_ ___•••••
-------
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools in
the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Prepared for
U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office
under a National Network of Environmental Management Studies Fellowship
by
Brian Pietruszewski
Compiled May - July 1999
-------
Notice
A National Network for Environmental Management Studies grantee under a fellowship prepared this
document for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report was not subject to EPA peer
review or technical review. The U.S. EPA makes no warranties, expressed or implied, including
without limitation, warranty for completeness, accuracy, or usefulness of the information, warranties
as to the merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose. Moreover, the listing of any technology,
corporation, company, person, or facility in this report does not constitute endorsement, approval, or
recommendation by the U.S. EPA.
About the National Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS)
NNEMS is a comprehensive fellowship program managed by the Environmental Education Division of
EPA. The purpose of the NNEMS Program is to provide students with practical research opportunities
and experiences.
NNEMS fellows receive a stipend determined by the student's level of education and the duration of the
research project. Fellowships are offered to undergraduate and graduate students. Students must meet
certain eligibility criteria.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to those contacts who provided information from agencies and organizations around the
nation. I would particularly like to thank my project officer, Mr. Carlos Pachon, as well as Mr. Dan
Powell, Mr. Kelly Madalinski, and Mr. Jeff Heimerman, all from the EPA's Technology Innovation
Office in Arlington, VA. Particularly helpful and persistent professional staff included Ms. Monica Smith
of EPA Region 6, Ms. Susan Sandells of Michigan DEQ, Mr. Kent Kitchingman of EPA Region 9, Mr.
Tom Mix of EPA Region 9, the EPA Region 5 Brownfields team, Ms. Barbara Dick of EPA Region 4,
and Ms. Debi Morey of EPA Region 7.
Obtaining electronic copies of this report
This report was designed to be viewed electronically due to its extensive use of hyperlinks. A complete
electronic copy of this report is available from the Hazardous Waste Clean-Up Information Internet site
(http://clu-in.org), sponsored by EPA's Technology Innovation Office.
-------
Table of Contents
Abstract : j
Progression and Goals of This Report 1
1. Introduction to the Voluntary Market . 2
1.1 Important definitions 2
1.2 Background .. _ 2
1.3 Overall market size of the waterfront voluntary sphere 3
1.4 Market fragmentation by contaminant .....4
1.5 Why use field-based tools for waterfront and other voluntary sites? 5
1.6 General obstacles to field-based characterization technologies under current
programs , 5
2. Assessing Aqueous Sediment g
2.1 Identifying contamination and the decision to characterize 6
2.1a Driving mechanisms for assessment . ....10
2.2 Additional funding mechanisms to drive sediment assessment 11
2.2a Navigation projects and the beneficial reuse of sediment 11
2.2b Loans and grants 12
2.3 Post-characterization risk assessment for sediment 13
2.4 Potential impact of prospective EPA Contaminated Sediment Standards on
assessment ^4
2.5 Emerging field screening and sampling technology for CS .14
3. Current Application of Innovative Characterization Technology at Waterfront
Voluntary Sites..... ; _ _ ^5
3.1 Methods of data collection 15
3.la National Brownfields Assessment Pilot (Federal Pilot) properties 16
3.1b State voluntary cleanup and brownfields programs 16
3.1c General exceptions and advisories for data collection 17
3.2 Decision making in the characterization tool selection process 17
3.3 Baseline assumptions... jg
3.4 Results '....!!!"!""!!!".'."."!!!!™."."i9
3.5 Cases 22
3.6 Future research needs _ 25
3.6a Cost/benefit analysis needs .. 25
3.6b Additional research needs 26
4. Conclusions 26
Other References and Recommended Reading 27
Appendix A Data Matrix, Contact List, and data tables for 115 sites on the following
topics: Oversight, Progress, Field Tool Application, Contaminants,
Remediation, Sediment Assessment, and proximity to NPL Al
Appendix B Certified, verified, and evaluated field-based site characterization tools B1
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
In lha Walnrfronl Voluntarv Settina
Acronyms
ASTSWMO - Association of State and Territorial and Solid Waste Management Officials
CADF - Confined Aquatic Disposal Facility
CDF - Confined Disposal Facility
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Restoration, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
CMI - Clean Michigan Initiative
CS - Contaminated Sediment
CWA - Clean Water Act
CWSRF - Clean Water State Revolving Fund
CZMA - Coastal Zone Management Act
DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality
DEP - Department of Environmental Protection
DOI - Department of Interior
EDA - Economic Development Authority
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
ESA - Endangered Species Act
FRTR - Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
GIS - Geographic Information System
MPRSA - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
NAS - National Academy of Science
NFA - No Further Action letter
NOAA - National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
NRC - National Research Council
NRMRL - National Risk Management Research Laboratory (ORD)
NSI - National Sediment Inventory
ORD - Office of Research and Development (EPA)
OSWER - Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (EPA)
OSPS - Outreach and Special Projects Staff (EPA)
PRP - Potentially Responsible Party
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RHA - Rivers and Harbors Act
RLF - Revolving Loan Fund
SITE - Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SVE - Soil Vapor Extraction
TIO - Technology Innovation Office (OSWER)
TOSCA - Toxic Substances Control Act
USAGE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
UST - Underground Storage Tank
VCP - Voluntary Cleanup Program (state)
WES - Waterways Engineering Station of USAGE
WRDA 96 - Water Resources Development Act of 1996
XRF - X-ray Fluorescence
For additional definitions and acronyms, please refer to glossaries located in recommended reading
documents at the end of this report
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Abstract
Voluntary action to redevelop potentially contaminated property operates under vastly different
market constraints than mandated corrective action programs. Pressures exist that impact the
time scale, cost/benefit ratio, priorities, and resources that allow the action to transpire. Non-
market pressures, usually in the form of regulation, also affect decisions over the course of
redevelopment. Together, these forces also determine the technologies and methods used to
characterize the property, as well as the media sampled.
The waterfront voluntary setting provides added value to property owners, potentially providing a
greater incentive to sink costs and invest in field portable technologies to characterize contaminated
sites. Previous case studies1 have shown that such tools are not only faster, but more cost effective
in the long run, despite a high initial sticker price. However, while the information barrier
concerning field-based soil assessment technologies continues to decline, and their application
increases, assessment of common property resources, particularly aquatic sediment, remains
infrequent without a clear cost recovery mechanism. This report will investigate the reasons
behind that and detail the current level of field-based characterization tool application at 115
waterfront brownfield and Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) sites.
Progression and Goals of This
Report
This paper began as an investigation into
innovative remediation technology application
in the federal Brownfields program. The
rationale involved attempting to collect data for
waterfront Brownfields similar to that contained
in the Annual Status Report for Superfund and other
documented sites.
It was known at the start of the research period
that consistent documentation did not exist for
Brownfields. However, after about two weeks
of investigation, it became clear that few
waterfront Brownfields sites had reached the
remediation phase. Properties targeted under
federal pilots comprised only seven of the 25
completed remediations noted here; nearly all of
the other properties remained in various phases
of characterization, and the attention of the
project shifted to application of field portable
assessment tools. Additionally, the data pool
expanded to include the wider waterfront
characterization market in both federal and state
brownfield sites, as well as state VCP properties.
Very little separates these categories in terms of
characterization needs, as long as the setting
remains constant for research control purposes.
Then, as now, evidence of aqueous sediment
work was highly desired to test if, when, and
how area-wide assessment issues were handled
around waterfront property. Such evidence
could suggest a market for field-based sediment
characterization tools, if and when they become
available. Due to cost recovery concerns, most
of the voluntary work done on these completed
sites involved only landward soil removal within
a property boundary. This paper presents
several lines of evidence to explain why that has
been the case, and also explores mechanisms
that allowed stakeholders to overcome such
concerns and characterize area-wide problems
like contaminated sediment (CS).
Lastly, the data set for this paper does not
encompass all waterfront brownfield and
voluntary cleanup sites nationwide, though with
the advent of online databases, that goal appears
at least possible for some states. Due to the brief
12-week supported research period, the goal was
to gather as many sites as possible, regardless of
geographic location. Therefore, the dataset is
not recommended for making comparisons
between varying state regulatory
environments—however, it does adequately
capture nearly all known activity on waterfront
properties targeted through the federal
Brownfields Initiative. Discussion of further
research needs follows at the end of this report.
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
In ttw Waterfront Voluntary Setting
1. Introduction to the Voluntary
Market
1.1 Important definitions
Brownfield (also, federal Brownfield): when
capitalized, refers to property that a municipality,
state, or other local government has identified for
attention under an EPA Brownfield Economic
Redevelopment Initiative pilot.
brownfleld: any abandoned, idled, or underused
.ndustrial and commercial facilities where expansion
or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived
environmental contamination.
waterfront property: a parcel of land adjacent to any
jody of water, including streams, bayous, rivers,
lakes, bays, estuaries, harbors, ports, and oceans.
innovative technology: alternative technology with
limited Mi-scale application and a resulting lack of
data on cost and performance. Many such
technologies have been used for several years;
however, information on site-specific cost, multi-
media applicability, and performance under different
regulatory constraints remains elusive.
media: the physical setting of the characterization
process; any one of the following: soils, groundwater,
aquatic sediments, air, surface water, etc.
contaminated sediment: aquatic sediment in a natural
waterbody (non-industrial containment setting) that
contains chemical concentrations posing a known or
suspected threat to the environment or human health.
Terms used interchangeably -.field tool, field analysis
or screening tool, field-portable tool
firm: contractor or engineering company performing
the characterization work. They obtain site
characterization tools from vendors.
vendor, developer or supplier of site characterization
equipment on the open market.
Sources: EPA—OSPS, EPA—TIO, NAS—NRC, and
author.
1.2 Background
For most cities, waterfront property along rivers,
lakes, bays, estuaries, ports and harbors holds
the highest value and highest resale potential.
As the marquee land for a city, it receives the
heaviest use in all sectors (commercial,
industrial, and residential), and reflects an image
to outsiders and potential investors. Its setting
also places it in a position to absorb large
amounts of contamination, not only from heavy
on-site use, but from sources higher in the
watershed as well, through surface runoff,
subsurface flow and aqueous transport.
The presence of brownfields along the
waterfront hinders the economic health and tax
base of a city, and is widely thought to attract
crime and other social problems.
Redevelopment of waterfront property often
drives redevelopment in other areas of the city,
particularly for second-tier properties located
upland in nearby neighborhoods or industrial
zones. For a city attempting revitalization,
therefore, the waterfront is a natural place to
start.
Depending on a municipality's resources and
approach to redevelopment, it may place
particular importance on certain priorities for
initial waterfront brownfield
redevelopment—namely, that it occurs rapidly
and on a municipally owned property with a low
likelihood of contamination. This not only
accelerates the property's return to the tax base,
it provides an easy example to convince lenders
and property owners to redevelop second-tier
sites and additional, more complicated,
waterfront sites on their own. Indeed, this has
been the example for countless Brownfield
pilots across the nation2.
The majority of municipal governments,
however, lack the capacity and resources to
undertake sustained site investigations and
cleanups without significant state and/or federal
assistance. Meanwhile, owners of contaminated
property still perceive a number of legal and
technical disincentives to stepping forward and
sinking assessment costs that may lead to legal
consequences3.
In recent years, two program categories have
sought to remedy these problems. At the federal
level, since 1995, the EPA's Brownfields
initiative has provided pilot grants to over 300
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
municipal, state, or tribal governments to
explore and demonstrate reuse solutions. These *
grants seek to create frameworks for future
redevelopment at the local level, with a focus on
stakeholder involvement. Coinciding with the
federal policy initiative, over 44 states now have
some form of voluntary cleanup program (VCP),
and approximately 28 have both state brownfield
and VCP programs4. Nearly all (95%) of these
programs have been developed during the 1990s,
with an intent to limit owner liability through
"No Further Action" (NFA) letters, cooperative
agreements, and memorandums of
understanding (MOUs) between EPA Regions
and state regulators5.
Very few brownfields pilots, however, and only
a handful of state initiatives have allocated funds
expressly to pay for site characterization or
cleanup. Agencies at all levels currently lack
funds for this purpose, even if the money
remained within the public sector (for instance, a
state-city transfer for a municipally owned
property). Fortunately, the federal Brownfields
Initiative, as well as most states, now have
Revolving Loan Funds (RLFs) to lend resources
for this purpose. The bill to reauthorize
Superfund, S. 1285, which has languished in
committee for over six years, also proposes
interest-free loans of up to $200,000 explicitly
for site assessment purposes6. In the meantime,
however, the broader emphasis remains focused
Table 1. State VCP and Brownfield Programs at a Glance
on developing frameworks so that
redevelopment of potentially contaminated sites
may continue after funds expire.
Barring a grant or loan to the municipality, the
responsibility to pay assessment and remediation
costs on a land parcel still rests with either the
seller or a prospective buyer who has agreed to
assume the risks. Given the needs and priorities
of interested parties, cheaper, faster, more
effective, and more accurate site characterization
should arise as a major demand feature of all
media in this market.
For many reasons, however, this only somewhat
describes the present scenario for site
characterization tools. Gorte (1999), for one,
has accurately captured the challenges for such
vendors seeking to enter the brownfields
market. While the issues she notes are not
themselves unique to the waterfront
setting—rather, they apply to the technology
market on all brownfields projects—they are
adequately embodied by the present situation in
it.
1-3 Overall market size of the waterfront
voluntary sphere
Before information collection began, an exercise
was undertaken to estimate the number of
waterfront properties falling within the scope of
federal and state-voluntary cleanup efforts.
VCP
Forty-four (44) states have VCP programs
(exceptions are VT, FL, KY, ND, SD, WY)
The majority of these were established by statute,
most funded via participant fees or reimbursement.
Eligibility is generally defined by restrictions on the
type of volunteer: municipalities, private industry,
persons on/off the state priority/activity list, non-
NPL, anyone not responsible for pollution,
purchaser, owner/seller, or financial viability of site.
Virtually all provide incentives, such as tax rebates,
relief from state liability, relief from some federal
liability under cooperative agreement, not-to-sue
covenants, ability to withdraw, NFAs, and technical
assistance.
Brownfields
• 28 States also have brownfields programs, with
varying criteria, including: any site eligible for
VCP, local government lands only, no parties
responsible for contamination, no other state or
federal action on the property, and/or must have
redevelopment potential.
• Brownfield identification leaders - IL, DE, AR,
MI, CT, and NY.
• Illinois also has the most cleanups underway
(-439).
• Michigan and Delaware lead in total commitments
to redevelopment.
• The most common brownfield incentives are tax
and liability relief.
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
In tha Waterfront Voluntary Setting
In 1995, EPA estimated that 79,387 non-NPL
known or suspected state hazardous waste sites
existed in the United States8. These numbers
were derived primarily from state hazardous site
inventories and CERCLIS , the EPA database
of potentially contaminated sites. Due to the
fact that they are not listed under the federal
NPL program, they constitute the balance of
sites referred back to the states for action. Once
referred back to the states, the properties remain
subject to CERCLA and usually end up in so-
called "state Superfund" programs, if the states
have their own system of prioritization, cleanup,
and reimbursement. Of those sites, EPA had
information to suggest that 28,997 required
further attention9.
A 1999 report to the EPA from Kensington
Systems, Inc., revised the total 1995 non-NPL
figure upward to 92.05710. It found, however,
"no such vehicles to track abandoned and
underutilized sites.. .an important part of the
brownfields definition," leaving the true number
of brownfields potentially much higher11. In
other words, Kensington found it difficult to
distinguish which sites on the state Superfund
rolls would receive attention through state
priority, voluntary cleanup, and brownfields
programs. The author sympathizes entirely, and
has included the most comprehensive list of
publicly accessible online databases in the
"contacts" datatable.
Before further estimating the waterfront
voluntary market size, one should note the
impact of non-NPL "state Superfund" market
size on environmental technology providers. The
vendors remain highly reliant on state
enforcement and voluntary actions once the
federal facility and Superfund (NPL) work
realms are removed from consideration.
Furthermore, the health and activity level of a
state's mandated corrective action program often
parallels and sometimes supports its activities in
the voluntary sector. With only 11 State
Superfunds spending more than $10 million in
1997, the already fragmented market has had its
viability extremely limited in some places12. The
most current data shows that13:
• Six states represent 76.4% of total state
Superfund balances
• States represent 43.7% of the total
amount added to funds in FY 1997.
• 11 states (including NE, which has no
fund) have fund balances insufficient to
cover a single cleanup.
Between EPA and the states, no known datasets
group specific voluntary sites by contaminant,
setting, ownership, or other criteria. For the total
number of waterfront properties, we might
assume a back of the envelope calculation
around 5-10% of the Kensington figure. This
hypothetical number has relevance both to the
present field-portable technology market and to
prospective common property resource
(groundwater, sediment) assessors. It is clearly
not, however, the limit of the universe for either
service provider. Field-portable and on-site lab
technology in particular emphasize widely
applicable soil and groundwater characterization
tools. This sublevel of analysis instead
represents the ripest potential market in the
voluntary sector for both groups of
characterization tool developers. Therefore, this
sublevel provides the same obstacles with a
much larger overall market size, potentially
revealing a more realistic picture of actions
transpiring outside the realm of mandated
corrective action and/or demonstration
programs. The goal will be to assemble a
representative dataset with a small fraction of
this sublevel.
1.4 Market fragmentation by contaminant
For any contaminated site, the possible
assessment technologies depend on the possible
contaminants desired for detection. The FRTR
Field Sampling and Analysis Matrix (Version
1.0) presents most
necessary information about such tools and their
proper contaminant applications, though, as the
name states, its emphasis rests with sampling
and collection, rather than longer-term detection
and monitoring. While many tools can serve a
variety of purposes including detection,
screening, and monitoring, the obstacles to
designing a multi-contaminant assessment tool
are many. This causes the characterization
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization TooJs
in the Waterfront Voluntary Spttinn
technology market to become fragmented by the
diverse, contaminant-specific nature of sites.
Additionally, sites with multiple contaminants
may require several completely different
detection tools. Even conventional "non-detect"
soil samples, once tested, usually cannot
undergo further analysis, because initial testing
chemically alters them. Before the advent of
field-based technologies, this last fact often
necessitated multiple rounds of site sampling.
1.5 Why use field-based tools for
waterfront and other voluntary sites?
Field-based tools provide advantages in cost
effectiveness and speed, and can screen samples
to provide better definition of contaminated
areas. Some newer on-site analysis tools can
provide results on par or even more accurate
than those in labs, depending on the
contaminant, its sample handling requirements,
and its propensity to degrade or volatilize. For
waterfront properties, due to the variety of
media that should be tested, screening and on-
site analysis tools can provide dramatic savings
and eliminate the need to hire multiple
contractors for multiple rounds of sampling.
The sizable turnaround value of a clean property
may offset the high sticker price of using field-
portable tools—a key reason for choosing this
setting over others for research. Most
importantly, the waterfront voluntary setting
may provide the only opportunity for further
assessment of common resources—specifically
aquatic sediment—in the near future.
1.6 General obstacles to field-based
characterization technologies under
current programs
Many reports have dealt with the following
points as "the barriers to brownfield
redevelopment," and Gorte has addressed most
regarding their impact on innovative
technologies. Without reinventing them, it
seemed necessary to mention them here before
proceeding further, including elements unique to
the waterfront voluntary setting where
appropriate.
• Funding sources—Funding questions with
waterfront brownfields and VCP sites are
not as easy to answer, despite the sizable
turnaround value of a clean property. In
communities where federal pilots have been
in place for some time, some property
owners and municipalities have waited for
government or RLF support before
proceeding further with redevelopment,
even though they may have taken previous
voluntary action. Without such support,
funding sources for what is by nature a
voluntary cleanup process remain solely in
the private sector. Currently, many perceive
that the greenfields setting still provides a
more secure investment and a more rapid
turnaround for private capital.
• Time scale—Lenders and investors demand
rapid turnaround and have little tolerance for
cost overruns due to uncertainties or
incorrect application of technology.
• Cost—The limited amount of innovative
technology application in all media has
limited cash flow for vendors, causing
"sticker" prices to remain higher than the
non-innovative remedies. This affects in-
house research and development and the
availability of characterization and
remediation technology overall.
Cost/benefit and performance information,
where innovative technologies—especially
for characterization—tend to perform better
relative to conventional methods, is now
more readily available, though regulatory
acceptance lags dramatically.
• Questions on effectiveness—Most
importantly, state and local officials have
regularly refused to approve characterization
and cleanup plans with "unproven"
technology, instead insisting on a sampling
standard far in excess of that required by a
risk-based approach. Lenders and investors,
as well as contractors and engineering firms,
also tend to frown upon any method that has
not seen significant full-scale application.
This effectively closes the market for
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
hi tt» Waterfront Voluntary Settinq
hundreds of thousands of brownfields sites
to technology vendors.
• Field problems—Using technology
correctly remains a problem in some field
cases. Firms must train personnel to use the
tools properly, but more importantly,
someone with a chemistry background
should review the sampling/screening/
analysis plan to denote the best way to
achieve data quality objectives with the new
technology.
The above problems leave a limited number of
providers. In the latter case, a company may
lose incentives to develop new technology if that
sector is not making a profit, forcing many firms
to look overseas—particularly to
Europe—where fewer regulatory issues provide
greater comfort. Several analysts have set an
informal timeline of five years for American
firms to enter the international market, fearing
that further delays will force some firms out of
business14.
2. Assessing Aqueous Sediment
2.1 Identifying contamination and the
decision to characterize
The diagram illustrates that responsibility for
sediment issues in the marine waterfront
voluntary setting is at best unclear. Further
inland, states claim domain over inland
waterways such as rivers and lakes, but the
agency and statutory web (CWA, ESA,
RCRA/CERCLA, RHA; NOAA, EPA, USAGE,
DOI, States) remains just as complex.
