from
RCRA facilities that will influence the nature and
amount of nationwide remediation activities.

Releases of contamination at RCRA facilities are
addressed under the RCRA corrective action
program, which is the  primary focus of this
chapter. Congress initially authorized EPA to
promulgate requirements for monitoring and
remediating only on-site releases to groundwater
from hazardous waste management units, such as
landfills. Later, with enactment of the 1984
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) of RCRA, Congress greatly expanded
EPA's corrective action authority to include
releases to all environmental media from
regulated solid waste management units
(SWMUs) at TSDFs seeking a permit under
Subtitle C. A solid waste management unit is  a
discernible unit in which solid wastes have been
placed at any time, irrespective of whether the
unit was intended for the management of solid or
hazardous wastes. This definition includes any
area of a facility at which solid wastes have been
routinely and systematically released. A release
may include intentional or accidental spillage,
leakage, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying,
discharging, injecting,  escaping, leaching,
dumping, or disposal of hazardous waste into the
environment.  It also includes the abandonment or
discarding of barrels, containers, and other closed
receptacles containing  hazardous wastes or
hazardous constituents. Both the RCRA corrective
action program for cleaning up past contami-
nation and the hazardous waste management
                                               4-1

-------
 RCRA Corrective Action
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
program for preventing contamination are
administered by EPA's Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) and by states EPA has authorized to
implement one or both programs.

In 1990 EPA prepared an overall strategy known
as the RCRA Implementation Study (RIS). The
strategy,  which was designed to encourage
corrective actions that produce the greatest near-
term environmental benefits, contains two key
components: to increase the use  of interim actions
that reduce imminent threats and prevent further
spread of contamination, and to  set national
priorities for directing resources to the highest
priority facilities."1

EPA established procedures for implementing
near-term corrective actions in the 1992 RCRA
Stabilization Strategy.'21 This strategy provides
guidelines for eliminating or controlling sources
of contamination and stabilizing contaminated
media at RCRA facilities to prevent the further
spread of contamination before long-term
cleanups can be undertaken. These actions are
similar to those undertaken in Superfund
emergency response actions but  place greater
emphasis on substantial action to prevent the
migration of contamination within and outside
the facility boundary.

Because of the anticipated magnitude of remedial
needs at  RCRA facilities, EPA developed a
computer-based system known as the RCRA
National Corrective Action Prioritization System
(NCAPS) to help establish priorities for corrective
action activities.131 Among the factors considered
in NCAPS are the history of hazardous waste
release, likelihood of human and environmental
exposure, and type and quantity of waste
handled at the facility.  NCAPS rankings are used
by EPA and the states in conjunction with other
considerations, such as enforcement history, to
assign relative priorities among facilities subject
to RCRA corrective action and allocate limited
oversight resources. RCRA facilities are ranked
high, medium, or low priority. Exhibit 4-1
presents the number of high-, mid-, and low-
priority facilities that EPA and the states have
ranked in each state and territory. In October
1995, there were approximately 1,540 high-
priority facilities, 1,116 mid-priority facilities,  and
1,175 low-priority facilities that had been ranked
across the nation. High-priority facilities are the
main focus of EPA's program to stabilize
contaminated media because of their perceived
threat to human health and the environment.

4.1.1  Corrective Action Process

EPA first set forth the procedural and technical
corrective action requirements in a 1990 proposed
rule (Subpart S in the RCRA Part 264 regulations,
July 27, 1990).[41 In scope and level of detail, this
1990 proposed rule was analogous to the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The 1990 proposed rule
includes provisions for the consideration of
cleanup standards,  action levels, remedy
selection, points of compliance, permitting and
reporting procedures, and other technical and
procedural issues. Although EPA has finalized
only a few sections of the 1990 proposal, the bulk
of the proposal has routinely been used as
guidance during corrective actions. EPA
published an Advanced Notice of Public
Rulemaking (ANPRM) in May 1996.151 It stresses
flexibility of the corrective action process by
including less detailed oversight, more emphasis
on results, and greater reliance on state programs.
The ANPRM is functioning  as guidance for the
program until a final rule is promulgated.

The corrective action process, which  is consistent
with other Agency  cleanup programs, generally
includes the following events:

    1)  EPA or an EPA-authorized state conducts
an initial assessment, termed a "RCRA Facility
Assessment" (RFA) of the TSDF. The RFA
involves identification and examination of a
facility's SWMUs to determine if a release has
occurred or if the potential for a release exists.

    2)  If the RFA reveals a release, the owner or
operator of the facility may  be required to
conduct  a "RCRA Facility Investigation"  (RFI),
which involves sampling and other efforts to
determine the nature and extent of contamination
and to fully characterize the site's geological and
hydrological conditions. Concurrent with the RFI,
the owner or operator may take near-term action
(such as  stabilization) to contain or remediate the
contamination. Near-term corrective actions
under the 1992 RCRA Stabilization Strategy may
take place at any time.
                                                4-2

-------
Exhibit 4-1: Priority Ranking of RCRA Facilities in Corrective Action Workload Universe
STATE OR
TERRITORY
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DC
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
RANKING
High
37
10
9
14
102
28
76
10
0
44
45
1
4
4
61
52
14
13
30
37
10
23
21
61
17
16
29
2
Mid
12
8
11
13
106
32
18
0
1
30
24
2
9
5
49
65
65
22
23
15
7
7
13
59
13
10
45
5
Low
9
3
40
7
212
48
11
3
0
9
21
0
6
6
87
63
16
8
11
11
0
8
6
54
46
6
18
1
Unranked
10
1
24
19
134
51
1
2
0
11
32
2
4
2
5
7
1
1
8
11
4
3
1
5
3
7
2
0
TOTAL
FACILITIES
68
22
84
53
554
159
106
15
1
94
122
5
23
17
202
187
96
44
72
74
21
41
41
179
79
39
94
8
STATE OR
TERRITORY
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New Hampshire
New York
North Dakota
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Trust Territories
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTALS
RANKING
High
10
2
63
11
3
88
3
30
89
18
18
106
9
5
35
2
28
87
1
12
3
1
48
33
31
24
10
1,540
Mid
18
5
52
5
1
32
1
25
69
16
10
28
14
1
13
1
9
84
0
5
2
0
9
25
5
17
0
1,116
Low
6
7
50
4
0
31
3
17
78
5
10
22
19
5
9
0
12
95
0
10
1
0
12
28
3
35
3
1,175
Unranked
3
6
61
4
0
30
1
18
16
4
5
18
11
0
11
0
21
112
1
7
3
0
23
14
2
1
5
728
TOTAL
FACILITIES
37
20
226
24
4
181
8
90
252
43
43
174
53
11
68
3
70
378
2
34
9
1
92
100
41
77
18
4,559
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, RCRIS National Oversight Database, October 17, 1995.
                                                                                                            0)


                                                                                                            Q.
                                                                                                            S-
                                                                                                            a
                                                                                                            o


                                                                                                           I



                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I

-------
 RCRA Corrective Action
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
    3)  The TSDF owner or operator is responsible
for performing a "Corrective Measures Study"
(CMS) to identify alternative measures for
remediating contaminated areas when needed.
Sometimes the CMS can be truncated or
eliminated if the remedial alternative is obvious.
The CMS also can be conducted concurrently
with the RFI or after the investigation has been
completed.

    4)  Upon approval of a remedy by the
regulatory  agency, the owner or operator may
begin "Corrective Measures Implementation"
(CMI), which includes designing, constructing,
maintaining, and monitoring the remedial
measures.

4.1.2  Corrective Action Implementation

    Permitting and Enforcement

Corrective  action may be implemented through
the RCRA permit process, state or federal
enforcement orders, or voluntarily. RCRA permits
are required for  all facilities that treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous waste. Section 3004 (u) of
HSWA, which is directed specifically toward
controlling releases from SWMUs, is the primary
authority requiring corrective action at permitted
TSDFs. It compels a facility owner or operator to
address SWMU releases resulting from past
disposal or recent contamination whenever
seeking a RCRA permit. Additional authority is
available under §3004 (v) of HSWA to require a
permitted TSDF  to clean up contamination
beyond the facility boundary. Thus, HSWA
requires all hazardous waste facilities that obtain
a RCRA permit after November 8, 1984, to take
corrective action for any releases from past
disposal or recent contamination from the facility,
including all SWMU and off-site releases. For a
TSDF operating  under interim status rather than
a RCRA permit,  EPA can invoke HSWA §3008(h),
which provides for enforcement orders, or state
orders in an authorized state, to address any
release of hazardous waste. The corrective action
process for both  permitting and enforcement
orders is similar.

For actual or potential releases not originating
from a SWMU, such as a one-time spill from a
vehicle traveling across a facility, or for releases
at TSDFs with permits that pre-date HSWA, EPA
may use its omnibus permitting authority
pursuant to HSWA §3005 (c) (3). This provision
allows EPA to modify the facility's permit as
necessary, requiring corrective action for any
potential threat to human health or the
environment. Also,  HSWA §7003 gives EPA
broad authority to seek injunctive relief in the
appropriate U.S. District  Court or to issue
administrative corrective action orders for any
waste from any source, including SWMUs, where
the handling, storage, treatment, transportation,
or disposal of solid or hazardous wastes may
pose an imminent and substantial danger to
public health or the environment.

To minimize the regulatory burden of RCRA
corrective action without endangering public
health or the environment, EPA has created
exemptions and special permits. For example,
EPA conditionally exempts from the Subtitle C
hazardous waste regulations any waste samples
collected solely for the purpose of monitoring or
testing the characteristics or composition of
RCRA facility contamination. Referred to as the
Treatability Studies Sample Exemption Rule,
which became final on February 18, 1994, the
exemption places limits on the quantity of
contaminated media that can be shipped, stored
at a laboratory or testing facility, and treated
there.161 The exemption rule also limits the
amount of time the contaminated media may be
retained  for analysis or treatment.

Special permits and modifications are available to
facilitate the development and application of
innovative treatment technologies. For example,
facility owners or operators may obtain RCRA
research, development and demonstration
(RD&D)  permits for pilot-scale evaluations of
treatment technologies. For on-site technology
demonstrations at corrective action sites, EPA, in
collaboration with the state, has the authority to
modify a permit or enforcement order by
granting a site-specific treatability variance for
contaminated soils and debris when the facility
cannot achieve the stringent technology-based
treatment standards in the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs). Other permitting options are
available through the Subpart X rule  of RCRA,
titled "Miscellaneous Units," which addresses
hazardous waste management units that do not
fit the current RCRA definition of container, tank,
surface impoundment, pile, land treatment unit,
                                                4-4

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                          RCRA Corrective Action
landfill, incinerator, boiler, industrial furnace, or
underground injection well.'71 For example, EPA
and the Department of Defense (DOD) have
worked together to dispose of munitions using
the permitting options available for pilot-scale
RD&D and the Subpart X rule.

       State Authorization

States are the primary implementors  of the RCRA
program, including RCRA corrective  action. As  of
December 1995, EPA has authorized  47 states,
some territories,  and the District of Columbia to
manage their own base programs for waste
management and prevention. Thirty-two of these
states and territories also were authorized to
implement RCRA corrective action. In addition,
many other states have for some time been
operating similar corrective action programs
under their own authorities. Prior to  granting a
state full authorization for corrective  action, EPA
regional offices may develop grants and
cooperative agreements under RCRA §3011
giving the state the lead for corrective action
oversight at specific facilities. Although
authorized state  programs must meet the
minimum federal requirements, a state may
adopt regulations that are more stringent than the
federal requirements.

4.2 Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup

The factors that are likely to impact the extent of
RCRA corrective actions relate to efforts to build
more flexibility into the application of national
standards to specific facilities.

Flexibility is needed primarily to facilitate  the
application of the Subtitle C hazardous waste
management requirements to contaminated
media that are the result  of corrective action,  and
to expedite the time consuming and expensive
permitting process.

Media containing hazardous waste from RCRA
corrective actions are  subject to the same Subtitle
C regulations that apply to the management of
newly-generated hazardous wastes. This
requirement can, however, be counterproductive
when applied to the cleanup of individual
facilities because it can impose unnecessary costs
and delays and limit cleanup options. For
example, application of Subtitle C LDRs can, in
some situations, cause selection of corrective
action remedies that are environmentally less
desirable (e.g., containment) and sometimes more
expensive than alternative remedies that
otherwise would have been considered.

EPA and the states have sought to address
contaminated media and permitting problems
through several regulatory and policy directives,
such as the LDR treatability variances for
contaminated soils and the regulations for
corrective action management units  (CAMUs)
and temporary units. However, the establishment
and implementation of the CAMU rule have been
difficult. Three rulemaking efforts will ultimately
influence the extent and nature of corrective
actions needed. These are  described below:

 • The final CAMU and temporary unit rule,
   published in 1993, was intended to result in
   more on-site treatment of greater volumes of
   remedial wastes at less cost and more
   expeditiously by providing EPA or
   authorized states with the authority to
   designate a site-specific area at a RCRA
   facility, called a CAMU, for the placement of
   remediation wastes without triggering LDR
   requirements.'81 The rule also promoted
   innovative technologies that are  appropriate
   for specific wastes and site characteristics.

   Although the CAMU rule has received broad
   support from many affected organizations, it
   is not clear how much impact it is having.
   The Environmental Defense Fund is
   concerned that the rule may result in
   unacceptably lenient treatment requirements
   and has challenged the legal and policy basis
   for the rule. The litigation, which has been
   stayed pending  publication of the final
   Hazardous Waste Identification Rule - Media
   (HWIR-Media),  has slowed application of the
   rule. EPA expects that the HWIR-Media rule
   will largely obviate the need for the CAMU
   rule, and is planning to propose withdrawal
   of the CAMU regulations as part of the
   HWIR-Media proposal (which is discussed
   below). In the meantime,  CAMUs may be
   used  to support efficient and protective
   cleanups.

 • EPA and the states, through a unique co-
   regulator effort, are developing a new
                                                4-5

-------
RCRA Corrective Action
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
  rulemaking called the Hazardous Waste
  Identification Rule for Contaminated Media
  (HWIR-Media). This proposed rule would
  modify the RCRA Subtitle C management
  requirements that apply to hazardous
  remediation wastes generated as a part of
  government-overseen cleanups  (such as those
  under RCRA corrective action, Superfund,
  and other state programs). HWIR-Media was
  proposed on April 29,  1996.'91 The proposal
  addressed a number of issues such as:
  exempting remediation wastes from certain
  Subtitle C management requirements;
  modifying land disposal restrictions;
  streamlining cleanup permit requirements
  (including exempting cleanup-only permits
  from the requirement for facility-wide
  corrective action); and streamlining state
  authorization. The rule would not address
  cleanup standards, remedy selection, or other
  "how clean is clean" issues. EPA expects that
  the final HWIR-Media rule will be an
  essential complement to the final RCRA
  Subpart S corrective action regulations. EPA
  and authorized states are committed to
  issuing regulations that reduce  cleanup
  delays, achieve regulatory relief, and protect
  human health and the environment.

  As described in Section 4.1.1, EPA published
  an Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking
  (ANPRM) in May 1996 which modifies
  technical and procedural corrective action
  requirements. The ANPRM is functioning  as
  guidance for the program until a final rule is
  promulgated.

  As part of the President's initiative for
  reinventing environmental regulations, the
  Administration has, with input from
  interested parties, identified potential
  legislative amendments to provide
  appropriate relief for high-cost, low-benefit
  RCRA provisions. The administration believes
  any reforms to RCRA should proceed
  separate from CERCLA reauthorization.

  A key area identified for potential legislative
  reform is the application  of the RCRA Subtitle
  C hazardous waste  management requirements
  to remediation wastes  managed during
  cleanups overseen by regulatory agencies.
  EPA believes that an alternative framework
    for remediation waste management could be
    developed that would protect human health
    and the environment while streamlining
    existing cleanups at RCRA, Superfund and
    Brownfield sites. This approach may stimulate
    a significant number of new cleanups, and
    significantly reduce costs for managing
    remediation wastes.

4.3  Number and Characteristics of Facilities

All facilities that are required to have RCRA
permits and those where the Agency has
discretionary authority to impose remediation are
subject to corrective action requirements.
However, not all  of these facilities will actually
require remediation, and until further study is
conducted, the number of RCRA facilities that
will require cleanup can only be estimated.
Nevertheless, EPA's database, which includes the
universe of potential corrective action facilities,
called the corrective action workload universe, as
well as two previous EPA studies, can be used to
estimate  the potential extent of corrective action
in the future.

4.3.1 Number and  Types of Facilities

As  of October 17, 1995 EPA's Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Information System (RCRIS), a
national program management and inventory
system on hazardous waste handlers, contained
information on 6,190 RCRA facilities where EPA
has discretionary or statutory authority to impose
corrective action when necessary.1101 Of these,
the corrective action workload universe contains
4,559 facilities that are required to address
corrective action because of permitting
requirements or because they already are
involved in some phase of corrective action.
Approximately seven  percent of them are federal
facilities. Facilities excluded  from this universe
are clean-closed facilities, facilities that have not
notified EPA or are late in notifying EPA that
they are handling hazardous wastes, and facilities
that have converted to less than 90-day storage of
hazardous waste. Technically, however, all of
these facilities are subject to RCRA permit
requirements and corrective action. Exhibit 4-2
shows the distribution of RCRA facilities in the
corrective action workload universe among the
states, and Exhibit 4-1  (above)  contains the
current numbers of facilities in this universe in
                                               4-6

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                            RCRA Corrective Action
                           Exhibit 4-2: Location of RCRA Corrective Action
                                    Facilities in EPA's 10 Regions
                                                                                  Number of Sites
                                                                                  H 301 to 600
                                                                                  Did to 300
                                                                                  Q 51 to 100
                                                                                  D 1 to 50
 Notes:  Includes 4,559 facilities in the Corrective Action Workload Universe (facilities with statutory requirements for corrective action due to permitting
       requirements and facilities where corrective action has been imposed).

 Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, RCRIS National Oversight Database, October 17, 1995.
each state or territory. Approximately 1,540 of the
facilities in the workload universe have been
ranked as high-priority sites under the RCRA
National Corrective Action Prioritization System.
Exhibit 4-3 shows the states in which high-
priority sites are located. Most states have under
31 high-priority facilities, nine states have over
60, and only Pennsylvania and California each
have over 100.

A RCRA facility may operate one or more types
of hazardous waste management processes,
which may lend insight into the  nature of the
cleanup needed. RCRA facility processes include
land disposal such as landfills, land treatment
units, surface impoundments, waste piles, and
underground injection wells; treatment or storage
in tanks or containers; and incineration. A waste
pile is any non-containerized accumulation of
solid, nonflowing hazardous waste that is used
for treatment or storage. The definitions of
other processes, including container, tank, surface
impoundment, landfill, incinerator, and injection
well, may be found in 40 CFR §260.10.[11]
Exhibit 4-4 presents the major processes operated
now or in the past by permitted, closing, or
closed facilities. Because each facility may be
performing more than one process, the total
number of processes exceeds the number of
facilities. Storage and treatment in tanks or
containers  account for 71 percent of the processes
reported, followed by land disposal at 26
percent, and incineration at three percent.

The Agency has developed two separate
estimates of the number of facilities likely to
require corrective action. These estimates, which
were  developed for different purposes, range
from  2,600 to 3,700 facilities  that are expected to
eventually require investigation and remediation
under the RCRA corrective action program.

The 1990 RCRA Implementation Study contained
an estimate of 3,700 RCRA facilities that would
likely require corrective action. In preparing this
estimate, EPA projected that of approximately
4,700  RCRA land disposal, incinerator, and
treatment and storage facilities in the  United
States at that time, about 80  percent, or 3,700
facilities, with about 64,000 SWMUs may need
                                                  4-7

-------
 RCRA Corrective Action
                                                                     Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                            Exhibit 4-3: Location of 1,540 High-Priority RCRA
                             Corrective Action Facilities in EPA's 10 Regions
                                                                                          Number of j
                                                                                           Facilities I
                                                                                         • 61 to 110|
                                                                                         Q 31 to 60 |
                                                                                         Q0to30  |
    Notes:  Based on 4,559 facilities in the Corrective Action Workload Universe (facilities with statutory requirements for corrective action due to
          permitting requirements and facilities where corrective action has been imposed).

    Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, RCRIS National Oversight Database, October 17, 1995.
                 Exhibit 4-4: Major Processes for Managing Waste at RCRA Facilities
                Land Disposal
                 Processes**
                    (2,953)
           v	y
           •  Underground Injection (67)

           ,  Landfill (536)

           »  Surface Impoundment (1,723)

               - Treatment (474)
               - Storage (880)
               - Disposal (369)

           •  Waste Pile (462)

           •  Land Application (165)

                                             Incinerator
                                            Processes**
                                               (421)
Storage and
 Treatment
Processes**
  (8,980)
                                                                           •Tank (3,835)

                                                                              -Treatment (1,334)

                                                                              -Storage (2,501)

                                                                           •Container (4,175)

                                                                           •Other (970)
Notes:


Source:   U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, RCRIS National Oversight Database, October 17, 1995
•Includes all 6,190 permitting, closing, and closed facilities in the Progress Universe of RCRIS.
**More than one type of process may apply at a single facility.

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                           RCRA Corrective Action
additional investigation or corrective action."1
About 3,000 facilities still needed a RFA to
determine whether there were releases.

A 1993 corrective action regulatory impact
analysis estimated that 2,600 facilities with 15,000
SWMUs would require corrective action for past,
current, or future environmental releases under
the 1990 proposed Subpart S rule.'121 The 15,000
SWMUs estimated to require corrective action
include about half of the facilities with landfills,
45 percent of facilities with surface
impoundments, and 10 percent of facilities with
tanks.  EPA developed these estimates by
analyzing random samples of federal and
nonfederal facilities and selecting a final sample
of 79, comprised of nine federal and 70 non-
federal facilities.

4.3.2  Characteristics and  Quantities of
Hazardous Waste

Information on the types of contaminants and
contaminated media found at corrective action
sites can indicate what kinds of cleanup
technologies will be needed. Although the
aforementioned EPA databases contain
preliminary information, data are not available to
thoroughly characterize the constituents and
waste volumes that will require cleanup at all
sites. Most facilities subject to corrective action
have not undergone a RFI, which would
characterize the extent of on- and off-site
environmental contamination.

Two separate studies provide an indication of the
nature of contaminants at RCRA corrective action
sites. In one study, EPA's  Technology Innovation
Office  obtained information on a total of 275
TSDFs from EPA's regional offices in 1992 and
1993 for the purpose of identifying relationships
between site  characteristics and the use of
innovative technologies at RCRA corrective action
sites.1131 At the 214 TSDFs where contamination
data were available, halogenated volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), the most prevalent of all
contaminant groups reported, were present at 60
percent of the TSDFs, followed by heavy metals
at 46 percent, and  nonhalogenated VOCs at 32
percent. Exhibit 4-5 presents the frequency of the
most common contaminant groups. Groundwater
(82 percent) and soil (61 percent) were the most
commonly reported contaminated media at the
256 TSDFs for which media data were available
(Exhibit 4-6). Many of the study facilities had
both soil and groundwater contamination.

The second study is the regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) developed to support the 1993
corrective action rule. This study utilized
information on a sample of 79 TSDFs to estimate
contamination that is likely to be present in soil
or groundwater at concentration levels that
would require action.1121 For some facilities, EPA
used a fate and transport model to predict  the
extent of current and future contamination. EPA
used a long-term modeling approach to simulate
contaminant concentrations over 128 years, from
1992 to 2119. EPA attempted to capture some of
the uncertainty associated with potential human
exposures and risk assessment in these long-term
projections.

Of the 2,600 TSDFs estimated to require
corrective action in the RIA, about 2,100
(80 percent) might have significant releases to on-
site groundwater, and at about half of these
facilities the size of these releases will be one acre
or less. Also, about 780  (30 percent) of the  2,600
TSDFs probably will have significant off-site
groundwater contamination.  Exhibit 4-7 displays
the projected extent of on-site groundwater
contamination over the modeling period for the
2,600 facilities.

The predominant contaminants expected in
groundwater are presented, along with their
concentration ranges, in Exhibit 4-8. The
concentration range for  each  constituent in  the
table is expressed relative to  EPA's action levels,
which are concentrations that are high enough to
trigger concern. The action levels referenced in
Exhibits 4-8 and 4-9 are directly or indirectly
derived from those used by the Agency in  the
1990 proposed corrective action rule by applying
assumptions given in that rule.141 In the proposed
rule, the Agency borrowed action levels from
existing programs, such as the Safe Drinking
Water Act's maximum contaminant levels.

For the RIA, EPA also estimated releases of
contaminants to soil at TSDFs that may require
corrective action. EPA used soil sampling data,
information on SWMU size, and expert judgment
to develop the estimates. Exhibit 4-10 presents the
percent of facilities projected to have varying
                                                4-9

-------
 RCRA Corrective Action
                                                              Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                    Exhibit 4-5: Frequency of Most Common Contaminant Groups
                             at a Sample of RCRA Corrective Action Sites
                     140 —
    Notes:
                                       Contaminant Subgroups
Total sites = 214
PAH = Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
                                                                                               78
    Source:  U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Analysis of Facility Corrective Action
           Data, January 1994.
                            Exhibit 4-6: Frequency of Contaminated Media
                                  at a Sample Corrective Action Sites
                 250
Note:   Total sites = 256
                                            Contaminated Media
Source:  U.S. EPA, Office of Solid \A6ste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Analysis of Facility Corrective Action
       Data, January 1994.
                                                   4-10

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                                       RCRA Corrective Action
           Exhibit 4-7:  Projected Extent of Baseline On-Site Groundwater Contamination
                              at 2,600 RCRA Corrective Action Facilities
              1200-
              1 GOD-

           OT
           ~   800-
t   600-
o
a>
E   400—
               200-
                                                   1,030

                                       560
                         480
                                                                400
                                                                             100

                                     <1           1-10         10-100

                                            Plume Area (acres)
                                                               100-1,000
>1,000
    Note:   Numbers do not add to 2,600 due to rounding.

    Source:  U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for
           the Final Rulemaking on Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units Proposed Methodology for Analysis,
           March 1993.
quantities of contaminated soil on-site, above
EPA action levels. On-site soil contaminant
concentrations above EPA action levels are
expected to occur at about 1,700 (68 percent) of
the 2,600 TSDFs estimated to require corrective
action. About 500 of the facilities (19 percent) are
estimated to  have between 60,000 and  10 million
cubic feet of  contaminated soil per facility, and
1,240 (48 percent) of the facilities are expected to
have under 60,000 cubic feet. 830 (32 percent) of
the facilities have no  soil contamination. The
predominant constituents above action levels in
on-site soil are presented in Exhibit 4-9 along
with their concentration ranges relative to EPA's
action levels.

Using a fate and transport model, EPA projected
off-site soil contamination in excess of  action
levels at about 200 (8 percent) of the 2,600
facilities likely to require corrective action. Other
media expected to be contaminated above action
levels include off-site surface waters at about 140
(5 percent) sites and air at less than one percent
of the 2,600 facilities.
                                           4.4 Estimated Cleanup Costs

                                           According to estimates derived from the 1993
                                           corrective action RIA,[12] it will cost $38.8 billion
                                           (undiscounted in 1996 dollars), or $14.9 million
                                           per facility, to implement the  1990 proposed
                                           Subpart S corrective action program. Approxi-
                                           mately 89 percent of this amount will be incurred
                                           by privately-owned facilities and the remaining
                                           11 percent by federal facilities. The estimated
                                           corrective action costs included in the RIA do not
                                           include those of the very large DOD and DOE
                                           facilities, although it includes  some smaller ones.
                                           Roughly half of the total cost  of corrective action
                                           would be incurred by slightly more than 10
                                           percent of the facilities expected to incur costs.

                                           (The cost estimate published in the RIA, $18.7
                                           billion, is the present value of the above figure,
                                           calculated using a seven percent discount rate
                                           and in 1992 dollars. The adjustment from 1992 to
                                           1996 dollars is based on the Department of
                                           Labor's Consumer Price Index for all
                                           commodities). These estimates may not include
                                           some long-term monitoring and administrative
                                                  4-11

-------
RCRA Corrective Action
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
             Exhibit 4-8: Predominant Constituents Projected Above Action Levels
                  in Groundwater at 2,100 RCRA Corrective Action Facilities
Constituent
Chromium
Benzene
Methylene Chloride
Arsenic
Lead
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Naphthalene
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Methyl Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Toluene
Cadmium
Nickel
Aniline
Selenium
Xylenes
Percent of
Facilities with
Constituent
47
30
23
20
20
18
17
14
11
10
10
10
10
10
7
7
3
3
3
Ratio of Concentration Levels to Action Levels
(mg/l)
Minimum Ratio
Estimated
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
20
2
30
15
2
1
2
3
3
160
6
1
Maximum Ratio
Estimated
8,330
488,680
10,830
7,760
3,550
108,210
730
349,640
11,000
640
190
20
6
2,440
91,240
1,570
900
2,060
4
Source: Adapted from Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Rulemaking on Corrective Action for Solid
Waste Management Units Proposed Methodology for Analysis, March 1993.
          Exhibit 4-9: Predominant Constituents Projected to be Above Action Levels
                       in Soil at 1,700 RCRA Corrective Action Facilities
Constituent
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Chromium
Arsenic
Percent of Facilities
with Constituent
26
16
13
13
Source: Adapted from Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Waste Management Units Proposed Methodology for Analysis,
Ratio of Concentration Levels
(mg/l)
Minimum Ratio
Estimated
1
1
0.01
0.1
Final Rulemaking on Corrective
March 1993.
to Action Levels
Maximum Ratio
Estimated
100
10
10
100
Action for Solid
                                            4-12

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                                RCRA Corrective Action
               Exhibit 4-10:  Projected Extent of Baseline On-Site Soil Contamination
                             at 2,600 RCRA Corrective Action Facilities
            m
            o>
            o
            OJ
            u_
            0)
            .n
            E
            3
            z
900

800-

700-

600-

500-

400-

300-

200-

100 —

  0
                           830
                                        530
                                                                 490
220
                                                                                         350
                                                                                     SltS:
                        150
                                      <10         10-20        20-60      60-1,000     1,000-10,000

                                             Thousands of Cubic Feet
 Note:   Numbers do not add to 2,600 due to rounding.

 Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid MMaste, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final
       Ru/emaking on Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units Proposed Methodology for Analysis, March 1993.
costs, which together would be less than ten
percent of total costs.

EPA projects that both overall and near-term
program costs are likely to be much lower than
those estimated in the RIA. Over the past few
years, implementation of the corrective action
program has shifted toward more risk-based
cleanups, largely as a result of the development
and publication of the May 1, 1996 Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for
Subpart S.[51 This shift represents a different
approach to remediation than that which was
modeled in the 1993 RIA. In addition,  the near-
term costs of the program are likely to be
reduced due to the ANPRM's emphasis on
stabilization remedies rather than permanent
remedies  in the short-term.

4.5 Market Entry Considerations

The responsibility for RCRA corrective action at
individual facilities lies  with the owners and
operators who  contract  directly with commercial
vendors for services. RCRA requires that owners
                                     and operators be aware of technologies that may
                                     be used and those that are subject to restrictions
                                     or are banned. Because there is no centralized
                                     source of RCRA facility information, vendors
                                     interested in the corrective action market will
                                     have to contact specific owners or operators to
                                     obtain information on an individual facility's
                                     corrective action requirements, waste charac-
                                     teristics, and cleanup needs. Many state
                                     hazardous waste agencies, and to a  lesser degree
                                     EPA regional offices, have additional information
                                     about the corrective action needs of facilities in
                                     their areas.

                                     4.6  Remedial Technologies

                                     Data on technology applications  for 186 TSDFs
                                     are available from an EPA study completed in
                                     1994.113] Of 133 facilities treating groundwater,
                                     pumping and treating was selected for 116 sites
                                     (87 percent) and innovative technologies were
                                     selected for nine sites  (7 percent). The innovative
                                     technologies include in situ bioremediation for
                                     four sites, ex situ bioremediation for two sites,
                                     and unspecified bioremediation,  thermal
                                                 4-13

-------
 RCRA Corrective Action
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
desorption, and chemical treatment for one site
each. Of 86 sites requiring soil treatment,
established technologies were selected for 55 sites
(64 percent) including capping and off-site
disposal for 51 sites, incineration for one site, and
others for three sites. Innovative technologies,
such as soil vapor extraction (SVE),
bioremediation, and chemical treatment were
selected for 31  (39 percent) of the sites requiring
soil treatment.  Of the innovative technologies
selected for soil, most are likely to be used to
remediate halogenated and nonhalogenated
VOCs in soil. Exhibit 4-11 summarizes specific
innovative and established technologies applied
or likely to be applied to soil contamination at
the 86 sites requiring soil treatment.

Information on technology applications also was
found in the Statements of Basis for 50 sites
collected by EPA. Based on these unpublished
documents, innovative source control
technologies (SVE and thermal desorption) were
chosen seven times to treat VOCs in soil. Pump-
and-treat was the most frequently selected
remedy to treat groundwater.
                              Exhibit 4-11: Remedies Selected for Soil
                               at 86  RCRA Corrective Action Facilities
                Established Technologies
                           Incineration (1)
                               Other (3)
                Capping (14)
          Off-site Disposal (37)
 Innovative Technologies
  Soil Vapor Extraction (12)
                                                                 In Situ Bioremediation (9)
                                                                  Ex Situ Bioremediation (8)
                                                                 Chemical Treatment (1)
                                                                Unspecified Bioremediation (1)
  Note:   More than one technology may be used at a single site.

  Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Analysis
        of Facility Corrective Action Data, January 1994.
                                                 4-14

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
RCRA Corrective Action
4.7  References

1.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, The Nation's
    Hazardous Waste Management Program at a Crossroads: The RCRA Implementation Study, EPA/530-SW-
    90-069, 1990.

2.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, RCRA Stabilization Strategy, October 25,
    1991.

3.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, RCRA
    National Corrective Action Prioritization System Guidelines  (Revised), August 1992.

4.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Corrective Action for Solid Waste
    Management Units (SWMUs) at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities; Proposed Rule (40 CFR Parts 264,
    265, 270,  and 217), 55 Federal Register, No. 145, pp. 30798-30884, July 27, 1990.

5.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corrective Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management
    Units at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities; Proposed Rule, ANPRM, 40 CFR,  61 Federal Register
    Number  85, pp 19431-19464,  May 1, 1996.

6.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Management System:
    Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste;  Treatability Studies Sample Exclusion; Final Rule (59 Federal
    Register, p. 8362), February 18, 1994.

7.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous Units, Applicable to Owners and
    Operators; Final Rule (52 Federal Register, p. 46946), December 10, 1987.

8.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Corrective Action Management Units and
    Temporary Units; Corrective Action Provisions Under Subtitle C; Final Rule (58 Federal Register, p. 8658),
    February 16, 1993.

9.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Identification Rule; Proposed Rule, 61 Federal
    Register, p. 18780, April 29, 1996.

10.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Resource Conservation and Recovery
    Information System (RCRIS) National Oversight Database, October 17, 1995.

11.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Part 260.10, 45 Federal Register, p. 33066, May 19, 1980.

12.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
    Final Rulemaking on Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management  Units Proposed Methodology for
    Analysis,  March 1993.

13.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation Office, Draft Analysis of Facility Corrective Action Data, January 1994.
                                                 4-15

-------
RCRA Corrective Action
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                                    This page intentionally left blank.
                                                   4-16

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                   Underground Storage Tank Sites
                                       CHAPTER 5
                        DEMAND FOR  REMEDIATION  OF
                  UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES
Millions of underground storage tanks (USTs)
containing petroleum products or hazardous
chemicals are located throughout the United
States. USTs are used by a wide variety of
industries, such as petroleum and chemical
manufacturing and distribution, transportation,
agriculture, and government. About 1.1 million
active tanks are currently subject to federal
regulations, and about 96 percent of these contain
petroleum products, including used oil. Less than
1 percent contain hazardous materials and 2
percent are empty. In addition, about one million
federally regulated USTs have been closed.

Releases of petroleum or hazardous substances
can result from a spill during tank filling
operations, leaks in the tank or pipes attached to
the tank due to corrosion, structural failure, or
faulty installation. As of September 1996 almost
318,000 releases at federally regulated USTs had
been confirmed, and more are expected. These
releases can contaminate soil and groundwater
and cause fires or explosions.

Subtitle I of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), was enacted in 1984  to
control and prevent leaks and spills from USTs.
Subtitle I governs USTs storing regulated
substances, including gasoline, aviation fuel,
diesel fuel, other petroleum products,  and
hazardous substances defined under the
Superfund program. Pursuant to Subtitle I,  EPA
has promulgated regulations requiring, among
other things, that leaks and spills be detected and
reported, contamination caused by leaks and
spills be remediated, future releases be prevented,
and each state has a regulatory program for USTs
that is at least as stringent as that under the
federal regulations. These regulations have
compelled cleanup activities at many UST sites,
providing opportunities for the application  of a
variety of remedial technologies.
5.1  Program Description

The federal regulatory program is implemented
by EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks
(OUST). The federal UST technical requirements
and state program approval regulations were
promulgated in September 1988, and became
effective on December 22, 1988.m These
regulations, to a large extent, determine the size
of the market for cleanup services.

The regulations apply to any UST, except those
specifically exempted, used to store petroleum
products or substances defined as hazardous
under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). The regulations do not apply to tanks
storing hazardous wastes regulated under Subtitle
C of RCRA. An UST is defined as any tank that
has at least 10 percent of its volume buried below
ground, including piping connected to the tank.
Generally, the requirements for tanks containing
chemicals are somewhat more stringent than
those containing petroleum products.

The basic federal requirements include:

 • A tank owner must register his or her  tank(s)
   with the state  authority by completing a
   notification form about the characteristics and
   contents of the UST.

 • A tank owner must institute a periodic
   leak detection program to actively seek out
   releases. For tanks installed after December
    1988, leak detection requirements become
   effective at the time of installation. For older
   tanks, the requirements were phased in over
   time with a final completion date in
   December  1993.

 • A tank owner must maintain records of leak
   detection activities, corrosion protection
                                               5-1

-------
 Underground Storage Tank Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
    system inspections, repair and maintenance
    activities, and post-closure site assessments.

 •  A tank owner must notify the appropriate
    regulatory authority of all suspected or
    confirmed releases as well  as follow-up
    actions taken or planned. Suspected leaks
    must be investigated immediately to
    determine if they are real. If evidence of
    environmental damage is the cause for
    suspicion, it must be reported immediately to
    the regulatory  authority.

 •  If a leak or spill is confirmed, tank owners
    must: (a) take immediate action  to stop and
    contain the leak or spill;  (b) notify the
    regulatory authority within 24 hours or other
    reasonable time periods specified by the
    implementing agency;  and (c) take action to
    mitigate further damage to people and the
    environment.

 •  By December 1998, all USTs must have
    corrosion protection and devices that prevent
    spills and overfills.

 •  A tank owner also has the  option of closing
    USTs, but must notify the regulatory
    authority 30 days before permanent closure.

In addition to providing performance standards,
the regulations establish requirements that a state
must meet to receive EPA approval for its
program. State or local authorities may have
requirements that are somewhat different or more
stringent. All states and territories have passed
legislation for UST cleanups, and 45 states have
state trust funds. The following kinds of tanks are
currently exempt from the regulations:

 •  Farm and residential tanks holding 1,100
    gallons or less  of motor fuel used for non-
    commercial purposes;
 •  Tanks storing heating oil used on the
    premises where it is stored;
 •  Storage tanks on or above the floor of areas
    such  as basements or tunnels;
 •  Septic tanks and systems for collecting storm
    water and wastewater;
 •  Flow-through process tanks;
 •  Tanks holding  110 gallons or less; and
 •  Emergency spill and overfill tanks.
Changes in the types of tanks covered by the
regulations could significantly impact the
potential size of the market. However, EPA is not
contemplating any such changes at this time.

5.2  Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup

The demand for remediation services at
contaminated UST sites primarily will be
influenced by federal regulations, state
requirements, and the number of releases
occurring at old and new tanks. Specifically, the
following factors affect this market:

 • The implementation of leak detection require-
   ments (which became effective in 1993), in
   combination with the reporting requirements,
   have led to a large number of confirmed
   releases.

 • The implementation of tank upgrading
   requirements, which become effective in 1998,
   is expected to cause an increase in the
   reporting of releases.

 • Over a longer period of time, after 1998, it is
   anticipated that the  rate of occurrence  of
   confirmed releases will decline, because the
   failure rate  of tanks will eventually decrease
   as a result of improved tank systems.

 • Some states have promulgated requirements
   that are more stringent than the federal
   standards, such as a requirement for double-
   lined tanks, more stringent monitoring
   procedures, or earlier upgrading  compliance
   dates.

 • The pace of the cleanups will be  affected
   by the adequacy of the reimbursement funds
   used by 45  states to help pay for needed
   cleanups. Most of the cost of UST cleanups by
   responsible parties (RPs) in these states are
   now paid out of these funds, and some of
   them often  do  not have sufficient money to
   clean up all of the eligible sites in a given
   year. The Federal Trust Fund accounts for a
   smaller portion of expenditures on UST
   cleanups than the state funds. These funds
   may be used for the oversight of RP cleanups
   and direct state cleanups where the RPs are
   insolvent, recalcitrant, or cannot be identified
   or located.
                                                5-2

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                    Underground Storage Tank Sites
 •  The failure rate of tank systems is determined
    by such factors as tank age, material of
    construction, corrosion protection systems in
    place, and other design and site-specific
    factors such as soil type and weather. Because
    information on these factors is limited,
    estimates of market size are subject to some
    uncertainty. The estimates in the following
    section are based on the current RCRA
    requirements and available data.

 •  The availability of credit to UST owners,
    especially the many small businesses that
    operate USTs, is necessary to assist  them in
    meeting their obligations to upgrade,
    maintain, and otherwise comply with RCRA
    Subtitle I and related environmental
    requirements. In September 1995, EPA
    promulgated regulations to encourage the
    extension of credit to credit-worthy UST
    owners. These regulations exempt from the
    definition of UST "owner" for purposes of
    corrective action persons who  maintain an
    indicia of ownership in an UST or UST
    system primarily to protect a security interest,
    but are not otherwise engaged in  petroleum
    production, refining, and marketing. Thus,
    any person or lending institution  that
    guarantees loans secured by real estate
    containing an UST or UST system may not be
    liable for the required corrective action.121

5.3 Number and Characteristics of Sites

The data on the number and status of currently
registered USTs are derived from data that EPA
compiled from reports it periodically receives
from 56 states and territories. States compile their
data from information received from  tank
owners. The information in this chapter on the
size, contents, construction materials, and other
characteristics of USTs are derived from a survey
EPA conducted in 1991.131 Although this source
is the most complete nationwide compilation of
tank characteristics, the types  and characteristics
of the tank population has probably changed
since it was conducted.  Since then, over 600,000
tanks have been closed and newer tanks tend to
be larger than older tanks. Thus, these data
should be considered as an approximation of
the distribution of the tank population.

Reporting quality varies among the states and has
resulted in some under-reporting of the number
of tanks subject to the regulations. Estimates of
the extent of under-counting range from 15
percent to 80 percent.a However, since conditions
probably have changed in the six years since
these estimates were compiled, these  factors are
not included in the estimates provided here.

EPA reports most of these data in terms of the
numbers of tanks.  However, for purposes of this
study, the data also are converted to  "number of
UST sites." EPA estimates that there is an average
of 2.7 tanks per UST site, although the number
actually varies widely among the sites.

5.3.1  Number of USTs

The number of potential corrective actions are
related to the population of active and closed
tanks subject to the federal regulations. EPA
reports that as of September 30, 1996, 1,064,478
active tanks and 1,074,022  closed tanks have been
registered in  the U.S.'41 Using EPA's estimated
average of the 2.7 tanks per site, approximately
792,037 sites with USTs are subject to the UST
corrective action regulations. Estimates of the
percentage of sites that are likely to leak and
require cleanup of contaminated soils or
groundwater are presented later in this section.

In 1988, EPA estimated that there were between 5
and 7 million USTs.111 Taking the midpoint of this
range implies a total UST population of 6.0
million, of which 2.1 million active and closed
USTs are currently subject to the regulations. The
remaining 3.9 million tanks are exempt from the
federal regulations  and not included as part of
the market for remediation services in this report.
Section 5.1 identifies the seven exempt categories
of tanks. Although the exempt tanks are not
considered part of the market in this  report, they,
a   Bueckman, Donna S., S. Kumar, and M. Russell, Underground Storage Tanks: Resource Requirements For Corrective Action,
pages 17-19 and 31, Waste Management Research and Education Institute, University of Tennessee, December  1991 reports this
range based on a review of several surveys. Based on this review, the authors estimated the average under-counting for the country
to be 35%.
                                                 5-3

-------
 Underground Storage Tank Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
nevertheless, represent a potential for cleanup
work in selected states where state regulations
include some exempt tanks.

The following sections describe some basic
characteristics of the federally regulated sites,
such as their contents, ownership, size, and age.
These descriptions are based on data collected by
EPA in 1991, which is the most comprehensive
source for this type of data identified. Although
some characteristics of the tank population, such
as average tank size, probably have changed
since 1991, these data are the only national source
available.

5.3.2  Types of Contaminants Found at UST
Sites

The substances stored in RCRA-regulated tanks
in 1991 are depicted in Exhibit 5-1. Most USTs
contain petroleum products, which are mixtures
of four types of hydrocarbons: paraffins, olefins,
napthalenes, and aromatics. The literature
contains  data on the concentrations of benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) in
gasoline  and diesel fuel, but information on the
concentration of these constituents in other petro-
leum products is more limited. BTEX compounds
also have been detected in soil and other media
at UST sites where gasoline is stored.'51

5.3.3  Ownership of Tanks

In 1991, private  companies and individuals
owned 69 percent of the tanks, state and local
governments owned 8.4 percent,  and the federal
government and Indian tribes owned 2.2 percent.
The ownership of the remaining  20.4 percent has
not been identified.

5.3.4  Size and Age of Tanks

The size and age of a tank may contribute to the
extent of the contamination and to the type of
work needed at  a site. Exhibit 5-2 shows the
number of tanks of different sizes reported in the
EPA survey, as of Spring 1991. Almost two-thirds
of the tanks were between 2,000 and 30,000
gallons, and 28 percent were between 100  and
2,000 gallons. However, the size distribution may
have changed somewhat over the past five years
because newer facilities tend to have larger tanks,
on average,  than older facilities, and the tanks
that have closed  are primarily older.
                            Exhibit 5-1: Contents of Federally Regulated
                            Active and Closed Tanks as of Spring 1991
                                   Used Oil (3%)
                                                             Diesel Fuel (20%)
                Gasoline (62%)
                 Kerosine (3%)
                 Heating Oil (3%)
                 Empty (2%)

                 Other (5%)

              Hazardous Material (2%)
  Notes:   Based on a survey involving 1.6 million active and closed tanks in the spring of 1991. The distribution of USTs probably has changed
         somewhat, since approximately 600,000 tanks have closed since 1991.

  Source:  U.S. EPA, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, National Survey of Underground Storage Tanks, Spring 1991.
                                                 5-4

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                       Underground Storage Tank Sites
                   Exhibit 5-2: Size of Federally Regulated Tanks as of Spring 1991
                        700-i
                        600—
                    J2  SOD-)
"B   400-
in
TO
I   300-
w
3
o
j5   200™
                        100-
                          650
                                   409
                                                          336
                                                                                   66
                                                                       12
            0.1-2        2-10        10-30
                          Thousands of Gallons
                                                                     30+
Unknown
     Note: Based on data on 1.5 million active and closed tanks in Spring 1991. The size distribution of USTs probably has changed because
          approximately 600,000 tanks have closed since 1991 and the newer facilities tend to have larger tanks.

    Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, National Survey of Underground Storage Tanks, Spring 1991.
Exhibit 5-3 shows the age of federally regulated
tanks, including closed tanks. The probability of a
leak is directly related to tank age. In  1991, 28
percent of the regulated tanks were over 25 years
old. Data are not available on the current
distribution of tank age.

5.3.5  Location of Regulated Tanks

Appendix B lists the number of regulated tank
sites by state, as reported in September 1996.
California, Texas,  New York, Florida, North
Carolina, Michigan, and Pennsylvania contain
almost 40 percent of all active and closed tanks.
The location data should be used with caution
because the number of tanks in a state may not
be correlated with the number  of releases, and
reporting quality varies among the states.

5.3.6  Potential Number of Sites to be Cleaned
Up

EPA has estimated that the number of confirmed
releases ultimately will total at least 418,000.b By
                                  September 1996, almost 318,000 of these releases
                                  had already been reported to EPA, and remedial
                                  design or remedial action had been initiated at
                                  almost 253,000 of these sites. Thus, it is estimated
                                  that 165,000 UST sites will ultimately need
                                  remediation (Exhibit 5-4).

