I
5
\
              \
               (3
Introduction  to  Energy
Conservation and  Production  at
Waste  Cleanup Sites	
                  ENGINEERING FORUM ISSUE PAPER

                  Michael Gill* and Katarina Mahutova**
 Section
 1.0 Abstract 	  1
 2.0 Background  	  1
 3.0 Classification of Remedies	  3
 4.0 Data on Energy Production and Conservation
    at Waste Cleanup Sites	  5
 5.0 Summary  	  15
 6.0 Acknowledgments and Contacts 	  16
 7.0 References 	  17
 Appendix A: Example of Audit Protocol....  A-l
 Appendix B: Resources	  B-l
1.0 Abstract

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has always worked to improve management of
hazardous waste  cleanup projects. Net energy
savings through conservation and energy produc-
tion is one strategy for improvement. Presidential
Executive Order 13123, "Greening the Government
Through Efficient Energy Management," states that
each federal agency shall strive to expand the use
of renewable energy within its facilities and in its
actions by  implementing renewable  energy
projects.(1)
* U.S. EPA Region 9 / SFD-84
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

** U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 6th Ave(OEA-095)
Seattle, WA 98101
                                          EPA  has  prepared  this  issue paper  to  raise
                                          awareness and help project managers recognize the
                                          need to consider energy conservation and produc-
                                          tion during the design and operation and mainten-
                                          ance (O&M) of waste cleanup projects.  These
                                          include projects initiated underthe Comprehensive
                                          Environmental  Response,  Compensation  and
                                          Liability Act  (CERCLA) commonly known as
                                          Superfund,  the  Resource  Conservation  and
                                          Recovery Act (RCRA), and by EPA's Under-
                                          ground Storage Tank (UST) and Brownfields waste
                                          clean up programs.

                                          Although energy conservation  is an  important
                                          priority, meeting remediation goals is  the most
                                          important. However, with more than one way to
                                          reduce energy use, the ability to meet remediation
                                          goals and operate cleanup projects efficiently can
                                          be accomplished.

                                          2.0 Background

                                          This  issue  paper was developed  by EPA's
                                          Engineering Forum,  with support from the U.S.
                                          Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), to help EPA
                                          and other  project managers consider ways to
                                          conserve and  produce  energy at waste cleanup
                                          sites. The  Engineering, Federal Facilities, and
                                          Ground Water Forums, established by EPA profes-
                                          sionals in the ten regional offices, are committed to
                                          identifying and resolving scientific, technical, and
                                          engineering issues impacting the remediation of
                                      Solid Waste and
                                      Emergency Response
                                      (5102G)
                                                                EPA 542-S-04-001
                                                                May 2004
                                                                www.epa.gov/tio/tsp

-------
Superfund  and  RCRA sites.  The  forums  are
supported by  and advise OSWER's  Technical
Support  Project, which established  Technical
Support Centers in  laboratories operated by the
EPA Office of Research and Development, Office
of Radiation Programs, and the Environmental
Response Team. The centers work closely with the
forums, providing state-of-the-science technical
assistance to EPA project managers.

EPA's Engineering Forummembers recognized the
need  to  consider energy reduction and energy
production during the design and O&M of Super-
fund, RCRA,  UST, and Brownfields  waste site
cleanup systems. This issue paper describes four
case studies that highlight two methods of energy
generation and two methods of energy conserva-
tion: 1) landfill gas  directed to operate microtur-
bines as an example  of a  distributed electrical
system; 2) landfill generated methane gas used to
fuel  four internal combustion engines providing
3200 kW (gross) power generating capacity; 3) an
energy savings realized through control  of lump
sum O&M contracts; and 4) energy saving oppor-
tunities through reusing system components, reduc-
tion of space heating requirements, and redesign of
the system to accommodate continuous extraction
and treatment.

This issue paper also introduces an energy check-
list that was developed as a tool to aid the project
manager in  conducting energy audits on their
cleanup system designs. A sample energy checklist
has been tested at two of the Superfund sites used
as case studies.

This issue paper covers all waste programs and
complies with the "One Cleanup Program" philoso-
phy of the Office of Solid Waste  and Emergency
Response (OSWER).(2)  The  goal  of the  One
Cleanup Program is "to manage all waste programs
so that resources, activities, and results are more
effectively coordinated and easily communicated to
the public." This paper also supports the Resource
Recovery Challenge Program, or RCC.(3) The
RCC is a major national effort to find  flexible,
more protective ways to conserve our valuable
resources through waste reduction  and energy
recovery activities that improve public health and
the environment. Conserving energy at waste sites
supports one of the three primary goals of the RCC,
which broadly states "conserve energy by using
better materials and design, and recover energy
from things now viewed as waste."

Many systems implemented to clean up waste sites
may be using energy for decades (e.g., groundwater
pump-and-treat, soil vapor extraction). Stakehol-
ders involved in the system design and O&M may
want to consider energy use as a parameter for
optimization and cost savings.  In addition, some
waste sites  are  capable  of actually generating
energy.  These include landfills that  produce
methane gas and sites with open space that could
accommodate, for example, photovoltaic arrays or
wind  turbines to  produce  electricity. These
potentials should be considered during design,
construction, and O&M as energy is used during all
phases of a system's life cycle. This paper concent-
rates  on the  design,  construction,  and O&M
portions of the life cycle.

Selecting a remedy for a site cleanup involves a
number of criteria; for example, effectiveness,
safety, cost and community acceptance.  Energy,
either used or produced, is not a specific criterion,
but could be inherent in others. Relative energy
needs for each choice can be broad. For example,
a system such as a permeable reactive barrier might
require  much less energy than  most  thermal
technologies (six-phase heating, steam injection,
etc.).  The  need to  minimize the  remediation
timeframe (typically shorter for thermal technolo-
gies)  can be balanced with energy  use.  Some
remedies may not seem energy intensive  (such as
groundwater  plume control), but, operated for
decades, can become so.  For the most energy
intensive  technologies (such  as  most  thermal
technologies), even  small  increases  in  energy
efficiency or conservation can have large  effects.

Another example of energy considerations influen-
cing remedy selection is using an internal combus-
tion engine to treat petroleum hydrocarbon vapors.
In this treatment system, the contaminant  actually
serves as fuel for its own treatment  system

-------
operation (or transfer, in this case). Because UST
sites are  the largest category of hazardous waste
sites in terms of the number of sites, increased use
of this treatment system might result in substantial
nationwide energy savings.

The idea of energy savings at waste cleanup sites
has gained momentum since the energy crisis in the
western United States in 2001, with its unexpected
rolling blackouts and price hikes. In the summer of
2001, a  combination of decreased availability,
corporate error, and other factors caused consumers
in some western U.S. states to face power losses
and higher electricity prices. This situation led to
some successful  conservation, but  also made
industry  and consumers aware of the  need to
continue  this practice. Prior to that, Executive
Order 13123 (Greening the Government Through
Efficient  Energy  Management), global  climate
change issues and the principles  of sustainable
development brought energy saving issues to the
forefront. Section 204 of the Executive Order reads
in part as follows:

"Renewable Energy. Each agency shall strive to
expand the use of renewable  energy within its
facilities  and in its activities by implementing re-
newable  energy  projects  and  by  purchasing
electricity from renewable energy sources."

Section 404 of the Executive Order further states:
"Agencies   shall   incorporate  energy-efficient
criteria consistent with ENERGY STARฎ and other
Federal Energy Management Program  (FEMP)-
designated energy efficiency levels into all guide
specifications and project specifications developed
for new construction and renovation, as well as into
product specification language developed for Basic
Ordering Agreements, Blanket Purchasing Agree-
ments, Government Wide Acquisition Contracts,
and all other purchasing procedures."

One tool that this issue paper proposes to help
project  managers  conserve  energy  use is  a
checklist, such as the generic checklist or "audit
protocol" in Appendix A. Such a checklist, whether
generic or technology-specific, would help the
project manager determine potential energy savings
during the design phase, O&M, and each follow-on
five-year review.  The five-year review is a site-
specific reporting tool that determines whether a
remedy is  protective  of human health and the
environment through an evaluation of its imple-
mentation and performance. These periods are the
appropriate times  for this evaluation as well as for
other optimization efforts.

The checklist in Appendix A is not customized for
all types of sites;  for instance, a landfill, mine or
groundwater cleanup site presents different oppor-
tunities for energy savings or production. The list
of cleanup technologies  used today is  fairly
extensive and energy needs vary, but this generic
checklist is intended to illustrate possible savings
opportunities from some of these sites. The goals
of this issue paper are to:

 •  Raise awareness of the need to consider energy
   saving and energy production opportunities at
   waste sites.

 • Identify resources that may provide energy
   saving and production opportunities at sites.

 •  Provide an example of an energy saving check-
   list  for remediation systems, such  as the
   USAGE has done for groundwater pump-and-
   treat systems using Remedial System Evalua-
   tion  (RSE) checklists. A number of  RSE
   checklists are available from USAGE, inclu-
   ding those on pump-and-treat systems, landfill
   gas collection,  and soil  vapor  extraction
   systems.  These  checklists  do not  explicitly
   address ways  to increase energy efficiency or
   conservation,  but do  offer suggestions for
   reducing energy requirements.

 • Present findings of case studies (checklist use,
   etc) and  ways project managers can save or
   produce renewable energy at their sites.

3.0 Classification of Remedies

Federally   mandated  waste cleanup  programs
include Superfund, RCRA, UST, and Brownfields.