Theoretically, phase I investigation results
should provide the impetus for a sediment
investigation during the succeeding assessment
phases. However, constraints surrounding the
voluntary and brownfield process often lead to
minimal (surface grab), if any, sediment
investigation—rather than a more preferable
area-wide approach to redevelopment and
assessment. The following scenarios illustrate
why sediment sampling occurs less frequently in
this setting:
Figure 1. Agency and statutory responsibilities for CS along the marine waterfront
See acronym list; statutes follow horizontal lines. __^__
Ocean
3-mlle limit
Coast
baseline
Coast/
Estuary
NOAA
EPA
USAGE
DOI
STATE
Source: 1997 NRC Report Figure 1-1 (see endnotes)
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
For reference, nearly all CS cleanup on record comes primarily
from Superfund, employing conventional dredging and
disposal, capping, or stabilization methods. Though a number
of innovative ex-situ treatments have been accomplished using
dredged material, few in situ sediment treatment methods
have passed beyond
the demonstration stage. Soon-to-commence beneficial reuse
demonstrations will attempt to enhance the viability of
navigational dredging, although debates continue about
dredging's overall effectiveness as a remedial action tool.
1- Potential extent of problem not viewed as a
threat to human health
A phase I investigation may conclude that
even if contaminated aqueous sediment
exists, it would pose no risk to human health
and the environment due to environmental
factors like desorption over time or natural
recovery (natural influx of clean sediment
that serves as a cap). Additionally, the total
release may be limited to a safer range if the
facility did not discharge directly into the
water body and if groundwater
contamination appears unlikely. In these
cases, the phase I work would have correctly
addressed the possible CS issue and
concluded that the potential risk did not
justify additional testing.
2. Problem not proximate to an area where
human health might experience an impact
This rationale, though similar to the first,
differs in that the phase I assessment will
only address CS if some part of the
contamination may impact a municipal
good, such as a beach, water supply
well/intake, or game fish. In some states,
namely Michigan, state assessment and
characterization funds are explicitly
provided according to these priorities. The
state's environmental bond fund, the Clean
Michigan Initiative , has carried
out several projects according to these
criteria15. However, little incentive
remains to address CS in phase I, if funding
to test it in phase H depends on a factor not
present—a factor that, even if present,
would likely result in an institutional control
(i.e., fish advisory, beach closure) rather
than a removal action.
2a. Preference for institutional controls
Institutional controls mitigate risks to
humans, but leave contamination in place
for potential impact on biota and elsewhere.
For many CS problems, regulators and
municipal officials will close off adjacent
shallow groundwater wells or surface water
intakes, particularly if they serve small
private water supplies. In the event of
toxin uptake through the food web, fish
advisories and fishing bans are
implemented on an area by area basis.
Beach closures and fencing off the
waterfront complete the list of commonly
preferred control methods. With the
exposure pathways presumably closed and
the policy satisfied, the resolution in many
cases satisfies the goal of risk reduction to
human health and the environment.
3. Property line or iurisdictional problems
Brownfields and voluntary cleanup
programs place great emphasis on cleaning
up the actual land that comprises the site.
This owes to the emphasis on redevelopment
and returning the property to productive,
taxable use. However, only in rare
brownfield and voluntary cases—in
Bellingham, WA, Emeryville, CA, and
Portland, OR—have large-scale, area-wide
assessment procedures been implemented to
address issues outside the property line;
specifically, in waterways or aquifers.
The area-wide concept, however, leads to
questions about what constitutes good
sediment sampling for an institutionalized
property line mentality. The clear answer,
barring a stable aquatic environment with
minimal chance of contaminant and
sediment transport, is that expecting an
The State of Michigan uses the following priorities to
recommend assessment and remediation grant funds under the
Clean Michigan Initiative:
1. A threat to human health via contact exposure or the
municipal water supply.
2. A threat to a sensitive natural resource (defined as game).
3. If the work is part of a wider redevelopment or
revitalization project.
Source: http://www.deq.state.mi.us/cal/dq030199.htmffpgrtin
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
In ttw Waterfront Voluntary Setting
accurate picture under those constraints is
unreasonable. From a legal perspective,
since most states claim authority over their
surface waters, only the landward soils need
be accounted for in private cleanups—so
long as contamination traceable to the
property does not appear elsewhere during
any later assessment work for different
reasons. The odds of such assessment work
occurring and such a link appearing, given
the cost, environmental conditions, and
boundaries of a future perceived problem
seem slim. The contamination, however,
remains in the environment, and is
continually added to by pollution from
surface runoff and industrial sources.
3a. Public ownership of waterway
Unless the state also owns the waterfront
property, an otherwise voluntary program
for a private landowner provides no
requirement to sample aquatic sediment.
The state's only recourse is to reject such a
property from the VCP or deny a NFA
letter. Some might argue that only select
states would pursue this course of action.
Typically, the emphasis remains instead on
soil and groundwater beneath the property.
Only with evidence of'groundwater
contamination and the potential for
subsurface flow into the water body via
sediment would such an assessment occur,
likely under a different, mandated program.
Action of that kind would probably occur
only if the contaminated groundwater
impacted a water supply or provided some
additional threat to human health. In other
cases, contamination would likely go
unchecked for an indefinite period of time.
3b. Public (city) ownership of property
City ownership of the property may limit
liability in some cases; however, the risk of
becoming a PRP does not completely
disappear—an event that would commit
resources most municipalities do not have
to the project. In many cases, in the words
of a Michigan project manager, "the cities
choose to do the easiest sites first and
establish a track record, rather than deal
with the more complicated properties"16.
This practice benefits the municipalities by
Table 2. New Orleans Brownfield Project Second Cut Evaluation Criteria - Draft Guideline
Proximity to: (Points)
School (2)
Park (2)
Residential area (2)
Commercial area (5)
Industrial area (5)
Operating business (5)
Level of contamination
Known high contamination (0)
Probable low level contamination (5)
Probable little contamination (10)
Ownership of Site
Local government entity (10)
Private citizen or other (0)
Owner Interest
Supports brownfield redevelopment of property (20)
Opposed to brownfield redevelopment of property (-20)
Has not responded (0)
Redevelopment Interest
Documented (20)
Not Documented (0)
Level of Commitment from Prospective Purchaser
Low level written commitment (0)
Mid level commitment with earnest money (5)
Highest commitment with contingent contract (10)
Employment Creation
Potential job opportunities known (10)
Potential job opportunities unknown (0)
Number of jobs
Will create at least 10 new jobs (5)
Will create under 100 new jobs (10)
Will create over 100 new jobs (20)
Source: Internal Document: "New Orleans Brownfields Project Second Cut Evaluation Criteria - Guideline For
Consortium Weighting." Interoffice Memorandum from Amy Clipp, Deputy Director, New Orleans Mayor's Office
of Environmental Affairs (8/27/97).
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
putting off any liability problems in the
water, but leads to questionable prioritizing
among land parcels.
Brownfields projects in New Orleans, by
no means the only ones to prioritize
according to this system, provide some
insight through a draft guideline point scale
used in 1996. This scale was used to
determine which brownfields in the federal
pilot would receive funds for an expedited
site assessment demonstration. Here, a
previous round of ranking reduced the
number of properties under consideration
from 80 to 30. In this round, the guiding
scale emphasis rests primarily on job
creation and ease of redevelopment, with
the highest-scoring properties generally
receiving the greatest priority. One could
surmise that the possibility of having to
address CS would not assist a property
under these criteria.
4. Proximity to ongoing CERCLA
investigation
In general, waterfront properties near
CERCLA waterway sites—for example,
properties bordering Tacoma, Washington's
Thea Foss Waterway—have had offshore
aqueous sediment evaluated through
Superfund. In this way, what would have
been a Corps of Engineers responsibility to
assess a navigable waterway was covered
under another program. However, questions
remain for brownfield cases with upstream
polluters resembling General Electric's Fort
Edwards and Hudson Falls, NY plants,
along the Hudson River. Analysis of
downstream property owner behavior, if
brownfields or VCP sites existed at the time,
would prove insightful.
Due to sediment transport, relative location
to a water body impacted by a CERCLA site
may affect waterfront redevelopment.
Under these conditions, disincentives exist
for waterfront owners, particularly private
owners, to voluntarily characterize their
sites. These include:
• Potential identification and liability as a
PRP for the waterway
• Potential detection of subsurface
contamination transported from other
sites (which solves the problem of
paying for cleanup but places property
out of market for a much longer time
scale).
• Cost of characterization and
concomitant threat of remediation need
Additionally, investigating offshore carries
heavy disincentives depending on the status
of the Record of Decision (ROD):
« If a ROD has been signed, any
contaminated sediment problems will, in
theory, be eliminated by the remediation
action. Although this presents a greater
risk the further downstream one travels,
from a "threat" perspective it solves the
immediate problem. This assumes that
all PRPs have been identified and that
the cleanup is effective. Brownfield and
VCP site owners will not and have not
investigated adjacent aquatic sediments
in these cases as a result.
• If a ROD does not exist, in all likelihood
the project remains at the PRP
identification and liability stage, or in
the characterization phase. Brownfields
owners may choose and often have
chosen to wait until obligated, or until
an agency seeks to assess their area as
part of a larger characterization effort.
In a larger sense, when a Brownfield
owner chooses not to assess any media
due to a CERCLA threat, a process
known as "mothballing" the property
occurs, preventing vital redevelopment.
5. Multiple sources and contamination
confounding
Aqueous sediment contamination may arise
from a variety of sources, including:
• Subsurface plume originating on or off-
site
• Groundwater leaching
• Dkect discharge from the facility
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
hi lha Waterfront Voluntarv Setting
• Surface runoff from the facility and
from higher in the immediate watershed
• Sewage discharges and system
overflows
• Transport from upstream sources
• Other water column sources, including
the settling of particulate matter from
the air arid discharges from vessels.
For these reasons, characterizing and
assigning liability to the comparatively
small share of sediment contamination that
may arise from a single waterfront
brownfield exceeds the scope of most state
and local enforcement agencies. The cost of
attempting to do so might well exceed the
amount reclaimed. Additionally, other
priorities clearly supersede it at the national
agency level.
Yet without question, CS remains a problem
in the nation's waterways that
comprehensive liability laws struggle with,
due to the lengthy process of identifying
responsible parries. Under WRDA 92, the
EPA's National Sediment Inventory
identified 96 watersheds in the U.S. as areas
of probable concern, where 75% or more of
the sediment sampling stations indicated
toxicity levels that posed at least some risk
to human health17. This round of sediment
sampling, the most extensive ever performed
in the U.S., will have to be followed by
additional sampling, though, to adequately
characterize the problems and identify the
highest priorities for cleanup within a
watershed. For many locations, the
waterfront voluntary setting—in cooperation
with outside funding sources—may provide
the only opportunity for such work in the
near future.
2.1a Driving mechanisms for assessment
Brannon and McFarland (1996) identify three
mechanisms driving sediment evaluation:
impacts of dredged navigation channel
sediments; environmental and human health
impacts of existing undisturbed sediments versus
natural recovery (usually in the context of an
existing project for an identified location); and
source identification and control18. These,
together with a few other forces, comprise the
primary institutional incentives to test for CS
today. Other forces include spills or excessive
releases from permitted facilities, sudden human
health impacts, and reporting of abnormal
conditions by outside parties.
With the exception of preventative source
control, none of the above mechanisms causes a
state or other agency, to go out and "look" for or
at new CS. The CS at Black Lagoon, for the
Detroit River/Trenton Channel beneficial reuse
demonstration project, was discovered when a
child experienced detrimental health effects and
skin damage after walking in the water19. To
this day, no viable PRP exists in the area, despite
the heavy industrial footprint along the river and
extensive ongoing mapping of CS in other river
sections before the Black Lagoon discovery.
This illustrates not negligence on the part of the
agencies involved, but rather the limitations of
science when asked to perform the difficult task
of PRP identification and differentiation for a
common resource with multiple pollution
sources. The liability law imposes an incredible
scientific burden to drive cost recovery; a burden
which may be more easily met for some
contaminants and some cases than others.
The result is the unfortunate situation of streams,
rivers, lakes, bays, and other common
waterways impacted by hundreds or thousands
of point and non-point contaminant sources,
with no means other than scarce, government-
funded source control or baseline sediment
mapping inventories to further characterize most
of them. Although the most serious problems
will ideally be addressed by the liability law and
navigational dredging by the Corps (as industry
tends to concentrate around navigable
waterways), the time scale of the law and the
lack of funded source control represented by
these approaches will still leave future problems.
Additionally, the assessment funding provided
by navigation and USAGE waterfront
redevelopment projects is tied to a remediation
method—dredging20.
10
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Settino
For the remaining waterways, the potential CS
problem remains largely uncharacterized and
growing, though with less toxicity than in
previous decades. An areawide, watershed-
based assessment approach provides the best
hope of addressing source control and
determining where "hot spots" exist. It would
also enable the EPA to make more judicious
applications of the liability law, while truly
solving contamination problems over the long
term. In this sense, the Clean Michigan
Initiative represents an epic shift in state-federal
mindset and responsibility, where a state has
volunteered to fund CS remediation in nine non-
Superfund designated waterways, while
retaining the right to pursue cost recovery
against identifiable PRPs21.
As stated above, however, the voluntary or
brownfield approach seems inadequate to
address the problem by itself. The liability
scheme, for its part, faces its own challenges, as
the National Research Council notes that "it can
take up to 15 years or more before a
management strategy is put into place"22. Even
under sediment cleanup standards, discerning
responsible parties and determining
investigation priorities will probably not lead to
efficient cost recovery. In the meantime, CS
continues to accumulate and impact the
environment, though perhaps on a slightly
smaller scale than before, with constant transport
throughout the aquatic ecosystem.
2.2 Additional funding mechanisms to drive
sediment assessment
To address the problem, local, state and federal
agencies have had to shoulder an additional part
of the cost recovery burden. However, by
forming consortiums with private stakeholders
in the waterfront voluntary setting, some groups
have been able to address area-wide
contamination problems and may recover, in the
long run, some tax income that they may have
lost by waiting for a 100%-liability based CS
cleanup. Arguments will abound on all sides
concerning whether or not the states, in
particular, have the resources, cleanup and
monitoring standards, and moral obligation to
pursue this course23. Nevertheless, funding
sources do exist for those willing to pursue area-
wide cooperation.
2.2a Navigation projects and beneficial reuse
of sediment
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE)—
Waterways Engineering
Station, Vicksburg, MS
Navigable •
rivers and
harbors tend to
absorb the bulk
ofCS
contamination,
due to contaminant transport and industry
concentration around these areas. A primary
mission of the US Army Corps of Engineers
involves developing and maintaining the
navigable channels for these waterways.
Because it lacks a line item in the federal
budget, the Corps remains dependent on local
representatives and other government agencies
for work. It estimates that 5 - 10% of sediment
in such channels is unsuitable for open water
disposal under the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)24. To solve this problem, USACE must
theoretically use the least costly approach that
complies with disposal regulations. Contracting
parties must handle costs above and beyond that,
though many cases cast doubt on the severity of
that mandate25. The NRC recommends altering
the policy for good to emphasize beneficial
sediment reuse, because current government
policy pays for risky open-water but not
landward or beneficial disposal, an obvious
disincentive to sponsors
.26
The Corps has the authority under WRDA to
clean upland properties if contamination
migrates from them and impacts a navigable
waterway, and brownfields provide suitable
locations for beneficial reuse. Typically the
sediment in the deep navigable channel does not
pose a hazard—most contamination instead
appears on the wings of the waterway.
Therefore, clean or treated sediment dredged
from the channel can cap landward soil
contamination on waterfront brownfields,
freeing them for reuse. One problem still under
investigation, however, is that of microbes and
contaminants in untreated fill sediments
potentially entering the lungs via aerial exposure
pathways.
11
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
In Ida WatarfronJ Voluntary Setting
This approach also leaves the problem sediment
outside the channel unaddressed, since the work
pattern has evolved this way over time, but the
Corps has an interest in attacking that sediment
as well. It could accomplish this by joining
cooperative efforts, just as it invested heavily in
cooperative beneficial reuse research when the
number of available CDFs and CADFs began to
shrink. Under WRDA, the Corps may dredge
outside of the navigable channel to remove CS
in other parts of the waterway. Though it has
never used this power, cost sharing provisions
might make it an attractive option to a port
authority and/or state agency.
When the Corps does upland brownfield work
for ports and cities, the cost sharing parameters
make its involvement much easier than
contracting privately, at least in the assessment
phase, where the Corps only requires a
municipality to cover 50% of the price.
However, federal Brownfields pilot funds may
not be used to pay the Corps, and additional
work—costly if not accounted for in the federal
budget—requires 100% funding by the client.
Still, covering the upland assessments—which
may comprise between 40 and 70% of
brownfield redevelopment costs—would remove
a sizable burden from municipal redevelopment
agencies. Then, under an area-wide model, the
Corps could re-enter the water and perform
needed CS work and channel maintenance with
a federal appropriation.
Recently, Dr. Tommy Myers of the USAGE
undertook a survey to gauge the demand for
beneficial reuse of sediment on waterfront
brownfields. Of 60 surveys sent out to ports and
harbors around the United States, Myers
received 20 responses—consistent with an
earlier response that American Association of
Port Authorities received when it queried its
predominantly deepwater membership about
brownfield redevelopment demand.
Respondents, Myers notes, likely know of—or
highly suspect—CS problems in their
waterways, and seek assistance in balancing
their desire for dredging and port expansion with
the need to address contamination. With the
prospect of EPA sediment standards, the Corps
may investigate the possibility of a national
sediment work strategy, with Congressional
authorization and funding.
Finally, the Corps conducts research into field
screening and assessment technologies for
sediment, which are discussed later in this
document, and will need demonstration projects
in the future.
2.2b Loans and grants
From an area-wide problem-solving perspective,
a loan may provide the resources, but forming a
public-private coalition with landowners will
prove difficult if they will have to help repay the
loan. This approach would only appear
attractive if the landowners knew they might
face CERCLA liability for impacting a common
resource. In the waterfront setting, just such a
complication arises when one considers the
possibility of contamination not only in
landward soils, but in adjacent aqueous sediment
as well. Therefore, cooperative agreements
among multiple stakeholders that cut across
regulatory programs and interests—most often
navigation, voluntary cleanup, brownfields, and
mandated or liability-driven actions—have
proven quite successful at securing funding.
The key to effectively utilizing a loan approach
likely involves a combination with grants or
Table 3. Survey conducted by Dr. Tommy Myers, USAGE-WES, under Section 212 of WRDA 96
Statement 1: Contaminated sediments are a serious problem that impedes maintenance and development of
port infrastructure.
Indicate and Comment: Strongly Agree/Agree/Neither/Disagree/Strongly Disagree
Statement 2: Significant opportunities exist for coupling contaminated sediment remediation with waterfront
brownfields redevelopment.
Indicate and Comment: Strongly Agree/Agree/Neither/Disagree/Strongly Disagree
12
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Settina
other funded projects at the state or federal level.
This allows the consortium to address multiple
area-wide contamination concerns, particularly
regarding upland sources and impacts on
wildlife. To property owners nervous about
investigating their land, such grants and projects
indicate a commitment to solving overall
environmental problems rather than simply
forcing PRPs to assume costs for a sediment
project with an indeterminate scope. This is not
to say that the PRPs have to "get away" with
their pollution for the cooperation to work. In
Bellingham, for instance, Washington's
Department of Ecology conducts ongoing State
Superfund work in a region that has been well
mapped for CS for many years. There, Ecology
addresses the most severely affected area—the
Whatcom Waterway—through Superfund, while
its grant-funded consortium with the Port of
Bellingham addresses CS in the inner bay.
Additional upland voluntary cleanups in
conjunction with CS remediation would also
recover some costs for the state.
As stated above, the federal Brownfields
Initiative, along with most states, provides
Revolving Loan Funds (RLFs) . Other loan
opportunities are available at the state and
federal level, however, and one with particular
importance for CS and brownfields may expand
hi the near future.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) takes in state and federal
contributions, and then pays out low or no-
interest loans for water quality projects. Each
state, as well as Puerto Rico, has a CWSRF
program linked to the fund. Currently, it holds
over $27 billion in assets, providing about $3
billion worth of water project support annually27.
For brownfields, the CWSRF can fund projects
that would mitigate or even eliminate aqueous
sediment pollution problems. According to a
recent memo, CWSRF funds could cover at least
the following tasks28:
• excavation and disposal of USTs
• constructing wetlands as a filtering
mechanism
• capping of wells, well abandonment
• excavation, removal, and disposal of
contaminated soil or sediments (presumably
in situ methods are covered as well)
• tunnel demolition
• phase I, II, and HI assessments
Although the states determine project eligibility
" oil an individual basis, most likely anyone
qualifying for a VCP program will also qualify
for CWSRF funds. The terms of the loan could
provide a much needed incentive for waterfront
brownfield owners to assess and clean up
aqueous sediment, particularly if the owner is a
municipality seeking to address wider water
quality issues. In some cases, CWSRF
proponents note that a loan may provide a better
deal than a grant that requires cost sharing29.
In addition, the Administration proposes to
earmark 20% of CWSRF funds in its FY 2000
budget for "non-point source and estuary project
grants." With a budget request of $800 million,
this could amount to approximately $157 million
in grants. On an individual project, these grants
could cover 60% of the costs, with the remaining
40% paid by a no-interest CWSRF loan or other
specified financing sources30.
2.3 Post-characterization risk assessment
for sediment
Risk analysis rests at the core of CS problems,
due to their widespread nature. For many sites,
although contamination may spread throughout a
waterway, removal or treatment of all CS is both
impractical and unnecessary. Under such
procedures, low-level pollution may accumulate
or have uncertain impacts on the environment
and go both unassessed and unremediated due to
a lack of distinguishable PRPs and direct threats
to human health. Such questions, however, .
address matters of responsibility and cost
recovery, and the fact they remain unresolved to
this day emphasizes how a risk-based approach
has helped to expedite the actual cleanup process
while the debate continues.
For CS, risk and cost/benefit analysis channels
resources toward greatest efficiency in the
remediation phase. Smaller, high-risk "hot
spots" may require more expensive and more
13
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
in the Watorfront Voluntary Setting
complicated solutions; larger, low-risk areas
often allow for less expensive methods or
natural recovery. The NRC notes, however, that
more risk and cost benefit analysis needs to
address "risks of sediment removal or relocation
or the risks remaining after remediation"31.
While diminishing returns serves as the law of
risk analysis, quality standards used to evaluate
those risks "have not been linked quantitatively
to ecological or human health risks," the NRC
states32. From a policy perspective, the
preventative principle should drive such
decisions; however, the NRC statement gives
powerful ammunition to those with an incentive
to oppose sediment quality standards out of
liability fears. If EPA attempted to promulgate
such standards without Congressional authority,
it face a legal conflict similar to its Clean Air
Act air quality standard revisions, recently
struck down by a Federal District Appeals
Court33.
