r/EPA
              United States
              Environmental Protection
              Agency
             Solid Waste and
             Emergency Response
             (OS-110W)
EPA542-R-92-012
April 1993
Cleaning Up the Nation's
Waste Sites:  Markets and
Technology Trends
                                           Recycled/Recyclable
                                           Printed on paper that contai ns
                                           at least 50% recycled fiber

-------
                                       EPA/542/R-92/012
                                            April 1993
CLEANING UP THE NATION'S WASTE SITES:

   MARKETS AND TECHNOLOGY TRENDS
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
               Technology Innovation Office
                Washington, D.C. 20460
                                     -^Agency

                                     : i£lh Floor
                      Cnicago, il 6u'«u'i -o

-------
                                          NOTICE

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Additional copies of this document can be obtained from: National Technical Information Service (N11S), U.S.
Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487-4600. When ordering,
refer to document number: PB93-140762.

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                                       FOREWORD
Over the next 20 to 30 years, federal, state, and local governments and private industry will commit billions
of dollars annually to clean up sites contaminated with hazardous waste and petroleum products. This report
captures information on the future demand for remediation services for all major cleanup programs in the U.S.,
including Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action, underground storage
tanks, state programs, and federal agencies  such as the Departments of Defense and Energy.  The market
information  should help  innovative technology vendors, developers, and investors direct their  research,
development, and commercialization efforts towards pertinent waste programs and problems.

The report makes this market information available in one document. Because many cleanup programs are in
the early stages of site identification and assessment, the available data provide only a partial picture of site
characteristics and technology needs. Thus, the effort to collect and standardize the information on the future
remediation requirements proved to be a particular challenge.  The most detailed analysis in the report pertains
to Superfund sites, for which the  available information is  the most comprehensive.  We hope that as data on
the site characteristics of the other programs become available, future studies will permit more detailed
characterization of their needs.

Meanwhile, this report provides a compilation of market data that are currently available and descriptions  of
national cleanup programs. Improved access to data on domestic markets will help direct the development of
new technology and strengthen U.S. capabilities  in environmental cleanup.  As companies acquire field
experience in this country, they will be better equipped to compete internationally.
                                             Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.      *
                                             Director, Technology Innovation Office
                                                 111

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
                            ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Technology Innovation Office
(TIO) under contract number 68-W2-0004. Linda Fiedler was the EPA Project Manager. The report would
not have been possible without the assistance of staff throughout EPA, the Department of Defense, and the
Department of Energy. Special thanks go to Robin Richardson, Ed Ziomkowski, Larry Zaragoza, and Janet
Grubbs of EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Mary Felton, Lisa Hearns,  Denise Keehner,
Anne  Price, Patricia Regan, and John  Sager of the Office of Solid Waste; Lisa Lund, Dana Tulis, and Greg
Waldrip in the Office of Underground Storage Tanks; Richard Satterfield in the Office of Federal Facilities
Enforcement; Mike Royer, Frank Freestone, and Kim Kreiton in the Office of Research and Development; and
Jim Cummings, Michael Forlini, John Kingscott, and Walter Kovalick, Jr. in TIO. Marilyn Slater and Harry
Lindenhofer in the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, and Bill Noel with the Department of Energy's
Environmental Program, were exceptionally generous with their time and expertise.
                                               IV

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD  	iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	  iv
EXHIBITS 	  ix

CHAPTER 1:  INTRODUCTION AND FINDINGS  	   1

    1.1  Purpose	   1
    1.2  Scope	   1
    1.3  Site Remediation Technologies  	   1
    1.4  Overview of Findings	   2
    1.5  National Priorities List (Superfund) Sites  	   2
        1.5.1  Technology Trends	  3
        1.5.2  NPL Site Characteristics	   4
        1.5.3  Future Technology Use at NPL Sites 	   4
    1.6  RCRA Corrective Action Sites  	   5
    1.7  Underground Storage Tank Sites 	   5
    1.8  Department of Defense Sites	   6
    1.9  Department of Energy Sites	   6
    1.10 Civilian Federal Agency Sites	   7
    1.11 State Program Sites  	   7
    1.12 Private Party Sites	   7
    1.13 Using This Document	   8

CHAPTER 2: TRENDS IN THE USE OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AT NATIONAL PRIORITIES
    LIST SITES 	   9

    2.1  The CERCLA Program	   9
        2.1.1  The National Contingency Plan	   9
        2.1.2  The Superfund Process	   9
        2.1.3  Program Status  	  12
    2.2  History of Technology Use in Superfund  	  12
    2.3  Innovative and Established Technologies for Treatment  	  12
    2.4  Contaminants at Superfund Sites with RODs	  16
    2.5  Status of Innovative Technologies in Superfund  	  16
    2.6  Site Characteristics and Selected Remedies	  18
        2.6.1  Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)	  18
        2.6.2  Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)	  20
        2.6.3  Metals  	  21
        2.6.4  Metals and Organics Combined	  22
        2.6.5  Waste Matrix	  22
    2.7  Conclusions	  23
    2.8  References  	  25

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends


CHAPTER 3:  DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES AT NATIONAL PRIORITIES
   LIST SITES  	  27

   3.1  Factors Affecting Demand for NPL Site Cleanup	  27
   3.2  Summary of Methods	  28
   3.3  Major Components of the NPL Market  	  29
        3.3.1  Short-Term Demand	  29
        3.3.2  Intermediate-Term Demand	  30
        3.3.3  Long-Term Demand	  30
   3.4  Characteristics of Intermediate-Term Demand	  30
        3.4.1  Types of Contaminated Matrices 	  30
        3.4.2  General Site Descriptions and Contaminant Sources	  30
        3.4.3  Types of Contaminants	  31
           3.4.3.1  Major Contaminant Groups	  31
           3.4.3.2  Subgroups of Volatile and Semi-Volatile Organics	  33
           3.4.3.3  Most Common Individual Contaminants	  34
        3.4.4  Estimated Quantities of Contaminated Material	  34
           3.4.4.1  Distribution of Quantities  	  35
           3.4.4.2  Quantities by Major Contaminant Group	  35
           3.4.4.3  Quantities by Contaminant Source	  36
   3.5  Intermediate-Term Demand for Remedial Technologies  	  37
   3.6  Estimated  EPA Cleanup Costs	  39
   3.7  Marketing Considerations	  40
        3.7.1  Market Considerations During Remedy Selection	  40
        3.7.2  Market Considerations During Design and Procurement	  41
        3.7.3  Research and Development	  41
        3.7.4  Disseminating Innovative Technology Information	  42
   3.8  Conclusions	  43
   3.9  References 	  44

CHAPTER 4: DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION SITES  	  45

   4.1   Program Description	  45
        4.1.1  Corrective Action Process	  45
        4.1.2  Corrective Action Implementation  	  46
   4.2   Factors  Affecting Demand for Corrective Action Site Cleanup 	  47
   4.3   Number and Characteristics of Facilities	  47
         4.3.1  Number and Types of Facilities	  47
         4.3.2  Characteristics and Quantities of Hazardous Waste  	  50
   4.4   Estimated Dollar Value of Site Cleanup	  50
   4.5   Market  Entry Considerations	  51
    4.6   Remedial Technologies	  51
    4.7   References  	  52

CHAPTER 5:  DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES  . .  53

    5.1   Program Description	  53
    5.2  Factors Affecting Demand for   	  54
    5.3  Number and Characteristics of Sites	  54
         5.3.1  Number of Sites	  55
         5.3.2  Contaminants Found at UST Sites  	  55
         5.3.3  Quantities of Contaminated Material   	  56
                                              VI

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends


        5.3.4  Ownership of Tanks	  56
        5.3.5  Size and Age of Tanks	  56
        5.3.6  Location of Regulated Tanks	  56
        5.3.7  Potential Number of Sites to be Cleaned Up	  56
    5.4  Estimated Dollar Value of Site Cleanup	  58
    5.5  Market Entry Considerations	  59
    5.6  Remedial Technologies	  59
    5.7  References  	  62

CHAPTER 6: DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SITES	  63

    6.1  Program Description	  63
    6.2  Factors Affecting the Demand for DOD Site Cleanup  	  64
    6.3  Number and Characteristics of Sites	  64
        6.3.1  Number of Sites	  64
        6.3.2  Types of Contaminants	  65
        6.3.3  Quantity of Contaminated Soil	  65
    6.4  Estimated Dollar Value of Site Cleanup	  67
    6.5  Market Entry Considerations	  68
    6.6  Remedial Technologies	  71
    6.7  References  	  72

CHAPTER 7: DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SITES	  73

    7.1  Program Description	  73
        7.1.1  Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D)	  73
        7.1.2  Remedial Actions Program  	  73
    7.2  Factors Affecting Demand for DOE Site Cleanup  	  74
    7.3  Number and Characteristics of Sites	  74
    7.4  Estimated Dollar Value of Site Cleanup	  75
    7.5  Market Entry Considerations	  75
    7.6  Remedial Technologies	  83
    7.7  Research, Development, and Demonstrations	  83
    7.8  References  	  85

CHAPTER 8: DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED WASTE SITES MANAGED BY
    CIVILIAN FEDERAL AGENCIES, STATES, AND PRIVATE PARTIES	  87

    8.1  Demand for Cleanup of Sites Managed By Civilian Federal Agencies  	  87
        8.1.1  Civilian Federal Agency Contaminated Site Programs	  87
        8.1.2  Factors Affecting Demand for Civilian Federal Agency Site Cleanup	  88
        8.1.3  Number of Civilian Federal Agency Contaminated Waste Sites	  91
        8.1.4  Estimated Dollar Value of Civilian Federal Agency's Site Cleanup	  91
    8.2  Demand for Cleanup of State Hazardous Waste Sites	  93
        8.2.1  State Hazardous Waste Programs	  94
        8.2.2  Factors Affecting Demand for States' Site Cleanup	  94
        8.2.3  Number of State Hazardous  Waste Sites	  95
        8.2.4  Estimated Dollar Value of States' Site  Cleanup	  95
        8.2.5  Remedial Technologies	  97
    8.3  Market for Private Party Sites	  97
    8.4  References  	  99
                                             VII

-------
          Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends






APPENDIX A:  SUPPORTING DATA FOR MARKET ANALYSIS 	103




APPENDIX B:  FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY PROGRAMS  	137




APPENDIX C:  BIBLIOGRAPHY  	151




APPENDIX D:  DEFINITIONS OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS	159
                                     viii

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
                                        EXHIBITS
Exhibit 2-1:  Historical Superfund Process Flowchart	  10
Exhibit 2-2:  Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM)  	  11
Exhibit 2-3:  Treatment and Disposal Decisions for Source Control at NPL Sites	  13
Exhibit 2-4:  Alternative Treatment Technologies Selected for NPL Sites Through Fiscal Year 1991  . .  13
Exhibit 2-5:  On-Site and Off-Site Incineration Selected for NPL Sites  	  14
Exhibit 2-6:  Solidification/Stabilization and Total Source Control Selected for NPL Sites	  15
Exhibit 2-7:  Number of Established and Innovative Treatment Technologies Selected for NPL Sites  . .  15
Exhibit 2-8:  Frequency of Contaminated Matrices at NPL Sites with RODs 	  16
Exhibit 2-9:  Frequency of Major Contaminant Groups at NPL Sites with RODs 	  17
Exhibit 2-10: Frequency of Organics and Metals by Matrix at NPL Sites with RODs 	  17
Exhibit 2-11: Status of Innovative Technology Projects at NPL Sites as of October 1992  	  18
Exhibit 2-12: Applications of Innovative Treatment Technologies at NPL Sites  	  19
Exhibit 2-13: Trends in the Selection of Innovative Treatment Technologies at NPL Sites	  20
Exhibit 2-14: Treatment Trains of Innovative Treatment Technologies Selected for Remedial and
              Removal Sites	  21
Exhibit 2-15: Quantities of Waste  to be Treated By Innovative Technologies at NPL Sites  	  22
Exhibit 2-16: Ground Water Remedies at NPL Sites Through Fiscal Year 1991  	  23

Exhibit 3-1:  Demand for All Types of Remediation Services at NPL Sites  	  28
Exhibit 3-2:  Minimum Demand for Innovative Treatment at NPL Sites  	  29
Exhibit 3-3:  Location of NPL Sites Without RODs 	  31
Exhibit 3-4:  Summary of NPL Site Descriptions and Sources of Waste for Sites Without RODs	  32
Exhibit 3-5:  Frequency of Volatile Organic Compounds, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds,
              and Metals at NPL Sites Without RODs  	  33
Exhibit 3-6:  Frequency of Contaminant Subgroups Present in All Matrices at NPL Sites
              Without RODs  	  34
Exhibit 3-7:  Frequency of the Most Common Contaminants in All Matrices at NPL Sites
              Without RODs  	  35
Exhibit 3-8:  Distribution of Total Quantities of Contaminated Soil, Sediment,  and Sludge at
              Selected NPL Sites With RODs (Estimated Cubic Yards)  	  36
Exhibit 3-9:  Estimated Quantity of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Sludge By Major
              Contaminant Groups at NPL Sites Without RODs	  37
Exhibit 3-10: Estimated Quantity of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Sludge  By Sources
              of Contamination at NPL Sites Without RODs	  38

Exhibit 4-1:  Location of RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities 	  48
Exhibit 4-2:  Status of RCRA Facilities in the Corrective Action Program as of the End of
              Fiscal Year 1992	  49
Exhibit 4-3:  RCRA Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Processes	  49
Exhibit 4-4:  Amounts of Hazardous Waste Managed in 54 States and Territories in 1989	  51

Exhibit 5-1:  Estimated Number of Federally Regulated UST Sites	  55
Exhibit 5-2:  Contents of Federally Regulated Tanks	  56
Exhibit 5-3:  Size of Federally Regulated Tanks	  57
Exhibit 5-4:  Age of Federally Regulated Tanks  	  57
Exhibit 5-5:  Estimated Number of UST Sites Requiring Cleanup	  58
Exhibit 5-6:  Status of UST Corrective Actions	  59

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
Exhibit 5-7:  Frequencies of Major Categories of Site Remediation Methods for Petroleum
              Contaminated Soils at UST Sites	  60
Exhibit 5-8:  Frequencies of Specific Technologies Used for Petroleum Contaminated Soils
              at UST Sites	  61
Exhibit 5-9:  Technologies Currently Used for Managing Petroleum Contaminated Soils at
              UST Sites	  61

Exhibit 6-1:  DOD Sites by Service Component	  65
Exhibit 6-2:  Number of Sites to be Remediated by Service and Site Category	  66
Exhibit 6-3:  Most Frequently Reported Contaminant Groups at DOD Sites	  67
Exhibit 6-4:  Typical Volume of Contaminated Soil for Selected Site Categories  	  68
Exhibit 6-5:  Total Cost of Remedial Action	  69

Exhibit 7-1  DOE Installations/Sites To Be Remediated  	  76

Exhibit 8-1:  Summary of Types of Federal Agency  Contaminated Waste Sites  	  89
Exhibit 8-2:  Number of Federal Agency Sites Needing Cleanup 	  92
Exhibit 8-3:  1991-1995 Estimated Budget for Hazardous Waste Activities at Civilian
              Federal Agencies	  93
Exhibit 8-4:  Number of State Hazardous Waste Sites	  96
Exhibit 8-5:  State Hazardous Waste Funds:  1991 Expenditures/Encumbrances and Balances 	  98

Exhibit A-l: Number of Superfund Source Control RODs Through Fiscal Year 1991	103
Exhibit A-2: Representative Hazardous Chemicals by Contaminant Group  	104
Exhibit A-3: Summary of 523 NPL Sites  Without RODs  	107
Exhibit A-4: Distribution of Quantities of Contaminated Soil,  Sediment, and Sludge
              at NPL Sites With RODs	120
Exhibit A-5: Estimated Quantity of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Sludge
              for Major Contaminant Groups at NPL Sites Without RODs 	121
Exhibit A-6: Estimated Quantity of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Sludge
              by Sources of Contamination at NPL Sites Without RODs	122
Exhibit A-7: RCRA Facilities by State/Territory  	123
Exhibit A-8: Most Prevalent Wastes Managed at RCRA Solid Waste Management Units
              Estimated to Need Corrective Action in 1986	124
Exhibit A-9: Location of Registered USTs in the United States	126
Exhibit A-10: Types of DOD Sites   	128
Exhibit A-ll: Most Frequently Reported Contaminant Types by DOD Site Category  	129
Exhibit A-12: DOE Installations/Sites Where Cleanup is in Progress	133

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                                       CHAPTER 1
                      INTRODUCTION  AND FINDINGS
1.1 Purpose

Over the next 20 to 30 years, federal,  state, and
local governments and private industry will commit
billions  of dollars  annually  to clean  up sites
contaminated  with hazardous waste  and  petroleum
products.   This  commitment  will  result  in  an
increase in the use of all types of site remediation
services.  While existing technologies to remediate
contaminated   sites   have  been  successful, the
investment in site cleanup offers new opportunities
for the development of less expensive  and more
effective solutions.

The purpose of this report is to provide innovative
technology vendors,  developers, and investors with
information on the future demand for remediation
services.   This information will enable them to
better direct their research and development efforts
toward the nation's hazardous waste problems. The
report addresses site characteristics, market size, and
other  demand factors  of the  major  waste site
cleanup programs in the U.S. Although this report
is designed to serve  those who are developing and
commercializing  new cleanup technologies, it will
be  useful  to  any   company  providing  site
remediation services.

1.2 Scope

In  this  study, the market  includes site cleanup
activities for which contracts have not been issued.
These activities represent business opportunities for
vendors  of remediation  services.   This market
includes  many  sites currently undergoing site
investigations and feasibility studies. Because these
investigations are not yet complete, the full extent
of the cleanup work needed can only be estimated.
Most data in  the  report are current through fiscal
year 1991, although fiscal year 1992 data also are
used when possible.

The national cleanup market has been divided into
eight segments:

 •  National Priorities List (Superfund)
    Resource  Conservation  and  Recovery  Act
    (RCRA) corrective action
    Underground storage tanks (UST)
    Department of Defense (DOD)
    Department of Energy (DOE)
    Other federal agencies
    States
    Private parties
For each market segment, five areas are discussed:
(1)   the  structure,  operation,  and  regulatory
requirements of the program; (2) the economic and
political  factors  that may  change  the  size  or
characteristics  of the  market segment;  (3)  the
quantitative measures of the market in terms of the
number of sites,  occurrence  of contaminants, and
extent of remediation work needed; (4) estimates of
remediation  costs;   and   (5)  procurement  and
technology issues.

Most of the data in the report are from published
sources or central  databases.  The  collection  of
information at the state or individual facility level is
impractical,  because  there  are   no   national
repositories  of these  data.   Also,  the  status,
organization, and data collection  practices differ
widely  among  the   eight  market   segments.
Information on the more established programs, such
as Superfund, is generally more complete than that
available  for  the  other  programs.   Based  on
historical  trends and site  characteristics in  the
Superfund program,  the  report provides general
observations concerning possible future technology
applications.

1.3  Site Remediation Technologies

Prior  to  the  Comprehensive  Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act of 1976 (RCRA), most hazardous waste
was disposed in landfills.  These laws, as amended,
require remedies that treat, rather than dispose of,
waste  to  the "maximum   extent  practicable."
Consequently,  the  U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency   (EPA)  defines   alternative  treatment

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
technologies as "alternatives" to land disposal. The
most frequently  used alternative  technologies are
incineration and  solidification/stabilization.  Avail-
able information on these two technologies  is
sufficient to support their routine use.

EPA defines "innovative treatment technologies" as
those that  lack  the  cost  and performance data
necessary to  support their routine use.  The most
common innovative technologies are soil  vapor
extraction  (SVE),  thermal  desorption,  bioreme-
diation, and soil washing.  In  general, a  treatment
technology is considered innovative if it has had
only limited full-scale application. Often, the first-
time  application of  an  existing technology  or
process to new  waste types  is what  makes  it
innovative.

This report provides information  that is useful for
approximating   the   market   for   a   particular
remediation technology. In practice, it is impossible
to definitively determine the size  of the market for
a cleanup  technology until the full  extent  of the
contamination at sites is known, and until it is clear
which applications  are  best for  each technology.
This report summarizes past  technology applica-
tions, but it does not assess the specific  merits of
each  technology, nor the  capabilities of specific
companies that provide remediation services.

1.4 Overview of Findings

The demand for remediation technologies is large
and growing.   Each of the eight  major cleanup
markets has  a substantial amount of work  left to
accomplish.   Some programs expect to take  30
years to complete the remediation of known sites.
Most of these programs will cost  tens of billions of
dollars, while the DOE cleanup program will cost
hundreds of billions.

Many contamination problems are similar  among
the  major remediation programs.    Nevertheless,
some programs  have wastes that are unique to  a
particular  industrial practice.   Contaminants com-
mon to most programs include solvents,  petroleum
products,  and metals.   Examples of specialized
wastes include  munitions  and explosives at DOD
 sites and radioactive material  at DOE installations.
Contaminated soil  and ground water are the most
 prevalent  problems,  but large quantities of other
 contaminated material, such as sediments,  landfill
 waste, and slag, also are present  at many sites.
Although  it is difficult to forecast  the  usage of
specific  technologies,  historical  trends in  the
Superfund   program   provide   some   insight.
Increasingly,  Superfund  remedies  call  for  the
treatment  of waste on-site and treatment of  soil
without  excavation.    Established  technologies,
primarily   incineration   and   solidification/
stabilization, will continue to play an important role
in treatment of waste  both  on-site and off-site.
However, the use  of innovative  technologies is
growing.  Soil vapor  extraction has been the most
widely  used   innovative    technology,    and
enhancements to this process are expected to lead to
increases  in  its   effectiveness   and  range  of
applications.  The use  of on-site  preprocessing
technologies,  such  as thermal  desorption, also is
growing.  While the  number of Superfund appli-
cations of current bioremediation techniques has not
grown over the past two years, new developments
may lead to  increased usage at Superfund sites.
This technology may have broader  application in
other programs, particularly UST site cleanups.  The
most  common  contaminants  at  NPL  (National
Priorities List) sites remaining to be cleaned up are
chlorinated VOCs and various metals. The greatest
needs  for  new  technologies  in the  Superfund
program appear to be for metals in soil and the
treatment  of ground  water  in  place, without
pumping to the surface.

Regardless  of the similarities  or differences in
contamination problems   among  the   programs,
marketing approaches for technology development
and remediation  services  must  be  tailored to
accommodate differences in  program  structure,
requirements, and site  characteristics.   Federal
agencies—especially  DOE, DOD, and  EPA—are
responsible for many  remedial actions, and each has
a somewhat different program structure.  Private
parties also are directly responsible, with federal or
state oversight, for many cleanups, including USTs,
RCRA corrective  actions, state program sites, and
most  Superfund remedial actions.  Research and
development  efforts  under federal and some  state
programs also may affect marketing strategy.

The  findings for each  of the  specific  market
 segments are presented in the following  sections.

 1.5 National Priorities List (Superfund) Sites

 Superfund  is a federal  program, administered by
 EPA under CERCLA (as amended) to clean up the

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
nation's worst  abandoned hazardous  waste sites.
CERCLA created a trust fund for site identification
and  remediation,  and  important   enforcement
authorities.  Over its  12-year history, the primary
responsibility for  NPL  site cleanups has  shifted
from  EPA  to  private  industry   ("responsible
parties").  Currently, over half of all investigations
and  almost  75%  of  all  cleanups  are  being
implemented by responsible parties, with EPA or
state oversight.  For the remaining sites, EPA or the
state has primary responsibility.

Superfund has been progressing from evaluation of
sites into  design and  cleanup.  As of September
1992, EPA had conducted preliminary assessments
of over 95% of the 36,814 potentially hazardous
sites listed in EPA's database. Of these, 1,235 sites
are currently listed on the NPL.  In the past two
years, the number of sites entering remedial action
has grown  steadily.  The  123 remedial  actions
started during fiscal year 1992 was a 20% increase
over 1991, and  a 60% increase over 1990.   By the
end  of  1992,   construction  activity had been
completed or deletions from the NPL had occurred
for 149 sites;   and   EPA  had  conducted 2,155
emergency removal actions.

EPA will incur costs  of $16.5 billion to clean up
sites currently listed on the NPL. EPA funding for
fiscal year 1993  is $1.6 billion.  However, most
sites will be remediated by potentially responsible
parties,  and estimates  of  their  costs  are  not
available.  The  average cost for EPA to clean up a
site  is  $27  million  for  all  remedial  activities,
including  investigations, and $13.2  million  for
remedial action alone.

EPA  has  an active  research and  demonstration
program for most types  of  innovative cleanup
technologies. EPA's primary mechanism for testing
new technologies is  the  Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, which has
a fiscal year 1993 budget of $14 million.  The
program is evaluating  almost 150 technologies.

1.5.1    Technology Trends

Superfund  now  emphasizes the use of permanent
remedies and the development and demonstration of
new remediation technologies.  This emphasis has
lead to  the following trends  in  the types  of
technologies  selected  and  used  for NPL  site
cleanups:

 •  More  than  30% of  sites with  Records  of
    Decision (RODs) signed in 1991 are expected
    to use at least one innovative technology,  and
    some sites will use more than one.

 •  The selection of innovative technologies  for
    Superfund cleanup  has  been increasing.   In
    1991,  for the first time,  innovative treatment
    technologies  accounted for more than half of
    the treatment technologies selected for control-
    ling the source of the waste.

 •  SVE accounts for much of the growth in the
    selection  and use  of  innovative  treatment
    technologies  at  Superfund sites,  constituting
    40% of  these applications.   Bioremediation
    makes up 21% of all innovative technologies
    selected, followed by thermal desorption,  soil
    washing, and in situ flushing.  Dechlorination,
    in  situ  vitrification,  solvent  extraction,  air
    sparging, and in situ steam recovery of oily
    wastes comprise  the remainder.

 •  The selection of incineration and solidification/
    stabilization,  which  are considered established
    technologies, is  slowly decreasing,  but these
    technologies  continue to  play  a large role in
    Superfund cleanups.  They account for 47% of
    all treatment technologies  selected in fiscal year
    1991.   On-site incineration was  selected  for
    only four  sites  that year, whereas  off-site
    incineration (at existing permitted facilities) was
    selected for 26 sites.

 •  At least 35 Superfund sites use multiple innova-
    tive treatment technologies in "treatment trains"
    of two or more technologies in sequence.

 •  Most   ground  water  remediation  involves
    extraction processes,  rather than  methods to
    treat aquifers in place.

About 10% of the innovative technology projects
have been completed.  Most cleanups involving
innovative technologies are in the design stage,  and
will be implemented  in the next three to four years.
These cleanups represent a "short-term" market for
remediation services.

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
1.5.2   NPL Site Characteristics

Superfund sites that have not begun remedial action
make up a  relatively  well-defined market  for
remedial  technologies.   Remedies have  not been
selected  for  as  many  as 750  of  the sites that
currently are listed on the NPL.  Remedial actions
for these  sites will begin in three to eight years, and
are referred  to  as "intermediate-term" demand.
Although further  study is needed  to determine
which wastes actually require remediation, the data
available on these sites  can be used to indicate the
types  and   extent   of   treatment  technology
applications needed in the future:

 •  Volatile organic  compounds (VOCs)  are the
    most common contaminant groups, followed by
    metals and  semi-volatile organic compounds
    (SVOCs). Most sites contain only one of these,
    but a significant number contain two groups
    (but  not necessarily in  the same contaminated
    material).

 •  Chlorinated VOCs are by far the most common
    organic   contaminant,   followed   by
    nonchlorinated    VOCs,   polychlorinated
    biphenyls (PCBs),  polyaromatic hydrocarbons
    (PAHs), and phenols.

 •  The  most common metal is lead, followed by
    chromium, arsenic, and cadmium.

 •  Most sites require both ground water and soil
    remediation. EPA estimates that 80% of future
    sites  will need remediation of  contaminated
    ground water, 74% for soil, 15% for sediments,
    and  10% for sludge.

 •  About 26 million cubic yards of soil, sludge,
    and  sediment  need to be cleaned up.  This
    estimate is probably conservative because sites
    are usually more complex than site assessments
    first indicate.  The material to  be cleaned up
    includes:  20.5 million cubic yards of waste
    containing metals alone or in combination with
    other contaminants; 13.9 million cubic  yards of
    VOCs alone  or  in combination  with other
    contaminants; and  7.25 million  cubic yards of
    SVOCs.  The largest quantities of contaminated
    material  are found at sites used to manufacture
    primary   metal  products  and  metal  plating
     sites—14 million and 8.9 million cubic yards,
    respectively.
The  long-term demand includes 400 to 800 sites
that  EPA estimates  will  be listed on the  NPL
between 1993 and 2000. Remedial action for these
sites will begin in 8 to 16 years. The characteristics
of these future sites may be different from sites
already listed, because EPA will evaluate them for
listing under a revised system that places increased
emphasis on contaminated soil and sediment.

1.5.3  Future Technology  Use at NPL Sites

Based on contaminant occurrence and historical
technology trends, general observations can be made
about  the  potential Superfund market for specific
technologies.  These observations do not consider
several other important factors in remedy selection,
such as cleanup standards, competing technologies,
other site characteristics, and public acceptance.

 •  The use of SVE technologies for all types of
    VOCs is expected to continue at current levels,
    and may even increase.  SVE has become the
    technology of choice for both chlorinated and
    nonchlorinated VOCs in  soil and VOCs are the
    most common type of  contaminant at  inter-
    mediate-demand sites.   New  techniques for
    increasing soil  permeability and  contaminant
    volatility may lead to further expansion of SVE
     applications.

 •  Thermal desorption for the treatment of VOCs
     and PCBs may increase. Thermal desorption
    can be used for VOCs when site conditions are
     not amenable for SVE.   In addition, thermal
     desorption  is  frequently selected for  PCBs,
     which also  occur  frequently at  intermediate-
     demand sites.

 •   Although  the selection  of bioremediation has
     been constant over the past several years, new
     developments may lead  to some increase in its
     use  for Superfund  sites.   These  advances
     include the results of extensive research into
     bioremediation, and the trend towards increased
     use of  air-based methods  to  aerate soil and
     ground water in place.   However, one factor
     that will ultimately limit the number of sites
     amenable  to  bioremediation  is  the  lack  of
     biodegradable compounds, such  as PAHs, at
     Superfund sites. In the long term (beyond eight
     years),  additional listings of wood preserving
     sites  on   the  National Priorities  List may
     increase bioremediation opportunities.

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
 •  More alternatives to incineration are needed for
    the treatment of SVOCs. Incineration probably
    is the  most commonly used  technology for
    treating SVOCs; innovative technologies  have
    been selected far less frequently.

 •  Treatment  of  metals  in  soil  represents  a
    potentially  large,  but  untapped, market for
    innovative   treatment.      Solidification/
    stabilization is currently the treatment of choice
    for metals.  There is a need for increased use of
    new  separation  technologies  (such  as  soil
    washing) that  reduce the  quantity of waste
    requiring solidification/stabilization, or allow
    the recycling of valuable metals.

 •  Techniques to treat contaminated ground water
    in place are in great demand.  Pump-and-treat
    technologies  often cannot achieve  desired
    cleanup goals.   New  in situ  ground water
    treatment technologies  are needed to address
    residual contamination in the aquifer.

 •  Based  on current trends, at least 30% of the
    Superfund  sites will  implement innovative
    technologies for source control.  This  is  a
    conservative estimate, and the rate of innovative
    technology  use should grow as  more cost and
    performance   data    become   available.
    Incineration and solidification/stabilization may
    be  used   more  for   final  treatment   after
    innovative   techniques   have  been  used  to
    separate and recover contaminants.