-------
The Superfund program was
established   to  clean  up
abandoned  hazardous waste
sites;  RCRA  to  make  sure
operating sites handle waste
properly; the UST program to
manage the storage in under-
ground  storage  tanks  and
releases  of hazardous   sub-
stances   from  them;   and
Brownfields to help communi-
ties  identify,  cleanup,  and
reuse contaminated properties.
Environmental  remediation
technologies have  been used
for  decades   to  clean  up
contaminated media at  these
sites. The number of cleanup
technologies  used  today  is
fairly  extensive   and  their
energy  requirements  vary
widely. Energy audits (check-
lists), which need to be site-
specific,   are  affected  by
factors such as equipment and
operational procedures  used.
These   factors   vary  by
technology and the state of its
development.  Therefore,
checklists should be optimized
for  the  type  of site  under
consideration.

A  generic checklist  for  a
                        No Decision
                        (158)11%
                 No Action or No
                 Further Action
                    6%
                         No ROD (158)
                            11%
  Non-Treatment
Groundwater Remedy
   Only (48)
     3%
  Other Source Control
Containment
and Other
(410)27%
      (72)
      5%

     Containment or Off-
     Site Disposal of a
      Source (202)
         13%
                                     Treatment of Both a
                                       Source and
                                     Groundwater (365)
                                         24%
                                                    Treatment (931) 62%
Treatment of a Source
   Only(176)
     12%
                                           Treatment of
                                          Groundwater Only
ROD = Record of Decision                               (390)
•Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.           26%
(a) NPL sites include current sites and former NPL sites that were deleted or removed from the NPL between FY 1982 and 2002.
FIGURE 1 - Superfund Remedial actions: actual remedy types on the National Priorities List
                       (FY82-02). Total sites = 1,499.
      Sites with Pump-and-Treat, In Situ Treatment, or Monitored Natural
    Attenuation Selected as Part of a Groundwater Remedy (Total Site s = 851)
                  P&TandMNA(64)
                       8%
  P&T Orty (556)
     65%
                                   P&TandlnSitu(63)
                                        7%
                                     In Situ Only (31)
                                         4%
                                      P&T, In Situ, and MNA
                                            (30)
                                            4%
                                            h Situ and MNA(11)
                                                  1%
                                    MNA Only (96)
                                        11%
      •Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.
       FIGURE 2 - Superfund remedial actions: groundwater treatment remedies
Superfund   fund-lead  site
(cleanup paid for by EPA) is
included in Appendix A. Project managers might
also use the checklist to suggest to potentially res-
ponsible parties (PRPs) how they can incorporate
energy  saving measures at enforcement-lead sites
where PRPs pay for the cleanup.

The checklist in Appendix A was written as part of
a groundwater pump-and-treat optimization task
undertaken  by  OSWER's  Office  of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation at two
Superfund fund-lead sites, and much of the infor-
mation  is geared towards groundwater pump-and-
                               (FY 82-02)

                      treat  systems.  Questions  applicable  to  other
                      specific remedies need to be developed for use at
                      other sites.  USAGE  RSE  checklists  provide
                      additional questions on specific remedies.(4)

                      Figures  1, 2, and 3, taken from Treatment Tech-
                      nologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report,
                      show statistics on types of waste cleanup technolo-
                      gies  used at Superfund sites.  (5)  These techno-
                      logies also can be used at RCRA, UST, and Brown-
                      fields sites. Figure 1 shows types of remedy used at
                      Superfund  sites;  Figure  2  is  a breakdown of

-------
  Bioremediation (54)
       6%
 Thermal Desorption (69)
    Chemical Treatment
         (10)
         1%
       Incineration (off-site)
           (104)
           12%
   Ex situ
 Technologies
  499 (58%)
groundwater  remedies  used   at
Superfund sites.  Source  control
treatment technologies (physical,
chemical, and bio logical) applied to
soil and groundwater are presented
in Figure 3.

4.0 Data on Energy Production
and  Conservation  at   Waste
Cleanup Sites

Energy production at waste sites
can be accomplished in a number of
ways. Wind-generated power, geo-
thermal power, and photovoltaic
cells are a few examples.  Collec-
tion of methane gas from landfills
offers what may be the most widely used method of
energy production at waste sites.  This will be
discussed in more detail in Section 4.1. Power from
photovoltaic cells has been used to operate irriga-
tion, drinking water, and groundwater extraction
wells, and at desalination facilities.

Incorporating energy generation into waste cleanup
systems facilitates operation of cleanup systems in
remote areas (such as mining sites) and may even
offer an  opportunity for operators to sell power
back to a distribution system, advancing the goals
set forth in section 204 of Executive Order 13123.
Information in this section is based on data and
experiences from the U.S. and Europe. Some of
these sites (as the case studies show below) will be
able to sell enough energy to cover O&M expenses.
Additional information sources and  websites are
listed in Appendix B.

4.1  Energy Generation at Two Landfill Sites

Some waste  sites can  actually serve as energy
sources. For example, electricity (so-called "green
power")  can  be  generated by combustion of
naturally produced methane emitted at many land-
fills. More information on energy recovery from
landfill gas is available from USAGE.(6)
          Incineration (on-site) Physical Separation
               (43)    ^     (20)
               5%
Soil Vapor Extraction
    (213)
    25%    In situ
        Technologies
         364 (42%)
  Bioremediation (48)
                                              Solidification/
                                             Stabilization (48)
     Flushing (16)
Other (in situ) (27)
    3%
       Chemical Treatment
            (12)
              'Includes information from an estimated 70% of FY 2002 RODs.
FIGURE 3 - Superfund remedial actions: source control treatment projects (FY 82-02)
                4.1.1 Case Study 1: Microturbine Use at
                Operating Industries Inc. (Oil) Landfill,
                Monterey Park, CA

                The Operating Industries Inc. Landfill in Monterey
                Park, California,  is  a closed 190-acre  landfill
                divided into north and south parcels by the Pomona
                Freeway.  It operated from 1948 to  1984 and was
                listed as a Superfund site in 1986.  It contains an
                estimated 3 8 million cubic yards of municipal solid
                waste and more than 330 million gallons of liquid
                industrial waste. The remedy for the South Parcel
                includes a cap and a landfill gas collection system
                that extracts high BTU-value methane at a rate of
                2,500 cubic ft/min for treatment and use as fuel to
                power  a microturbine  system  that  generates
                electricity.

                Pretreatments are required for landfill gas. Typical-
                ly, landfill gas is run through an air/water separator
                and a particulate filter before it is introduced into
                systems such as microturbines. The off-gas from
                microturbine systems also needs to be treated to
                remove sulfur-containing compounds.

                Microturbines  are  an example of a distributed
                electrical  generation facility, which means that it
                does not need to be hooked up to the grid to be
                useable. They can operate on many types of fuel,
                including landfill gas. Microturbines are presently
                available  in  30kW, 70kW,  80kW, and  lOOkW

-------
units. For more information on microturbines, see
the EPA website "Inside The  Greenhouse."(7)
Such systems offer many benefits:

 •  Tolerance of lower methane content fuels (35
    percent methane, perhaps less).

 •  Low nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions (lower
    than one tenth of the NOx emissions of recip-
    rocation engines).

 •  Government grants, such as EPA's Landfill
    Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), may be
    available for microturbine application.(8)

Microturbine Costs

Capital  costs for a microturbine are about $2500
per kW  of capacity. The long-term nonfuel opera-
tion and maintenance costs are between 1.5 and 2
cents per kWh. This compares favorably with the
15 cents perkWh charged to commercial/industrial
customers in California. Note that utility costs in
the United States will vary with location. Accor-
ding to  the  ENERGYSTAR website, the national
average  cost is 8.47 cents per kWh.(9)

Construction Costs

Construction costs totaled $1.05 million plus utility
interconnection costs of $105,000 to  install the
system of six microturbines. Projected O&M costs
are 2 cents per kWh. Annual estimated cost savings
in excess of $400,000 are anticipated.

The landfill operators shared a number of lessons
learned  from the implementation of their micro-
turbine system:

 •  Brief stakeholders early  in the process. This
    includes local utilities, any land use contacts
    (in this case the  state transportation agency,
    CalTrans),  and  federal,  state,  and  local
    environmental agencies.

 •  Obtain a "power interconnection" application
    (to sell power back to the grid) from the utility
    first, as this is a  critical path item. The local
    electrical utility may not want to purchase back
    excess power,  or even allow hook up to the
    grid if extra, supplemental power is needed.

 •   Ensure that the microturbine system can accept
    the fuel that the landfill can provide to operate
    their turbines. Not all microturbines accept all
    mixtures of fuels.

 •  Research the microturbine manufacturer that
    you plan to use. Often, experience is limited to
    the equipment and support stops once the sale
    is made. Operators should also be concerned
    with hookup, testing, operation and  mainten-
    ance, etc. A turnkey operation, which provides
    a  completely   operational  product  upon
    delivery, is most desirable.

 •   USAGE recommends getting a service contract
    for the microturbine system, which details the
    costs and  time for implementation of the
    system.

4.1.2 Case Study 2: Power From Landfill Gas,
Douglas County Landfill, Omaha, Nebraska

The Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) installed
an energy recovery system at the Douglas County
landfill near Elk City, Nebraska. Though it is not a
Superfund or RCRA subtitle C  corrective action
site, but rather a licensed county landfill, it  can
provide useful case  study  information for  a
Superfund or RCRA site. OPPD was one of four
national winners of an EPA award under  the
Landfill Methane Outreach Program.