                                  Although the size of the entire market has been
                                  estimated, the year-to-year fluctuations in cleanup
                                  efforts are difficult to predict.  EPA estimates
                                  that the RCRA UST requirements probably will
                                  cause an increase in the number of releases
                                  reported, followed by a decrease. The increase
                                  will result from the phase-in of tank upgrading
                                  requirements  in  1998. The decline in confirmed
                                  releases will result from improvements in the
                                  types of tank  systems and leak detection and
                                  monitoring practices required by RCRA.  Exhibit
                                  5-5 shows the corrective action activity for the
                                  past six years. The difference between confirmed
                                  releases and cleanups initiated has averaged over
                                  64,000 for the past four years.
b   Although the number of confirmed releases may not precisely equal the number of sites with releases, EPA estimates that the
difference is small. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis it is assumed that the number of confirmed releases equals the number
of sites with releases.
                                                  5-5

-------
 Underground Storage Tank Sites
                                                      Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                  Exhibit 5-3: Age of Federally Regulated Tanks as of Spring 1991
   450 -,

   400 -

w  350 -

£  300

°  250
w
1  200-1
w
o  150—1
f
H  100

    50
                      0
                                                                              435
                                        277
                                                 264
                              222
                                                           219
                                                                    149
                            0-5       6-10      11-15     16-20
                                           Tank Age in Years
                                                 21-25
25+
    Note:
          Based on a survey of 1.6 million active and closed tanks in Spring 1991. The 600,000 tanks that have closed since 1991 tend
          to be older tanks. The age distribution probably has changed somewhat.
  Source:   U.S. EPA, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, National Survey of Underground Storage Tanks, Spring 1991.
5.3.7  Quantities of Contaminated Material

The volume of soil to be cleaned up varies widely
from one site to another. A 1990 EPA survey
provided data from 16 states on the average
volume of soil  and debris excavated at UST sites.
The median volume for the 16 states ranged from
9 to 800  cubic yards, with a weighted average of
190. Multiplying this average by the number of
sites expected to need remediation (165,000)
results in an estimated 31.4 million cubic yards of
material needing remediation. No information is
available on the quantities of groundwater and
surface water needing remediation.
                                      5.4  Estimated Cleanup Costs

                                      Based on a review of literature and data, the
                                      University of Tennessee reported that the cost of
                                      remediating UST sites had varied widely, general-
                                      ly between $2,000 to over $400,000. Costs at
                                      individual sites can exceed a million  dollars.'61
                                      Based on experience with a limited number of
                                      projects, EPA estimates that the average remedia-
                                      tion cost per site  is $125,000. This cost estimate
                                      includes treatment or disposal of soil and ground-
                                      water, site investigations, and feasibility studies.
                                      It does not include costs related to  excavating,
                                      disposing  of, or repairing tanks and related
                   Exhibit 5-4: Estimated Number of UST Sites Requiring Cleanup

Confirmed Releases
Cleanups Initiated3
Future Cleanups Required13
Reported to EPA
318,000
253,000
65,000
Sites with Future
Releases
100,000
0
100,000
Total
418,000
253,000
165,000
Notes:
a Some of these sites may not yet have designated cleanup contractors, but how many is not known.
b "Future Cleanups Required" is derived by subtracting "Cleanups Initiated" from "Confirmed Releases."
                                                  5-6

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                                 Underground Storage Tank Sites
                     Exhibit 5-5: Status of LIST Corrective Actions (Cumulative)
        350'
      to
      §• 300'
      c
      to
      J2
      O 250
      O
      tO
      tO
      03
      CD
200 —
         150 —
      O
      -g  100
      c
      (8
      to
      3
      O
 50 —
                          -O- Confirmed Releases
                          -»- Cleanups Initiated
                          -*- Cleanups Completed
                                                                               304
                                                           271
                                                                                            318
                                                                                   253
                                              237
                                                                                            153
                 1990
                     1991
1992         1993
      Fiscal Year
1994
1995
1996
           Source:  U.S. EPA, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Quarterly Reports, September 1990-September 1996; and
                  Semiannual Reports, March 1996 and September 1996.
equipment such as piping. Multiplying this
average by the number of sites expected to need
remediation, the projected total remediation cost
is $20.6 billion.

As discussed previously, EPA anticipates that
cleanup activities will increase as the December
1998 deadline for upgrading tanks for corrosion
protection and spill and overfill prevention
approaches, and then decrease.

5.5  Market Entry Considerations

The following factors will be important to the
success of vendors operating in the UST
remediation market.

 • Site work is primarily the responsibility of
   tank owners, especially  of establishments such
   as retail gasoline stations, petroleum and
   chemical marketers, and fleet maintenance,
   auto repair, manufacturing, or transportation
   facilities.

 • The level of enforcement activity varies from
   one state to another. In  addition, some states
                                                regulate tanks that are not regulated under
                                                RCRA. Information on these activities
                                                generally are available through state
                                                authorities.

                                             •  As tank testing and other requirements are
                                                implemented, the extent of cleanup activities
                                                and  costs per site probably will decrease.
                                                Thus, economical ways to remediate smaller
                                                releases may be needed.

                                             5.6  Remedial Technologies

                                             Data on the kinds of innovative technologies used
                                             to remediate contaminated UST sites have not
                                             been centralized. A study conducted in 1995 by
                                             EPA and the University of Massachusetts
                                             provided information on trends in the frequency
                                             of selection of alternative technologies as well as
                                             the kinds of technologies being used for
                                             cleanups.'71 The study was based on information
                                             collected from 49 state LUST program offices who
                                             responded to a written survey. Respondents were
                                             asked to provide reasonable estimates to survey
                                             questions, not to conduct file searches or research
                                             before responding. Thus, the results, which were
                                                 5-7

-------
 Underground Storage Tank Sites
                                                          Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
based on the responses received, should be
considered approximations.

Based on the responses of the 49 states in 1995,
approximately 96,000 sites were undergoing
remediation in these states,  or an average of
almost 2,000 sites per state.  Exhibit 5-6 shows the
percentage of sites at which soil remediation
technologies were being used. Landfilling was the
most frequently selected option for soil
remediation, followed by natural attenuation,
biopiles, and soil vapor extraction.

Exhibit  5-7 shows the percentage of sites in 1995
at which groundwater technologies were being
used. Natural attenuation and pump-and-treat
were the most frequently selected groundwater
technologies, at  47 percent and 29 percent of the
sites, respectively.

Although most of these percentages appear low,
they represent substantial increases in the relative
use of these technologies. According to state and
federal  regulators, the use of air sparging has
grown from only a handful of sites four years
prior to the study to about 13 percent of the
                                          35,000 sites undergoing groundwater remediation
                                          in  1995. According to thermal desorption industry
                                          representatives, thermal desorption was used on
                                          a limited basis four years prior to the study, and
                                          in  1995 was used at numerous sites in almost
                                          every state.'71 The 1995 EPA study indicated that
                                          thermal desorption was selected for about 3.1
                                          percent of the sites undergoing soil remediation
                                          in  1995. The study also indicated that the use of
                                          all alternative technologies has increased during
                                          the two years before the study. Exhibit 5-8 shows
                                          the percentage of state LUST program offices that
                                          had noted increases in technologies between 1993
                                          and 1995.

                                          The use of on-site technologies had increased and
                                          the use of off-site technologies had decreased
                                          from 1993 to 1995 (Exhibit  5-9). Most of the
                                          increases were accounted for by the use of
                                          natural attenuation, soil vapor extraction,
                                          bioventing, air sparging, in situ bioremediation,
                                          and dual-phase extraction.  For the study, off-site
                                          technologies included landfilling, incineration,
                                          thermal desorption, biopiles, and landfarming. All
                                          other technologies were considered on-site. (Since
                                          the study, some of the traditional off-site
         Exhibit 5-6: Percentage of LIST Sites Using Specific Soil Remediation Technologies
           Soil Washing

             Bioventing

            Incineration

os   Thermal Desorption
_o
c         Landfarming
u
|2  Soil Vapor Extraction

               Biopiles

      Natural Attenuation

             Landfilling
                                   0.2%
                                    0,8%
                                       2%

                                        3%
                                              17%
                                                  9%
                                                               116%
                                                                                    28%
10       15       20        25
    Percent of UST
                                                                                              34%
                                                                                              •y
                                                                                     30
                                                                                   I
                                                                                  35
   Note:  Based on information covering 103,000 sites.
   Source: Tremblay, Deborah, L, D. S. Tulis, P. Kostecki, and Ewald, "Innovation Skyrockets at 50,000 LUST Sites," Soil and Groundwater
         Cleanup, December 1995.

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                                         Underground Storage Tank Sites
                          Exhibit 5-7: Percentage of LIST Sites Using Specific
                                Groundwater Remediation Technologies
                     Biosparging



            Dual-Phase Extraction

         >»
         O)
        .2  In Situ Bioremediation
         O
         c
        :£:
         
-------
 Underground Storage Tank Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
technologies are now being conducted on-site
[e.g., biopiles and LTTD]).

The use of innovative and other alternative
technologies may help accelerate the pace of, or
reduce the cost of, remediating UST sites. Never-
theless, according to a more limited EPA study
conducted in 1992, most site cleanups tended to
involve more traditional approaches.'81 The use
of innovative technologies often was hampered
by a lack of cost or performance data, a lack of
expertise among state and contractor personnel,
and the need for additional permit requirements.
To help overcome these barriers, EPA conducted
demonstration projects and provided guidance,
training, and workshops at UST sites. Technolo-
gies addressed in these efforts included soil vapor
extraction, air sparging, enhanced bioremediation,
and low-level thermal desorption. In recent years,
EPA has made available reference materials and
training programs to assist site managers,
vendors, and others in these areas. These
materials are listed in Section 5.7. [91[101
The 1995 study found that data on technology
performance and the availability of trained
consultants and regulators had improved over the
previous two years.  The primary obstacles to the
selection of alternative technologies have shifted
from a lack of available information and trained
personnel to  the potentially high costs, long
cleanup times, and lack of confidence in the
technologies.
                 Exhibit 5-9: Changes in the Use of On-Site and Off-Site Treatment
       to
       3
       OT
       •5
       *•*
       IV
       o
       0)
       Q.
                                                               68%
                             On-Site Treatment
          Off-Site Treatment
                                             Treatment Type
   Source:  Tremblay, Deborah, L, D.S. Tulis, P. Kostecki, and K. Ewald, "Innovation Skyrockets at 50,000 LUST Sites," Soil and Groundwater
          Cleanup, December 1995.
                                                 5-10

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
Underground Storage Tank Sites
5.7  References

1.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, "Technical
    Requirements and State Program Approval; Final Rule,"  53 Federal Register, No. 185, September 23,
    1988.

2.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Underground Storage Tanks — Lender Liability; Final Rule,"
    40 CFR Parts 280 and 281," Federal Register, Vol 60, September 7, 1995, p. 46692.

3.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Survey of Underground
    Storage Tanks, Spring 1991.

4.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Semi-Annual Activity Report,
    Second Half (September 30) 1996.

5.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, TC [Toxicity Characteristic]
    Study of Contaminated Media and Debris, Draft, July 1992.

6.   Bueckman, D.S., S. Kumar, and M. Russell, Underground Storage Tanks: Resource Requirements for Corrective
    Action,  University of Tennessee, Waste Management Research and Education Institute, Knoxville, TN,
    December 1991.

7.   Tremblay, Deborah, L.,  D. S. Tulis,  P. Kostecki, and K. Ewald, "Innovation Skyrockets at 50,000 LUST
    Sites," Soil and Groundwater Cleanup, December 1995.

8.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, and Technology Innovation
    Office Technologies and  Options for UST Corrective Actions: Overview and Current Practice, EPA/542/R-
    92/010, August 1992.

9.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, How to Evaluate Alternative
    Cleanup Technologies for UST Sites: A Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers, EPA-510-B-95-007, May
    1995.

10.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation Office, Cleanup Information Bulletin Board System (CLU-IN). CLU-IN may be accessed by:
    (a) using a modem to dial 301-589-8366; (b) or  (b) a World Wide Web connection: http://www.Clu-in.com

11.  U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office of Solid Waste  and Emergency Response, Office of
    Underground Storage Tanks, World Wide Web connection: http://www.epa.gov/OUST.

12.  University of Massachusetts, Contaminated Soils Conferences, University of Massachusetts, N344 Morrill,
    Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, attention Linda Rosen.

13.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Tank Racer: Cost Estimation
    Software for LUST Cleanups, March 1996.

14.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, How to Effectively Recover
    Free Product for LUST Sites: A Guide for State Regulators, EPA-510-R-96-004, September 1996.

15.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage  Tanks, Expedited Site Assessment
    Tools for USTs: A Guide  for Regulators, EPA-510-B97-001, March 1997.
                                                5-11

-------
Underground Storage Tank Sites
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                                    This page intentionally left blank.
                                                    5-12

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                    DOD Sites
                                       CHAPTER 6
                        DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF
                      DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE SITES
The Department of Defense (DOD) has under-
taken the task of cleaning up wastes that have
resulted from numerous industrial, commercial,
training, and weapons testing activities, as well as
cleaning up closing military bases so that the
properties can be transferred to local communi-
ties for economic revitalization. This task is
formidable, especially in view of the overall
limitation of DOD resources and proposals to
reduce the defense budget. DOD has estimated
that of the sites it has begun investigating, over
8,300 sites on over 1,500 installations or formerly
used defense sites (FUDS) that will ultimately
require remediation have not begun remedial
design or remedial action. These facilities contain
hazardous waste contamination involving soil,
groundwater, and other media. Typical contamin-
ants include petroleum products, solvents, heavy
metals, explosives, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), pesticides, and munitions residues from
weapons testing.

Much of DOD's past  efforts in environmental
restoration were devoted to investigating the
problem. In fiscal year (FY)  1995, DOD reported
that for the first time  it was devoting more
resources to actual cleanup of contaminated sites
than to site investigations and analyses. This
trend has continued through 1996 and DOD
anticipates that it will continue into the future.
DOD  has been incorporating a prioritization
scheme for sequencing work based on the relative
risk of individual sites. Under DOD's relative risk
management approach, decisions regarding such
issues as cleanup standards, remedy selection,
and no further action determinations are made
site-by-site rather than for an entire installation.
Decisions on these issues are based  on the rela-
tive threat to human  health and the environment,
reasonable anticipated land use, cost-effective-
ness, and speed of cleanup, and depend on early
and meaningful public participation. DOD works
with the regulatory agencies and other interested
parties to streamline and find economies in the
restoration process.
To accomplish the cleanups, DOD will need the
services of firms that can clean up wastes similar
to those found at private sector industrial
facilities as well as firms that can remediate
wastes that are unique to DOD, such as unex-
ploded ordnance. These  environmental service
firms will have to understand DOD operating
procedures and keep abreast of the overall
direction of its environmental programs.

6.1  Program Description

The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), and the Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) are the primary federal
laws governing the investigations and cleanup of
DOD contaminated sites. DOD installations
typically have multiple contaminated sites
regulated by either CERCLA, RCRA corrective
action provisions, RCRA underground storage
tank (UST) provisions or all three. Through
Executive  Order 12580, signed  in January 1987,
the President directs the Secretary of Defense to
implement investigation and cleanup measures,
in consultation with EPA, for releases of
hazardous substances from facilities under  the
jurisdiction of the Secretary. The interface
between CERCLA and RCRA authorities is
determined by the circumstances at specific sites,
including factors such as: the source and cause of
the contamination, the status of the installation as
either a National Priorities List (NPL) or non-NPL
site, and whether the installation has or is seeking
a RCRA permit to manage hazardous wastes.
DOD cleanups also must consider the require-
ments of state laws and the Base Closure and
Realignment Acts of 1988 and 1990 (BRAC).m
Partnering efforts allow DOD, EPA, and the
states to work through overlaps and incon-
sistencies in regulatory requirements to ensure
the most effective and timely cleanup of DOD
sites.  A detailed description of their remediation
programs  is included in  the Defense Environmental
Restoration Program Annual Report to  Congress.121
                                               6-1

-------
 DOD Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
The implementation process for the DOD regula-
tory program generally follows those of the
environmental statutes. Although the regulatory
frameworks of CERCLA and RCRA differ in
many ways, their implementation processes
generally parallel one another. Each requires
assessments and investigations to determine the
need for cleanup, and to select and design
appropriate remedies to ensure protection of
human health and the environment. However,
each program has its own nomenclature for the
various phases of study, design, and cleanup.

6.1.1  Installation Restoration Program

The task of promoting and coordinating the
evaluation  and cleanup of contamination at DOD
sites has been assigned to the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program  (DERP). The
Superfund  Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986  (SARA) authorizes DOD to carry out this
program in consultation with EPA. Executive
Order 12580 assigned the Secretary of Defense
responsibility for establishing and managing
DERP within the overall framework of SARA and
CERCLA. The Defense Appropriations Act
provides the funding for DERP. Restoration
activities, including work conducted under the
BRAC program,  are under the authority of the
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Environmental Cleanup).

DOD refers to the program for meeting its
responsibilities under CERCLA as the Installation
Restoration Program (IRP). Under IRP, DOD
cleans up all contaminated sites for which
cleanup is required by environmental statutes,
whether or not the sites are on the NPL.
Although policy direction and oversight of IRP
are the responsibility of the Assistant Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental
Cleanup), each individual DOD Component
(Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense Logistics
Agency) is  responsible for program implementa-
tion. The Army Corps of  Engineers (Corps)  is the
execution agent for all FUDS as well as for the
Defense and State Memorandum of Agreement
(DSMOA) program which funds states and terri-
tories for technical services they provide to
support the cleanup of DOD facilities.

DERP has specified procedures for evaluating
sites and procuring cleanup services under IRP
that conform to the requirements of the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
(NCP), and follow EPA guidelines for site
investigations and remediation. These procedures
cover all phases of site operations, including
preliminary  assessment (PA), site inspection (SI),
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS),
remedial design (RD), and remedial action (RA).
In most cases, activities related to preliminary
assessment through remedial design are
conducted by different contractors than are those
related to remedial action. Activities conducted
under IRP are classified as follows:

 • Investigation:  Analysis to characterize the
   nature, extent, and risk of releases of
   hazardous substances to  the environment and
   to develop and select a cleanup remedy.
 • Interim Action: Early measure to reduce the
   risk of releases of hazardous substances
   before the initiation of more complicated,
   comprehensive, and long-term cleanup
   remedies. For example, placing fences around
   contaminated  areas or removing and treating
   or disposing of contaminated soil.
 • Design: Performance specifications or detailed
   engineering plans and specifications to
   construct and implement a final cleanup
   remedy.
 • Cleanup: Action to construct and implement a
   final cleanup remedy.

In selecting and designing remedies, DOD
officials coordinate with EPA Regional officials
to ensure that cleanup goals  meet regulatory
requirements. Most contracting is done  by
installations, either through centralized
contracting service centers or directly with the
installation. Although the DOD Components
follow the general procedures specified by
DERP, each  DOD Component procures  its own
cleanup services. Section 6.5  describes
typical procurement practices.

6.1.2  Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)

Additional procedures have  been established for
the cleanup at bases being closed or realigned.
Known  as DOD's Fast Track Cleanup Program,
these  procedures have influenced the sequence of
work  to be conducted. This program has been
designed to  ensure that environmental policies
take into account  the relative risks of individual
                                                6-2

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                     DOD Sites
sites on an installation and the potential and need
for reuse of the property. In the past, most
restoration projects included the same overall
cleanup timeline for an entire installation,
regardless of the relative threat to human health
and the environment that individual sites caused.
In implementing the new relative risk approach,
DOD is working with EPA, the states, and the
public to review the prioritization process.'31

A major influence  on the selection of projects for
remediation is DOD's effort to speed the
economic recovery of communities where installa-
tions are scheduled to close. In prioritizing sites
and developing cleanup plans DOD considers the
following: the potential for local job creation and
economic development; the use of transition coor-
dinators at bases slated for closure; larger
economic development planning grants to
communities affected by base closures; and
accelerated pace of site investigation, evaluation,
and cleanup efforts. The key features of the
program are:

 • A BRAC Cleanup Team (BCT) is established
   at each installation slated for closure, to
   enhance environmental decision-making at
   the installation. Each BCT includes represen-
   tatives from the installation, state environ-
   mental regulatory agency, and EPA Regional
   Office. These teams have the authority,
   responsibility,  and accountability for
   environmental restoration programs at those
   installations.

 • A BRAC Cleanup Plan  (BCP) is prepared for
   each installation slated  for closure and
   updated annually to reflect new information
   and changing conditions. The BCP serves as a
   comprehensive and consolidated statement of
   the status of the installation and strategy to
   expedite its cleanup. The BCT is responsible
   for the preparation of this plan.

 • A Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) is
   established in communities where interest is
   sufficient to warrant it.  RABs are intended to
   bring together  people who reflect diverse
   interests within the community, in order to
   foster the early and continual flow of
   information between the affected community,
   the installation, and the state and federal
   regulatory agencies.'41
 •  An Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) is
    conducted for each closing installation, as
    mandated by the Community Environmental
    Response Facilitation Act (CERFA), which  is
    an amendment to CERCLA signed on October
    19, 1992. The CERFA requires DOD to
    identify and document all uncontaminated
    parcels of land at installations undergoing
    closure. These properties quickly can be
    turned over to communities for economic
    reuse.

The BRAC environmental program encompasses
more than environmental restoration efforts.
BRAC environmental funding also addresses
closure-related environmental compliance, which
includes such actions as the removal of USTs,
closure of hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal  facilities (TSDFs),  radon surveys,
and asbestos  abatement. In addition, DOD is
committed to accelerating the preparation of final
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), environ-
mental planning, or other analyses required
under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). To undertake this effort, DOD may need
to evaluate all reasonable reuse scenarios or
alternatives based on its experience and judgment
and on consultations with community planning
entities.

After completing these efforts at a site, DOD will
be in a position to determine, in coordination
with EPA and the state, whether a parcel of land
is suitable for lease or transfer to the community
for reuse.

6.2 Factors Affecting Demand for  Cleanup

The following factors could alter the scope of the
cleanup needed as well as the technologies used:

 •  The pace  of remediating sites is subject to
    change in response to general budgetary and
    political developments. The entire DOD
    budget for restoration, including the Defense
    Environmental Restoration Account (DERA)
    and BRAC funds, decreased from $2.5 billion
    in FY  1994 to $2.1 billion in FY  1995 and FY
    1996, and is expected to remain at that level
    for FY 1997. Of these amounts, BRAC
    accounts for $523 million in FY 1994,  $624
    million in FY 1995, $717 million in FY 1996,
    and $777  million in FY 1997. Thus, BRAC

-------
DOD Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
  projects account for 37 percent of all DOD
  restoration funds budgeted for 1997. In
  addition, the DOD Components may add
  funds for base realignments and closure by
  transferring funds from other accounts."1

  DOD anticipates that the proportion of the
  IRP budget allocated to remedial design and
  remedial action will continue to increase
  while a smaller portion of the budget will be
  allocated to site investigation and evaluation
  activities. In FY 1994, 48 percent of the
  Defense Environmental Restoration  Account
  (DERA) funds were spent  for remedial design
  and remedial  action. DOD reports that this
  percentage grew to 61 percent in FY 1995 and
  64 percent in FY 1996, and is expected to
  grow to 74 percent in FY 1997.'2'

  Although DOD believes that most sites have
  been  located, new sites continue to be
  identified.  DOD's  list of identified sites has
  increased about six percent annually for the
  last four years. Most of these sites are on
  installations already identified as containing
  hazardous waste sites.'21

  In determining the priorities for funding,
  DOD gives top priority to  cleanup activities
  necessary to: prevent near-term adverse
  impacts to workers, the public, or the
  environment;  accelerate the conversion of
  military properties to economic reuse; and
  satisfy agreements with local, state,  or other
  federal agencies. In implementing its
  priorities, DOD may assign varying levels
  of priority  to different sites on a given
  installation. This policy may lead to the
  acceleration of some projects at  a given
  installation while causing other projects at
  the same installation to be postponed.

  DOD is in  the process of classifying more
  than half its sites where response action is not
  complete on a relative risk basis as high,
  medium, or low relative risk. The classifica-
  tion is based upon three key factors: the
  amount and extent of contamination, migra-
  tion pathways, and human and ecological
  receptors. The resulting relative risk
  evaluation is not an estimate of absolute risk
  or a substitute for a baseline risk or health
    assessment. It serves as a basis for discussing
    the relative risk of sites with involved
    stakeholders.'51

 •  The rate of closures and realignments of bases
    and installations will affect the scheduling of
    site cleanup. Prior to closing or realigning a
    base, DOD may be required to clean up the
    site, although cleanup activity may continue
    after closure. Pursuant to the  Base Realign-
    ment and Closure Acts of 1988 and 1990,
    DOD designates military installations for
    closure or realignment. Of the BRAC installa-
    tions designated in the first four rounds
    (BRAC 1988, 1990, 1993, and 1995), 206 have
    or are suspected to have contamination and
    108 have been designated "fast-track" cleanup
    sites.'61

 •  DOD policy calls for extensive coordination
    with EPA, state environmental authorities,
    local communities, local planning authorities,
    and other interested parties in planning and
    implementing its cleanup programs. These
    requirements may influence the sequence of
    work and types of technologies selected for a
    site.

 •  Changes in regulatory requirements also may
    affect cleanup goals, technologies used, and
    cost. For example, some categories of DOD
    sites are likely to be affected when the
    recently proposed regulations  for munitions
    cleanup at training ranges becomes final. In
    February 1997, EPA promulgated new rules
    for remediation of munitions  at training
    ranges which could significantly reduce the
    cost of cleaning up DOD munitions sites.
    However, because more bases and ranges are
    expected to close, DOD may incur significant
    costs for these closure-related cleanups.  DOD
    now will be required to treat  or dispose of
    wastes that, heretofore, were being contained.

 •  Cleanup requirements are uncertain because
    the nature and magnitude of the contamina-
    tion at many identified sites are still only
    partially known. As DOD continues to charac-
    terize its contamination problem and accumu-
    late data from site investigations and
    cleanups, its cleanup needs will become more
    clearly defined.
6.3  Number and Characteristics of Sites
                                                6-4

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                  DOD Sites
Data on site characteristics presented in this
chapter are based on an analysis of DOD's
Restoration Management Information System
(RMIS), which is an important tool used through-
out DOD for program management and over-
sight. RMIS contains data provided by the
Components on the status of the DOD sites for
which they are responsible.'71

6.3.1  Number and Types of Sites

As of September 30 1995, DOD had identified
22,089 sites located on 1,705 installations, and
8,830  FUDS properties with potential hazardous
waste contamination involving soil, groundwater,
or other media.'21 Of these, response  actions were
completed at 10,372 sites on DOD installations
and facilities. In addition, 5,141 FUDS properties
were determined to require no further action or
be ineligible for DERA funding, and the eligibility
of 1,048 FUDS properties had not yet been
determined. Thus, 15,406 (11,717 DOD sites and
3,689  FUDS sites) were in various stages of site
investigation or cleanup. The number of identi-
fied sites has grown about 26 percent from  FY
1991 to FY 1995. Most of the newly identified
sites are on installations that have other
            contaminated areas. A site is a distinct area of
            contamination and there may be more than one
            site on an installation or facility.

            Of the 15,406 sites, DOD estimated that 8,336
            eventually will require remediation of contami-
            nated materials and, for most of these sites, DOD
            had not selected RA contractors. The  remaining
            sites either were being cleaned up, have been
            completely remediated, or were found to require
            no further work. A breakdown of the 8,336 sites
            by DOD component is shown in Exhibit 6-1.
            More than 85 percent of the sites are  almost
            evenly distributed among the Air Force, Army,
            and Navy, and most of the remainder are FUDS.
            Although  FUDS are managed by the Army, they
            are the result of activities from all the services.

            DOD derived these estimates from a combination
            of data in RMIS, and information provided by
            the DOD Components as of September 30, 1995.
            However, because the Sis and RI/FSs have not
            been completed at a number of these  sites, these
            estimates, as well as program cost estimates, may
            be revised somewhat over the next several years.
            Exhibit 6-2 shows the geographic distribution of
            these sites, and Appendix Exhibit C-l shows the
                Exhibit 6-1: Number of DOD Sites and Installations Needing Cleanup
                         2,478
             2500—1
                                        2,437
                                                                                    Sites

                                                                                    Installations
                          Army
Navy
Air Force
DLA
FUDS
                                                Service
 Note:  Totals equal 8,336 sites and 1,561 installations to be remediated as of September 30, 1995.

 Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Restoration Management Information System, November
      1996.
                                                 6-5

-------
 DOD Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
breakdown by DOD Component and state. The
states with the most DOD sites needing cleanup
are California with 1,851 sites, Maryland with 434
sites, Alaska with 416 sites,  Florida with 390 sites,
Texas with 344 sites, and Virginia with 306 sites.
DOD categorizes its sites into 45 types, which are
different than the site types used to categorize the
NPL sites in Chapter 3 of this report. The DOD
system of site nomenclature uses categories that
include both activities and physical  descriptions.
Exhibit 6-3 shows the number of sites for each of
these 10 site types that need cleanup. These 10
site types account for 75 percent of all DOD sites
needing remediation. Although  some sites may
have resulted from more than one type of
activity, each site is placed in only one category.
The definitions of all the site types are provided
in Appendix Exhibit C-2. Appendix Exhibit C-3
details, by DOD Component,  the number of each
site type needing remediation.

6.3.2  Contaminated Matrices

The data on matrices and contaminants used for
this chapter are from RMIS  as of September 30,
1994. Of the 9,331 sites then needing cleanup,
data that identified the type of matrix (contam-
inated soil, groundwater, surface water, and
sediment) were available for 3,212 sites (over 34
percent). The analysis of site characteristics in the
remainder of this report is based on this 1994
data set. Exhibit 6-4 shows, by DOD Component,
the number of sites that contain each type of
matrix. Seventy-one percent of the sites have
contaminated groundwater and 67 percent have
contaminated soil, which indicates that many
sites have both. Contaminated surface water and
sediment are associated with only 19 percent and
six percent of the sites,  respectively. The totals
add to more than the number of sites, since a site
may contain more than one type of contaminated
media.

The relevant media vary from one site type to
another (Exhibit 6-5). For example, contaminated
groundwater was found at 83 percent of disposal
pit/dry well sites, but only 51  percent of the
storage area sites. Likewise, 58 percent of
underground storage tank sites had soil
contamination, compared to 100 percent of the
building demolition sites and 84 percent of
storage area sites. However, the amount of
                        Exhibit 6-2:  Location of DOD Sites Needing Cleanup
 Note:   Total equals 8,336 sites to be remediated as of September 30, 1995. Appendix Exhibit C-1 provides the data by state and DOD component.

 Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Restoration Management Information System, November
       1996;

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                                                                 DOD Sites
                   Exhibit 6-3:  Most Common Types of DOD Sites Needing Cleanup
                       1,199
             1200
           w
          ,-2  800
          (0
           2  600 —
           o>
           |  400
          z
              200
                0


—
—
_

	



XK1=5=
14%








7*








p

1,02
12%








9
"?*!







p


a4i
x^^?
11%








J
•a






p



700
8%








pi





p




569
7%








71




p




535
.<£=.









p



p




4QR

6%








•jq










357
4% = 230 223
::::::: ^:::::::::::::::::::j^. _#£rrrrrrr
I 3% I 3%
,,,,,„„„„„„„„„ ^ ,,,,,,,„„„„„„„„„ ^








                                          Types of Sites

Notes:   These 10 site types account for 6,278 (75%) of the 8,336 DOD sites to be remediated as of September 30, 1995. Appendix Exhibit C-2
        gives definitions of the 45 site types. Appendix Exhibit C-3 lists the frequencies of all 45 site types.
Source:  DOD, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Restoration Management Information System, November
        1996.
          Exhibit 6-4:  Frequency of Contaminated Matrices at DOD Sites Needing Cleanup
m
«
W
*o
        2500-
        2000-
        1500-
        1000-
         500-
                     2,290(71%)
                                       2,163(67%)
                                                          613(19%)
                   Groundwater
                                    Soil
Surface Water
                                                  Matrix
                     III Formerly Used Defense Sites
                     |   | Defense Logistics Agency
                     |   | Air Force
                     [| Navy
                     |   | Army
Sediment
Notes:  Based on 3,212 sites on 480 installations for which data were available as of September 30 ,1994. Appendix Exhibit C-4 shows the
       breakdown of these data by site type. Appendix Exhibit C-5 shows the breakdown by DOD component.
Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Restoration Management Information System,
       November 1995.
                                                      6-7

-------
 DOD Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                         Exhibit 6-5: Frequency of Contaminated Matrices
                            by Site Type at DOD Sites Needing Cleanup
Site Types
Underground
Storage Tanks
Spill Area
Landfill
Unexploded
Ordnance
Surface Disposal
Area
Disposal Pit/
Dry Well
Storage Area
Contaminated
Groundwater
Fire/Crash
Training Area
No. of No. of Sites
Sites W/Data
1 ,361 444 (33%)
1 ,234 539 (44%)
914 491 (54%)
784 14(2%)
748 347 (46%)
612 334 (55%)
608 181 (30%)
357 86 (24%)
271 157(58%)
Building Demolition/ 225 6 (3%)
Debris Removal
Ground- Surface
water Soil Water
Contami- Contami- Contami-
nation nation nation
75%
71%
79%
43%
66%
83%
51%
97%
80%
0
58%
66%
62%
79%
72%
76%
84%
33%
77%
100%
4%
66%
35%
29%
25%
19%
69%
13%
17%
0
Sediment
Contami-
nation
1%
19%
8%
7%
5%
8%
6%
7%
5%
0
Notes: The 10 most common site types account for 7,114, or 76% of the 9,331 DOD sites to be remediated as of
September 30, 1994. Appendix Exhibit C-4 lists the frequency of contaminated matrices for all 45 site types to be
remediated as of September 30, 1995.
Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Restoration Management
Information System, November 1995.
available data varies from one site type to
another. Of the top 10 site types, data were
available for a low of two percent of the unex-
ploded ordnance sites to a high of 58 percent of
the fire/crash training areas. Appendix Exhibit
C-4 provides the matrices associated with all 45
site types.

6.3.3 Types of Contaminants

As is the case for the analysis of matrices above,
contaminant data are available for 3,212 (over 34
percent) of the 9,331 sites that needed cleanup as
of September 30, 1994. For this study, the
contaminants were grouped into six categories:
volatile organic compounds, (VOCs), semivolatile
organic compounds, (SVOCs), metals, fuels,
explosives, and "other." "Other" primarily
includes inorganic  elements and compounds such
as asbestos, arsenic, inorganic cyanides,
corrosives, pesticides, and herbicides. Exhibits 6-6
and 6-7 show the major contaminant groups by
matrix and DOD component. The data used to
create these exhibits are in Appendix Exhibit C-5.

The most prevalent contaminant groups in
groundwater are VOCs and metals, which appear
in 74 percent and 59  percent of DOD ground-
water sites, respectively (Appendix Exhibit C-9).
However, while metals appear in the majority of
sites in all matrices, VOCs are present in only 43
percent and 38  percent of the soil and surface
water sites, respectively. SVOCs and metals were
more consistent across different media than
VOCs. SVOCs were found at between 31 and 43
percent of the sites, and metals were found at
between 59 and 80 percent of the sites. Fuels
were found at fewer  than 22 percent of all sites

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                             DOD Sites
          Exhibit 6-6:  Major Contaminant Groups by Matrix at DOD Sites Needing Cleanup
       100% -Y
        80%
     w
    tf
    "5
     0)
    Q.
        60%
        40%
        20%
                    Groundwater
      Soil
Surface Water
                                                     Matrix
Sediment
   Notes:  Based on 3,212 sites needing cleanup at 480 installations for which data were available as of September 30, 1994. A contaminant
          group may appear in more than one matrix at a site. Appendix Exhibit C-5 provides the supporting data.

   Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Restoration Management Information System,
          November 1995.
Exhibit 6-7: Frequency of Major Contaminant Groups by Component at DOD Sites Needing Cleanup
        100% —/
                                                                                             n  vocs
                                                                                             n  Metals
                                                                                             EU  SVOCs
                                                                                             •I  Fuels
                                                                                             C3  Explosives
                                                                                                 Other
                     Army
Navy              AF
           DOD Component
           DLA
    FUDS
   Notes:  Based on 3,212 sites needing cleanup at 480 installations for which data were available as of September 30, 1994. More than one
         contaminant group can appear at a site. Appendix Exhibit C-5 shows the supporting data.

   Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Restoration Management Information System,
         November 1995.

-------
 DOD Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
(Appendix Exhibit C-5), which is surprisingly
low, given DOD's substantial use of fuels at
many facilities. However, it may be due to the
reporting of the benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylene (BTEX) constituents of fuels and
petroleum products under VOCs.

Exhibit 6-7 and Appendix Exhibit C-5 show the
major contaminant groups by DOD Component.
The most frequently occurring group—metals—is
found at 69 percent of all sites with data,
followed by VOCs at 65 percent, and SVOCs at
43 percent. VOCs and metals are found at most
sites in all the services, except  at Army sites,
where VOCs account for only 41 percent of the
sites. SVOCs and fuels  show more variations (24-
63 percent and 5-31 percent, respectively)
(Appendix Exhibit C-5). These waste groups also
are frequently found at sites related to non-
defense industrial facilities. In  addition, some
sites contain contaminants that are  found  less
frequently in industry and that present unique
problems for selecting remediation approaches.
For example, over eight percent of the DOD sites
contain explosives, and an unspecified number
contain low-level radiation. Explosives are found
at 23 percent of Army sites, 6 percent of Navy
sites, and only 1 percent of Air Force sites.
Appendix Exhibit C-5 shows a breakdown of
these data into the frequencies of the most
common contaminant groups for each medium
and DOD  Component.

The frequency of occurrence of contaminants also
varies by site type. Exhibit 6-8  shows the  relative
frequency of occurrence of the major contaminant
groups for five of the six most common site
types. The contaminant data for the fourth most
common site type, unexploded munitions/ord-
nance areas, are not shown in this exhibit because
the available contaminant data for these sites
were sparse. Metals and organics occur frequently
in all five site types, although the frequencies
vary. For example the occurrence of metals
ranges from 50 percent of underground storage
tank sites to 84 percent of landfills. Appendix
Exhibit C-6 shows contaminant group occurrences
for all 45 site types.

To describe the details  of the contaminants
present at DOD sites, the data are further broken
out into 19 subgroups,  such as halogenated
VOCs, nonhalogenated VOCs,  and  BTEX.  Exhibit
6-9 shows the frequency of occurrence of these
subgroups. Heavy metals is the most prevalent
subgroup, in part because, for this analysis, it is a
major contaminant group and is not divided into
narrower categories as are the organics.

Most of these subgroups also are found at non-
defense industrial facilities. In addition, about
eight percent of the sites contain explosive and
propellant materials and about one percent of the
sites contain radioactive metals. The contaminant
subgroups of importance to each medium are
shown in Appendix Exhibit C-7 and by site type
in Appendix Exhibit C-8.

RMIS also contains data on specific contaminants
present at each of the  3,212 sites for which
information is  available. The eight most
frequently found contaminants in each matrix are
shown in Exhibit 6-10. The most frequently found
specific contaminants  in all media are the metals
lead, zinc, barium, nickel, cadmium, and copper.
The most common organic chemicals are
trichloroethylene and  benzene.

6.4 Estimated Cleanup Costs

DOD annual funding  for DERP and BRAC grew
from $150 million in FY 1984  to $2.5 billion in FY
1994 and declined to $2.1 billion in FY 1995. It
has remained at this level for FYs  1996 and 1997.
These figures include  funding for BRAC which
began in FY 1991. However, as explained below,
not all of the BRAC funds are used for site
restoration. This point is especially important,
since BRAC funds have been  accounting for an
increasing share of the DOD restoration budget.
DOD expects that BRAC funding, which
accounted for 25 percent of total DOD restoration
funding over the 1991 through 1995 period, has
grown to 37 percent of all  DOD restoration funds
budgeted for FY 1997.

BRAC environmental  funding also may be used
for other closure-related environmental expenses
and environmental compliance. Compliance
efforts may include actions such as the removal
of underground storage tanks, closure of
hazardous waste TSDFs, radon surveys, and
asbestos abatement. Planning may involve
environmental analyses required under NEPA,
and to aid decisions related to property reuse and
redevelopment. On the other  hand, BRAC
                                               6-10

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                                                                    DOD Sites
                     Exhibit 6-8:  Frequency of Major Contaminant Groups for the
                            Most Common DOD  Site Types  Needing Cleanup
     100%
      80% -
  «  60%

  •
eo

•5
^M
C
O
                                                                                               EH  VOCs
                                                                                               O  Metals
                                                                                               ED  SVOCs
                                                                                               •  Fuels
                                                                                                   Explosives
                                                                                               C3  Other
      40% -
      20% ™
                Underground
                Storage Tanks
                                     Spill
                                     Area
Landfill

     Type
Surface Disposal
      Area
Disposal Pit/
  Dry Well
Notes:    Based on 3,212 sites needing cleanup at 480 installations for which data were available as of September 30, 1994. More than one
         contaminant group can appear at a site. Appendix Exhibit C-6 shows the breakdown of the data for all site types.

Source:   DOD, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Restoration Management Information System,
         November 1995.
         Exhibit 6-9:  Frequency of Contaminant Subgroups at DOD Sites  Needing Cleanup
          100%-


        Contaminant Subgroup


 Notes:  Based on 3,212 sites needing cleanup at 480 installations for which data were available as of September 30, 1994. Subgroups found at fewer
        than one percent of the sites include: dioxins/furans, organic corrosives, inorganic corrosives, and organic cyanides. "Other" primarily includes
        inorganic elements and compounds such as asbestos, arsenic, inorganic cyanides, pesticides, and herbicides. Totals may exceed 100%
        because more than one contaminant may occur at a site.

 Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Restoration Management Information System, November
        1995.
                                                      6-11

-------
 DOD Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
               Exhibit 6-10: Frequency of the Most Common Contaminants by Matrix
                                  at DOD Sites Needing Cleanup
100% -,
Ifl
_« 80% -
2 60% -
O
*. 40% -
g 20% -
ft. 0% -
V*
100% -*
m
£ 80% -
2 60% -
O
*• 40% -
C
0 20% -

Groundwater g 80% -
O B0% ~
35%35%31%^ ^ ^ ^ | 4()% _

55
<=
Soil
%
24/o ^4/o ^4/o ^S/o ^3/o 20% 18%
^ V VX+^X v^/ <^to^l/
tfl
Surf ace Water 5
46% 0 6« '

i.g-al9* 16% 16% 14% 14% 13% 2, 2Q%
60% Sediment
g^a


33%
26% ^407

^ ^ ° #•
Notes: TCE = Trichloroethylene; DEHP = Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
*Also includes compounds.
Percent of 3,212 sites with data. 2,290 had contaminated groundwater; 2,452 had contaminated soil; 613
had contaminated surface water; and 189 had contaminated sediment.
Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Restoration Management
Information System, November 1995.
environmental funding is not limited to the
aforementioned amounts. These amounts are
considered minimum amounts, and DOD
Components may allocate additional funds from
other accounts.

DOD estimates that the cost of completing the
remaining remediation work at all DOD sites
from FY 1997 until all sites are cleaned up will be
over $28.6 billion, distributed as follows: Army
$10.6 billion; Air Force $7.4 billion; Navy $5.6
billion; Defense Logistics Agency  (DLA) $0.4
billion; Defense Nuclear Agency $0.1 billion; and
FUDS $4.5 billion. Most of the past DOD expen-
ditures for restoration have gone for site
investigation and analysis. Since 1984, DOD  has
identified over 29,000 sites with a reported
potential for significant contamination. These
sites had to  be investigated and evaluated to
determine the extent of the problems and
potential remedies. Beginning  in FY 1995, more
than half the restoration budget was spent on
actual cleanup as compared to investigations.
DOD estimates that by FY 1997, 74 percent of its
restoration funds will go to cleanups. DOD
estimates that it will take until 2015 before all of
its sites are cleaned up.

6.5  Market Entry Considerations

Although policy is determined centrally by the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmen-
tal Security),  each service is responsible for inves-
tigating and restoring its own sites and uses its
own approach to this work. Almost all DOD site
assessments and remedial actions are done by
contractors. Generally, there are two groups of
contractors: those that work on site investigations
and assessments and those that do remedial
actions. Contractors in the first group seldom do
the construction work. Vendors interested in
innovative  technologies  should take action to
ensure that their technologies are considered at
the earlier stages  of site  investigation and
assessment. For example, even if a vendor is
precluded from working on the RI/FS  of a
particular site, he or she may provide information
on their technology to the DOD officials and
                                                6-12

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                     DOD Sites
contractors working on the RI/FS. Appendix E
lists the contract management or program offices.
The following is a summary of the practices of
each DOD Component.

Army

The management of the Army IRP is the responsi-
bility of the U.S. Army Environmental Center
(USAEC), which sets overall policy and deter-
mines the sequence of work to be done. The
Corps of Engineers implements the program,
including developing schedules for all activities
and studies for PAs, Sis, and RI/FSs, through
more than two  dozen contractors. RD/RA is  done
by the Corps under the direction of USAEC. The
Corps also  implements the remediation programs
for DLA and FUDS and conducts more than half
of the site investigation and remediation work for
the Air Force. The Corps also supports EPA,
other federal agencies and states in
environmental restoration  activities. For EPA, the
Corps provides design, construction, and
technical assistance in support  of the Superfund
program. In FY 1994, the Corps conducted $264
million of work for the Superfund program, of
which 80 percent was for remedial action. The
Corps also  does restoration work for the
Economic Development Agency, Farmers Home
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration,
Commodity Credit Corporation, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, and the
Department of Energy. These efforts amounted to
over $100 million in FY 1994.'81

In the past, most of the design  work was done  by
the Corps' Missouri River  Division (MRD) in
Omaha, Nebraska, although some work is also
done by  other Corps divisions  and districts. The
MRD contains the Hazardous, Toxic, and Radio-
active Waste  (HTRW) Mandatory Center of
Expertise whose 76-person staff serves as a
technical resource for environmental restoration.
The center is responsible for maintaining state-of-
the-art technical expertise for all aspects  of
restoration  activities and providing technical
assistance to designated Corps  design  districts.
The Corps uses four basic  types of contracts:

 • Total Environmental Response Contracts
   (TERC). These contracts are designed to
   enable DOD to use a single contractor for all
   work at a site, from initial studies through
   construction and to perform multiple tasks  at
   multiple sites on an installation. The Army
   anticipates that when all these contracts are in
   place, each of the 12 Corps divisions will
   have at least one TERC contract, and the
   work under these contracts primarily will be
   for construction and for sites for which the
   remediation approach is relatively well
   defined. As of November 1995 there were 10
   TERC contracts and three in the process of
   evaluation and selection.

 • Pre-placed Remedial Action Contracts. These
   contracts are exclusively for construction
   work managed by the Corps divisions. Each
   division has at least one contract and
   remedial action contractors are  prohibited
   from working on site investigation and
   related  work that contribute to  the
   preparation of Records of Decision (RODs)
   and remedial designs.

 • Rapid Response Contracts. The Corps's MRD
   manages two rapid response contracts that
   provide a nationwide capability to respond to
   requests for action within 45 days. The work
   under this contract may include administra-
   tive, engineering, and construction work.

 • Architectural and Engineering Contracts.
   These contracts cover a wide variety of
   activities, such as new construction,
   renovation, maintenance, and planning.
   Although they generally are not specifically
   for remediation work, remediation or related
   investigations and studies may be conducted
   under some of these contracts, depending on
   their specific statements of work.

   Navy

The management of the Navy IRP is the responsi-
bility of the Navy Facilities Engineering
Command  (NAVFAC), which reports to the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations
and Environment. The day-to-day work of the
IRP is run by ten field divisions that operate
within distinct geographical boundaries. Each
division has at least one contract for its region,
known as the Comprehensive Long-Term
                                               6-13

-------
 DOD Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
Environmental Action Navy (CLEAN) contract.
These contracts, which are issued through
NAVFAC, are primarily for work relating to PA
through RD. As of November 1995, the Navy had
13 active CLEAN contracts and two additional
potential contracts were undergoing evaluation
and selection.  Remedial action work is conducted
through large  pre-placed remedial action
contracts (RACs) and, generally, the contractors
that do the construction work are prohibited from
working on site investigations and assessments.
As of November 1995, there were 10 RAC
contracts. The  CLEAN and RAC contracts are
multi-year, task-order type contracts ranging from
$75 million to  $300 million in potential work.

   Air Force

The Air Force IRP is decentralized, and executed
by the 11 Air Force Major Commands. Each may
use specialized technical support from environ-
mental contractors. Contractors are accessed
either through pre-established task-order
contracts administered through five contract
service centers, individual contracts let by the
commands themselves, or by individual installa-
tions. For example, environmental officials at
McClellan Air Force Base have procured multi-
million dollar  contracts for environmental
remediation work. A majority of the Air Force's
site investigation and restoration work has been
conducted by  the Corps.

The Air Force  base conversion program is
separately managed by the Air Force Base
Conversion Agency (AFBCA). The overall policy
for this agency is determined by the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Environment,  Safety and Occupational Health.
About 15 percent of the work is done  by the
Corps, and the remainder through direct
contracts, usually the same contractors used for
the IRP program. The minimum budget for the
Air Force BRAC was $147 million in FY 1994 and
$107 million in FY 1995. As previously stated, the
BRAC funds may be used for more than
environmental restoration.

The Defense Logistics Agency's sites are managed
by the Huntsville, Alabama,  District of the Corps.
6.6  Technologies Used and Research,
Development and Demonstrations

A partial list of DOD and other federal sites
using innovative technologies appears in the EPA
report Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual
Status Report.[9] The following are examples of
innovative technology applications at DOD sites
known to EPA: bioremediation has been selected
to treat for VOCs and PAHs; soil vapor extraction
has been selected for VOCs, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and gasoline; and soil
washing has been selected for PCBs and metals.

DOD actively participates in technology
innovation to meet its environmental restoration
needs more  efficiently and effectively. The
Department's efforts predominately focus on
three major  areas:

 •  Technology transfer,
 •  Demonstration and certification of emerging
    technologies, and
 •  Development of new technologies.

    Technology Transfer

DOD has been active in facilitating technology
transfer among development and demonstration
programs and technology users.  For example,
DOD is working with the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable, an interagency
organization created to facilitate  collaboration
among federal agencies, such as  the Department
of Energy (DOE) and EPA,  which also have a
stake in technology development. The Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable is
described in Chapter 3.

DOD has been especially active in Roundtable
initiatives to develop the Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Second
Edition (Screening Matrix), an easy-to-use
compendium of current information on available
remediation technologies.'101

DOD is using the latest communications techno-
logies to disseminate technology information,
including  the World Wide Web.  DOD has
provided many Technology Application Reports
                                                6-14

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                     DOD Sites
on the Web and plans to add the Screening
Matrix and additional Technology Application
Reports as they become available (http://
www.frtr.gov). Installations across the country
also are using the Web to share information on
technology application with local communities
and the environmental technology industry.

The BRAC Public Affairs Office at the Presidio of
San Francisco provides information regarding
restoration activities, including cleanup
technology information on the Web. The home
page is intended for use by the public as well as
other environmental technology users in the field
(http://www.envcleanup.gov).

   Demonstrations and Certification of Emerging
   Technologies

DOD's demonstration programs provide project
managers with a set of previously tested and
certified technologies, which they can then apply
with greater assurance of acceptable cost and
performance. DOD's flagship demonstration
program is the Environmental Security Tech-
nology Certification Program (ESTCP), which
DOD established to demonstrate and certify
emerging technologies. Through this  program,
DOD ensures that technologies that appear
promising based on laboratory work  are
demonstrated at military installations, where their
cost, performance, and market potential are
documented. In FY  1995, the ESTCP initiated 27
demonstration projects, 15 of which were related
to environmental cleanup. For example, the Army
Environmental Center jointly with EPA is
currently evaluating a more cost-effective
advanced oxidation technology at Cornhusker
Army Ammunition  Plant in Nebraska. DOD
shares these technologies with other federal
agencies and brings them to the commercial
market. Under ESTCP, EPA has initiated joint
projects with DOE,  where technologies developed
by DOE will  be demonstrated and validated at
DOD sites.