2.4 Potential impact of prospective EPA
Contaminated Sediment Standards on
assessment
What level of risk, though, translates into a
quantifiable standard that determines the next
step in the cleanup process? As stated earlier,
the waterfront voluntary setting provides, in
many cases, the only near-term opportunity for
sediment assessment in a municipality.
Unfortunately, under the present system,
assessing CS responsibility without an imminent
threat to human health proves difficult—which
means that costs of proceeding further cannot be
recovered. With the EPA pursuing maximum
toxicity standards for sediment, the question of
payment for assessment and cleanup has the
potential for increasing legal conflict, depending
on the rigor of the standards. However, the end
result could provide a better benchmark to
determine the need for and success of CS
cleanups. Projects to date have tended to
address toxic "spot contamination" already in
place, rather than genuinely addressing issues
throughout the watershed, such as surface
runoff, because non-NPL CERCLA cleanups
lack that authority34. Again, the question
becomes one of funding, in this case, money that
the liability law does not allocate for such
preventative purposes.
Any new sediment standards will strongly drive
technology use in the aquatic environment.
Under such regulations, sampling tools would
have to meet stricter data quality objectives for
the quality criteria contaminants, although
sediment usually contains multiple contaminants
that the criteria might or might not cover.
Currently, dredging or grab sampling from the
top of sediment layers risks cross-contamination
and remains subject to forces in the water
column. It also ignores leaching and does not
provide indication of contamination depth. The
much more common coring techniques usually
have limited core lengths and unrepresentative
interior diameters, also making it harder to
collect a high quality sample. Furthermore, the
NRC labels coring as "slow and expensive,"
and, depending on site-specific conditions, as
"provid[ing] limited spatial resolution"35.
Fortunately, on the assessment side, although
this report uncovered no full-scale field
screening or on-site analysis applications for
aquatic CS, better versions of the core samplers
themselves will enter the market soon.
Combined with the wide range of bench-scale
screening technologies and improving lab
analysis instruments, at least the cost of
assessment will fall, while its effectiveness rises.
2.5 Emerging field screening and sampling
technology for CS
Rapid Sediment Screens, developed and tested
by the USAGE, could save money and provide a
more accurate description of the contamination
zone for CS. Though the technology relies on
an extraction step that must occur in a lab, it still
saves money by signaling non-detect samples,
providing a chance for additional coring near
positively identified contamination. Like most
screening technologies, the methods work only
for single sediment contaminants (i.e.,
biomarkers for dioxin in CS), and, unfortunately,
their use remains unacceptable under CFR. The
Corps has also expressed concerns about its
ability to transfer sediment screening
technologies from its labs, and would do well to
14
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
follow the example set by the Bay Area
National Laboratories and the Region 9
Environmental Finance Center36.
The AMS Split Core Sampler for Submerged Sediments,
recently demonstrated under the SITE
Monitoring and Measuring Technology
program, collects cylindrical cores to a
maximum depth of 36 inches below the surface.
AMS created the tool by modifying its existing
Split Core Sampler for soils. Two key
differences between its design and that of
conventional sediment corers allow it to provide
a higher quality sample. A ball check valve in
the top cap allows water to exit during
submersion and creates a vacuum to hold
sediment in during retrieval. The modified
coring tip contains a basket retainer to hold
sediment within the interlocking split core cups.
AMS hopes that these modifications will address
concerns about conventional coring and lead to
more sampling of undisturbed zones not
sampled through grabs or dredging. For more
information, see the Contacts table or SITE
Program Demonstration Bulletin EPA/600/F-
99/008.
The ARI Russian Peat Borer
, originally used for collecting
microorganisms in pond sediment, was also
recently demonstrated under the SITE program.
Along with the AMS Sampler, it successfully
collected PCB and arsenic impacted sediments
from the Fox River and Dothan Park in
Wisconsin and Mystic Lake and Woburn in
Massachusetts. The Peat Borer can operate in
water depths up to 15 feet, and can collect
samples as large as one liter as far down as 65
feet below sediment surface. Borer materials are
lightweight, durable, corrosion resistant, and
strong. Used in parallel, two borers provide a
complete, continuous sediment core, with little
surface disturbance and no sediment entry
during the driving process. For more
information, see the Contacts table or SITE
Program Demonstration Bulletin EPA/600/F-
99/008.
3. Current Application of
Innovative Characterization
Technology at Waterfront
Voluntary Sites
3.1 Methods of data collection
Site specific information
To gather site-specific technology application
data on brownfields and VCP properties, one
must rely almost exclusively on intra-
governmental documentation and chain-of-
command interviewing. Factors limiting the
effectiveness of this approach include time,
resources, and access to the decision-makers
involved.
Unlike Superfund and RCRA, brownfields
technology use for both characterization and
remediation is generally not subject to
documentation requirements. Public records of
NRC Report comments on site characterization needs for CS
Problems
- Accurate characterization essential for cost effective CS management and risk assessment (p. 8)
- High cost limits precision of defined CS zones; impacts remediation work (p. 9)
Recommendations .
- With more research, acoustic profiling may provide for cost effective remote surveying with high precision
(P-9)
- Chemical sensors may work for sediment as they have in soil and groundwater (p. 9)
- "Improved site assessment capabilities need to be developed and implemented to enhance overall cost
effectiveness" (p. 169)
- 'The EPA and USAGE should conduct joint research and development projects to advance the state of the art in
site assessment technologies." (p. 172)
15
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
In tha Waterfront Voluntary Setting
decision (RODs) do not exist for these projects,
and EPA headquarters does not keep regular tabs
on individual federal pilots. Most of that
information resides at the regional level of the
Agency or with individual project managers.
While state VCPs must track individual parcels
by the nature of their programs, most do not
track technology use. Finally, large amounts of
information remain confidential to non-agency
and non-government employees.
Therefore, access to documentation on
technology use largely depends upon the lead
agency and the researcher's relationship to it.
The following points summarize the common
information access paths used in this report:
3.1a National Brownfields Assessment Pilot
(Federal Pilot) properties
• Organization: At the EPA's regional level, a
Brownfields team operates out of the main
office, under the Superfund program. For
each region, one person serves as the
Regional Brownfields Coordinator.
However, this person tends to have limited
or focused day to day work with individual
pilot management. Depending on the region
and the municipality receiving the grant,
project managers will oversee a particular
pilot locally or from the main office. Main
office oversight remains more common, as
managers are often charged with overseeing
several pilots in multiple states at one tune.
In some cases, however, the EPA has found
it more efficient to hire a liaison locally to
coordinate the pilot, typically when
municipalities lack other support agencies to
fill that need.
• Reporting Requirements: Local government
contacts must file quarterly reports to the
EPA regions, but these reports seldom, if
ever, contain technical information. Instead,
they tend to reflect the focus of their writers
as "process intensive," since the bulk of
Brownfields grant funds are provided for the
purpose of coalition-building, education, and
leveraging future cleanups. Additionally,
some regions have been slow to press for
this information. The lack of technical
information contained, however, appears
only to parallel the aversion of "process"
types to such material, since no policy
mandates the report's content.
• Federal Documentation Sources: Record
keeping methods vary widely among the
pilots and regions, complicated further by
state-federal and municipal-federal control
issues. For a property targeted under the
pilot, access to technical information
typically runs through the regional project
manager.
• Local Documentation Sources: In many
more cases, however, property is
municipally owned, so local governments
will keep additional records and take the
lead on the project. In this situation, cities
will contract out to engineering firms,
sometimes with more technical (city
engineer) staff serving as contacts. Often,
however, a city will have only an economic
development agency representing it in the
redevelopment process, with all technical
services contracted out. This does not mean
that the city or redevelopment agency lacks
such records on the project. It does,
however, tend to signify that efficient
retrieval of this information, short of
personal visits to sift through files, is better
left to the engineering firm contact.
Therefore, despite the federal nature of the
pilot, the only easily accessible records may
rest with a private firm—a more efficient yet
harder to track approach.
3.1b State voluntary cleanup and
brownfields programs
• Organization: As with the federal
Brownfields program, state VCP and
Brownfields programs usually run under the
state's Superfund program. Management
and resource commitments vary widely
among states, but project managers typically
handle more cases than feasible and cannot
commit large portions of time to
investigating or advocating innovative
technologies.
16
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
• Reporting requirements: Again, these vary
among states. Theoretically, for the EPA to
issue a NFA letter, and for the state to
declare closure, an assessment report must
be generated. This leads to the question of
document repositories and sources. The
most efficient means of storing this data
would be in a publicly available database,
which a few states have begun placing
online. Still though, many states do not
include assessment information (other than
phase I-n-ffl progress) in these databases or
GIS sources. The recently published
Kensington Report provides the best
available contact info for state brownfield
and VCP programs, as well as their
databases37.
• State documentation sources: Given the
large legal ramifications of site
characterization conducted under a VCP or
brownfields program, results should remain
in the public record within the state agency
responsible. Finding this information,
however, demands time and persistence. In
many cases, documentation on site
characterization tools and methods may not
exist within the state agency (see below), but
instead with local governments.
• Local documentation sources: Reporting
requirements depend on contamination. In
some states, when contamination does not
reach a further action level, reporting on
technical details like characterization tools
may stop at the agency-regional, county or
city level. This level of recording would be
almost impossible to survey on a national
scale, and, as above, contracting firms may
provide the most efficient means of access.
• Hazards: Since the state rarely has the
resources necessary to provide
comprehensive oversight, it is often left to
the firm to 1) provide the range of
technology alternatives, and 2) to self-police
and ensure that the tools are used correctly.
The first tendency presents a hazard because
the firm may artificially limit choices to
excessively complex sampling plans, to
conventional tools already at its disposal,
and to higher cost options than necessary.
Despite competitive bidding procedures, this
information may be lost on or unavailable to
local decision-makers. The second tendency
also presents a hazard, because firms may
promise widespread application of
innovative tools to cut costs in the bidding
process, but then perform shoddy work due
to field problems or poor planning.
3.1c General exceptions and advisories for
data collection
Since characterization and remediation phases
are usually bid separately, this creates the
possibility of two or more firms holding
information on a single redevelopment project.
Fortunately, the remediation contractor ends up
with data from the assessors, and may obtain
reports from surrounding properties depending
on the requirements and professional quality of
the job. If, however, the property is under
consideration for mandated corrective action,
assessment contractors usually will not share
characterization information for confidentiality
reasons.
3.2 Decision making in the characterization
tool selection process
The final decision to use field portable
technologies in the voluntary setting usually
rests with the agency project manager, who
usually relies on the consulting engineer. This
reliance may manifest itself in an "enhanced
review process," but no amount of streamlining
will compensate for an overly rigid policy that
hinders field tool application. The several sets
of factors noted above constantly impact, dilute
authority among, and affect the decision-making
within this relationship. The overall approach
presents several problems.
First, the project manager is often over-reliant
on the engineer. Workload and lack of
technical expertise, as well as hesitancy to
deviate from standard procedure, causes the
agency representative to assume an
approve/disapprove posture. If the consulting
engineers can show that their sampling plan
17
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
in Iho Watarfront Voluntary Setting
meets agency policy requirements, regardless of
whether or not it may provide the best quality,
most efficient, or most appropriate data, then it
satisfies the firm's burden. Keep in mind that
data quality objectives or other means to ensure
quality control are relatively new to some states.
From a documentation perspective, the process
of devising a characterization plan and selecting
tools and technology remains relatively opaque.
Some observers at the federal level have noted
that the informational and creative burden on the
firm not only proves efficient amidst limited
agency resources, but helps deflect
accountability as well. Any mistake or
undetected contamination becomes the fault of
the contractor.
The firm, which may have its own motives and
those of its voluntarily acting client to contend
with, is left to advocate its plan before the
regulators (known as "providing a deliverable").
Unfortunately, some firms hesitate to apply
innovative characterization technologies, either
due to poor cost/benefit information for the
client or an uncertain performance perception.
Without an open policy that efficiently permits
and effectively promotes innovative alternatives
from the start, the state regulators will end up
approving plans that meet their conventional
sampling criteria. Less than effective and less
than efficient site characterization results from
this cycle, particularly in light of the unique
needs of waterfront property and brownfields
stakeholders.
Agency attempts to push an innovative
technology at the approval stage—with
inadequate resources to review each plan, select
the proper technologies, and incorporate data
quality objectives that may not have been
designed with innovative tools in mind—would
only draw out the process and alienate VCP
participants. Unfortunately, hi the voluntary and
brownfield process, most states do not get
involved until this point, leaving the assessment
work to the client and firm. This places the
burden on them to step forward and "claim" a
status for their property, whereupon the state
determines the necessity of and verifies cleanup
actions.
3.3 Baseline assumptions
Due to this market's preferences noted above,
and despite state pressures, field portable tools
should theoretically appear frequently
throughout the dataset. Longtime observers of
brownfields and the environmental assessment
technology market, however, know all too well
the problems with the above statement. These
problems include overly rigid state policies
regarding innovative technology, as well as
traditional obstacles noted in Section 1.6.
Because of the national nature of this project, it
seems futile to explicitly predict if field-based
characterization tools will experience more or
less application than conventional tools. The
distribution and concentration of sites among the
states would skew the data and mask the large
impacfof state agency policies on sediment
assessment and technology use. Without
explicitly comparing every state and EPA
regional policy, it remains difficult to predict
whether the pilot sites or VCP sites will exhibit
greater use of these tools.
The voluntary waterfront redevelopment setting,
with its tight budgets and short time frames,
lacks tolerance for technical mistakes.
Therefore, the data on innovative
characterization tool application for this setting
should support a few conclusions:
1. Any innovative characterization
technology used should have available
cost and performance data for the
suspected contaminants involved. No site
will try a tool straight out of the lab.
2. Field screening technologies will see far
greater deployment than on-site analysis
tools, as on-site analysis has yet to gain
the widespread acceptance of screening
tools, both among firms and states.
3. Sampling of aqueous sediment will only
occur if a state or local agency has
employed an area-wide approach to
characterization, for the purpose of
examining groundwater issues or for
identification of PRPs under a potential
state or federal Superfund scenario. No
18
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
_^ in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
other regulatory incentive, aside from
USAGE dredging, compels an agency to
examine aqueous sediment for waterfront
voluntary or brownfield properties.
3.4 Results
A large percentage of information in the data
tables, specifically the Contact data tables,
contain hyperlinks to web pages or email. This
was by design, as the data tables are meant to
serve as a resource for researchers in addition to
simply providing information for this project. A
stable dataset compiled over tune is necessary to
both accurately gauge progress and identify
problem areas with voluntary cleanup programs.
For our waterfront subset, it provides the
opportunity to test the impact of various policy
programs, redevelopment theories, and political
proposals. With finer examination, it also shows
a great deal about the organizational structure
behind implementing these programs, how it
works, and where connections need to be made
or strengthened. More work needs to be done,
and with scarce information on site specifics for
the voluntary market, these tables represent a
starting point that researchers will hopefully
build on, cite, and communicate their ideas with.
Data collected directly support assumptions one
and two, and with few exceptions, also support
the third assumption.
Data Tables (Appendix A): Data Matrix,
Contact List, and data tables for 115 sites on the
following topics: Oversight, Progress, Field
Tool Application, Contaminants, Remediation,
Sediment Assessment, and proximity to NPL.
A large percentage of information in the data
tables, specifically the Contact data tables,
contain hyperlinks to web pages or email. This
was by design, as the data tables are meant to
serve as a resource for researchers in addition to
simply providing information for this project.
More work needs to be done, and with scarce
information on site specifics for the voluntary
market, these tables represent a starting point
Figure 2. Contaminant classes at selected waterfront voluntary sector properties
Q.
Contaminant
19
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
in lha Waterfront Voluntary Setting
that researchers will hopefully build on, cite, and
communicate their ideas with.
Site selection
Waterfront location was the primary criteria for
site inclusion. Secondary criteria included
planned or completed work and identification as
a targeted property under a Brownfield pilot.
Inclusion was slightly biased to collect as much
information about properties that had completed
phase n work in as short a time as possible.
Since properties were followed up on
immediately once identified—the dataset had to
be created from scratch within a 12-week time
constraint—it seems obvious that waterfront
sites with complete site characterizations would
prove of more interest than those without. For
that reason, this paper does not provide a
nationwide "universal status report" on all
waterfront voluntary properties.
Contacts
Most information for this project was collected
over the phone or via email. The idea of
voluntary submission via a web-based form,
database, and possibly GIS seemed appealing;
however, the State of Pennsylvania has tried
exactly this approach for gathering less technical
information than contained in this report. Their
result, 21 sites, has been supported by a grant
program that pays local government entities
$ 1,000 per brownfield they submit to the
voluntary database38.
At the time this project began, the EPA
volunteered no centralized nationwide contact
list for brownfields project managers, and one
may not exist. Contacts listed on the scant fact
sheets were at times out of date and rarely the
best persons for the information sought here.
Nearly all of the site contacts listed with this
report were contacted over the phone and/or via
email. As this was in some ways an on-the-job
learning process, there were no "standardized"
questions, though certain topic headings always
were covered depending on the contact's
expertise and access to relevant site
information—these comprise the data tables. A
fair amount of information not included in this
report was also collected, as project managers
and engineers tend to relate background
knowledge and unique challenges facing their
sites as well.
Below the site contacts are a list of other
contacts, all experts in their particular field
whose insight was invaluable in shaping
portions of this report. The contacts file also
includes a linked list of online state databases
explicitly containing or searchable for voluntary
properties. One of the major drawbacks of the
Kensington Report was its failure to include a
list similar to this. Finally, the contacts file
concludes with contact info for firms and others
that deal extensively with voluntary industrial
cleanups.
Progress
One large drawback with this table involved
groundwater testing; because the project's intent
focused on obtaining information field-based
characterization tools, some sites focused their
information-providing efforts on soils and
sediments. Though data gaps exist with regard
to media, it seems clear from industry protocol
that the vast majority of sites that have sampled
soils have probably also sampled their
groundwater. With additional time, a firmer
correlative link could have been established
between sites sampling (or not sampling)
groundwater and sites sampling (or not
sampling) sediment. In this way, analysis of the
groundwater leaching contaminant pathway
could occur.
Field-portable tool application frequency
Clearly, from the descriptions above,
determining a progress of a site proved many
orders of magnitude easier than accessing field
tool information. However, 21 sites did apply
field-portable screening or analysis technology,
and an additional five used only Geoprobe or
direct push methods, which still fit the definition
of field tools despite their non-innovative
qualities and established market position.
Among the sites applying innovative methods,
handheld photoionization devices (PIDs) and
soil gas samplers, both screening tools used to
better define regions of contamination, were the
most common choices. A total of 15 PIDs, used
mainly to detect VOCs, and six soil gas
20
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
samplers, were employed. Four sites chose to
use on-site labs, including one private site
outside of the New Orleans federally funded
demonstration, a former explosives plant in
DuPont, Washington. The Navy, with its sizable
in-house research division, has taken the lead in
applying innovative field technologies to its
sites—though even under base-closure
conditions, it operates under a different set of
funding and market parameters.
In time, additional follow-ups or data
contributions will allow us to obtain a more
accurate picture of exactly how many sites
nationwide employ field tools and for which
purposes (screening or analysis). For now, due
to state policies and communication gaps
regarding on-site analysis' reliability, screening
tools experience far more widespread
application. Screening frequency with the tools
noted is consistent with the high number of sites
reporting VOCs, though the high number of sites
reporting heavy metals would lead one to expect
high frequency in XRF application as well, to
counter the large cost of soil removal. XRF,
however, saw rather limited application in the
waterfront voluntary setting.
Contaminants
No particular type of waterfront industry was
targeted by this report; as a result, the dataset
reflects a wide variety of contaminant classes
from many different industrial and, at times,
non-industrial sources. The most prevalent
contaminants in sediments, however, included
traditionally common materials such as PCBs,
PAHs, pesticides (dioxin in particular). VOCs,
metals, and TPH were the dominant contaminant
classes in landward soils. Where groundwater
information was available, TPH appeared to be
the primary contaminant.
Remediation
A few innovative remediation projects
eventually appeared among the 115 sites. As
one can determine by comparing the number of
phase n completions to the number of completed
remedial projects, however, most voluntary and
brownfield projects that might take advantage of
such technologies have not yet reached this
stage. Presently, two conventional SVE
projects, as well as one combined
bioremediation and thermal desorption project,
are operating in Portland, Oregon. Several
natural remedies provide hope for cost-effective,
low-impact solutions on the horizon—plans for
wetlands at Pittsburgh's Duquesne Slag, and
plans for phytoremediation at Brownfields pilots
in Danbury, CT and Hennepin County, MN.
Sediments
The sediment data makes clear that CS
assessment is, in most voluntary cases, directly
supported by a public funding source. This is
consistent with its status as a common resource
and the lack of a viable cost recovery option
through the liability law, for reasons cited in
Section 2. The vast majority of properties with
known sediment assessment work accomplished
it through a CERCLA investigation (13) or with
assistance from the USAGE (8). The two
Danbury properties, the Stockton property, and
the Pittsburgh property had municipal assistance
with the cost recovery. The Harlan, OR and
White City, OR properties participated in a
Targeted Brownfields Assessment sponsored by
EPA Region 10. The two Bellingham properties
were part of an innovative partnership that seeks
to address CS and other pollution issues
surrounding Bellingham Bay. One site has
applied for state funding. Only two properties
uncovered in this report—ASARCO in Omaha
and the Lake Union Steam Plant in
Seattle—show evidence of voluntary, privately
funded sediment assessment work.
As for the sites that did not assess, some had
their reasons. The New Orleans Brownfields
pilot, for instance, suspected only TPH in the
groundwater at its sites, based on earlier phase I
information39. Pacific Bell Park in San
Francisco, although built on a waterfront site
with an industrial past, needed only to address
lead contamination associated with fill material
in the soil. Other sites, like those in St. Joseph,
MI, await funding from state and federal
sources. Still others, like the properties in
Channelview, TX or Shreveport, LA, were not
part of a wider redevelopment plan or
cooperative partnership similar to St. Joseph's,
and therefore had no incentive to investigate
21
-------
Application oi Rold-Based Characterization Tools
In the WalBffronl Voluntary Setting
what is likely an extensive multiple source CS
problem in their heavily industrialized areas.