The landfill currently generates 1150 cubic feet per
minute (cfm)  of gas with a  composition of 51
percent methane, 46 percent carbon dioxide,  2
percent nitrogen, and Ipercent oxygen. The landfill
gas is fuel  for four Caterpillar  800 kW internal
combustion (1C) engines that provide a total of
3200 kW (gross)  and 3056  kW (net)  power
generating capacity. A gas chromatograph provides
continuous monitoring  and periodic recording of
landfill gas compositions. Automatic shutdown and
remote alarms prevent engine  damage  or air
emission violations. The gas generation is expected

-------
to peak in the year 2038 with the potential to
generate 18 MW of electricity. Landfill gas produc-
tion is expected to decrease in 2058. A minimum
methane  concentration of 45  to  47 percent is
needed to run the engines. Gas wells on the landfill
are spaced at 300-foot centers  with  10 inches of
water vacuum  at the well-head, 25  to 30 inches of
water vacuum at the inlet to the  blower on the
landfill, and 5 inches of water at  the exit of the
blower. A  positive  displacement  blower in the
generator building raises the gas pressure before it
enters the 1C engines. The only pretreatment of the
gas is condensate removal in knockout tanks on the
landfill  and in the  generator  building.  Neither
production rate nor gas composition show seasonal
differences.

New Source Performance Standards require that 98
percent of the nonmethane organic chemicals in the
gas be removed. To meet this requirement initially,
landfill gas was flared while the power station was
under constructed. The flare has a 750 to 3000 cfm
capacity. The completed generating  facility  does
not use all available gas, and the flare is maintained
to burn the excess. The gas is conveyed from the
landfill to the generating building in buried 18-inch
HDPE pipes. Condensate is trucked to the landfill
and discharged into a shallow reinfiltrate sump on
the landfill. The 1C engines run continuously with
an online utilization factor of nearly 100 percent.

An operator is at the site 40 hours  per week,  with
one on  call the rest of the  time. Engine oil is
changed every 600 hours; cylinder head overhaul is
done annually; and engine rebuilding is done every
five years. An additional facility may be built near
this one in the future to use the  additional gas
generated from landfill sections receiving wastes.
The energy recovery facility is owned by OPPD
and operated and maintained by Waste Manage-
ment, Inc. (WMI), which also operates the landfill.

1C  engines-generators are in a 30-  by 150-foot
generator building. The switching gear and office/
maintenance area are  in  separate parts  of the
building. Electricity generated, part of the OPPD
base load, goes underground to a pole 300 feet
from the building and then to an above ground line
where it enters the distribution system.

Findings

Landfill operators incorporate green power produc-
tion into their operations for these reasons:

 • Energy generation is an alternative to landfill
   off-gas treatment, thereby eliminating the need
   for an additional air pollution permit.

 • Energy generation may provide energy self-
   sufficiency at the site.

 • Energy  production  is  in compliance with
   Executive Order 13123, Section 204 (Renew-
   able Energy).

 • This operation makes the purchaser of green
   power eligible for the Green  Power Energy
   Award, by the Department of Energy, through
   its Federal Energy Management Program .(10)
   Such incentives for green power purchase are
   tightly linked with the local demand for green
   power.

4.2 Energy Conservation  at Pump-and-Treat
Remediation Sites

The  following energy-saving case studies were
derived from a process funded by EPA aimed at
optimizing O&M of groundwater pump-and-treat
remedial systems at Superfund sites. Although
these two cases describe groundwater pump-and-
treat systems, the process also is applicable to other
cleanup technologies. EPA researched  only two
sites  in the study; therefore the reported findings
are limited by the small sample size.

4.2.1  Case  Study  3:  Groveland Wells Visit
(5/1/02)

This  site in Massachusetts was the location of a
plastics and metal parts  manufacturing  business.
Between  1969  and   1984,  contaminants were
released from the site as a result of discharges and
spills. Two municipal drinking water wells were
closed as a result of the contamination. Cleanup

-------
remedies include ultraviolet (UV)/oxidation treat-
ment of volatile organic compound (VOC)-con-
taminated ground water and monitored natural
attenuation for the "lower concentration" portions
oftheVOCplume.(ll)

Energy-intensive UV/oxidation techno logy, which
completely destroys the contaminants, was chosen
for the cleanup  in part to alleviate community
concerns expressed  during the  public  comment
period. Contaminant destruction, not just transfer
to another media, was preferred.

The UV lamps in these systems typically use a lot
of power. For example, a 350 gallon per minute
(gpm) groundwater  pump-and-treat system may
need 3250 kWh  of power to run 24 hours  a day
with a  UV/H2O2 system.  In  this  case, actual
groundwater contamination concentrations were far
lower than the system was designed to remediate.
As such, the system may have been over-designed
for this particular application.

The contractor designed the remediation system to
specification at a fixed price cost, which included
a building, equipment, redundancies, monitoring,
sampling, and analysis. Energy was not explicitly
addressed  in contracts,  O&M  procedures,  or
directives.  Energy consumption and costs might
have been controlled through a lump sum O&M
contract rather than the contractual method used at
this site.

In this case, fundamental remedy changes would
require reopening the Record of Decision (ROD),
but would save energy by replacing  the  UV/
oxidation system with an alternative VOC treat-
menttechnology. Any additional benefits of energy
conservation or production options would require
changes in the overall site management strategy,
but a less energy intensive system probably would
not have been accepted by this community, which
specifically wanted a contaminant destruction tech-
nology implemented  rather than a transfer tech-
nology. Cost  sharing is another consideration: at
this site, EPA pays for the first 10 years of O&M,
after which the state assumes responsibility.
4.2.2 Case Study 4: Bog Creek Farms Site Visit
(6/19/02)

This site in semirural Monmouth County, New
Jersey, contains elevated levels of VOCs and other
contaminants in groundwater. A four-acre disposal
area was located on the 12-acre Bog Creek Farm
site, which contained a pond, bog, and trench. In
1973 and 1974, organic solvents and paint residues
were dumped around a trench in the eastern part of
the property. Waste sampling revealed a wide
variety of VOCs and heavy metals. The source of
the waste was  believed to  be offsite  and was
transported and disposed in onsite trenches.

Remedies for  the  site  included  excavation, re-
grading, and groundwater pump-and-treat. Pump-
and-treat includes extraction, multistage treatment,
and reinjection. Multistage treatment involved an
oil/water separator, equalization tank, pH adjust-
ment tank, chemical addition coagulation/floccula-
tion tanks, Lamella clarification/thickening system,
Dynasand up-flow filter, two  air strippers, two
liquid stream carbon adsorbers, three air stream
carbon adsorbers, two effluent holding tanks, one
plate filter press, chemical feed systems, and other
support systems and equipment.

A number of energy saving opportunities were
observed. The treatment system was incrementally
designed and installed.  System components from
the source control  phase (during which bog and
groundwater were treated) were reused. Structures
were added in 1996. A batch treatment system was
used and there appeared to be many redundancies
in the treatment train.

Operational delays, including power interruptions,
have occurred.  Space heating for equipment and
operators  in separate  buildings is a significant
energy use.(12) Heated buildings are insulated but
"natural" infiltration (open doors and louvers) is
used to  operate the treatment equipment and
control vapors from open-top tanks. The treatment
plant building  was sized to house the tanks and
equipment to treat ground water at a flow rate up to
160 gpm.

-------
The treatment system operates five days per week,
with extraction continuing the other two days, until
the 78,000 gallon  equalization tank  reaches
capacity. The system  was  designed  for  semi-
continuous treatment, rendering the design flow
rate much higher than that required for continuous
extraction  and treatment.  If the  system  was
redesigned for continuous extraction and treatment,
the design flow rate could be reduced to about 50
gpm, which would significantly reduce the energy
and space requirements for the treatment building.
Another, more obvious energy saving opportunity
involves reducing space heating demand.

Findings

EPA found that incremental  energy saving  and
production opportunities could result if certain
measures were taken. These measures included:

 •  Implementing recommended changes from the
    earlier  RSE may have  reduced  energy con-
    sumption and costs at both sites.

 •  Automation  of treatment equipment, though
    some  space  conditioning (i.e.,  temperature
    control) may still be required.

 •  Elimination  of natural infiltration in main
    treatment building  of Bog Creek Farms  site
    (cold air in the winter months).

 •  Using  distributed  energy resources (DER),
    defined as:  "small-scale power generation
    technologies (typically in the range of 3 to 10
    kW)  located close to where energy is used
    (e.g., a home or business) would provide an
    alternative to or an enhancement of traditional
    electric power system."(13)

 •  Heat generation using geothermal heat pumps
    (GHPs) could be profitable (with a 4- to 5-year
    payback derived from low cost and mainten-
    ance). A geothermal source needs to be close
    to the site to make it  economically  viable.
    GHPs use the Earth as a heat sink in  the
    summer and a heat source in the winter, relying
    on the relative warmth of the Earth for heating
    or cooling. Through a system of underground
    (or underwater) pipes, GHPs transfer heat from
    the  warmer  earth or  water  source  to  the
    building in the winter, and take the heat from
    the building in the summer and discharge it
    into the cooler ground  or water source. As
    such, GHPs do not generate heat, but move it
    from one area to another. In the end, they use
    25 to 50 percent less electricity than conven-
    tional heating or cooling systems.(14)

Generic Audit Protocol

A generic  energy audit protocol  is shown  in.
Appendix A. This generic checklist can be used as
a boilerplate for more technology-specific check-
lists. Figure 4 presents a quick look at some types
of energy saving  items  (specifically for ground-
water pump-and-treat systems) that are considered
in Appendix A.
Ground Water Extraction for Treatment
Well
No.



Pumping Rate (gpm)
Design



Actual



Mrs. pumping
per day



Dist. To Treat.
Unit (ft.)