The Defense National Environmental Technology
Test Site Program (NETTSP) established national
test centers to compare demonstrations and
evaluate cost-effective innovative technologies,
thereby enabling the technologies to be transfer-
red from research to full-scale use.  Under this
program, DOD Components and EPA select sites
with appropriate contaminants to serve as test
locations; develop common quality assurance/
quality control procedures; and develop coordina-
ted dissemination mechanisms for reporting
results of technology demonstrations and
evaluations. The DOD Components and EPA are
establishing partnerships with government and
private interests to carry out the technology
demonstrations at the selected installations and
provide researchers and developers with technical
and field support. DOD plans technology
demonstrations at the following installations:

 •  Port Hueneme Naval Construction Battalion
    Center sites for technologies to remediate fuel
    hydrocarbons;
 •  Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant sites for
    demonstrations involving technologies for the
    remediation of energetics and heavy metals
    contamination;
 •  Wurtsmith Air Force Base for development
    and testing  of integrated biological/
    physiochemical processes and evaluation of
    innovative monitoring and measurement
    technologies;
 •  McClellan Air Force Base sites for
    demonstrating technologies for solvent
    remediation; and
 •  Dover Air Force base to house the
    Groundwater Remediation Field Laboratory.

Each of the individual services also  maintains
technology development and demonstration
programs. The Air Force Center for Environ-
mental Excellence, Army Environmental Center,
and Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
are leaders in cleanup technology demonstration.

For example, the Navy has had success in
demonstrating the TerraKleen™ soil washing
technology at North Island Naval Air Station,
California in FY 1994, in cooperation with the
EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evalua-
tion (SITE)  Program. The technology was placed
into full-scale operation to remediate soil
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls at
several sites on the installation. This action may
lead to closing the three sites with no further
action required. Technology demonstration and
full-scale performance data were distributed
Navy-wide to facilitate the use of the technology
at other Navy installations.
                                                6-15

-------
 DOD Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
DOD also participates in another demonstration
program, the Clean Sites Public-Private Initiative,
described in Section 2.5.

    Development of New Technology

DOD also supports basic and applied research
and development on environmental technologies
based on user-generated requirements. To
coordinate and focus these activities, the services
work together to define technology needs and
DOD then prioritizes and communicates
service-validated requirements to the technology
development community.

DOD coordinates new technology development
through the Tri-Service Environmental Quality
Laboratory Plan  (sometimes called the Green
Book), which allows program funding to be
matched to identified needs. To coordinate and
leverage resources, DOD has implemented a plan
in which services are designated as leads for
various  cleanup  technology focus areas. For
example, researchers at the Air Force's Armstrong
Laboratory are developing a bioslurping system
that improves the effectiveness of bioventing by
removing free product before treatment.

DOD also participates in the Strategic
Environmental Research and Development
Program (SERDP). SERDP was established by
Congress in 1990 to address environmental
technology needs of the Departments of Defense
and Energy. It is managed by DOD, DOE, and
EPA and is supported by DOD funds. The
program funds government laboratory, academic,
and private industry research and the
development of technologies needed by DOD,
DOE, and EPA. Most of the funding is used to
support technology development in the areas  of
cleanup, compliance, conservation, and pollution
prevention. The cleanup area accounts for the
largest percentage of program funds and includes
34 cleanup-related technology projects.  For
example, through the Mobile Underwater Debris
Survey System (MUDSS) project, SERDP hopes to
provide the DOD services with an effective
technology for detecting unexploded ordnance at
underwater ranges.

Examples of technologies being developed or
demonstrated in DOD programs  include: in situ
vapor extraction for petroleum, oil and lubricants
(POLs), VOCs, and solvents in soil, in situ vapor
extraction for VOCs in groundwater, ex situ vapor
extraction, in situ soil venting of  POLs and
solvents, in situ bioventing of POLs in soil and
groundwater, in situ bioremediation of  POLs and
solvents in soil and  groundwater, ex situ
bioremediation of POLs in soil and groundwater,
ex situ bioremediation of explosives and
propellants in soil, chemical detoxification of
chlorinated aromatic compounds in soil, in situ
carbon regeneration, incineration of explosives-
contaminated soil, infrared thermal destruction,
low temperature thermal stripping of VOCs in
soil, mobile rotary kiln incineration of soils,
thermal destruction, radio frequency thermal soil
decontamination for POLs and solvents, xanthate
treatment for heavy metals in groundwater or
wastewater, stabilization/solidification, and
compacting of explosives contaminated soils.

DOD work on these and other technologies
are summarized in several EPA and DOD
documents.1111 m m  m [15]. In addition
to a brief summary of each project, these
documents provide  a contact for  further technical
information. A list of relevant DOD program
offices appears in Appendix E.
                                               6-16

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
DOD Sites
6.7  References

1.   Base Closure and Realignment Acts of 1988, P.L. 100-526 (BRAC 88) and 1990, P.L. 101-510 (BRAC 91,
    93, and 95).

2.   U.S. DOD, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Defense Environmental
    Restoration Program: Annual Report to Congress For Fiscal Year 1995, Spring 1996.

3.   U.S. DOD,  Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Memorandum for Stakeholders
    in the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, September 13, 1994.

4.   U.S. DOD, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Restoration Advisory Board
    (RAB) Implementation Guidelines,  Memorandum, October 13, 1994.

5.   U.S. DOD, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Management Guidance for
    Execution of the FY 94/95 and Development of the FY 96 Defense Environmental Restoration Program,
    Memorandum, April 14, 1994.

6.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of Administration and Resources Management, Fiscal
    Year 1997 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committees on Appropriations, EPA 206-R-96-001,
    March 1996.

7.   U.S. DOD, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Restoration Management
    Information System, November  1995.

8.   U.S. DOD, Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Restoration Programs 1994 Annual Report.

9.   U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste  and Emergency Response, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual
    Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA-542-R-96-010, November 1996.

10.  Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable, Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference
    Guide, Second Edition, EPA/542/B-94/013, NTIS PB95-104782, October 1994.

11.  U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Army Toxics and Hazardous Materials Agency, Army Corps of
    Engineers, Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control Technologies, CETHA-TS-CR-90067,
    Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD  21010-5401.

12.  U.S. EPA, et al, Federal Publications on Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective
    Action and Site Remediation, prepared by the member agencies of the Federal Remediation
    Technologies Roundtable, Fifth Edition, EPA-542-B-95-004, 1995.

13.  U.S. EPA, et al, Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies, prepared
    by the member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, Third Edition, EPA-
    542-B-93-009, October 1993.

14.  U.S. EPA, et al, Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, prepared by the member agencies of the Federal
    Remediation Technologies Roundtable, EPA-542-R-95-001, March 1995.

15.  U.S. EPA, et al, Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site Clean-Up Technologies, prepared by
    the member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, EPA-542-B-95-008,  1995.
                                                6-17

-------
DOD Sites
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                                    This page intentionally left blank.
                                                    6-18

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                    DOE Sites
                                       CHAPTER 7
                        DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF
                       DEPARTMENT OF  ENERGY SITES
One of the most serious and costly environmental
remediation tasks facing the federal government
is the cleanup and restoration of more than 100
major installations and other locations that are
the responsibility  of the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE). Environmental problems at DOE
installations stem  from activities that began in the
1940s with the Manhattan Project and continued
throughout the  Cold War. In the 50 years since
the Manhattan Project, the United States has
spent more than $300 billion (in 1996 dollars) on
nuclear weapons research, production, and
testing—manufacturing tens of thousands of
nuclear warheads and detonating more than
l,000.m

The environmental problems associated with
DOE properties, unlike those of other industries,
include unique  radiation hazards, unprecedented
volumes of contaminated soil and water, and a
large number of contaminated structures ranging
from nuclear reactors to chemical plants for the
extraction of nuclear materials to evaporation
ponds."1 DOE estimates that environmental
restoration, the  cleanup of its hazardous waste
sites, will cost $63 billion and take about 75 years.
121131 Environmental restoration accounts for 28
percent of the $227 billion life-cycle-cost DOE has
estimated for all environmental management
activities at its facilities. The other 72% of DOE's
environmental management costs are for the
following types of activities: waste management,
nuclear material and facility stabilization, national
program planning and management, landlord
activities, and technology development. DOE's
environmental cleanup program offers an
enormous opportunity for firms that provide
remediation services.

Although DOE  has come a long way, particularly
over the last two years, in defining the scope  of
the remediation needed for  many of the 10,500
"sites" the agency has identified to date, most of
them still are being evaluated.'21 Throughout this
chapter the term "site" will  be used to indicate an
individual area of contamination. In June 1996,
the agency issued its most comprehensive report
to date on the status and potential cost of
cleaning up the backlog of accumulated
problems, as well as the wastes to be generated
from ongoing national security operations and
from the  cleanup efforts themselves. The report,
The 1996  Baseline Environmental Report, which will
be updated and reissued periodically,
summarizes environmental management
activities—including environmental restoration
(cleanup), waste management, nuclear material
and facility stabilization, technology
development, and landlord responsibilities—and
provides  tentative schedules and estimates of the
life-cycle  costs involved in completing the
agency's  Environmental Management program
(See Sections 7.3 and 7.4 for additional
information).

7.1 Program Description

DOE's environmental programs  are managed by
its Office of Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management (EM)  through six major
program  offices: Office of Waste Management,
Office of Management and Finance, Office of
Nuclear Material and Facilities Stabilization,
Office of Site Operations,  Office  of Science and
Technology, and Office of Environmental
Restoration.141 As its name implies, the Office of
Waste Management is concerned with the
treatment, storage, and disposal of wastes
generated from DOE's ongoing operations. The
Office of  Waste Management also is responsible
for DOE's waste minimization effort and for
corrective activities at the agency's waste
management facilities. These programs are
intended to bring all DOE waste management
facilities into compliance with applicable federal,
state, and local regulations related to health,
safety, and the environment.

In addition to overall EM administrative and
budget functions,  the Office of Management and
                                               7-1

-------
 DOE Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
Finance conducts cost and performance analyses
related to the agency's environmental
management programs. The Office of Nuclear
Materials and Facilities Stabilization implements
DOE's efforts to deactivate and properly maintain
closed facilities until they can be decontaminated
and decommissioned or released for other uses.
The Office of Site Operations is responsible
primarily for programs related to integrating
good  risk management practices and credible risk
assessment procedures into the environmental
management decision-making process, increasing
public understanding of and involvement in
environmental decision-making, and developing
the agency's environmental justice public
participation strategy.

The Office of Science and Technology is responsible
for developing technologies to meet DOE's goals
for environmental restoration and waste
management. Its activities include research and
development; demonstration, testing, and
evaluation; technology integration; and
technology transfer.

The Office of Environmental Restoration is the
primary focus of this chapter. The Office of
Environmental Restoration is responsible for all
activities to  assess and clean up inactive
hazardous and radioactive "facilities"—such as
reactors,  laboratories, equipment, buildings,
pipelines, waste treatment systems, and storage
tanks—and  sites at all DOE installations and at
some  non-DOE locations that have been specified
by Congress. This program includes cleanup
activities at  25 DOE installations and other
locations listed on the National Priorities List
(NPL); corrective actions under the  Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which
are necessary for sites at about  one-quarter of
DOE's installations; and cleanup required under
other environmental programs.'51 [61

Environmental Restoration activities include:

•  Decontamination and decommissioning
   (D&D)—decontamination and safe
   disposition of deactivated and surplus
   equipment,  buildings, and other facilities;

•  Remedial actions—site characterization to
   identify  the contaminants and physical
properties at a site, and remediation actions to
stabilize, reduce, or remove contaminants at a
site; and

•   Long-term surveillance and maintenance
    (S&M)—monitoring the site to ensure that
    contamination has been successfully
    addressed and providing maintenance
    services to ensure the long-term integrity of
    containment remedies or continued effective
    operation of pump-and-treat remedies.'51

These three activities  are described in the
following subsections.

7.1.1 Decontamination and Decommissioning
(D&D)

Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) is
DOE's program to manage government-owned,
surplus, deactivated "facilities" that were used
for early nuclear energy research and defense
programs. These "facilities" could include
reactors, hot cells, processing plants, storage
tanks, research  facilities, and other structures
where releases or spills have occurred. DOE is
responsible for  decontaminating and safely
disposing of these surplus facilities. Disposal
could include demolishing the building and
removing rubble from the facility, collapsing the
facility to a below-ground level and burying
rubble under a  protective cap, or converting a
completely decontaminated facility for non-
nuclear  use. D&D operations are ongoing or
planned at just  over 30 DOE installations and
other locations. Overall, the program is
addressing about 5,000 contaminated buildings
that require deactivation, 1,200 buildings that
require decommissioning, and 550,000 metric tons
of metals and 23 million cubic meters of  concrete
in buildings that require disposition. [21[51

7.1.2 Remedial Actions

Remedial action at sites throughout the DOE
complex involves treatment, disposal, and, in
some cases, transfer to the Waste Management
Program of a variety  of wastes. These wastes are
categorized as:

 •  hazardous—containing hazardous
    constituents but no radionuclides;
                                                 7-2

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                     DOE Sites
 •  mixed—containing both hazardous and
    radioactive materials;

 •  low-level—containing a small amount of
    radioactivity in large volumes of material;

 •  lle(2) byproduct material—containing very
    low concentrations of naturally occurring
    alpha-emitting radionuclides in large volumes
    of generally soil-like materials;

 •  transuranic—containing plutonium,
    americium, and other elements with atomic
    numbers higher than uranium; and

 •  high-level—containing highly radioactive
    material—including fission products, traces of
    uranium and plutonium, and other
    transuranic elements—resulting from
    chemical reprocessing of spent fuel."1 [21

DOE expects to remediate almost 3.8 million
cubic meters of the hazardous waste, and nearly
5.7 million cubic meters of mixed waste, at its
installations and other locations over the life of
the program.'71 DOE's Environmental
Restoration Program addresses waste through
remediation (including in situ and ex situ
treatment and disposal) or, in some cases,
through transfer of the waste to the agency's
ongoing Waste Management Program.

Most of DOE's installations require remedial
action under one or more environmental statutes.
These installations vary widely in size. For
example, the Laboratory for Energy-Related
Health Research in Davis, California, occupies  15
acres, while Hanford Reservation in the
southeastern part of Washington covers 560
square miles. Overall, DOE installations
encompass 2.3 million acres of land.131

Characterization and assessment (C/A) activities
are in progress at most installations and other
locations. Much of this work will continue for
years, and  complete remediation will take longer
still. However, by the end of 1995, DOE had
completed  198 remedial actions (including
cleanup at  a variety of operable units [OUs],
closures, etc.) and over 100 others were
underway.151 In addition, DOE continues to
implement, as needed, interim actions (limited
actions to mitigate risks from contamination) as
the process of characterization, assessment, and
cleanup moves forward at its installations.121131

More than half of the installations and other
locations in DOE's Environmental Restoration
program are managed under the Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
(FUSRAP) and the Uranium Mill Tailings
Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project. FUSRAP
involves the cleanup or control of 46
locations—some owned or leased by DOE or
other government agencies, some privately
owned—where there is residual radioactive
material from the early years of the Nation's
atomic energy program. By the end of 1995,
cleanup at 22 of these installations had been
completed, and cleanup work  currently is in
progress at nine of the 24 remaining installations
to be remediated under the program. DOE
anticipates that remediation activities under
FUSRAP will continue through 2016.121151171

UMTRA provides for stabilizing and controlling
surface contamination from 39 million cubic
yards of uranium mill tailings  at 24 former
uranium ore processing sites and for addressing
groundwater contamination beneath and, in some
cases, downgradient of the mills.151 The tailings
resulted from the production of uranium between
the early 1950s and the early 1970s.  In addition to
the 24 processing sites, mill tailings remediation
also has been completed at over 97 percent of the
over 5,000 private residential and commercial
properties, under the UMTRA project. These
"vicinity" properties are contaminated because
tailings were used as fill for construction and
landscaping, or were carried by the wind to open
areas. By the end of 1996, DOE had completed
surface remediation at 18 processing sites and
their associated vicinity properties; and
remediation was ongoing at six others. Surface
remediation is expected to be completed by the
end of 1998.151

DOE currently estimates that about  4.7 billion
gallons of groundwater at 23 of the  ore
processing sites being addressed under UMTRA
are contaminated. The Lowman,  Idaho, UMTRA
location is the only  one which shows no sign of
groundwater contamination. Restoration of
groundwater has yet to begin  at UMTRA
locations. DOE published a draft programmatic
environmental impact statement for this portion
                                                7-3

-------
 DOE Sites
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
of the program in April 1995.[81 Site-specific
remedial action plans for the UMTRA
groundwater projects are expected to be prepared
beginning in 1997 and continuing through 2007.
DOE anticipates that active remediation of these
locations will begin as early as 2002 and be
completed by 2014.[5'

7.1.3 Long-term Surveillance  and Maintenance

Long-term surveillance and maintenance activities
are integral to the environmental restoration
process. In decontamination and
decommissioning projects, DOE's S&M activities
include monitoring and maintaining facilities
awaiting D&D to prevent worker, public, and
environmental exposure to potential hazards. The
agency conducts post-S&M activities when
remediation projects have been completed. These
include monitoring sites to demonstrate that
actions to contain,  reduce, or stabilize
contamination are effective over  time; to ensure
that any new problems are detected if they occur;
and to provide ongoing maintenance—for
example, at sites where containment remedies,
such as capping or entombment, have been
implemented and at groundwater sites where the
remedy involves long-term pump-and-treat
operations.121

7.2 Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup

The following factors affect the demand for
remediation of DOE installations.

 •  Cleanup and restoration work at most DOE
    installations is in the early stages. The nature
    and magnitude  of the contamination at  many
    sites are still only partially known; only about
    46  percent of the more than 10,500 sites have
    been  fully characterized.'21

 •  Although DOE estimates that it will take  75
    years (1996 to 2070) to complete the cleanup,
    it expects to remediate nearly 80 percent of its
    currently known sites by 2021. Thus, the next
    about 25 years is a "window of opportunity"
    for vendors of remediation technologies and
    services. An indication of the scheduling of he
    work is provided by a review of the
    milestones in Records of Decision  (RODs) for
    NPL-listed DOE sites. RODs  for 32 hazardous
    waste OUs at DOE NPL sites were expected
to be completed in 1996. RODs for another
104 hazardous waste OUs, about 50 percent
of the remaining ones for which a completion
milestone is known, are expected to be
completed by 2000 (Exhibit 7-1). These figures
refer to operable units as defined under the
Comprehensive  Environmental Response,
Compensation,  Liability Act (CERCLA)). DOE
uses a  different definition for its OUs. DOE
expects to complete cleanup of all sites and
bring all its  installations into environmental
compliance by 2070.12]

In developing its 75-year estimate of the time
required for cleanup of all installations, DOE
assumed a greater emphasis on containment
than on treatment and other active
remediation strategies.'21

The 75-year estimate to remediate all DOE
installations could be lengthened or shortened
depending on the funds appropriated by
Congress for DOE programs. Cleanup
schedules are heavily dependent on available
funds.  DOE officials have indicated from
time-to-time that proposals for significant
reductions in the agency's future budgets
likely would delay cleanups at some
installations and, in some cases, interfere with
the  agency's ability to meet milestones in
existing compliance agreements.'91

DOE gives top priority to cleanup activities
necessary to prevent near-term adverse
impacts to workers, the public, or the
environment and to activities required to
meet the terms  of agreements  between DOE
and local, state, or federal agencies.'21

The type and extent of remediation required
will be affected significantly by the level of
residual contamination after cleanup that will
be acceptable to regulators and the public.
The acceptable residual contamination  level is
unknown for most DOE installations, since
cleanup agreements for many  installations
have not been completed.'21

Acceptable cleanup levels and the type of
remediation required also will be influenced
by decisions concerning how land and
facilities are expected to be used in the future.
The process of making decisions on these
                                                7-4

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                                                   DOE Sites
                Exhibit 7-1:  Estimated ROD Completion Dates for CERCLA Operable
                           Units at DOE Installations and Other Locations
   45 —|

   40

£  35 -
'c

1  30
5
S.  25-
O
it_
°  20
&

I  15^

   10

    5 —
              0'
                   41
                           42
                                   25
                                            17
                                                           14
                                               10
                                                                           4       3   4
                                                                                      I
                  95  96  97  98  99  00  01  02  03  04  05  06  07  08  09 10-14 15-19 20+
                                           Year (1995-2020+)

         Notes: Includes 252 CERCLA operable units for which a completion milestone is known at all DOE installations and
               other locations that the Environmental Restoration Program is responsible for remediating through its various
               programs, including Decontamination and Decommissioning, FUSRAP, and UMTRA. An "operable unit" consists
               of one or more "sites" (individual areas of contamination).

         Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Program at a Glance, March 1995 (Rev. 1.0).
    matters still is underway for most DOE
    installations and facilities.'21

 •  As with DOD, cleanup requirements at DOE
    installations and other locations are extremely
    sensitive to changes in a wide variety of
    environmental statutes and regulations.
    Remedial, decontamination, decommissioning,
    and waste management and compliance-
    related corrective activities overlap at many
    installations. The requirements of a variety of
    federal and state laws simultaneously impact
    decision-making. In addition to CERCLA and
    RCRA, other relevant statutes include the
    Atomic Energy Act, the National
    Environmental  Policy Act (NEPA), and the
    Federal Facility Compliance Act. Vendors  in
    this market should keep up to  date on
    regulatory and  legislative developments of
    concern to DOE remediation efforts.

7.3  Number and Characteristics of Sites

DOE is responsible for environmental restoration
at 137  installations  and other locations in 33 states
                                            and Puerto Rico. Many installations contain more
                                            than one site. Depending on the size and
                                            complexity of the installation, sites may be
                                            aggregated into one or more OUs and each OU
                                            may require a different remedy. DOE has
                                            identified about 10,500 contaminated sites  that
                                            require some remediation, and that number may
                                            grow as assessment and  characterization activities
                                            continue. The contaminated sites that have been
                                            identified to date have been aggregated into over
                                            700 OUs. DOE periodically increases or decreases
                                            the number of OUs, as a result of continual
                                            reevaluations of the designation of OUs as the
                                            program progresses.

                                            Twenty-five DOE installations and other locations
                                            in  15 states are on the Superfund National
                                            Priorities List (NPL). In some  cases, the
                                            Superfund  cleanup may  involve only one
                                            operable unit at the installation; in others
                                            multiple operable units may be affected. DOE has
                                            lead responsibility in the cleanup of 22 of  these
                                            installations and other locations. The other
                                            three—Maxey Flats, Kentucky; Shpack  Landfill,
                                            Massachusetts; and South Valley, New
                                                  7-5

-------
 DOE Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
Mexico—are being managed under the Superfund
program by EPA, and DOE shares financial
responsibility for the cleanup with other
responsible parties.[21[51

Exhibit 7-2 lists 86 installations and other DOE
locations at which assessment and
characterization of soil, groundwater, or both are
in progress or have yet to be initiated for some or
all operable units.'21 These installations represent
the potential market for hazardous waste
remediation services. The list includes 20 of the
25 DOE installations and other locations on the
NPL. Appendix Exhibit D-l provides similar
information for DOE installations, including the
other five on the NPL, where remedial work
already is in progress or has been completed and,
thus, does not represent many vendor
opportunities.[21[31

Some installations are listed in both Exhibit 7-2
and Appendix Exhibit D-l. While remedial action
may be ongoing at some operable units at these
installations, they continue to represent
opportunities for vendors because other operable
units still are being characterized and assessed.

DOE estimates that 64 percent of the total
estimated cost of environmental management
activities over  the 75-year life of the program will
be expended at five major installations—Rocky
Flats Environmental Technology Site (Colorado),
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (Idaho),
Savannah River Site (South Carolina), Oak  Ridge
Reservation (Tennessee), and Hanford
Reservation (Washington).'21 These installations
contain 406 operable units, more than half of the
operable units DOE is responsible for addressing.
Points  of contact for each of these installations are
listed in Appendix E.

Information about the extent of contamination at
many of the installations listed still is incomplete.
DOE has made substantial progress,  however, in
identifying specific contaminants of concern for
many individual sites. Exhibit 7-3 shows the
frequency with which major contaminants and
categories of contaminants have been identified at
the DOE installations and other locations where
characterization and assessment (C/A) has not
been completed. This Exhibit is derived from
Appendix Exhibit D-2, which shows the
contaminants of concern, to the extent they are
known, at each of the 86 DOE installation and
other locations where C/A has not been
completed. These data were compiled from four
sources: March 3, 1995 tabulations from the
DOE/EM-40 Contaminated Media/Waste
Database; DOE's Estimating the Cold  War
Mortgage: The 1995 Baseline Environmental Report,
published in March 1995; DOE's 1996 Baseline
Environmental Report, published in June  1996, and
the agency's Draft Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement for the Uranium Mill Tailings
Remedial Action Ground Water Project, published in
April 1995. The contaminant information in these
sources indicate only that a contaminant has been
identified at an installation. The data do not
indicate if specific contaminants have been
identified at only one site or at more than one
site at the installation.

Organics are among contaminants at about 38
percent of the DOE installations that have not
begun remediation. Among these are
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), petroleum/fuel
hydrocarbons, solvents, trichloroethylene (TCE),
"unspecified" volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and "unspecified" semivolatile  organic
compounds (SVOCs).

Metals are listed as contaminants of concern at 55
percent of DOE installations yet to start
remediation. Those  cited most often  are lead,
beryllium, mercury, arsenic, and chromium.

Radioactive contaminants are present at most
DOE installations and other locations. The most
frequently cited are uranium, tritium, thorium,
and plutonium.

Mixed waste, containing both radioactive and
hazardous contaminants, is a particular  concern
to DOE because of the lack of acceptable
treatment technology and the high cost and
scarcity of disposal  facilities. Mixed waste is the
focus of one of DOE's major technology
development thrusts (see Section 7.6).
                                                 7-6

-------
Exhibit 7-2: DOE Installations and Other Locations Where Waste Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing
State
AK
AZ
CA
Installation/Site
Amchitka Island
Monument Valley
Tuba City
Energy Technology Engineering Center
General Atomics
General ElectricA/allecitos Nuclear
Center
Geothermal Test Facility
Laboratory for
Energy-Related
Health Research
Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
Oxnard
Salton Sea Test Base
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Program2
ER
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
ER
(including D&D)
ER
(including D&D)
ER
(including D&D)
ER
ER
(including D&D)
on NPL
ER
ER (including D&D)
on NPL (2 sites)
ER
ER
ER
Status3
Not Initiated
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
C/A ongoing
C/A, D&D
ongoing
C/A ongoing
Not Initiated
C/A, D&D ongoing
C/A ongoing
C/A ongoing
Complete
C/A ongoing
C/A ongoing
IA in progress
No. of
Operable
Units*4
1
1
1
16
1
2
1
9
4
11
1
Estimated Budget
FY1997
(millions)3
$0.225
$1.0
$3.56
$4.21
$3.6
$0
$0
$3.55
$3.19
$22.51
$0
Estimated
Life-Cycle Cost
(millions)3
$6.35
$112.6
$99.2
$131.0
$17.0
$23.3
$5.1
$21.1
$54.4
$639
$0.5
Included in data for Sandia National Laboratory-Albuquerque
through which this site is managed.
1
$1
$5.0
                                                                                                                0)


                                                                                                                Q.
                                                                                                                S-
                                                                                                                a
                                                                                                                o


                                                                                                                I



                                                                                                                I

                                                                                                                I

-------
Exhibit 7-2: DOE Locations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing (continued)1
State
CO
FL
HI
IA
Installation/Site
Durango Site
Grand Junction Mill Tailing Site
Gunnison
Maybell
Naturita
Old North Continent
(Slick Rock)
Project Rio Blanco
Project Rullison
Rifle Mill (New)
Rifle Mill (Old)
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology
Site
Union Carbide (Slick Rock)
Pinellas Plant
Kauai Test Facility
Ames Laboratory
Program2
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
ER
ER
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
ER (including D&D)
on NPL
ER/UMTRA
ER
ER
ER
Status3
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
C/A ongoing
C/A ongoing
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
C/A ongoing
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
IA in progress
RA pending
RA pending
C/A, S&M ongoing
No. of
Operable
Units34
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
2
12
Estimated Budget
FY 1997
(millions)3
$0.02
$12.8
$0.9
$4.3
$12.35
$9.1
$0.75
$0.185
$1.4
included in
New Rifle
$484.3
included in Old North
Continent
$4.0
Estimated
Life-Cycle Cost
(millions)3
$12.1
$73.3
$12.3
$22.3
$43
$32.9
$6.7
Included in Proj.
Rio Blanco
$20.3
included in
New Rifle
$5,874.2
included in Old
North Continent
$44.8
Included in data for Sandia National Laboratory-Albuquerque
3
$0.19
$2.2
                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                         S"
                                                                                                         0)
                                                                                                         a


                                                                                                         I'
                                                                                                         O
                                                                                                         a

                                                                                                         en"
                                                                                                         or
                                                                                                         en
                                                                                                          "
                                                                                                         
-------
Exhibit 7-2: DOE Locations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing (continued)
State
ID
IL
KY
MA
MD
MO
Installation/Site
Argonne National Laboratory-West
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Argonne National Laboratory-East
Madison
Site A/Plot M,
Palos Forest Preserve
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Chapman Valve
Shpack Landfill8
W.R. Grace & Company
Kansas City Plant
St. Louis Airport Site
Weldon Spring Site
Program2
ER (including D&D)
ER
(including D&D)
on NPL
ER
(including D&D)
ER/FUSRAP
ER
ER
(including D&D)
on NPL
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
on NPL
ER/FUSRAP
ER
(including D&D)
ER/FUSRAP
on NPL
ER
(including D&D)
on NPL
Status3
C/A ongoing
IA in progress
C/A, D&D, RA
ongoing
C/A, D&D ongoing
Not initiated
C/A ongoing
C/A, S&M ongoing
Not initiated
C/A ongoing
RA pending
C/A, RA ongoing
RA pending
C/A, RA ongoing
No. of
Operable
Units34
6
106
22
1
1
19
1
1
1
13
1
8
Estimated Budget
FY 1997
(millions)3
$2.6
$112.8
$8.5
$0.0
$0.17
$39.7
$0
$0.04
$0.0
$3.5
$10.49
$66
Estimated
Life-Cycle Cost
(millions)3
$21
$3,049.1
$169.6
$2.5
$6
$4,830.7
NA
$0.4
$21.5
$28.1
$243.810
$447.9
                                                                                                       0)


                                                                                                       Q.
                                                                                                       S-
                                                                                                       a
                                                                                                       o


                                                                                                       I



                                                                                                       I

                                                                                                       I

-------
Exhibit 7-2: DOE Locations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing (continued)1
State
NJ
NM
NV
Installation/Site
DuPont & Company
Maywood Chemical Works
New Brunswick Site
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Wayne
Ambrosia Lake
Gasbuggy Site
Gnome-Coach Site
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Sandia National Laboratory
Shiprock Site
Central Nevada Test Site
Nevada Test Site
Shoal Test Site
Tonopah Test Range
Program2
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
on NPL
ER/FUSRAP
ER
ER/FUSRAP
on NPL
ER/UMTRA
ER
ER
ER
(including D&D)
ER
(including D&D)
ER/UMTRA
ER
ER
(including D&D)
ER
ER
Status3
RA pending
RA pending
RA pending
S&M ongoing
C/A ongoing
RA pending
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
C/A ongoing
C/A ongoing
C/A, D&D, RA
ongoing
C/A ongoing
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
C/A ongoing
C/A ongoing
C/A ongoing
C/A ongoing
No. of
Operable
Units34
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
18
1
g10
31
10
10
Estimated Budget
FY 1997
(millions)3
$0.003
$10.9
$0.5
$0.5
$6.1
$0.17
$0.79
$0.36
$48.5
$17.8
$1.7
$0
$51
$0
12
Estimated
Life-Cycle Cost
(millions)3
$7.6
$254.9
$5.8
$59
$98.9
$1.2
$14.5"
Include in
Gassbuggy site
$623.7
$231.2
$7.6
$8.2"
$2,235.813
11
12
                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                         S"
                                                                                                         0)
                                                                                                         a


                                                                                                         I'
                                                                                                         O
                                                                                                         a

                                                                                                         en"
                                                                                                         or
                                                                                                         en
                                                                                                          "
                                                                                                         
-------
Exhibit 7-2: DOE Locations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing (continued) 1
State
NY
OH
OR
Installation/Site
Ashland Oil Co.#1
Ashland Oil Co. #2
Bliss & Laughlin Steel
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Linde Air Products
Seaway Industrial Park
Separation Process Research Unit
B and T Metals
Fernald Site
Luckey
Mound Plant
Painesville
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
RMI Site
Lakeview Site
Program2
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
ER
(including) D&D
on NPL
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
ER
(including D&D)
ER/FUSRAP
ER
on NPL
ER/FUSRAP
ER
(including D&D)
on NPL
ER/FUSRAP
ER
(including D&D)
ER
(including D&D)
ER/UMTRA
Status3
RA pending
RA pending
RA pending
C/A, S&M ongoing
RA pending
RA pending
Not initiated
Not initiated
RA, D&D
ongoing
Not initiated
C/A ongoing
Not initiated
C/A, RA, D&D
ongoing
C/A ongoing
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
No. of
Operable
Units3,4
1
1
1
9
1
1
1
1
11
1
14
1
30
3
1
Estimated Budget
FY 1997
(millions)3
$0
$0
$0.49
$15.1
$0
$0
$0.0
$0.13
$260.3
$2.9
$50
$4.8
$45.9
$18
$0.03
Estimated
Life-Cycle Cost
(millions)3
$21.3
$8
$1
$332.4
$28.2
$28.3
$144.9
$3
$2.523.7
$62.7
$892.9
$88
$3,959.7
$131.3
$5.8
                                                                                                        0)


                                                                                                        Q.
                                                                                                        S-
                                                                                                        a
                                                                                                        o


                                                                                                       I



                                                                                                        I

                                                                                                        I

-------
Exhibit 7-2: DOE Locations Where Characterization and Assessment are Ongoing1
State
PA
PR
SC
TN
TX
UT
Installation/Site
Canonsburg Site
Center for Environmental Research
Savannah River Site
Oak Ridge
K-25 Site
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge Reservation
Offsite
Oak Ridge
Y-12 Plant
Falls City Site
Pantex Plant
Green River Site
Mexican Hat Site
alt Lake City Site
Program2
ER/UMTRA
ER
ER
(including D&D)
on NPL
ER
(including D&D)
on NPL
ER
(including D&D)
on NPL
ER
ER
(including D&D)
on NPL
ER/UMTRA
ER
on NPL
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
Status3
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
No. of
Operable
Units34
1
Estimated Budget
FY 1997
(millions)3
$0.28
Estimated
Life-Cycle Cost
(millions)3
$2.5
RA pending
C/A, RA ongoing
C/A, S&M ongoing
C/A ongoing
C/A ongoing
C/A ongoing
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
C/A ongoing
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
92
33
48
9
31
1
16
1
1
1
$111.7
$64.8
$46.4
$11.8
$23.2
$0.4
$9.1
$0.02
$0.5
$0.5
$12,687
$4,465.6
$4,872.6
$267.1
$1,742.9
$5.5
$51.6
$8.2
$3.4
$7.3
                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                   S"
                                                                                                   0)
                                                                                                   a
                                                                                                   O
                                                                                                   a

                                                                                                   en"
                                                                                                   or
                                                                                                   en
                                                                                                    "
                                                                                                   
-------
                  Exhibit 7-2: DOE Locations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing (continued)1
State
WA
WY
Installation/Site
Hanford Site
Riverton Site
Spook Site
Program2
ER
(including D&D)
on NPL (4 sites)
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
Status3
CIA, D&D, RA,
S/M
ongoing
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
C/A ongoing
(ground water)
No. of
Operable
Units34
78
1
1
Estimated Budget
FY 1997
(millions)3
$138.8
$0.4
$0.3
Estimated
Life-Cycle Cost
(millions)3
$8,349.2
$9.9
$1
                                                                                                                                                         0)
                                                                                                                                                         Q.
                                                                                                                                                         S-
                                                                                                                                                         a
                                                                                                                                                         o

                                                                                                                                                        I

                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                         I
ER      Environmental Restoration                               RA
UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailing Remedial Action                      NPL
C/A     Characterization and Assessment                         IA
D&D        Decontamination and Decommissioning                   S & M
FUSRAP    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
Remedial Action
    National Priorities List
Interim Action
    Surveillance and Monitoring
Notes:
1    This table includes installations and other locations where characterization and assessment are in progress or have yet to be initiated for some or all operable
    units.  Some installations and other locations included here also may appear in  Exhibit A-1, because they have both ongoing and completed remedial actions
    and characterization and assessment activities.

2    U.S. Department of Energy, "The 1996 Baseline Environmental Report," DOE/EM-0290, June 1996.

3    U.S. Department of Energy, "The 1996 Baseline Environmental Report," DOE/EM-0290, June 1996; data as of June 1996 from DOE's "1996 Baseline
    Environmental Report" Database and other internal DOE databases provided by the Systems Management Division, Office of Program Integration, Office of
    Environmental Restoration and  interviews with selected site operations staff at  DOE Headquarters, June 1995. Actual Congressional appropriations for FY 1997
    may differ from the amounts  printed here. Data on operable units and life-cycle  costs come from several different sources, which are continuously being revised
    by DOE staff as conditions at specific installations and other locations change and as new sites are identified. In addition, these data were extracted from these
    sources at different times. Therefore, although these data provide an indication  of the approximate level of effort needed  at a given location, their sum may not
    accurately  reflect the program total.

-------
                 Exhibit 7-2: DOE Locations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing (continued) 1



Notes (continued):




4    "Operable unit" consists of one or more "sites" (individual areas of contamination).  DOE aggregates sites with similar characteristics or sources into

    operable units to facilitate remedy selection and operations for all its remediation projects, whether they are conducted under CERCLA, RCRA, or other

    authorities.



5   Work at Amchitka Island (AK), Project Rio  Blanco and Project Rulison (CO), Salmon Test Site (MS), Project Gassbuggy and Gnome-Coach Site (NM),

    and the Central Nevada, Shoal, and Tonopah Test Sites (NV) is managed by and funded through DOE's Nevada Operations Office.
6   DOE does not manage the cleanup work at this site. The agency is providing support to the Potentially Responsible Party.


7   Total estimated FY97 budget for all Missouri FUSRAP sites is $10.4 million.



8   Total estimated life-cycle cost for all Missouri FUSRAP sites is $243.8 million. Site-by-site estimates are not available.



9   Includes Gassbuggy and Gnome-Coach sites.



10   A total of six operable unit equivalents has been identified for the Central Nevada, Shoal,  and Tonopah Test Sites.
11



12
Includes estimated life-cycle cost for Central Nevada and Shoal.


Included in Nevada Test Site.



Included in estimated life-cycle cost for Nevada test sites and Tonopah.
                                                                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                                                                 nT
                                                                                                                                                 0)
                                                                                                                                                 a


                                                                                                                                                I'
                                                                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                                                                 a

                                                                                                                                                 en"
                                                                                                                                                 0
                                                                                                                                                 en
                                                                                                                                                  "
                                                                                                                                                 
-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                       DOE Sites
                         Exhibit 7-3:  Percent of DOE Installations and Other
                             Locations Containing Specific Contaminants
    c
    o
    IB
    C
    0)
    o
    m
    Q.
30%— |

25%—

20% —

15%—

1 U /o

0 /o
*^-












All Radiocative Contaminants =
All Metals

=
All Organic Contaminants =
Other
20%








16%





14°
dCZZ
10% 11C






(°







13%


6%







5%







90% 1
55% 1
38% 1
18%1



22%

18%




5%



» „<
^ x^ fT & ^ v® ^ iO^V <^ „#
O i!™v ^** £s"
> ^» ^ /
^ ^<^ >"*"

                                        Most Frequent Contaminants

 Notes:   Includes all contaminants in a group; not only those indicated by the bars. A site may contain more than one contaminant. Other mixed
        waste indicates installations and other locations with mixed waste for which specific contaminants have not been delineated.
 Sources: U.S. Department of Energy, Estimating the Cold War Mortgage: The 1995 Baseline Environmental Report, DOE/EM-2032, March 1995;
        DOE/EM-40 Contaminated Media/Waste Database as of March 3, 1995; and UMTRA Project Office, "Draft Programmatic Environmental
        Impact Statement for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Ground Water Project," DOE/EIS-0198, April 1995.
DOE installations and other locations contain
contaminated soil and sediment, groundwater,
and rubble and debris. Estimates of the volumes
of these media that still need to be  remediated at
each installation are included in Appendix
Exhibit D-2. Since characterization and
assessment are ongoing at most of these
installations, these estimates may change.
Individual estimates of the volume of
groundwater to be remediated  are not available
for the 23 UMTRA project locations included in
this Exhibit, but DOE estimates that a total of
about 4.7 billion gallons of groundwater are
contaminated at these UMTRA locations.181

7.4 Estimated Cleanup Costs

DOE estimates that it will take  about $63 billion
(28 percent of the estimated $227 billion cost of
all environmental management activities) over a
75-year period to substantially  complete
environmental restoration—including cleanup of
contaminated soil and groundwater,
decontamination and decommissioning of nuclear
reactors and chemical processing buildings, and
exhumation of buried waste—at its installations
and other locations. These expenditures will not
be evenly distributed over the 75-year life of the
agency's environmental cleanup program. After
peaking at about $2 billion in 2000, they will
decline gradually until the program is
substantially complete in 2070 (Exhibit 7-4). The
agency expects to expend about $12 billion  (five
percent of the $227 billion total) for technology
development to support cleanup and other  DOE
environmental management activities over the life
of the program. These estimates are the result of
a comprehensive analysis of the status and
potential cost of cleaning up contamination
accumulated as a result of past activities, as well
as the wastes to be generated from ongoing
                                                  7-15

-------
 DOE Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
national security operations and from the cleanup
efforts themselves.'21

Because of the wide variance in size and
complexity of installations and other locations to
be remediated,  life-cycle-cost estimates vary
among installations as well. For example, cleanup
of the 82-acre Geothermal Test Facility in
Imperial Valley, California, is expected to cost a
total of about $5.1  million, while cleanup of the
11-square-mile  Rocky Flats Plant northwest of
Denver, Colorado, is expected to require about
$5.8 billion. The methodology in the "Baseline"
report for calculating  the cost of accomplishing
DOE's environmental cleanup responsibilities
involved the  use of a  "base-case" scenario, the
agency's best estimate of the environmental
management activities to be undertaken at each
site, which was developed using data and
assumptions supplied by DOE field offices. Life-
cycle cost estimates were generated for each of
about 40 percent of the agency's major
installations and other locations. Aggregate state-
by-state estimates were generated for the 70 sites
managed under the FUSRAP and UMTRA
programs and for nine off-site locations managed
by the Nevada  Operations Office.121 These
estimates, as well as estimates for FY 1997
expenditures, are shown in Exhibit 7-2 and
Appendix Exhibit D-3.

These "base-case" estimates provide the most
reliable information to date on the value of the
DOE market. However, the actual value may be
higher or lower for a  number of reasons. First, as
with any such analysis, the DOE estimates were
based on a set of assumptions. For example:

 •  Activity will significantly increase between
    1995 and 2000 and will shift from
    characterization to include more active
    remediation at DOE contaminated sites. In
    addition,  major facilities will be deactivated.

 •  Milestones  in existing compliance  agreements
    will be completed. Compliance agreements
    affecting DOE cleanups under CERCLA and
    RCRA at 17 DOE  installations are in  place
    (Appendix  Exhibit D-4). DOE currently is
    committed  to meeting more than 70
    compliance  milestones, most of which do not
    extend beyond 2000. The only funding
    increases assumed beyond 2000 were those
    dictated by existing compliance agreements.

 •  Most remediations will use existing
    technologies. Assumptions about the nature
    and extent of contamination were developed
    at the field level and, therefore, varied from
    installation to installation. Based on these
    individual assumptions, field personnel
    selected one of two types of assumed
    remedial actions: strategies  to contain
    contamination or strategies  to eliminate
    contamination. Since radionuclides and other
    contaminants such as heavy metals cannot be
    destroyed, containment was the option
    usually assumed for contaminated soil and
    buried waste. Measures to prevent further
    contaminant migration and protect off-site
    populations—removing or capping the source
    to prevent leaching, using slurry walls and
    other technologies to contain contamination in
    groundwater, natural attenuation, or pump-
    and-treat—were the options assumed for
    groundwater.121

Second, the estimates could not include projected
costs for cleanup where no feasible cleanup
technology exists—such as nuclear explosion sites
and much of the groundwater contamination the
agency is responsible for addressing.

Third, some of the same factors that influence the
demand for DOE installation remediation (see
Section  7.2) will affect the  actual costs of cleanup
activities. These include the relatively limited
characterization of the problems at many sites;
uncertainty about what level of residual
contamination after cleanup will be acceptable to
regulators and the public;  the lack of definitive
policies on future use of land and facilities;
uncertainty about the consistent availability  of
funding; and the inherent uncertainty in a
program that is expected to last at least 75
years.121  For example, the ultimate cost of
groundwater cleanup at DOE's UMTRA sites is
uncertain, because the program still is in its  early
planning stages. According to a December 1995
report by the General Accounting Office, its final
scope and cost will depend largely on the
methods chosen to conduct the cleanups, which
cannot be determined until site characterization
studies and environmental assessments have been
completed, and the capability and willingness of
                                                7-16

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                                              DOE Sites
                           Exhibit 7-4:  Life Cycle Cost Profile for DOE's
                                Environmental Restoration Program
          (A
          C
          o
         ffl
            2.5 -i
              2-
          C
         JH
          o  1.
         Q
         10
         o>
         o>
          
-------
DOE Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
  Reducing DOE's annual environmental
  cleanup budget and extending the program's
  schedule would significantly increase life-
  cycle costs. If the DOE annual budget were
  restricted to 65 percent of the baseline cost
  estimate, total program costs would be
  increased by 30 percent. Most of this cost
  would be due to increased pretreatment
  storage, increased storage and maintenance
  for plutonium storage buildings and chemical
  separation facilities, and support costs.'21

  A hypothetical program  involving only
  minimal action to stabilize sites up to 2070
  would require 44 percent less funding than
  the base case, from 1997 through 2070.
  However, costs after 2070 would be higher
  than now projected. This hypothetical
  program would include treatment  and
  disposal of all high-level waste and spent
  nuclear fuel;  stabilization and surveillance
  and maintenance of surplus facilities; and  safe
  storage of all low-level, low-level mixed, and
  transuranic wastes. No environmental
  restoration, decontamination and
  decommissioning, or treatment and disposal
  of low-level,  low-level mixed, and  transuranic
  wastes would be carried  out under this
  scenario.'21

  Development of new technologies will
  reduce certain cleanup costs and make some
  currently infeasible cleanups possible. For
  the 1995 annual report,'31  DOE selected a
  number of specific technologies scheduled to
  be available by 2000 for this analysis. These
  included electrokinetics, innovative soil
  washing (specifically used for removal of
  normally immobile metal ions, including
  radioactive contaminants like cesium), and in
  situ vitrification for soils; recirculating wells,
  microbial filters, in situ bioremediation,
  dynamic underground stripping, and
  biosorption of uranium for groundwater;
  plasma hearth technology for mixed low-level
  waste treatment; as well as technologies
  potentially applicable for facility
  decontamination, buried waste,
  characterization, and high-level waste. The
  analysis showed that use of these
  technologies  at selected operable units could
  save as much as $9 billion when applied to
  the 1995  "base-case" scenario and as much as
    $80 billion when applied to the least
    restrictive hypothetical land-use scenario. This
    type of analysis was not included in the  1996
    report, but some of these potential savings
    were incorporated into the 1996 baseline cost
    estimates.'2"31

7.5  Market Entry Considerations

Contractors perform virtually all cleanup and
restoration work at DOE installations. DOE issues
"requests for proposals" and awards contracts on
a competitive basis. DOE awards remedial action
contracts on an installation-by-installation basis.
DOE Operations Offices, each of which is
responsible for one or more installations, manage
the contracts. Operations Offices are listed in
Appendix E. Contracts related to the FUSRAP
and UMTRA programs, both of which include
sites in many states, are managed through the
Oak Ridge and Albuquerque Operations  Offices,
respectively.

A list of DOE's current management and
operations (M&O) contractors is presented in
Appendix E. Depending on the installation, these
contractors may be  responsible for management
tasks, actual cleanup work, waste management
duties, or various combinations. For example,
under the Environmental Restoration
Management Contract (ERMC) awarded at
Fernald and the Environmental Restoration
Contract (ERC) awarded at Hanford, contractors
are responsible for day-to-day project
management; have the option of performing the
remedial investigation/feasibility study portions
of the cleanup process; and, after a ROD  is issued
for  a given operable unit, will be responsible for
subcontracting the remaining work to companies
with specialized expertise and technology.

DOE has begun to implement a number of
contract reforms that emphasize performance-
based approaches (focusing on desired endpoints
instead of level of effort) and risk sharing
(contractors assuming more of the financial risk
over time) and provide incentives for M&O
contractors to reduce cost, increase safety, and
identify tasks that should be undertaken  by
qualified subcontractors. The first two integrated
management contracts awarded under the new
system have been multi-year efforts for
management and cleanup of Idaho National
                                              7-18

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                     DOE Sites
Engineering Laboratory (INEL), awarded in
August 1994, and Rocky Flats, awarded in April
1995.[111 These measures may influence not only
the overall value of the DOE market but also the
amount of work available to subcontractors,
because of its emphasis  on increasing  the use of
subcontractors for some specialized functions.

7.6 Technologies Used and Research,
Development, and Demonstrations

Information on the innovative technologies being
used at DOE installations  is  too limited to predict
future  technology use. However, insight into
potential applications may be obtained from the
following examples of applications at  Superfund
cleanups at DOE installations: in situ
bioremediation is currently operational at DOE's
Savannah River installation;  soil vapor extraction
(SVE) is being installed in an Interim Action at
Rocky  Flats' Operable Unit 2; a SVE system is in
the design phase for use at Lawrence  Livermore
National Laboratory; and chemical leaching is
being used with incineration at the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory's Pit 9.[121

DOE recognizes that much of the cleanup  and
environmental restoration at its installations
cannot be accomplished without new
technological solutions. Thus, DOE cleanups
provide an opportunity for developers of
innovative technologies. Early in 1995, DOE
reorganized its technology-related research and
development activities to target five of the most
important remediation and waste management
problems within the DOE complex. In addition,
the reorganization established five areas for the
development of cross-cutting technologies.

