United States
Environmental Protect/on
Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102W)
EPA-542-R-96-007
August 1996
EPA Market Opportunities for Innovative
Site Cleanup Technologies:
Southeastern States
-------
-------
EPA-542-R-96-007
August 1996
Market Opportunities for Innovative Site
Cleanup Technologies:
Southeastern States
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
Washington, DC 20460
-------
-------
NOTICE
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
Additional copies of this document can be obtained from: National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487-4600. When
ordering refer to document number PB-96-199518.
-------
-------
FOREWORD
The size and scope of the nation's hazardous waste problem have been well documented. In our 1993
report Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends (PB93-140762), we
provided a national perspective on the overall size of markets (Federal, state, local, and private) for
hazardous waste remediation technologies. This regional market report provides a detailed and
updated view of specific market opportunities at waste sites located in the Southeastern region of the
country. It highlights opportunities for innovative hazardous waste site cleanup in Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The information
contained in this report covers Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
corrective action, petroleum Underground Storage Tanks (UST), Federal facility, and state cleanup
programs.
The purpose of the report is to provide, under one cover, information on sites in the region that could
potentially result in market opportunities for innovative site cleanup technologies. The sites and
programs highlighted in each state represent those that would appear to provide the best near term
opportunities for cleanup technologies (2 to 5 years). The contents of this report come from a
number of state and Federal sources and represent a compilation of the best, accessible data we could
identify. We have sought to provide the most detailed data available on the specific sites and
programs, although available information sources for some programs are limited. The report seeks to
uncover potential leads for site cleanup opportunities and to give sufficient contact information to
allow interested parties to follow-up on those leads.
We would like to thank the staff from state waste programs who contributed their time and
information to the report. We would also like to thank EPA headquarters and regional personnel for
their contributions of data and subsequent review of the completed report.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Director, Technology Innovation Office
111
-------
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Section
aee
LIST OF ACRONYMS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1-1
1.1 Purpose and Scope j_3
1.2 Remediation Programs at the EPA Regional Level' 1-3
1.3 , Remediation Programs at the State Level 1_9
1.4 Remediation Programs Managed by the Departments of Defense and Energy 1-11
1.5 Summary of Findings for Each State 1_13
1.6 Survey of Innovative Treatment Technologies Typically Employed in Region 4 1-19
1.7 Sites Managed Under the Brownfields Initiative 1^20
1.8 Sources of Data Used to Develop This Report 1_22
1.9 Report Organization 1_26
2.0 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF SITES IN ALABAMA 2-1
2.1 The Alabama Hazardous Waste Management Program 2-4
2.2 The Market at Sites Managed Under State Authorities 2-5
2.3 The Market at Abandoned Sites Managed Under the Federal Superfund Program 2-5
2.4 The Market at RCRA Corrective Action Sites '.'.2-7
2.5 The Market at UST Sites Managed by the State .'.'.2-7
2.6 The Market at Federal Facility Sites in Alabama 2-8
2.7 Further Market Information for Alabama 2-10
3.0 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF SITES IN FLORIDA .. 3-1
3.1 The Florida Hazardous Waste Management Program 3.4
3.2 The Market at Sites Managed Under State Authorities 3-6
3.3 The Market at Abandoned Sites Managed Under the Federal Superfund Program 3-6
3.4 The Market at RCRA Corrective Action Sites 3-8
3.5 The Market at UST Sites Managed by the State .....3-9
3.6 The Market at Federal Facility Sites in Florida 3-10
3.7 Further Market Information for Florida 3-14
4.0 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF SITES IN GEORGIA 4-1
4.1 The Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Program 4-4
4.2 The Market at Sites Managed Under State Authorities 4-5
4.3 The Market at Abandoned Sites Managed Under the Federal Superfund Program 4-9
4.4 The Market at RCRA Corrective Action Sites 4-11
4.5 The Market at UST Sites Managed by the State 4-11
4.6 The Market at Federal Facility Sites in Georgia 4-12
4.7 Further Market Information for Georgia 4-15
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
5.0 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF SITES IN KENTUCKY 5-1
5.1 The Kentucky Hazardous Waste Management Program 5-4
5.2 The Market at Sites Managed Under State Authorities 5-4
5.3 The Market at Abandoned Sites Managed Under the Federal Superfund Program 5-5
5.4 The Market at RCRA Corrective Action Sites 5-6
5.5 The Market at UST Sites Managed by the State 5-7
5.6 The Market at Federal Facility Sites in Kentucky .' 5-8
5.7 .Further Market Information for Kentucky 5-10
6.0 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF SITES IN MISSISSIPPI 6-1
6.1 The Mississippi Hazardous Waste Management Program 6-4
6.2 The Market at Sites Managed Under State Authorities 6-5
6.3 The Market at Abandoned Sites Managed Under the Federal Superfund Program 6-5
6.4 The Market at RCRA Corrective Action Sites 6-6
6.5 The Market at UST Sites Managed by the State 6-6
6.6 The Market at Federal Facility Sites in Mississippi 6-7
6.7 Further Market Information for Mississippi 6-9
7.0 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF SITES IN NORTH CAROLINA 7-1
7.1 The North Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Program 7-4
'7.2 The Market at Sites Managed Under State Authorities 7-6
7.3 The Market at Abandoned Sites Managed Under the Federal Superfund Program 7-8
7.4 The Market at RCRA Corrective Action Sites 7-9
7.5 The Market at UST Sites Managed By the State 7-11
7.6 The Market at Federal Facility Sites in North Carolina 7-12
7.7 Further Market Information for North Carolina 7-14
8.0 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF SITES IN SOUTH CAROLINA 8-1
8.1 The South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Program 8-4
8.2 The Market at Sites Managed Under State Authorities 8-5
8.3 The Market at Sites Managed Under the Federal Superfund Program 8-5
8.4 The Market at RCRA Corrective Action Sites 8-7
8.5 The Market at UST Sites Managed by South Carolina 8-7
8.6 The Market at Federal Sites in South Carolina 8-8
8.7 Further Market Information For South Carolina 8-11
9.0 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF SITES IN TENNESSEE 9-1
9.1 The Tennessee Hazardous Waste Management Program 9-4
9.2 The Market at Sites Managed Under State Authorities 9-6
9.3 The Market at Sites Managed Under the Federal Superfund Program 9-6
9.4 The Market at RCRA Collective Action Sites 9-8
VI
-------
9.5
9.6
CONTENTS (continued)
The Market at UST Sites Managed by the State .'''. 9.3
The Market at Federal Facility Sites in Tennessee 9.9
9.6.1
9.6.2
DoD Sites
DOE Sites
. 9-9
9-11
9.7
Appendix
Further Market Information for Tennessee 9.12
A
B
C
D
LIST OF ALL REGION 4 DOD INSTALLATIONS EITHER WITH TWO OR FEWER SITES
OR ESTIMATED COSTS FOR CLEANUP OF LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO $1 MILLION
EPA REGION 4 BROWNFIELDS ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE FACT
SHEETS
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATION CONTRACTS OF
POTENTIAL INTEREST TO VENDORS OF INNOVATIVE REMEDIATION
TECHNOLOGIES
REFERENCES
Vll
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
FIGURES
Figure
1-1 Sources of Data 1-22
2-1 NPL Sites in Alabama 2-2
2-2 RCRA Facilities in Alabama 2-3
2-3 NPLSite Size Distribution for the State of Alabama 2-6
3-1 NPLSites inFlorida 3-2
3-2 RCRA Facilities in Florida 3-3
3-3 NPL Site Size Distribution for the State of Florida 3-8
4-1 NPLSites in Georgia 4-2
4-2 RCRA Facilities in Georgia 4-3
4-3 NPLSite Size Distribution for the State of Georgia 4-10
5-1 NPLSites in Kentucky 5-2
5-2 RCRA Facilities in Kentucky 5-3
5-3 NPL Site Size Distribution for the State of Kentucky 5-6
6-1 NPL Sites in Mississippi 6-2
6-2 RCRA Facilities in Mississippi 6-3
7-1 NPLSites in North Carolina 7-2
7-2 RCRA Facilities in North Carolina 7-3
7-3 NPL Site Size Distribution for the State of North Carolina 7-10
8-1 NPLSites in South Carolina 8-2
8-2 RCRA Facilities in South Carolina 8-3
8-3 NPLSite Size Distribution for the State of South Carolina 8-6
9-1 NPLSites in Tennessee 9-2
9-2 RCRA Facilities in Tennessee 9-3
9-3 NPLSite Size Distribution for the State of Tennessee 9-7
vm
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
TABLES
aee
1-1 Total Number of RCRA Facilities and Facilities Where a Corrective Measures Study Has
Been Imposed in Region 4 1.5
1-2 Total Number of RCRA Facilities and Facilities Where a RCRA Facility Investigation Has
Been Imposed in Region 4 1_7
1-3 Number of NPL Sites and Operable Units Requiring Remediation in Region 4 1-9
1-4 Number of Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites in Region 4 Presenting Potential
Opportunities I_IQ
1-5 Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures in Region 4 as of First Half of
FY96 LH
1-6 DoD Installations and Sites Located in Region 4 at Which Remedial Activities are
Planned 1-12
1-7 DOE Facilities Located in Region 4 at Which Remediation is Planned 1-13
1-8 Comparative Statistics for Marketing Opportunities in the Southeastern States 1-14
1-9 Technologies Used in Region 4 l_2i
2-1 Alabama Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund Sites at Which Marketing Opportunities
Exists 2-13
2-2 Number of Sites and Operable Units at NPL Sites in Alabama 2-5
2-3 NPL Sites in Alabama at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist 2-19
2-4 RCRA Facilities in Alabama Currently Undergoing Corrective Action 2-23
2-5 Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures in Alabama as of the
First Half of FY96 2-8
2-6 DoD Installations and Sites in Alabama 2-9
3-1 Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act Sites in Florida at Which Marketing
Opportunities Exist 3.17
3-2 Number of Sites and Operable Units at NPL Sites in Florida 3-6
3-3 NPL Sites in Florida at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist 3-20
3-4 RCRA Facilities Currently Undergoing Corrective Action in Florida 3-31
3-5 Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures in Florida as of the
First Half of FY96 3_10
3-6 DoD Installations and Sites in Florida 3-12
4-1 Georgia Hazardous Waste Site Inventory Class I Sites at Which
Remediation Activities Have Not Yet Begun 4.7
4-2 Number of Sites and Operable Units at NPL Sites in Georgia 4-9
4-3 NPL Sites in Georgia at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist 4-17
4-4 RCRA Facilities Currently Undergoing Corrective Action in Georgia 4-21
4-5 Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures in Georgia
as of First Half of FY96 4.12
4-6 DoD Installations and Sites in Georgia 4-13
5-1 Number of Sites and Operable Units at NPL Sites in Kentucky 5-5
5-2 NPL Sites in Kentucky at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist 5-13
5-3 RCRA Facilities Currently Undergoing Corrective Action in Kentucky 5-7
IX
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
5-4 Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures in Kentucky as of First Half of
FY96 5-7
5-5 DoD Installations and Sites in Kentucky 5-9
6-1 Number of Sites and Operable Units at NPL Sites in Mississippi 6-6
6-2 NPL Sites in Mississippi at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist 6-11
6-3 RCRA Facilities in Mississippi Currently Undergoing Corrective Action 6-13
6-4 Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures in Mississippi as of the
FirstHalf of FY 1996 ' 6-7
6-5 DoD Installations and Sites in Mississippi 6-8
7-1 North Carolina Priority List Sites That Require State Funds and Other Priority List
Sites That May Require State Funds 7-7
7-2 Other Sites on the North Carolina Priority Listat Which Remediation Activities May Be
Required 7-19
7-3 Number of Sites and Operable Units at North Carolina NPL Sites 7-8
7-4 NPL Sites in North Carolina at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist 7-29
7-5 RCRA Facilities Currently Undergoing Corrective Action in North Carolina 7-35
7-6 Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures in North Carolina as of the
FirstHalf of FY 1996 7-11
7-7 DoD Installations and Sites in North Carolina 7-12
8-1 Number of Sites and Operable Units at South Carolina NPL Sites 8-5
8-2 NPL Sites in South Carolina at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist 8-13
8-3 RCRA Facilities Currently Undergoing Corrective Action in South Carolina 8-18
8-4 Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures in South Carolina as of the
'FirstHalf of FY 1996 8-7
8-5 DoD Installations and Sites in South Carolina 8-9
9-1 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Superfund Promulgated
Sites As of February 15,1995 9-15
9-2 Number of Sites and Operable Units at Tennessee NPL Sites 9-7
9-3 NPL Sites in Tennessee at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist 9-21
9-4 Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures in Tennessee as of the First
Half of FY96 9-9
9-5 DoD Installations and Sites in Tennessee 9-10
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AOC Area of Concern
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLU-IN Clean-Up Information Bulletin Board System ,
CMI Corrective Measures Implementation
CMS , Corrective Measures Study
DENTX Defense Environmental Network for Information eXchange
DEP Division of Environmental Protection
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
DERA Defense Environmental Restoration Account
DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program
DNREC Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
DoD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
El Environmental Indicators
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FFID Federal Facility Identification Number
FTP File Transfer Protocol
FUDS Formerly Used Defense Site
FY Fiscal Year
HRS Hazard Ranking System '
HSCA Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MDE Maryland Department of the Environment
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NPL National Priorities List
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OUST Office of Underground Storage Tanks
PA Preliminary Assessment
PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCE Perchloroethylene
PNA Polynuclear Aromatics
POL Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
RD Remedial Design
RELAI Responsive Electronic Link Access Interface
XI
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS (continued)
RFA RCRA Facility Assessment
RFI RCRA Facility Investigation
RI/FS Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
RID ROD Information Database
ROD Record of Decision
RP Responsible Party
RPM Remedial Project Manager
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SI .Site Inspection
SNAP Superfund NPL Assessment Program
SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compound
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE Trichloroethylene
TIO Technology Innovation Office
TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
UST Underground Storage Tank
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VISITT Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
VRP Voluntary Remediation Program
xu
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The purpose of this report is to provide vendors and developers of innovative hazardous waste site
treatment technologies a resource to determine potential technology needs present in the Southeastern
states in order to support them in developing marketing plans for the region. This report was prepared
under the direction of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OS WER) Technology
Innovation Office (TIO) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It provides information on
potential site clean-up marketing opportunities in EPA's Region 4, which covers Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. This regional market
report is a companion to a 1993 national survey report developed by TIO, Cleaning up the Nation's Waste
Sites: Markets and Technology Trends. That report presented a broad national survey of the potential
markets for innovative hazardous waste remediation technologies, and this report presents more specific
descriptions to help identify potential markets in the Southeastern region. For the purposes of this report,
innovative treatment technologies for remediation are defined as those technologies for which a lack of
cost and performance data inhibit their routine consideration and use.
This introductory section presents the purpose and scope of the report, a description of the methodology
used to collect market information, a brief discussion of the market-driving regulatory programs at the EPA
regional level, an overview of market opportunities at the state levels, and a general discussion of potential
markets available at Federal facilities. In Region 4, the Federal facility universe consists, for the most part,
of Department of Defense (DoD) installations and Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. The remainder
of this section provides summary findings for the Region, along with a discussion of technologies that have
been employed throughout the Region and a discussion of how to use the document.
The main body of the report, Sections 2 through 9, provides detailed accounts of the potential markets for
innovative hazardous waste remediation technologies in each Southeastern state. This report also contains
four appendices: Appendix A contains a list of DoD installations taken from DoD's Defense
Environmental Response Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994 with two or fewer
sites or estimated costs for cleanup of less than or equal to $1 million (larger sites are described in the
individual state chapters); Appendix B contains EPA-produced fact sheets concerning the Brownfields
Economic Redevelopment Initiative; Appendix C contains information on various Federal environmental
investigation and remediation contracts of potential interest to vendors of innovative remediation
technologies; and Appendix D contains a list of references used to prepare this report.
1-1
-------
The main findings of this report are:
Underground storage tank (UST) sites (not including USTs on DoD facilities; DoD USTs
are discussed as part of DoD sites) present the greatest opportunity, in terms of absolute
number of sites (There are 27,401 confirmed release UST sites that require cleanup),
though not in complexity of remediation tasks, for marketers of innovative remediation
technologies, followed by DoD sites, Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites, and
in states that maintain an abandoned hazardous waste site programs, abandoned hazardous
waste sites managed by the state."
There are more than 557 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) treatment,
storage, or disposal (TSD) facilities in EPA Region 4 of which 16 are currently under a
requirement to conduct a corrective measures study (CMS), indicating that a corrective
action will be conducted at the facility in the near future. Of the RCRA TSDs, 223 have
been required to conduct an RCRA facility investigation (RFI). Based on EPA experience
at sites nationwide, the majority of those facilities are also likely to undergo some form of
corrective action. RCRA facilities subject to corrective action, at which a requirement for
a CMS or a RFI has been imposed, are the smallest market in terms of absolute number of
sites. However, as time passes, the RCRA segment of the market is likely to grow.
RCRA facilities may, however, represent longer term opportunities.
There are 174 sites in Region 4 that are listed on the NPL of which 97 present potential
opportunities for marketers of innovative remediation technologies. At those 97 sites,
there are 248 operable units that require remediation.
There are 1,265 hazardous waste sites that require remediation under state programs.
There are 97 DoD installations in Region 4. On those installations, there are 1,023 sites at
which cleanup is planned.
There are 6 DOE facilities in Region 4. At those facilities, there are 73 sites at which
cleanup is planned.
Birmingham, Alabama; Prichard, Alabama; Atlanta, Georgia; Clearwater, Florida; Miami,
Florida; Louisville, Kentucky; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Knoxville, Tennessee have
been designated as pilot project sites under the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment
Initiative.
Innovative remediation technologies have been selected for use at 40 NPL sites, DoD
sites, DOE sites, or RCRA sites in Region 4.
Information on RCRA and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) sites are from data gathered in the summer of 1995. Numbers have been updated in
the UST and state programs based on comments from officials in these programs.
1-2
-------
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This report provides a vendor interested in exploring remediation market possibilities in the Southeastern
region with information to determine whether there is a potential need for the technology the vendor sells
and in which states the opportunities for marketing can be found. TIO believes that the report will be a
valuable tool for vendors interested in determining future markets for their technologies. The report
provides vendors with an overview of the regional market by identifying, on a state by state basis,
promising opportunities at RCRA facilities, sites listed on the Superfund NPL, and Federal facilities. TIO
believes that these resources will provide marketers of innovative technologies with an improved capability
to initially identify opportunities and to augment their marketing strategies.
The report illustrates the general state of the remediation market in Region 4 by highlighting specific
information on individual facilities and government installations in need of remediation. The report also
provides information on the potential predisposition of EPA and the states to use innovative technologies
as solutions to problems related to the remediation of hazardous wastes by identifying past uses of such
technologies. To the extent possible, information is supplied in an identical format for each state, so that
comparisons can be made among the states of the numbers and types of opportunities that might be
available to vendors. However, the level of detail varies from state to state, depending on the amount of
data available and the accessibility of the data.
1.2 Remediation Programs at the EPA Regional Level
This section discusses hazardous waste remediation programs in EPA Region 4. Although UST programs
are run by the states, RCRA authorities are delegated to the states, and Superfund programs can be
complemented by the states, regional staff of the Waste Management Division are responsible for EPA
oversight of those activities. The EPA Region 4 Waste Management Division consists of two offices, the
Office of RCRA and Federal facilities and the Office of Superfund and Emergency Response. UST
activities are handled by the Water Management Division Groundwater Protection Branch, UST Section.
Information on opportunities in UST remediation and at Federal facilities is provided in Sections 1.3 and
1.4.
RCRA
In the Office of RCRA are the RCRA Permitting and Compliance Branch and the Federal Facilities
Branch. (The Federal Facilities Branch is composed of two sections, each responsible for all remedial
1-3
-------
activities at either DoD or DOE facilities in the Region.) The Permitting and Compliance Branch has two
sections, one manages permits and the other manages compliance. Each section has four units:
• North Carolina and South Carolina
• Georgia and Florida
• Kentucky and Tennessee
• Alabama and Mississippi
The permits section also is responsible for corrective action activities.
In the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA, Congress directed EPA to
require corrective action for all releases of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents from solid waste
management units (SWMU) at facilities seeking RCRA permits (that is, hazardous waste treatment,
storage, on disposal facilities or TSDs) regardless of the time at which waste was placed in the units.
SWMUs are discemable units at which solid wastes have been placed at any time, irrespective of whether
the unit was intended for the management of solid or hazardous waste. SWMUs typically include landfills,
surface impoundments, waste piles, tanks, land treatment units, container storage areas, incinerators,
wastewater treatment units, waste recycling units, injection wells, and other physical, chemical or
biological treatment units. SWMUs also may include areas where routine and systematic releases to the
environment have occurred, such as loading and unloading areas or "kickback drippage" areas located at
wood preserving facilities.
The RCRA corrective action process is structured around four elements common to most clean up
activities: initial site assessment (RCRA Facility Assessment or RFA); site characterization (RCRA
Facility Investigation or RFI); interim actions; evaluation of remedial alternatives (RCRA Corrective
Measures Study or CMS); and implementation of the selected remedy (RCRA Corrective Measures
Implementation or CMI). These elements typically occur, to one degree or another, during most clean ups.
Owners or operators of facilities subject to RCRA corrective action will proceed to limited or full-scale site
characterization (that is, RFT) after the RFA is performed. Release assessments (sometimes referred to as
Phase 1 assessments) also are used to confirm or reduce uncertainty about SWMUs, areas of concern (areas
which warrant investigations, regardless of whether they are associated with a specific SWMU), and
potential releases identified during the RFA.
1-4
-------
A successful RFI will identify the presence, movement, fate, and risks associated with environmental
contamination at a site and will determine the chemical and physical properties of the site likely to
influence contaminant migration and cleanup. Data produced by the RFI also will be used to evaluate
remedial alternatives specified by the CMS. Under the RCRA corrective action program, EPA intends to
clean up sites in a manner consistent both with the CERCLA program and with available, protective, risk-
based cleanup standards (such as maximum contaminant levels [MCL] and state cleanup standards).
When such standards do not exist, EPA will clean up sites to the level of the protective clean up standards
for media developed through a site-specific risk assessment.
The CMI involves detailed remedy design, remedy construction, remedy operation and maintenance, and
remedy completion and generally is conducted in accordance with an approved plan.
Interim actions may be used to control or abate ongoing risks to human health and the environment in
advance of the final remedy selection. Interim actions at RCRA facilities can include a wide range of
activities, such as source removal, installation of a pump-and-treat system, and institutional controls. The
importance of interim actions at RCRA corrective action facilities is emphasized in EPA's Stabilization
Initiative that requires interim actions to be employed as early in the corrective action process as possible,
consistent with the environmental objective and priorities for the site. Generally, interim actions should be
compatible with, or a component of, the final remedy.
RCRA corrective action is implemented through the permitting process for TSDFs and corrective action
orders. Corrective action and schedules of compliance are required for facilities seeking a permit, when
corrective action cannot be completed prior to permit issuance. Typically, corrective action orders have
been used to address releases of hazardous waste at interim status facilities.
Vendors interested in competing for work should focus on those facilities where a CMS has been imposed
and not yet been approved, because, in such cases, technology vendors may not yet have been chosen. The
event "CMS imposed" was chosen as a good indicator of facilities requiring corrective action in the near-
term. Once a CMS has been imposed, it is almost certain that corrective action will be performed at a
facility. Information on the number of RFIs also is included because it gives a general indication of sites
that will also undergo corrective action in the near future. Also, due to the stabilization initiative, not every
facility to be remediated will require a CMS. The stabilization initiative encourages near-term measures
ranging from exposure controls through pump-and-treat systems to contain groundwater. These measures
need to be implemented as early in the process as possible, preferably in the RFI. The stabilization
1-5
-------
initiative directs implementers to stabilize facilities and then proceed to the next high priority facility,
instead of proceeding through to the final remedy. These sites also may present near-term opportunities.
Table 1-1 below indicates the total number of facilities in Region 4 regulated under RCRA, the number of
facilities where a CMS has been imposed, and the number of facilities where a CMS has been approved.
The number of facilities with a CMS imposed is not a direct subset of RCRA treatment, storage, and
disposal (TSD) facilities, instead it is a subset of TSD facilities and hazardous waste generators. While
TSD facilities are starutorily required to address corrective action, EPA has discretionary authority to
impose corrective action on generators.
Table 1-1
Total Number of RCRA Facilities and Facilities
Where a Corrective Measures Study Has Been Imposed or Approved in Region 4
; State,
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
:'Tof^L"";:;:':'\ 'L-:
RCRA^acilities,
55
90
98
80
33
72
68
61
1" ; •ii'.'t-SSjf'Sji^liiljJsl
RCR^ITacilMes Where '
A Corrective .Measures" *
t "Stody Has Been' *s%
' '-J ' •> ^X..,' * x *.
1 „ -unposecTj,,, < -
4
4
8
1
1
8
2
1
,'RCRASacHi«es Wfefre}
" A JCorjrecfive, Measures "
«* ^Siady Has Been \v
5 >•&•>" t^r t .. 1°X
Appi»veab,?i*v
3
2
3
0
0
3
1
1
Source: RCRIS Regional Oversight database, June 1995
a Facilities where a CMS has been imposed are identified here because they present the best marketing opportunities for
innovative technology vendors.
b Facilities where a CMS has been approved are identified Jiere because they also present marketing opportunities for
innovative technology vendors.
Table 1-2 below indicates the total number of facilities in Region 4 regulated under RCRA, the number of
facilities that have an RFI imposed, and the number of facilities where an RFI has been approved. The
number of facilities with an REE imposed is not a direct subset of RCRA TSD facilities, instead it is a
1-6
-------
subset of TSD facilities and hazardous waste generators. While TSD facilities are statutorily required to
address corrective action, EPA has discretionary authority to impose corrective action on generators.
Table 1-2
Total Number of RCRA Facilities and Facilities
Where a RCRA Facility Investigation Has Been Imposed or Approved in Region 4
•>" •*• rf v> %'„ J*~
4 „ A «
5V ~* * *• Nv. **•»
-? X «
, > *\ » ?» „ * *
w>" Vstate> "-
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
TOTABy .- \~J-
'J ; ^ , f, >*
- -:^ '* .V"v
\ J- s '<" * .*
RCRA Facilities',
55
90
98
80
33
72
68
61
> /
' ^ -C-CT •s'5 *
^, 557- ^ ,
RCRA f actKties^Mre-
^ vAjEtCRA. Facility « 4-
Investigatiori Has Been.
* ^ Im|Tosed* ~x \
32
43
64
18
22
40
42
21
X - 282^ ;;••
RCRAFacttities Where^
C "ATk&MtefiuSBfy'* ^
;Iov«s«gailoiilH:asB^0,
^,Approve^l& > •*!'
5
7
23
1
3
9
7
4
* / '- V59S^ 'r >
Source: RCRIS Regional Oversight database, June 1995
" Facilities where an RFI has been imposed are identified here because not every facility will go through a CMS. Therefore,
they also present marketing opportunities for innovative technology vendors.
Facilities where an RFI has been approved are identified here because they also present marketing opportunities for
innovative technology vendors.
CERCLA
The process prescribed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) for listing a site on the NPL is to perform a preliminary assessment (PA), followed by a
site inspection (SI). In cases in which situations immediately dangerous to human health and the
environment are detected through the PA or SI, a site may be subject to a removal action to minimize that
danger. Typically, however, data from the PA and SI are used to score the site under the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS) to determine whether remediation is necessary. Sites that score at or above 28.50 using the
HRS may be listed on the NPL. Once a site has been listed on the NPL, EPA begins to search for
potentially responsible parties (PRP) and ensures the initiation of the remedial investigation and feasibility
study (RI/FS). Data from the RI/FS are used in selecting the appropriate cleanup technologies and
strategies for the site.
1-7
-------
The results of the RI/FS, including the rationale for the selection of a remedy, are documented in the
Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD provides a variety of useful information to vendors, including
information about the technologies selected as the appropriate remedy for the site, the volumes of waste
potentially to be treated, and the rationale for selection or rejection of particular technologies. After the
ROD has been signed, remedial design (RD) begins, which is then followed by remedial action (RA). For
fund lead sites (sites where cleanup is paid for by the federal government from the Superfund Trust Fund
created under CERCLA), the RD information is used in preparing the bidding documents for the site.
After completion of the bid process, the RA itself begins. PRP lead sites may follow a similar, formal, bid
process, or the PRP(s) may have engaged a firm to perform the RI/FS and then build, design, and operate
the remediation technology during the RD/RA phase.
The Region 4 Office of Superfund and Emergency Response has three branches responsible for removal
and remediation activities. The Emergency Response and Removal Branch, responsible for removals, will
not be discussed further, since its activities are of little interest to most vendors. The two branches
responsible for remedial activities are organized geographically, each having three sections. The North
Superfund and Remedial Branch has a Kentucky and Tennessee Section, a North Carolina Section, and a
South Carolina Section. The South Superfund and Remedial Branch has an Alabama, Georgia and
Mississippi Section, a North Florida Section, and a South Florida Section. Staff in the various sections are
responsible for oversight of day-to-day operations at NPL sites. Table 1-3 provides information on the
total number of NPL sites, including federal facility sites, that present potential opportunities for
innovative technology vendors in the Southeastern region. Federal facility sites managed by the DoD are
shown in Table 1-6 (presented on page 1-13).
In addition, information on the number of NPL sites in the pre-remedial phases of activity or remedial
phases of activity is provided in each state section. Sites in the pre-remedial phases of activity are sites
where remedial design and construction have not yet begun, although a remedy may have been chosen.
These sites present long-term opportunities for vendors because the remediation technology has not yet
been selected. Sites in the remedial phases of activity are sites where remedial design activities have
begun, but construction might not have begun. Where technologies have been selected, but no vendor has
been chosen, a site may present a short-term business opportunity.
UST
The Region 4 Water Management Division's Groundwater Protection Branch, UST section, oversees UST
activities. The UST section oversees all UST activities on Indian lands and in the State of Tennessee,
because Tennessee does not have the regulatory authority to regulate USTs that contain hazardous wastes.
1-8
-------
Table 1-3
Number of NPL Sites and Operable Units
Requiring Remediation in Region 4
State
S „ * »
Number of Sites^
Dumber of
Alabama
10
19
Florida
29
68
Georgia
10
17
Kentucky
10
16
Mississippi
North Carolina
15
31
South Carolina
15
47
Tennessee
49
1.3 Remediation Programs at the State Level
This section discusses hazardous waste remediation programs in each of the Southeastern states. All
Southeastern region states have enacted legislation to identify and fund cleanup of hazardous waste sites.
In general, these programs place an emphasis on those sites that do not qualify for Federal CERCLA
funding. Therefore, more sites could potentially be addressed under these state programs if funding is
adequate. Some state laws and programs also address NPL sites in that they allow the collection and
payment of 10 percent matching funds from Superfund. Three states in Region 4 are authorized to conduct
the corrective action portion of the RCRA program. Staff from North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia programs have indicated that their corrective action programs follow EPA's and that no sites other
than the sites listed in EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRIS) in
the three states were subject to corrective action. In discussions with staff from Florida and Tennessee, it
was determined that, while those states are not authorized to conduct the RCRA corrective action program,
the states do have separate state corrective action programs. A discussion of the process by which the
states manage their programs is found in each state section.
Table 1-4 presents the number of hazardous waste sites presenting potential opportunities under state
hazardous waste cleanup programs. The data included in the table were obtained from two separate
sources. The number of sites identified as future opportunities by states was based on interviews with state
personnel and state lists of hazardous waste sites that require remediation. The number of sites identified
1-9
-------
as needing attention was obtained from EPA's An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study,
1995 Update.
In 1984, HSWA amended RCRA by adding Subtitle I. Subtitle I authorized the creation of a regulatory
program to manage USTs that contain petroleum products and any substance defined as hazardous under
CERCLA.
All states in the Southeastern region manage individual UST programs. Those programs' regulations are
similar to the Federal regulations, although some might be more stringent. UST sites comprise the largest
group of sites requiring remediation in Region 4. As of March 31,1996, confirmed releases had been
reported at approximately 17 percent of the universe of active and closed tank sites in the Southeastern
region, as shown in Table 1-5. Of the confirmed releases, cleanup has not yet been initiated at 27,401 UST
sites. This number represents the difference between total "confirmed releases" and total "cleanups
initiated." The number of UST sites identified here as marketing opportunities will change rapidly,
because of the combination of rapid increases in the number of confirmed releases and continuing site
closures. State-specific information about obtaining lists of UST sites requiring remediation and state
requirements for doing business are provided in each state section. Because specific data on individual
sites are voluminous, information is presented in this report only in summary form.
Table 1-4
Number of Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites
in Region 4 Presenting Potential Opportunities
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
TOTAL
141
11
336
238
156
158
70
155
125
656
82
600
156
814C
120
198
* Based on interviews with state personnel and state lists of hazardous waste sites that require remediation.
b Accordingto EPA's An Analysis of'State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 1995 Update.
0 Number provided by the State of North Carolina.
1-10
-------
Table 1-5
Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures in Region 4 as of First Half of FY96
: ^> * **^t&S\£^ ^ '"•^i?" •*i|f'< \
£$^&0&&j™^#$?f'
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
•te&c&f
•'i{?:?»S:--'K¥4r5*,¥>*
^JNiimjfer;f£fj
..y^c&wSTaniB SI
22,227
42,158
49,005
22,560
11,602
41,942
19,302
28,103
i > '„".? v ' ~-;.^
$"--*~j*2Sfc8St9
»4*> *v"X £;V> ^i
fiifj&y-jf
Siaos<^
19,687
71,597
15,677
18,701
16,715
50,619
21,467
24,721
i;;:i^239is4:
^^finaedV
^Sfeefeases1
7,934
25,184
6,147
6,131
4,408
18,474
4,260
8,154
- -W •&*•>, *«'^ ss
"*(r lisfc&i
, Cleanups, :
'• Initiated
6,572
4,569
4,855
6,068
4,290
17,537
2,133
7,267
SV,^ * ,.. >-'"y-ss' •>
^v .'-sacMir
•A. ^ "*"
i Cleanups ?
Completed
5,696
3,040
2,469
4,918
4,006
12,254
629
6,647
^.,4 A>« s<
*J/^»jfi»
° Cleanups Rot*"
"YfitMaated:-
1,362
20,615
1,292
63
118
937
2,127
887
1 f^r^*^
'^ <**=', .^Z7;4(HL
Source: EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks Semi-Annual Activity Report for the First Half of Fiscal Year 1996 (ending
March 31,1996)
1.4 Remediation Programs Managed by the Departments of Defense and Energy
Together, DoD and DOE manage the largest remediation programs in the world. According to the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994 (otherwise known
as the Defense Environmental Restoration Program or DERP report) and the DOE 5-Year Plan, the
average yearly budget for remedial actions conducted by the two departments combined exceeds $10
billion per year.
DOE and DoD manage many installations in Region 4 under their environmental programs.
Nationally, DoD, through the DERP, is responsible for cleaning up hazardous wastes and constituents at
more than 21,000 sites on more than 1,700 active DoD installations and formerly used defense sites
(FUDS). DERP is responsible for ensuring that the program is meeting its cleanup targets, assisting DoD
Components (Army, Navy, Air Force, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Nuclear Agency, and the FUDS
Branch) with their cleanup strategies, and assisting in the development of the budget. Decisions about
individual cleanups at DoD installations are made by staff of the DoD Components.
As Table 1-6 indicates, there are 97 DoD installations located in EPA Region 4 that either are projecting to
spend more than $1 million on all phases of remedial action activities or have three or more sites. Of the
1-11
-------
1,976 active sites at those installations, cleanup activities are planned for 1,023; the remaining sites require
no further response action. Contaminants found at DoD sites can include hazardous wastes regulated
under RCRA and CERCLA. The wastes typically found at such sites include:
• Petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL)
• Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
• Heavy metals
Acids
The contaminants listed above can be found in soils, sludges, groundwater, and surface water.
Specific site data are discussed in each of the state sections examining the market at DoD sites.
Table 1-6
DoD Installations and Sites Located in Region 4 at Which Remedial Activities are Planned
- State
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
TOTAL", ";"• : " *
Number of
Installations*. . -
13
23
15
6
7
13
11
9
97
\ < t. „", "" \ *."
w %v '
*\ *-" ''
'*-- ActiYe,Sitesb- ; - -
304
515
226
146
61
206
284
234
-IT 1*076** ** *"*~T
xi, v iL,yt\t **^ *• f
f - Sites At^lVMcJbt • I' ^
'Gl^nup^urreferfyJs"
.» u VjOamiecF : £ *
121
309
78
67
38
149
99
162
"> -A"H fVrl^/*? *>*X
« -, ^ 1,023 P-« s. ?
Source: Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994
* Installations where there are three or more sites and that have an estimate of more than $1 million for cleanup activities.
b Sites, at which some form of remediation activity (including studies, remedial design, remedial action, or interim action) is
planned or underway.
c Sites at which future remedial action is planned. This number might increase as new sites are added to the individual
installation sites inventories.
1-12
-------
DOE, through the Environmental Restoration Program (ERP), is responsible for the remediation of 96 sites
located at 55 facilities throughout the United States. Like DERP, ERP is responsible for monitoring
progress toward cleanup targets. Decisions about individual cleanup actions also are made at the facility
level.
Table 1-8 below, shows the number of DOE facilities found in each state in Region 4. States that have no
DOE facilities subject to remedial or corrective action are not included. Further detail on each of the
facilities is found in each state section in the subsection that describes the market at Federal sites.
Table 1-7
DOE Facilities Located in Region 4
at Which Remediation is Planned
\V ." ".State \ <^-Y '
Florida
Kentucky
South Carolina
Tennessee
.^TALV' <* ^fe-^VV:^
NmnljeroJfFjacilifies^ ^"-/
1
1
1
3
:^5^>f'r3£f *^:r^>s^
. / * ; " ^Numbjer otSites - ," * H"
7
7
33
26
&< • •tiM^Sit^^'SSS
1.5 Summary of Findings for Each State
This section provides a brief comparison and summary of the information appearing in the individual state
sections. Table 1-8 compares the numbers of marketing opportunities in the Southeastern states. The table
includes the number of abandoned hazardous waste sites identified by the state programs as needing
cleanup, NPL sites and operable units, RCRA facilities for which a requirement for a CMS has been
imposed, RCRA facilities for which a requirement for an RFI has been imposed, USTs that require
cleanup, DoD installations and sites at those installations, and DOE facilities and sites at those facilities.
1-13
-------
Table 1-8
Comparative Statistics for Marketing Opportunities in the Southeastern States
\
f
Hazardous Waste Sites
Under State Programs
Requiring Remediation
•V f
NPL Sites Requiring
Remediation
* v
Operable Units
RCRA Facilities at Which a
CMS is Imposed" (>
-3* A V {
RCRA Facilities at Which an
RFJ is Imposed" ' " c >
* f
Confirmed Release UST Sites
ThatReqtairrCleaiup1^"
DtfD installations V < ' '
'Pqt)4tes a{aeatf«ji>\!
. ~. < " «* ' ^ *i 4s „ * < ^ *t
__ is Planned ?/ « ; ^ i* <
* H "!<,«.' ^. j
\DOEFacillties >>c^ / » ^
^ Vj 4 7* fr M J *
% - = -=/ v • - i
i ' *" • - .
- *r" " -
Alabama
141
10
19
1
27
1,362
13
121
0
.-a.. -,/._»;;•-'
^Florida :i
11
29
68
2
36
20,615
23
309
1
Georgia '•
336
10
17
5
41
1,292
15
78
0
Kentucky
238
10
16
1
17
63
6
67
1
' - '" ,-;.'"'•*'
Mississippi ;
156
1
1
1
19
118
7
38
0
North
'Carolina
158
15
31
5
31
937
13
149
0
South
Carolina ;
70
15
47
1
35
2,127
11
99
1,
- !;V -'•
Tennessee I
155
7
49
0
17
887
9
162
3
Toial
1,265
97
248
16
223
27,401
97
1,023
6
Source: CERCIJS, RCRIS, RELAI, the Semi-Annual Activity Report for the First Half of Fiscal Year 1996, state agency databases and the DERP report; see Section 1.8 for a detailed
description of the data sources.
a Represents Ihe difference between the number of CMSs or RFIs imposed and Ihe number thai have been approved in each slate.
b Represents Ihe difference between Ihe number of confirmed releases and Ihe number of cleanups Iniliaied In each slate.
1-14
-------
In reviewing the data available for each state, it was found that UST sites present the greatest opportunity,
in terms of absolute number of sites, (though not in complexity of remediation tasks) for marketers of
innovative technologies, followed by DoD sites, NPL sites, and in states that maintain an abandoned
hazardous waste site program, abandoned hazardous waste sites managed by the state. RCRA facilities
subject to corrective action, at which a requirement for a CMS has been imposed, are the next smallest
market in terms of absolute numbers of sites. It is important to realize that, as time passes, the RCRA
segment of the market is likely to grow. Facilities required to conduct RFIs are not included in the
summaries because they are not considered near-term opportunities. Based on EPA experience at sites
nationwide, the majority of those facilities are also likely to undergo some form of corrective action. They
may, however, represent longer term opportunities. DOE sites offer, in terms of absolute number of sites,
the smallest opportunity to vendors.
Following are brief summaries of the markets in each state in EPA Region 4 that focus on near-term
opportunities.
Alabama
The State of Alabama provides the following near-term opportunities for vendors of innovative
technologies:
The Alabama Department of Environmental Management lists 141 sites, governed by
Alabama state authorities, each of which requires remediation.
EPA manages an inventory of 13 NPL sites, there are 10 of which require further remedial
action. At the NPL sites, 19 operable units present opportunities for vendors.
One of the State's 55 RCRA facilities are under a requirement to conduct a CMS.
Current data on UST sites indicate that cleanup has not yet been initiated at 1,362 sites
within confirmed releases in Alabama.
There are currently 121 sites at 13 DoD installations at which cleanup activities are planned.
1-15
-------
The State of Florida provides the following near-term opportunities for vendors of innovative technologies.
• The Florida Department of Environmental Protection manages 11 abandoned hazardous
waste sites.
• EPA manages an inventory of 58 NPL sites, 29 of which require remedial action. At the
NPL sites, 68 operable units present opportunities for vendors.
• Two of the State's 90 RCRA facilities are under a requirement to conduct a CMS.
• Current data on UST sites indicate that cleanup has not yet been initiated at 20,615 sites with
confirmed releases in the State.
• There are currently 309 sites at 23 DoD installations at which cleanup activities are planned.
• There are seven sites at one DOE facility at which cleanup activities are planned.
Georgia
The State of Georgia provides the following near-term opportunities for vendors of innovative
technologies.
• The State currently has 336 sites subject to remediation under State regulations.
• EPA manages an inventory of 13 NPL sites, 10 of which require further remedial action. At
those 10 sites, 7 operable units present opportunities for vendors.
• Five of the State's 98 RCRA facilities are under a requirement to conduct a CMS.
• Current data on UST sites indicate that cleanup has not yet been initiated at 1,292 sites with
confirmed releases in the State.
• There are currently 78 sites at 15 DoD installations at which cleanup activities are planned.
1-16
-------
Kentucky
The State of Kentucky provides the following near-term opportunities for vendors of innovative
technologies.
• There are 238 sites classified as active that are managed by the Kentucky Department of
Environmental Protection, each of which requires remediation.
EPA manages an inventory of 20 NPL sites. At those 20 sites, 10 require remedial action.
At those 10 sites, 16 operable units present opportunities for vendors.
One of the State's 80 RCRA facilities is under a requirement to conduct a CMS.
• Current data on UST sites indicate that cleanup has not yet been initiated at 63 sites with
confirmed releases in the State.
There are currently 67 sites at 6 DoD installations at which cleanup activities are planned.
• There are seven sites at one DOE facility at which cleanup activities are planned.
Mississippi
The State of Mississippi provides the following near-term opportunities for vendors of innovative
technologies.
The State of Mississippi Uncontrolled Sites List includes 156 sites, each of which requires
remedial action.
EPA manages an inventory of four NPL sites, one of which requires remedial action. At that
site, one operable unit presents opportunities for vendors.
One of the State's 33 RCRA facilities is under a requirement to conduct a CMS.
Current data on UST sites indicate that cleanup has not yet been initiated at 118 sites with
confirmed releases in the State.
There are currently 38 sites at 7 DoD installations at which cleanup activities are planned.
1-17
-------
North Carolina
The State of North Carolina provides the following near-term opportunities for vendors of innovative
technologies.
The State Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites Priority List includes 158 sites.
i
• EPA manages an inventory of 23 NPL sites, 15 of which require further remedial action. At
those 15 sites, 31 operable units present opportunities for vendors.
• Six of the State's 72 RCRA facilities are under a requirement to conduct a CMS.
Current data on UST sites indicate that cleanup has not yet been initiated at 937 sites with
confirmed releases in the State.
• There are currently 149 sites at 13 DoD installations at which cleanup activities are planned.
South Carolina
The State of South Carolina provides the following near-term opportunities for vendors of innovative
technologies.
• The State currently has 70 sites subject to remediation under State regulations.
EPA manages an inventory of 25 NPL sites, 15 of which require further remedial action. At
those 15 sites, 47 operable units present opportunities for vendors.
• Two of the State's 68 RCRA facilities are under a requirement to conduct a CMS.
• Current data on UST sites indicate that cleanup has not yet been initiated at 2,127 sites with
confirmed releases in the State.
• There are currently 99 sites at 11 DoD installations at which cleanup activities are planned.
There are currently 33 sites at 1 DOE facility at which cleanup activities are planned.
1-18
-------
Tennessee
The State of Tennessee provides the following near-term opportunities for vendors of innovative
technologies.
The State currently has 155 sites subject to remediation under State regulations.
• EPA manages an inventory of 18 NPL sites, 7 of which require further remedial action. At
those nine sites, 49 operable units present opportunities for vendors.
• One of the State's 61 RCRA facilities is under a requirement to conduct a CMS.
• Current data on UST sites indicate that cleanup has not yet been initiated at 887 sites with
confirmed releases in the State.
There are currently 162 sites at 9 DoD installations and FUDs at which cleanup activities are
planned.
• There are currently 3 DOE facilities at 26 sites which cleanup activities are planned.
1.6 Survey of Innovative Treatment Technologies Typically Employed in Region 4
Information provided in this survey comes from EPA's Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status
Report (Seventh Edition), published in September 1995 and the Innovative Treatment Technology
Database. The Annual Status Report provides data on the use of innovative technologies at Superfund
sites undergoing either remedial or removal actions. It is also useful as a guide to the technologies that
have been accepted in a particular state.
1-19
-------
U.S. EPA/Natibna! pentet for^tYii
•^r-: -„'•••;.! * '•:~*-j-"«-i^»r< «/^vy-.-i>?S'«i»i
Fax Number:
Phone Verification::
Allow,4-6 weeks for delivery^
sources:
As Table 1-9 indicates, as of the seventh edition of the Annual Status Report, innovative technologies were
selected or used in remedial actions at NPL sites in all states except Mississippi in Region 4. The single
most common innovative technology employed at 14 NPL sites in Region 4 was soil vapor extraction. The
next most popular technology was ex situ bioremediation, used at 10 NPL sites in Region 4. The most
common medium treated by the innovative technologies was soil, followed by sludge. The contaminants
most often treated by the specific technologies were VOCs and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC).
Specific information on numerous innovative treatment technologies and sites where they have been
employed is available in the Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISlTf),
a free electronic database developed by TIO to assist vendors to market their technologies. Information on
how technology vendors can participate in VISITT is provided in the figure box on page 1-25.