Elevation Change to
Treatment Unit (ft.)



                      FIGURE 4(a) — Energy saving items to be considered in audit checklists.

-------
Pumps, Motors & Other Equipment Used
Major
Component
Type



Wells
Served



Make/
Model



Capacity/
Size



No. Units



Power
Requirement/
Output



Mrs. Used/
day



                      FIGURE 4(b) — Energy saving items to be considered in audit checklists.
4.3 Example of Cost Effectiveness at Pump and
Treat Sites

Mechanical and electrical components comprise a
cleanup system at a groundwater pump-and-treat
site. Among them are pumps, blowers, air compres-
sors, and other equipment. Many have motors with
different power  requirements.  The  power  is
measured as horsepower (hp) and the use depends
on the amount of air or water they must move and
how high they must  move  it.  In some cases,
oversized motor-loads (pumps, blowers, etc.) may
have been used.

For example, assuming 75 percent motor efficiency
and $0.10/kilowatt-hour (kWh),  1 horsepower =
$70/month with the system running 24 hours/day
and 7 days/week.
      Savings from replacing a 50-hp blower
              with a 15-hp blower
 50 hp x $70/month/hp     $ 3,500/month
 15 hp x $70/month/hp     ( 1.050/monfli)
                        $2,450/month
Payoff time is  less than one year, assuming a
capital cost of $25,000 to replace the blower. If you
use the average rate for power in California ($0.151
kWh), the operational cost would be greater. But
the savings would also  be greater and the payoff
time even shorter than the example above (because
the equipment cost is constant).
Although a 50-hp motor running at only a 15-hp
rate would be inefficient compared to just using a
15-hp motor, the inefficiency would not likely
result in a savings as great as indicated above. You
may need to compare efficiency curves for the two
motors to see if the economics justify replacing the
50-hp motor with a 15-hp motor. The illustration is
added here to show the difference in cost to run the
two motors at full capacity.(15)

Findings

The  following steps  can be  taken regularly to
reduce the use of oversized motors:

 •  Inventory all motors.

 •  Note their  power  requirements (in horse-
    power).

 •  Use manuals  and  O&M  data to  compare
    specifications to the actual task.

 •  Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of replacing
    oversized equipment or installing a variable
    speed  drive  that will  allow an operator to
    control its power usage.

 •  Replace with  equipment that demonstrates
    significant cost savings (i.e., compare the cost
    of replacement in a few years).
                                              10

-------
4.4 Energy Saving Performance Contracts

According to the U.S.  Department  of Energy
(DOE), more than 90 energy-saving performance
contract  (ESPCs) delivery  orders  have  been
awarded.(16) ESPCs, which are agreements with
energy service companies (ESCOs), also are widely
used  in Europe for identifying  and evaluating
energy-saving opportunities on projects.

Under an  ESPC, an  ESCO  will  identify and
evaluate  energy-saving  opportunities  and then
recommend a package of improvements to be paid
for through savings. The ESCO will guarantee that
savings meet or exceed annual payments to cover
all project costs, usually over a contract term of 7
to 10 years. If savings  do  not materialize, the
ESCO pays the difference. To ensure savings, the
ESCO offers staff training and long-term mainten-
ance services. This service, often used for energy
use in buildings, may have an application to waste
cleanup sites and could be investigated on a case-
by-case basis.

Many types of energy saving improvements can be
funded through existing budgets, as illustrated  in
Figure 5. This particular illustration, from DOE,
shows various cost savings that can be realized  in
the overall budget once these  ESCO contracting
techniques are implemented.
   ESPCs Reallocate the Federal Customer's Payments
 for Energy and Energy-Related Operations A Maintenance
               Expenses (E + O&M)
       Before
     ESPC Contract
During
   After
ESPC Contract
      FIGURE 5 — Energy Related Expense Illustration
         ESPC = Energy Saving Performance Contract
            ESCO = Energy Service Company
     Source: www.eren.doe.gov/femp/fmancing/espc/how.html
Rarely is a waste cleanup site project's design and
construction contract associated  with its O&M
contract. This can be the weak link in trying to save
money over the life of the project because  the
design has no connection to long-term operation.

Findings

DOE's  Federal Energy Management  Program
(FEMP) can help to secure financing for energy
efficiency improvements through  Super Energy
Saving  Performance Contracts  (Super  ESPCs).
Through ESPCs, federal agencies can  improve
energy  efficiency  at  their  facilities   without
depending  on  congressional appropriations  for
capital improvements. ESPCs also help meet these
agencies meet  energy, water,  and  emissions-
reduction goals.(10)

Project managers can take a screening test to find
out if an ESPC may help.  Based on experience
from  more than 90 ESPC projects at federal
properties (see www.eren.doe.gov/femp/financing/
espc/how.html), FEMP's technical  and project
financing experts can provide:

 •  Help to determine which contracting mechan-
    ism best fits your need.

 •   Education and advisory support to agency staff
    on legal, technical, financial, and contractual
    issues.

 •  Training for agency acquisition teams.

 •  User-friendly guidance documents.

 •  Help in developing requests  for initial propo-
    sals and task or delivery orders.

 •  Help in reviewing price and technical propo-
    sals.

 •   Experienced proj ect facilitators to guide you in
    developing and implementing a project.

4.5 Incorporating Energy Audits Into Remedial
Systems Evaluation (RSE) Checklists

Two specific groundwater remedy case studies are
                                               11

-------
presented in Section 4.2. In this section, energy-
saving questions are proposed for other waste
cleanup technologies. USAGE  has  helped EPA
develop checklists for project managers to use for
optimizing  various   remediation  systems.  As
mentioned above, these are called "RSE checklists"
and provide useful information for this issue paper.

RSE checklists look at savings through manpower
reduction, reduced energy needs (usually reduction
in electrical use), and reduced chemical use. Ways
to reduce  energy at waste cleanup  sites are
included in  these checklists. Energy production
from using landfill gas or installing photovoltaic
solar arrays on the site are normally not considered
during RSE inspections.  Although RSE checklists
do not address energy savings during the  design
phase, they could be considered.

One suggestion for the most effective direction for
energy  conservation  and  production  at  waste
cleanup sites is to create tailored checklists that
apply to individual technologies. Energy efficiency
items extracted from the USAGE RSE checklists
are included in the following sections.

General

 •  Determine if the treatment operation is still
    necessary or whether influent concentrations
    have decreased such that operation  can be
    terminated.

 •  Are more cost-effective treatment alternatives
    available to meet treatment requirements? Any
    modifications should be based on present
    worth analysis compared to operating cost of
    the current system.

 •  Electrical rates are often based on peak loads.
    The  higher  the  peak  load, the higher the
    electrical rate per kWh. Thus,  reducing the
    peak load may reduce electrical energy costs.
    Contact the  electrical utility for rates. Peak
    loads can  be reduced by sequencing  motor
    startups, doing high energy batch operations
    separately, using variable  frequency  motor
    drives on wells that start at low frequencies
    and increasing  frequency slowly to reduce
    peak load during startup, starting up large
    pumping wells  separately,  shutting  down
    pumping wells during peak load hours if the
    cone of depression can be maintained without
    operating the wells 100 percent of the time or
    by pumping more during off-peak hours each
    day, lowering building lights in unoccupied
    process areas, and monitoring building air for
    compliance with OSHA standards to see if air
    exchanges in the building can be reduced.

Metals Precipitation

 •  Are mixing  rates the same as those in the
    design specifications? Perform mixing calcula-
    tions to see if mixing energy can be reduced
    and still meet treatment requirements. During
    some RSE inspections,  metals precipitation
    units were treating only iron and/or calcium to
    prevent fouling of downstream equipment. In
    these situations, bypassing the unit completely
    or installing  a  less expensive  method of
    removing or sequestering the iron and calcium
    may be evaluated.

Activated Carbon Adsorption Units

 •  If spent carbon is  regenerated on site, can
    energy  be saved? Are the inlet gas flow rates
    the same as those in the design specifications?

 •  For vapor phase granular activated carbon
    (GAC), calculate the gas loading rate  and
    verify that it is less than 80 cfm/sq ft (prefer-
    ably between 20 and 60 cfm/sq ft). For liquid
    phase GAC,  calculate the liquid loading rate
    (normally  1-7 gpm/cu ft). (Higher loading
    rates will cause high pressure drop and high
    energy  use.)

 •  How are  the  carbon  beds monitored for
    contaminant breakthrough to determine when
    regeneration  is necessary? (Changing carbon
    beds before they break through will require
    more energy to regenerate them or more energy
    to manufacture new carbon. Accurate monitor-
    ing and estimation of carbon bed breakthrough
                                               12

-------
    should be part of the system, so as to get full
    use out of the beds).

 •  Have concentrations in the influent to the bed
    dropped enough to allow the beds to be shut
    down?

 •  When two GAC vessels are configured in
    series, the lead vessel can usually be allowed
    to breakthrough, as the lag vessel will prevent
    unacceptable  levels  of contaminants  from
    being released in the effluent.

Air Stripping

 •  Determine if the air stripper operation is still
    necessary, or whether the influent concentra-
    tions decreased so that the operation  can be
    terminated.

 •  Are the liquid and vapor flow rates the same as
    those in the design specifications? Perform air
    stripper design calculations  and  check the
    manufacturers design  information to see if the
    air rate  can be reduced and still meet the
    desired treatment  requirements. The air rate
    can often be reduced if the water flow rate has
    decreased.

 •  Compare  the  present  air emissions to the
    regulatory limits to determine if the off-gas
    treatment (carbon, thermal oxidation, etc.) can
    be  reduced or discontinued.