The agency's new approach  emphasizes: 1)
teaming with technology customers within the
Office  of Environmental Management and
industry to identify,  develop, and implement
needed technologies; 2) more effectively focusing
the available resources  in DOE's national
laboratories; 3)  involving academia and  other
research organizations in basic research
programs; 4) expanding the  participation of
regulators and stakeholders  in technology
development; and 5) enhancing the agency's
ability  to implement the results of technology
development efforts.
    Focus Areas

Four "Focus Areas" have been targeted on the
basis of the risk they present, their prevalence at
DOE sites, or the lack of technology to meet
environmental requirements and regulations.
Each of the "Focus Areas" has identified specific
categories of technologies on which research and
development work is needed. These are:

 •  Subsurface Contaminants Focus Area —
    Includes containment and treatment of soil,
    water, vegetation, and other wastes. Includes
    aquifer properties characterization, on-line
    remediation process controls, and  subsurface
    access and exploration; reactive barriers, deep
    subsurface barriers, temporary barriers, and
    barrier emplacement; and in situ physical,
    chemical, and biological treatment. This focus
    area plans to concentrate over the  next three
    years on technology development  to expedite
    the characterization of contaminant plumes
    and ways to control sources and migration,
    and to facilitate implementation of emerging
    remediation technologies. Over the next six
    years, the goal of development work in this
    Area is to achieve breakthroughs on problems
    for which remediation technologies do not
    exist, especially dense non-aqueous phase
    liquids (DNAPLs), heavy metals, and
    radionuclide contamination in aquifers and
    overlying soils.

    This focus area also addresses landfill
    stabilization, including the following
    activities: site and waste characterization,  full-
    scale and "hot spot" retrieval, treatment,
    subsurface caps and barriers, and
    stabilization. This Focus Area is concentrating
    on developing, demonstrating, and
    implementing technologies to remediate about
    three million cubic meters of buried waste in
    landfills  located predominantly at  Hanford,
    Savannah River, Idaho National Engineering
    Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
    Oak Ridge Reservation, the Nevada Test Site,
    and Rocky Flats.'131

 •  Mixed Waste Characterization, Treatment,
    and Disposal Focus Area — characterization,
    thermal treatment, non-thermal treatment,
    and effluent monitoring and control. This
    Focus Area plans to conduct a minimum of
                                                7-19

-------
 DOE Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
    three pilot-scale demonstrations of mixed
    waste treatment systems, using actual mixed
    waste, by 1997.'14'

 •  Radioactive Tank Waste Remediation Focus
    Area — characterization, retrieval and
    conveyance, separation and pre-treatment,
    low-level waste treatment and disposal, and
    immobilization. Development work in this
    focus area has concentrated on four DOE
    installations—Hanford, Idaho National
    Engineering Laboratory, Oak Ridge
    Reservation, and the Savannah River
    Site—where most of the DOE inventory of
    underground storage tanks containing
    radioactive waste is located.'151

 •  Facility Deactivation, Decontamination and
    Material Disposal Focus Area — deactivation,
    decontamination, dismantling, and material
    disposal. This focus area currently is in the
    process of selecting an installation for a full-
    scale demonstration of facility
    decommissioning technology with an
    emphasis on the recycling of contaminated
    building materials for reuse within the DOE
    complex.'61

A list of the points of contact for each of the
agency's five technology  development focus areas
is included in Appendix E.

In preparing the alternative-case analyses for its
"Baseline" report, DOE selected 15 new
technologies, scheduled to be available by 2000,
to analyze the potential cost savings the agency
could realize through the use of innovative
technologies in its environmental restoration
efforts. They provide developers and vendors
with specific examples  of the types of
technologies the agency expects to need in the
next few years. A list of these technologies is
presented in Exhibit 7-5.

    Cross-Cutting Technologies

Cross-cutting technologies are defined as  those
which overlap the boundaries of "Focus Areas."
Technologies developed in  these areas will be
used in "Focus Area" testing and evaluations
programs wherever they are applicable. These
areas are: Characterization, Monitoring, and
Sensor Technology; Efficient Separations and
Processing; Robotics; and Industry Programs.

The Industry Programs Area has set aside
funding to foster research and development
partnerships with the private sector for
introducing innovative technologies into the
technology development programs managed by
the agency's Office of Science and Technology.
Support in this area will concentrate on two types
of technologies: technologies that show promise
for addressing specific DOE problems and require
proof-of-principle experimentation, and
technologies proven in other fields that require
critical path experimentation to demonstrate
feasibility for adaptation to specific DOE
problems.'61

The "Focus Area" concept builds on the work
carried out under DOE's Integrated Programs
and Integrated Demonstrations, through which
the agency managed the research, development,
demonstration, testing, and evaluation of
technologies for application  at DOE installations
and other locations.

   Private Sector Involvement

DOE uses several mechanisms to invite the
private sector to participate in its technology
research and  development programs. These
include Cooperative Research and Development
Agreements (C RAD As), technology development
contracts issued under Program Research and
Development Announcements (PROAs),  Research
Opportunity Announcements (ROAs), and the
Small Business Technology Integration Program.

DOE uses CRADAs as an incentive for
collaborative  research and development. CRADAs
are agreements between a specific DOE
laboratory and a non-federal source to conduct
mutually beneficial research and development
that is consistent with the laboratory's mission.
DOE has issued 62 CRADAs to date to support
its environmental programs.

Technology development contracts under PRDAs
and ROAs, which support technology
development to meet EM program needs, are
managed by DOE's Energy Technology Center
(Morgantown, West Virginia).  DOE issued its first
                                               7-20

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                                                                DOE Sites
                  Exhibit 7-5:  Examples of Innovative Technologies Useful to DOE
  Technology
                                       Analysis
 Soil remediation
Electrokinetics — Mobilizes contaminant ions in the subsurface by the application of a direct
electrical current between buried electrodes. Contaminants then are collected and removed from
the vicinity of the electrodes for disposal or further processing. A pilot-scale demonstration of this
technology for the remediation of chromium contamination is underway at Sandia National
Laboratory.

Innovative Soil Washing — Ex-situ treatment metal contaminated soils by the adaptation of
standard mining technologies. Particulate and absorbed/adsorbed contaminants can be removed
allowing the "cleaned" soil to be  replaced. The collected metals then are disposed of or
reprocessed for recycle/reuse. Several such technologies have been demonstrated by the Mackay
School of Mines at the University of Nevada at bench and pilot scale. Sites for  full-scale
demonstration are being investigated.

In Situ Vitrification (ISV) — In situ heating of soil to above its melting temperature. Upon
cooling, the molten soil mass creates a glass-like monolith that essentially  immobilizes
contaminants. The glass is resistant to leaching and weathering and can be left in place; no
further treatment is necessary. Field-scale demonstrations of this technology have been
conducted at  Hanford and Oak Ridge  sites. A large-scale demonstration also has been performed
at Hanford.
 Groundwater
Dynamic Underground Stripping — Surrounding of an underground contaminant plume with
injection wells and electrical heating of clay-rich soil layers while sandy layers are flooded with
steam. This combination volatilizes contaminants (NAPLs and other inorganic solvents) which are
carried by the steam to a central extraction well. The steam is condensed, extracted, and treated
above ground; the water is reinjected, and the contaminants are removed for disposal. A full-scale
demonstration was conducted at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 1994. The
technology currently is available for licensing.

In Situ Bioremediation — Stimulation of indigenous microbes or introduction of foreign microbes
in the contaminated region. The microbes  stimulate the remediation of the area through  the
metabolism of the contaminant or by causing reactions to occur which release the contaminants
from the soil, allowing a conventional removal action (such as pump-and-treat) to remediate the
site more efficiently. A field demonstration  was undertaken at Hanford in 1995; results are
pending.

Biosorption of Uranium — Remediation of  uranium-contaminated ground and surface water
using biosorbents (sorptive biomass or biological material) immobilized in permeable beads that,
in turn, are contained within a flow-through bioreactor system. The technology is a partnership
between Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Inc.
Bench-scale testing has been completed.

Recirculating wells — Use of specially designed wells to pump water or soil air through a
screened interval and to transfer it back into  the aquifer through a separate interval. Treatment
occurs below ground within the well casing, thereby reducing utility and maintenance expense and
regulatory costs. Recirculation also provides  better control of groundwater flow through
hydrodynamically connected wells. Demonstration is underway at the Portsmouth Gaseous
Diffusion  Plant on a 0.5-mile  plume that  contains high levels of TCE and Tc-99.

Microbial filters — Placement of a permeable wall of TCE-degrading microorganisms in the
subsurface to intercept  a contaminant plume. Contaminants are degraded by microorganisms in
the biofilter as the plume passively flows through it with the natural hydraulic gradient. The filter
can be formed by direct injection of microorganisms into the subsurface to form a wall or by
injecting them into an emplaced sand trench. Field-scale tests of this technology have been
conducted at sites at Kennedy Space Center in  Florida and Chico Municipal Airport, California.
                                                     7-21

-------
                                           Draft 12-15-96
 DOE Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
           Exhibit 7-5:  Examples of Innovative Technologies Useful to DOE (continued)
Technology
Facilities
Buried waste
Mixed low-level
waste treatment
Characterization
High-level waste
Analysis
Gas Phase Decontamination — Treatment of gaseous diffusion plant equipment interiors
contaminated with solid uranium deposits with chlorine trifluoride gas. The gas is introduced in the
process equipment and volatilizes the uranium deposits into a product gas mixture, which is
removed, separated, and recovered.
Cooperative Telerobotic Retrieval — Selective and remote retrieval of buried radioactive and
hazardous wastes to reduce exposure risks to remediation workers and the environment and
costs associated with full-pit retrieval. The system consists of telerobotic manipulators, mounted
on a gantry crane, that are capable of performing a variety of tasks — for example, retrieving intact
containers and deploying dig face characterization sensors and ancillary tools (such as a camera,
a soil vacuum, dust suppression sprays, and cutting equipment). A full-scale demonstration is
being performed at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
Automated Waste Conveyance System — Remote and safe transportation of retrieved
radioactive and mixed wastes from the dig face to a waste processing and packaging area to
reduce exposure risks to remediation workers and the environment. After retrieved waste is
loaded into the container of the system, the container lid is remotely closed and locked to contain
dust generated during conveyance. A full-scale demonstration was performed at Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory in FY 1995.
Plasma Hearth System — Thermal treatment characterized by high-efficiency destruction of
organics, encapsulation of heavy metals and radionuclides in a vitrified final waste matrix,
maximum reduction of waste volume, low off-gas rates, and the capability of processing many
waste types in a single step process without the need for expensive pre-treatment.
Expedited Site Characterization — Process with a regulator-accepted work plan that permits a
multi-disciplinary team of experts concurrently to collect and integrate field data to develop and
evaluate a site model. Sampling locations are determined daily in the field, based on evolving site
model knowledge and results, yielding a faster, less expensive, and superior model.
Efficient Separations — Chemical processes and chemical reactions, which enhance
separations or eliminate a separation step by destroying a contaminant, for use in treating and
immobilizing a broad range of radioactive wastes. In some cases, separation technologies do not
exist; in others, improvements are needed to reduce costs, reduce secondary waste volumes, and
improve waste form quality.
Robotic Systems — Remotely operated equipment for retrieving and handling high-level waste
stored in underground tanks.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, "Estimating the Cold War Mortgage: The 1995 Baseline Environmental Report,"
DOE/EM-0230, March 1995.
PRDA in December 1991, for $10 million. This
PRDA focused on groundwater and soils
technologies and resulted in the award of 21
contracts to the private sector and university
technology developers. A second PRDA, of equal
value, was issued in 1992. It solicited for novel
decontamination and decommissioning
technologies and resulted in the award of 18
contracts to private sector technology developers.

Two ROAs also have been issued, soliciting for
technologies in the areas of in situ remediation;
characterization, sensing, and monitoring;
efficient separations for radioactive wastes; and
robotics. Twenty-seven contracts have been
awarded under these ROAs to the private sector.
DOE has established a 20-percent set-aside for
small firms (500 employees or fewer) for applied
research projects funded through ROAs. To date,
however, 30 to  50 percent of these contracts have
gone to small businesses.'161

By early 1995 a total of 55 PRDA and ROA
contracts had been awarded for a sum of $93.4
                                               7-22

-------
                                            Draft 12-15-96
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                     DOE Sites
million. PRDAs and ROAs are published in the
Federal Register and their availability is listed in
the Commerce Business Daily. Information about
announcements also is available on the Internet
on the Federal Information Exchange, Inc.
—FEDIX Home Page (http://web.fie.com/fedix/
index.html).

DOE maintains a Web site to connect DOE's site
specific needs with private industry capabilities
(http://www.ead.anl.gov/techcon/). The web
site is part of DOE's overall effort to  better match
site needs with commercial or emerging
capabilities that will enable performance
improvement while limiting risk.

DOE's Small Business Technology Integration
program identifies funding to support innovative
technology development by small businesses. The
Program also sponsors workshops as a forum for
face-to-face meetings between small business
operators and DOE staff who can provide
information  on specific business opportunities. In
addition, a small business coordinator is available
at DOE Headquarters to provide one-on-one
counseling for small, disadvantaged,  or minority
businesses and provide access to procurement
offices at DOE installations.  For additional
information  about  DOE's small-business-oriented
programs, contact the U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Technology Development/Technology
Exchange Division (EM-521), Washington, DC
20585.'171

DOE also is one of 11 agencies involved in the
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
Program, administered by the Small Business
Administration (SBA). The three-phase program
is designed to facilitate technology transfer by
identifying funding to support innovative
technology development by small businesses.
Proposals for work under the program are
invited through an annual solicitation
announcement. Grants or contracts awarded
under phase one of the program provide $60,000
to $100,000 for up to six months to conduct
feasibility studies for research ideas that appear
to have commercial potential. Phase-two funding
of up to $750,000 provides for 12 to 24 months of
additional research, development, demonstration,
and evaluation of the technology. Phase three of
the project involves commercializing  the
technology and using it for full-scale  remediation.
About two  percent of DOE's extramural research
budget for FY 1996 is expected to be  available to
small businesses under this program. Notices of
all federal SBIR opportunities are published by
the SBA on its SBA Bulletin Board. The bulletin
board can be accessed, by modem, 800-697-4636).
SBA Bulletin Board technical support is available
by addressing specific DOE problems and
require proof-of-principle experimentation, and
technologies proven in other fields that require
critical path calling 202-205-6400. The SBA
Bulletin Board also  is available via Telnet at
sbaonline.sba.gov.1181

Developers and vendors of innovative
technologies interested in more  information about
DOE's  technology development efforts may
contact the  DOE's Center for Environmental
Management Information (800-736-3282).
7.7  References

1.   U.S. Department of Energy,  Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom: The Environmental Legacy of
    Nuclear Weapons Production in the United States and What the Department of Energy Is Doing about It, January
    1995.

2.   U.S. Department of Energy, The 1996 Baseline Environmental Report, DOE/EM-0290, June 1996.

3.   U.S. Department of Energy,  Estimating  the Cold War Mortgage:  The 1995 Baseline Environmental Report,
    DOE/EM-0230, March 1995.

4.   U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, personal
    communication, November 15, 1995.
                                                7-23

-------
                                           Draft 12-15-96
 DOE Sites
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
5.  U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Environmental Management 1996:
   Progress and Plans of the Environmental Management Program, DOE/EM-0317, November 1996.

6.  U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Environmental Management 1995:
   Progress and Plans of the Environmental Management Program, DOE/EM-0228, February 1995.

7.  U.S. Department of Energy, EM-4  Baseline Environmental  Management Report Data Base, as of
   November 1995.

8.  U.S. Department of Energy,,  UMTRA Project Office, "Draft Programmatic Environmental  Impact
   Statement for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Ground Water Project," DOE/EIS-0198, April
   1995.

9.  " House Recision Likely To Slow Small DOE Cleanups, Crumbly Contends," Inside EPA's Superfund Report,
   Vol. 9, No. 5, March 8, 1995.

10. U.S. General Accounting  Office, "Uranium  Mill Tailings: Cleanup Continues, But Future Costs  Are
   Uncertain," GAO/RCED-96-37, December 1995.

11. "DOE Outlines Contract-Reform Measures,"  Hazardous Materials Intelligence Report,  March 4, 1994,  and
   U.S. Department of Energy, "Making Contracting Work Better and Cost Less: Report of the Contract
   Reform Team," DOE/S-0107, February 1994.

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
   Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA/542/R-96/
   010, December 1996.

13. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Technology Development,  "Landfill Stabilization Focus Area:
   Technology Summary," DOE/EM-0251, June 1995.

14. U.S. Department of Energy,  Office of Technology Development,  "Mixed  Waste Characterization,
   Treatment, and Disposal Focus Area: Technology Summary," DOE/EM-0252,  June  1995.

15. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Technology Development, "Radioactive Tank  Waste Remediation
   Focus Area: Technology Summary," DOE/EM-0255, June 1995.

16. Schwab,  Judy,  Ed.  "Morgantown  Energy  Technology Center Manages  Technology  Development
   Contracts" and "The Internet," Initiatives in Environmental Technology Investment, Vol. 2, April 1995.

17. Schwab,  Judy,  Ed.,  "Innovative  Ideas  from  Small Businesses:  Breaking   Barriers,"  Initiatives in
   Environmental Technology Investment, Vol. 2, April 1995.

18. Schwab,  Judy, Ed., "Small Business Administration" and  "The Internet",  Initiatives in  Environmental
   Technology Investment, Vol. 2, April 1995.
                                               7-24

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                       Civilian Federal Agency Sites
                                       CHAPTER 8
           DEMAND FOR  REMEDIATION  OF CONTAMINATED
   WASTE  SITES MANAGED BY  CIVILIAN  FEDERAL AGENCIES
This chapter describes the market for the cleanup
of "civilian" federal agency (CFA) sites.
"Civilian" federal agencies include all federal
agencies except the Department of Energy (DOE)
and Department of Defense (DOD). Each agency
is responsible for cleaning up contaminated waste
sites at facilities it owns or operates. Collectively,
these agencies are responsible for thousands of
sites.3

The CFA market can be estimated in terms of the
number of sites or the number  of facilities that
will require remediation. A facility can contain
more than one contaminated site.

Estimates of the approximate number of contami-
nated sites at the U.S. Department of Interior
(DOI), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
and National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion  (NASA) facilities are available from a 1995
report by the U.S. Council on Environmental
Quality and Office of Management and
Budget."1 DOI is responsible for a large number
of potentially contaminated sites on the more
than 440 million acres of federal land it manages.
According to preliminary DOI estimates, the
department may have as many as 26,000 sites
requiring some cleanup. USDA currently
estimates that, including sites at facilities listed on
the Docket, there are 3,000 potentially contami-
nated sites on land under its management. NASA
has identified 730 potentially contaminated sites
at the facilities listed on the Docket. Site inven-
tories and evaluations are ongoing at these agen-
cies. The CEQ report did not address other CFAs.

The "Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket," is a more comprehensive
source of information on contaminated facilities
for which CFAs are responsible.'21 The Docket is
based on reports filed by the agencies on the
number of contaminated facilities, including those
containing the aforementioned DOE, NASA, and
USDA sites. The estimates in this chapter of the
total number of CFA facilities that will require
remediation were derived from this docket.

As of April 1995, 1,047 facilities, distributed
among 17 civilian federal agencies, were listed on
the Docket. About 700 of these facilities eventually
could require some environmental cleanup.121 April
1995 is the most recent date for which data are
available. EPA plans  to update it in the summer of
1997. The Docket, mandated under Section 120(c)
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, Liability Act (CERCLA) is a
repository for information about federal facilities
that manage hazardous waste or have the
potential to release hazardous substances into the
environment.

Although an overall estimate of the potential cost
of cleaning up these facilities is not available,
estimates have been generated for DOI, USDA,
and NASA, which together account for over 70
percent of the civilian federal agency facilities
listed on the Docket.  Cleanup of the over 500
facilities for which these agencies are responsible
is expected to cost between  $8 billion and $13
billion in 1994 dollars. Extrapolating this estimate
for these 500 facilities to the over 700 civilian
facilities and updating to 1996 dollars results in an
estimated life-cycle-cost of $15 billion for the entire
market segment. This estimate is about half the
projected cost of the cleanup of DOD sites and less
than 25 percent of the anticipated cost of the
cleanup of DOE's sites (see Chapters 6 and 7).
a   Throughout this chapter, the term "site" will be used to indicate an individual area of contamination.  The term "facility"
identifies an entire tract, including all contiguous land, that is the responsibility of the subject agency. A "facility" may contain
one or more contaminated areas or "sites."
                                                -1

-------
 Civilian Federal Agency Sites
                 Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
8.1  Civilian Federal Agency Cleanup Programs

The federal government must comply in the same
manner as private parties with the provisions of
CERCLA and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). These statutes make
federal agencies liable for the cleanup of
contaminated waste at currently or formerly
owned facilities. Under the 1986 Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA),
the federal government also may be liable  for
cleaning up contaminated waste at facilities
acquired through foreclosure or other means and
facilities purchased with federal loans. To meet
these requirements, civilian federal agencies have
established programs to assess potentially
contaminated sites, including leaking
underground storage tanks, and clean them up if
necessary.  Most agencies have  established  central
offices to manage these programs; others have
adopted a  decentralized approach, organizing
their programs by function or geographical
location.

NASA, for example, uses a decentralized
management approach, but provides policy
guidance, priority setting, and  oversight from a
central Environmental Management Office.b The
central office has delegated responsibility for
environmental cleanup and compliance to  the
directors of its 10 major centers around the
country. NASA's plans call for completing its
cleanup program within the next 25 years."1

At many DOI facilities, the responsibility for
cleanup will  be shared with the private parties or
other agencies that undertook activities that
produced the contamination. DOI has established
a Central Hazmat Fund to provide  funding for
some cleanup projects. This fund may be used for
remedial investigations, feasibility studies,  and
cleanups at sites for which DOI may be liable.
Additional cleanup activities are funded through
the appropriations of the DOI bureaus (such as
the U.S. Bureau of Mines) with responsibility for
the facilities."1
USDA's overall program is at an early stage of
development, but its plans call for completing site
cleanup and natural resource restoration at its
facilities within the next 50 years. A complete
inventory of potentially contaminated sites still is
underway by the agencies within USDA. The
USDA expects that private sector responsible
parties (RPs), such as mining companies whose
past activities may have contributed to the
contamination of land under USDA's
management, will pay a share of the cost of
cleanup of their facilities."1

8.2  Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup

Four primary factors influence the market for
remediation of civilian federal agency
contaminated waste sites.

 •  All federal agencies are constrained by budget
    considerations when planning for site
    remediation. Even though agencies may
    request funds for  contaminated site
    management and  remediation, Congress may
    not provide the necessary funding. As the
    availability of resources to meet the full range
    of national needs becomes less and less certain,
    agencies are intensifying their efforts to
    prioritize cleanup activities within and across
    facilities by doing a better job of evaluating
    alternative future  land uses, estimating risks,
    evaluating available technologies, and
    analyzing the relative costs and benefits of
    various approaches  to cleanup."1

    In addition, the federal budget process has
    created incentives for  agencies to implement
    management reforms that will reduce the costs
    of operations. Some of these include
    encouraging and eliminating barriers to the
    use of less costly,  innovative technologies;
    using  more cost-effective contracting
    procedures; streamlining management
    structures and processes; and using the
    "lessons learned"  from other agencies and the
    private sector."1
b   NASA centers are Lewis Research Center Ohio, Langley Space Center Virginia, Goddard Spaceflight Center Maryland,
Kennedy Space Center Florida, Marshall Space Center Alabama, Stennis Space Center Alabama, Johnson Space Center Texas,
Ames Space Center California, Jet Propulsion Laboratory California, and Dryden Space Center California.

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                       Civilian Federal Agency Sites
  Federal agencies may be liable for cleaning up
  contamination at properties acquired through
  foreclosure or other means. In a September
  1995 memorandum, EPA and the Department
  of Justice stated the government's intention to
  enforce the CERCLA Lender Liability Rule on
  federal regulatory, lending, and credit
  agencies that have "involuntarily acquired"
  contaminated property through  foreclosure or
  other mechanisms, such  as civil  and criminal
  seizures and asset forfeitures.'31

  In general, federal agencies that "involun-
  tarily" acquire contaminated property are
  exempt from CERCLA liability.  However, if a
  federal agency loans money to, and actively
  participates in the management  of,
  organizations using or generating hazardous
  waste, it may be liable for remediating these
  sites if hazardous waste  is  spilled or
  improperly disposed.'41 For example, federal
  credit agencies, such as the Small Business
  Administration (SBA), often provide loans
  and advice to businesses that use or generate
  hazardous materials. If SBA actively
  participated in management decisions and
  acquired the business through foreclosure, it
  may be liable for the cost of cleanup. Federal
  liability must be determined separately for
  each site acquired through foreclosure or
  other means. Data are not available on the
  number of sites for which civilian agencies
  could be liable under this rule.

  Changes in state and federal environmental
  regulations and standards could impact the
  level  and pace of the cleanup required at
  civilian federal facilities. If cleanup standards
  become more rigorous in the future, the
  market may require more advanced
  technologies or longer-term and more
  intensive use of existing technologies than is
  currently anticipated. Conversely, if standards
  become less stringent in  the future, the need
  and market for new remedial technologies
  could be reduced.

  The transfer of public properties to private
  use may require agencies to reallocate
  resources to clean up properties designated
  for transfer.
8.3  Number of Facilities and Sites

There are two potential approaches to estimating
the CFA market for hazardous waste remediation
services: estimating the number of facilities and
estimating the number of sites that will require
some type of remedial action. The estimates in this
chapter are derived from the "Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket," which
provides estimates of the number of facilities
reported by 17 CFAs.'21 Data for the number of
contaminated sites are available for only three
agencies, DOI, NASA, and USDA. These data are
discussed at the end of this section.

The Docket, maintained by EPA, contains
information about federal facilities that manage
hazardous waste or may have had releases of
hazardous substances into the environment.
Although the statute calls for the  Docket to be
updated every six months,  the last update
occurred in April 1995, because of resource
constraints and other factors. Since many sites at
federal facilities still are being inventoried and
characterized, the facilities  listed on the Docket
may not account for all potentially contaminated
sites on land owned or operated by CFAs

Civilian federal agencies submit information for
the Docket to EPA as required under RCRA and
CERCLA. Because the Docket contains information
that is broader than hazardous waste site
remediation programs, it does not specifically
indicate the number of federal facilities that
require remediation. Also, once a facility has been
added to the Docket, it is not removed, even after
it is cleaned up. In addition, the Docket excludes
federal facilities that have been sold; private
facilities where the federal  government may have
contributed to site contamination; and facilities
that generate small quantities of hazardous waste.

The April 1995 Docket included 732 facilities that
had been listed as a  result of a notification of a
release or potential release  under CERCLA Section
103 (Exhibit 8-1).[2' These facilities, owned  or
operated by 17 civilian federal agencies, comprise
the estimated market for the cleanup of civilian
federal agency sites.  Not all of the facilities on the
Docket contain contaminated sites. After further
study, some sites may be designated as requiring

-------
 Civilian Federal Agency Sites
                 Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                               Exhibit 8-1:  Number of Civilian Federal
                               Facilities Potentially Requiring Cleanup
             Agency
 Facilities
 Listed on
 Docket3
   Facilities
Reported Under
 CERCLA 103
  Facilities
  Reported
   Under
CERCLA 103
with NFRAP
   Status
  Department of Agriculture                              148
  Central Intelligence Agency                               1
  Department of Commerce                               11
  Army Corps of Engineers'3                               51
  Environmental Protection Agency                        25
  General Services Administration                         23
  Department of Health and Human Services                8
  Department of Housing and  Urban Development            3
  Department of the Interior                              432
  Department of Justice                                   21
  Department of Labor                                     2
  National Aeronautics and Space Administration            17
  U.S. Postal Service                                     23
  Tennessee Valley Authority                              40
  Department of Transportation                           121
  Department of the Treasury                               9
  Veterans Administration                                 29

     Total                                            1,047
                    121
                      1
                      9
                     20
                      9
                     11
                      6
                      1
                    389
                     14
                      2
                     13
                     12
                     21
                     86
                      3
                     14

                    732
                        37
                         0
                         3
                         5
                         3
                         3
                         2
                         0
                       169
                         0
                         1
                         4
                         4
                        12
                        43
                         1
                         5

                       292
 Notes:
  a  The number of "sites" (individual areas of contamination) at each facility is not included in the "Federal Agency
     Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket."
  b  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manages environmental cleanup projects for a variety of civilian federal agencies
     as well as for the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Energy. The facilities to which this table
     refers are civilian federal facilities for which the Corps of Engineers has environmental cleanup management
     responsibility.
 Source:  Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket," 60
         Federal Register, pp.  18474-18518, April 11, 1995.
no further response or action planned and do not
need to undergo remediation. Also, the Docket
does not indicate the number of contaminated
sites at each facility. The Docket also contained
another 315 facilities that had been listed under
other environmental statutes.
A Preliminary Assessment (PA) is conducted
under Section 120(d) of CERCLA for all facilities
listed on the Docket to evaluate the threat they
pose to public health or the environment.'41 As of
April 1995 EPA had determined that 292 of the
732 facilities listed under CERCLA Section  103
were  unlikely to require listing on the National
                                                  8-4

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                       Civilian Federal Agency Sites
Priorities List (NPL). EPA uses the term NFRAP
(No Further Remedial Action Planned) to
designate these facilities (Exhibit 8-1).

While the NFRAP designation means that EPA
anticipates  no further involvement in site
assessment or cleanup, it does not mean  that the
facility poses no environmental threat or that
some type of environmental response action is
not needed. It simply indicates that the problems
at the facility are not severe enough to warrant
an NPL listing and Superfund cleanup.'51 Thus,
at least some of these facilities still may require
cleanup under other environmental programs.

Estimates of the approximate number of
contaminated sites at DOI, USDA, and NASA
facilities are available from a 1995 report by the
U.S. Council on Environmental Quality."1 DOI is
responsible for a  large number of potentially
contaminated sites on the more than 440 million
acres of federal land it manages. DOI estimates
that it may have as many as 26,000  sites  requiring
some cleanup. These sites, which include those at
facilities listed in the Docket, are located at
abandoned mines, oil and gas production sites,
underground storage tanks, landfills,  and other
facilities. Contaminants at these sites are
primarily from sedimentation in surface waters,
acid mine drainage, and household chemical
wastes.111 USDA currently estimates that,
including sites at facilities already listed  on the
Docket, there are 3,000 potentially contaminated
sites on land under its management. USDA has
about 25,000 abandoned and inactive  mining
sites, but only about 10 percent are  expected to
require CERCLA or RCRA cleanup. Contami-
nants at USDA sites are primarily the result of
hazardous waste  from mining, chemical wastes,
and sediment in surface waters. A complete
inventory of potentially contaminated sites is
underway.

NASA has  identified 730 potentially
contaminated sites at the 17 facilities listed on the
Docket. These sites are the result of such
problems as leaking underground storage tanks,
exposed asbestos, and mercury spills. The
primary contaminants are fuels, solvents, and
industrial waste constituents. As of October  1995,
no further action was required or active
remediation had been completed at 155 of these
sites, 75 sites were undergoing active
remediation, and 350 were undergoing site
evaluation and preliminary assessment.111

As illustrated by DOI, USDA, and NASA, the
types of contamination problems at facilities
managed by civilian federal agencies vary from
agency to agency. Examples of the types of
contaminated facilities at selected agencies are
presented in Exhibit 8-2.

8.4  Estimated Cleanup Costs

Developing accurate cost estimates for cleaning up
contaminated CFA sites is difficult, primarily
because detailed site information is not available.
However, budget data for most federal civilian
agencies are available in the FEDPLAN-PC
database maintained by EPA, in accordance
with Office of Management and Budget Circular
A-106.161 FEDPLAN-PC,  which is updated
regularly by agencies with responsibilities for
contaminated waste site management, provides a
mechanism for: characterizing environmental
activities at federal facilities; establishing priorities
for these activities; and identifying resources
needed  to comply with federal, state, and local
environmental requirements.

As of December 1996, budget data for fiscal year
(FY)  1996  and FY 1997 were available in
FEDPLAN-PC for 14 civilian federal agencies.
These agencies reported spending  a total of $322.1
million  in FY 1996 for cleanup activities.171 The
agencies estimated budgetary needs of $288.0
million  for hazardous waste activities in FY 1997.m
The FY  1996 budgets and  FY 1997  estimates for
the 14 civilian federal agencies listed in the
FEDPLAN-PC database are presented in Exhibit 8-
3. Life-cycle cost estimates are available for DOI,
USDA, and NASA in 1994 dollars. Based on
current  information, DOI estimates that it will take
between $3.9 billion and $8.2 billion to complete
cleanup of its contaminated sites. USDA's current
estimate of its overall cleanup cost is $2.5 billion.
NASA estimates its overall cleanup cost will be
between $1.5 billion and $2 billion.111 The range for
these estimates is $7.9 to $12.7 billion in 1994
dollars and $8.4 to $13.5 billion in  1996 dollars.
Assuming that these costs represent 70 percent of
that of all CFA sites (based on the number of
facilities),  the life-cycle-cost for all  CFA sites is
estimated to be $12.0 to $19.0 billion, with an
average of $15.0 billion.
                                                8-5

-------
Civilian Federal Agency Sites
                                           Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
      Exhibit 8-2:  Examples of Types of Contaminated Facilities at Civilian Federal Agencies
Department of Agriculture

  Forest Service
  Agricultural Research
  Service

  Commodity Credit
  Corporation (CCC)
  Farmers Home
  Administration
Abandoned mining sites—mine tailings were disposed on-site in unlined pits.
Sanitary landfills and aboveground dumps—hazardous waste may have been
disposed at Forest Service landfills.
Wood preservation sites and three laboratories.
Uninvestigated sites—hundreds of sites need to be investigated for contamination.

Research laboratories—hazardous chemicals were used and disposed on-site in dry
wells, surface impoundments, septic tanks, and other areas.

Grain storage facilities—carbon tetrachloride and other fumigants were applied to
protect grain stored in the facilities. The CCC has not assessed most of the 2,000
sites it once operated.

Farms acquired through foreclosure—pesticides and other hazardous chemicals
may have been disposed  of on the land.
Department of
Commerce
Research laboratories operated by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Properties acquired through foreclosure by the Economic Development Admin-
istration—industrial solvents and other wastes were generated from production
activities at steel mills, iron foundries, leather tanneries, furniture manufacturers,
and other heavy industries.
Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA laboratories—hazardous wastes were either generated or stored for research
purposes.
General Services
Administration (GSA)
GSA buildings and sites—although few locations have contamination problems,
GSA may be liable for contaminated sites it has sold
Department of Interior

  Bureau of Land
  Management (BLM)
Approximately 3,400 closed landfills may exist on BLM land—hazardous wastes
may have been disposed at these BLM landfills.
Abandoned mining operations—tailings were left on-site at many mines.
Unauthorized hazardous waste sites—contaminants may have been illegally
dumped on BLM land. The extent of the problem is unknown as BLM has not
conducted a complete survey of its lands.
Department of the Interior (continued)
  Bureau of Mines


  Bureau of Reclamation

  National Park Service
  Fish and Wildlife
  Service
Research laboratories—hazardous materials were used, stored, or disposed on-site
in landfills.

Reservoirs and drinking water supplies contaminated with agricultural runoff.

Landfills and dumps inherited when the land was acquired.
Abandoned mining operations—tailings were left on-site at many mines.

Polluted sites—agricultural runoff of pesticides and fertilizers or upstream
discharges of pollutants have contaminated some  land.
Inherited land previously used for industrial or defense purposes—industrial
pollutants were disposed of on-site at inherited property. Some of these sites are
former Department of Defense properties.
Department of Justice
Federal penitentiaries—hazardous materials were generated from industrial
activities, including printing, woodworking, metalworking, and other activities.
Illegal drug laboratories confiscated by the Drug Enforcement Agency—toxins were
improperly stored or disposed at these drug laboratories.

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                 Civilian Federal Agency Sites
 Exhibit 8-2:  Examples of Types of Contaminated Facilities at Civilian Federal Agencies (continued)
 National Aeronautics
 and Space
 Administration (NASA)
Field installations, research laboratories, or industrial plants—hazardous materials
were used, stored, or disposed on-site. Some NASA plants may have groundwater
contamination.
 Small Business
 Administration
Properties acquired through foreclosure—hazardous materials may have been
improperly used or disposed on the property.
 Tennessee Valley
 Authority
Power generating plants and a fertilizer development laboratory—wastes, primarily
consisting of fly ash and coal piles, have been disposed in on-site landfills.
 Department of Transportation

   Federal Aviation
   Administration (FAA)
   U.S. Coast Guard
FAA Technical Center—soil and groundwater may be contaminated at 22 areas of
the center. This site is on the NPL and assessment and remedial work is underway
Airfields—hazardous solvents and oils may have been spilled at airfields. As many
as 53 Alaskan airfields may be contaminated.

Central storage areas for fuel and operation and maintenance facilities—solvents,
fuel, or waste by-products leaked into the ground.
 Department of Veterans
 Affairs
Medical centers—hazardous and medical wastes were produced, stored, and
incinerated.
 Source: U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Management and Budget, Improving Federal Facilities Cleanup,
        October 1995, and Congressional Budget Office, Federal Agency Summaries:. A Supplement to Federal Liabilities
        Under Hazardous Waste Laws, May 1990.
8.5 Remedial Technologies

Little information is available on the technologies
being used to cleanup facilities owned or
operated by civilian federal agencies. To the
extent that the contaminants  and media at these
sites are similar to those of other industrial
                        facilities, similar technologies can be used. EPA's
                        "Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual
                        Status Report (Eighth Edition)"'81 describes
                        technology use trends at NPL, DOD and DOE
                        sites, and a related database'91 provides more
                        detailed data on the sites and applications.
                                                   3-7

-------
 Civilian Federal Agency Sites
                        Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                      Exhibit 8-3:  Funding for Cleanup at Civilian Federal Agencies3
                     Agency
         FY1996
     Expenditures for
Hazardous Waste Cleanup
       (thousands)
         FY 1997
        Budget for
Hazardous Waste Cleanup
       (thousands)
 Department of Agriculture
 Department of Commerce
 Army Corps of Engineers'1
 Environmental Protection Agency
 General Services Administration
 Department of Health and Human Services
 Department of the Interior
 Department of Labor
 National Aeronautics and Space Administration
 Department of State
 Tennessee Valley Authority
 Department of Transportation
 Department of Treasury
 Veterans Administration
     Total (14 agencies)
           34,204
            6,387
            8,487
                0
                0
            3,075
          101,438
                0
          151,691
               19
                0
           16,819
                0
                0
          322,120
           45,108
            6,261
              667
                0
                0
            1,050
           24,066
                0
          193,259
            1,080
            5,880
           17,975
                0
                0
          288,024
 Notes:
 a   The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manages environmental cleanup projects for a variety of civilian federal agencies as well as for
     the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Energy. Budgetary data presented in this table is for the Corps of
     Engineers' environmental cleanup work at  civilian federal facilities.
 b   As of December 1996, budget data for the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
     Department of Justice, and the U.S. Postal Service for FY 1995 and FY 1996 were not available in FEDPLAN-PC. The fact that
     budget data were unavailable or that some agencies estimate no FY 1996 budget expenditures for hazardous waste cleanup does
     not mean that the environmental cleanup work for which these agencies are responsible has been completed.
 Source:. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Facilities Enforcement Office, "FEDPLAN-PC," December 1996.
8.6 References
1.   U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Management and Budget, Improving Federal Facilities Cleanup,
    October 1995.

2.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket," 60 Federal
    Register, 18474-18518, April 11,  1995.

3.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Policy on Enforcement of Lender Liability Rule on Federal Agencies,"
    60 Federal Register, 63517, December 11, 1995.

4.   U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency, "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
    Lender Liability Under CERCLA," 57 Federal Register No. 83, 18344, April 29, 1992.

5.   Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, Docket Revision Preamble, Federal Facilities Enforcement
    Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 14,  1995.

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
Civilian Federal Agency Sites
6.   Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, Circular A-106: Reporting Requirements in
    Connection with the Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Environmental Pollution at Existing Federal Facilities,
    December 31, 1974.

7.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Facilities Compliance Office, FEDPLAN-PC, December 1996.

8.   U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment
    Technologies: Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA-542-R-96-010, November  1996.

9.   U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment
    Technologies: Annual Status Report Database,  (ITT Database), EPA-542-C-96-002, January 1997.

-------
Civilian Federal Agency Sites
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                                     This page intentionally left blank.
                                                    8-10

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                    State Sites
                                      CHAPTER  9
     DEMAND FOR  REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED WASTE
        SITES  MANAGED BY STATES AND  PRIVATE PARTIES
The market to remediate contaminated waste
sites includes thousands of sites managed by the
states and private parties. All non-federal agency
sites that are not being cleaned up under the
federal Comprehensive  Environmental Response,
Compensation, Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
corrective action, and Underground Storage Tank
(UST) programs, but still need attention, become
the responsibility of state cleanup programs.
Private parties are individuals or companies not
affiliated with federal or state governments.

Using data supplied by the states, EPA has  deter-
mined that over 79,000 non-National Priorities
List (NPL) sites have been identified that are
known or suspected to be contaminated. Further,
29,000 of these sites will require some action
beyond a preliminary assessment; however, the
actual number of sites that  will need remediation
and the extent of contamination at these sites are
largely unknown.

The majority of states have enforcement  authority
and state Superfunds to finance remediation of
abandoned waste sites. At the end of 1995, the
balance of state Superfunds was $1.46 billion.
During 1995, states spent a total of $386 million
and obligated an additional $363 million from
state Superfunds for remediation of NPL and
non-NPL sites.

In addition to direct state cleanups, many state
sites are cleaned  up by private parties in
accordance with state cleanup standards. To
encourage private party cleanups, many states
have created voluntary cleanup programs that
often provide incentives for private parties to
control the assessment and cleanup of their sites
with state oversight. An increasing number of
states also are creating brownfields programs that
target the cleanup and redevelopment of
industrial properties that have been abandoned
or are under-used because of the potential for
environmental contamination. By the end of 1995,
34 states had established voluntary cleanup
programs and 15 states had established
brownfields programs. Based on an EPA survey
of states, EPA estimates that private party
expenditures on assessment and remediation of
contaminated sites are roughly equal to state
expenditures.

9.1 State Hazardous Waste Site Programs

Most states have established hazardous waste
programs to ensure that potentially contaminated
sites are assessed and cleaned up if necessary.
Information on state programs, numbers of con-
taminated sites, and the status of those sites has
been derived from existing published
information. Contacting individual states to
obtain data was outside the scope of this study.
The primary sources of information are two EPA
documents, An Analysis of State  Superfund
Programs: 50-State Study,  1993 Update111 and An
Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State
Study, 1995 Update121. These two  studies include
the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and District of
Columbia; for convenience, these are referred to
as 52 "states."  The studies describe each of the
states' programs, including enabling legislation,
enforcement provisions, staffing  levels, funding,
and other aspects of the programs. The legal and
financial resources available to states indicate the
extent of the states' commitment to cleaning up
contaminated sites. Two additional sources of
information were a document prepared jointly by
EPA and the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials  (ASTSWMO),
A Report on State/Territory Non-NPL Hazardous
Waste Site  Cleanup Efforts for the  Period 1980-
1992131, and a report prepared by the Northeast-
Midwest Institute with funding  from the
Economic Development Agency, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Coming Clean for Economic
Development.141 Although the documents were
developed primarily for policy purposes, the
information provided is useful for defining the
state market for hazardous waste remediation.
                                              9-1

-------
 State Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
9.1.1  General Operations of State Cleanup
Programs

Most of the states have enacted statutes patterned
after CERCLA. These statutes typically include:
provisions for emergency response and  long-term
remedial actions; cleanup funds or other mech-
anisms to finance remedial activities; enforcement
authorities to compel responsible parties (RPs) to
perform or pay for cleanup activities; and staff to
administer state-lead cleanups and monitor RP-
lead cleanups. As of December 1995, 45  states
had authority to use funds for a full range of
cleanup activities, five states had authority to use
funds only for emergency responses or matching
CERCLA expenditures, and two states had no
fund or other account that could be used for
cleanups (Nebraska and the District of Columbia).
In addition, 47 states had enforcement authority
provided through specific hazardous cleanup
authority or a hazardous waste enforcement
statute. Five other states derived their
enforcement authority from statutes not
specifically intended for hazardous waste
activities, such as general environmental laws,
and provisions within other state laws.

Many state statutes also authorize development
of a priority list, inventory, or registry of state
sites.  Most states use their list to determine the
order in which sites  will  be cleaned up.  By the
end of 1995, 30 states had statutory provisions
requiring the use of  a priority list, and 35 states
reported that they had either state inventories or
priority lists.  The states use widely different
criteria for placing sites on lists or within
categories, and therefore, many lists are difficult
to compare. Some state lists include all known
and suspected sites,  and  others include only those
sites that have completed a long evaluation
process.

An important provision of some state statutes is
that dealing with property transfers. These
provisions are designed to ensure that real
property being transferred between parties does
not pose health or environmental threats
stemming from hazardous releases.  In general,
these provisions require the owner or state to
disclose that the property was contaminated by
hazardous materials either by recording a notice
with the deed or by  disclosing such information
at the time of the property transaction. Some of
these laws require the seller of the property to
remediate the site prior to any transfer of
property. As of December 1995, 25 states had
some type of property transfer provision in their
laws or regulations.

The resource levels a state has committed
provides a useful indicator of the level of activity
in a state cleanup program. In 1995, the total
number of state personnel working in state
cleanup programs was 3,585. An additional 211
attorneys were reported by the states to be
working on  waste cleanup issues. Staff levels for
state programs varied from three people in South
Dakota to 650 staff positions  in New Jersey.
Eleven states had staffing levels exceeding  100 in
1995. Each of these states (California, Illinois,
Kansas, Massachusetts,  Michigan, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Washington) had a large number of confirmed or
suspected contaminated sites. Six states  (Connec-
ticut, Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, Oregon,  and
Tennessee) had staff levels between 51 and 100
people. The  majority of states (31) had staff levels
between 11 and 50, while only four states had 10
or fewer staff positions  for their hazardous waste
programs.

9.1.2  Voluntary and Brownfields Programs

The states increasingly are adopting new
programs to encourage  private parties to
voluntarily clean  up sites rather than expending
state resources or fund monies on enforcement
actions or site cleanups. By the end of 1995, 34
states have established voluntary cleanup
programs through statute, regulation, or policy.121
Fifteen states have established "brownfields"
programs that provide incentives for the cleanup
and redevelopment of industrial sites that have
been abandoned or are  under-used because of
fear of liability associated with potential
environmental contamination. Exhibit 9-1 shows
those states  that have voluntary cleanup and
brownfields programs.

The voluntary cleanup and brownfields programs
incorporate efforts by the states to reduce factors
that tend to  discourage  voluntary cleanup,  such
as liability for cleanups, lack  of control over
remediation, and cost.'21 Although the programs
vary considerably, most voluntary cleanup
programs include clear  cleanup standards,  timely
                                                 9-2

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                      State Sites
cleanup oversight, cleanup closure procedures,
and liability protection. Most states offer some
form of protection from future liability to private
parties when the site is voluntarily cleaned up to
state standards. Liability protection is provided
through covenants not to sue, no further action
letters, certificates of completion, and other
mechanisms. State brownfields programs
typically extend liability protection to prospective
purchasers, lenders, and real estate developers.
Liability protection is contingent upon no further
contamination being found or created at the site
and does not always protect private parties from
federal liability requirements.
                  Exhibit 9-1: State Voluntary Cleanup and Brownfields Programs
States
Alabama
Voluntary Brownfields
Cleanup Program
Program
yes —
Alaska — —
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
yes —
yes yes
yes —
yes —
yes yes
yes yes
District of Columbia — —
Florida — —
Georgia — —
Hawaii — —
Idaho — —
Illinois
Indiana
yes yes
yes yes
Iowa — —
Kansas — —
Kentucky — —
Louisiana
Maine
yes —
yes —
Maryland — —
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
Mississippi — —
Missouri
yes yes

States
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Voluntary
Cleanup
Program
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Brownfields
Program
—
—
—
—
yes
New Mexico — —
New York
North Carolina
yes
yes
—
—
North Dakota — —
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
—
yes
yes
Puerto Rico — —
Rhode Island
South Carolina
yes
yes
yes
—
South Dakota — —
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
yes
yes
yes
—
yes
yes
—
—
—
yes
—
—
West Virginia — —
Wsconsin
yes
—
Wyoming — —
Total
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, An Analysis of State
Study, 1995 Update, July 1996.
34
Superfund Programs:
15
50-State

-------
 State Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
9.1.3  Federal Initiatives Affecting State Cleanup

The federal government has actively encouraged
and assisted states in their efforts to clean up
their contaminated properties. For example, EPA
has a program dedicated to help states address
brownfields sites, which potentially can affect a
large  number of sites. EPA defines brownfields as
"abandoned, idle, or under-used industrial and
commercial facilities where expansion or
redevelopment is complicated by real or per-
ceived environmental contamination."  The U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO) estimated that
there  are between 130,000 and 450,000
brownfields sites that will cost over $650 billion
to clean up.'51

Where past use of a site raises the possibility that
the site may be contaminated, fear of being
caught in the Superfund liability net often
stymies further development at the site. Lenders,
developers, and  prospective purchasers are
discouraged from getting involved with a site,
because of the risk of having to pay cleanup
costs.

Current brownfields owners often are not willing
to conduct an assessment of their sites for fear of
finding contamination that may have been a
result of their activities or those of past owners.
Many brownfields end up as the property of local
governments through foreclosure. Most brown-
fields are located in urban areas and are generally
associated with unaddressed contamination,
declining property values, increased unemploy-
ment, and movement of industries to the suburbs.

In January 1995, EPA announced the Brownfields
Action Agenda that outlined EPA's activities and
future plans to help states and localities clean up
and reuse brownfields. EPA committed to the
following four broad areas:

  • EPA would fund at least 50 Brownfields
   Demonstration Pilots for up to $200,000 over
   two years so that states and municipalities
   can develop  and test redevelopment models.

  • EPA would work with states and
   municipalities to clarify agency guidance
   regarding the liability of prospective
   purchasers, lenders, property owners,  and
    others associated with activities at potentially
    contaminated sites.

  •  EPA would work with states, municipalities,
    and community representatives to promote
    public participation and community
    involvement in brownfields redevelopment
    decision-making.

  •  EPA would establish partnerships with com-
    munity colleges to develop strategies for
    allowing local residents an opportunity to
    qualify for jobs created as a result of
    brownfields activities.