1.7 Sites Managed Under the Brovrafields Initiative
EPA is awarding 60 cooperative agreements to states, cities, towns, counties, and tribes to revitalize
communities by redeveloping abandoned, contaminated industrial or commercial land — known as
"Brownfields" — and returning these properties to productive land use. The projects are part of the Clinton
Administration's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative, which was launched in November
1-20
-------
Table 1-9 ,"
Technologies Used in Region 4
t^^x^S^;
|-r:\ . £*; ^t^'^i &&3& >y
;45;^U^i&^E4^
•»* ^l;'f iPechnoIogy^^;
Bioremediation (ex situ)
Bioremediation (in situ)
Dechlorination
In situ flushing
Soil vapor extraction
Soil washing
Thermal desorption
Other technologies
jv ? x^ ^x<^4> \rx *
• -^Vv^.-W «.^Si-?*
V J&imber.of , t<
>!'»"*•** ^ ^ ^^J^V
\ tastMices^qlv- .
s^ecfiBoiogy^^:4i%%
a^t^^ic
A^'vS[&lfces|;U:l
FL, GA, SC
FL
KY,SC
AL, FL, NC
FL, GA, NC,
SQTN
FL,NC
AL, KY, NC,
SQTN
NQSC
vVf"V^»:\jv''->^
^.v^i!i;-i\ vsv»\^ ^,
< ;^\?-:^:^
s- ^Me'dia* ,K><\
'x^T^ted;^
SO, SL
SO
SO
SO
SO, SL
SO, SL
SO,SL
GW,SO
^ '?•?? ^ v v-' ^y-.^rv/
,^V\^^^Vx;?A-
f i^4|;i^I\<"Sx|t'4
^*'S>•„ "•'-.jA4' X^SS^ ^ ^j^X v fl>
voc, svoc,
PCB, Pesticides
VOC, SVOC, PCB
VOC, PCB
VOC
VOC
VOC, SVOC,
PCB, Metals
VOC, SVOC,
PCB, Pesticides
VOC, Cyanide
Source: Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (Seventh Edition)
40 NPL sites in Region 4 are using innovative treatment technologies; however, because one site may use more than one
technology, the total shown here is 45.
SO = soil, SL = sludge, GW = groundwater
VOC = volatile organic compounds, SVOC = semivolatile organic compounds, PCB = polychlorinated biphenyls
1993. The projects are targeted to receive $200,000 in funding from EPA over two years. The Region 4
projects are located in Birmingham, Alabama; Prichard, Alabama; Clearwater, Florida; Atlanta, Georgia;
Miami, Florida; Louisville, Kentucky; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Knoxville, Tennessee. Appendix B
includes EPA-produced fact sheets concerning the Region 4 Brownfields Initiative pilot projects.
1-21
-------
1.8 Sources of Data Used to Develop This Report
The data used to develop the discussion in each of the state sections were obtained from a variety of
resources, as shown in Figure 1-1 on page 1-24. These resources and the rationale used to obtain the data
are discussed below. In addition to the data from the databases, individuals from each state and from EPA
were interviewed to validate information on state program status, agency addresses, and availability of
data. Appendix D presents a complete list of all data sources and references used in developing this report.
RCRA Corrective Actions
Data on RCRA corrective actions were obtained from the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Information System (RCRIS) as provided by EPA staff in Region 4. The data were obtained from the
RCRIS Regional Oversight database in an attempt to identify not only the names and addresses of the
facilities, but also any available data on the contaminants, media contaminated, and volume of media
contaminated. In general, there was little information on contaminants or media contaminated in the
RCRIS Regional Oversight database for the states covered in this report. (The RCRIS National Oversight
database does not include data fields for information on contaminants or media.) Data were collected in
May 1995 for all Region 4 states.
Figure 1-1
Sources of Data
•Srtoe^istH^^s^^^^^
»3%at^t:<^B5«gyyiVfe^a^^|^^^^&
1-22
-------
-------
Underground Storage Tanks
Data on underground storage tanks (UST) regulated by EPA under RCRA Subtitle I were obtained from
the EPA Headquarters Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST). The information on the numbers of
UST sites was obtained from the OUST Semi-Annual Activity Report for the first half of fiscal year 1996.
For the purposes of this report, the number of tank sites in need of corrective action was defined as the
•
number of UST sites with "confirmed releases" minus the number of UST sites with "cleanup initiated."
This number provides only an estimate of the number of UST sites with confirmed releases currently in
need of cleanup, because the number of USTs requiring cleanup is very dynamic and changes on a
monthly basis as new releases are confirmed and other tanks are closed. The duration of UST cleanups
varies with site specific conditions although UST cleanups generally occur more quickly than complicated
RCRA or Superfund sites. Cleanup at USTs with soil contamination is usually completed within 6 months
to 2 years after the site has been identified. Cleanup at USTs with contaminated groundwater is usually
completed within 2 to 5 years after the site has been identified. The CERCLA and RCRA programs can
spend considerable time determining the nature of the release, while the majority of leaking USTs contain
petroleum, thereby reducing the time typically associated with identifying contaminants. Some states
regulate larger universes of USTs through their own state programs than are Federally regulated and,
therefore, may have larger .markets for UST-related technologies. Information about how to request data
managed by the individual states is provided at the end of every state section.
NPL Sites
Data on NPL sites were obtained from several sources, including the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), from which data were taken in
May 1995; the Responsive Electronic Link Access Interface (RELAI) database, which consists of data
taken from the Record of Decision (ROD) Information Database (RID) in September 1994; the Superfund
NPL Assessment Program (SNAP) database as of September 1993; risk assessment documents collected
during the survey of remedial project managers (RPM) conducted in August 1993 to respond to a
Congressional inquiry (data available on 219 sites nationwide); and a review of the NPL site summary for
each site. Data from the RELAI database were retrieved in early June 1995. Data from the sources listed
above were combined into a single database that then was used to develop the data needed for this report.
As in the case of RCRIS, several different events in the NPL process can be used to identify NPL sites as
promising targets for marketing. The event "remedial action with the actual start date not reported" was
1-24
-------
selected as the indicator that would best lead vendors of innovative technologies to a potential market. A
blank start date for remedial action (RA) is the point at which the remedial design (RD) has been
completed but the actual technology vendor is yet to be selected, when EPA or the "Fund" is the lead.
According to information gathered by EPA in 1994, approximately 75 percent of the NPL remedial action
work is led by potentially responsible parties (PRP). PRPs often bid projects on a "turnkey" basis, with a
contractor designing, building, and operating the technology at the site. In cases in which the PRP is the
/
lead, a vendor may wish to become involved in the process at the remedial investigation and feasibility
study (RI/FS) or design phase when opportunities may be available. DoD sites that are listed on the NPL
are also discussed in the DoD data tables in each state section and in Appendix A.
Basic information about the NPL sites covered in this report, such as name, identification number, and
address, was obtained from CERCLIS. Information on media contaminated was obtained from one of the
following sources: CERCLIS (specifically the environmental indicators or El module) provided data for
sites where cleanup work has been accomplished and reported; RID provided data for sites for which there
are signed RODs, through fiscal year 1993; risk data from risk assessment documents collected during the
RPM survey provided data on contaminants and media; and SNAP provided data on Hazard Ranking
System (HRS) scoring information and site characteristics.
Information on volumes of contaminated media and technologies was obtained from CERCLIS El data and
RID. Data on site size were taken from SNAP and NPL site summaries.
DoD Installations and Sites
Data on DoD installations and sites were obtained from Tables B-l and B-2 of the DERP report. The data
obtained from the DERP report were used to determine the projected cost estimates for remediation
activities for each installation, the number of sites for which remediation is planned, and the total number
of active sites. Because DoD's inventory of installations and sites is voluminous, this study provides
complete information only on those DoD installations that projected to spend more than $1 million on all
phases of remediation activities (defined as studies, remedial design, remedial action, and interim actions)
and had identified three or more sites (from Table B-l of the DERP report). Appendix A of this report
provides a list of those installations with two or fewer sites or estimated costs for cleanup of less than or
equal to $1 million (from Table B-2 of the DERP report). The information in Appendix A is limited to the
installation name, the state in which the installation is located, the Federal facility identification number
(FFID), the number of active sites on the installation, and the amount projected to be spent. The reader
1-25
-------
should understand that the funding estimates provided in this report are not yet obligated and are for DoD
planning purposes only.
DOE Facilities
Data on DOE facilities was obtained from the DOE 5-Year Plan for Fiscal Years 1994-1998.
/
State-Managed Sites
Data on abandoned hazardous waste sites managed by the individual state programs were obtained from
state-run databases and state-issued reports as well as from private vendors of information. In almost all
cases, the states maintain only a list of addresses of abandoned hazardous waste sites. Information on the
types of media contaminated and their contaminants is found only in the file materials of the state agency
charged with managing the sites. Information on state programs and contacts found at the end of each state
section should provide vendors with information necessary to follow up leads on state sites.
1.9 Report Organization
To help vendors and technology 'developers identify specific market opportunities, the following sections
of this report provide information on waste sites and specific waste programs of the eight states comprising
the Southeastern region. The individual sections are organized to include the following:
• A brief introduction outlining the summary findings on the numbers, types, and locations of
sites in the state;
• Relevant waste programs and authorities maintained by the state and the structure of those
programs;
• Market opportunities at abandoned waste sites that fall within state program authorities;
CERCLA sites in the state;
• RCRA corrective action opportunities;
• Opportunities in the individual UST programs;
• Markets for Federal facility sites; and
• Contacts for further information on conducting business at sites in the state.
1-26
-------
To the maximum extent practicable, the sections are organized uniformly to facilitate cross referencing and
comparison. However, not all sections include all information listed above. In some cases the particular
program section may not be relevant to the universe of sites found in the state.
1-27
-------
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1-28
-------
2.0 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF SITES IN ALABAMA
This chapter provides a detailed discussion of the opportunities available in the State of Alabama for
vendors of innovative technologies. The chapter is organized in seven sections. The first section describes
the organization and authority of the State's program. The next section discusses opportunities at sites
managed by Alabama's waste management program. That section is followed by a similar discussion of
opportunities at Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites. The fourth and fifth sections discuss the
markets at Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities subject to corrective action and at
underground storage tank (UST) sites managed by the State. Subsequent sections provide information on
opportunities at Federal facilities and provide further useful information about working in the State.
Figures 2-1 and 2-2 present two maps
of Alabama that indicate the locations
of the sites in the State that are on the
NPL, and the RCRA facilities in the
State1. The 13 NPL sites in Alabama
are distributed sparsely in a band
across the eastern half of the State.
There is an additional concentration
of sites in the southwestern part of the
State. RCRA facilities are relatively
evenly distributed across the State,
with slight concentrations in the
center and the southwest.
Summary Information . ..
Alabama^presents the innovative technology-vendor with
^variety of potential opportunities. There areJ.3 sites
on the NPL, 10 of which have' operable units that
\equireremediation. The Alabama Department of
'Environmental Management ^ADEM) lists 141 sites that
•"are currently jn some stage of remedial action governed
by Alabama StatVauthoritie4 Tie Resource
K Conservation Recovery Information System°(RCRIS)
Currently Msts,55 facilities in Alabama, one,of wMchfis „
currently under a requirement to conduct a corrective *
measures study, (CMS). According to the EPA Office of
-Underground Storage Tanks, there are also 1,362 *USTs
Jn'-the State mat require .remediation. There are active
^epajtmentojp^efense^oD) installations,and
Formedy J * " ^ v * ** »
Figures 2-1 and 2-2 do not indicate the locations of all NPL sites or all RCRA facilities located in Alabama.
LandView II™ contains information from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) on NPL and other sites. It also contains information from the
Biennial Reporting System (BRS) on treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and major generators of
hazardous waste.
2-1
-------
N
A
Birmingham
• A.
-Montgomery
Mobile
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Modified from Landview n, based on data
as of September 1994.
Figure 2-1
NPL sites in Alabama
2-2
-------
N
A
Mobile
Birmingham
•\ ••
•••^--Montgomery /
^^ 9r^ ^
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Modified from Landview II, based on data
as of September 1994.
Figure 2-2
RCRA Facilities in Alabama
2-3
-------
2.1 The Alabama Hazardous Waste Management Program
The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) is responsible for the implementation
and enforcement of environmental regulations. The agency consists of the Air, Water, and Land Divisions.
In 1988, the Land Division created the Special Projects Branch to oversee the assessment and remediation
of hazardous waste sites. The Land Division also conducts RCRA enforcement and compliance activities.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 50-State Study, 1995 update, Alabama had
20 full-time equivalent staff working on cleanup activities.
The Special Projects Branch manages the State Superfund program. The State's enforcement authority is
cited under the Code of Alabama 22-30A-1, in which the Alabama Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
(AHSCF) also was established on September 22,1988. This fund supports State enforcement staff to
manage incidences of releases; recover costs of cleanup from liable parties; and to issue orders to liable
parties to conduct cleanup activities. Alabama is not authorized to conduct corrective action under RCRA,
nor does it have a State corrective action program.
According to EPA's 1995 50-State Study, the AHSCF had a balance of $478,167 at the end of fiscal year
(FY) 1995. The AHSCF is funded by monies received from cost recovery actions, penalties,
appropriations, and some fees. During FY95 the fund paid out $324,048 for actions at non-NPL sites.
The fund can be used only at non-NPL sites at the time the remedial activity begins, for State matching of
CERCLA funds, and for operations and maintenance.
Alabama has an informal voluntary cleanup program; guidelines are under development. Inactive sites
with no current enforcement actions are eligible to participate. Incentives include lower oversight costs
and cleanups that are achieved faster. The state is reimbursed by responsible parties for its oversight costs.
Cleanup standards include water quality criteria, maximum contaminant levels (MCL) and maximum
contaminant level goals (MCLG), background levels, risk assessments, and EPA guidelines. Risk levels
are generally 10"4 for industrial and W6 for residential areas.
The Alabama UST Program operates under the authority of ADEM's Water Division, Groundwater
Branch. The program is authorized under the Alabama Underground Storage Tank and Wellhead
Protection Act of 1988. A second act, the Alabama Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Act,
authorized on October 1,1988, establishes a fund for remediation of releases. The UST Program is
composed of two sections, the UST Compliance Section and the UST Corrective Action Unit. The
responsibility of the UST Compliance Section is to prevent the release of hazardous substances through the
2-4
-------
implementation of UST regulations. The UST Corrective Action Unit is responsible for the remediation of
releases from tanks. The funds are raised through tank fees levied on owners or operators.
2.2 The Market at Sites Managed Under State Authorities
Staff of ADEM furnished a list of 141 sites currently identified under Code of Alabama 22-30A-1 as either
undergoing or awaiting remedial action. Table 2-1 at the end of the chapter presents that information.
The list includes only the name and address of the facility and a State reference number. The higher the
reference number, the more recently the site has been placed on the list.
The 1995 EPA 50-State Study also revealed that the State has seven remedial actions underway at a non-
NPL site, and has completed nine others since the start of the program. It also has 15 removals underway,
and has completed 80 since the start of the program.
2.3 The Market at Abandoned Sites Managed Under the Federal Superfund Program
As of May 1995, EPA has listed 13 sites located in Alabama on the NPL. Table 2-2 presents summary
information from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS) Database on the status of the NPL sites in Alabama. Table 2-3, at the end of this
chapter, lists 10 NPL sites at which remedial action has not yet begun at one or more OU. The sites and
OUs of greatest interest to vendors are those at which technologies have been selected but vendors of the
technologies have not yet been chosen. Of the 10 NPL sites listed in Table 2-3 at the end of the chapter, 3
are military installations that are discussed more fully in the section on opportunities at Federal facilities.
Table 2-2
Number of Sites and Operable Units at NPL Sites in Alabama
Source: Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS database; see Chapter 1 for a detailed description of the data sources.
1 Sites with pre-remedial activities are sites where remedial design and construction have not yet begun, although the remedy may
have been chosen. These sites, especially the pre-remedial sites still in the investigation phase, present long-term opportunities for
vendors. Sites with remedial activities are sites where remedial design has begun and construction might not have begun. Where
technologies have been selected but no vendor has been chosen, a site may present a short-term business opportunity.
" A site may have more than one operable unit in each phase, so operable units may be counted more than once.
2-5
-------
Figure 2-3 presents the distribution of sizes of the sites. Sites range in size from 1 to 38,300 acres. The
sizes of all 10 sites were reported in CERCLIS. Five sites are reported to be 25 acres or less in size, with 2
of those reportedly with 1 acre. Three sites are 950 acres or more in area.
Contaminants at some of the sites include heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOC), pesticides,
and herbicides. For other sites, there were no data indicating the contaminants present. Where available,
data on contaminated media indicated that all the sites had contaminated soil, six reportedly had
contaminated grdundwater, and six reportedly had surface water contamination.
Six instances of contaminated sludge and 4 instances of contaminated debris were reported. In addition,
Interstate Lead Co. reported contaminated air. Data on the volume of materials contaminated is available
for only three sites. At the Ciba Geigy Mclntosh Plant, more than 47 million gallons of groundwater and
236,000 cubic yards of soil and sludges are to be treated. The 19 OUs at the 10 sites do not have a start
date for remedial action, indicating that remedial action has not yet begun and that these sites provide good
opportunities for vendors of innovative technologies.
Figure 2-3
NPL Site Size Distribution for the State of Alabama
20 -f
18-
16-
14-
12-
10-
8-
D Number of Sites
<1-50
>800
2-6
-------
2.4 The Market at RCRA Corrective Action Sites
As noted in Section 2.1, Alabama is not authorized to conduct corrective action under RCRA, nor does it
have a State mandated corrective action program. See Section 1.2 for a complete description of the
Federal RCRA corrective action program.
Data from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) database indicate that
one RCRA facility in Alabama currently requires corrective action. The definition of corrective action
used here is that a facility has been required to perform a CMS. The number of facilities with CMS
imposed is not a direct subset of only RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities, instead it is
a subset that includes both TSD facilities and hazardous waste generators. While TSD facilities are
statutorily required to address corrective action, EPA has discretionary authority to impose corrective
action on generators. Table 2-4, at the end of the chapter, presents the mailing address of the facility
and identifies two solid waste management units (SWMU). In addition, 27 facilities are under a
requirement to conduct a RCRA facility investigation (RFI). The number of facilities with an RFI imposed
is not a direct subset of only RCRA TSD facilities, instead it is a subset that includes both TSD facilities
and hazardous waste generators. While TSD facilities are statutorily required to address corrective action,
EPA has discretionary authority to impose corrective action on generators. As discussed in Section 1.2,
these facilities also may provide either a long-term opportunity or near-term opportunity where no CMS is
necessary to begin corrective action or corrective activity begins in accordance with the stabilization
initiative. No data were available in RCRIS that indicate the contaminants of concern present at these
facilities.
2.5 The Market at UST Sites Managed by the State
Table 2-5 presents data on the number of USTs in Alabama. There are 22,227 active tanks in the State.
Active tanks are defined as tanks still in service (EPA 1993). As of March 31,1996, the EPA Office of
Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) had identified 1,362 leaking tanks in Alabama at which cleanup has
yet to be initiated. That number represents the difference between the two data elements "confirmed
releases" and "cleanups initiated." Cleanup at USTs with soil contamination is usually completed within 6
months to 2 years after the site has been identified. Cleanup at USTs with groundwater contamination is
usually completed within 2 to 5 years after the site has been identified. Therefore, the number of USTs
identified as opportunities for vendors of innovative technologies will change rapidly.
2-7
-------
Table 2-5
Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures
in Alabama as of the First Half of FY96
Active
Tanks
22227
Tanks,
Closed
19,687
Confirmed ,:
lleleases * ~U
7,934
Cleanups -,
*"' MtiateSV ?
6,572
„ Cleanup^
Coinpletetli
5,696
Cleanups Not
YetfiHtfated'
1,362
Source: EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks Semi-Annual Activity Repdrt, for the First Half of Fiscal Year 1996
(ending March 31,1996)
In national studies of USTs performed by EPA in 1991 and 1992, it was found that the majority, or about
87 percent, of the tanks are used to manage gasoline or diesel fuel, kerosene, or heating oil. Of the
remaining USTs, 11 percent manage other materials and wastes, such as used Oil (4 percent), hazardous
material (2 percent), and other material (5 percent); 2 percent are empty. The majority of the
contamination problems are related to the contamination of softs and groundwater with petroleum products
that contain VOCs and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC).
2.6 The Market at Federal Facility Sites in Alabama
Alabama currently has 13 operational or closing Department of Defense (DoD) installations and formerly
used defense sites (FUDS) where remedial action activities are planned or are underway. At those
installations there are 304 active sites, at 121 of which future remedial action is planned. Active sites are
those at which some form of remediation activity is planned or underway. The total number of sites to be
remediated may exceed that figure because, in general, DoD does not plan remediation at a site until the
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) have been completed. There are no Department of
Energy (DOE) or other Federal facilities in Alabama at which remedial action activities are planned.
The Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994,
indicates that a total of $710 million is estimated to be needed through the year 2030 in all phases of
cleanup at the 13 installations. Approximately half the funds ($340 million) are allocated to Redstone
Arsenal. Anniston Army Depot and Fort McClellan are allocated a total of $230 million, with the
remainder of the funds accounted for by other installations. Redstone and Anniston each have a single OU
associated with the NPL site. Because the available data do not breakdown outyear funding by OU, it is
not possible to determine how much spending is planned at the individual units. Many of the sites
identified at the installations are either undergoing or are scheduled to undergo an RI/FS and therefore are
at a relatively early stage of the remediation process. At Redstone Arsenal, 89 sites have activities in
2-8
-------
progress and 16 sites have RI/FSs that are underway. Nine sites are planned for remedial design and
cleanup activities. At Anniston Army Depot, 44 sites have activities in progress and 7 sites are planned for
remedial design and cleanup.
Most of the contaminants at sites on military installations at which remediation currently is planned fall
into one of three categories: petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL); VOCs; or heavy metals. These
contaminants are found in the soil at all sites; however, no data are available on volumes of soil and
groundwater to be treated. Table 2-6 provides information on the individual installations in the State and
the sites that are subject to remediation at those installations. Staff at each installation determine the
individual sites at which they plan to perform remedial actions. Cleanup already may be underway at other
sites; such sites are not included in the table because it is unlikely that they will afford an opportunity for
vendors of innovative technologies.
Table 2-6
DoD Installations and Sites in Alabama
^P^,*^ ' ^ v ;^ vVi%b:C^ "-' ^"^ 3f^^SiSvv"^?c? /" •^ ^^C^+fCf^ f-"
li^^nd^utyea^Funding^OO&K'^a-
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant
Outyear Funding FY95-1997
$13,600
Anniston Army Depot
Outyear Funding FY95-2030
$107,023
Birmingham Municipal Airport
Outyear Funding FY95-2003
$2,653
Brookley Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2005
$5,576
Courtland Army Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2007
$4,460
Dannelly Field Air National Guard
Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2004
$2,665
Fort McClellan
Outyear Funding FY95-2010
$123,254
isjy^CiiAs^X'.t^io'*^"
J'^sCyiJjuv— * <*^f T^T** '"•T^i" "s^Y^
fe%MS,-3X>,"',»S •*&£ H^iM %
*J;f^;Number;*ygf
AL421002000800
AL421002002700
AL457282591700
AL49799F419700
AL49799F420900
AL457282591900
AL421002056200
jifeKft^l*iC'^
%fe^f-vwxfsi>4, i
f|i.>©aesS%:f:
A,N
A,N
A
F
F
A
A
4Jiv«(gj[ea|lj|p-;i|s;gJ^jjg3^^
30
7
4
2
3
1
1
2-9
-------
Table 2-6 (continued)
DoD Installations and Sites in Alabama
Name
and Outyear Funding ($000)
Craig Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2008
$4,162
Fort Rucker
Outyear Funding FY95-2005
$21,279
Gunter Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2008
$21,576
Maxwell Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2020
$59,671
Phosphate Development Works
Outyear Funding FY95-2005
$3,345
Redstone Arsenal
Outyear Funding FY95-2020
$340,924
Federal Facility^
Identification
Number- ,t '
AL49799F421000
AL421002077600
AL457162418500
AL457162418200
AL421002070300
AL421002074200
^ *" s*\ *
~ * c A O
,>*>
S Codes1 ^
F
A
A
A
A
A,N
; *<• - >~, ' %^< ".?<~
l4ml»r<»f Sfte/aFwhidi^
_ * _Ciean«p! is Planned^ ,r
2
34
7
17
4
9
Source: Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994
1 Codes:
A « The installation is currently operational or on the BRAC list, and cleanup is covered by DERA or BRAC funds
F * The installation is no longer active and is managed by the FUDS Branch
N « The site is listed on the final National Priorities List
2.7 Further Market Information for Alabama
A vendor that wishes to obtain information about sites in Alabama that are managed by EPA may write to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
For information on RCRA facilities, the envelope should be marked to the attention of the Freedom of
Information Act Officer, Office of RCRA and Federal Facilities. For information on CERCLA facilities in
Alabama, the envelope should be marked to the attention of the Freedom of Information Act Officer, South
Superfund Remedial Branch. The requestor will be billed for the information, according to the volume of
2-10
-------
information provided. For information on USTs handled by EPA, vendors may contact the EPA Region 4
UST program manager:
John Mason
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Mail Code 4WM-GWP-15
Atlanta, GA 30365
Information also is available on the names and addresses of UST sites in the State that require remediation.
A vendor may write to:
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Groundwater Section/Water Division
1751 Congressman W.L., Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
UST (334)275-7986
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) (334) 371-7834
For information on sites currently subject to the Alabama Hazardous Substance Control Act, vendors may
write to:
Dan Codper
Alabama Department of Environmental Management.
1751 Congressman W.L., Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 213-4307
Vendors also may contact Blake Roper, the department's ombudsman, at (334) 271-7925.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sponsors several different research and development assistance
programs for technology vendors. The industry and university programs area is intended to promote
private sector capability to provide needed environmental cleanup technologies to meet DOE needs. Tools
employed to achieve this goal include program research and development announcements (PRDAs),
research opportunity announcements (ROAs), and the small business technology transfer pilot program.
2-11
-------
For information about DOE sites or any of DOE's technology development assistance programs, vendors
may contact:
DOE's Center for Environmental Management Information
470 L'Enfant Plaza East
Suite 7112
Washington, DC 20024
(800) 736-3282
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) does not have a single point of contact that handles all of DoD's
environmental restoration initiatives, site-level information, and technology programs. The Defense
Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for FY 1995 contains detailed information
on environmental restoration accomplishments and schedules at DoD installations world-wide. This report
is available on the Internet at the DoD Environmental Restoration home page at:
http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod/
The home page also provides links to other internet sites that pertain to DoD environmental restoration
activities.
2-12
-------
Table 2-1
Alabama Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund Sites
at Which Marketing Opportunities Exists
Hi
9001
9002
9003
9004
9005
9006
9007
9008
9009
9010
9011
9012
9013
9014
9015
9016
9017
9018
9019
9020
9021
9022
9023
9024
9025
9026
9027
9028
Dupree Farms
Fyfee Drums
Vulcan Materials Belt Plant
Beauregard Pesticide Drum
Millbrook Abandoned Drums
Halls Mill Rd Abandoned Drum
1-59 Analine Spill
Colbert County Barton Drums
Terra International
lessee Bynum Drumsite
Bessemer Abandoned Drums
Grant Cylinder Leak
Swarengen Road Drum Dump
Russellvillee Abandoned Drums
Wares Ferry Road Abandoned Drums
Sipsey Riverbridge Fire
Qua! Run South Drum Site
Macedonia Crossroads
Moorersmill Road
John Law Hollow
Beaunit
Old Carley Tree
Old Range Line Road Drum
Brookley Field Abandoned Drum
Ethylene Glycol Spill/Bayou La Batre
Reichold Abandoned Drums
North Parkway Drum
Whittington Property
Al Highway 51, Marvyn, AL
DeKalb Co. Road Shop, Dekalb, AL
1 10 Avenue C. Ensley, Birmingham, AL
Intersection of Hwy 51/51, Beauregard, AL
3850 River Oaks Rd, Millbrook, AL
2573 Halls Mill Road, Mobile, AL
1-59 Mile Marker 163, Asheville, AL
County Road 33, Barton, AL
500 Air Base Blvd, Montgomery, AL
Scottsboro, AL.
1044 Avenue W, Ensley, AL
Lake Guntersville, Grant, AL
124 Menons Road, Grant, AL
Hwy 43, N, Russellville, AL
End of David Drive, Montgomery, AL
Hwy 69 At Sipsey Bridge, Gullman, AL
6215 Quail Run South, Mobile, AL
CO Rd 44, Macedonia, AL
191 Darwin Rd, Huntsville, AL
9th Street, Grant, AL
Al Hwy 235, Childersburg, AL
Corner of Depot and Pinson St, Tarrant, AL
Old Range Line Rd, Mobile, AL
Brookley Field USCG Dock Area, Mobile Bay, AL
RR St & Satsuma Street, Bayou La Batre, AL
1 Mile W. Of Rockford on Hwy 22, Rockford, AL
K-Mart North Park, Huntsville, AL
Rt 1 Box 273, Tallassee, AL
2-13
-------
Table 2-1 (continued)
Alabama Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund Sites
at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist
.State
Reference ;
' " Nol ; •
9029
9030
9031
9032
9033
9034
9035
9036
9037
9038
9039
9040
9041
9042
9043
9044
9045
9046
9047
9048
9049
9050
9051
9052
9053
9054
9055
- - ' "» -< '. Site Name <5^j-s -> Y';y'
-------
Table 2-1 (continued)
Alabama Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund Sites
at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist
9056
9057
9058
9059
9060
9061
9062
9063
9064
9065
9066
9067
9068
9069
9070
9071
9072
9073
9074
9075
9076
9077
9078
9079
9080
9081
9082
UNR Rohn
Talladega Gold Mining
Howell's Ferry Road Drums
Coosa Drums
Pine Mountain Drums
Hoover Drum Site
Square D Metals
Clanton Drum Site
Heil
Tanner Farm Site
Tillman's Corner Drums
Good Hope Carbide Spill
Cotaco DDT
Lathan Drum
OPP Pesticides
Three Star Landfill
Greenville Plating
Brockway Glass
Capitol City Plume, RSA Tower
Camp Sibert
Goodyear
Lee County Rd 199 Drum
Deridder
Clements Auto Parts
Moffett Road Drums
Montgomery Food Processors
Campbell Gap Road Drums
911 Thomason St, Tarrant, AL
Mump/Talladega Crk, Talladega, AL
Howell's Ferry Road, Mobile, AL
Not Available
Pine Mountain Rd Fire Dept, Pine Mountain, AL
Hoover Fire Station #6, Hoover, AL
940 Moores St. NE, Leeds, AL
Chilton County Jail, Clanton, AL
45th St & Valley Head Rd, Ft. Payne, AL
Rt 1 Box 6 (Jeffrey St), Tanner, AL
CO Rd, 193, Mobile, AL
1-65 MM 303/Good Hope Rest Stop, Good Hope, AL
Cotaco Fire Dept, Lacey Springs, AL
162 Firestone Dr, Huntsville, AL
CO Rd 467, Kingston, AL
CO Rd 38, Lynn, AL
P.O. Box 583, Greenville, AL
3480 Lower Wetumpka Rd, Montgomery, AL
Corners of Madison & McDonugh St, Montgomery, AL
6071 Steele Station Rd, Rainbow City, AL
7526 Akzo Blvd, Scottsboro, AL
Lee County Rd 199 at the Bridge, Opelika, AL
Main St, Whistler, AL
Not Available
5016 Moffett Rd/Vet Clinic, Mobile, AL
4530 Mobile Hwy, Montgomery, AL
Campbell Gap Rd, Kenner, AL
2-15
-------
Table 2-1 (continued)
Alabama Hazanious Substance Cleanup Fund Sites
at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist
. State
Reference
:- <: No.,
9083
9084
9085
9086
9087
9088
9089
9090
9091
9092
9093
9094
9095
9096
9097
9098
9099
9100
9101
9102
9103
9104
9105
9106
9107
9108
9109
.<„•;•"• ~v* ; "'V?T.^*^R>^'<^
, . --SiteName^:..v|^
.""••.' 1, '- " ^^-V^S-'Vy-J?'5-
Gates Power Drive
Cleburne County Drums
tee County Road Drums
Safety Kleen
Rudolph Perkins
TI Aerospace System
ABC Auto Parts
County Rd 400 Drums
Schuffert Tanker Truck
Lipscomp Drums
Lake Purdy Lab Dump
Southern Aluminum Castings
Johnson's Landfill
31St Street Ensley Drum
231 Troy Drum Site
Doberman Club Drums
Jackson Landfill Spill
Alloy Castings
Atmore Aluminum
Salco Road Drums
Godsey's Tuscumbia Tanks
Sylacauga Health Dept Drum
Trussville Foundry
Empire Road Lead Site
Catalytic
Jones Tire & Battery
Auburn Treatment Plant
518 Craft St, Dothan, AL
EMA406 Vickery St, Heflin, AL
Lee CO Rd 51 Recycling Center, Opelika, AL
1002 Hoke Ave, Dolomite, AL
425 Gate 3 Rd, Anniston, AL
#1 Twin Creek Dr, Tallasse, AL
Hwy 79, Tarrant, AL
County Rd 400 & Hwy 72, Muscle Shoals, AL
1708 Cong., WL Dickinson Dr, Montgomery, AL
Avenue E Between 18th & 19th Streets, Lipscomb, AL
Not Available
43575 Nicholsville Rd, Bay Minette, AL
SR 24 & CO Rd 40, Trinity, AL
31St Street, ADEM Field Office, Ensley, AL
Hwy 231 & Hanchey, Troy, AL
1530 Vanderbilt Place, Birmingham, AL
Jackson Landfill, Jackson, AL
PO Box 1645, Columbiana, AL
Hwy 21 N, 21/2 Miles, Atmore, AL
Not Available
16th & Georgia St, Tuscumbia, AL
Sylacauga Health Dept/Hickory St, Sylacauga, AL
Trussville, AL
1157 Empire Rd, Sumiton, AL
Hwy 25 N, Wilsonville, AL
820 Ave East, Birmingham, AL
S'Side Wastewater Treatment Plant, Auburn, AL
2-16
-------
Table 2-1 (continued)
Alabama Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund Sites
at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist
Hi
9110
9111
9112
9113
9114
9115
9116
9117
9118
9119
9120
9121
9122
9123
9124
9125
9126
9127
9128
9129
9130
9131
9132
9133
9134
9135
9991
5?s^t^¥^r^S^"f' iS^^l^i?! **f ^^-1»*?V:
Bullock County AST
Florence Wagon Works
Fullco Lumber
Linden - Marengo County Lot
Montgomery Zoo
Bachelor Field Airport
Escatawpa River Airport
Evergreen 1-65 Drum
Hall Chemical
Southland Agri Chemical/Air Pro
Duck Springs
Cedar Street Lot
Opelika Pesticides Drums
Caren Inc. Tanks, Gulf Stores
Benco, Ft. Deposit
1-10 Mobile Sludge Tank
Allworth Drums
Coosa Co Wildlife Mgt Area Drums
Madison Co Drum/Ready SEC Rd
Sulligent Hwy 17 Drums
Craig AFB/Selmont Service Center
Averitt Express
Blackwater River Drum
Hubbertville Drum
Birmingham Southern Precision Drum
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
Parker Creek Drum Site
t'xi$^>^^v^^x*''' * ^S^^^H^'i^jt -j^^^^^^^W^^^^^
Bullock CO Hwy Dept Dist-Shop, Union Springs, AL
Riverside Dr, Florence, AL
Hwy 5 N, Haleyville, AL
Hwy 43 & Ray St, Linden, AL
329 Vandiver Blvd, Montgomery, AL
US Hwy 31/1.8 Mi N of Airport Rd
Hwy 98/Escatawpka River Bridge, Wilmer, AL
300 Yards Past Mile Marker 88
1951 Guntersville Rd/Hwy 69E, Arab, AL
1075 Chandler St, Montgomery, AL
On Duck Springs Rd, Duck Springs, AL
Cedar St, Demopolis, AL
Lafayette Pkwy, Opelika, AL
22900 Brown Lanes, Gulf Shores, AL
#1 Benco Dr, Ft. Deposit, AL
Marion & Conception Streets, Mobile, AL
500 Medco Rd, Burmingham, AL
Coosa Co Hwy Dept/2 BX 53-B, Rockford, AL
Madison Co Hwy Dept?6084 Hwy 53, New Hope, AL
Not Available
Hwy 80, Craig Air Force Base, Selma, AL
701 West Point Parkway, Opelika, AL
Not Available
Not Available
4400 Powell Ave, Birmingham, AL
Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL
Parker Creek
2-17
-------
Table 2-1 (continued)
Alabama Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund Sites
at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist
- State
Reference
~\,:.NO.'
9992
9993
9994
9995
9996
Site Name „. •= ^
V X V
Indian Creek Drum Site
Crossway St Drum Site
Airport Rd & 50th St Drum Site
Pinedale Shores
Central Foundry
/*> ^ < •£ :> •(_ *• ^ J *•
^ «\' <• .-. _ Address v^ ^r Y\ \~ ^
•• * x , K» ^ •» » •» > ' v^ v
^" ^^''T^™ "" ^*^ ^"^A41 H>~*
"*N^ '*""<* *" ^ *^-, » * f- * ? ^*v*4 ^^
•«-^ ^^.^^ ^ ^ ^^^^^^^^vf
-4.^^ ^5
-------
Table 2-3
NPL Sites in Alabama at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist'
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START
DATE2
RI/FS
COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
(RP/FE)
03 WETLAND.
04 NA
JRFVFEJL
(RP/FE)
6/30/96
4/2/97
6/30/96
GW; SL; SO
GW;_SD;.SOiSW
DB; GW; SL; SO;
ST
25,714,600 gal;
127,300 cy
NA
9,292,000 gal;
12,726,000 gal;
63,000 cy;
46.000 cy
METALS; OTHER
ORGANICS;
PESTICIDES/HE
RBJCIDES;_VOC_
NA
METALS; OTHER
INORGANICS;
PESTICIDES/HE
RBICIDES; VOC
Monitoring; Disposal of Residual; Thermal
Treatment with On-Site Placement
NA
Decontamination; Disposal of Residual; Off-Site
Treatment; Monitoring; Solidification and
Stabilization; Thermal Treatment with On-Site
Placement
01
SOIL REMEDIATION
(F/MR)
02
GROUNDWATER
REMEDIATION
(F/RP/MR)
6/30/97
6/30/97
Al; DB; GW; SD;
SO;SW
NA
DB; GW; RC; SD;
SL: SO; SW
NA
METALS
NA
Monitoring; Surface Capping Only; Disposal of
Residual; Solidification and Stabilization; Natural
Attenuation_
NA
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project
is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
AlAir
DB Debris
DK Unknown
EP EPA In-House
ES Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Llauld Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State. Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST Solid Waste
SW Surface Water
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VOCs Volatile Organic
Compounds
2-19
-------
Table 2-3 (continued)
NPL Sites In Alabama at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist'
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START
DATE*
RI/FS
COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
piiiifiip^
01
NA
(RP/FE)
6/30/95
GW; SD; SL; SO;
SW
12,000,000 gal
METALS; OTHER
INORGANICS;
OTHER
ORGANICS;
PESTICIDES/HE
RBICIDES; VOC
Natural Attenuation; Biodegradation and
Bioremediation; Steam Stripping; Off-Site
Treatment; Thermal Treatment with On-Site
Placement; Temporary On-Site Storage;
Solidification and Stabilization; Disposal of
Residual
02
SOURCE
(RP/FE)
12/31/97
DB; SL; SO; ST
NA
NA
NA
03
SWAMP
(RP/FE/F)
12/30/95
OT; SD; SO; SW
80,000 cy
METALS
Surface Capping Only; Disposal of Residual;
Monitoring
IllWJADD.RESS::
TmTTYPEiV Industrial
akOmanfi Chetttaah&'ffljfc. * ffl MWf^H
02
SWMU'S
(RP/FE)
6/30/97
DB; SL; SO; ST
NA
NA
NA
03
SWAMP STUDY
(F) 12/30/95
OT;SD
NA
NA
Excavation
W&R
3aiwf£]^i
»^^^^^^^
^
PI
f>9
NA
(RP/FE)
FROI ORIOAI ASSESSMENTfRP/FE}
3/30/97
9/30/96
GW; SD; SO; SW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project
is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbrev
Al Air
DB
DK
EP
ES
latlons:
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Llauid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SH
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
2-20
-------
Table 2-3 (continued)
NPL Sites in Alabama at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
RA PLANNED
START
DATE2
RI/FS
COM-
PLETED
OPERABLE UNIT
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
v:-t a(<.-t-s-t*i.*Kf;iiSiJ:i5>sW5'n»*Si
235IGMIIIDERSBU
AREA B GROUNDWATER
& SOILS (FF)_
AREA A SOIL
& GROUNDWATER
RC; SD; SL; SO;
ST
01 OP UNIT 1
NA
NA
NA
is
Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liauid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
2-21
-------
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2-22
-------
Table 2-4
RCRA Facilities Currently Undergoing Corrective Action in Alabama1
UNITED REDWING CARRIERS CREOLA
10565 HWY 43, CREOLA, AL 36525-5455
ALD021257951
TWOSWMUS(#4)
PHASE II - LANDFILL &
BIOLOGICAL PONDS
AREA #1 PHASE I - NORTH &
SOUTH LAGOONS
AREA #1 PHASE II - NORTH &
SOUTH LAGGONS
1 Data as of May 1995 from the EPA RCRIS database. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of data sources.
2-23
-------
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2-24
-------
3.0 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF SITES IN FLORIDA
This chapter provides a detailed discussion of the opportunities available in the State of Florida for vendors
of innovative technologies. This chapter is organized in seven sections. The first section describes the
organization and authority of the State's program. The next section discusses opportunities at sites
managed by the State. The third and fourth sections discuss opportunities at sites addressed by the Federal
Superfund Program and Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action sites,
respectively. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not authorized Florida to administer
corrective action; however, Florida does have a State corrective action program. The fifth section
discusses the market at underground storage tank (UST) sites managed by the State. Subsequent sections
provide information about opportunities at Federal facilities and provide further useful information about
working in the State.
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 present two maps
of Florida that indicate the locations
of the sites in the State that are on the
National Priorities List (NPL) and
RCRA facilities in the State.1 The 58
NPL sites in Florida are concentrated
near the cities of Miami, Tampa,
Jacksonville, and at the far western
edge of the panhandle. While RCRA
facilities are found throughout the
State, there are major concentrations
in the areas of Miami, Tampa, and
Jacksonville.
Summary Information
With one of the largest numbers of NPL sites in the
Southeastern region, Florida provides significant
opportunities to vendors of innovative technologies.
Twenty-nine of 58 NPL sites have operable units at ^
which remedial action has not yet begun. The Florida
Departmentof Environmental Protection manages 11
abandoned hazardous "waste sites. The Resource
Conservation, and Recovery Information System
(RCRIS) currently lists 90 facilities in Florida, 2 of
which are currently under a requirementto conduct a
corrective measures study (CMS). Data onUSTs
indicate that 20,615 tank sites in the State are hi need of
-cleanup. There are515 active sites at23< DqD s
installations anddformerly used defense sites (FUDS), -
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 do not indicate the locations of all NPL sites or all RCRA facilities located in Florida.
LandView 11™ contains information from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) on NPL sites and other sites. It also contains information from
the Biennial Reporting System (BRS) on treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and major generators of
hazardous waste.
3-1
-------
A
N
A
Jacksonville
Orlando
Miami
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Modified from Landview II, based on data
as of September 1994.
Figure 3-1
NPL Sites in Florida
3-2
-------
A
N
A
Jacksonville
Orlando
Miami
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Modified from Landview II, based on data
as of September 1994.
Figure 3-2
RCRA Facilities in Florida
3-3
-------
3.1 The Florida Hazardous Waste Management Program
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is authorized by Chapter 403 of the Florida
Statute to implement pollution control activities, develop groundwater protection standards, and recover
cleanup costs from responsible parties. FDEP's Division of Waste Management (DWM) is composed of
the Bureau of Waste Cleanup and the Bureau of Waste Management. DWM implements state and Federal
laws relating to solid and hazardous waste management, and regulates construction and installation of
above- and below-ground storage tanks. It also is responsible for cleanup of hazardous waste sites. As of
1995, FDEP has 62 staff members and 2 attorneys located in 7 regions.
The bureaus operate under the authorities of the Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Removal Act
(PDPRA), sections 376.30 through 376.319 and the State's Resource Recovery and Management Act
(RRMA), sections 403.701 through 403.7721. The PDPRA provides enforcement authority and
establishes the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund and the Inland Protection Trust Fund; the RRMA also
has enforcement provisions and establishes the Hazardous Waste Management Trust Fund (HWMTF).
The HWMTF allocates funds for cleanup in cases in which a responsible party cannot be identified or
located.
The Bureau of Waste Cleanup is responsible for all activities relating to the cleanup of the site
contaminated by hazardous wastes, petroleum products, or other pollutants and the regulation of above-
and below-ground storage tanks. The Bureau has seven sections:
Storage Tank Regulation Section is responsible for implementing the State's above- and below-
ground storage tank regulation programs. This section uses funds from the Inland Protection Trust
Fund to accomplish its work.
Petroleum Cleanup Reimbursement Section is responsible for administering the State's Petroleum
Cleanup Reimbursement Program. This section also is funded by the Inland Protection Trust
Fund.
Petroleum Cleanup Section is responsible for managing contractors to cleanup state-lead sites in
the Petroleum Cleanup program. This section is funded by the Water Quality Assurance Trust
Fund.
3-4
-------
• Hazardous Waste Cleanup Section is responsible for managing contractors for state-wide cleanup
of hazardous waste sites, overseeing private party cleanups, coordinating the Federal Superfund
program, and implementing the new drycleaner contamination cleanup program. This section is
funded by the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund.
• The Technical Review Section provides scientific technical assistance and reviews contamination
assessment and risk assessment reports for the Department's cleanup programs. This section also
administers EPA grants to assess potential contamination sites and to oversee cleanup of DoD and
other Federal facilities. This section is funded by the Hazardous Waste Management Trust Fund.
• The Site Investigation Section investigates known or suspected cases of groundwater
contamination, provides technical assistance, and develops recommendations in support of district
enforcement actions. This section is funded by the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund.
• The Engineering Support Section provides engineering technical assistance and reviews remedial
action documents and engineering designs for FDEP's cleanup programs. This section's activities
are funded by the Inland Protection and Water Quality Trust Funds.
The Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste is responsible for the planning of and management of solid and
hazardous waste. Operations range from waste reduction and pollution prevention to permitting of
landfills, and review and permitting of hazardous waste storage, treatment, and disposal. The Bureau has
four sections:
The Hazardous Waste Management Section is responsible for proper disposal of small quantity
hazardous waste, management of spent mercury containing lamps and planning for hazardous
waste capacity assurance.
The Hazardous Waste Regulation Section is responsible for implementing RCRA permitting
requirements.
The Solid Waste Management Section is responsible for implementing the Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill program and providing grants to local government recycling programs.
The Waste Reduction Section is responsible for the recycling programs, pollution prevention
assistance, and implementation of the Advance Disposal Fee, and Waste Reduction programs.
The Inland Protection Trust Fund is funded by a tax on petroleum products and is used to clean up
petroleum contamination, test wells, etc. The Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund is funded by a tax on
various hazardous substances and currently has revenues of $160 million per year. The HWMTF typically
has a balance of less than $2 million per year. The HWMTF serves as a holding account for Federal funds,
primarily EPA grants and DoD cleanup funds. This fund also serves as the collection point for the
drycleaner tax collected for the cleanup of drycleaning facilities; these monies are transferred to the Water
Quality Insurance Trust Fund when it is time to make expenditures. The fund receives money from cost
3-5
-------
recoveries, interest, penalties, and transfers. The fund can be used for the same activities as the Water
Quality Assurance Trust Fund that Florida, also has in place for emergency response, site investigation,
studies and design, remedial actions, operations and maintenance, grants to local governments, program
administration, natural resource restoration, and State CERCLA match.
Florida's underground storage tank program is regulated by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 717-61.
/
3.2 The Market at Sites Managed Under State Authorities
The FDEP indicates that there are 11 sites under the authority of RRMA. The sites are presented in Table
3-1 at the end of this chapter. Information also exists on the types of sites, contaminants, and media
contaminated. There are four industrial solvent sites, two electroplating sites, a landfill, and several
manufacturing operations. Contaminants include volatile organic compounds (VOC), semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOC), such as petroleum hydrocarbons, and heavy metals. All of the sites reported
groundwater contamination and seven sites reported soil contamination.
3.3 The Market at Abandoned Sites Managed Under the Federal Superfund Program
As of May 1995, EPA had listed 58 sites in Florida on the NPL, 4 of which are proposed sites. Table 3-2
provides summary information obtained from the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database on the number of sites and operable
units (OU) listed on the NPL in Florida.
