United States
        Environmental Protection
Office of Solid Waste and EPA/540/M-91/003
Emergency Response   May 1991
Washington, DC 20460
SEPA  Abstract Proceedings:

        Superfund Technical
        Support Project
        General Meeting

        December 1990

                            May 1991

               8  ^hnical   \
                   jupport    .
                   reject    .
               Prepared for the

        Technology Innovation Office
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

   Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D., Director
       Environmental Management Support, Inc.
          1010 Wayne Avenue, Suite 200
            Silver Spring, MD 20910

        U.S. Environment^ Protection Agency
        Region b, Library (PL-'i'Y!
        77 Wcs
        C h iSFj
                           Printed on Recycled Paper

This document contains abstracts of technical presentations given at the semiannual
Technical  Support Project meeting held at the Athens  Environmental Research
Laboratory on December 3-6,1990. The Technical Support Project, established by the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response in 1987, provides technology-based
assistance  to Regional Remedial Project Managers  and  On-Scene  Coordinators
through Office of Research and Development laboratories.
                                       Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D. *
                                   Director, Technology Innovation Office

Vernon Myers and Jim Brown

Gordon M. Evans

Bob Carsel

Jerry Carman

CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF WELL TURBIDITY                            5
Robert W. Puls

Ken Brown

John F. Martin

Adrian A. Field, Elizabeth B. Spencer, Philip R. Cluxton, & Lawrence C. Murdoch

REMEDY SCREENING                                           12
Eugene F. Harris

NEW ENGINEERING  FORUM ISSUE PAPERS                          13
Ben Blaney

Joe Arello

J. Ivan Guzman

Ben Blaney

DATA GAPS IN REMEDIAL DESIGN                                  17
John E. Moylan

THE PRE-DESIGN TECHNICAL SUMMARY                            18
Kenneth R. Skahn

Thomas A. Whalen

FATE CONSTANTS AND PATHWAY ANALYSIS                         21
William T. Donaldson

William T. Donaldson

DENSE NON-AQUEOUS PHASE LIQUIDS                            23
Scott Huling

David S. Brown, Jerry D. Allison and Kevin J. Novo-Gradac

Richard L. Donovan

Dick Scalf

Bob Ambrose

Sam Karickhoff

Terence Grady

William Souza

Alphabetical List of Presenters                                       32

           Vernon Myers and Jim Brown
This document revises the existing chapter on ground-water monitoring in "Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846)." The
revised chapter, which will be incorporated by reference into 40 CFR Part 264 (at
§364.5) and 40 CFR Part 270 (at §270.6), specifies various requirements concerning
the characterization of site hydrogeology, placement of detection monitoring wells,
monitoring well design and construction, and sampling and analysis programs. The
requirements are distinguished from the narrative body of the ground-water monitoring
performance standards. These standards are expected to be proposed for public
comment in the Federal Register in the Spring, 1991.

                     Gordon  M.  Evans
RACES (Version 1.43) is a personal computer-based cost estimation system currently
under development by the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. The goal of this
project is to create a cost estimation tool to aid those engaged in remediation design
work or involved with  conducting cost comparisons of alternative treatment and
control technology options. The system utilizes a series of independent technology
modules which are tied together by a menu-driven shell. Users are first asked to select
control and treatment technology options from a menu. Next, users are presented with
a series of cost factors and are asked to assign appropriate levels for factors of concern.
Finally, the user is asked to input design assumptions derived from the nature of their
specific remediation problem.  An underlying algorithm calculates the final cost of the
system, offering the user a number of report options.

After a brief overview of the system, the discussion focused on both the history and the
future of this research effort.  Forum members were told of a series of meetings held
between EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Energy regarding
cost estimation issues.  The development of RACES during the past year has been
heavily influenced by these discussions. The primary purpose of this presentation was
to inform the members of the Engineering Forum of this project, and to invite their input
into the development process.

                           Bob Carsel
The Data Base Analyzer and Parameter Estimator (DBAPE) is an interactive computer
program that provides a link  between  two of EPA's development products—an
environmental model and a data base. DBAPE was created to encourage and support
the use of the RUSTIC model, a newly developed model that stimulates the transport
of field-applied pesticides in the crop root  zone, the unsaturated zone, and  the
saturated zone.  DBAPE provides an efficient means to obtain soils and meteorologic
data needed to run RUSTIC from a data base that contains information on over 8000
agricultural soils and 200 meteorologic stations located throughout the contiguous
United States.  Soils-related  RUSTIC input that can be obtained by using DBAPE
includes percent organic matter, wilting point, field capacity, residual water content,
saturated hydraulic conductivity and values for the van Genuchten parameters for the
soil-water characteristic function.  Meteorologic data that can be obtained include
precipitation, air temperature,  pan evaporation, solar radiation, and wind speed.
These meteorologic  data are not distributed with  DBAPE because of their volume.
DBAPE, however, al lows the user to identify weather stations near his or her study sites.
Meteorologic data for these stationsthen can be obtained from the EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia.