By the end of FY 1996, Brownfields Pilots have
been awarded to  the 76 cities and states listed  in
Exhibit 9-2. EPA plans to fund additional pilots
in FY 1997.

Another federal initiative, which is being imple-
mented by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), is an Empowerment
Zone  (EZ) and Enterprise Community (EC) initia-
tive designed to empower communities across the
nation to work together to create jobs and oppor-
tunity. A key element of the EZ and EC programs
is the development of community-based
strategies for the  cleanup and environmentally
friendly reuse of brownfields, which have been
identified as one  of the major impediments to  the
creation of jobs and opportunity. The cities
receiving these designations will receive flexible
social services block grants of up to $100 million
for EZs. In addition, tax incentives will be
provided for businesses that are located in  EZs
and ECs. A primary goal of HUD's initiative is to
increase cooperation among federal, state, and
local governments to encourage more effective
economic, human, environmental, and
community development strategies. In selected
cities, EPA will help to identify sites in need of
environmental remediation.

9.2  Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanups

The state market  for remediation services is
largely dependent upon the commitment of states
to establish and manage hazardous waste
programs and the ability of states to finance
cleanups or compel RPs to clean up sites.
Enforcement authorities provided under state
laws vary significantly among the states. As of
                                                9-4

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                         State Sites
December 1995, 47 states had enforcement
provisions contained in cleanup fund laws. Other
states rely on their general environmental laws,
groundwater laws, and other provisions for
enforcement. For example, Nebraska relies on its
groundwater protection laws, which apply only
to contamination of groundwater. Virtually all
state programs have authority to issue  adminis-
trative cleanup orders and all states have
authority to  seek injunctions for cleanups.
Recovery of  punitive damages is provided in 25
states, and most states also have criminal  and
civil penalty provisions that may be used  to
enforce hazardous site cleanups. However, these
provisions have not proven to be as effective in
                  encouraging private-party cleanup actions as
                  have some other incentive methods. The
                  authority to perform fund-lead cleanups and
                  recover punitive damages is the strongest incen-
                  tive for securing private party cleanups. The
                  potency of this incentive depends upon the
                  resolve of a state to spend fund monies. Increases
                  and decreases in state cleanup funds will affect
                  the number and complexity of remedial actions
                  undertaken by the states.  State Superfunds may
                  be impacted by economic and political conditions
                  that influence state revenues.  Except for the
                  largest state programs, many  states will have to
                  rely on their ability to either compel private
                  parties or encourage voluntary actions to clean
                  up contaminated state sites.
                  Exhibit 9-2: Cities and States Awarded Brownfield Pilot Programs
   Birmingham, Alabama
   Prichard, Alabama
   Emeryville, California
   Oakland, California
   Richmond, California
   Sacramento, California
   San Francisco, California
   Stockton,  California
   Sand Creek Corridor, Colorado
   Bridgeport, Connecticut
   Naugatuch Valley, Connecticut
   New Haven, Connecticut
   Clearwater, Florida
   Miami, Florida
   Atlanta, Georgia
   Panhandle Health District, Idaho
   East St. Louis, Illinois
   State of Illinois
   West Central Municipal Conference,
   Illinois
   Indianapolis, Indiana
   Northwest Indiana Cities, Indiana
   State of Indiana
   Louisville, Kentucky
   New Orleans, Louisiana
   Shreveport, Louisiana
   Portland, Maine
Baltimore, Maryland
Boston, Massachusetts
Chicopee, Massachusetts
Lawrence, Massachusetts
Lowell, Massachusetts
Somerville, Massachusetts
Worcester, Massachusetts
Chippewa County-Kinross Township,
Michigan
Detroit, Michigan
Downriver Community Conference,
Michigan
Kalamazoo, Michigan
State of Minnesota
Bonne Terre, Missouri
Kansas City, Kansas and Missouri
St. Louis,  Missouri
Navajo Nation
Concord, New Hampshire
Camden, New Jersey
Newark, New Jersey
Trenton, New Jersey
Buffalo, New York
New York, New York
Rochester, New York
Rome, New York
Charlotte,  North Carolina
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio
Lima, Ohio
Oregon Mill Sites, Oregon
Portland, Oregon
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Phoenixville, Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
State of Rhode Island
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Knoxville, Tennessee
Dallas,  Texas
Houston, Texas
Laredo, Texas
Murray City, Utah
Provo, Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah
West Jordon, Utah
Burlington, Vermont
Cape Charles-North Hampton
County, Virginia
Richmond, Virginia
Bellingham, Washington
Duwamish Coalition, Washington
Puyallup Tribe, Tacoma Washington
Tacoma, Washington
 Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, December 1996.
                                                   9-5

-------
 State Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
9.3  Number of Sites

The two 50-State Studies present the results of a
survey in which each state was asked to identify
the total number of "Known and Suspected Sites"
and "Sites Needing Attention." The number of
"Known and Suspected Sites"  generally is the
largest number of potentially contaminated sites
known to the state and  includes sites that have
not yet undergone any type of assessment. The
"Sites Needing Attention" are  known  and sus-
pected sites that have been evaluated  by the state
and determined to require some further level of
assessment or action. The studies do not present
estimates of the number of sites that definitely
require remedial action. Exhibit 9-3 presents each
state's estimate for both categories of sites.

The total number of known and suspected sites
reported in 1995 was 79,387 (up from 69,808 in
1991 but down from 101,796 in 1993). The largest
decreases in known and suspected sites from
1993 to 1995 were in California, which  decreased
by 16,000; Michigan, which decreased by 9,700;
and Pennsylvania, which decreased by 2,900. The
decrease of sites reported by California was  due
to a reclassification  of sites and better assess-
ments of sites that will require action. The
decrease of sites reported by Michigan  was due
to the elimination of underground storage tank
sites from their estimate.
                   Exhibit 9-3: Number of Non-NPL State Hazardous Waste Sites
States
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Known
1993
625
1,051
450
351
26,000
420°
1,475
288
0
1,015
800
2,500
220
1,400
1,549
900
450
1,000
1,014
370
463
6,328
& Suspected Sites3
1995
650
1,347
1,620
398
9,809
225
2,440
280
30
1,023
904
200
59
5,000
2,500
900
609
1,000
690
419
463
7,500
9,785 —
542
390
1,253
3,600
770
1,475
Sites
1993
125
1,051
65
101
350
Needing Attention b
1995
125
1,347
400
45
1,079
— 225
579
89
0
725
0°
649
120
0
656
82
— 25
50
147
82
200
200
500
184
160
343
5,867
9,785
184
200
163
59
950
200
200
324
600
136
92
198
4,500
2,764
215
156
200

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
State Sites
           Exhibit 9-3: Number of Non-NPL State Hazardous Waste Sites (continued)
States
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wsconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Known & Suspected Sites3
1993 1995
265 277
370 400
145 136
250 250
18,519 20,000
600 278
995 929
665 1 ,029
72° 0
1,200 1,190
— 767
1,235 1,559
3,000 100
246° 256
300 300
475 550
218 1,065
1,142 1,270
1,200 821
200 220
1,291 1,700
3,100 2,015
1,029 1,364
500 —
4,000 4,000
140° —
101,796 79,387
Sites Needing Attention b
1993 1995
265 240
1 20 200
1 45 1 36
250 250
12,894 6,500
220 1 82
680 793
655 801
0° 0
771 406
— 162
102 218
50 50
246° 256
60 40
200 1 20
218 241
1 57 1 98
83 66
31 —
1,291 931
310 363
628 932
— —
565 565
— —
41,091 28,997
Notes:
a "Known and Suspected" sites are those that states have identified as being potentially contaminated. Many of these sites
will not require action beyond a preliminary assessment. Site numbers are derived from Table V-5 of the 1993 50-State Study
and Table V-3 of the 1995 50-State Study unless otherwise noted. The totals include an unknown, but small, percentage of
UST and RCRA sites.
b "Sites Needing Attention" are those "Known and Suspected" sites that have been assessed and determined to require
further assessment or cleanup. Many of these sites will require removal or remedial actions. Site numbers are derived from
Table V-5 of the 1993 50-State Study and Table V-3 of the 1995 50-State Study unless otherwise noted. The totals include
an unknown, but small, percentage of UST and RCRA sites.
0 Because a number was not provided in Table V-5 of the 1993 50-State Study, information on non-NPL sites listed in EPA's
CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS) provided in Chapter VI, "State Summaries" was used.
— Indicates that data were not provided.
Sources: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State
Study, 1993 Update, EPA/540/R-94/008, December 1993.
U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State
Study, 1995 Update, EPA-540-R-96-036, July 1996.
                                             9-7

-------
 State Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
The total number of sites determined to need
further attention in 1995 was 28,997 (up from
19,266 in 1991 but down from 41,091 in 1993).
The largest decreases in sites reported as needing
further attention from 1993 to 1995 were in
Michigan, which decreased by 7,000 sites; and
New Jersey, which decreased by 6,000 sites. The
total number of sites determined to need further
attention includes  an unknown—but small—
percentage of RCRA and UST sites, which are
addressed in Chapters 4 and 5 of this report.
During collection of data from the  states, authors
of the 50-State Study requested that the states
exclude RCRA and UST sites from their reports,
if they could. However, some states were unable
to separate the RCRA and UST site data from
other hazardous waste sites.

A  central source of information that characterizes
the types and quantities of contaminants found at
state sites is not available. However,  some states
with established, well-funded programs are able
to produce this type of information. For example,
the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control, within the state's Environmental
Protection Agency, publishes a biennial report'61
that describes the Department's site mitigation
and other environmental protection programs.
The report includes a list of currently active sites,
a list of certified remediated and delisted sites,
and data on emergency response activities by
county. The Department also maintains a
database, called CalSites, that contains
information on almost 10,000 potential  and
known sites. The Department provides access to
CalSites through its headquarters and regional
offices. Appendix E provides contacts for state
environmental offices.

The types of contaminants present at some state
sites can be inferred from sites listed in EPA's
CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS), EPA's
database of potentially contaminated sites. EPA
has performed preliminary assessments at these
sites to screen them for the federal NPL. The
majority of these sites (those not listed  on the
NPL) are deferred to the  states for action.
CERCLIS data show that the most  prevalent
wastes at these sites are organic chemicals,
metals, solvents, and oily waste.171
9.4  Estimated Cleanup Costs

This section describes the status of state cleanup
funds and provides an estimate of recent annual
expenditures and the total cost to complete the
cleanup of all known state sites.

9.4.1 Status and Capacity of State Cleanup
Funds

A fund is an essential element of a state's
program to clean up sites. It allows a state to
investigate, plan, design, and conduct emergency
response and remedial actions at sites where
immediate action is required or where RPs are
unavailable, unable, or unwilling to conduct or
pay for remedial actions. Fifty "states" have
established cleanup funds or provided a
mechanism for the state agency to pay for one or
more types of cleanup activities at non-NPL sites.
Nebraska and the District of Columbia are the
only "states" without  authorized cleanup funds.

The combination of fund balances, additions to
funds,  and expenditures can indicate the
capability and stability of a state cleanup
program. Exhibit 9-4 compares the fund balances,
additions to funds, and expenditures of the states
in 1991, 1993, and 1995.

Most of the state fund balances (including
bonding authority) are concentrated in a
relatively few states. In 1995, seven states (Alaska,
California, Indiana,  Michigan,  New Jersey, New
York, and Pennsylvania) accounted for $1.18
billion  (80.8  percent) of the total fund balances for
all states.

The annual contributions to state funds  fluctuated
sharply from 1991 to 1995. The states added $382
million to their cleanup funds during 1991, $957
million in 1993, and $445 million in 1995. As with
fund balances, the amounts added to funds are
concentrated in a relatively few states. Five states
(Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
and Washington) added $275.8 million (62
percent) of the total added to state funds in 1995.

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                     State Sites
                  Exhibit 9-4: Comparison of State Funds, Expenditures, and Sites
                                       1991, 1993, and 1995
                                            ($millions)
Total Fund Balances*
Additions to Funds
Expenditures/Obligations
Number of Known and Suspected Sites
Number of Sites Needing Attention
1991 1993
$2,218.5 $1,523.4
$381.6 $957.3
$427.8 $1,170.9
69,808 101,796
19,266 41,091
1995
$1,464.9
$444.6
$749.6
79,387
28,997
* Fund balances include both money in the fund and authority to sell bonds to raise
additional monies. The fund balances included the following amounts in the fund: $603.7 in
1991, $556.2 in 1993, and $609.0 in 1995. The rest of the fund balances were in bond
authority.
Exhibit 9-5 presents the Superfund balances for
each state as of December 1993 and 1995 and
provides the total expenditures and obligations of
funds by each state for hazardous waste activities
in 1993 and 1995. The state fund balances totaled
$1.46 billion in 1995, including bond
authorizations (authority by state law to issue
bonds and spend the proceeds on cleanups).

The states' experience with past cleanups
indicates that the cost of a remedial action at a
single site is likely to exceed $1 million.'21 While
all but two states have some public funding
capability, fund balances  in some states are quite
small or limited to emergency response or
removal actions. At the end of 1995, eight of the
52 "states" did not have fund balances large
enough to clean up at least one average-cost site
(about $1 million) with fund monies (Alabama,
District of Columbia, Kansas, Maryland,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and
Wyoming). Another 14 states had balances
between $1 million  and $3 million. The remaining
30 of the 52 "states" had fund balances over $3
million. Although a state's fund balance indicates
its ability to pay for a cleanup at any given time,
this indication is only an  approximation of
cleanup activity in a state in a given year. The
level of cleanup activity also depends on the rate
that funds flow into and out of the fund, which
differs from one state to another. Thus a state
that rapidly replenishes its funds, for example by
recovering cleanup  costs from RPs, would have a
high level of cleanup activity relative to the
balance of the fund at any given time.

9.4.2  Annual and Projected Cleanup Costs

The estimate of the cost of cleanup for state and
private party cleanups is based on the following
assumptions:

 • Non-NPL expenditures will average $203
   million annually. This figure is the total 1995
   non-NPL expenditures for 37 states that
   reported this item separately in the 1995  50
   State Study.'21 This amount may be an
   underestimate of total national non-NPL
   expenditures, because it does not include 13
   states for which data are not available. On the
   other hand these costs include some
   administrative and site  investigation costs.

 • Responsible party expenditures are estimated
   to be equal to state expenditures, based on
   the ASTSWMO study.'31  Based on cost data
   submitted for 3,395 CERCLIS sites during the
   period 1980-1992, RPs paid $555 million and
   the states paid $650 million to clean up these
   sites. Therefore, RP expenditures appear to be
   roughly equal to state expenditures at state
   sites. No centralized source of data is
   available that includes private party
   expenditures for cleanups through the states'
   voluntary cleanup or brownfields programs.

-------
State Sites
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                          Exhibit 9-5: State Hazardous Waste Funds:
                     1993 and 1995 Expenditure/Obligations and Balances
States
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Expenditures &
1993
$80,230
$900,000
$7,272,900
$1,459,951
$88,600,000
$10,200,000
$5,750,000
$4,890,000
$0
Obligations9
1995
$324,048
$16,500,000
$2,660,000
$1,080,288
$14,399,000
$12,800,000
$18,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
— $6,982,000
$0
$32,456
$1,009,625
$16,701,300
$11,691,535
$124,323
$1,864,000
$1,785,000
$2,867,909
$11,703,000
$7,438,889
$1,700,000
$6,807
$4,474,000
$2,743,151
$40,000
$4,230,000
$4,000,000
$2,431,850
$1,717,030
— —
$18,200,000
$60,456,000
$8,451,000
$440,000
$2,000,000
$1,504,727
$0
$250,000
$20,027,186
$50,500,000
$7,122,002
$2,505,000
$2,800,000
$2,780,258
$0
$500,000
$1,603,000 —
$313,100,000
$350,841
$183,600,000
$0
$0
$21 ,723,044
$28,000
$18,746,169
$34,401 ,000
$100,100,000
$522,840
$252,900,000
$4,784,196
$0
$16,945,817
$696,230
$8,781,016
$39,000,000
Fund
1993
$379,690
$0
$3,743,000
$6,202,997
$26,908,000
$13,200,000
$21 ,775,000
$4,000,000
$0
$8,363,000
$8,260,818
$222,604
$3,139,032
$6,065,300
$14,907,856
$1,006,218
$1,868,000
$5,000,000
$3,056,023
$5,700,000
Balances'1
1995
$478,167
$73,356,000
$1,280,000
$7,450,050
$59,400,000
$16,200,000
$10,575,000
$3,700,000
$0
$7,000,000
$13,029,281
$3,000,000
$4,375,877
$6,400,000
$50,512,589
$1,300,000
$225,000
$1,770,000
$2,007,883
$10,573,050
$14,000,000 —
$23,600,000
$18,200,000
$5,252,000
$2,700,000
$5,800,000
$3,002,329
$0
$6,000,000
$3,000,000
$161,500,000
$103,634
$905,400,000
$3,783,852
$79,000
$34,680,714
$260,000
$5,476,340
$60,500,000
$2,513,036
$184,000,000
$2,981,000
$1,325,000
$5,300,000
$1,451,893
$0
$1,000,000
$3,000,000
$136,700,000
$1,204,500
$599,100,000
$7,800,000
$129,000
$39,560,693
$2,096,005
$5,974,000
$75,000,000
                                             9-10

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                     State Sites
                            Exhibit 9-5: State Hazardous Waste Funds:
                  1993 and 1995 Expenditure/Obligations and Balances (continued)
States
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wsconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Expenditures & Obligations8
1993 1995
$555,000 $986,717
— $2,377,000
$8,100,000 $1,504,045
$0 $61 ,885
$2,471,323 $3,154,805
$262,139,832 $28,615,006
$1,075,000 $5,288,000
$3,387,596 $5,700,000
$67,865 $73,926
$51 ,993,254 $72,960,209
$1,074,476 —
$8,287,306 $15,350,000
— —
$1,170,937,662 $749,563,201
Fund Balances'*
1993
$4,185,000
$2,000,000
$16,900,000
$1,715,767
$6,260,883
$30,396,128
$425,000
$1,544,426
$31 1 ,338
$46,302,976
$2,200,000
$24,032,917
1995
$2,482,111
$2,655
$18,635,064
$1,750,000
$8,036,052
$47,361,124
$5,100,000
$4,240,000
$2,575,861
$28,536,973
$1,000,000
$3,472,400
$0 —
$1,523,409,842 $1
464,960,264
Notes:
a Includes funds expended and obligated by the states in 1993 and 1995 for NPL and non-NPL site cleanups.
b Includes unobligated funds and bonding authority for $967,200,000 available in four states (Massachusetts, Michigan, New
York, and Wisconsin) for 1993 and unobligated funds and bonding authority in five states (California, Maine, Michigan, New
York, and New Jersey) for 1995.
— Indicates that data were not provided.
Sources: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State
Study, 1993 Update, EPA/540/R-94/008, December 1993.
U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State
Study, 1995 Update, EPA-540-R-96-036, July 1996.
 •  EPA assumes that it will take an average of
    30 years for states to complete the cleanup of
    known sites (some states may take as many
    as 50 years, but 30 years is an approximate
    average of all states).

Thus, the total costs for both state and RPs is
estimated to be $12.2 billion ($203 million X 2 X
30 years). As noted above, this amount does not
include 13 states for which data are not available.
On the other hand these costs include some
administrative and site investigation costs. The
states' annual expenditures and obligations for
cleanup activities have fluctuated sharply from
1991 to  1995. The states expended or obligated a
total of $428 million for cleanup activities in  1991,
$1.17 billion in 1993, and $750 million in  1995.
The four states that expended or obligated the
most money in 1995 were Michigan, New Jersey,
New York, and Washington, which accounted for
$476.4 million (64 percent) of the total amount of
money expended or obligated in 1995. Because
the above expenditures and obligations data often
combine expenditures and obligations on the one
hand, and NPL and non-NPL site costs on the
other, it is difficult to detail the trends in total
non-NPL state and private party expenditures.

The states expended their funds for nine basic
activities: emergency response, removals, site
investigation, study and design, remedial actions,
operation and maintenance, matching CERCLA
funds to pay the state share for NPL  sites, grants
to cities and local governments, and victim
compensation. The distribution  of funds among
these activities is unknown.
                                                9-11

-------
 State Sites
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
The states used RPs as the major funding source
for site cleanups at 35,000 CERCLIS sites.'31 At
these sites, RPs cleaned up 31 percent of the sites
through enforcement actions and 55 percent
through voluntary or property transfer actions.

9.5 Remedial Technologies

Based on state actions from 1980 to 1992 at 35,166
sites that had been listed on the CERCLIS
database, the states selected the  following as the
predominant remedies:  1) containment,  either on-
site or off-site, at 76 percent of the sites; 2)
treatment, either on-site or off-site, at 17 percent
of the sites; 3) site security (e.g.,  fences and
warning signs) at 5 percent of the sites; 4)
population protection at 2 percent of the sites;
and 5) innovative technologies at less than one
percent of the sites. This information is not
broken out by year, so changes in technology use
over time cannot be determined.'31 These data are
somewhat dated, however, and the use of
technology may have changed over the past five
years,  especially in light of the rapid
development and acceptance of in situ
technologies. The use of innovative technologies
for underground storage tank sites, discussed in
Section 5.6, has been growing rapidly, and this
may be an indicator of current remedial
approaches for state sites.
9.6 References

1.   U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-
    State Study, 1993 Update, EPA/540/R-94/008, December 1993.

2.   U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-
    State Study, 1995 Update, EPA-540-R-96-036, PB96-963249, July 1996.

3.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and Association of
    State and Territorial  Solid Waste Management Officials, A Report on State/Territory Non-NPL Hazardous
    Waste Site Cleanup Efforts for the Period 1980-1992, OSWER Pub. 9242.2-09, EPA/540/R-94/001, July 1994.

4.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Northeast-Midwest Institute, Coming Clean for Economic
    Development, December 1995.

5.   U.S. General Accounting Office, Community Development: Reuse of Urban Industrial Sites, GAO Report
    #RCED-95-172, June 1995.

6.   California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control,  Biennial Report,
    Sacramento, California, 1993-1994.

7.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Superfund CERCLIS
    Characterization Project: National Results, EPA/540/8-91/080, November 1991.
                                                9-12

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix A
                       APPENDIX A
                 SUPPORTING DATA FOR
                 ANALYSIS OF NPL SITES
                            A-l

-------
Appendix A
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                  Exhibit A-1:  Number of NPL Source Control RODs by Type
Fiscal
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Totals
Source Control
Containment or
Some Treatment Disposal Only Other Total
(% of Source (% of Source Source Source
Control RODS) Control RODS) Control Control
1 (25%) 3 (75%) - 4
0 7(100%) - 7
5(29%) 12(71%) 0 17
16(28%) 34(60%) 7 57
27 (44%) 34 (56%) 0 61
28 (50%) 28 (50%) 0 56
72(72%) 28(28%) 0 100
76(74%) 29(28%) 0 105
88(70%) 35(28%) 2 125
105(74%) 34(24%) 2 141
86(72%) 26(22%) 7 119
84(71%) 31 (26%) 4 119
58 (59%) 35 (36%) 5 98
62(53%) 48(41%) 7 117
708(63%) 384(34%) 34 1,126
Other
Remedies
-
6
21
11
24
23
52
41
45
57
54
71
67
71
543
Total
RODs
4
13
38
68
85
79
152
146
170
198
173
190
165
188
1,669
Notes:
• RODs denote Records of Decision.
• "Other Source Control" includes RODs calling for only institutional controls, monitoring, and relocation remedies.
• "Other Remedies" include RODs calling for "groundwater only" remedies and "no action."
• Numbers in italics are preliminary.
                                            A-2

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                       Appendix A
             Exhibit A-2:  Representative Hazardous Chemicals by Contaminant Group
The hazardous chemicals listed below are representative of those found at National Priorities List (NPL) sites.
The list is developed from site assessment information for NPL sites without Records of Decision (RODs),
based on the Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Volume 1A: Laboratory Manual, Physical/Chemical
Methods, Third Edition, Proposal Update II, PB94-170321, November 1992. These chemicals represent many,
but not all, of the contaminants found at NPL sites.
                                 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
         1,1,1-Trichloroethane
         1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
         1,1,2-Trichloroethane
         1,1-Dichloroethane
         1,1-Dichloroethene
         1,1-Dichloropropylene
         1,2,3-Trichloropropane
         1,2-Dichloroethane
         1,2-Dichloroethene
         1,2-Dichloropropane
         1,2-Transdichloroethene
         1,3-Dichloropropane
         1,3-Trichloropropene
         1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
         2-Butanone (MEK)
         2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether
         2-Chloropropane
         2-Hexanone
         3-Hexanone
         4-Methyl-2-pentanone
         Acetone
         Acrolein
         Acrylonitrile
         Benzene
         Bromodichloromethane
         Bromodichloroethane
         Bromoform
         Bromomethane
         Carbon Bisulfide
         Carbon Tetrachloride
         Chlorobenzene
         Chloroethane
         Chloroform
         Chloromethane
         Cis-1,2-Dichloroethane
         Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
         Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP)
Dibromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Dichlorpropene
Ethyl Ether
Ethyl Methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
lodomethane
Isopropanol
M-PSA
M-Xylene
Methane
Methanethiol
Methylene
Methylene Chloride
O-Xylene
P-PSA
P-Xylene
Polyvinyl Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Trans-1, 2-dichloroethene
Trans-1,3-dichloropropene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
Vinylidene Chloride
Volatile Organics
                                                  A-3

-------
Appendix A
                  Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
      Exhibit A-2:  Representative Hazardous Chemicals by Contaminant Group (Continued)
                              Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
        (Lindane) Gamma-BHC
        1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
        1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
        1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
        1,2-Dichlorobenzene
        1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
        1,3-Dichlorobenzene
        1,4-Dichlorobenzene
        1-Chloroaniline
        1-Naphthylamine
        2,2-Dichlorobenzidine
        2,3,4,5-Tetrachlorophenol
        2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
        2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
        2,4-Dichlorophenol
        2,4-Dichlorotoluene
        2,4-Dimethylphenol
        2,4-Dinitrophenol
        2,4-Dinitrotoluene
        2,6-Dichlorophenol
        2,6-Dinitrotoluene
        2-Chloronaphthalene
        2-Chlorophenol
        2-Mercaptan-Benzothiazole
        2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol
        2-Methylnaphthalene
        2-Methylphenol
        2-Napthylamine
        2-Nitroaniline
        2-Nitrophenol
        2-Picoline
        3-Methylcholanthrene
        3-Methylphenol
        3-Nitroaniline
        4,4-DDD
        4,4-DDE
        4,4-DDT
        4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
        4-Aminobiphenyl
        4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
        4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
        4-Chloroaniline
        4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
        4-Methylphenol
        4-Nitroaniline
        4-Nitrophenol
        7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
        A,A-Dirnethyl-b-phenylethlamine
        Acenanthrene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
Aldrin
Alpha-BHC
Amiben
Aniline
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluorathene
Benzo (ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)flouranthene
Benzo(j)flourathene
Benzo(k)pyrene
Benzoic Acid
Benzothiazole
Benzyl Alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bis-2-chloroethoxyphthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Chlordane
Chrysene
Cresote
Delta-BHC
DHD
Di-n-octyl Phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Dibutyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Dinitrophenol
Dinoseb
Diphenylamine
DNB
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
EPIC
Ethyl Methanesulfonate
Ethylamylketone (EAK)
Ethylene Dibromide
Fluoranethene
Fluorene
                                                  A-4

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                       Appendix A
      Exhibit A-2: Representative Hazardous Chemicals by Contaminant Group (Continued)
                       Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) (Continued)
        Heptachlor
        Heptachlorepoxide
        Herbicides
        Hexachlorobenzene
        Hexachlorobutadiene
        Hexachlorocyclohexan
        Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
        Hexachloroethane
        Hexadecanoic Acid
        lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
        Isophorone
        Kepone
        Malathion
        Methoxychlor
        Methyl Ethyl Benzene
        Methylmethanesulfonate
        N-Methylpyrrolidene
        N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine
        N-Nitrosodimethylamine
        N-Nitrosopiperidine
        Naphthalene
        Nitrobenzene
        Oxazolidone
Parathion
PCB
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pesticides
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phenothiazine
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Pronamid
Pyrene
P-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Resorcinol
Shell Sol 140
TDX
Tertbutylmethylether
Tetrahydrofuran
TNB 1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
Toxaphene
Vernolate
                                              Metals
        Aluminum
        Antimony
        Arsenic
        Barium
        Beryllium
        Boron
        Cadmium
        Calcium
        Cesium
        Chrome
        Chromite
        Chromium
        Cobalt
        Copper
        Iron
        Lead
        Magnesium
        Manganese
        Mercury
        Metals
Molybdenum
Nickel
Plutonium
Potassium
Radium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Technetium
Thallium
Thorium
Tin
Titanium
Tritium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
                                                A-5

-------
Appendix A
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                 Exhibit A-3:  Distribution of Quantities of Contaminated Soil,
                         Sediment, and Sludge at NPL Sites With RODs
Quantity Estimate
(Cubic Yards)
<1,000
1,000-5,000
5,001 - 10,000
10,001 -30,000
30,001 - 50,000
50,001 - 100,000
>1 00,000
Total Number of Sites
Number of NPL Sites with Data By Matrix
Soil
Federal
Facilities
3
6
6
7
5
1
6
34
Non-Fed.
Facilities
47
65
46
83
42
32
55
370
Sediment
Federal
Facilities
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
5
Non-Fed.
Facilities
16
16
10
8
8
5
6
69
Sludge
Federal
Facilities
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
3
Non-Fed.
Facilities
6
7
4
8
10
7
6
48
Note: Data are derived from 510 Records of Decision (RODs) for 430 sites with data.
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, ROD Information Directory, December 1995.
                                             A-6

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix A
         Exhibit A-4: Estimated Quantity of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Sludge
    for Major Contaminant Groups at Non-Federal NPL Sites with Planned Remedial Actions
(1)

Contaminant Subgroup
Single:
Metals
VOCs
SVOCs
Others
Double:
VOCs & Metals
SVOCs & Metals
VOCs & SVOCs
VOCs, SVOCs, &
Metals
(2)

Number of NPL
Sites With
Available Data3

68
35
77
14

49
16
32
129
(3)

Average Based
on Available
Data
(Cubic Yards)8

93,000
19,000
23,000
71,000

56,000
40,000
69,000
68,000
(4)
Numbers of NPL
Sites With
Planned
Remedial
Action"

49
60
26
53

54
29
52
224
(5)

Projected
Total Quantity
(Cubic Yards)0

4,557,000
1,140,000
598,000
3,763,000

3,024,000
1,160,000
3,588,000
15,232,000
TOTALS 420 547 33,062,000
Notes:
a Source of quantity data is U.S. EPA, RODs, fiscal years 1982-1994. Statistical outliers are not included. Site-
specific data are not available for quantities of material to be remediated at all sites with planned remedial actions;
these values are derived from estimates contained in the RODs for 420 sites containing similar contaminants.
b Based on the distribution of contaminant groups among the 944 sites with ROD data shown in Exhibit 3-4. Each site
is placed in one subgroup only.
c The total for each subgroup is calculated by multiplying columns (3) and (4). Projected quantities are rounded.
                                           A-7

-------
Appendix A
Cfeaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                   Exhibit A-5: Non-Federal NPL Sites Needing Remediation
Its
SsSf
AK
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA

ARCTIC SURPLUS
C1BA-GEIGY CORP. (MCINTOSH PLA
T.H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION
STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (LEMOYNE
STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (LEMOYNE
STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (LEMOYNE
OLIN CORP. (MCINTOSH PLANT)
OLIN CORP. (MCINTOSH PLANT)
INTERSTATE LEAD CO. (ILCO)
INTERSTATE LEAD CO. (ILCO)
INTERSTATE LEAD CO. (ILCO)
MONARCH TILE MANUFACTURING, IN
STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (COLD CR
STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (COLD CR
REDWING CARRIERS, INC. (SARALA
VERTAC, INC
VERTAC, INC
SOUTH 8TH STREET LANDFILL
SOUTH 8TH STREET LANDFILL
MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT (PARAGOU
APACHE POWDER CO
MOTOROLA, INC. (52ND STREET PL
PHOENIX-GOODYEAR AIRPORT AREA
INDIAN BEND WASH AREA
INDIAN BEND WASH AREA
INDIAN BEND WASH AREA
TUCSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT A
TUCSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT A
J.H. BAXTER & CO
MONTROSE CHEMICAL CORP
MONTROSE CHEMICAL CORP
MONTROSE CHEMICAL CORP
T.H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION C
MCCORMICK & BAXTER CREOSOTING
MCCORMICK & BAXTER CREOSOTING
RAYTHEON CORP
DEL AMO FACILITY
DEL AMO FACILITY
COOPER DRUM CO.
INTEL CORP. (MOUNTAIN VIEW PLA
COAST WOOD PRESERVING
VALLEY WOOD PRESERVING, INC
STOKER CO
FRONTIER FERTILIZER
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORP (
AEROJET GENERAL CORP
CRAZY HORSE SANITARY LANDFILL
GBF & PITTSBURG DUMPS
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE
;t'5:i?li1KoSp;: ; • '-^r
01
03
02
01
02
03
01
02
01
02
03
01
02
03
01
03
05
01
02
01
01
02
01
03
05
07
02
03
01
01
02
03
01
01
03
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
04
05
06

Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Beg
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Design Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Rem. Assess. Not Begun

AKD980988158
ALD001221902
ALD007454085
ALD008161176
ALD008161176
ALD008161176
ALD0081 88708
ALD0081 88708
ALD041906173
ALD041906173
ALD041906173
ALD0671 02301
ALD095688875
ALD095688875
ALD980844385
ARD000023440
ARD000023440
ARD980496723
ARD980496723
ARD980864110
AZD008399263
AZD009004177
AZD980695902
AZD980695969
AZD980695969
AZD980695969
AZD980737530
AZD980737530
CAD000625731
CAD00824271 1
CAD00824271 1
CAD00824271 1
CAD0091 06220
CAD0091 06527
CAD0091 06527
CAD009205097
CAD029544731
CAD029544731
CAD055753370
CAD061620217
CAD063015887
CAD063020143
CAD066635442
CAD071 530380
CAD095989778
CAD980358832
CAD980498455
CAD980498562
CAD980498612
CAD980498612
CAD980498612
CAD980498612
CAD980498612
                                             A-8

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                    Appendix A
             Exhibit A-5: Non-Federal NPL Sites Needing Remediation (Continued)
State
Site Name
Operable
Unit
Status
•' EPATD .*", /"'
CA    MCCOLL
CA    MCCOLL
CA    FRESNO MUNICIPAL SANITARY LAND
CA    FRESNO MUNICIPAL SANITARY LAND
CA    SAN GABRIEL VALLEY (AREA 1)
CA    SAN GABRIEL VALLEY (AREA 1)
CA    PURITY OIL SALES, INC
CA    SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO
CA    SAN GABRIEL VALLEY (AREA 4)
CA    SAN GABRIEL VALLEY (AREA 2)
CA    WASTE DISPOSAL, INC
CA    SULPHUR BANK MERCURY MINE
CA    SULPHUR BANK MERCURY MINE
CA    SULPHUR BANK MERCURY MINE
CA    WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CO
CA    SAN FERNANDO VALLEY (AREA 1)
CA    SAN FERNANDO VALLEY (AREA 2)
CA    SAN FERNANDO VALLEY (AREA 2)
CA    SAN FERNANDO VALLEY (AREA 4)
CA    SAN FERNANDO VALLEY (AREA 3)
CA    NEWMARK GROUND WATER CONTAM.
CA    UNITED HECKATHORN CO
CA    RALPH GRAY TRUCKING CO
CA    MODESTO GROUND WATER CONTAM.
CA    OPERATING INDUSTRIES, INC., LA
CA    OPERATING INDUSTRIES, INC., LA
CA    STRINGFELLOW
CO    CHEMICAL SALES CO
CO    CHEMICAL SALES CO
CO    EAGLE MINE
CO    LOWRY LANDFILL
CO    CENTRAL CITY-CLEAR CREEK
CO    CALIFORNIA GULCH
CO    CALIFORNIA GULCH
CO    CALIFORNIA GULCH
CO    CALIFORNIA GULCH
CO    CALIFORNIA GULCH
CO    CALIFORNIA GULCH
CO    SUMMITVILLE MINE
CO    SUMMITVILLE MINE
CT    LINEMASTER SWITCH CORP
CT    RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
CT    RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
CT    DURHAM MEADOWS
CT    SOLVENTS RECOVERY SERVICE NEW
CT    PRECISION PLATING CORP
CT    GALLUP'S QUARRY
CT    NUTMEG VALLEY ROAD
CT    OLD SOUTHINGTON LANDFILL
CT    BARKHAMSTED-NEW HARTFORD LAND
DE    STANDARD CHLORINE OF DELAWARE,
DE    DELAWARE CITY PVC PLANT
DE    KOPPERS CO., INC. (NEWPORT PLA
02     Design Underway
04     Remedy Selected
01     Design Underway
02     Remedy Selected
01     Study Underway
05     Study Underway
02     Design Underway
01     Remedy Selected
01     Study Underway
01     Remedy Selected
01     Design Underway
01     Study Underway
02     Study Underway
03     Study Underway
01     Study Underway
01     Study Underway
01     Study Underway
03     Design Underway
01     Study Underway
01     Study Underway
03     Study Underway
01     Remedy Selected
02     Study Underway
01     Study Underway
01     Study Underway
03     Design Underway
05     Study Underway
01     Design Underway
04     Design Underway
02     Rem. Assess. Not Begun
01     Design Underway
03     Design Underway
03     Study Underway
04     Study Underway
05     Study Underway
07     Study Underway
09     Study Underway
10     Study Underway
03     Rem. Assess. Not Begun
04     Design Underway
01     Design Underway
02     Study Underway
03     Study Underway
01     Rem. Assess. Not Begun
03     Study Underway
01     Rem. Assess. Not Begun
01     Study Underway
01     Rem. Assess. Not Begun
01     Remedy Selected
01     Study Underway
01     Design Underway
03     Study Underway
01     Study Underway
CAD980498695
CAD980498695
CAD980636914
CAD980636914
CAD980677355
CAD980677355
CAD980736151
CAD980816466
CAD980817985
CAD980818512
CAD980884357
CAD980893275
CAD980893275
CAD980893275
CAD980894679
CAD980894893
CAD980894901
CAD980894901
CAD980894976
CAD980894984
CAD981434517
CAD981436363
CAD981995947
CAD981997752
CAT080012024
CAT080012024
CAT080012826
COD007431620
COD007431620
COD081961518
COD980499248
COD980717557
COD980717938
COD980717938
COD980717938
COD980717938
COD980717938
COD980717938
COD983778432
COD983778432
CTD001153923
CTD001186618
CTD001186618
CTD001452093
CTD009717604
CTD051316313
CTD108960972
CTD980669261
CTD980670806
CTD980732333
DED041212473
DED980551667
DED980552244
                                           A-9

-------
Appendix A
           Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
             Exhibit A-5: Non-Federal NPL Sites Needing Remediation (Continued)
    Status
                                                                                      ID
DE    E.I.DU PONT DE NEMOURS(NEWPORT         03
DE    E.I.DU PONT DE NEMOURS(NEWPORT         04
DE    E.I.DU PONT DE NEMOURS(NEWPORT         05
DE    E.I.DU PONT DE NEMOURS(NEWPORT         06
DE    E.I.DU PONT DE NEMOURS(NEWPORT         07
DE    E.I.DU PONT DE NEMOURS(NEWPORT         08
DE    DOVER GAS LIGHT CO                      01
DE    HALBY CHEMICAL CO                       01
DE    HALBY CHEMICAL CO                       02
FL    HARRIS CORP. (PALM BAY PLANT)            02
FL    SYDNEY MINE SLUDGE PONDS               01
FL    REEVES SOUTHEAST GALVANIZING C         03
FL    PIPER AIRCRAFT/VERO BEACH WATE         01
FL    CHEVRON CHEMICAL CO. (ORTHO Dl          01
FL    PEAK OIL CO./BAY DRUM CO                 01
FL    PEAK OIL CO./BAY DRUM CO                 02
FL    PEAK OIL CO./BAY DRUM CO                 03
FL    PEAK OIL CO./BAY DRUM CO                 04
FL    STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (TAMPA P          01
FL    AIRCO PLATING CO                        01
FL    AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS (PENSA        01
FL    AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS (PENSA        02
FL    STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (TARPON           01
FL    SHERWOOD MEDICAL INDUSTRIES            01
FL    SHERWOOD MEDICAL INDUSTRIES            03
FL    ZELLWOOD GROUND WATER CONTAM.        02
FL    HELENA CHEMICAL CO. (TAMPA PLA          01
FL    MUNISPORT LANDFILL                      01
FL    AGRICO CHEMICAL CO                      02
FL    TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL                    01
FL    WHITEHOUSE OIL PITS                      01
FL    SAPP BATTERY SALVAGE                   01
FL    CABOT/KOPPERS                          01
FL    PETROLEUM PRODUCTS CORP               02
FL    YELLOW WATER ROAD DUMP                02
FL    ANODYNE, INC                            01
FL    WINGATE ROAD MUNICIPAL INCINER          01
FL    BROWARD COUNTY--21ST MANOR DUM        01
FL    COLEMAN-EVANS WOOD PRESERVING        01
GA    WOOLFOLK CHEMICAL WORKS, INC           01
GA    WOOLFOLK CHEMICAL WORKS, INC           03
GA    WOOLFOLK CHEMICAL WORKS, INC           04
GA    T.H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION (            02
GA    HERCULES 09 LANDFILL                     01
GA    MATHIS BROTHERS LANDFILL                01
GA    MARZONE INC./CHEVRON CHEMICAL          02
HI    DEL MONTE CORP. (OAHU PLANTATI          01
IA    MID-AMERICA TANNING CO                  01
IA    SHAW AVENUE DUMP                      02
IA    SHELLER-GLOBE CORP. DISPOSAL            01
IA    RED OAK CITY LANDFILL                    01
IA    DES MOINES TCE                          02
IA    MASON CITY COAL GASIFICATION P           01
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Remedy Selected
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
Study Underway
DED980555122
DED980555122
DED980555122
DED980555122
DED980555122
DED980555122
DED980693550
DED980830954
DED980830954
FLD000602334
FLD000648055
FLD000824896
FLD004054284
FLD004064242
FLD004091807
FLD004091807
FLD004091807
FLD004091807
FLD004092532
FLD004145140
FLD008161994
FLD008161994
FLD010596013
FLD043861392
FLD043861392
FLD049985302
FLD053502696
FLD084535442
FLD980221857
FLD980494959
FLD980602767
FLD980602882
FLD980709356
FLD980798698
FLD980844179
FLD981014368
FLD981021470
FLD981930506
FLD991279894
GAD003269578
GAD003269578
GAD003269578
GAD042101261
GAD980556906
GAD980838619
GAD991275686
HID980637631
IAD085824688
1AD980630560
IAD980630750
IAD980632509
IAD980687933
IAD980969190
                                            A-10

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                                                    Appendix A
             Exhibit A-5: Non-Federal NPL Sites Needing Remediation (Continued)
 State
Site Name
Operable
  Unit
Status
IA    WATERLOO COAL GASIFICATION PLA          01
ID    KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP. (SOD          01
ID    MONSANTO CHEMICAL CO. (SODA SP          01
ID    EASTERN MICHAUD FLATS CONTAMIN         01
IL    OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION           02
IL    AMOCO CHEMICAL (JOLIET LANDFIL           01
IL    PARSON'S CASKET HARDWARE COMPA        01
IL    LENZ OIL SERVICE INC                      01
IL    BYRON SALVAGE YARD                     04
IL    BELOIT CORP                             01
IL    TRI COUNTY LDFL WASTE MGMT OF           01
IL    ACME SOLVENT RECLAIMING INC             04
IL    ACME SOLVENT RECLAIMING INC             08
IL    NLINDUSTRIES/TARACORP LEAD SM          01
IL    MIG/DEWANE LANDFILL                     01
IL    YEOMAN CREEK LDFL                      01
IL    HOD LDFL                               01
IL    WOODSTOCK MUNICIPAL LANDFILL           01
IL    DUPAGE COUNTY LDFL/BLACKWELL F         01
IL    PAGEL'S PIT                              01
IL    PAGEL'S PIT                              02
IL    ADAMS COUNTY QUINCY LANDF SITE          01
IL    KERR-MCGEE (KRESS CREEK/WEST B         01
IL    KERR-MCGEE SEWAGE TRMT PLT SIT          01
IL    ILADA ENERGY CO                         01
IL    SE ROCKFORD GROUNDWATER CONT         01
IL    INTERSTATE POLLUTION CONTROL I           01
IN    CON RAIL RAILYARD ELKHART                02
IN    REILLY TAR & CHEM (INDIANAPOLI            03
IN    REILLY TAR & CHEM (INDIANAPOLI            04
IN    REILLY TAR & CHEM (INDIANAPOLI            05
IN    CONTINENTAL STEEL CORP                 01
IN    CONTINENTAL STEEL CORP                 02
IN    CONTINENTAL STEEL CORP                 03
IN    CONTINENTAL STEEL CORP                 04
IN    CONTINENTAL STEEL CORP                 05
IN    CONTINENTAL STEEL CORP                 06
IN    PRESTOLITE BATTERY DIV                  01
IN    AMERICAN CHEM SERV INC                 01
IN    LAKELAND DISPOSAL SERV INC              01
IN    ENVIRO-CHEM CORP                        01
IN    HIMCO DUMP                             01
IN    MIDCOI SITE                             02
IN    MIDCO I SITE                             03
IN    MIDCO II                                  02
IN    MIDCO II                                  03
IN    MARION (BRAGG) DUMP                     02
IN    NEAL'S DUMP (SPENCER)                   01
IN    TIPPECANOE SAN LDFL                     01
IN    GALEN MEYER'S DUMP/DRUM SAL            01
KS    PESTER REFINERY CO                      02
KS    OBEE ROAD                              01
KS    OBEE ROAD                              02
                                      Study Underway
                                      Remedy Selected
                                      Study Underway
                                      Study Underway
                                      Study Underway
                                      Study Underway
                                      Remedy Selected
                                      Study Underway
                                      Study Underway
                                      Study Underway
                                      Design Underway
                                      Design Underway
                                      Design Underway
                                      Design Underway
                                      Study Underway
                                      Remedy Selected
                                      Study Underway
                                      Design Underway
                                      Study Underway
                                      Design Underway
                                      Study Underway
                                      Design Underway
                                      Study Underway
                                      Study Underway
                                      Study Underway
                                      Remedy Selected
                                      Study Underway
                                      Design Underway
                                      Design Underway
                                      Remedy Selected
                                      Remedy Selected
                                      Study Underway
                                      Study Underway
                                      Study Underway
                                      Study Underway
                                      Design Underway
                                      Study Underway
                                      Remedy Selected
                                      Design Underway
                                      Design Underway
                                      Design Underway
                                      Design Underway
                                      Rem. Assess. Not Begun
                                      Rem. Assess. Not Begun
                                      Rem. Assess. Not Begun
                                      Rem. Assess. Not Begun
                                      Study Underway
                                      Design Underway
                                      Study Underway
                                      Remedy Selected
                                      Study Underway
                                      Remedy Selected
                                      Study Underway
                                     IAD984566356
                                     IDD041310707
                                     IDD081830994
                                     IDD984666610
                                     ILD000802827
                                     ILD002994259
                                     ILD005252432
                                     ILD005451711
                                     ILD010236230
                                     ILD021440375
                                     ILD048306138
                                     ILD053219259
                                     ILD053219259
                                     ILD096731468
                                     1LD980497788
                                     ILD980500102
                                     ILD980605836
                                     ILD980605943
                                     ILD980606305
                                     ILD980606685
                                     ILD980606685
                                     ILD980607055
                                     ILD980823991
                                     ILD980824031
                                     ILD980996789
                                     ILD981000417
                                     ILT180011975
                                     IND000715490
                                     IND000807107
                                     IND000807107
                                     IND000807107
                                     IND001213503
                                     IND001213503
                                     IND001213503
                                     IND001213503
                                     IND001213503
                                     IND001213503
                                     IND006377048
                                     IND016360265
                                     IND064703200
                                     IND084259951
                                     IND980500292
                                     IND980615421
                                     IND980615421
                                     IND980679559
                                     IND980679559
                                     IND980794366
                                     IND980794549
                                     IND980997639
                                     IND980999635
                                     KSD000829846
                                     KSD980631766
                                     KSD980631766
                                            A-ll

-------
Appendix A
           Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
             Exhibit A-5: Non-Federal NPL Sites Needing Remediation (Continued)
KS    CHEROKEE COUNTY                       03
KS    CHEROKEE COUNTY                       06
KS    STROTHER FIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK          01
KS    57TH AND NORTH BROADWAY STREET        01
KY    NATIONAL SOUTHWIRE ALUMINUM CO         02
KY    BRANTLEY LANDFILL                       01
KY    MAXEY FLATS NUCLEAR DISPOSAL           01
KY    FORT HARTFORD COAL CO. STONE Q         01
KY    NATIONAL ELECTRIC COIL/COOPER           01
LA    COMBUSTION, INC                         01
LA    PAB OIL & CHEMICAL SERVICE, IN            01
LA    GULF COAST VACUUM SERVICES             01
LA    DUTCHTOWN TREATMENT PLANT             01
LA    HIGHWAY 71/72 REFINERY                   01
LA    D.L. MUD, INC                             01
LA    MADISONVILLE CREOSOTE WORKS, I          01
LA    GULF STATE UTILITIES-NORTH RYA           01
MA    W.R. GRACE & CO INC (ACTON PLA           02
MA    ATLAS TACK CORP                         01
MA    IRON HORSE PARK                         03
MA    INDUSTRI-PLEX                            02
MA    SHPACK LANDFILL                         01
MA    HAVERHILL MUNICIPAL LANDFILL             01
MA    NEW BEDFORD SITE                       01
MA    NEW BEDFORD SITE                       03
MA    SULLIVAN'S LEDGE                         01
MA    SULLIVAN'S LEDGE                         02
MA    WELLS G&H                              02
MA    WELLS G&H                              03
MA    GROVELAND WELLS                       01
MA    BLACKBURN AND UNION PRIVELEGES         01
MA    NYANZA CHEMICAL  WASTE DUMP            02
MA    NYANZA CHEMICAL  WASTE DUMP            03
MA    NYANZA CHEMICAL  WASTE DUMP            04
MD    SPECTRON, INC                           01
MD    CENTRAL CHEMICAL (HAGERSTOWN)          01
MD    BUSH VALLEY LANDFILL                    01
MD    WOODLAWN COUNTY LANDFILL              01
MD    WOODLAWN COUNTY LANDFILL              02
MD    SOUTHERN MARYLAND WOOD TREATIN        02
MD    KANE & LOMBARD STREET DRUMS           02
MD    ORDNANCE PRODUCTS, INC.                 01
ME    SACO MUNICIPAL LANDFILL                 01
ME    O'CONNOR CO                            02
ME    WEST SITE/HOWS CORNERS                 01
Ml    AIRCRAFT COMPONENTS (MICHIGAN          01
Ml    SPARTA LDFL                             01
Ml    SCA INDEPENDENT  LDFL                    01
Ml    MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE (COR          01
Ml    BENDIX CORP/ALLIED AUTOMOTIVE           01
MI    ROTO-FINISH CO                          01
Ml    NORTH BRONSON INDUSTRIAL AREA          01
Ml    ALLIED PAPER/PORTAGE CREEK/KAL          01
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Design Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not
Rem. Assess. Not
Study Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not
Begun
Begun