Vapor/Off-Gas Blower and Piping System

 •  A poor match of blower capacity and required
    flow rate will affect  process efficiency and
    performance.  O&M costs of a blower and
    associated off-gas treatment  may require  a
    significant long-term financial commitment.

 •  Are the flow rates appropriate for effective
    remediation  in the current  circumstances?
    Check the submissions to  verify that the
    blowers or  fans   are  appropriate for the
    conditions.
 •   Are any blowers throttled down to nearly shut-
    off to achieve the required flow rate? (Severely
    throttled blowers operate less efficiently and
    may require more maintenance.)

Vapor Extraction Subsurface Performance

 •   Are monitoring points distributed adequately
    to determine vacuum distribution, flow paths,
    or containment? Incorrectly distributed vacuum
    wells  may  result  in more air flow than is
    needed for adequate vapor capture.

Filtration System Performance

 •   Have contaminants or contaminant concentra-
    tions in the water stream changed to the extent
    that other  treatment  alternatives are more
    energy efficient?

Groundwater Extraction System Subsurface Perfor-
    mance

 •   Is the pumping properly distributed to capture
    the plume with minimum total volume of water
    for treatment? (Poorly distributed pumping
    may result in more energy use than is needed
    to contain the plume.)

 •   If the cleanup objectives  have not yet been
    met,  but an  asymptote reached,  has mass
    removal been sufficient to allow the extraction
    system to be turned off and monitored natural
    attenuation  used  to  achieve the  cleanup
    objective?

Bioventing Subsurface Performance

 •   Are the pressure/vacuum distributions consis-
    tent with design predictions? Does the pres-
    sure/vacuum distribution (in three dimensions)
    indicate good oxygen delivery and prevention
    of migration to potential receptors? Is the air
    injection or extraction properly distributed
    among the wells to optimally treat the target
    zone  effectively? Improving the distribution
    may increase the amount of energy needed.
                                               13

-------
 •  Has the system been evaluated to determine if
    blowers can be replaced by  a passive bio-
    venting system? The Department of Defense,
    under the Environmental Security Technology
    Certification Program, funded a demonstration
    of such a system where natural pressure drives
    the system.(17)

Landfill Off-Gas Treatment

 •  If the landfill gas supplied to the thermal oxi-
    dation unit is approaching the lower operating
    limit for methane concentration or if the gas
    generation rate has decreased significantly,
    consider the following to reduce energy use:
    vent the landfill gas to the  atmosphere,  if
    permissible; replace the thermal oxidizer with
    a smaller or more efficient unit; determine if
    retrofit and replacement of the burner with a
    small unit  is feasible; determine if the carbon
    units are still required, or if the flare unit alone
    can provide the required destruction efficiency.

 •  Is there enough landfill off-gas to capture and
    use as a fuel? Is there a market to make energy
    production economically viable? Would the
    future land use for the site allow for siting of
    photovoltaic arrays for possible energy genera-
    tion? (See  case study in Section 4.1).

In-Situ Air Sparging Subsurface Performance

 •   Has the system reached its cleanup objectives?
    Is the operation still necessary or have the
    concentrations decreased so that the operation
    can be terminated?

 •  If the cleanup objectives have not yet been
    met, but an asymptote reached, can the system
    be turned off and monitored natural attenuation
    be allowed to achieve the cleanup objective?

 •  Is the air flow unevenly distributed among the
    various wells in amultiwell system? Improving
    the  distribution may decrease the amount of
    energy needed.  Uneven distribution may be
    due to incorrect flow control valve settings,
    differences in depth of water in various wells,
    well clogging, inconsistent well construction,
    or significantly different pressure drops in
    certain piping legs.

Advanced Oxidation Technologies

 •   Can any of the UV lamps be turned off without
    reducing treatment efficiency?

 •  Do  any of the lamps  need to be replaced?
    Lamp life varies based on the type of lamp
    used. The low-wattage lamps typically have a
    useful life of one year. Medium-pressure and
    medium-pressure doped lamps have a useful
    life  of less than  six months.  Although the
    lamps may still be operable, they may lose the
    ability to emit light at the wavelengths neces-
    sary to oxidize the contaminants.

Extraction. Inj ection. and Monitoring Wells Perfor-
    mance

 •  Poor well performance can result in increased
    energy costs. This poor performance can be
    caused by poor selection of well location or
    screened interval, poor screen design, selection
    of inappropriate well construction materials,
    poor construction, ineffective  development,
    and inappropriate pump selection.

Vapor Thermal Oxidation Performance

 •   Evaluate replacing a simple thermal oxidizer or
    flare with a catalytic reactor if the vapor treat-
    ment will continue for a long time. This per-
    mits oxidation at a lower operating temperature
    and uses  less auxiliary fuel. Initial costs are
    high,  so  the  advantages  and  disadvantages
    must be evaluated carefully before replacing
    the existing unit.(18)

4.6 Analyzing Energy Related Problems

In Europe, graphical tools called "Sankey Diag-
rams" are widely used to visualize energy balances.
In other words, they are used to display energy
flows and quantitative process relationships. The
purpose of the diagram is twofold:
                                               14

-------
 •  To show how much relative quantities of
    energy are being used by the system, and

 •  To provide the user with potential oppor-
    tunities   for  making  energy-saving
    changes  by concentrating on the  most
    energy intensive activities.

The end result is a thorough understanding of
all the process steps and their interrelation-
ship. Sankey diagrams have proven to be an
outstanding tool in environmental technology
projects  for  analyzing material and  energy
related problems.

Sankey diagrams help to easily identify where
energy needs originate, where the maximum
consumption is directed, and where the place
for changes  with maximum impact in the
system exists.

The flows can also be partitioned according
to their end use. At each partition, some of
the resource flow may be  lost as waste or
leakage. The ratio between the input resource
flow and the useable output is a measure of
the primary efficiency of the resource system.

When resources are partitioned into end-uses,
calculating a secondary or "eco-efficiency" is
possible. This refers to the ratio of useable
input to  the total use  value  (or service)
provided by the system. Use-value is reduced by
waste or leakage; it is increased to the extent that
the  resource  flows   incorporate   looping  or
cascading of flows (/'. e., the recycling or reuse of
the resource by the same or other end uses).

Software  is  available  to help  draw  a Sankey
diagram.  It can be one  of the tools  used by the
project manager to analyze the energy flows at
waste cleanup sites. Sankey diagrams allow you to
visualize  cost information  as well. The Sankey
diagram  in Figure  6 could represent a complete
treatment system and its power needs. It illustrates
the small and large flows of energy resources or
cost, according to the functional input (e.g., well
motors, air strippers, lighting,  etc), and can be
         100% (5,928 GJ/y, 177,500 nf/y)
     energy content of natural gas (20% energy savings)
    70.7% (4,188 GJ/y = 125,000 rrWy)
         all other sources
                30.5% (1,807
   40.2% (4,188 GJ/y)     GJ/y)
   Co-generation Units  heating units &
   	(CgU)	   recuperation
         19.4%
         (1,152
         GJ/y)
         energy
         from CgU
 29.3%
(1,740 GJ/y,
52,000 mVy)
technology
                          24.9%
                        (1,480 GJ/y)
                        technology
                         19.7%
                         (1.174
                         GJ/y)
                        >chnology
M
                (257 GJ/y)/ /
           4.4% (261 GJ/y) loss
           from the heating unit
            3.3% (195 GJ/y)
            loss from the
           technology pipeline
          1.86% {110GJ/y) loss
            from distribution
    FIGURE 6 — Example Sankey Diagram

usedto increase system conservation. By observing
the  energy  needs  of the  input  and  output
requirements  from  a  top level view, a  system
operator might be able to make appropriate changes
to the energy load to reduce energy needs without
affecting required outputs.(19)

5.0 Summary

Information and tools  are available for successful
implementation of energy conservation and produc-
tion at waste cleanup sites. Four case studies were
presented, including three Superfund sites, to illus-
trate consideration of energy efficiency at remedial
sites. A number of findings were compiled.
                                                 15

-------
In addition to the energy saving opportunities
observed at the three visited sites, there also may
be a number of opportunities for energy production
at waste sites. Depending on the waste site charac-
teristics,  these energy  production opportunities
may include methane gas collection at landfills,
geothermal production, wind turbine generation, or
the use of waste cleanup site land (e.g.,  landfill
surface) for the staging of photovoltaic arrays.

5.1 Site Visit Findings

The site visit findings, which are qualitative, can be
summarized as follows:

 • Greater  awareness and skill building for
   improved performance will be  required to
   achieve improvements.

 • An integrated, life cycle perspective is needed.
   The designer of a waste cleanup system should
   work closely with the end-user or operator of
   that system to ensure efficient energy use by
   the system.

 • Energy use may not be  the driver  for cost
   savings, but should be considered in a broader
   evaluation. Although waste remediation sys-
   tems can be quite  costly, the energy  piece
   appeared  to be "relatively small" at the two
   groundwater sites.

 • As a result of case studies presented here, the
   present state of considering energy production
   or conservation at waste cleanup sites appears
   underused. Energy efficiency at these sites may
   be achieved by implementing various regula-
   tory, communication, and economic measures.

6.0 Acknowledgments and Contacts

This paper  has  been  written to help  project
managers and others become aware of the need to
consider energy efficiency at  waste cleanup sites.
It is a first step in conserving  and possibly produ-
cing energy at waste cleanup sites.