3.5 Cases
Due to the variety of field-based characterization
tool application found in this report, as well as
the divergent needs of environmental
professionals, those seeking further background
for case studies should consult the dataset
(Appendix A) and contact the sites of interest to
them. In addition, it would be advisable to note
the future research needs listed in Section 3.6.
Case studies were compiled for sites that
addressed area-wide concerns (most often CS),
because of the potential market for field-portable
sediment assessment tools and the ability of
cooperative partnerships to expedite assessment
while confronting multiple environmental and
financial issues.
Confronting area-wide concerns
Bellingham, WA
A cooperative partnership in Bellingham,
Washington has provided an example of how
area-wide sediment assessment might occur
under the current regulatory framework. A 3-
year effort among 14 state and federal
government and industry partners has recently
produced a draft EIS identifying sediment
cleanup alternatives for Bellingham Bay.
Included in the partnership are several industries
responsible for sediment pollution in the bay,
including Georgia Pacific West.
The partnership seeks to streamline the
necessary sediment cleanup, but also address
wider issues associated with the health of the
bay. These issues include source control, habitat
restoration, and plans for future surface water
and shoreline land use.
Under a CERCLA-mandated cleanup decision,
sediment problems would eventually be
addressed, although wider watershed concerns
might not. The advantage of PRP liability
would reimburse taxpayers, but probably over a
longer time frame. The Bellingham Bay
partnership provides a way to address aquatic
sediment problems more quickly by supplying
the most important element needed for sediment
assessment—a secure source of funding. For
this pilot project, a variety of agencies, including
EPA and the Washington State Department of
Ecology, provided grants.
It should also be noted that one shoreline
property—the Olivine Property—had sediment
assessment undertaken for in water construction
at a Coast Guard base. The Coast Guard paid
for the work on that project, and is also a
member of the Bay partnership.
Significantly, Washington State remains one of
the only states with sediment quality standards.
Projects like the one in Bellingham Bay may
illustrate how such standards lead to addressing
wider watershed environmental problems. From
a decision making perspective, Ecology knew
that bay sediments were likely contaminated
with a variety of contaminants from several
sources—and that some areas probably exceeded
the standards. Community support for
rehabilitating the waterfront and preserving
existing employment opportunities was strong;
however, the process driver—environmental
assessment to determine what actions were
needed—was missing until Ecology stepped
forward with the grant. Both the Bellingham
Bay Demonstration and the Bellingham EPA
Brownfields Pilot have been notable for their
public and private stakeholder involvement. As
a result of this cooperation, sediment assessment
was conducted in less time than on average, and
necessary cleanup to a defined standard will
commence soon. When the sediment project
and Brownfields pilot conclude, the wider bay
ecosystem will fare much better than it has over
the past half-century and the city will have a
cleaner, revitalized waterfront.
The only limitation on this type of cooperative
agreement remains the policy question of having
the taxpayers assume the burden for pollution
caused by a multitude of responsible parties,
only some of which the liability process can
identify and distinguish relative culpability
among. In terms of end results, however, the
Bellingham project, by addressing shared
concerns and multiple interests—from wildlife
22
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
to redevelopment—has produced an effective
model.
Seattle. WA—Multi-User Disposal Sites
(MUDS)
Another innovative sediment project from
Washington's Department of Ecology involves
disposal sites for dredged material. The Seattle
office of the USACE is working with EPA and
Ecology to study aquatic, nearshore (cap/fill),
and upland disposal sites. USACE has
particular interest in this project since, as
discussed above, it has wide authority to address
CS in and around navigable waters. The most
innovative part of the project, however, allows
both public and private dredging projects to use
and pay for the disposal sites. Though the
overall financing and cost sharing requires more
discussion, the concept of establishing a
permanent, safe, and accessible disposal option
looks promising. Though in situ treatment
would provide a more guaranteed environmental
outcome (rather than transporting the problem
and dealing with dredging's inadequacies), it
remains undesirable from a cost, permitting, and
practicability standpoint for multiple
stakeholders. For the present needs of the area,
which involve known CS and needed—perhaps
even mandated—dredging, the MUDS project
appears appropriate.
Emeryville. CA—Soil and Groundwater
Emeryville has undertaken an area-wide
approach to assessing soil and groundwater by
sampling and monitoring throughout the city and
the near-shore region of San Francisco Bay.
Though comprehensive sediment assessment did
not occur, near-shore groundwater monitoring
well and grab samples were taken to determine
if contaminated water might threaten the Bay.
Because of the large number of brownfields and
potential contamination sources, transcending
the property line approach was made easier in
this case. However, aquifers are always
common property resources that transcend
property boundaries, and Emeryville's
willingness to take the area-wide approach
illustrates once again the driving forces behind
environmental cleanup.
The city's action only appears exceptional
because it occurred under a process that
emphasizes property lines for the sake of
redevelopment. The fundamental ideals behind
revitalizing and redeveloping Brownfield parcels
break down, though, if the contamination issues
associated with them multiply among or impact
a large area. To clarify, this is not so much a
problem with the program itself, but with the
resources presently committed and available to
redevelopment entities—specifically
municipalities. Cities in general view the legacy
of contamination as a property-specific problem
that disappears when the land is remediated.
They cannot usually commit to investigating
common property resources like aquifers or
aqueous sediment, because they lack either
statutory authority or adequate funds to do so.
Private redevelopment entities, clearly, have
little interest in becoming tied to a problem with
an unclear definition of responsible parties.
Additionally, because other municipalities may
have contributed to the problem, the issue falls
to the states—who, for reasons of their own, as
in the case of CS, have established funding
priorities (see the Clean Michigan Initiative
criteria, Section 2.1).
In that light, Emeryville's initiative appears
particularly remarkable. Adequate funding
served as the key driving force, allowing the
project to assist rapid redevelopment, as an
entirely clean city proves more attractive than
one with only a clean section or a clean corridor.
Portland, OR
In Portland, ODEQ completed area-wide
sediment sampling because of CERCLA-related
concerns about several sites along the
Willamette River. For more information, please
refer to the linked Portland Harbor Sediment
Management Plan linked above.
Interim Action
Hennepin County. MN—Chemical Marketing
Corporation
If emergency-response requiring contamination
does not exist on a site, utilizing pre-emptive
23
-------
Application of Hold-Based Characterization Tools
In tha Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Portland Harbor
Study Area
Willamette Cove
McCozmick & Baxter
.Riidal
Source: ODEQ Portland Harbor Sediment Management Plan
phytoremediation may improve its market value.
Often, a site owner cannot pay to clean up
contamination and must rely on a buyer to steer
the property through voluntary cleanup.
However, the owner usually does not want to
abandon the property and would like to receive
some compensation for giving up the land.
Planting trees and plants, and removing debris,
can dramatically increase the attractiveness to a
buyer, while helping to remediate some metals
and providing a higher sale price for the owner.
Admirable public involvement and education
has occurred as a result of this federal pilot.
Additionally, unlike some pilot locations, the
community has chosen to address a more
difficult State Superfund site and take a large
step, rather than a tiny one, to generate
momentum in their brownfield redevelopment
process.
Beneficial Reuse Demonstrations
WRPA Sediment Decontamination Project
A shortage of aquatic disposal facilities caused
several agencies with responsibility for the New
York/New Jersey Harbor area to investigate
beneficial reuse treatment technologies. These
technologies would treat CS unsuitable for open
water or CADF disposal. With support from the
1992 and 1996 Water Resources Development
Acts, the USAGE, EPA Region 2, and NY/NJ
Port Authority will evaluate the BioGenesis
Sediment Washing, IGT Thermal Cement Lock,
and Westinghouse Vitrification methods in a
series of four demonstrations. The BioGenesis
pilot-scale projects, for one example, range in
size from 500cy to 500,000cy and will conclude
around 2002. The consortium hopes that the
WRDA project will eliminate a sizable part of
the harbor's CS problem, while the port deepens
channels that will allow the area to compete for
deep-draft container ship traffic. The port has
set a cost ceiling of $35 per cubic yard for
treatment, a large reduction from the average
$200 per cubic yard, guaranteeing that the
technologies emerging from the program will
provide a good turnaround on investment.
24
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Settinq
Item
Labor rate and Handling costs
Soil Collection
Groundwater Sampling
Sediment Sampling
Lab Analysis for all samples listed above
General Sampling Cost
$35/hr plus $10 per sample, respectively
$ 10 per sample (hand); $600 per day + $30 per
sample (Geoprobe)
>$40/sample plus well installation costs
$30/sample (shallow), + equip, cost (deep water)
$27 (assay) - $1200/sample , depending on
contaminant
Source: US EPA-ORD NRMRL
Detroit River, MI—EPA Region 5 and Michigan
DEO
Following an initial bench scale study of five
remediation technologies applicable to both
inorganic and organic contaminants, Michigan
DEQ ended up satisfied with the same 3
methods as the WRDA New York/New Jersey
project. From these three, Michigan selected the
Institute of Gas Technology (IGT) Thermal
Cement Lock process as the most marketable
technology with the greatest potential for reuse,
and has partnered with EPA Region 5 for
upcoming pilot scale work with that process.
IGT received a grant of $200,000 to find a site
for its 30,000-cubic yard kiln apparatus along
the Black Lagoon/Trenton Channel adjacent to
the Detroit River. No viable PRP exists for this
location, no redevelopment is anticipated due to
the severe contamination, and institutional
controls such as fish advisories remain the only
actions taken at this particular location.
However, Region 5's R/VMudpuppy completed
extensive sediment assessment work on this
stretch of the river, adding to a 20-year store of
CS knowledge. Officials remain very optimistic
that the beneficial reuse prospects for dredged
material will allow them to recover costs that the
absence of a PRP would otherwise prevent.
Additionally, they hope that the turnaround
value of the process will prove attractive in the
voluntary setting, as the IGT process can handle
a wide variety of wastes, from TOSCA material
to brownfield soil.
3.6 Future research needs
3.6a Cost/benefit analysis needs
For landward soil characterization technologies,
most of the technical information (e.g., how the
tool works, why it works) is available from the
references listed in the Contacts or Verification
tables accompanying this document. Some of
the technologies are recognized as
fundamentally sound by other scientific
disciplines, such as gas chromatography, while
others have experienced at least limited
application in a setting where one could record
cost information. The balance of the landward
tools, as well as all of the sediment assessment
tools, remain in the bench or pilot scale stage.
Most of the cost information remains
inaccessible, however, since that type of
documentation exists only between the client
and the firm. An agency would not keep track
of that data unless it was paying for the work
through a grant or targeted assessment program.
It seems clear that the case for innovative site
characterization technologies would receive a
large boost if more cost/benefit analysis
occurred, with comparison to conventional
characterization methods. The best-cited
examples so far, however—the Expedited Site
Characterization Demonstration properties in
New Orleans, LA, Brownfields pilot—faced
their own field problems, which had little to do
with the accuracy of the instruments40. One may
also find the following generalized data useful41:
This project could not collect cost information
on a national scale in such a short time frame.
Because of the difficulty in even identifying
useful properties for cost/benefit analysis, that
task became the primary focus of the research.
Those familiar with the EPA will note that
preparing case study reports can be left to
research contractors, once the identification and
investigation ends. More useful at this stage is
an expandable dataset that can provide tool
25
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
in tha Waterfront Voluntary Setting
application information on a nationwide scale.
From this, trends may appear that include:
• Geographic concentration of assessment tool
use (particularly by state, once additional
VCP data is collected)
• A clearer picture of the market
fragmentation and contaminant breakdown
among brownfields and voluntary sites
• Clear differences in innovative tool
application and pricing between firms
• Overall cost savings for innovative sites
versus those using conventional technology
(comparing within media and contaminant
categories).
• Cross-regulatory comparisons of assessment
tool use between voluntary and
mandated/enforcement-type programs.
None of this information—from which an
analyst could identify exactly which policies
were not working and the reasons why; and from
which a technology "consumer" could gain
valuable insight—will be available without a
solid dataset of properties. In this case,
waterfront properties comprise the dataset focus
for their unique policy issues discussed above,
and also to limit the scope slightly.
3.6b Additional research needs
• Inter-State regulation comparisons on field-
portable technology use
• Intra-State field tool application frequency
comparisons between regulatory programs
• Cost of inter-state regulation differences to
field-portable technology vendors
• Cost-benefit analysis on how much a
municipality would save by pursuing a
cooperative approach to sediment
assessment
• Cost-benefit analysis on field-based
sediment assessment tools
• Analysis of the groundwater leaching
pathway—how do areawide or property line
assessments of groundwater impact
sediment assessment?
4. Conclusions
Gorte notes that, "the pressure to find cheaper
and more effective technologies for assessment
and cleanup of brownfields will continue to
build"42. Without a baseline to compare to,
these results at least show some promise for
field-portable tools. Behind the results,
however, lies the stifling atmosphere of multiple
agency policies, multiple permitting processes,
and inconsistent acceptance of verification and
certification data. Despite the powerful driver of
waterfront property's resale value, no amount of
cost/benefit work for the property owner will
sway regulators resistant to integrating field
tools—particularly on-site analysis tools—into
their programs.
Potentially, lessons learned from developing and
applying field tools to soils could be used to
prevent similar mistakes and obstacles with the
field screening and field analysis tools in
development for sediments. With a few
exceptions among the most financially supported
and most advanced state environmental
agencies, however, this seems unlikely. Most
field tools, aside from PIDs and soil gas
samplers, remain in the middle or stuck at the
start of their quest for acceptance. Field
screening and analysis tools for sediments face
an additional collective action problem among
then-prospective waterfront clients. Enhanced
cooperation among waterfront regulators and
property owners has proven its ability to
expedite sediment assessment and cleanup, and
therefore provides an emerging opportunity for
technology transfer.
26
.';.. it ,
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Other References and Recommended
Reading
EPA Publications
Brownfields Pilot Locations and Fact Sheets,
Series 500-F-97 and 500-F-98. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, EPA,
Washington, DC.
Tool Kit of Information Resources for
Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup
(EPA/542/B-97/001). Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, EPA, Washington, DC.
Road Map to Understanding Innovative
Technology Options for Brownfields
Investigation and Cleanup (EPA/542/B-97/002).
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
EPA, Washington, DC.
Field Analytical and Site Characterization
Technologies (with out of date tables)
(EPA/542/R-97/011). Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response—TIO, EPA, Washington,
DC. November, 1997.
Quality Assurance Guide for Conducting
Brownfields Site Assessments (EPA/540/R-
98/038). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, EPA, Washington, DC. September
1998.
Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup:
Annual Status Report (9th Ed.) (EPA/542/R-
99/001). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response—TIO, EPA, Washington, DC. April
1999.
National Conference on Management and
Treatment of Contaminated Sediments: Cleanup
Technologies and Management Strategies
(5/13/97—Conference Slide Handout
EPA/600/Q-97/001). Office of Research and
Development, EPA, Washington, DC, May
1997.
National Conference on Management and
Treatment of Contaminated Sediments: Cleanup
Technologies and Management Strategies
(EPA/625/R-98/001). Office of Research and
Development, EPA, Washington, DC, August
1998.
Realizing Remediation: A Summary of
Contaminated Sediment Remediation Activities
in the Great Lakes Basin. Great Lakes National
Program Office, March 1998.
EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management
Strategy (EPA/823/R-98/001). Office of Water,
EPA, Washington, DC, April 1998.
Other publications—technology
Accelerated Site Characterization Team
Workplan for Subtask HI. Consortium for Site
Characterization Technology—ITRC
Partnership (10/4/96).
Defining "The End" of Technology Testing
(3/96). Downloaded 7/6/99.
Operations Plan for the Rapid
Commercialization Initiative. RCI Working
Group (6/96).
Broetzman, Gary G., et al. Case Studies of
Selected States Voluntary Cleanup/Brownfields
Programs. ITRC Work Group and Colorado
Center for Environmental Management, May
1997.
Broetzman, Gary G. Activities for Approving
and Encouraging Innovative Environmental
Technologies. Colorado Center for
Environmental Management, December 1996.
Wesnousky, John, et al. ITRC Guidance
Document—Multi-state Evaluation of an
Expedited Site Characterization Technology:
SCAPS-LIF. ITRC Workgroup—Cone
Penetrometer Task group, May 1996.
Environmental Technology Transfer Charrette
White Paper. Environmental Finance Center,
Region 9, 1997.
Catalog of Environmental Technology
Verification Programs in North America.
Pacific Rim Enterprise Center and Colorado
27
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
InlhgWatorifont Voluntary Setting
Center for Environmental Management, January
1999.
ASTM Standard Provisional Guide for
Accelerated Site Characterization (ASC).
American Society for Testing and Materials,
1997.
Other publications—policy
Bartsch, Charlie and Christine Anderson.
Matrix of Brownfield Programs by State.
Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington, DC,
September 1998.
Bouges, Maureen. "Oregon Hail: Portland's
Pioneering Ways." Brownfields. Volume 3,
Issue 3, June 1999.
1 Internal Document: "Expediting the Site Characterization Process at Three Brownfields Sites in New Orleans,
Louisiana: Case Study". Prepared for U.S. EPA by Tetra Tech EM, Inc, Sherry Gernhofer, Work Assignment
Manager, December 12,1997, Table 6-4.
See also Cost Estimating Tools and Resources for Addressing Sites Under the Brownfields Initiative (EPA/625/R-
99/001). Office of Research and Development, EPA, Washington, DC, April 1999.
2 Refer to the "Oversight" data in this paper. City Redevelopment Agencies and Economic Development
Authorities traditionally serve as middlemen in the resale process, allowing them to recover costs for cleanup.
3 Superfund: Barriers to Brownfield Redevelopment (GAO/RCED-96-125). General Accounting Office,
Washington, DC, June 1996, p. 2.
4 An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 1998 Update. Environmental Law Institute,
Washington, DC, 1998.
5 Ibid.
6 Superfund: Barriers, p. 9
1 Gorte, Julie F. Marketing Brownfield Cleanup Technologies. Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington, DC,
February 1999.
8 Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends (1996 Ed.) (EPA/542/R-96/005). Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response-TIO, EPA, Washington, DC, April 1997, Sections 9.3-9.4.
9 Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends (1996 Ed.) (EPA/542/R-96/005). Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response-TIO, EPA, Washington, DC, April 1997, Sections 9.3-9.4.
10 Internal Document: "Brownfields Data Collection Sources." Report for EPA-OSWER Outreach and Special
Projects Staff. Kensington Systems, Inc., Los Angeles, CA. March 1999.
11 Ibid.
12 An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 1998 Update. Environmental Law Institute,
Washington, DC, 1998, p. 20.
13 Ibid.
14 Personal Communication, Dr. Thomas DeKay, EPA-TIO
15 Clean Michigan Initiative. Michigan DEQ, Lansing, MI, 1997.
16 Personal Communication, Mr. Chad Howell, City of Kalamazoo, MI. June 1999.
17 77ie Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States - Volume 1:
National Sediment Quality Survey (EPA/823/R-97/006). Office of Science and Technology, EPA, Washington,
DC, April 1997.
18 Brannon, J.M.; McFarland, V.A. Technical Considerations for Sediment Quality Criteria. Miscellaneous Paper
W-96-1. Water Quality '96: Proceedings of the Corps of Engineers 11th Seminar on Water Quality, Feb. 26th-Mar
1st, 1996, Seattle, Washington. USACE-WES, Vicksburg, MS, 1996, pgs. 346-352.
19 Personal Communication, Mr. Art Ostaszewski, Michigan DEQ.
20 For two very different perspectives on dredging, consult the USAGE E2-D2 page and GE's HudsonWatch page.
21 Clean Michigan Initiative. Michigan DEQ, Lansing, MI, 1997, p. 8 of online edition.
22 NRC Report: Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways: Cleanup Strategies and Technologies.
Bokuniewicz, Henry, et al. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 1997, p. 5.
23 For more on state-federal cost recovery issues, see the Testimony of Ms. Claudia Kerbwy, ASTSWMO, March
23,1999, before the House Commerce Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.
24 NRC Report, p. 1.
25 Personal Communication, Mr. Tommy E. Myers, Ph.D., June 29, 1999.
28
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
26 NRC Report, p. 171.
Internal Document: "Special Report: Funding Brownfield Remediation with the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund." Report from Kristin S. Kenausis, Communications Specialist, State Revolving Fund Branch, EPA Office
of Water, July 1999.
29 Personal Communication, Ms. Jennifer Millet, EPA-OSPS, meeting with Mr. Andrew Kreider and EPA-TIO
representatives, June 1999.
30 These and preceding statistics in paragraph from "Special Report: Funding Brownfield Remediation with the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund."
31 NRC Report, p. 42.
32 Ibid., p. 42.
33 See American Trucking Associations vs. U.S. EPA, May 14, 1999, and the Federal Response
34 See http://www.epa.gov/superfund/whatissf/cercla.htm
35 NRC Report, p. 73.
36 Personal Communication, Mr. Tommy E. Myers, Ph.D., June 29,1999.
37 See "Brownfields Data Collection Sources."
38 See PDEP Brownfields Inventory Grants
39 Internal Document: "Expediting the Site Characterization Process at Three Brownfields Sites in New Orleans,
Louisiana: Case Study". Prepared for U.S. EPA by Terra Tech EM, Inc, Sherry Gernhofer, Work Assignment
Manager, December 12, 1997, p. 5.
40 Ibid., p. 6 and Table 6-4.
41 Cost Estimating Tools and Resources for Addressing Sites Under the Brownfields Initiative (EPA/625/R-99/001).
Office of Research and Development, EPA, Washington, DC, April 1999, pgs. 21-22.
42 Gorte, p. 2. ,
29
-------
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Appendix A. Data Matrix, Contact List, and data tables for 115 sites on the
following topics: Oversight, Progress, Field Tool Application, Contaminants,
Remediation, Sediment Assessment, and proximity to NPL
A-l
-------
Toon
T«W*A-1.M«Wx
i]
„eSiw),Br
OddWMnirer 1
»*»p.il,MX' ' ' — •
;r*»i>«lamond International Site
Jghthouse Point
-ormer tank farm
Vlexander Street Waterfront
Town Parcel
-TV South Side Steel works
Washington's LandingTHerr Island parcels
Washington's Landins/Herr Island parcels
)uquesne Slag - 9 mile run
3ittsburgh Tech Center
Sites to be determined
Cotton Mill waste lagoon
Stevenson Creek Junkyard
Sites to be determined
Dity landfill
Madison Street properties
\uto ton Area, Mills Street
Consumers Power North
Tiverfront BRI Site (CP South)
Shoreline Project- multiple properties
Mo Specialties Site (parcel 1S)
Whirlpool Property
-ormer Superior Steel
Malleable Site
DSX Railway Site
.k Ml Coll Tech Center
Traverse City Iron Works
Chemical Marketing Corp - StSfund
Dhio Leather Company
Empire Detroit Steel Mill (VCP 16.8 ac)
Empire Detroit Steel Mill (3 parcels)
Slmoox Steel and Grinding Co.