1.6 RCRA Corrective Action Sites

Approximately  5,100 hazardous waste  treatment,
storage,  and   disposal  facilities   (TSDFs)   are
potentially  subject to corrective action  under the
Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Approximately  80,000  pre-existing  "solid waste
management units" are located at TSDFs.   Most
RCRA facilities are  ongoing operations, although
many operators  are in the process of closing or have
closed  their TSD  units.    The  site  owners  or
operators   are   responsible  for  the  necessary
corrective action, with oversight by EPA or a  state.
Major  considerations  for  the RCRA  corrective
action market are given below:

 •  EPA estimates that the total cost of corrective
    action  for   soil  and  ground  water  will  be
    between $7.4  billion and $41.8 billion.  A
    recent EPA analysis suggested that the present
    value cost would be about $18.7 billion under
    the proposed regulations, at a weighted average
    cost of $7.2 million per facility. However, this
    value is likely to change when final regulations
    are issued.

 •  Between  1,500  and 3,500  of the regulated
    TSDFs will require corrective action.

 •  The pace of cleanup activity has  increased in
    the  past year  as a result of  an  initiative to
    stabilize waste and prevent further  spreading.
    As of the end of fiscal year 1992, corrective
    measures were underway or completed at 247
    facilities, a substantial increase over the 136 of
    two years ago.  About 3,500 facilities  have
    completed a RCRA facility assessment, the first
    step  in the cleanup  process, and 614 are
    undergoing a RCRA facility investigation.

 •  A wide variety of  wastes, many of which are
    similar to those found at  Superfund sites, will
    require corrective  action.  Some  of the  most
    prevalent wastes include corrosive and ignitable
    wastes,   heavy  metals,  organic   solvents,
    electroplating waste, and waste oil.

•   Based  on  a  small  sample  of  planned  or
    implemented corrective actions, about  half use
    off-site  disposal  remedies   and  half  use
    innovative treatment.  Off-site remedies include
    landfilling or  off-site  incineration.   Of the
    innovative technologies, about one-third each
    are   SVE,  in   situ  bioremediation,   and
    above-ground   treatment,  primarily
    bioremediation.  The sample may  have missed
    the use of solidification/stabilization, which is
    commonly selected for Superfund  sites.

1.7 Underground Storage Tank Sites

Underground  storage  tanks   (USTs)   containing
petroleum products or hazardous chemicals are also
regulated  under   RCRA.     Tank owners  are
responsible  for   remediation  under   state  UST
programs.   Major  factors concerning  UST site
remediation include the following:

 •  Approximately 295,000 UST sites, containing at
    least 56 million cubic yards of soil and debris,
    require cleanup.  There is an average of almost
    three USTs  per site.   This estimate  includes

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
    119,000 confirmed releases that have not yet
    been  cleaned  up  plus   176,000  projected
    releases. Previous studies indicate that the cost
    to clean up one site ranges from $2,000 to over
    $400,000.  At an  average cost of $100,000, the
    potential UST market could reach $30 billion.

 •  Both the pace of UST cleanups and the backlog
    of cleanup projects have grown.  The almost
    29,000 UST cleanups completed in fiscal year
    1992 was  almost triple the 10,400 cleanups
    completed  in fiscal year 1991.  Nevertheless,
    the  gap between  confirmed  releases  and
    cleanups completed has grown from 100,000 at
    the end of 1991 to 129,000 by the end of 1992.

 •  Approximately 91 % of USTs contain petroleum
    products and 2% contain hazardous materials.
    For  USTs containing petroleum products, gaso-
    line accounts for  66%, and diesel fuel for 21%.

 •  Limited data indicates that about 40% of UST
    cleanups use innovative  technology.   Land-
    filling comprises  over half of the technologies
    selected to treat petroleum contaminated soils,
    followed by in situ treatment, thermal treatment,
    and bioremediation.  Soil  vapor extraction,  in
    situ bioremediation, and thermal desorption are
    the   most  frequently   cited   innovative
    technologies.

1.8 Department of Defense Sites

DOD is responsible  for the  cleanup  of facilities
contaminated as a result of training, industrial,  or
research activities.   As of September 1991, DOD
had identified 17,660 potentially contaminated sites
(located at  1,877  DOD installations) and  6,786
formerly used  defense sites  (FUDs).   Of  these,
about 7,000 will require cleanup. Cleanup policy is
determined   centrally   under   the   Defense
Environmental  Restoration Program (DERP),  but
each service is responsible for  its own installations.

DOD estimates that almost  all  sites have been
identified and  that  cleanup of  the  sites  will  be
completed  by  2011,  given  adequate funding.
Design and construction work will increase through
 1998, then moderate until all cleanup is completed.
Other key findings are presented below:

  •  The total  cleanup costs will be $25 billion in
     1991  dollars, of which $14 billion will be  for
   remedial  action.   Funding authorization for
   DOD environmental restoration programs for
   fiscal year 1992 was $1.4 billion.

• The most common contaminants at DOD sites
   are similar to those at non-defense industrial
   facilities: petroleum products, solvents, metals,
   pesticides, and paints.  Some sites  also contain
   more  unusual wastes,  such  as  unexploded
   ordnance or low-level radioactive materials.

• DOD has estimated the typical quantity of con-
   taminated soil for nine of  its 20 standard site
   categories.  Typical  values range from 500  to
   9,500 cubic yards of contaminated soil per site.
   Among  the  nine  site categories,  the largest
   national  estimates of  soil  quantities are for:
   disposal  pit/dry wells (2.2 million cubic yards),
   storage  areas  (2.1  million   cubic   yards),
   underground  storage  tanks (1.6 million cubic
   yards), and fire/crash training areas (1.2 million
   cubic yards).

• Examples of innovative treatment technologies
   used at DOD sites include bioremediation, SVE,
   and soil  washing.  DOD is  conducting research
   and demonstrations  on many  technologies,
   including bench and field testing of bioventing
   at almost 140 Air  Force sites.

1.9 Department of Energy Sites

Under its Environmental Restoration Program, DOE
is responsible   for  cleaning  up   110  major
installations  and  other locations in 33  states and
Puerto Rico.  DOE estimates that remediation may
be required at about 4,000 individual contaminated
areas or sites covering more than  26,000  acres at
these DOE installations and non-DOE sites.  The
number of  identified sites  has been  growing  as
assessment and characterization activities continue.
Most sites have  been used for nuclear weapons
research, development, and production for the past
40 years.  DOE installations tend to be much larger
than most DOD and other non-DOE Superfund
sites.  Twenty-three DOE sites on 16  installations
and  other locations are listed  on the NPL.  Many
installations  contain  more  than  one  area  of
contamination.   Each area may  require different
types of remedies.

DOE is committed to cleaning up contamination and
bringing all  of its installations into environmental

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
compliance by the year 2019.   Sites containing
VOCs are a high priority.

Other  key   findings   concerning   DOE's
Environmental  Restoration  program  include  the
following:

 •  Funding planned for all DOE cleanup programs
    for  1994 through 1998 is $12.3 billion.  DOE
    estimates that the total cost of cleaning up DOE
    facilities  will be in the hundreds of billions of
    dollars.

 •  Most of the DOE cleanup effort is occurring at
    64  DOE  installations  and  other  locations
    managed under the Remedial Actions  Program.
    This includes  contaminated buildings at more
    than 20 sites and about 1.6 million cubic yards
    of soil that still need to be remediated  under the
    Formerly  Utilized  Sites  Remedial  Action
    Program   (FUSRAP).   These   sites contain
    residual  radioactive  material from  the early
    years  of the atomic energy program.

 •  Some contaminants at DOE installations are
    unique to nuclear production, while others are
    similar  to those generated  in  a variety  of
    industrial processes.  Mixed waste, containing
    radioactive and hazardous constituents,  is  a
    problem  at many installations and sites. Based
    on estimates for a small number of installations,
    the  quantity  of  contaminated  material  at
    individual  sites  in  the  Remedial   Actions
    Program can  range from 200  to  3.3 million
    cubic yards.

 •  In addition to the Environmental Restoration
    program,   Decontamination   and  Decommis-
    sioning (D&D) involves  about 500  facilities
    slated for cleanup by 2019, and as many as 500
    additional  facilities.   This program  manages
    government-owned retired facilities  (reactors,
    laboratories, buildings, storage tanks) used for
    early  nuclear  energy research and defense
    programs.

 •  Although information on technologies being
    used  at  DOE installations  is  limited,  appli-
    cations   known to EPA include:  SVE,  air
    sparging, and soil washing. DOE also conducts
    research and development, primarily in the form
    of demonstrations of  technologies such  as in
    situ bioremediation, air stripping, vitrification,
    electrokinetics, soil washing, solvent extraction,
    solar   detoxification,   and   above-ground
    biological treatment.

1.10    Civilian Federal Agency Sites
i
Other federal agencies, such as the Departments of
Agriculture and Interior, are responsible for cleaning
up  waste sites  on property owned or  formerly
owned by the agencies.  As of 1990, 16 agencies
identified almost 350  sites in need of remediation.
Sites vary from illegal drug operations to landfills
and abandoned mines. To address the cleanup of
these sites, federal agencies requested a total of over
$1 billion for fiscal years  1991-1995. These funds
include both  administration and remediation costs.
Most of these sites are still being assessed, and have
not yet progressed to the site remediation stage.

1.11    State Program Sites

States are responsible  for assessing and cleaning up
sites not being addressed by the federal Superfund
nor the UST and RCRA corrective action programs.
Many   states   have  created  cleanup   programs
patterned after the federal Superfund program.   As
of the end of 1991, the balance of available funds in
state  Superfunds was over $2.2  billion.   Three
states—New   York,  New   Jersey,  and   Mich-
igan—account for about  80% of this figure. EPA
estimates that  over  19,000  state  sites require
additional evaluation or action beyond a preliminary
assessment.    Waste at these sites are  typical of
industrial facilities and include organic chemicals,
metals, and solvents.

1.12    Private Party Sites

In addition to  sites  remediated  under  state  and
federal programs, an unknown number of sites  are
being  remediated independently  by the  private
sector.   These cleanups result  from  efforts  of
companies  to limit their potential future liabilities,
or  from new  requirements  for environmental
evaluations   as a  prerequisite  for   real  estate
transactions.    Because  these  cleanups  are  not
conducted under a specific federal or state cleanup
program, no information is available on the number
of sites or the amount of remediation work that may
be needed.  One estimate put the  1991 remediation
market for private industry at about $1 billion.

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
1.13   Using This Document

The information in this document is organized into
the following Chapters:

 •  Chapter 2 describes the current uses and trends
    in the use of remedial technologies at CERCLA
    NPL sites.

 •  Chapter 3 describes the demand for remedial
    services at NPL sites over the intermediate and
    long  terms. This market segment includes sites
    for which RODs have not been signed, as well
    as sites to be listed on the NPL in the future.

 •  Chapter 4 addresses the demand for remediation
    services at sites subject to the corrective action
    provisions of RCRA.

 •  Chapter  5  reviews the remediation  services
    needed   for   sites  subject   to   the  UST
    requirements of RCRA.

 •  Chapter 6 characterizes the DOD Environmental
    Restoration Program, and the DOD sites that
    need cleanup.
 •  Chapter  7  provides  an  overview  of  the
    Department   of  Energy   Environmental
    Restoration Program, and the DOE sites  that
    need cleanup.

 •  Chapter 8 summarizes the cleanup needs for
    three categories  of sites: (a) civilian  agency
    sites (federal agency sites other than DOD and
    DOE);  (b) state program sites  (state-managed
    sites that do not qualify for Superfund remedial
    action and other sites reported to states); and (c)
    private  party sites (sites on private property
    independently cleaned up by private parties).

References  cited in the document are provided at
the end of each chapter.

Appendix  A  contains additional  detail on the
various market segments; Appendix B is  a list of
federal agency resources, EPA regional offices, and
state solid and hazardous waste offices; Appendix C
contains a  bibliography of all sources used in the
development of  this report;  and Appendix D
contains definitions of terms and acronyms.  The
acronyms are located on the last two pages of the
document.

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                                      CHAPTER 2
  TRENDS IN THE USE OF REMEDIAL  TECHNOLOGIES AT
                   NATIONAL  PRIORITIES LIST SITES
The selection of innovative treatment technologies
for  contaminated  waste  sites  has  increased
substantially in recent years. These technologies are
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of efforts
to clean up the country's contaminated sites.  An
examination of historical trends can be useful in
predicting how often these innovative technologies
may be selected in the future and how quickly new
technologies are  integrated into  the remediation
market.

Because Superfund has been operating the longest
and is the most  thoroughly documented of the
nation's cleanup programs,  data on past Superfund
decisions provide a basis for analyzing innovative
technology  trends.  This  chapter  describes  the
historical trends in the selection of technologies at
Superfund sites, the status of their implementation,
and  the  types  and quantities of  wastes being
addressed.  These  trends  also reflect the current
status of these technologies; ongoing technology
development   presumably  will   alter    future
technology use.

2.1 The CERCLA Program

The Superfund program is  the federal program to
clean up releases of  hazardous  substances  at
abandoned  or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Superfund is administered by EPA under authority
of the Comprehensive  Environmental Response,
Compensation,  and   Liability   Act  of   1980
(CERCLA). In addition to establishing enforcement
authorities, CERCLA created a trust fund to be used
for site identification and clean up. The Superfund
Amendments and  Reauthorization  Act of  1986
(SARA)  made  three  important  changes to the
Superfund program that are  of particular importance
to technology vendors:  (1) it stressed the impor-
tance of permanent remedies; (2) it allowed the use
of new, unproven treatment technologies; and (3) it
expanded research  and  demonstration activities to
promote  the development of innovative treatment
technologies.
2.1.1   The National Contingency Plan

The procedures for implementing the provisions of
CERCLA  are spelled out in the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,
commonly referred to as the National Contingency
Plan (NCP). This plan outlines the steps that EPA
and  other  federal   agencies  must  follow  in
responding to releases of hazardous substances or
oil  into  the  environment.   The  national  goals
described in the NCP are to select remedies that are
protective of human health and the environment,
maintain   protection  over  time,  and  minimize
untreated  waste.    The  NCP specifies  several
approaches to achieve these goals:

 •  Use treatment for principal threats  wherever
    practical;
 •  Combine  treatment  with  containment,  as
    necessary; and
 •  Consider innovative treatment  technologies to
    the maximum extent practicable.

2.1.2  The Superfund Process

The  traditional process  established by the  NCP is
depicted in Exhibit 2-1.  If more than one  cleanup
action  is  needed  at a  site, certain steps in this
process are repeated for each action.  The process
begins with discovery of a  potential hazardous
waste site, and includes the following general steps:

 1) A "preliminary assessment" (PA) is conducted
    to determine the  existence of potential threats to
    human health or the environment that require a
    "removal action" or further study.   If the PA
    indicates an emergency requiring immediate or
    short-term action  to reduce  the  risk  to the
    public,  a  removal  action is  conducted to
    stabilize or clean up the site.

 2) If  a hazard remains after a removal action is
    performed, a "site inspection" (SI), is  conducted
    to determine  whether a site warrants scoring

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                                 Continuous
                                 Enforcement
                                 Efforts
under the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS).  EPA uses
the HRS  to score sites
based  on  the   potential
effects  from   contami-
nation on human health
and   the   environment.
Sites  with an HRS score
of  28.5  or  higher  are
proposed for the National
Priorities List (NPL).

If   the   contamination
problem    is   serious
enough,   the   site   is
included  on  the  NPL,
which is EPA's national
list of sites with the worst
contamination  problems.
Inclusion  on  the NPL
means that the cleanup of
the   site   can   be
accomplished   with
Superfund   Trust  Fund
resources.
3)  If placed on the NPL, an
    in-depth   planning   and
    investigation   phase
    begins, during which the
    extent  of contamination
    and   site   risks   are
    determined and treatment
    alternatives are evaluated.
    This phase is known as
    the  "remedial   investi-
    gation/feasibility  study"
    (RI/FS).   EPA  requires
    the results of the RI/FS,
    including the rationale for selecting a remedy,
    to be documented in a  "Record of Decision"
    (ROD).  Some sites require a series of RI/FSs
    and RODs to address different "operable units,"
    which are portions of a site or  pathways of
    exposure (e.g., air, water) that require separate
    cleanup actions.

    RODs   provide    useful   information   for
    technology vendors interested in gaining access
    to the hazardous  waste cleanup market.  First,
    RODs specify the technology type determined
    to  be  the  appropriate  remedy for  a  site.
    Second, technology vendors can  use RODs to
                                     Exhibit 2-1: "Historical Superfund Process Flowchart
                                                                  Site Discovery
                                                            Preliminary Assessment (PA)/
                                                                Site Inspection (SI)
                                                            Hazard Ranking System (HRS)/
                                                             National Priorities List (NPL)
                                                                  Designation
      Continuous
      Public
      Participation
Remedial Investigation (Rl)/
  Feasibility Study (FS)
Removal
Action At Any
Point As
Necessary
  I
                                                                Selection of Remedy
                                                               Remedial Design (RD)
                                                                  Remedial Action
                                                                      (RA)
                                                          Operation and Maintenance
                                                                 (O&M)
                                                               NPL Deletion
                              Note:
The EPA currently is revising this process under the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model.
                                                      determine why  EPA selected or rejected a
                                                      specific remedy. EPA must consider:  overall
                                                      protectiveness;   compliance   with   other
                                                      environmental laws and regulations; long-term
                                                      effectiveness  and   permanence;   short-term
                                                      effectiveness;   implementability;  cost;   and
                                                      reduction of toxicity, mobility,  or volume of
                                                      wastes.  State and community acceptance also
                                                      are considered.

                                                   4) Following  the  ROD,   detailed  engineering
                                                      specifications   for   the  selected    cleanup
                                                      alternatives  are developed.  This phase is called
                                                      "remedial design" (RD). The  designs are used
                                                  10

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
    to  solicit competitive bids  to perform the
    "remedial action" (RA). Remedial action is the
    phase of the process when waste is actually
    treated, disposed, or contained.

    If  necessary,  "operation  and  maintenance"
    (O&M) begins at the conclusion of the remedial
    action. This phase can include  such actions as
    ground  water monitoring  and periodic  site
    inspections to ensure  continued effectiveness of
    the  remedial actions.  The final step  in the
    process is to delete the site from the NPL. This
    step  is initiated  when all necessary response
    under CERCLA is completed.

At  any  point  of this  process,   an  emergency
requiring a removal action can  occur at a site. In
addition, community relations activities  take place
throughout the process to ensure the involvement of
all interested parties in the decision-making process.
Also,  enforcement  actions  that  compel  those
responsible for the site contamination to clean up
                         the site, occur throughout the cleanup process to
                         ensure optimal use of Trust Fund resources.

                         EPA is now taking steps to streamline the process
                         under the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
                         (SACM).   The  purpose  of  SACM  is  to  make
                         hazardous waste cleanups more timely and efficient
                         by   integrating   Superfund's   administrative
                         components.   The new process  is  illustrated in
                         Exhibit  2-2.   Under SACM, EPA  will  adopt a
                         continuous  process   for  assessing  site-specific
                         conditions and the need for action.  Risks will be
                         reduced quickly  through early action (removal or
                         remedial).  SACM will operate within the existing
                         statutory  and regulatory structure.    Superfund
                         priorities will remain the same: deal with the worst
                         problems first; aggressively pursue enforcement; and
                         involve the public  at every stage of the work.

                         Because EPA is responsible for implementing  the
                         Superfund program, it is responsible for determining
                         the best way to clean up each site.   Other federal
                  Exhibit 2-2:  Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model  (SACM)
                      Public Notification of Early Action Start
                                                                    Public Notification
                         Early Action To Reduce Risk
                               (
-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
agencies such as the Department of Defense (DOD)
and Department of Energy (DOE) are responsible
for cleaning up NPL sites at their  facilities  in
accordance with the requirements of the NCP and
with EPA concurrence and oversight.  Under the
Superfund program, states also may take the lead to
determine the best remedial alternatives and contract
for the design and  remediation of  a site.

2.1.3    Program Status

Much of the past effort under Superfund has been
to  rank   sites,   conduct   detailed   remedial
investigations,  select  remedies,  and   address
immediate threats.  As of September 30,1992, (the
end  of  fiscal  year  1992)  EPA has conducted
preliminary  assessments at over 95% of the 36,814
potentially   hazardous   sites    listed   on   the
Comprehensive   Emergency    Response   and
Compensation  Information  System  (CERCLIS),
EPA's Superfund  tracking system. Of these, EPA
has listed 1,275 sites on the NPL,  of which 40 have
been deleted (most of these  because  cleanup has
been  completed),  resulting  in  a current  total  of
l,235.a As more contaminated sites are studied and
ranked, they will be added to the  NPL.

Between fiscal years  1982 and 1991, EPA made
cleanup decisions in 967 RODs for 712 NPL sites.
In the last  two years, the number  of sites  where
remedial actions have  begun has risen steadily. The
123 remedial actions that started in fiscal year 1992
represents a 20% increase over 1991, and 60% over
1990.  At the end  of fiscal year 1992, construction
activity was completed, or deletion from the NPL
had occurred, at 149  NPL sites.  In addition, EPA
has conducted 2,155 removal actions.

2.2 History of Technology Use in Superfund

Since  Superfund was established, the approach to
cleaning up contaminated sites has evolved from
emphasizing containment of  waste to  promoting
waste treatment. Prior to  1986, the most common
methods for remediating hazardous waste were to
excavate the contaminated material and dispose of
it in an off-site landfill, or to contain the waste on-
 site by  means of caps or slurry  walls. Because
SARA provides a clear preference for the use of
permanent   remedies,  known   as   "alternative
treatment   technologies,"   for   the   cleanup  of
Superfund  sites,  more  remedies  now  include
treatment.

Since 1982, over 60% of the RODs that address the
source of contamination (e.g.,  contaminated soil,
sludge,  sediment) include  the treatment of some
portion  of  the waste at the sites.  As Exhibit 2-3
illustrates,  in  each of the  past  four  years (fiscal
years 1988-91),  more than  70% of the source
control  RODs specified some treatment to reduce
the  toxicity,  mobility, or  volume  of  a waste.
Containment  or  land disposal  also  may  be
prescribed  at these sites.

2.3 Innovative and Established Technologies for
    Treatment

In this  report, technologies to  treat  ground water
above-ground,  incineration,  and   solidification/
stabilization   are  considered to  be  established
remediation technologies.  In most cases, available
data  on  the  performance  and  cost  of  these
technologies  are  adequate  to support their regular
use  for site  cleanup.  Many new and  important
developments  are   being  adopted  in   these
technologies, and the EPA's  Superfund Innovative
Technology   Evaluation   (SITE)   program   is
evaluating  some of these adaptations.[2]

Incineration is the most frequently selected of any
technology for treating soil, sludge, and sediment in
Superfund  and was the first technology available for
treating  organic  contaminants  in these matrices.
The major advantage of incineration is it is able to
achieve  stringent cleanup  standards  for highly-
concentrated  mixtures of organic  contaminants.
Exhibit  2-4  presents the  frequency of use  of
established and innovative treatment technologies in
the  Superfund program.    On-site  and off-site
incineration  account  for  30%  of  all  treatment
processes  selected through fiscal year 1992.  Off-
site incineration  is  more  applicable  to smaller
quantities  (typically less than 5,000 cubic yards) of
highly  contaminated material and for residuals of
pretreatment   technologies  that   separate   and
 8   Subsequent to this analysis, these totals have changed slightly, because sites have been added and deleted from the
 NPL.  These changes are not likely to affect the findings of this study. See the Final Rule, National Priority List for
 Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, October 14, 1992.[1]
                                                  12

-------
           Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
     Exhibit 2-3:  Treatment and  Disposal Decisions for Source Control at NPL Sites
                    100
                     80'
       Percent (%)   60
        of Source
     Control RODs
                     40
                     20 —
                                A
Containment, Containment & Disposal
Some Treatment
                           82
                                      91
                                   83    84     85     86     87     88     89     90
Notes:                                                   _,   , w
 •  RODS - Records of Decision                           Fiscal Year
 •  Appendix A, Exhibit A-1 contains supporting data.

Source:  U.S EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, ROD Annual Report, FY 1991, April 1992.
          Exhibit 2-4: Alternative Treatment Technologies Selected for NPL Sites
                                   Through Fiscal Year 1991
                      (Total Number of Treatment Technologies Selected is 498)
            Established Technologies (288) 58%

              Off-site Incineration (85) 17%
           On-site Incineration
                   (65) 13%
          Solidification/Stabilization
                      (128) 26%
Notes:
                            Other Established  (10)2%
     Innovative Technologies (210) 42%
     Washing (18)4%
         Solvent Extraction (6) 1%
            Ex situ Bioremediation (25) 5%
            ^ In situ Bioremediation3 (20) 4%

                  In situ Flushing (17) 3%
                                                                      Soil Vapor Extraction
                                                                       (83)17%
                      Dechlorination (7) 1%

                 —" In situ Vitrification (3) <1%

                 Chemical Treatment (1) < 1 %

       N      Thermal Desorption (27) 5%
       Other Innovative'' (3)<1%
 •  Data are derived from Records  of  Decision  for fiscal years 1982-1991  and  anticipated design  and
    construction activities as of 1992. More than one technology per site may be used.
 *  Includes nine in situ ground water treatment technologies.
 b  "Other" established technologies are  soil aeration, in situ flaming, and chemical neutralization.   "Other"
    innovative technologies are air sparging and contained recovery of oily wastes.

Source:  U.S. EPA, Technology  Innovation Office,  Innovative  Treatment  Technologies:  Semi-Annual Status
        Report, EPA /542/R-92/011, October 1992.
                                                13

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
concentrate  contaminants.   Exhibit 2-5  illustrates
trends  in the selection of incineration.  While the
combined total for on-site and off-site incineration
has been relatively constant over the past four years,
in the past year the selection of on-site incineration
has decreased.

Solidification/stabilization  (also  called  "fixation"
and "immobilization") is the second most popular
technology  to treat  soil and other wastes.   It is
selected to  remediate  metal-containing waste  and
continues  to be the favored technology to treat this
material.   It  can treat  most chemical  forms of
metals, although some compounds are not easily
solidified.   In some cases, it  is selected to  treat
organic  contaminants,  primarily   semi-volatiles
(SVOCs).  Although solidification/stabilization has
several advantages,  including low cost, questions
remain concerning  its  effectiveness over  time.
Consequently, it may require long-term monitoring.
Exhibit   2-6   illustrates   selection   trends   for
      solidification/stabilization. Over the past five years,
      the selection frequency has fluctuated between 19%
      and 26% of source control RODs.

      While  existing   technologies  are  being  used
      successfully, new treatment technologies are needed
      that  are  less  expensive and  more  effective.[3]
      "Innovative" treatment technologies are  treatment
      methods for which performance and cost data are
      inadequate to support routine use.  Brief definitions
      of  innovative technologies selected  at Superfund
      sites  are provided in Appendix D.b

      Exhibit  2-4 shows  that  of  the 498  treatment
      technologies selected for source control,  including
      nine for treatment of ground water in situ, 42% are
      considered innovative.  In fiscal year 1991, for the
      first time, over half of the treatment  technologies
      selected for source control were innovative (Exhibit
      2-7)  and  in  30%  of  the RODs  at least  one
      innovative technology was selected.
              Exhibit 2-5:  On-Site and Off-Site Incineration Selected for NPL Sites
          Number
          of Sites
                            82     83
85    86     87    88     89    90     91
     Fiscal Year
   Note:   Based on Records  of Decision for fiscal years  1982-1991 and  data on  residuals  management for
          innovative treatment technologies.

   Source: U.S.  EPA, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment  Technologies:   Semi-Annual Status
          Report, EPA/540/2-91/001, April 1992.
     More information on innovative technologies is provided in an annual publication of the SITE program, which
 describes each technology participating in the program.[2]  Many other publications on both innovative and established
 remedial technologies are listed in a bibliography compiled by EPA [4], and another compiled jointly by EPA and
 other federal agencies. [5]
                                                   14

-------
           Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
 Exhibit 2-6:  Solidification/Stabilization and Total Source Control Selected for NPL Sites
     Number
     of Sites
160-


140^


120-:


100.:


 so-|


 60-^


 40-


 20-


  0-
                            Solidification/Stabilization

                            Source Control RODs
                                                                                  141
                           125
                                                               100
                                            57
                       82    83
                          85
86    87     88

Fiscal Year
89    90     91
Note:   Based on Records of Decision for fiscal years 1982-1991  and  data on residuals management for
       innovative technologies.


Source: U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment  Technologies:  Semi-Annual  Status

       Report, EPA/540/2-91/001, April 1992.
       Exhibit 2-7:  Number of Established and Innovative Treatment Technologies
                                  Selected for NPL Sites
                     70
                    60 •
        Number of  so
        Treatment
       Technologies 40 -^—
         Selected
                    so -a
                                                                              68
            ^ Established Treatment
                Technologies
            -a- Innovative Treatment
                Technologies
                          82    83    84    85   86    87    88    89    90    91
Note:    Data on innovative technologies are derived from Records of Decision for fiscal years 1982-1991 and

        anticipated design and construction activities as of October 1992.  More than one technology per site
        may be used.


Source:  U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation  Office, Innovative  Treatment Technologies:  Semi-Annual Status
        Report, EPA/542/R-92/011, October 1992.
                                             15

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
2.4 Contaminants at Superfund Sites with RODs

The  selection  of  remedies  at  contaminated  sites
depends to a great extent on the types of wastes
present. To gain a better understanding of the trends
in selection of innovative technologies,  an analysis
of the contaminants  and  matrices that require
remediation was conducted.  Exhibit 2-8 shows that
most NPL sites with RODs have both ground water
contamination (79% of sites) and soil contamination
(71% of sites). Contaminated sludge and sediments
occur at 16% and  11% of these sites, respectively.

In this report, contaminants  are placed into three
major groups:  volatile organic compounds (VOCs);
SVOCs; and metals.  Appendix A, Exhibit A-2, lists
common  chemicals  in  each  group.   With  the
exception of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
pesticides,  which  are  grouped   with   SVOCs,
chemicals  and elements are  grouped in accordance
with  EPA  test  methods  for evaluating   solid
waste. [6]   Metals are loosely  defined to include
most inorganics, including arsenic.

Data on  the contaminants  to  be  remediated are
available for 687 of the 712 NPL sites with RODs.
Exhibit  2-9  summarizes  the  incidence of  the
different contaminant  groups at  NPL sites  with
RODs.  This analysis  shows that VOCs occur at
75% of these sites, followed closely by SVOCs
(73%) and metals (72%).  These data also indicate
that the NPL sites  tend to be complex:  all three
groups are present at 48% of the sites, and at least
two  groups are present  at an  additional  25%.
Analysis of data on the contaminants found in each
matrix—ground  water,   soil,   sediment,    and
sludge—shows that both metals and organics occur
in ground water at 63% of sites with RODs and in
soil at 66% of the sites (Exhibit 2-10).

2.5  Status of Innovative Technologies in
    Superfund

EPA's Innovative Treatment Technologies:  Semi-
Annual Status Report contains current information
on each planned, ongoing, and completed innovative
technology project selected for use in the Superfund
program through fiscal  year 1991.[7]    It also
contains information on a limited number of non-
Superfund federal facility sites, primarily DOD and
DOE  sites.    Most of  the information on the
selection  and  use of  innovative technologies
          Exhibit 2-8: Frequency of Contaminated Matrices at NPL Sites with RODs
                                    600-/
                                    500-
                                    400-
                         Number   300:
                         of Sites
                                            559
                                                   508
                                                   Matrix
  Note:   More than one contaminated matrix may be present at each of the 712 sites that have signed Records
          of Decision.