DBAPE has utility not only as a support program to  RUSTIC, but also as a stand-alone
environment for (1)  exploring the  data base, (2)  clarifying the impact of data on
modeled processes, (3) screening geographically-based data to identify potential sites
for model testing, and (4)  developing initial  guidance on alternative management
strategies. To support these applications, DBAPE contains additional capabilities that
are not exclusively  related to supporting RUSTIC model  usage.  These include
computation of functional  relationships for soil water retention characteristics, and
production of plots and maps.

                        Jerry Carman
An overview of the ORD-Superfund technical support effort and Regional relationship
was provided.  Currently, five major ORD laboratories are directly  involved as
Technical Support Centers. Most recently, the Atmospheric Research and Exposure
Assessment Laboratory (AREAL) in Research Triangle Park, NC, has become a subset
of the EMSL-Las Vegas Center, to help provide support for air release monitoring and
modeling needs.  Regional staff can access AREAL through Ken Brown in Las Vegas.
The existence of other "Forums", or cross-Regional networks that facilitate the
distribution of technical information relevant to the Superfund program, wasdiscussed.
These include the Toxics Integration Coordinators, who are tied in with the OERR
Toxics Integrations Branch and Pei-Fung Hurst of ECAO-Cin and  Bob Ambrose of
Athens Lab, and the Air/Superfund Coord inators who are led by Joe Padgett of OAQPS.
Ecology technical assistance is becoming more important and attempts are being made
to formalize a similar network and cross-office coordination.

The Superfund Technical Liaison Program now has three slots permanently filled, with
anotherfourincumbents tentatively identified. Coordination between Forummembers
and Technical Liaisons was discussed. The need for flexibility,  since each Region is
different, and of close cooperation, were highlighted.

                         Robert W.  Puls
Causes of well turbidity include improper well development, poor well construction,
aeration leading to oxidation and precipitation, and excessive pumping relative to
local hydrogeological conditions. Research at three different metal-contaminated sites
has addressed the latter cause of turbidity in numerous ground-water monitoring wells.
Several different sampling devices were  evaluated  in wells (PVC) ranging in depths
from 10 to 160 ft. Dissolved O2, pH, Eh, temperature, conductivity, and turbidity were
monitored during well purging.  Sampling was not initiated until all indicators had
reached steady-state (usually 2-3 casing  volumes).  In all cases turbidity was slowest
to reach steady-state values. Pumping rate was the single most important parameter
affecting equilibrated turbidity values, although geology was also correlated to some
extent. Samples were collected both unfiltered and using different filter pore sizes.
Comparisons between the different sampling devices, which operated at different
pumping rates or sample collection velocity, were  based on particle concentrations
and particle size, and differences in analytical concentrations of contaminants in the
collected samples.  Filtration was performed in the field using an in-line device and all
samples were acidified to pH < 2 and analyzed using Inductively Coupled Argon
Plasma (ICAP) and/or Atomic Absorption with Graphite Furnace (AAGF). In wells > 30
feet deep, a bladder pump (400-600 ml/min) was used most successfully, compared
with two submersible pumps (3-4 L/min and 12-92 L/min). Greatest differences, both
in terms of suspended particle size and  concentration, were observed between the
bladder pump and the high speed submersible pump. Greatest discrepancies in metal
concentrations were also observed between  these two devices.  In the shallow wells
(< 30 feet) a  peristaltic pump was  compared with dedicated  bailers for sample
collection. There were no significant differences in metal concentrations among the
different filtered and unfiltered samples with the peristaltic pump (200-300 mL/min),
whereas significant differences (< MCLs vs. > MCLs) were produced from the bailed

Equilibrated turbidity levels observed at thethree sites ranged from 1-58 nephelometric
turbidity units (NTUs), and in the case of one site turbidity differences were strongly

related to geology.  Screened intervals with higher clay and silt contents had higher
turbidity values.  While many causes of well turbidity are artifaas of well construction
and sample collection, there are indications that naturally high levels of turbidity may
occur due to geology and geochemistry.

                  HAZARDOUS WASTES
                           Ken  Brown
A large proportion of the sites on the NPL contain one or more types of debris. These
debrisdepositsposedifficultproblemsforthoseattemptingto characterize the site. The
sampling problems include:

• how to procure a representative sample from a mix of materials of various sizes and
• how to characterize the contamination of large items in a way that can be used for
  assessing risk; and
• how to subsample from mixtures of large objects to produce small-volume samples
  required by analytical protocols

The debris found on NPL sites may contain materials of many types and origins. These
include municipal trash, demolition debris, waste construction materials, containers
such as drums and paint cans, white goods, the solid wastes from manufacturing
processes, the post-consumer wastes such as battery  casings, transformers, and
shredded automobiles. The materials present may be organic components like wood
and food wastes; inert materials  such as rock, glass, alluvium and concrete; metals;
plastic, rubber and asbestos wastes.

The NPL sites described in the ROD data base containing debris, solid waste, trash, or
rubbish can be divided into four general types:

• sites with diffuse contamination (5 sites were identified)
• industrial plant sites (18 sites were identified)
• waste recycling/reprocessing facilities (16 sites were identified)
• dumps or landfills (92 sites were identified)

A workshop titled "Characterizing Heterogeneous Hazardous Wastes" will be held to:
• identify definitive state-of-the-science methods for characterizing heterogeneous
  materials contaminated with mixed wastes;  and
• set forth research recommendations for improving characterization techniques.