Begun


Begun
Begun
Begun
Begun
KSD980741862
KSD980741862
KSD980862726
KSD981710247
KYD049062375
KYD980501019
KYD980729107
KYD980844625
KYD985069954
LAD072606627
LAD980749139
LAD980750137
LAD980879449
LAD981054075
LAD981058019
LAD981522998
LAD985169317
MAD001002252
MAD001026319
MAD051787323
MAD076580950
MAD980503973
MAD980523336
MAD980731335
MAD980731335
MAD980731343
MAD980731343
MAD980732168
MAD980732168
MAD980732317
MAD982191363
MAD990685422
MAD990685422
MAD990685422
MDD000218008
MDD003061447
MDD980504195
MDD980504344
MDD980504344
MDD980704852
MDD980923783
MDD982364341
MED980504393
MED980731475
MED985466168
MI0001119106
MID000268136
MID000724930
MID000775957
MID005107222
MID005340088
MID005480900
MID006007306
                                            A-12

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                                                     Appendix A
             Exhibit A-5: Non-Federal NPL Sites Needing Remediation (Continued)
 State
Site Name
Operable
  Unit
Status
Ml    ALLIED PAPER/PORTAGE CREEK/KAL          02
Ml    ALLIED PAPER/PORTAGE CREEK/KAL          03
Ml    ALLIED PAPER/PORTAGE CREEK/KAL          04
Ml    ALLIED PAPER/PORTAGE CREEK/KAL          05
Ml    PETOSKEY MUNICIPAL WELL FIELD           01
Ml    KAYDON CORP                            01
Ml    ROCKWELL INTL CORP ALLEGAN PLA          02
Ml    BOFORS NOBEL INC                        01
Ml    BOFORS NOBEL INC                        02
Ml    THERMO CHEM INC                        02
Ml    BUTTERWORTH #2 LDFL SITE                01
Ml    SOUTH MACOMB DISPOSAL AUTHORIT        01
Ml    MUSKEGON CHEM CO                      04
Ml    SPARTAN CHEM CO                        01
Ml    SPARTAN CHEM CO                        02
Ml    SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP DUMP              01
Ml    ALBION SHERIDAN TWP LDFL                01
MI    DUELL & GARDNER LDFL                    01
MI    K & L AVENUE LANDFILL                    01
Ml    METAMORA LDFL                          02
Ml    METAMORA LDFL                          03
Ml    STATE DISPOSAL LDFL                      01
Ml    CANNELTON INDUSTRIES                    01
Ml    WASH KING LAUNDRY                      01
Ml    MOTOR WHEEL                            01
Ml    STURGIS MUNICIPAL WELLS                 01
Ml    IONIA CITY LDFL                           01
Ml    IONIA CITY LDFL                           02
Ml    SHIAWASSEE RIVER                        01
MI    TAR LAKE                                 01
MI    TORCH LAKE                             01
MI    LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP               01
MI    ORGANIC CHEM INC                        02
MN    ST LOUIS RIVER                           02
MN    ST LOUIS RIVER                           04
MN    RITARI POST & POLE                       01
MN    BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP GROUNDWATER        01
MO    WESTLAKE LANDFILL                       01
MO    ELLISVILLE SITE                           06
MO    ST LOUIS AIRPORT/HIS/FUTURA CO           01
MO    ORONOGO-DUENWEG MINING BELT           01
MO    ORONOGO-DUENWEG MINING BELT           03
MO    MINKER/STOUT/ROMAINE CREEK             01
MO    BEE GEE MANUFACTURING CO               01
MO    QUALITY PLATING                          01
MO    MISSOURI  ELECTRIC WORKS                 01
MO    VALLEY PARK TCE                         01
MO    BIG RIVER MINE TAILINGS/ST. JO             02
MS    CHEMFAX, INC.                            01
MS    POTTER CO.                              01
MS    NEWSOM BROTHERS/OLD REICHHOLD        02
MT    EAST HELENA SITE                        02
MT    EAST HELENA SITE                        03
                                       Study Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Remedy Selected
                                       Rem. Assess. Not Begun
                                       Study Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Remedy Selected
                                       Study Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Remedy Selected
                                       Study Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Rem. Assess. Not Begun
                                       Design Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Design Underway
                                       Rem. Assess. Not Begun
                                       Study Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Study Underway
                                       Study Underway
                       MID006007306
                       MID006007306
                       MID006007306
                       MID006007306
                       MID006013049
                       MID006016703
                       MID006028062
                       MID006030373
                       MID006030373
                       MID044567162
                       MID062222997
                       MID069826170
                       MID072569510
                       MID079300125
                       MID079300125
                       MID980499966
                       MID980504450
                       MID980504716
                       MID980506463
                       MID980506562
                       MID980506562
                       MID980609341
                       MID980678627
                       MID980701247
                       MID980702989
                       MID980703011
                       MID980794416
                       MID980794416
                       MID980794473
                       MID980794655
                       MID980901946
                       MID985574227
                       MID990858003
                       MND039045430
                       MND039045430
                       MND980904064
                       MND982425209
                       MOD079900932
                       MOD980633010
                       MOD980633176
                       MOD980686281
                       MOD980686281
                       MOD980741912
                       MOD980860522
                       MOD980860555
                       MOD980965982
                       MOD980968341
                       MOD981126899
                       MSD008154486
                       MSD056029648
                       MSD980840045
                       MTD006230346
                       MTD006230346
                                            A-13

-------
                                                   Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
Exhibit A-5: Non-Federal NPL Sites Needing Remediation (Continued)
%$£*$&
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NJ
NJ

ANACONDA CO. SMELTER
ANACONDA CO. SMELTER
SILVER BOW CREEK/BUTTE AREA
SILVER BOW CREEK/BUTTE AREA
SILVER BOW CREEK/BUTTE AREA
SILVER BOW CREEK/BUTTE AREA
MILLTOWN RESERVOIR SEDIMENTS
MILLTOWN RESERVOIR SEDIMENTS
CAROLINA TRANSFORMER CO
ABC ONE HOUR CLEANERS
BYPASS 6 GROUND WATER CONT.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO./SHEPHERD
PCX, INC. (STATESVILLE PLANT)
PCX, INC. (STATESVILLE PLANT)
NC STATE UNIVERSITY(LOT 86.FAR
ABERDEEN PESTICIDE DUMPS
ABERDEEN PESTICIDE DUMPS
ABERDEEN PESTICIDE DUMPS
ABERDEEN PESTICIDE DUMPS
NEW HANOVER CNTY AIRPORT BURN
PCX, INC. (WASHINGTON PLANT)
NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL COR
NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL COR
NEBRASKA ORDNANCE PLANT (FORME
SHERWOOD MEDICAL CO
SHERWOOD MEDICAL CO
HASTINGS GROUND WATER CONTAMIN
HASTINGS GROUND WATER CONTAMIN
HASTINGS GROUND WATER CONTAMIN
HASTINGS GROUND WATER CONTAMIN
HASTINGS GROUND WATER CONTAMIN
HASTINGS GROUND WATER CONTAMIN
HASTINGS GROUND WATER CONTAMIN
HASTINGS GROUND WATER CONTAMIN
CLEBURN STREET WELL
CLEBURN STREET WELL
CLEBURN STREET WELL
CLEBURN STREET WELL
CLEBURN STREET WELL
BRUNO COOP & ASSOCIATED PROPER
OGALLALA GROUND WATER CONTAMIN
FLETCHER'S PAINT WORKS & STORA
FLETCHER'S PAINT WORKS & STORA
NEW HAMPSHIRE PLATING CO
COAKLEY LANDFILL
DOVER MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
SOMERSWORTH SANITARY LANDFILL
AUBURN ROAD LANDFILL
SAVAGE MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
SAVAGE MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
OTTATI & GOSS/KINGSTON STEEL D
COSDEN CHEMICAL COATINGS CORP
COSDEN CHEMICAL COATINGS CORP
fete?
04
16
01
03
07
08
02
03
01
02
01
01
02
03
01
01
03
04
05
01
01
03
04
02
01
02
01
02
05
01
12
14
16
18
01
02
03
04
05
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
03
02
03
x/1^ $£? iv:^:? ^^M'^r- •<' »?
&^a&$?S'^£fr£&f3$y&*
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Remedy Selected
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway

MTD093291656
MTD093291656
MTD980502777
MTD980502777
MTD980502777
MTD980502777
MTD980717565
MTD980717565
NCD0031 88844
NCD024644494
NCD044440303
NCD079044426
NCD095458527
NCD095458527
NCD980557656
NCD980843346
NCD980843346
NCD980843346
NCD980843346
NCD981021157
NCD981 475932
NCD99 1278953
NCD991 278953
NE621 1890011
NED084626100
NED084626100
NED980862668
NED980862668
NED980862668
NED980862668
NED980862668
NED980862668
NED980862668
NED980862668
NED981499312
NED981499312
NED981499312
NED981499312
NED981499312
NED981713829
NED986369247
NHD001 079649
NHD001 079649
NHD001091453
NHD064424153
NHD980520191
NHD980520225
NHD980524086
NHD980671002
NHD980671002
NHD990717647
NJD000565531
NJD000565531
                               A-14

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix A
             Exhibit A-5: Non-Federal NPL Sites Needing Remediation (Continued)
State
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
Site Name
CIBA-GEIGY CORP
CIBA-GEIGY CORP
CPS/MADISON INDUSTRIES
CPS/MADISON INDUSTRIES
CPS/MADISON INDUSTRIES
DAYCO CORPA.E CARPENTER CO
AMERICAN CYANAMID CO
AMERICAN CYANAMID CO
AMERICAN CYANAMID CO
AMERICAN CYANAMID CO
HERCULES, INC. (GIBBSTOWN PLAN
HERCULES, INC. (GIBBSTOWN PLAN
NASCOLITE CORP
SHIELDALLOY CORP
SHIELDALLOY CORP
VINELAND CHEMICAL CO., INC
VINELAND CHEMICAL CO., INC
VINELAND CHEMICAL CO., INC
KAUFFMAN & MINTEER, INC
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS
CURCIO SCRAP METAL, INC
A.O. POLYMER
FRIED INDUSTRIES
CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, IN
CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, IN
RADIATION TECHNOLOGY, INC
LANDFILL & DEVELOPMENT CO
CALDWELL TRUCKING CO
BRIDGEPORT RENTAL & OIL SERVIC
WALDICK AEROSPACE DEVICES, INC
NL INDUSTRIES
GLOBAL SANITARY LANDFILL
GLOBAL SANITARY LANDFILL
SYNCON RESINS
PRICE LANDFILL
SCIENTIFIC CHEMICAL PROCESSING
SCIENTIFIC CHEMICAL PROCESSING
ROEBLING STEEL CO
ROEBLING STEEL CO
BROOK INDUSTRIAL PARK
BROOK INDUSTRIAL PARK
BROOK INDUSTRIAL PARK
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL
JIS LANDFILL
CHEMICAL INSECTICIDE CORP
BURNT FLY BOG
BRICK TOWNSHIP LANDFILL
PJP LANDFILL
SHARKEY LANDFILL
WOODLAND ROUTE 72 DUMP
WOODLAND ROUTE 532 DUMP
CHEMSOL, INC
DIAMOND ALKALI CO
Operable
Unit
02
03
01
02
03
01
02
03
04
05
01
02
02
01
02
01
03
04
01
02
02
02
01
01
03
01
01
02
02
02
01
01
02
02
02
02
03
03
04
01
02
03
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
Status
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Study Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Remedy Selected
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
' 7 V /
', *PA;»V. ;
NJD001502517
NJD001502517
NJD002141190
NJD002141190
NJD002141190
NJD0021 68748
NJD0021 73276
NJD002 173276
NJD0021 73276
NJD0021 73276
NJD002349058
NJD002349058
NJD002362705
NJD002365930
NJD002365930
NJD002385664
NJD002385664
NJD002385664
NJD002493054
NJD002517472
NJD01 171 7584
NJD030253355
NJD041 828906
NJD047321443
NJD047321443
NJD047684451
NJD048044325
NJD048798953
NJD053292652
NJD054981337
NJD061 843249
NJD0631 60667
NJD0631 60667
NJD064263817
NJD070281175
NJD070565403
NJD070565403
NJD073732257
NJD073732257
NJD078251675
NJD078251675
NJD078251675
NJD094966611
NJD097400998
NJD980484653
NJD980504997
NJD980505176
NJD980505648
NJD980505762
NJD980505879
NJD980505887
NJD980528889
NJD980528996
                                            A-15

-------
Appendix A
           Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
             Exhibit A-5: Non-Federal NPL Sites Needing Remediation (Continued)
                                                                                  ,HRA4D'
NJ    DIAMOND ALKALI CO                       02
NJ    DELILAH ROAD                            01
NJ    ELLIS PROPERTY                          01
NJ    ELLIS PROPERTY                          02
NJ    GEMS LANDFILL                           01
NJ    MONITOR DEVICES/INTERCIRCUITS           01
NJ    PEPE FIELD                               01
NJ    REICH FARMS                             02
NJ    MAYWOOD CHEMICAL CO                   01
NJ    MAYWOOD CHEMICAL CO                   02
NJ    VENTRON/VELSICOL                       01
NJ    IMPERIAL OIL CO..1NC./CHAMPION            02
NJ    IMPERIAL OIL CO..INC./CHAMPION            03
NJ    FAIR LAWN WELL FIELD                     01
NJ    FAIR LAWN WELL FIELD                     02
NJ    ROCKAWAY BOROUGH WELL FIELD           02
NJ    ROCKAWAY BOROUGH WELL FIELD           03
NJ    DOVER  MUNICIPAL WELL 4                  01
NJ    DOVER  MUNICIPAL WELL 4                  02
NJ    ASBESTOS DUMP                          01
NJ    ASBESTOS DUMP                          03
NJ    ROCKY  HILL MUNICIPAL WELL               01
NJ    MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP HOUSING DE       02
NJ    U.S. RADIUM CORP                        01
NJ    U.S. RADIUM CORP                        02
NJ    MYERS  PROPERTY                        01
NJ    ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP WELLS               01
NJ    ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP WELLS               02
NJ    EVOR PHILLIPS LEASING                    02
NJ    HORSESHOE ROAD                        01
NJ    WHITE CHEMICAL CORP                     02
NJ    EWAN PROPERTY                         02
NJ    DE REWAL CHEMICAL CO                   01
NJ    CINNAMINSON GROUND WATER CONTA       02
NJ    GLEN RIDGE RADIUM SITE                  02
NJ    MONTCLAIR/WEST ORANGE RADIUM S        02
NJ    INDUSTRIAL LATEX CORP                   01
NJ    INDUSTRIAL LATEX CORP                   02
NJ    POHATCONG VALLEY GROUND WATER        01
NM   RINCHEM CO. INC                         01
NM   AT&SF (ALBUQUERQUE)                     01
NM   CLEVELAND MILL                          01
NV   CARSON RIVER MERCURY SITE              02
NY   LIBERTY INDUSTRIAL FINISHING              01
NY   LIBERTY INDUSTRIAL FINISHING              02
NY   NEPERA CHEMICAL CO.,  INC                01
NY   POLLUTION ABATEMENT SERVICES           03
NY   YORK OIL CO                             01
NY   YORK OIL CO                             02
NY   NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE                  01
NY   LOVE CANAL                             05
NY   JONES CHEMICAL, INC                     01
NY   CLAREMONT POLYCHEMICAL                01
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
NJD980528996
NJD980529002
NJD980529085
NJD980529085
NJD980529192
NJD980529408
NJD980529598
NJD980529713
NJD980529762
NJD980529762
NJD980529879
NJD980654099
NJD980654099
NJD980654107
NJD980654107
NJD980654115
NJD980654115
NJD980654131
NJD980654131
NJD980654149
NJD980654149
NJD980654156
NJD980654164
NJD980654172
NJD980654172
NJD980654198
NJD980654214
NJD980654214
NJD980654222
NJD980663678
NJD980755623
NJD980761365
NJD980761373
NJD980785638
NJD980785646
NJD980785653
NJD981178411
NJD981178411
NJD981179047
NMD085267961
NMD980622864
NMD981155930
NVD980813646
NYD000337295
NYD000337295
NYD000511451
NYD000511659
NYD000511733
NYD000511733
NYD000514257
NYD000606947
NYD000813428
NYD002044584
                                             A-16

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                              Appendix A
             Exhibit A-5: Non-Federal NPL Sites Needing Remediation (Continued)
State
Site Name
Operable
Unit
1 ;Vi"! ' '
Status < , -, >f
; EPA m • rr
NY   GENZALE PLATING CO                     02
NY   GENZALE PLATING CO                     03
NY   ROBINTECH, INC./NATIONAL PIPE             01
NY   HOOKER CHEMICAL/RUCO POLYMER C        01
NY   HOOKER CHEMICAL/RUCO POLYMER C        03
NY   CARROLL & DUBIES SEWAGE DISPOS         01
NY   CARROLL & DUBIES SEWAGE DISPOS         02
NY   LUDLOW SAND & GRAVEL                   02
NY   GENERAL MOTORS(CENTRAL FOUNDRY       02
NY   SOLVENT SAVERS                         01
NY   PFOHL BROTHERS LANDFILL                01
NY   SIDNEY LANDFILL                         01
NY   BATAVIA LANDFILL                        01
NY   RICHARDSON HILL ROAD LANDFILL/           01
NY   TRI-CITIES BARREL CO., INC                 01
NY   VOLNEY MUNICIPAL LANDFILL               01
NY   VOLNEY MUNICIPAL LANDFILL               02
NY   OLEAN WELL FIELD                        02
NY   JONES SANITATION                        01
NY   MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA                 01
NY   SEALAND RESTORATION, INC                02
NY   KENTUCKY AVENUE WELL FIELD             03
NY   HOOKER (S AREA)                         01
NY   PORT WASHINGTON LANDFILL               01
NY   NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CO(SAR           01
NY   HUDSON RIVER PCBS                      02
NY   COLESVILLE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL            02
NY   GOLDISC RECORDINGS, INC                 01
NY   BYRON BARREL & DRUM                   01
NY   HAVILAND COMPLEX                       01
NY   CIRCUITRON CORP                        02
NY   ROWE INDUSTRIES GND WATER CONT        01
NY   FOREST GLEN MOBILE HOME SUBDIV         02
NY   GCL TIE AND TREATING INC                 01
NY   GCL TIE AND TREATING INC                 02
NY   ROSEN BROTHERS SCRAP YARD/DUMP        01
NY   LI TUNGSTEN CORP                        01
NY   ONONDAGA LAKE                         01
NY   PASLEY SOLVENTS & CHEMICALS, I           01
OH   INDUSTRIAL EXCESS LDFL                  01
OH   POWELL ROAD LDFL                       01
OH   DOVER CHEM CORP                       01
OH   ORMET CORP                             01
OH   UNITED SCRAP LEAD CO., INC.               01
OH   ALLIED CHEM & IRONTON COKE             02
OH   SOUTH POINT  PLT                         01
OH   PRISTINE INC                             05
OH   NEASE CHEMICAL                         01
OH   REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORP (DO           01
OH   FIELDS BROOK                           01
OH   FIELDS BROOK                           02
OH   FIELDS BROOK                           05
OH   FIELDS BROOK                           06
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Remedy Selected
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
NYD002050110
NYD002050110
NYD002232957
NYD002920312
NYD002920312
NYD010968014
NYD010968014
NYD013468939
NYD091972554
NYD980421176
NYD980507495
NYD980507677
NYD980507693
NYD980507735
NYD980509285
NYD980509376
NYD980509376
NYD980528657
NYD980534556
NYD980535124
NYD980535181
NYD980650667
NYD980651087
NYD980654206
NYD980664361
NYD980763841
NYD980768691
NYD980768717
NYD980780670
NYD980785661
NYD981184229
NYD981486954
NYD981560923
NYD981566417
NYD981566417
NYD982272734
NYD986882660
NYD986913580
NYD991292004
OHD000377911
OHD000382663
OHD004210563
OHD004379970
OHD018392928
OHD043730217
OHD071650592
OHD076773712
OHD980610018
OHD980610042
OHD980614572
OHD980614572
OHD980614572
OHD980614572
                                           A-17

-------
Appendix A
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
             Exhibit A-5: Non-Federal NPL Sites Needing Remediation (Continued)
PI
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
OK
OK
OR
OR
OR
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA

FIELDS BROOK
FIELDS BROOK
FIELDS BROOK
VAN DALE JUNKYARD
FULTZ LDFL
HARDAGE/CRINER
DOUBLE EAGLE REFINERY CO
OKLAHOMA REFINING CO
TAR CREEK (OTTAWA COUNTY)
MCCORMICK & BAXTER CREOS. CO.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TIE TRE
TELEDYNE WAH CHANG
GOULD, INC
CENTRE COUNTY KEPONE
BERKS LANDFILL
HAVERTOWN PCP
NORTH PENN - AREA 2
FISCHER & PORTER CO
RECTICON/ALLIED STEEL CORP
RECTICON/ALLIED STEEL CORP
RECTICON/ALLIED STEEL CORP
CRYOCHEM, INC
DOUGLASSVILLE DISPOSAL
PALMERTON ZINC PILE
PALMERTON ZINC PILE
NORTH PENN - AREA 7
NORTH PENN - AREA 7
WHITMOYER LABORATORIES
WHITMOYER LABORATORIES
AVCO LYCOMING (WILLIAMSPORT Dl
AVCO LYCOMING (WILLIAMSPORT Dl
DRAKE CHEMICAL
A.I.W. FRANK/MID-COUNTY MUSTAN
A.I.W. FRANK/MID-COUNTY MUSTAN
A.I.W. FRANK/MID-COUNTY MUSTAN
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRONIC (SHARO
STANLEY KESSLER
MALVERN TCE
C & D RECYCLING
WESTINGHOUSE ELEVATOR CO. PLAN
METAL BANKS
BOARHEAD FARMS
REVERE CHEMICAL CO
REVERE CHEMICAL CO
KEYSTONE SANITATION LANDFILL
KEYSTONE SANITATION LANDFILL
NORTH PENN - AREA 12
BALLY GROUND WATER CONTAMINATI
TONOLLI CORP
FOOTE MINERAL CO
NOVAK SANITARY LANDFILL
COMMODORE SEMICONDUCTOR GRP
NORTH PENN - AREA 1
HI
07
08
09
01
01
02
01
01
02
02
01
01
02
01
01
03
01
02
01
02
03
03
04
03
04
01
02
03
05
01
02
04
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
04
02
03
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
^ ^V^1 >'!>^>' ' ^''fr^.^ J'" &? , '' ' *5 ^ J* j" J$X<£ '•'*^^ ••
%•*£ £j ^ "•**,'' sSfe^tllft "^ * ' '••'**• ** ,. '¥t *^*p y?r S4f-.j ?%*5
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Remedy Selected
Remedy Selected
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
o/> . ' ^-v " v ' i '$& Lr^ i
OHD980614572
OHD980614572
OHD980614572
OHD980794606
OHD980794630
OKD000400093
OKD007188717
OKD091 598870
OKD980629844
ORD009020603
ORD009049412
ORD050955848
ORD095003687
PAD000436261
PAD000651810
PAD002338010
PAD002342475
PAD002345817
PAD002353969
PAD002353969
PAD002353969
PAD002360444
PAD002384865
PAD002395887
PAD002395887
PAD002498632
PAD002498632
PAD003005014
PAD003005014
PAD003053709
PAD003053709
PAD003058047
PAD004351003
PAD004351003
PAD004351003
PAD005000575
PAD01 4269971
PAD01 4353445
PAD021 449244
PAD043882281
PAD046557096
PAD047726161
PAD051 395499
PAD051 395499
PAD0541 42781
PAD0541 42781
PAD0571 52365
PAD061105128
PAD073613663
PAD077087989
PAD079160842
PAD093730174
PAD096834494
                                             A-18

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                              Appendix A
             Exhibit A-5: Non-Federal NPL Sites Needing Remediation (Continued)
State
Site Name
Operable
Uttit
Status
, EPAJP
• ":
PA    OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP./FIRE         01
PA    CRATER RESOURCES/KEYSTONE COKE       01
PA    BUTLER MINE TUNNEL                     01
PA    INDUSTRIAL LANE                         03
PA    MOVERS LANDFILL                        02
PA    OHIO RIVER PARK                         01
PA    WILLIAM DICK LAGOONS                   01
PA    WILLIAM DICK LAGOONS                   02
PA    WILLIAM DICK LAGOONS                   03
PA    BERKLEY PRODUCTS CO DUMP             01
PA    UGI COLUMBIA GAS PLANT                 01
PA    ELIZABETHTOWN LANDFILL                 01
PA    BLOSENSKI LANDFILL                      03
PA    MW MANUFACTURING                     01
PA    SAEGERTOWN INDUSTRIAL AREA            01
PA    PAOLI RAIL YARD                         01
PA    PAOLI RAIL YARD                         02
PA    NORTH PENN - AREA 5                     01
PA    BELL LANDFILL                           01
PA    LINDANE DUMP                           01
PA    JACKS CREEK/SITKIN SMELTING AN          01
PA    WALSH LANDFILL                         01
PA    WALSH LANDFILL                         04
PA    EASTERN DIVERSIFIED METALS             03
PA    SHRIVER'S CORNER                       01
PA    HUNTERSTOWN ROAD                     01
PA    BROWN'S BATTERY BREAKING              02
PA    NORTH PENN - AREA 6                     01
PA    NORTH PENN - AREA 6                     02
PA    NORTH PENN - AREA 6                     03
PA    RODALE MANUFACTURING CO., INC          01
PA    BUTZ LANDFILL                           01
PA    DUBLIN TCE SITE                         02
PA    CROSSLEY FARM                         01
PA    PUBLICKER INDUSTRIES INC                03
PA    METROPOLITAN MIRROR AND GLASS         01
PA    EAST TENTH STREET                      01
PR    BARCELONETA LANDFILL                   01
PR    JUNCOS LANDFILL                         01
PR    VEGA ALTA PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS          02
Rl    PETERSON/PURITAN, INC                   02
Rl    CENTRAL LANDFILL                       01
Rl    CENTRAL LANDFILL                       02
Rl    ROSE HILL REGIONAL LANDFILL             01
Rl    DAVIS LIQUID WASTE                      02
Rl    PICILLO FARM                            02
Rl    DAVIS (GSR) LANDFILL                     01
Rl    WEST KINGSTON TOWN DUMP/URI Dl         01
SC    BEAUNIT CORP. (CIRCULAR KNIT &           01
SC    KOPPERS CO., INC. (FLORENCE PL           01
SC    SANGAMO WESTON/TWELVE-MILE/HAR       01
SC    SANGAMO WESTON/TWELVE-MILE/HAR       02
SC    SHURON TEXTRON INC.                    01
Design Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Design Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
PAD980229298
PAD980419097
PAD980508451
PAD980508493
PAD980508766
PAD980508816
PAD980537773
PAD980537773
PAD980537773
PAD980538649
PAD980539126
PAD980539712
PAD980539985
PAD980691372
PAD980692487
PAD980692594
PAD980692594
PAD980692693
PAD980705107
PAD980712798
PAD980829493
PAD980829527
PAD980829527
PAD980830533
PAD980830889
PAD980830897
PAD980831812
PAD980926976
PAD980926976
PAD980926976
PAD981033285
PAD981034705
PAD981740004
PAD981740061
PAD981939200
PAD982366957
PAD987323458
PRD980509129
PRD980512362
PRD980763775
RID055176283
RID980520183
RID980520183
RID980521025
RID980523070
RID980579056
RID980731459
RID981063993
SCD000447268
SCD003353026
SCD003354412
SCD003354412
SCD003357589
                                            A-19

-------
Appendix A
                 Cfeaning Up (fie Nation's Waste Sites
             Exhibit A-5: Non-Federal NPL Sites Needing Remediation (Continued)
SC    PALMETTO RECYCLING, INC
SC    HELENA CHEMICAL CO. LANDFILL
SC    AQUA-TECH ENVIRONMENTAL INC (G
SC    KALAMA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
SC    TOWNSEND SAW CHAIN CO
SC    LEONARD CHEMICAL CO., INC
TN    AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS, (JACK
TN    TENNESSEE PRODUCTS
TN    VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORP (HARDEM
TX    TEXARKANA WOOD PRESERVING CO
TX    ALCOA (POINT COMFORT)/LAVACA B
TX    SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICES
TX    SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICES
TX    RSR CORP.
TX    RSR CORP.
TX    RSR CORP.
TX    KOPPERS CO. INC (TEXARKANA PLA
TX    PETRO-CHEMICAL SYSTEMS, (TURTL
TX    PETRO-CHEMICAL SYSTEMS, (TURTL
TX    CRYSTAL CHEMICAL CO
UT    MIDVALE SLAG
UT    MIDVALE SLAG
UT    PETROCHEM RECYCLING CORP./EKOT
UT    MONTICELLO RADIOACTIVE CONTAMI
UT    RICHARDSON FLATS TAILINGS
VA    GREENWOOD CHEMICAL CO
VA    GREENWOOD CHEMICAL CO
VA    SALTVILLE WASTE DISPOSAL PONDS
VA    SALTVILLE WASTE DISPOSAL PONDS
VA    L.A. CLARKE & SON
VA    ARROWHEAD ASSOCIATES/SCOVILL C
VA    CULPEPER WOOD PRESERVERS, INC
VA    AVTEX FIBERS, INC
VA    AVTEX FIBERS, INC
VA    RENTOKIL, INC. (VA WOOD PRESER
VA    BUCKINGHAM COUNTY LANDFILL
VA    H & H INC., BURN PIT
VA    ABEX CORP
VA    ABEX CORP
VA    RHINEHART TIRE FIRE DUMP
VA    ATLANTIC WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC
VA    ATLANTIC WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC
VI    ISLAND CHEMICAL CORP/V.I. CHEM
VI    TUTU WELLFIELD
VT    BURGESS BROTHERS LANDFILL
VT    PINE STREET CANAL
VT    PARKER SANITARY LANDFILL
VT    BENNINGTON MUNICIPAL SANITARY
WA   GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. (SPOKANE
WA   WYCKOFF CO./EAGLE HARBOR
WA   WYCKOFF CO./EAGLE HARBOR
WA   WYCKOFF CO./EAGLE HARBOR
WA   BOOMSNUB/AIRCO
01     Design Underway
01     Design Underway
01     Study Underway
01     Design Underway
01     Design Underway
01     Study Underway
02     Remedy Selected
01     Study Underway
02     Design Underway
02     Design Underway
01     Study Underway
01     Design Underway
02     Design Underway
03     Design Underway
04     Design Underway
05     Design Underway
01     Design Underway
02     Design Underway
03     Design Underway
01     Design Underway
01     Design Underway
02     Rem. Assess. Not Begun
01     Study Underway
04     Design Underway
01     Study Underway
02     Design Underway
04     Study Underway
03     Remedy Selected
04     Study Underway
04     Design Underway
01     Design Underway
01     Study Underway
06     Study Underway
07     Study Underway
01     Design Underway
01     Design Underway
01     Remedy Selected
01     Design Underway
02     Rem. Assess. Not Begun
03     Study Underway
01     Remedy Selected
02     Rem. Assess. Not Begun
01     Study Underway
01     Remedy Selected
01     Study Underway
01     Study Underway
01     Remedy Selected
01     Study Underway
01     Remedy Selected
01     Design Underway
02     Study Underway
03     Design Underway
02     Study Underway
SCD037398120
SCD058753971
SCD058754789
SCD094995503
SCD980558050
SCD991279324
TND007018799
TND071516959
TND980559033
TXD008056152
TXD008123168
TXD062132147
TXD062132147
TXD079348397
TXD079348397
TXD079348397
TXD980623904
TXD980873350
TXD980873350
TXD990707010
UTD081834277
UTD081834277
UTD093119196
UTD980667208
UTD980952840
VAD003125374
VAD003125374
VAD003127578
VAD003127578
VAD007972482
VAD042916361
VAD059165282
VAD070358684
VAD070358684
VAD071040752
VAD089027973
VAD980539878
VAD980551683
VAD980551683
VAD980831796
VAD990710410
VAD990710410
VID980651095
VID982272569
VTD003965415
VTD980523062
VTD981062441
VTD981064223
WAD001865450
WAD009248295
WAD009248295
WAD009248295
WAD009624453
                                            A-20

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix A
               Exhibit A-5: Non-Federal NPL Sites Needing Remediation (Continued)
State
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wt
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
WV
WV
WV
WV
WY
Site Name
FRONTIER HARD CHROME, INC.
HIDDEN VALLEY LANDFILL (THUN F
GREENACRES LANDFILL
TULALIP LANDFILL
TULALIP LANDFILL
HARBOR ISLAND (LEAD)
HARBOR ISLAND (LEAD)
HARBOR ISLAND (LEAD)
COMMENCEMENT BAY SOUTH TACOMA
COMMENCEMENT BAY, NEAR SHORE
COMMENCEMENT BAY, NEAR SHORE
COMMENCEMENT BAY, NEAR SHORE/
COMMENCEMENT BAY, NEAR SHORE/
CENTRALIA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
MOSES LAKE WELLFIELD CONTAM1NA
VANCOUVER WATER STATION #4 CON
PASCO SANITARY LANDFILL
MUSKEGO SAN LDFL
KOHLER CO LDFL
KOHLER CO LDFL
NATIONAL PRESTO INDUSTRIES
SCRAP PROCESSING COMPANY, INC
BOUNDARY ROAD LANDFILL
TOMAH ARMORY
TOMAH MUNICIPAL SAN LDFL
REFUSE HIDEAWAY
DELAVAN MUNI WELL #4
STOUGHTON CITY LDFL
WASTE MGMT OF WIS-BROOKFIELD
SPICKLER LDFL
SHEBOYGAN HARBOR & RIVER
BETTER BRITE PLATING CHROME &
SHARON STEEL CORP (FAIRMONT CO
ORDNANCE WORKS DISPOSAL AREAS
HANLIN-ALLIED-OLIN
FIKE CHEMICAL, INC
BAXTER/UNION PACIFIC TIE TREAT
Operable
Unit
01
01
01
01
02
01
07
08
04
T12
T13
T17
T20
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
04
01
status
Design Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Design Underway
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Design Underway
Study Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Study Underway
Study Underway
Design Underway
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
Design Underway
Study Underway
Study Underway
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Study Underway
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Design Underway
Rem. Assess. Not Begun
Study Underway
Design Underway
-/',, JBPAlp, i
WAD053614988
WAD980511539
WAD980514608
WAD980639256
WAD980639256
WAD980722839
WAD980722839
WAD980722839
WAD980726301
WAD980726368
WAD980726368
WAD980726368
WAD980726368
WAD980836662
WAD988466355
WAD988475158
WAD991281874
WID000713180
WID006073225
WID006073225
WID006196174
WID046536785
WID058735994
WID980610299
WID980610307
WID980610604
WID980820062
WID980901219
WID980901235
WID980902969
WID980996367
WIT560010118
WVD000800441
WVD000850404
WVD0241 85373
WVD047989207
WYD061112470
Note:   Rem. Assess. = Remedial Assessment
                                              A-21

-------
Appendix A
Cfeaning Up ffie Nation's Waste Sites
                                       This page intentionally left blank
                                                     A-22

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix B
                      APPENDIX B
          SUPPORTING DATA FOR ANALYSIS OF
          UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES
                           B-1

-------
Appendix B
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                  Exhibit B-1: Location of Registered USTs in the United States
Region
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
State
CT
MA
ME
NH
Rl
VT
Subtotal
NJ
NY
PR
VI
Subtotal
DC
DE
MD
PA
VA
WV
Subtotal
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
Subtotal
IL
IN
Ml
MN
OH
Wl
Subtotal
Number of
Active
Tanks
21,539
20,451
12,390
5,913
6,659
3,058
70,010
29,029
44,730
7,855
305
81,919
1,045
2,578
17,940
41,305
40,309
8,530
111,707
21,968
41,984
49,380
20,280
1 1 ,420
42,505
18,897
27,527
233,961
48,407
20,131
33,880
20,712
31,760
25,724
180,614
Number of
Closed
Tanks
16,481
15,602
7,940
10,823
7,791
3,566
62,203
34,671
44,612
2,481
72
81,836
2,503
5,024
15,687
35,444
29,442
13,926
102,026
20,287
74,059
15,770
19,759
17,172
52,804
22,236
25,668
247,755
25,757
28,269
47,451
16,989
26,510
48,311
193,287
Number of
Confirmed
Releases
1,564
4,517
1,415
1,589
859
1,374
11,318
6,136
13,114
464
21
19,735
736
2,271
12,831
7,286
7,775
1,945
32,844
8,292
25,746
6,520
6,354
4,546
18,696
4,311
8,567
83,032
14,073
5,151
14,456
5,925
7,488
13,742
60,835
Cleanups
Initiated or
Completed
2,509
6,177
2,755
2,285
1,412
2,056
17,194
8,332
21,031
509
28
29,900
1,160
3,473
16,565
7,980
13,943
2,144
45,265
13,005
7,848
8,000
11,661
8,621
29,959
2,998
14,768
96,860
18,222
5,354
19,166
9,164
16,228
19,668
87,802
                                                B-2

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix B
              Exhibit B-1: Location of Registered USTs in the United States (continued)
Region
Six
Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten
Indian Lands
Nati on-Wide
State
AR
LA
NM
OK
TX
Subtotal
IA
KS
MO
NE
Subtotal
CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
Subtotal
AZ
CA
HI
NV
CQ
GU
SA
Subtotal
AK
ID
OR
WA
Subtotal
Subtotal
TOTAL
Number of
Active
Tanks
20,796
23,207
5,187
16,460
81,239
146,889
10,715
10,302
20,271
9,545
50,833
11,933
5,715
3,539
3,846
5,186
2,570
32,789
9,489
97,623
4,053
5,836
78
577
46
117,702
2,665
5,295
10,990
14,750
33,700
4,354
1,064,478
Number of
Closed
Tanks
4,923
16,665
6,562
16,217
74,787
119,154
18,700
15,497
20,799
9,065
64,061
12,916
8,911
5,282
4,136
9,755
6,552
47,552
15,488
70,886
2,917
5,963
9
226
11
95,500
4,551
6,779
19,387
27,226
57,943
2,705
1,074,022
Number of
Confirmed
Releases
599
2,301
1,822
3,021
19,556
27,299
5,038
4,232
4,288
3,868
17,426
3,215
2,839
721
1,703
2,798
1,739
13,015
6,157
29,824
916
1,839
6
93
1
38,836
1,302
1,019
5,100
4,789
12,210
938
317,488
Cleanups
Initiated or
Completed
873
2,651
2,256
4,330
20,446
30,556
4,829
5,205
6,884
2,781
19,699
4,921
4,402
1,100
2,563
4,321
1,049
18,356
5,991
34,370
816
3,136
4
204
1
44,522
1,698
1,619
4,885
6,012
14,214
930
405,298
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Semi-Annual Activity Report, Second Half
(September 30) FY 1996.
                                                B-3

-------
Appendix B
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                                       This page intentionally left blank.
                                                      B-4

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix C
                       APPENDIX C
                  SUPPORTING DATA FOR
                 ANALYSIS OF DOD SITES
                            C-l

-------
Appendix C
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                      Exhibit C-1:  Location of DOD Sites Needing Cleanup
EPA
Region
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
State
CT
MA
ME
NH
Rl
VT
Subtotal
NJ
NY
PR
VI
Subtotal
DC
DE
MD
PA
VA
WV
Subtotal
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
Subtotal
IL
IN
Ml
MN
OH
Wl
Subtotal
DOD
Installations
7
51
25
6
15
1
105
34
97
13
0
144
9
8
33
44
35
7
136
17
75
23
7
26
18
21
13
200
36
10
36
10
27
15
134
DOD
Sites
36
158
69
18
50
1
332
117
269
40
0
426
27
30
434
183
306
31
1,011
205
390
221
66
56
175
247
175
1,535
196
89
118
29
107
36
575
Army
Sites
3
56
0
0
3
0
62
44
76
0
0
120
0
0
270
75
77
1
423
166
0
149
62
0
24
29
37
467
116
42
35
15
1
10
219
Navy
Sites
30
14
22
0
31
0
97
35
8
27
0
70
18
0
127
38
185
12
380
0
211
26
2
14
121
152
57
583
34
32
0
5
0
0
71
AF
Sites
2
47
22
14
0
0
85
8
78
1
0
87
6
19
20
7
22
6
80
28
112
36
1
19
17
55
13
281
19
10
56
5
69
16
175
DLA
Sites
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
41
9
0
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
65
65
0
0
0
0
12
0
12
FUDS
Sites
1
41
25
4
16
1
88
30
107
12
0
149
3
11
16
22
13
12
77
11
67
10
1
23
13
11
3
139
27
5
27
4
25
10
98
                                               C-2

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix C
               Exhibit C-1:  Location of DOD Sites Needing Cleanup (continued)
EPA
Region
Six
Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten
Nati on-Wide
State
AR
LA
NM
OK
TX
Subtotal
IA
KS
MO
NE
Subtotal
CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
Subtotal
AZ
CA
HI
NV
p,a
GU
SA
Subtotal
AK
ID
OR
WA
Subtotal
TOTAL
DOD
Installations
8
10
57
25
81
181
8
53
21
29
111
14
10
4
16
11
5
60
37
220
50
20
10a
9
0
346
95
4
17
28
144
1,561
DOD
Sites
27
40
104
75
344
590
49
176
72
100
397
285
20
10
33
277
16
641
172
1,851
133
56
19a
90
0
2,321
416
4
32
56
508
8,336
Army
Sites
8
16
27
19
108
178
39
105
44
64
252
216
0
5
0
230
0
451
99
103
15
29
0
0
0
246
48
0
2
10
60
2,478
Navy
Sites
0
12
0
0
83
95
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
916
46
2
0
51
0
1,025
89
1
0
24
114
2,437
AF
Sites
14
8
17
35
82
156
4
9
8
6
27
62
12
4
19
37
12
146
34
612
43
8
9
37
0
743
214
0
13
13
240
2,020
DLA
Sites
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
64
0
0
0
0
0
64
0
0
0
0
0
192
FUDS
Sites
5
4
60
21
71
161
6
62
20
28
116
7
8
1
14
10
4
44
29
156
29
17
10
2
0
243
65
3
17
9
94
1,209
Notes: PI = Pacific Islands: Johnston Atoll, Mariana Island, Midway, Palau, and Wake Island.
Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary (Environmental Security), Restoration Management
Information System, November, 1995. Data as of September 1995.
                                             C-3

-------
                                                 Exhibit C-2: Definitions of DOD Site Types
o
Site Type
Underground Storage
Tank
Spill Area
Landfill
Unexploded
Munitions/Ordnance
Area
Surface Disposal
Area
Disposal Pit/Dry Well
Storage Area
Contaminated
Groundwater
Site Description
Underground storage tank sites result from the release of substances
from underground storage tanks and any associated piping.
Spill areas are small areas where spills from drums, tanks, and other
waste units have taken place.
Landfill sites are typically areas formerly used to dispose of both
domestic and industrial hazardous waste.
Unexploded munitions and ordnance areas are areas that have been
used for munitions and ordnance training.
Surface disposal area sites consist of small areas formerly used for
disposal of solid wastes with little or no free liquids. Typical materials
include rags, filters, paint cans, small capacitors, and batteries.
Disposal pit/dry well sites consist of small unlined excavations and
structures that were used over a period of time to dispose of small
quantities of liquid wastes.
Storage areas are areas where spills and leaks occurred from stored
containers or equipment.
Contaminated groundwater results from various types of releases of
known or unknown origin, such as migration of leachate from disposal
areas and migration of substances from contaminated surface and
subsurface soils.
Primary Contaminants
• POLs • Solvents
• POL sludges • Metals
• POLs • POL sludge
• PCBs • Metals
• Solvents
• POLs • Pesticides
• Solvents • Metals
• Paint • Ord. compounds
• UXO • Explosive
chemicals
• Metals • Ord. compounds
• POLs • Metals
• Solvents • Acids
• Paints • PCBs
• Pesticides
• POLs (for example, motor oil)
• Acids (for example, battery acid)
• Ordnance compounds
• Explosive chemicals
• Metals • Solvents
• POLs • Metals
• Solvents • Acid
• POL sludge • PCBs
• Metals • POLs
• Chlorinated solvents
• Explosive chemicals
• Non-chlorinated solvents
                                                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                                                        S"
                                                                                                                                        0)
                                                                                                                                        a


                                                                                                                                        I'
                                                                                                                                        O
                                                                                                                                        a

                                                                                                                                        of
                                                                                                                                         "
                                                                                                                                        O)

-------
Exhibit C-2: Definitions of DOD Site Types
Site Type
Fire/Crash Training
Area
Building Demolition/
Debris Removal
Surface
Impoundment/
Lagoon
Aboveground
Storage Tanks
Contaminated Fill
Contaminated
Building
Burn Area
Contaminated
Sediments
Site Description
Fire and crash rescue training areas consist of trenches and/or pits where
flammable materials were ignited periodically for demonstrations and
training exercises.
Building demolition and debris removal sites consist of buildings and/or
debris that are unsafe or must be removed.
Surface impoundments and lagoons consist of unlined depressions,
excavations, or diked areas which were used to accumulate liquid waste,
waste containing free liquid, or industrial wastewaters.
Aboveground storage tank sites result from release of substances to
surrounding areas from above ground tanks, containers, and any
associated piping.
Contaminated fill areas consist of contaminated material resulting from
excavations for construction, tanks, and other purposes.
Contaminated building sites result from releases within or on the outside
of a structure of a substance that has been contained within the building.
Burn area sites consist of pits or surface areas that were used for open-
air incineration of waste.
Contaminated sediments include sediments of bodies of water that have
been contaminated by surface runoff, subsurface migration, or direct
discharge of contaminants.
Primary Contaminants
• POLs • POL sludges
• Solvents • Metals
• Asbestos • Lead paint
• Construction debris
• POLs • Metals
• Solvents • Ord. compounds
• Explosive chemicals
• Industrial wastewater
• POLs (for example,
heating oil, jet fuel,
gasoline, and POL sludges)
• POLs • Explosive chem.
• Metals • Paint waste
• Ordnance compounds
• POL • Asbestos
• Plating waste • Propellants
• Metals • Pesticides
• POL sludge • Solvents
• Polychlorinated • Acids
biphenyls (PCBs)
• POLs (e.g., • Explosives
spent motor • Propellants
oil, jet fuel) • Ordnance
• Solvents (e.g.,
spent paint
thinners and
degreasing agents)
• POLs • Metals
• PCBs • Solvents
• Pesticides • Explosive chem.
                                                                                      0)


                                                                                      Q.
                                                                                      S-
                                                                                      a
                                                                                      o


                                                                                      I



                                                                                      I

                                                                                      I

-------
Exhibit C-2: Definitions of DOD Site Types (continued)
Site Type
Explosive/Ordnance
Disposal Area
Waste Line
Waste Treatment
Plant
Sewage Treatment
Plant
Petroleum, Oil,
Lubricant (POL)
Distribution Line
Underground
Storage Tank Farm
Firing Range
Soil Contaminated
After Tank Removal
Site Description
Explosive ordnance disposal areas consist of open-air areas that were
used to detonate, demilitarize, bury, or dispose of explosives.
Waste lines are underground piping used to carry industrial wastes from
shop facilities to a wastewater treatment plant.
Wastewater treatment plant sites result from releases of substances at
plants that were used to treat and dispose of domestic and/or industrial
wastewater.
Sewage treatment plants typically consist of a complex of tanks, piping,
and sludge management areas used to treat sanitary sewage generated
at an installation. The unit may use chemical or biological treatment
methods. Lagoons associated with the biological treatment of sewage
currently may be considered to be separate units.
Petroleum, oil, lubricant distribution lines are used to transport POL
products from storage to dispensing facilities.
Underground storage tank farm sites result from the release of
substances from multiple, typically large, underground storage tanks and
associated piping which make up a tank farm complex.
Firing ranges consist of large areas of land used for practice firing of
large artillery or mortars, or as a practice bombing range for aircraft.
These areas are typically contaminated with unexploded ordnance, which
may be found both on and below the ground surface.
This unit consists of soil that has been removed during a tank removal
operation and staged prior to treatment.
Primary Contaminants
• Unexploded • Metals
ordnance (UXO)
• Ordnance compounds
• Explosive chemicals
• Solvents • Metals
• Plating sludges • Pesticides
• Explosive chemicals
• POLs • Industrial
• Solvents wastewater
• Plating sludges
• Explosive chemicals
• Metals
• Industrial wastewater
• Solvents
• POLs
• POLs (for example, heating oil,
gasoline, Jet A, diesel, and other
fuels)
• POL sludge
• POLs • Solvents
• POL sludges • Metals
• Metals • UXO
• Ord. compounds
• Explosives
• Radionuclides
• POLs
• POL sludge
                                                                                             o
                                                                                             S"
                                                                                             0)
                                                                                             a
                                                                                             O
                                                                                             a

                                                                                             en"
                                                                                             or
                                                                                             en
                                                                                              "
                                                                                             