  Source: U.S. EPA, RODs, fiscal years 1982-1991.
                                                16

-------
           Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
      Exhibit 2-9: Frequency of Major Contaminant Groups at NPL Sites with RODs
                   400 -1
                   300 -
           Number
           of Sites3
                    200 -
                    100 -
Total VOCs   - 519
Total SVOCs - 499
Total Metals  - 492
48%


 331
                                    D One Group
                                    HO Two Groups
                                    Q Three Groups
                        J?
                                    Contaminant Groups
Notes:
  a Contaminant  information is  available for 687 out of 712  National  Priorities List sites that have  signed
    Records of Decision.  Contaminant information is not available for 25 sites with RODs.
  b The 13 sites listed as "other" contain only  explosives, non-metallic radioactives (e.g., radon), nitrates,
    unspecified organics, asbestos, or chemical warfare agents.

Source:  U.S. EPA, RODs, fiscal years 1982-1991.
    Exhibit 2-10: Frequency of Organics and Metals by Matrix at NPL Sites with RODs
                   Number
                   of Sites
                              x  ^»v  ^
                                         eT
                                                   Matrix
                                                             Metals 4 Organics
350-
300-
250-

200-

150-
100-
50-
0-



Organics
1 1
,164
Y/////////A

c=§
§
s
s
^
Metals
1 jo 1
^dT^
Note:   Based on an analysis of 712 National Priorities List sites that have signed Records of Decision, of
        which  13 sites contain  other contaminant types (e.g.,  radon, asbestos, chemical warfare  agents).
        Contaminant information  for 25 sites is not available. Contaminants may occur in more than one matrix
        at a site.

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
presented in the remainder of this chapter is from
this report.

Exhibit 2-11 provides the implementation status of
innovative  treatment   technologies  selected  to
remediate  Superfund sites.   Few  projects  using
innovative  technologies  have  been  completed.
Consequently, operating experience is limited for
the more than 10 types of innovative technologies
chosen at Superfund sites.

The innovative projects now in design probably will
be implemented in the next few years.  The average
time  between remedy   selection  (ROD)   and
implementation (remedial  action) for all types of
remedial actions is almost three years.[8]    As
these projects are  implemented and completed,
extensive information on full-scale performance of
these technologies  will become available through
SITE program and  other EPA reports.
2.6 Site Characteristics and Selected Remedies

Exhibit 2-12 shows how often innovative remedies
have been selected at Superfund sites to treat VOCs,
SVOCs, and metals.  Although not reflected here,
the presence of other contaminant groups or specific
site  conditions may also affect  the technology
selection.  Most of these applications are for  soil
remediation; however, bioremediation includes nine
projects for treating ground water in  situ.

2.6.1   Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Of the three major contaminant groups, VOCs are
the  most  frequently   treated  with  innovative
technologies.   Innovative  technologies have been
selected to treat VOCs at 125 NPL sites with RODs.
SVE was selected at 83 sites; bioremediation, 22
sites; thermal  desorption, 20 sites; and  in  situ
flushing, 11 sites.
   Exhibit 2-11: Status of Innovative Technology Projects at NPL Sites as of October 1992
Technology
Soil Vapor Extraction
Thermal Desorption
Ex Situ Bioremediation
In Situ Bioremediation3
Soil Washing
In Situ Flushing
Dechlorination
Solvent Extraction
In Situ Vitrification
Other Innovative Treatment
Chemical Treatment
TOTAL
Notes:
predesign/
In Design
62
19
17
14
16
12
5
5
3
3
0
156(74%)

• Data are derived from Records of Decision
construction activities.

Design Complete/
Being Installed/
Operational
18
4
7
5
2
5
1
1
0
0
0
43(21%)

Project
Completed
3
4
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1 1 (5%)

for fiscal years 1982-1991 and anticipated


Total
83
27
25
20
18
17
7
6
3
3
1
210(100%)

design and

a Includes in situ ground water treatment.
Source: U.S. EPA, Technology
Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment
Technologies: Semi-Annual
Status Report, EPA/542/R-92/01 1 , October 1992.
                                                 18

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
        Exhibit 2-12:  Applications of Innovative Treatment Technologies at NPL Sites
     Number of
       Times
      Selected
                 VOCs

                 SVOCs

            ["I  Metals
                         Soil Vapor    Thermal      Bio-       In Situ     Solvent      Soil
                         Extraction   Oesorption   remediation    Flushing    Extraction    Washing
                                              Innovative Technology

  Note:   At some sites, treatment is for more than one contaminant and more than one treatment technology
         may be used.  Treatment may be planned, ongoing, or completed.

  Source: U.S.  EPA, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies:   Semi-Annual Status
         Report, EPA/542/R-92/011, October 1992.
During the past  four years,  the use of SVE has
increased  far  more  than any  other  innovative
technology  (Exhibit  2-13).     The  increasing
popularity of SVE is due to its low cost and the
frequent   occurrence   of  VOCs.     Although
performance varies from one application to another,
SVE often is the most  cost-effective means of
reducing the concentration of VOCs. SVE has been
selected in some cases to pretreat soils prior to
excavation or subsequent  treatment.  At two sites,
the use of SVE to enhance in situ bioremediation
(called "bioventing") is being explored.  Bioventing
optimizes  SVE  performance by  improving the
biodegradation of certain  VOCs by increasing the
air flow.   Bioventing also may increase SVE use
when VOCs and SVOCs are present. SVE removes
the VOCs, while bioventing degrades the SVOCs.
Other developments that may expand the application
of SVE include radio frequency heating, horizontal
wells, and methods to increase soil permeability.

Despite   its  frequent  selection,   SVE  is  still
considered innovative because its effectiveness has
not been confirmed for many  types of sites and
contaminants.  Only three SVE projects have been
completed  at NPL  sites  and  only  four   are
operational.  SVE is very effective in  removing
organic contaminants located in the  pore spaces of
the soil matrix or that are adsorbed onto  accessible
soil surfaces.  However, SVE  is not effective in
removing contaminants that are entrapped within the
soil matrix.   Entrapped  VOCs  are  often found at
sites with long-standing soil contamination. [9]

Bioremediation and thermal desorption appear to be
the favored  innovative technologies to  treat sites
where  VOCs occur  with SVOCs.  Bioremediation
has been chosen  22  times to treat VOCs, primarily
nonchlorinated VOCs, such as benzene.  In all but
five cases, SVOCs also are being treated. Thermal
desorption has been selected 20  times to address
VOCs, and in eight of these cases SVOCs are being
treated as well.  At five sites,  thermal desorption
has been selected to separate organics from metals
prior to  solidification/stabilization  of the  metal-
containing residuals.
                                                19

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends


  Exhibit 2-13:  Trends in the Selection of Innovative Treatment Technologies at NPL Sites
               35

               30

               25

  Number of   20
    Times
  Selected
                10
•a- Soil Vapor Extraction
    Bioremediation3
    Thermal Desorption
    Soil Washing
                        84
      35
87       88
Fiscal Year
89
                                                                                90
                                                              91
  Note:
   8  Includes sites using ex situ or in situ bioremediation of source material or in situ bioremediation of ground
      water.

  Source: U.S.  EPA, Technology Innovation  Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies:  Semi-Annual Status
2.6.2   Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
       (SVOCs)

Innovative  technologies  have been selected  to
remediate  SVOCs   at  77   sites   with  RODs.
Bioremediation  has  been  the  most  frequently
selected  innovative  technology   for   SVOCs,
accounting for 37 sites. SVE has been selected for
some of the more volatile SVOCs  (e.g., phenols and
naphthalenes) at 18 sites and thermal desorption has
been  selected for SVOCs  at  15  sites.   Other
technologies  used to treat  SVOCs are  in situ
flushing, soil washing,  solvent extraction,  and
dechlorination (not shown in the  exhibit).

Bioremediation  is  the  second  most  frequently
selected  innovative technology.  Its  selection has
remained relatively constant over the past several
years. The methods selected include land treatment,
aqueous-based in situ treatment, and slurry-phase
treatment.  Bioremediation has been selected at 27
sites  to  treat polynuclear aromatic  hydrocarbons
                         (PAHs), at 18 sites to treat other SVOCs, and at 22
                         sites with VOCs. Two bioremediation projects are
                         completed and 11 are operational. In both 1990 and
                         1991,  bioremediation was chosen  about 10 times
                         (Exhibit 2-13).

                         Since bioremediation destroys organic contaminants,
                         it has  a major advantage over other  innovative
                         technologies that rely on separation  techniques. The
                         reason that bioremediation has not been  selected
                         more often  at Superfund sites is probably because,
                         in its  current state of development, it addresses a
                         limited number of biodegradable  compounds.   It
                         also may have difficulty meeting stringent cleanup
                         levels  or may  require  long  periods of  time  to
                         achieve the required reductions. However, current
                         research efforts are likely to improve performance
                         and to expand the types of contaminants amenable
                         to biological degradation. Also, the use of air-based
                         methods—bioventing and air sparging—to provide
                         oxygen to soil and ground  water, should increase
                         the use of in situ bioremediation.
                                                20

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
Thermal  desorption  treats  a broad  spectrum of
VOCs and SVOCs.  PCBs  are treated by thermal
desorption more often than any other SVOC.  Four
thermal  desorption projects have been completed.
Thermal desorption may be  particularly well-suited
for separating organics from metals.  Soil washing
has been selected nine times to treat SVOCs, such
as PAHs,  phenols and  pesticides,  but no  soil
washing projects have been completed at Superfund
sites. Dechlorination, a form of chemical treatment,
also has been selected to treat PCBs at seven sites,
one of which has been completed. Four of these
sites concern soil, while the  remainder involved the
treatment of residues from separation  technologies.

Thermal desorption and soil washing are the most
popular   means  of  separating or concentrating
organic  waste  that require further treatment.  The
combined use of several treatment technologies in
a series (called "treatment trains") is designed to:
reduce the volume of material requiring subsequent
treatment; prevent emission of volatile contaminants
during excavation and mixing; or address multiple
contaminants within the same medium. Treatment
trains have  been selected at 43 Superfund sites
(including removal actions);  35 of these sites use
innovative  technologies for  one or more of the
treatment steps (Exhibit 2-14).  An additional eight
sites   use   established  technologies,  primarily
solidification/stabilization of  incineration residues.

2.6.3   Metals

The most frequently  selected technology for metal
waste is solidification/stabilization, which has been
selected at 128 sites.  Innovative technologies have
            Exhibit 2-14:  Treatment Trains of Innovative Treatment Technologies
                           Selected for Remedial and Removal Sites
: • ! -First ; : ;.
Technology:
Soil Washing
Thermal Desorption
Soil Vapor Extraction
Dechlorination
Solvent Extraction
Bioremediation
In Situ Flushing
Chemical Treatment
Subsequent
Technology
Bioremediation
or
Incineration
or
Solidification/Stabilization
Incineration
or
Solidification/Stabilization
or
Dechlorination
In Situ Bioremediation
or
In Situ Flushing
or
Solidification/Stabilization
or
Soil Washing
Soil Washing
Solidification/Stabilization
or
Soil Washing
or
Incineration
Solidification/Stabilization
In Situ Bioremediation
In Situ Bioremediation
Number of
Applications
7 Sites
3 Sites
1 Site
4 Sites
5 Sites
2 Sites
1 Site
1 Site
1 Site
1 Site
1 Site
2 Sites
1 Site
1 Site
2 Sites
1 Site
1 Site
Source: U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Seml-
Annual Status Report, EPA/542/R-92/011, October 1992.
                                                 21

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
been selected  at 20 sites containing metals.  Soil
washing has been selected at 10 sites to remediate
chromium, lead, copper, barium, silver, cadmium,
and arsenic.  In situ flushing has been selected at
six sites to treat chromium, lead, nickel, arsenic, and
mercury.   The application  of  this technology is
largely dependent on site hydrogeology.

No treatment technologies have  yet been selected at
NPL  sites with  low-level  radioactive  metals
combined with other hazardous constituents (known
as "mixed wastes").   In  the  past, the selected
remedy has been excavation and on-site storage or
disposal in an off-site landfill permitted to accept
such waste. DOE is testing several technologies to
address radioactive contaminants.

2.6.4   Metals and Organics Combined

Typically, treatment  trains are used  to address
media and wastes  containing  both metals  and
organics.   Some of  the most  frequently-selected
treatment trains for these  wastes using  innovative
technologies   include  soil  washing or  thermal
desorption followed by solidification/stabilization.
Solvent extraction is another technology potentially
applicable to  mixed  organic  and  metal  waste;
however,  it  has not  gained the same level of
acceptance as thermal desorption.  In a few cases,
innovative technologies have been selected to treat
both metals and organics simultaneously.  In situ
flushing is being used for both metals and organics
at three sites.   Also, in situ vitrification has been
selected for both metals and organics at three sites.

2.6.5   Waste  Matrix

Of the 210  innovative  technologies  selected  at
Superfund sites, 198  technologies concern source
control and nine technologies are for the treatment
of ground water in  situ.  The  innovative source
control technologies address soil at 83% of the sites,
sediments at 13%, sludge at 8%, and solids at 3%.
The total  exceeds 100% because each technology
may be used to treat more than one waste matrix at
a site.

The  quantities  of soil   treated by  the  various
innovative techniques varies widely from one site to
another  (Exhibit  2-15).   In  general,   in  situ
technologies such  as in situ flushing, SVE, and in
situ bioremediation can treat larger volumes of soil.
Technologies that  treat excavated wastes or require
waste post-processing (e.g., soil washing, thermal
desorption, and solvent  extraction)  generally are
selected to treat smaller amounts of soil.
  Exhibit 2-15: Quantities of Waste to be Treated By Innovative Technologies at NPL Sites
' '"'' ' ' ' ' ..'!--....-..-.. .-. 	 .-.- •
.'i',\.'":v.J[ '"" " '•' :
..... AS::.-::.::..:,:. TSCltnO 0gy


In Situ Bioremediation3
In Situ Flushing
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Washing
Thermal Desorption
Ex Situ Bioremediation
Solvent Extraction
Dechlorination
In Situ Vitrification
Number of Superfund
Sites With Data
{Without Data)
9 (2)
12 (5)
54 (29)
18 (0)
27 (0)
20 (5)
6 (0)
5 (2)
3 (0)
Quantity (Cubic Yards)
Range
5,000 - 260,000
5,200 - 650,000
70 - 300,000
1,800- 160,000
1,600- 130,000
700 - 600,000
2,000 - 67,000
700 - 50,000
2,000 - 10,000
Average Total

110,000 1,200,000
81 ,000 980,000
59,000 3,200,000
47,000 840,000
29,000 780,000
35,000 700,000
26,000 160,000
23,000 120,000
6,000 19,000
Total 8,000,000
Note:
a Does not include in situ ground water treatment.


Source: U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status
Report, EPA/542/R-92/011, October 1992.
                                                  22

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
Although  79% of  Superfund sites  with RODs
require ground water  remediation,  in situ ground
water remedies make up less than 2% of the ground
water technologies  selected  at  Superfund  sites
(Exhibit 2-16). Of the nine sites for which in situ
bioremediation for ground water has been selected,
five contain nonchlorinated volatiles (i.e., benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene), five contain SVOCs,
and one  has  chlorinated VOCs.  In most cases,
ground water  is pumped to the surface to be treated
by conventional physical/chemical methods. Some
innovative  approaches are  being  developed for
above-ground  aqueous treatment,  such as laser-
induced oxidation and solar detoxification.

Recent studies show that pump-and-treat technology
alone  is   often  insufficient  to  meet  cleanup
goals.[10]     Until  recently,   contaminants  in
unsaturated soils  were considered to be the most
significant  source of ground water contamination.
However, studies indicate that nonaqueous phase
liquids  (NAPLs) and  contaminants  captured or
sorbed by soils in the aquifer are released slowly
into the ground water.  Consequently, improved in
situ  ground  water  remediation  technologies  are
needed   to   treat   this   residual   subsurface
contamination.[ll]

2.7 Conclusions

Current  trends  in  the  selection  of  treatment
technologies in the Superfund program indicate that
established and innovative technologies are being
used  about  equally.  Although innovative  tech-
nologies are gaining popularity, in fiscal year 1991
one-half of the treatment technologies selected were
still   the   established   technologies—primarily
incineration  and solidification/stabilization.  These
technologies  are  applicable  to a wide range  of
contaminants and site characteristics.  The search
for alternatives  to incineration  has led to new
technologies;  however, the low cost  of  solid-
ification/stabilization  probably   has slowed  the
development of innovative approaches.
        Exhibit 2-16:  Ground Water Remedies at NPL Sites Through Fiscal Year 1991
                                                       In Situ Bioremediation (9) 1%

                     innovative Technologies (12) 2%   /  / Other ln Situ Treatment (3) < 1%
   Established Technologies (414) 73%
                                                                      Treatment To Be
                                                                      Determined (73) 13%
                                                                           "— Nontreatment
                                                                              Remedies (71) 12%
           Ex Situ Ground Water
           Treatment (414) 73%
  Note:   Often more than one ground water technology is selected.

  Source:  U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report,
          EPA/542/R-92/011, October 1992.
          U.S EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, ROD Annual Report: FY 1991, April 1992.
                                                23

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
The  selection  of  innovative  technologies   for
Superfund  cleanups  is  increasing and niches  for
specific technologies have begun to emerge. Most
of the innovative technologies selected treat organic
contamination.    Selection  of  SVE,  which  is
applicable  to VOCs, has increased sharply  in  the
last several years.  Enhancements, such as methods
to  increase  soil  permeability, may  expand  its
applicability   and  improve  performance.    The
selection of thermal desorption also is increasing,
but more slowly than SVE.  Applications for this
technology include VOCs, particularly when SVE is
not feasible,  and  PCBs.   Soils containing both
metals and organics—especially those with  a high
volatilization  temperature—present another major
opportunity.  The  residuals containing metals then
can be solidified/stabilized.  The increasing use of
thermal desorption is part of a trend toward greater
use of treatment trains.

Bioremediation  is the  second  most  frequently
selected innovative technology and its selection has
remained constant over the past several years. This
trend may  reflect a limitation in the number of sites
with   contaminants   that   can  be  treated  by
bioremediation in  its current state of development.
Current research into bioremediation, and more use
of air-based methods (e.g., bioventing, air sparging)
to aerate soil and ground water in place, are likely
to improve performance and to expand the types of
contaminants amenable to biological degradation.
Of  the  other  technologies  selected to treat only
organic  compounds,  dechlorination  and  solvent
extraction  have  been  selected  at  a  few  sites,
primarily to treat PCBs. A small number of in situ
ground  water treatment  technologies  have  been
selected to treat organic compounds.  This indicates
a lack of demonstrated in  situ treatment options.

Few  innovative  treatment  methods  are being
selected  for metals.  Soil washing, a preprocessing
technology, is being selected  to concentrate either
metals or SVOCs present in soil.  In situ flushing
has been selected for both metals and organics. In
situ vitrification also has been selected at a handful
of sites  to treat organics, metals, or  both.  New
separation technologies are needed to reduce waste
quantities and allow recycling of metals.

Historical  trends can  serve as  a guide to future
selection trends.  However, the hazardous waste
remediation industry is evolving rapidly as a result
of research and experience.  Consequently, future
applications will probably vary from current trends.
                                                  24

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends


2.8 References

1.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial  Response, "Final Rule,
    National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites," 57 Federal Register, pg. 47180, October
    14, 1992.

2.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, "The Superfund Innovative
    Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles", Fifth Edition, EPA/540/R-92/077, December 1992.

3.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "Furthering the
    Use of Innovative Treatment Technologies in OSWER Programs," OSWER Directive 9380.0-17, June 10,
    1991.

4.   U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation Office, "Selected Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and
    Site Remediation (A Bibliography of Information Sources)," EPA/542/B-93/001, January 1993.

5.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  et  al, "Federal Publications on Alternative and Innovative
    Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and Site Remediation," Second Edition, prepared by the
    member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable,  1992.

6.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 'Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Volume 1 A: Laboratory
    Manual, Physical/Chemical Methods," Third Edition, Proposal Update Package, NTTS No. PB89-148076,
    November 1987.

7.   U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation Office, "Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report," EPA/542/R-92/011,
    October 1992.

8.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "Fourth Quarter FY
    92 Superfund Management Report," December 1992.

9.   U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National  Laboratory, "An  Evaluation of Vapor Extraction of
    Vadose Zone Contamination," ORNL/TM-12117, May 1992.

10. U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "Evaluation of
    Ground Water Extraction Remedies: Phase U," Volume 1, November 1991.

11. U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation Office, "In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Ground Water: An Inventory of Research and Field
    Demonstrations and Strategies for Improving Ground-Water Remediation Technologies," Presented at the
    Air and Waste Management Association/U.S. EPA Symposium on Site Treatment of Contaminated Soil
    and Water, February 4-6, 1992.
                                              25

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                                      CHAPTER 3
          DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
                AT NATIONAL  PRIORITIES LIST SITES
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and  Liability Act  (CERCLA)  of
1980, known  as Superfund,  EPA  manages  or
oversees  the  cleanup  of  some  of  the  most
contaminated abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the nation.a  As of September 30, 1992, EPA has
listed 1,275 sites on the National Priorities List
(NPL), and forty sites have been deleted (usually
because cleanup is completed), resulting in a current
total of l,235.b Also, it is anticipated that between
400 and 800 additional  sites will be added by the
year  2000.    Although  this  number  is  small
compared to the number of sites addressed through
other programs  (e.g.,  RCRA  corrective  action,
leaking underground storage tank, federal and state
remediation programs), these sites are an important
market for  remediation technologies.   Because
Superfund sites  are generally at later stages  of
decision-making  or  cleanup, they  represent  a
relatively large market in the near term, as well as
a  valuable  source   of   site   characterization
information.

In this report, the Superfund market for remediation
technologies is divided into three segments—short-
term demand, intermediate-term demand, and long-
term demand (Exhibit 3-1). The short-term demand,
which includes sites where remedies  have already
been selected, is  discussed at length in  Chapter 2.
The  intermediate-term  demand  consists of those
NPL sites where remedies have not been selected.
This chapter presents  analyses of  the  number,
location, and size of these sites and the types of
contaminants  and   matrices    present.     This
information  is  used  to  indicate  the potential
intermediate-term demand  for  specific  cleanup
technologies. The long-term demand includes sites
anticipated to be listed on the NPL through the year
2000.   Because these  sites have not yet been
identified, the numbers of sites presented here are
estimated.

This chapter also presents estimates of the cost of
cleaning up EPA sites; programmatic factors that
may affect the NPL  market; and other factors
affecting remedy  selection, remedy design, and
procurement.

3.1 Factors Affecting Demand for NPL Site
    Cleanup

Some of the factors that impact estimates of NPL
cleanup demand are discussed below.

 •  As of the end of fiscal year 1991, 523 sites did
    not have a signed ROD.  These sites are the
    basis for most  of the analysis  in this chapter.
    Subsequent to this analysis, in fiscal year 1992,
    EPA signed RODs for about 80 of these sites.

 •  The EPA has conducted 2,155 removal actions
    at both NPL and non-NPL sites. It is difficult
    to predict the number, type, and timing of the
    cleanup of these sites.  Removals, which are
    usually limited to one  year and $2 million,
    historically  have  relied less  on  innovative
    technologies than have  longer  term  remedial
    actions.  Because  only about  18  innovative
    technologies have  been  used  for  removal
    actions to date, data on removal actions are not
    included in this report. [2]

 •  Federal, state, and PRP funding for Superfund
    site cleanups may fluctuate in the future.  For
    Superfund remedial action, the states contribute
    10% of  the construction and operation costs.
    Also, PRP contributions to site remediation may
    be affected by business conditions.
a   Chapter 2 provides a description of CERCLA and the Superfund process.

b   Subsequent to this analysis, these totals have changed slightly, because sites have been added and deleted from the
NPL.  These changes are not likely to affect the findings of this study.fl]

                                               27

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
          Exhibit 3-1:  Demand for All Types of Remediation Services at NPL Sites
Current Status of Sites
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
Site
Discovery
/
1 1 1 1
PA/SI Listed RI/FS ROD Signed
on NPL
Long Term v / Intermediate Term x 7
Potential Demand
400-800 sites
anticipated to be
listed on NPL in
the future
/ \ / \
Potential Demand
523-738 sites that
require remedy
selection
1 1
RD RA
Short Term v |
/ \
Actual Demand ;
550 sites in i
remedial design
  Notes:
   •  Data as of September 30, 1991.
   •  Short term includes National Priorities  List (NPL) sites for which  some type of technology  (including
     treatment, containment, and disposal) will be implemented  within three to four years.  Intermediate term
     includes NPL sites for which remedies were not selected as of September 30,  1991.  Remedial actions are
     expected to be implemented within three to eight years. Long term includes sites anticipated to be added to
     the NPL by the year 2000, and to be remediated in 8 to 16 years.
   •  Status of cleanup:
         PA     Preliminary Assessment                          ROD
         SI      Site Inspection                                  RD
         RI/FS   Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study            RA
               Record of Decision
               Remedial Design
               Remedial Action
3.2 Summary of Methods

The demand for remediation services at NPL sites
is estimated from information on the characteristics,
status, and technology trends for sites currently on
the NPL.  The following analyses were conducted:

•  General   site   descriptions,   sources   of
    contamination,  types  of  contaminants,  and
    matrices contaminated for the 523 sites without
    RODs,  were  derived  from  site assessment
    (PA/SI) data as of the end of fiscal year 1991.
    These data were extracted from the descriptions
    published when a site is proposed for addition
    to the NPL.C During a PA/SI, a limited number
of samples of ground water, soil, sludge, or
other potentially contaminated  material  are
taken and analyzed for the presence of priority
pollutants.  Information also is gathered on the
potential sources of the contamination.

Information on the  characteristics of the NPL
sites with RODs were derived directly from the
RODs.    RODs usually  include summary
information on  the extent  of contamination
(contaminants, concentrations, and quantities)
obtained from the RI/FS. The ROD data were
compared to the PA/SI site characteristics and
used to characterize the matrices that  may
require remediation at intermediate-term sites.
0   Information on these sites is listed in Appendix A, Exhibit A-3.

                                                 28

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
 »  Information from RODs is  used  to
    estimate the quantities of waste at the
    sites  without  RODs.   This step  is
    necessary   because    the   PA/SI
    information  is  not  sufficient   to
    estimate quantities  of contaminated
    materials to be remediated.

Other  sources  of information  include
References two through seven, which are
listed in Section 3.9, References.
3.3 Major Components
    Market
of the  NPL
For this report, the Superfund market for
remedial technologies  has been divided
according to the approximate time period
in which most of  the remedial  work is
likely to be done.  Exhibit 3-1 shows the
number of  sites  in  each NPL market
component. Although the number of these
sites that will use innovative technologies
is uncertain, projections  are  shown  in
Exhibit 3-2.  These projections are  based
on  technology selection  trends over the
past  year   and   are  believed  to   be
conservative, since  the  relative use  of
these technologies has been growing. The
scope  of these markets  is summarized
below.

3 J.I   Short-Term Demand

Short-term   demand   for  remedial
technologies arises from  the NPL sites
where  some type of remedial technology
has been specified in a ROD, but has not
yet  been  implemented.    Chapter   2
addresses  the  technologies  selected for
sites with RODs through September 30,
1991.

Most sites for which remedies have been
selected, but not  implemented,  are  in
remedial  design   (RD).     Based   on
CERCLJS, about 550 NPL sites were in
RD  as of September 30,  1991.[8]   EPA
estimates that most of these 550 sites will
enter  the remedial action  (RA)  phase
within the next three or four years. Although the
selection of a cleanup contractor for EPA-lead sites
typically occurs after the RD has been completed,
                     Exhibit 3-2:  Minimum Demand for Innovative
                                Treatment at NPL Sites
                                 Short Term Demand for
                                 Remediation (550 Sites)
                         Sites using
                         innovative treatment
                         (vendor selected)a
Sites using
innovative treatment
(vendor not selected
as of October, 1992)b
                               23
                           Estimated Intermediate Term Demand
                              for Remediation (523-738 Sites)
                                             157-221
                           Sites expected to
                           use innovative
                           treatmentc	
                           Estimated Long Term Demand for
                              Remediation (400-800 Sites)
                                             120-240
                           Sites expected to
                           use innovative
                           treatmentr
                  Notes:
                    a Includes three sites using in situ ground water technology.
                      Includes nine sites using in situ ground water technology.
                    c Based on recent trends that indicate that at least 30% of
                      future sites will use innovative technologies.
                          vendors have been chosen for some of the 550 sites.
                          As of October 1992, a total  of  158 innovative
                          technology applications had been selected for 127
                                               29

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
of these sites (Exhibit 3-2).  For at least 23 of these
sites,  RPs  have already selected  vendors.   The
number of the other 423 sites that have designated
vendors  is  not known.   These  423  sites  are
considered to be a portion of the short-term demand
for remedial technologies.

3.3.2    Intermediate-Term Demand

Intermediate-term demand  includes  an  estimated
523-738 NPL  sites that will begin remedial action
in three to eight years (Exhibit 3-2). The minimum
number, 523,  represents sites for which remedies
have not been chosen.  In addition, 215 sites for
which a ROD has been signed will require at least
one additional ROD to complete the cleanups. [3]

The  number  of remedial  projects that  will  use
innovative technologies is estimated based on recent
trends.  Last year, 30% of the RODs for NPL sites
have  selected  at least one  innovative treatment
technology  for source  control. [2]  Because  the
selection and  use of innovative technologies for
source  control has been  increasing steadily, the
estimate that  30%  of  future  sites will  apply
innovative  technologies is considered a reasonable
minimum.  Thus approximately 157-221 sites will
use innovative technologies.  These projections do
not  include in situ  ground water remediation.
Although in situ ground water treatment represents
a large potential market for innovative technologies,
the data do not allow accurate predictions of this
demand.

3.3.3   Long-Term Demand

The NPL is expected to grow by  50-100 sites per
year,  potentially  reaching  2,000  sites   (or  an
additional 400-800 sites) by the year 2000.  These
sites  are considered  the  long-term demand  for
remediation.  Cleanups for these sites will begin in
eight to 16 years.

Because there are little data available for long-term
sites, most of the remaining analysis in this chapter
relies on  data from  the  intermediate-term  sites.
Although the general nature of the long-term sites
 is expected to be similar to that of the intermediate-
 term sites, the characteristics  of these sites may
 differ somewhat from those currently on the NPL,
 because future sites will be evaluated under the new
 Hazard Ranking System (HRS). The sites currently
 listed on the NPL were ranked under the original
HRS, which emphasized exposure to contaminated
ground water.  The revised HRS also ranks sites for
soil  exposure  and other new factors. [9]  Using
the 30%  estimate, 120-240  long-term  sites will
initiate cleanup using innovative  technologies for
source control.

3.4 Characteristics of Intermediate-Term
    Demand Sites

Exhibit 3-3 presents the geographical location of the
523 sites that do not have signed RODs.  The data
reflect the industrialized nature of these regions and
the number of abandoned industrial and commercial
facilities.  Michigan, New Jersey, and New York
alone account for 30% of these NPL sites.

Appendix A, Exhibit A-3 lists the state, contaminant
groups, and matrix of concern available  from site
assessments, as well  as the planned date for signing
the ROD for the  523 sites.  Because further site
characterization and risk assessment are required to
determine  which wastes  will   actually require
remediation, these data  serve only as an overall
indication of the nature of site contamination. The
characteristics of these sites  are presented in this
section.