Table 3-2
Number of Sites and Operable Units at NPL Sites in Florida
Source: Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS database; see Chapter 1 for a detailed description of the data sources.
1 Sites with pre-remedial activities are sites where remedial design and construction have not yet begun, although the remedy may
have been chosen. These sites, especially the pre-remedial sites still in the investigation phase, present long-term opportunities for
vendors. Sites with remedial activities are sites where remedial design has begun and construction might not have begun. Where
technologies have been selected but no vendor has been chosen, a site may present a short-term business opportunity.
b A site may have more than one operable unit in each phase, so operable units may be counted more than once.
3-6
-------
Table 3-3, at the end of the chapter, provides information on 29 NPL sites in Florida at which marketing
opportunities exist. Data for this table also was obtained from the CERCLIS database as it existed in May
1995. The table reflects that in 29 out of 58 NPL sites, remedial action has not started at 1 or more OUs.
The sites and OUs for which the technologies have been chosen but the vendors for the technologies have
not, are of the greatest interest to potential vendors. Of the 29 sites that require remedial action, 5 are DoD
installations. Marketing opportunities for DoD sites are discussed more fully in the section on
opportunities at Federal facilities. Data on contaminants are available for only 10 of the sites. The
contaminants include VOCs, heavy metals, pesticides, and herbicides. Data on contaminated media are
available at 27 of the 29 NPL sites at which marketing opportunities exist in Florida. There are 15 sites
with reported contamination, 25 cases of contaminated groundwater, and 14 cases of surface-water
contamination. In addition, 14 cases of contaminated sediment and 6 cases of contaminated debris and
sludge are reported. At the 10 sites for which data on volume of contamination are available, a range of 85
gallons to 50 million gallons of groundwater and a range of approximately 10 to 56,000 cubic yards of
sludge are identified as contaminated. There are 68 OUs at those sites, 35 of which are the responsibility
of DoD.
Figure 3-3 presents the distribution of sizes of the sites. The figure is a frequency histogram which
indicates the site size that may be indicative of the total amount of contamination. The sites in Florida
range from 1 to more than 20,000 acres. Size data were obtained from CERCLIS for all 29 sites at which
marketing opportunities exist. Twenty of the sites are 50 acres or less in area. Of the remaining sites, 4 are
in the range of 120 to 500 acres, and 5 are larger than 2,000 acres in area.
3-7
-------
Figure 3-3
NPL Site Size Distribution for the State of Florida
Technologies selected for use at NPL sites include biodegradation, air stripping, solidification and
stabilization, steam stripping, and leachate treatment.
3.4 The Market at RCRA Corrective Action Sites
Florida is not authorized to administer the RCRA corrective action program; however, the State does
participate in the corrective action program on a site-specific basis by reviewing corrective action
documents, such as RFIs and Quality Assurance Project Plans.
Data from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) indicate that there are 90
RCRA facilities in the State. Two RCRA facilities are currently required to perform a CMS. The number
of facilities with CMS imposed is not a direct subset of RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD)
facilities, instead it is a subset of TSD facilities and hazardous waste generators. While TSD facilities are
3-8
-------
statutorily required to address corrective action, EPA has discretionary authority to impose corrective
action on generators.
Table 3-4, at the end of this chapter, presents those facilities. For the two facilities, the entire facility is
listed as subject to requirements for corrective action. It is likely that, at those facilities, several different
problems have been identified that indicate a need for corrective action for the entire facility. They include
two Federal facilities, the Pinellas Plant (operated by DOE) and Naval Air Station Boca Chica, a FUDS
installation. Information about these two facilities is discussed in the section on Federal facilities. The
Eveready Battery facility manufactures batteries and treats wood with preservatives. There are no RCRA
data available on either the contaminants or the media contaminated at the site. In addition, 36 facilities
are under a requirement to conduct a RCRA facility investigation (RFI). The number of facilities with an
RFI imposed is not a direct subset of RCRA TSD facilities, instead it is a subset of TSD facilities and
hazardous waste generators. While TSD facilities are statutorily required to address corrective action, EPA
has discretionary authority to impose corrective action on generators. As discussed in Section 1.2, these
facilities also may provide either a long-term opportunity or near-term opportunity where no CMS is
necessary to begin corrective action or corrective activity begins in accordance with the stabilization
initiative.
3.5
The Market at UST Sites Managed by the State
The Storage Tank Regulation Section of the Division of Waste Management of FDEP administers the
State's UST program. The program is funded by the Inland Protection Trust Fund. The section
implements all aspects of the tank program, including rule development and providing technical assistance
and training to FDEP district offices and local governments. Table 3-5 summarizes UST corrective action
measures in Florida. There are 42,158 active tanks in the State. Active tanks are defined as tanks still in
service (EPA 1993). As of March 31,1996, the EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) had
identified 20,615 leaking tanks in Florida at which cleanup had not been initiated. That number represents
the difference between the two data elements "confirmed releases" and "cleanups initiated." Cleanup at
USTs with soil contamination usually is completed within 6 months to 2 years after the site has been
identified. Cleanup at USTs with groundwater contamination is usually completed within 2 to 5 years after
the site has been identified. Therefore, the number of USTs identified as opportunities for vendors of
innovative technologies will change rapidly.
3-9
-------
Table 3-5
Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures in Florida
as of the First Half of FY96
?asa?IMe^esg5a>
' *?>**WW^***'! ^X ^-3 a
Completed
42.158
71,597
25,184
4,569
3,040
20,615
Source: EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks Semi-Annual Activity Report, for First Half of Rscal Year 1996 (ending
March 31,1996).
In national studies of USTs performed by EPA 1991 and 1992, it was found that about 87 percent of the
tanks, are used to manage gasoline or diesel fuel, kerosene, or heating oil. Of the remaining USTs, 11
percent manage other materials and wastes, such as used oil (4 percent), hazardous material (2 percent),
and other material (5 percent) or are empty (2 percent). The majority of the contamination problems are
related to the contamination of soils and groundwater with petroleum products that contain VOCs and
SVOCs.
3.6
The Market at Federal Facility Sites in Florida
The Pinellas Plant is the only DOE facility in Florida at which remedial action activities are planned.
Florida has 23 operational or closing DoD military installations and formerly used defense sites (FUDS) at
which remedial activities are planned. There are 515 active sites at the DoD installations, 309 of which
have future remedial action planned. Active sites are those at which some form of remediation activity is
planned or underway. The total number of sites to be remediated may exceed that figure because, in
general, DoD does not plan remediation at a site until the remedial investigation and feasibility study
(RI/FS) have been completed.
The Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Five-Year Plan (DOE 1993) indicates that a total
of more than $27 million is estimated to be needed between fiscal year (FY) 1996 and FY 1998 in all
phases of cleanup activities at the Pinellas Plant. At the Pinellas Plant, there are a number of sites at which
corrective action is planned under the authority of RCRA. Currently, RCRIS indicates that there are seven
sites at the Pinellas Plant subject to corrective action that may present opportunities for vendors.
3-10
-------
Groundwater contamination from VOCs is the main environmental concern of the corrective action. The
Pinellas Plant is a 99 acre site that was used to produce weapons components. In 1994, the plant stopped
producing components and has transitioned from a defense mission to an environmental management
mission. The current mission is to achieve a safe shutdown of the facility and prepare the site for
alternative uses as a community resource for economic development. Low-level radioactive waste will be
generated from the cleanup of tritium processing areas, including laboratories. Hazardous waste will be
generated from the cleanup of process areas.
The Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994
indicates that a total of approximately $1.36 billion is projected to be spent through the year 2020 in all
phases of cleanup at the 16 installations. The facilities that indicate an intention to spend more than $100
million are Naval Station Mayport, Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Naval Air Station Pensacola, Eglin Air
Force Base, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, and Naval Air Station Whiting Field. These installations
account for approximately $ 1.05 billion of the $ 1.36 billion. Many of the sites identified at the
installations either are undergoing or are scheduled to undergo an RI/FS and therefore are at a relatively
early stage of the remediation process. Five of the 11 installations are on the NPL; there are 166 sites at
those installations. Because the spending projections are prepared at the installation level, it is not possible
to determine the amount of money allocated for activities at individual sites.
Most of the contaminants at sites on military installations at which remediation currently is planned fall
into one of three categories: petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL); VOCs; and heavy metals. Those
contaminants typically are found in the soil at all sites. No data are available on volumes of soil and
groundwater to be treated. Table 3-6 provides information on the individual installations in the State and
the sites that are subject to remediation at those installations. Staff at each installation determine the
individual sites at which they plan to perform remedial actions. Cleanup already may be underway at other
sites; such sites are not included in the table because it is unlikely that they will afford an opportunity for
vendors of innovative technologies.
Table 3-6
DoD Installations and Sites in Florida
Avon Park Air Force Range
Outyear Funding FY95-2004
$9,996
FL457212458700
3-11
-------
Table 3-6 (continued)
DoD Installations and Sites in Florida
^^ ,^^^_ ^,
•_--- -«-«- *• - * 1-f V" J^^"\H k;fc»V V*^'^"--^1*^*^'^"^1^*^"^;
- j"K«i i .j •"" . *- . Vt - iL_* ii^ 'iv* wsH?1*' -iW ^vJ^'-Wv*- •**^5*S?ti*i^»i"*^
«jl ^ , , * S1. »,." ». ly-sRSi* ,'f.i.V • i'-Wb'-iSKW,***1****^ y.'P^* ^V-'vK' '^JWE^w-'
' e^2aMXDtotye^Eimafii^$(«)0)Sg|^
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station
Outyear Funding FY95-2010
$134,162
Coastal Systems Station Panama City
Outyear Funding FY95-2005
$8,280
CP Gordon Johnston
Outyear Funding FY95-2005
$4,213
Eglin Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2013
$175,295
Homestead Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2020
$42,742
MacDill Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2002
$38,543
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Outyear Funding FY95-2004
$87,732
Naval Air Station Jacksonville
Outyear Funding FY95-2010
$190,942
Naval Air Station Key West
Outyear Funding FY95-2005
$31,277
Naval Air Station Pensacola
Outyear Funding FY95-2010
$162,672
Naval Air Station Whiting Field
Outyear Funding FY95-2010
$103,668
Naval Station Mayport
Outyear Funding FY95-2020
$286,813
Naval Training Center Orlando
Outyear Funding FY95-2004
$45,234
Patrick Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2006
$4.318
jjm&mfm&BtjM
^'.K^g^gttlfg-^sgjK;
;--siaentiiicauoii4;/?.:
FL4571 12440700
FL417002379200
FL49799F715100
FL457 172436600
FL457002403700
FL457002458200
FL417002247400
FL4 1700244 1200
FL417002295200
FL417002461000
FL417002324400
FL417002426000
FL417002436700
FL4571 12440400
'f-^^A^^^^f^^^.
A
A
F
A
A,N
A
A,N
A,N
A
A,N
A,N
A
A
A
INumD^rioBSitelsaiiiWhlch'W;
V^'-^^^^f^K&^'/i&t&f^miBS.
fls&OIeanuplis-sEIannedSrJf:
46
9
4
5
12
3
23
20
18
53
41
26
8
18
3-12
-------
Table 3-6 (continued)
DoD Installations and Sites in Florida
-> z~ ^ ~J ** r° *«Ls ^\ ~" ^ ^ * ~ * ^ *" y.
s- t <** *-.'* ->»x* - «? ~ ' ix
1 '"i^ ~ fi& '***£* ~<~X ' <•
- >T v45vV^Na^e ^ *rv ^ v
• V '"aria Ou^e^r Funding ($000)^ *,
Bushnell Army Ammunition Facility
Outyear Funding FY95-2008
$2,978
Cross City Army Ammunition Facility
Outyear Funding FY95-1999
' $1,226
Dale Mabry
Outyear Funding FY95-2010
$3,868
Fort Bade
Outyear Funding FY95-2004
$4,108
Lakeland Army Ammunition Facility
Outyear Funding FY95-2003
$3,155
McCoy Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2008
$4,679
Opa Locka Airport
Outyear Funding FY95-2005
$4,130
Tyndall Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2020
$10,545
^Federal Facility f
„ ^ Identification
^ Number' ^
FL49799F436400
FL49799439900
FL49799F7 15800
FL49799F435100
FL49799F4331300
FL49799F453600
FL49799F449300
FL457212412400
< ^ ^ "
\ f*~
&* ^" "^
f*>
^"f * *
-'Codes1
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
A
j-W* ¥ ™, f \
>. «. _ " " < - %*- <-* „
^ * ^ f ** ^^
Number of Sites~at|VMch
Cleanup is Planned
1
2
3
3
1
3
3
6
Source: Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994
Codes:
A = The installation is currently operational or on the BRAC list, and cleanup is covered by DERA or BRAC funds
F = The installation is no longer active and is managed by the FUDS Branch
N = The site is listed on the final National Priorities List
3-13
-------
3.7 Further Market Information for Florida
A vendor that wishes to obtain information about sites in Florida that are managed by EPA may write to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
For information on RCRA facilities, the envelope should be marked to the attention of the Freedom of
Information Act Officer, Office of RCRA and Federal Facilities. For information on CERCLA facilities in
Florida, the envelope should be marked to the attention of the Freedom of Information Act Officer, South
Superfund Remedial Branch. The requestor will be billed for the information, according to the volume of
information provided.
For more information on USTs handled by EPA, vendors may contact:
John Mason
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Mail Code 4WM-GWP-15
Atlanta, GA 30365
Information also is available on the names and addresses of UST sites in the State that require remediation.
A vendor may write to:
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Storage Tank Regulation Section
Twin Towers Office Bldg., Room 403
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(904) 488-3935
3-14
-------
A vendor that wishes to obtain information about sites in Florida that are managed by the state may contact
the following individuals at the Division of Waste Management:
BUREAU OF WASTE CLEANUP
Bureau Chief: Doug Jones
Phone: (904)488-0190
Storage Tank Regulation Section
Adminstrator: Marshall Mott-Smith
Phone: (904)488-3935
Petroleum Cleanup Reimbursement Section
Adminstrator: Chuck Williams
Phone: (904)487-3299
Petroleum Cleanup Section
Adminstrator: Brian Dougherty
Phone: (904)487-3299
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Section
Administrator: Dan DiDomenico
Phone: (904)488-0190
Technical Review Section
Adminstrator: Jim Crane
Phone: (904)488-3935
Site Investigation Section
Adminstrator: Bill Martin
Phone: (904)488-0190
Engineering Support Section
Adminstrator: TomConrardy
Phone: (904)488-3935
BUREAU OF SOLID AND HAZARDOUS
WASTE
Bureau Chief: Bill Hinkley
Phone: (904)488-0300
Hazardous Waste Management Section
Adminstrator: Raoul Clarke
Phone: (904)488-0300
Hazardous Waste Regulation Section
Administrator: Satish Kastury
Phone: (904)488-0300
Solid Waste Management Section
Administrator: Mary Jean Yon
Phone: (904)488-0300
Waste Reduction Section
Administrator: Ron Henricks
Phone: (904)488-0300
3-15
-------
For information about DOE sites or any of DOE's technology development assistance programs, vendors
may contact:
DOE's Center for Environmental Management Information
470 L'Enfant Plaza East
Suite 7112
Washington, DC 20024
(800) 736-3282
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) does not have a single point of contact that handles all of DoD's
environmental restoration initiatives, site-level information, and technology programs. The Defense
Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for FY 1995 contains detailed information
on environmental restoration accomplishments and schedules at DoD installations world-wide. This report
is available on the Internet at the DoD Environmental Restoration home page at:
http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod/
The home page also provides links to other internet sites that pertain to DoD environmental restoration
activities.
3-16
-------
Table 3-1
Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act Sites in Florida at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist
Bureau of Waste
Cleanup
Proposed,
active
Planned completion of contamination
assessment report (02/93)
Groundwater
NA
Chromium, Cyanide, Other Volatile
Organic Compounds, Phenol
To be determined
Bureau of Waste
Cleanup
Active
Soil excavated (9/93); Design and
construction of primary charcoal
treatment system for groundwater
planned to begin 9/94
Soil,
Groundwater
NA
Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene,
1,2-dichloroethane, Other Organic
Compounds
Soil -- excavation and treatment
Groundwater -- primary charcoal
treatment system and discharge to
POTW
Bureau of Waste
Cleanup
Active
Planned completion of final design
(11/94) and construction bidding
thereafter
Groundwater
NA
Tetrachloroethene, Trichloroethene
Air stripping and carbon polishing with
surface water discharge
m fiaostr allSolvInlS
Bureau of Waste
Cleanup
Active
Planned completion of final remedial
design (12/94)
Groundwater
NA
Tetrachloroethylene
Installation of excavation wells; air
stripping with carbon absorption and
discharge
Bureau of Waste
Cleanup
Proposed
active
Planned completion of contamination
assessment report (7/94)
Soil,
Groundwater
Chromium, Cyanide, Lead, Mercury,
Other Organic Compounds, Sodium,
Zinc
Potential remediation: natural
attenuation and monitoring but to be
3-17
-------
Table 3-1 (continued)
Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act Sites in Florida at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist
Bureau of Waste
Cleanup
Active
Planned completion of remedial
design (6/95)
Soil, Sludge,
Qroundwater
Cadmium, Chromium,
Tetrachloroethylene
Soil -- excavation and off-site disposal
as nonhazardous
Sludge -- off-site disposal
Groundwater - recovery and
treatment through POTW
Bureau of Waste
Cleanup
Active
Remedial Design completed (02/92);
remedial action pending
Soil,
Qroundwater,
LNAPL
Chromlum, Copper, Ethylbenzene,
Lead, Mercury, PAHs,
Tetrachloroethane, Toluene, VOCs
(LNAPL). Xylene. Zinc
Multimedia capping and groundwater
monitoring; vapor extraction (LNAPL)
Bureau of Waste
Cleanup
Active
Planned completion of feasibility study
for groundwater remediation (12/94)
Groundwater
NA
Cis-1,2-dichloroethene,
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene,
Trichloroethene
To be determined
Bureau of Waste
Cleanup
Active
Planned soil excavation (6/94); Final
design and bidding services for soil
submitted (4/91); Interim remedial
measures for groundwater began
operation (9/93)
Soil,
Groundwater
1,1,1-trichloroethane, Cadmium,
Chloroform, Chromium, Copper,
Ketones, Lead, Methylene Chloride,
Nickel, Phenols, Silver,
Tetrachloroethene, Toluene,
Trichloroethene. Zinc
Soil ~ solidification/fixation
Groundwater ~ bioremediation
3-18
-------
Table 3-1 (continued)
Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act Sites in Florida at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist
LEAD
STATE NPL
STATUS
REMEDIAL PHASE
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
Bureau of Waste
Cleanup
Active
Contamination assessment work plan
completed (01/94)
Soil,
Groundwater
Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium,
Cyanide, Lead, Mercury, Nickel,
Selenium, Silver, Thallium
To be determined
ADDRESS:
Bureau of Waste
Cleanup
Active
Percent remedial design for soil
completed (02/93); Planned
completion of remedial design for
groundwater (3/95); soil removal and
construction of groundwater treatment
system planned to begin 8/95
Soil,
Groundwater
1,000 cy
Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
Tetrachloroethylene.Trichloroethylene
Soil -- excavation and off-site
treatment
Groundwater -- air stripping and
granular activated carbon
3-19
-------
Table 3-3
NPL Sites In Florida at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist*
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START DATE2
RI/FS
COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
02
RI/FS
(RP/FE) 112/30/96 | Y
GW
f- '.',v*»«e»f*&>toStt«,j.,.,
SITE|MAME«IMO
01
RI/FS
(F/FE/RP)
12/31/95
1_T
|GW;RC;SO |NA |NA |NA
01
SOURCE CONTROL
(F)
9/30/96
GW; LW; SD; SL;
SO;ST
85 gal; 10,560
gal; 7,554,800
gal; 10cy;59cy
VOC;
CREOSOTES;
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES
Off-Site Treatment; Drums/Other Containers
Staged Only; Disposal of Residual;
Biodegradation/Land Application; No Action;
Monitoring; Final Removal to Off-Site Landfill;
Solidification and Stabilization
02
GROUNDWATER
(EP/F)
3/31/96
Y
GW
NA
NA
NA
01 GROUNDWATER/SOIL
REMEDIATION
(RP/FE/F)
9/30/95
Y
GW;SO
NA
METALS; VOC;
PCBS;
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES
Natural Attenuation; Air Stripping; Disposal of
Residual; Incineration with On-Site Disposal of
Residuals; Leachate Treatment; Monitoring; Off-
Sits Treatment: Solidification and Stabilisation
' Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
AlAir
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
3-20
-------
Table 3-3 (continued)
NPL Sites in Florida at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
Rl/FS
COM-
PLETED
OPERABLE UNIT
RA PLANNED
START DATE2
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
GROUNDWATER PUMP
& TREAT
RD TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (F/FE)
9/30/96
DB; GW; MS; SD;
SO; ST; SW
900,000 gal;
9,000 cy
VOC; METALS
Biodegradation and Bioremediation; Disposal of
Residual; Leachate Treatment; Precipitation;
Solidification and Stabilization; Incineration with
On-Site Disposal of Residuals
..
02 GW CONT./LANDFILL ASSESSMENT
IRP/FE)
6/30/95
Al; GW; SD; SW
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter I for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
AlAlr
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
3-21
-------
Table 3-3 (continued)
NPL Sites In Florida at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist*
RAPLANNED
START DATE2
WETLANDS &
GROUNDWATER
GROUNDWATER
(PS/FE/RP)
02
SOURCE CONTROL
5/30/95
(PS/FE) 10/01/96
GW
GW
50,000,000 gal
NA
METALS; OTHER
INORGANICS;
VOC
NA
Air Stripping; Disposal of Residual; Monitoring;
Pump and Treatment
NA
vStiSpM^sS!^
RI/FS SOILS AND
ORDIINnWATFR
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
3-22
-------
Table 3-3 (continued)
NPL Sites in Florida at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist'
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START DATE2
RI/FS
COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
01
(F/FE/RP)
02 BAY/PEAK GROUNDWATER (RP/FE)
03 BAY SOURCE
04 WETLANDS
(EP/F/RP)
(EP/F/RP1
9/30/96
9/30/96
9/30/96
6/29/96
DB; GW; SD; SO;
SW
GW
DB; GW; SD; SO;
ST
SD: SW
6,000 cy; 46,000
NA
27,000 cy
NA
METALS; PCBS;
VOC
METALS;
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES;
VOC
METALS; PCBS;
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES;
VOC
NA
Surface Capping Only; Disposal of Residual;
Monitoring; Solidification and Stabilization
Air Stripping; Disposal of Residual; Leachate
Treatment; Pump and Treat at POTW with
Discharge; Off-Site Treatment; Steam Stripping;
Monitoring
Decontamination; Off-Site Treatment; Monitoring;
Surface Capping Only; Soil Cover; Disposal of
Residual; Solidification and Stabilization
NA
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
At Air
DB Debris
DK Unknown
EP EPA In-House
ES Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federai/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST Solid Waste
SW Surface Water
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VOCs Volatile Organic
Compounds
3-23
-------
Table 3-3 (continued)
NPL Sites In Florida at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist'
NUMBER
NAME
OPERABLE UNIT
RA PLANNED
START DATE2
Rl/FS
COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
02
03
WATERFRONT SEDIMENT
AREA
JEQ
9/30/97
SD;SW
NA
NA
04
05
PESTICIDE RINSATE DISP
AREA
12/31/97
QW;SO
NA
JED.
BLDG 649 & 755 SOIL N 648 (FF)
9/30/97
GW; SD; SO; SW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06
SOIL S OF BLDG 3460/
NAVY YD
3/30/97
GW;SO
NA
NA
NA
_JEQ
08
JEEL 6/30/97_
CRASH CREW TRAINING AREA (FF) 9/30/97
JL
N
.GWi_SO
GW; SD; SO; SW
NA_
NA
NA
NA
NA..
NA
09
SUP DEP/OUTSIDE STOR
JUSNOyiS)
3/30/98
NA
NA
NA
NA
JEQ
10 IWTP SLUDGE DRYING
BEDSAVWTP
6/30/97
IFF).
GW; LW; SD; SL;
SO; ST; SW
NA
NA
Backfilling; Removal: Off-Site Locations
(Treatment/Final Disposal)
J.L
12
BUILDING 71
(FF).
OAK GROVE CAMPGROUND
AREA
9/30/97_
6/30/97
JL
N
.GW;j30
GW; SO; SW
NA
NA
639 cy
NA
NA
Backfilling; Removal: Off-Site Locations
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
3-24
-------
Table 3-3 (continued)
NPL Sites in Florida at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START DATE2
RI/FS
COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
REFUELER REPAIR SHOP
14
15
TRANSFORMER STORAGE
YARD
BOYOU GRANDE AREA
12/30/98
SD;SW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16
NASP WETLANDS
(FF)
12/30/98
SD;SW
NA
NA
Removal: Off-Site Locations (Treatment/Final
Disposal; Surfac^Drajnage^ontro|
NA
«^i^{§»l^g>J!fS?J?^Si«i;8»«Si5?K
;Tyj>E:pGener,al;.W4reh,ouslr
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
AlAir
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other •
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
3-25
-------
Table 3-3 (continued)
NPL Sites in Florida at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist'
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RAPLANNED
START DATE2
RI/FS
COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
01 REEVES SITE SOURCE (RP/FE)
6/30/95
GW; OT; SD; SO
6,000 cy
METALS; PCBS;
VOC
Monitoring; Surface Capping Only; Disposal of
Residual; Solidification and Stabilization
02
INTERIM ACTION
(RP/FE)
9/30/95
NA
METALS
Natural Attenuation; Monjtgring_
03
AREA-WIDE
WETLANDS
9/30/95
NA
NA
NA
NA
(EP/FE/RP)
01 RD/RA - CONSENT DECREE (RP/FE)
12/31/99
Al; GW; SD; SO;
SW
VOC
Monitoring; Air Stripping; Disposal of Residual
03 OU3 - LAKE SEDIMENTS (RP/FE) | 6/30/96
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
AlAir
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
, Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST Solid Waste
SW Surface Water
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VOCs .Volatile Organic
Compounds
3-26
-------
Table 3-3 (continued)
NPL Sites in Florida at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START DATE2
RI/FS
COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
01
FIRE PROT TRAIN AREA#2(FPTA#2)
(FF)
9/30/96
GW;SO
NA
NA
J2
04
PEST DISP AREA
JFfl
3/30/97
MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK
6/30/96
S0_
GW;SO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(FF)
ELECTROPLATE WD AREA
07
ENTO. STORAGE AREA
3/30/97
GW;SO
1,100cy
NA
Backfilling; Excavation and Final Removal to Olf-
Site
08
FPTA #3
(FF)
3/30/97
GW;SO
2,317 cy
NA
Backfilling; Thermal Treatment with Off-Site
8 --
Disposal
,09
BOUNDARY CANAL
JEQ
6/30/97
HUSH HOUSES
JEQ
3/31/97
SD;.SW..
m
NA_
NA_
NA
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
3-27
-------
Table 3-3 (continued)
NPL Sites In Florida at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START DATE8
RI/FS
COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
f.l./.HrtW'i.lJVIi,!
SITE NAME;
•
^^^
01
LANDFILLS (SITES 1 & 2) (FF)
12/31/96
GW; LW; RC; SO;
ST;SW
1,600 cy
NA
Thermal Treatment with Off-Site Disposal
03
RUBBLE DISP AREA
(FF)
6/30/97
GW; LW; MS; RC;
SO;ST
NA
NA
NA
04
05
FIRE FIGHTER TRAINING AREA (FF)
3/31/97
GW; LW; MS; RC;
SO
NA
ORDANCE DISPOSAL AREAS (FF)
3/31/97
GW; RC; SO; ST
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
06
PESTICIDE DISPOSAL
12/30/95
GW; RC; SO; ST
NA
NA
NA
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
AlAir
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
3-28
-------
Table 3-3 (continued)
NPL Sites in Florida at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START DATE2
RI/FS
COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
ssajSiSita'fiasStasassKftsaiiiiJEJilM
01 CHILD STREET LF &
PCB STORAGE
(FF)
6/30/97
MS; RC; SD; SL;
SO; ST; SW
02 INDUST WASTE WATER TREAT PLT
(FF)
03
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
(FF)
9/30/98
3/30/97
Al; DB; GW; LW;
MS; RC; SD; SL;
SO;ST;SW
Al; DB; GW; LW;
MS; RC; SD; SL;
SO; ST; SW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP PS
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Understate
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
uxo
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
3-29 ~*
-------
Table 3-3 (continued)
NPL Sites In Florida at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
RA PLANNED
START DATE2
Disposal of Residual; Precipitation; Leachate
Treatment; Monitoring; Solidification and
Stabilization
GW; SD; SL; SO;
11,499,860 gal;
fNRlpt.ATJJS|pa'
agrgfei^^fe^^fe»J;^yihSsJ
Monitoring; Disposal of Residual; Solidification
and Stabilization
Natural Attenuation; Monitoring
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION (F)
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
3-30
-------
Table 3-4
RCRA Facilities Currently Undergoing Corrective Action in Florida1
EVEREADY BATTERY CO INC
US 441 N OF HAGUE
HAGUE, FL 32614
FLD043860451
ENTIRE FACILITY
USDOE PINELLAS PLANT
7887 BRYAN DAIRY RD, LARGO, FL 34649-9
FL6890090008 ENTIRE FACILITY
OLD DRUM STOR SITE/BLDG 100 AREA CAMU1
PISTOL RANGE - CAMU2
NE SITE & E. POND - CAMU 3
WEST FENCELINE AREA
PRODUCTION COMPONENTS SCRAP AREA
WASTEWATER NEUTRTALIZATION AREA
BUILDING 200
USNAS BOCA CHICA
NAVAL AIR STATION BLDG A827, KEY
WEST. FL 33040-0
FL6170022952
ENTIRE FACILITY
••*•
1 Data as of May 1995 from the EPA RCRIS database. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of data sources.
2 No data were available in RCRIS to indicate the media contaminated or the contaminants of concern.
3-31
-------
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3-32
-------
4.0 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF SITES IN GEORGIA
This chapter provides a detailed discussion of the opportunities available in the State of Georgia for
vendors of innovative technologies. The chapter is organized into seven sections. The first section
describes the organization and authority of the State's program. The next section discusses opportunities at
sites subject to Georgia's Hazardous Sites Response Act. That section is followed by a similar discussion
of opportunities at Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites. The fourth and fifth sections discuss the
markets at Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities subject to corrective action and at
underground storage tanks (UST) sites managed by the State. Subsequent sections provide information on
opportunities at Federal facilities and provide other useful information about working in the State.
Figures 4-1 and 4-2 present two maps
of Georgia that indicate the locations
of sites in the State that are on the
NPL and the RCRA facilities in the
State.1 The 13 NPL sites in Georgia
are found throughout the State, with
several near the city of Macon.
RCRA facilities also are found
throughout the state, with two major
concentrations of such sites in the
southeast and northwest corners of the
state.
Summary Information'
-< \ ,- •<
There are a number of potential opportunities for
vendors of innovative technologies in the State of
Georgia." Of Nthe 13 NPL sites in the state,"! are federal
"facilities. Ten, of the NPL sites hav& operable units at
which remedial action has not yet begun. Listed on the
Georgia Hazardous Site Inventory List are 336 sites, 12
of .which are sites that have been assigned the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources' (GADNR) highest
priority for remediation. There are 98 RCRA facilities
in Georgia^ 5 of which are currently under a requirement
to conduct a corrective measures study (CMS).
According-to the EPA Office of Underground Storage
panics; 1,292 USTs in the state require remediation!
/yi -sv » V- OPf, * ^ s - 4 «•*•»!. ^ >* / *>
^Finally, therS are 15 active Department ofDefense
^y^%\ ^ J*-"-£i?/^/-°- -^ •*/ a-^^^,v
^(Dp^installations^and formerly used defense sites s y^
\FUDS) locatedm Georgia. Of the inhalations' 226 ? X"
r^J " -'A * tf*f*~ f f °^ x ,*y f , f.* ^ <• \. '. )f
sites, remediation''currently is planned for 7j& sites. >», ,
'- e~ -
Figures 4-1 and 4-2 do not indicate the locations of all NPL sites and all RCRA facilities located in
Georgia. LandView II™ contains information from the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) on NPL sites and other sites. It also contains
information from the Biennial Reporting System (BRS) on treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and
major generators of hazardous waste.
4-1
-------
N
A
Atlanta
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Modified from Landview II, based on data
as of September 1994.
Figure 4-1
NPL Sites in Georgia
4-2
-------
N
A
Atlanta
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Modified from Landview II, based on data
as of September 1994.
Figure 4-2
RCRA Facilities in Georgia
4-3
-------
4.1 The Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Program
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) is responsible for administering the state's
regulations governing the environment. GADNR is composed of the Hazardous Waste Management
Branch, Environmental Protection Division (EPD), and the Land Protection Branch. As of 1993, EPD,
Hazardous Sites Response Program has nine full-time equivalent employees. The Hazardous Waste
Management Branch oversees compliance and corrective action under RCRA as well as the State's
Superfund activities.
The State's cleanup program regulated under the Hazardous Site Response Act (HSRA) is underway.
Remediation also is being conducted under the State's delegated RCRA authorities. The HSRA of 1992 is
part of the Official Code of Georgia, Section 12-8-6, as amended, which authorizes a cleanup fund,
enforcement authorities, strict joint and several liability, punitive damages, provisions governing transfer
of property, and a site priority list. The Georgia Board of Natural Resources has adopted regulations
establishing cleanup standards which provide for use of published numeric standards or site-specific
standards derived from using risk assessment. The Georgia Hazardous Site Inventory includes sites that
EPD has identified as requiring remediation under HSRA.
Georgia does not have a voluntary cleanup program. The Hazardous Waste Trust Fund (HWTF),
implemented under HSRA, allocates funds for all phases of remediations including emergency response,
site investigations, removal actions, studies and design, remedial action, and operation and maintenance.
The fund also provides matching funds for sites regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); promotes pollution prevention; and provides
program administration. On February 29,1996, HWTF had a balance of $21.95 million. The HWTF is
funded by monies from fees on solid and hazardous waste management activities and from penalties and
interest If the balance of the fund equals or exceeds $25 million, the collection of fees is suspended until
the unencumbered balance is less than or equal to $12.5 million.
The Land Protection Branch administers the activities of the State's UST Program. The Georgia
Underground Storage Tank Management Rules, Chapter 391-3-15, were promulgated under the authority
of the Georgia Underground Storage Tank Act of 1988. The State's UST program's responsibilities
include investigating conditions related to UST management practices; determining violations of
regulations governing USTs; conducting remediation activities; and enforcing tank registration
requirements. The Georgia Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, established on July 1,1988, provides
coverage to participating owners and operators for release response and corrective
4-4
-------
action in the event of a release from a UST. Funds to support the trust fund are raised from import fees
collected from UST owners and operators that import petroleum products into Georgia.
4.2 The Market at Sites Managed Under State Authorities
The State of Georgia published the first Hazardous Site Inventory (HSI) in July 1994. The HSI lists the
sites located in Georgia that are known or suspected to have had a release of a regulated substance
exceeding a reportable quantity as defined by rules adopted by EPD. There currently are 336 sites listed
on the HSI. The inventory is compiled and published by the EPD at least once each year. Once the HSI is
published, the clerk of the superior court of each county in Georgia receives one copy. The clerk is
required to keep the most current copy of the HSI where the land records of the county are located in order
to have ready access to the document.
Sites are listed on the inventory when a release of a regulated substance is determined to pose a potential
threat to human health and the environment. The property owner of the site must determine whether
notification to EPD is required under the State's Rules for Hazardous Site Response. If it is required, the
property owner submits a notification and EPD determines whether a reportable release has occurred.
Sites are placed on the inventory if the release has exceeded a reportable quantity.
EPD evaluated for HSI listings, all those sites listed on Region 4's version of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database known as
Wastelan, on March 2, 1994. The Wastelan report is a list of all sites in Georgia that the U.S. EPA is or
will be investigating under the Federal Superfund program. If EPA determines that a site listed on
Wastelan is a high priority for cleanup under the criteria of the Federal Superfund program, the site is
placed on the NPL. Non-NPL sites will not be remediated by EPA under the Federal Superfund program
unless they pose an imminent danger to human health and the environment, then in this case, EPA may
clean up the site through an emergency action. Non-NPL sites that are not cleaned up by EPA then fall
under Georgia's HSRA program.
Of the 904 sites listed on the March 2,1994 EPA Wastelan report, EPA has placed only 13 on the NPL.
Many contaminated sites in Georgia will not be remediated by the EPA under the Federal Superfund
program because the sites do not pose a sufficient threat to human health and the environment to be
considered a high priority for cleanup using Federal resources. However, sites listed on the HSI are
required to meet the State's risk reduction standards for hazardous sites. The risk
4-5
-------
reduction standards establish limits on levels of regulated substances that are protective of human health
and the environment under specific conditions. Sites listed on the HSI are separated into four classes:
Number of Sites
Georgia Hazardous Site Inventory Classes
12
CLASS I: Sites at which known human exposure to regulated substances has
occurred, that have sources of continuing releases, or that are causing serious
environmental problems are designated on the HSI as Class I sites. EPD has
assigned these sites highest priority for corrective action. Persons responsible for
remediating these sites are required to put a notice in the deed to the property. If a
responsible party fails to perform site remediation as required, EPD may use the
state hazardous waste trust fund to clean up the site and later recover the cost of the
cleanup from the responsible party. Class I sites retain that classification until they
are cleaned up to meet applicable risk reduction standards.
241
CLASS II: For many sites listed on the HSI, further evaluation is necessary before
EPD can decide whether remediation is needed. These sites are categorized as Class
n sites. Persons responsible for Class n sites are given a period of time to
investigate the site to determine the extent of contamination and to submit the results
of the investigation to EPD. Persons responsible for Class n sites also are
encouraged to clean up the sites within that time period. EPD then will either
remove the site from the HSI or reclassify the site as Class I or m, depending on
whether it meets the risk reduction standards. While classified as Class n, a site will
not be designated as in need of remediation, so property owners will not be required
to immediately place notices on deeds and other property records. If a responsible
party at a Class H site fails to perform the required investigation, the priority of the
site can be upgraded to Class I. The majority of sites on this edition of the HSI are
Class H.
0
CLASS nt Sites designated on the HSI as Class HI sites are those that cannot meet
the residential risk reduction standards but do meet alternative risk reduction
standards. These sites are designated as in need of corrective action; the property
owners are required to file deed notices as for Class I sites. These sites may require
continued monitoring to ensure that they continue to meet applicable standards and
will require further remediation before they can be used for residential purposes. As
of July 1996, no site had ever been designated as Class Id.
83
CLASS IV: Class IV sites are sites at which remediation already is being conducted
or has been completed under other Federal or state authority, including sites that are
listed on the NPL and have a signed Record of Decision. They are designated as in
need of corrective action and remain on the HSI; the property owner is required to
file deed notices. If it is determined at any time that the corrective action at a Class
IV site does not protect human health or the environment, the site may be
redesignated from Class IV to Class I. If it can be certified that the site meets one of
the other risk reduction standards, it can be reclassified and may be removed from
the HSI.
4-6
-------
GADNR provides site summaries that have general information about each site on the HSI, including:
• Name of the site
• Location of the site
• Identity of the property owner of the site
• Description of the regulated substances released at the site
• Possible threats to human health and the environment the release may pose at the site
The HSI also indicates the status of cleanup activities at the site, the priority of remediation assigned to the
site, and whether EPD determines that the site requires corrective action.
Data provided by GADNR in Table 4-1 indicates that groundwater contamination is present at most Class I
sites regulated under HSRA. Most sites also are contaminated by heavy metals. Table 4-1 presents the
names of HSRA Class I sites at which investigation or remediation has not yet begun. These are the sites
that EPA has assigned the highest priority for corrective action. The table also identifies the media
contaminated and describes the contaminants present at the sites. Information included in the table was
collected in July 1996. A complete list of HSI sites is available from GADNR (see section 4.7).
Table 4-1
Georgia Hazardous Waste Site Inventory Class I Sites
at Which Remediation Activities Have Not Yet Begun
Alco Controls
400 East First Street
Haslehurst, GA 31539
Jeff Davis County
Owner:
Emerson Electric Company
8000 West Florissant Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63136
Groundwater
Trichloroethylene; dichloroethylene, N.O.S.; trans-, 1,2-
dichloroethane; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; 1,2-
dichloroethane, acetone, benzene, ethylbenzene,
tetrachloroethylene, toluene, xylenes, methylene chloride
American Linen Supply Company
1081 Experiment Station Road
Watkinsville, GA 30677
Oconee County
Owner:
American Linen Supply Company
P.O. Box 9374
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Soil
Trichloroethylene, dichloroethylene, N.O.S.;
chlorobenzene, chloroform, 1,1,-dichloroethene, vinyl
chloride
Damascus Groundwater Contamination
City of Damascus
Damascus, GAS 1741
Early County
Groundwater
Carbon tetrachloride
4-7
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Georgia Hazardous Waste Site Inventory Class I Sites
at Which Remediation Activities Have Not Yet Begun
,,..,...-. v-. .
s$&Jfame'-£%
Douglas & Lomason
1016 State Hwy 16
Newnan, GA 30363
Coweta County
Owner:
Douglas & Lomason Company
P.O. Box 20783
Atlanta. GA 30320
Groundwater
1,1-dichloroethane, benzene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
methylene chloride, toluene, disulfide, chloroform, 1,2-
dichloroethane, trans-1,2-dichloroethene,
tetrachloroethane, vinyl chloride, carbon tetrachloride
Herdon Homes
511 John Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30318
Fulton County
Owner:
Housing Authority of the City of
Atlanta
739 W. Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Soil
Lead (see HSI report for complete list of contaminants)
LCP Chemicals
Ross Road
Brunswick, GA 31520
Owner
Hamlin Group, Inc.
3100 Woodbridge Avenue, Suite 401
Edison. NJ 08837
Groundwater, soil,
surface water
Mercury, PCBs, pentachlorophenol, chloroform,
trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, hexachloroethane,
HCB, dieldrin, toluene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene,
heavy metals
Martin Marietta Aggregates
G.A. Highway 80
Thomson, GA 30824
Warren County
Ownen
Martin Marrietta Aggregates
P.O. Box 30013
Raliegh,NC 27622
Groundwater
Trichloroethylene, toluene, dichloroethylene, N.O.S.
Monroe Auto Equipment Company
200 Mclntyre Drive
Hartwell,GA 30643
Hart County
Ownen
Monroe Auto Equipment Company
1 International Drive
Monroe, MI 48161
Groundwater
Vinyl chloride, trichlorethylene, 1,1-dichloroethane,
1,1,1-trichlorethane
Reliant Corporation
U.S. Highway 19/129
Blairsville, GA 30512
Union County
Owner.
Reliant Corporation
P.O. Drawer 970
Marietta, GA 30061
Groundwater
1,1-Dichloroethylene, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, trichloroethylene
Rheem Manufacturing Company
139 Brampton Road
Savannah, GAS 1408
Chatham County
Ownen
Dale Hendrix, Trustee
P.O. Box 22967
Old Dean Forest Road
Savannah, GAS 1403
Soil, groundwater
Lead (soil), vinyl chloride (groundwater) (see HSI report
for a complete list of contaminants)
4-8
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Georgia Hazardous Waste Site Inventory Class I Sites
at Which Remediation Activities Have Not Yet Begun
«,
-, SfteName'
Media"*-
Contaminants
Tift Site
South Martin Drive
East Point, GA 30344
Fulton County
Owner:
Thomas W. Tift
3401 Norman Perry Drive
East Point, GA 30344
Soil
Lead, silver, acetophenone, zinc, copper, nickel
Source: Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Hazardous Site Inventory, July 1994
GW = groundwater
SO = soil
4.3 The Market at Abandoned Sites Managed Under the Federal Superfund Program
As of May 1995, the EPA had placed 13 sites located in Georgia on the NPL. Currently, no sites in
Georgia are proposed for placement on the NPL. Table 4-2 presents summary information from the
CERCLIS database on the number of sites and operable units (OU) in Georgia that are listed on the NPL in
Georgia. The table provides information on the phase of remediation activity by sites with pre-remedial
activities planned or ongoing and sites that have begun remedial activity.
Table 4-2
Number of Sites and Operable Units at NPL Sites in Georgia
aessg
Pre-remedial
Remedial
12
27
Source: Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS database; see Chapter 1 for a detailed description of the data sources.
a ' Sites with pre-remedial activities are sites where remedial design and construction have not yet begun, although the remedy may
have been chosen. These sites, especially the pre-remedial sites still in the investigation phase, present long-term opportunities for
vendors. Sites with remedial activities are sites where remedial design has begun and construction might not have begun. Where
technologies have been selected but no vendor has been chosen, a site may present a short-term business opportunity.
b A site may have more than one operable unit in each phase, so operable units may be counted more than once.
Table 4-3, at the end of the chapter, provides information from the CERCLIS database about 10 sites
and 17 OUs at which remediation activities have not been initiated. The sites and OUs for which the
4-9
-------
technologies have been chosen but the vendors for the technologies have not are of the greatest interest to
potential vendors. Of the 10 sites, 2 are military installations. Marketing opportunities for DoD sites are
discussed more fully in the section on opportunities at Federal facilities.
A review of the NPL site summaries indicates that contamination by volatile organic compounds (VOC) in
both the soil and groundwater exists at the majority of the 10 NPL sites. Contamination of the soil and
groundwater by metals also exists at four of the sites. Figure 4-3 presents data on the size distribution of
NPL sites located in Georgia. The sizes of the contaminated areas range from less than 1 acre to more than
32,000 acres. Seven of the NPL sites in the State range from 1 to 20 acres in size. Technologies selected
for use at the 10 NPL sites include biodegradation and soil vapor extraction. Limited data were available
on the volumes of contaminated media present at the various sites.
Figure 4-3
NPL Site Size Distribution for the State of Georgia
4-10
-------
4.4
The Market at RCRA Corrective Action Sites
Georgia is authorized by EPA to issue RCRA Part B permits for hazardous waste facilities and is
authorized to administer the corrective action program.
Data from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) database indicate that 98
facilities regulated under RCRA exist in the State. Five of the RCRA facilities currently require corrective
action. The definition of corrective action used here is that a facility has been required to perform a CMS.
The number of facilities with CMS imposed is not a direct subset of RCRA treatment, storage, and
disposal (TSD) facilities, instead it is a subset of TSD facilities and hazardous waste generators. While
TSD facilities are statutorily required to address corrective action, EPA has discretionary authority to
impose corrective action on generators. Table 4-4, at the end of the chapter, presents those facilities and
identifies nine solid waste management units (SWMU). For five facilities, the entire facility is listed as
subject to requirements for corrective action. It is likely that, at those facilities, several different problems
have been identified that indicate a need for corrective action for the entire facility. In addition, 41
facilities are under a requirement to conduct a RCRA facility investigation (RFI). The number of facilities
with an RFI imposed is not a direct subset of RCRA TSD facilities, instead it is a subset of TSD facilities
and hazardous waste generators. While TSD facilities are statutorily required to address corrective action,
EPA has discretionary authority to impose corrective action on generators. As discussed in Section 1.2,
these facilities may also provided either a long-term opportunity or near-term opportunity where no CMS is
necessary to begin corrective action or corrective activity begins in accordance with the stabilization
initiative.
Data were not available in RCRIS to identify contaminants of concern or the media contaminated at the
facilities regulated under RCRA in the State.
4.5
The Market at UST Sites Managed by the State
The Land Protection Branch of GADNR administers the State's UST program. Georgia has more active
tanks than any other state in Region 4. Active tanks are defined as tanks still in service.
Table 1-5 presents data on the number of USTs in Region 4. Table 4-5 below presents specific
information on USTs located in Georgia.
4-11
-------
Tablets
Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures in Georgia
as: of First Half of FY96
Active
SAixSSiiSafnail£VK!^'^f<^-
49,005
15,677
6,147
4,855
2,469
1,292
Source: EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks Semi-Annual Activity Report for First Half of Fiscal Year
1996 (ending March 31,1996)
As of March 31, 1996, the EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) has identified 1,292
leaking tanks in Georgia at which cleanup has yet to be initiated. This number represents the difference
between the two data elements "confirmed releases" and "cleanups initiated." Cleanup at USTs with soil
contamination usually is completed within 6 months to 2 years after the site has been identified. Cleanup
at USTs with groundwater contamination is usually completed within 2 to 5 years after the site has been
identified. Therefore, the number of USTs identified as marketing opportunities for vendors of innovative
technologies will change rapidly.