Compiling this information was an effort for which
many people should receive credit. Mr. Ed Mead
brought ideas from USAGE  on incorporating
energy audits into existing RSE checklists. Thanks
are also in order  to members  of the Superfund
Forums and especially to the Engineering Forum,
which accepted the original proposal. In particular,
thanks to  the individuals from throughout U.S.
EPA and the U.S.  Army Corps  of Engineers who
took the time to review this issue paper, including
Jon   Bornholm   (Region   4),  David   Burden
(NRMRL-Ada), Charles Coyle (USAGE), William
Crawford (USAGE), Ed Finnerty (Region 2), Rene
Fuentes (Region 10), Derrick Golden (Region 1),
Timonie  Hood (Region  9),  Sven-Erik Kaiser
(OSWER), Ivars Licis (NRMRL-Cincinnati), Kelly
Madalinski (OSWER), Ed Mead (USAGE), Kendra
Morrison  (Region 8), Martha Otto  (OSWER),
Nancy Porter (OSWER),  and Lance Richman
(Region 9).

Contacts

Michael Gill
ORD  Hazardous Substances Technical Liaison
U.S. EPA Region 9 / SFD-84
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-972-3054
415-947-3520 (fax)
Gill.Michael@epa.gov

Katarina Mahutova
International Research Scientist
U.S. EPA Region  10
1200 6th Avenue (OEA-095)
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-6287
206-5 5 3-0119 (fax)
mahutova.katarina@epa.gov

Ed Mead
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
12565 West Center Road
Omaha, NE 68144-3869
(402)  697-2576
(402)  697-2595 (fax)
s.ed.mead^.usace.army.mil
                                              16

-------
7.0 References

1)  U.S.  Department of  Energy.  Presidential
    Executive Order 13123, "Greeningthe Govern-
    ment Through Efficient Energy Management."
    June 3, 1999. Available at: www.eere.energy.
    gov/femp/resources/exec 13123 .html.

2)  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "One
    Cleanup Program" website: www.epa.gov/
    swerrims/onecleanupprogram/.

3)  U.S.   Environmental   Protection  Agency.
    "Resource Recovery Challenge" (RCC). Avail-
    able at: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/
    index.htm.

4)  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "Remedial
    Systems Evaluation Checklists." Available at:
    www.environmental.usace.army.mil/library/
    guide/rsechk/rsechk.html.

5)  U.S.   Environmental   Protection  Agency.
    "Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup  :
    Annual Status  Report (11th Edition)." U.S.
    EPA,  EPA-542-R-03-009,  February 2004,.
    Available at:  www.clu-in.org/products/asr.

6)  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TL 1110-1-
    160, "Engineering and Design—Landfill Off-
    Gas Collection and  Treatment  Systems."
    Available  at:   www.usace.army.mil/
    publications/eng-tech-ltrs/etl 1110-1 -160/
    toe .html.

7)  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002.
    EPA-430-N-02-002. "Inside The Greenhouse."
    Available  at: www.epa.gov/globalwarming/
    greenhouse/greenhouse 17/benefits.html.

8)  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Land-
    fill Methane Outreach Program." Available at:
    www .epa.gov/lmop.

9)  U.S.   Environmental   Protection  Agency.
    "Energy Star." Available at: www.energystar.
    gov/products/utilityyrates. shtml.

10) U.S. Department of Energy. "Federal Energy
   Management Program.'
   eere.energy.gov/femp.
Available  at:  www.
11) U.S.   Environmental   Protection  Agency.
   "Groveland Wells, MA Record of Decision."
   Available at: cfpub.epa.gov/superrods/rodslist.
   cfm?msiteid=0100750.

12) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Bog
   Creek Farms, NJ Record of Decision." Avail-
   able at: cfpub.epa.gov/superrods/rodslist.cfm?
   msiteid=0200397.

13) State  of California. "California  Distributed
   Energy Resource Guide." Available at: www.
   energy.ca.gov/distgen.

14) U.S.  Department  of  Energy.  "Consumer
   Energy  Information:   EREC  Fact  Sheet,
   GeoThermal Heat Pumps." Available at: www.
   eere.energy.gov/erec/factsheets/geo_heatpum
   ps.html.

15) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002.
   "Elements  for  Effective   Management  of
   Operating Pump-and-Treat Systems." EPA
   542-R-02-009.

16) U.S. Department of Energy. "Federal Energy
   Management Program: Super ESPC Awarded
   Contracts." Available at:  www.eere.energy.
   gov/femp/financing/e spc/awards .html.

17) Environmental   Security   Technology
   Certification  Program  (ESTCP)  Bioventing
   Study,  "Natural  Pressure-Driven  Passive
   Bioventing."  1997. Available at: www.estcp.
   org/projects/cleanup/199715o.cfm.

18) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992.
   A.J. Buonicore and W.T. Davis (editors). "Air
   Pollution Engineering Manual." EPA-456/R-
   95-003. Air and Waste Management Associa-
   tion, Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY.

19) "Sankey  Diagram of  Energy  Flow  in
   DeMiclen,  Levice, Slovakia." 2000.  Atom,
   Prague,  Czech  Republic, Translated and
   modified by Mahutova,  K.
                                              17

-------
18

-------
APPENDIX A: Example of Audit Protocol
                 Energy Conservation and Production at Waste Cleanup Sites
                               for Fund-Lead Superfund Sites
                                      (Audit Protocol)
Background

Facility/Site Name:
Street Address:	
City:	
State, Zip:
Phone:	
Total Site Size (acres):
Site Contact:	
Position/Responsibility:
Employer:	
RPMName:
Principal Contaminants Present:
Human Health/Environmental Threats:
Phone No.:
  Summary of Site Conceptual Model:
System Goals and Exit Strategy.
General Remedial Strategies Employed
    Source Control:
    Groundwater Plume Capture:
    Groundwater Treatment:	
    Effluent Management:	
    Air Pollutant Emissions Management:
    Treatment Residue Management:	
    Monitoring:	
    Other:	
Health & Safety Plan required?
                                            A-l

-------
Site Visit

Visit Leader:

Affiliation:  .
                      Day 1
Date:
Auditor Name:
Time of Arrival:
Weather Conditions:

Hazards Present?
Day 2
Site Visit Participants:
Name:
Affiliation:
Comments:















Initial Meeting Comments:
Walk-Through Observations:
General Site Conditions
Equipment is in good repair?
Access controls in place and effective?
Site free of trash and uncontrolled materials?
Site personnel appear to be knowledgeable of all major site
conditions/issues?
Equipment and processes are consistent with site
background documents and periodic reports?
Yes





No





Comments





Site Staffing and Operation

No. full-time remedial systems operators:	
Daily commuting distance and travel mode(s):
Vehicle miles traveled/day:	
    Name(s):
No. part-time remedial systems operators:	
Periodic commuting distance and travel mode(s):.
Vehicle miles traveled/month:	
                                              A-2

-------
Buildings and other Permanent Structures
Building No. / Name




Purpose(s)




No.
floors




Total
Area
(sq. ft.)




Year built/
renovated




Scheduled
Occupation
(days/hrs.)




Building Systems
Building/Structure No./Name:
System/Function
Building shell
(walls, roof,
insulation,
windows, doors)
Heating
Cooling
Ventilation
Lighting
Hot water
Potable water
Sanitary waste
Major
Components








Makes/
Models








Capacity/
Size








No.
Units








Power
Requirement/
Output








Energy/
Power
Source








Hrs.
Used/
day








Are ENERGY STAR products being used?.
Where and for what?
Are EO 13123 goals being considered/actively pursued?
Has an energy audit been performed?	
Have energy efficient doors and windows been installed?	
Do the buildings feel drafty?	 Stuffy?	
Does the illumination seem adequate?	
What is the approximate plug load of equipment & machines in each building1?
REMEDIAL SYSTEM DESIGN AND OPERATION

Source Control
Are activities consistent with strategy?.
If not, explain:	
Percent complete:
                                            A-3

-------
Material Removal
Material Removed:
Off-site?



Moved



Rate
(tons/mo.)



Cumulative
(tons)



Material Movement/Transportation Methods & Equipment
Equipment
Type



Make/Model



Capacity



Engine
Size/Power



Hrs. Used/day



Off-Site Management
Material
Transported:
Name



Destination
(City/County)



Location



Distance
Required?
(miles)



Permit



On-Site Source Control Technologies
Strategy (circle one): SVE Soil Washing Stabilization Capping Run-On D
Major Component Type






Make/Model






Capacity/
Size






No. Units






iversion Other

Power
Requirement/
Output






Hrs.
Used/
day






                                           A-4

-------
Groundwater Plume Capture




Strategy Employed:	
Active / Passive (circle one) Stage of Implementation/Percent Complete.




Plume Containment through Groundwater Pumping
Well No.




Pumping Rate (gpm)
Design




Actual




Destination




Distance from
Well (ft)




Elevation
Change (ft)




Disposition of Extracted Water:
Other Containment System Components
Component Type






Make/Model






Capacity/Size






No. Units






Power
Requirement/
Output






Hrs.
Used/
day






Groundwater Extraction for Treatment
Well No.