3.4.1   Types of Contaminated Matrices

Based on data from the 712 NPL  sites with RODs,
an estimated 80% of intermediate-demand sites may
require remediation  of ground water,  74% of soil,
15% of sediments, and 10%  of sludge.   Available
data do not allow estimates of the number of sites
containing other types of wastes,  such as  waste
piles, mine tailings, and liquid wastes. Because the
original HRS emphasized ground water,  the PA/SI
data  may  not account  for other contaminated
matrices at these sites.  By contrast, the  ROD data
consist of information gathered in the more detailed
RIs, and are more likely to represent the occurrence
of all contaminated matrices at all NPL sites.  Thus,
ROD data were used to characterize contaminated
matrices at intermediate-term sites.

3.4.2   General Site Descriptions and
         Contaminant Sources

 Exhibit 3-4 summarizes the ownership and historical
 uses  of  the  523  NPL  sites  for  which  remedy
 selections are  still pending.  This exhibit lists the
 most  prevalent  activities   at  these   sites  (as
                                                  30

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                      Exhibit 3-3:  Location of NPL Sites Without RODs
  Notes:  Includes 523 National Priorities List (NPL) sites without Records of Decision. Roman numerals indicate
         U.S. EPA Regions.

  Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, CERCLIS Database, 1992.
documented in the  PA/SIs),  and, thus, activities
most  likely to have resulted  in  contamination.
Appendix D provides descriptions  of industries
represented by each source in the exhibit.

Most  of  the  sites   were industrially  owned or
operated, and a variety of industrial activities are
represented. According to the available data, 60%
of the sites  contain waste from only one type of
industry. However, these data may oversimplify the
complexity  of  Superfund   site  contamination,
because the PA/SI may not  identify all prior site
uses and sources of contamination.  Also, many
types  of contaminants may be associated with the
same  industrial source.

3.4.3    Types of Contaminants

The types of contaminants present play a major role
in the selection of a technology.  For the 523 sites
without RODs, the  PA/SIs are the only source of
readily available data.  However, the PA/SI data are
best used  to  provide  a  general  indication of
contaminant  frequency.     Further  site-specific
analysis may reveal that these contaminants are not
a threat and do not require treatment.  To aid in
interpreting the PA/SI data, the ROD data (based on
the 712 NPL sites with RODs discussed in Chapter
2) were compared with the data for 523 NPL sites
without RODs. RODs document contaminants that
pose a threat and require remediation.

3.4.3.1  Major Contaminant Groups

Exhibit 3-5 presents the frequency of occurrence of
the major  contaminant groups  at the  523  sites
without RODs. The exhibit presents the number of
sites with one group, the occurrence of two groups
at the same site, and the occurrence of three groups.

A similar analysis  was conducted for sites  with
signed RODs, and is discussed in Section 2.4 of this
                                                31

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
Exhibit 3-4: Summary of NPL Site Descriptions and Sources of Waste for Sites Without RODs
                     SITE
                 DESCRIPTION
           Industrially Owned or Operated
           Facilities

           Commercial Hazardous Waste
           Management Facilities

           Federal Facilities

           Uncontrolled Dump Sites

           Municipal Landfills

           Recycling/Reclamation
           Facilities
NUMBER
OF SITES
  239



   93

   78

   54

   49


   10
                  TOTAL SITES'
  523
INDUSTRIAL SOURCES
OF WASTE
Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Fabricated Metal Products
Metal Plating
Electronic/Electrical Equipment
Manufacturing (mostly semiconductor)
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
Paints and Coatings Manufacturing
Agricultural Production and Services
Primary Metal Products Manufacturing
Wood Preserving Processes
Rubber and Plastics Products
Manufacturing
Petroleum Refining
Solvent Reclamation
Used Oil Reclamation
Other Sources b
Other Manufacturing
NUMBER
OF SITES
70
64
41
41
32
27
27
23
20 a
19
15
15
13
62
201
TOTAL OCCURRENCES e
                                                                                       670
  Notes:
    a U.S. EPA anticipates that this number may increase as a result of the Wood Preserving Final Rule (Federal
      Register, Vol. 55, No. 235).
    b Other sources include:  metals mining (11), non-metals mining (6), oil and gas (3), construction (3), and not
      specified (39).
    0 Type of manufacturing was not specified in the site descriptions.
    d One site description was assigned for each site.
    e Out of 523 National Priorities List sites without Records of Decision, industrial sources were available for
      446 sites,  two industrial sources were identified for 126 sites, and three sources for 49 sites, for a total of
      670 sources.

  Source: U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation Office, site assessment data, 1992.
 report.  A comparison of the data in Exhibits 2-8
 and 3-5 shows some significant differences  in the
 types and combinations of contaminants present.

 The major  differences in the data are with semi-
 volatile organic chemicals  (SVOCs) and with the
 combined  occurrence of all three groups.   PA/SI
 data show SVOCs occurring at a relatively low 28%
                 of sites with  a relatively  frequent  occurrence  of
                 single contaminant groups, while sites with RODs
                 show SVOCs occur 73% of the time with a high
                 incidence of  all  three  groups  together.   It  is
                 uncertain  whether these  differences  occur because
                 site characteristics are actually different or because
                 the site characterization processes are different. The
                 differences may be explained, in part, by the fact
                                                  32

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
Exhibit 3-5:  Frequency of Volatile Organic Compounds, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds,
                           and Metals at NPL Sites Without RODsa
                     200n
                      150
        Number
        of Sites      100-
                      50
58%
^sussxssifssaiseasaistussssfsi:
139


110
/~~~


5
£=
                                                    31%
                Total VOCs = 318
                Total SVOCs-143
                Total Metals = 277
                                                                 8%
                                      Contaminant Groups
  Notes:
   a  Includes 517  National Priorities  List sites without Records of  Decision.  Contaminant information is  not
      available for 6 sites. Each site is counted only once.
   b  Includes 18 sites that contain only explosives, radon,  nitrates, or other inorganics.

  Source: U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation Office, site assessment data, 1992.
that most of the PA/SI data reported  under the
original site scoring process  are associated  with
ground water impacts.  More SVOCs are likely to
be found during the RI/FS, when a more thorough
investigation of soil and sediments  is conducted.
However, it is also possible that because of EPA's
policy of cleaning up the worst Superfund sites first,
the NPL sites with RODs signed prior to fiscal year
1991 actually are different from the remaining sites
and contain more complex wastes.

Considering the overall higher values of the ROD
data, EPA believes that the PA/SI data indicate the
minimum overall occurrence of contaminants that
need to be remediated. The RI/FS data will indicate
a greater frequency of these  contaminant groups.
However, for a specific site,  the RI/FS data may
indicate that  some  contaminants identified in the
PA/SI will not require remediation.
3.4.3.2  Subgroups of Volatile and Semi-Volatile
        Organics

Volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) and SVQCs are
subdivided into more specific treatability subgroups
that better coincide with the application of certain
technologies, such as bioremediation.  The PA/SI
data were collected  to  conduct a more detailed
analysis of the following contaminant subgroups:

 •  VOC subgroups: chlorinated; BTEX (benzene,
    toluene,  ethylbenzene,  xylene);  and other
    nonchlorinated   (ketones   and   alcohols).
    Chlorinated VOCs, widely used as solvents, are
    the most prevalent class of organics, present at
    223  (43%)  of  NPL  sites without  RODs.
    Because  listing  sites on  the  NPL that are
    contaminated with petroleum products alone is
    prohibited under CERCLA, it is reasonable to
                                                33

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
   assume that  contaminants other than BTEX
   were present  and contributed to site listing.

 • SVOCs subgroups:  polychlorinated biphenyls
   (PCBs),  polynuclear  aromatic  hydrocarbons
   (PAHs),   pesticides,   phenols   (including
   pentachlorophenol), and other SVOCs,  which
   includes chlorobenzene and phthalates.  PCBs,
   the most  common SVOC, are  present at  61
   sites. Pesticides are found at 50 sites, PAHs at
   only 24 sites, and phenols at 22 sites.

Exhibit 3-6 shows the frequency of occurrence of
these  subgroups  at  the  523  NPL  sites.  Each
subgroup was counted only once per site, regardless
of whether it occurred alone, with other types of
contaminants, or in more than one matrix.  Because
more than one contaminant subgroup can be present
at a site, the total number  of occurrences is greater
than the total  number of sites.
3.4.3.3 Most Common Individual Contaminants

Exhibit 3-7 shows the 11 contaminants that occur
most frequently at the NPL sites without RODs. Of
the 11 constituents, six are VOCs, four are metals,
and only one is a SVOC.  (As noted for previous
analyses, a contaminant is counted no more  than
once for each site and more than one contaminant
can occur per site).   A similar analysis conducted
for  sites   with  RODs  reveals  the   same  11
contaminants.

3.4.4   Estimated Quantities of Contaminated
       Material

The market also can be described in terms of the
quantity of contaminated material to be remediated.
Estimates  of quantities of contaminated material at
sites without RODs  (for which an RI/FS has not
been completed) were developed by using data from
                Exhibit 3-6: Frequency of Contaminant Subgroups Present in
                           All Matrices at NPL Sites Without RODs3
                   400-
                   300-
                                                                 277
         Number
         of Sites    20°
                    100-
                                                                          p  SVOCs
                                                                          n  Metals
                         v*
           s
                                 Contaminant Subgroups
  Notes:
    a Includes 517 out of 523 National Priorities List sites without Records of Decision.  Contaminant information
      at 18 of these sites do not fall into these subgroups and site assessment information is not available for 6
      sites.  A site may contain one or more of the nine contaminant subgroups.

  Source: U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation Office, site assessment data, 1992.
                                                34

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
              Exhibit 3-7: Frequency of the Most Common Contaminants in All
                             Matrices at NPL Sites Without RODs
                  200
        Number
        of Sites
                                                                            LEGEND
                       m vocs
                       n svocs
                       E3 Metals
                                       Contaminants
  Notes:
   a Includes 517 out of 523 National Priorities List sites without Records of Decision. Contaminant information
     at is not available for 6 sites.  There may be one or more of these contaminants at each site.

  Source: U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation Office, site assessment data, 1992.
sites with RODs.  Information on the quantities of
soil, sludge,  or sediment  to  be  remediated by
treatment,  containment,  or off-site disposal  is
available for 310 sites of the 712 sites with RODs.
The data from these 310 sites are used to estimate
and characterize the quantities of material requiring
some type of remediation. Statistical outliers in the
data were eliminated.  The resulting characterization
is described below.

3.4.4.1  Distribution of Quantities

The distribution of the total quantities per site of
contaminated soil,  sediment, and sludge requiring
remediation are presented in Exhibit 3-8. Based on
these estimates, approximately one-half of the 310
sites contain  less  than 10,000 cubic yards, 20%
contain 10,000 to 30,000 cubic yards, and only 11%
of the  sites contain over 100,000 cubic yards of
contaminated material.   These data  indicate  an
appreciable  market  for  technologies  thaj can
effectively  treat small quantities of contaminated
media.  However, reviews of RODs indicate that
quantities  of waste to  be  capped often  are not
documented in the ROD. Therefore, the proportion
of sites that contain large quantities of wastes may
be greater than the data demonstrate. The  quantity
distributions for soil, sediment, and sludge shown in
Appendix A, Exhibit A-4, indicate that almost 75%
of the data are for contaminated soil.

3.4.4.2  Quantities by Major Contaminant Group

Estimates  of the  quantities of contaminated soil,
sediment, and sludge at the 523 sites without RODs
can be calculated for the three contaminant groups.
These values are derived by multiplying the average
quantities  for the 310  sites  with RODs by the
number of NPL sites without RODs that contain
those contaminant groups (from Exhibit 3-5).
                                                35

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
              Exhibit 3-8:  Distribution of Total Quantities of Contaminated Soil,
                   Sediment, and Sludge at Selected NPL Sites With RODs
                                   (Estimated Cubic Yards)
                          > 100,000 (11%)
                                                         /< 1,000 (15%)
          50,001 -100,000(9%)
       30,001 -50,000(13%)—
                                                                   —1,000-5,000(19%)
                                                            \
                  10,001 -30,000(20%)
                                                              5,001 -10,000(13%)
  Note:
Data are derived from 342 Records of Decision for 310 National Priorities List sites.  Quantities are for
material to be remediated by treatment, containment, and disposal.  Quantity data for the other 402
sites that have RODs are not available.
  Source: U.S. EPA, RODs, fiscal years 1982-1991.
The  results of  the  calculations  are  shown  in
Appendix A, Exhibit A-5.  It was assumed that all
of the contaminated material at a site contained the
contaminant groups present.   The average site
quantities by contaminant group varied from a low
of 13,700 cubic yards for VOCs alone to a high  of
102,400 cubic yards for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals
found  together.    Statistical outliers  were not
included in the calculations.

Total quantities  are shown in Exhibit 3-9.  The
values  are  estimates  of the total  amount  of
contaminated  material   present  that   will   be
remediated by being either treated or disposed.

Approximately  25.6 million cubic yards  of soil,
sludge,  and sediment are to be remediated  at the
523  sites without RODs.  Metals, alone  and  in
combination with other contaminants, account for
20.5  million  cubic  yards.   VOCs,  alone and
combined  with  other   contaminants,  total  13.9
million cubic yards; and SVOCs total 7.25  million
cubic yards.   The overall  quantities for material
contaminated with metals, VOCs,  and SVOCs are
directly  proportional   to   their   frequency  of
occurrence (Exhibit 3-5).
                                          3.4.4.3 Quantities by Contaminant Source

                                          The quantity data also were sorted according to the
                                          10   most   common   industrial   sources   of
                                          contamination (Exhibit 3-10). Three of the top four,
                                          and four of the top six sources generate  waste
                                          containing metals or solvents.

                                          The  average  waste quantity  for each source  of
                                          contamination  was estimated  by using the  entire
                                          quantity of waste at each corresponding site. If a
                                          site had more than one source,  the quantity was
                                          counted again for each source.  Therefore, the totals
                                          are not additive.  Total  and average quantities  by
                                          each source of contamination are calculated, then
                                          the averages are multiplied by the number of NPL
                                          sites without RODs for each source category. The
                                          average quantities  for each site source,  shown in
                                          Appendix A, Exhibit A-6, ranged  from a low of
                                          26,500  cubic  yards   for   electronic/electrical
                                          equipment manufacturing to a high of 578,400 cubic
                                          yards for fabricated metal products manufacturing
                                          sites.  The highest  estimated total quantities are for
                                          primary metal products manufacturing (primarily ore
                                          processing facilities), followed by metal plating and
                                          agricultural production and services.
                                                36

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends


        Exhibit 3-9:  Estimated Quantity of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Sludge
                  By  Major Contaminant Groups at NPL Sites Without RODsa
             Cubic
             Yards
           (x 1,000)
                        10,000 -
                         8,000 -
                         6,000 -
                         4,000 -
                         2,000 -
                                                       Total = 25.6 million cubic yards
                              *»*
   f   /   ^
                                         Contaminant Groups

  Notes:
    8  Includes 517 out of 523 National Priorities List sites without Records of Decision.  Contaminant information
      is not available for 6 sites.  A site is counted only once.  Site-specific data are not available for quantities of
      material to be remediated at sites without RODs.  These values are derived from ROD estimates for sites
      containing similar contaminants (see Appendix A, Table A-6 for supporting calculations).
    b  Includes 18 sites that contain only explosives, radon, nitrates, or other organics.

  Source:  U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation Office, assessment data, 1992.
3.5 Intermediate-Term  Demand for  Remedial
    Technologies

The potential intermediate-term market for specific
treatment  technologies can be projected from the
study of site contaminants above and the trends in
technology selection discussed in Chapter 2.  This
analysis primarily considers contaminants present at
a site, and does not explicitly incorporate other site
characteristics that also affect technology selection.
Although  these  observations  are  supported  by
current  technology  trends, further experience with
these technologies  and the development of new
methods (such as those in the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation [SITE] program) also will
affect the types of remedies selected.  Given these
considerations,  the  data  indicate  the following
projections for the potential  markets for certain
treatment technologies:

•   In the past several years, there has been a slight
    decrease in the proportion of sites for which
    incineration has been selected, and in 1991, the
    selection  of  on-site   incineration   dropped
                                                 37

-------
           Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
        Exhibit 3-10: Estimated Quantity of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Sludge
                 By Sources of Contamination at NPL Sites Without RODsa b
                15000  —i
                10000  -
                  5000  -
Notes:
  * Site-specific data are  not available for quantities of material to be remediated at sites without Records of
    Decision  (ROD).  These values are derived  from  ROD  estimates for sites with similar sources of
    contamination.  Quantities are not totaled because some sites have more than one source.
  b Includes 449 out of 523 National Priorities List sites without RODs.  Source of contaminant information is
    not available for 74 sites.  Some sites have been counted more than once (see Appendix  A, Table A-5 for
    supporting calculations).

Source:  U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation Office, site assessment data, 1992.
        U.S. EPA, RODs, fiscal years 1982-1991.
  sharply.    Also,  SVOCs,  the  most  likely
  candidates  for  incineration,   do  not  occur
  frequently at intermediate-demand sites.  These
  factors may lead to  an overall decrease in the
  use   of  incineration  at  Superfund   sites.
  However, because of its  broad application to
  organic contaminants and its  ability to meet
  stringent  cleanup   levels,  incineration  will
  probably  continue to  play  a role in future
  Superfund cleanups. While off-site incineration
  is likely to continue to be used  to treat small
  quantities  of  concentrated  waste, including
  residuals  of separation technologies, the future
  use of on-site incineration is uncertain.
The  selection  of  solidification/stabilization,
which accounts for about 25%  of treatment
technologies, has been steady.  This technology
is the most common treatment for metals, which
occur at 277 intermediate-demand sites. These
data indicate a considerable market for solidifi-
cation/stabilization.  Concerns over  its  long-
term effectiveness may lead to the development
of innovative alternatives to this technology.

The selection of SVE, chosen 83  times at NPL
sites, has expanded in recent years.  SVE is the
most frequently chosen technology  for both
chlorinated  and nonchlorinated VOCs in soil.
                                                38

-------
         Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
VOCs occur at a minimum of 318 intermediate-
term NPL sites, and in at least 14 million cubic
yards of contaminated material. In addition to
the use of SVE for contaminant removal, at
least 91 of the sites containing BTEX offer an
opportunity to augment SVE with bioventing.
SVE also can operate in the presence of metals:
the 107 sites that have VOCs and metals in 7
million cubic yards of material may use SVE
for pretreatment.  Based on these data, the use
of SVE is likely to continue at its high level,
and may  even increase.  In addition, further
development of this technology, and potentially
bioventing for SVOCs, is expected to expand
the  application of  SVE  to  sites  not  now
amenable  to this technology.

Bioremediation has been selected for NPL sites
45  times,  and for the past several years its use
has not increased.   Historically, the primary
demand  for bioremediation (land  treatment,
slurry  phase,  and  some  types of in  situ
treatment) has been for PAHs, phenols,  and
nonchlorinated VOCs, primarily BTEX.  PAHs
were identified at only 24 sites, phenols at 22
sites, and BTEX  at 91  sites.   These data
indicate that the  previously-selected forms of
bioremediation at  NPL sites are not  likely to
increase above current levels. However, several
developments may lead to growth in the use of
biotreatment:      extensive  research   into
bioremediation to  increase the range  of its
application;  the  use  of  air-based  aeration
methods  (bioventing  and  air sparging);  and
additional  future  listings  of wood  preserving
sites on the NPL.

Thermal desorption has been chosen a total of
27  times,  and its selection is increasing.  It has
been selected  primarily  to treat PCBs  and
VOCs,  alone or in the presence  of metals.
VOCs  are present at a  minimum of  318
intermediate-term  sites  containing  14 million
cubic yards of material. VOCs with metals are
present in 7.2 million cubic yards of material at
107 of these sites.  PCBs are found at 61 sites.
Based  on  these  data,  the use  of thermal
desorption may increase for these applications.

PCBs  are also the primary niche for solvent
extraction (selected six times)  and chemical
dechlorination  (selected seven times).  These
   technologies may apply to some of the 61 PCB
   sites   to   treat   soil,   or   in  the  case   of
   dechlorination,  liquid  residuals   of thermal
   desorption  or solvent  extraction.   However,
   limited experience  with  these  technologies
   makes it difficult to predict the  extent of future
   applications, particularly for contaminated soils.

 • Soil  washing  also  has  been  selected  for
   treatment  of  PAHs  and  pesticides,  but  its
   greatest future niche may be to  treat metals,
   which occur in over 20 million cubic yards of
   material at a minimum of 277 intermediate-term
   sites.  Soil washing has been chosen to treat all
   of the most frequently found metals:   lead,
   chromium, arsenic, and cadmium.

 • In situ flushing has been selected at a total of
    17 sites to treat  VOCs (11 sites)  and SVOCs
   (six sites). This technology may be selected for
   these   groups   of   contaminants  if   other
   technologies  prove impractical,   such as  at
   landfills,   and when   site  conditions  allow
   recovery of flushed contaminants.

 • Innovative technologies have been selected to
    address metals at only 20  sites,  even  though
   metals occur frequently and in large quantities
   at NPL sites. This represents an opportunity to
   develop methods to  separate and,  perhaps,
   recycle   metals,   as   an   alternative   to
    solidification/stabilization.

 • Lastly, another  large  market  exists  for  the
   treatment of ground water in place, to achieve
    the desired cleanup goals  that in many cases
    cannot  be  achieved   by   pump-and-treat
    technology alone.

3.6 Estimated EPA  Cleanup Costs

EPA has not estimated the  total public and private
costs  of remediating  current and future NPL sites.
EPA has estimated the Agency's future cost, known
as the "Trust Fund liability," to complete the
cleanup of sites currently on the NPL.  For fiscal
year 1994 and beyond, the estimate is $16.5 billion
for all costs incurred by EPA for work from PA
through RA and operation  and maintenance.  This
cost includes direct and indirect site activities, over-
sight  of PRP activities, and program  support.  For
fiscal year 1993, Congress allocated $1.6 billion.
                                             39

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
The estimate of future EPA costs does not include
cleanup of the 400-800 sites anticipated to be added
to the NPL in the future.  Nor does it include costs
incurred by PRPs, other federal agencies, or states.
EPA will be responsible for starting only about 35%
of all new RI/FSs, and about 25% of RAs.  PRPs
will be responsible for most RI/FS and RA costs for
NPL sites. Because it is  not known whether PRP-
lead cleanups are more or less expensive than fund-
lead, projecting the value  of this market is difficult.

Based on an analysis of fiscal year 1991 RODs,
EPA estimates that the average cost of conducting
a site cleanup is $27 million.  The average cost for
EPA to conduct one RA  is $13.2 million, and the
historical  average number of RAs per site is 1.8.
The average RA cost includes work  conducted by
the cleanup contractors,  oversight  by EPA, and
initial operation and maintenance costs.

3.7 Marketing Considerations

Although  the  overall  market for  remediation
services at about 2,000 NPL sites has been  fairly
well  described,  the  specific  technologies to be
applied at each site have not been determined. The
technology  decisions  will  be  based  on  the
information available, and there are  two points in
the decision-making process at which information
on  new technologies  is  critical:   during remedy
selection,   and  during   remedy   design   and
procurement.  Thus, technology vendors must be
aware of the information sources as well as how site
managers consider their  options during  these two
cleanup phases.

3.7.1   Market Considerations During Remedy
        Selection

The  Superfund RI/FS process is  an  integrated,
phased approach to characterizing the site risks and
evaluating remedial alternatives. In developing and
screening remedial alternatives,  technologies are
initially identified  and  screened based on three
criteria: technical implementability, effectiveness,
and relative cost.  It is often at this early stage of
the RI/FS that a particular technology is included or
excluded from further consideration. EPA uses a
variety of information sources to  identify potential
technologies, including innovative ones.  Following
the  identification and  screening of  alternatives, a
detailed comparative evaluation is conducted, using
 the nine evaluation criteria specified in the National
Contingency  Plan.  Information  on  technology
performance and cost is important during this phase.
Since this type of information is often lacking for
innovative technologies, treatability  studies or on-
site demonstrations are beneficial for assessing cost
and performance.

Engineering consulting firms generally conduct the
RI/FSs for EPA, states, and responsible parties. The
familiarity of a consulting engineer with a specific
technology may impact whether the technology is
considered,  and   the  weight  placed  on  that
technology during the screening process.  At this
time, EPA contracts under the Alternative Remedial
Contracting Strategy (ARCS) to conduct RI/FSs. A
current list of regional service contracts is provided
in Appendix B.  EPA is scheduled to award new
remedial contracts  in 1994 under  the Remedial
Action Contracting Strategy (RACS).

While Superfund policies encourage the  selection
and  implementation  of  new technologies,  the
Superfund  remedy  selection  process can present
some hurdles for  innovative technology vendors:

 •  Because Superfund site managers may not have
    as much information on the performance and
    cost of an innovative technology  as  for  a
    conventional  method, there is a bias toward the
    selection   of   conventional   treatment
    technologies.  In the development and  screening
    of  alternatives,  EPA often relies on  readily
    available technology information sources. The
    Agency   has   made   significant  progress
    developing   systems   for   disseminating
    information  about   remedial   technologies.
    Nonetheless, Superfund site managers may have
    difficulty comparing the merits of an innovative
     and a conventional technology  if they do not
    have information  on  a   technology's  cost;
     implementability;   short-   and   long-term
     effectiveness; and ability to reduce the toxicity,
     volume, or mobility of the contaminants. The
     National Contingency Plan (NCP)  and EPA
     policy  encourage the  use  of  bench-  or
     pilot-scale treatability studies, when appropriate
     and practical.  EPA policy also stipulates that
     innovative technologies cannot be eliminated
     from consideration solely on the grounds that
     an  absence   of  full-scale   experience  or
     treatability study data makes their performance
     and cost  less  certain than other  forms of
     remediation. [10]
                                                 40

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
 •  For  sites  where  no  responsible  party  is
    involved, the remedial  design contractor at a
    site is prohibited from conducting the remedial
    action for that site.  The EPA has determined
    that there may be a conflict in permitting the
    same contractor to conduct both activities.  A
    technology vendor that also provides RI/FS
    services should determine the relative value of
    the two  opportunities before deciding which
    service to provide.

In general, technology vendors should participate,
whenever possible, in the programs cited in Section
3.7.3.  They also may consider using Appendix A,
Exhibit  A-3  to  identify  the  individual   sites
appropriate  for their  technologies and  provide
information on  the technologies' capabilities to the
respective  site  manager  or  Regional   Office
(Appendix  B).   Such actions  may lead to more
comprehensive  consideration of the technologies at
a given site.  This approach  requires vendors  to
identify the site early in the RI/FS process, so that
there is time to conduct any necessary treatability
studies  (note  that  the  contaminants  listed  in
Appendix A, Exhibit A-3 are those identified during
PA/SIs, and later site analyses  may show that they
do  not  require  remediation  or may   identify
additional contaminants in need of cleanup).

3.7.2    Market Considerations During Design
        and Procurement

Once a remedy has been  selected and documented
in a ROD, the project enters  the design process,
where  the  details  of the cleanup, such as  waste
quantities and  performance standards,  are  more
clearly specified.  At this stage, federal and state
agencies need technology information for preparing
requests for proposals and evaluating bids.

When  EPA is responsible for the cleanup  of a
Superfund site, it uses one of the following funding
mechanisms:

 •  Alternative  Remedial  Contracting  Strategy
    (ARCS—soon to be known as Remedial Action
    Contracting Strategy  [RACS])—EPA contracts
    with architecture/engineering (A/E)  firms for
    the remedial program.

 •  Emergency  Remedial  Contracting  Strategy
    (ERCS)—EPA contracts with A/E firms for the
    removal program.
 •  Interagency Agreements (LAGs)—EPA enters
    into agreements with the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers or Bureau of Reclamation.

 •  Cooperative Agreements (CAs)—EPA enters
    into   agreements  with   states,   political
    subdivisions, or Indian Tribes.

More  detailed information on contracting  and
subcontracting to the Superfund program can  be
found in a guide published by EPA.fll]

The two most definitive sources of information  on
selected remedies for sites entering RD and RA are
the ROD,  the ROD  Annual Repon,[6] and  the
Innovative   Technologies:   Semi-Annual   Status
Report.[2] The ROD provides detailed information
on  the site  contaminants  and risks posed,  the
selected remedy, estimated  costs,  and  associated
performance  standards.  The Semi-Annual Report
provides more current information  on sites using
innovative technologies. It includes information on
contaminants  and media requiring remediation,
anticipated or actual cleanup timelines, and expected
site lead (EPA, state, private party) for these sites.

A vendor may use these  publications to  identify
opportunities.  Vendors may want  to contact  the
EPA or state site manager and  the anticipated site
remedial design firm or agency.  Such contact helps
the regional site manager become familiar with the
capabilities  (e.g., cost,  performance,  availability)
and demonstrated performance of the technologies.
Vendors also may provide background information
to site managers to support the development of the
final design specifications. Keeping abreast of site
activities  allows vendors  to  be   responsive  to
requests for proposals (RFPs) for the site remedial
action. Once an RFP has been issued, the award of
a contract may take several weeks to six months.

3.7.3    Research and Development

EPA   established   the   Superfund   Innovative
Technology  Evaluation  (SITE) program  as  its
primary mechanism for promoting the development
of new technologies.  EPA has  budgeted over $14
million for the SITE program in fiscal year 1993.
SITE is administered by EPA's  Office of Research
and Development (ORD) to evaluate field-ready and
emerging  innovative   technologies  offered   by
specific  companies.    EPA selects  participants
through a solicitation  and evaluation of proposals.
                                                41

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
Two major components of the SITE program are the
Demonstration   Program    and   the   Emerging
Technology Program.  The Demonstration Program
develops reliable engineering, performance and cost
data on innovative technologies by  demonstrating
them at hazardous waste sites  or under conditions
that simulate actual  hazardous  waste  and  site
conditions. Ninety-three technologies are currently
being demonstrated in the Program,  and to date 48
of   these   technologies   have   completed
demonstrations.  Almost 40% of SITE Demonstra-
tion technologies are physical/chemical methods,
17% are biological, and 17% are thermal desorption
techniques. The others are  innovative technologies
for thermal destruction, solidification/stabilization,
materials handling, or radioactive waste treatment.

The  Emerging  Technology  Program   assists
technology development at the bench and  pilot
scale.   EPA  has provided  technical and financial
support for 53 projects in the Emerging Technology
Program.     Of  these  projects,  20 have   been
completed.    About  half  of the  projects  are
physical/chemical treatment methods,  25%  are
biological  treatment,  and   15%   are  thermal
destruction.   The remaining are either  materials
handling and solidification/stabilization.

3.7.4   Disseminating Innovative Technology
        Information

Information  on  an  innovative  technology  or  a
technology vendor must be readily  available if a
technology is to be considered as a potential remedy
at a hazardous waste site. Those developing lists of
cleanup alternatives  and   federal  and  state staff
preparing bid documents often refer to the many
sources  of  technical  information  available  on
innovative and established treatment technologies.
Listed below are some of the primary resources and
the ways that technology  developers and vendors
may use them to publicize  their capabilities:

  •  Vendor  Information   System  on  Innovative
     Treatment  Technologies  (VISITT).    This
     diskette-based database was  released in June
     1992 by the EPA's  Technology  Innovation
     Office  (TIO),  and is  updated annually.   It
     contains   vendor-supplied   information  on
     innovative treatment for ground water in situ,
     soil,  sludge, sediment, and solid-matrix waste,
including applicable contaminants and matrices,
summary performance data, and project-specific
information. Users can screen technologies for
specific site and waste applications. Orders for
VISITT may be faxed to EPA's National Center
for Environmental Publications and Information
(NCEPI)  at  513-891-6685  (specify  diskette
size).  Information on how  to be included in
VISITT is available from the  VISITT Hotline at
800-245-4505.

Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Center  (ATTIC).    This  online  computer
resource is maintained by  EPA's  Office  of
Research and Development (ORD), and consists
of  several databases  pertaining  to  remedial
treatment  technologies. The ATTIC database
contains more than 2,000 abstracts of papers,
journal articles,  and  technical  documents
concerning  both  available  and  innovative
treatment technologies. These abstracts can be
screened to identify applicable technologies and
data.   To access  ATTIC  on-line   using  a
personal computer, call 301-670-3808.

Those conducting RI/FSs  often use reports on
completed SITE  program   evaluations  and
expertise  offered by ORD  staff on specific
technologies.   A list of projects,  available
reports,  and  project  managers  who  offer
technical assistance to technology users may be
found in the SITE Program Profiles available
from   ORD    Publications   at   513-569-
7562.[12]       Information  on   how  to
participate in the SITE  program is available
from   the  Risk   Reduction   Engineering
Laboratory's Site Demonstration and Evaluation
Branch at 513-569-7696.

Technical  Guidance.    ORD  also   develops
guidance  on specific types of innovative tech-
nologies.  Most recent guidance is contained in
eight  to  10 page  engineering  bulletins that
describe  the  technology  status, applications,
performance, and cost, and identify knowledge-
 able EPA contacts.  ORD also  has developed
 guidance on evaluating and remediating specific
 types of contaminants or  sites.  A list of these
 and other EPA technical  guidance is found in
 Selected Alternative and  Innovative Treatment
 Technologies for Corrective  Action  and  Site
                                                 42

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
    Remediation  (may  be ordered by fax from
    NCEPI at 513-891-6685).[13]

In  addition, becoming  a  member   of  various
professional societies and trade groups  may help a
vendor promote specific capabilities.

3.8 Conclusions

Last  year,  30%  of  the  RODs  for  NPL  sites
incorporated at  least one innovative  technology
(primarily  for  source  control)  and 42%  of  all
treatment processes for source  control selected
between 1982 and 1991 have been innovative.  In
the future, Superfund sites will continue to offer
important   opportunities   for   established   and
innovative technologies.  In particular, innovative
technologies are needed for soil and other wastes,
and for ground water, especially in situ. Although
Superfund sites comprise a relatively small portion
of the total inventory of contaminated sites to be
addressed by all site cleanup programs, these sites
represent a  relatively well-defined market for the
next  eight  years.   Furthermore,  Agency  policy
encourages  the   consideration  and  selection  of
innovative treatment to remediate NPL sites.  The
estimated cost that EPA will incur to complete the
cleanup  of  sites  currently on  the NPL is  $16.5
billion.  Because much of the additional cleanup
will be  accomplished by PRPs,  the total  market
value is much higher.
The  analysis of  site contaminants,  sources,  and
quantities provides  valuable information to guide
business   decisions   concerning   technology
development and investment, hi particular, the data
indicate that in the  next three  to eight years there
will be a large demand for remediation of metals
(an estimated 20.5 million cubic yards) and VOCs
(13.9  million cubic  yards).  For known innovative
technologies, the largest potential market appears to
be for SVE. Thermal desorption and soil washing
also have a potential for greater use.  The market
for bioremediation  may  expand because  of new
developments.    Also,  the demand  for   solvent
extraction and dechlorination is less clear because
there  is less experience with these technologies.

Although the selection of innovative  technologies
has been increasing  in recent years, this growth has
been impeded by a lack of readily available perfor-
mance and cost data and a lack of familiarity by site
managers.  Technology vendors can help overcome
these difficulties by disseminating information about
the performance and cost of specific technologies to
central  information sources  (e.g.,  VISITT  and
ATTIC) commonly  used by  remediation  profes-
sionals and state and federal officials. Vendors also
may  consider supplying appropriate information
directly to site managers and consulting engineers
who are evaluating  or designing remedies. These
activities will help to ensure that the most current
data are readily available.
                                                 43

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends


3.9 References

1.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency  and  Remedial Response, "Final Rule,
    National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites," 57 Federal Register, pg. 47180, October
    14, 1992.

2.   U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of  Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation Office, "Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report," EPA/540/R-92/011,
    October 1992.

3.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency, Office of Emergency  and Remedial  Response,  "CERCLA
    Information System (CERCLIS)," 1992.

4.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "National Priorities
    List Sites: 1991."

5.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office Emergency and Remedial Response, "Record of Decision
    Information System," 1992.

6.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "ROD Annual
    Report Fiscal Year 1991," PB92-963359, April 1992.

7.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "Superfund NPL
    Characterization Project: National Results," EPA/540/8-91/069, November  1991.

8.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "Fourth Quarter FY
    92 Superfund Management Report,"  December 1992.

9.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  "Analysis  of Revisions to the Hazard  Ranking System,"
    Presentation by Suzanne Wells at the Air & Waste Management Association, 85th Annual Meeting and
    Exhibition, Kansas City, Missouri, June 1992.

10. U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "Furthering the
    Use of Innovative Treatment Technologies in OSWER Programs," OSWER Directive 9380.0-17, June 10,
    1991.

11. U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "Contracting and
    Subcontracting Guide to the Superfund Program," Publication 9200.5-402A, NTIS No. PB92-963274, May
    1992.

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, "The Superfund Technology
    Innovation Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles," Fifth Edition, EPA/540/R-92/077, December 1992.

13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,  Technology
    Innovation Office, "Selected Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and
    Site  Remediation (A Bibliography of Information Sources)," EPA/542/B-93/001, January 1993.
                                               44

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
                                      CHAPTER 4
                DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION  OF RCRA
                         CORRECTIVE  ACTION SITES
This chapter describes factors affecting the demand
for cleanup services at hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) regulated
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).   Most TSDFs are operating  industrial
facilities or are in the process of closing.  RCRA
requires that these facilities remediate releases of
hazardous wastes  and  their constituents.   This
chapter describes the process for  cleaning up these
facilities  and the number of such facilities.   Site
owners or operators are responsible for  necessary
remedial action with oversight by  EPA or one of the
16 states* authorized to implement RCRA corrective
action requirements.   Treatment,  storage,  and
disposal  facilities  regulated  under  RCRA  (as
amended) represent a substantial market for cleanup
technologies.

RCRA   sets   forth   comprehensive   national
requirements for managing the treatment, storage,
disposal,  and  recycling  of solid and hazardous
waste.  Several regulatory  programs  exist under
RCRA, but the largest is the "Subtitle C" program,
which among other provisions, establishes a system
to control hazardous waste from generation through
ultimate disposal ("cradle-to-grave"). Facilities that
manage  hazardous  waste  are called  RCRA
treatment, storage, or disposal facilities (TSDFs).
EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) implements the
RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste management and
corrective action programs.

The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) expanded the scope of  RCRA to include
requirements to reduce the risk to human health and
the environment posed by releases from historic
areas of waste  management at TSDFs.   EPA
established the RCRA corrective  action program to
remediate releases from old solid waste management
units (SWMUs) at TSDFs.  EPA defines a SWMU
as "any discernable unit at which solid wastes have
been placed at any time, irrespective of whether the
unit was intended for the management of solid or
hazardous  waste.   Such units include areas at a
facility at  which solid wastes have been routinely
and systematically released."[l]

Many of the facility types and waste types in the
RCRA corrective action  universe are similar to
those found in the Superfund program.  The process
for evaluating and cleaning up sites also is similar.
However, unlike the Superfund program, there is no
central fund to begin or complete the cleanup of
RCRA facilities.  Cleanups are funded by the site
owners or  operators.

4.1  Program Description

The overall strategy for the RCRA corrective action
program   is   defined   in  the  1990   RCRA
Implementation   Study   (RIS).[2]     The  RIS
encourages the corrective action program to produce
the greatest near-term environmental benefits. Two
key components of this  strategy  are to: (a) set
national priorities to direct resources to the highest
priority  facilities; and  (b) increase emphasis  on
near-term  actions to reduce imminent threats and
prevent the further spread of contamination. The
emphasis  on near-term actions  is a significant
change in program emphasis  and is  expected to
result in increased field cleanup activity  over the
next eight  years.

4.1.1   Corrective Action Process

The  corrective action process is outlined in the
proposed Corrective Action Rule, published on July
27,  1990.[1] The fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year
1993 RCRA Implementation Plans (RIPs) and the
RCRA  Stabilization   Strategy   (1992)   provide
a   Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin; EPA has work-sharing arrangements with additional states.
                                               45

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
additional guidance for the RCRA corrective action
program. [3] [4] [5]    In  fiscal   year   1992  the
National Corrective Action Priority Ranking System
(NCAPS) was established to rank the relative risks
that corrective action sites pose to human health and
the environment.  Through the use of NCAPS, EPA
focuses resources for the corrective action program
on high-priority facilities. The fiscal year 1993 RIP
encourages   the   use   of  innovative   treatment
technologies  by increasing  the priority of facilities
at which these technologies are under consideration.

The  fiscal year 1992 RCRA  Stabilization Strategy
established procedures for evaluating the need for,
and implementing near-term stabilization actions. [5]
Stabilization  actions for RCRA hazardous waste are
similar to those undertaken in Superfund emergency
response actions, but place much greater emphasis
on substantial action to prevent the further spread of
contamination.    EPA's  emphasis on stabilization
activities in the past year has increased the pace  of
RCRA corrective actions.  In some cases, this has
allowed an extended schedule for final cleanup.

The proposed Corrective Action Rule would create
a new "Subpart S" in the RCRA Part 264 regulations
to specify requirements  for  conducting corrective
action at TSDFs.  The corrective action process, as
specified in the proposed rule, contains a series  of
four steps similar to those found in the Superfund
program.    These  steps,  as   modified by  the
stabilization  guidance, are listed below:

  1)  EPA or  an  EPA-authorized state conducts  an
     initial assessment, termed a "RCRA Facility
     Assessment" (RFA) of the facility.  The RFA
     involves identification  and examination  of a
     facility's  solid  waste  management  units
     (SWMUs) to determine if a release has occurred
     or if the potential  for a release exists.

  2)  If  the RFA reveals a release,  the owner  or
     operator of  the facility may  be required to
     conduct a "RCRA Facility Investigation" (RFI),
     which involves sampling and other  efforts to
     determine the nature and extent of contamination
    and to fully characterize  site geological  and
    hydrological conditions.  If the release poses a
    sufficient threat, the owner or operator may be
    required  to  take  near-term  action  (such as
    stabilization)  to  contain  or remediate  the
    contamination.

3)  If the regulatory agency determines from the RFI
    that corrective action  is needed, the  owner or
    operator is then responsible for performing a
    "Corrective Measures Study" (CMS) to identify
    alternative   measures  to   remediate   the
    contaminated areas. Near-term action also may
    be  required after the RFI.

4)  Upon  approval  of a cleanup  plan by  the
    regulatory agency, the owner or operator may
    begin "Corrective Measures  Implementation"
    (CMI), which includes designing, constructing,
    maintaining,  and  monitoring   the  remedial
    measures. A CMI is conducted by the owner or
    operator with regulatory agency oversight.

4.1.2   Corrective Action Implementation

Corrective action can be implemented either through
the  permit process or enforcement orders.  RCRA
permits are required for all  facilities that treat, store,b
or dispose of hazardous waste.  HSWA requires that
all  hazardous  waste facilities that obtain a RCRA
permit after  November 8,  1984, take  corrective
action  for any releases from past disposal or recent
contamination at or from  the facility, including all
units (or areas)  and off-site releases. In addition,
TSDFs operating under interim status, rather than a
RCRA permit, may be required to take  corrective
action  under an enforcement order or state order in
an  authorized state.

States  may seek EPA  authorization to manage, with
EPA oversight, the hazardous  waste and  corrective
action programs. To date,  46 states, some  territories,
and the  District of  Columbia  are authorized to
manage their own hazardous waste programs, only
16   of which are authorized to  implement the
corrective action provisions of RCRA.C In addition
     For over 90 days, unless conditionally exempted.

 c   The following states and territories are not authorized under the RCRA base program to manage RCRA hazardous
 waste:  Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Wyoming, Puerto Rico, Trust Territories, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.
                                                  46

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
to RCRA corrective action, many states also have
their own cleanup programs under their respective
ground-water programs.  In either case, a state may
adopt regulations that are more stringent than  the
federal regulations.   Under RCRA  §3011, EPA
Regions also have developed grants and cooperative
agreements, which may give the states the lead for
corrective action oversight prior to full authorization.

4.2 Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup

Statutory, regulatory, and programmatic changes to
the RCRA program may  affect  the demand  for
RCRA site cleanup technologies.  Specifically,  the
following factors may impact this  demand:

 •  Many of the current standards  for land disposal
    restrictions (LDRs) for contaminated soils  can
    be met only  through the use of incineration.
    However, a site-specific treatability variance for
    contaminated soils  can be  used for RCRA
    corrective actions and closures, and CERCLA
    response actions. [6]

 •  There continues  to  be widespread interest in
    making changes to the law.  Over  150 bills
    concerning RCRA  have been  submitted  in
    Congress over the last two sessions.  Any future
    changes  to RCRA could impact the size  and
    characteristics of  the  regulated universe  of
    facilities  or wastes.

 •  The  definition of  "RCRA hazardous waste" is
    currently  under   revision.   Changes  in  the
    definition may affect the number of facilities  and
    types of wastes subject to RCRA requirements.

 •  The   Corrective  Action  Management Unit
    (CAMU) Final Rule, which became effective in
    April 1993, provides flexibility with respect to
    LDRs and minimum technology requirements for
    remedial waste management  at  RCRA sites.
    This rule should facilitate the use of treatment
    technologies at RCRA corrective action sites.

4.3 Number and Characteristics of Facilities

Currently, EPA  tracks  the cleanup  progress at
facilities where corrective action has begun,  and
limited information on the number of these facilities
is presented  here.  Although specific data on the
universe  of  corrective   action  sites are  not  yet
available, data onTSDFs, in general, can indicate the
potential extent of corrective action in the future.
Most of the information presented in this section is
based on the total universe of TSDFs subject to
corrective action requirements, but which may or
may not actually require corrective action.  More
accurate  estimates of  the  number  and scope  of
RCRA corrective action and the specific hazardous
constituents to be addressed are being developed by
OSW and should be available to the public in 1994.

4.3.1   Number and Types of Facilities

Facilities are subject to corrective action primarily
due  to their regulatory status as  hazardous waste
management  TSDFs.    Until  further  study  is
conducted, it is generally not known whether a TSDF
will  actually require remediation under the RCRA
corrective action program.

Current information on the number of TSDFs subject
to corrective action  is contained  in the Resource
Conservation and  Recovery Information  System
(RCRIS), which is the national program management
and inventory system on hazardous waste handlers.
Typically, EPA considers the following facilities in
its universe  of TSDFs to be subject to corrective
action under RCRA: TSDFs with, or applying for,
RCRA  permits; closed  or closing  TSDFs;  and
underground injection control (UIC) facilities. Other
facilities, such as those that have converted to less
than 90 day storage of hazardous waste, also will be
subject to corrective action but are not uniformly
included in  the  numbers presented  here.   For
purposes of this report, EPA also is including other
facilities for which  an EPA region or state has
verified the existence of at least one TSD process
(such as landfill or tank).  These facilities  are not
reflected in the RCRIS TSD universe at this time.

As of May  1993,  RCRIS  contains 5,165 TSDFs,
some of which could require  corrective  action
(estimates range  between  1,500[7] and  3,500[2]
TSDFs). Approximately 7% of these facilities are
federal   facilities.     Exhibit  4-1  presents  the
distribution of these facilities among the states. The
exact number of TSDFs per state is provided in
Exhibit A-7 in Appendix A.

RCRIS  also  tracks  the milestones  for  TSDFs
undergoing corrective action. Reporting begins with
the issuance of enforcement orders or permits and
                                                 47

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
          Exhibit 4-1:  Location of RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
                                                                             NUMBER OF SITES
                                                                                    301 to 400
                                                                                    201 to 300
                                                                                    101 to 200
                                                                                      1 to 100
  Note:
   •   Includes treatment, storage, and disposal facilities with, or applying for, RCRA permits; closed or closing facilities;
      and underground injection control (UIC) facilities. For the purpose of this study, also counted are other facilities
      for which a region or state has verified the existence of at least one treatment, storage, or disposal process.

  Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, RCRIS National Oversight Database, September 1992.
continues through each step of the corrective action
process. Exhibit 4-2 provides the number of TSDFs
for which  RFAs,  RFIs, and control of  releases
(stabilization or corrective  measures) are either
ongoing or completed.  Facilities conducting RFAs
and RFIs may not require corrective action; however,
action is more likely for facilities that are required
to undertake RFIs.

As of the end of fiscal year 1992, 247 TSDFs had
implemented  or  completed  remedial  actions  to
control   contaminant  releases,  representing   a
substantial  increase over the  136 remedial actions
started or completed two years  ago.[7]  The large
increase in actions is attributed to the stabilization
initiative.   RFAs have been completed for at least
3,500 facilities and RFIs are completed or ongoing
for about 600 facilities.  In the next several years
some portion of these facilities will require corrective
action.
A profile of the types of ongoing RCRA hazardous
waste management operations at TSDFs may lend
insight into the nature of cleanup needed at historic
areas of  waste management at these  facilities.
TSDFs  may operate one or  more processes for
managing RCRA-regulated hazardous waste.  These
processes include land  disposal  (landfills, land
treatment units, surface impoundments, waste piles,
and  underground  injection  wells),  treatment or
storage  in tanks or containers, and  incineration.
Exhibit 4-3 presents the number of TSDFs reported
in RCRIS that currently  operate or have  operated
each of these processes.  Each facility  may be
performing  more than one process;  therefore, the
total number of processes exceeds  the number of
facilities.   Storage and treatment  hi  tanks or
containers account for 70% of the processes reported
in RCRIS. Land disposal makes up 25%, and incin-
eration 3%. Early in the corrective action program,
permit  deadlines often dictated which assessments
                                                 48

-------
          Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
         Exhibit 4-2: Status of RCRA Facilities in the Corrective Action Program
                            as of the End of Fiscal Year 1992
     Number of Facilities
     wfth RCRA facility
    Assessments (RFAs)
      :;  Completed
                              Number of RCRA Facility
                                investigations (RFfs)

                              Underway or Completed
Number of RCRA Facilities
 Com rolling Contaminant
        Releases
 Underway or Completed
            3,519
                                        614
           247
Note:   Numbers are cumulative (e.g., facilities are counted for each step begun or completed) as of the end of
       September 1992.  All facilities do not conduct RFAs and  RFIs prior to remedial action and facilities
       conducting RFAs and RFIs may not require remedial action.

Source: RCRA Environmental Indicators, FY 1992 Progress Report,  April 1993.
              Exhibit 4-3: RCRA Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Processes
            c
                        5,165 RCRA Corrective Action Facilities3
      Land Disposal
        Processes'3
          (2,381)
                                      Incinerator
                                      Processes'3
                                        (298)
          Storage &
          Treatment
          Processes b
           (6,468)
                                                                       Other(705)
  • Underground Injection (88)

  • Landfill (531)

  • Surface Impoundment (1,307)
    -  Treatment (319)
    -  Storage (689)
    -  Disposal (299)

  . Waste Pile (310)

  • Land Treatment (145)

Notes:
 a  Includes all treatment, storage, or disposal facilities inventoried in RCRIS.
 b  There may be more than one type of process per facility.

Source: U.S. EPA,  Office of Solid Waste, RCRIS National Oversight Database, May 3, 1993.
                                                                     • Tank (2,611)
                                                                      - Treatment (783)
                                                                      - Storage (1,828)

                                                                     • Container (3,152)
                                            49

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
were completed first and therefore which facilities
were first determined to require corrective action.

The Agency has estimated the potential magnitude
of the future corrective action needs by examining
the number of SWMUs.  The average TSDF has
many more SWMUs than RCRA-regulated hazardous
waste management units (RUs).  The 1990 Regula-
tory Impact Analysis (RIA), conducted to support the
proposed Corrective Action Rule, estimated roughly
80,000 SWMUs.[8] The  1990 RIA also projected
that about 1,500 TSDFs would require corrective
action  for releases to  ground water.  EPA now
expects that  a  much larger  portion of  facilities
ultimately will require corrective action. A revised
estimate based on a new methodology is projected
to be completed in 1994.

4.3.2    Characteristics and Quantities of
        Hazardous Waste

Most TSDFs subject to corrective action have not yet
undergone RFIs to determine the nature and extent
of contamination. Therefore, data are insufficient to
accurately characterize the  constituents and waste
volumes that will require cleanup.   However,
information  is available on the types of industrial
facilities that generate hazardous  waste  and the
quantity of hazardous waste generated. While it is
unknown whether  wastes generated today  actually
represent  the character  of past   waste  disposal
practices,  these data provide some  insight into the
types of constituents that will be encountered during
cleanup. Also, EPA expects that the types of wastes
requiring remediation at TSDFs may resemble those
at Superfund sites,  many of  which were once
operating TSDFs (Exhibit 3-4).

Data   on  the  hazardous   wastes  generated and
managed  at  TSDFs  are available  from the 1989
Biennial Reporting System (BRS), which is managed
by EPA. The BRS is a national system that collects
data   on   the   generation,   management,  and
minimization of hazardous waste.   Large-quantity
hazardous waste generators and operators of TSDFs
 submit data every two  years  on  the types and
 quantities of hazardous waste managed. Data from
 the 1989 BRS are published in the National Biennial
 RCRA Hazardous Waste Report.[9]

 The BRS contains the quantities of hazardous waste
 managed by various treatment and disposal methods
 and by recovery/recycling (Exhibit 4-4). By weight,
the majority of hazardous waste managed in 1989
was wastewater.  Underground injection also made
up a significant amount (14% by weight) of the total
quantity  of hazardous  waste managed.    After
underground injection, landfills accounted for most
of the  hazardous waste  disposed  to  the  land.
Because of the land disposal restrictions promulgated
since  1989, the amount of waste managed by land
disposal has probably decreased.

Information on the wastes managed by each type of
hazardous waste management process  is available
from two  surveys of the hazardous waste manage-
ment  industry conducted by  EPA in  1986.[10]
The National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
(GENSUR) included a statistical sample of large-
quantity generators that produced hazardous  waste
in 1986. The National Survey of Hazardous Waste,
Treatment,  Storage,  Disposal,   and  Recycling
Facilities (TSDR) included all facilities that in 1986
had obtained, or were in the process of obtaining, a
RCRA Part B permit.

Exhibit A-8 (Appendix A) shows the most prevalent
wastes found in SWMUs at RCRA facilities in 1986.
According to the TSDR/GENSUR surveys, the most
common  wastes  managed  in  SWMUs  include
corrosive (highly acidic or alkaline) waste, ignitable
waste, heavy metals, organic solvents, electroplating
waste, and waste oil (considered hazardous by some
states).

4.4 Estimated Dollar Value of Site Cleanup

In the 1990 RIA for the proposed Subpart  S rule,
EPA  estimated that the costs of cleaning up only
contaminated ground water at corrective action sites
would range between $7.4 billion and $41.8 billion.
Other estimates of the total costs of corrective action
also have been developed.[ll]

Recently, EPA developed a new methodology for
estimating the costs of implementing the corrective
action  program. [12]     To  illustrate  the  new
approach, the new methodology was applied to the
Subpart S rule proposed in 1990, although regulatory
options for corrective action are still being formulat-
ed. Based on this preliminary analysis, EPA projects
 a total national present value program cost of about
 $18.7 billion, an annual cost of about $1.8  billion,
 and a weighted  average cost per facility of $7.2
 million. Roughly half of the total cost of corrective
 action would be incurred by slightly more than 10%
                                                 50

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
   Exhibit 4-4: Amounts of Hazardous Waste Managed in 54 States and Territories in 1989
              Incineration
                0.6%
            (1.3 million tons
  Recovery/recycling
        1.9%
    (3.7 million tons)
     Wastewater
     treatment
       76.3%
  (149.9 million tons)
  Land disposal other than
   underground Injection
          1.5%
      (2.9 million tons)
   Surface
 impoundments
     1.0%
(0.03 million tons)
   Other treatment
       5.4%
  (10.6 million tons)
                                                          Land treatment-
                                                              20.5%
                                                          (0.6 million tons)
 Underground
   Injection
    14.3%
(28.0 million tons)
                Landfills
                 78.5%
             (2.3 million tons)
  Note:    Because values are rounded, percentages vary slightly from Biennial Report.

  Source:  U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Based on 1989
          Data), February 1993.
of the RCRA TSDFs.   These values are likely  to
change when the final regulations are promulgated.

4.5 Market Entry Considerations

The responsibility for  RCRA corrective action  at
individual  facilities  rests  with  the  owners  and
operators  who contract directly  with  commercial
vendors for services.  Because there is no centralized
source of TSDF information, vendors interested  in
this market may have to contact specific owners  or
operators  to obtain facts on an individual facility's
waste  characteristics,  cleanup requirements,  and
whether corrective action will be required.   State
hazardous waste  agencies  and the EPA Regional
Offices have some knowledge about corrective action
needs of facilities in their state or region. Addresses
for these agencies  may be found in Appendix B.
                4.6 Remedial Technologies

                EPA  Regional   Offices  are  currently  gathering
                information on  the remedies  selected for  RCRA
                corrective action. Initial data on 60 TSDFs at which
                soil remediation is planned, ongoing, or completed
                reveal  that  of  approximately 70  soil  remedial
                measures, about half are off-site disposal remedies
                (landfilling or incineration) and half are innovative
                treatment.  Of  the innovative technologies, about
                one-third are  soil vapor extraction, one-third are in
                situ bioremediation, and one third are above-ground
                treatment, primarily bioremediation.  These trends
                in the selection of innovative technologies are similar
                to those in the Superfund program. However, these
                data  are not complete; it is likely that this  sample
                missed the use of solidification/stabilization, which
                is commonly  used  in the Superfund program.
                                                 51

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends


4.7 References

1.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of Solid Waste, "Corrective Action for Solid Waste
    Management Units (SWMUs) at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities; Proposed Rule (40 CFR Parts
    264, 265, 270, and 271)," 55 Federal Register, No. 145, pp. 30798-30884, July 27, 1990.

2.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "The Nation's
    Hazardous  Waste Management Program at a Crossroads: The RCRA Implementation Study," EPA/530-
    SW-90-069, 1990.

3.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "FY 1992 RCRA
    Implementation Plan," OSWER Directive 9420.00-07, 1992.

4.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "FY 1993 RCRA
    Implementation Plan," OSWER Directive 9420.00-08, 1992.

5.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, "RCRA Stabilization Strategy," October
    25, 1991.

6.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "Regional Guide
    to Issuing  Site Specific Treatability Variance for Contaminated  Soils and Debris From Land Disposal
    Restrictions," OSWER Directive 9389.3-08FS, January 1992.

7.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, "RCRA Implementation Factors, FY 1992
    Progress Report," April 1993.

8.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, "Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed
    Rulemaking on Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units," RCRA Docket No. CASP-S0062,
    1990.

9.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, "National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste
    Report Based on 1989 Data," EPA 530/R-92/027, NTIS No. PB 93-148245, February  1993.

10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,  Technology
    Innovation Office, "Summary of SWMUs at Facilities Needing  Corrective Action, Revised," Research
    Triangle Institute Project No. 5100-11-01,  1992.

11. Tonn, B., M. Russell, H.L. Hwang, R. Goeltz, and J. Warren, "Costs of RCRA Corrective Action:  Interim
    Report," Oak Ridge National Laboratory,  Oak Ridge, TN, ORNI/TM-11864, December 1991.

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, "Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
    Final Rulemaking on Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units:  Proposed Methodology for
    Analysis," March 1993.
                                               52

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
                                       CHAPTER 5
                     DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION  OF
                UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES
Millions  of underground  storage  tanks  (USTs)
containing  petroleum   products  or  hazardous
chemicals are located throughout the United States.
USTs are used by a wide variety of industries, such
as petroleum  and  chemical  manufacturing and
distribution companies, fleet owners, farmers, and
government agencies. Over 1.6 million of the tanks
are subject to federal regulations, and about 91% of
these  contain petroleum products, including used
oil. Only 2% contain hazardous material.

Releases of petroleum or hazardous substances can
result from a spill during tank filling  operations,
leaks  in  the system due to corrosion, structural
failure of the tank or pipes attached to the tank, or
faulty installation.  More than 180,000 releases at
tank facilities have been confirmed to date, and
more are expected.  These releases can contaminate
soil and ground water and cause fires or  explosions.

Subtitle I  of  the   Hazardous and  Solid  Waste
Amendments  to  the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act  (RCRA), was  enacted in 1984 to
control and prevent leaks and spills from USTs.
Subtitle  I  governs   USTs   storing   regulated
substances, including gasoline, crude oil,  other
petroleum  products,  and  hazardous  substances
defined under the Superfund program. Pursuant to
Subtitle I, EPA has promulgated  regulations that
require, among other things, that leaks and spills be
detected  and reported, contamination  caused by
leaks  and spills be remediated, future releases be
prevented, and each state have a regulatory program
for USTs that is at least as stringent as that  under
the federal regulations.  These regulations have
compelled cleanup  activities at many  UST sites,
providing opportunities for the application of  a
variety of remedial technologies.

5.1 Program Description

The federal regulatory program is implemented by
EPA's  Office  of  Underground  Storage  Tanks
(OUST). The federal UST performance standards
and state program requirements were promulgated
in September  1988,  and  became  effective  on
December 22, 1988.[1] These regulations will, to a
large extent, determine the size of the market for
cleanup services.

The regulations apply to any UST, except those
specifically  exempted, used to  store  petroleum
products or substances defined as hazardous under
CERCLA.  The regulations do not apply to tanks
storing hazardous wastes, which are regulated under
Subtitle C of RCRA.  An UST is defined  as any
tank that has at least 10% of its volume  buried
below  ground, including  piping connected  to  the
tank. Generally, the requirements for both chemical
and petroleum tanks are similar.

The basic federal requirements include:

 •  A tank owner must register its tank(s) with the
    state authority by completing  a notification
    form about  the characteristics and contents of
    the UST.

 •  A  tank  owner  must  institute a periodic  leak
    detection program to actively seek out releases.
    For tanks installed after December  1988, leak
    detection requirements become effective  at
    installation.  For older tanks,  the requirements
    will be phased  in by December 1993.

 •  A  tank  owner  must maintain records of leak
    detection activities, corrosion protection  system
    inspections, repair and maintenance activities,
    and post-closure site assessments.

 •  A  tank owner must notify the  appropriate
    regulatory  authority  of  all  suspected   or
    confirmed releases as well as follow-up  actions
    taken  or planned.   Suspected leaks must  be
    investigated immediately to determine  if they
    are real.  If evidence of environmental damage
    is  the cause for suspicion, it  must be reported
    immediately to the regulatory authority.
                                               53

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
 •  If a leak or spill is confirmed, tank owners must
    (a) take immediate action to stop and contain
    the  leak or spill,  (b) notify  the regulatory
    authority within 24 hours, and (c) take action to
    mitigate damage to people and the environment.