-------
                                                Exhibit C-2: Definitions of DOD Site Types
n
Site Type
Storm Drain
Oil/Water Separator
Maintenance Yard
Low-level
Radioactive Waste
Area
Washrack
Drainage Ditch
Small Arms Range
Incinerator
Site Description
Storm drains typically consist of a natural or man-made drain used as a
runoff control structure for rainfall. The unit also may be used from runoff
from other sources such as process operations. Man-made units may be
concrete lined.
Oil/water separators are typically small units that skim oil from storm
water runoff. The oil/water separator consists of the unit, and any
associated piping.
Maintenance yards consist of paved or unpaved areas where vehicles
and other maintenance equipment is stored and often serviced. Typically,
maintenance supplies are stored at these units.
Low-level radioactive waste areas consist of areas used to store or
dispose of low-level radioactive materials of various types (for example,
radium paint, and radioactive instruments and propellants).
Washrack sites typically consist of a building designed for washing
vehicles such as tanks, aircraft, and other military vehicles. This unit also
may consist of a paved area where washing of vehicles occurs.
Drainage units typically consist of a natural or a man-made ditch used as
a runoff control structure for rainfall. The unit also may be used for runoff
from other sources such as process operations. Man-made units may be
concrete lined.
Small arms ranges are typically located outdoors and used for target
practice of small arms, usually 50 caliber or less. The unit may include a
soil or sandbag berm, or hill located behind the targets to prevent bullets
from travelling outside the range area.
Incinerators typically consist of a furnace and stack unit used for a variety
of disposal activities including the incineration of medical waste, or an
installation's dunnage. These units vary in size and may either be
freestanding or part of other operations such as hospitals.
Primary Contaminants
• POLs • Pesticides
• Metals • Industrial
waste water
• POL sludge • Solvents
• POLs • PCBs
• Solvents
• Industrial wastewater
• POLs
• Metals
• Low-level
• Solvents
radioactive waste
• POLs
• POLs
• Explosive
• Solvents
• PCBs
• Metals
• Ordnance
• Ash
• Metals
• Ordnance
• Metals
chemicals
compounds
compounds
                                                                                                                                      0)


                                                                                                                                      Q.
                                                                                                                                      S-
                                                                                                                                      a
                                                                                                                                      o


                                                                                                                                      I



                                                                                                                                      I

                                                                                                                                      I

-------
                                           Exhibit C-2: Definitions of DOD Site Types (continued)
o
oo
Site Type
Contaminated Soil
Piles
Mixed Waste Area
Pistol Range
Chemical Disposal
Pesticide Shop
Industrial Discharge
Surface Runoff
Leach Field
Site Description
This unit consists of soil that has been staged after an excavation activity.
Mixed waste areas consist of areas used to store or dispose of
hazardous wastes that have been mixed with or contaminated by
radioisotopes.
Pistol ranges may be located indoors or outdoors and are used for target
practice. Outdoor units include a soil or sandbag berm located behind the
targets to prevent bullets from travelling outside the range area.
Chemical disposal units are areas that have been used for the disposal of
chemicals, typically of an unknown type. The unit may be a burial area
where bottles or packages of chemicals were placed or an area where
liquids were disposed of on the soil.
Pesticide shops typically are used to store and prepare large volumes of
pesticides and solvents for maintenance activities. The units may be
located in a freestanding building or attached to another building. Areas
near the unit may have been used for the disposal of off-specification
pesticides.
Industrial discharge units consist of a pipe system used to discharge
industrial effluent to the environment. The unit may discharge to a natural
or man-made water body, dry creek bed or some other natural feature.
Surface runoff is an area with runoff from rain which may occur anywhere
within a facility, particularly adjacent to industrial areas and airfield
aprons.
Leach fields typically consist of a subsurface area generally associated
with septic tanks. The unit serves the purpose of biologically treating
sanitary sewage, however, in cases where these units were used at
industrial facilities, there also is contamination from non-biodegradable
industrial contaminants.
Primary
• POLs
• Sludge
• Metals
Contaminants
• Solvents
• PCBs
• Ordnance
compounds
• Solvents
• Mixed waste
• Metals
• POLs
• Metals
• Solvents
• Explosive chemicals
• Pesticides
• Metals
• POLs
• Metals
• Industrial wastewater
• POLs
• Metals
• Solvents
• Explosive
chemicals
• Metals
• Solvents
                                                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                                                       S"
                                                                                                                                       0)
                                                                                                                                       a


                                                                                                                                       I'
                                                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                                                       a

                                                                                                                                       of
                                                                                                                                        "
                                                                                                                                       O)

-------
                                           Exhibit C-2: Definitions of DOD Site Types (continued)
n

CD
Site Type
Plating Shop
Sewage Effluent
Settling Pond
Dip Tank
Optical Shop
Site Description
Plating shops typically consist of a building or room within a building used
for coating metal parts. The unit contains several tanks of solvents which
are used in the plating process.
Sewage effluent settling ponds consist of a lagoon used for the settling of
solids and/or biological treatment of sewage. The units also may be used
as infiltration galleries.
Dip tanks are typically metal or concrete units located in coating shops
that range in size from 50 to more than 500 gallons. The tanks are used
to clean parts prior to treatment, or to coat parts with various materials
including metals and plastics.
Optical shops typically consist of laboratory units located within a building.
Activities include grinding lenses used in eye glasses or other optical
instruments.
Primary Contaminants
• Metals
• Solvents
• Acids
• Industrial wastewater
• Metals
• Ordnance compounds
• Solvents
• POLs
• Chlorinated solvents
• Metals
• Acids
• Solvents
Notes: POL = Petroleum, oil, and lubricants; PCB = Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Ord. = Ordnance
Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Defense Environmental Restoration Program
Annual Report to Congress, for Fiscal Year 1995, Spring 1996.
                                                                                                                                      0)


                                                                                                                                      Q.
                                                                                                                                      S-
                                                                                                                                      a
                                                                                                                                      o


                                                                                                                                      I



                                                                                                                                      I

                                                                                                                                      I

-------
Appendix C
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                      Exhibit C-3: DOD Sites Needing Cleanup by Site Type
Site Type
Underground Storage Tanks
Spill Area
Landfill
Unexploded Munitions/Ordnance Area
Surface Disposal Area
Disposal Pit/Dry Well
Storage Area
Contaminated Groundwater
Fire/Crash Training Area
Building Demolition/Debris Removal
Surface Impoundment/Lagoon
Aboveground Storage Tanks
Contaminated Fill
Contaminated Building
Burn Area
Contaminated Sediments
Explosive/Ordnance Disposal Area
Waste Line
Waste Treatment Plant
Sewage Treatment Plant
Petroleum, Oil, Lubricant Distribution Line
Underground Storage Tank Farm
Firing Range
Soil Contaminated After Tank Removal
Storm Drain
Oil/Water Separator
Maintenance Yard
Low-level Radioactive Waste Area
Washrack
Drainage Ditch
Small Arms Range
Incinerator
Contaminated Soil Pipes
Army
241
199
353
53
161
185
201
88
45
7
138
47
27
114
102
53
65
30
41
13
12
22
16
19
6
28
20
4
19
21
7
21
12
Navy
408
190
255
28
356
76
298
42
83
8
63
67
12
35
40
66
28
49
26
0
41
52
5
5
7
28
38
3
4
15
3
5
7
AF
352
619
293
17
155
201
25
8
96
0
5
17
5
1
4
10
0
16
13
64
18
1
0
0
21
6
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
DLA
11
11
5
0
3
39
32
5
3
0
9
4
10
14
7
0
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
15
3
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
FUDS
187
10
34
398
25
34
13
68
3
103
8
25
63
7
4
15
24
1
1
3
2
2
28
25
0
0
0
2
0
0
8
0
2
Total
1,199
1,029
940
496
700
535
569
211
230
118
223
160
117
171
157
144
117
98
81
81
75
77
49
64
37
63
59
21
23
38
18
26
22
                                               C-10

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix C
                   Exhibit C-3:  DOD Site Types Needing Cleanup (continued)
Site Type
Mixed Waste Area
Pistol Range
Chemical Disposal
Pesticide Shop
Industrial Discharge
Surface Runoff
Leach Field
Plating Shop
Sewage Effluent Settling Pond
Dip Tank
Optical Shop
Other
Total
Army
1
5
24
8
33
6
11
0
4
1
1
14
2,478
Navy
15
7
2
9
7
7
2
9
2
4
1
29
2,437
AF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
60
2,020
DLA
0
2
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
192
FUDS
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
108
1,209
Total
17
14
31
21
40
13
13
9
6
6
3
215
8,336
Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Restoration
Management Information System, 1996. Data as of September 1995.
                                             C-ll

-------
Appendix C
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                      Exhibit C-4: Frequency of Matrices by DOD Site Type
Site Type
Underground Storage Tanks
Spill Area
Landfill
Unexploded Munitions/Ordnance Area
Surface Disposal Area
Disposal Pit/Dry Well
Storage Area
Contaminated Groundwater
Fire/Crash Training Area
Building Demolition/Debris Removal
Surface Impoundment/Lagoon
Aboveground Storage Tanks
Contaminated Fill
Contaminated Building
Burn Area
Contaminated Sediments
Explosive/Ordnance Disposal Area
Waste Line
Waste Treatment Plant
Sewage Treatment Plant
Petroleum, Oil, Lubricant Distribution Line
Underground Storage Tank Farm
Other
Firing Range
Soil Contaminated After Tank Removal
Storm Drain
Oil/Water Separator
Maintenance Yard
Low-level Radioactive Waste Area
Washrack
Drainage Ditch
Small Arms Range
Incinerator
Contaminated Soil Piles
No. of Sites
with Data
444
539
491
14
347
334
181
86
157
6
93
40
37
37
78
49
48
41
25
0
36
38
8
2
10
3
10
0
12
9
6
2
1
5
Ground-
water
334
384
386
6
228
276
92
83
126
0
60
27
22
14
50
23
33
24
15
0
29
33
7
2
6
3
5
0
3
1
5
0
0
4
Soil
259
354
305
11
251
253
152
28
121
6
56
30
31
32
53
33
32
25
15
0
21
19
8
1
7
1
8
0
10
8
6
2
1
4
Surface
water
16
101
172
4
85
63
25
11
27
0
32
4
8
3
13
17
7
5
8
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Sediment
4
28
38
1
17
27
10
6
8
0
15
1
2
8
9
9
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
                                              C-12

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix C
               Exhibit C-4:  Frequency of Matrices by DOD Site Type (continued)
Site Type
Mixed Waste Area
Pistol Range
Chemical Disposal
Pesticide Shop
Industrial Discharge
Surface Runoff
Leach Field
Plating Shop
Sewage Effluent Settling Pond
Dip Tank
Optical Shop
Other
Total
No. of Sites
with Data
7
4
0
3
4
2
1
1
0
1
0
8
3,212
Ground-
water
3
2
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
2,290
Soil
6
4
0
3
3
2
0
1
0
1
0
8
2,163
Surface
water
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
613
Sediment
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
189
Note: The total count for a site type may exceed the number of sites with data for the site type, because a site
may have more than one contaminated matrix.
Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Restoration Management
Information System, November 1995. Data as of September 1994.
                                             C-13

-------
Appendix C
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
     Exhibit C-5: Frequency of Major Contaminant Groups by Matrix and DOD Component
DOD Component
Contaminant Group
Army
VOCs
SVOCs
Metals
Other
Fuels
Explosives
VOCs & SVOCs
VOCs & Metals
SVOCs & Metals
VOCs, SVOCs, & Metals
No. of Sites with Data
Navy
VOCs
SVOCs
Metals
Other
Fuels
Explosives
VOCs & SVOCs
VOCs & Metals
SVOCs & Metals
VOCs, SVOCs, & Metals
No. of Sites with Data
Air Force
VOCs
SVOCs
Metals
Other
Fuels
Explosives
VOCs & SVOCs
VOCs & Metals
SVOCs & Metals
VOCs, SVOCs, & Metals
No. of Sites with Data
Ground-
water

289
90
231
209
25
114
11
18
8
6
534

515
317
470
188
220
41
91
110
97
85
648

815
288
597
211
184
6
70
87
55
53
1,003
Soil

59
97
343
177
23
125
8
12
6
5
485

310
428
492
359
113
38
107
107
126
83
659

512
369
593
346
245
6
82
96
74
67
901
Surface
water

24
23
103
42
0
49
7
6
5
4
137

75
61
149
67
10
6
16
18
21
16
166

125
111
198
69
21
0
22
27
22
21
292
Sediment

5
24
69
25
0
2
2
2
4
2
87

4
14
23
15
1
0
6
6
8
8
24

11
30
48
18
1
0
9
8
9
8
63
Total (All
Media)

326
193
527
341
40
185
13
24
10
7
794

637
573
692
452
288
56
122
131
144
97
916

1,012
575
909
482
362
12
93
107
77
69
1,331

(41%)
(24%)
(66%)
(43%)
(5%)
(23%)
(2%)
(3%)
(1%)
(1%)


(70%)
(63%)
(76%)
(49%)
(31%)
(6%)
(13%)
(14%)
(16%)
(11%)


(76%)
(43%)
(68%)
(36%)
(27%)
(1%)
(7%)
(8%)
(6%)
(5%)

                                           C-14

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix C
Exhibit C-5:  Frequency of Major Contaminant Groups by Matrix and DOD Component (continued)
DOD Component
Contaminant Group
FUDS
VOCs
SVOCs
Metals
Other
Fuel
Explosives
VOCs & SVOCs
VOCs & Metals
SVOCs & Metals
VOCs, SVOCs, & Metals
No. of Sites with Data
DLA
VOCs
SVOCs
Metals
Other
Fuels
Explosives
VOCs & SVOCs
VOCs & Metals
SVOCs & Metals
VOCs, SVOCs, & Metals
No. of Sites with Data
Total DOD
VOCs
SVOCs
Metals
Other
Fuels
Explosives
VOCs & SVOCs
VOCs & Metals
SVOCs & Metals
VOCs, SVOCs, & Metals
No. of Sites with Data
Ground-
water

47
12
31
13
9
7
2
1
1
1
61

35
2
21
10
4
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
44

1,701
709
1,350
631
442
168
174
216
161
145
2,290
Soil

40
25
45
21
8
5
1
1
1
1
73

16
15
19
9
4
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
45

937
934
1,492
912
393
174
198
216
207
156
2,163
Surface
water Sediment

6
1
14
4
0
0
2
1
1
1
18

0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0

230
196
464
182
31
55
47
52
49
42
613
Notes: • FUDS = Formerly used defense sites; DLA = Defense Logistics Agency; NA :
organic compound; SVOC = Semivolatile organic compound.
• The total count for a matrix or contaminant group may exceed the number of
may have more than one contaminant group or contaminated matrix.
Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary (Environmental
System, November, 1995. Data as of September 1994.
Security), Restoration

2
3
12
6
1
1
1
0
0
0
14

1
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1

23 2
71 1
152 2
64 1
3
3
18
16
21
18
189 3
= Not available;
sites with data,
Total (All
Media)

70
34
59
28
14
11
3
2
2
2
94

48
17
37
19
8
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
77

,093
,392
,224
,322
712
264
231
264
233
175
,212

(74%)
(36%)
(63%)
(30%)
(15%)
(12%)
(3%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)


(62%)
(22%)
(48%)
(25%)
(10%)
(0%)
NA
NA
NA
NA


(65%)
(43%)
(69%)
(41%)
(22%)
(8%)
(7%)
(8%)
(7%)
(5%)

VOC = Volatile
because a site
Management Information
                                           C-15

-------
Appendix C
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
            Exhibit C-6: Frequency of Major Contaminant Groups by DOD Site Type
Site Type
Underground Storage
Tanks
Spill Area
Landfill
Unexploded Munitions/
Ordnance Area
Surface Disposal Area
Disposal Pit/Dry Well
Storage Area
Contaminated Groundwater
Fire/Crash Training Area
Building Demolition/Debris
Removal
Surface Impoundment/
Lagoon
Aboveground Storage
Tanks
Contaminated Fill
Contaminated Building
Burn Area
Contaminated Sediments
Explosive/Ordnance
Disposal Area
Waste Line
Waste Treatment Plant
Sewage Treatment Plant
POL Distribution Line
Underground Storage Tank
Farm
Firing Range
Soil Contaminated After
Tank Removal
Total
No. of
Sites3
1361
1234
914
784
748
612
608
357
271
225
211
202
199
174
160
136
130
92
91
83
82
79
69
60
No. of
Sites
with
Data
444
539
491
14
347
334
181
86
157
6
93
40
37
37
78
49
48
41
25
0
36
38
2
10
VOCs
355
376
313
4
221
194
94
73
125
1
47
30
27
9
31
25
15
27
12
0
32
36
0
8
Metals
222
318
412
12
260
273
131
39
125
4
70
24
26
27
64
37
38
29
18
0
17
17
1
3
SVOCs
139
255
240
5
182
119
112
28
89
5
37
20
9
14
16
22
17
15
10
0
12
18
0
2
Other
93
177
264
9
171
143
96
43
70
2
52
12
15
15
36
20
26
22
11
0
5
4
1
2
Fuels
201
142
63
0
45
56
28
10
59
0
6
13
5
1
5
6
1
10
5
0
22
23
0
3
Explo-
sives
0
26
23
5
24
86
4
4
3
0
22
0
6
1
20
5
18
3
4
0
0
0
1
0
                                            C-16

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix C
      Exhibit C-6: Frequency of Major Contaminant Groups by DOD Site Type (continued)
Site Type
Storm Drain
Oil/Water Separator
Maintenance Yard
Low-level Radioactive
Waste Area
Wash rack
Drainage Ditch
Small Arms Range
Incinerator
Contaminated Soil Piles
Mixed Waste Area
Pistol Range
Chemical Disposal
Pesticide Shop
Industrial Discharge
Surface Runoff
Leach Field
Plating Shop
Sewage Effluent Settling
Pond
Dip Tank
Optical Shop
Other
Total
Total
No. of
Sites3
57
52
49
33
25
22
22
19
17
16
14
11
10
8
5
4
4
3
2
1
78
9,331
No. of
Sites
with
Data
3
10
0
12
9
6
2
1
5
7
4
0
3
4
2
1
1
0
1
0
8
3,212
VOCs
3
7
0
8
1
5
0
0
3
4
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
2,093
Metals
1
7
0
11
7
5
2
0
3
4
4
0
2
4
1
1
1
0
0
0
4
2,224
SVOCs
2
5
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
5
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
2
1,392
Other
1
5
0
5
4
4
0
0
2
3
0
0
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
1,322
Fuels
0
5
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
712
Explo-
sives
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
264
Notes: a Number of sites needing remediation; data were available for 3,212 of the sites needing remediation.
• POL = Petroleum, oil, lubricant
• The total count for a site type may exceed the number of sites with data for the site type, because a
site may have more than one contaminant group.
Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Restoration Management
Information System, November 1995. Data as of September 1994.
                                           C-17

-------
Appendix C
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                  Exhibit C-7:  Frequency of Contaminant Subgroup by Matrix
                                   Percent of Sites with Data
Contaminant
Metals
Halogenated VOCs
Nonhalogenated VOCs
Toxic Elements
Nonhalogenated SVOCs
BTEX
PAHs
Pesticides/Herbicides
Explosives/Pro pellants
Halogenated SVOCs
Other
PCBs
Inorganic Cyanides
Solvents
Radioactive Metals
Dioxins/Furans
Organic Corrosives
Inorganic Corrosives
Organic Cyanides
Groundwater
58.86
56.55
44.06
19.39
24.67
19.30
5.98
5.41
7.34
6.68
7.42
1.48
3.19
1.05
0.13
0.09
0.09
0.04
0.00
Soil
60.77
22.80
28.22
34.54
26.47
16.03
15.99
15.42
7.10
4.65
2.65
7.10
3.10
0.12
0.57
0.08
0.20
0.00
0.04
Surface Water
75.69
8.87
20.39
23.82
25.77
5.06
3.92
7.34
8.97
1.96
5.71
1.47
2.94
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sediment
80.42
5.29
8.99
30.16
22.22
2.65
15.34
16.93
1.59
2.65
3.70
6.88
1.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Notes: • VOC = Volatile organic compound; SVOC = Semivolatile organic compound; BTEX = Benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylene; PAH = Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons; PCS = Polychlorinated biphenyls.
• Data were available for 3,212 sites.
Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security) Restoration Management
Information System (RMIS), November 1995. Data as of September 1994.
                                             C-18

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix D
                      APPENDIX D
                  ADDITIONAL DATA ON
             DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SITES
                           D-l

-------
Exhibit D-1:  DOE Installations and Other Locations Where Remedial Action is Ongoing or Completed1
State
AK
AZ
CA
CO
Installation/Site
Project Chariot
Monument Valley Site
Tuba City Site
Energy Technology Engineering Center
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
Rockwell International
Sandia National Laboratory - Livermore
University of California
Durango Site
Grand Junction Mill Tailing Site
Grand Junction Projects Office Site
Gunnison
Maybell
Naturita
Old North Continent (Slick Rock)
Rifle Mill (Old and New)
Union Carbide (Slick Rock)
Program2
ER
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
ER
(including D&D)
ER
(including D&D)
ER
(including D&D)
ER
ER/FUSRAP
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
ER
(including D&D)
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
Status3
No. of
Operable
Units34
Estimated Budget
FY 1997
(millions)3
Estimated
Life-Cycle Cost
(millions)3
RA complete
RA complete (surface)
RA complete (surface)
RA, D&D
ongoing
RA ongoing
RA, D&D
ongoing
RA ongoing
165
11
$4.25
$22.5
$131.05
$639.0
6
4
$1.9
$13.5
RA complete
RA complete (surface)
RA ongoing
(surface)
RA ongoing
RA ongoing
(surface)
RA
ongoing
(surface)
RA ongoing
RA ongoing
(surface)
RA ongoing
(surface)
RA ongoing
(surface)
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
$12.8
$10.3
$0.9
$4.3
$13.4
$9.17
$1.4
8
$73.3
$466.9
$12.3
$22.3
$43.0
$32.97
$20.3
8
                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                            S"
                                                                                                            0)
                                                                                                            a


                                                                                                            I'
                                                                                                            O
                                                                                                            a

                                                                                                            en"
                                                                                                            0
                                                                                                            en
                                                                                                             "
                                                                                                            
-------
Exhibit D-1:  DOE Installations and Other Locations Where Remedial Action is Ongoing or Completed (continued)1
State
CT
ID
IL
KY
MA
Ml
MO
MS
NE
Installation/Site
Combustion Engineering
Seymour Specialty Wire
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Lowman Site
Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory
Granite City Steel
National Guard Armory
University of Chicago
Maxey Flats
Ventron Corporation
General Motors
Kansas City Plant
Latty Avenue Properties (includes
Hazelwood Interim Storage Site and
Futura Coatings)
St. Louis Airport Site Vicinity Properties
St. Louis Downtown Site
Weldon Spring Site
Salmon Test Site
Hallam Nuclear Power Facility
Program2
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
ER
(including D&D)
on NPL
ER/UMTRA
Status3
RA ongoing
No. of
Operable
Units34
1
Estimated Budget
FY 1997
(millions)3
$43.7
Estimated
Life-Cycle Cost
(millions)3
$233.9
RA complete
D&D, RA
ongoing
106
$112.8
$3,049.1
RA complete
No Environmental Restoration activities planned
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
ER
on NPL
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
ER
(including D&D)
ER/FUSRAP
on NPL
ER/FUSRAP
on NPL
ER/FUSRAP
ER
(including D&D)
on NPL
ER
ER (D&D only)
RA complete
RA complete
RA complete
DOE is funding a portion of this cleanup as a Potentially Responsible Party; cleanup is
being carried out by the State of Kentucky under a ROD issued by EPA in 1991.
RA ongoing
1
NA
NA
RA completed
RA ongoing
RA ongoing
RA ongoing
RA ongoing
RA ongoing
RA ongoing
13
2
1
1
8
2
$3.5
9
9
9
$66.0
$2.9"
$28.1
10
10
10
$447.9
$7.7"
D&D complete; S&M ongoing
                                                                                                                 0)


                                                                                                                 Q.
                                                                                                                 S-
                                                                                                                 a
                                                                                                                 o


                                                                                                                 I



                                                                                                                 I

                                                                                                                 I

-------
Exhibit D-1:  DOE Installations and Other Locations Where Remedial Action is Ongoing or Completed (continued)1
State
NJ
NM
NY
Installation/Site
Kellex/Pierpont
Middlesex Municipal Landfill
Middlesex Sampling Plant
Acid/Pueblo Canyon
Ambrosia Lake
Bayo Canyon
Chupadera Mesa
Inhalation Toxicology Research
Institute
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Pagano Salvage
Shiprock Site
South Valley Superfund Site
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Baker-Williams Warehouse
Colonie Interim Storage
Niagara Falls Storage
Niagara Falls Vicinity Properties
West Valley Demonstration Project
Program2
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
ER/UMTRA
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
ER
ER
(including D&D)
ER
ER/UMTRA
ER
on NPL
Status3
No. of
Operable
Units34
Estimated Budget
FY 1997
(millions)3
Estimated
Life-Cycle Cost
(millions)3
RA complete
RA complete
RA ongoing
1
$2.8
$24.8
RA complete
RA ongoing
(surface)
1
$0.2
$1.2
RA complete
RA complete
RA ongoing
D&D, RA
ongoing
4
6
$0.395
$53.2
$2.2
$623.7
RA complete
RA complete (surface)
DOE does not manage the cleanup project at this site; it is responsible for
reimbursing General Electric, which currently owns the site, for cleanup costs. Soil
and groundwater remedies already have been chosen.
No environmental restoration, waste management only
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
RA complete
RA ongoing
1
NA
NA
RA complete
RA complete
Site of DOE vitrification process demonstration to be conducted from 1996 through 1998. DOE will be
responsible only for cleanup of facilities used in the demonstration; State of New York owns site.
                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                  S"
                                                                                                                  0)
                                                                                                                  a


                                                                                                                  I'
                                                                                                                  O
                                                                                                                  a

                                                                                                                  en"
                                                                                                                  0
                                                                                                                  en
                                                                                                                   "
                                                                                                                  
-------
Exhibit D-1:  DOE Installations and Other Locations Where Remedial Action is Ongoing or Completed (continued)1
State
OH
OR
PA
SC
TN
TX
UT
Installation/Site
Alba Craft
Associated Aircraft and Tool
Baker Brothers
Battelle Columbus Laboratories
Fernald Site
HHM Safe Company
Piqua Nuclear Power Facility
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Albany Metallurgical Research Center
Lakeview Site
Aliquippa Forge
Canonsburg Site
C.H. Schnoor
Shippingport Atomic Power Station
Savannah River Site
Elza Gate
Oak Ridge Associated Universities
Falls City Site
Green River Site
Mexican Hat Site
Monticello Remedial Action Project
Salt Lake City Site
Program2
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
ER/FUSRAP
ER
(including D&D)
ER
on NPL
ER/FUSRAP
ER (D&D only)
ER
(including D&D)
ER/FUSRAP
ER/UMTRA
ER/FUSRAP
ER/UMTRA
ER/FUSRAP
ER
ER
(including D&D)
on NPL
ER/FUSRAP
ER
on NPL
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
ER
on NPL (2 sites)
ER/UMTRA
Status3
No. of
Operable
Units34
Estimated Budget
FY 1997
(millions)3
Estimated
Life-Cycle Cost
(millions)3
RA complete
RA ongoing
1
NA
NA
RA complete
D&D ongoing
RA, D&D
ongoing
16
11
$4.0
$260.3
$101.1
$2,523.7
RA complete
S/M ongoing
RA, D&D
ongoing
1
30
0
$45.9
$0.3
$3,959.7
RA complete
RA complete (surface)
RA complete
RA complete (surface)
RA complete
RA complete
RA ongoing
92
$111.7
$12,687.0
RA complete
RA ongoing
2
$0.0
$24.0
RA complete (surface)
RA complete (surface)
RA complete (surface)
RA ongoing
3
$21.2
$109.9
RA complete (surface)
                                                                                                                 0)


                                                                                                                 Q.
                                                                                                                 S-
                                                                                                                 a
                                                                                                                 o


                                                                                                                 I



                                                                                                                 I

                                                                                                                 I

-------
      Exhibit D-1:   DOE Installations and Other Locations Where Remedial Action is Ongoing or Completed (continued)1
State
WA
WY
Installation/Site
Hanford Site
Riverton Site
Spook Site
Program2
ER (including D&D)
on NPL (4 sites)
ER/UMTRA
ER/UMTRA
Status3
RA ongoing
No. of
Operable
Units34
78
Estimated Budget
FY 1997
(millions)3
$138.8
Estimated
Life-Cycle Cost
(millions)3
$8,349.2
RA complete (surface)
RA complete (surface)
ER = Environmental Restoration NPL = National Priorities List
UMTRA = Uranium Mill Tailing Remedial Action IA = Interim Action
C/A = Characterization and assessment S/M = Surveillance and monitoring
D&D = Decontamination and Decommissioning FUSRAP = Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
RA = Remedial Action
Notes:
1     This table includes installations and other locations where remedial action is in progress or has been compeleted for some or all operable units. Some installations and other
     locations included here also may appear in Exhibit A-1, because characterization and assessment still may be in progress at some operable units. These installations are
     included on both tables, because they continue to represent opportunities for vendors of remedial technologies.

2     U.S. Department of Energy, "The 1996 Baseline Environmental  Report," DOE/EM-0290, June 1996.

3     U.S. Department of Energy, "The 1996 Baseline Environmental  Report," DOE/EM-0290, June 1996, and data as of June 1996 from DOE's "1996 Baseline Environmental
     Report" Database and other internal DOE databases provided by the Systems Management  Division, Office of Program Integration, Office of Environmental Restoration, and
     interviews with selected site operations staff at DOE Headquarters. Actual Congressional appropriations for FY 1997 may differ from the amounts printed here. Data on
     operable units and life-cycle costs come from several different sources, which are continuously being revised by DOE staff as conditions at  specific installations and other
     locations change and as new sites are identified. In addition, these data were extracted from these sources at different times. Therefore, although these data provide an
     indication of the approximate level of effort  needed at a given location, their sum may not accurately reflect the program total.

4     An "operable  unit" consists of one or more "sites" (individual areas of contamination).  DOE aggregates sites with similar characteristics or sources into operable units to
     facilitate remedy selection and operations for all its remediation  projects, whether they are conducted under CERCLA, RCRA, or other authorities.

5     Includes both Energy Technology Engineering Center and Rockwell International site.

6     See Energy Technology Engineering Center entry.

7     Includes Old North Continent (Slick Rock) and Union Carbide (Slick Rock) sites.

8     See Old North Continent (Slick Rock).

9     Total estimated FY97 budget for all Missouri FUSRAP sites is $10.4 million.  Site-by-site estimates are not available.

10    Total estimated life-cycle cost for all Missouri FUSRAP sites is $243.8 million.  Site-by-site estimates are not available.

11    Work at Amchitka Island (AK), Project Rio Blanco and Project Rulison (CO),  Salmon Test Site (MS), Project Gassbuggy and Gnome-Coach Site (NM), and the Central
     Nevada, Shoal, and Tonopah Test Sites (NV) is managed by and funded through DOE's Nevada Operations Office.
O
S"
0)
a
I'
O
a
en"
0
en
                                                                                                                                                                       "
                                                                                                                                                                      
-------
Exhibit D-2: Contaminants and Contaminated Media Volumes To Be Remediated

   at DOE Installations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing1
State
AK
AZ
CA
Installation/Site
Amchitka Island
Monument Valley
Tuba City
Energy Technology
Engineering Center
General Atomics
General Electric/
Vallecitos Nuclear Center
Geothermal Test Facility
Laboratory for
Energy-Related
Health Research
Examples of
Contaminants of Concern2'3
Organic compounds, hydrocarbons,
radionuclides, beryllium, lead
Cadmium, chromium, molybdenum, net
gross alpha, nitrate, radium-226/228,
selenium, uranium (ground water)
Net gross alpha, nitrate, selenium,
uranium (ground water)
Radioactive and chemical waste (soil and
buildings); solvents, tritium, alpha and
beta radioactivity, radium (ground water)
Low-level radioactive waste, low-level
mixed waste, asbestos, lead
Low-level radioactive waste and
transuranic waste
Salts and minerals (sediments and
debris); arsenic (soil and debris);
asbestos (building materials)
Nitrates, chromium, chloroform, tritium,
carbon (ground water); low-level
radioactive waste (soil);
low-level radioactive waste, asbestos,
chemical and biological waste (buildings
and facilities)
Estimated
Soil/Sediment
Volume To Be
Addressed
(Cu. Yds.)4
9,000
Complete
Complete
Not reported
Undetermined
NA
11,960
810
Estimated
Ground-water
Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
104,900
Undetermined
Undetermined
Not reported
Undetermined
NA
NA
Undetermined
Estimated
Rubble/Debris
Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
5,320
NA
NA
Not reported
Undetermined
20
Not reported
520
                                                                                                0)


                                                                                                Q.
                                                                                                S-
                                                                                                a
                                                                                                o


                                                                                                I



                                                                                                I

                                                                                                I

-------
                            Exhibit D-2:  Contaminants and Contaminated Media Volumes To Be Remediated

                         at DOE Installations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing (continued)1
q
oo
State
CA
(con-
tinued)
CO
Installation/Site
Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory
Oxnard
Salton Sea Test Base
Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center
Durango
Grand Junction Mill
Tailing Site
Gunnison
Maybell
Examples of
Contaminants of Concern2'3
Chlorinated hydrocarbons, solvents,
tritium, motor fuels (ground water);
radioactive and mixed waste (soil and
buildings)
VOCs, fuel hydrocarbons, depleted
uranium, PCBs, high explosives (soil);
tritium, chlorinated hydrocarbons, TCE
(ground water); radioactive and
hazardous waste, asbestos (buildings)
PCBs, tetrachloroethane, fuel products
(soil)
Radioactive and chemical waste
PCBs, petroleum hyrocarbon, lead (soil);
VOCs, TCE (ground water)
Arsenic, cadmium, lead, molybdenum,
net gross alpha, selenium, uranium
(ground water)
Radon, heavy metals, radium, thorium
(soil); molybdenum, net gross alpha,
selenium, uranium (ground water)
Cadmium, uranium (ground water)
Arsenic, cadmium, molybdenum, nitrate,
radium-226/228, selenium, uranium
(ground water)
Estimated
Soil/Sediment
Volume To Be
Addressed
(Cu. Yds.)4
50
2,307,000
Undetermined
Undetermined
111,100
Complete
45,440
(RA ongoing)
345,485
(RA ongoing)
2,800,000
(RA ongoing)
Estimated
Ground-water
Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
181,700
1,753,000
Undetermined
Undetermined
2,614,380
Undetermined
117,380
Undetermined
Undetermined
Estimated
Rubble/Debris
Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
12,200
Not reported
Undetermined
Undetermined
980
NA
3,550
NA
NA
                                                                                                                             o
                                                                                                                             S"
                                                                                                                             cu
                                                                                                                             a

                                                                                                                             I'
                                                                                                                             O
                                                                                                                             a

                                                                                                                             en"
                                                                                                                             0
                                                                                                                             en
                                                                                                                              "
                                                                                                                             
-------
                            Exhibit D-2: Contaminants and Contaminated Media Volumes To Be Remediated

                         at DOE Installations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing (continued)1
q

CD
State
CO
(con-
tinued)
FL
Installation/Site
Naturita
Old North Continent
(Slick Rock)
Project Rio Blanco
Project Rulison
Rifle Mill (New)
Rifle Mill (Old)
Rocky Flats
Union Carbide (Slick
Rock)
Pinellas Plant
Examples of
Contaminants of Concern2'3
Arsenic, molybdenum, net gross alpha,
radium-226/228, selenium, uranium
(ground water)
Radon, heavy metals, radium, thorium
(soil); selenium, uranium (ground water)
Organic compounds, hydrocarbons,
radionuclides, beryllium, lead
Organic compounds, hydrocarbons,
radionuclides, beryllium, lead
Radon, heavy metals, radium, thorium
(soil); arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, molybdenum, net gross
alpha, nitrate, radium-226/228, selenium,
uranium (ground water)
Radon, heavy metals, radium, thorium
(soil); arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, molybdenum, net gross
alpha, radium 226/228, selenium,
uranium (ground water)
Plutonium, americium, uranium, VOCs,
PAHs, beryllium (soils); nitrates, metals,
solvents (ground water); radionuclides,
metals, VOCs, PCBs (surface water)
Radon, heavy metals, radium, thorium
(soil); cadmium, molybdenum, net gross
alpha, nitrate, radium226/228, selenium,
uranium (ground water)
VOCs
Estimated
Soil/Sediment
Volume To Be
Addressed
(Cu. Yds.)4
704,000
(RA ongoing)
Not reported
6.0005
6
2,000,000
259,000
414,900
Not reported
10
Estimated
Ground-water
Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
1,550,000
Undetermined
91,500
Estimated
Rubble/Debris
Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
NA
NA
Undetermined
Undetermined
NA
NA
Undetermined
NA
30
                                                                                                                            0)


                                                                                                                            Q.
                                                                                                                            S-
                                                                                                                            a
                                                                                                                            o


                                                                                                                            I



                                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                                            I

-------
   Exhibit D-2: Contaminants and Contaminated Media Volumes To Be Remediated

at DOE Installations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing (continued)1
State
FL
HI
IA
ID
IL
KY
Installation/Site
Pinellas Plant
Kauai Test Facility
Ames Laboratory
Argonne National
Laboratory-West
Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory
Argonne National
Laboratory-East
Madison
Site A/Plot M,
Palos Forest Preserve
Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant
Examples of
Contaminants of Concern2'3
VOCs
Chemical waste
Uranium, thorium, tritium, mercury,
thallium, potassium, lithium, diesel fuels,
kerosene
Uranium, thorium, tritium, heavy metals,
PCBs, organic corrosives, dioxins/furans,
sodium
Heavy metals, PCBs, acids, asbestos,
solvents, low-level radioactive waste,
trans-
uranic waste
Radionuclides, VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs,
PCBs, arsenic, chromium,
pesticides, aromatic hydrocarbons,
chlorinated benzenes, heavy metals,
lead (soil, ground water, and sediments);
cobalt60, iron, nickel, lead, tritium,
uranium235'238, beryllium, cadmium,
plutonium239, americium241, mixed fission
products (reactors and reactor facilities)
Uranium
VOCs, SVOCs, heavy metals,
radioactive waste
Petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs,
uranium, technetium", mercury (soil and
sediments); TCE, technetium" (ground
water)
Estimated
Soil/Sediment
Volume To Be
Addressed
(Cu. Yds.)4
10
930
1,270
750
851,720
125,630
10
6,540
756,850
Estimated
Ground-water
Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
91,500
7,400
30
Not reported
989,540
434,750
NA
Undetermined
89,781,060
Estimated
Rubble/Debris
Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
30
Undetermined
150
200
33,380
685,420
NA
Undetermined
37,650
                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                    S"
                                                                                                    cu
                                                                                                    a

                                                                                                    I'
                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                    a

                                                                                                    en"
                                                                                                    0
                                                                                                    en
                                                                                                     "
                                                                                                    
-------
   Exhibit D-2:  Contaminants and Contaminated Media Volumes To Be Remediated

at DOE Installations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing (continued)1
State
MA
MD
MO
NJ
Installation/Site
Chapman Valve
Shpack Landfill
W.R. Grace & Company
Kansas City Plant
St. Louis Airport Site
Weldon Spring Site
DuPont & Company
Maywood Chemical
Works
New Brunswick Site
Princeton Plasma
Physics Laboratory
Wayne
Examples of
Contaminants of Concern2'3
Uranium
Uranium residues, radium
Thorium
PCBs, VOCs, metals, solvents,
petroleum hydrocarbons
Uranium processing residues
Low-level radioactive, chemical, and
mixed wastes
Uranium
Thorium tailings
Radium, uranium
Petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents
Thorium, thorium tailings
Estimated
Soil/Sediment
Volume To Be
Addressed
(Cu. Yds.)4
Not reported
9,370
Not reported
32,230
250,000
321,940
8,270
395,000
4,500
Not reported
109,000
Estimated
Ground-water
Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
NA
NA
NA
110,290
NA
650,200
NA
NA
NA
Not reported
NA
Estimated
Rubble/Debris
Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
Not reported
NA
Not reported
3,110
NA
163,090
7
NA
NA
Not reported
7
                                                                                                   0)


                                                                                                   Q.
                                                                                                   S-
                                                                                                   a
                                                                                                   o


                                                                                                   I



                                                                                                   I

                                                                                                   I

-------
   Exhibit D-2: Contaminants and Contaminated Media Volumes To Be Remediated

at DOE Installations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing (continued)1
State
NM
NV
Installation/Site
Ambrosia Lake
Gassbuggy Site
Gnome Coach Site
Los Alamos National
Laboratory
Sandia National
Laboratory-Albuquerque
Shiprock
Central Nevada Test Site
Nevada Test Site
Shoal Test Site
Tonopah Test Range
Examples of
Contaminants of Concern2'3
Radon, heavy metals, radium, thorium
(soil); chromium, molybdenum, net gross
aplha, nitrate, radium226'228, selenium,
uranium (ground water)
Organic compounds, hydrocarbons,
radionuclides, beryllium, lead
Organic compounds, hydrocarbons,
radionuclides, beryllium, lead
Radionuclides, VOCs, SVOCs, heavy
metals, high explosives, PCBs,
asbestos, pesticides, herbicides (soil);
tritium, cesium, strontium (ground water)
PCBs, radionuclides, metals,
petroleum hydrocarbons, high
explosives, VOCs, SVOCs
Net gross aplha, nitrate,
radium226'228, selenium, uranium (ground
water)
Organic compounds, hydrocarbons,
beryllium, lead, plutonium, tritium
Organic compounds, hydrocarbons,
beryllium, lead, plutonium, tritium
Organic compounds, hydrocarbons,
beryllium, lead, plutonium, tritium
Organic compounds, hydrocarbons,
beryllium, lead, plutonium, tritium
Estimated
Soil/Sediment
Volume To Be
Addressed
(Cu. Yds.)4
2,000,000
(RA ongoing)
6,000s
9
12,694,000
772,500
Complete
6.00010
18,931,550
11
11
Estimated
Ground-water
Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
13,770
40
Undetermined
Undetermined
104,900
Undetermined
Undetermined
Estimated
Rubble/Debris
Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
NA
Undetermined
Undetermined
Not Reported
24,800
NA
Undetermined
5,320
Undetermined
Undetermined
                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                    S"
                                                                                                    cu
                                                                                                    a

                                                                                                    I'
                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                    a

                                                                                                    en"
                                                                                                    0
                                                                                                    en
                                                                                                     "
                                                                                                    
-------
   Exhibit D-2:  Contaminants and Contaminated Media Volumes To Be Remediated

at DOE Installations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing (continued)1
State
NY
OH
OR
PA
Installation/Site
Ashland Oil CO.#1
Ashland Oil Co.#2
Bliss & Laughlin
Brookhaven National
Laboratory
Linde Air Products
Seaway Industrial Park
Separation Process
Research Unit
B and T Metals
Fernald Site
Luckey
Mound Plant
Portsmouth Gaseous
Diffusion Plant
RMI Site
Lakeview Site
Canonsburg Site
Examples of
Contaminants of Concern2'3
Uranium ore tailings
Uranium ore tailings
Low-level radioactive waste, uranium
(trace)
Uranium, plutonium, cesium134'137, tritium,
strontium90, cobalt60, sodium22, radium226,
metals, organics
Uranium ore tailings
Uranium ore tailings
Plutonium, stontium90, cesium137
Uranium
Uranium, thorium, oils, reactive
chemicals, organic compounds
Beryllium, uranium (traces)
VOCs, petroleum hydrocarbons, tritium,
plutonium, thorium (soil); tritium (ground
water)
Low-concentration radionuclides,
chlorinated solvents, PCBs, heavy
metals
Uranium, TCE, technitium
Arsenic, cadmium (ground water)
Uranium
Estimated
Soil/Sediment
Volume To Be
Addressed
(Cu. Yds.)4
Not reported
52,100
Not reported
38,930
70,000
Not reported
Undetermined
NA
1,236,650
64,000
200,990
32,280
35,520
Complete
Complete
Estimated
Ground-water
Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
NA
NA
NA
56,993,590
NA
NA
NA
NA
512,500,000
NA
890,690
741,230
620
Undetermined
Undetermined
Estimated
Rubble/Debris
Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
NA
NA
NA
520
NA
NA
Undetermined
1,000
302,250
NA
36,100
71,160
5,830
NA
NA
                                                                                                   0)


                                                                                                   Q.
                                                                                                   S-
                                                                                                   a
                                                                                                   o


                                                                                                   I



                                                                                                   I

                                                                                                   I

-------
   Exhibit D-2: Contaminants and Contaminated Media Volumes To Be Remediated

at DOE Installations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing (continued)1
State
PR
SC
TN
TX
UT
Installation/Site
Center for Environmental
Research
Savanah River Site
Oak Ridge
K-25 Site
Oak Ridge National
Laboratory
Oak Ridge Reservation
Offsite
Oak Ridge
Y-12 Plant
Falls City Site
Pantex Plant
Green River Site
Mexican Hat Site
Examples of
Contaminants of Concern2'3
Asbestos, PCBs
TCE, PCE, aluminum, zinc, arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, lithium, mercury,
lead, strontium90, cesium137'139, cobalt60,
tritium, thorium
Asbestos, petroleum hydrocarbons,
PCBs, radionuclides (principally
uranium), mixed waste
Strontium90, cesium137, cobalt60, tritium,
PCBs, heavy metals, mixed waste
Radionuclides (cesium137, cobalt60,
tritium, strontium90), mercury, lead,
arsenic, selenium, chromium, PCBs,
dioxin, chlordane, polychlorinated
hydrocarbons
Radionuclides (depleted uranium and
uranium235), nitrates, organic solvents,
PCBs, beryllium compounds, asbestos,
mercury, cadmium
Molybdenum, uranium (ground water)
Organic solvents, high explosives, heavy
metals
Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead,
molybdenum, net gross alpha, nitrate,
radium226'228, selenium, uranium (ground
water)
Chromium, molybdenum, net gross
alpha, nitrate, radium226'228, selenium,
uranium (ground water)
Estimated
Soil/Sediment
Volume To Be
Addresseda
(Cu. Yds.)4
Not reported
11,276,500
4,900
92,870
136,960
464,910
Complete
5,080
Complete
Complete
Estimated
Ground-water
Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
Not reported
406,809,230
1,249,440
90,330
10
4,689,070
Undetermined
30
Undetermined
Undetermined
Estimated
Rubble/Debris
Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
Not reported
714,000
109,560
60,920
Not reported
119,750
NA
Not reported
NA
NA
                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                    S"
                                                                                                    cu
                                                                                                    a
                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                    a

                                                                                                    en"
                                                                                                    0
                                                                                                    en
                                                                                                    "
                                                                                                    
-------
Exhibit D-2: Contaminants and Contaminated Media Volumes To Be Remediated ^
at DOE Installations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing (continued)1




State

UT (con-
tinued)



WA



WY







Installation/Site

Monticello Remedial
Action Project

Salt Lake City Site

Hanford Site



Riverton Site

Spook Site




Examples of
Contaminants of Concern2'3

Radium, uranium, thorium, polonium,
radon

Molybdenum, selenium, uranium (ground
water)
Tritium, cobalt, strontium, cesium,
technitium, plutonium, uranium, carbon
tetrachloride, nitrates, iodine, chromium,
mixed waste, transuranic waste
Molybdenum, net gross alpha, radium226'
228, selenium, uranium (ground water)
Chromium, nitrate, radium226'228,
selenium, uranium (ground water)
Estimated
Soil/Sediment

Volume To Be
Addressed
(Cu. Yds.)4
2,922,460


Complete

83,840,000



Complete

Complete

Estimated
Ground-water

Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
NA


Undetermined

26,000,000



Undetermined

Undetermined

Estimated
Rubble/Debris

Volume
To Be Remediated
(Cu. Yds.)4
12


NA

Not reported



NA

NA

Notes:
NA = Not Applicable
1 Installations and other locations included in this table are the same as those listed in Exhibit 7-2 in the text of the Chapter.
2 U.S. Department of Energy, "Estimating the Cold War Mortgage: The 1995 Baseline Environmental Report," DOE/EM-0230, March 1995; DOE/EM-40
Contaminated Media/Waste Database as of March 3, 1995; and U.S. Department of Energy, UMTRA Project Office, "Draft Program-matic
Environmental Impact Statement for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Ground Water Project," DOE/EIS-0198, April 1995.
3 When specific contaminant types were not available from the references cited in endnote 2, available waste class information has been provided to
give an indication of the types of contaminants that may be present.
4 U.S. Department of Energy, "Estimating the Cold War Mortgage: The 1995 Baseline Environmental Report," DOE/EM-0230, March 1995, and DOE/
EM-40 Contaminated Media/Waste Database as of March 3, 1995. Volume estimates have been rounded for inclusion in this table. Not all of the
contaminated soil volume shown will be remediated — treated or disposed of — because a portion of the volume at some locations is below the proposed
cleanup level for that location.
&
^5
tn"
CU
Q.

S-
3
O
1
a1
a
&












•
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•

-------
o

02
                                Exhibit D-2:  Contaminants and Contaminated Media Volumes To Be Remediated

                             at DOE Installations Where Characterization and Assessment Are Ongoing (continued)1


           Notes (continued):



           5   Includes estimated volumes for Project Rio Blanco and Project Rulison.



           6   See Project Rio Blanco.



           7   Included in Estimates Soil/Sediment Volume shown for this site.



           8   Includes estimated volumes for Gassbuggy Site and Gnome-Coach Site.



           9   See Gassbuggy Site.



           10   Includes estimated volumes for Central Nevada Test Site, Shoal Test Site, and Tonopah Test Range.



           11   See Central Nevada Test Site.



           12   Included in Estimated Soil/Sediment Volume shown for this site.
                                                                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                                                                 S"
                                                                                                                                                 0)
                                                                                                                                                 a


                                                                                                                                                 I'
                                                                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                                                                 a

                                                                                                                                                 en"
                                                                                                                                                 0
                                                                                                                                                 en
                                                                                                                                                  "
                                                                                                                                                 
-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix E
                      APPENDIX E
        FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY PROGRAMS
                           E-l

-------
 Appendix E
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                        Regional Offices
U.S. EPA - Region 1
One Congress Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02203-0001
617-565-3420

U.S. EPA - Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, New York 10007-1866
212-637-3000

U.S. EPA - Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
215-566-5000

U.S. EPA - Region 4
100 Alabama Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
404-562-8357

U.S. EPA - Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507
312-353-2000
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
214-665-6444

U.S. EPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
913-551-7000

U.S. EPA - Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80202-2466
303-312-6312

U.S. EPA - Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105
415-744-1305

U.S. EPA - Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
206-553-1200
                              Remedial Action Contractors (RACs)
                    Region 1
   Brown & Root Environmental, Inc.
   55 Jonspin Road
   Willmington, MA 01887
   Contact: George Gardner
   508-658-7899

   Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.
   30 Harvard Mill Square
   Wakefield, MA 01880
   Contact: Neville Chung
   617-224-6385

                    Region 2

   The RAC Procurement for this region is on-
   going.
                  Region 3

 Brown & Root Environmental, Inc.
 993 Old  Eagle School Road, Suite 415
 Wayne PA 1987-1710
 Contact:  Meg Price
 610-971-0900

 The RAC Procurement for this region is on-
 going.