Chevron Refinery
Six mile riparian corridor
40-acre res/light commercial
29-acre vacant ind park
rlarborpark Center - Fmr Chrysler
Saratoga Street
Powers Junction
Hendree Court
Fairgrounds Parcels
EPC - Nitrogen Benzene TransferStatlon
Zapata Offshore Property
KOCH Refining Terminal
Keeper's Locker, Inc.
Woodhouse Terminal - Port of Houston
*
I
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X '
X
x
X
X .
X
X
"X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
f
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
M
"M""
-_,„ ,...
M
M
M
p
p
"~ M "
M —
M
M
I
M
M
M
I
P
M
M,U
M
P
P
p
P
M
M
M
M
M
M,C
E
E
E
E
E
I
M
M
I
M
I
M
M
M
I
M
P
M*
M«
M«
E
M
P
M
A
A
P
P
M
; M
M
M
M
P ,
P
P
P
P
X
_x~
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
• x
X
X
X =
X
-
-„„
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
, x
X
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
--"--
—
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-._,,.-
"S "
x
X
X
X
x
Ti
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x —
X
X
-x..
X
X
.,.
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
x
X
A.
j-
-{-
t
X
-
X
^
..Jx
--
X
X
X
JC
X
-
-
x —
-
X
X
X
'= t
• I-
.
...
X
X
X
X
- r
" -
X
X
X
-
s
__
Y
"N"
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y ,
G
Y
G
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
~T~
Y
Y
T
-
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N .
.
- - =
N
N
N
N
N
Table A-1
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
In the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
IEPA
Reg.
o
i
i
9
., ,.9
"" 9
g
10
10
10
10
To
— in
~~10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
^^^^^^^H
Galveston.TX
Houston, TX
Houston, TX
Houston, TX
Lvnchburq, TX
Port Isabel, TX
Omaha, NE
Omaha, NE
Kansas City, MO
Coralville, IA
Richmond, CA
Richmond, CA
Stockton, CA
Falls Citv, OR
Harlan, OR
Portland, OR
=>ortland. OR
Portland i OR
Portland, OR .
Portland, OR
3ortland, OR
White City, OR
Bellinaham. WA
DuPont, WA
Seattle, WA :
fetch IcaViTAK ~~
Totals
Headings
I - Phase II characterizatlo
II -Phase II characterize
III - Phase II character-teat
Ownership
M - Municipal
3 - Private
A -Port Authority
U - U.S. Army Corps of Enj
- Inconclusive (usually sti
Islte 1 11 III Ownership VOCs SVOCsPCBs PAHs Cl. Sohr TPH Metals, Or Pb As Nl Zn _CJ!' Hg Be Pes'lcides TBj PCP- tebesto! Coal tar' RT" Sed
Inorganics ordloxln phenols "D05U* f|yasn Use? [sample?
SPTCo Galveston Wharves Site
Lafarge - Clinton Drive Facility
Unoccupied Sandblasting/Painting Site
Foster Products Corporation
Channel Shipyard, Inc.
Amerada Hess Refinery
Cltv Dock Board
Freedom Park Landfill "
Riverfront Port Authority Park Prelect
Iowa River Power Plant and AssocTParce
Terminal I - Petromark
Marina Say Parce s - WWtl shipyards
Weber Block "
Pacific Bell Park
Atlas Mill
Old Harlan Mill
Willamette Cove
Triangle North Portland Yard/Rledel
GASCO/NWNG
Portland Shipyard r~
Time Oil Company '.
Mobil Oil
'Gunderson
-ormer Whetstone Landfill
loader Avenue Landfill
Lake Union Steam Plant
Pulp Mill ' H V ^
n complete for soils
n complete for groundwater
on complete for aqueous sediment
gineers
In Identification stage)
E - Local Economic Development Authority
A* - Munclpality In process of acquiring
J - Navy or Navy Base Realignment and Closure Commission
C - County
I : - — '
A
X
X
X
X
~x
X
X
s
X
X
X
_
X
X
_
X
X
_
X
__
X
- —
X
X
___
X
X
X
~x~
~~x~~
~x~
~x~
___
X
X
~x
X
X
~x~
~x~
~~x~
~~w
r
p
p
p
p
p
p
- M
M -.
M,A
.
M
-• E
M
M
M
M
rp~
p
A
~~P
P
Si r
A
P
P
X
X
X
'• X ~
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
— 51 —
X
X
X
X
X
~~x
X
X
~~x
x~
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
22
Contaminant classes of concern
:or some sites, these contaminants are presumptive based on past la
Jot all sites provided or knew all of their contaminants/See the Conta
able to distinguish between known and suspected pollutants, as well e
lest available information on the media they were located In.
VOCs - Volatile organic compounds
SVOCs - Semi-volatile organic compounds
PCBs - Polychtorinated biphenyls
PAHs - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons -
Cl. Solvents - Chlorinated Solvents
TPH - Total petroleum hydrocarbons
Unsp. Metals - Contamination due to unspecified metals
jT- Chromium
Pb - Lead
As - Arsenic
Ni - Nickel
Zn - Zinc
CN - Cyanide, FeCN - Ferrous Cyanide
1g - Mercury
Be -Beryllium
Pesticides - may Include DDT, DDE, ODD, dieldrin, others
TBT-Tribuytlytin
PCP - Pentachlorophenot
( li ii 1 i i
1 1
X
X
X
X
X
^
id use.
ninants
is the
1 1 I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
39
F.T. (F
Y-den
echno
G - der
ool
N-den
echno
Blank)
anexp
possib
Totals:
Sedsa
sits?)
Y-den
N-den
Blank)
or an e
with po
ere.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x~~
' ie
X
X'
—
—
X
X
—
X
X
~
X
X
X
X
eld-portable Toot) Use?
rates known application of field portable tools and
ogies at this site
otes known application of Geoprobe as only field
otes known non-application of field portable tools
ogles at this sites
- Indicates incomplete information. See Tool dat
anatlon of why data quality control precluded som
s or probable field portable tool use was not India
Y/G/N
mplB? (Was aqueous sediment sampled atorarou
ales known sediment sampling
otes a known case of non-sampling
- Indicates Incomplete information. See "Sedlmen
xplanation of why data quality control precluded s
sslble or probable field portable tool use was not 1
Y/N
_J L
X
X
X
X
portable
and
i" table for
e sites with
ted here.
ndthis
t° section
X
x
V
^
X
X
X
•-"-
=-
Y
Y
Y
'N
G
O
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
__'_X
Y;
Y
Y
Y
Matrix
-------
Application cif Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Table A-2. Contacts
City
Bridgeport, CT
Danbury, CT
______]
Middlotown, CT
Norwich, CT
Chicopee, MA
Lawrence, MA
Lowell, MA
Lynn, MA
New Bedford, MA
Buffalo, NY
Glen Cove, NY
Ogdonsburg, NY
Yonkers, NY
Cape Charles/Northampton
County, VA
Pittsburgh, PA
Charleston, SC
East Point, GA
Site
Jenkins Isle/Bluefish ballpark
Kohanza Brook
Mallory Hat Factory
Peterson Oil Company
Portland Chemical
Riverfront Mill, Thames River
vlarina
roundry w/ lead contamination
Dae Hur/Hamden Steel
Oxford Paper Company
Everett Mills
Atlantic Power
.awrence Textile
Davison Street Lots
Baseball Stadium
Tsongas Arena
Beacon Chevrolet
Sites to be determined
LTV Steel hydroponic tomato
rlanna Furnace/Union Ship Canal
Squaw Isl. USACE dredge disposal area
Captains Cove Condominiums
Bona-Fide Ready Mix
A-1 Carting
Gladsky Marine Salvage
Hawkins Cove (Doxey)
Municipal Arena
Diamond International Site
Lighthouse Point
Former tank farm
Alexander Street Waterfront
Town Parcel
LTV South Side Steel works
Washington's Landing/Herr Island
parcels 1 , 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Washington's Landing/Herr Island
parcels 10, 11 south, 12
Duquesne Slag - 9 mile run
Pittsburgh Tech Center
Sites to be determined
Cotton Mill waste lagoon
Contact
vlr. Steve Tyliszczak
Mr. Jack Kozuchowski
Mr. Jack Kozuchowski
Mr. Jim Sipperlee
Mr. Jim Olsen
Mr. Jim Sipperlee
Mr. Steve Holtman
Ms. Kelly Stackowicz
Ms. Kelly Stackowicz
Mr. Carl Dietz
Mr. Carl Dietz
Ms. Kim Pisa
Ms. Kim Pisa
Ms. Kim Pisa
DEP Northeast Region
Mrs. Carol Tucker
Mrs. Carol Tucker
Mrs. Carol Tucker
Mr. James Chow
Vis. Molly Fontaine
Mr. Dennis Button
Mr. Dennis Sutton
Mr. Steve Golyski
Mr. Joe Giambria
Mr. Robert Benrubi
Mr. Robert Benrubf
Mr. Robert Benrubi
Mr. Robert Benrubi
Mr. Robert Benrubi
Mr. Martin Murphy
Mr. John Blaum
Mr. John Blaum
Mr. John Blaum
Mr. John Blaum
Ms. Chelsea Albucher
Mrs. Josie Matsinger
Dr. Deborah Lange
Mr. Jim Nairn
Dr. Deborah Lange
ICF-Kaiser
Dr. Deborah Lange
GAI Consultants
Dr. Deborah Lange
Dr. Richard Luthy
Mrs. Barbara Dick
Mrs. Geona Johnson
Mr. John Dwyer
Affiliation
City of Bridgeport
City Health Dept
City Health Dept
City Planning Dept
Marin Env. Services
City Planning Dept
Woodward & Curran
City Econ Develop
City Econ Develop
City of Chicopee
City of Chicopee
EPA Region 1 liaison
EPA Region 1 liaison
EPA Region 1 liaison
State of Massachusetts
City Planning Dept
City Planning Dept
City Planning Dept
EPA Region 1
City of New Bedford
City Ofc of the Env
City Ofc of the Env
USACE-Buffalo
City Public Works
Econ Develop Agency
Econ Develop Agency
Econ Develop Agency
Econ Develop Agency
Econ Develop Agency
City Planning Dept
I it
Camp.Dresser&McKee
Camp.Dresser&McKee
Camp.Dresser&McKee
Camp.Dresser&McKee
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 3
Cameige-Mellon/TBC
Civil and Environmental
Consultants
Carneige-Mellon/TBC
Pittsburgh, PA
Carneige-Mellon/TBC
Monroeville, PA
Carneige-Mellon/TBC
Carneige-Mellon/tBC
EPA Region 4
Enterprise Community
Chemron
1
i Phone
203-576-7221
203-797-4625
203-797-4625
860-344-3425
860-345-4578
860-344-3425
203-271-0379
860-823-3822
860-823-3822
413-594-4711
413-594-4711
888-372-7341
888-372-7341
888-372-7341
97:B-66l-7677 '' ""'"
978-970-4274
978-970-4274
978-970-4274
617-918-1394
508-979-1485
716-851-4852
716-851-4852
716-879-4104
X4228
716-851-5636
516-676-1625x100
516-676-1625x100
516-676-1625x100
516-676-1625x100
516-676-1625x100
315-393-7150
518-482-3000
518-482-3000
518-482-3000
518-482-3000
212-637-4360
215-814-3132
412-268-7121
800-365-2324
412-268-7121
412-497-2000
412-268-7121
412-856-6400
412-268-7121
412-268-7121
404-562-8923
803-973-7285
404-636-0928
Table A-2
A-4
Contacts
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Clearwater, FL
Jacksonville, FL
East Moline, IL
Waukegan, IL
Kalamazoo, Ml
Muskegon, Ml
St. Joseph, Ml
Traverse City, Ml
Hennepin County, MN
Girard.OH
Southern Ohio Port
Authority, OH
Tallmadge, OH
Toledo, OH
Youngstown, OH
Kenosha, Wl
New Orleans, LA
Shreveport, LA
Baytown, TX
Channelview, TX
Corpus Christ!, TX
Galena Park, TX
Galveston, TX
Houston, TX
Stevenson Creek junkyard
Sites to be determined
City landfill
Madison Street properties
Auto Ion Area, Mills Street
Consumers Power North
Riverfront BRI Site (CP South)
Shoreline Project - multiple properties
All DEQ-WMD or voluntary CM1
Auto Specialties Site
Whirlpool Property
Former Superior Steel
Malleable Site
CSX Railway Site
Traverse City Iron Works
Chemical Marketing Corp - StSfund
Ohio Leather Company
Empire Detroit Steel Mill
Simcox Steel and Grinding Co.
Chevron Refinery
Six mile riparian corridor
34 acre industrial park
40-acre res/light commercial
29-acre vacant ind park
30-acre former steel mill
Harborpark Center - Fmr Chrysler
Saratoga Street
Powers Junction
Hendree Court
Fairgrounds parcels
EPC - Nitrogen Benzene Transfer
Station
(VCPID593)
Hutchison-Hayes International
(VCP ID 387)
Zapata Offshore Property
(VCP ID 489)
KOCH Refining Terminal
(VCP ID 574)
Keeper's Locker, Inc.
VCP ID 556)
Woodhouse Terminal - Port of Houston
;VCP ID 162)
Tatsumi USA/Todd Shipyard Facility
(VCP ID 330)
SPTCo Galveston Wharves Site
VCP ID 977)
Lafarge - Clinton Drive Facility
Mr. Miles Ballogg
Mrs. Beverly Williams
Mrs. Jane Neumann
Mrs. Jan Pels
Mr. Chad Howell
Mr. Chad Howell
Mr. Chad Howell
Mr. Scott Miller
Contacts for all sites
Ms. Lorrie Thomas
Mrs. Keary Cragan
Mr. Evan LeDuc
Mr. Dale Corsi -
Malleable only
Mr. Randy Smith
Mrs. Catherine Geisler-
Kisch
Mr. Dan Dickel
Ms. Trish Nuskievicz
Mr. Ross Powers
Ms. Gerri Cauley
Ms. Gerri Cauley
Brownfields Coordinator
Brownfields Coordinator
Srownfields Coordinator
Brownfields Coordinator
Brownfields Coordinator
Mr. Mick Warner
Mrs. Monica Smith
Mrs. Monica Smith
Mrs. Monica Smith
Dr. Roy Dowling
Mr. Peter Wehner
Mr. Brian Magruder
Mr. Peter Wehner
Ms. Lisa Edwards
*/lr. Steve Neely
Ms. Pat Fontenot
Mr. Keith Van Hook
Mr. Richard Scharlach
Mr. Mark Aebi
Mr. Allen Walzel
Mr. Raymond Hillis
Mr. Jack Smitherman
Mr. Byron J. Ellington
Ms. Laura Fiffick
Mr. Paul Stephen
Mr. Byron J. Ellington
Mr. Mark Urback
Mr. Otu Ekpo-Otu
Mr. Peter J. Gagnon
Mr. Byron J. Ellington
City of Clearwater
EPA Region 4
EPA Region 5
EPA Region 5
Econ Dev and Planning
Econ Dev and Planning
Econ Dev and Planning
Superior Environmental
Contacts for all sites
DEQ-Plainville Office
EPA Region 5
Cornerstone Alliance
Snell Environmental Gp
Traverse Group, Inc
Hennepin County
City of Chanhassen
Trumbull Cty Planning
EPA Region 5
Ohio VAP
Ohio VAP
Economic Development
Economic Development
Economic Development
Economic Development
Economic Development
3MT, Inc. (sediments)
EPA Region 6
EPA Region 6
EPA Region 6
ALTEC Environmental
TNRCC
Exxon Pipeline Co.
TNRCC
Hutchison-Hayes
Harding Lawson
Associates
TNRCC
EMCON
TNRCC
Koch Refining Co.
Finch Energy & Env.
Services
TNRCC
Everest Environmental
TNRCC
Port of Houston
ERM-Southwest
TNRCC
Lanier and Associates
TNRCC
;RM-Southwest
"NRCC
727-562-4023
404-562-8493
312-353-2000
312-886-3009
616-337-8044
,*, •.:• .'i:. ' "•
616-337-8044
616-337-8044
616-677-5255
Contacts for all
616-692-2688
313-353-5669
616-925-6100x212
517-374-6800
734-747-9300
612-348-4949
612-472-7536
330-545-3879
734-692-7681
614-644-2924
61 4-644-2924
330-744-1708
330-744-1708
330-744-1708
330-744-1708
330-744-1708
608-662-5243
214-665-6780
214-665-6780
214-665-6780
888-772-5832
512-239-4133
713-656-2190
512-239-4133
619-544-5242
713-974-9611
512-239-2132
713-861-6877
512-239-1787
316-828-6304
512-592-9810
512-239-1096
512-883-2831
512-239-2253
713-670-2438
281-579-8999
512-239-2253
504-895-0368
512-239-2445
281-579-8999
512-239-2253
Table A-2
A-5
Contacts
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
InglesIde.TX
Lynchburg, TX
Port Isabel, TX
Omaha, NE "
Kansas City, MO
Cedar Rapids, IA
Coralville, IA
Richmond, CA
Stockton, CA
San Francisco, CA
Falls City, OR
Harlan, OR
Portland, OR
White City, OR
Bolllngham, WA
DuPont, WA
Seattle, WA
Tacoma, WA
Ketchikan, AK 1
(VCPID315)
Unoccupied Sandblasting/Painting Site
(VCP ID 401)
Foster Products Corporation (JD 989)
Ingleside Offshore Services Property
(VCP ID 488)
Channel Shipyard, Inc.
(VCP ID 317)
Amerada Hess Refinery
(VCP ID 483)
City Dock Board
ASARCO
Freedom Park Landfill
Riverfront Port Authority Park Project
Meat rendering and other facilities
Iowa River Power Plant/Assoc. Parcels
Terminal I - Petromark
^Marina Bay - WWII shipyards
Point Molate Naval Fuel Station
Weber Block
Pacific Bell Park
Atlas Mill
Old Harlan Mill
Willamette Cove
U.S. Government Moorings
Triangle North Portland Yard/Riedel
Port of Portland Terminal 4
GASCO/NWN6
Elf Atochem
Portland Shipyard
North Marine Drive
Time Oil Company
Mobil Oil
Gunderson
Moody Avenue Property
Former Whetstone Landfill
Roeder Avenue Landfill
Olivine Property
Former Du Pont Explosives Plant
Lake Union Steam Plant
Thea Foss - multiple properties
Pulp Mill
Mr. William Voshell
Mr. Steve Haverl
Ms. Pat Fontenot
Mr. J. Rick Renshaw
Mr. Peter Wehner
Mr. Raymond Hillis
Mr. Jack Smitherman
Ms. Diane Coker
Mr. Troy Mefferd
Ms. Phyllis Primrose
Mr. Stephen Freeman
Mrs. Susan Klein
Mrs. Susan Klein
Mrs. Susan Klein
Mrs. Debi Morey
Mr. Jim Halverson
Brownfields Coordinator
[Mr.WallyWoo
Mr. Kent Kitchingman
Mr. Kent Kitchingman
Mr. Ken Spielman
Mr. Tom Mix
Mr. Jim Bradford
Public Relations
Mr. Gil Wilstar
Mr. Gil Wilstar
Contacts for all sites
Mr. Chip Humphrey
Mr. Mike Rosen
Mr. Doug MacCourt
Mr. Ken Novack
Ms. Claudia Johansen
Mr. Mike Stoner
Mr. Mike Stoner
Mr. Doug Hillman
Mr. Chuck Whittlesey
Mr. Charlie Solverson
Ms. Marcia Combes
Lafarge
Brown and Calclwell
TNRCC
Fairfield Financial
Group, Inc.
TNRCC
TNRCC
Everest Environmental
TNRCC
Geo-Basics
TNRCC
Amerada Hess
EPA Region 7
EPA Region 7
EPA Region 7
EPA Region 7
City Development
City of Coralville
EPA Region 9
EPA Region 9
EPA Region 9
US Navy
EPA Region 9
Black and Veatch
CalEPA DTSC
Oregon DEQ-Portland
Oregon DEQ-Portland
Contacts for all sites
EPA Region 10
ODEQ Portland Sed.
Private Sector
Schnitzer Corporation
Oregon DEQ-Medford
Port of Bellingham
Port of Bellingham
Hart Crowser
Hart Crowser
City of Tacoma
EPA Region 10AK
810-948-1201
303-750-3983
512-239-2132
713-871-2080
512-239-4133
512-239-1096
512-883-2831
512-239-4670
318-433-8300
512-239-0730
713-609-5955
9^3-551-7786
913-551-7786
913-551-7786
913-551-7593 ' ;
319-286-5045
319-351-9069
415-744-1207
510-620-6704
510-620-6704
650-244-2539
415-744-2378
925-246-8000
916-322-0476
503-229-5512
503-229-5512
Contacts for all
503-326-2678
503-229-6712
503-226-1191
503-224-9900
541-776-6010x228
360-676-2500
360-676-r2500
800-858-9530
800-858-9530
253-591-5017
206-553-1352
Other Contacts 1 Purpose 1 Name 1 Affiliation j Phone
AMS Samplors
SITE Program _________
SITE Program
SW 846 Revisions
ORD Brownfields Work
Amer Assoc of Port Auth
Brownfields Initiative
Brownfields Initiative
Market Obstacles to tech
Redevelopment obstacles
Region 5 Sediments Team
ARCS/Mudpuppy
Commencement Bay, WA
New sediment sampler, ETV program
Verification of sed tech for Superfund
Verification of sed tech for Superfund
Impact of federal guidance, changes
Site specific bfield and cost reports
Brownfield work conducted by P.Auth
General overview of bfields and ?s
Revolving Loan Fund
Identify tech transfer and vendor probs
Identify redevelopment obstacles
Sediment issues facing Great Lks area
Sediment issues facing Great Lks area
Sediment issues facing Puget Sound
Mr. Brian Anderson
Dr. Stephen Billets
Dr. Brian Schumacher
Mr. Ollie Fordham
Mrs. Joan Colson
Mr. Tom Chase
Mr. Andrew Kreider
Ms. Jennifer Millet
Mrs. Julie Gorte
Mrs. Ann Goode
Mrs. Bonnie Elleder
Mr. Marc Tuchman
Ms. Christine Psyk
Art's Manf. And Supply
US-EPA NERL
liS-EPA NERL
US-EPA OSW
US-EPA ORD
AAPA
US-EPA OSPS
US-EPA OSPS
NE/MW Institute
NE/MW Institute
EPA Region 5
ERA Region 5 GLNPO
EPA Region 10 -TFW
608-643-4913
702-798-2232
702-798-2242
703-308-0493
513-569-7501
703-706-4715
202-260-9192
202-260-6454
202-544-5200
202-544-5200
312-886-4885
312-353-1369
206-553-1748
Table A-2
A-6
Contacts
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Commencement Bay, WA
Bruker Analytical X-ray Sys.