 •  By  December 1998,  USTs  installed  before
    December 1988 must have corrosion protection
    for  steel tanks and piping,  and devices that
    prevent spills and overfills.

 •  A  tank  owner  must  notify  the regulatory
    authority 30 days before permanently closing an
    UST.

In addition to providing performance standards, the
regulations establish requirements that a state must
meet  to receive EPA  approval for its  program.
State or local authorities may have requirements that
are somewhat different or more stringent.  All states
and territories  have passed  legislation  for UST
cleanups, and 43 states have state trust funds. The
following kinds of tanks are currently exempt from
the regulations:

 •  Farm  and  residential  tanks  holding  1,100
    gallons or  less of motor  fuel  used  for  non-
    commercial purposes;
 B  Tanks  storing heating  oil used on the premises
    where  it is stored;
 •  Storage tanks  on or above the floor of areas
    such as basements or tunnels;
 •  Septic tanks and systems for collecting storm
    water and wastewater;
 •  Flow-through process  tanks;
 •  Tanks holding 110 gallons or less; and
 •  Emergency spill and overfill tanks.

 Changes in the  types  of tanks covered  by  the
 regulations could significantly impact the potential
 size of the market. However, EPA is not contem-
 plating any such changes at this time.

 5.2 Factors Affecting Demand for Site Cleanup

 The   demand   for   remediation   services   at
 contaminated UST sites primarily will be influenced
 by federal regulations, state requirements,  and the
 number of releases occurring at old and new tanks.
 Specifically, the following factors affect this market:

  •  The implementation of leak detection  require-
     ments  (which become effective in  1993), in
   combination with the reporting  requirements,
   have led to an increase in the number of con-
   firmed releases.  This increased rate of release
   reports  is likely to continue over  the next
   several years.

•  The implementation of tank upgrading require-
   ments, which become effective in 1998, is also
   expected to cause an increase in the number of
   reported releases.

•  Over  a longer period of time, it is anticipated
   that the rate of occurrence of confirmed releases
   will fall, because the failure rate of tanks will
   eventually fall  as a result of improved tank
   systems.

•  Some states have promulgated requirements that
   are more stringent than the federal standards,
   such as a requirement for double-lined tanks or
   more stringent monitoring procedures.   Such
   requirements  would increase   the  potential
   market by  accelerating  the updating, replace-
   ment, or closure of tanks.

•  The pace of the cleanups will be affected by the
   adequacy of funding and the requirements of
   reimbursement funds used by 43 states to help
   pay for needed cleanups.  Most of the cost of
   UST  cleanups in these states are now paid out
   of these funds, and some of them do not have
   sufficient money to clean up  all of the eligible
   sites.  The federal trust fund  accounts for only
   a small portion of UST cleanup  activity.

•  The failure  rate of tank systems is determined
   by such factors  as tank  age,  material of
   construction, corrosion  protection systems  in
   place, and other design  features.  Because  of
   these factors, and because the federal and state
   requirements  are  still evolving, estimates of
   market size cannot be precise. The estimates in
   the following section are based on the  current
   RCRA requirements and available data.

5.3 Number and Characteristics of Sites

The data on the number, size, contents, construction
materials, and other parameters of tanks are derived
from data compiled by EPA from reports it receives
from  56  states  and territories. The states compile
their  data  from notification forms received from
tank owners.  Reporting quality varies among the
                                                  54

-------
        Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
 states and has resulted in some under-reporting of
 the  number  of  tanks subject  to the regulations.
 Estimates of the  extent of  under-counting  range
 from 15% to 80%.a  For purposes of this report, it
 is assumed that about 25%  of the  tanks that are
 required to register do not do so.  EPA reports most
 of these data in terms of the numbers of  tanks.
 However, for purposes of  this study, the data are
 converted to "number of UST sites."  EPA estimates
 that there is  an average of 2.7  tanks per UST site,
 although the number actually  varies widely from
 one  site to another.

 5.3.1   Number of Sites

 EPA reports  that, as of May 1992,1,565,613  USTs
 were registered in the U.S. Assuming that 25% of
 regulated USTs are not registered, there are a total
 of 2,087,484 tanks;  and using  EPA's  estimated
 average  of the 2.7 tanks per  site,  approximately
 773,000 sites with USTs are subject to the regula-
 tions.  These estimates are shown in Exhibit 5-1.
Estimates of the percentage of sites that are likely
to leak and require cleanup of contaminated soils or
ground water are presented later in this section.

Also  shown in Exhibit 5-1  is the estimated total
number  of all  tanks  sites, including  those not
covered by federal regulations. An additional 1.45
million sites are exempt from  the regulations and
are  not   included  as  part of  the  market  for
remediation services in this report.

The  following  sections  describe   some   basic
characteristics of the federally regulated sites, such
as the contents, ownership, size, and age, based on
data collected by EPA in 1991.

5.3.2  Contaminants Found  at UST Sites

The substances stored in RCRA-regulated tanks  are
depicted  in Exhibit 5-2. Most USTs contain petro-
leum products, which are mixtures of four types  of
hydrocarbons: paraffins,  olefins,  napthalenes, and
               Exhibit 5-1: Estimated Number of Federally Regulated UST Sites
          1,450,000 sites not
          regulated (65%)
                                                                   580,000 sites regulated
                                                                   and reported (26%)
                • 193,000 sites regulated,
                 but not reported (9%)
                           Total Underground Storage Tank Sites = 2,223,000

          Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Quarterly Activity Reports, October
                 1992, and estimates explained in text.
    Bueckman, Donna S., S. Kumar, and M. Russell, Underground Storage Tanks: Resource Requirements For Corrective
Action, pages 17-19 and 31, Waste Management Research and Education Institute, University of Tennessee, December 1991
reports this range based on a review of several surveys.  Based on this review, the authors estimate the average under-
counting for the  country to be 35%.  However,  this study uses a 25% estimate, to ensure that the market size is not
overestimated.
                                                 55

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
aromatics.    The  literature
provides  extensive  data  on
the concentrations of benzene,
toluene,  ethylbenzene,  and
xylene (BTEX)  in  gasoline
and diesel fuel, but informa-
tion on the concentration of
these  constituents  in  other
petroleum products  is  more
limited.  BTEX compounds
also  have been  detected in
soil and other media at UST
sites   where   gasoline   is
stored. [2]

5.3.3   Quantities of
       Contaminated
       Material
     Exhibit 5-2:  Contents of Federally Regulated Tanks
     Hazardous Material (2%)
              Empty (2%)
        Heating Oil (3%)
        Kerosine (3%)

      Used Oil (4%)
 Diesel Fuel (20%) •
Other (5%)
                                                    lasoline (61%)
The  volume  of soil  to be
cleaned up varies widely from
one site to another.  A 1990
EPA  survey  provided  data
from 16 states on the average
volume of soil and debris excavated at UST sites.
The median volume for the 16 states ranged from 9
to 800 cubic yards, with a weighted average of 190.
Multiplying this average by the number of sites
expected to need remediation (295,000) results in an
estimated  56.1   million  cubic yards  of  material
needing remediation.

5.3.4    Ownership of Tanks

Private companies and individuals own 69% of the
tanks,  state and local  governments own 8.4%, and
the federal and Native American governments own
2.2%. Ownership of the remaining 20% is unknown.

5.3.5    Size  and Age of Tanks

The size and age of a tank may contribute to the
extent of the  contamination and to the type of work
needed at a site. Exhibit 5-3 shows  the number of
tanks of different sizes reported in the EPA survey,
as of  the Spring 1991.  Almost two-thirds of the
tanks  are between 2,000 and  30,000  gallons, and
28% are between 110 and 2,000 gallons.

Exhibit 5-4  shows  the  age of federally regulated
 tanks, including closed tanks.  The probability of a
 leak is directly related to tank  age,  and 28%  of
Source:  U.S. EPA, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, National Survey of
        Underground Storage Tanks, Spring 1991.
        U.S.  EPA,  Office  of  Underground Storage Tanks,  TC [Toxic
        Characteristic] Study of Petroleum Contaminated Media, Draft, July
        1992.
                    regulated tanks are over 25 years old.  Data are not
                    available on the number  of older tanks  that have
                    been remediated and closed.

                    5.3.6    Location of Regulated Tanks

                    Appendix A,  Exhibit  A-9  lists  the  number of
                    regulated  tank sites by  state.   California, Texas,
                    Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania,
                    and North Carolina contain over 40% of the U.S.
                    total.  The location data should be used with caution
                    because the number of tanks in a state may not be
                    correlated  with  the  number  of releases,  and
                    reporting quality varies among the states.

                    5.3.7    Potential Number of Sites to be Cleaned
                            Up

                    The demand for remediation of contaminated UST
                    sites will be determined by the number of sites with
                    releases and the amount of remediation work needed
                    per site.  These variables have not been precisely
                    determined. The data on the factors that cause and
                    aggravate releases are not available and the impacts
                    of the RCRA  requirements  on the number  of
                    potential  sites are unknown.  Thus, the estimates
                    presented in this section incorporate simplifying
                    assumptions regarding some of these variables.
                                                56

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                 Exhibit 5-3: Size of Federally Regulated Tanks
           Thousands of Tanks

                800-1
                       0.1-2    2-10    10-30     30+   Unknown

                                  Thousands of Gallons

  Note:   Based on reports on 1.6 million tanks, including closed tanks.


  Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, National Survey of Underground
         Storage Tanks, Spring 1991.
                 Exhibit 5-4:  Age of Federally Regulated Tanks
            Thousands of Tanks
            500-/
                     0-5     6-10    11-15   16-20   21-25   25+&

                                                        Unknown
                                 Tank Age in Years


  Note:   Based on reports on 1.6 million tanks, including closed tanks.


  Source: U.S. EPA, Office  of Underground  Storage Tanks. National Survey of Underground
          Storage Tanks, Spring 1991.
                                        57

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
EPA has estimated that the number of confirmed
releases will total 360,000 by 1997 .b By September
1992, about 184,000 of these releases had already
been reported  to  EPA,  and remedial  design or
remedial action had been initiated at 65,000 of these
sites.    This results  in  an  estimated  remaining
remediation market of 295,000 sites (Exhibit 5-5).

Although  the  size of the entire market  has been
estimated, the year-to-year fluctuations in cleanup
efforts are difficult to predict.  EPA estimates that
the RCRA UST requirements will probably cause an
increase in  the  number  of  releases  reported,
followed by a  decrease.   The increase will result
from the phase-in of leak detection requirements in
1993  and tank upgrading requirements  in 1998.
The decline in confirmed releases  will result from
the improvements  in the types of  tank systems in
place and leak detection and monitoring practices
required by RCRA.  EPA estimates that it will take
20 to 30 years to remediate all sites.  Exhibit 5-6
shows the quarterly activity in corrective actions for
the past three years.   The  demand for cleanup
services has been growing faster than cleanups have
been initiated or completed.
5.4 Estimated Dollar Value of Site Cleanup

Based  on  a review  of literature  and data, the
University  of Tennessee reported that the  cost of
remediating UST  sites vary  widely, generally
between $2,000  to  over  $400,000.   Costs at
individual  sites  can exceed  a million dollars. [3]
Based  on  experience  with a limited number of
projects,    EPA  estimates   that  the  average
remediation cost  per  site is $100,000.  This cost
estimate includes treatment or disposal of soil and
ground water,  site investigations,  and feasibility
studies,  but does  not  include costs  related to
excavating, disposing  of, or repairing tanks and
related equipment such as piping. Multiplying this
average by the number  of sites expected to need
remediation   (295,000),  the   projected   total
remediation cost is $29.5 billion.

The timing of these expenditures from year-to-year
cannot  be determined,  although  it  has  been
estimated  that the  cleanup  of  all known and
projected  sites  will  take  20-30  years.    It  is
anticipated that cleanup activities will increase as
the   various   regulatory    deadlines   approach
                Exhibit 5-5:  Estimated Number of UST Sites Requiring Cleanup

Confirmed Releases
Cleanups in RA or RDa
Future Cleanups
Required6
Reported to
£PA
184,000
65,000
119,000
Sites with Future
Releases
176,000
0
176,000
V. Total
360,000
65,000
295,000
Notes:
a As of September 1992, cleanup activities have been initiated at 129,000 sites. Of these, EPA
estimates that 65,000 sites are in the remedial action or remedial design stage. The remaining
64,000 are still in the early stages of investigation, and are, therefore, included in "Future
Cleanups Required."
b "Future Cleanups Required" is derived by subtracting "Cleanups in RD or RA" from "Confirmed
Releases."
     Although the number of confirmed releases may not precisely equal the number of sites with releases, OUST
 estimates  that the difference is small.  Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis it is assumed that the number of
 confirmed releases equals the number of sites with releases.
                                                  58

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                 Exhibit 5-6:  Status of UST Corrective Actions (Cumulative)
           200,000
           150,000 —
           100,000 —
            50,000 —
Confirmed Releases
Cleanups Initiated
Cleanups Completed
                                                                                  184,457
                                                                                  55,444
                             1990
                       1991

                  Fiscal Quarter
                                                                           1992
         Note:   About half of the cleanups initiated have not begun remedial design or remedial action,
                 and, therefore, are counted in the demand estimate.

         Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
(December 1993 for leak detection; and December
1998 for corrosion protection and spill and overfill
prevention).

5.5 Market Entry Considerations

The following  factors will be  important  to  the
success of vendors operating in the UST remedia-
tion market:

 •  Site work is primarily the responsibility of tank
    owners, especially of establishments such as
    retail   gasoline  stations,  fleet  maintenance
    facilities, auto repair facilities, manufacturing
    facilities, mining sites, transportation facilities,
    and petroleum and chemical marketers.

 •  Enforcement activity varies from one  state to
    another.  In addition, some states regulate tanks
    that are  not  regulated  under RCRA.   State
    authorities may be able to provide information
    on their programs.

 •  Often, an  UST  owner's  first  indication of
    contamination comes from a tank testing  and
    replacement contractor.  These companies also
    may  be  hired to coordinate  any  necessary
    remediation.   Often the work  is  done in
                           conjunction with tank replacement or upgrad-
                           ing.  Treatment  or  disposal of contaminated
                           soils  and  ground  water  usually  are  sub-
                           contracted to a company that specializes in the
                           appropriate remedy.  Vendors that specialize in
                           environmental restoration may seek  to  team
                           with companies that specialize in tank testing or
                           replacement.

                        •  As tank testing  and other requirements are
                           implemented,  the extent of cleanup activities
                           and costs per site probably will decrease. Thus,
                           economical ways to remediate smaller releases
                           may be needed.

                       5.6 Remedial Technologies

                       Data on the kinds of innovative technologies used
                       to remediate contaminated UST sites have not been
                       centralized.   For petroleum  contaminated  soils,
                       which account for more than 90% of USTs, a recent
                       EPA study presented information  on the kinds of
                       technologies used for cleanups.[4]

                       Exhibit 5-7 shows frequencies of use for the major
                       categories of treatment and disposal methods (in situ
                       treatment, landfilling, thermal treatment, and land
                       treatment).   Exhibit 5-8 shows a more detailed
                                                 59

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
              Exhibit 5-7: Frequencies of Major Categories of Site Remediation
                   Methods for Petroleum Contaminated Soils at UST Sites
                    In Situ Treatment (19%)
         Thermal Treatment (13%
                Land Treatment (11%)
                                                                      —Landfilling (55%)
                                    Other (2%)
    Note:   These percentages are based on an OUST survey of officials in 22 states conducted between
           August 1990 and July 1991.

    Source: U.S EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency  Response,  Technology Innovation Office  and
           Office of  Underground  Storage Tanks,  Technologies and Options  for UST Corrective Actions:
           Overview and Current Practice, EPA/542/R-92/010, August 1992.
breakdown of  the in  situ,  thermal,  and  land
treatment categories.  Over 32% of the UST site
corrective actions in the states that responded to the
survey  questions  use  innovative  technologies.
Exhibit 5-9 lists specific technologies typically used
for petroleum-contaminated  soils  at  UST sites.
However,  the  frequencies   of  use  of  these
technologies  were  not  reported.   The  use of
innovative  technologies  may  help accelerate the
pace of, or reduce the cost of, remediating UST
sites.   However, most sites tend to rely on more
traditional  approaches.   The  use of innovative
technologies is often hampered by  a lack of cost or
performance data, a lack of expertise on the part of
state and contractor personnel, or additional permit
requirements.  To help overcome  some of these
barriers, the EPA is planning several demonstration
projects  within the next several months  to  test
several  innovative  technologies  at  UST  sites.
Technologies to be evaluated are soil vapor extrac-
tion,  air sparging, enhanced bioremediation,  and
low-level thermal desorption.  EPA also is working
with tank owners to test innovative  technologies at
UST  sites  in EPA's Region V (Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan,  Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin), and
expects to publish cost and performance data.
                                                60

-------
     Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
                 Exhibit 5-8: Frequencies of Specific Technologies Used
                      for Petroleum Contaminated Soils at UST Sites
               In Situ Technologies
             (used at 19% of the sites)
          BioremediationSoil Vapor Extraction
          (2%)     X"TKfcSw       (9%)
                Unspecified (89%)
                Thermal Treatment Technologies
                   (used at 13% of the sites)
                Incineration (0.1%)
                                                         Asphalt
                                                         Options
                                                           (61%)
                                     UTS
                                     (39%)
                                  Land Treatment Technologies
                                    (used at 11% of the sites)
                                Land Applications
                                         (13%
                                   Aeration
                                     (50%)
                                                     Landfarming
                                                     (36%)
Note:   LTTS is low temperature thermal stripping.

Source: U.S EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office and Office of
       Underground Storage Tanks, Technologies and Options for UST Corrective Actions:  Overview and
       Current Practice, EPA/542/R-92/010, August 1992.
                  Exhibit 5-9: Technologies Currently Used for Managing
                        Petroleum Contaminated Soils at UST Sites
      Ex Situ Management of Soils
In Situ Management of
        Sons
Management of
 Ground Water
       Low temperature thermal strippers

       Hot mix asphalt plants

       Landfilling

       Land treatment

       Cold mix asphalt plants

       Stabilization and solidification

       Cement kilns

       Biological processes
   Soil vapor extraction

   Bioremediation
Free product recovery
Pump and treat
   Source:  U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office and
           Office of Underground Storage Sites, Technologies and Options for UST Corrective Actions:
           Overview and Current Practice, EPA/542/R-92/010, August 1992.
                                             61

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends


5.7 References

1.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, 'Technical Requirements
    and State Program Approval, Final Rule," 53 Federal Register, No. 185, September 23, 1988.

2.   U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,  Office  of Underground Storage  Tanks, "TC  [Toxicity
    Characteristic] Study of Contaminated Media and Debris," Draft, July 1992.

3.   Bueckman, D.S., S. Kumar, and M. Russell, "Underground Storage Tanks: Resource  Requirements for
    Corrective Action,"  University of  Tennessee, Waste  Management Research and Education Institute,
    Knoxville, TN, December 1991.

4.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,  Technology
    Innovation Office and Office  of Underground  Storage Tanks, "Technologies and Options for UST
    Corrective Actions: Overview and Current Practice," EPA/542/R-92/010, August 1992.

5.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of Underground Storage Tanks, "National Survey of
    Underground Storage Tanks," Spring 1992.

6.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground  Storage  Tanks, "Quarterly Activity
    Reports," Fourth Quarter 1992.
                                                62

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                                      CHAPTER 6
                     DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION OF
                    DEPARTMENT OF  DEFENSE  SITES
The Department of Defense (DOD) has undertaken
an ambitious environmental restoration program at
thousands of facilities throughout  the U.S. and its
territories.   These facilities contain  soil, ground
water, and other media that have been contaminated
as a result of numerous industrial, storage, training,
and testing activities. Typical contaminants include
petroleum   products,  solvents,   heavy  metals,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and
explosives residues.

As of  September 30,  1991, DOD had identified
17,660 sites located at 1,877 DOD installations, and
6,786 "Formerly Used Defense Sites" (FUDS) with
potential hazardous waste contamination involving
soil or ground water. Of these, DOD estimates that
7,313 sites will require cleanup.[l] The remaining
sites have either  been cleaned up, are  currently
being cleaned up, or do not require further  work.
DOD is committed to  bringing all these facilities
into  compliance with environmental regulations
within the next 20 years.

To date, DOD has concentrated most of its efforts
on investigating  the extent  of the environmental
problems at these sites. Future efforts will include
more remedial activities.   To  accomplish  the
cleanups, DOD will need the services of firms that
can address wastes similar to those found at private
sector industrial facilities as well as firms that can
remediate  wastes  unique  to DOD,  such  as
unexploded ordnance.

6.1 Program Description

The task of coordinating the evaluation and cleanup
of contamination at DOD sites has  been assigned to
the Defense Environmental Restoration Program
(DERP), which is managed centrally by the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Environment). The
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) authorizes  DOD to carry out this
program in  consultation  with EPA.   DERP  is
managed within the overall framework of SARA
and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation,  and   Liability  Act   of  1980
(CERCLA).

DERP  includes two  major components:   Other
Hazardous  Waste  Operations  (OHW)  and  the
Installation Restoration Program (IRP).    OHW
examines current operations to find cost-effective
approaches to DOD's waste management activities
and prevent  pollution  at the  point of generation.
Included in this program are research, development,
and demonstration (RD&D) of pollution prevention
and hazardous  waste management technologies.
These efforts involve study of unexploded ordnance
detection and range clearance methods; investigation
of alternative products (substitution);  revision of
specifications;  improvement  of acquisition  and
operating practices; procurement of hazardous waste
reduction equipment; exchange of information;  and
other   environmental  restoration  and  pollution
prevention activities.

Under  the  IRP, which is the primary focus of  this
chapter, DOD cleans up all contaminated sites  that
are required  by environmental statutes. Although
policy  direction  and  oversight of  IRP  is  the
responsibility of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense, each  individual defense service (Army,
Navy, Air  Force, and Defense Logistics Agency) is
responsible for program implementation.

DERP  has specified procedures for evaluating sites
and procuring cleanup services under  IRP  that
conform to the requirements of the National Oil  and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), and
follow  EPA  guidelines for site investigations  and
remediation.  These procedures cover all phases of
site operations, including preliminary assessment
(PA), site  inspection (SI),  remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS), remedial design (RD),  and
remedial action (RA).  In general, activities related
to preliminary assessment through remedial design
are conducted by contractors  other  than those  that
conduct remedial action.
                                              63

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
In selecting and designing remedies, DOD officials
coordinate with EPA regional officials to ensure that
cleanup goals meet regulatory requirements.  Most
contracting is done on an installation-oriented basis,
either through centralized contracting service centers
or directly by the installation.   Although  each
service  follows  general  procedures specified by
DERP, each procures  its own services.

6.2 Factors Affecting the Demand for DOD
    Site Cleanup

The  following factors may impact the market for
remediation of DOD sites:

 •  DOD believes most  sites have been located.3
    In 1989 and 1990 the number of sites identified
    for  listing in the IRP increased  115%; in 1991
    it increased only 1%.

 •  The pace of  remediating  sites  is subject to
    change in response to general  budgetary and
    political  developments.   Based on the fiscal
    year 1991 rate, DOD has estimates that all the
    identified sites will  be cleaned up by  2011.
    DOD anticipates  that  remedial design  and
    remedial action work will increase until  1998
    and then slow at a moderate rate until all the
    RA work is completed.fi]

 •  Because  the  nature  and  magnitude  of the
    contamination at many identified sites are still
    only partially  known, and because experience
    and data from  past remedial actions are limited,
    cleanup requirements are uncertain. Within the
    next  several  years,  DOD  is expected  to
    complete  a thorough  characterization  of  its
    contamination problem and cleanup needs.  In
    addition, information on past cleanup activities
    will contribute to a more accurate assessment of
    cleanup needs.

 • DOD gives top  priority to cleanup activities
    necessary to prevent near-term adverse impacts
     to workers, the public, or the environment, and
     to activities required to satisfy agreements with
     local, state, or other  federal agencies.  This
    policy may occasionally lead to postponements
    at other sites.

 •  The rate of base closures and realignments will
    affect the scheduling of site cleanup.  Prior to
    closing or  realigning a base, DOD  may  be
    required to  clean up the site. The Base Closure
    and Realignment Acts of 1988 (BRAC 88) and
    1990 (BRAC 90) designated 113 military bases
    for  closure and another 62  installations for
    realignment.  Congress provided $220 million
    during fiscal  year  1992 for  environmental
    restoration  at bases scheduled for closure.

 •  As  with  other  site remediation  programs,
    changes in regulatory requirements also may
    affect cleanup goals, technologies  used, and
    costs.

6.3 Number and Characteristics of Sites

The data on the number, size, contents, and other
characteristics  of DOD sites are derived from data
compiled by the DERP from reports it receives from
each of the services.

6.3.1   Number of Sites

As stated earlier,  DOD  has  estimated  that 7,313
sites are likely  to require remedial action. Exhibit
6-1 shows the number of sites in each service likely
to require remediation services. The Army has the
greatest number (37%), followed by the Air Force,
Navy,  and the Defense  Logistics Agency (DLA).
Although FUDS are managed by the Army, they are
the result of activities of all the services.

Exhibit 6-2 lists the number of sites within each
service needing remediation, by site category.  In
deriving these estimates,  DOD assigned each site to
one category,  even  though some sites may have
multiple activities. Thus, the number of sites in any
specific  site  category  may  be  underestimated.
Exhibit A-10 (Appendix A) provides definitions of
20 categories  of sites used in coding data in  the
Defense   Environmental  Restoration   Program
Management Information System (DERPMIS).[2]
 a   These data do not include third party sites (TPS), which are sites that have never been owned or operated by
 DOD, but for which DOD may be a potentially responsible party (PRP). DERP estimates that through fiscal year 2000
 DOD will spend $762 million in total liability costs for these sites.
                                                  64

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
                        Exhibit 6-1: DOD Sites by Service Component
     24,446 Sites Identified
                                D  Army (43%)
                                    FUDS (28%)
                                    DLA(1%)
                                UJ  Air Force (18%)
                                H  Navy (10%)
                        D  Army (37%)
                        E3  FUDS (20%)
                        •  DLA(1%)
                        CD  Air Force (26%)
                        H  Navy (16%)
                                                         7,313 Sites Need
                                                           Remediation
  Source: DOD, Defense Environmental Restoration Program, Annual Report to Congress for F/sca/ Year 1991,
         February 1992.
         DOD, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Environment), Installation Restoration
         Program Cost Estimate, September 1991.
DERP derived  these  estimates  from  data  in
DERPMIS and other information provided by the
DOD services.   Because the  Sis and RI/FSs for
many of these sites  have not been completed, the
estimates may be revised in the future.

6.3.2  Types of Contaminants

Data on the  types of contaminants found at DOD
sites can indicate what kinds of technologies will be
needed to clean them up.  Although DERPMIS does
not contain contaminant data on all 7,313 sites, data
are available for 3,943 sites (54%) which are likely
to be representative of the types of contaminants
that need to be addressed.

Exhibit 6-3 shows the contaminant groups that are
coded in  DERPMIS, along with indications of the
frequencies of occurrence. Exhibit A-l 1 (Appendix
A)  provides  the frequencies of the  most common
contaminant  groups for each site category.

The most frequently reported wastes are petroleum-
related products, VOCs,  PCBs,  metals,  solvents,
and explosives.  Most of these waste  groups are
also frequently found at waste sites associated with
non-defense  industrial facilities.  Also, a number of
sites contain contaminants,  such as  unexploded
ordnance  or  low  level radiation,  that  are  less
frequently found in industry and thus present unique
problems for selecting remediation approaches.

DERPMIS does not provide information on  the
specific  compounds  found  throughout  DOD.
However, a 1990  study of  over 7,000 sampling
locations at 196 Air Force  installations identified
the ten most common organic compounds found in
ground water  at these  sites.  In order of relative
frequency,  these  are  TCE,  toluene,  benzene,
phenolics, PCE, ethylbenzene, 1,1,1-TCA, trans-1,2-
DCE, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and 1,1-DCA.[3]

6.3.3    Quantity of Contaminated Soil

Many DOD remedial actions will require treatment
or removal of contaminated  soil. Although DOD
has not estimated the total quantity  of materials to
be remediated, it has estimated "typical" quantities
of contaminated soil for 9 of its 20  site categories.
DOD developed these data based on model sites
that are representative of the size, types of wastes,
media, and other parameters of DOD  sites.  The
quantities for these models  range from 700 cubic
yards of contaminated soil to be remediated per site
for a typical small  fire/crash training area to 9,500
cubic yards for a typical large storage area (Exhibit
                                               65

-------
    Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
Exhibit 6-2:  Number of Sites to be Remediated by Service and Site Category
'.^;<;;;/£::', '... . Site Category8
Aboveground Storage Tankb
Large Burn Area
Small Burn Area
Contaminated Ground Water
Contaminated Sediment
Large
Small
Contaminated Building
Disposal Pit/Dry Well
Explosive/Ordnance Disposal Area
Fire/Crash Training Area
Large
Small
Large Landfill
Small Landfill
Petroleum, Oil, Lubricant (POL) Line
Spill Area
Storage Area
Large
Small
Surface Disposal Area
Surface Impoundment/Lagoon
Underground Storage Tank Areab
Waste Line
Waste Treatment Plant
Large
Small
None of the Above
Hazardous and Toxic Waste
Totals
Army
85
49
0
26
0
4
184
67
32
0
16
218
0
0
109
75
670
126
191
435
8
72
0
363
NA
2,728
Navy
17
0
40
g
22
0
26
141
23
0
71
10
166
9
141
0
116
211
35
57
20
0
13
36
NA
1,163
Air
Force
31
0
25
12
0
79
1
98
10
199
0
174
174
34
331
0
109
127
61
267
8
8
8
111
NA
1,867
DLA
0
7
0
2
0
4
0
34
0
1
0
2
3
0
4
19
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
NA
80
FUDS
NAb
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
118
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
826b
0
0
0
0
531
1,475
Total
133b
56
65
49
22
87
211
340
183
200
87
404
343
43
585
94
895
464
289
1 ,588b
36
80
21
510
531
7,313
Notes:
a The definitions of site types appear in Appendix A, Exhibit A-10.
b The estimate for FUDS storage tanks includes both underground and aboveground tanks.
Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Environment), Installation Restoration
Program Cost Estimate, September 1 991 .
                                   66

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
          Exhibit 6-3:  Most Frequently Reported Contaminant Groups at DOD Sites
             (Percents refer to the frequency of occurrence of the contaminant)8
Air .Force:.:.::-'-- 	 	
(6J1^34'jSiles)"v:;:.«^.v
Petroleum, Oil, or
Lubricants (POL)
Solvents
Refuse with
Hazardous Waste
Refuse without
Hazardous Waste
Paints
Heavy Metals
Inert Material
Pesticides
Industrial Sludge
PCBs
Other, Unknown &
Unspecified6
34
11
6
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
50
•••• •'. ... ' : . . Army
.•—' :. ; '(ol1,114.:SHes)--:-\v,%a.:
Heavy Metals
Ordnance Components
Petroleum, Oil, &
Lubricants
Explosive Chemicals
Pesticides
Solvents
Chlorinated Solvents
Inert Material
Petroleum, Oil, &
Lubricants, Sludge
Scrap Metal
Other, Unknown, &
Unspecified5
25
17
15
9
7
7
7
6
6
4
49
v..'..;"'.:.."; •••. Navy . . . £%%&..:
•. ••ti;;:;.(of;995;sRe.s),:,;;;^;;L
Petroleum.Oil, &
Lubricants
Solvents
Paints
Heavy Metals
PCBs
Pesticides
Acids
Petroleum, Oil, &
Lubricants, Sludge
Refuse without
Hazardous Waste
Industrial Wastewater
Other, Unknown, &
Unspecified1*
38
22
12
11
9
7
6
4
4
4
26
Notes:
a These percentages reflect the number of sites where a contaminant is identified relative to the number of
sites in the service for which data have been reported. The total of the percentages are greater than 100
because most sites contain more than one type of contaminant.
b The "other" category includes contaminants labeled as "other," "unknown," or "unspecified" in DERPMIS.
Source: Analysis of data from DOD's Defense Environmental Restoration Program Management Information
System, June 1992, provided by DERP.
6-4).  These estimates are based on "typical" sites,
and values may vary from one site to another.