Groups addressing the following topics will be convened.

• Defining applicable terms
• Data needs and data quality objectives
• Sampling and analysis approaches
• Methods for sample acquisition and handling
• Analytical laboratory requirements

The workshop is sponsored by the U.S. EPA and the U.S. DOE. It will be held in Las
Vegas, Nevada, in March 1991  and will result in a publication titled "Characterizing
Heterogeneous Hazardous Wastes,  Methods and Recommendations".




                          John F. Martin

The SITE Program was initiated in  response to the Superfund  Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) which added an "Alternative or Innovative
Treatment Technology  Research and Demonstration Program"  to Title III of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of  1980
(CERCLA). The SITE Program is intended to accelerate the use of new and innovative
treatment processes as  well as evaluate innovative measurement and monitoring
techniques. Within the SITE Program, the Demonstration Program and the Emerging
Technology Program are responsible for innovative/alternative waste  treatment
technology development.   Separate and parallel activities  are progressing for
development and evaluation of measuring and monitoring technologies as well as
technology transfer operations.

The goal of the SITE Program is to ensure, to the extent possible, that innovative and
alternative technologies aredeveloped,demonstrated, and made commercially avail able
for the permanent cleanup of Superfund sites. Through the Program, the Agency
provides accurate and reliable performance, engineering, and cost data on  these
technologies to potential users.

Fifty-six projects are now part of the Demonstration Program in  which technology
developers and EPA participate in joint ventures to operate and evaluate cleanup
processes. Primary benefits to developers include: experience gained from operating
a commercial, field-scale process at a Superfund site; acquisition of valuable regu latory
background; increased public awareness of the technology and its capabilities; and
documentation of the applicability of the process to cleanup of hazardous waste sites.
In general, the Developer is required to operate the technology at a selected location
while  EPA is primarily responsible for development of a demonstration plan, for all
sampling  and  analytical operations,  and for all  reporting and technology transfer
activities.  Demonstrations at Federal or State Superfund sites (remedial or removal
action sites), EPA test facilities, or at Federal ly owned sites are encouraged. However,
if such sites are not available or not applicable, a developer's facility or a private site

may be utilized.   EPA  is becoming increasingly flexible  in the designation of
appropriate sites as the Demonstration Program continues to evolve.

The Emergi ngTechnologies Program, encompassing 31 projects, provides a framework
for encouraging and testing pilot-scale technologies that have been proven at bench-
scale but are not ready for field evaluation. Under this Program, EPA is able to provide
funding to developers through a competitive cooperative agreement process to help
support pilot-scale equipment development and testing. Cost sharing bythe technology
developer is an important aspect of the cooperative agreement which  is intended to
foster the commercialization of  additional technologies having application to the
cleanup of hazardous waste  sites.



      Adrian A. Field, Elizabeth B. Spencer,

 Philip  R. Cluxton, and Lawrence C. Murdoch

A computer workstation dedicated to characterizing and assessing remedial actions at
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites has been developed.  The IBM-PC compatible
system is composed of several off-the-shelf software and hardware modules, with
software development limited to the creation of utility programs used to transfer data
from one software module to another. The component modules include a Geographic
Information System, a Database Management System, a Computer-Aided Design and
Drafting System, a Contouring System, a Volume and Mass Calculation System, and a
Ground Water Modeling System.

The computer system is intended to produce maps and cross-sections of the geology,
hydrology, and distribution of contaminants from data obtained at boreholes. It is
capable of calculating volumes or masses of contaminated material, as well  as
modeling ground-water flow and contaminant transport.

These capabilities have been implemented and tested during case studiesof contaminated
sites. The case studies include several Superfund sites and emergency response sites
throughout the United States.

                   REMEDY SCREENING
                        Eugene F.  Harris
The Risk Reduction  Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati is preparing a remedy
screening capability to assist the Regions in making adecision as to the appropriateness
of the selection of a particular treatment technology for remedy selection studies.
Remedy screening studies would be performed following site characterization.  The
purpose would be to determine whether a technology is potentially viable for a
particular site. The results of the study would aid in the decision whether to proceed
with a more definitive evaluation of a treatment technology. The data produced would
identify major problems and provide a qualitative performance estimate.  Remedy
screening studies cannot be used as the sole basis for selecting a technology. Screening
studies do not provide information on process design or cost; therefore, it is expected
that a favorable report would result in a remedy selection study. The remedy selection
study would determine whether a technology can meet clean-up goals, aid in the
decision as to the inclusion of the technology in the ROD,  provide a quantitative
performance estimate, and rough cost data.

The technologies for which a remedy screening capability is anticipated are:  vacuum
extraction, incineration, in situ vitrification, solvent extraction,  biological, thermal
desorption, APEC, stabilization, soil washing, soil flushing, and  in situ steam extraction.