In national studies of USTs performed by EPS in 1991 and 1992, it was found that the majority, or about
87 percent are used to store gasoline or diesel fuel, kerosene, or heating oil. Of the remaining USTs, 11
percent store various materials and wastes such as used oil (4 percent), hazardous material (2 percent), and
other material (5 percent), or are empty (2 percent). The majority of the contamination problems are
related to the contamination of soils and groundwater with petroleum products that contain VOCs and
SVOCs.
4.6
The Market at Federal Facility Sites in Georgia
Fifteen operational or closing DoD installations and FUDS are located in Georgia. DOE does not operate
any facilities in the State. There are 226 active sites at the 15 DoD installations of which 78 sites have
future remedial action planned. Active sites are those at which some form of remediation activity is
planned or underway. The total number of sites to be remediated may exceed this figure because DoD
does not plan remediation at a site until at least the remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS)
have been completed.
4-12
-------
The Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for 1994 indicates that a
total of $429 million is estimated to be needed through the year 2031 for all phases of cleanup at the 15
installations. The two facilities that have the largest allocations of funds are Robins Air Force Base
($71,938,000) and Albany Marine Corps Logistics Base ($64,515,000). Six sites at Robins Air Force Base
have cleanup planned and Albany Marine Corps Logistics Base has 24 sites at which cleanup is planned.
Many of the sites identified at the 15 installations either are undergoing or are scheduled to undergo an
RI/FS and therefore are at a relatively early stage of the remediation process.
The majority of the contaminants at the sites at which remediation is planned fall into one of three
categories: petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL), VOCs, and metals. Those contaminants are found in the
soil at all the sites and in the groundwater in a large percentage of the sites. Data on volumes of soil and
groundwater to be treated are not available. Table 4-6 provides information on the individual installations
and sites subject to remediation at those installations. Remediation already may be underway at other sites;
such sites have not included in the total because it is unlikely that they will afford opportunity for vendors
of innovative technologies. Two DoD installations in Georgia, Albany Marine Corps Logistics Base and
Robins Air Force Base, are on the NPL. At some of the sites, there also may be areas subject to RCRA
corrective action requirements.
Table 4-6
DoD Installations and Sites in Georgia
** ^ <>* £ t x_ "°" 'fiS>* y^ -w-^"-1- ~if •
,- v«* acs*.^ , &^ **%*«<-
r *• ^.^A J ?t _ v Cs ™*/ S-~r=- *. > *
r^V^^Nanfe,^ ^^ Jfc
**3 ImdioWear Funding ($000)- «* *
Air Force Plant No. 6
Outyear Funding FY95-2012
$28,251
Albany Marine Corps Logistics Base
Albany, GAS 1704
Outyear Funding FY95-2005
$64,515
Dobbins Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2006
$22,000
Fort Benning
Outyear Funding FY95-2005
$40,856
% Federal Facility ^
^ ^ *• V ^ "* £s> V*** ~~£*>~
r -? la.enfification^^'
^Number y*
GA457 172460600
GA417302369400
GA457 122458700
GA421002101800
*"""* Av, — ^
*£ ^Q. ">i*~ ^ **
„ ** M£, <•"- \
« Codes1 -^
A
A,N
A
A
t, ™t rtj-
g. •**}. J&f>& ~<-** J^^f -X,^""-1
} JNumber of Sites at Which
"~ ^Cleannpjs Planned* J^
12
24
2
14
4-13
-------
Table 4-6 (continued)
DoD Installations and Sites in Georgia
.^5«::at^^t?iarKikdi^^aOO).a^
Fort Gillem
Outyear Funding FY95-203 1
$38,395
Fort Gordon ,
Outyear Funding FY95-2002
$5,640
Fort McPherson
Outyear Funding FY95-2005
$7,869
Fort Stewart
Outyear Funding FY95-2015
$31,702
Hunter Army Airfield
Outyear Funding FY95-2005
$12,209
Moody Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2010
$37,218
Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay
Outyear Funding FY95-2007
$33,930
Robins Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-201 1
$71,938
Savannah International Airport
Outyear Funding FY95-2002
$18,950
Cp Toccoa Military Reservation
Outyear Funding FY95-2007
$2,539
Turner Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2008
$13,102
GA421002004600
GA421002036800
GA421002056500
GA421002087200
GA421002273300
GA457212410600
GA417009000100
GA457172433000
GA457282608100
GA49799F47300
GA49799F474900
^•^-•ffff^^iS'S&Sff.
''A'^i >£H;$%&3/I',5£ ;*•&£,'•-• '". E^ c;f
jS'fltfl^fllfiiSf-
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A,N
A
F
F
;?SNuffib'^rioBSiites^a't^'WliicH>'';
%saS-61eanupiisiElanned,fiSl
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
Source: Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994
Codes:
A = The installation is currently operational or on the BRAC list, and cleanup is covered by DERA or BRAC funds
F = The installation is no longer active and is managed by the FUDS Branch
N = The site is listed on the final National Priorities List
4-14
-------
4.7 Further Market Information for Georgia
A vendor that wishes to obtain information about sites in Georgia that are managed by EPA may write to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
For information on RCRA facilities, the envelope should be marked to the attention of the Freedom of
Information Act Officer, Office of RCRA and Federal Facilities. For information on CERCLA facilities in
Georgia, the envelope should be marked to the attention of the Freedom of Information Act Officer, South
Superfund Remedial Branch. The requestor will be billed for the information, according to the volume of
information provided. For more information or USTs handled by EPA, vendors may contact the EPA
Region 4 UST program manager:
John Mason
U.S. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Mail Code 4WM-GWP-15
Atlanta, GA 30365
A list of leaking USTs is available from GADNR's Land Protection Division. The list and additional
information can be obtained from:
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
Land Protection Branch
4244 International Parkway, Suite 104
Atlanta, GA 30354
(404) 362-2687
4-15
-------
A vendor can obtain an updated list or more information about a site listed on the HSI by contacting:
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
Hazardous Sites Response Program
205 Butler Street, S.E., Suite 1462
Atlanta, GA 30354
(404) 657-8600
Cost for updated lists is $14.25 for hard copy; $1.55 for diskette copy.
For information about DOE sites or any of DOE's technology development assistance programs, vendors
may contact:
DOE's Center for Environmental Management Information
470 L'Enfant Plaza East
Suite 7112
Washington, DC 20024
(800) 736-3282
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) does not have a single point of contact that handles all of DoD's
environmental restoration initiatives, site-level information, and technology programs. The ..Defense ,
Envkonmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for FY 1995 contains detailed information
on environmental restoration accomplishments and schedules at DoD installations world-wide. This report
is available on the Internet at the DoD Environmental Restoration home page at:
http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod/ .
The home page also provides links to other internet sites that pertain to DoD environmental restoration
activities.
4-16
-------
Table 4-3
NPL Sites in Georgia at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START
DATE2
RI/FS
COM-
PLETE
D
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
01
(RP/FE)
9/30/95
Al; DB; GW; SO
19,280 cy;
500,000 gal
METALS; OTHER
INORGANICS;
VOC
Monitoring; Off-Site Treatment; Surface Capping
Only; Disposal of Residual; Solidification and
Stabilization; Natural Attenuation
01
NA
(RP/FE) 19/30/95
01
NA
(RP/FE) 6/30/95
GW;SO
NA
METALS; PCBS;
VOC
Air Stripping; Pump and Treat at POTW with
Discharge; Off-Site Treatment; Steam Stripping;
Monitoring
01
SOILS/SEDIMENTS
(RP/FE)
9/30/95
Al; GW; SD; SL;
SO;SW
4,848,000 gal;
13,500 cy;
18,000 cy
METALS;
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES;
VOC
Monitoring; Natural Attenuation; Disposal of
Residual; Solidification and Stabilization
Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
4-17
-------
Table 4-3 (continued)
NPL Sites In Georgia at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist*
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START
DATE2
RI/FS
COM-
PLETE
D
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
02
INTERIM ACTION
(F/FE/RP)
NA
01
RI-FS
(RP/FE)
3/30/97
DB; GW; SO; SW
4,000 cy;
1,500,000 gal;
97,700 cy
METALS;
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES;
VOC; ACIDS;
OTHER
ORGANICS;
PLASTICS;
RADIOACTIVE
MATERIALS
Surface Capping Only; Disposal of Residual;
Incineration with On-Site Disposal of Residual;
Off-Site Treatment; Monitoring; Biodegradation
and Bioremediation
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other .
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
4-18
-------
Table 4-3 (continued)
NPL Sites in Georgia at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START
DATE2
RI/FS
COM-
PLETE
D
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
01
NA
(RP/FE)
02 EASTERN
PARCEL/JONES/GOLDKIST (RP/FE)
12/31/95
12/31/97
Y
AI;GW
SD; SO; SW
NA
OTHER
INORGANICS;
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES;
ypc
NA
Monitoring; Disposal of Residual; Leachate
Treatment; Pump and Treat at POTW with
Discharge; Off-Site Treatment; Thermal
Treatment with On-Site Placement
NA
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
AlAIr
DB Debris
DK Unknown
EP EPA In-House
ES Entire Site
F
FE
FF
QW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
Slate, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST Solid Waste
SW Surface Water
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VOCs Volatile Organic
Compounds !
4-19
-------
Table 4-3 (continued)
NPL Sites in Georgia at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist'
RA PLANNED
START
DATE2
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project i
: !„«.«- *U«« M1AMHns1 rt« /O\ ft»/» nstttml D A ofnt-f Anta n/nc raf*nr/\e*f\ after tti*» Hnta «/*»rA AVfrapfp/1
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
is
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soli
PRP Lead Understate
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
4-20
-------
Table 4-4
RCRA Facilities Currently Undergoing Corrective Action In Georgia1
ALTERNATE ENERGY RESOURCES INC
2730 WALDEN DR, AUGUSTA, GA 30904-4
GAD033582461 ENTIRE FACILTIY
SPILL AREAS AT STORAGE PAD
• CLOSED IMPOUNDMENT - OFFSITE PLUME
BLACKMAN-UHLER CHEM DIV AUGUSTA
PLT, GLASS FACTORY AVENUE
AUGUSTA, GA 30903-3
GAD042125146
ENTIRE FACILITY
CSX TRANSPORTATION
HAINES AVENUE EXTENSION
WAYCROSS.GA31501
GAD991275900 ACID LIME SLUDGE AREA
ALUM SLUDGE BASIN
SEGMENT A OF WAYCROSS CANAL
OLD DRUM STORAGE AREA
SHOP AREA
DOW CHEMICAL CO
1468 PROSSER DR SE, DALTON, GA
30720-0
GAD045929643
MONITORING WELL 2A AREA
OFF-SITE AREA
ENTIRE FACILITY
1 Data as of May 1995 from the EPA RCRIS database. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of data sources.
4-21
-------
Table 4-4 (continued)
RCRA Facilities Currently Undergoing Corrective Action In Georgia1
ENSCO ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1015 SOUTH HARRIS STREET
DALTON.GA 30720
GAD000222083
STREAM AND DITCH
ENTIRE SITE
ENTECH RECOVERY INC (CP CHEMICAL
INC)
4080 INDUSTRY RD P 0 BOX 25, POWDER
SPRINGS, GA 30073
GAD981027055
ENTIRE FACILITY
SI CLOSED AS LF
GULFSTREAM AMERICAN CORP
TRAVIS FIELD,
SAVANNAH, GA 31402-22
GAD061022216
CLOSED LANDFILL
LANDFILL
ENTIRE FACILITY
USMC LOGISTICS BASE 555
FLEMING ROAD,
ALBANY, GA 31704-4112
GA7170023694 PSC 23 & PSC 24 [FORMER STORAGE AREAS]
DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
DWTP
REGULATED UNIT - IWTP
ENTIRE FACILITY
OPERABLE UNIT 3
Data as of May 1995 from the EPA RCRIS database. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of data sources.
4-22
-------
5.0 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF SITES IN KENTUCKY
• '>
This chapter provides a detailed discussion of the opportunities available in the State of Kentucky for
vendors of innovative technologies. The chapter is organized in seven sections. The first section describes
the organization and authority of the State's program. The next section discusses opportunities at sites
managed by Kentucky's hazardous waste management program. That section is followed by a similar
discussion of opportunities at Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites. The fourth and fifth sections
discuss the markets at Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities subject to corrective
action and at underground storage tank (UST) sites managed by the State. Subsequent sections provide
information on opportunities at Federal facilities and provide information about working in the State.
Figures 5-1 and 5-2 present two maps
of Kentucky that indicate the
locations of sites in the State that are
on the NPL, and the RCRA facilities
in the State1. The 20 NPL sites in
Kentucky are concentrated in the
western part of the State. RCRA
facilities are distributed relatively
evenly across the State, with two areas
of higher density located near its
borders with Indiana and Ohio.
- -5-
Summary Information
There area number of potential opportunities for
vendors of innovative technologies in the State of
Kentucky. Of the 20 NPL sites in the state^lO sites
hive 16 operable units (OU) at which remedial action
has not yet begun. One of the sites is the Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant operated by the Department of
Energy. .Currently, there is a very small market for
facilMes/subjectto corrective action under RCRA;
currently onlyjone facility is under a requirement to
conduct a corrective measures study (CMS). There are
63JJSTS in need of remediation. There are 6 military
instaUafaonfpr formeriy used defense sites (TFUDS) in ,"
Kentucky "pf^e Installations >J146 active sites,
femediMon*giiTently is planned for 67 ~^~" "
Figures 5-1 and 5-2 do not indicate the locations of all NPL sites or all RCRA facilities located in
Kentucky. LandView II™ contains information from the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) on NPL sites and other sites. It also contains
information from the Biennial Reporting System (BRS) on treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and
major generators of hazardous waste.
5-1
-------
A
N
A
Louisville
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Modified from Landview II, based on data
as of September 1994.
Figure 5-1
NPL Sites in Kentucky
5-2
-------
N
A
Louisville
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Modified from Landview II, based on data
as of September 1994.
Figure 5-2
RCRA Facilities in Kentucky
5-3
-------
5.1 The Kentucky Hazardous Waste Management Program
The Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection (KDEP), Division of Waste Management oversees
and regulates hazardous waste management activities in the State. Under the provisions of the Kentucky
Revised Statute, Chapter 224.01-400, the Division of Waste Management's Superfund Branch regulates
releases and oversees the characterization of two groups of contaminants at abandoned hazardous waste
sites: those identified as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and other substances deemed hazardous by the State. In
1993, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 50-state study reported 28 staff working on Federal
NPL issues and State sites. The Hazardous Waste Management Fund, established under Kentucky Statute
224.46-580, provides monies for site remediation. The monies are obtained from companies operating in
the State that report production of RCRA hazardous substances and from cost recoveries. The 1995 EPA
study found the balance in the fund to be $1.77 million at the end of fiscal year 1995. There is a $6
million cap on the fund. A total of $2.78 million was added to the fund during the year, and $1.6 million
was paid out ($1.5 million for work at non-NPL sites). A total of $2.4 million was obligated during the
year ($2.04 million for work at non-NPL sites).
Kentucky has no formal voluntary cleanup program, but voluntary cleanups are permissible under its
regular cleanup program.
The State is not authorized to conduct the RCRA corrective action program and does not operate a state
corrective action program. Kentucky is authorized to implement the UST regulatory program established
by Subtitle I. The Division of Waste Management's Underground Storage Tank Branch is composed of
four sections: corrective action, closure, compliance, and administration. The UST Branch operates under
Kentucky Statute 224.42-401. Under that statute, the State regulates UST registration and notification,
tank closure, releases of contaminants, and remediation activities.
5.2 The Market at Sites Managed Under State Authorities
The State of Kentucky maintains a database that lists all hazardous waste sites that the State has
investigated or is investigating or at which it is pursuing remediation. The database contains more than
750 sites. The State currently classifies 238 sites as active, including NPL sites (KDEP 1995).
5-4
-------
The database contains the name and address of each facility and some information in comment fields.
However, no information was available on contaminants or media contaminated. Because of the
voluminous nature of the data, the table containing the names and addresses of the facilities was not
included in this document. Information on how to obtain this information from the State of Kentucky is
found at the end of this chapter.
5.3 The Market at Abandoned Sites Managed Under the Federal Superfund Program
EPA has listed 20 sites in Kentucky on the NPL; no additional sites were proposed for listing as of the end
of FY 94. Table 5-1 presents summary information from the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database on the status of NPL sites in
Kentucky. Table 5-2, at the end of this chapter, lists 10 NPL sites at which remedial action has not yet
begun at operable units (OU). The sites and OUs of greatest interest to vendors are those at which
technologies have been selected but vendors of the technologies have not yet been chosen. Of the 10 sites,
one is a Department of Energy (DOE) installation discussed more fully in the section that examines
opportunities at Federal facilities.
Table 5-1
Number of Sites and Operable Units at NPL Sites in Kentucky
v~* £~^j&:**" ^Phase- of Activity3 fc „ •^.7' *U
Pre-remedial
Remedial
-Bomber of Sites6 ~~
6
14
^ Number of ^
Operable Units - l
6
41
Source: Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS database; see Chapter 1 for a detailed description of the data sources.
* Sites with pre-remedial activities are sites where remedial design and construction have not yet begun, although the remedy may
have been chosen. These sites, especially the pre-remedial sites still in the investigation phase, present long-term opportunities for
vendors. Sites with remedial activities are sites where remedial design has begun and construction might not have begun. Where
technologies have been selected but no vendor has been chosen, a site may present a short-term business opportunity.
b A site may have more than one operable unit in each phase, so operable units may be counted more than once.
Figure 5-3 presents the distribution of sizes of the sites. The sites range in size from 3 to 1,350 acres.
Data on the size of the sites were reported in CERCLIS for all 20 sites.
Data on contaminants are available for only five of the 20 NPL sites; contaminants include volatile organic
compounds (VOC), heavy metals, and pesticides and herbicides. Data on contaminated media are
available for only eight of the sites. Five sites reported soil contamination, six sites reported groundwater
contamination, and five sites reported surface-water contamination. In addition, three cases of
5-5
-------
contaminated sediment and two cases of contaminated debris and sludge were reported. There are 16 OUs
at the NPL sites in Kentucky, seven of which are the responsibility of DOE.
20-i
18-
16-
14-
12-
10-
8-
6-
4-
2-
0
Figure 5-3
NPL Site Size Distribution for the State of Kentucky
m Number of Sites
<1-20
>100
5.4 The Market at RCRA Corrective Action Sites
As Table 5-3 indicates, data from the Resource Conservation Recovery Information System (RCRIS)
database show that only a single RCRA facility currently is under a requirement to conduct a CMS. That
facility is owned by Safety-Kleen Corporation, a vendor of parts cleaning equipment and solutions. The
RCRIS data indicate that the entire facility is of concern. Because of the nature of Safety-Kleen's business,
VOCs would be one of the major contaminants of concern.
5-6
-------
Table 5-3
RCRA Facilities Currently Undergoing Corrective Action in Kentucky1
, x><-v. *: vi'"V--» ->&,'..> -\vV-,/;
Site-Name's?" :>^ X-V-^-J?
i i>"i|pa0>v ry?i -"-"^".'i^S*' - > »»»• f
.Mailing Address -1, "..4-;?- *fe,.v.
SAFETY-KLEEN CORP.
(4-075-01)
1592 WOLOHAN DRIVE
ASHLAND, KY 41 101
V*
v ""*
EPAID "" „
KYD000776724
S\P«UNo.and
UnitName-'
Entire Facility
' Data as of May 1995 from the EPA RCRIS database. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of data sources. No data were
available in RCRIS to indicate the media contaminated or the contaminants of concern.
5.5
The Market at UST Sites Managed by the State
Table 5-4 presents data on UST corrective action measures in Kentucky as of the first half of fiscal year
(FY) 1996. There are 22,560 active tanks in the State. Active tanks are defined as tanks still in service
(EPA 1993). As of March 31,1996, the EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) had
identified 63 leaking tanks in Kentucky at which cleanup has yet to be initiated. That number represents
the difference between the two data elements "confirmed releases" and "cleanups initiated." Cleanup at
USTs with soil contamination usually is completed within 6 months to 2 years after the site has been
identified. Cleanup at USTs with groundwater contamination usually is completed 2 to 5 years after the
site has been identified. Therefore, the number of USTs identified as opportunities for vendors of
innovative technologies will change rapidly.
Table 5-4
Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures
in Kentucky as of First Half of FY96
22,560
18.701
6.131
6,068
4.918
63
Source: EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks Semi-Annual Activity Report for First Half of Fiscal Year 1996 (ending March 31,1996).
In national studies of USTs performed by EPA in 1991 and 1992, it was found that the majority, or about
87 percent of the tanks, are used to manage gasoline or diesel fuel, kerosene, or heating oil. Of the
5-7
-------
remaining USTs, 11 percent manage other materials and wastes, such as used oil (4 percent), hazardous
material (2 percent), and other material (5 percent) or are empty (2 percent). The majority of the
contamination problems are related to the contamination of soils and groundwater with petroleum products
that contain VOCs and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs).
5.6
The Market at Federal Facility Sites in Kentucky
There is one DOE installation at which remedial action activities are planned, and six operational or
closing DoD installations and formerly used defense sites (FUDS) in Kentucky at which such activities are
planned. At the DoD installations are 146 active sites, 67 at which future remedial action currently is
planned. Active sites are those at which some form of remediation activity is planned or underway. The
total number of sites to be remediated may exceed that figure because, in general, DoD does not plan
remediation at a site until the remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) has been completed. The
number of sites where remedial activity is planned could rise as RI/FS are completed.
The Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Five-Year Plan (DOE 1993) indicates that a total
of more than $94 million is estimated to be needed between FY96 and FY98 in all phases of cleanup
activities at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The Paducah plant is on the NPL and has seven OUs
that may present opportunities for vendors. Contaminants identified at the site include uranium,
technetium, trichloroethylene, and polychlorinated biphenyls. In its 1993 five-year plan, DOE indicated
that groundwater at the plant was being treated.
The Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994
indicates that a total of approximately $185 million is estimated to be needed through the year 2043 in all
phases of cleanup at the six installations. The bulk of the funds ($88 million) is allocated to Fort
Campbell, followed by the Blue Grass Facility (an ammunition depot), for which $40 million has been
allocated. Allocation of the remaining $56 million is distributed among the other four installations. Many
of the sites identified at the installations either are undergoing or are scheduled to undergo an RI/FS and
therefore, are at a relatively early stage of the remediation process.
Most of the contaminants at sites on military installations at which remediation currently is planned fall
into one of three categories: petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL); VOCs; and heavy metals. Those
5-8
-------
contaminants are found in the soil at all sites and in the groundwater in a large percentage of the sites. No
data are available on volumes of soil and groundwater to be treated. Table 5-5 provides information on the
individual installations in the State and the sites that are subject to remediation at those installations. Staff
at each installation determine the individual sites at which they plan to perform remedial actions. Cleanup
already may be underway at other sites; such sites are not included in the table because it is unlikely that
they will afford an opportunity for vendors of innovative technologies. None of the DoD installations have
been listed on the NPL.
Table 5-5
DoD Installations and Sites in Kentucky
7^^;w^^-aW-t^*%X^s^?fS§«"'=W«»S
%Sf^^t'OufeeaiCfEanffinM$OOfl)~?2S»
Blue Grass Facility - Lexington
Bluegrass Ammunition Depot
Outyear Funding FY95-2010
$40,583
Fort Campbell
Outyear Funding FY95-2043
$88,679
Fort Knox
Outyear Funding FY95-2010
$18,230
Kentucky Ordnance Works
Outyear Funding FY95-2009
$16,344
Lexington Facility - Lexington
Bluegrass Ammunition Depot
Outyear Funding FY95-2001
$13,520
Louisville Naval Surface Warfare
Center
Outyear Funding FY95-2005
$8,144
~$&*-<~r^-~}*£>'C^&fci Vii^;»'***»Vf''^ixSs
"•tlEederalJBaciutfev
,^X^'^^»^v^™^^';^"^*v^^^;.
fpSdenifficatioifecv
;4?S^.^®bS£®£SK:«
^^f>%NumbeiS?^fe.
KY421002010500
KY421002014000
KY421002047900
KY49799F349600
KY421002050900
KY4170024 17300
^g$&&%$
-------
5.7 Further Market Information for Kentucky
A vendor that wishes to obtain information about sites in Kentucky that are managed by EPA may write to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
For information'on RCRA facilities, the envelope should be marked to the attention of the Freedom of
Information Act Officer, Office of RCRA and Federal Facilities. For information on CERCLA facilities in
Kentucky, the envelope should be marked to the attention of the Freedom of Information Act Officer,
North Superfund Remedial Branch. The requestor will be billed for the information, according to the
volume of information provided. For more information on USTs handled by EPA, vendors may contact
the EPA Region 4 UST program manager:
John Mason
U.S. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Mail Code 4WM-GWP-15
Atlanta, GA 30365
For information on USTs handled through the State's UST program, vendors may contact:
Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Waste Management
UST Branch
ISReillyRoad
Frankfurt, KY 40601
(502) 564-6716
For information on hazardous waste sites managed through the state's waste programs, vendors may
contact:
Bob Padgett
Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Waste Management
ISReillyRoad
Frankfurt, KY 40601
(502) 564-6716
5-10
-------
For information about DOE sites or any of DOE's technology development assistance programs, vendors
may contact:
DOE's Center for Environmental Management Information
470 L'Enfant Plaza East
Suite 7112
Washington, DC 20024
(800) 736-3282
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) does not have a single point of contact that handles all of DoD' s
environmental restoration initiatives, site-level information, and technology programs. The Defense
Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for FY 1995 contains detailed information
on environmental restoration accomplishments and schedules at DoD installations world-wide. This report
is available on the Internet at the DoD Environmental Restoration home page at:
http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod/
The home page also provides links to other internet sites that pertain to DoD environmental restoration
activities.
5-11
-------
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5-12
-------
Table 5-2
NPL Sites in Kentucky at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START DATE2
RI/FS
COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
01 RI/FS
01 RI/FS
01
RI/FS
(FE/RP)
9/30/95
GW; SL; SO
1,227,150,000 gal;
7,070,000 gal;
5,000 cy
VOC
Air Stripping; Leachate Treatment; Off-Site
Treatment; Steam Stripping; Monitoring;
Disposal of Residual; Solidification and
Stabilization
(FE/RP)
9/30/95
GW; SL; SO; SW
1,227,150,000 gal;
7,070,000 gal;
5,000 cy
VOC
Air Stripping; Leachate Treatment; Off-Site
Treatment; Steam Stripping; Monitoring;
Disposal of Residual; Solidification and
Stabilization
NA
01
NA
M2/31/95
I N IDB: LW: SD
NA
INA
INA
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
AlAIr
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
5-13
-------
Table 5-2 (continued)
NPL Sites in Kentucky at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist'
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START DATE2
Rl/FS
COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
01
NA
(F/FE/RP/MR)
6/30/97
Al; DB; GW; LW;
SD; SO; SW
NA
METALS; OTHER
INORGANICS;
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES;
RADIOACTIVE
MATERIALS; VOC
Monitoring; Surface Capping Only; Disposal of
Residual; Solidification and Stabilization
NA
(RP/FE/F)
9/30/95
Al; GW; SO
3,774 cy
VOC; METALS
Leachate Treatment; Off-Site Treatment;
Monitoring; Air Stripping; Disposal of Residual;
Backfilling; Excavation and Final Removal to
Off-Site; Pump and Treat, Final On-Site
Discharge
U3DRESSl^«0flWAUKEYiR0|plE,iEi0SyjE^Epplipa;6
02 FORMERLY PERMITTED
LANDFILL (RP/FE/F)
3/30/96
GW; LW; RC; SD;
SO; ST; SW
VOC; METALS;
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES
Disposal of Residual; Monitoring; Surface
Capping Only
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water •
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
5-14
-------
Table 5-2 (continued)
NPL Sites in Kentucky at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
RA PLANNED
START DATE2
WAG 22 BURIAL GROUNDS
SURF WATER INTEGRATER
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
5-15
-------
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5-16
-------
6.0 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF SITES IN MISSISSIPPI
This chapter provides a detailed discussion of the opportunities available in the State of Mississippi for
vendors of innovative technologies. The chapter is organized into seven sections. The first section
describes the organization and authority of the State's program. The next section discusses opportunities at
sites subject to Mississippi's Solid Waste Disposal Act and Air and Water Pollution Control Act. That
section is followed by a similar discussion of opportunities at National Priorities List (NPL) sites. The
fourth and fifth sections discuss facilities subject to corrective action under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and underground storage tank (UST) sites managed by the State. Subsequent
sections provide information on opportunities at Federal facilities and provide further useful information
about working in the State.
Figures 6-1 and 6-2 present two maps
of Mississippi that indicate the
locations of sites in the State that are
on the NPL and the RCRA facilities
in the State1. Of the 4 NPL sites in
Mississippi, one is near Jackson, one
is in the northwest portion of the state
near Greenville and one is in the
southern section of the state, near
Foxworth. RCRA facilities also are
found throughout the State, with
clusters around Jackson and along its
southern boundary and the Gulf of
Mexico.
"Summary Information
- Mississippi offers a variety of opportunities for vendors
of innovative technologies. Mississippi currentljrhas
four sites on the NPL. Of ttiose'four-sites, none"are^
/Federalfecilities and one NPL site has an operable unit
(OU) at 'which remedial action has not yet begun. Listed
on the Mississippi Uncontrolled Sites Lastare 156 sites.1
There are 33 RCRA facilities hi Mississippi, 1 of which -
currently is iinder ^'requirement for> corrective ^ >
measures study (CMS) to be performed. According to
theJBPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks, 118
USTs in the State require remediation. Finally, there-are
seven Department of-Defense (DbD) installations and - ,
rformerly lised defense sites (FJJDS) located in >'•
; Mississippi., Of the installations' 61 sites, remediation
"currently^is planned for 38.-v" ,/u - , 4, ' ••
Figures 6-1 and 6-2 do not indicate the locations of all NPL sites or all RCRA facilities located in
Mississippi. LandView II™ contains information from the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) on NPL sites and other sites. It also contains
information from the Biennial Reporting System (BRS) on treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and
major generators of hazardous waste.
6-1
-------
N
A
Gulfport
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Modified from Landview II, based on data
as of September 1994.
Figure 6-1
NPL Sites in Mississippi
6-2
-------
A
N
A
Gulfport
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Modified from Landview II, based on data
as of September 1994.
Figure 6-2
RCRA Facilities in Mississippi
6-3
-------
6.1 The Mississippi Hazardous Waste Management Program
The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MSDEQ) is responsible for administering the
State's regulations governing the environment. The Hazardous Waste Division of the Office of Pollution
Control is responsible for the oversight of hazardous waste management activities. The Superfund Branch
is specifically responsible for the investigation of uncontrolled sites and remediation of releases.
According to EPA's 50-State Study, in 1995 MSDEQ's Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) section had 11 full-time employees.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1974 (amended numerous times, most recently in 1990) Mississippi Code
Annotated section 17-17-29(4) and (6), enables the State to take response action at waste sites, but the
State has no state-specific version of Superfund. The Property Transfer Act 1993 requires disclosure of
contamination before transfer. The 1988 amendments to the Air and Water Pollution Control Act,
Mississippi Code Annotated, sections 49-17-1 et seq., authorize hazardous waste response actions and
create the Pollution Emergency Response Fund (Mississippi Code Annotated section 49-17-68). Although
Mississippi is authorized to issue RCRA Part B permits for hazardous waste facilities, the State is not
authorized to administer the corrective action program; all corrective action activities are managed by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4. The state has no formal voluntary cleanup
program.
According to EPA's 1995 50-State Study, Mississippi's Pollution Emergency Response Fund was created
in 1988 and had a balance of $1.3 million as of June 30,1995. It added $669,000 during the fiscal year
and paid out $2.5 million, all for work on non-NPL sites. The fund is authorized to receive money from
civil penalties from the pollution regulatory programs and cost recoveries. The fund may be used for site
investigation, studies and design, removal actions, and emergency response. Mississippi appropriates
funds site by site to provide matching funds for sites addressed under CERCLA. The Mississippi
Uncontrolled Sites List includes sites that MSDEQ has determined to require investigation under the state
Solid Waste Disposal Act. A description of those sites is included in section 6.2.
The state considers background level, water quality criteria, maximum contaminant levels (MCL) EPA
guidelines, risk assessment with a generic level of 10"6, and EPA's Hazard Index to determine cleanup
levels. The state then selects the most stringent of these criteria as the cleanup level.
6-4
-------
The MSDEQ Groundwater Division houses the UST Branch. The UST Branch is composed of technical
and financial staff who oversee the registration of USTs as well as prevention, investigation, and
remediation of releases. In addition, the UST Branch conducts public outreach activities, specializing in
certification of UST removers and installers. Under the Mississippi Underground Storage Tank Act of
1988, the Federal UST regulations were adopted for implementing State UST regulations. The act also
created the Mississippi Groundwater Protection Trust Fund that provides monies for the assessment and
remediation of releases from USTs. The trust fund is supported by a Statewide gasoline tax.
6.2 The Market at Sites Managed Under State Authorities
As of May 1995,156 sites were listed on the Mississippi Uncontrolled Sites List. MSDEQ has determined
that all of those sites require investigation. Currently, approximately 100 to 110 sites are under
investigation. Current information on the cleanup status of the sites is available from the State. See
Section 6.7 for information on how to obtain the Uncontrolled Sites List.
6.3 The Market at Abandoned Sites Managed Under the Federal Superfund Program
EPA has placed four sites in Mississippi on the NPL, of which two sites are proposed for listing. Table 6-1
presents summary information from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database on the status of NPL sites in Mississippi. Table 6-2, at
the end of this chapter, lists information from the CERCLIS database available on the one listed site and
one operable unit (OU) at which remediation activities have not yet begun. The Newsom Brothers site and
OU are of the greatest interest to technology vendors; technologies themselves may have been selected,
but vendors of the technologies have not. According to EPA's Innovative Treatment Technologies Annual
Status Report, Sixth Edition, no innovative technologies have been selected for use at the site. Review of
NPL site summaries indicates that there is contamination with volatile organic compounds (VOC) in both
the soil and groundwater at the NPL site. No data were available on the volumes of contaminated media
present at the site.
6-5
-------
Table 6-1
Number of Sites and Operable Units at NPL Sites in Mississippi
Pre-remedial
Remedial
Source: Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS database; see Chapter 1 for a detailed description of the data sources.
1 Sites with pre-remedial activities are sites where remedial design and construction have not yet begun, although the remedy may
have been chosen. These sites, especially the pre-remedial sites still in the investigation phase, present long-term opportunities for
vendors. Sites with remedial activities are sites where remedial design has begun and construction might not have begun. Where
technologies have been selected but no vendor has been chosen, a site may present a short-term business opportunity.
k A site may have more than one operable unit in each phase, so operable units may be counted more than once.
6.4
The Market at RCRA Corrective Action Sites
As stated in Section 6.1, Mississippi is authorized by EPA to issue RCRA Part B permits for hazardous
facilities, but not authorized to administer the corrective action program. As a result, all corrective action
activities are managed by EPA Region 4.
Data from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) database indicate that
there are 33 RCRA facilities in the State. One of the RCRA facilities currently requires corrective action.
The definition of corrective action used here is that a facility has been required to perform a CMS. The
number of facilities with CMS imposed is not a direct subset of RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal
(TSD) facilities, instead it is a subset of TSD facilities and hazardous waste generators. While TSD
facilities are statutorily required to address corrective action, EPA has discretionary authority to impose
corrective action on generators. Table 6-3, at the end of the chapter, presents the facility and its two
solid waste management units (SWMU). In addition, 19 facilities are under a requirement to conduct a
RCRA facility investigation (RFI). The number of facilities with an RFI imposed is not a direct subset of
RCRA TSD facilities, instead it is a subset of TSD facilities and hazardous waste generators. While TSD
facilities are statutorily required to address corrective action, EPA has discretionary authority to impose
corrective action on generators. As discussed in Section 1.2, these facilities also may provide either a long-
term opportunity or near-term opportunity where no CMS is necessary to begin a corrective action or a
corrective activity begins in accordance with the stabilization initiative.
6.5
The Market at UST Sites Managed by the State
The MSDEQ's UST Branch in the Groundwater Division administers the State UST program. Mississippi
has fewer active tanks than any other state in Region 4. There are 11,602 active tanks in the state. Active
tanks are defined as tanks still in service. Table 6-4 presents data on the number of USTs in Mississippi.
6-6
-------
Confirmed releases have occurred at 38 percent of the tanks. As of March 31,1996, the EPA Office of
Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) has identified 118 leaking tanks sites in Mississippi at which cleanup
had yet to be initiated. That number represents the difference between the two data elements "confirmed
releases" and "cleanups initiated." Cleanup at USTs with soil contamination usually is completed within 6
months to 2 years after the site has been identified. Cleanup at USTs with groundwater contamination
usually is completed 2 to 5 years after the site has been identified. Therefore, the number of USTs
identified as marketing opportunities for vendors of innovative technologies will change rapidly.
In national studies of USTs performed by EPA in 1991 and 1992, it was found that the majority, or about
87 percent of the tanks, are used to manage gasoline or diesel fuel, kerosene, or heating oil. Of the
remaining USTs, 11 percent manage other materials and wastes, such as used oil (4 percent), hazardous
material (2 percent), and other material (5 percent) or are empty (2 percent). The majority of the
contamination problems are related to the contamination of soils and groundwater with petroleum products
that contain VOCs and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC).
As indicated above, the UST program is managed by MSDEQ's Groundwater Protection Division, UST
Branch, located in MSDEQ's central office in Jackson. Further information on the locations of leaking
USTs can be obtained from the State (see section 6.7).
Table 6-4
Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures
in Mississippi as of the First Half of FY1996
g&a&afiaefc *?••
Completed
^
»Set Initiated
11,602
16,715
4,408
4,290
4,006
118
Source: EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks Semi-Annual Activity Report, for the First Half of Fiscal Year 1996
(ending March 31,1996)
6.6 The Market at Federal Facility Sites in Mississippi
Although there are no Department of Energy (DOE) facilities in Mississippi, there are seven operational or
closing Department of Defense (DoD) installations and formerly used defense sites (FUDS) located in the
State at which remediation action activities are planned or underway. At those installations are 61 active
sites, 38 of which have future remediation planned. Active sites are those at which some form of
remediation activity is planned or underway. The total number of sites to be remediated may exceed this
6-7
-------
figure because DoD typically does not plan remediation at a site until at least the remedial investigation
and feasibility study (RI/FS) has been completed.
The Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for 1994 (DERP report),
indicates that a total of $213 million is estimated to be needed through the year 2020 in all phases of
cleanup at the seven installations. Facilities having the largest allocations of funds are Gulfport National
Construction Battalion Center ($122 million) and Naval Air Station Meridian ($45 million). Many of the
sites identified at the seven installations are undergoing or are scheduled to undergo an RI/FS and therefore
are at a relatively early stage of the remediation process. As the RI/FS is completed, the number of sites at
which remediation is planned could increase.
The majority of the contaminants at the sites at which remediation currently is planned fall into one of
three broad categories: petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL); VOCs; and metals. Those contaminants are
found in the soil at all the sites and in the groundwater in a large percentage of the sites. Data on volumes
of soil and groundwater to be treated are not available. Table 6-5 provides information on the individual
installations and sites subject to remediation at those installations. The number of sites to be cleaned up in
the future is defined in the DERP report. Cleanup already may be underway at other sites; such sites have
not been included in the total because it is unlikely that they will afford opportunity for vendors of
innovative technologies. Of the DoD sites in Mississippi, none is listed on the NPL.
Table 6-5
DoD Installations and Sites in Mississippi
Name, Address,
and Outyear JFnnding (£080)
Allen C. Thompson
Outyear Funding FY95-2004
$1,826
Columbus Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2020
$9,592
Gulf Ordnance Plant
Outyear Funding FY95-2007
$6,374
Gulfport Naval Construction
Battalion Center
Outyear Funding FY95-2015
Eederapacflfty
Identification t ,
t * NaiaberV^ i,'
MS457282647800
MS457152406000
MS49799F000500
MS417002262600
"*>*' '.v«X
l ^ ^ "-* -" <*•*
">; ^doae$?vS
>A
A
F
A
-^/f~-v- ^-i, V *-«''*% *?<*•*
BlBBAer oCSifes a£?tybpt%
cl" ,-€IeanttpffefPiannea , ,>
1
4
3
8
6-8
-------
Table 6-5 (continued)
DoD Installations and Sites in Mississippi
£* * /v t <*? -i 5 t? b * ~ **
, ,S> ^ „ "t A X ^ ^
* J^"-" ^ » Nanie,tAddress,\ -"^ ** *
" \ and'OutjearFTindfng <$00ff)r %
Keesler Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2020
$15,070
Key Field Air National Guard Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2004
$12,066
Naval Air Station Meridian
Outyear Funding FY95-2010
$45,626
Federal Facility "
* Identification
' ^ ^Number
MS457152416400
MS457282590400
MS417009001200
i "•;
f ^
(•
W1
» "Codes1
A
' A
A
Number of Stterat Which
CJeanup is Planned *
9
6
7
Source: Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994
1 Codes:
A = The installation is currently operational or on the BRAC list, and cleanup is covered by DERA or BRAC funds
F = The installation is no longer active and is managed by the FUDS Branch
6.7 Further Market Information for Mississippi
A vendor that wishes to obtain information about sites in Mississippi that are managed by EPA may write
to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
346 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
For information on RCRA facilities, the envelope should be marked to the attention of the Freedom of
Information Act Officer, Office of RCRA and Federal Facilities. For information on CERCLA facilities in
Mississippi, the envelope should be marked to the attention of the Freedom of Information Act Officer,
South Superfund Remedial Branch. The requestor will be billed for the information, according to the
volume of information. For more information on USTs handled by EPA, vendors may contact the EPA
Region 4 UST program manager:
John Mason
U.S. EPA
345 Courtland Street, NE
Mail Code 4WM-GWP-15
Atlanta, GA 30365
6-9
-------
MSDEQ's Uncontrolled Sites Section is a good source of information about the hazardous waste sites that
MSDEQ manages. The section can be contacted at:
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Pollution Control
Uncontrolled Sites Section
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601) 961-5072
(601) 961-5741 (fax)
A list of leaking USTs is available from MSDEQ's UST Program. The list and additional information can
be obtained from:
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Pollution Control
Underground Storage Tank Program
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601) 961-5171
For information about DOE sites or any of DOE's technology development assistance programs, vendors
may contact:
DOE's Center for Environmental Management Information
470 L'Enfant Plaza East
Suite 7112
Washington, DC 20024
(800) 736-3282
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) does not have a single point of contact that handles all of DoD's
environmental restoration initiatives, site-level information, and technology programs. The Defense
Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for FY 1995 contains detailed information
on environmental restoration accomplishments and schedules at DoD installations world-wide. This report
is available on the Internet at the DoD Environmental Restoration home page at:
http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod/
The home page also provides links to other internet sites that pertain to DoD environmental restoration
activities.
6-10
-------
Table 6-2
NPL Sites in Mississippi at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START
DATE2
RI/FS
COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because: (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
OB Debris
DK Unknown
EP EPA In-House
ES Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge .
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST Solid Waste
SW Surface Water
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VOCs Volatile Organic
Constituents
6-11
-------
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6-12
-------
TABLE 6-3
RCRA Facilities Currently Undergoing Corrective Action in Mississippi1
ROGERS RENTAL & LANDFILL COMPANY
HIGHWAY 24 WEST
CENTREVILLE, MS 39631
MSD083543009
BARL
RETENTION POND
1 Data as of May 1995 from the EPA RCRIS database. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of data sources.
6-13
-------
THIS PAGE IS INTENITONALLY LEFT BLANK
6-14
-------
7.0 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF SITES IN NORTH CAROLINA
This chapter provides a detailed discussion of the opportunities available in the State of North Carolina for
vendors of innovative technologies. The chapter is organized in seven sections. The first section describes
the organization and authority of the State's program. The next section discusses opportunities at sites
subject to North Carolina's Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund. That section is followed by a similar
discussion of opportunities at Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites. The fourth and fifth sections
discuss the markets at Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities subject to corrective
action, and at underground storage tank (UST) sites managed by the State. Subsequent sections provide
information on opportunities at Federal facilities and provide other useful information about working in the
State.
Figures 7-1 and 7-2 present two maps of
North Carolina that indicate the locations
of the sites in the State that are on the
NPL and the RCRA facilities in the
State.1 The 23 NPL sites in North
Carolina are distributed throughout the
State. RCRA facilities also are found
distributed throughout the State, with
small clusters around Charlotte and
Raleigh.
North Carolina offers tine vendor of innovative
technologies a variety of potential marketing ,
opportunities. North Carolina currently has 23 NPL"
sites. "Of those 23,2 are Federal facilities covered
under the Defense Environmental Restpration
Program. Fifteen NPL sites have 31 operable units
at which remedial action has not yet>egun. Listed
on the North Carolina Priority List are 158 sites at
which State funds will be required to complete
cleanup, each of which? may require remediation.
There are 72 RCRA facilities in Noru^CaroIina^S of
-which currently are under a requirement for the ^. "
: conduct o£a correctiv&measures study. According
t tolne-EPA 6TJST/937 pSTs in theSifcte require, ?;c
remediation. ^Finally/1:riere«re\3 DM) installations
andipfmerly used defense sites (PUDS) locatedm
•Northparolina. Offlieinstallatibns'^'
Ternediati6ttcurren!iy.is planheS for'
Figures 7-1 and 7-2 do .not indicate the locations of all NPL sites or all RCRA sites located in North
Carolina. LandView n™ contains information from the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) on NPL sites and other sites. It also contains
information from the Biennial Reporting System (BRS) on treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and
major generators of hazardous waste.
7-1
-------
N
A
Winston-Saleim
Raleigh
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Modified from Landview II, based on data
as of September 1994.
Figure 7-1
NPL Sites in North Carolina
7-2
-------
N
A
Winston-Salem
Charlotte
Raleigh
* •—••»•
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Modified from Landview II, based on data
as of September 1994.
Figure 7-2
RCRA Facilities in North Carolina
7-3
-------
7.1 The North Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Program
The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) is responsible
for administering the State's regulations governing abandoned waste sites. DEHNR has four major
divisions: Environmental Protection, Health, Natural Resources, and Administration. Under the direction
of the Assistant Secretary of Environmental Protection are 7 divisions: Coastal Management, Air Quality,
Land Resources, Radiation Protection, Waste Management, Waste Reduction, and Water Resources. The
two divisions of interest to vendors of innovative technologies are the Water Quality Division that oversees
the UST program and the Waste Management Division that oversees State involvement at NPL sites, the
State Superfund program, and RCRA programs. The Division of Waste Management, which has about
150 to 200 employees throughout the State, contains the State Superfund Section. The Superfund section
of the Waste Management Division of DEHNR has about 32 staff positions. The Inactive Hazardous Sites
Program was created to address sites contaminated with hazardous substances that are not being cleaned up
under other environmental programs. The Hazardous Waste Section of the Waste Management Division
adminsters the RCRA program. The Groundwater Section of the Water Quality Division administers the
Incident Management Database that tracks pertinent information about releases from underground storage
tanks (UST).
In 1987, the legislature enacted voluntary cleanup provisions. These cap remedial action costs for
volunteers at $3 million. Any PRP may participate, and there is no requirement to pay for State oversight
or administrative costs. Under recent statutory amendments in 1994 and 1995, the voluntary cleanup
program will be privatized, so that certification of cleanups will be a private transaction.
The Inactive Hazardous Sites Response Act of 1987, North Carolina General Statute (NCOS) Sections
130A-310, et seq, authorizes the Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund; provides authority to order
responsible parties to conduct cleanup and recover costs; and establishes a priority list, the Inactive
Hazardous Sites Inventory, and requirements governing transfer of property (EPA 1993). The Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management Act, NCOS Sections 130A-290, etseq, authorizes the Emergency
Response Fund for emergency clean up of hazardous waste, provides enforcement authorities, and requires
property transfers to be recorded.