 6.4    Estimated Dollar Value of Site Cleanup

DOD's estimate of the costs of remediation were
developed from the aforementioned "model" site
characteristics.  DOD developed a cost estimate for
each  type  of site using  either EPA's Cost  of
Remedial  Action (CORA) computer  model,  the
Navy's  version  of  the CORA  model, or costs
provided by the services.b  Exhibit 6-5 shows the
DOD-estimated remedial action costs by service and
type of site. DOD estimates that RD/RA will cost
$15.4 billion (1991 dollars), of which $1.4 billion
will  be  for RD.    In addition,  operation and
    The CORA model is a computerized expert advisor used to select remedial actions for Superfund hazardous waste sites
and estimate their costs. It also may be used for RCRA or other corrective actions. The model may be used for site-
specific estimates and for agency programming, budgeting and planning. DOD uses CORA primarily for programming
and budgeting purposes. The model analyzes a site based on user input of site characteristics such as types of wastes and
media, selects treatment technologies from a database of 42 technologies, and estimates implementation costs. EPA has
estimated that the cost system is accurate within -30% to +50%.
                                                67

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
       Exhibit 6-4: Typical Volume of Contaminated Soil for Selected Site Categories
Site Category
Aboveground Storage
Tanks
Burn Area
Large
Small
Contaminated Sediment
Large
Small
Disposal Pit/Dry Well
Fire/Crash Training Area
Large
Small
Spill Area
Storage Area
Large
Small
Underground Storage
Tanks
Waste Treatment Plant
Large
Small
NO. Of Ji'rJ
• Sites*-:':..
133
56
65
22
87
340
200
87
585
94
895
1,588
80
21
CubK* Yitrjtir
Per Site

5,400
7,300
NA
4,400
NA
6,500
5,600
700
1,600
9,500
1,400
1,000
8,500
1,020
Total CMfcte
Yards*
718,200
408,800
NA
96,800
NA
2,210,000
1,120,000
60,900
936,000
893,000
1 ,253,000
1 ,588,000
680,000
21,000
Common waste .;.:...
:.,.:, . ..Present ''••<-••%
Petroleum Waste,
VOCs
VOCs, PCBs
Oil, Grease, Phenols,
Toluene
PCBs, Chlorobenzene,
Vinyl Chloride
Oil, Grease
PCBs
Acetone, Pesticides,
Arsenic
VOCs
Heavy Metals
Notes:
a From Exhibit 6-2.
b Number of sites times the average cubic yards per site.
Source: DOD, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Environment), Installation Restoration
Program Cost Estimate, September 1991.
maintenance (O&M) will cost $4 billion; PAs, Sis,
and  RI/FSs   will  cost $1.5  billion; and IRP
administration will cost $2.1 billion.  Other items,
such  as  third  party   site  expenditures,  reim-
bursements to states for technical support services,
and  research, development,  and demonstrations
(RD&D),  will cost about $1.4 billion.  The total
estimated cost for all IRP activities over the next 20
years is $24.5 billion.

6.5 Market Entry Considerations

Although  policy is determined centrally  by the
Deputy   Assistant   Secretary   of   Defense
(Environment),  each  service is  responsible for
investigating and restoring its own installations; and
each uses its own approach to this work.  Virtually
all DOD site assessment and remedial action work
is done through contractors.  Generally, there are
two groups of contractors: those that work on site
assessments and investigation (PA through RI/FS)
and those that do RA.  Contractors that work on
PAs through RI/FSs  seldom work on RD/RAs.
Vendors  interested  in  innovative  technologies
should ensure that their technologies are considered
at the  earlier  stages  of  site  investigation and
assessment.  Appendix  B  lists  DOD points of
contact for each service.
                                                68

-------
                        Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
                       g,
                       CC
s
                        *
in

                                         CM CO
                                         O)" •*"
                                         o o
                                         V* <&
                                           CD
                                           co
                            CM_
                            O5
                            f*"",
                            <«•
                                           CM
                                           co
nated
Large
Small
                                              CM
                                              CM
                                                 co
                                                    s
                                       §
                                                    in
                                                    8
                             S
                                              CO -^
                                              as
                                              §s
                                    0 0
                                    ffl- 
Fire/Cras
Large
Small
     co co

     55
                                                                o o
                                                                co co
     in r*»
     i- co
     88
     &£
                                                                o in
                                                                •*" co
                                                                o o
                                                                to-
S

                                              2
                                                                            •o o>
                                                     1 jj  ir-2
                                                     •5* CM
                                                     « o) co
                                                                                **
                                                             insist
                                                                          i  i i § 1 i ••
                                                                           -.jg.*-8*-
                                                                           _ *^ CO
                               CO
                               {§

                               I
                               t
                               I
                               I
                               •5
                               0)
                                                                                      E   O
                                                                                          0
                                                      69

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
S
             n
             en
                   in

 o o
 CO CM
 CM CM.

 co" in"
 T- CD
                            CO
                            #*
                            0
                           - <«•
o o
CO «/>
CM

co"
                          o o
                          o o
  §

  o"

  s
                          •-
81-2

§|s

Il5
C  (0 ^>
(0  £
                                                        -D co

                                                        ® co"
                                                        E ?-
                                                        
-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
The  management  of  the  Army  IRP  is  the
responsibility of the  U.S.  Army Environmental
Center (USAEC), formerly  the U.S. Army Toxic
and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA),
which was part of the Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE). USAGE schedules all activities and does
studies for PAs, Sis,  and RIs/FSs, through more
than two dozen contractors.  RD/RA is done by the
USAGE under the direction of USAEC.  In the past,
most of the design work has been done by  the
USAGE'S Missouri River Division (MRD), although
some work is also done by other USAGE divisions
and districts.

The management of the Navy IRP is the responsi-
bility of the Navy Facilities Engineering Command
(NAVFAC), which reports to the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy for Installations and  Environment.
Day-to-day work of the IRP is  run by ten field
divisions that operate  within distinct geographical
boundaries.  Each division has a contract, which is
issued through NAVFAC (known as the Comprehen-
sive   Long-Term   Environmental  Action   Navy
contract—CLEAN). These  contracts are primarily
for work relating to the PA through the RD.

The Air Force IRP is decentralized. It  is executed
by the Air Force Major Commands. Each may  use
specialized technical support from environmental
contractors.  Contractors are accessed through pre-
established task-order  contracts  administered five
contract service centers, individual contracts let by
the   commands   themselves,    or    individual
installations.  Although much of the Air Force's
restoration work is currently being conducted by the
USAGE, the Air Force plans to  issue its own
contracts for this work.

The Defense Logistics  Agency's sites are managed
by the Huntsville, Alabama, district of the USAGE.
6.6 Remedial Technologies

Information on the technologies being used at DOD
sites is limited.   DOD  and EPA have jointly
compiled a partial  list of innovative technologies
selected or used at DOD sites. Bioremediation has
been selected  for  11  DOD  sites  for  VOCs and
PAHs;  soil vapor extraction has been selected at 10
DOD sites  for VOCs, PAHs, and gasoline; soil
washing has been selected at two sites for PCBs and
metals; and soil flushing and in situ vitrification are
each to be used at  one site.  A list of  these DOD
sites  appears  in  EPA's  Innovative  Treatment
Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report.[4]

The DOD spends $13.5 million annually on RD&D,
primarily to demonstrate  promising technologies.
The Air Force has placed  special emphasis on
bioventing, which it is demonstrating at over 100
sites across  the  country.    Examples of  other
technologies demonstrated include:  in  situ and ex
situ vapor extraction, in situ soil venting, in situ
bioventing,  in situ bioremediation, ex situ bio-
remediation  of petroleum products in soil and
ground water, chemical detoxification of chlorinated
aromatic compounds, in situ carbon regeneration,
incineration   of   explosives-contaminated   soil,
infrared  thermal   destruction,  low  temperature
thermal stripping, mobile rotary kiln incineration of
soil, thermal destruction, radio frequency  thermal
soil decontamination, stabilization/solidification, and
compacting  explosives contaminated  soil.  DOD
work  on  these   and  other  technologies  are
summarized biannually in a reference of current IRP
and hazardous waste treatment technologies.  The
document provides  a brief summary  of each project
and a contact for further technical information. [5]
Other information on DOD demonstration  projects
is  available  in a  publication from  the  Federal
Remediation Technology Roundtable.[6]
                                               71

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends


6.7 References

1.   U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Environment), "Installation
    Restoration Program Cost Estimate," September 1991.

2.   U.S. Department of Defense, "Defense Environmental Restoration Program: Annual Report to Congress
    For Fiscal  Year 1991," February 1992.

3.   Hunter, P.M., "The Installation Restoration Program Information Management System (IRPIMS)™ and
    an Overview of the Air Force Hazardous Waste Investigations," Military Activities, December 1990.

4.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
    Innovation Office, "Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report," EPA/542/R-92/011,
    October 1992.

5.   U.S. Department of Defense,  U.S.  Army Toxics  and Hazardous Materials Agency, Army Corps of
    Engineers, "Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control Technologies," CETHA-TS-CR-90067,
    Aberdeen Proving  Ground, MD, November 1992.

6.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  et al., "Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site
    Remediation Technologies," Second Edition, prepared by the member agencies of the Federal Remediation
    Technologies Roundtable, EPA/542/B-92/003, August 1992.
                                                72

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
                                      CHAPTER 7
                     DEMAND FOR REMEDIATION  OF
                    DEPARTMENT OF  ENERGY SITES
One of the most serious and costly environmental
remediation tasks facing the federal government is
the cleanup and restoration of more than 100 major
installations  and  other  locations  that  are  the
responsibility  of the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE).  Environmental problems at DOE instal-
lations began in the 1940s with the  Manhattan
Project and continued for more than 40 years while
the government developed its  nuclear complex.
Research, development,  and production of nuclear
weapons and reactors, resulted in the generation and
disposal of large quantities of radioactive and non-
radioactive  wastes,  which have contaminated a
number of large "sites" and many smaller ones.

The scope of the remediation needed is still being
evaluated.  DOE is in the process of completing a
major   "programmatic   environmental   impact
statement" (PEIS). The PEIS, which is expected to
be completed during fiscal year 1993, will document
the environmental cleanup and restoration needs at
DOE installations to  the extent possible.

DOE is committed to  cleaning up contamination and
bringing  all its installations into  environmental
compliance  by the year 2019.[1]  Realizing this
goal will create enormous opportunity for firms that
provide remediation services.

7.1 Program Description

DOE's environmental programs are managed by its
Office of Environmental  Restoration and Waste
Management and fall into two broad  categories:
Waste Operations and Environmental Restoration.
As its name implies, Waste Operations is concerned
with the treatment, storage, and  disposal of wastes
generated from DOE's ongoing operations. Included
in this category are  DOE's  Corrective Activities,
which are intended to bring operating installations
into compliance with applicable federal, state, and
local health, safety, and environmental regulations.
Environmental Restoration is the primary focus of
this chapter.  This program was developed to assess
and clean up installations and "facilities"—such as
reactors,   laboratories,   equipment,   buildings,
pipelines,  waste  treatment systems,  and storage
tanks—contaminated with radioactive, hazardous,
and mixed waste stemming from past operations of
DOE's nuclear programs.  This program includes
corrective actions under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), which are necessary for
sites at about one-quarter of DOE's  installations.
All sites  requiring cleanup  under  RCRA  are
addressed in Chapter 4 of this report.

Environmental Restoration has two subprograms:
Decontamination   and Decommissioning,  which
focuses on contaminated equipment, buildings, and
other facilities; and Remedial Actions, which focuses
primarily on sites with contaminated soil and water.

7.1.1   Decontamination and Decommissioning
       (D&D)

Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) is
DOE's program  to manage  government-owned,
retired facilities that were used  for early nuclear
energy research and defense programs.  DOE is
responsible for managing these surplus facilities to
protect the public  health and environment from
radioactive  or hazardous  materials that may  be
present until the facilities can be decontaminated and
entombed, dismantled and removed, or converted for
non-nuclear  use.   About  500 such facilities  are
currently slated for D&D by 2019,  but as many as
1,000 facilities ultimately may require D&D.[1]

7.1.2   Remedial Actions Program

About  90%  of  DOE's  installations  require
environmental work under the Remedial Actions
Program.  These  installations vary  widely in size.
For example, the Laboratory  for  Energy-Related
                                              73

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
Health Research in Davis, California, occupies 15
acres, while Hanford Reservation in the southeastern
part of Washington covers 560 square miles.  The
Remedial  Actions  Program  includes assessment,
characterization, remediation, and closure activities.
Assessment and characterization activities are still
in progress at most installations. Much of the work
will continue  for years.

Thirty-five of the installations currently  requiring
remediation by DOE are being addressed under two
specialized  subsets  of  the  Remedial   Actions
Program:   the Uranium  Mill Tailings Remedial
Action (UMTRA) Project and the Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP).[2]

The  UMTRA Project provides for  stabilizing and
controlling uranium mill tailings  at inactive mills.
The tailings resulted from the production of uranium
between the early 1950s  and the early 1970s.  In
addition to the primary UMTRA sites, many private
residential and  commercial properties  are being
remediated under the  project.   These "vicinity"
properties are contaminated because tailings  were
used as fill for construction and landscaping, or were
carried by the wind to open areas. DOE is working
to complete  surface  remediation work at all the
remaining  sites  by  1998  when  Congressional
authorization for the project expires.  In  addition,
ground-water restoration is required at some sites
and  is  expected to  begin in  1998 and  continue
through 2014.

FUSRAP  involves the cleanup or control of sites
owned or leased by DOE or other  government
agencies as well as privately owned commercial and
residential property—where  there  is   residual
radioactive material  from the early  years of the
nation's atomic  energy program.  DOE anticipates
that  remediation activities  under  FUSRAP will
continue for more than 25 years.

7.2 Factors Affecting Demand for DOE Site
    Cleanup

The  following factors  affect  the  demand  for
remediation of DOE installations.

  •  Cleanup  and restoration work at most DOE
     installations is in the  early stages. The nature
     and magnitude of the problem  at many sites is
     still only partially known.
•  DOE does not expect to clean up all sites and
   bring all of its installations into environmental
   compliance until at least 2019. This provides a
   30-year "window of opportunity" for vendors of
   remediation   technologies   and   services.
   However,   sites   with  arid  soils  that  are
   contaminated with volatile organic compounds
   (VOCs) are a high priority.  DOE expects to
   complete Records of Decision (RODs) for the
   majority of these sites by  1995.[3]

•  The 30-year estimate to  remediate all DOE sites
   could be lengthened or shortened depending on
   the funds  appropriated  by Congress for DOE
   programs.    Cleanup   schedules  are  heavily
   dependent on available  funds.

•  Just over 6%  of the annual  budget of DOE's
   Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste
   Management  is  used  to   fund  technology
   development activities.   This amounts to an
   estimated $2.2 billion over the next five years
   (fiscal years 1994-1998). [3]

•  As with DOD, cleanup requirements at DOE
   sites are extremely  sensitive to  changes in a
   wide  variety  of  environmental  statutes and
   regulations.  Remedial, decontamination, de-
   commissioning, and waste  management and
   compliance-related corrective activities overlap
   at many  installations.   The requirements of a
   variety of federal laws simultaneously  impact
   decision making.  In addition to EPA regula-
   tions, these statutes include the Atomic Energy
   Act and  the  Uranium  Mill Tailings Radiation
   Control Act of 1978 (UMTRA). Vendors in this
   market should keep up to date on regulatory and
   legislative  developments  of concern to DOE
   remediation efforts.

 • DOE gives top priority  to  cleanup  activities
   necessary to prevent near-term adverse impacts
   to workers, the public,  or the environment and
   to  activities required  to meet  the  terms  of
   agreements between DOE and local, state, or
   federal agencies.

7.3 Number and Characteristics of Sites

DOE is responsible for 110  locations  in 33 states
and  Puerto Rico under its Remedial Actions  and
Decontamination and Decommissioning Programs.[3]
                                                74

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
Assessment and characterization activities have yet
to be completed at nearly two-thirds of the installa-
tions, including most of the major installations such
as Rocky Flats, Colorado, Oak Ridge Reservation,
Tennessee, Savannah  River, South  Carolina, and
Hanford Reservation, Washington.

Many DOE locations contain more than one "site"
or area of contamination, and each area may require
different remedies. DOE estimates that about 4,000
contaminated sites, covering more than 26,000 acres
at DOE installations and non-DOE locations, require
some remediation. The number of sites grows as
assessment    and  characterization    activities
continue. [4]

Twenty-three sites at 16 DOE locations are on the
Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). DOE has
lead responsibility in the  cleanup of these  sites.
DOE also is involved in the remediation  of four
other NPL sites—Maxey Flats,  Kentucky;  Shpack
Landfill,  Massachusetts; South  Valley Site,  New
Mexico; and Monticello Uranium Mill, Utah. These
are  EPA-lead sites for which DOE shares financial
responsibility with other responsible parties.

Exhibit 7-1  lists the 62  installations and  other
locations at which assessment and characterization
activities are in progress or have yet to be initiated
under DOE's Remedial Actions Program, including
15  of the 16  NPL sites.  These installations and
other  locations   represent  potential   areas  for
applications of innovative technology.  The exhibit
includes only  the sites for which DOE has  lead-
agency responsibility.  It  identifies contaminated
matrices  of concern, examples of contaminants
reported, estimated volumes of  contaminated  soil,
and estimated near-term (fiscal years  1994-1998)
remedial  action costs.  Appendix A, Exhibit  A-12
provides similar  information where remedial  work
is already in progress or has been completed for
DOE-lead installations and other locations, including
one NPL site.  Data for these tables were compiled
from reports published by  DOE in 1991 and  1993
and interviews in 1992 with personnel in  DOE
Operations Offices throughout  the country  and
selected DOE  contractors.

Information  about the nature of contaminants at
many of these installations is incomplete. In  some
cases, they are unique to  nuclear production and
include high- and  low-level radioactive  wastes,
explosives,  and  pyrophorics.   In other  cases,
contaminants such as inorganic chemicals, fuels,
solvents, halogenated organics, and heavy metals are
similar to those generated in a variety of industrial
processes. [4]   Mixed  waste,  contaminated with
radioactive and hazardous  constituents, also is a
significant problem at many installations and sites.

At many DOE installations,  contaminated soil is the
major problem.   Some general estimates of soil
quantities  are available for  22  of the installations.
DOE estimates that just over 6 million cubic yards
of  mill  tailings  will  be  remediated  under  the
UMTRA project.  Another  1.6 million cubic yards
of soil will be remediated under FUSRAP.  The total
quantity  of soil  to  be remediated  at all  DOE
installations has not been determined.  Exhibit 7-1
provides available site estimates.

7.4 Estimated Dollar Value of Site Cleanup

Three  major  factors  affect  DOE's  ability   to
accurately estimate what it will cost to complete its
30-year cleanup effort.

 •  The extent of the problems at many installations
    is not known;

 •  Federal budget goals are redefined each year,
    and  Congressional appropriations  priorities
    change; and

 •  Future development of  innovative technologies
    could offset some of the costs.

Because of these factors, DOE has not generated an
overall estimate of the 30-year total cleanup cost.
The Agency's Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management Five-Year Plan,  updated  each year,
provides the most realistic estimate of intended near-
term  investment  in  remediation  services  and
technology development. Total funding  planned for
DOE cleanup and restoration activities—including
assessment/characterization, cleanup, and closure and
monitoring—for fiscal years 1994 through 1998 is
$12.3 billion. Another $2.2 billion is earmarked for
technology  development   activities. [3]    Some
estimates place the final cost of cleaning up DOE's
weapons complex at over $200 billion. [5] [6]

7.5 Market Entry Considerations

Contractors perform  virtually  all cleanup  and
restoration work at DOE installations.  DOE issues
                                                75

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
•ft"""-
52 o» S
'f? JL 5
tiJ -5T Jj
ifc!
Ifl
•g H» j
"i * E
a 5 '

° 's '
III
Ixj
*w
s \
5K '
1(

3
«
8


'
G>



a«k
. .:.:'.;.:'.jg..


Installatk
i
"k

f :

*
il
1 ^*
is.
9
w
w
5
:
j
»
l>





^
2
?•

5
S




.'; ' •' •

















f5
.*•
c
"5










TJ
Amchitka Islan
s

r^
in
CM

1
c
5
1
o
CC
13
1|
"D
3
2
11
CO §



8
Q
o3
Q
m
"i
u


^^
o>.£3
m
Energy Technc
Engineering Ct
O

m
PS,
CM
te-
8
o
CM
i . 9
cc ? ^
065
24*
-O ni
&> -5.
£»•§
iS!6
&
~o -o

5*13
« (0 o3 






w"
(0
o
g-
LU

m






o
T3 *
$ !2
cc ^
i §>
"S «
&9


I



0



^ _J
HZ
2 c
=> O

^
"c7
Q.

Grand Junctior
Office0
8





.0
E
CO
CO


0
^ 2
CC a)
sf
IP
c
3
2
il



§



^
^
^





i
^

"D




O
8

in


c
o
"p "52
DC ^
§ §>
"S «
Sp
1
3
2



0



^^
cc
2





Naturita

I

1
o
I

I

m
O
Q
!5


 x
UJ
                                       76

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
  »>..»•;:
  it.
1

I
• •
1-
ri.
!5
              CO
               c
               0  .
               > M
                   o>

               O CO CO
               O ^ ^r
                     Q.

                     O
                          .o

                          1
                          CO
"Daughters
2

°-S
II
                                    c

                                           c to
                                           si
O  ^
^ ^3
Diesel Fuel,
Chemical Wastes
1
ll
=•«
                                             8
                                                         CO
                                                         o>
                                                   c
                                                  1
                                                   1
                                                   O
                                                   c9
                                                   O
                                                               3t

                                                               D

                                                              D
nd
dimen

                                                                     Q
                                                                     o9
                                                                     Q
                                                               o c
                                                               = 0
                          CO
                                       i
                                       5
                                       if
                                       1
Seymou
nellas Pl
                                         .£•
ory
es
rgonne National
aboratory-West
                                77

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends








TJ
1
S
5

^
**
"S
1










«*V-
„ W'jjjj • ••
w) '?* ^S
HI LL,:««-
||||
fill

Ill
f S;t
:•:.... "•"':•..
T. ? £*•'!-•'
i | !

.;,,, M ».".'..!
'r":-H.::r.: . "
•'•• •&
: •":iS:^

: IM W" ;:•'•'•:
f.|:":-
^2 •-• • •••
; Jg...

S
18
S
1

CO
CO


1
c
c
0)
vel Radioactiv
, Metals,
cs, Mixed
s, Inorganics
1111
•E §,
T3 ^ '
C 73 CO

CD ®
«sl
o
Q
08
Q


^
O


Argonne National
Laboratory-East
=J

o
««•

c
o
c
c

CO
8
1
"E
CD
•o.i
c y
-3 O
o CO

°.*
Si
o








Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant
s
0)



o
o
o


O
Q.
re"
DC
.cf
X)
CL
D"





«
§


D.
DC
CO
LL

s.
O
O
08
o
DC
§
Q
CO



O
o
CM



1

£-
o

S.
'o
CO
o


Q-
£
CO
LL


General Motors
i
en
U)


1
c
c

Chlorinated
ts
QJ >
oL ^5

^
C
3
O

°.&
5i
g








1
Q.
b
0



o
o
o
CM

O
Q.
xT
D_
H
a
DC

£^
o

5_
S
g


D_

CO
LL

"E"
2 .«
a
a>



O
o
o
s
CM

O
D.
CL
H
n)
DC
D

£•
o

5_
'o
CO
§


" Q-
°- cr
Z CO
o2

0
CO
•c
8.
3
55
(D



O
s
o
o>

2
xf
£"
f"





c?
o


* Q.
•^ cc
Z CO

CD
?
o
55 «
9-S.
< 2
w Q.
55>

CM
O
W

O
O
O
O
O)
in

Chemical
, VOCs,
s, Explosives
."11
£,
73 0


°-S
SI
§



Q.

o


Weldon Spring
i

&


,
c




73
C
O

°.fc
5l
g








CO
1
I
CO
                                78

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
r-
±!
.Q
        o

        S
Radon, Radon

"Daughters"
         c?
O
O
Tf

to
CM
               O
              3%
              CC CD
              II
c?
                       S
                        o
         £
          of
                          CO
                             &
                              CO
                   cq

                   cvi
Unknown
Unknown
                   •a

                   o
8
o

8
                        cS
                        O
                        Q.
                         ra
                         cc
'o
CO
                                       8
                                                   OT
Unknown
                                                    p
                                      8
                                                           2
                                                           in
Unkn
                                                            •p 73

                                                            I
                                             Q
                                             08
                                             o

                                             1
                                              u
Belfiel
                     Q.


                     O

                     O
                                  8
Princeton Plasma
ato
Wayne/Pequann
                               CO


                               O
                               O)
Inhalation Toxicok
Research Institute
                     1
                      o
                     I


                      i*
                      E o
                     JB
                      w .a
                      O (u
                     _l _J
                                79

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

















c
•4=
C
3
a •
E
'2
c
fi










••'.'^. '
•' Jf *j5 • tf •
W JL O : •
V*' S'" '•
|Ps
iljl
'•g^'i'sl
flfs


"S8" '.'!:'' •

|| 1
Jjj 9k 3H'" '
S c £
ui*8

•'V- :;.
co £ ... '..,
• SA S
'.:|.:.| '.'.:.
.,.J.,,,;;;:;,
IB ....
'3 ' ' :''
•••I' •
e o



ft . 3J£ •
'"""""" £
4)
1
i
£
.,!....

O)
fS»
00
w-
1

D


of

I

8
EOT
f S
o >
•p
T?l

O QQ 	
III


s






1
1
Sandia National L
Albuquerque
z





















,
ja
c
i






&
CO
1
Central Nevada T
z

i~
05

<«•
I
C
c
D

I"
I
(0
J3"3
2 o <

|> 8
ill
CC 2 O

"O
^
2
O >.
- 3
11


§
Q
08
Q

o
T3
3
|


CO
I
rt
1






















,
.58
c
•5








3
CO
"rt
0
CO






I
c
c
D

CO
Q)

$
•o
"TT
C in
|l
rt 2
CC 2

"D
^
2
o ^.



§







o>
O)
CC
I
t
o
>°

0)




1
S


CQ
0
CL

£
^:

rt
CC
3




'5
CO


S


a.
rr
CO
LL

^
d
O
1
1
Z
0)




§
•
o>













,_
"9 15
T i-T - ^
O < C

-------
      Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
c
I
3
.0
i
UJ
                i
Low-level Radio
Waste, Pyropho
VOCs
•o
3
O
                 a
                 U)
                 o c
                 £0
Radioactive Waste
        O
        08
        Q
        w
        "o c
        S O
             cq
             s
             UJ
             g
             aT
             9 w
             E O
             3 O
             l*
             | c
ron
E
Fernald
Manage
                        T3
                        .1
                        CO
                        5
                        if
                        I
                        i
        £
        8
        0)
        cc
                                                CC
                                                IS
                                                0
Pantex Pl
                 O
                   tr
                   Q.
                           §
                                     81

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
       •o
        CO
        a.
        _g
        o>
           I
           8
           9
                                     «
                                                                O>
  S
§i-i
'tS -2 Q-
< S«
11-i
    o1
    o
    1
    CO
    E
    w
    I
    ID
    .ts
    O>

    I

    CD
    ±i
    •2?
    C
    .Q
    JS

    1
    
  *1
Acti
    c
  1-S
    -S
    55
ill Tailings
ination and
a
Superfu
ed Site
d ch
iz
n
th
Uti
Uranium
Deconta
ed on
merly
smen
      2
    in o
    0) "D
— — CO c
.!2 O w q>
_l U- < 5
               O
               Q,
               |
               5
               o>

               I
           _«
           Q.
ources:
Waste Management Five
from the following s
al Restoration and
              p.
              Q_ CO
              c. o>
              I-
              co
              .CO
              j®
              .a
            I
            CD

            £
                                   '€ -i
                   -Q     "
               i-
               "- c 9 ? ^  ®
               •^ ~ *^ 5 a>  ~

                                     00 = =•
                                     IIS
                                     CO ^ £
                                     M "1
                                     uJ — i o
                                     ill
                               il

                       1^




                                              oo  = U>
                                         •- m W >- S
                                                     o-

§

<
                                                                    rf
                                                      l
                                                      1   J«S5|2



                                                                !
                                                              «
                             .
                « 'S e ««•§'§ •§ T8 i |

ation in this t
Department o

                                                                    .
                                             5 1 S -g i -g « 8  . « 8 o 1 §
                               82

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
"requests for proposals" and awards contracts on a
competitive basis.   DOE awards remedial  action
contracts on a  site-by-site  basis, and appropriate
DOE   Operations  Offices,  each  of  which  is
responsible for one or more installations, manage the
projects.  Operations offices are listed in Appendix
B. Contracts related to the FUSRAP and UMTRA
Programs, both of  which include sites in many
states,  are managed through  the Oak  Ridge  and
Albuquerque Operations Offices,  respectively.

DOE   is  currently  evaluating  an   alternative
contracting mechanism, Environmental Restoration
Management  Contractors  (ERMCs),  to  manage
environmental  restoration activities at  its various
installations. If the concept is fully implemented, an
ERMC would be responsible for day-to-day project
management and also  would have the option of
performing the  remedial  investigation/feasibility
study portions of the cleanup process. After a ROD
is issued for  a  given site,  the ERMC  would
subcontract the remaining work to companies with
specialized expertise and technology.  Pilot tests of
the concept currently are underway at the Fernald
and Hanford installations.

7.6 Remedial Technologies

Information on the  innovative technologies being
used at DOE installations is too  limited to predict
future technology use.  The following are examples
of applications known to EPA: soil vapor extraction
with horizontal wells and ground water air sparging
have been selected for use at a leaking solvent line
at DOE's Savannah River installation to treat VOCs
and  PAHs;  soil  washing,  followed  by physical
separation and acid extraction, has been selected for
use  at  a waste  pond  containing  radioactive
contaminants  at the Idaho National  Engineering
Laboratory (INEL);  and acid extraction has been
selected  at  another   INEL   waste  pond  with
radioactive contaminants.   These DOE sites are
included in the EPA report Innovative Treatment
Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report. [7]

7.7 Research, Development, and Demonstrations

DOE  recognizes  that much  of  the cleanup  and
environmental restoration at its installations cannot
be  accomplished  without  new  technological
solutions.    Thus,  DOE   cleanups  provide  an
opportunity   for   developers   of    innovative
technologies.
DOE's technology-related research and development
activities center around its Integrated Demonstrations
Program.  Integrated Demonstrations are staged at
sites that DOE considers representative of the types
of cleanup problems—such as volatile organics in
ground water or heavy metals in surface soils—that
have been identified or are anticipated at other DOE
sites.  The demonstrations  are designed to develop
"cradle-to-grave" solutions. As  such, they involve
a group of technologies that address all phases of
environmental restoration projects—characterization,
assessment, remediation, and monitoring—allowing
DOE to evaluate the performance  of innovative
treatment  technologies  individually  or   as  a
system. [8]   DOE  has  adopted  this approach to
focus on cleanup as the  endpoint of its technology
development efforts and to ensure that new solutions
are transferable to other  DOE installations.