ORD Brownfields Work
Data Collection
Saint Paul Port Auth. Work
Saint Paul Port Auth. Work
21M-squared Meas & Mon
Other Known Projects
PortofNY/NJ
Detroit River, Ml
Detroit River, Ml
Newark, NJ
Newark, NJ
Trenton, NJ
Port of Chicago, IL
VCP and State Haz. Site
Databases Online
Redevelopment Projects
Imminent Danger Projects
SAP/SAF Projects
Haz. Site Database
Site Database
Brownfields Directory
VCP Database
Brownfield Successes
Brownfields Inventory
Haz. Site Inventory
Brownfield Areas
State Grant Recipients
SEIDS
Case Study List
VRP Site List
VIC Site List
NFA List
Haz. Site Inventory - "a" list
VCP Database
One Stop Shop GIS
ECSI List
Haz. Site Inventory
Facility/Site ID System
Sediment issues facing Puget Sound
S4 Explorer XRF
Ongoing Research
CMI Project Manager Contacts
Brownfield work conducted by P.Auth
Waterfront redevelopment
Measuring and Monitoring Tech
Development . , .
Purpose
Beneficial Reuse of Aquatic Sediments
Beneficial Reuse of Aquatic Sediments
Beneficial Reuse of Aquatic Sediments
Federal Brownfields
Federal Brownfields
Federal Brownfields
Harbours Golf Course
Program/URL
FY 99 Clean Michigan Initiative '
FY 99 Clean Michigan Initiative
Precursor to Clean MI Initiative
Environmental Response Division
All programs - VCP-type is "Tier II"
Land Recycling
VCP
VCP
Superfund Division
Hazardous Waste Mgmt Branch
Department of Waste Management
Brownfields
Site Environmental Info Data System
Brownfields
Voluntary Remediation Program
Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup
In 1998 Governor's Report
Remediation and Redevelopment Div
Texas VCP
Brownfields
Site Assessment Program
Waste Management and Cleanup Div
Information Services Section
Ms. Mary Henley
Mr. Bill Daub
Mr. Edwin Barth
Ms. Susan Sandell
Mrs. Lorrie Lauder
Mr. Steve Hardie
Mr. Dan Powell
Name
Mr. Eric Stem
Mr. Marc Tuchman
Mr. Art Ostaszewski
Mr. James Hacklar
Mr. Bill Libruzzi
Ms. Nuria Morese
No contact
State - Agency
Michigan-DEQ ERD
Michigan-DEQ ERD
Michigan-DEQ ERD
Michigan-DEQ ERD
Massachusetts DEP
Pennsylvania DEP
Delaware DNREC
Delaware DNREC
North Carolina DEHNR
Georgia DNR EPD
Florida DEP
Florida DEP
Illinois EPA SRP
Indiana DEM OER
Indiana DEM OER
Minnesota PCA
Ohio EPA VAP
Wisconsin DNR
TNRCC
City of Emeryville, CA
Oregon DEQ
Oregon DEQ
Washington DOE
City of Tacoma
Bruker-AXS NJ Office
US-EPA ORD
Michigan DEQ
SPPA
SPPA
US-EPA TJQ ,.,
Affiliation
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 5
Michigan DEQ
EPA Region 2
Project Manager
EPA Region 2
No contact
Site info, # of proj
Yes, 85
Yes, 5
Minimal, -100
Yes, 2857
Minimal, -5000
Yes, 21
Minimal, 63
Minimal, 10
Minimal, 9
Yes, 426
Minimal, 9
Minimal, 1 1
Minimal, -400
Yes, 31
Minimal, 230
Minima], >125
Minimal, -40
Minimal, >100
Yes, 893
Yes, >200
Minimal, 2000
Yes, 214
Yes, 51 2 in VCP
253-502-2113
201-930-0359
513-569-7669
231-775-
3960x6312
651-224-5686x236
651-224-5686x240
7P3-603-7,196
'Phone
212-637-3806
312-353-1369
517-335-4491
732-321-6730
973-802-1946
217-637-4302
No contact
Contaminant info
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes "
No
Table A-2
A-7
Contacts
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Persons not contacted for
this paper
Redevelopment Projects
Redevelopment Projects
Firm
Finn
Firm
Firm
Firm
AAPA Session Participant
Purpose . 1 Name 1 Affiliation 1 Phone
Chicago Office
Kansas City Office
Main Office
Northeast Region
Main Office
MA bffice/Env. Consulting for KEERA
Main Office
Port/Harbor Brownfields
AAPA Session Participant fARCADIS Geraghty & Miller
Mr. Scott Anderson
Mr. Mark Snyder
No contact
No contact
No contact
William Duvel, Ph.D.
No contact
Ms. Helene Takemoto
Mr. Steve Brusee
Black and Veatch
Black and Veatch, R7
Roy F. Weston
Maxy
URS Greiner
ENSR-KEERA
Ogden Environmental
USACE-Honolulu
ARCADIS
312-683-7834
913-458-6526
1-800-7Weston
800-695-7771
415-774-2700
978-635-9500
703-488-3700
808-438-6931 «
510-233-3200
Tab!oA-2
A-8
Contacts
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Table A-3. Funding
City Site 1 Ownership 1 Site Assessment Funding 1 Comments
Publicly owned properties (65)
Bridgeport, CT
Danbury, CT
Danbury, CT
Middletown, CT
Middletown, CT
Norwich, CT
Lawrence, MA
Lawrence, MA
Lowell, MA
Lowell, MA
Lynn, MA '_
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo, NY v,-
Glen Cove, NY
Ogdensburg, NY
Ogdensburg, NY B«
Ogdensburg, NY
Ogdensburg, NY
Cape Charles/Northampton County, VA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
East Point, GA
East Moline, IL
Kalamazoo, Ml
Kalamazoo, Ml -
St. Joseph, Ml
Benton Harbor, Ml
Traverse City, Ml
Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH
Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH
Kenosha, Wl
Kansas City, MO
New Orleans, LA
New Orleans, LA
New Orleans, LA ••"---
Jenkins Isle/Bluefish ballpark
Kohanza Brook/Barnum Court
Mallory Hat Factory
Portland Chemical
Peterson Oil Company
Marina
Oxford Paper Company
Atlantic Power
Baseball Stadium
Tsongas Arena
Beacon Chevrolet
Hanna Furnace/Union Ship Canal
Squaw Isl. USACE dredge disposal area
Captains Cove Condominiums
Municipal Arena
Diamond International Site
Lighthouse Point
Former tank farm
Town Parcel
LTV South Side Steel works
Washington's Landing/Herr Island
parcels 1 , 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Washington's Landing/Herr Island
parcels 10, 11 south, 12
Duquesne Slag - 9 mile run
Pittsburgh Tech Center
Cotton Mill waste lagoon
City landfill
Auto Ion Area, Mills Street
Riverfront BRI Site (CP South)
Auto Specialties Site (parcel 1S)
Lk Ml Coll Tech Center
Traverse City Iron Works
Empire Detroit Steel Mill (VCP 16.8 ac)
Empire Detroit Steel Mill (3 parcels)
Harborpark Center - Fmr Chrysler
Riverfront Park Port Authority Project
Saratoga Street
Powers Junction
Hendree Court
City
City
City
City . -
City
City -••-•
City
City
City
City
City - ,
City
City »' «
City
City - -- .- . --
City -'•
City
City -
City/County
EDA
EDA
EDA
EDA
EDA
City
City
City (2 non-NPL
parcels)
City
City
EDA
City
Port Authority
Port Authority
City
City, Port Authority
City
City
City
City -pilot -EDA/PPP
City -pilot
City -pilot
City -pilot
City
City
State
City -pilot
City -pilot
City -pilot
City -pilot -.„..•••
City -State .bond, City -pilot "
City -USACE -
State Sfund, City -State bond, City -
State DOT, VCP, City -pilot
City -pilot
City -pilot
City -pilot
City/County -pilot
VCP -EDA
VCP -EDA
VCP -EDA
VCP -EDA/pilot
VCP -EDA
State (now City -pilot, State)
City -pilot
City -pilot, State-EPA
State-EPA
City -State bond, EDA -pilot
EDA -State-EPA, City -CDBG
City -State bond, EDA
VCP, Port Authority
Port Authority -pilot, VCP
City -pilot
City, Port Auth -State, -USACE
City -pilot, ESC demo project
City -pilot, ESC demo project
City -pilot, ESC demo project
$8-$9 million PPP funded 7 Bridgeport sites
,
: - • - ;
. ----: • --. . ------
Wetlands creation project ••; -
pilot
• -*- '
-"•. • :-:. :" ."•''•
EDA (Urban Redev Auth) received pilot
: -
.".*.-."•. •:
'••--.•:-.
EDA (Cornerstone Alliance) received pilot
Grant from state bond paid for char + rem
^
Wideranging plans include park, aquarium,
commercial development
Table A-3
A-9
Funding
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Toots
En the Waterfront Voluntary Sotting
City Site Ownership 1 Site Assessment Funding Comments
Shreveport, LA
R[chrnond,CA
Richmond, CA
Richmond^CA
Stockton, CA
San Francisco, CA
Falls City, OR
Harlan, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portlandj OR
White Citv, OR
Bellingham, WA
Bellingham, WA
Norwich, CT
Yonkers, NY
Clearwater, FL
Kalamazoo, Ml 1
Benton Harbor, Ml
Benton Harbor, Ml
Benton Harbor,»MI i
Girard, OH -
Omaha, NE '
Omaha, NE — ^
Cedar Rapids, IA
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Privately ownedproperties (38)
Chicopee, MA ;
Lawrence, MA .. . • '
Lawrence, MA
Buffalo, NY
St. Joseph, Ml
Tallmadge, OH
Toledo, OH . L- -! ;
Baytown, TX • • •
Channelview, TX
Channelview, TX , , ; :
Channelview, TX-
Fairgrounds parcels
Terminal I - Petromark
Marina Bay Parcels - WWII shipyards
Point Molate Naval Fuel Station
Weber Block
Pacific Bell Park
Atlas Mill
Old Harlan Mill
North Marine Drive
Port of Portland Terminal 4
Portland Shipyard
Former Whetstone Landfill
Olivine Pjxjperty
Roeder Avenue Landfill
Falls Ave. Mill, Thames River
Alexander Street Waterfront (22 ac)
Stevenson Creek junkyard
Consumers Power North
Former Superior Steel
Malleable Site
I
CSX Railway Site l
i.
Ohio Leather Company
City Dock Board
Freedom Park Landfill J-"- ~—
Meat rendering and other facilities
Willamette Cove Park
U.S. Government Moorings
Dae Hur/Hamden Steel ;
Lawrence Textile ,
Everett Mills - :
LTV Steel hydroponic tomato ;, *
Whirlpool Property - - .--
Simcox Steel and Grinding Co.
Chevron Refinery : ,
EPC - Nitrogen Benzene Transfer Station
Hutchison-Haves International ^
Zapata Offshore Property
KOCH Refining Terminal
City
Cityl „ . , _
EDA
U.S. Navy
City
City
City
County
City
Port Authority
Port Authority
City of Medford
Port Authority
Port Authority
City
CJty
City
City,
City seeking to
acquire
City seeking to
acquire
City seeking to -•
acquire
City
City, USAGE
City
City
City (Transit Auth)
USAGE
Private
Private
Private
Private. .
Private "
Private
Private -. . -.
Private
Private1 * f*
Private u -7!
Private
City -pilot
Citj' -pjlot, seeking TBA
City -EDA
Navy BRAG
iCJty -pilot
City - State, VCP
EPA TBA -State
EPA TBA -State !
City -Federal DOT/FHWA
Port Auth, State
Port Auth, State
EPA TBA - State
Port Auth - pilot, VCP, state
Port Auth - pilot, VCP -owner
City -pilot
Citv -pilot
Cjtvjpllot, USAGE
State
State, EDA, CDBG
State, EDA, CDBG
State, EDA, CDBG
City - pilot
City -pilot, USAGE
Citjr
City -pilot
City • -------
VCP - USAGE, State *
VCP
VCP - - .
City -pilot
VCP -pilot
VCP - owner
VCP
VCP - operator <: .-..,.
VCP - operator
VCP - purchaser; - -- a-
VCP -operator ^' j : -..,-^:si
VCP -operator ! •-= •---'-
Former base undergoing redeveloplnent
State conducted work using EPAjjrant
State conducted work using EPA grant
Unique case of FHWA funds used on Bf's
EPA-DEQ areawide sediment sampling
EPA-DEQ areawide sediment sampling
State conducted work using EPA grant
EPA and State conducted areawide sed
assessment after initial adjacent NPL work
-I! L : .-. = = -
State gives Brownfield redevelopment
authority money to reimburse developers for-
environmental expenses
All St. Joe/Benton Harbor sites part of wider
Edgewater, Graham Avenue redevelopment
plans
_ ._....— .
?.. i • . - - -
Area to be preserved1 as open space
r
^ »»
Rejected from VCP
Withdrew from VCP ~ _
Table A-3
A-10
Funding
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
City Site Ownership 1 Site Assessment Funding 1 Comments
Corpus Christ! , TX
Galena Park, TX
Galveston, TX
Galveston, TX
Houston, TX
Houston, TX
Houston, TX ;••
Ingleside, TX
Lynchburg, TX
Port Isabel, TX
Omaha, NE , ,
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR , ;
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
DuPont.WA . .. •
Seattle, WA
Ketchican, AK '
Chicopee, MA
Glen Cove, NY ;
Glen Cove, NY ; '
Glen Cove, NY * •'. '
Glen Cove, NY ; -. r
Hennepin County, MN
Indeterminate Ownership (13)
Lowell, MA
New Bedford, MA
Charleston, SC
Jacksonville, FL
Waukegan, IL
Muskegon, Ml • - • .
Youngstown, OH ,
Youngstown, OH ;
Youngstown, OH
Youngstown, OH
Youngstown, OH -• .
Coralvilie, IA
Tacoma, WA
Keeper's Locker, Inc.
Woodhouse Terminal - Port of Houston
Tatsumi USA/Todd Shipyard Facility
SPTCo Galveston Wharves Site
Lafarge - Clinton Drive Facility
Unoccupied Sandblasting/Painting Site
Foster Products Corporation
Ingleside Offshore Services Property
Channel Shipyard, Inc.
Amerada Hess Refinery
ASARCO
Triangle North Portland Yard/Riedel -
GASCO/NWNG
Elf Atochem
Time Oil Company
Mobil Oil :-
Gunderson
Moody Avenue Property
Former Du Pont Explosives Plant
Lake Union Steam Plant
Pulp Mill
Foundry w/ lead contamination
Bona-Fide Ready Mix
A-1 Carting
Gladsky Marine Salvaqe
Hawkins Cove (Doxey)
Chemical Marketing Corporation
Davison Street Lots
Sites to be determined
Sites to be determined
Sites to be determined
Madison Street properties :
Shoreline Project - multiple properties
Six mile riparian corridor
34 acre industrial park
40-acre res/light commercial
29-acre vacant ind park
30-acre former steel mill
Iowa River Power Plant/Assoc. Parcels
Thea Foss Wtwv - multiple properties
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private :
Private
Private
Private \ ~ _ " _
Private
Private
Private
Private :'•
Private
Private
Private <
Private ,
Private -----
Private
Private
Private
Private "
Private
Private
Private
Indeterminate
Indeterminate
Indeterminate
Indeterminate
Indeterminate
Indeterminate
Indeterminate
Indeterminate
Indeterminate
Indeterminate
Indeterminate :
Indeterminate
Indeterminate
VCP - seller
VCP- operator
VCP - purchaser
VCP - operator
VCP - operator
VCP - operator
VCP - operator
VCP - operator
VCP - operator
VCP- operator :
VCP -operator :
VCP -purchaser, State • - ""
VCP - operator, State
VCP - operator, State
VCP - operator, State
VCP - operator, State
VCP - operator, State ...
VCP - purchaser
VCP -seller
VCP - purchaser
VCP - owner, City -pilot
VCP - purchaser
VCP, State
VCP, State
VCP, State
VCP, State
State Sfund - pilot
City -VCP
City -pilot, addtl state, fed projects
EDA -pilot
City -pilot
City -pilot
State bond
City -pilot '
City -pilot
City -pilot
City -pilot
City -pilot
City -pilot
=DA -pilot
Withdrew from VCP
•if - . -
Smelter closed, after ASARCO lost CWA
lawsuit.
State formed cooperative agreements with
several industries along Willamette River in
an attempt to avoid NPL status for the
Portland Harbor area. State and EPA have
performed areawide sediment assessment
-- . .- ,
1 -
.'.- ' -:' • ;•- ' '-V
------ ' •'• " - -•-- , - "'*•-
These cities are still in the process of
selecting sites to address with their available
funds
i= --> =
* i
-. ' - - -
----- - • , •
'---,,
_.;-':
Table A-3
A-11
{Funding
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Ownership Site Assessment Funding
Comments
Key
pilot - EPA National Brownfields Assessment pilot
TBA- EPA Targeted Brownflelds Assessment
ESC - EPA funded Expedited Site Characterization
CDBG - Federal Community Development Block Grant
USAGE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
DOT - Department of Transportation (State/Federal noted)
FWHA - Federal Highway Administration
BRAG - Base Realignment and Closure Commission
VCP - State Voluntary Cleanup Program (for funding, represents tax credits and reimbursements
resulting from program enrollment)
State - Agency grant funds paid for assessment
State bond (NY, Ml only) - State environmental bond funds used
State Sfund - Previous characterization work for state superfund purposes
EDA -Local Economic Development or Urban Redevelopment Authority
PPP -Public/Private Partnership
EPA - EPA Regional Superfund Program Grant to the State
Items following dashes - represent primary funding sources
i.e. "City -pilot" denotes that while the city actually paid for the assessment, the federal pilot served as the
primary funding source.
Table A-3
A-12
Funding
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Table A-4. Progress
City 1 Site 1 Pw?DStartt0r 1 P^ss 1 Media Sampled
VCP entry * Soils Gwater Aq Sed
Publicly owned properties (65)
Bridgeport, CT
Danbury, CT
Danbury, CT
Middletown, CT
Middletown, CT
Norwich, CT
Lawrence, MA
Lawrence, MA
Lowell, MA
Lowell, MA
Lynn, MA , ,
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo, NY
Glen Cove, NY _'
Ogdensburg, NY
Ogdensburg, NY .
Ogdensburg, NY
Ogdensburg, NY .
Cape Charles/Northampton
County, VA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA ."--.,
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
East Point, GA
East Moline, IL
Kalamazoo, Ml \
Kalamazoo, Ml - '
St. Joseph, Ml , :
Benton Harbor, Ml
Jenkins Isle/Bluefish ballpark
Kohanza Brook/Barnum Court
Mallory Hat Factory
Portland Chemical , ;
Peterson Oil Company
Marina ... :: \ "-;"..
Oxford Paper Company
Atlantic Power
Baseball Stadium *
Tsongas Arena
Beacon Chevrolet ;.,:
Hanna Furnace/Union Ship Canal
Squaw Isl. USAGE dredge disposal area
Captains Cove Condominiums
Municipal Arena
Diamond International Site r
Lighthouse Point
Former tank farm
Town Parcel ••••-•.
LTV South Side Steel works
Washington's Landing/Herr Island
parcels 1 , 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8
Washington's Landing/Herr Island
parcels 10, 11south, 12
Duquesne Slag - 9 mile run
Pittsburgh Tech Center :,
Cotton Mill waste lagoon
City landfill
Auto Ion Area, Mills Street
Riverfront BRI Site (CP South)
Auto Specialties Site (parcel 1 S)
Lk Ml Coll Tech Center
Jun-94
Jul-97
Jul-97
Jul-98
Mar-96
Mar-96
Jan-96
Jan-96
Apr-97
Sep-95
'" -*'f- ,
Jun-97
May-98
May-98
May-98 ; ,
May-98
Sep-95
Feb-95 .. •'•
Feb-95 /:
Feb-95
Feb-95
Feb-95
Jul-98 ••-..-
Jul-98 •-•-•:.
Oct-96
Oct-96 :
Jul-98
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase Incomplete
phase II complete
phase II complete:"
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete :
phase II complete
phase II complete ,°
phase J I complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
f
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete:.1
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase, II complete „
phase II complete
X
X
X
X
x -;"
X
X
X
;; x f
X
x
.; x
x ,
X ,
X
X
X
X .
X
x ;
x
x
x '
x r
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
- x
x
X
X
1 v
1 X
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
* X
X
X
X
-- -X '-
X
X
X
X -
x •
,-- 1 -. -
MH-.V- ;-
*• X
s ' ;/• " -
x-
Table A-4
A-13
Progress
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
City 1 Site |P!?oSta?0r| Progress 1 «f a Sampled
1 1 VCP entry | a | Soils 1 Gwater UaSed
Traverse City, Ml
Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH
Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH
Kenosha, Wl
Kansas City, MO
New Orleans, LA
New Orleans, LA
New Orleans, LA
Shreveport, LA
Richmond, CA
Richmond, CA
Richmond, CA
Stockton, CA
San Francisco, CA
Falls City^ OR
Harlan, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR, ;•" .. .":.