7-4
-------
At the same time, NCOS Sections 130A-310.2 requires that sites catalogued in the Inactive Hazardous
Sites Inventory be assigned priority based on the degree of threat posed by each to public health and the
environment. After a site is discovered, it is placed in the evaluations pending category to await ranking.
Criteria used to determine site ranking include residential or nonresidential use, number of contaminated
media, and whether drinking-water supplies are in the immediate vicinity of the site. The Inactive
Hazardous Sites Program ascertains cleanup levels as would be applied under CERCLA, including the
application of the risk range of 10"4 to 10"6 for carcenogenic risks. Once a site has been ranked, it is
transferred from the evaluations pending category to the Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites Priority List in the
Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory.
North Carolina administers several pools of funds, each serving a different purpose. According to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 1995 50-State Study, the Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup
Fund (IHSCF) had a balance of about $2.5 million at the end of fiscal year 1995. In general, if a
responsible party who does not comply with an order to clean up a site is insolvent or if no responsible
party can be identified at a priority site, the fund will be used to pay for cleanup of the site. Cost of
cleanup of individual sites can range from a few thousand to several million dollars; however, the State has
estimated an average cleanup cost of $470,000 for each site on the priority list, with that estimate based on
costs for cleanups conducted in North Carolina and other states.
According to the EPA's 1995 50-State Study, the IHSCF originally received most of its money from
appropriations. Penalties are the most significant source of funding. The IHSCF can be used for site
investigations, studies and designs, removals, emergency response actions, and for covering the cost of
recording on deeds notices of Inactive Hazardous Substance or Waste Disposal Sites. Second, the
Emergency Response Fund is used only for emergency response and obtains all of its funding from RCRA
penalties. It is capped at $500,000, and excess funds are transferred to the IHSCF. It paid out $53,576
during fiscal year 1995. Finally, the Cost Share Trust Fund, which is only used for the State's
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) match at NPL sites,
had a balance of $4.8 million at the end of fiscal year 1995 (FY95). It obtains its funding from
appropriations. This fund received $800,000 during 1995 and $200,000 was paid out. The remainder of
the Cost Share Trust Fund, $4.5 million, is obligated for use at NPL sites.
7-5
-------
As required by statute, the secretary of DEHNR ascertains the cleanup levels in conformance with
CERCLA requirements. The state uses a health-based risk assessment, with an acceptable risk level of 10~6
and a Hazard Index of 1. Cleanup levels are calculated for each contaminant by environmental media
based on site-specific risks. Water quality criteria, groundwater standards, and other applicable state
standards also are used where appropriate.
DEHNR also administers the State UST program under the Water Quality Division. North Carolina ranks
third in the number of active tanks in Region 4; active tanks are defined as tanks still in service (EPA
1993). As indicated above, the UST program is managed by DEHNR's Environmental Management
Division. The facilities and sites managed under the programs identified above are discussed in the
following sections.
7.2 The Market at Sites Managed Under State Authorities
As of February 1995, the Hazardous Sites Inventory contained about 1,020 sites (DEHNR 1995). The
Inactive Hazardous Sites Program conducts work at 87 percent of the sites, in the following categories:
sites on the state priority list (almost 16 percent), sites at which the responsible party is conducting
voluntary remedial action (RA) (2 percent), sites for which evaluations are pending (47 percent), and sites
that require no further action (22 percent). DEHNR as a whole conducts work at all of the sites. As of
February 1995, there were 158 sites on the priority list.
Table 7-1 presents the 11 sites currently on the priority list at which State funds will be required to
complete cleanup as well as the 14 sites on the priority list at which State funds may be required to
complete cleanup because the ability of the responsible parties to pay for cleanup is questionable or the
location or existence of responsible parties is uncertain. Responsible party searches are only conducted at
priority sites at the time the State takes action. It is expected that many of the sites will either not have
financially-viable responsible parties, or will have recalcitrant responsible parties. About 400 sites remain
to be ranked and transferred to the priority list. Many of these sites will not have responsible parties. The
priority list is revised in February each year. Data provided by DEHNR as of February 1995 and listed in
Table 7-1 indicates that groundwater and soil are contaminated at most sites on the priority list. Typical
contaminants include organics and metals.
7-6
-------
Table 7-1
North Carolina Priority List Sites That Require State Funds and
Other Priority List Sites That May Require State Funds
^nopnggSi
'^PJciSSJntyJs
104
155
28
74
84
68
2
30
62
35
7
||noi
22
109
95
13
135
8
136
144
64
98
52
•110
108
Carolina Production Finishing
Forbush Metal
Speer Bridge Road
Jones and Presnell Studio
Kidd Lane Battery Disposal
Love Battery
Martin's Battery Salvage, Inc.
North Belmont PCE Site
Old ATC Refinery
Rainbow Drive Battery
Scotts Creek Battery
Ulah Battery
Carolina Tank Cleaning
Guyton Battery
Highway 801 Barber
J Street Flyash Disposal Site
Keener Landfill
McRae Street Landfill
Meadowlark Soaring School
North State Chemicals
Old Beaufort Landfill
Peele Pesticide Disposal
S and S Metals
Tri-County Airport
Union Camp Corporation
yjSiawapa&tyfg:
Ashville
Yadkinville
Charlotte
Charlotte
Concord
Kannapolis
Charlotte
Wilmington
Kannapolis
New Bern
Asheboro
Greensboro
Chadboourn
Barber
Erwin
Clinton
Wilmington
Whitsett
Greensboro
Washington
Clayton
Gold Hill
Aulander
Smithfield
Buncombe
Yadkin
Mecklenburg
Mecklenburg
Cabamis
Cabarrus
Mecklenburg
New Hanover
Cabarrus
Craven
Randolph
Sit&^fff^^ff^if
Guilford
Columbus
Rowan
Harnett
Sampson
New Hanover
Guilford
Guilford
Beaufort
Johnston
Cabarrus
Hertford
Johnston
sSSW^^iS^iS^nSM™^1?^^^
Metal plating/Groundwater/Chromium
Metal plating/Soil/Cyanide, metals, phthalates,
and organic solvents
Photography studio/Groundwater/Chlorinated
organic solvents
Battery lead plate recovery/Soil/Lead
Battery lead plate recovery/Soil/Lead
Battery lead plate recovery/Soil/Lead
Dry cleaning/Groundwater/Organics
Dry cleaning/Groundwater and soil/Chlorinated
organic solvents
Battery lead plate recovery/Soil/Lead
Battery casing disposal/Solid/Lead
Battery lead plate recovery/Soil/Lead
Petroleum sludge disposal/Soil/Lead, volatile
and semivolatile organic compounds
Battery lead plate recovery/Soil/Lead
Battery lead plate recovery/Soil/Lead
Flyash disposal - residential/Soil (estimated
17,000 tons)/Cadmium, zinc
County landfill/Soil/Pesticides
Landfill/Groundwater and surface
water/Organics, metals, pesticides
Cropdusting/Soil/Pesticides
Industrial waste and solvent
recovery/Soil/Metals, organic solvents
Landfill/Groundwater/Organiccompunds
Pesticide disposal/Soil (estimated 970
tons)/Arsenic and organic pesticides
Aluminum recycling/Soil, surface water,
sediments/Metals, solvents, caustic wastes
Cropdusting/Soil/Pesticides
Wood preserving/Soil/Pentachlorophenol,
phenylmercuric acetate
7-7
-------
Table 7-1 (continued)
North Carolina Priority List Sites That Require State Funds and
Other Priority List Sites That May Require State Funds
Voice of America Relay Station
Burial of pesticide waste/Soil (estimated 2,472
tons)/Pesticides and fertilizers
Source: North Carolina Department of Environment Health, and Natural Resources; Division of Solid Waste Management, Annual
Report to the North Carolina General Assembly, February 1995.
Table 7-2, at the end of this chapter, presents the remainder of the sites on the priority list in the order in
which they are ranked. It is unknown whether remedial activity at these sites is ongoing or only in the
study phase. Once remedial activity at a site has been completed, the site is deleted from the priority list.
7.3 The Market at Abandoned Sites Managed Under the Federal Superfund Program
EPA has listed 23 sites in North Carolina on the NPL. Table 7-3 presents summary information from the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)
database on the status of NPL sites in North Carolina.
Table 7-3
Number of Sites and Operable Units at North Carolina NPL Sites
Source: Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS database; see Chapter 1 for a detailed description of the data sources.
* Sites with pro-remedial activities are sites where remedial design and construction have not yet begun, although the remedy may
have been chosen. These sites, especially the pre-remedial sites still in the investigation phase, present long-term opportunities for
vendors. Sites with remedial activities are sites where remedial design has begun and construction might not have begun. Where
technologies have been selected but no vendor has been chosen, a site may present a short-term business opportunity.
b A site may have more than one operable unit in each phase, so operable units may be counted more than once.
Table 7-4, at the end of this chapter, lists information from the CERCLIS database about 15 sites and 31
OUs at which remediation activities have not yet begun. Those sites and OUs are of the greatest interest to
technology vendors; technologies themselves may have been selected, but not vendors of those
7-8
-------
technologies. Review of NPL site summaries indicates that there is contamination by volatile organic
compounds (VOC) in both the soil and the groundwater at the majority of the sites. At many sites, there is
contamination with metals in groundwater and surface water.
Contamination with pesticides and herbicides also is present at many sites. The presence of PCBs also is
reported in several cases. The sizes of the contaminated areas range from 1 acre to more than 100,000
acres. Figure 7-3 presents data on the distribution of sizes of NPL sites in North Carolina. Ten of the NPL
sites in the State are between 1 and 20 acres in size. Technologies selected for use at the 23 sites include
air stripping, biodegradation and bioremediation, soil aeration, and soil vapor extraction. It should be
noted that although a technology may have been chosen for a particular site or OU, in many cases the
specific vendors have yet to be chosen. Minimal data were available on the volumes of contaminated soil
or groundwater present at the various sites.
7.4
The Market at RCRA Corrective Action Sites
Data from the Resource Conservation Recovery Information System (RCRIS) database indicate that there
are 72 RCRA facilities in the State. Five RCRA facilities are currently required to perform CMS. The
number of facilities with CMS imposed is not a direct subset of RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal
(TSD) facilities, instead it is a subset of TSD facilities and hazardous waste generators. While TSD
facilities are statutorily required to address corrective action, EPA has discretionary authority to impose
corrective action on generators. In two cases, the entire facility is within the scope of a CMS. It is likely
that, at those facilities, several different problems have been identified that indicate a need for CMS
activity for the entire facility.
7-9
-------
Figure 7-3
NPL Site Size Distribution for the State of North Carolina
41-80
>100
Acres
In addition, 31 facilities are under a requirement to conduct a RCRA facility investigation (RFI). The
number of facilities with an RFI imposed is not a direct subset of RCRA TSD facilities, instead it is a
subset of TSD facilities and hazardous waste generators. While TSD facilities are statutorily required to
address corrective action, EPA has discretionary authority to impose corrective action on generators. As
discussed in Section 1.2, these facilities may also provide either a long-term or near-term opportunity
where no CMS is necessary to begin corrective action or corrective activity begins in accordance with the
stabilization initiative.
No data were available in RCRIS to identify the contaminants of concern or the media contaminated at the
RCRA sites in the State. However, in some cases, the name of the facility can provide a general indication
of the problems likely to be present there. All six facilities currently undergoing corrective action are
chemical or manufacturing plants. Two SWMUs at two facilities are identified as landfills. In general,
information available was insufficient to support identification of actual contaminants at the RCRA
7-10
-------
facilities. Information also was insufficient to support identification of specific media contaminated;
however, contamination of soil can be assumed at all the facilities.
7.5
The Market at UST Sites Managed By the State
The DEHNR administers the State UST program. North Carolina ranks third in the number of active tanks
in Region 4. There are 41,942 active tanks in the State. Active tanks are defined as tanks still in service
(EPA 1993). Table 7-6 presents data on the number of USTs in North Carolina. As of March 31, 1996,
the EPA Office'of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) had identified 937 leaking tanks in North Carolina
at which cleanup had yet to be initiated. That number represents the difference between the two data
elements "confirmed releases" and "cleanups initiated." Cleanup at USTs with soil contamination usually
are completed within 6 months to 2 years after the site has been identified. Cleanup at USTs with
groundwater contamination usually are completed within 2 to 5 years after the site has been identified.
Therefore, the numbers of USTs identified as opportunities therefore will change rapidly.
Table 7-6
Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures
in North Carolina as of the First Half of FY 1996
'fefey
41,942
50,619
18,474
17,537
12,254
f"-
otti
&spKwg
iifcatedjs;
937
Source: EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks Semi-Annual Activity Report, for the First Half of Fiscal Year 1996
(ending March 31,1996)
In national studies of USTs performed by EPA in 1991 and 1992, it was found that the majority, or about
87 percent of the tanks, are used to manage gasoline or diesel fuel, kerosene, or heating oil. Of the
remaining USTs, 11 percent manage other materials and wastes, such as used oil (4 percent), hazardous
material (2 percent), and other material (5 percent) or are empty (2 percent). The majority of the
contamination problems are related to the contamination of soils and groundwater with petroleum products
that contain VOCs and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC).
7-11
-------
7.6
The Market at Federal Facility Sites in North Carolina
Although there are no Department of Energy (DOE) sites in North Carolina, there are 13 operational or
closing DoD installations and FUDS located in the State. There are 206 active sites at the DoD
installations, 144 of which have future remediation planned. Active sites are those at which some form of
remediation activity is planned or underway. The total number of sites to be remediated may exceed that
figure because, DoD typically does not plan remediation at a site until at least the RLTFS has been
completed.
The Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for 1994 indicates that a
total of $3.9 million is estimated to be needed through the year 2009 in all phases of cleanup at the 13
installations. Facilities having the largest allocations of funds are Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp
LeJeune ($166 million) and Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point ($138 million). Many of the
active sites identified at the 13 installations either are undergoing or are scheduled to undergo an RI/FS
and are, therefore, at a relatively early stage of the remediation process.
The majority of the contaminants at the sites at which remediation currently is planned fall into one of
three broad categories: petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL); VOCs; and metals. Those contaminants are
found in the soil at all the sites and in the groundwater in a large percentage of the sites. Data on volumes
of soil and groundwater to be treated are not available. Table 7-7 provides information on the individual
installations and sites subject to remediation at those installations. Cleanup already may be underway at
other sites; such sites have not been included in the total because it is unlikely that they will afford
opportunity for vendors of innovative technologies. Of the DoD sites in North Carolina, two installations
are listed on the NPL.
Table 7-7
DoD Installations and Sites in North Carolina
Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2009
$166,807
55
7-12
-------
Table 7-7
DoD Installations and Sites in North Carolina
r ~ ^L,-r **$ £Y. ^~
\ ^ -i>lrC~Name" "* ^ ^ "
- and Outyear Funding ($000>
Charlotte Naval Ammunition Depot
Outyear Funding FY95-2008
$5,331
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air
Station
Outyear Funding FY95-2007
$138,891
Fort Bragg
Outyear Funding FY95-2005
$24,294
Laurinburg-Maxton Air Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2003
$5,971
New Hanover County Airport
Outyear Funding FY95-1999
$3,080
Pope Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2009
$20,446
Seymour Johnson Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2003
$13,587
Tarheel Army Missile Plant
Outyear Funding FY95-2002
$2,915
Camp Butner Training Camp
Outyear Funding FY95-2006
$3,745
Camp Fort Davis
Outyear Funding FY95-2007
$4,033
Stallings Air Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2004
$1,489
Weeksville Naval Air Facility
Outyear Funding FY95-2002
$3,665
^!deral Facility ,
„ ^Identification*'^ <
„ -v "Number «
NC49799F490000
NC417302726100
NC421002012100
NC49799F482900
NC49799F483500
NC457212447500
NC457212447400
NC421002187400
NC49799F482700
NC49799F482800
NC49799F678900
NC49799F491100
X
•X ~fc
"'"'',.
~Codesl ~
F
,A,N
A
F
N,F
A
A
A
F
F
F
F
"f 3 * * 1 t *• ^
Number o£sltesat,Whtch^
- Cleanup is Planned
5
55
5
4
3
5
5
1
3
3
3
2
Source: Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994
1 Codes:
A = The installation is currently operational or on the BRAC list, and cleanup is covered by DERA or BRAC funds
F = The installation is no longer active and is managed by the FUDS Branch
N = The site is listed on the final National Priorities List
7-13
-------
7.7 Further Market Information for North Carolina
A vendor that wishes to obtain information about sites in North Carolina that are managed by EPA may
write to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
For information on RCRA facilities, the envelope should be marked to the attention of the Freedom of
Information Act Officer, Office of RCRA and Federal Facilities. For information on CERCLA facilities in
North Carolina, the envelope should be marked to the attention of the Freedom of Information Act Officer,
North Superfund Remedial Branch. The requestor must pay a reproduction and processing fee, which is
based on the volume of information provided. For more information on USTs handled by EPA, vendors
may contact the EPA Region 4 UST program manager:
John Mason
U.S. EPA
345 Courtland Street, NE
Mail Code 4WM-GWP-15
Atlanta, GA 30365
DEHNR's public information office is a good source of information about the hazardous waste sites that
DEHNR manages. A vendor that wishes to bid on any State contract must request a vendor application
from:
North Carolina Department of Administration
Vendor Application Coordinator
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603-8002
'Telephone: (919)733-3581
7-14
-------
If the application is approved, a vendor may subscribe to the North Carolina Purchase Directory, which is
published twice each month. The directory contains a list of all work over $10,000 administered by the
State and all annual contracts issued by the State. The annual subscription fee for the directory is $40.
Contact the Department of Administration office to obtain a subscription form.
For environmental services, the State usually requests proposals from vendors. All environmental
proposals should be sent to:
Doris Strickland
DEHNR
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 715-3893
For information on USTs contact:
North Carolina Pollution Control Branch
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources
441 N. Harrington St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 733-8486
For information about DOE sites or any of DOE's technology development assistance programs, vendors
may contact:
DOE's Center for Environmental Management Information
470 L'Enfant Plaza East
Suite 7112
Washington, DC 20024
(800) 736-3282
7-15
-------
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) does not have a single point of contact that handles all of DoD's
environmental restoration initiatives, site-level information, and technology programs. The Defense
Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for FY 1995 contains detailed information
on environmental restoration accomplishments and schedules at DoD installations world-wide. This report
is available on the Internet at the DoD Environmental Restoration home page at:
http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod/
The home page also provides links to other internet sites that pertain to DoD environmental restoration
activities.
Listed below are the regional offices of the DEHNR. Information includes name of office, address,
telephone numbers, and counties the regional office serves.
AsheviUe Regional Office (704) 251-6208
59 Woodfin Street
P.O. Box 379
AsheviUe, NC 28801
Counties: Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson,
Macon, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Swain, Transylvania, and Yancey
Fayetteville Regional Office (910) 486-1541
Wachovia Building
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5094
Counties: Anson, Bladen, Cumberland, Hamett, Hoke, Montgomery, Moore, Richmond, Sampson, and
Scotland
Mooresville Regional Office (704) 663-1699
919 North Main Street
P.O. Box 950
Mooresville,NC 28115
Counties: Alexander, Cabarrus, Catawba, Cleveland, Gaston, Lredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan,
Stanly, and Union
7-16
-------
Raleigh Regional Office (919) 571-4718
3800 Barrett Drive
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27687
Counties: Chatham, Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Granville, Halifax, Johnston, Lee, Nash,
Northampton, Orange, Person, Vance, Wake, Warren, and Wilson
Washington Regional Office (919) 946-6481
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889-314
Counties: Beaufort, Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Greene, Hertford, Hyde,
Jones, Lenoir, Martin, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Pitt, Tyrrell, Washington, and Wayne
Wilmington Regional Office (919) 395-3900
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
Counties: Brunswick, Carteret, Columbus, Duplin, New Hanover, Onslow, and Pender
Winston-Salem Regional Office (910) 771-4600
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107-2241
Counties: Alamance, Alleghany, Ashe, Caswell, Davidson, Davie, Forsyth, Guilford, Randolph,
Rockingham, Stokes, Surry, Watauga, Wilkes, and Yadkin
7-17
-------
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7-18
-------
Table 7-2
Other Sites on the North Carolina Priority List
at Which Remediation Activities May Be Required
iilSittnli&fesi^^
1
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
HOSKINS MILL
201 HOSKINS MILL LANE
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208-1456
WATTS REGULATOR-DAVIS PROPERTY
OLD BALL PARK ROAD
SPINDALE, NC
CAROKNIT
SMITH CREEK PARKWAY &. 23RD STREET
WILMINGTON, NC
CAROLINA CREOSOTING
EASTBROOKROAD
LELAND, NC
DURACELL BATTERY TECH
305 US HIGHWAY 64 EAST
LEXINGTON, NC 27292-2039
AMERICAN THREAD SEVER PLANT
US HWY 221 9 MILES WEST OF MARION MARION, NC
28752
MANVILLE CORPORATION
LOMBARD STREET
MAXTON, NC
HOLDING POND FOR WASTE USS
500 BROOME ROAD
GREENSBORO, NC 27406-3714
KNOB CREEK FLYASH DISPOSAL
RTE 1540
BREVARD, NC 28712
HARWELL ROAD SEPTIC PIT
RR4
GASTONIA, NC 28056
CUSTOM PROCESSING &. MANUFACTURING
1110SURRETTDRIVE
HIGH POINT, NC 27260-8822
CHATHAM MANUFACTURING COMPANY
EAST MAIN STREET
HIGH POINT, NC
SCM CORP GLIDDEN COATINGS & RESINS
3926 GLENWOOD DRIVE
CHARLOTTE. NC 28208-2943
Soil, surface water
Soil, groundwater
Soil, groundwater
Soil, groundwater
Soil, groundwater
Soil, groundwater
Soil, groundwater,
surface water
Surface water
Soil
Groundwater
Soil, groundwater
Soil,
groundwater
Soil, groundwater
'sSslM^ntaniiniaiSiSf^^l
Organics, metals
Metals
Organics, metals
Organics
Organics, metals
Organics, metals
Organics, metals,
inorganics
Organics, metals,
pesticides
Metals
Organics
Organics, metals
Organics, metals
Organics, metals
7-19
-------
Table 7-2 (continued)
Other Sites on the North Carolina Priority List
at Which Remediation Activities May Be Required
:1^oa^Si^'&VfMc^^iL^^SiaK^c^^SsMay^B^i^^^^^S^^^^^^&^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"V;.V;C-c:Y7'
^Priority-
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
29
31
32
33
34
"^f;-l^^-^J5fej^®^rfe-Name,andiIS5cafion!fJ^v=vc*»^3s^^.
STEELCASE INCORPORATED
CANE CREEK INDUSTRIAL PARK
FLETCHER, NC 28732
BUXTON DUMP
WEST OF BACK ROAD
BUXTON, NC
KINSTON DEMOLITION LANDFILL
DAVIE STREET
KINSTON, NC
WHITE FURNITURE COMPANY
201 EAST CORNER STREET
MEBANE, NC 27302
FAYETTEVILLE COAL GAS
RAY A VENUE
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28052
MOBIL OIL
3335 RIVER ROAD
WILMINGTON, NC 28412-6243
NEW HAVEN DRIVE
GASTONIA, NC 28052
OLD ROCKY MOUNT AIRPORT
US 301 BUSINESS
ROCKY MOUNT, NC
LEE'S MOTOR WORKS
RR4BOX19A
GASTONIA, NC 28056
SWEETEN CREEK CRUM SITE BROMLEY
35 SWEETEN CREEK ROAD
ASHEVHJLE.NC 28803-2318
OLD WESTERN NC FAIRGROUNDS
S.R. 1829 &S.R. 1819
HENDERSONVILLE, NC 28726
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
S.R. 1565
PLYMOUTH, NC 27962
WINSTON CONTAINER COMPANY
4732 MORRIS FIELD DRIVE
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208-5841
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT
CUMBERLAND ROAD & OWEN DRIVE
FAYETTEVILLE. NC
Soil, groundwater
Soil, groundwater
Soil
Soil, surface water
Soil
Soil, groundwater
Groundwater
Soil
Soil, groundwater
Soil
Soil, groundwater
Soil
Soil
Soil, groundwater
*2'«©3'ntaminaints::2jSl
Organics, metals
Organics, metals
Organics
Organics, metals
Organics
Organics, metals
Organics
Pesticides
Organics
Metals
Organics
Metals
Metals, organics
Organics
7-20
-------
Table 7-2 (continued)
Other Sites on the North Carolina Priority List
at Which Remediation Activities May Be Required
* ^ * V 4 * w. -* -, 1 ^ ™ ,. .X ' -" ~* "• *
Priority Sftesaf Which Remediation Activities May Be Required " **s r , « „ ^ - «• ^- ^ -~v ^
*, -, ^
Priority
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
/-* *•- " ' -x". - ~ , "" " •>
*••*—• ^_wV 'VSite'Name/and .Location, -
MONARCH FURNITURE
300 SCIENTIFIC STREET
JAMESTOWN, NC 27282-9501
ASHEBORO LANDFILL
OFF OLD US 64
ASHEBORO, NC 27203
RHODERA DR WELLS
2126 RHODERIA DRIVE
MATTHEWS, NC 28105-5918
SOUTHERN WOOD PIEDMONT COMPANY
S.R. 2139
GULF, NC 27256
TRITON INC.
1610 WARD BOULEVARD SOUTH
WILSON, NC 27893
DE POORTERE CORPORATION
240 CASTLE HAYNE ROAD
WILMINGTON, NC 28401-2800
A.C. LAWRENCE
100 WEST MAIN STREET
HAZELWOOD, NC 28738-2022
DAVIS PARK ROAD TCE SITE
2307 DAVIS PARK ROAD
GASTONIA, NC 28052-4463
UNION CARBIDE
5400 HOVIS ROAD
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208-1244
REASOR CHEMICAL
NC132
CASTLE HAYNE, NC 28429
UNION CARBIDE
800 ALBEMARLE ROAD
ASHEBORO, NC 27203-6263
CAROLINA ALUMINUM
S.R. 1125
ROPER, NC 27970
CHERRY MOUNTAIN STREETDRUM SITE
602 CHERRY MOUNTAIN STREET
FOREST CITY. NC 28043-3013
„ *,
•* Media
Soil, groundwater
Soil, surface water
Soil, groundwater
Soil, groundwater,
surface water
Groundwater
Soil
Soil, groundwater
Soil, groundwater
Soil, groundwater
Surface water
Soil, groundwater
Soil
Soil
-v. >
Contaminants *
Metals
Metals
Organics, metals
Organics
Metals
Organics, metals
Organics, metals
Organics
Organics, metals
Organics
Organics, metals
Organics
Metals
7-21
-------
Table 7-2 (continued)
Other Sites on the North Carolina Priority List
at Which Remediation Activities May Be Required
-•pfiriKi^safeawiuSSSsn^^
TI- 1-imt.y^- ' *#;»!»«!
•iPiriokitya
49
50
51
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
63
65
66
3^^-*^-^»^"Sife'Name^^
THffiLE-ENGDAHL INCORPORATED
1100 FAIRCfflLD ROAD
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27105-4528
R.P.SCHRER
2021 EAST ROOSEVELT
MONROE, NC
FORK SWAMP GRADY WHITE BOAT
AYDEN,NC
ATHOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY
C AND 22nd STREETS
BUTNER.NC
AYCOCK PROPERTY
SRs 1162 AND 1103
WILSON, NC
CTS OF ASHEVILLE, INC.
MILLS GAP ROAD
SKYLAND, NC
KERR MCGEE CORPORATION
NAVASSA, NC
GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORP
FAIRVIEW, NC
RANGE ROAD BURN SITE
BUTNER.NC
CHEMICAL LEAM AN TANK LINES INC
6202 WEST MARKET STREET
GREENSBORO, NC 27409-2038
GREENVILLE CITY LANDFILL
5TH STREET& CEMETARY ROAD
GREENVILLE, NC 27834
GLEN RAVEN MILLS
HWY19EAST
BURNSVILLE, NC 28714
APPLIED RESEARCH GROUP
2221 NORTH DAVIDSON STREET
CHARLOTTE. NC 28205-1829
REA MAGNET WIRE COMPANY
OLD LAUREL CHURCH HILL ROAD
LAURINBURG, NC 28352
FMC NIAGARA PESTICIDES
AYDBN. NC
isJS?«MediaKi?S"-3tft;?fi
Soil
(estimated 2 to 3 tons)
Soil
Soil
Soil, surface water
Soil, groundwater
Soil, surface water or
sediment
Soil
(estimated 1,667 tons)
Soil
Soil
Groundwater
Soil
Soil, groundwater
Soil, groundwater
Surface water, soil
Soil
Organics, metals
Organics
Organics
Organics, metals
Pesticides
Organics, metals
Organics
Metals
Organics, metals
Organics
Metals
Organics
Metals, organics
Organics
Organics, pesticides
7-22
-------
Table 7-2 (continued)
Other Sites on the North Carolina Priority List
at Which Remediation Activities May Be Required
. ats$f-1*?*»gi* km&&n&&i*jp
ifBnonty.iSrfi
'SaPiSoiityals
67
69
70
71
72
73
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
ABEX CORPORATION
US 29 SOUTH
SALISBURY, NC
REINCO CHEMICAL COMPANY
EAST 11TH STREET
ROANOKE RAPIDS, NC 27870
DURHAM ANIMAL CLINIC
4306 NORTH ROXBORO ROAD
DURHAM, NC 27704-1828
HOOVER MACHINE SHOP
RR 3
GASTONIA, NC 28056
FASCO CONTROLS CORPORATION
S.R. 1926
SHELBY, NC 28150
DAYCO LANDFILL
S.R. 1134
WAYNESVILLE, NC 28786
ACADEMY STEEL DRUM
3212 RIDGE ROAD
MATTHEWS, NC 28105-4859
NEW AGE FURNITURE
PROSPECT INDUSTRIAL PARK
LEXINGTON, NC
ROWE CORP PROPERTY BOULIGNY SITE
1 123 S CHURCH STREET
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203-4003
WHITE'S GRAVEL PIT
1515 HIGHWAY 49 SOUTH
CONCORD, NC 28027-8915
WARD TRANSFORMER
123 MOUNT VERNON CHURCH ROAD
RALEIGH, NC 27614
BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES INC
215 DRUMMOND STREET
KERNERSVILLE, NC 27284-2849
FLEMING LABORATORIES
2205 THRIFT ROAD
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208-4446
-s^siSTjfe^Mwbai.tfejSSJtCi
Soil, groundwater
Soil, groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Soil
Groundwater
Soil, surface water or
sediments
Soil
Soil, groundwater
Soil
Surface water
Soil, groundwater
Soil, groundwater
KM£^*sj%t^£s$&-'?;-&£sfji~<£?tfi':s''
.^p-^-.-t^ontaininftntsr^^r-
Organics
Organics
Organics
Organics
Organics, metals
Organics
Organics, metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
Organics .
Organics
Organics
7-23
-------
Table 7-2 (continued)
Other Sites on the North Carolina Priority List
at Which Remediation Activities May Be Required
ii$H£
82
83
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
96
^eiaM'raaS^^^SIte;Nameia^d;]^cab6nik^;.S•S&5s^s*;•
ANILOX ROLL COMPANY
4840 WALLACE NEEL ROAD
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208-8619
PARKER INDUSTRIES
4867 RHONEY ROAD
CONNELLYS SPRINGS, NC 28612-8142
UNIVERSITY OF NC ARPT WASTE DISP
AIRPORT ROAD
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27599
CHEMICAL & SOLVENTS INC
2804 PATTERSON STREET
GREENSBORO, NC 27407-2319
SUN CHEM CORPORATION GPI DIV
2400 OLD LEXINGTON ROAD
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27107-3236
WEYERHAUSER
HWY 308 WEST
LEWISTON.NC 27849
UNIVERSITY OF NC OLD SANITARY LANDFILL
AIRPORT ROAD
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27599
EATON CORPORATION
HWY 501 SOUTH
ROXBORO, NC 27573
FLORIDA STEEL CORPORATION
LAKEVIEWROAD
CHARLOTTE. NC
SOUTHCHEM LANDFIL
750 EAST M ARKHAM AVENUE
DURHAM, NC 27701-1445
GAITHER TRANSOU PROPERTY
1202 GUILFORD COLLEGE ROAD
GREENSBORO, NC
ETHAN ALLEN INC BLUE RIDGE DIV
COMMERCE STREET
OLD FORT, NC 28762
QUORUM KNITTING
1BALCRANKWAY
WEAVERVELLE. NC 28787
Soil
Soil, groundwater
Soil, groundwater
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil, groundwater
"SSSEonfiininaii&SvSfc
Metals
Organics
Organics, metals,
acids, bases,
inorganics, pesticides
Organics
Organics, metals
Organics
Organics, metals,
acids, bases,
inorganics, pesticides
Organics
Metals
Organics
Organics
Organics
Organics
7-24
-------
Table 7-2 (continued)
Other Sites on the North Carolina Priority List
at Which Remediation Activities May Be Required
97
99
100
101
102
103
105
106
107
111
112
114
115
HOLLINSWORTH PROPERTY
BROADFOOT AVENUE & CLARK STREET
FAYETTEVILLE, NC
ESB INC EXIDE CORPORATION
2510 NORTH BOULEVARD
RALEIGH, NC 27604
C&T REFINERY
5000 SOUTH BOULEVARD
CHARLOTTE, NC 28217-2700
CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORP
OLD MT HOLLY ROAD
PAW CREEK, NC 28130
PHILLIPS PLATING
US HWY 17 NORTH
BRIDGETON, NC 28519
REICHHOLD CHEMICAL INC
DURMAN ROAD
PINEVELLE, NC 28134
CAROLINA WOOD PRESERVING COMPANY
EAST 16TH STREET
SCOTLAND NECK, NC 27874
MALLINKRODT, INC.
US 1 NORTH
RALEIGH, NC
HARTSOE BATTERY
2513 LINDA AVENUE
KANNAPOLIS, NC 28083-9108
FOAMEX/REEVES BROTHERS
HWY 115
CARNELIUS, NC
PITT COUNTY UTILITY LANDFILL
PORT TERMINAL ROAD
GREENVILLE, NC 27828
REEVES BROTHERS
RAILROAD AVENUE
RUTHERFORDTON, NC
CIBA-GEIGY
WESTINGHOUSE BOULEVARD
CHARLOTTE. NC
•^^r^^|?irtfc':*6^^'5^**f*5^^5S|s^
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil, surface water
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil, groundwater
Soil
Soil
Soil, groundwater
ii^Obnt^HunMits^^s
Pesticides, metals
Metals
Organics
Organics
Metals
Organics
Organics, metals
Organics, acids, bases
Metals
Organics
Metals
Organics
Organics
7-25
-------
Table 7-2 (continued)
Other Sites on the North Carolina Priority List
at Which Remediation Activities May Be Required
'-IMontyrs'i&*at,wiu<&;Re^
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
/*VP^^*!f^32?g5?i5^Sfe!^^
vi-r,r.£v>v,f'5f1.,*^fe>'£-.J^->l-i; -^^^zSsSrfeNam^^^
MOORES COMPANY
US 1 BUSINESS & S.R. 1001
HENDERSON, NC
COASTAL CHEMICAL CORP
HWY42EAST
CLAYTON, NC 27520
CAROLAWNCO.
1426 WEST MOUNTAIN STREET
KERNERSVILLE, NC 27284-2132
US 70 DRUM DUMP
HWY 70 2 MILES EAST OF BURKE
GLEN ALPINE, NC 28628
GURLEY PESTICIDE BURIAL
PRESTON STREET
SELMA, NC 27576
DAUGHERTY CHEMICAL CO
307 WALKER STREET
DURHAM, NC 27701-4154
HURT RESIDENCE
US 64 SW OF MORGANTON
MORGANTON; NC 28655
SORRELL LANDFILL
S.R. 1303
APEX, NC 27502
3880 IMMANUEL ROAD
GREENSBORO, NC 27407-3315
THOMAS VDLLE FURNITURE INDS LENOIR
BLOWING ROCK HWY
LENOIR, NC 28645
BUCKHORN PESTICIDES
HWY 42 & HWY 581
BUCKHORN, NC 27893
STRUCTURAL WOOD PRESERVING CO.
HWY 22
COLERIDGE, NC 27234
TARTAN MARINE
NC77ANDSR2032
HAMLET, NC
ACE CHEMICAL CORPORATION
9801 SOUTH TRYON STREET
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273-6505
Soil
Soil
Soil, groundwater
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
Soil, groundwater,
surface water
Soil
Soil, groundwater
-35S?XiOntaiiifiunaniSS!*K
Organics
Pesticides
Organics
Organics
Pesticides
Metals, inorganics
Organics
Pesticides
Organics
Organics
Organics, pesticides
Metals
Metals
Organics
7-26
-------
Table 7-2 (continued)
Other Sites on the North Carolina Priority List
at Which Remediation Activities May Be Required
StErioritpffi
130
131
132
133
134
137
138 .
139
140
141
142
143
145
STANLEY CASE GOODS (FORMER)
HWY211
WEST END, NC 27376
SIR WALTER GUN CLUB
US 64 EAST
RALEIGH, NC
GRANT CREEK WWTP
CRUSE ROAD
SALISBURY, NC 28146
EC MANUFACTURING
413 NORTH POLK STREET
RINEVILLE, NC
CORNING GLASS WORKS
310 NORTH COLLEGE ROAD
WILMINGTON, NC 28405-3518
CORNELL-DUBILIER ELECTRONICS
2652 DALRYMPLE STREET
SANFORD, NC 27330-6153
ALLIANCE CAROLINA TOOL & MOLD
GLENN BRIDGE ROAD
ARDEN, NC 28704
BURLINGTON HOME CHAIR
HWY 268
RONDA, NC
GASTON COUNTY DYEING MACHINE CO
HWY 27 EAST
MOUNT HOLLY, NC 28120
GASTON COUNTY DYEING MACHINE CO
200 SOUTH MAIN STREET
STANLEY, NC 28164-2011
HELENA CHEMICAL COMPANY
DENNIS STREET
ENFIELD, NC 27823
OWENS ILLINOIS
OLD US 29
SPENCER, NC 28144
BURLINGTON FURNITURE
ATOAH STREET
ROBBINSVILLE. NC 28771
"SrSffS^j.s-Mi'W'^Ss^f-Ssis'js
ft^il^K^pS&ffSSifff-if:
«65gSsSSMediafcs*eSr?
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil, groundwater
Groundwater
Soil
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
?-£SConranunSritessfBi'
Organics
Organics, metals
Organics
Metals
Organics
Organics
Organics
Organics
Organics
Organics
Organics
Metals
Organics
7-27
-------
Table 7-2 (continued)
Other Sites on the North Carolina Priority List
at Which Remediation Activities May Be Required
•^nSafrir
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
156
157
158
~^^'^%^i^-Sit^Ns^&:^&^o<^tion^s^&sv^^^S!,-
BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES INC
US 1 NORTH
RALEIGH, NC
B ALFOUR ROAD BATTERY
GRANITE OUARRY, NC 28072
BENDDC CORPORATION
HWY85
SALISBURY, NC 28144
MILAN YARD LANDFILL
MILAN RR
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28301
HENSON LANDFILL
US HWY 221 SOUTH
FOREST CITY, NC 28139
WALKER DRUM DISPOSAL
WYATTS GROVE CHURCH RO AID
GOLD HILL, NC
SOUTHERN RESIN US INDUSTRIES INC
1510 DENTON ROAD
THOMAS VILLE, NC 27360-6314
BORDEN CHEMICAL
1411 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28301-6396
BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES INC
6008 HIGH POINT ROAD
GREENSBORO, NC 27407-7009
CLAYTON-MARCUS CO..INC.
HWY 127 NORTH
BETHLEHEM. NC
MARSHALL MONEY BUCKET WASHING
HWY 321 NORTH
LENOIR, NC 28645
ALCOA B ADIN LANDILL
SR1704
BADIN. NC
&iii?$$^^^/i/£S*jii
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil, groundwater
Organics
Metals
Metals
Organics
Organics
Organics
Organics
Organics
Organics
Metals
Organics
Cyanide, organics,
metals
Source: North Carolina Department of Environment Health, and Natural Resources; Division of Solid Waste Management, Annual
Report to the North Carolina General Assembly, February 1995
7-28
-------
Table 7-4
NPL Sites in North Carolina at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
RA PLANNED
START
DATE2
Air Stripping; Disposal of Residual; Monitoring
01
03
04
ABERDEEN PESTICIDE
(F/RP)
ABERDEEN GW
FAIRWAY SIX
(F/RP)
3/30/96
10/1/95
10/1/95
Y(FS)
Al; DB; GW; SD;
SO;SW
GW; SD; SW
SO
123,933 cy
NA
NA
METALS;
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES;
VOC
PESTICIDES
PESTICIDES
Disposal of Residual; Solidification and
Stabilization; Incineration with On-Site Disposal of
Residual; Leachate Treatment; Off-Site Treatment;
Thermal Treatment with On-Site Placement;
jyionjtpring
NA
NA
05
01
MCIVER & ROUTE 211 GW (RP)
3/14/98
GW; SD; SW
NA
PESTICIDES
RIFS START
6/30/95
Y GW; SO
4,600 cy
METALS;
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES;
VOC
Soil Aeration; Biodegradation and Bioremediation;
Disposal of Residual; Leachate Treatment; Steam
Stripping; Pump and Treat at POTW with
_DJscharae: Soil Cover
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
7-29
-------
Table 7-4 (continued)
NPL Sites in North Carolina at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist*
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
01
SOIL REMEDATION
(F)
RA PLANNED
START
DATE2
RI/FS
COM-
PLETED
12/31/96
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
DB; SD; SO
57,719 cy
METALS; VOC;
OTHER
INORGANICS
Off-Site Treatment; Disposal of Residual; Surface
Capping Only
02
SURROUNDINGS AREAS (F/RP)
1/28/97
01
01
DB; GW; MS; SD;
SO
64,139 cy
METALS; OTHER
INORGANICS;
PCBS; VOC
Off-Site Treatment; Solidification and Stabilization;
Air Stripping; Disposal of Residual; Precipitation;
Pump and Treat at POTW with Discharge
6/30/95
DB; GW; SD; SO
11,150 cy
METALS; PCBS;
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES;
VOC;
RADIOACTIVE
MATERIALS
Off-Site Treatment; Disposal of Residual;
Leachate Treatment; Precipitation; Monitoring;
Solidification and Stabilization; Steam Stripping
01 NA
02 ORGANICS GW
CONTAMINATION
(EP/F)
JO.
9/30/95
9/30/95
GW
GW
NA
METALS;
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES;
VOC
NA
PESTICIDES;
VOCs
Disposal of Residual; Precipitation; Leachate
Treatment; Pump and Treat at POTW with
Discharge; Off-Site Treatment; Steam Stripping;
Monitoring
Pump and Treat
03 BURLINGTON
RROUNDWATER
12/30/96
NA
NA
NA
NA
(RP/FE)
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
7-30
-------
Table 7-4 (continued)
NPL Sites in North Carolina at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START
DATE2
01
(F)
9/30/95
Ri/FS
COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
GW;SW
42,933 gal;
54,912 gal;
125,549 gal;
546,158 gal;
809,683 gal;
1,127,060 gal
METALS;
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES;
VOC
Air Stripping; Disposal of Residual; Precipitation;
Leachate Treatment; Off-Site Treatment; Steam
Stripping; Monitoring
GEIGY CHEMICAL
CORPORATION (RP/FE)
3/30/95
GW;SO
1,000 cy
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES;
VOC
Disposal of Residual; Leachate Treatment; Off-
Site Treatment; Recycling; Pump and Treat at
POTW with Discharqe
Air Stripping; Leachate Treatment; Pump and
Treat at POTW with Hi
' Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources
Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because m the nroiprt i
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
AlAIr
DB Debris
DK Unknown
EP EPA In-House
ES Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Understate
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge •
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST Solid Waste
SW Surface Water
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VOCs Volatile Organic
Compounds
7-31 — '
-------
Table 7-4 (continued)
NPL Sites In North Carolina at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
Sr:r*wV .y/^TfrtfJ^lftfcftMaiit^
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
01
01
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START
DATE2
Rl/FS
COM-
PLETED
(F/RP)
(RP/FE)
1/27/96
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
GW;SL;SO
606,000 gal;
3,000 cy
METALS; OTHER
INORGANICS;
VOC
Air Stripping; Precipitation; Leachate Treatment;
Solidification and Stabilization; Steam Stripping;
Monitoring; Pump and Treat at POTW with
Discharge; Surface Capping Only; Disposal of
Residual; Thermal Treatment with On-Site
Placement
5/31/95
GW; SO; SW
2,930 cy
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES;
VOC
Disposal of Residual; Leachate Treatment; PH
Neutralization, Other Neutralization; Off-Site
Treatment; Steam Stripping; Monitoring;
Incineration with On-Site Disposal of Residual;
Pump and Treat at POTW with Discharge
SURFACE WATER/
NE TRIBUTARY
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air F
DB Debris FE
DK Unknown FF
EP EPA In-House GW
ES Entire Site LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR Mixed Funding Federal/RP
MS Man-made Structures
NA Not Available
NO No Media
OT Other
PS PRP Response Under State
RA Remedial Actions
RC RCRA Hazardous Waste
RP Responsible Party
S State, Fund Financed
7-32
SD Sediment
SI Single Intake
SL Sludge
SO Soil
SR PRP Lead Under State
ST Solid Waste
SW Surface Water
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VOCs Volatile Organic
Compounds
-------
Table 7-4 (continued)
NPL Sites in North Carolina at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
RA PLANNED
START
DATE2
RI/FS
COM-
PLETED
OPERABLE UNIT
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
9,700,000 gal;
97,000,000 qal
VOC; METALS
Air Stripping; Pump and Treat at POTW with
Discharge; Off-Site Treatment:: Monitorina
05
SITE 74,41
9/30/96
N
GW; OT; SD; SO;
SW
NA
PESTICIDES
NA
06
07
08
09
10
SITE 2
SITES 36,43,44,54,86
SITES 1.28.& 30
SITE 16
SITE 73, 65
JEQ
(FF)
12/30/95
GW; SD; SO;SW
NA
NA
NA
9/30/97
DB; GW; SD; SO;
ST;SW
NA
NA
NA
(FF)
3/30/97
GW; SD; SL; SO;
SW
(FF)
3/30/97
N
DB; GW; SD; SO;
ST;SW
NA
NA
NA
NA
(FF)
12/31/97
DB; GW; SD; SO;
ST;SW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11
SITE 35
(FF)
9/30/96
GW; SD; SO; SW
2,500 SF tank
farm
NA
NA
12
SITE 7 & 80
(FF)
3/30/97
SO
5 Acres, 1 Acre
PCBs;
PESTICIDES
NA
13
SITE 3
(FF)
3/30/97
SO
NA
PAH
NA
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
AlAIr
DB Debris
DK
EP
ES
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F EPA Fund-Financed
FE Federal Enforcement
FF Federal Facilities
GW Groundwater
LW Liquid Waste
MR Mixed Funding Federal/RP
MS Man-made Structures
NA Not Available
NO No Media
OT Other
PS PRP Response Under State
RA Remedial Actions
RC RCRA Hazardous Waste
RP Responsible Party
S State, Fund Financed
7-33
SD Sediment
SI Single Intake
SL Sludge
SO Soil
SR PRP Lead Under State
ST Solid Waste
SW Surface Water
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VOCs Volatile Organic
Compounds
-------
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7-34
-------
Table 7-5
RCRA Facilities Currently Undergoing Corrective Action in North Carolina1
BORDEN INC.
