United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102G)
EPA 542-R-96-005A
April 1997
Clean Up the Nation's
Waste Sites: Markets and
Technology Trends
1 996 Edition
Executive Summary
Recycled/Recyclable
'Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper
that contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
EPA-542-R-96-005A
NTIS: PB96-178041
April 1997
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:
Markets and Technology Trends
1996 Edition
Executive Summary
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 executive summary and the full report 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
Executive Summary
CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Market Size 2
Number of Sites 2
Estimated Cleanup Costs 5
Site Characteristics 8
Media 9
Contaminants 9
Technologies 12
History and Outlook for Technology Applications 12
Technology Development Efforts 16
Cleanup Program Status and Factors Affecting Demand 19
Superfund Sites 19
RCRA Corrective Action Sites 20
Underground Storage Tank Sites 21
Department of Defense Sites 21
Department of Energy Sites 22
Civilian Federal Agency Sites 22
State and Private Party Sites 23
Using the Full Document 23
-------
Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Estimated Number of Sites to be Remediated 3
Exhibit 2: Estimated Remaining Remediation Cost in 1996 Dollars 6
Exhibit 3: Media to be Remediated 9
Exhibit 4: Contaminants to be Remediated 10
Exhibit 5: Treatment and Disposal Decisions for Source Control at NPL Sites 14
Exhibit 6: Source Control Technologies Selected for NPL Sites Through FY 1995 14
Exhibit 7: Groundwater Treatment Remedies at NPL Sites Through FY 1995 16
Exhibit 8: Percent of States With Increased Use of Treatment Technologies
at UST Sites: 1993 to 1995 17
Exhibit 9: Examples of Technology Needs Identified by Users in Selected Federal Programs .... 18
VI
-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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 applica-
tions 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.
-------
Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
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.
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, about 217,000
still require remediation (Exhibit 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.
-------
Exhibit 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.
-------
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
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 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.
-------
Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
Exhibit 2: Estimated Remaining Remediation Cost
in 1996 Dollars
70 -
S2 60 -
_re
o 50 -
Q
% 40-
O)
5 30-
(A
c 20
o ^u
a 10 -
n
$63
/
7[
S
$39
/^
71
/
$29
/Z
T
71
£
ota! = $187 Billion
$21
/ "71 $15 *,.,,
/ /H $7
U=7I
^ > > V7
Notes:
DOE RCRACA DOD UST CFA States NPL
Market Segment
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, in 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
-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Executive Summary
DOE and DOD,
combined, account
for one-half of the
total cleanup market.
facilities. This estimate does not include costs for the very large DOD
and DOE 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.b 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
to 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.
-------
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.
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
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 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.
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.
Exhibit 3: Media to be Remediated
90-
80-
70-
60-
5 40-|
0)
£
o>
a.
30-
20-
10-
82
76
71 72
72
67
72
(a)
61
| | NPL
II RCRA Corrective
II Action
| | DOD
22
Groundwater
Soil
Sediment
Media and Market Segment
Notes:
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.
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.
-------
Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
Exhibit 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.
v>
0)
Exhibit 4: Contaminants to be Remediated
80-
70-
60-
50-
40-
§30-1
£
o>
°- 20 H
10-
71
67
65
69
46
NPL
i i RCRA Corrective
I I Action
DOD
DOE
55
43
30
38
VOCs Metals
Contaminant and Market Segment
SVOCs
Notes:
-------
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
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.
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
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 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 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 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
13
-------
Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
Exhibit 5: 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 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Fiscal Year
Exhibit 6: Source Control Technologies Selected for NPL Sites
Through FY 1995
Established 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.
1 "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.
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 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
15
-------
Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
Exhibit 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 had 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 8). The UST program
technologies include more biological processes due to the inherent
biodegradability of petroleum hydrocarbons.
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.
16
-------
Markets and Technology Trends
Executive Summary
Exhibit 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
3s
014
fjl4
Uv
|J19
[26
029
030
|J32
|]34
|43
I I I I I I I
) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Percent of States
45
i r
40 45
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 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
17
-------
Executive Summary
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites
Exhibit 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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 environmental 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.
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.
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 the Full Document
Chapter 2 of the full document 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 the report.
23
------- |