Pumping Rate (gpm)
Design




Actual




Hrs. Pumping
per Day




Distance to
Treatment
Unit(ft)




Elevation Change to
Treatment Unit (ft)




                                            A-5

-------
Pumps, Motors & Other Equipment Used
Major Component
Type







Wells
Served







Make/Model







Capacity/
Size







No.
Units







Power
Requirement/
Output







Hrs. Used/
day







Are valves throttled to control primary flow?	
Are normally open pump bypass line(s) used for flow control or pump minimum flow protection?
Are multiple parallel pumps in place and number of operating pumps seldom changes?	
Is a batch or cyclical start/stop system used with frequent pump cycling?	
Is there significant cavitation noise at the pump or in the system?	
Are system head or flow changes occurring?	  Should they?	
Are variable speed drives installed?	  % of total	
Are variable frequency motors installed to power the pumps?.
% of total
Groundwater Treatment
Description of Treatment Train:
Equipment Used
Major Component
Type





Wells
Served





Make/Model





Capacity/
Size





No.
Units





Power
Requirement/
Output





Hours
Used/Day





What is the rate/throughput limiting step or component? .
Which components are used in parallel?	
Which are redundant/used for surge capacity or emergencies?.
                                             A-6

-------
Effluent Management




Description of effluent management scheme:
Disposition
NPDES outfall
Reinjection
On-site use
Storage
(specify)
Other (specify)
Quantity
Design





Actual





Units





Discharge
Point





Distance to
Discharge
Point (ft.)





Elevation Change
to Discharge
Point (ft.)





Conveyance Equipment
Pumps, Motors & Other Equipment Used
Major Component
Type





Wells
Served





Make/
Model





Capacity/
Size





No.
Units





Power
Requirement/
Output





Hours
Used/day





Air Pollutant Emissions Management




Description of air emissions management scheme:
Control Method(s) (circle all that apply): Air Stripping GAC Filtration Cyclones Thermal
Oxidation Other (specify)
Component Type




Contaminant(s)
Removed




Make/Model




Capacity/
Size




No.
Units




Power
Requirement/
Output




Hrs. Used/
day




                                          A-7

-------
What is the rate/throughput limiting step or component?
Which components are used in parallel?	
Which are redundant/used for surge capacity or emergencies?
Are valves throttled to control primary air flow?	
Is a batch or cyclical start/stop system used with frequent pump/compressor/fan cycling?
Are variable speed drives installed?	
Are variable frequency motors installed?.
% of total.
% of total
Treatment Residue Management

Description of treatment residue management scheme:
Residue Name/
Type





Generation Point





Generation Rate
(tons/month)





Hazardous
Waste? (Yes/No)





Disposition on
Site? (Where?)





    Residue Management Methods
Residue Name/Type





Method(s)





Purpose





Typical Impact





    Residue Management Equipment
Equipment
Type





Make/Model





Capacity





Engine
Size/Power





Hrs. Used/day





                                             A-8

-------
    Off-Site Management
Material
Transported:
Name



Destination
(City/County)



Location



Distance
Required?
(miles)



Permit



Is interim storage used?
Location & Methods?
           Duration?
Is material/energy recovered?
On-site disposal unit features.
Environmental Monitoring

    Groundwater Monitoring

No. wells	
Parameters evaluated	
Shipping location, distance, and method for off-site lab analysis .
Frequency of Sampling.
Pumps, Motors & Other Equipment Used
Major Component
Type




Wells
Served




Make/
Model




Capacity/
Size




No.
Units




Power
Requirement/
Output




Hrs.
Used/day




   Monitoring of Other Environmental Media
Medium




Parameters
Evaluated




Sampling
Method(s)




Sampling
Location(s)




Sampling
Frequency




Analysis
Method(s)




Powered equipment used:	
Shipping location, distance, and method for off-site lab analysis:
                                             A-9

-------
General Site Conditions and Practices

Process/Equipment Use and Interactions

Is heat recovery employed?	 Heat recovered from
Recovered heat used for	 at	
Which processes/equipment are operated in batch mode?	
Which processes/equipment are operated continuously? (24/7)
Which are operated?:
    1st shift only:	
    Overnight/weekends	
    Instantaneously on demand.
    When convenient	
Operating Parameters and Costs

Are system components metered separately?	 If so, which ones? .
Has training on energy efficiency practices provided to designers & operators? .
Have energy performance/cost goals and metrics been established?	
Are energy metrics normalized to throughput?	
Are energy bills reviewed and analyzed?	
Are energy consumption and cost trends monitored & investigated?.
Have equipment/system O&M schedules been developed?	
Does documentation exist showing that they have been followed?	
Is outsourced energy management (e.g., through a Super ESCO or UESC) available?.

Equipment Procurement Practices

All equipment purchased new?	 If not, note exceptions	
Motor Master used to spec motors/ define operating conditions?	
Other DOE OIT or other diagnostic tools used to specify equipment size/characteristics?

Energy Star or equivalent (top 25%) equipment specified?	
Outsourced energy mgt. (Super ESCO/UESC) considered?	
Performance Data

Operating hrs./mo. for overall treatment system:
No. of regulatory excursions:	
Monthly electricity use (kWh):
Monthly gas use (cu. ft.):	
Monthly energy costs ($):	
No. of NOVs:	
% of design optimum:
                                            A-10

-------
APPENDIX B: Resources

Existing Relevant Data and References

Remedial Design/Remedial Action Handbook
    U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
    EPA 540-R-95-059, OSWER-9355.0-04B, 317 pp, June 1995.
    www.epa.gov/superfund/whatissf/sfproces/rdrabook.htm

Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance
    U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
    EPA 540-R-01-007, OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, 60 pp, June 2001
    www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/5year/index.htm

Federal Government Websites

The following list of websites provide online, readily available sources of information and technical
assistance concerning energy efficiency and energy production technologies that may be of interest at all
waste cleanup sites. These websites were accurate as of January 26, 2004.

The listing provides for each site a brief description, specific features of interest, as appropriate, and an
indication of the site's overall utility for the purposes of energy efficiency at remedial sites.

Information is furnished on the following topics:

 •  Federal agency energy efficiency/production programs
 •  General interest energy efficiency industry and public sector programs, partnerships, and consortia
 •  Technology-specific sites (solar, geothermal, wind, other)
 •  Energy service companies and utility performance contractors
 •  Relevant state and EPA regional energy-related web sites

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

www.epa.gov                     Main website for U.S. EPA

www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/         Website for EPA's  Clean Energy Program. Basic information on
                                 alternative energy resources,  including solar, wind, biomass, geother-
                                 mal, and hydropower, and links to relevant websites. Case studies of
                                 federal facilities using or developing clean energy technologies.

www.epa.gov/chp                 This webpage described a voluntary EPA program called "Combined
                                 Heat and Power" or  CHP, a partnership  which "seeks to reduce the
                                 environmental impact of power  generation by fostering the use of
                                 CHP." CHP is described as  "a more efficient,  cleaner, and reliable
                                 alternative to conventional generation."
                                             B-l

-------
www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/waste/w-online.htm
                                 EPA created this webpage, called "WARM", to help solid waste
                                 planners and organizations track and voluntarily report greenhouse gas
                                 emissions reductions and energy savings from several different waste
                                 management practices. It employs a worksheet to describe the baseline
                                 and alternative MSW management scenarios that can be compared.
                                 You can enter material tonnage information and calculate landfill gas
                                 emissions information.

www.epa.gov/mswclimate/greengas.pdf
                                 This file is a solid waste management tool that is titled "A Lifecycle
                                 Assessment of Emissions and Sinks."
U.S. Department of Energy

www.energy.gov

www.eren.doe.gov/
www.eren.doe.gov/femp
rredc.nrel.gov
www.eia.doe.gov
www.pnl.gov
Main website for U.S. Department of Energy

Website of DoE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network
(EREN). Very comprehensive website covering energy efficiency and
renewable energy for all interested parties, broken down into individual
resource topics. Includes financing information for communities and
states, technology descriptions, links to other relevant technical and
government websites, and analytical tools.

Website  for  DoE's  Federal Energy Management Program.  Very
comprehensive  website primarily  targeting federal agencies. Large
section on technical assistance, including analytical  tools, building
design, and energy guides. Includes information on the New Technical
Demonstration  Program (NTDP), technologies  index, and  federal
facilities success stories.

Website for Renewable Resource Data Center (RReDC), supported by
DOE. Website  includes information on biomass, geothermal, solar
radiation,  and wind energy resources, as well as dynamic maps of
renewable energy resources that determine which energy technologies
are viable  solutions  throughout the  United  States.  Each resource
section has software  models, databases, and  links to other relevant
sites.

Website of the Energy Information Administration. Website contains
official energy statistics about energy demand, use and production in
the United States from the U.S. government. Very useful when energy
use statistics are needed. Statistics grouped by geography, fuel, sector,
and price.

Website for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Includes
information on  innovative energy  projects. Sections  on energy and
                                              B-2

-------
www.nrel.gov
eande.lbl.gov
www. sustainable. doe .gov
www.oit.doe.gov
www.eere.energy.gov/inventions/
Other Federal Websites
www.energystar.gov
www.gsa.gov
engineering, fuel cell technology, and the Decision Support for O&M
software program to determine equipment efficiency.

Website for the National Renewable  Energy  Laboratory. Very
comprehensive website with information on many energy resources.
Describes recent research projects and programs. Links to the Center
for Building and Thermal Systems, which has information on building
materials, geothermal, solar energy, test sites, publications access, and
computer models for energy analyses.

Website for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Energy and
Environment Division). Contains detailed information on the research
conducted at LBNL, as well as reports on energy use. Includes  a
Building  Technologies  Program,  which  focuses   on  building
illumination and includes building energy analysis tools.

Website for DoE's Smart Communities Network website. Focuses on
sustainability. Topics covered include green buildings and financing,
including links to active funding opportunities throughout the country.
Includes many case studies of successful green buildings.

Website for DoE's Office of Industrial Technologies. They  work in
partnership  with U.S.  industry to  develop  and deliver advanced
technologies that increase energy efficiency, improve environmental
performance, and boost productivity.