Remedy screening would include preliminary evaluation of the site characteristics and
sample analysis by the appropriate RREL Technology Teams, testing of the sample, and
a report and recommendations to the RPM prepared by a contractor, the RRELTechnology
Teams, and an RREL coordinator. An RREL coordinator would be assigned to work with
the RPM to arrange for the remedy screening study. The remedy screening is expected
to cost a fraction of that for remedy selection and would require two to three months.

                         Ben Blaney
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) proposed that the following issue
papers and major workshops be funded by the Technical Support Project in FY91:

1.   "Workshop on Control of Dust and Vapor Emissions During Superfund Site

2.   "Soil Vapor Modeling Selection"

3.   "Durability Testing and Specification for Stabilized Wastes"

4.   "Workshop on Status and Applicability of In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated

5.   "Advantages and Disadvantages of In Situ (Non-Bio) Soils Treatment"

6.   "Construction Quality Management Guidance"

                SPECTROSCOPY  (FT-IR)
                           Joe Arello
One of the major environmental concerns is the identification, location, and extent of
volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination in the air and underground at
hazardous waste sites. For years this has been accomplished by means of file searches,
extensive soil sampling and analysis, and whole air sampling. However, with the
development of open path (or long path) Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-
IR) technology, an alternate approach to VOC identification is now in use.

The FT-IR spectrometer developed by Kansas State University though a cooperative
agreement with EPA uses a Bomem DA02 system equipped with a KBr/Ge beam
splitter, a mercury-cadmium-telluride detector and a collection telescope (10 inch
Cassegrainian). The source of infrared energy is aquartz shielded Nernst glower which
is located at the focal  point of a 20  inch Newtonian telescope and generates a
collimated beam of radiation.  The source is located up to 1000 meters from the
detector. The FT-IR determines the path average concentration of the VOCs in the
measurement beam.

The FT-IR system has been used to determine the ambient air concentration of VOCs
atseveral locations includingtwoSuperfund sites. These included Hastings, Nebraska,
where the objective was to identify those areas of greatest underground contamination.
The other Superfund site was in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Here the objective was to
monitor the downwind VOC concentration and concentrations exceeding action
limits during remediation.

                       J. Ivan  Guzman
In an effort to help the Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) deal more effectively with
the problem of metal partitioning relative to the incineration of contaminated soils and
debris, a series of six case histories is being assembled that document the success and
failures occurring from the thermal treatment of metal-contaminated soils. A review
ofthe environmental problems associated with the incineration of metals-contaminated
soils is being completed. Following that review, the task will continue with a review
ofthe Record of Decision (ROD) data base in which sites proposing incineration for
a metal-bearing soil are identified. The rationale for selecting incineration is being
studied as well as any data available on laboratory or pilot scale experiments. Where
relevant, a follow-up with the application of incineration to the full scale cleanup
efforts is being conducted and the operation results compared with the expected
results. As part ofthe scope of work for this project, a method for measuring the success
of metals partitioning is being developed and used in all six case  histories. Soil
composition,  metal concentration, TCLP measurements, and combustion conditions
are factors used to elevate both the potential and actual success or failure ofthe thermal

A detailed report of these case studies is being prepared and will be available soon.

                            Ben Blaney
The Risk Reduction  Engineering  Laboratory (RREL) provides both site-specific and
technology transfer assistance to the Regional Superfund site remediation programs
through the Technical Support Branch (TSB). In FY90 RREL expanded the assistance it
provided in these areas. The Superfund Technical Assistance Response Team (START),
which provides long  term, site-specific engineering assistance on sites with complex
remediation problems was handling 32 sites by the end of the fiscal year. The Laboratory's
Technical Support Center, part of the OSWER Technical Support Project, provided short-
term assistance to over 50 sites. In both programs, assistance included screening of
treatment technologies, evaluation of treatability study needs and results, evaluation of
remediation designs, and consultations on other engineering issues.

Technology transfer is provided by the Laboratory in several ways. TSB produces technical
documents on treatment technologies and other engineering problems. During FY90, the
following types of documents were being produced. (The number in parentheses is the
number of documents published or under production.)

• Inventory of Treatability Study Vendors (1)
• Guides for Conducting Treatability Studies (6)
• Resource Documents on Remediation of Site Categories (2)
• Engineering Bulletins (11)
• Engineering Issue Papers (5)

The Laboratory expanded its treatability data base to include data on treatment of soil and
debris, as well as aqueous waste streams. The Laboratory provided training to mid-level
RPMs on treatment technology selection through the Superfund University Training
Institute (SUTI).  In FY90, RREL presented the course for the first time.  Finally, the
Laboratory conducted or oversaw treatability screening, selection and design treatability
studies for the Regional Offices. It was involved in approximately a dozen such efforts in
FY90 and is setting up a screening-level treatability study laboratory to provide additional
support in the future.

                        John E. Moylan
In many instances, incomplete site characterization has been an impediment to the
selection, design, and implementation of effective remediation of hazardous waste
sites. The lack of adequate site data is probably the cause of more design delays and
construction problems than are problems associated with the more high-tech remediation
processes.  Too often, our concept of site characterization is confined to definition of
the nature and extent of chemical contamination and the basic characteristics of the
groundwater flow system. Many other important site characteristics are ignored or are
not defined soon enough to be of maximum benefit.