Portland, OR ,
White City, OR ^
Bellingham, WA
Bellingham, WA
Norwich, CT ' - •- :
Yonkers, NY
Clear-water, FL r;:-Ji^r
Kalamazoo, Mh;, ".:„.,
Benton Harbor,]MI i;
Benton Harbor, Ml • '_"* - , :
Benton Harbor, Ml
Girard, OH
Omaha, NE
Omaha, NE -
Cedar Rapids, 1 A
Portland, OR i '
Portland, OR "
Traverse City Iron Works
Empire Detroit Steel Mill (VCP 16.8 ac)
Empire Detroit Steel Mill (3 pilot parcels)
Harborpark Center - Fmr Chrysler
Riverfront Park Port Authority Project
Saratoga Street
Powers Junction
Hendree Court
Fairgrounds parcels
Terminal I - Petromark
Marina Bay Parcels - WWII shipyards
Point Molate Naval Fuel Station
Weber Block
Pacific Bell Park
Atlas Mill ,
Old Harlan Mill
North Marine Drive
Port of Portland Terminal 4
Portland Shipyard . . "
Former Whetstone Landfill =
Olivine Property t r
Roeder Avenue Landfill "
Falls Ave. Mill, Thames River -•
Alexander Street Waterfront (22 ac)
Stevenson Creek junkyard
Consumers Power North
Former Superior Steel
Malleable Site
CSX Railway Site .:.,
Ohio Leather Company :
City Dock Board
Freedom Park Landfill ? -v _ --'- :Ji-
Meat rendering and other facilities L
Willamette Cove Park r: /
U.S. Government Moorings r"
1996
Feb-96
Jul-98
Jul-98
Sep-95
Sep-95
Sep-95
Sep-96
Sep-96
Mar-96
1997
1997
Apr-98
Jul-98
1989
Nov-96
Sep-96
Sep-96
May-98
May-98
Sep-96
Oct-96
Mar-99 -.;-.
Jul-98
Jul-98 - ;
Jul-98
;t - -L j
Jun-98 -
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete '
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase Incomplete \
phase II complete
phase II complete i
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase ;ll :complete
phase II complete
phase lUcomplete
phase:!l-complete
phaseHI complete
phase:lhincomplete
phase II incomplete.
phase Iliincomplete
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete -
phase1 II incomplete-^
phase ll;incomplete
phase II incomplete
phase ;ll incomplete^
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
=
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
_
"
_: -
-
—
- -- -. f -- ' -
—- ----- -
X
-=- -'
M
X
^ V-
X
X
X
X
= -
I
-
-
t- * *
Table A-4
A-14
Progress
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
City Site
Privately owned properties (38)
Chicopee, MA
Lawrence, MA
Lawrence, MA
Buffalo, NY
St. Joseph, Ml
Tallmadge, OH
Toledo, OH
Bay town, TX
Channelview, TX
Channelview, TX _
Channelview, TX
Corpus Christi, TX
Galena Park, TX
Galveston, TX
Galveston, TX
Houston, TX
Houston, TX
Houston, TX
Ingleside, TX
Lynchburg, TX
Port Isabel, TX
Omaha, NE
Portland, OR , ;
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
•"*."--
Portland, OR
Portland, OR :
Portland, OR -•- . - ' .•-. . . ---
Dae Hur/Hamden Steel
Lawrence Textile
Everett Mills
LTV Steel hydroponic tomato
Whirlpool Property
Simcox Steel and Grinding Co.
Chevron Refinery
EPC - Nitrogen Benzene Transfer Station
Hutchison-Hayes International
Zapata Offshore Property
KOCH Refining Terminal :
Keeper's Locker, Inc.
Woodhouse Terminal - Port of Houston
Tatsumi USA/Todd Shipyard Facility
SPTCo Galveston Wharves Site
Lafarge - Clinton Drive Facility
Unoccupied Sandblasting/Painting Site ,i
Foster Products Corporation
Ingleside Offshore Services Property
Channel Shipyard, Inc.
Amerada Hess Refinery
ASARCO
Triangle North Portland Yard/Riedel
GASCO/NWNG
ElfAtochem
Time Oil Company
Mobil Oil
Gunderson
Moody Avenue Property
Pilot Start or _
w^n * Progress
VCP entry "
Mar-96
Mar-96
Sep-95
01-Aug-97»
31-Oct-96
18-Mar-97-
24-Jul-97
27-Jun-97
10-Jan-96
30-Aug-96
11-May-99
13-Aug-96
14-Nov-96
09-Jun-99
10-Mar-97
13-Aug-96-S
06-Mar-97
1997
May-97
Dec-93
Aug-98
1991
Jan-92
Apr-94
Aug-89
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase 1 1 -complete
phase II complete
phase 1 1, complete
phase ll'complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase 1 1 complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase 1 1 complete
phase II complete
(multiple
investigations)
phase II complete
phase II complete
(multiple
investigations)
phase II complete
Media Sampled
Soils ( Gwater | Aq Sed
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
: X
1 *x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X-
X -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
"— .
-•••- -
X
,
-, "--"..
X
X
X
X
X
" "X
X :
X
*•
, .=; = J_-_ ,_,
, -.
" -.-: -
.
;_t
, , - .
X
X
X
Table A-4
A-15
Progress
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
City 1 Site 1 PvrnStal°r I P^ess 1 ."««• Sampled
' VCP entry a Soils Gwater AqSed
DuPont, WA
Seattle, WA
Ketchican, AK
Chicopee, MA
Glen Cove, NY
Glen Cove, NY
Glen Cove, NY
Glen Cove, NY
Hennepin County, MN
Indeterminate Ownership (13)
Lowell, MA
New Bedford, MA
Charleston, SC
Jacksonville, FL
Waukegan, IL
Muskegon, Ml
Youngstown, OH
Youngstown, OH
Youngstown, OH . ,-;.-.-;
Youngstown, OH ... ;.-..,- h-.
Youngstown JOH ! -I" H. .;• » - * :i
Coralville, IA •--'_-.-.• j
Tacoma, WA : :
Former Du Pont Explosives Plant
Lake Union Steam Plant
Pulp Mill
Foundry w/ lead contamination
Bona-Fide Ready Mix
A-1 Carting
Gladsky Marine Salvage
Hawkins Cove (Doxey)
Chemical Marketing Corporation
Davison Street Lots
Sites to be determined
Sites to be determined
Sites to be determined
Madison Street properties f
Shoreline Project - multiple>properties ;
Six mile riparian corridor
34 acre industrial park
40-acre res/light commercial
29-acre vacant ind park
30-acre former steel mill :
Iowa River Power Plant/Assoc. Parcels
Thea Foss Wtwy - multiple properties ?
Key
Federal pilots whose funding has run out are listed in italics. Pilot funding typi
extended. Existing pilots and VCP participants appear in standard type. To ic
demonstration pilot grants, refer to "Funding".
Media sampled data represents only best available information.
Sep-97
May-98
Jan-96
Apr-97
May-98
Apr-97 .
Jul-98
:-f ! :
Jul-98
Jul-98 - ,-,:
Jul-98
Jul-98 :
Jul-98 -
Jul-98
May-97 - • :
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II complete
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete
phase II incomplete
phase ll:incomplete
phased incomplete
phase;INncomp!ete
phase II incomplete
phase lUncomplete
cally lasts for 2 years but may be
lentify which sites received federal
X
X
X
_
-
,-" = "-- - -
, ... ,
:; :: • _.- L
X
_ »s =• -
= -•
—
_ -,_'_ ,
. I r
! i
- ••— - -
-= -
„
-
_ _ =
-'- ; -"
""T
Table A-4
A-16
Progress
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
|Table A-5. Tool data
City
Assessed public properties (52)
Bridgeport, CT
Danbury, CT
Danbury, CT
Middletown, CT
Middletown, CT
Norwich, CT
Lawrence, MA
Lawrence, MA
Lowell, MA
Lowell, MA
Lynn, MA
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo, NY
Glen Cove, NY
Ogdensburg, NY
Ogdensburg, NY
Ogdensburg, NY
Ogdensburg, NY
Cape Charles/Northampton County,
VA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
East Point, GA
East Moline, 1L
Kalamazoo, Ml
Kalamazoo, Ml
St. Joseph, Ml
Benton Harbor, Ml
Traverse City, Ml
Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH
Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH
Kenosha, Wl
Kansas City^ MO
New Orleans, LA
New Orleans, LA
New Orleans, LA
Shreveport, LA
Richmond, CA
Richmond, CA
Richmond, CA
Stockton, CA
San Francisco, CA
Falls City, OR
Harlan, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
White City, OR
Bellingham, WA
Site
Jenkins Isle/Bluefish ballpark
Kohanza Brook/Barnum Court
Maliory Hat Factory
Portland Chemical
Peterson Oil Company
Marina
Oxford Paper Company
Atlantic Power
Baseball Stadium
Tsongas Arena
Beacon Chevrolet
Hanna Furnace/Union Ship Canal
Squaw 1st. USAGE dredge disposal area
Captains Cove Condominiums
Municipal Arena
Diamond International Site
Lighthouse Point
Former tank farm
Town Parcel
LTV South Side Steel works
Washington's Landing/Herr Island parcels 1, 2a,
2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Washington's Landing/Herr Island parcels 10,
11south, 12 .
Duquesne Slag - 9 mile run
Pittsburgh Tech Center
Cotton Mill waste lagoon
City landfill
Auto Ion Area, Mills Street
Riverfront BRI Site (CP South)
Auto Specialties Site (parcel 1S)
Lk Ml Coll Tech Center
Traverse City Iron Works
Empire Detroit Steel Mill (VCP 1 6.8 ac)
Empire Detroit Steel Mill (3 parcels)
Harborpark Center - Fmr Chrysler
Riverfront Park Port Authority Project
Saratoga Street
Powers Junction
Hendree Court
Fairgrounds Parcels
Terminal I - Petromark
Marina Bay Parcels - WWII shipyards
Point Molate Naval Fuel Station
Weber Block
Pacific Bell Park
Atlas Mill :-
Old Harlan Mill
North Marine Drive
Port of Portland Terminal 4
Portland Shipyard
Former Whetstone Landfill
Olivine Property
Known Field-Portable Tools
None
PID
None
PID+FID
None
Soil gas samplers
None
None
None
None
PID
None
None
None
Soil gas samplers
None
PID
None
Soil gas samplers (CH4)
On site lab (GC w/ FID and ECD, XRF, Kit),
Foxboro OVA-1000 PID
On site lab (GC w/ FID and ECD, XRF, Kit),
Foxboro OVA-1000 PID
On site lab (GC w/ FID and ECD, XRF, Kit),
Foxboro OVA-1000 PID
PID
Draeger tubes, PID, Gore Sorber soil gas
sampler
SCAPS-ROST, XRF, 3-D electromagnetic
tool, Waterloo Profiler, Geoviz CPT fiberoptic
GW monitoring, LIBS for metals
PID
Mone
Mone
Mone
Mone
None
=ID
Table A-5
A-17
Tool data
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
1 • • 1 1 i
City 1 Site KnowrJ Field-Portable Tools
Bollingham, WA
Private assessed properties (32) _
Chicopee, MA
Lawrence, MA
Lawrence, MA
Buffalo, NY
St Joseph, Ml
Tallmadge, OH
Toledo. OH
Baytown, TX
Channetview, TX
Channelview, TX
Channelview, TX
Corp_us Christ!, TX
Galona Park, TX
Galveston, TX
Galvoston, TX
Houston, TX
Houston, TX
Houston, TX
Inglesida, TX
Lynchburg, TX
Port Isabel. TX
Omaha, NE
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
DuPont, WA
Seattle, WA
Kotchican, AK
Roeder Avenue Landfill
Dae Hur/Hamden Steel
Lawrence Textile
Everett Mills
LTV Steel hydroponic tomato
Whirlpool Property
Simcox Steel and Grinding Co.
Chevron Refinery
EPC - Nitrogen Benzene Transfer Station
Hutchison-Hayes International
Zapata Offshore Property
KOCH Refining Terminal
Keeper's Locker, Inc.
Woodhouse Terminal - Port of Houston
Tatsumi USA/Todd Shipyard Facility
SPTCo Galveston Wharves Site
Lafarge - Clinton Drive Facility
Unoccupied Sandblasting/Painting Site
Foster Products Corporation
Ingleside Offshore Services Property
Channel Shipyard, Inc.
Amerada Hess Refinery
ASARCO
Triangle North Portland Yard/Riedel
GASCO/NWNG
Elf Atochem
Time Oil Company
Mobil Oil
Gunderson
Moody Avenue Property
Former Du Pont Explosives Plant
Lake Union Steam Plant
Pulp Mill
PID
HNU, others known but not reported
OVA (soil vapor)
PID
GasTech GT400 Soil gas monitor (CH4), PID
On site lab (GC w/ FID and ECD, XRF, Kit),
PID and other field screening tools
PID
. '
Key
Field Screening tools
PID: Photolonization detector*
FID: Flame lonization Detector (part of PID)
Draogor tubes
Soil gas monitors
HNU: Type of soil gas monitor
OVA: Type of soil gas monitor
CPT: Fiberoptic groundwater monitor
*- while still field screening devices, PIDs were invented in the 1 970s
On-slta Analysis tools
GO: Gas Chromatography unit
FID: Flame lonization Detector (part of GC)
ECD: Electron Capture Detector (part of GC)
XRF: X-ray fluorescence spectrometry unit
Kit: Immunoassay Kit for a specific contaminant
SCAPS-ROST: Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System-Rapid Optical Screening Tool
LIBS: Laser-induced spectroscopv
Tool data
Table A-5
A-18
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Setting
|Table A-6. Contaminants
City
Publicly owned properties (65)
Bridgeport, CT
Danbury, CT
Danbury, CT
Middletown, CT
Middletown, CT
Norwich, CT
Lawrence, MA
Lawrence, MA
Lowell, MA
Lowell, MA
Lynn, MA
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo, NY
Glen Cove, NY
Ogdensburg, NY
Ogdensburg, NY
Ogdensburg, NY
Ogdensburg, NY
Cape Charles/Northampton County,
VA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
East Point, GA
East Moline, IL
Kalamazoo, Ml
Kalamazoo, Ml
St. Joseph, Ml
Benton Harbor, Ml
Traverse City, Ml
Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH
Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH
Kenosha, Wl
Kansas City, MO
New Orleans, LA
New Orleans, LA
New Orleans, LA
Shreveport, LA
Richmond, CA
Richmond, CA
Site
Jenkins jsle/Bluefish ballpark
Kohanza Brook/Barnum Court
Mallory Hat Factory
Portland Chemical
Peterson Oil Company
Marina
Oxford Paper Company
Atlantic Power
Baseball Stadium
Tsongas Arena
Beacon Chevrolet
Hanna Furnace/Union Ship Canal
Squaw Isl. USAGE dredge disposal area
Captains Cove Condominiums
Municipal Arena
Diamond International Site
Lighthouse Point
Former tank farm
Town Parcel
LTV South Side Steel works
Washington's Landing/Herr Island parcels
1,2a,2b,3,4,5,6, 7, 8
Washington's Landing/Herr Island parcels
10, 11 south, 12
Duquesne Slag - 9 mile run
Pittsburgh Tech Center
Cotton Mill waste lagoon
City landfill
Auto Ion Area, Mills Street
Riverfront BRl Site (CP South)
Auto Specialties Site (parcel 1 S)
Lk Ml Coll Tech Center
Traverse City Iron Works
Empire Detroit Steel Mill (VCP 16.8 ac)
Empire Detroit Steel Mill (3 parcels)
Harborpark Center - Fmr Chrysler
Riverfront Park Port Authority Project
Saratoga Street
Powers Junction
Hendree Court
Fairgrounds parcels
Terminal I - Petromark
Marina Bay Parcels - WWII shipyards
. ' -
Contaminants (Suspected in Italics)
Metals, Hg, TPH plume from off-site
Soil: Hg, asbestos, Pb, As. GW: TPH
Cl Solvents, VOCs, PCBs
BTEX, other hydrocarbons
Cl Solvents, dioxin, furans
Coal tar ash
Coal tar ash, TPH
Soil, GW: PAH, TPH, metals
Soil: SVOCs, inorganics, PCBs, VOCs. GW:
Inorganics, VOCs. Sed: not tested.
VOCs, SVOCs, metals
Soil: PCBs, VOCs, inorganics. Sed: SVOCs,
metals, phthalates
Solvents, VOCs, SVOCs, asbestos
TPH, metals
Soil: As, Cr, Ni, Pb, Zn, SVOCs, PCBs, TPH.
GW: contaminated
No contamination
Soil: VOC, SVOC, PCBs, PAHs
Cr, metals, sewage discharge
Soil: FeCN plume at 25ft depth, tar
VOCs, PCBs
Soil: VOC, SVOC, PCBs, PAHs
CN, Cr
TPH, metals
TPH, dissolved/undissolved metals, PAHs
Metals
Asbestos, Pb, metals, PCBs, petroleum
Asbestos, PCBs
VOCs: BTEX, 1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene; 2,3,5-
trimethylbenzene; MTBE; TPH. SVOCs: PAH
and diesel. PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, furans,
and metals
VOCs: BTEX, 1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene; 2,3,5-
trimethylbenzene; MTBE; TPH. SVOCs: PAH
and diesel. PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, furans,
and metals
VOCs: BTEX, 1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene; 2,3,5-
trimethylbenzene; MTBE; TPH. SVOCs: PAH
and diesel. PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, furans,
and metals
TPH, VOCs
VOCs, PCB, metals
VOCs, metals, acids
Table A-6
A-19
Contaminants
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Setting
City
Richmond, CA
Stockton, CA
San Francisco, CA
Falls City, OR
Harlan, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
White City, OR
Bellingham, WA
Bellingham, WA
Norwich, CT
Yonkers, NY
Clearwater, FL
Kalamazoo, Ml
Benton Harbor, Ml
Benton Harbor, Ml
Benton Harbor, Ml
Girard, OH
Omaha, NE
Omaha, NE
Cedar Rapids, IA
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Privately owned properties (38)
Chioopee, MA
Lawrence, MA
Lawrence, MA
Buffalo, NY
St. Joseph, Ml
Tallmadge, OH
Toledo, OH
Baytown, TX
Channelview, TX
Channelview, TX
Channelview, TX
Corpus Cnristi, TX
Galena Park, TX
Galveston, TX
Galveston, TX
Houston, TX
Houston, TX
Houston, TX
Ingleside, TX
Lynchburg, TX
Port Isabel, TX
Site
Point Molate Naval Fuel Station
Weber Block
Pacific Bell Park
Atlas Mill
Old Harlan Mill
North Marine Drive
Port of Portland Terminal 4
Portland Shipyard
Former Whetstone Landfill
Olivine Property
Roeder Avenue Landfill
Falls Ave. Mill, Thames River
Alexander Street Waterfront (22 ac)
Stevenson Creek junkyard
Consumers Power North
Former Superior Steel
Malleable Site
CSX Railway Site
Ohio Leather Company
City Dock Board
Freedom Park Landfill
Meat renderingjind other facilities
Willamette Cove Park
U.S. Government Moorings
Dae Hur/Hamden Steel
Lawrence Textile
Everett Mills
LTV Steel hydroponic tomato
Whirlpool Property
Simcox Steel and Grinding Co.
Chevron Refinery
EPC - Nitrogen Benzene Transfer Station
Hutchison-Hayes International
Zapata Offshore Property
KOCH Refining Terminal
Keeper's Locker, Inc.
Woodhouse Terminal - Port of Houston
Tatsumi USA/Todd Shipyard Facility
SPTCo Galveston Wharves Site
Lafarge - Clinton Drive Facility
Unoccupied Sandblasting/Painting Site
Foster Products Corporation
Ingleside Offshore Services Property
Channel Shipyard, Inc.
Amerada Hess Refinery
Contaminants (Suspected in Italics)
TPH, metals, PCB'S, solvents
Pb
As, Be, PAH, PCB, solvents, pesticides
Ba, Be, Cr, Mn, Ni, VOCs, SVOCs, TPH,
pesticides, PCBs
Pesticides
TPH.jnetals, PAHs
TPH, PCBs, TBT, metals, PAHs
Dioxin, benzo(b)fluoranthene, other PAH, metal,
VOC
Soil: PAHs, VOCs, phthalates, TPH. GW: Cr.
Sed in Bay: Hg, 4-methylphenol, phenol
Soil: VOCs, Pb, Zn, Cu. GW: Cr. Sed in Bay:
Hg, 4-methylphenol, phenol
Soil (suspected): VOCs, SVOCs, metals. Sed:
PAHs, pesticides
TPH, metals
Soil (suspected): Metals, acids, VOCs, SVOCs.
GW: free TPH
Prev baseline survey uncovered TCE plume,
FeCN, Hg, Cr
TPH, PCBs, metals, PAHs
VOCs, SVdCs, metals
Prev baseline survey disc metals, tributyltin,
PAHs, PCBs
Prev baseline survey disc PAHs, pesticides,
metals, tributyltin
TPH plume into river
TPH
Pb, Cr, As
TPH
TPH, metals
BTEX, TPH
BTEX, TPH
TPH
SVOCs
TPH, PAHs, metals
VOCs, metals, TCE plume
Migrated TCE plume from Sandblasting site,
metalSj VOCs
BTE*, TPH
TPH, chlorinated solvents
TPH, benzene, metals
Table A-6
A-20
Contaminants
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Setting
City 1 Site 1 Contaminants (Suspected in Italics)
Omaha, NE
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
DuPont, WA
Seattle, WA
Ketchican, AK
Chicopee, MA
Glen Cove, NY
Glen Cove, NY
Glen Cove, NY
Glen Cove, NY
Hennepin County, MN
Indeterminate Ownership (13)
Lowell, MA
New Bedford, MA
Charleston, SC
Jacksonville, FL
Waukegan, IL
Muskegon, Ml
Youngstown, OH
Youngstown, OH
Youngstown, OH
Youngstown, OH
Youngstown, OH
Coralville, IA
Tacoma, WA
ASARCO
Triangle North Portland Yard/Riedel
GASCO/NWNG
Elf Atochem
Time Oil Company
Mobil Oil
Gunderson
Moody Avenue Property
Former Du Pont Explosives Plant
Lake Union Steam Plant
Pulp Mill
Foundry w/ lead contamination
Bona-Fide Ready Mix
A-1 Carting
Gladsky Marine Salvage
Hawkins Cove (Doxey)
Chemical Marketing Corporation
Davison Street Lots
Sites to be determined
Sites to be determined
Sites to be determined
Madison Street properties
Shoreline Project - multiple properties .