Also under DoE' s Office of Industrial Technologies, the Inventions and
Innovation  (I&I)  program provides  financial  assistance  at  two
levels—up to $40,000 (Category 1) or up to $250,000 (Category 2)—
for  conducting early  development  and establishing  technical
performance of innovative energy saving ideas and inventions.
Website for the Energy Star Program. Energy Star products for home
and office applications are listed here. Includes products for lighting,
HVAC, windows, roofing.

Website  for  the GSA.  Click through "Public Buildings" under
"Buildings" and "Energy Management" under "Services" to discover
a wealth  of  energy resources  and  resources  available  to  public
facilities.  Promotes  cost-effective  and  environmentally friendly
utilities. Contact information provided, as well as links  to related
websites, publications, policies, and recent news.
                                              B-3

-------
www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/Climate/ec.html
                                Website  for  the  DoD's  Defense  Environmental Network  and
                                Information Exchange (DENIX) for Energy Conservation.  List of
                                relevant documents, presentations, and resources on DENIX.

www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codej/codeje/je_site/energy/about_energy.html
                                Website for NASA's Energy Efficiency and  Water Conservation
                                (EEWC) Program. Promotes saving water and  energy and reducing
                                costs.  Site  includes links to regulations, NASA  policies, training
                                courses, agency contacts, and other energy links.

General Energy Websites
www.crest.org
                                Website for the Renewable Energy Policy Project and the Center for
                                Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology (REPP-CREST). Has
                                information about  renewable  energy,  efficiency,  and sustainable
                                development.  Separate sections for policy, hydropower, bioenergy,
                                geothermal, wind, solar, hydrogen, and efficiency. Also contains links,
                                FAQs, policy reports, and discussion groups.

www.ems.org/energy_policy/recycling.html
                                This website from a non-profit that provides j ournalists with informa-
                                tion on environmental issues provides ideas on energy savings from
                                recycling.
www.ase.org
www.advancedbuildings.org
www.epn.com
www.efficientwindows.org
                                Website for the Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), a non-profit coalition
                                of business, government, environmental and consumer leaders. Targets
                                consumers and energy industry, among others. Website  contains
                                technical  papers and energy use checklists, as well as home and
                                business energy checkup software.

                                This website is supported by a consortium of government and private
                                organizations. Geared towards building professionals to improve the
                                energy  and resource efficiency of buildings.  This is  a  Canadian
                                website, but includes both American and Canadian manufacturers and
                                information sources.

                                Website of the Electric Power  Research Institute (EPRI). Website
                                focuses on global  energy customers. Details research projects and
                                project opportunities.

                                The Efficient Windows website, sponsored by DOE's Windows and
                                Glazing Program. Website provides information on and recommen-
                                dations for energy-efficient windows.
                                             B-4

-------
Solar Energy Websites

www.solarenergy.net


www. solarbuzz. com
www.ases.org


www.solarenergy.org


Geothermal Energy Websites

geoheat.oit.edu



www .geoexchange. org
www.igshpa.okstate.edu



www .geothermal .marin. org



Wind Energy Websites

www.awea.org



www.nrel.gov/wind



www .nationalwind. org
Website for the Solar Energy Network. Website has links for solar
products, including pumps and electric systems.

Website for Solarbuzz, which is comprised of staff members of solar
energy companies. Website includes solar energy news, information on
solar products, financing and payback time calculators, and solar
energy research topics.

Website for the American Solar Energy Society (ASES). Website is
mainly a vehicle to purchase solar energy publications.

Website  for  Solar  Energy International  (SEI).  Primary focus is
conducting workshops promoting solar energy.
Website  for the Geo-Heat Center. Website contains  a wealth of
information regarding geothermal resources, including maps, software,
articles, and a directory of equipment manufacturers.

Website for the Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium (GHPC), which is
a collaborative effort between the DoE, the EPA, and private sector
organizations. Website has residential and commercial geothermal case
studies and brochures, as well as installer information.

Website for the International Ground Source Heat Pump Association
(IGSHPA). Focuses on ground source heat pump technology. Includes
lists of installers, products, conference information, and FAQs.

Website for the Geothermal Education Office (GEO). Website focuses
on geothermal energy education. Includes worldwide map of geother-
mal resources. List of other geothermal websites.
Website for American Wind Energy Association. Website contains
wealth of information regarding wind energy, including maps, artick
and reports, and project lists.
a
Website for the National Wind Technology Center. Includes the Wind
Resource Assessment Handbook, wind  maps, climatic data, case
studies, and standards.

Website for the National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC).
Website contains wind policy and technical papers, as well as technical
assistance.
                                              B-5

-------
Other Renewable Energy Websites

www.fuelcells.org                 This website  is  an activity  of the Breakthrough  Technologies
                                 Institute/Fuel Cells 2000. Website features a large amount of informa-
                                 tion regarding the use of fuel cells.
Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) and Energy Service Performance Contractors (ESPCs)

www.eren.doe.gov/femp/fmancing/espc.html
                                 This website is the starting point for federal facilities to learn more
                                 about ESPCs. Website contains an overview of the program, FEMP
                                 assistance programs, contract tools, and case studies.

www.eren.doe .gov/femp/financing/espc/doe_qualified_escos.html
                                 This website contains a list of DOE-qualified ESCOs that is frequently
                                 updated. The list contains contact information for all the ESCOs.

www.eren.doe .gov/femp/financing/espc/super_espc_escos.html
                                 The  energy service  companies  (ESCOs) that competed for the
                                 indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) Super Energy Savings
                                 Performance Contracts (Super ESPCs) are listed here, by region and by
                                 technology.

State/EPA Regional Energy Websites

www.eren.doe .gov/state_energy/index.cfm
                                 Website for DoE's EREN State Energy Incentives. Website looks at
                                 each state's renewable energy resources, technologies, and policies.
                                 Links to each state's energy office and regulatory commission.

www.naseo.org                   Website for the National Association of State  Energy  Officials.
                                 Website includes links to every state government's energy office, and
                                 highlights pertinent energy issues.

www.energyideas.org             This website is a service  of the Energy Ideas Clearinghouse  (EIC).
                                 Focuses on the northwestern US, but has a comprehensive  list of
                                 relevant websites, as well  as research project information.

www.energy.iastate.edu           Website  for  the  Iowa  Energy Center. Website contains some
                                 educational articles.  Mainly geared towards  state residents. Very
                                 comprehensive list of energy-related website links, including many
                                 governmental sites.

www.energy.ca.gov               Website for the California Energy Commission. Geared toward state
                                 residents. Comprehensive list of state renewable energy programs.
                                 Includes estimated equipment and operating costs of various energy
                                 systems.

                                              B-6

-------
www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Organics/Conversion
                                 This  webpage,  from  the  State  of California's Integrated  Waste
                                 Management  Board,  describes  various   biomass-to-energy  and
                                 conversion technologies.

www.ecw.org                    Website of the Energy Center of Wisconsin. Website has comprehen-
                                 sive information packages for various energy resource topics.

www.state.sc.us/energy           Website for the South Carolina Energy Office. Information on energy
                                 projects in residential, commercial, and public sectors, including case
                                 studies and financial assistance.

www.idwr.state.id.us/energy       Website for Idaho Energy Division. Includes contact information for
                                 alternative energy projects that includes technical assistance and loan
                                 programs. Also has section on energy efficiency.

www.deq.state.mt.us/energy/index.asp
                                 Website for Energize Montana. Includes sections on energy efficiency
                                 for government entities, such as financing and utility cost savings, as
                                 well as renewable energy financing and technical information.

www.energy.cted.wa.gov/         Website for Washington State Energy Policy Division. Includes techni-
                                 cal publications as well  as links to other state and regional  energy
                                 websites.

www.epa.gov/NE/topics/envpractice/eefficiency.html
                                 Website for EPA Region 1 (New England) - Energy Efficiency. Links
                                 to reports on energy efficiency from region and nation.

www.epa.gov/region02/p2/        Website for EPA Region 2 - Pollution Prevention. Includes links to
                                 technical resources, proj ects, and grants in the region promoting energy
                                 efficiency.

www.epa.gov/reg3p2p2/building.htm
                                 Website for EPA Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic) - Green Buildings. Links to
                                 other websites with green building information and products.

www.epa.gov/Region5/sue/index.htm
                                 Website for EPA Region 5 - Sustainable Urban Environments. Links
                                 to reports on  funding opportunities and a green building resource
                                 guide, which itself contains many links to energy efficiency sites.

www.epa.gov/Region7/p2/index.htm
                                 Website for EPA Region 7 - Pollution Prevention. Links to the Green
                                 Rider Pack, a document that provides information on EPA programs
                                 that promote  energy efficiency, as well as links  to  other  federal
                                 websites.
                                               B-7

-------
www.epa.gov/Region8/conservation_recycling/index.html
                                 Website for EPA Region 8 (Mountains and Plains) - Conservation,
                                 Recycling, and Pollution Prevention. Mainly contains list of external
                                 websites regarding energy efficiency.

www.epa.gov/region09/cross_pr/energy
                                 Website for EPA Region 9 (Pacific Southwest) - Energy Issues in the
                                 Pacific Southwest. Links to other websites with  energy policy and
                                 education issues.

yosemite.epa.gov/rlO/oi.nsf/0/3d5de9da58cceb7288256981007cd907?OpenDocument
                                 Website for EPA Region 10 (Pacific Northwest) -  Sustainability.
                                 Contains information for various  types of energy users and makes
                                 suggestions to  increase  efficiency.  Links  to  regional  financing
                                 programs, as well as successful case studies.
                                              B-8

-------