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
------- |