HIGHWAY II NORTH
KINGSTON. NC 28501
NCD001725464
ENTIRE FACILITY
CALDWELL SYSTEMS INC
MT. HERMAN RD. LENOIR. NC 28645-5
NCD086871282
ENTIRE FACILITY
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO
1223 FAIRGROVE RD. HICKORY, NC 28602
NCD003237948
SWMUS 63 (A,B,C,D), 64, 67, AOC A, B
HOECHST CELANESE CORP
HWY 70 WEST, SALISBURY, NC 28144
NCD041043811
GRUB LANDFILL
CRU BASINS
POLISHING PONDS
KIMBERLY-CLARK BERKELY MILLS
32 SMYTH AVE, HENDERSONVILLE, NC
28792-2850
NCD003151990
WASTE PIT & LANDFILL
LITTON SYSTEMS INC. CLIFTON
PRECISION
STATE ROAD 1519
CHEROKEE CO., NC 28906
NCD044438406
UNITS A - H
RCRA SWMU'S 1-14
1 Data as of May 1995 from the EPA RCRIS database. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of data sources.
7-35
-------
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7-36
-------
8.0 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF SITES IN SOUTH CAROLINA
This chapter provides a detailed discussion of the opportunities available in the State of South Carolina for
vendors of innovative technologies. The chapter is organized in seven sections. The first section describes
the organization and authority of the State's program. The next section discusses opportunities at sites
subject to the South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Act. That section is followed by a similar
discussion of opportunities at Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites. The fourth and fifth sections
discuss the markets at Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities subject to corrective
action, and underground storage tank (UST) sites managed by the State. Subsequent sections provide
information on opportunities at Federal facilities and provide other useful information about working in the
State.
Figures 8-1 and 8-2 present two maps
of South Carolina that indicate the
locations of sites in the state that are
on the NPL, and the RCRA facilities
in the State1. The majority of the 25
NPL sites in South Carolina are
located in the northwestern portion of
the State, the remainder being
distributed more or less evenly
throughout the State. RCRA facilities
are evenly distributed across the State,
with the highest concentration in the
northwest.
Figures 8-1 and 8-2 do not indicate the locations of all NPL sites or all RCRA sites located in South
Carolina. LandView II™ contains information from the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database on NPL sites and other sites. It also
contains information from the Biennial Reporting System (BRS) on treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities and major generators of hazardous waste.
8-1
-------
N
A
Greenville
Charleston
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Modified from Landview II, based on data
as of September 1994.
Figure 8-1
NPL Sites in South Carolina
8-2
-------
N
A
Greenville
Charleston
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Modified from Landview II, based on data
as of September 1994.
Figure 8-2
RCRA Facilities in South Carolina
8-3
-------
8.1 The South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Program
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) is the State regulatory
agency responsible for implementing and enforcing environmental regulations. SCDHEC operates under
the authority of the Hazardous Waste Management Act (HWMA), sections 44-55-10 through 840 and
section 44-56-10-330, which authorizes the establishment of the Hazardous Waste Contingency Fund, a
State priority list, and establishes authority to take or compel actions to clean up sites.
SCDHEC is divided into several bureaus; the bureau responsible for hazardous waste management is the
Bureau of Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials. The bureau consists of five divisions that are responsible
for implementation and enforcement of South Carolina's environmental regulations. The division
responsible for both abandoned hazardous waste sites managed by the State and oversight of Federal NPL
sites is the Division of Site Engineering and Screening, which has a complement of 15 staff (SCDHEC
1995). The South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Act Section 4456, which was promulgated in
1978, gives SCDHEC the authority to regulate hazardous waste activities within the State. The State
Superfund program receives its monies from both the Federal and State governments. Federal monies are
used for activities at NPL sites located within the State, and State monies are used for all other sites. The
balance of the fund was $17.3 million in June 1994 (SCDHEC 1995). ...
Voluntary cleanups are pursued under the regular State program; any PRP or potential purchaser may
participate. The voluntary program was established in 1989 by guidance document. State support is
funded from the Contingency Fund and from appropriations; PRPs are not charged for State services.
The State is authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct the UST program
and the base RCRA program and recently received authorization to conduct the corrective action program.
The State does not have seperate corrective action program in addition to the authorized program. The
RCRA Permitting Division (in the Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management) is responsible for
both permitting and corrective action. The UST Division, however, is located in the Bureau of Drinking
Water.
8-4
-------
8.2 The Market at Sites Managed Under State Authorities
SCDHEC currently is revamping its data management system for hazardous waste sites managed by the
State and, therefore, a current list of the sites is not available. Staff of SCDHEC report that there currently
are approximately 70 sites at which staff are working. Data from SCDHEC's annual report can be used to
obtain information about these sites. Information about how to obtain the annual report is found at the end
of this chapter.
8.3 The Market at Sites Managed Under the Federal Superfund Program
EPA has listed 25 sites in South Carolina on the NPL; no sites currently are proposed. Table 8-1 presents
summary information from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) database on the status of the NPL sites in South Carolina. Table 8-2, at
the end of this chapter, lists 15 NPL sites at which remedial action has not yet begun at operable units
(OU). The sites and OUs of greatest interest to vendors are those at which technologies have been selected
but vendors of the technologies have not yet been chosen. Of the 15 sites, one is a Department of Energy
(DOE) installation, the Savannah River Site, which is discussed more fully in the section on opportunities
at Federal facilities. Table 8-2 presents a summary of the sites in South Carolina.
Table 8-1
Number of Sites and Operable Units at South Carolina NPL Sites
Pre-remedial
11
11
Remedial
14
74
Source: Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS database; see Chapter 1 for a detailed description of the data sources.
1 Sites with pre-remedial activities are sites where remedial design and construction have not yet begun, although the remedy may
have been chosen. These sites, especially the pre-remedial sites still in the investigation phase, present long-term opportunities for
vendors. Sites with remedial activities are sites where remedial design has begun and construction might not have begun. Where
technologies have been selected but no vendor has been chosen, a site may present a short-term business opportunity.
b A site may have more than one operable unit in each phase, so operable units may be counted more than once.
Figure 8-3 presents the distribution of sizes of the sites. Sites range in size from 0.09 to 192,000 acres.
Data on the sizes of sites were reported in CERCLIS for all but one of the sites. Of the 14 sites for which
data are available, 11 are 75 acres or less in area. Two sites are 100 and 224 acres in extent, and the
Savannah River Site is 192,000 acres.
Data on contaminants were available for only 5 of the 15 sites; contaminants include volatile organic
compounds (VOC), heavy metals, pesticides, and herbicides. For 14 of the 15 sites, data were available on
8-5
-------
contaminated media. There are 10 cases of reported soil contamination, 11 cases of ground-water
contamination, and 6 cases of surface-water contamination. In addition, several cases of contaminated
sediment and contaminated debris also were reported. Volumes of contaminants were reported for only
five sites. Reported volumes of soil contamination ranged from 650 to 20,000 cubic yards. There are 47
OUs at the 15 .NPL sites; 33 OUs are located at the Savannah River DOE facility and are the responsibility
of DOE.
The Savannah River Site (SRS) produces nuclear materials, primarily tritium and plutonium, for national
defense. The site comprises five reactors, two chemical separations facilities, one reactor fuel
manufacturing facility, and other administration and support facilities. Seventeen major milestones are
outlined in the FY1994 - 1998 Five Year Plan to correct adverse environmental conditions and to
remediate and close abandoned waste sites. Planned activities include closing seven sites (two are
currently in progress), starting eight groundwater remediation programs (one is currently in progress), and
completing 63 waste site investigations (60 are currently in progress).
Figure 8-3
NPL Site Size Distribution for the State of South Carolina
Not Available
8-6
-------
8.4 The Market at RCRA Corrective Action Sites
As mentioned in Section 8.1, South Carolina is authorized to adminster a corrective action program and to
issue RCRA Part B Permits for RCRA hazardous waste facilities. As Table 8-3 at the end of this
chapter indicates, data from the Resource Conservation Recovery Information System (RCRIS) database
show that only one RCRA facility currently is under a requirement to conduct a CMS. Those facilities are
owned by a wood treating company and an environmental services company. The RCRIS data indicate
that the entire wood treatment facility is of concern. Because of the nature of wood treatment business,
chemicals such as pentachlorophenol (PCP) and chromated copper arsenate (CCA) would be among the
major contaminants of concern. In the case of the environmental services facility, one of the solid waste
management units (SWMU) was identified as an underground waste oil tank.
8.5 The Market at UST Sites Managed by South Carolina
Table 8-4 presents data on USTs in the state of South Carolina. There are 19,302 active tanks in the State.
Active tanks are defined as tanks still in service (EPA 1993). As of March 31,1996, the EPA Office of
Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) has identified 2,127 leaking tanks in South Carolina at which clean
up has yet to be initiated. That number represents the difference between the two data elements
"confirmed releases" and "clean ups initiated." Clean up at USTs with soil contamination usually is
completed within 6 months to 2 years after the site has been identified. Cleanup at USTs with
groundwater contamination usually is completed within 2 to 5 years after the site has been identified.
Therefore, the number of USTs identified as opportunities will change rapidly.
Table 8-4
Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures
in South Carolina as of the First Half of FY1996
19,302
21,467
4,260
2,133
629
2,127
Source: EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks Semi-Annual Activity Report for the First Half of Fiscal Year 1996
(ending March 31,1996)
In national studies of USTs performed by EPA in 1991 and 1992, it was found that the majority, or about
87 percent of the tanks, are used to manage gasoline or diesel fuel, kerosene, or heating oil. Of the
8-7
-------
remaining USTs, 11 percent manage other materials and wastes, such as used oil (4 percent), hazardous
material (2 percent), and other material (5 percent) or are empty (2 percent). The majority of the
contamination problems are related to the contamination of soils and groundwater with petroleum products
that contain VOCs and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC).
8.6 The Market at Federal Sites in South Carolina
There is one DOE installation in the State at which remedial action activities are planned and 11
operational or closing DoD installations and formerly used defense sites (FUDS) at which such activities
are planned. At those DoD installations are 284 active sites, 99 of which have future remedial action
planned. Active sites are those at which some form of remediation activity is planned or underway. The
total number of sites to be remediated may exceed that figure because, in general, DoD does not plan
remediation at a site until an RI/FS has been completed.
The Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Five-Year Plan (DOE 1993) indicates that a total
of more than $2.7 billion is estimated to be needed between FY96 and FY98 in all phases of cleanup
activities at the Savannah River Site (SRS). SRS is on the NPL, and has 33 OUs that present opportunities
for vendors. Contaminants were not identified in CERCLIS. The DOE 5-Year Plan indicates that SRS is
contaminated with mixed wastes^ low-level radioactive waste, and transuranic waste. Groundwater
pumping is planned at eight of the OUs at Savannah River.
The Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994
indicates that a total of approximately $303 million is estimated to be needed through the year 2020 in all
phases of clean up at the 11 installations. The bulk of the funds ($226 million) is allocated to four
installations [Fort Jackson ($59 million), Naval Weapons Station Charleston ($62.7 million), Charleston
Air Force Base ($59.9 million), and Shaw Air Force Base ($45.3 million)]. The remaining $76 million is
allocated to the other 7 installations. Many of the sites identified at the installations either are undergoing
or are scheduled to undergo an RI/FS and therefore, are at a relatively early stage of the remediation
process.
Most of the contaminants at sites on military installations currently planned for remediation fall into one of
three categories: petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL); VOCs; and heavy metals. Those contaminants are
found in the soil at all sites and in the groundwater in a large percentage of the sites. No data are available
on volumes of soil and groundwater to be treated. Table 8-5 provides information on the individual
8-8
-------
installations in the State and the sites that are subject to remediation at those installations. Staff at each
installation determine the individual sites at which they plan to perform remedial actions. Clean up already
may be underway at other sites; such sites are not included in the table because it is unlikely that they will
afford an opportunity for vendors of innovative technologies.
Table 8-5
DoD Installations and Sites in South Carolina
Beaufort Marine Corps Air Station
Outyear Funding FY95-2003
$16,864
Camp Croft
Outyear Funding FY95-2007
$11,142
Charleston Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2005
$59,900
Donaldson Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2003
$16,002
Fort Jackson
Outyear Funding FY95-2020
$59,083
McEntire Air National Guard Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2003
$6,012
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2002
$15,722
Naval Weapons Station Charleston
Outyear Funding FY95-2010
$62,728
Partis Island Marine Corps Recruit
Depot
Outyear Funding FY95-2003
$7,755
Shaw Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2006
$45,381
SC417302320800
SC49799F492600
SC457182446000
SC49799F494600
SC421002044900
SC457282516000
SC457002482100
SC417002262000
SC417302276200
SC457212446600
5tSB8^%&fe
'Jffef ' *$*« * ipS?;^*
^floies1 .,
A
F
A
F
A ,
A
A
A
A,P
A
;«TX"A^V « yy\»K,/K«4 '#'?£: i'^iSAJ s: *,t :£
'& xt'-K^S ,•%•&&>&• «". * • H'Afei^s
.Ifl^TttiDe^f^iteJffa^PhreMS
-
10
3
29
3
29
8
0
2
5
8
8-9
-------
Table 8-5 (continued)
DoD Installations and Sites in South Carolina
Name
and Ootyeaf Funding ($000)
WalterboroAAF
Outyear Funding FY95-2002
$2,619
Federal Facility
Identification ';
Number..
SC49799F49500
<\.*s .
Codes1
F
4 " > *v ••$ * a
* *- " >
Number of Sites at Wbich *
Cleanup is Planned
2
Source: Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994
» Codes:
A = The installation is currently operational or on the BRAC list, and cleanup is covered by DERA or BRAC funds
F » The installation is no longer active and is managed by the FUDS Branch
P =The installation is proposed for listing on the National Priorities List
8-10
-------
8.7 Further Market Information For South Carolina
A vendor that wishes to obtain information about sites hi South Carolina that are managed by EPA may
write to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
For information on RCRA facilities, the envelope should be marked to the attention of the Freedom of
Information Act Officer, Office of RCRA and Federal Facilities. For information on CERCLA facilities in
South Carolina, the envelope should be marked to the attention of the Freedom of Information Act Officer,
North Superfund Remedial Branch. The requestor will be billed for the information, according to the
volume of information provided. For more information on USTs handled by EPA, vendors may contact:
John Mason
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Mail Code 4WM-GWP-15
Atlanta, GA 30365
Information also is available on the names and addresses of the UST sites in the State that require
remediation. A vendor may write to:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Groundwater Protection Division
2800 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
UST (803) 734-5335
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) (803) 734-5331
For information about DOE sites or any of DOE's technology development assistance programs, vendors
may contact:
DOE's Center for Environmental Management Information
470 L'Enfant Plaza East
Suite 7112
Washington, DC 20024
(800) 736-3282
8-11
-------
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) does not have a single point of contact that handles all of DoD's
environmental restoration initiatives, site-level information, and technology programs. The Defense
Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for FY 1995 contains detailed information
on environmental restoration accomplishments and schedules at DoD installations world-wide. This report
is available on the Internet at the DoD Environmental Restoration home page at:
http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod/
The home page also provides links to other internet sites that pertain to DoD environmental restoration
activities.
For information on abandoned hazardous waste sites in South Carolina that require remediation vendors
may write for a copy of SCDHEC's annual report to:
Mr. Kendall Quinton
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Division of Site Engineering and Screening
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
There is a charge for each report requested, according to the volume of material.
8-12
-------
Table 8-2
NPL Sites in South Carolina at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
RA PLANNED
START
DATE2
DB; GW; SD; SO; | NA
SW
fEpXtD}%bM
Mei?is4ijAAE,1t««^^
02 RI/FS AREA NORTH OF FENCE
AREA (EP/F/RP)
01
01
RI/FS
(F)
12/30/95
(RP/FE)
GW; SO; SW
650 cy
METALS; VOC
Precipitation; Other/Unknown/Undetermined
Technology; Steam Stripping; Thermal Treatment
with On-Site Placement; pH Neutralization, Other
Neutralization; Pump and Treat at POTW with
Discharge; Off-Site Treatment; Monitoring; Off-Site
' .ocations (Treatment/Final Disposal)
DB; GW; SD; SO;
SW
20,000 cy
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES;
METALS; VOC
Disposal of Residual; Off-Site Treatment;
Biodegradation and Bioremediation; Soil Cover;
Steam Stripping; Pump and Treat at POTW with
Discharge: Monitoring
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB Debris
DK Unknown
EP EPA In-House
ES Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
8-13
-------
Table 8-2 (continued)
NPL Sites In South Carolina at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist'
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START
DATE*
RI/FS
COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
'LbTEU | ^^^^^^^^^ ________^^_^^_^^^__
Y AI;GW;SD;SO 684 cy VOC; METALS Monitoring; Air Stripping; Disposal of Re
01
NA
(RP/FE)
10/30/94
Monitoring; Air Stripping; Disposal of Residual;
Precipitation; Leachate Treatment; Steam
Stripping; Off-Site Treatment; Solidification and
Stabilization; Thermal Treatment with On-Site
Placement; Excavation
USOJKSjSC«awV4nGOSKr^^^^
mtsmmiiism
S£*;*;s^^*ri< -'"'^—X*'^
Air Stripping; Pump and Treat at POTW with
Discharge; Off-Site Treatment; Monitoring;
Biodegradation and Bioremediation; Solidification
anrt Stahiliratinn
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other •
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
8-14
-------
Table 8-2 (continued)
NPL Sites in South Carolina at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
RA PLANNED
START
DATE2
ftDDHESSiiSANGAM© RD F>
?^:;i;^^:i^iA^.«Wi^^--^*.iViui^5a-"Kmi;^'sw
-------
Table 8-2 (continued)
NPL Sites In South Carolina at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist'
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START
DATE2
RI/FS
COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
A-AREA BRP'S. PITS. BSN.
K-AREA BSNS & BPO PITS
25
108-4R BSN & R-REACTOR SPG
BSN (FF)
12/30/99
NA
26
27
28
L AREA BPO PITS
JFfL
3/30/99
DK
NA
NA
NA
D-AREAOILSPG.BSN.
12/30/97
DK
NA
NA
TANK 37 CTS LINE LEAK
(FF)
12/30/98
DK
NA
NA
NA
30
TNX GROUNDWATER
D AREA OSB
JFFL
(FF)
12/30/95
DK
NA
NA
NA
6/30/95
DK
NA
NA
NA
31
C AREA BRP
9/30/99
DK
NA
NA
NA
32
BURIAL GROUND COMPLETE
3/30/98
PAR POND
36 AIM AREA SOUTHERN
SECTOR
.(FFJL
(FF1
6/30/96_
3/30/97
N
Y
N
DK
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA.
NA
37
SRL GROUNDWATER
(FF) 3/30/97
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
AlAir
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
3D
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
8-16
-------
Table 8-2 (continued)
NPL Sites in South Carolina at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
RA PLANNED
START
DATE2
NUMBER _
38 R-AREABPOPITS
'i";*C>K?iSSE^'i.i-ii*fev;i?*a*»';iS:
Monitoring; Air Stripping; Leachate Treatment;
Disposal of Residual; Thermal Treatment with On
Site Placement
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
M Air
pB Debris
pK Unknown
£P EPA In-House
£S Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST Solid Waste
SW Surface Water
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VOCs Volatile Organic
Compounds
8-17
-------
Table 8-3
RCRA Facilities Currently Undergoing Corrective Action In South Carolina'
KOPPERS INC
PO BOX 1725, FLORENCE. SC 29503-3
SCD003353026.
ENTIRE FACILITY
LAIDLAW ENV SVS OF SC INC
RT 1 BOX 255, PINEWOOD, SC
29125-5
SCD070375985
WASTE OIL UST, SPILL SUMPS (3) OLD
SCRAP
1 Data as of May 1995 from the EPA RGRIS database. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of data sources.
8-18
-------
9.0 DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF SITES IN TENNESSEE
This chapter provides a detailed discussion of the opportunities available in the State of Tennessee for
vendors of innovative technologies. The chapter is organized in seven sections. The first section describes
organization and authority of the State's program. The next section discusses opportunities at sites subject
to Tennessee's Hazardous Waste Management Act. That section is followed by a similar discussion of
opportunities at Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites. The fourth and fifth sections discuss the
markets at Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities subject to corrective action and at
underground storage tanks (UST) sites managed by the State. Subsequent sections provide information on
opportunities at Federal facilities and provide other useful information about working in the State.
Figures 9-1 and 9-2 present two maps
of Tennessee that indicate the
locations of sites in the State that are
on the NPL and the RCRA facilities
in the State.1 The 18 NPL sites in
Tennessee are distributed throughout
the State. RCRA facilities also are
found throughout the State, with
major concentrations in the southwest
near Memphis, in the central part of
the State near Nashville, in the
northeast in the Oak Ridge and
Knoxville corridor, and in the
southeast near Chattanooga.
Summary Information.
Tennessee offers manypotential opportunities to ° „
.vendors of iMovarfve technologies. Tennessee currently
hasairinvenforjrdf ISsites^orttheNPL Of those £8 "
siteSjStrf thesis sites are Federalsfacilities and 7 of the
18 $n?L sites have 49,operable traits (OU)lat J5«bich v
remedial action has riot yet begun. Listed on the
Tennessee Promulgated'SitesTList' are 155-
Figures 9-1 and 9-2 do not indicate the locations of all NPL sites or all RCRA sites located in Tennessee.
LandView II™ contains information from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLJS) on NPL sites and other sites. It also contains information from
the Biennial Reporting System (BRS) on treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and major generators of
hazardous waste.
9-1
-------
N
A
Nashville.
Knoxville
Memphis
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Modified from Landview II, based on data
as of September 1994.
Figure 9-1
NPL Sites in Tennessee
9-2
-------
N
A
Nashville.
Knoxville
Memphis
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Modified from Landview II, based on data
as of September 1994.
Figure 9-2
RCRA Facilities in Tennessee
9-3
-------
9.1 The Tennessee Hazardous Waste Management Program
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) is the State's lead agency
responsible for administering Tennessee's environmental management programs. The Tennessee Division
of Solid Waste Management administers regulations for commercial hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities and regulates processing and disposal of solid waste. The Tennessee Division of
Superfund (TDSF) is the lead State agency for the investigation and cleanup of Tennessee's active and
abandoned hazardous substance disposal sites. Based on telephone conversations with State
representatives, TDSF has six regional offices, with a total of 49 full-time staff. See Section 9.7 for a list
of these offices.
Tennessee's Hazardous Waste Management Regulations are promulgated under Tennessee Rule Chapter
1200-1-11, which represents a combination of many different sets of regulations promulgated since 1980
by the Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Control Board (TSWDCB). The TSWDCB's authorities and
responsibilities are governed under the Tennessee Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1983, as amended
in 1986,1988,1989,1990, and 1991, Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68, Chapter 212-201 et seq. The
legislation establishes a State Superfund program; authorizes the Hazardous Waste Remedial Action Fund;
provides authority to take or compel remedial actions; establishes a priority list; and requires notice to
register deeds for any site listed. These Tennessee rules and regulations are patterned closely after Federal
regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Title 40, parts 260
through 270 and 279 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
There are some deliberate differences between the State regulations and the EPA regulations that are based
on State law or policy. Generally, those differences are Tennessee's more stringent requirements for
notification by generators and annual reporting; requirements for permitting of transporters; fee
requirements applicable to generators, transporters, and operators; and standards for management of used
oil set forth in the State's Used Oil Collection Act of 1993.
TDSF maintains a promulgated sites' list which includes all sites that require remediation. In addition, a
"redline" list of priority sites is maintained for internal use by the Division of Superfund. The division
manages most Federal Superfund sites throughout the State under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Part 2 of Tennessee's Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1983
established the Hazardous Waste Remedial Action Fund (Rule Chapter 1200-1-13) to assess additional
9-4
-------
fees on hazardous waste generators and transporters. TDSF is authorized to spend state fund dollars to
investigate and clean up releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. TDSF also actively
identifies potentially responsible parties (PRP) to conduct cleanup activities under State oversight. TDSF
also has developed a Voluntary Cleanup Oversight and Assistance Program (VCOAP) to provide technical
assistance to persons conducting voluntary investigations and cleanups of contaminated property.
Tennessee is authorized to issue RCRA Part B permits for hazardous waste facilities but is not authorized
to administer the corrective action program.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 1995 50-State Study, staff and
administrative costs are funded from Federal grants; fees assessed on hazardous waste generators, treaters,
and shippers; and the Hazardous Waste Remedial Action Fund. The fund had a balance of $8.03 million
at the end of fiscal year (FY) 1995; $5.5 million was added to the fund in FY95. Expenditures for NPL
sites totaled $59,000. Expenditures at non-NPL sites totaled $3.4 million. Significant sources of fund
monies include appropriations and fees on transporters and generators. Cost recovery, interest, and
penalties are minor sources of monies for the fund. The fund may be used for program administration,
emergency response, site investigation, removals actions, remediation, studies and design, operation and
maintenance, and to match CERCLA funds.
The State uses water quality criteria, maximum contaminant levels (MCL), background levels, risk
assessment, and EPA guidelines in setting up cleanup levels. If no standard was available, background
levels or levels derived from EPA health risk assessment guidance were used. Risk levels of 10"4 to 10"6
were applied on a case-by-case basis depending on the media, the contaminant, and the population or
ecology at risk of exposure.
In 1994, the State legislature established a voluntary cleanup program open to all sites that fall within the
cleanup program. Incentives for participation include:
• The avoidance of a public hearing and placement on the State's list;
• no notice required to be recorded in the deed records;
• no liens;
• release of liability pursuant to performance under consent order; and
• payment of orphan shares.
State oversight is funded by PRP payment of actual costs and a $5,000 participation fee.
9-5
-------
The Tennessee UST program is administered by the Tennessee Division of Underground Storage Tanks
(TDUST). This program is promulgated under the Tennessee Code Annotated Title 68, Chapter 215,
Section 101 through 128, the Tennessee Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Act. TDUST is comprised
of seven sections: Technical Review, Field Offices, Fees and Notification, Enforcement, Contract
Management, Administration, and Public Participation and Training. The Technical Review section
develops and reviews guidance documents and provides technical assistance to the field offices. There are
eight field offices in the State. The field offices are responsible for overseeing tank closures, conducting
investigations and compliance inspections, reviewing closure and removal plans, and providing case
management. The Fees and Notification Section is responsible for collecting fees from the Tennessee
Petroleum Fund, established to cover the cost of cleanups. The Enforcement Section conducts compliance
inspections to ensure work is done properly. The Contract Management Section reviews applications for
reimbursement from State and Federal funds, manages the Federally-funded Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Trust Fund, and oversees certification of contractors. The Administration Section coordinates the
activities of TDUST within the State government. The Public Participation and Training section provides
information to the general public and coordinates training for staff of TDUST.
9.2 The Market at Sites Managed Under State Authorities
As of February 1995, there were 155 sites listed on TDEC's promulgated sites list which is maintained by
TDSF. Those sites have been determined by TDSF to require remediation. Specific information on the
types of contaminants and media contaminated was unavailable. See Section 9.7 for information on
obtaining a list of promulgated sites. TaToIe 9-1 at the end of the chapter, presents the list of
promulgated sites as of February 15,1995. TDSF also maintains a "redline" list of priority sites for
internal use.
93 The Market at Sites Managed Under the Federal Super-fund Program
EPA has listed 17 sites in Tennessee on the NPL. Currently, one additional site in Tennessee is proposed
for listing. Table 9-2 presents summary information from the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database on the status of NPL sites in
Tennessee. Table 9-3, at the end of this chapter, lists information from the CERCLIS database available
on 7 sites and 49 operable units (OU) at which remediation activities have not yet begun. Those sites and
OUs are of the greatest interest to technology vendors; technologies themselves may have been selected,
but vendors of those technologies have not.
9-6
-------
Table 9-2
Number of Sites and Operable Units at Tennessee NPL Sites
Source: Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS database; see Chapter 1 for a detailed description of the data sources.
a Sites with pre-remedial activities are sites where remedial design and construction have not yet begun, although the remedy may
have been chosen. These sites, especially the pre-remedial sites still in the investigation phase, present long-term opportunities for
vendors. Sites with remedial activities are sites where remedial design has begun and construction might not have begun. Where
technologies have been selected but no vendor has been chosen, a site may present a short-term business opportunity.
A site may have more than one operable unit in each phase, so operable units may be counted more than once.
Figure 9-3 presents data on the distribution of sizes of the sites. The NPL sites in the State range in size
from less than 1 acre to more than 58,000 acres. Technologies selected for use at some of the sites include
soil vapor extraction and thermal desorption. Review of NPL site summaries indicates that there is
contamination in both the soil and groundwater at many of the sites. No data were available on the
volumes of contaminated soil or groundwater present at the various sites. Of the 49 OUs requiring
remediation, 26 are located at the Department of Energy's (DOE) Oak Ridge Reservation. That facility and
its OUs. are discussed in more detail in Section 9.6.2.
Figure 9-3
NPL Site Size Distribution for the State of Tennessee
20
18-
16
14
12
10
8-
6
4
2-
0-
j D Number of Sites]
<1-25
26-50
51-100
Acres
101-200
>200
9-7
-------
9.4 The Market at RCRA Corrective Action Sites
As mentioned in Section 9.1, Tennessee is not authorized to administer a corrective action program. Data
from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) database indicate that there
are 61 RCRA TSDFs in the State. Currently, none of those facilities are conducting a CMS.
The definition of corrective action used here is that a facility has been required to perform CMS. The
number of facilities with CMS imposed is not a direct subset of RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal
(TSD) facilities^ instead it is a subset of TSD facilities and hazardous waste generators. While TSD
facilities are statutorily required to address corrective action, EPA has discretionary authority to impose
corrective action on generators.
However, 17 RCRA facilities are under a requirement to conduct a RCRA facility investigation (RFI).
The number of facilities with an RFI imposed is not a direct subset of RCRA TSD facilities, instead it is a
subset of TSD facilities and hazardous waste generators. While TSD facilities are statutorily required to
address corrective action, EPA has discretionary authority to impose corrective action on generators. As
discussed in Section 1.2, these facilities may also provide either a long-term or near-term opportunity
where no CMS is necessary to begin corrective activity begins in accordance with the stabilization
initiative. • . .
9.5 The Market at UST Sites Managed by the State
Tennessee falls into the middle range among states in Region 4 in terms of its number of active tanks.
There are 28,103 active tanks in the state. Active tanks are defined as tanks still in service (EPA 1993).
Table 9-4 presents data on the number of USTs in Tennessee. As of March 31,1996, the EPA Office of
Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) had identified 887 leaking tanks sites in Tennessee at which cleanup
had yet to be initiated. That number represents the difference between the two data elements "confirmed
releases" and "cleanups initiated." Cleanups at USTs with soil contamination usually are completed within
6 mqnths to 2 years after a site has been identified. Cleanup at USTs with groundwater contamination
usually are completed within 2 to 5 years after the site has been identified. Therefore, the number of USTs
identified as opportunities will change rapidly.
In national studies of USTs performed by EPA in 1991 and 1992, it was found that the majority, or about
87 percent of the tanks, are used to manage gasoline or diesel fuel, kerosene, or heating oil. Of the
remaining USTs, 11 percent manage other materials and wastes, such as used oil (4 percent), hazardous
9-8
-------
material (2 percent), and other material (5 percent) or are empty (2 percent). The majority of the
contamination problems are related to the contamination of soils and groundwater with petroleum products
that contain volatile organic compounds (VOC) and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC).
As indicated previously, the UST program is managed by TDEC's Division of Underground Storage
Tanks, located in TDEC's central office in Nashville. Further information on the locations of leaking
USTs can be obtained from the State (see Section 9.7).
Table 9-4
Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Measures
in Tennessee as of the First Half of FY96
^.sissst.-* M*
nitrated •. '•
28,103
24,721
8,154
7,267
6,647
887
Source: EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks Semi-Annual Activity Report for the First Half of Fiscal Year 1996 (ending
March 31,1996)
9.6 The Market at Federal Facility Sites in Tennessee
There are three DOE sites at which remedial action activities are planned and 9 operational or closing
Department of Defense (DoD) installations and formerly used defense sites (FUDS) in Tennessee at which
such activities are planned or are underway. The following subsections discuss those sites.
9.6.1
DoD Sites
At the 9 DoD installations are 234 active sites, 162 of which have future remedial action planned. Active
sites are those at which some form of remediation activity is planned or underway. The total number of
sites to be remediated may exceed this figure because DoD typically does not plan remediation at a site
until at least an RI/FS has been completed.
The Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for 1994 indicates that a
total of approximately $591 million is estimated to be needed through the year 2029 in all phases of
cleanup at the nine installations. The facility having the largest allocation of funds is the Milan Army
Ammunition Plant ($247 million). Many of the sites identified at the nine installations are undergoing or
are scheduled to undergo an RI/FS and therefore are at a relatively early stage of the remediation process.
9-9
-------
The majority of the contaminants at the sites at which remediation currently is planned fall into one of
three broad categories: petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL); VOCs; and metals. Those contaminants are
found in the soil at all the sites and in the groundwater in a large percentage of the sites. Data on volumes
of soil and groundwater to be treated are not available. Table 9-5 provides information on the individual
installations and sites subject to remediation at those installations. The number of sites to be cleaned up in
the future is defined in the DERP. Cleanup already may be underway at other sites; such sites have not
been included in the total because it is unlikely that they will afford opportunity for vendors of innovative
technologies. Of the DoD sites in Tennessee, Milan Army Ammunition Plant and U.S. Army (USA)
Defense Depot Memphis are listed on the NPL.
Table 9-5
DoD Installations and Sites in Tennessee
Name* Address,
and Outyear Funding ($000)
Arnold Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2010
$65,876
Bristol Naval Weapons Industrial
Reserve Plant
Outyear Funding FY95-2003
$2,832
Defense Depot Memphis
Outyear Funding FY95-2015
$150,907
Holston Army Ammunition Plant
Outyear Funding FY95-2020
$31,607
McGhee Tyson Airport
Outyear Funding FY95-TBD
$5,746
Milan Army Ammunition Plant
Outyear Funding FY95-2029
$247,391
Naval Air Station Memphis
Outyear Funding FY95-2005
$45,051
Sewart Air Force Base
Outyear Funding FY95-2005
$2,252
Federal Eacilftjr
Identification -"-
"Number '
TN457172404400
TN417008189400
TN497152057000
TN421002042100
TN457282419600
TN421002058200
TN417002260000
TN49799F353200
X *„ *
x",^
& **
-ft * •£. *
Codes1 '- - ,
A
A
A,N
A
A
A,N
A
F
'•f. ^ <•
* ^ ° ^ <** * ^~ "*
^Number ef Sites at Which
Cleanup is Planned" *
6
5
65
3
6
22
47
4
9-10
-------
Table 9-5 (continued)
DoD Installations and Sites in Tennessee
^Identification
K!? ' Number' «'„
Codes1
'Number of Sites at Which
-. Cleanup is Planned
Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant
Outyear Funding FY95-2010
$40,187
TN421002093300
Source: Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2994
1 Codes:
A = The installation is currently operational or on the BRAC list, and cleanup is covered by DERA or BRAC funds
F = The installation is no longer active and is managed by the FUDS Branch
N = The site is listed on the final National Priorities List
At Milan Army Ammunition Plant, 12 OUs have been defined under the NPL listing. At USA Defense
Depot Memphis there are four OUs defined under the NPL listing. At some of those sites, there also are
areas subject to requirements under RCRA for corrective action. At Milan Army Ammunition Plant, five
OUs currently are undergoing corrective action.
9.6.2
DOE Sites
There are three DOE sites in Tennessee at which remediation currently is planned or is underway, all of
which are located at the Oak Ridge Reservation (the K-25 Site, the Y-12 Site, and the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory). The entire Oak Ridge Reservation was placed on the NPL in 1989. At the reservation, there
are 26 OUs defined under the NPL as requiring remediation. At some of the Oak Ridge sites, there also
may be areas subject to requirements under RCRA for corrective action. The Oak Ridge sites are
discussed below.
The Oak Ridge K-25 Site covers 1,500 acres. It originally produced enriched uranium hexafluoride but
now hosts operating waste treatment and storage facilities, including an incinerator regulated under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a facility for the destruction of mixed wastes. Low-level
radioactive and mixed wastes also are stored at the site. RI/FSs are planned for 16 OUs, and PA/SIs are
planned for 12 sites. Remediation work such as the K-14 bioremediation project will continue. Significant
remedial actions will accompany the following records of decision (ROD): K-1407-B and C Ponds
(1993), K-1070 OU (1998), and the K-901 OU (1998). Initiation of interim corrective actions will
continue, as needed. Funding for FY95 through FY98, covering corrective action and waste management
and environmental restoration, totals approximately $1.32 billion.
9-11
-------
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is comprised of several sites and covers approximately 2,900
acres. The laboratory provides waste treatment, storage, and disposal support to DOE's research and
development programs. Remedial action at ORNL is proceeding under a Federal Facilities agreement
(FFA) for the Oak Ridge Reservation. For the FFA, ORNL has been divided into regions known as waste
area groupings (WAG) for assessment and cleanup. Preliminary investigations indicate that there is no
need for further action at eight of the WAGs. The remaining WAGs (1 through 11 and 13) contain about
222 contaminated sites where investigations and remediation continue. Current activity is based upon
interim actions that address conditions that have potential for affecting human health and the environment.
Interim remedial measures have been identified and planned at most of the WAGs at ORNL.
Approximately 300 RCRA and CERCLA units, divided into 20 WAGs, have been identified at ORNL. Of
those 300 units, 222 units included in 12 of the WAGs potentially require remediation. Wastes are
primarily liquid and solid low-level and transuranic radioactive wastes. Nonradioactive wastes include
organic solvents, corrosive waste, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), and heavy metals. Funding for FY95
through FY98, covering corrective action and waste management and environmental restoration, totals
approximately $1.1 billion.
The Y-12 Site, which occupies 811 acres, was established to separate uranium isotopes by an
electromagnetic process. The plant contains many facilities that have been used for treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous and radioactive materials and wastes. Funding for FY95 through FY98, covering
corrective activities and waste management and environmental restoration totals approximately $724
million.
9.7 Further Market Information for Tennessee
A vendor that wishes to obtain information about sites in Tennessee that are managed by EPA may write
to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
For information on RCRA facilities, the envelope should be marked to the attention of the Freedom of
Information Act Officer, Office of RCRA and Federal Facilities. For information on CERCLA facilities in
Tennessee, the envelope should be marked to the attention of the Freedom of Information Act Officer,
9-12
-------
North Superfund Remedial Branch. The requestor will be billed for the information, according to the
volume of information provided. For more information on USTs handled by EPA, vendors may contact:
John Mason
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Mail Code 4WM-GWP-15
Atlanta, GA 30365
TDEC's Division of Superfund is a good source of information about the hazardous waste sites that the
department manages. A list of sites requiring remediation can be obtained from the Division of Superfund.
The office can be contacted at:
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
Division of Superfund
401 Church Street
4th Floor, L & C Tower Building
Nashville, TN 37243-1538
The names and addresses of TDEC's regional field offices are listed below:
Nashville Field Office
537 Brick Church Park Drive
Nashville, TN 37243-1550
(615) 741-5940
(615) 741-8941 (fax)
Manager: Brenda Apple
Nashville Central Office
401 Church Street
4th Floor Annex, L & C Building
Nashville, TN 37243-1538
(615) 532-0900
(615) 532-0938
Director: Clinton W. Wilier
Asst Director: Frank Grubbs
Jackson Field Office
362 Carriage House Drive
Jackson, TN 38305-2222
(901) 661-6200
(901) 661-6283 (fax)
Manager: Ron Sells x6204
Chattanooga Field Office
540 McCallie Street, Suite 550
Chattanooga, TN 37402
(615) 634-5745
(615) 634-6389
Manager: Wayne Everett x5758
Johnson City Satellite Field Office
2305 Silverdale Road
Johnson City, TN 37601-2162
(615) 854-5400
(615) 854-5401
Manager: Darrell Hale x5463
Memphis Field Office
290 Mt Moriah, Suite E-645
Memphis, TN 38115-1520
(901) 368-7939
(901) 368-7979 (fax)
Manager: Jordan English x7953
Knoxville Field Office
2700 Middlebrook Pike
Knoxville, TN 37921
(615) 594-6466
(615) 594-6105 (fax)
Manager: Dan Hawkins
9-13
-------
A list of leaking USTs is available from TDEC's Division of Underground Storage Tanks. The list and
additional information can be obtained from:
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
Division of Underground Storage Tanks
401 Church Street
4th floor, L & C Tower Building
Nashville, TN 37243-1541
(615) 532-0945
For information about DOE sites or any of DOE's technology development assistance programs, vendors
may contact:
DOE's Center for Environmental Management Information
470 L'Enfant Plaza East
Suite 7112
Washington, DC 20024
(800) 736-3282
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) does not have a single point of contact that handles all of DoD's
environmental restoration initiatives, site-level information, and technology programs. The Defense
Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for FY 1995 contains detailed information
on environmental restoration accompKshments and schedules at DoD installations world-wide. This report
is available on the Internet at the DoD Environmental Restoration home page at:
http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod/
The home page also provides links to other internet sites that pertain to DoD environmental restoration
activities.
9-14
-------
Table 9-1
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Superfund
Promulgated Sites As of February 15,1995
n "V site-js^
-*a
01-504
01-579
01-580
05-501
05-503
06-501
06-505
06-509
06-511
10-502
10-503
10-504
10-508
15-504
15-505
15-508
19-511
19-524
19-533
19-549
19-551
19-553
19-559
24-503
24-505
• 24-508
26-501
27-501
27-505
r-^ v j; «£eV/v^i
DOE Oak Ridge
Dupont Smith/Atomic City
Anderson County Landfill
Alcoa Site/South Plant
Alcoa/Site H
Olin Corporation Site
Duracell Inc.
Cleveland Plastics
Magic Chef Site
American Bemburg Plant
East TN Chair Co.
Ivan Miller/Roan Mtn.
Old Bemberg Building
Arapahoe/Rock Hill Labs
Newport Dump
Wall Tube & Metal Product
Stauffer Chemical
Municipal Landfill-Lebanon Road
John P. Saad & Son Inc.
Pal Hawkins Site Landfill
Junkyard Cave Site
General Electric Shop
Air National Guard - Berry Field
Gallaway Pits
A.R. Brooks
Chemet Co.
AEDC Site
B&H Transformer
MAAP Site
•> * n*-" x.^
„ Owri&f' „
Anderson
Anderson
Anderson
Blount
Blount
Bradley
Bradley
Bradley
Bradley
Carter
Carter
Carter
Carter
Cocke
Cocke
Cocke
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Davidson
Fayette
Fayette
Fayette
Franklin
Gibson
Gibson
^ ^Region1
K
K
K
K
K
C
C
C
C
JC
JC
JC
JC
K
K
K
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
M
M
N
J
J
1 See section 9.7 for an explanation of the regional field office codes.
9-15
-------
Table 9-1 (continued)
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Superfund
Promulgated Sites As of February 15,1995
' Site ID
33-508
33-527
33-532
33-540
33-541
33-542
33-543
33-547
33-550
33-556
33-557
33-584
33-596
33-599
33-617
33-618
33-619
33-620
33-626
35-506
37-503
37-504
37-506
37-508
40-505
40-506
40-508
41-504
45-503
47-506
^ 4 * <
Name * ^ ^
Southern Wood Piedmont
Velsicol/Residue Hill
Amnicola Dump
Montauge Park
Hamill Road Dump (SDIR) Alton Park
Refer to 33-547 (Hamill Road Dump #2)
Hamill Road Dump #3
Tennessee Products (Chatt. Coke)
North Hawthorne Dump
3M GE Ceramics-Chattanooga
USVAAP Site
Chattanooga Creek
MorFlow/W.L. Jackson Co.
D.M. Steward Manufacturing
Birchwood Pike Site
Momingside Chemicals
American Plating
National Microdynamics
Morgan St. Demolition Dump
Velsicol Chemical
US/HAAP Area B WWH Dump Site B
US/HAAP Rock Quarry
US/HAAP Area B Coal Tar Trench
AFG Industries, Inc.
Wright, Carl Septic Serv
Henry County Boneyard
Oak Grove (Celotex) Site
Wrigley Charcoal
Hodgson, Hollis Dump
Ideal Basic Site
*s > - County •*
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hardeman
Hawkins
Hawkins
Hawkins
Hawkins
Henry
Henry
Henry
Hickman
Jefferson
Knox
t ^ ^Cv > f- *^t
, .Region1 N
vj- ^ J. J "T
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
J
JC
JC
JC
JC
J
J
J
N
K
K
1 See section 9.7 for an explanation of the regional field office codes.
9-16
-------
Table 9-1 (continued)
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Superfund
Promulgated Sites As of February 15,1995
. . ~ < -« V
" > SffelD.-
47-514
47-518
47-521
47-522
47-523
47-524
47-530
47-533
47-541
47-545
49-506
50-502
50-505
53-502
53-503
54-505
54-509
55-508
57-501
57-506
57-508
57-510
57-513
57-516
57-517
58-502
58-504
59-502
59-503
60-501
"^* ^ V V { V. >* 1
V* ^ r •£* < •vr^> % *
v J * Name. ^ c - v
v ^V s **^c^m^^
Witherspoon Landfill
Badgett Road Landfill
Southern Rail/Coster Shop
C. A. Rose Farm (EPA 2744)
Foote Mineral/CAS Walker (Dante)
Middlebrook Pike Gas Site
Screen Art Inc.
TRW Carr Division
Withersponn Recycling
Sanitary Laundry & Dry Cleaners
Kenneth Scallions
Murray Ohio Landfill
Horseshoe Bend Site
Greenback Ind. Inc.
Lenoir Car Works Dump
Beaunit Mills
HullanderSite
Michie Dump
Owens Corning/Blasingame
Owens Coming/Davidson Site
American Creosote Works
Porter Cable Corp.
Iselin Rail Yard (ICG)
Noma/nr Site
Boone Dry Cleaners
North American Environment
Scratch Ankle Road Dump
Heil Quaker Corp.
Lewisburg Dump
Stauffer Site
•» ^County
Knox
Knox
Knox
Knox
Knox
Knox
Knox
Knox
Knox
Knox
Lauderdale
Lawrence
Lawrence
Loudon
Loudon
McMinn
McMinn
McMairy
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Marion
Marion
Marshall
Marshall
Maury
> ^
' ^ v vRegioa1
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
J
N
N
K
K
C
C
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
C
C
N
N
N
1 See section 9.7 for an explanation of the regional field office codes.
9-17
-------
Table 9-1 (continued)
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Superfund
Promulgated Sites As of February 15,1995
• Site JD
60-529
60-534
62-505
63-506
63-501
71-502
73-504
75-512
75-513
75-519
75-520
75-522
76-502
79-503
79-517
79-518
79-519
79-520
79-522
79-525
79-528
79-529
79-530
79-536
79-549
79-522
79-561
79-569
79-582
79-598
Name
Ind. Liquids Recycling Inc.
Monsanto Site
Red Ridge Landfill
PCB Site/Ft. Campbell Res.
Melhorn Silver Recovery
Putman Co. Landfill
Roane Alloys (Roane Limited)
Wilkerson Dump
Saad/Silver Springs
John P. Saad (Smyrna Airport)
Melvin Hamby Site
Old Murfreesboro County Dump
Oneida Railway Site
Arlington Blending
Bellevue Avenue Landfill
Cypress Creek
Tulane Road Site
Firestone Tire & Rubber
Chromasco
International Harvester
Velsicol Chemical North Site
Velsicol Chemical Middle Site
Velsicol Chemical South Site
W.R. Grace Co.
Chickasaw Ordinance Works
Carrier Corporation
Nilok Chemical Co.
Chapman Chemical Co.
Diesel Recon Co.
North Hollywood Dump
-. * x~ County- j
Maury
Maury
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Putman
Roane
Rutherford
Rutherford
Rutherford
Rutherford
Rutherford
Scott
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
-, :V.*»°?t*
N
N
K
N
K
N
K
N
N
N
N
N
K
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
See section 9.7 for an explanation of the regional field office codes.
9-18
-------
Table 9-1 (continued) J
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Superfund
Promulgated Sites As of February 15,1995
^sften?*;;
79-604
79-719
79-736
79-739
79-740
79-742
79-781
79-785
79-798
79-800
82-506
82-508
82-509
• 82-510
82-511
82-512
82-514
82-515
82-516
82-517
82-522
82-524
82-526
82-528
83-501
86-501
86-502
86-505
89-504
90-505
- * « » '-\lfnw, ,. >*: \ ,-, >,
Memphis Public Works/Jackson Pits
U.S. Naval Air Station Site
US Army/Defense Depot
East Holmes Road
US NAS/Plating Shop Stoim Sewer N121
Pulvair Corp.
John Little/Drum Site
Larouche Industries
61 Industrial Park
Crotox Chemical Products Co.