Six mile riparian corridor
34 acre industrial park
40-acre res/light commercial
29-acre vacant ind park
30-acre former steel mill
Iowa River Power Plant/Assoc. Parcels
Thea Foss Wtwy - multiple properties
Key
Contaminant data usually reflect soil media unless otherwise noted.
A few sites reported contaminants in all media - use professional judgement.
See matrix key for contaminant abbreviations.
S: soil
GW: groundwater
Sed: aqueous sediment
Soil (susp): Metals, PAHs, PCBs. Sed (known):
Pb (to 14000ppm), As, Hg, Ag, Zn, PCB,
dieldrin
PAHs, PCBs, TBT, TPH, VOCs, metals
TPH and oil gasification byproducts
DDT, ODD, DDE, chlorobenzene
PCP .
TPH
Metals, PCBs, TCA, toluene, TPH
DDT, DDE, ODD, PAH, Pb, PCBs, TPH
Pb, TPH, PCBs, VOCs, SVOCs, metals
Asbestos, TPH, PCBs, Pb
TPH, metals, VOCs
Pb (known), Metals, PCBs
TPH, solvents
Soils: varies by property. Previous sediment
survey in Muskegon Lake: Metals, PAHs, PCBs
Metals, acids, VOCs, SVOCs
Table A-6
A-21
Contaminants
-------
Application of F:ield-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
(Table A-7. Remediation
City 1 Site 1 Remediation Stage, Method
Publlctj^ownedjrpperties (65)
Bridgeport, CT
Danbury, CT
Danbury, CT
Middletown, CT
Middletown, CT
Norwich, CT
Lawrence, MA
Lawrence^MA
Lowell, MA
Lowell, MA
Lynn, MA
Buffalo, NY
Buffalo, NY
Glen Cove, NY
Ogdensburg, NY
Ogdensburg, NY
Ogdensburg, NY
Ogdensburg, NY
Cape Charles/Northampton
CpuntyjJVA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
East Point, GA
East Moline, IL
Kalamazoo, Ml
Jenkins Isle/Bluefish ballpark
Kohanza Brook/Barnum Court
Mallory Hat Factory
Portland Chemical
Peterson Oil Company
Marina
Oxford Paper Company
Atlantic Power
Baseball Stadium
Tsongas Arena
Beacon Chevrolet
Hanna Furnace/Union Ship Canal
Squaw Is!. USAGE dredge disposal area
Captains Cove Condominiums
Municipal Arena
Diamond International Site
Lighthouse Point
Former tank farm
Town Parcel
LTV South Side Steel works
Washington's Landing/Herr Island
parcels 1 , 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Washington's Landing/Herr Island
parcels 10, 11 south, 12
Duquesne Slag - 9 mile run
Pittsburgh Tech Center
Cotton Mill waste lagoon
City landfill
Auto Ion Area, Mills Street
Kalamazoo, Ml i Riverfront BRI Site (CP South)
St. Joseph, Ml
Benton Harbor, Ml
Traverse City, Ml
Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH
Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH
Kenosha, Wl
Kansas City, MO
New Orleans, LA
New Orleans, LA
New Orleans, LA
Shreveport, LA
Richmond, CA
Richmond, CA
Richmond, CA
Stockton, CA
San Francisco, CA
Falls City, OR
Harlan, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
White City, OR
Belllnnham, WA
Auto Specialties Site (parcel 1 S)
Lk Ml Coll Tech Center
Traverse City Iron Works
Empire Detroit Steel Mill (VCP 16.8 ac)
Empire Detroit Steel Mill (3 parcels)
Harbgrpark Center - Fmr Chrysler
Riverfront Park Port Authority Project
Saratoga Street
Powers Junction
Hendree Court
Fairgrounds parcels
Terminal I - Petromark
Marina Bay_Parcels - WWII shipyards
Point Molate Naval Fuel Station
Weber Block
Pacific Bell Park
Atlas Mill
Old Harlan Mill
North Marine Drive
Port of Portland Terminal 4
Portland Shipyard
Former Whetstone Landfill
Olivine Property
complete, cap
planned, phytoremediation demo
planned phase ill
complete, dig/haul
complete, cap
complete, cap
planned phase 111
planned
removal, natural recovery with wetlands
in progress, $4.9M state superfund, using innovative
technologies
in progress, soil removal
planning stages
complete, cap and GW treat
none needed
complete, cap, on site CDF
planned, includes wetlands for stream
none needed
in progress
complete, dig/haul
complete, dig/haul, bldg as cap
complete, dig/haul, NFA
complete, cap/dig
complete, bldg cap/dig
completed sections, dig/haul
planning stages
complete, cdf, cap
complete, NFA
planning stages for UST, soils
complete, cap with road
n progress - completed sediment dredging; interim
bioslurping ongoing
planning stages for soil and sed
planning stages
planning stages
Table A-7
A-22
Remediation
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Toofe
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
City
Bellingham, WA
Norwich, CT
Yonkers, NY
Clearwater, FL
-------
Application of F:ield-Based Characterization Tools
I in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Remediation Stage, Method
Key
Remediation listed is for soils unless otherwise noted.
SVE - Soil Vapor Extraction
CDF - Confined Disposal Facility
NFA - post-remediation, No Further Action required agreement between owner, state
Table A-7
A-24
Remediation
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Table A-8. Remediatior
City
Danbury, CT
Danbury, CT
Buffalo, NY
Glen Cove, NY
Glen Cove, NY
Glen Cove, NY
Glen Cove, NY
Glen Cove, NY
Ogdensburg, NY
Pittsburgh, PA
Clearwater, FL
Kalamazoo, Ml
Omaha, NE
Kansas City, MO
Stockton, CA
Harlan, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
White City, OR
Bellingham, WA
Bellingham, WA
Seattle, WA
Tacoma, WA
Lynn, MA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
East Point, GA
East Moline, IL
St. Joseph, Ml*
St. Joseph, Ml*
St. Joseph, Ml*
St. Joseph, Ml*
St. Joseph, Ml*
New Orleans, LA
New Orleans, LA
New Orleans, LA
Shreveport, LA
Channelview, TX
Richmond, CA
San Francisco, CA
Falls City, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
DuPont, WA
1
Site
Kohanza Brook Property
Mallory Hat Factory
Hanna Furnace/Union Ship Canal
Captains Cove Condominiums
Bona-Fide Ready Mix
A-1 Carting
Gladsky Marine Salvage
Hawkins Cove (Doxey)
Diamond International Site
Duquesne Slag - 9 mile run
Stevenson Creek junkyard
Riverfront BRI Site (CP South)
ASARCO
Riverfront Port Authority Park Project
Weber Block
Old Harlan Mill
Willamette Cove
U.S. Government Moorings
Triangle North Portland Yard/Riedel
Port of Portland Terminal 4
GASCO/NWNG
Elf Atochem
Portland Shipyard
Time Oil Company
Mobil Oil
Gunderson
Linnton Oil Fire Training Grounds
Former Whetstone Landfill
Olivine Property
Roeder Avenue Landfill
Lake Union Steam Plant
Thea Foss Wtwy - multiple properties
Known sediment non-samplers
Beacon Chevrolet
LTV South Side Steel works
Washington's Landing/Herr Island parcels
1 , 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Washington's Landing/Herr Island parcels
10, 11south, 12
Pittsburgh Tech Center
Cotton Mill waste lagoon
City landfill
Auto Specialties Site
Whirlpool Property
Former Superior Steel
Malleable Site
CSX Railway Site
Saratoga Street
Powers Junction
Hendree Court
Fairgrounds Parcels
Zapata Offshore Property
Terminal I - Petromark
Pacific Bell Park
Atlas Mill
North Marine Drive
Moody Avenue Property
Former Du Pont Explosives Plant
1
Sediment sampling
Complete, grab sampling •••-••
Complete, grab sampling
Ongoing, USAGE channel work
Ongoing under separate USAGE dredging program incorportated
into redevelopment
Baseline areawide sed assess in channel, ongoing USAGE work
Baseline areawide sed assess in channel, ongoing USACE work
Baseline areawide sed assess in channel, ongoing USACE work
Baseline areawide sed assess in channel, ongoing USACE work
Planned, applied for funding
Completed, grab and core
Planned, USACE channel work
Completed under Superfund investigation of Kalamazoo River,
USACE work also ongoing
Nearshore baseline grab sampling completed by owner
USACE areawide assessment
Completed, grab and core sampling.
Completed, grab and core sampling
ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment
ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment
ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment
ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment
ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment
ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment
ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment
ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment
ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment
ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment
ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment
Completed, grab sampling
Bellingham Bay Pilot - areawide sediment assessment
Bellingham Bay Pilot - areawide sediment assessment
Completed
Completed under Superfund investigation of channel and bay ,,
* - Corps may assess in St. Joseph if their dredging project linked to
ongoing shoreline redevelopment is approved
*
Table A-8
A-25
Remediation
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Toots
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Table A-9. NPL
City
New Bedford, MA
Glen Cove, NY
CharlestorijjSC
Jacksonville, PL
Waukegan, IL
Kalamazoo, Ml
St. Joseph, Ml
Cedar Rapids, IA
Richmond, CA
San Francisco, CA
Portland, OR
>
Brownfield or VCP or Other Site
Sites to be determined
Captains Cove Condominiums
Sites to be determined
Sites to be determined
Madison Street properties
Auto Ion Area, Mills Street*
Consumers Power North
Riverfront BRI Site (CP South)
Auto Specialties Site
Whirlpool Property =
Former Superior Steel
Malleable Site
CSX Railway Site
Meat rendering and other facilities
Terminal 1 - Petromark ,,r
Marina Bay Parcels - WWII shipyards
Point Molate Naval Fuel Station
Pacific Bell Park
Willamette Cove Park r— -
ILS. Government Moorings
Triangle North Portland Yard/Riedel
Port of Portland Terminal 4
GASCO/NWNG
Elf Atochem
Portland Shipyard
North Marine Drive
Time Oil Company =
Mobil Oil n
Gunderson s
Linnton Oil iFire Training, Grounds ..»
! -
Adj/Proximate NPL Site (5mi rad) that
may also impact sediments
New Bedford Harbor (sediment)
LiTungsten
Mattiace Petrochemical
Koppers Co wood treatment
Jacksonville Naval Air Station
Outboard Marine/Waukegan Harbor
Auto Ion Chemicals (State owned
parcel)
Allied Paper/Portage Creek upstream
pollution of Kalamazoo Riv.
Aircraft Components (Paw Paw Riv)
Electro-Coatings, Inc.
United Heckathorn Co. , •-
"
Liquid Gold Oil Corp ^ «
Hunters Point Naval Shipyard ,, •
McCormick and Baxter Creosoting^nr
Gould, Inc .";. "' !.
--.-.-
- i
.-:_i. - - - -
« >- ^ - T
t - - ~-
------
NPL Site Contaminants
PCBs, Cd, Pb, Cu, Cr
low-level rad, U, Ra, Th, PCBs, VOCs, inorganics
VOCs, TCE, ethylbenzene, xylene, PCBs
PAHsjjentachlorophenol, dioxin, As, Pb
Soil/GW: TCE, DCE, TetraCE, PCB, Cd, Cr, Pb, Cu,
Hg. Sed: Pb, Cr, Cd
Soil/GW: PCB, PAH, NH3, As, phenol. Sed: PCB
Soil: Cr, As, Cd, Pb, Ni, CN, PAH. Sed: Cr, Ni, CN,
Cl. GW: VOCs, As, Cr, Pb, Ni
Sed: PCB
Radioactive material
:.-•!
GW: Hexavalent Cr, Cd, Ni, VOCs
Sed:, PCB (DDT, dieldrin)
Soil: Pb, hydrocarbons
GW/SW and Sed: Fuels, PCBs, metals:,, VOCs, Soil:
all of previous and asbestos ;
Soil and Sed: metals, PAHs, PCP r
GW: Pb, VOC/SVOC. Sed: VOC, Pb, As. Soils As,
Pb, Cd : t
_ _
_
—
-
Status
P
P
F
P
P
Sed: F,
Soil: P
F
P i"
P1
F
F
F
. . . P __,
I Pr
= i» i *
-ll PM:i
•-•-.-;, .H. '
_
»
Table A-9
A-26
NPL
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Tacoma, WA
Brownfield or VCP or Other Site
Thea Foss - multiple properties
IAdj/Proximate NPL Site (5mi rad) thatl
may also impact sediments
Commencement Bay Near Shore -
includes Thea Foss Waterway itself
Tacoma Tar Pits
NPL Site Contaminants
PAHs, pthalate, mercury, PCB
Status
Tar-constituent contaminants
Bellingham, WA
Boeder Avenue Landfill
Oeser Co Wood Treatment
Soil: PCP, PAHs, carrier oil, dioxin. Traces of these
found in sed, but no cleanup reqd.
Stockton, CA
Weber Block
Whatcom Waterway non-NPL site
Hg, 4-methylphenol, phenol
Table A-9
A-27
[MPL
-------
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Appendix B. Certified, Verified, and Evaluated Site Characterization Tools
Important Definitions
verify - to establish or prove the truth of the performance of a technology under specific,
i predetermined criteria or protocols and adequate data quality assurance procedures.
evaluate - to carefully examine and judge the efficacy of a technology; to submit technologies for
testing under conditions of observation and analysis
certify - to guarantee a technology as meeting a standard or performance criteria into the future
Source: EPA ETV Program
CalEPA Pollution Tech. Certification Program
Site Characterization Technologies
immunoassay
BiMelyze Field Screening Assay
EnSys PCB RISc Soil test kit
EnSys PETRO RISc Soil Test for HC
EnvrioGard Petrol. Fuel in soil
EnviroGard PCB
EnvrioGard TNT test
Ohmicron PAH RaPID ASSAY
Ohmicron PCB RaPID ASSAY for PCB
Ohmicron PCB RaPID ASSAY for PCP
Ohmicron Total BTEX RaPID ASSAY
Ohmicron TNT RaPID ASSAY
SDI PCB DTECH
SDI DTECH BTEX
SDI DTECH TNT
SDI DTECH RDX (cyclotrimethylenerinitramine)
Media Vendor Vendor Phone
S Bio Nebraska 402-470-2100
Strategic Diagnostics,
S Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
S Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
S Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
S Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
S Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
S,W Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
S, W Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
S,W Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
S, W Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
S,W Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
S Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
S,W Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
S,W Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
S,W Newark, DE 302-456-6770
B-l
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
cone penetrometer with laser induced flourometry
Navy Cone Penetrometer (SCAPS-LIF) for TPH, PAH S
Navy NraD/SPAWAR, San
Diego, CA 619-553-1172
EPA Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
Note, verification differs from certification - read reports
Site Characterization Technologies Media
cone penetrometer with laser induced flourometry
Rapid Optical Screening Tool for TPH, PAH S
Navy Cone Penetrometer (SCAPS-LIF) for TPH, PAH S
field analytical tools for PCBs
S,DF,
L2000 PCB/Chloride Analyzer Wp
EST 4100 Vapor Detector S, Wp
Envirologix - PCB in Soil Tube Assay S
PCB Immunoassay Kit S
SDI PCB DTECH S
EnviroGard PCB S
SDI RaPID ASSAY for PCB Analysis S, W
portable GC/MS
EM-640 W, S, SG
SpectraTrak 672 W, S, SG
soil/soil gas sampling techniques
AMS Dual Tube Liner Sampler S
JMC Environmentalist's Soil Probe S
Large Bore Soil Sampler (Geoprobe) S
Etnflux Soil Gas Investigation System S
Core Barrel Sampler S
Gorc-Sorber Screening Survey Passive SGS System S
well-head monitoring for VOCs
EST 4100 Vapor Detector W
HAPSITE W
Vendor
Vendor Phone
Fugro Geosciences, Houston,
TX 713-778-5580
Navy NraD/SPAWAR, San
Diego, CA 619-553-1172
Dexsil Corporation, Hamden,
CT 203-288-3509
Electric Sensor Technology 805-480-1494
Envirologix, Portland, ME 207-797-0300
Hach Company, Loveland,
CO 800-227-4224
Strategic Diagnostics,
Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
Newark, DE 3Q2-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Bruker-Daltonik Products, 49 (421) 22 05-
Germany 200
Bruker-Daltonics, Billerca,
MA . 978-667-9580
Art's Manuf. and Supply, Sauk
City, WI 800-635-7330
Clements and Assoc., Newton,
IA 515-792-8285
800-
Geoprobe Systems, Salina, KS GEOPROBE
Beacon Env. Services, Forest
Hill, MD 410-838-8780
SimulProbe Technologies,
Novato, CA call NERL
W.L. Gore and Associates 888-914-4673
Electric Sensor Technology 805-480-1494
Inficon Inc., East Syracuse,
NY 315-434-1100
B-2
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Type 1312 Multi-gas Monitor
Voyager
Scentograph Plus II
Calif. Analytical Inst./Innqva,
W Orange, CA 714-974-5560
W PerMn-Elmer, Norwalk, CT 800-762-4000
W Sentex Systems, Fairfield, NJ 800-736-8394
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Note: evaluation differs from certification - read reports
Site Characterization Technologies Media
sediment sampling devices
Split Core Sampler for Submerged Sediments
Russian Peat Borer
field portable x-ray fluorescence
SEFA-P Analyzer (now the XP1000)
X-MET920-P
X-MET920-MP
XL Spectrum Analyzer (300 Series)
MAP Spectrum Analyzer
TN9000
TN Pb Analyzer
AS
AS
S
s
S
s
s
s
Vendor
Vendor Phone
Art's Manuf. and Supply, Sauk
City,WI 800-635-7330
Aquatic Rsrch Instruments,
Lemhi, ID 800-320-9482
HNU Systems, Newton, MA 617-964-6690
Metroex, Ewing, NJ 609-406-9000
Metroex, Ewing, NJ 609-406-9000
Niton Corporation, Bedford,
MA 800-875-1578
C-Thru Technologies,
Kennewick, WA 800-466-5323
TN Spectrace, Sunnyvale, CA 408-744-1414
TN Spectrace, Sunnyvale, CA 408-744-1414
immunoassay
BiMelyze Field Screening Assay S
Test Kit for Anodic Stripping Voltammetry for Mercury S
soil and soil gas sampler
JMC Environmentalist's Soil Probe S
Bio Nebraska
Radiometer
402-470-2100
callNERL
Clements and Assoc., Newton,
LA 515-792-8285
pre-1995 SITE tests (some tools have been updated)
cone penetrometer with laser induced flourometry
Rapid Optical Screening Tool for TPH, PAH S
Navy Cone Penetrometer (SCAPS-LLF) for TPH, PAH S
portable GC/MS
Precursor of EM-640*
FASP Method for PCB
FASP Method for PCP
S,W,
S,W
S,W
Fugro Geosciences, Houston,
TX 713-778-5580
NavyNraD/SPAWAR, San
Diego, CA ; 619-553-1172
Bruker-Daltonik Products, 49 (421) 22 05-
SG Germany 200
U.S. EPA, OSWER-OERR 703-603-8831
U.S. EPA, OSWER-OERR 703-603-8831
spectrometers
Long Path Fourier Transform Infared Spectrometer* S
Canister-based Sector Sampler SG
MDA Scientific
Xontech, Van Nuys, CA
callNERL
818-787-2593
B-3
-------
Application of Reid-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
immunoassay
L2000 PCB/Chloride Analyzer
Clor-N-Soil PCS Test Kit
EnviroGard PCB
Ohmicron PCB RaPDD ASSAY for PCP
EnviroGard PCP
EnSys PCP RISc Soil test kit
PCP Test Kit
PCP Test Kit*
S, DF, Dexsil Corporation, Hamden,
Wp CT 203-288-3509
Dexsil Corporation, Hamden,
S CT \ 203-288-3509
Strategic Diagnostics,
S Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
S, W Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
S, W Newark, DE 302-456-6770
Strategic Diagnostics,
S,W Newark, DE 302-456-6770
S HNU Systems, Newton, MA 617-964-6690
Westinghouse Gov't Env
S Services call NERL
Env. Security Technology Certification Program
Department of Defense
Note: ETSCP does not confer a "certification". Results determine DoD application & commercialization prospects
for the tool
Verified Site Characterization Technologies Media Vendor •:"':'.Tv;''-y|endorPJfiione
; Navy NraD/SPAWAR, San
Navy Cone Penetrometer (SCAPS-LIF) for TPH, PAH S, W Diego, CA 619-553-2778
ESTCP Projects in Progress Media
Rapid Sediment Characterization AS
Quantifying In Situ Contaminant Mobility in MarineSed AS
SCAPS Heavy Metal Sensors S
Tri-Service SCAPS Demonstration/Validation S, W
In Situ Radiation Detection S
High Resolution Seismic Reflection (for DNAPLs) Subsurf.
TNT and RDX-detecting immunosensors S
Electromagnetic Surveys for 3D Imaging of Contain. Subsurf.
Contact and affiliation
Dr. James Leather, USN
Mr. Tom Hampton, USN
Dr. Stephen Lieberrnan, USN
Mr. George Robitaille, USA
Mr. Chris Dewitt, USAF
Mr. Nate Sinclair, USN
Ms. Anne Kusterbeck, USN
Mr. Nate Sinclair, USN
Contact Phone
619-553-6240
619-553-1172
619-553-2778
410-612-6865
505-846-0053
805-982-1005
202-404-6042
805-982-1005
Rapid Commercialization Initiative
Federal Multi-Agency Cooperation
Verified Site Characterization Technologies
Multisampling Suction Lysimeter
Portable Spectrometer for use with test kits
Useful phone numbers
NERL - Research Triangle Park, NC: (919) 541-2106
NERL - Las Vegas: (702) 798-2525
NERL - Cincinnati: (513) 569-7577
NRMRL - Washington, DC: (202) 564-3212
Media Vendor VendorPhone
S, W Bladon International Oak Brook, IL
Hanby Envkonmental Lab,
S,W Inc 281-391-4257
B-4
-------
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools
in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
Key
Media
S-soil
W-water (incl groundwater)
G-soil gas (air)
AS-aquatic sediment
DF-dielectric fluids
Wp- surface wipes
=report out of stock—"Media" represents only tested
media
B-5
-------
------- |