This issue paper identifies common data deficiencies, types of data required for specific
remediation features, examples of the consequences of having insufficient data, and
suggestions as to when specifictypes of data are best obtained for particular remediation
features. Large amounts of money and technical resources are being committed to data
collection and site  characterization.  We must work  toward optimizing site
characterization in a cost effective manner. The paper also suggests how to recognize
design data needs, means of evaluating the potential risks of data gaps, the importance
of clear communication between  all investigation and design specialists, and
development of site characterization specialists capable of gathering the needed data
and clearly reporting the information. Pre-ROD investigations should not be viewed
as separate from post-ROD investigations if timely and cost effective remedy selection,
RD, and RA are to be accomplished.

                      Kenneth R. Skahn
The Pre-Design Technical Summary (PDTS) is a compilation of available site information
prepared by the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) to provide the designer with a clear
understanding of the technical objectives of the remedial action. Guidance is being
developed by the Design and Construction Branch on preparation of the PDTS. This
paper will provide a summary of that guidance.

The objective of developing a PDTS is to provide a smooth transition from the Record
of Decision (ROD) into the design process. The preparation and use of the PDTS should
ensure that the designer will understand the technical objectives of the design as well
as provide the designer with an up-to-date inventory of all available information that
may be pertinent to the design. The PDTS will serve the RPM as the initial building
block for developing a comprehensive statement of work for the remedial design.

At a minimum the PDTS should accomplish the following:

• define initial site conditions
• describe the selected remedy
• identify applicable regulatory requirements
• summarize available data and identify possible additional data needs
• state all known unresolved issues

  The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and ROD will be the sources for
most of the information to be summarized or referenced in the PDTS. However, the
guidance will identify a great deal of additional site-specific information that may be
known to the RPM and is not included in the RI/FS or ROD.

                     Thomas  A. Whalen
Successful management of a remedial design dependson the performance of responsible
and qualified architectural or engineering firms, the maintenance of schedules and
budgets, and the rapid resolution of problems. Techniques for establishing good design
management include requirements that a schedule be agreed to between the contracting
party and the designer, that the schedule be reviewed and updated monthly, and that
enforcement of the schedule by the contracting party be maintained. Of course, the
schedule must be reasonable, must establish obtainable goals, must contain sufficient
detail to permit task control, and must be based upon a complete scope of work.

There are many reasons for maintenance of a schedule. The schedule is a tool used
to discuss the design contract between the contracting parties and is also the principal
tool for exacting  control of contract progress.   The schedule also is the basic
documentary and analytical tool for negotiation and settlement of requests for
equitable adjustments, claims and disputes, as well as for contract termination and

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the development of generic Remedial Design
Schedules. The schedules are to be used as tools to assist all parties involved in the
development of Remedial Design Schedules.

Initially, a schedule methodology and computer software package were selected that
were appropriate to Remedial Design scheduling. The critical-path-method (CPM) of
scheduling was selected because of the ability to track and display the numerous
interrelated activities which comprise the Remedial Design.

Using the draft Standard Remedial Design tasks, an activity list was developed in
sufficient detail to estimate activity durations and define activity interrelationships.
Then, using the computer software, a single, time-phased logic was produced which
served as a template for the development of the remedy-specificgenericRD schedules.

In parallel with the development of the template, data and other information were
reviewed to determine the universe of technologies being considered for remediation
of NPL sites.  Further brainstorming resulted in the selection of nine remediation
categories which encompass the universe of technologies and which were used to
develop the remedy-specific RD schedules.

A remedy-specific generic RD schedule was developed for each of the nine categories
by using a team of experts to estimate the  individual activity durations and their

Task activity durations are sensitive to individual site  characteristics, the design
complexity, and the needs of the owner. Therefore, it is important that site specific RD
schedules be developed that reflect  these sensitivities and emphasize the need for
communication throughout the progress of the design.

The remedy-specific schedules are generic in nature and have been developed with the
objective of demonstrating management approaches to reducing the overall remedial
design duration. They present reasonable approximations of the interrelationships of
those activities required to successfully complete a remedial design.  The schedules
and level of effort (LOE) estimates are intended for training purposes only and should
not be used to develop site-specific schedules. The schedules and LOE estimates used
by the party contracting for design must reflect their  own experience with similar

                FATE CONSTANTS AND
                   PATHWAY ANALYSIS
                   William  T.  Donaldson
As many as fourteen environmental fate constants (such as second-order hydrolysis
rate constants or Henry's Law constants) may be required in the application of
mathematical  models to predict potential exposure in making risk  assessments.
Unfortunately, many of the needed constants are sparse in the literature, and those
found in the literature have been shown to be of questionable reliability. Laboratory
measurement of fate constants is slow and prohibitively expensive. Few scientists are
adept at making reliable measurements.   Some constants can be computed, but
traditional computation methods are of limited applicability and require extensive
measured data for making empirical comparisons.

The Transformation Pathway Analysis Team at the Athens Environmental Research
Laboratory (AERL) will, on request, assemble the best available knowledge to postulate
transformation products and provide transformation and equilibrium constants. The
team applies expertise of the Laboratory's best scientists in postulating pathways.
Available literature data for fate constants are screened for reliability.  Applicable
computation techniques are used to provide other constants. In some cases laboratory
measurements can be made if warranted.