Automated Indust. Disp Sen (ADDS)
US Army Holston Ammunition Area A
TN Eastman/#l Kit Bottom
TN Eastman/#2 Triangle Facility
TN Eastman/#3 Waste Facility B-245
TN Eastman/#4 Long Island Settling Basin
Sperry/Unisys
Bristol Dump
Earhart Site
AFG Dump Site
Bear Hollow Dump
Blountville Spring
Bethel Drive Site
Appalachian Smelting & Refining
Federal Chemical (AKA Chem. Fuel)
Bumpass Cove Landfill
Bumpass Cove Fowler Area
Morrell Electric
Century Electirc Facility
Washington Co. Utility
i.^- s ' ~ f-
CoaiBy •>• '
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Shelby
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sumner
Unicoi
Unicoi
Unicoi
Warren
Washington
~yr ^Region*.,
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
JC
JC
JC
JC
JC
JC
JC
JC
JC
JC
JC
JC
JC
JC
N
K
K
K
N
JC
1 See section 9.7 for an explanation of the regional field office codes.
9-19
-------
Table 9-1 (continued)
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Superfund
Promulgated Sites As of February 15,1995
•;, . Site ID •":'
90-510
91-501
91-502
91-504
94-508 '
95-501
f Name *" ^ - ~
Cash Hollow Dump
Mallory Capacitor Co.
Old Waynesboro City Dump
Wayne County/Hardin Hollow Landfill
Kennon Site/Genesco
TRW Inc./Ross Gear Divison
""-J "' .COUBfjr '" " " *^".
Washington
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Williamson
Wilson
V "Regioa1 ^ "'
JC
N
N
N
N
N
1 See section 9.7 for an explanation of the regional field office codes.
Source: Tennessee Department of Superfund
9-20
-------
Table 9-3
NPL Sites in Tennessee at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
OPERABLE UNIT
RA PLANNED
START DATE2
RI/FS COM-
PLETED
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
GROUND WATER
CONTROL
SURFACE DRAINAGE
DITCHES (FF)_
OPEN BURNING GRDS/
FORMER ADA (FF)
12/30/96
3/31/97
FORMER BORROW PIT (FF)
CURRENT AMMO
DESTRUCTION AREA (FF)
FORMER BURN-OUT AREA
(SITE SCN) _ (FF)
CURRENT LANDFILL (SITE
SCREEN) (FF)
SALVAGE YARD (SITE
SCRNING) (FF)
OFF SITE CITY WELLS (FF)
OFF SITE 0-LINE PLUMED
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB Debris
DK Unknown
EP EPA In-House
ES Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST Solid Waste
SW Surface Water
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VOCs Volatile Organic
Compounds
9-21
-------
Table 9-3 (continued)
NPL Sites In Tennessee at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist*
RA PLANNED
START DATE2
GW;
RC;
SD;
SO;
SW
04
CLINCH RIVER (FF)
12/30/99
05
ORNLWAG10DEEP
INJECTION (FF)
9/30/99
NA
NA
NA
NA
.PI..
10
K-1420 OU
9/30/99
NA
NA
LEFPC OU
JFQ
9/30/96
NA
NA
NA_
NA
NA
NA
11
Y-12 NITRIC ACID
PIPE (FF)
12/31/99
NA
NA
NA
NA
J2_
13
14
15
K-10640U
JEEL
BEAR CREEK FLOOD
J!LAMSED_ ______ (FF).
ORNL WAG 1 SURF
9/30/98
NA
NA
NA
3/31/01
9/30/98
N
N
GW
NA
K-770 OU
(FF)
3/31/01
NA
NA
NA
NA
VOCs;
NITRATES
_NA_
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
ORNL WAG 5 BURIAL
COMPLEX (FF)
3/30/99
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
BC OU2 RUST SPOIL
AREA (EF1
3/31/99
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air
DB Debris
DK Unknown
EP EPA In-House
ES Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
Slate, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST Solid Waste
SW Surface Water
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VOCs Volatile Organic
Compounds
9-22
-------
Table 9-3 (continued)
NPL Sites in Tennessee at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START DATE2
RI/FS COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
21
K-901
(FF)
6/30/99
NA
NA
NA
NA
24
LOWER WATTS
BAR (FF)
9/30/00
NA
NA
NA
NA
25
26
27
28
ORNL WAG 6 BURIAL
-COMPLEX (FF)
CR OU 2 FCAP,
MCCOYBR,
ROG
_JEEL
ORAU- SOUTH
CAMPUS
j-ACIJLJTY (FF)
Y-12, UEFPCOU3(FF)
9/30/99
3/30/97
3/31/96
9/30/99
NA
NA
GW;
SO
NA
NA
NA
TCE
NA
NA
NA
29
BC OU04 HYDROLIC
UNIT (FF)
3/30/97
NA
NA
NA
NA
30
CR OU1 SECURITY
PITS (FF)
9/30/01
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
CR OU4 ROGERS
QUARRY (FF)
12/30/99
NA
NA
NA
NA
32
33
34
BC OU1 BURIAL
...GROUNDS
ORNLWAG1NS
TANK FARM
JEEL
JED.
6/30/00
9/30/99
ORNL WAG 2 SURF
WATER/SEP fFR
9/30/99
N
N
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
AlAIr
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
9-23
-------
Table 9-3 (continued)
NPL Sites In Tennessee at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist*
„ OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER NAME
(LEAD)
37
38
K1070 C/D LF
(LINKED
JDOOU6) (FF)_
KERR HOLLOW
QUARRY (FF)
RAPLANNED
START DATE2
3/30/99
6/30/95
Rl/FS COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
NA
NA
VOLUME
NA
NA
CONTAMINANTS
NA
NA
TECHNOLOGY
NA
NA
40
ORNL WAG 4 BURIAL
COMPLEX (FF)
6/30/97
NA
NA
NA
NA
02
SW QUADRANT MAIN
INSTALLATION (FF)
03
04
SW WATERSHED &
GOLF
._COURSE IFF).
NORTH CENTRAL
AREA, MAIN INST
IFF)
9/30/99
9/30/99
12/30/99
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations:
Al Air F
DB Debris FE
DK Unknown FF
EP EPA In-House GW
ES Entire Site LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR Mixed Funding Federal/RP
MS Man-made Structures
NA Not Available
NO No Media
OT Other •
PS PRP Response Under State
RA Remedial Actions
RC RCRA Hazardous Waste
RP Responsible Party
S State, Fund-Financed
9-24
SD Sediment
SI Single Intake
SL Sludge
SO Soil
SR PRP Lead Under State
ST Solid Waste
SW Surface Water
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VOCs Volatile Organic
Compounds
-------
Table 9-3 (continued)
NPL Sites in Tennessee at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist'
RA PLANNED
START DATE2
VELSICOL/HARDEMA
N GROUND-
WATER (RP/FE)
12/31/94
GW
NA
PESTICIDES/
HERBICIDES;
VOC; METALS
Air Stripping; Disposal
of Residual; Leachate
Treatment;
Precipi
itatio
itoring
02
VELSICOL/HARDEMA
N
SOURCE mP/FE/Fl
3/31/97
RC;SO
NA
NA
NA
Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the oroiect is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted. p J
Abbre
AlAir
DB
DK
EP
ES
vlatlons:
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Qroundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Under State
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
-------
Table 9-3 (continued)
NPL Sites In Tennessee at Which Marketing Opportunities Exist1
OPERABLE UNIT
NUMBER
NAME
(LEAD)
RA PLANNED
START DATE2
RI/FS COM-
PLETED
MEDIA
VOLUME
CONTAMINANTS
TECHNOLOGY
01
02
03
OPERABLE
UNIT #01 (F/S)
2/01/95
OPERABLE
UNIT #02
(F)
3/20/97
OPERABLE
UNIT #03
(F)
6/01/99
DB;
GW;
LW;
OT;SL;
SO;
ST;
SW
LW;
SD; SL;
SO;
ST;
SW
Al
500 gal;
1,000cy;
247 cy;
4,000 cy;
200 cy
NA
NA
VOC; METALS;
OTHER
INORGANICS;
OTHER
ORGANICS
NA
NA
Incineration with On-
Site Disposal of
Residual; Off-Site
Treatment; Solidification
and Stabilization;
Monitoring;
Other/Unknown/Undeter
mined Technology _
NA
NA
1 Data as of May 1995 from EPA CERCLIS and RELAI Databases. See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of these data sources.
2 Some RA planned start dates have passed; the actual RA start date had not been recorded as of March 1995. This circumstance may have occurred because (1) the project is
running later than planned or (2) the actual RA start date was recorded after the data were extracted.
Abbreviations!
Al Air
DB
DK
EP
ES
Debris
Unknown
EPA In-House
Entire Site
F
FE
FF
GW
LW
EPA Fund-Financed
Federal Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Groundwater
Liquid Waste
MR
MS
NA
NO
OT
Mixed Funding Federal/RP
Man-made Structures
Not Available
No Media
Other
PS
RA
RC
RP
S
PRP Response Understate
Remedial Actions
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Responsible Party
State, Fund-Financed
SD
SI
SL
SO
SR
Sediment
Single Intake
Sludge
Soil
PRP Lead Under State
ST
SW
UXO
VOCs
Solid Waste
Surface Water
Unexploded Ordnance
Volatile Organic
Compounds
9-26
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF ALL REGION 4 DOD INSTALLATIONS EITHER WITH TWO OR
FEWER SITES OR ESTIMATED COSTS FOR CLEANUP OF LESS
THAN OR EQUAL TO $1 MILLION
-------
-------
List of All Region 3 DoD Installations Either With Two or Fewer Sites
or Estimated Costs for Cleanup of Less Than or Equal to $1 Million
Facility Name FFID
DELAWARE
DELAWARE TARGET AREAS DE39799F133400
DOVER AFBPRE BOMB RANGE DE39799F133500
DOVER SURVIVAL TRAINING ANNEX DE39799F135800
DRAVO CORPORATION DE39799F136400
FORT DELAWARE DE39799F134100
LENAPE ORDNANCE MOD CENTER DE39799F134400
US ARMY RESERVE CENTER DOVER DE3210015C0500
US ARMY RESERVE CENTER LEWES DE3210015C1600
Total DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AAAFORTDUPONT DC39799F881200
ANACOSTIANAVALS STATION DC317000115500
CAMP SIMMS DC39799F131200
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY, RESERVE STATION DC39799F812500
FORT DUPONT PARK SITE DC39799F131800
FORTMCNAIR DC321002100400
NAVAL STATION ANACOST ANNEX DC39799F132900
SPRING VALLEY DC39799F833000
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD NAVALSTA DC39799F133200
WASHINGTON COMNAVDIST DC317002431000
WASHINGTON DC NAVOBSY DC317002345400
WASHINGTON NRL DC317002431100
Total DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARYLAND
AAA SITE CENTER BUREAU ' MD39799F139400
ADELPHI LABORATORY CENTER MD321002276200
AIR FORCE PLANT 11 MD39799F141700
ANNAPOLIS NRTFAC MD317002349200
ASSATEAQUE ISLAND MD39799F143900
CHELTENHAM NAVCOMMU MD317009000700
CHESAPEAKEBAYDETNRL MD317002431100
CP SOMERSET MD39799F141100
EAST COAST RADIO REC STATION MD39799F141500
FORTHOLABIRD MD39799F139200
FORT HOLABIRD CRIMES REC CENTER MD321002041900
FORT HOWARD MD39799F140600
FORT RITCHIE MD321002075800
HAWKINS POINT TER FACILITY MD39799F140500
HERMANVILLE GAP FILLER ANNEX MD39799F142200
INDIAN HEAD NAVEODTECHCEN MD317009000100
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY LAB MD39799F812800
MORTON THIOKOL (AMMUNITION PLT) MD39799F144200
NATIONAL-DBF STORAGE DEPOT BALT MD39799F137300
NAVAL RESEARCH LAB WALDORF MD317000894700
NAVAL RESERVE CENTER BALTIMORE MD317002252600
NAVAL STATION ANNAPOLIS MD317009002200
NIKE 03 MD39799F136800
NIKEBA-30/31(TOLCHEST) MD39799F137700
NIKE BA-43 (FT.SMALLWOO) MD39799F138000
NIKEBA-79/W-05(GRANIT) MD39799F138400
NDCEBA-92(GRNSPNG/TWS) MD39799F138600
Number
of
Sites
2
1
2
1
2
1
5
5
19
l
5
2
1
1
7
1
1
2
3
1
3
28
i
42
1
1
1
3
9
2
2
1
9
2
4
1
1
14
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Estimated
Completion
Date
TBD
2008
2008
TBD
2008
TBD
TBD
TBD
2008
TBD
2008
2008
2008
TBD
2008
2008
2008
TBD
TBD
TBD
2008
TBD
2008
TBD
2008
TBD
TBD
2008
TBD
TBD
TBD
2008
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2008
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2008
2008
2008
2008
FY95 Cost
to Complete
$000
70
2,003
3,773
252
1,983
0
0
0
8,081
1,934
0
5,682
1,968
1,934
626
2,092
4,078
1,923
361
0
0
20,598
1,923
300
4,000
0
2,113
0
0
2,022
443
0
0
3,494
0
0
118
0
2,016
114
492
0
0
0
0
1,905
1,706
1,681
1,560
Source: Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994, Table B-2
A-l
-------
List of All Region 3 DoD Installations Either With Two or Fewer Sites
or Estimated Costs for Cleanup of Less Than or Equal to $1 Million
Facility Name
MARYLAND (continued)
NIKE BA-W-44 (WALDORF)
NIKE BAT W-93 (LAYTON)
NIKE W-25 (DAVJDSONVILLE)
NIKE W-35 (GROOM)
NIKE W-36 (GROOM)
NIKE W-54 (POMONKEY)
NIKE W-92 (ROCKVILLE)
NIKE W-93 CONTROL AREA
PHOENIX MILITARY RESERVATION
POMONKEY TEST RANGE NRL
Total MARYLAND
FFID
MD39799F138100
MD39799F138700
MD39799F137500
MD39799F137900
MD39799F137800
MD39799F138300
MD39799F138500
MD39799F820500
MD321002440200
MD317002431102
Number
of
Sites
2
2
, 2
2
2
1
2
1
4
1
130
Estimated
Completion
Date
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
TBD
2008
TBD
TBD
TBD
FY95 Cost
to Complete
$000
2,372
1,845
1,560
1,905
1,725
260
1,868
0
0
22
35,444
PENNSYLVANIA
AAF INTELLIGENCE SCH PA39799F147700 1
AIR FORCE PLANT 45 PA39799F153500 1
AMSA112 LOCK HAVEN PA32100PA06000 8
AMSA 29 READING PA32100PA14700 9
ARMY MAP SERVICE PA39799F887300 0
AVCO PA39799F145100 2
BIRDSBORO ARM YTK FOUNDRY PA39799F147800 1
BRISTOL VETERANS US ARMY RESERVE CTR PA32100PA01000 9
CONNELLSVILLE AIRPORT PA39799F155900 2
CROSS AND H/STONE MOUNTAIN PA39799F148300 2
CROYLAND PLANT PA39799F825300 1
EDGEMONT US ARMY RESERVE CENTER PA32100PA02200 15
ELRAMA ARMORY COMPLEX PA321004215000 13
ESS1NGTON NATIONAL GUARD TARGE RGB PA39799F154100 2
FEDERAL LABORATORIES PA39799F841800 1
HANOVER GAP FILLER ANNEX, PA39799F150600 1
JOHNSTOWN SHELLPLANT PA39799F808200 1
MARINE CORPS TRAINING CENTER, PA PA39799F152900 1
MARCO RESERVE CENTER PA39799F153000 1
MARIETTA AIR FORCE STATION PA39799F150900 5
MEDDLETOWN AIR DEPOT PA39799F144500 2
NAVAL INDUSTRIAL RESERVE GEAR PLANT PA39799F151700 1
NAVAL RESERVE CENTER PA39799F152800 1
NAVALHOSPrTALPHILDALPHIA PA317002725600 2
NEW CUMBERLAND ARMY DEPOT PA39799F147200 1
NIKEBATPH-75/78MEDI PA39799F146600 2
NIKE PH-15 (BRISTOL) PA39799F146400 2
NIKE PH-67 (CHESTER) PA39799F146500 2
NKEPH-91(NORRISTOWN) PA39799F146800 1
NDCEPI-03 PA39799F145700 2
NIKEPI-36(N.HUNTINGDON) PA39799F145800 1
NIKE PI-43 (ELRAMA) PA39799F146000 2
NIRS AM BRIDGE CO PA39799F154800 1
NORTH PENN US ARMY RESERVE CENTER PA32100PA13900 5
PLANCOR 400 BETH FGEC PA39799F155400 1
STATE COLLEGE AIR NATIONAL GUARD PA357282627300 2
SUSQUEHANNA ORDNANCE SUB-DE PA39799F144900 2
TACONY WAREHOUSE PA321002279200 13
TOBYHANNA ARTILLERY RANGE PA39799F147000 2
US ARMY RESERVE CENTER GERMANTOWN PA321001HN5400 11
PENNSYLVANIA (continued)
US ARMY RESERVE CENTER HORSHAM 01 PA321001HN3500 9
US ARMY RESERVE CENTER INDIANA PA3210016N3800 4
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2008
TBD
2008
TBD
TBD
2008
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2008
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2008
2008
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2003
2008
TBD
2008
TBD
TBD
TBD
49
0
235
235
10
205
460
32
2,577
90
2,058
15
0
2,573
10
115
10
114
431
231
1,598
326
80
0
760
30
1,582
3,025
0
740
0
730
10
15
75
1,861
4,643
296
3,783
0
0
O
Source: Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994, Table B-2
A-2
-------
List of All Region 3 DoD Installations Either With Two or Fewer Sites
or Estimated Costs for Cleanup of Less Than or Equal to $1 Million
Facility Name
US ARMY RESERVE CENTER HUNTINGDON
US ARMY RESERVE CENTER MEADVUUE
US ARMY PITTSBURGH 03
US ARMY STATE COLLEGE
US ARMY RESERVE CENTER WELKES-BARRE
US ARMY RESERVE CENTER WCULIAMSPORT
Total PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
AIR FORCE PLANT 80
ALESHffiE QUARTERMASTER DEPOT
ARMY SUPPLY BASE
BUCKROE BEACH
BYRD FIELD
CAMP ALEXANDER
CAMP WALLACE
CAPE CHARLES AFS BUNK
CHOPAWAMIC TROOP TRAINING
COMFAIR NORFOLK-NAS OCEANA
DAM NECK FIRE CONTROL
DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY HERNDON
ENGINEER DEPOT
FISHERMAN ISLAND NWR-NF
FORD PLANT
FORT AP HILL
FORT LEE
FORT MONROE
FORT MONROE/FORT WOOL AREA
FORT PICKETT A AIRPORT
JAMES RIVER SHIPBUILDING
LAMB POINT GRD BARRACKS
MANASSAS AF COMMUNICATION FAC
MICROWAVE STATION, VA
MIDLOTHIAN MICRO ST S
N-FOLK DEFNIK BATN-52
NAAS CREEDS
NAAS PUNGO
NANSEMOND ORDNANCE DEPOT
NAVAL COMMAND FACILITY
NAVAL HOSPITAL PORTSMOUTH
NAVY YARD
NEW RIVER ORDNANCE PLANT
NKEN-36
NIKE SHE N-63
NKEW-BA-74
NSY NORFOLK
OYSTER POINT STORAGE AREA
PETERSBURG AIRPORT
PLUM TREE ISLAND RANGE
QM MARKET CENTER
QM DEPOT, NEWPORT NW
VIRGINIA (continued)
RADIO REC FAOLTTY
RES TRN CENTER, USCG
RHOAD MIC STATION SITE
US ARC CHINCOTEAGUE (WALLOPS IS.)
FFID
PA321001HN3700
PA3210016N4500
PA3210016N6100
PA3210012N6900
PA3210012N7500
PA3210012N7600
Number
of
Sites
6
1
4
6
' 18
6
187
VA39799F164700
VA39799F164800
VA39799F781000
VA39799F789100
VA39799F165300
VA39799F824200
VA39799F775800
VA39799F156500
VA39799F166700
VA39799F170400
VA317002293800
VA321002135400
VA39799F823800
VA39799F157300
VA39799F821900
VA321002041600
VA39799F776900
VA321002060300
VA39799F158300
VA39799F167400
VA39799F172700
VA39799F823900
VA39799F171800
VA39799F165800
VA39799F159800
VA39799F161000
VA39799F775200
VA39799F819800
VA39799F156700
VA39799F854400
VA317002481800
VA39799F173000
VA39799F156900
VA39799F160900
VA39799F156600
VA39799F167500
VA39799F172500
VA39799F157800
VA39799F839200
VA39799F167300
VA39799F164900
VA39799F780800
VA39799F775600
VA39799F854500
VA39799F171500
VA3210015S1200
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
9
3
1
1
1
19
4
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
Estimated
Completion
Date
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2008
TBD
2013
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2008
2005
TBD
2008
TBD
2008
TBD
TBD
TBD
2008
TBD
2008
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2013
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
FY95 Cost
to Complete
$000
o
o
0
0
0
0
28,994
o
0
10
150
541
10
2,120
135
2,480
0
566
20
10
512
10
362
92
1,983
1,923
319
2,015
10
1,720
2
2
385
1,923
0
1,070
385
1
0
0
343
0
0
0
385
389
2,605
2
10
0
395
0
0
Source: Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994, Table B-2
A-3
-------
List of All Region 3 DoD Installations Either With Two or Fewer Sites
or Estimated Costs for Cleanup of Less Than or Equal to $1 Million
Facility Name FFID
US ARMY RECRUITING COMMAND VA39799F163100
VIRGINIA MICROWAVE STATION VA39799F162800
VIRGINIA ORDNANCE WORKS VA39799F163700
W.H.GROUPN0.2&3 VA39799F780900
WALLOPS ISLAND VA39799F169700
WASHINGTON/BALTIMORE DEF-NK W-83 VA39799F163800
WOODROW WILSON GENERAL HOSPITAL VA39799F164300
Tolal VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
DOLLY SODS-NATLANTIFOR WV39799F346000
FIKE/ARTEL CHEMICAL WV39799F789200
GUTHRIE AIR FORCE STATION WV39799F346900
JEFFERSON COUNTY RCV WV39799F346700
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANS WV39799F347000
MARSHALL ARMY CHEMICAL PLANT WV39799F348000
NAVAL ORDNANCE PLANT WV39799F347700
POINT PLEASANT QMS #6 WV321005413500
SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PROD WV39799F347800
US ARMY RESERVE CENTER BLUEFIELD WV3210Q16U0500
US ARMY RESERVE CENTER CLARKSBURG WV3210016U0800
US ARMY RESERVE CENTER EAST RAINELLE WV3210016U4600
US ARMY RESERVE CENTER HUNTINGTON WV3210016U2000
US ARC PARKERSBURG (AMSA114) WV3210026U4300
US ARMY RESERVE CENTER WEERTON WV3210016U6400
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION GENERAL HOSP WV39799F346600
WV MANEUVER AREA WV39799F346500
YEAGER AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE WV357282589100
YEAGER AIR NATIONAL GUARD WV39799F711600
Total WEST VIRGINIA
Total
Number
of
Sites
l
l
1
l
' l
l
l
97
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
5
3
4
3
5
3
1
1
5
2
39
500
Estimated
Completion
Date
TBD
TBD
2011
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1999
2008
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2015
2003
2004
FY95 Cost
to Complete
$000
35
2
4,103
10
0
470
0
27,505
1,620
2,228
0
0
0
205
0
650
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
385
12,442
4,281
1,877
19,407
140,029
Source: Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1994, Table B-2
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
EPA REGION 4 BROWNFffiLDS ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE FACT SHEETS
-------
-------
U.S. EPA Brownfields Pilot Awards
June 1996
1. List of Brownfields Pilots
2. Brownfields Pilot Fact Sheet
3. Brownfields Checklist
4. Brownfields Pilot Information
National Pilots
• Summary of Brownfields National Pilots
• Burlington, VT •
• • Charlotte, NC •
• Chicopee, MA •
• Chippewa County/ ' •
Kinross Township, MI •
• Kansas City, KS and MO •
Regional Pilots
• Summary of Brownfields Regional Pilots
• Atlanta, GA
• Camden, NJ
• Clearwater, FL
• East St. Louis, IL
• Miami, FL
5. Endorsements
Lima, OH
Lowell, MA
Navajo Nation
Newark, NJ
Richmond, CA
Rome, NY
Prichard, AL
Provo, UT
San Francisco, CA
Shreveport, LA
American Public Works Association
Bank of America
Environmental Defense Fund
Mortgage Bankers Association of America
National Community Reinvestment Coalition
National Wildlife Federation
United Church of Christ, Commission for Racial Justice
The United States Conference of Mayors
Endorsements of the President's Proposed Tax Incentive
-------
U.S. EPA BROWNFIELDS PILOTS
"Economic development and environmental
protection must go hand-in-hand"
National Pilots
Baltimore, MD
Birmingham, AL
Bridgeport, CT
Burlington, VT
Cape Charles-Noj
County, VA
Charlotte, NC
Chicopee,
Chippewa
Kinros:
Cleveland^
Detroit,
Emeryville,
Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Kansas City, KS and
KnoxviUe, TN
Laredo, TX
Lawrence, MA
Lima, OH
Louisville, KY
Lowell, MA
Navajo Nation
lewark, NJ
Orleans, LA
~
on Mill Sites, OR
toenixyille, PA
aento, CA
ois, MO
Stockton, CA
Tacoma, WA
Trenton, NJ
West Central Municipal
Conference, EL
Worcester, MA
Regional Pilots
Atlanta, GA
Boston, MA
Buffalo, NY
Camden, NJ
Clearwater, FL
Dallas, TX
Duwamish Coalition, WA
East St. Louis, JJL
Illinois
Indiana
Miami, FL
Minnesota
Northwest Indiana Cities
Philadelphia, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Prichard, AL
Provo.UT
Sand Creek Corridor, CO
San Francisco, CA
Shreveport, LA
West Jordan, UT
-------
100%
Brownfields Pilots
y 60 pilots funded
Clarifying Liability and Cleanup Issues
y Underground Storage Tank Lender Liability Rule
•/ The Prospective Purchases Guidance
J Owners of Property Containing Contaminated Aquifers Guidance
y Lender and Municipal Acquisition Liability Guidance
J Land Use Guidance
y Archival of 27,000 sites from the Federal Inventory
/ Community Reinvestment Act Credit for Brownfields
/ Soil Screening Guidance
Partnerships and Outreach
^ Working with other EPA Initiatives (e.g. Common Sense Initiative)
y Regional Brownfields Coordinators in all 10 Regions
y EPA staff on "loan" to Cities
y Other Federal Agencies
y National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
./ Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
Job Training
y Hazardous Materials Training and Research Institute
y Bridgeport Connecticut Pilot
•S Rio Hondo Community College District
y Cuyahoga Community College
V Superfund Step-up
y National Institute of Environmental Health and Safety
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication: EPA 500-F-96-001
June 1996
&EPA Brownfields Pilots
Office of Outreach and Special Projects (5101)
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative is designed to empower States, communities, and
other stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely
clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields. A brownfield is a site, or portion thereof, that has actual or
perceived contamination, as well as an active potential for redevelopment or reuse. EPA plans to fund 60
Brownfields Pilots in 1995 and 1996, at up to $200,000 each, to support creative two-year explorations and
demonstrations of brownfields solutions. The Pilots are intended to provide EPA, States, Tribes, municipalities,
and communities with useful information and strategies as they continue to seek new methods to promote
a unified approach to site assessment, environmental cleanup, and redevelopment.
OVERVIEW
EPA is awarding 60 brownfield pilot cooperative
agreements to States, cities, towns, counties, and
Tribes by the end of 1996. The pilots, each funded up
to $200,000 over two years, will test redevelopment
models, direct special efforts toward removing
regulatory barriers without sacrificing protectiveness,
and facilitate coordinated public and private efforts
at the Federal, State, and local levels. These funds are
to be used to generate interest by bringing together
community groups, investors, lenders, developers,
and other affected parties to address the issue of
assessing and cleaning up brownfields and returning
them to appropriate arid productive use.
Findings and experience from these pilots will help
guide EPA's efforts to stimulate environmental
cleanup through economic redevelopment. These
findings will be captured in the specific activities
outlined in EPA's evolving Brownfields Action
Agenda. The pilots also will provide a series of models
for States and localities struggling with similar efforts.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
States, cities, towns, counties, and Tribes that have an
interest in environmentally sound redevelopment of
brownfields are invited to apply for pilot grants. Pilot
applications should address the following criteria:
• Effect of brownfields on the community or
communities;
• Value added by Federal support;
• Existing local government structure;
• Community involvement plan;
• Environmental'Justice plan;
• Appropriate authority and government
support;
• Proposed cleanup funding mechanisms;
• Flow of ownership plan;
• Environmental site assessment plan;
• National replicability; and
• Measures of success.
ACTIVITIES
EPA Headquarters awarded the first pilot to
Cuyahoga County, Ohio, in November 1993. Two
additional pilots were awarded in 1994 and are
currently underway in Bridgeport, Connecticut,
and Richmond, Virginia.
EPA announced 15 additional pilots in July 1995,
11 in October 1995,11 in January 1996, and 20 more
in June 1996.
CONTACTS
For more information call:
The Superfund Hotline
(800) 424-9346
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (5101)
Washington. DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
S300
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication: EPA 500-F-96-002
June 1996
&EPA Brownfields National
Pilots
Office of Outreach and Special Projects (5101)
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative is designed to empower States, communities, and
other stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely
clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields. A brownfield is a site, or portion thereof, that has actual or
perceived contamination, as well as an active potential for redevelopment or reuse. EPA plans to fund 60
Brownfields Pilots in 1995 and 1996, at up to $200,000 each, to support creative two-year explorations and
demonstrations of brownfields solutions. The Pilots are intended to provide EPA, States, Tribes, municipalities,
and communities with useful information and strategies as they continue to seek new methods to promote
a unified approach to site assessment, environmental cleanup, and redevelopment.
OVERVIEW
EPA is awarding 60 brownfield pilot cooperative
agreemerib to States, cities, towns, counties,..and
Tribes by the end of 1996. EPA is currently funding
twenty-eight "National" pilots selected by 'EPA
Headquarters, and 12"Regional" pilots selected and
sponsored by EPA Regional offices. Twenty more
pilots were announced in June 1996 and their
cooperative agreements are being negotiated.
The brownfields pilots will test redevelopment
models, direct special efforts toward removing
regulatory barriers without sacrificing protec-
tiveness, and facilitate coordinated environmental
assessments and cleanup efforts at the Federal, State,
and local levels. These funds will be used to generate
interest by pulling together community groups,
investors, lenders, developers, and other affected
parties to address the issues of cleaning up sites
contaminated with hazardous substances and
returning them to appropriate, productive use. The
pilots will serve as vehicles to explore a series of
models for States and localities struggling with such
efforts.
The National pilots were selected using the following
evaluation criteria:
1. Problem statement and needs assessment
- Effect of brownfields on the community or
communities
- Value added by Federal support
2. Community-based planning and involvement
- Existing local government structure
- Community involvement plan
- Environmental Justice plan
3. Implementation plan
- Appropriate authority and government
support
- Proposed cleanup funding mechanisms
- Flow of ownership plan
- Environmental site assessment plan
4. Long-term benefits and sustainability
- National replicability
- Measure of success
Twenty-eight Brownfields National Pilots are under-
way and an additional eleven* are being negotiated:
• Baltimore, MD • Birmingham, AL
• Bridgeport, CT • Burlington, VT*
• Cape Charles-Northampton County, VA
• Charlotte, NC* • • Chicopee, MA*
• Chippewa County-Kinross Township, MI*
• Cleveland, OH • Detroit, MI
• Emeryville, CA • Houston, TX
• Indianapolis, IN • Kansas City, KS/MO*
-------
Knoxville, TN
Lawrence, MA
Lowell, MA*
Navaho Nation*
New Orleans, LA
Oregon Mill Sites, OR
Portland, OR
Richmond, CA*
Rochester, NY
Sacramento, CA
Stockton, CA
Trenton, NJ_
West Central Municipal
Worcester, MA
Laredo, TX
Lima, OH*
Louisville, KY
Newark, NJ*
New York, NY
Phoenixville, PA
Rhode Island
Richmond, VA
Rome, NY*
St. Louis, MO
Tacoma, WA
Conference, IL
Please refer to the supplemental EPA fact sheet on
each pilot project for more specific information.
ACTIVITIES
Following is a summary of each of the 39 Brownfields
National Pilots that are underway or are being
negotiated:
• Baltimore, MD - Activities planned as part of the
Baltimore pilot include identifying the sources
and scope of the brownfields problem; defining
the legal and regulatory obstacles to redevelop-
ment; promoting new technologies for
remediation; exploring the use of new financing
mechanisms to aid site assessment and
remediation; conducting at least two demonstra-
tion site remediation and development projects,
with the potential to create at least fifty new jobs;
and promoting voluntary cleanups. "For more
information, contact Tom Stolle of U.S. EPA
Region 3 in Philadelphia, PA, at (215) 597-1166.
• Birmingham, AL-Activities planned as part of
the Birmingham pilot include establishing a
clearinghouse that will serve as a repository for
brownfields environmental data on the targeted
redevelopment area, and forming a partnership
among environmental activists, technical experts,
government officials, and business represen-
tatives who will support the pilot program with
staff and materials. A fundamental goalof the
pilot is to develop a comprehensive environ-
mental plan to link approaches to such issues as
flood control and groundwater contamination
reduction with remediation of soil and site-
specific contamination. In addition, Birmingham
wasselectedby the EPA CommonSenseInitiative
Iron and Steel Sector Brownfield's Workgroup
for a special partnership to explore brownfields
assessment and redevelopment issues unique to
the iron and steel industrial sector. For more
information, contact Matt Robbins of U.S. EPA
Region 4 in Atlanta, GA, at (404) 347-2643, ext.
6212.
• Bridgeport, CT-Activities planned as part of the
Bridgeport pilot include categorizing and priori-
tizing cleanup sites, developing timeline estimates
for duration and methods of cleanup with associa-
ted costs, and selecting two to six model sites.
Incentives will be identified for effective property
assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment for each
model site. In addition, the city will coordinate
with the Housatonic Community and Technical
College to offer environmental science courses to
students to prepare them to assist in future re-
development efforts. For more information, con-
tact John Podgurski of U.S. EPA Region 1 in
Boston, MA, at (617) 573-9681.
• Burlington, VT- Activities planned as part of the
Burlington pilot include engaging affected neigh-
borhoods in the brownfields process; assessing
the level of contamination at targeted sites;
prioritizing redevelopment plans, developing
partnerships and obtaining commitments;
implementing redevelopment plans as part of an
agricultural industrial park;attractingviablebusi-
nesses to redeveloped sites, and integrating
remediation into a replicable process and dissem-
inating this model. For more information, contact
John Podgurski of U.S. EPA Region 1 in Boston,
MA, at (617) 573^9681.
• Cape Charles - Northampton County, VA -
Activities planned as part of the Cape Charles-
Northampton County pilot include conducting
Phase I and II environmental assessments,
developing a study to address applicability,
feasibility, and cost of remediation technologies,
developing a remediation financing program,
and designing an environmental management
system to measure levels of performance in excess
of legislative standards. In addition, the Presi-
dent's Council on Sustainable Development has
chosen this locality as a National Eco-Industrial
Park demonstration project. For more informa-
tion, contact Tom Stolle of U.S. EPA Region 3 in
Philadelphia, PA, at (215) 597-1166.
• Charlotte, NC - Activities planned as part of the
Charlotte pilot include assessing two to three
-------
target sites in the South End; resolving barriers to
reinvestment and development; creating model
lending partnerships, risk and liability sharing
agreements; stimulating community involve-
ment; and ensuring their input and support. A
key element of Charlotte's plan is to develop a
cooperative relationship with the financial
institutions in the city, which is the third largest
financial center in the nation. For more informa-
tion, contact Matt Robbins of U.S. EPA Region 4
in Atlanta, GA, at (404) 347-5059, ext. 6212.
Chicopee, MA - Activities planned as part of the
Chicopee pilot include conducting a site
assessmentanddesigningaremediationstrategy;
creating an educational program for the
neighborhood; identifying specific funding
sources; and documenting the redevelopment
process. Redevelopment of this site will be lead
by the Chicopee Brownf ield Task Force, and will
create a working model for the cleanup and reuse
of the city's other brownfields. Chicopee has
requested just $59,000 for the two years, most of
which will go to the Phaselandllsiteassessments
and remedial design. For more information, con-
tact John Podgurski of U.S. EPA Region 1 in
Boston, MA, at (617) 573-9681. '
Chippewa County/Kinross Township, MI -
Activities planned as part of the Cipp'eewa
County/Kinross Township pilot include comple-
ting Phase I-m site assessments; convening a
community task force of public and private
stakeholders (including the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
Chippewa Indians) to plan redevelopment
strategiesfor each potential brownfield; preparing
legal documentation related to land ownership,
liability, due care requirements, zoning, and
financing; and involving affected communities.
For more information, contact Mary Beth Tuohy
of U.S. EPA Region 5 in Chicago, IL, at (312) 886-
7596.
• Cleveland, OH - As part of this pilot, the
Cuyahoga County Planning Commission (CPC)
in Cleveland has selected two sites for cleanup
and redevelopment. One site involves securing
remediation technologies, and the other involves
construction with the intention of encouraging
economic growth. Other pilot activities include
working with an area community college to
provide training in environmental work to local
residents; developing high school curricula on
environmentalissues;establishingacommunity/
business task force, community outreach, and
financial support for brownfields assessment;
cleanup, and redevelopment. For more informa-
tion, contact Joe Dufficy of U.S. EPA Region 5 in
Chicago, IL,.at (312) 886-1960.
• Detroit, MI - As part of this pilot, Detroit created
the Redevelopment of Urban Sites Action Team
(the R.E.U.S. A-Team) to identify and address
obstacles to the reuse of abandoned properties.
The goals of the A-Team are to educate potential
investors about brownfields success stories; to
establish a county-wide sustainable development
community roundtable; and to produce a manual
to teach others the "lessons learned" in Detroit
For more information, contact Margaret Guerriero
of U.S. EPA Region 5 in Chicago, IL, at (312) 886-
0399.
• Emeryville, CA- The goal of the Emeryville pilot
is to encourage redevelopment by building
stakeholder confidence in an emerging State of
California regulatory policy using an area-wide,
risk-management based approach to environmen-
tal cleanups. Activities planned as part of the
pilot include compiling existing site information,
conducting additional assessments, and creating
a geographical information system model. The
city plans to convene a broad-based Community
Task Force to serve as a forum for community
participation in decisionmaking and development
of a Mitigation/Risk Management plan. For more
information, contact Bobbie Kahan of U.S. EPA
Region 9 in San Francisco, CA, at (415) 744-2191.
• Greater Kansas City, KA and MO - The goal of
the Greater Kansas City pilot is to demonstrate
economic redevelopment of environmentally
contaminated sites in the bi-state Central Industrial
District. Existing tools, such as prospective
purchaser agreements and financial mechanisms,
will be compiled from local and national sources
andappliedtoafew select sites. Activitiesplanned
aspart of thepilot include conductinganinventory
of numerous properties in the Central Industrial
District,initiatingacommunityinvolvementplan,
conducting Phase I and n site assessments on four
to six sites, integrating public and private interests
in the brownfields process at selected sites, and
ensuring the involvement of those communities
most adversely impacted by the sites. For more
information, contact Kerry Hemdon of US. EPA
Region 7 in Kansas City, KS, at (913) 551-7286.
• Houston, TX - The goals of the Houston pilot are
to establish a permanent organizational infrastruc-
ture for future brownfields redevelopment,
revitalize inner-city property, and increase jobs.
Activities planned as part of this pilot include
-------
identifyingcandidatesiteswithinmecity'sFederal
Urban Enhanced Enterprise Community;
involving stakeholders in decision making
through the mechanism of a Land Redevelopment
Committee; and conducting environmental
assessments of eight candidate sites. Houston
plans to develop a model redevelopment process
encompassing financial incentives, community
outreach, targeted job opportunities, and the new
Texas Voluntary Cleanup Program. For more
information, contact Stan Hitt of U.S. EPA Region
6 in Dallas, TX, at (214) 665-6736.
• Indianapolis, IN - Indianapolis will use pilot
funding to hire a Brownfields Coordinator. The
Coordinator will develop and maintain an
inventory of brownfields in the city using a
geographical information system; develop and
coordinate the reuse program for brownfields
redevelopment; coordinate meetings with
community groups, prospective property owners,
and the city's reuse group; and review additional
assessment and cleanup funding mechanisms and
approaches to liability issues. For more
information, contact Deborah Orr of U.S. EPA
Region 5 in Chicago, IL, at (312) 886-7576.
• Knoxville, TN-Activities planned as part of the
Knoxville pilot include evaluating the feasibility
of redeveloping its Center City Business Park,
which encompasses many acres of abandoned or
underutilized commercial and industrial
property; expanding and improving its commun-
ity involvement activities by integrating the
existing Center City Business Park Advisory
Council with the Partnership for Neighborhood
Improvement; investigating sites that are thought
to be contaminated and determining the most
cost-effective remediation methods to identify
potentially responsible parties for the contamina-
tion; and developing a cleanup implementation
plan that ensures activities do not aggravate
existing environmental threats. For more infor-
mation, contact Matt Robbins of US. EPA Region
4 in Atlanta, GA, at (404) 347-5059, ext 6212.
• Laredo, TX - Activities planned as part of the
Laredo pilot include taking inventory of current
brownfields; determining the most appropriate
and cost-effective remediationmethods; develop-
ing a plan for the remediation; and meeting with
current property owners, realtors, prospective
buyers, and lending institutions to expedite
environmentalrevitalization. In addition, Laredo
will expand and improve the city's community
involvement plan by integrating two existing
community groups. For more information, contact
Stan Hitt of U.S. EPA Region 6 in Dallas, TX, at
(214) 665-6735.
• Lawrence, MA - The goal of the Lawrence pilot
is to provide long-term stability and a safe
environment for its downtown industrial,
commercial, and residential centers by employing
the existing public/private partnerships created
to redevelop three significant contaminated sites.
Activities planned as part of this pilot inlcude
taking inventory of brownfields within the North
Canal industrial corridor; expanding the city's
existing community advisory committees to
encourage meaningful involvement of the
community's minority groups and other stake-
holders; creating a "one stop" guidance manual
for brownfields redevelopment; and coordina-
ting city, State, and federal efforts. For more
information, contact John Podgurski of U.S. EPA
Region 1 in Boston, MA, at (617) 573-9681.
• Lima, OH - The goal of the Lima brownfields
pilot is to transform a 200-acre industrial park
that has been hard-hit by industrial closings and
defense-downsizing into amodemized industrial
community. Activities planned as part of the
pilot include conducting Phase I site assessment
• and planning, implementing outreach activities
in the community, and crafting legal agreements
delineating partnership terms and financial
arrangements for the assessment, remediation,
and development of the industrial park. Lima's
brownfields program will compliment the river
• corridor redevelopment project, enhance water
quality of the Ottawa River, and provide adjoining
greenspace. The plan requires boundary
annexation of 120 acres in the adjacent township
of Shawnee, which supports the plan. For more
information, contact Mary Beth Tuohy of VS.
EPA Region 5 in Chicago, IL, at (312) 886-7596.
• Louisville, KY - The Louisville Empowerment
Zone Brownfields Working Group plans to
address a brownfields site in Louisville's heavy
industrial corridor. Activities planned as part of
thispilotindudeusingageographical information
system to provide information on environmental
conditions of property in the corridor; establishing
a streamlined process for voluntary cleanup,
which will include implementing a "dean dosure"
mechanism; conducting an area-wide assessment
of the Louisville aquifer; and assessing
brownfields in the corridor. For more
information, contact Matt Robbins of U.S. EPA
Region 4 in Atlanta, GA, at (404) 347-5059, ext.
6212.
-------
Lowell, MA - The Lowell pilot intends to focus
efforts on overcoming key obstacles to brov^n-
fields redevelopment already identified by the
city in previous brownfield projects. Lowell has
been designated a federal Enterprise Community.
Activities planned as part of the pilot include
ranking potential brownfields sites; completing
site assessments of priority sites including two
North Canal Project sites and three to five other
sites; implementing a comprehensive, multi-
lingual, multimedia brownfield education
program in the impacted communities; and
developing a self-sustaining and secure funding
program for continuing to redevelop other
contaminated properties. For more information,
contact John Fodgurski of U.S. EPA Region 1 in
Boston, MA, at (617) 573-9681.
Navajo Nation - The Navajo Nation's 10-Year
Forest Management Plan expired in 1992,
eliminating access to tribal timber resources and
causing the closing of the Navajo Forest Product
Industries (NFPI) mill site in Na vajo, New Mexico.
A site inspection has revealed clear evidence of
potentially hazardous substances in the
environment. Activities planned as part of the
pilot include scoping the local community's needs
and concerns; assessing the site to determine the
cleanup status of each parcel of the NFPI facility;
conducting public meetings to secure a Letter of
Decision commitment by the Red Lake Chapter
to lease all or part of the site to help finance
remediation of NFPI facility; and preparing a site
remediation plan. For more information, contact
Jim Hanson of 13.S. EPA Region 9 in San Francisco,
CA, at (415) 744-2237.
Newark, NJ - The goal of the Newark pilot is to
coordinate New Jersey's innovative legislative
and regulatory tools to produce a pipeline of
clean, redeveloped sites while inventing a model
process replicable in other cities. Newark has
been designated a federal Enterprise Community
and an Urban Enterprise Zone. Activities planned
as part of the pilot include completing a
comprehensive GIS-based brownfields inventory;
assessing four diverse sites; continuing outreach
to the community through the Newark Brown-
fields Working Group; applying innovative site
assessment technologies in cooperation with the
New Jersey Institute of Technology and Rutgers
University; encouraging private investment;
linking redevelopment to revitalization; and pro-
ducing brownfields redevelopment plan. For
more information, contact Larry D'Andrea of
U.S. EPA Region 2 in New York, NY, at (212) 637-
4314.. w
• New Orleans, LA - Activities planned as part of
the New Orleans pilot include identifying the
city's brownfields; maintaining an inventory of
sites on a geographical information system for
data analysis; developing criteria for ranking
their redevelopment potential; and sponsoring
meetings with lenders, developers, city planner,
citizens, and agency officials to explore remedia-
tion funding mechanisms. In addition, New
Orleans will develop additional strategies for
community outreach efforts. For more informa-
tion, contact Stan Hitt of U.S. EPA Region 6 in
Dallas, TX, at (214) 665-6735.
• New York, NY - The goal of the New York pilot
is to mobilize a public/private task force to
develop new approaches and performance
measures that will accelerate redevelopment of
brownfields. Activities planned as part of the
pilot include working with communities to
quantify the adverse impacts of brownfields,
establishing a community outreach and education
program, conducting assessments of five priority
brownfields, and developing technical guidances
for testing, sampling, and remediating hazardous
wastes on brownfields properties. The dry wants
to provide the foundation for a policy framework
to guide future decisions and cleanup investments
in its Empowerment Zone and other disadvan-
taged communities. Formore information, con tact
Larry D'Andrea of U.S. EPA Region 2 in New
York, NY, at (212) 637-4314.
• Oregon Mill Sites - The Oregon Economic
Development Department hopes to return vacant
Oregon Mill Sites in seven rural communities to
productive use. Activities planned as part of this
pilot include developing cleanup standards and
approaches for remediation; exploring financing
options and development risks; and creating a
computer model to measure costs and benefits of
various cleanup alternatives. In addition, site-
specific reuse plans will be developed to be
consistent with local land-use planning
requirements. Local Action Committees will
ensure broad community participation in the
redevelopment process. For more information,
contact Lori Cohen of U.S. EPA Region 10 in
Seattle, WA, at (206) 553-6523.
• Phoenixville, PA - The goal of the Phoenixville
pilot is to clean up the abandoned Phoenix Iron
-------
and Steel Company site and create an urban
greenway that would benefit the environmental
justice communities living adjacent to the site.