                  Region 4

 The RAC Procurement for this region is in the
 planning process
                                               E-2

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                    Appendix E
                    Region 5

  CH2M Hill, Inc.
  411 E. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 1600
  P.O. Box 2090
  Milwaukee, WI 53201

                    Region 6

  PRC/EMI Corporation
  1 Dallas Center, Suite 600
  350 N. Paul St.
  Dallas TX 75201
  Contact: Bill Miner
  214-754-8765

  CH2M Hill, Inc.
  5339 Alpha Road, Suite 300
  Dallas TX 75240
  Contact: Kent Robibson
  214-980-2188

                    Region 7

  Black and Veatch Waste Science Inc.
  4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 500
  P.O. Box 30240
  Kansas City, MO  64112
  Contact: Thomas Buechler
  913-339-2900
Sverdrup Environmental, Inc.
13723 Riverport Drive
Maryland Heights, MO 63043
Contact:  Arl Altman
314-436-7700

                  Region 8

CDM Federal programs Corp.
1626 Cole Blvd., Suite 100
Golden, CO 80401
Contact: Michael Malloy
303-232-0131
                  Region 9

The RAC Procurement is in the planning
process.
                 Region 10

The RAC Procurement is in the planning
process.
                                       ARCS Contractors
                    Region 1

  Arthur D. Little, Inc.
  Acorn Park
  Cambridge, MA 02140-2390
  Contact:  Ms. Renee Wong
  617-864-5770

  CDM Federal Programs Corp.
  98 N. Washington St., Suite 200
  Boston, MA 02114
  Contact:  Mr. Fred Babin
  617-742-2659

  HNUS Corp.
  187 Ballard Vale St.
  Wilmington, MA 01887
  Contact:  George Gardner
  508-658-7889
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.
10 Harvard Mill Square
Wakefield, MA 01880
Contact:  William J. Farino
617-246-5200

Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1 Vande Graffe Dr.
Burlington, MA 01803
Contact:  Rick Keller
617-229-2050

TRC Companies, Inc.
Boot Mills South
Foot of John Street
Lowell, MA 01852
508-970-5600
                                                E-3

-------
Appendix E
               Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                    Region 2

   CDM Federal Programs Corp.
   40 Rector St.
   New York, NY 10006
   Contact: Charles W. Robinson
   212-693-0370

   EBASCO Services, Inc.
   160 Chubb Ave.
   Lyndhurst, NJ 07071
   Contact: Mr. Dev. R. Sachdev
   201-460-6434

   ICF Kaiser Technology, Inc.
   379 Thornall St., 5th floor
   Edison, NJ 08837-0001
   Contact: William Colvin
   201-603- 3755
   John Bachmann, 212-264-2702

   Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
   2 Corporate Park Dr., Box 751
   White Plains, NY 10602
   Contact: Ralph Sarnelli
   914-694-2100
Ecology & Environment, Inc.
1528 Walnut St., Suite 1603
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Contact:  Mr. Joseph Pearson
215-875-7370

NUS Corp.
One Devon Square, Suite 222
724 W. Lancaster Ave.
Wayne, PA 19087
Contact:  Meg Price
215-971-0900

Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Plaza, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
Contact:  Steve Pollak
703-385-6000

                  Region 4

Black & Veatch, Inc.
Perimeter Center West, Suite 212
Atlanta, GA 30338
Contact:  Kendall M. Jacob
404-392-9227
   Roy F. Weston, Inc.
   355 Main St.
   Armonk, NY 10504
   Contact: Thomas Stevenson
   913-273-9840

   TAMS
   655 Third Ave.
   New York, NY 10067
   Contact: Brian Styler
   212-867-1777

   Region 3

   Black and Veatch, Inc.
   Public Ledger Building, Suite 272
   Independence Square
   Philadelphia, PA 19106
   Contact: Steve Hooper
   215-627-1443

   CH2M Hill,  Mid-Atlantic Office
   P.O. Box 4400
   Reston, VA  22090
   Contact: Debbie Reif
   703-471-1441
CDM Federal Programs Corp.
2100 River Edge Parkway, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30328
Contact:  Richard C. Johnson
404-952-8643
Abe Dunning, 404-952-7393

Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
P.O. Box 350
800 Oak Ridge Turnpike
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Contact:  G. Phillip Crotwell
615-482-0440

EBASCO Services, Inc.
145 Technology Park
Norcross, GA 30092-2979
Contact:  David Knapp
404-662-2378

Roy F. Weston, Inc.
6021 Live Oak Parkway
Norcross, GA 30093
Contact:  Michael Foulke
404-448-0644
                                                 E-4

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                    Appendix E
                    Region 5

  Black and Veatch Architects and Engineers
  230 West Monroe, Suite 2250
  Chicago, IL 60606
  Contact: William Bruce
  312-346-3775

  CH2M Hill, Inc.
  310 West Wisconsin Avenue
  P.O. Box 2090
  Milwaukee, WI 53201
  Contact: John T. Fleissner
  414-272-2426

  Donohue and Associates
  111 North Canal St., Suite 305
  Chicago, IL 60606
  Contact: Roman Gau
  312-902-7100

  Ecology &  Environment
  111 West Jackson Blvd.
  Chicago, IL 60604
  Contact: Tom Yeates
  312-663-9415

  PRC Corporation
  233 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1621
  Chicago, IL 60601
  Contact: Majid Chaudhry
  312-856-8700

  Roy F. Weston, Inc.
  3 Hawthorne Parkway, Suite 400
  Vernon Hills, IL 60061
  Contact: John W. Thorsen
  708-918-4000

  WW Engineering and Science
  5555 Glenwood Hills Parkway, S.E.
  P.O. Box 874
  Grand Rapids, MI 49508-0874
  Contact: Robert Phillips
  616-940-42637 616-942-9600

               Regions 6, 7, and 8

  CDM Federal Programs Corp.
  7 Pine Ridge  Plaza
  8215 Melrose Dr., Suite  100
  Lenexa, KS 66214
  Contact: Michael Malloy
  913-492-8181
CH2M Hill Central, Inc.
6060 South Willow Drive
Englewood, CO 80111
Contact:  Don Ulrich
303-771-0900

Fluor Daniel, Inc.
12790 Merit Drive, Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75251
Contact:  Mark DeLorimer
214-450-4100

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
251 South Lake Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91101-3603
Contact:  Steve Houser
913-492-9218

Morrison Knudsen
7100 E. Belleview Avenue, Suite 300
Englewood, CO 80111
Contact:  Ed Baker
303-793-5000

Roy F. Weston,  Inc.
5599 San Felipe, Suite 700
Houston, TX  77056
Contact:  John DiFilippo
713-621-1620

Sverdrup Corp.
801 North Eleventh St.
St. Louis, MO 63101
Contact:  Arl Altman
314-436-7600

URS Consultants, Inc.
5251 DTC Parkway, Suite 800
Englewood, CO 80111
Contact:  John Coats
303-796-9700

              Regions 9 and 10

Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
P.O. Box 3965
50 Beale St.
San Francisco, CA 94119
Contact:  Peter R. Nunn
415-768-2797
                                                E-5

-------
Appendix E
                Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
   CH2M Hill
   6425 Christie Ave., Suite 500
   Emeryville, CA 94608
   Contact: Stephen Hahn
   415-652-2426
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
201 Elliot Ave. West, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98119
Contact:  Frank Monahan
206-286-6000
   Ecology & Environment
   101 Yesler Way, Suite 600
   Seattle, WA 98104
   Contact:  Ronald Karpowitz
   206-624-9537
URS Consultants, Inc.
2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 250
Sacramento, CA 95834
Contact:  Gary Jandgian
916-929-2346
  ICF Technology, Inc
  160 Spear St., Suite 1380
  San Francisco, CA 94105-1535
  Contact: Earle Krivanic
  415-957-0110
                                                 E-6

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                  Appendix E
                            DEPARTMENT OF  DEFENSE
                                       U.S. Air Force
  Air Combat Command
  HQ ACC/CEV
  Langley AFB, VA 23665-5001
  Col. John Mogge
  804-764-2801

  Air Force Reserve
  HQ AFRES/CEPV
  Robins AFB, GA 31098-6001
  Mr. Robert Akridge
  912-327-1072

  Air Training Command
  HQ ATC/DEV
  Randolph AFB, TX 7815-5001
  Col. Richard Kochanek
  512-652-2321

  U.S. Air Force Academy
  HQ USAFA/DEP
  Colorado Springs, CO 80840-5546
  Maj. Douglas Sherwood
  719-472-4483

  Air Force District of Washington
  HQ AFDW/CEV
  Boiling AFB, DC 20332
  Capt. William Buckingham
  202-767-1160

  Air Force Space Command
  HQ AFSPACECOM/CEV
  Peterson AFB, CO 80914-5001
  Mr. Gary Maher
  719-554-5187

  Air University
  HQ AU/CEV
  Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-5001
  Mr. James Rumbley
  205-293-5260

  U.S. Air Forces Europe
  HQ USAFE/DEP
  Ramstein AB, GE
  APO NY 09012-5041
  Lt. Col. Jay Carson
Air Force Material Command
HQ AFMC/CEV
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-5000
Col. Tom Walker
513-257-5873

Air Mobility Command
HQ AMC/CEV
Scott AFB, IL 62225-5001
Col. Jacob Dustin
618-256-5764

Pacific Air Force
HQ PACAF/DEV
Hickam AFB HI 96853-5001
Col. Russ Marshall
808-449-5151

National Guard Bureau
HQ ANGRC/CEV
Andrews AFB, MD 20331-6008
Mr. Ron Watson
301-981-8134

Air Force Human Systems Center
HSC/EN
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
Col. Charles Harvin
904-283-6231

HQ Naval Facilities Engineering Command
200 Stoval St.
Alexandria, VA 22332-2300
Mr. William A.  Quade
703-325-0295

Air Force Base Disposal Agency
AFBDA/BD
Washington, DC 20330
Col. David Cannan
703-694-9689

Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency
AFCES/EN
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
Mr. Dennis Firman
904-283-6341
                                             E-7

-------
Appendix E
               Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
  Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
  AFCEE/ES, Bldg. 1160
  Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5000
  Col. Jose Saenz
  210-536-3383
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Missouri River Division/HTRW-MCX,
  CEMRD-ED-H
12565 West Center Rd.
Omaha, NE 68144-3869
Mr. Gary Erikson
402-691-4530
                                            U.S. Army
  Huntsville Division    (CEHND-PA)
  P.O. Box 1600
  Huntsville, AL 35807-4301
  205-955-4757

  Lower Mississippi Valley Division
  (CELMVD-PA)
  P.O. Box 80
  Vicksburg, MS 39181-0080
  601-634-5757

  Missouri River Division    (CEMRD-PA)
  P.O. Box 103, Downtown Station
  Omaha, NE 68101-0103
  402-221-7208

  New England Division (CENED-PA)
  424 Trapelo  Road
  Waltham, MA 02254-9149
  617-647-8237

  North Atlantic Division    (CENAD-PA)
  90 Church Street
  New York, NY 10007-2979
  212-264-7500/7478

  North Central Division (CENCD-PA)
  111 North Canal Street, 12th Floor
  Chicago, IL  60606-7205
  312-353-6319

  North Pacific Division  (CENPD-PA)
  P.O. Box 2870
  Portland, OR  97208-2870
  503-326-3768
Ohio River Division    (CEORD-PA)
P.O. Box 1159
Cincinnati, OH  45201-1159
513-684-3010

Pacific Ocean Division  (CEPOD-PA)
Building 230
Fort Shatter, HI 96858-5440
808-438-9862

South Atlantic Division    (CESAD-PA)
Room 494, 77 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30335-6801
404-331-6715

South Pacific Division   (CESPD-PA)
630 Sansome Street, Room 1232
San Francisco, CA  94111-2206
415-705-2405

Southwestern Division  (CESWD-PA)
1114 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75242-0216
214-767-2510

Transatlantic Division   (CETAD PA)
P.O. Box 2250
Winchester, VA 22601-1450
703-665-3935

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                     Appendix E
                                             U.S. Navy
  Northern Division (18)
  Naval Facilities Engineering Command
  10 Industrial Hwy., Mail Stop 82
  Lester, PA 19113-2090
  Mr. Con Mayer
  215-595-0567

  Chesapeake Division (18)
  Naval Facilities Engineering Command
  Washington Navy Yard
  Washington, DC  20374-2121
  Mr. Joe DeLasho
  202-433-3760

  Atlantic Division  (18)
  Naval Facilities Engineering Command
  1510 Gilbert St.
  Norfolk, VA 23511-6287
  Mr. Bill Russel
  804-445-7336

  Southern Division (18)
  Naval Facilities Engineering Command
  1255 Eagle Dr.
  P.O. Box 10068
  Charleston, SC 29411
  Mr. Sid Aylson
  803-743-0600

  Pacific Division (18)
  Naval Facilities Engineering Command
  Pearl Harbor, HI  96860
  Mr. Mel Waki
  808-471-3948
Western Division (18)
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
P.O. Box 727
San Bruno, CA 94066-0720
CDR L.A. Michlin (Lee)
415-244-2500

Southwest Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
1220 Pacific Highway, Bldg. 130
San Diego, CA 92132-5190
Mr. Jim Pawlisch
619-532-2591

Engineering Field Activity, Northwest (09E)
3505 NW Anderson Hill Road
Silverdale, WA 98383-9130
Mr. Leo Vaisitis
206-396-5981

Naval Energy  And Environmental Support
Activity (112E)
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5014
Mr. Stephen Eikenberry
805-982-4839

Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (L70MP)
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Mr. Bill Powers
805-982-1347
                                                 E-9

-------
Appendix E
               Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
  Operations Offices

  U.S. Dept. of Energy
  Chicago Operations Office
  9800 South Case Avenue
  Argonne, IL 60439
  708-252-2428

  U.S. Dept. of Energy
  Oak Ridge Operations Office
  200 Administrative Road
  Oak Ridge, TN 37831
  615-576-0715

  U.S. Dept. of Energy
  Fernald Operations Office
  P.O. Box 398705
  Cincinnati, OH 45239-8705
  513-648-3101

  U.S. Dept. of Energy
  Savannah River Operations Office
  P.O. Box A
  Aiken, SC 29802
  803-725-3966

  U.S. Dept. of Energy
  Idaho Operations Office
  785 DOE Place
  Idaho Falls, ID 83402
  208-526-1148

  U.S. Dept. of Energy
  Richland Operations Office
  P.O. Box 550
  Richland, WA  99352
  509-376-7277

  U.S. Dept. of Energy
  Nevada Operations Office
  P.O. Box 98518
  Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518
  702-295-0844

  U.S. Dept. of Energy
  Rocky Flats Operations Office
  P.O. Box 928
  Golden, CO 80402
  303-966-4888
U.S. Dept. of Energy
San Francisco Operations Office
1301 Play Street
Oakland, CA  94612
510-637-1809

U.S. Dept. of Energy
Albuquerque Operations Office
P.O. Box 5400
Albuquerque, NM  87115
505-845-6307

DOE Technology Development Focus Areas

Contaminant Plume Containment
 and Remediation:
David Biancosino
U.S. DOE/EM-50
Cloverleaf
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown, MD  20874
301-903-7961

Mixed Waste Characterization,
 Treatment, and Disposal:
Tom Anderson
U.S. DOE/EM-50
Cloverleaf
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown, MD  20874
301-903-7295

Radioactive Tank Waste Remediation:
David Geiser
U.S. DOE/EM-50
Cloverleaf
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown, MD  20874
301-903-7640

Landfill Stabilization:
Skip Chamberlain
U.S. DOE/EM-50
Cloverleaf
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown, MD  20874
301-903-7248
                                               E-10

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                    Appendix E
  Facility Deactivation, Decontamination,
    and Material Disposal:
  Jerry Hyde
  U.S. DOE/EM-50
  Cloverleaf
  19901 Germantown Road
  Germantown, MD  20874
  301-903-7914

  Points of Contact for Major DOE Installations

  Rocky Flats:
  John Ahlquist
  U.S. DOE/EM-452
  Cloverleaf
  19901 Germantown Road
  Germantown, MD  20874
  301-903-5908
  301-903-3877 (fax)

  Idaho National Engineering
   Laboratory:
  Paul Strider
  U.S. DOE/EM-441
  Cloverleaf
  19901 Germantown Road
  Germantown, MD  20874
  301-903-8140
  301-903-3675 (fax)
Savannah River:
Hap Thron
U.S. DOE/EM-421
Cloverleaf
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown, MD  20874
301-903-8153
301-903-2461 (fax)

Oak Ridge Reservation:
Rick Nace
U.S. DOE/EM-422
Cloverleaf
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown, MD  20874
301-903-7219
301-903-2747 (fax)

Hanford:
Mary Harmon
U.S. DOE/EM-442
Cloverleaf
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown, MD  20874
301-903-8167
301-903-3675 (fax)
                                               E-ll

-------
Appendix E
               Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                             OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
  Department of Agriculture

  Forest Service
  Environmental Issues
  201 14th Street, SW
  Washington, DC  20250
  202-205-0957

  Agricultural Research Services
  Facilities Division
  Safety, Health, and Environmental
  Management
    Branch
  6303 Ivy Lane
  Greenbelt, MD  20770-1433
  301-344-0218

  Commodity Credit Corporation
  Conservation and Environmental Protection
    Division
  Post Office Box 2415
  Washington, DC  20013
  202-720-3467

  Farmers Home  Administration/Rural
  Development Administration
  Program Support Staff
  Environmental Support Branch
  14th & Independence, Room 6309
  Washington, DC  20250
  202-720-9619

  Department of Commerce

  U.S. Department of Commerce
  Office of Management Support
  Environmental Safety & Compliance Division
  Room 6020
  14th & Constitution Ave,  NW
  Washington, DC  20230
  202-482-4115

  General Services Administration
Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management
Public Affairs
Main Interior Building, Room 5600
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
202-208-3435

Bureau of Mines
Division of Environmental Technology
810 7th Street, NW, Mail Stop 6205
Washington, DC 20241
202-501-9271

Bureau of Reclamation
Public Affairs Office
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240-9000
202-208-4662

National Park Service
Environmental Quality Division
1849 C Street, NW, Room 1210
Washington, DC 20240
202-208-3163

Fish & Wildlife Service
1849 C Street, NW, Room 3447
Washington, DC 20240
202-208-5634

Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice
Public Affairs, Room 1216
10th & Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
202-514-2007

National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
  General Services Administration
  Safety & Environmental Management Division
  Environmental Branch (PMS)
  18th and F Streets, NW, Room 4046
  Washington, DC  20405
  202-708-5236
NASA Headquarters
Environmental Affairs
Washington, DC 20546
202-358-1090
                                               E-12

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                     Appendix E
  Small Business Administration

  Small Business Administration
  Office of Litigation, 7th Floor
  409 3rd Street, SW
  Washington, DC  20416
  202-205-6643

  Tennessee Valley Authority

  Tennessee Valley Authority
  Environmental Quality Staff
  400 W. Summit Hill Dr., Mail Stop WT 8B
  Knoxville, TN  37902
  615-632-6578
U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration
Office of Environment and Energy (AEE-20)
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC  20591
202-267-3554

U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Affairs
2100 2nd Street, SW
Washington, DC  20593
202-267-1587
                                                E-13

-------
Appendix E
               Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
     STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OFFICES
  Alabama
  Land Division
  Department of Environmental Management
  1751 Congressman Dickinson Drive
  Montgomery, AL 36130
  205-271-7700

  Alaska
  Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
  Section
  410 Willoughby Avenue, Ste. 105
  Juneau, AK 99801
  907-465-5150

  Arizona
  Office of Waste Programs/Haz. Sect.
  Department of Environmental Quality
  3033 North Central Avenue
  Phoenix, AZ 85012
  602-207-2381

  Arkansas
  Hazardous Waste Division
  Pollution Control and Ecology
  P.O. Box 8913
  Little Rock, AR 72219
  501-562-7444

  California
  Toxics Substance Control
  400 P Street, 4th Floor
  P.O. Box 806
  Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
  916-323-9723

  Colorado
  Hazardous Materials and Waste Management
  Department of Public Health & Environment
  4300 Cherry Creek Drive, S.
  Denver, CO 80222
  303-692-3300

  Connecticut
  Bureau of Waste Management
  Department of Environmental Protection
  79 Elm Street
  Hartford, CT 06106
  203-424-3021
Delaware
Hazardous Waste Branch
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
302-739-4781

District of Columbia
Solid Waste Management
Department of Public Works
2750 S. Capitol Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
202-767-8512

Florida
Division of Waste Management
Department of Environmental Protection
2600 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399
904-487-3299

Georgia
Environment Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources
205 Butler Street, Ste. 1152
Atlanta, GA 30334
404-656-4713

Hawaii
Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch
Department of Health
500 Ala Moana Blvd., Ste. 150
Honolulu, HI 96813
808-586-4225

Idaho
Permitting & Enforcement
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton Street
Boise, ID  83706
208-334-5898

Illinois
Hazardous Waste Center
1 E. Hazelwood Drive
Champaign, IL 61820
217-333-8940
                                              E-14

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                    Appendix E
  Indiana
  Office of Solid & Hazardous Waste
  Management
  Department of Environmental Management
  105 South Meridian Street, Box 6015
  Indianapolis, IN 46225
  317-232-3210

  Iowa
  Air Quality and Solid Waste Protection
  Department of Natural Resources
  900 East Grand Avenue
  Des Moines, IA 50319
  515-281-8852

  Kansas
  Bureau of Waste Management
  Department of Health and Environment
  Landon State Office Bldg, 10th Fl.
  Topeka, KS 66612-1290
  913-296-1600

  Kentucky
  Hazardous Waste Branch
  Division of Waste Management
  14 Reilly Road
  Frankfort, KY 40601
  502-564-6716

  Louisiana
  Office of Solid & Hazardous Waste
  Department of Environmental Quality
  7290 Bluebonnet Rd.
  Baton Rouge, LA 70810
  504-765-0741
Massachusetts
Division of Hazardous Waste
Department of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street, 3rd Floor
Boston,  MA 02108
617-292-5574

Michigan
Hazardous Waste Program Section
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
517-373-2730

Minnesota
Hazardous Waste Division
Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette  Road
St. Paul, MN  55155-4194
612-297-8502

Mississippi
Hazardous Waste Division
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289
601-961-5062

Missouri
Hazardous Waste Program
Department of Natural Resources
Jefferson Building, 13th Fl.
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
314-751-7869
  Maine
  Oil & Hazardous Materials Bureau
  Department of Environmental Protection
  State House Station #17
  Augusta, ME 04333
  207-287-2651
Montana
Hazardous Waste Section
Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
406-444-1430
  Maryland
  Hazardous Waste Program
  Hazardous and Solid Waste Management
  Admin.
  2500 Broening Highway
  Baltimore, MD 21224
  301-631-3343
Nebraska
Hazardous Waste Section
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509
402-471-4217

Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection
Capitol Complex
Carson City, NV 89710
702-687-5872
                                               E-15

-------
Appendix E
               Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
  New Hampshire
  Hazardous Waste Compliance Section
  Waste  Management Compliance Bureau
  6 Hazen Drive
  Concord, NH 03301
  603-271-2942

  New Jersey
  Div. of Responsible Party Site Remediation
  Environmental Protection Department
  401 East State Street, CN028
  Trenton, NJ 08625
  609-633-1408

  New Mexico
  Hazardous Waste Bureau
  Department of Environment
  P.O. Box 26110
  Sante Fe, NM 87502
  505-827-4300

  New York
  Department of Environmental Conservation
  50 Wolf Road
  Albany, NY 12233
  518-457-3446

  North  Carolina
  Hazardous Waste Section
  Division of Solid Waste Management
  P.O. Box 27687
  Raleigh,  NC 27065-1350
  919-733-2178

  North  Dakota
  Division of Solid Waste Management
  Health & Consolidated Labs.
  P.O. Box 5520
  Bismark, ND 58502-5520
  701-328-5166

  Ohio
  Hazardous Waste Management
  Solid & Hazardous Waste Management
  P.O. Box 1049
  Columbus, OH 43266-0149
  614-644-2934

  Oklahoma
  Hazardous Waste Management Services
  Environmental Health Services
  P.O. Box 53551
  Oklahoma City, OK 73152
  405-271-5338
Oregon
Hazardous Waste Policy & Program
Development
Waste & Cleanup Division
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
503-229-6585

Pennsylvania
Bureau of Waste Management
Department of Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 2063, Fulton Building
Harrisburg, PA  17120
717-787-9870

Rhode Island
Solid Waste Section
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
291 Promenade  Street
Providence, RI 02908
401-277-2797

South Carolina
Bureau of Solid  and Hazardous Waste
Management
Department of Health and Environmental
Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803-896-4001

South Dakota
Division of Environmental Regulation
Waste Management  Program
523 East Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501
605-773-3151

Tennessee
Hazardous Waste Management Section
Department of Environment & Conservation
401 Church Street, 5th Fl.
Nashville, TN 37243
615-532-0780

Texas
Office of Waste  Management
Natural Resources Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
512-293-2104
                                               E-16

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
                                    Appendix E
  Utah
  Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
  Department of Environmental Quality
  P.O. Box 14880
  Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
  801-538-6775

  Vermont
  Hazardous Materials Management Division
  Agency of Natural Resources
  103 South Main Street
  Waterbury, VT 05671-0404
  802-241-3888
West Virginia
Office of Waste Management
1356 Hansford Street
Charleston, WV 25301
304-348-5393

Wisconsin
Hazardous Waste Management Section
Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Bureau
101 S. Webster, 3rd Fl
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
608-266-7055
  Virginia
  Department of Environmental Quality
  629 East Main Street
  Richmond, VA 23219
  804-762-4020

  Washington
  Office of Waste Management
  Department of Ecology
  P.O. Box 47600
  Olympia, WA 98504-7600
  360-407-6000
Wyoming
Solid & Hazardous Waste Division
Department of Environmental Quality
Herschler Bldg.
Cheyenne, WY 82002
307-777-7753
                                                E-17

-------
Appendix E
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                                    This page intentionally left blank.
                                                   E-18

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix F
                           APPENDIX F
                         BIBLIOGRAPHY
                                 F-l

-------
 Appendix F
                              Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Remediation Trends at National Priorities List (NPL) Sites

   U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Project
   Performance Study Update April 1996, prepared by Independent Project Analysis, Inc., 1996.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Annual FY 96
   Superfund Management Reports, Draft, February 1997.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
   Innovation Office, Bibliography for Innovative Site Clean-up Technologies, EPA-542-B-96-003, September
   1996.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Bioremediation
   in the Field Search System (BFSS), EPA-540-R-95-508B, 1995.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and Office of
   Research and Development, Bioremediation in the Field, No. 12, EPA540-N-95-500, 1995.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, CERCLA
   Information System (CERCLIS), 1996.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Evaluation of
   Ground Water Extraction Remedies: Phase II, Volume 1, PB92-963346, February 1992.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, The Facts Speak
   for Themselves: A Fundamentally Different Superfund Program, November 1996.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
   Innovation Office, Federal Publications on Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective
   Action and Site Remediation, Fourth Edition, EPA-542-B-95-004, 1995.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et. al., Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable,
   Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Second Edition, EPA/542/B-94/013,
   NTIS PB95-104782, October 1994.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Hazard Ranking System; Final Rule," 55 Federal Register
   51532, Vol 55, No. 241, Part II, December 14, 1990.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Initiatives to
   Promote Innovative Technology in Waste Management, OSWER Directive 9380.0-25, April 29, 1996.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
   Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA-542-R-
   96-010, November 1996.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
   Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report Database (ITT Database),
   EPA-542-C-96-002, Draft, January 1997.
                                                F-2

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix F
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, In Situ
  Remediation Technology Status Report: Surfactant Enhancements, EPA542-K-94-003; Treatment Walls,
  EPA542-K-94-004; Hydraulic and Pneumatic Fracturing, EPA542-K-94-005; Cosolvents, EPA542-K-94-006;
  Electrokinetics, EPA542-K-94-007; and Thermal Enhancements, EPA542-K-94-009; April 1995. A  four-page
  summary report for these projects is also available: Emerging Abiotic In Situ Remediation Technologies for
  Ground Water and Soil, EPA542-S-95-001; April 1995.

  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
  Innovation Office, In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Ground Water: An Inventory of Research and Field
  Demonstrations and Strategies for Improving Ground Water Remediation Technologies, EPA/500/K93/001,
  1993.

  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
  Innovation Office, Partnerships for the Remediation of Hazardous Wastes, EPA-542-R-96-006, February
  1997.

  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office Emergency and Remedial Response, Record of Decision
  Information Directory, 1995.

  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Records of
  Decision (RODs),  1982-1994,  (on CD-ROM), PB96-593551.

  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, ROD Annual
  Report FY 1992, PB93-963349, December 1993.

  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Site Program Quarterly
  Status  Report,  October 11, 1996.

  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Superfund Innovative
  Technology Evaluation  (SITE) Program Profiles, Ninth Edition, EPA/540/R-97/502, December 1996.

  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Test Methods
  for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods," Third Edition, Proposal Update II, PB94-170321,
  November 1992.

  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
  Innovation Office, Vendor Field Analytical & Characterization Technologies System (VendorFACTS),
  Version 2, EPA-542-C-97-001, March 1997.

  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Vendor
  Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies, Version 5.0, EPA-542-C-96-003, 1996.
                                               F-3

-------
 Appendix F
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Sites

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation Office, Analysis of Facility Corrective Action Data, Draft, January 1994.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corrective Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management
    Units at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities; Proposed Rule, ANPRM, 40 CFR,  61 Federal Register
    Number 85, pp 19431-19464, May 1, 1996.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Corrective Action for Solid Waste
    Management Units (SWMUs) at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities; Proposed Rule (40 CFR Parts  264,
    265, 270, and 217), 55 Federal Register, No. 145, pp. 30798-30884, July 27, 1990.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Corrective Action Management Units and
    Temporary Units; Corrective Action Provisions Under Subtitle C; Final Rule (58 Federal Register, p. 8658),
    February 16, 1993.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Part 260.10, 45 Federal Register, p. 33066, May 19, 1980.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Identification Rule; Proposed Rule, 61 Federal
    Register, p. 18780, April 29, 1996.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Management System:
    Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Treatability Studies Sample Exclusion; Final Rule (59 Federal
    Register, p. 8362), February 18, 1994.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous Units, Applicable to Owners and
    Operators;  Final Rule  (52 Federal Register, p. 46946), December 10, 1987.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, The  Nation's
    Hazardous Waste Management Program at a Crossroads: The RCRA Implementation Study, EPA/530-SW-
    90-069, 1990.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, RCRA
    National Corrective Action Prioritization System Guidelines  (Revised), August  1992.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, RCRA Stabilization Strategy, October 25,
    1991.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final
    Rulemaking on Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units Proposed Methodology for Analysis,
    Draft, March 1993.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Resource Conservation and Recovery
    Information System (RCRIS) National Oversight Database, October 17, 1995.
                                                  F-4

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix F
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Sites

    Bueckman, D.S., S. Kumar, and M. Russell, Underground Storage Tanks: Resource Requirements for
    Corrective Action, University of Tennessee, Waste Management Research and Education Institute,
    Knoxville, TN, December 1991.

    Tremblay, Deborah, L., D. S. Tulis, P. Kostecki, and K. Ewald, "Innovation Skyrockets at 50,000 LUST
    Sites," Soil and Groundwater Cleanup,  December 1995.

    University of Massachusetts, Contaminated Soils Conferences, University of Massachusetts, N344
    Morrill, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation Office, Cleanup Information Bulletin Board System (CLU-IN). CLU-IN may be accessed
    by: (a) using a modem to dial 301-589-8366;  (b) or (b)  a World Wide Web connection: http://www.Clu-
    in.com

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Expedited Site
    Assessment Tools for USTs: A Guide for Regulators, EPA-510-B97-001, March 1997.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, How to Effectively
    Recover Free Product for LUST Sites: A Guide for State Regulators, EPA-510-R-96-004, September 1996.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, How to Evaluate
    Alternative Cleanup Technologies for UST Sites: A Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers, EPA-510-B-
    95-007, May  1995.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Semi-Annual Activity
    Report, Second Half (September 30) 1996.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Survey of Underground
    Storage Tanks, Spring 1991.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, and Technology
    Innovation Office Technologies and Options for UST Corrective Actions: Overview and Current Practice,
    EPA/542/R-92/010, August 1992.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Tank Racer: Cost
    Estimation Software for LUST Cleanups, March 1996.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, TC [Toxicity
    Characteristic] Study of Contaminated Media and Debris, Draft, July  1992.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, "Technical
    Requirements and State Program Approval;  Final Rule," 53 Federal Register, No. 185, September 23,
    1988.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Underground Storage Tanks — Lender Liability; Final Rule,"
    40 CFR Parts 280 and 281,"  Federal Register, Vol 60, September 7, 1995, p. 46692.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office  of
    Underground Storage Tanks, World  Wide Web connection: http://www.epa.gov/OUST.
                                                F-5

-------
Appendix F
                                                                   Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites


Department of Defense Sites

   Base Closure and Realignment Acts of 1988, P.L. 100-526 (BRAC 88) and 1990, P.L. 101-510 (BRAC 91,
   93, and 95).

   U.S. Department of Defense, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Defense
   Environmental Restoration Program: Annual Report to Congress For Fiscal Year 1995, Spring 1996.

   U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Restoration Programs 1994
   Annual Report.

   U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Army Toxics and Hazardous Materials Agency, Army Corps of
   Engineers, Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control Technologies, CETHA-TS-CR-90067,
   Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD  21010-5401.

   U.S. Department of Defense, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security),
   Management Guidance for Execution of the FY 94/95 and Development of the FY 96 Defense Environmental
   Restoration Program, Memorandum, April 14, 1994.

   U.S. Department of Defense,  Deputy Under Secretary of Defense  (Environmental Security),
   Memorandum for Stakeholders in the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, September 13, 1994.

   U.S. Department of Defense, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Restoration
   Advisory Board (RAB) Implementation Guidelines, Memorandum, October 13, 1994.

   U.S. Department of Defense, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security),
   Restoration Management Information System, November 1995.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al, Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site Clean-
   Up Technologies, prepared by the member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies
   Roundtable, EPA-542-B-95-008, 1995.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al, Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies, prepared by the
   member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, EPA-542-R-95-001, March
   1995.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al, Federal Publications on Alternative and Innovative Treatment
   Technologies for Corrective Action and Site Remediation,  prepared by the member agencies of the Federal
   Remediation Technologies Roundtable, Fifth Edition, EPA-542-B-95-004, 1995.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Administration and Resources Management, Fiscal
   Year 1997 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committees on Appropriations, EPA 206-R-96-001,
   March 1996.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and  Emergency Response, Innovative
   Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA-542-R-96-010, November 1996.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et. al., Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable,
   Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Second Edition, EPA/542/B-94/013,
   NTIS PB95-104782, October 1994.
                                               F-6

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix F
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al, Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site
   Remediation Technologies, prepared by the member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies
   Roundtable, Third Edition, EPA-542-B-93-009, October 1993.
Department of Energy Sites

   Hazardous Materials Intelligence Report, March 4, 1994. "DOE Outlines Contract-Reform Measures,"
   Hazardous Materials Intelligence Report, March 4, 1994.

   Inside Environmental Protection Agency, "House Recision Likely To Slow Small DOE Cleanups,
   Crumbly Contends," Inside EPA's Superfund Report, Vol. 9, No. 5, March 8, 1995.

   Schwab, Judy, Ed.,  "Innovative Ideas from Small Businesses: Breaking Barriers," Initiatives in
   Environmental Technology Investment, Vol. 2, April 1995.

   Schwab, Judy, Ed. "Morgantown Energy Technology  Center Manages Technology Development
   Contracts" and "The Internet," Initiatives in Environmental Technology Investment, Vol. 2, April 1995.

   Schwab, Judy, Ed.,  "Small Business Administration" and "The Internet", Initiatives in Environmental
   Technology Investment, Vol. 2, April 1995.

   U.S. Department of Energy,  Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom: The Environmental Legacy of
   Nuclear Weapons Production in the United States and What the  Department of Energy Is Doing about It,
   January  1995.

   U.S. Department of Energy,  The 1996 Baseline Environmental  Report, DOE/EM-0290, June 1996.

   U.S. Department of Energy,  Estimating  the Cold War Mortgage: The 1995 Baseline  Environmental Report,
   DOE/EM-0230, March 1995.

   U.S. Department of Energy,  EM-4 Baseline Environmental Management Report  Database, November
   1995.

   U.S. Department of Energy,  Office of Environmental Management, Environmental Management 1995:
   Progress  and Plans of the Environmental Management Program,  DOE/EM-0228, February 1995.

   U.S. Department of Energy,  Office of Environmental Management, Environmental Management 1996:
   Progress  and Plans of the Environmental Management Program,  DOE/EM-0317, November 1996.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
   Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment  Technologies: Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA/542/R-
   96/010, December 1996.

   U.S. Department of Energy,  Office of Technology Development, "Landfill Stabilization Focus Area:
   Technology Summary," DOE/EM-0251, June 1995.

   U.S. Department of Energy,  Making Contracting Work Better and Cost Less: Report of the Contract Reform
   Team, DOE/S-0107, February 1994.

   U.S. Department of Energy,  Office of Technology Development, "Mixed Waste  Characterization,
   Treatment, and Disposal Focus Area: Technology Summary,"  DOE/EM-0252, June 1995.
                                               F-7

-------
 Appendix F
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
   U.S. Department of Energy,, UMTRA Project Office, "Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact
   Statement for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Ground Water Project," DOE/EIS-0198,
   April 1995.

   U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Technology Development, "Radioactive Tank Waste
   Remediation Focus Area: Technology Summary," DOE/EM-0255, June 1995.
   U.S. General Accounting Office, "Uranium Mill Tailings: Cleanup Continues, But Future Costs Are
   Uncertain,"  GAO/RCED-96-37, December 1995.
Civilian Federal Agency Sites

   U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Management and Budget, Improving Federal Facilities
   Cleanup, October  1995.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Northeast-Midwest Institute, Coming Clean for Economic
   Development, December 1995.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Facilities Enforcement Office, "Federal Agency
   Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket," Docket Revision Preamble, March 14, 1995.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Federal  Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket," 60
   Federal Register, 18474-18518, April 11, 1995.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Facilities Compliance Office, FEDPLAN-PC, December
   1996.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
   Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition), EPA-542-R-
   96-010, November 1996.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
   Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report Database, (ITT Database),
   EPA-542-C-96-002, January 1997.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
   Contingency Plan; Lender Liability Under CERCLA," 57 Federal Register No. 83, 18344, April 29, 1992.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Policy on Enforcement of Lender Liability Rule on Federal
   Agencies," 60 Federal Register, 63517, December 11, 1995.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Superfund
   CERCLIS Characterization Project: National Results, EPA/540/8-91/080, November 1991.

   U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, Circular A-106: Reporting
   Requirements in Connection with the Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Environmental Pollution at
   Existing Federal Facilities,  December 31, 1974.

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix F
State and Private Party Sites

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, An Analysis of
   State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 1993 Update, EPA/540/R-94/008, December 1993.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, An Analysis of
   State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 1995 Update, EPA-540-R-96-036, PB96-963249, July 1996.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Northeast-Midwest Institute, Coming Clean for Economic
   Development, December 1995.

   U.S. General Accounting Office, Community Development: Reuse of Urban Industrial Sites, GAO Report
   #RCED-95-172, June 1995.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Superfund
   CERCLIS Characterization Project: National Results, EPA/540/8-91/080, November 1991.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and
   Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, A Report on State/Territory Non-
   NPL Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Efforts for the Period 1980-1992,  OSWER Pub. 9242.2-09, EPA/540/R-
   94/001, July 1994.
                                                F-9

-------
Appendix F
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                                    This page intentionally left blank.
                                                   F-10

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix G
                   APPENDIX G
     DEFINITIONS OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
         SELECTED FOR NPL SITE CLEANUPS
                        G-l

-------
Appendix G
                                       Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                              INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
                         SELECTED FOR NPL SITE CLEANUPS
So/7 Control Technologies
   Ex Situ
   Bioremediation
   In Situ Soil
   Bioremediation
   Contained Recovery
   of Oily Wastes
   (CROW™)

   Cyanide Oxidation
   Dechlorination
   Hot Air Injection
   In Situ Flushing
   Physical Separation


   Phytoremediation
This technology uses microorganisms to degrade organic contaminants
in excavated soil, sludge, and solids. The microorganisms break down
the  contaminants by using them as a food source. The end products are
typically CO2 and H2O. Ex situ bioremediation includes slurry-phase
bioremediation, in which the soils are mixed in water to form a slurry,
and solid-phase bioremediation, in which the soils are placed in an cell
or building and tilled with added water and nutrients. Land farming
and composting are types of solid-phase bioremediation.

With in situ bioremediation, an oxygen source and, sometimes,
nutrients, are pumped under pressure into the soil through wells, or
they are spread on the surface for infiltration to the contaminated
material. Bioventing is a common form of in situ bioremediation.
Bioventing  uses extraction wells to circulated air with or without
pumping air into the ground.

This process displaces oily wastes with steam and hot water. The
contaminated oils are swept into a more permeable area and are
pumped out of the soil.

Organic cyanides are oxidized to form less hazardous compounds
though chemical reactions.

Dechlorination is a chemical reaction which removes or replaces
chlorine atoms contained in  hazardous  compounds, rendering them less
hazardous.

With hot air injection, heated air is injected and circulated through the
subsurface.  The heated air volatizes volatile organic compounds so they
can be extracted and captured for further treatment or recycling.

For in situ flushing, large volumes of water at times supplemented with
treatment compounds, are introduced to the soil, waste, or groundwater
to flush hazardous contaminants from a site. Injected water must be
isolated effectively within the aquifer and recovered.

Removes contaminants from a medium in order to reduce the volume
of material  requiring treatment.

Phytoremediation involves the cultivation of specialized plants that are
capable of taking up specific soil contaminants into their roots or
foliage. Uptake of contaminants by the  plants reduces concentrations of
contaminants in the soil. Periodic harvesting of the plants may be
necessary.
                                              G-2

-------
    Markets and Technology Trends
                                                         Appendix G
   Plasma High
   Temperature Metals
   Recovery
   Soil Vapor
   Extraction
   (SVE)

   Soil Washing
   Solvent Extraction
   Thermal Desorption
   Vitrification
This technology is a thermal treatment process that purges contaminants
from solids and soils as metal fumes and organic vapors. The organic
vapors can be burned as fuel and the metal fumes can be recovered and
recycled.

This technology removes volatile organic compounds from the soil
through the use of vapor extraction wells, sometimes combined with air
injection wells, to strip and flush the contaminants into the air stream
for further treatment.
Soil washing is used for two purposes.  First, the mechanical action and
water (sometimes with additives) physically remove the contaminants
from the soil particles. Second, the agitation of the soil particles allows
the more highly contaminated fine  particles to separate from the larger
ones, thus reducing the volume of material  requiring treatment.

Solvent extraction operates on the principle that, in the correct solvent,
organic contaminants  can be solubilized preferentially and  removed
from the waste. The solvent to be used  will vary, depending on the
waste type.

For thermal desorption, the waste is heated in a controlled environment
to cause organic compounds to volatilize from the waste.  The operating
temperature for thermal desorption is less than 1000°F (550°C).  The
volatilized contaminants will usually require further control or
treatment.

Vitrification melts contaminated soil in  place at temperatures of
approximately 3000°F (1600°C).  Metals are  encapsulated in the glass-
like structure of the melted silicate  compounds. Organics may be
treated by combustion.
Groundwater Treatment Technologies
   Air Sparging
   In Situ
   Groundwater
   Bioremediation
Air sparging involves injecting air or oxygen into the aquifer to strip or
flush volatile contaminants as the air bubbles up through the
groundwater and is captured by a vapor extraction system. The entire
system acts as an in situ air stripper. Stripped or volatized contaminants
usually will be removed through soil vapor extraction wells and usually
require further treatment.

With in situ bioremediation, which is often combined with air sparging,
nutrients or an oxygen source (such as air) are pumped under pressure
into the aquifer through wells to enhance biodegradation of
contaminants in the groundwater.
                                               G-3

-------
Appendix G
                                        Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
  Dual-Phase
  Extraction
  In Situ Oxidation
Dual-phase extraction removes contaminants simultaneously from both
the saturated and the unsaturated zone soils in situ. This new
technology applies soil vapor extraction techniques to contaminants
trapped in saturated zone soils, which are more difficult to treat than
are those in the unsaturated zone. In some instances, this result may be
achieved by sparging the groundwater section of a well that penetrates
the groundwater table. Other methods also may be employed.

This technology oxidizes contaminants that are dissolved in
groundwater, converting them into insoluble compounds.
  Passive or
  Permeable
  Treatment Walls
  Surfactant Flushing
Passive treatment walls act like chemical treatment zones. Contaminated
groundwater comes into contact with the wall, which is permeable, and
a chemical reaction takes place. Limestone treatment zones increase the
pH, which effectively immobilizes dissolved metals in the saturated
zone. Another type of passive treatment wall contains iron filings that
dechlorinate compounds.

Surfactant flushing of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL) increases the
solubility and mobility of the contaminants in water, so that the NAPL
can be biodegraded more easily in the aquifer or recovered for
treatment  aboveground via a pump-and-treat system.
                                              G-4

-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Appendix H
                           APPENDIX H




                           ACRONYMS
                                 H-l

-------
 Appendix H
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                                          Acronyms

AFBC         Air Force Base Conversion Agency
ANPRM       Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
ARCS         Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
ASTSWMO    Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
ATTIC        Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
BFSS          Bioremediation in the Field Search System
BLM          Bureau of Land Management
BRAC         Base Realignment and Closure
BCP          BRAC Cleanup Plan
BCT          BRAC Cleanup Team

BTEX         Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene
CA           Cooperative Agreement
CAMU        RCRA Corrective Action Management Unit
CBO          Congressional Budget Office
CERFA        Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act
CERCLA      Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund)
CERCLIS      Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
CFR          Code of Federal Regulations
CMI          RCRA Corrective Measures Implementation
CMS          RCRA Corrective Measures Study

CORA        Cost of Remedial Action Computer Model
CRDA        Cooperative Research and Development Agreement [DOE]
D&D          Decontamination and Decommissioning
DERA        Defense Environmental Restoration Account
DERP         Defense Environmental Restoration Program
DERPMIS      Defense Environmental Restoration Program Management Information System
DLA          Defense Logistics Agency
DOD          U.S. Department of Defense
DOE          U.S. Department of Energy
DOI          U.S. Department of Interior

DOJ          U.S. Department of Justice
DOT          U.S. Department of Transportation
DSMOA       Defense and State Memorandum of Agreement
EBS           Environmental Baseline Survey
EC            Enterprise Community
EPA          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERCS         Emergency Remedial Contracting Strategy
ERMC        Environmental Restoration Management Contractor [DOE]
ESTCP        Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
EZ            Empowerment Zone

FR            Federal Register
FUDS         Formerly Used Defense Sites
FUSRAP       Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
FY            Fiscal Year
GAO          U.S. Government Accounting Office
                                               H-2

-------
 Markets and Technology Trends
                                                                      Appendix H
                                   Acronyms (continued)

GENSUR         National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
GWRTAC        Groundwater Remediation Technologies Analysis Center
HRS             Superfund Hazard Ranking System
HSWA           Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
HWIR-Media      Hazardous Waste Identification Rule - Media
HUD
IAG
IRP
LDR
LTTD
MUDSS
NAPL
NASA
NAVFAC
NCAPS

NCEPI
NCP
NETAC
NTIS
NPL
O&M
OU
ORD
OSW
OSWER

OTA
PA
PAH
PCB
PCE
PRDA
PEIS
POL
POTW
PRP

RA
RAB
RAC
RACS
RCRA
RCRIS

RD
RD&D
RFA
RFI
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Interagency Agreement
Defense Installation Restoration Program
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Mobile Underwater Debris Survey System
Nonaqueous Phase Liquid
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Navy Facilities Engineering Command
National Corrective Action Priority Ranking System

National Center for Environmental Publications and Information
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
National Environmental Technologies Applications Center
National Technical Information Service
Superfund National Priorities List of Hazardous Waste Sites
Operation and Maintenance
Operable  Unit
Office of Research and Development
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Office of Technology Assessment
Preliminary Site Assessment
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Perchloroethylene
Program Research and Development Announcement  [DOE]
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement [DOE]
Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants
Publicly Owned  [wastewater] Treatment Works
Potentially Responsible Party

Remedial Action
Restoration Advisory Board
Remedial Action Contractor
Remedial Action Contracting Strategy
Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
Resource  Conservation and Recovery ACT Information System National Oversight
Database
Remedial Design
Research, Development, and Demonstration
RCRA Facility Assessment
RCRA Facility Investigation
                                               H-3

-------
 Appendix H
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
                                    Acronyms (continued)

RFP          Request for Proposals
RI/FS        Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RIA          Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIS          RCRA Implementation Study
RMIS        DOD's Restoration Management Information System
ROD         Record of Decision
RP           Responsible Party
RPM         Remedial Project Managers
RTC          Resolution Trust Corporation
RTDF        Remediation Technologies Development Forum

NTIS         National Technology Information System
RU          RCRA Regulated Unit
SACM       Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
SARA        Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SBA          Small Business Administration
SBIR         Small Business Innovative Research Program
SERDP       Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
SI           Site Inspection
SITE         Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program
SVE          Soil Vapor Extraction

SVOC        Semivolatile Organic Compound
SWMU       Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE          Trichloroethylene
TIO          Technology Innovation Office
TPS          Third Party Site [DOD]
TSD          Treatment, Storage, or Disposal
TSDF        Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facility
TSDR        Treatment, Storage, Disposal, or Recycling Facility
UIC          Underground Injection Control
UMTRA      Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project

USAGE       U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USAEC       U.S. Army Environmental Center
USATHAMA U.S. Army Toxics and Hazardous Materials Agency
USDA       U.S. Department of Agriculture
UST          Underground Storage Tank
VISITT       Vendor Information System on Innovative Treatment Technologies
VOC         Volatile Organic Compound
WPB         War Production Board
                                                H-4

-------