AERL iseagerto help Superfund site managers who need fate constants or need to know
the identities of transformation products. For more information call Heinz Kollig at
AERL, FTS-250-3770 or 404-546-3770.

                   William  T.  Donaldson
Although there are over 10 million chemicals listed in the Chemical Abstracts Services
Registry and about 70 thousand  in EPA's Office of Toxic Substances Inventory of
Manufactured Chemicals, only 234 chemicals are on the Superfund target analyte list.
Typically, if 50 compounds are at high enough concentration to be detected in a
Superfund site leachate, only two or three of them will be among the target analytes;
the others may be any of a wide array of chemicals of unknown significance, until they
are identified. Recent studies atthe Athens Environmental Research Laboratory (AERL)
have shown that the contract laboratories' tentative  identifications of non-target
analytes electron impact mass spectra, may be less than 10% reliable, because the mass
spectra are not unique. This is understandable when one considers the vast number
of possible compounds present at detectable concentrations. As long as sufficient
information is available to effect clean-up of a Superfund site, the identity of what was
removed from the site may not be important.  But in  post closure monitoring and
remediation, knowledge of the contaminants in leachates and groundwater could be

The Athens Laboratory identifies non-target analytes with a high degree of confidence
by applying multispectral identification techniques. In addition to the low resolution
electron impact mass spectra, the AERL multispectral  identification team develops
additional spectroscopic information, which is pieced togetherto identify the unknown
compounds.  High resolution chemical ionization mass spectra tell the analysts the
precise number of atoms of each chemical in the compound types, such as aldehydes
or ketones. For example in one recent study, the AERL team identified 63 of 70 non-
target compounds in industrial wastewater samples.

AERL is eager  to help Superfund  site managers who need to know the identities of
potentially important compounds. For more information, call John McGuire at AERL
on FTS-250-3185 or 404-546-3185.

                          Scott Huling
Dense non-aqueous phase I iquids (DN APL) are an issue that has been identified by the
EPA Ground Water Forum  Members  as a  significant concern to EPA Superfund
decision-makers. Therefore, a comprehensive literature evaluation has been conducted
to develop a state-of-the-science issue paper on this subject. Currently, the issue paper
is in peer review. Initial peer review comments have been reviewed and the final issue
paper is due out in January,  1991.

In brief, DNAPL is a general term used to describe a hydrocarbon liquid with a specific
gravity greater than 1.0. DNAPL's are responsible for both groundwater and soils
contamination and also present complex  site  characterization and remediation
problems when introduced into the subsurface.

The literature evaluation mainly focuses on fate and transport of DNAPL from a
conceptual point of view in  both the unsaturated and saturated zones and on phase
distribution of DNAPL in the subsurface.

Important transport and fate  parameters include: the DNAPL characteristics (density,
viscosity, interfacial tension, wetting angle, solubility, vapor pressure, volatility); the
subsurface media  characteristics (capillary  pressure, pore size distribution, initial
moisture content, stratigraphic gradient, ground water flow velocity); the  saturation
dependent  characteristics (residual saturation, relative  permeability);  site
characterization (soil gas analysis, exploratory borings, geophysical techniques, well
level measurements, sampling); and remediation (pumping, trench-drainline, vacuum
extraction, biodegradation, soil flushing, physical barriers).

For more information,  contact Scott Huling at FTS 743-2313 or (405) 332-8800.

                 EQUILIBRIUM  MODEL
           David S.  Brown, Jerry D.  Allison
               and Kevin J. Novo-Gradac
The geochemical equilibrium model MINTEQA2 was described and three applications
of the model to contaminated soil and groundwater problems were discussed to
illustrate its utility in addressing current environmental  problems.   Application
examples included a generic approach for estimating transport of As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Hg,
Se, Ni, Tl and Pb leachates from Subtitle D land disposal sites, use of MINTEQA2 in
concert with a biokinetic model (UBK) for estimating the  uptake/bioavailability of
ingested lead in the human gastrointestinal tract, and the use of MINTEQA2 in concert
with a multimedia transport code (MULTIMED) to calculate clean-up standards for soils.

Elementary model theory and program flowcharts were presented to acquaint the
attendees with the type of input data required by MINTEQA2 and with the integration
of the model with field sampling activities at field sites.

Several examples illustrating the use PRODEFA2 to set up problems and create input
files for MINTEQA2 were demonstrated with hands-on participation by the attendees.
Examples included the calculation of equilibrium pH in a system of known initial pH
to which a measured amount of solid was added, the speciation of cadmium in a
reducing groundwater system, and a pH titration of a soil system containing lead.

MINTEQA2 distribution, support, and a bulletin board system based at the Athens
Environmental Research Laboratory's Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling were
discussed and attendees were given the opportunity to request copies of the code and
join the user group.