Activities planned as part of the pilot indude
assessing the scope of contamination, estimating
potential remediation costs, developing potential
land-use options, and determining the feasibility
of redevelopment The Borough plans to build
community consensus on reuse of the site, develop
a master land-use plan, and produce a video
journal of the project. For more information,
contact Tom StoUe of U.S. EPA Region 3- in
Philadelphia, PA, at (215) 597-1166.
Portland, OR-The goal of the Portland pilot is to
encourage environmental deanup and redevdop-
ment at specific sites within the Enterprise
Community and along the Willamette River
waterfront. Activities planned as part of the pilot
indude conducting education and outreach to
involve citizens; creating outreach opportunities
for schools; and de vdoping an Internet-accessible
online computer information system that will
provide data on site assessments, cleanups, and
development. A key component of the pilot will
be the crafting of partnership agreements with
affected neighborhoods on assessment, deanup,
and redevelopment activities at specific sites. For
more information, contact Lori Cohen of U.S.
EPA Region 10 in Seattle, WA, at (206) 553-6523.
•Rhode Island -'The goal of the Rhode Island pilot
is to develop a modd ecosystem-based program
to bring the vacant and under-used contaminated
properties in two major urban watersheds back to
benefidal use. Activities planned as part of this
pilot indude conducting a regional survey of
both watersheds to identify candidate sites for
further assessment; assigning specific contact
persons to reach out to affected communities; and
facilitating roundtable meetings of all stakehol-
ders. Based on community input, the State will
conduct assessments at specific priority sites. For
more information, contact John Podgurski of U.S.
EPA Region 1 in Boston, MA, at (617) 573-9681.
• Richmond, CA - The goal of the Richmond, CA,
pilot is to focus on the 900-acre North Richmond
Shoreline, which contains a variety of brownfields
in a relatively compact area. Activities of the pilot
indude providing public recreation; opening the
shoreline for public use; establishing zoning
standards to limit industrial activities that may
. endanger human health and the environment;
completing preliminary site assessments of two
to five sites within the North Richmond Shoreline;
developing financing mechanisms; clarifying
jurisdictional authority; streamlining the
regulatory process; and implementing commun-
ity education and outreach programs. For more
information, contact Jim Hanson of U.S. EPA
Region 9 in San Francisco, CA, at (415) 744-2237.
• Richmond, VA-Activities planned as part of the
Richmond, VA, pilot include developing a
systematic and cost-effective means to inventory
andmarketbrownfieldssites;identifyingenviron-
mental mitigation alternatives and costs; evalua-
ting commercial and industrial market reuse
options; conducting feasibility studies for brown-
fields reuse; and using new and existing financial
incentives to stimulate interest in redevelopment
* of brownfields sites. Richmond's Neighborhood
Teams Process will bring host residential
communities into the reuse decision-making
process. For more information, contact Tom
Stolle of U.S. EPA Region 3 in Philadelphia, PA,
at (215) 597-1166.
• Rochester, NY - Activities planned as part of the
Rochester pilot include selecting four to five
priority sites that are eligible for a revolving
loan/grant program and two publicly-owned
sites for additional environmental characteriza-
tionandredevelopment;preparingmarketability
criteriaforbrownfieldssiteselection; andbringing
host residential communities into the reuse
decision-making process to develop site-specific
property recycling strategies. Creation of these
strategies will rely on partnerships with current
and future site owners and users, government
regulatory agencies, and devdopment staff. For
more information, contact Walter Schoepf of U.S.
EPARegion25nNew York, NY, at (212) 637-4319.
• Rome, NY - The goal of the Rome pilot is to
redevdop a 200-acre industrial area, which is
adjacent to the central business district and in a
state Economic Devdopment Zone. Innovative
site characterization technologies devdoped at
the U.S. Department of Defense's Rome Labora-
tories will be used in assessments of a 17-acre
demonstration site. Activities planned as part of
the pilot indude conducting environmental site
assessments and updating a redevelopment plan
for the 17-acre parcel of the industrial park,
establishing letters of intent with property owners
and regulators, using the Brownfields Task Force
to involve the adjacent neighborhoods, and
documenting the process for replication at other
brownfidds. For more information, contact Larry
D'Andrea of U.S. EPA Region 2 in New York, NY,
at (212) 637-4314.
-------
Sacramento, CA - Activities planned as part of
this pilot include developing an automated land
use permitting process and monitoring system to
geographically overlay environmental informa-
tion onto land use maps to guide cleanup activities
and planning; targeting economic redevelopment
on brownfields; and developing a cooperative
process among federal, State, and local agencies
to involve the community in redevelopment and
ensure that local land use objectives are reflected
in cleanup activities. For more information, con-
tact Tom Mix of U.S. EPA Region 9 in San
Francisco, CA, at (415) 744-2378.
St. Louis, MO - Activities planned as part of the
St. Louis pilot include investigating the Dr. Martin
Luther King Business Park to characterize
environmental concerns;establishingandbuilding
a Brownfields Reinvestment Fund; working with
State agencies to implement the recently enacted
Abandoned Properly Reuse Act; and organizing
a voluntary Environmental Consultant Committee
to guide selection of cleanup criteria and
development of risk-based cleanup standards. In
addition, St. Louis will form a Citizens Advisory
Council to ensure community involvement in the
initiative, and will transfer knowledge gained
from the business park efforts to a Brownfields
Redevelopment Model for implementatipn at
other sites. For more information, contact Kerry
Hemdon of US. EPA Region 7 in Kansas City,
MO, at (913) 551-7286.
Stockton, CA - The goal of the Stockton pilot is to
encourage economic revitalization of the city's
waterfront, which has been designated a state
Enterprise Zone. Activities planned as part of the
pilot include identifying the sources and scope of
brownfields contamination; developing a
coordinated partnership that includes the
Waterfront Revival Task Force, residents,
community groups, businesses, and public
entities; developing a comprehensive environ-
mental plan; and partidpatingin California EPA's
Expedited Remedial Action Program to develop
and implement a remediation strategy. For more
information, contact Bobbie Kahan of U.S. EPA
Region 9 in San Francisco, CA, at (415) 744-2191.
Tacoma, WA - The goal of the Tacoma pilot is to
encourage economic growth and redevelopment
in the downtown core by addressing environmen-
tal contamination and liability issues. Activities
planned as part of this pilot include building on
existing community involvement activities
associated with an adjacent Superfund site;
creating partnerships among the city, public
development authority, community, and
developers; promoting incentives to assessment
and redevelopment; and developing a comprehen-
sive assessment, remediation, and redevelopment
process. The city will focus brownfields efforts on
sites within the Enterprise Community and
adjacent NPL site. For more information, contact
Lori Cohen of U.S. EPA Region 10 in Seattle, WA,
at (206) 553-6523.
• Trenton, NJ - Activities planned as part of the
Trenton pilot include establishing the Brownfields
Environmental Solutions for Trenton (BEST)
Advisory Council to advise the city on redevelop-
ment issues; identifying and performing site
investigations at key commercial/industrial
brownfields sites; raising public awareness of
possible issues at sites in residential areas; and
evaluating methods and options for encouraging
financial institutions to invest in key brownfields
sites and neighborhoods to prevent "brownlin-
ing." For more information, contact Larry
D'Andrea of U.S. EPA Region 2 in New York, NY,
at (212) 637-4314.
• West Central Municipal Conference, IL -
Activities planned as part of the WCMC pilot
include creating a "Rapid Response Team" to
provide timely expertise on brownfields redevel-
opment; establishing a Brownfields Prevention
Program to identify ongoing industrial activities
that pose a risk of creating new brownfields;
supporting redevelopment of at least two public
and two private brownfields land parcels; and
distributing information about the pilot to the
public. For more information, contact Bill
Hawbold of U.S. EPA Region 5 in Chicago, IL, at
(312) 353-3261.
• Worcester, MA - The goal of the Worcester pilot
is to create incentives for the redevelopment of
urban industrial sites and ensure the safety and
health of the surrounding neighborhoods.
Activities planned as part of this pilot include
developing a public input mechanism through
the creation of the Central Massachusetts
Brownfields Advisory Council, selecting and
assessing three priority pilot sites, and
investigating redevelopment financing options.
The city plans to prepare protocols for the
identification, analysis, selection, acquisition, and
disposition of brownfields sites. For more
information, contact John Podgurski of LLS. EPA
Region 1 in Boston, MA, at (617) 573-9681.
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (5101)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
-------
r
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication: EPA 500-F-96-011
June 1996
&EPA Brownfields Pilot -
Charlotte, NC
Office of Outreach and Special Projects (5101)
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative is designed to empower States, communities, and
other stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely
clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields. A brownfield is a site, or portion thereof, that has actual or
perceived contamination and an active potential for redevelopment or reuse. EPA plans to fund over fifty
Brownfields Pilots in 1995 and 1996, at up to $200,000 each, to support creative two-year explorations and
demonstrations of brownfields solutions. The Pilots are intended to provide EPA, States, Tribes, municipalities,
and communities with useful information and strategies as they continue to seek new methods to promote
a unified approach to site assessment, environmental cleanup, and redevelopment.
OVERVIEW
EPA has selected the City of Charlotte for a
Brownfields Pilot. Charlotte's South End, a
manufacturing and business center prior to' World
War n, contains many obsolete and abandoned
structures. The legacy of environmental
contamination has made redevelopment difficult.
The area has long been overshadowed by high-
density development in Uptown Charlotte, which is
adjacent to the South End. Nearly 27 percent of South
End residents live below the poverty line, and median
income is about half that of the city as a whole.
Developers are interested in the area, but
environmental concerns related to a wide variety of
sources are keeping them away. Nearby construction
of a convention center and a professional football
stadium has refocused attention to the area..
OBJECTIVES
The ultimate goal of Charlotte's brownfields project
is to use the South End as a working model for
redevelopment of brownfields throughout the
community. The model is intended to be a catalyst
for recruiting partners, removing liability and
financial barriers, and bringing the neighborhoods to
the table. Brownfield sites in the South End will be
selected based on their benefit to the community,
nature and extent of contamination, compatibility
with existing land use, redevelopment potential,
and project replicability.
ACTIVITIES
Activities planned as part of this pilot include:
• Selecting two to three sites in the South
End and define the extent of contamina-
tion at the sites through preliminary as-
sessments;
• Researching ownership and liability at the
target sites through existing data;
• Working with the cooperative partners
and EPA to define the assessment/
remediation process and appropriate levels
of cleanup;
• Working with banking/lending partners
to develop banking models that address
the liability and financial issues attached to
all brownfields redevelopment projects;
and
• Stimulating community involvement in the
redevelopment process through outreach
and educational programs.
-------
The cooperative agreement for this pilot has riot yet been
negotiated; therefore, activities described in this fact sheet
are subject to change.
CONTACTS
Matt Robbins
U.S. EPA - Region 4
(404) 347-5059, ext. 6214
Tom Warshauer
Economic Development Division
(704) 336-4522
Donna North
Economic Development Division
(704) 336-3955
-&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (5101)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication: EPA 500-F-96-003
June 1996
&EPA Brownfields Regional Pilots
Office of Outreach and Special Projects (5101)
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative is designed to empower States, communities, and
other stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely
clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields. A brownfield is a site, or portion thereof, that has actual or
perceived contamination, as well as an active potential for redevelopment or reuse. EPA plans to fund 60
Brownfields Pilots in 1995 and 1996, at up to $200,000 each, to support creative two-year explorations and
demonstrations of brownfields solutions. The Pilots are intended to provid e EPA, States, Tribes, municipalities,
and communities with useful information and strategies as they continue to seek new methods to promote
a unified approach to site assessment, environmental cleanup, and redevelopment.
OVERVIEW
EPA is awarding 60 brownfield pilot cooperative
agreements to States, cities, towns, counties, and
Tribes by the end of 1996. EPA is currently funding
twenty-eight "National" pilots selected by EPA
Headquarters, and 12 "Regional" pilots selected and
sponsored by EPA Regional offices. Twenty more
pilots were announced in June 1996 and their
cooperative agreements are being negotiated.
The brownfields pilots will test redevelopment
models, direct special efforts toward removing
regulatory barriers withoutsaoifidngprotectiveness,
and facilitate coordinated environmental cleanup
efforts at the Federal, State, and local levels. These
funds will be used to generate interest by pulling
together community groups, investors, lenders,
developers, and other affected parties to address the
issues of cleaning up sites contaminated with
hazardous substances and returning them to approp-
riate, productive use. The pilots will serve as vehicles
to explore a series of models for States and localities
struggling with such efforts.
Twelve Brownfields Regional Pilots are underway
and an additional nine* are being negotiated:
• Atlanta, GA* • Boston, MA
• Buffalo, NY • Camden, NJ*
• Clearwater, FL* • Dallas, TX
Duwamish, WA • East St. Louis, IL*
Illinois • Indiana
Miami, FL* • Minnesota
Northwest Indiana Cities
Philadelphia, PA • Pittsburgh, PA
Prichard, AL* • Provo, UT*
Sand Creek Corridor, CO
San Francisco, CA* • Shreveport, LA*
West Jordan, UT
Please refer to the supplemental EPA fact sheet on
each pilot project for more specific information.
AcnvrnES
FoUowJngisasurnrnaryofeachofthel9Brownfields
Regional Pilots that are underway or are being
negotiated:
• Atlanta, GA-U.S.EPARegion4has selected the
City of Atlanta for a Regional Brownfields Pilot
Atlanta has established its own Empowerment
Zone (EZ) of 30 neighborhoods (population
50,000) and created the Atlanta Empowerment
Zone Corporation to implement their EZ plans.
Atlanta's overall goals are to inventory
brownfields within the Empowerment Zone,
encourage industry involvement in brownfields
redevelopment, provide environmental justice
planning, develop sustainable communities.
-------
Activities planned as part of this pilot include
undertaking a minimum of three Level I and one
Level II environmental audits, building a
brownfields inventory database, producing a site
identification brochure that will be the beginning
of an aggressive public communications strategy
and demonstration project, developing remedia-
tion processes, and creating a central oversight
process for reviewing technical elements of site
remediation. For more information contact Matt
Robbins of U.S. EPA Region 4 in Atlanta, GA, at
(404) 347-5059,. exL 6212.
• Boston,MA-U.S.EPARegion2awarded$200,000
to the City of Boston to fund activities that include:
developing a model to identify, map, and gather
information on brownfields in the Dudley Street
Neighborhood (DSN), the principal business
centerforBoston'sAfrican-Americancomrnunity;
developing a community outreach and education
program; and investigating ways to secure
additional cleanup funding, engage in cost
recovery litigation, and promote environmental
compliance assurance. For more information
contact Lynn Jennings of U.S. EPA Region 1 in
Boston, MA, at (617) 573-9634.
• Buffalo, NY - U.S. EPA Region 2 awarded the
City of Buffalo $200,000 to fund the Buffalo
Brownfields Project. Activities planned under
thispilotinclude inventorying and characterizing
the city's brownfields; finalizing development
strategies for two to five brownfields redevelop-
ment projects based on community vision,
economic development potential, and health and
environmental concerns. Additionally, the pilot
isfundingaBrownfieldsCommunityCoordinator
to conduct environmental justice and community
outreachactivities targeted tospedficbrownfields
sites; and is supporting a Brownfields Planner to
oversee overall program integrity, work with the
Buffalo Brownfields Task Force, develop
techniques for brownfields development, and
encourage developers interested in brownfields
to assess sites. For more information contact
Walter Schoepf of U.S. EPA Region 2 in New
York, NY, at (212) 637-4319.
* Camden, NJ-U.S. EPA Region 2 has selected the
City of Camden for a Regional Brownfields Pilot.
Camden is the fifth largest and the most
economically distressed city in New Jersey, with
a predominantly minority population, a high
unemployment rate, and a one in three poverty
rate. Manufacturing and related land use account
for a third of Camden's nine square miles, and
brownfields constitute more than half of all
industrial sites in the city. The goal of Camden's
brownfields program is to develop an effective
strategy for assessment, cleanup, and reuse of
Camden's brownfields. The city proposes a
comprehensive approach that will integrate
technical, community, government, andfinancial
resources. For more information contact Larry
D'Andrea of U.S. EPA Region 2 in New York,
NY, at (212) 637-4314.
• Clearwater,FL-U.S. EPA Region 4 has selected
the City of Clearwater for a Regional Brownfields
Pilot. Clearwater's brownfields problem stems
from a former lake, filled in as part of urban
development 40 years ago. Businesses and
residences built on the site are being abandoned
due to state regulations mandating property set-
asides for stormwater attenuation. The area is a
state-designated Enterprise Zone. Clearwater's
goal is to instill environmental justice by
completing site characterizations, offering
economic incentives, and creating job opportun-
ities. The University of South Florida, a brown-
fields partner, will prepare a flow-of-ownership
plan with a novel approach to encourage inves-
tment and residential support. For more
information contact Matt Robbins of U.S. EPA
Region 4 in Atlanta, GA, at (404) 347-5059, ext.
6212.
• Dallas, TX-U.S. EPA Region 6 awarded Dallas
$200,000 to fund brownfields activities that
include obtaining the assistance of anEPA official
through an Intergovernmental Personnel Act
(EPA) assignment; organizing the Brownfields
Initiative program and establishing criteria to
select sites for evaluation; proposing funding for
apermanentstaff person to assumemanagement
of the Brownfields Initiative program; holding
community meetings to obtain input from
neighborhood associations, real estate develop-
ers, the financial community, chambers of
commerce, and interested business associations
regarding site selection and potential
redevelopment; and providing public resources
to businesses wishingto relocate toaredeveloped
brownfields site. For. more information contact
Stan Hitt of U.S. EPA Region 6 in Dallas, TX, at
(214) 665-6735.
-------
'Funding for this pilot is made possible by
combining funds with other Superfund resources.
'%', --
Northwest Indiana Cities - U.S. EPA Region 5
has selected the Cities of Gary, East Chicago, and
Hammond, Indiana (known as Northwest
Indiana), for a Regional Brownfields Pilot in
partnership with EPA's Common Sense Initiative
(CSI) Iron and Steel Sector Brownfields
Workgroup. The pilot will conform to the Sector's
"Brownfields Guiding Principles" to address
assessment and redevelopment issues unique to
the iron arid steel industries. The cities' goals
include identifying and removing threats to health
and safety, restoring brownfields to productive
use, and creating sustainable economic growth.
Activities planned as part of this pilot include
conducting site assessments of candidate
properties, identifying current and past owners,
obtaining technical expertise to evaluate existing
remediation legal authorities, and development
of remediation plans. To accomplish these goals
the cities plan to select three iron and steel
brownfields sites to serve as pilots. For more
information contact Ted Smith of U.S. EPA Region
5 in Chicago, IL, at (312) 353-6571.
Philadelphia, PA - U.S. EPA Region 3 awarded
the Philadelphia City Planning Commission
(PCPC) $200,000 to select ten sites and hire a
contractor to perform environmental assessments
at these sites. The contractor will also create a
formal environmental site assessment review
process by establishing an interagency
Environmental Audit Review (EAR) team. In
addition, PCPC will market the selected sites, and
a city-wide EAR procedure will be established
upon completion of the pilot program. For more
infonnationcontactTomStolle of U.S. EPARegion
3 in Philadelphia, PA, at (215) 597-1166.
• Pittsburgh, PA - U.S. EPA Region 3 awarded the
City of Pittsburgh $200,000 to fund activities
including creating an inventory of sites with de-
velopment potential; identifying environmental
problems, remediation alternatives, and associ-
ated costs; exploring market reuse options; and
using financial incentives to stimulate site assess-
ment, cleanup, and redevelopment. For more
information contact Tom Stolle of U.S. EPA Re-
gion 3 in Philadelphia, PA, at (215) 597-1166.
• Prichard, AL - U.S. EPA Region 4 has selected the
City of Prichard for a Regional Brownfields Pilot
The most economically disadvantaged commun-
ity in the State, Pritchard suffers from an eroding
tax.base/ industrial and residential migration to
nearby Mobile, and contamination from organic
pollutants in its water supply. Pilchard's objectives
include creating a technical assistance team to
develop remediation plans, creating an
educational consortium and clearinghouse, and
developing a comprehensive environmental plan.
Prichard will use its status as a state Enterprise
Zone to offer tax 'incentives to encourage
redevelopment and cleanup. For more informa-
tion contact Matt Robbins of U.S. EPA Region 4 in
Dallas, TX, at (404) 347-5059, ext. 6212.
• Provo, UT - U.S. EPA Region 8 has selected the
Provo City Ironton Economic Redevelopment
Project for a Regional Brownfields Pilot The
project is the site of a former steel mill that
constitutes the largest tract of undeveloped and
non-utilized property in the city. Redevelopment
of the former steel mill site and surrounding
property has been blocked by the concerns over
contamination and liability. The objective of the
project is to create an environmentally sensitive
development and address environmental justice
concerns for the surrounding community.
Redevelopment of the site will provide employ-
ment opportunities for the community, increase
surrounding property values, and increase the
city's tax base. For more information contact
David Ostrander of U.S. EPA Region 8 in Denver,
CO, at (303) 312-6931.
• Sand Creek Corridor, CO - U.S. EPA Region 8
awarded $200,000 to the State of Colorado to fund
the sand Creek Corridor pilot. Activities planned
under' this pilot include identifying barriers to
redevelopment resulting from liability concerns;
ensuring that pilot project activities complement
local development objectives; holding educational
seminars for business stakeholders to provide
accurate information about the sites in order to
encourage their redevelopment; and creating a
"SWAT" team as a point of contact for community
and business representatives with brownfields
concerns. For more information contact Kelcey
Land of U.S. EPA Region 8 in Denver, CO, at (303)
294-7639.
• San Francisco, CA - U.S. EPA Region 9 has
selected the City of San Francisco, CA, for a
Regional Brownfields Pilot. The city's goal is to
build a model for redevelopment of the South
-------
• Duwamish,WA-U.S. EPA Region 10, with co-
funding from EPA's Office of Underground
Storage Tanks, awarded $200,000 to the
Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) to
fundtheDuwamishpilot. This pilot is backed by
theDuwamish Coalition, a group of commercial,
environmental,and community representatives.
Activities planned as part of this pilot include
developing a decision-tree methodology as a
model for risk evaluation and remedy selection,
which will be incorporated into a new WDOE
guidance document for contaminated sites; and
. evaluating fate and transport, teachability tests
of contaminated soils, and adaptation of national
efforts regarding risk-based corrective action
guidance. For more information contact Nancy
Hamey of U.S. EPA Region 10 in Seattle, WA, at
(206) 553-6635.
• East St. Louis, IL - U.S. EPA Region 5 has
selected the City of East St. Louis for a Regional
Brownfields Pilot. The communities include
Alorton, Brooklyn, Cahokia, East St. Louis,
National City, Sauget, Washington Park,
Madison, and Venice. The goal of the East St.
Louis pilot is to develop a sustainable secondary
materialsmanufacturing district on former Alcoa
Aluminum site on 220 acres in a predominantly
minority area. Activities planned for the pilot
include establishing an Advisory Committee;
conducting title searches and research; creating
andemployingageographicinformationsystem;
transaction screening of sites; and preparing
reports and presentations. For more information
contact Mary Beth Tuohy of U.S. EPA Region 5
in Chicago, IL, at (312) 886-7596.
• minois-tLS.EPARegion5awarded$150,OOOto
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) to fund environmental assessments now
underway at eight to ten bro wnfields in Chicago
and East St. Louis. In addition, EPA has been
granted the use of a mobile lab to facilitate
testing at these sites. The IEPA anticipates that
City of Chicago officials will be involved in
facilitating prospective purchaser agreements
and redevelopment efforts and will serve as the
focalpoint for communications with prospective
purchasers at these sites. The City of Chicago is
also considering developing a database that will
track the results of environmental site
• assessments conducted throughout the city. For
more information contact Joe Cisneros of U.S.
EPA Region 5 in Chicago, IL, at (312) 886-6945.
• Indiana - U.S. EPA Region 5 awarded $150,000 to
the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) to fund environmental
assessments of approximately ten brownfields in
Indianapolis and the communities of Gary,
Hammond, and East Chicago. IDEM selected
several of the sites for assessment during the
summer of 1995, and is currently assessing many
of these sites. EPA Region 5 has loaned the pilot
a mobile van for field testing. City and State
officials will facilitate prospective purchaser
agreements and redevelopment efforts. IDEM
anticipates that increased information on these
sites will make themmore attractive to prospective<
buyers. For more information contact Joe Dufficy
of US. EPA Region 5 in Chicago, IL, at (312) 886-
1960.
• Miami, FL - U.S. EPA Region 4 has selected the
City of Miami for a Regional Brownfields Pilot
Miami has identified a number of potential
brownfields in the distressed Wynwood
neighborhood, where business is over 40 percent
light industry and warehousing. Wynwood, a
state-designated Enterprise Zone, suffers from
environmental contamination from leaking
underground tanks, sewers, and industrial
chemicals. Miami's goal is to assess potential
brownfields and empower residents to participate
frilly jn redevelopment planning. Miami will
conduct a brownfields audit, involve the city's
Neighborhood Enhancement Teams in commun-
ity involvement, and identify strategies to
overcome obstacles and devise incentives for
local investment For more information contact
Matt Robbins of U.S. EPA Region 4 in'Atlanta,
GA, at (404) 347-5059, ext. 6212.
« Minnesota - U.S. EPA Region 5 awarded the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
$255,000* to fund its Voluntary Cleanup Program
(VCP). To date, MPCA has targeted owners of 32
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Information System
(CERCUS) sites to participate in the program.
Remediation at one site is almost complete and is
nearing completion at several other sites. MPCA
anticipates that remediation at 10-15 sites will be
completed by the spring of 1997. Cost recovery
actions have been initiated for the resources
expended in the review and oversight of VCPs.
For more information contact Joe Duf ficy of U.S.
EPA Region 5 in Chicago, IL, at (312) 886-1960.
-------
Bayshore community based upon the lessons
learned from the closing of the adjacent Hunters
Point Naval Shipyard and other military bases.
The city will use a risk management model based
on the innovative California regulatory Non-
Attainment Zone policy. Activities planned under
this pilot include identifying potential exposure
pathways, denning acceptable residual levels of
contamination based on proposed zoning and
land use, developing a Risk Management Plan,
and conducting a community involvement
program to address environmental concerns
related to land use> zoning, economic
development, and environmental justice. For
more information contact Bobbie Kahan of U.S.
EPA Region 9 in San Francisco, CA, at (415) 744-
2191.
Shreveport, LA - U.S. EPA Region 6 has selected
the City of Shreveport, LA for a Regional
Brownfields Pilot. The goal of the city's brown-
fields program is to increase the economic and
environmental viability of Shreveport's urban
core neighborhoods. Shreveport's urban core has
been selected for the federal National Perfor-
mance Review program, to demonstrate a
comprehensive strategy for enhancing delivery
of federal support to troubled neighborhoods.
Activities planned under this pilot include
developing an inventory of city brownfields and
criteria for ranking site redevelopment potential,
conducting Phase I site assessments, exploring
redevelopment options, educating the community
about brownfields problems and opportunities,
and providing a forum to develop community
based strategies for long-term redevelopment.
For more information contact Stan Hitt of US.
EPA Region 6 in Dallas, TX, at (214) 665-6736.
• West Jordan, UT - U.S. EPA Region 8 awarded
the City of West Jordan 5200,000 to begin the
detailed planning required to reverse the stigma
of developing brownfields. Through cooperative
partnerships with county, State and Federal
agencies, business, and industry. West Jordan
intends to leverage brownfields funds to
redevelop former industrial properties to create
a "high-image" business and industrial park along
the Jordan River Parkway Corridor. This effort
is seen as an initial step in revitalizing the city's
central core, which suffers from heavy
industrialization and declining residential and
commercial uses. For more information contact
Kelcey Land of U.S. EPA Region 8 in Denver, CO,
at (303) 294-7639.
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (5101)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty (or Private Use
$300
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication: EPA 500-F-96-016
June 1996
&EPA Brownfields Regional Pilot -
Atlanta, GA
Office of Outreach and Special Projects (5101)
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative is designed to empower States, communities, and
other stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely
clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields. A brownfield is a site, or portion thereof, that has actual or
perceived contamination and an active potential for redevelopment or reuse. EPA plans to fund over fifty
Brownfields Pilots in 1995 and 1996, at up to $200,000 each, to support creative two-year explorations and
demonstrations of brownfields solutions. The Pilots are intended to provide EPA, States,Tribes, municipalities,
and communities with useful information and strategies as they continue to seek new methods to promote
a unified approach to site assessment, environmental cleanup, and redevelopment.
OVERVIEW
EPA Region 4 has selected the City of Atlanta for a
Regional Brownfields Pilot, to be funded up to
$100,000. Industrial and residential areas are mixed
throughout Atlanta's urban core, withlarge industries
surrounded by small, single-family homes and public
housing projects. The city has established their own
EmpowermentZone of 30neighborhoods (population
50,000) and the Atlanta Empowerment Zone
Corporation to implement their plans. Atlanta has
identified 10 verified and 36 potential brownfields in
the Empowerment Zone that may be contaminated
with a number of toxic pollutants. Several areas
contain vacant and abandoned warehouses that have
become dumping grounds for waste and toxic
chemicals. Ninety percent of the population is African-
American, and most are below the poverty line. One
study has shown that 83 percent of the city's toxic
sites are locatedinAfrican-Americanneighborhoods.-
OBJECTIVES
Atlanta's overall goals are to: 1) inventory brown-
fields within the Empowerment Zone; 2) develop
financing tools to encourage industry involvement in
brownfields redevelopment; 3) provide environ-
mental justice planning to develop sustainable
communities; and 4) build a cohesive brownfield
redevelopment strategy and project management
capacity.
AcnvmEs
Activities planned as part of this pilot include:
• Undertaking a minimum of three Level I
and one Level n environmental audits;
• Building a brownfields inventory database;
• Producing a site identification brochure
that will be the beginning of an aggressive
public communications strategy and dem-
onstration project;
• Developingremediationprocessesandcost
analyses;
• Creating a central oversight process for
reviewing technical elements of site
remediation, including legal and insurance
liability risks; and
• Involving community partners including
Clark Atlanta University and neighbor-
hood planning boards in organising work-
shops, community meetings, and outreach
efforts.
The cooperative agreement for this pilot has not yet been
negotiated; therefore, activities described in this fact
sheet are subject to change.
-------
CONTACTS
Matt Bobbins
U.S. EPA - Region 4
(404) 347-5059, ext 6212
Leon Eplan
Department of Planning and Development
(404) 330-6145
S-EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (5101)
Washington. DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication: EPA 500-F-96-018
June 1996
Brownfields Regional Pilot -
Clearwater,, FL
Office of Outreach and Special Projects (5101)
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative is designed to empower States, communities, and
other stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely
dean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields. A brownfield is a site, or portion thereof, that has actual or
perceived contamination and an active potential for redevelopment or reuse. EPA plans to fund over fifty
Brownfields Pilots in 1995 and 1996, at up to 5200,000 each, to support creative two-year explorations and
demonstrations of brownfields solutions. The Pilots are intended to provide EPA, States, Tribes, municipalities,
and communities with useful information and strategies as they continue to seek new methods to promote
a unified approach to site assessment, environmental cleanup, and redevelopment.
OVERVIEW
EPA Region 4 has selected the City of Clearwater for
a Regional Brownfields Pilot to be funded up to
$100,000. Clearwater's brownfields problem stems
from a former lake, filled in as part of urban
development 40 years ago. A conglomeration of
small industrial, commercial, and mixed-use
enterprises and residences eventually built on the
fill. This area has now been described as the "collective
brownfields area" (CBA). Clearwater attributes the
business exodus from the CBA to state environmental
regulations mandating property set-asides for
stonnwater attenuation. The CBA, representing only
10 percent of the population, has accounted for 50
percent of the city's crime; more than 33 percent of
the residents live below the poverty line, and
minorities comprise 40-94 percent of the neigh-
borhoods. The CBA is a state-designated Enterprise
Zone.
OBJECTIVES
The overall goal of Clearwater's brownfields pro-
gram is to instill environmental justice in the CBA by
completing site characterizations, offering economic
redevelopment incentives, and creating job
.opportunities. By environmentally preparing CBA
properties for redevelopment and resolving water
quality issues, the city and local community groups
will be able to plan-for expansion of businesses in
the CBA, invite a diversity of prospective investors,
and create solid job opportunities for unemployed
and low-to-moderate income residents. It is
expected that such business activities will assist the
community.
ACTIVITIES
Activities planned as part of this pilot include:
« Completingenvironmentalsiteassessments
in the CBA;
• Building cooperative partnerships with
organizations such as the Private Industry
Council, to involve local businesses and
community residents in decision making;
• Establishing a revolving fund for site
assessment at properties targeted for
redevelopment; and
• Managing investor liability by employing
the University of South Florida to prepare
a flow-of-ownership plan for the CBA that
will include an innovative approach to
encourage businesses tomoveintothe CBA,
property transfer/liability protection, and
residential support.
-------
The cooperative agreement for this pilot has not yet been
negotiated; therefore, activities described in this fact sheet
are subject to change."
CONTACTS
Matt Robbins
U.S. EPA - Region 4
(404) 347-5059, ext 6212
Alan Fern, Director
Department of Economic Development
(813) 462-6882
S-EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (5101)
Washington. DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication: EPA 500-F-96-019
June 1996
&EPA Brownfields Regional Pilot
Miami,, FL
Office of Outreach and Special Projects (5101)
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative is designed to empower States, communities, and
other stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely
clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields. A brownfield is a site, or portion thereof, that has actual or
perceived contamination and an active potential for redevelopment or reuse. EPA plans to fund over fifty
Brownfields Pilots in 1995 and 1996, at up to $200,000 each, to support creative two-year explorations and
demonstrations of brownfields solutions. The Pilots are intended to provide EPA, States, Tribes, municipalities,
and communities with useful information and strategies as they continue to seek new methods to promote
a unified approach to site assessment, environmental cleanup, and redevelopment.
OVERVIEW
EPA Region 4 has selected the City of Miami for a
Regional Brownfields Pilot to be funded up to
5100,000. Miami has identified a number a potential
brownfields in the economically distressed Wynwood
neighborhood (population 15,500), where business is
over 40 percent light industry, warehousing, and
commercial. Available information indicates that
soil contamination in Wynwood is primarily from
underground storage tanks, sewer pipes, and
industrial chemicals. Wynwood includes a state
Enterprise Zone (EZ) and the Miami-Metro Dade
Enterprise Community. Wynwood's poverty rate is
51 percent, exceeding the rest of Miami by about 20
percent Wynwood residents are 62 percent Hispanic
and 32 percent African-American. Of eight known
contaminated sites, a five to six acre site will be
selected for the brownfields pilot.
OBJECTIVES
Miami's overall brownfields goal is to redevelop
brownfields in Wynwood. The city will begin by
assessing potential brownfields, and this will be
followed by empowering residents to fully participate
in decision making and planning for redevelopment
of any selected site through town hall meetings and
city service centers. The empowerment is supported
by the new Department of Community Planning and
Revitalization. The newly restructured city govern-
ment will place greater emphasis on the role of the
city's Neighborhood Enhancement Teams, which
include planners and other city staff familiar with
the dynamics of the neighborhoods they serve.
AcnvmES
Activities planned as part of this pilot include:
• Conducting a brownfields audit, including
analysis of preliminary data, site visits,
mapping of sites, testing for pollutants,
and reviewing titles;
• Empowering the community to participate
in redevelopment planning through town
hallmeetings, community decision-making
charettes, and distribution of information
on brownfields projects; and
• Preparing brownfields conversion plans,
including identification of strategies to
overcome obstacles to redevelopment, pre-
sentation of incentives to encourage local
investment, and preparation of environ-
mental restoration plans.
The cooperative agreement for this pilot has not yet been
negotiated; therefore, activities described in this fact
sheet are subject to change.
-------
CONTACTS
Matt Robbins
U.S. EPA - Region 4
(404) 347-5059, ext 6212
Jack Luf t, Director
Community Planning and Revitalization
(305) 416-1418
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (5101)
Washington. DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
S300
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication: EPA 500-F-96-020
June 1996
&EPA Brownfields Regional Pilot -
Prichard,, AL
Office of Outreach and Special Projects (5101)
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative is designed to empower States, communities, and
other stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely
clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields. A brownfield is a site, or portion thereof, that has actual or
perceived contamination and an active potential for redevelopment or reuse. EPA plans to fund over fifty
Brownfields Pilots in 1995 and 1996, at up to 5200,000 each, to support creative two-year explorations and
demonstrations of brownfields solutions. The Pilots are intended to provide EPA, States, Tribes, municipalities,
and communities with useful information and strategies as they continue to seek new methods to promote
a unified approach to site assessment, environmental cleanup, and redevelopment.
OVERVIEW
EPA Region 4 has selected the City of Prichard for a
Regional Brownfields Pilot'in to be funded up to
5100,000. Prichard (population 34,311) is located in
south Alabama, adjacent to the City of Mobile. The
city is divided into three areas: Whistler, Eight Mile,
and East Prichard. Annexation of several areas by
Mobile, including river front property, has eroded
Prichard's tax base. Prichard is the most economically
depressed city in the state, and has been designated
an Enterprise Zone (EZ) by the State of Alabama.
Minorities account for nearly 80 percent of the city's
population. Environmental assessments of a Whistler
site located one mile from the city's drinking water
supply found volatile organic carbons and semivola-
tile organic carbon contamination in soils. The com-
bination of potential environmental hazards, general
deterioration, and the social environment has
significantly slowed development in Prichard.
OBJECTIVES
The overall goal of Prichard's brownfields program
is to prepare for reuse of vacant and under-used sites
and buildings. Objectives include creation of a
technical assistance team to develop remediation
plans; creation of an educational consortium;
development of a public/private partnership;
development of a comprehensive environmental plan;
andestablishrrtentofanenvironrnentalclearinghouse.
Prichard will use its status as a state EZ, including
tax and non-tax incentives, to encourage cleanup
and redevelopment
ACTIVITIES
Activities planned as part of this pilot include:
• Developing a comprehensive environ-
mental/redevelopment plan for the
Prichard area;
• Creating an environmental clearinghouse
to serve the local area;
• Coordinating community involvement and
involving environmental justice communi-
ties in all phases of the project through the
city's neighborhood association program;
• Funding technical assistance for identify-
ing site-specific problems;
• Using public/private partnerships to con-
tribute environmental research, experimen-
tation, and analyses to the project; and
• Conducting educational programs for the
community, local businesses, lenders,
investors, and developers.
-------
The cooperative agreement for this pilot has not yet been
negotiated; therefore, activities described in this fact sheet
are subject to change.
CONTACTS
Matt Robbins
U.S. EPA - Region 4
(404) 347-5059, ext 6212
Clyde Chatman
Alabama Department of Economic and
Community Affairs
(334) 242-5504
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (5101)
Washington. DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
S300
-------
APPENDIX C
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATION
CONTRACTS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST TO VENDORS
OF INNOVATIVE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGDSS
-------
-------
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND REMEDIATION
CONTRACTS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST TO VENDORS
OF INNOVATIVE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
The typical vendor of innovative technologies will act as a subcontractor on larger prime contracts,
providing the specialized expertise and technology they sell. Listed below are some of the major Federal
contract vehicles that are used to perform remediation. Included are contracts let by EPA, the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), and the Air Force. Where
available, the name and address of the prime contractor is provided below. Based on discussions with the
various prime contractors, information is provided regarding the marketing approach each company
prefers.
Alternative Remedial Contract Strategy (ARCS). This is an EPA regional contract vehicle that is used
to investigate and clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites. It is used to support remedial investigations,
feasibility studies, remedial alternative evaluation and design, construction management, and other
activities. Vendors can contact the EPA Region 4 office for information about the vehicle.
Super-fund Technical Assistance and Response Team (START). This, too, is a regional vehicle that
supports the investigation and cleanup of abandoned hazardous waste sites. Vendors can contact the EPA
Region 4 office for information on the contract.
In Region 4, EPA has awarded the START contract to PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
Opportunities for the application of innovative technologies may be available through this contract.
Vendors may forward information to:
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
Marquis Two Tower
Peachtree Center Avenue, Suite 900
Atlanta, GA 30303
Attn: Steve Pierce
Technical Support to the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program. This is a
national contract designed to help in the testing and development of innovative technologies. There are
two programs: the emerging technologies program, which funds vendors in small-scale tests, and the
technology demonstration program, which funds full-scale technology evaluations and expects vendors to
C-l
-------
share costs. Vendors are encouraged to apply to the SITE Program at the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) of EPA's Office of Research and Development in Cincinnati,
Ohio. The address for both program offices and contact name and phone numbers appear below.
EPA Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Emerging Technology Program
Randy Parker, Norma Lewis
(513) 569-7665
Demonstration Program
Annette Gatchette
(513) 569-7697
Total Environmental Restoration Contracts (TERC). These vehicles are managed by the operating
divisions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). As the name suggests, the intent is to provide
complete remediation services. TERC services cover all phases of remediation, from preliminary
assessment/site investigation to operation and maintenance. Any U.S. Army installation may use the
vehicle! EPA also may obtain TERC services through USAGE. Refer to the attached EPA fact sheet that
describes the use of USAGE preplaced contracts.
The USAGE Omaha District has awarded a TERC contract to IT Corporation, which provides a vehicle for
investigation and remedial work to be done predominantly on Air Force bases in Georgia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Virginia. IT Corporation accepts information from vendors and based on a
preliminary review of the technology type, responds by sending vendors a pre-qualification package for
approved vendor listing. Information should be sent to:
IT Corporation
312 Directors Drive
Knoxville,TN 37923
Attn: Dan Duncan
C-2
-------
Technical Support to the Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy (CLEAN). This
vehicle is managed by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFACENGCOM) Field Divisions.
It provides engineering and technical support for all aspects of the Navy's environmental program,
including remedial action.
In Region 4, the Atlantic Division (LANTDIV) in Norfolk, Virginia, has awarded a CLEAN contract to
EN - Safe, ABB Environmental, and Brown and Root.
The Southern Division (SOUTHDIV) in Charleston, South Carolina, has awarded a CLEAN contract to
Brown & Root Environmental. Opportunities for the application of innovative technologies may be
available through this contract.
These contracts represent some of the major vehicles available that support remediation work and therefore
can use innovative technologies. Since most of the contracts are regional, vendors may wish to identify the
prime contractor in the region of interest to present the capabilities of their technologies.
C-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
REFERENCES
-------
-------
REFERENCES
Agency Information Consultants. 1995. State "Superfund" databases for Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. May.
Baker, Keith L., William A. Erie, Scott J. Parkinson, Financial Issues for the Contracts Professional,
National Contract Management Association in connection with the National Contract Management
Association National Education Seminar series. 1993.
Commerce Clearing House, Incorporated. 1986. Armed Services Pricing Manual, Volume I - Contract
Pricing. Chicago, Illinois.
Commerce Clearing House, Incorporated. 1987. Armed Services Pricing Manual, Volume n - Price
Analysis. Chicago, Illinois.
Commerce Clearing House, Incorporated. 1994. Federal Acquisition Regulation. Chicago, Illinois.
Department of Defense (DoD). 1995. Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to
Congress for Fiscal Year 1994. March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Office of Program Management. Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System database. May.
EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Office of Program Management. 1995. Responsive
Electronic Link Access Interface (RELAI) database. May.
EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 1995. National Priorities List Site Summaries. May.
EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). 1993. Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste
Sites: Markets and Technology Trends. April.
EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Communications, Analysis and Budget Division, Information Management
Branch Resource Conservation Recovery Information System Regional Oversight Database. 1995.
May.
EPA. Office of Underground Storage Tanks. 1991. National Survey of Underground Storage Tanks.
Spring.
EPA, Office of Underground Storage Tanks. 1992. TC [Toxicity Characteristic] Study of Petroleum
Contaminated Media, Draft. July.
EPA OSWER Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office in conjunction with the
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1995. LandView n database.
EPA OSWER Technology Innovation Office. 1994. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status
Report (Sixth Edition). September.
D-l
-------
EPAOSWER. 1994. An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study. 1993 Update.
September.
EPA OSWER. 1995. Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System, Regional Oversight
database for Region 4. May.
Nash, Jr. Ralph C. and John Cibinic, Jr. Federal Procurement Law, Volume I. The George Washington
University, Washington, D.C. 1977.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR), Division of Solid
Waste Management, Superfund Section. 1995. Annual Report to the North Carolina General
Assembly. February.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding Release Reporting System. Between Rachel
Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Bob Padgett, Division of Waste Management, Kentucky
Department for Environmental Protection. May 17.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding Hazardous Sites Inventory Database. Between
Rachel Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Cindy Wilbanks, Superfund Branch, Georgia
Environmental Protection Division. May 17.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding State Underground Storage Tank Tracking
Database. Between Rachel Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Kathy Scott, Underground
Storage Tank Program, Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection. May 17.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding State RCRIS Database System. Between Rachel
Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Mike Welch, RCRA Branch, Kentucky Department for
Environmental Protection. May 17.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding State RCRIS Database System. Between Rachel
Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Gigi Steele, Hazardous Waste Branch, Georgia
Environmental Protection Division. May 17.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding Legal Case Tracking Database. Between Rachel
Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Francie Stoutmeyer, Hazardous Waste Branch, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. May 17.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding State Superfund Data Management System.
Between Rachel Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Russell Smith, Superfund Branch,
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. May 18.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding Petroleum Contamination Tracking System.
Between Rachel Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Carol Karnely, Underground Storage Tank
Program, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. May 18.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding RCRIS Database System. Between Rachel
Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Steve Mauer, Land Division, Alabama Department of
Environmental Management. May 18.
D-2
-------
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Requesting Electronic Copy of Release Reporting System
Database. Between Rachel Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Bill Burger, Kentucky
Department for Environmental Protection. May 18.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding the Incident Management Database. Between
Rachel Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Fay Sweat, Groundwater Section, North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. May 18.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding State RCRIS Database System. Between Rachel
Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Jim Edwards, RCRA Branch, North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. May 18.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding the Inactive Hazardous Sites Database. Between
Rachel Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Charlotte Jesneck, Superfund Program, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. May 18.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding State RCRIS Database System. Between Rachel
Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Mario Baroni, Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality. May 18.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
Data Tracking System. Between Rachel Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Martha martin,
Underground Storage Tank Branch, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. May 18.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding State RCRIS Database System. Between Rachel
Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and John Litton, RCRA Permitting Section, South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control. May 22.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding South Carolina Superfund Annual Report.
Between Rachel Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Keith Lindler, Superfund Division
Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. May 22.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding Underground Storage Tank Site Tracking
Program. Between Rachel Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Rao Probhaker, Underground
Storage Tank Program, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. May 23.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding South Carolina Groundwater Contamination
Inventory. Between Rachel Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Jim Hess, Underground Storage
Tank Program, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. May 23.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding Superfund Data Tracking System. Between
Rachel Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and David Randolph, Division of Superfund, Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation. May 23.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding State Superfund Database System. Between
Rachel Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Dan Cooper, Special Projects Branch, Alabama
Department of Environmental Management. May 25.
D-3
-------
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding RCRIS Database System. Between Rachel
Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Mike Redig, RCRA Compliance Section, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. May 25.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Requesting Electronic Copy of State Superfund Database.
Between Rachel Cochran, Environmental Scientist, and Mike McCary, Superfund Program,
Alabama Department of Environmental Management. June 1.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding North Carolina Environmental Program
Structure. Between Cecile Batchelor, Analyst, and Lori Zemple, Office of Public Affairs, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. July 19.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding North Carolina State Superfund Program.
Between Cecile Batchelor, Analyst, and Pat Williamson, Office of Solid Waste Management,
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. July 19.
PRC. 1995. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding Tennessee State Superfund Program. Between
Pat White, Policy Analyst, and Frank Gibbs, Tennessee Department of Superfund, Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation. July 24.
PRC. 1996. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding U.S. EPA Region 4 UST Program Between
Pat White, Policy Analyst, and John Mason, U.S. EPA Region 4. August 5.
PRC. 1996. Record of Telephone Conversations Regarding Florida Environmental Program Structure and
Participation in RCRA Corrective Action Program Between Pat White, Policy Analyst, and
Shelton Graves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. August 6.
PRC. 1996. Record of Telephone Conversation Regarding Georgia Hazardous Waste Sites Between Pat
White, Policy Analyst, and Steve Woodall, Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 1996. Hazardous Site Inventory. July.
D-4
------- |