                   Richard  L. Donovan
The U.S.  Corps of Engineers  (USAGE)  Laboratory system  consists of R&D and
production laboratories. The R&D laboratories are located in the Directorate of
Research and Development, while the production laboratories are located within
geographical USAGE Division boundaries. With respect to EPA regional boundaries,
these laboratories are located in: Region I (Waltham, MA), Region IV (Marietta, GA),
Region V (Cincinnati, OH), Region VI (Dallas, TX), Region VII (Omaha, NE), Region IX
(Sausalito, CA), and Region X (Troutdale, OR).

These laboratories  currently provide environmental chemistry testing in support of
Superfund and DERP activities.  In addition, they offer full service capability for soils
and construction materials, includingtestson samplescontaininghazardoussubstances.

These laboratories provide consulting services in  addition to laboratory testing
programs, Quality Assurance reviews of laboratory data, and commercial laboratory

These services are available to the EPA  Regions through the existing EPA-USACE
Memorandum of Understand ing for Superfund support. For questions about specifics,
contact Rick Donovan, USAGE Missouri River Division Office, at (402) 221-7340.

                           Dick Scalf
The successful application of pump-and-treat technology in site remediation requires
an understanding of site characterization methods and the processes controlling
contaminant transport and mobilization in the subsurface. Poor understanding of these
processes and inadequate site characterization are the most common reasons that
pump and treat does not perform as a cost-effective, permanent remedy. This does not
mean that pump and treat should be abandoned, but that a research program should
be carried out to  significantly improve its efficacy, and current guidelines for the
implementation of this technology should be reexamined with new recommendations
for its use.

The overall  objective of the research is to acquire process and characterization
information that will allow development of a decision-makingframework for predicting
the appropriateness and potential efficacy of "pump and treat" for site remediation.
This research will support the goals of the Superfund and RCRA programs by providing
information necessary to improve remedial actions at hazardous waste sites.

The effort will consist of seven  phases or activities:  (1) consolidation of existing
information, and development of a 5-year plan for research and development projects
and outputs; (2) development of improved methods for site characterization; (3) re-
search on immiscible fluid flow and residual saturation, and their effects on pump and
treat methods; (4) research on mass transport in heterogeneous media, and its effects
on pump and treat methods; (5) research on contaminant sorption to  geologic
materials, and its effect on pump and treat methods; (6) research and development of
accelerated remediation methods, such as combination of pump and treat with use of
surfactants or microorganisms; and (7) technical assistance and technology transfer to
Superfund personnel.

                OVERVIEW OF ATM ENS'
                          Bob Ambrose
The Exposure and Ecorisk Assessment Tech Support Center atthe Athens Environmental
Research Laboratory (ERL-Athens) supports multimedia exposure and risk assessment
modeling of remedial action alternatives at Superfund sites. Its duties are incorporated
with those of the Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling (CEAM) to provide focused
technical assistance to OSWER and Regional Superfund staff.

Center Director, Bob Ambrose, directs technical assistance requests to Center staff,
other  scientists  and  engineers  in  the lab,  and  technical  staff from two  on-site
contractors. Expertise includes: soil contaminant interactions; sediment and contaminant
transport; exposure and  physiologic  effects;  metals speciation; bioremediation;
contaminant transport and fate modeling in  surface water, soil, and ground water;
environmental risk assessment; and software  engineering.

The Center provides technical tools (databases and computer models) for remedial
assessments, technical support, and demonstrations.  The Center maintains several
si mu lation models for conducting multimedia exposure assessment related to remedial
actions. Among the most familiar:

• MINTEQA2, a metals speciation model
• PRZM, a soil pollutant transport model
• RUSTIC, a soil and ground water simulation model, with an associated soil and
  meteorological database (DBAPE)
• MULTIMED, a simple multimedia screening model for air, soil, and ground water

Models are distributed via disk, tape, or over  the CEAM electronic bulletin board.

Technical support activities help EPA Regional  and Program Office staff and contractors
to properly use and interpret the models.  General guidance is offered to users by
telephone, through guidance manuals, and in special Superfund workshops. Technical
assistance includesdiscussion of applicable modelsand data bases, limitations inanalysis

technology, and proper ways to use models given limitations and uncertainties.

The Athens Center assists EPAstaff and their contractors in assessing chemical transport
and fate in surface water, soils, and ground water; organic chemical transformation and
metal speciation reactions; and human exposure and ecological risks associated with
site remediation. Over the past three years, the Center has provided assistance at 47
sites in 9 Regions.

Eight workshops focusing on exposure assessment models have been presented during
the past  three years at the ERL-Athens training facility. Technical  demonstration
projects supplement routine studies for particular sites and promote advanced analyses
at similar sites. As such, they can be viewed as extended technical assistance projects.
Five demonstration projects have been completed over the past three years, and three
are currently in progress.

                       BY COMPUTER
                       Sam Karickhoff
Mathematical models for predicting the fate of pollutants in the environment require
reactivity parameter values—that is, the physical and chemical constants that govern
reactivity. Although empirical structure-activity relationships have been developed
that allow estimation of some constants, such relationships generally hold only with
limited families of chemicals. Computer programs are under development that predict
chemical reactivity strictly from molecular structure for a broad range of molecular
structures. A prototype computer system called SPARC (SPARC Performs Automated
Reasoning in Chemistry) uses computational algorithms based on fundamental chemical
structure theory to estimate a variety of reactivity parameters (e.g., equilibrium/rate
constants, UV-Visible absorption spectra, etc.).  This capability crosses chemical
family boundaries to cover a broad range of organic compounds.

SPARC does not do "first principles" computation, but  seeks to analyze chemical
structure relative to a specific reactivity question in much the same manner in which
an expert chemist would do so.  Molecular structures are broken into functional units
with known intrinsic reactivity.  This intrinsic behavior is modified for a specific
molecule in question using mechanistic perturbation models. To date, computational
procedures have been developed for UV-Visible light absorption spectra, ionization
pKa, hydrolysis rate constant, and numerous physical properties.

                      Terence Grady
The Nuclear Radiation Assessment Division of the Environmental Monitoring System
Laboratory in Las Vegas (EMSL-LV) has for the past 35 years operated an environmental
radiation surveillance network in  support of the nation's nuclear testing program.
EMSL-LV'sexperience operating surveillance networks for air, milk, water, and human
exposure has positioned it well to provide technical  support to Regional Superfund
programs through the EMSL-LV Technical Support Center. EMSL-LV has provided
technical support to the Superfund Program in the area of sampling, analysis, exposure
assessment, radiation quality assurance, and radiological emergency response.
Consultation is also provided for analytical method selection, data review/validation,
and laboratory performance.

                         William Souza
The Environmental Systems Monitoring Laboratory in Las Vegas started new research
this fiscal year in the area of network design. Although the program is called network
design, the scope of research goes beyond just the focus of network design and into
areas of data analysisand interpretation, particularly inthefieldofscientificvisualization
and the interpretation of complex data. In the sense that it is used here, network design
isthe field of subsurface monitoringthatquantifies the processofselectingthe time and
place to measure various properties of ground water.  The basic approach in this
program  will be to develop advanced techniques, in some cases improve existing
techniques, but use all available techniques, conceptual models, analytical models, as
well as numerical models, and geostatistics, then combine them when appropriate,
and package them as usable hydrologictools. The focus of the project is on quantifying
the network design process. The basic goal is to develop a set of hydrologic tools for
designing monitoring networks in  a variety of geologic settings, particularly complex
settings and heterogenous aquifers.

EMSL-LV has initially funded three researchers through cooperative agreements:
(1) Peter Kitanitis at Stamford University who is developing geostatistical computer
   programs to aid in the evaluation of data requirements and the design of hydrologic
   monitoring strategies.
(2) Albert Valocci at the  University of Illinois who is developing  stochastic and
   optimization modes for siting monitoring wells, evaluating monitoring networks
   maximizing  the probability of detection of a groundwater contaminant.
(3) Stephen Wheatcraft of the Desert Research Institute who is working on descriptive
   models of complex hydrogeologic regimes using fractal analysis to better describe
   and understand natural phenomena such as the pattern of contaminant transport.

Bob Ambrose
EPA, Athens Environmental Research Laboratory
FTS-250-3130  404-546-3130

Joe Arello
EPA, Region VII
FTS-757-2884  913-236-3881

Ben Blaney
EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
FTS-684-7406  513-569-7406

David Brown
EPA, Athens Environmental Research Laboratory
FTS-250-3546  404-546-3546

Ken Brown
EPA, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
FTS-545-2270  702-798-2270

Jim Brown
EPA, Off ice of Sol id Waste
FTS-475-7240  202-475-7240

Bob Carsel
EPA, Athens Environmental Research Laboratory
FTS-250-3476  404-546-3476

William Donaldson
EPA, Athens Environmental Research Laboratory
FTS-250-3183  404-546-3183

Richard Donovan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FTS-864-7340   402-221-7340

Gordon Evans
EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
FTS-684-7684   513-569-7684

Adrian Field
University of Cincinnati

Jerry Carman
EPA, Office of Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support
FTS-382-7667   202-382-7667

Terence Grady
EPA, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory—Las Vegas
FTS-545-2136   702-798-2136

J. Ivan Guzman
EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
FTS-684-7642   513-569-7642

Eugene Harris
EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
FTS-684-7862   513-569-7862

Scott Huling
EPA, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
FTS-743-2313   405-332-2313

Sam Karickhoff
EPA, Athens Environmental Research Laboratory
FTS-250-0357   404-542-0357

John Martin
EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
FTS-684-7758   513-569-7758

John Moylan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FTS-867-3455  816-426-3455

Vernon Myers
EPA, Office of Sol id Waste
FTS-382-4685  202-382-4685

Robert Puls
EPA, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
FTS-743-2262  405-332-2262

Dick Scalf
EPA, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
FTS-743-2212  405-332-2212

Kenneth Skahn
EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
FTS-398-8352  703-308-8352

William Souza
EPA, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory—Las Vegas
FTS-545-3162  702-798-3162

Thomas Whalen
EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
FTS-398-8345  703-308-8345

Abstracts are not included for presentations by:
Alison Barry, EPA, Office of Remedial Response
Terry Allison & Gerry Laniak, EPA, Athens Environmental Research Laboratory