Soil-related  and ground water-related integrated
demonstrations are being conducted on four classes
of problems:

 •  Contamination by VOCs in ground water and
    soil in non-arid areas  (Savannah River Site,
    South Carolina);

 •  VOC contamination in ground water and soils
    in  arid   areas   (Hanford   Reservation,
    Washington);

 •  Plutonium contaminated surface soils (Nevada
    Test Site, Nevada); and

 •  Uranium  contaminated  surface  soils  (Feed
    Materials Production Center in Fernald,  Ohio).

Demonstrations at the Savannah River  Site have
included a two-phase in situ biodegradation process
for   removing   trichloroethylene   (TCE)   and
perchloroethylene (PCE) from  ground water  and
surface  soils and an in situ air stripping process
using horizontal wells to remediate, concurrently,
soils and ground water containing VOCs.

At the Hanford Reservation, bench- and pilot-scale
tests of an in situ biological treatment system that
simultaneously  removes   nitrates   and   carbon
tetrachloride from contaminated ground water have
been conducted. An in situ vitrification process also
has been used, with positive results, to immobilize
heavy metals and radionuclides in contaminated soil
in and below a large liquid waste disposal crib.
                                                83

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
In addition to the technologies demonstrated as part
of the Integrated Demonstration Program, DOE has
sponsored  demonstrations  of  other  innovative
technologies.  These include an advanced oxidation
process  that uses ozone, ultraviolet radiation,  and
hydrogen peroxide for the treatment of ground water
contaminated with TCE at DOE's Kansas City Plant;
a vacuum-induced soil venting process to clean up
gasoline in the unsaturated zone tested at  DOE's
Lawrence  Livermore  National  Laboratory   in
California; a thermal process, dynamic underground
stripping, to treat underground leaks of organics at
the Livermore facility; a solar detoxification process
also  tested  at  Livermore;  and an  above-ground
biological treatment for degrading TCE within  a
mixture of other solvents in ground water at the Oak
Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant on DOE's Oak Ridge
Reservation in Tennessee.   A summary of these
demonstrations is  included in the Synopses of
Federal   Demonstrations   of  Innovative   Site
Remediation Technologies, Second Edition.[9]

DOE has set several objectives for its remedial
technology  research and  development programs
during fiscal  years  1994-1998, including:

 •  Development of effective methods for treating
    and removing hazardous heavy metals including
    mercury  from  soils and ground water  at  Oak
    Ridge Reservation;

 •  Further field  testing  of in situ  remediation
    technologies,   such   as   bioremediation,
    electrokinetics, soil  washing,  air stripping,
    solvent extraction, and vitrification;

 •  Evaluation of the stimulation of  indigenous
    microorganisms by methane injection and the
    cost-effectiveness of biotechnology treatment
    alternatives;

 •  Encouragement of further development of in situ
    resistive and radiofrequency heating methods for
    improving removal of solvents from clay;  and

  •  Development and demonstration of bioremedia-
    tion  technologies,  including  bioremediation
    characterization wells for VOCs in arid soils.

 DOE uses several  mechanisms to invite the private
 sector to participate in its technology research and
 development programs.   These include  Program
 Research   and   Development  Announcements
(PRDAs), Cooperative Research and Development
Agreements (CRDAs),  and the Small  Business
Technology Integration Program.
A PRDA is used to solicit individual proposals for
research and development projects. DOE issued its
first PRDA in December  1991, for $10 million.[4]
A second PRDA, of equal value, was issued in 1992.
DOE intends  to issue other PRDAs in the future.

CRDAs   provide   a  vehicle   through  which
government-sponsored  laboratories   and  private
companies can collaborate on mutually beneficial
research.  About a dozen CRDAs have been signed
to date to support DOE  environmental programs.
For  example,  General  Electric  Research  and
Development Center, Schenectady, New York, and
DOE's Oak  Ridge National Laboratory signed a
CRDA in 1991 to collaborate on development and
testing of bioremediation  as a means to clean up
PCB contamination. [10]

DOE's Small  Business   Technology Integration
Program identifies funding to support  innovative
technology  development by   small  businesses.
Proposals for work under the program are invited
through an annual solicitation announcement.  DOE
issued its first solicitation announcement in  1992.
Awards  under the program  provide  $50,000 to
$99,000 for  the initial  six-month  phase, which
involves evaluation  of the feasibility of applied
research concepts.  Second-phase funding of up to
$500,000 provides for 12 to 18 months of additional
R&D,  demonstration,  and  evaluation  of  the
technology.  The third phase of the project involves
use of the technology for  full-scale site remediation
and is funded on a case-by-case basis.

DOE is planning to establish industry liaisons, who
specialize in various technology areas,  within its
Office of Technology Development.  These liaisons
will communicate DOE  program and technology
needs and provide other information to facilitate
private industry participation in DOE projects.[4]

 Developers and vendors of innovative technologies
 interested in  more  information  about DOE's
 technology   development  efforts—including  the
 integrated demonstrations,   PRDA solicitations,
 CRDA  opportunities,  and  the  small  business
 program—may write to the Technology Integration
 Division, Mail  Stop EM-52, U.S.  Department of
 Energy, Washington, DC 20585.
                                                 84

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends


7.8 References

1.  U.S. Department of Energy, "Environmental Restoration  and Waste Management (EM) Program: An
   Introduction," DOE/EM-0013P, 1991.

2.  Based on data from UMTRA and FUSRAP Project Offices as of March 1992.

3.  U.S. Department of Energy, "Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Five-Year Plan: Fiscal
   Years 1994-1998," Vol. I, DOE/S-00097P, 1993.

4.  Sink, C., "Technology Integration for Waste Cleanup:  Roles of EPA, DOD, and DOE in  Successful
   Technology Commercialization," Presented at ETEX '92, Washington, DC, April 9, 1992.

5.  Pasternak, D. and  P. Gary, "A  $200 Billion Scandal," U.S. News & World Report, pp. 34-47, December
    14, 1992.

6.  Russell, M., E.W. Colglazier, and M.R. English, "Hazardous Waste Remediation: The Task Ahead," Waste
   Management Research and Education Institute, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, December 1991.

7.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office  of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
   Innovation Office, "Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report," EPA/542/R-92/011,
   October 1992.

8.  Sink, C.H. and W.E. Noel, "Industry Integration into the Department of Energy's Environmental Restoration
   and Waste Management Technology Development Programs, Program Paper," 1991.

9.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., "Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site
   Remediation Technologies, Second Edition," prepared by the member agencies of the Federal Remediation
   Technologies Roundtable, EPA/542/B-92/003, August 1992.

10. "GE Oak Ridge Lab To Cooperate On PCB Bioremediation Research," HazTECHNews, October 3,1991.
                                              85

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
                                     CHAPTER 8
       DEMAND FOR  REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED
        WASTE  SITES  MANAGED BY CIVILIAN FEDERAL
            AGENCIES, STATES, AND PRIVATE  PARTIES
The market to remediate contaminated waste sites
includes thousands  of  sites managed by civilian
federal agencies, the  states, and private parties.
Civilian federal agencies include all federal agencies
except for  the  Department of  Defense  and the
Department of Energy. Each civilian federal agency
is responsible for cleaning up contaminated waste
sites on property owned or formerly owned by the
agency. All sites that are not  being cleaned  up
under the federal Superfund program, but still need
attention, are deferred to state waste programs.
Private parties  are  individuals or companies not
affiliated with federal or state governments.  These
parties may undertake remedial action on their
property without state or federal  intervention.

Compared to the other market segments, the market
for civilian federal agencies is relatively small.  As
of  1990, about 350  sites or  facilities  owned,
formerly owned, or  operated by  16 federal civilian
agencies needed remediation.  In 1990, to  assess
and clean up these sites, federal agencies requested
about $1.1 billion for fiscal years 1991 to 1995.

The state market is substantially  larger than that of
the  civilian federal  agencies.  Although EPA has
determined that over 19,000 sites require some type
of action beyond a preliminary assessment,  the
exact number of sites that will need remediation is
still unknown. The  cleanup of state sites is usually
financed by responsible parties.  To manage  the
cleanup of sites,  many states have created their own
program  patterned  after  the federal Superfund
program. Most of these programs include funds to
clean up abandoned waste sites.  At the end of
1991, the balance of state Superfunds was over $2.2
billion. Another indication of state efforts to clean
up  sites is the  level  of  recent expenditures  on
hazardous waste remediation, which totalled over
$400 million in  1991.

The size of  the market for private party cleanups is
difficult to define because little is known about this
market.   Few  studies  are available that identify
either the number of private party sites that need to
be cleaned up or how much money private parties
plan to spend on assessment and hazardous waste
remediation.

8.1 Demand for Cleanup of Sites Managed By
    Civilian Federal Agencies

As owner of one-third of the nation's land area, the
federal  government  is liable  for  cleaning up
hundreds of sites contaminated with hazardous
chemicals  and petroleum  products.   These sites
include, among other types, research  laboratories,
maintenance  facilities, landfills, and abandoned
mines.    All  federal  agencies with potentially
contaminated  sites have developed programs to
clean up these sites.

8.1.1  Civilian Federal Agency Contaminated
       Site Programs

The federal government must comply in the same
manner as private parties  with the environmental
regulations   imposed  by   the   Comprehensive
Environmental   Resource,   Conservation,   and
Liability  Act   (CERCLA)   and   the  Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  These
statutes make federal  agencies liable for the cleanup
of  contaminated waste on  property owned  or
formerly  owned by federal agencies.  Under the
1986 Superfund Amendments and  Reauthorization
Act (SARA), the federal government  also may be
responsible for cleaning up contaminated waste  at
sites where it  lent money to the owners or has
acquired  property through foreclosure  or  other
means. To meet these requirements, civilian federal
agencies  have  established  programs to  assess
potentially contaminated sites,  including leaking
underground storage tanks (USTs), and  to  clean
them up if necessary.  Most federal agencies have
established  central   offices  to  manage   these
programs;  however,  some   have  adopted  a
                                              87

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
decentralized approach by organizing their programs
by function or geographical location.

Sixteen civilian agencies have identified at least one
potentially contaminated waste site (Exhibit 8-1).
Most of the  information presented in this exhibit
and   this  section  is  derived  from  the  1990
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study, Federal
Liabilities  Under Hazardous Waste Laws  and its
supplemental report.[l][2]

8.1.2   Factors Affecting Demand for Civilian
        Federal Agency Site Cleanup

The  primary  factors influencing  the market  for
remediation of civilian federal agency contaminated
waste sites include:  1)  the federal budget process;
2) potential federal liability stemming from loans
and   federal  acquisition  of  property   through
foreclosure or other means;  3) future changes in
federal and state environmental requirements; and
4) agency-specific programmatic requirements.

All  federal  agencies are constrained  by budget
considerations when planning for site remediation.
Even  though  agencies  may request  funds  for
contaminated site management and  remediation,
Congress may not  provide  all of the  necessary
funding.   In  such  cases,   available funds  will
determine the rate and scope of remedial activities.

Potential federal  liability at properties  acquired
through foreclosure or other means, the second fac-
tor,  is defined in the final rule on Lender Liability
Under CERCLA.[3]  The Lender Liability Rule,
issued in April 1992, clarifies government liability
when federal  regulatory,   lending,  and  credit
agencies, such as the Resolution Trust Corporation
or the Small Business Administration (SBA), have
"involuntarily  acquired"  contaminated  property
through  foreclosure.  In addition,  the rule  clarifies
federal liability in cases where property has been
acquired through  other mechanisms,  such as civil
and criminal seizures and asset forfeitures.

In general,  federal  agencies that "involuntarily"
 acquire  property  are   exempt   from  CERCLA
 liability.  However, if a federal agency loans money
 to, and actively participates in the management of,
 organizations using  or generating  hazardous waste,
 it may  be  liable for  remediating  these sites  if
 hazardous waste is spilled or improperly disposed.
For example, federal credit agencies, such  as the
SBA, often provide loans and advice to businesses
that use or generate hazardous  materials.  If SBA
actively participated in management decisions and
acquires the business through foreclosure, it may be
liable for the cost of cleanup. Federal liability must
be determined  separately for  each site  acquired
through foreclosure or other means. Data are not
yet available on the number  of sites  for  which
civilian agencies will be liable under this new rule.

The  third  factor  affecting  the market is  future
changes   in  state  and   federal  environmental
regulations  and  standards.    If  future  cleanup
standards  are more rigorous, the cost and effort  to
meet  the  standards could be  much  greater than
currently anticipated. Conversely, if standards are
reduced in the  future, the  remedial action market
will be smaller.

Lastly, each agency has specific considerations that
may affect cleanup capability and liability. Some of
the considerations identified by CBO include:

 •  The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has not
    completely   defined   the  scope  of    its
    contaminated waste site problem, especially for
    the Forest  Service and  Commodity  Credit
    Corporation (CCC). The Forest Service has not
    assessed all of its abandoned mines, landfills,
    and dumps, and the CCC has not assessed  its
    grain  storage facilities. USD A cleanup liability
    may be extensive once all sites are  identified.

 •  The   Department  of  Commerce   may  incur
    cleanup  liability   for  sites   the   Economic
    Development Administration (EDA) acquired
    through foreclosure and for  sites operated  by
    the War Productions Board (WPB).  The WPB
    operated industrial properties during World War
    II and now may be partially liable  for cleanup
    at these sites. EDA and the International Trade
    Administration  have  foreclosed on over 120
    properties   where  wastes may   have been
     generated  and  disposed on  site.   Under  the
     Lender Liability  Rule, Commerce may  be
     partially responsible for cleanup of some sites.

  •  The  General Services Administration  (GSA)
     may  be  responsible  for cleanup  costs  at
     properties it, or its predecessor  agency, the War
     Assets Administration (WAA), sold in the past.
                                                  88

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
      Exhibit 8-1:  Summary of Types of Federal Agency Contaminated Waste Sites
Department of Agriculture

 Forest Service          «*
 Agricultural Research
 Service

 Commodity Credit
 Corporation (CCC)


 Farmers Home
 Administration
  Abandoned mining sites—mine tailings were typically disposed on-site in
  unlined pits.
  Sanitary landfills and aboveground dumps—hazardous waste may have been
  disposed at Forest Service landfills.
  Wood preservation sites and three laboratories.
  Uninvestigated sites—117 sites needed to be investigated for contamination.

  Research laboratories—hazardous chemicals were used and disposed on-
  site in dry wells, surface impoundments, septic tanks, and other areas.

  Grain storage facilities—carbon tetrachloride and other fumigants were
  applied to protect grain stored in the facilities.  The CCC has not assessed
  most of the 2,000 sites it once operated.  One site is on the NPL.

  Farms acquired through foreclosure—pesticides and other hazardous
  chemicals may  have  been disposed of on the land.   Five farms needing
  cleanup have been identified.
Department of
Commerce
  Research laboratories operated by the National Oceanographic and Atmo-
  spheric Administration.
  Properties acquired through foreclosure by the Economic Development
  Administration—industrial solvents and other wastes were generated from
  production activities at steel mills, iron foundries, leather tanneries, furniture
  manufacturers, and other heavy industries.
Environmental
Protection Agency
(EPA)
  EPA laboratories—hazardous wastes were either generated or stored for
  research purposes.  EPA has determined that four facilities may require
  cleanup.
General Services
Administration (GSA)
  GSA buildings and sites—although few locations have contamination
  problems, GSA may be liable for contaminated sites it has sold.
Department of the Interior

  Bureau of Land         n
  Management (BLM)
  Bureau of Mines


  Bureau of Reclamation

  National Park Service


  Fish and Wildlife
  Service
»* Approximately 3,400 closed landfills may exist on BLM land—hazardous
  wastes may have been disposed at these BLM landfills.
«* Abandoned mining operations—mine tailings were left on-site at many mines.
•* Unauthorized hazardous waste sites—contaminants may have been illegally
  dumped on BLM land.  The extent of the problem is unknown as BLM has
  not conducted a complete survey of its lands.

'"»• Research laboratories—hazardous materials were used, stored, or disposed
  on-site in  landfills.

'"*• Reservoirs and drinking water supplies contaminated  with agricultural runoff.

»*• Landfills and dumps inherited when the land was acquired.
"* Abandoned mining operations—mine tailings were left on-site at many mines

»* Polluted sites—agricultural runoff of pesticides and fertilizers or upstream
  discharges of pollutants have contaminated some land.
"*• Inherited land  previously used for industrial or defense purposes—industrial
  pollutants were disposed of on-site at inherited property.  Fourteen of these
  sites are former Department of Defense properties.
                                               89

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
                                    Exhibit 8-1: Continued
Department of Justice   "* Federal penitentiaries—hazardous materials were generated from industrial
                           activities, including printing, woodworking, metalworking, and other activities.
                        »* Illegal drug laboratories confiscated by the Drug Enforcement Agency—toxins
                           were improperly stored or disposed at these drug laboratories.
National Aeronautics
and Space
Administration (NASA)
  Field installations, research laboratories, or industrial plants—hazardous
  materials were used, stored, or disposed on-site. Some NASA plants may
  have ground water contamination.
Small Business
Administration
  Properties acquired through foreclosure—hazardous materials may have
  been improperly used or disposed on the property.
Tennessee Valley
Authority
 • Power generating plants and a fertilizer development laboratory—wastes,
  primarily consisting of fly ash and coal piles, have been disposed in on-site
  landfills.
Department of Transportation
  Federal Aviation
  Administration (FAA)
  U.S. Coast Guard
'"» FAA Technical Center—soil and ground water may be contaminated at 22
   areas of the center. This site is on the NPL and assessment and remedial
   work is underway.
»* Airfields—hazardous solvents and oils may have been spilled at airfields. As
   many as 53 Alaskan airfields may be contaminated.

»* Central storage areas for fuel and operation and maintenance
   facilities—solvents, fuel, or waste by-products leaked into the ground.
Department of
Veterans Affairs
   Medical centers—hazardous and medical wastes were produced, stored, and
   incinerated.
Source:  Congressional Budget Office, Federal Agency Summaries: A Supplement to Federal Liabilities Under
        Hazardous Waste Laws, May 1990.
   The  WAA  sold  industrial  properties  the
   government had acquired during World War II.
   GSA may be the last owner of record of many
   of these properties. Also, with the Department
   of Health and Human Services, GSA leased
   vacant public land to municipalities for sanitary
   landfills.   About 30-40  landfills  could be
   returned to GSA upon termination of the lease,
   leaving GSA potentially responsible for cleanup
   at these sites.

   The  Department of Interior (DOI)  may have
   extensive   cleanup   liability  resulting   from
   landfills and dumps on Park Service and Bureau
   of Land Management property.  These sites
   have not been assessed.  Also, many DOI sites
   are in  isolated  locations  with a small  local
   population.  As the local population increases,
                               these sites are more likely to become candidates
                               for remedial action.

                               The Department of Justice (DOT) is liable for
                               cleanup of illegal drug laboratories confiscated
                               by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DBA).  To
                               satisfy CERCLA requirements, DOJ must clean
                               up these sites prior to selling the property.

                               The   National   Aeronautics   and   Space
                               Administration (NASA) expects that ten of its
                               facilities will need to be cleaned up.  NASA
                               predicts it will  need major cleanup funds by
                               fiscal year 1993.

                               The Small Business Administration (SBA) may
                               face liability associated with some properties
                               acquired  through foreclosure or at properties
                                                90

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
    where it  actively participated in management
    decisions of the company.

 •  The Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) was
    created to  acquire  and sell  insolvent  thrift
    institutions.   It has  acquired  a  substantial
    number  of properties  that  the  thrifts gained
    through foreclosure. To sell these properties,
    site contamination must be remediated.   The
    Lender Liability Rule may require the RTC to
    clean up some of these sites.

 •  The Department of Transportation (DOT) may
    need to  clean up 53 airfield  sites in Alaska.
    Although  preliminary  assessments have not
    been completed, DOT expects  that  most of
    these sites will require remedial  action.  Costs
    to  clean  up these  sites  may  be high due to
    inclement weather and their remote location.

8.1.3    Number of Civilian Federal Agency
        Contaminated Waste Sites

Estimates of the number of federal civilian agency
sites that will require some type of remedial action
are derived primarily from the  1990 CBO report.
Their principle  source  of  information was the
November 1988 Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket. The Docket, maintained by
EPA, is a list of federal sites or facilities that use or
store  hazardous   chemicals   or  that  may  be
contaminated  with hazardous  waste.   Federal
agencies report facilities to the EPA  in accordance
with CERCLA and  RCRA reporting requirements.
The Docket  is updated every  six months.   The
February 1993 Docket lists a total of 925 civilian
federal agency sites. [4]

The Docket does not specifically reflect the number
of federal sites that will require  remediation.  It
includes operating facilities  that may not require
remediation,  such  as  RCRA   facilities or  large
quantity generators.  Also, once  a  site has been
added to the Docket, it is not removed even after it
is  cleaned up.  Furthermore, the Docket excludes
sites that do not meet the CERCLA and RCRA
reporting requirements,  such as:  former federal
agency  property that has been sold; private sites
where the federal government may have contributed
to site contamination; and facilities  that  generate
small quantities of hazardous waste.
To  better estimate the number of civilian federal
sites that require remediation,  CBO supplemented
the  Docket data with other sources of information
from federal agencies.  Based on this supplemental
information, CBO eliminated 71  sites from the list
of 515 sites on the November  1988 Docket, for a
revised total of 444.[1]  In addition, CBO identified
190 sites  that were potentially  contaminated  but
were not reported to the Docket because they  did
not meet  the Docket  reporting requirements.  In
total, CBO identified  634 federal sites potentially
contaminated with hazardous substances.  Of these
sites, 349 may require some type of remedial action.
CBO's estimates of the number of civilian federal
agency sites with a possible contamination problem,
and those  sites that  may  require some type of
remedial action, are shown in Exhibit 8-2.

Although the CBO study is the most comprehensive
source of data on the  potential  federal hazardous
waste problem,  some  factors  limit its accuracy.
First, some of the data presented in the study are
almost three years old.  Second, according to CBO,
its  estimate did not account for all  potential sites
because some federal  agencies had not completed
their inventory of potentially  contaminated  sites.
Third, the CBO inventory does not include civilian
federal agency sites that may need to be cleaned up
under the Lender Liability Rule. The net effect of
these limitations is that the estimated number of
sites provided in this report is probably understated.

8.1.4    Estimated Dollar Value of Civilian
        Federal Agency's Site Cleanup

Developing accurate cost estimates for cleaning up
contaminated  waste  sites  managed  by  civilian
federal  agencies  is  difficult,   primarily because
detailed site information is not available. However,
civilian federal agencies have estimated budgetary
needs of approximately $1.1 billion for hazardous
waste activities between 1991 and 1995.[2]  These
budgets are not exclusively for hazardous waste
remediation activities; they also include compliance
activities, waste management  and operation,  and
preliminary waste site  investigations.  They also
include costs associated with the cleanup of NPL
and UST sites where a civilian  federal agency has
been designated a responsible  party.  The specific
funding requests for each agency over this five-year
period are presented in Exhibit 8-3.
                                                91

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
               Exhibit 8-2:  Number of Federal Agency Sites Needing Cleanup
Agency j
Department of Agriculture
Central Intelligence Agency
Department of Commerce
Environmental Protection Agency
General Services Administration
Health and Human Services
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
National Aeronautics and Space Admin.
Postal Service
Small Business Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury
Veterans Administration
Total
Amended 1988
Federal Docket"
Pocket
Sites
39
1
7
14
18
4
263
2
12
5
1
17
48
2
11
444
Sites
Needing
Cleanup
25
0
0
4
3
0
95
0
10
0
0
3
21
0
3
164
Other Sites (Not
on 1988 Docket)
Other
Sites
52
0
2
1
0
1
74
7
0
0
0
0
53
0
0
190
Sites
Needing
Cleanup
48
0
2
1
0
1
73
7
0
0
0
0
53
0
0
185
AH Potential
Sites
Total
Sites
91
1
9
15
18
5
337
9
12
5
1
17
101
2
11
634
Sites
Needing
Cleanup
73
0
2
5
3
1
168
7
10
0
0
3
74
0
3
349
Notes:
a Numbers in this column are derived from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), May 1990, study rather
than from the November 1988, Docket update because CBO revised the Docket to reflect additional data
obtained from conversations with federal agencies.
Sources: Congressional Budget Office, Federal Liabilities Under Hazardous Waste Laws, May 1990.
Congressional Budget Office, Federal Agency Summaries: A Supplement to Federal Liabilities
Under Hazardous Waste Laws, May 1 990.
According to the CBO report, each civilian federal
agency  has  used these funds  for  a variety  of
purposes, depending upon its specific environmental
priorities and  problems.   The  majority of  the
Department of Agriculture's funds were earmarked
for remedial  actions.   The  Department of  the
Interior was anticipating that much of its budget
will  be needed to clean up  sites  where it is  a
responsible party, including existing NPL sites. The
Tennessee Valley Authority planned to use its funds
at one NPL site.   The National Aeronautics and
Space Administration expected to use most of  its
projected  funding  for   site  assessment  at  its
10 facilities  and did not  expect  to start remedial
                                               92

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
         Exhibit 8-3:  1991-1995 Estimated Budget for Hazardous Waste Activities at
                                    Civilian Federal Agencies
                  Federal Civilian Agency
        Hazardous Waste
                                                                               Budget jpr All
     Department of Agriculture
     General Services Administration
     Department of the Interior
     Department of Justice
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration
     Postal Service

     Tennessee Valley Authority
     Department of Transportation
                    $80 million6
                     $5 million13
                   $302 million6
                    $27 million150
                   $175 million60
                   $200 million60

                    $20 million0
                   $260 million6
     Notes:
       a Estimated budgets are not exclusively for hazardous waste remediation activities.  The budget
         estimates also include compliance activities, waste management and operation, and preliminary
         waste investigations.
       6 Source of information is from CBO's Federal Liabilities Under Hazardous Waste Laws.
       c Source of information is from contacts with the federal agency.

     Source: Congressional Budget Office, Federal Liabilities Under Hazardous Waste Laws, May 1990.
             Contacts with some of the federal agencies.
activity until the mid-1990s.  The Postal Service
and  General Services  Administration planned  to
allocate  most  of  their funding  for  repair  or
replacement of underground storage tanks.   The
Department of Justice expected to use funds  to
clean up its seven federal prisons and some illegal
drug laboratories.  The bulk of funds required by
the Department of Transportation were needed for
compliance activities related to underground storage
tanks.    Some funds  have  been  earmarked for
remedial action projects at airports or other facilities
owned by the Federal Aviation Administration.

8.2 Demand for Cleanup of State Hazardous
    Waste Sites

Numerous  properties throughout the United States
have been contaminated with hazardous  chemicals.
EPA,  through  the  Superfund  program,  assesses
many of these sites and cleans up the worst ones.
Those sites eligible for Superfund cleanup are added
to the  National  Priorities  List (NPL).   However,
sites that do not qualify for the NPL and those sites
not reported to EPA must be  addressed by the states
or responsible parties.   Consequently,  states have
established hazardous  waste programs to  ensure
potentially contaminated  sites  are assessed and
cleaned up if necessary. Some state programs may
also address UST cleanups, which were covered in
Chapter 5 of this report.

Information on state programs, the number of sites,
and status of those sites is  derived from existing
published information.  Contacting individual states
to obtain data was outside the scope of this study.
The primary  source  of information  is  an EPA
document,  An   Analysis   of  State  Superfund
Programs:  50 State Study, 1991 Update.[5]  A
second  document, Hazardous Waste  Sites: State
Cleanup Status and Its  Implications for Federal
Policy,[6]  also  was   used  as   a   source   of
information.    Although  each  document  was
developed for  policy  purposes, the   information
provided in the reports is useful for defining the
state market for hazardous waste remediation.

According to these reports, states have  identified
over 60,000 sites that are known or suspected to be
                                                 93

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
contaminated.   The  states estimate that almost
20,000  sites  will  require  some action beyond a
preliminary investigation, and clean up will require
an investment of billions of dollars.  Last year, state
expenditures for hazardous waste activities were just
under half a billion dollars. In addition, responsible
parties (RPs) identified by the states financed  the
cleanup of about 60% of the non-NPL state sites in
1989.[6] The total expenditure by RPs to  clean up
these sites  is unknown, but is probably equal to, if
not more than,  state expenditures.

8.2.1   State Hazardous Waste Programs

The primary  source  of  information on  states'
hazardous waste programs is EPA's 1991 update of
the 50 State Study. This study describes each of the
state's  programs,  including  enabling legislation,
enforcement provisions, staffing levels, funding, and
other aspects  of  the  programs.   The legal and
financial resources available to states indicate  the
extent of state  involvement in  and commitment to
cleaning up contaminated sites.

Most of the  states have  enacted statutes patterned
after CERCLA.  These  statutes typically include:
provisions for  emergency  response and long-term
remedial   actions;   cleanup   funds  or   other
mechanisms    to   finance  remedial   activities;
enforcement authorities to compel  RPs to perform
or pay for cleanup activities; and staff to administer
state-lead cleanups and monitor RP-lead cleanups.
As  of  December 1991,  39  states had  statutes
providing full funding and enforcement capabilities.
The remaining states relied on statutes with limited
funding capabilities or on enforcement  authority
derived from statues not specifically intended for
hazardous waste activities. All of the states, except
Nebraska, have cleanup funds or accounts to finance
some or all types  of cleanup activities.

Many state statutes also authorize development of a
priority list, inventory,  or registry of state sites.
Most states use their list to determine the order in
which sites will be cleaned. By the end of 1991, 24
 states were using  priority lists while several others
 were using a registry or inventory.[5] For example,
Texas has established a "State Registry" that ranks
 sites by  priority.    Maryland compiles both a
 "Disposal Site Registry" that lists ranked  sites,
 including  NPL sites,  and a "Master List" of sites
 that have  not been formally ranked, but have been
 evaluated for potential hazards.
One unique component of some state statutes lies
with property transfer.  These statutes are designed
to  ensure  that  real  property being transferred
between private parties  does not pose health or
environmental threats  stemming from  hazardous
releases. In general, these laws require the owner
or state to disclose that property was contaminated
by hazardous materials either by recording a notice
with the deed or by disclosing such information at
the time of the property transaction. Some of these
laws require the seller of the property to remediate
the site prior to any  transfer of  property.   As of
December  1991,  18  states had some  type of
property  transfer  provisions  in their  laws or
regulations. [5]

In 1991, staffing for the state programs varied from
one person in Wyoming to about 800 staff positions
in New  Jersey. [5]  Ten states had staffing levels
exceeding  100  in  1991.   Each of these  states
(California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington,
and Wisconsin) had a large number of confirmed or
suspected contaminated sites. Three states (Florida,
Minnesota, and Oregon) had staff levels between 51
and 100 people.  The majority of states, a total of
28, had staff levels between 11  and 50, while 11
states  had less  than 10 staff positions for  their
hazardous waste program.

8.2.2   Factors Affecting Demand for States'
        Site Cleanup

The market for remediation of state hazardous waste
sites is mostly dependent upon the commitment of
states  to establish and  manage hazardous  waste
programs  and  the  ability  of  states to  finance
cleanups or compel RPs to clean up sites. The level
of remedial activity varies from state to state.  For
example, not all of the states with cleanup funds
and enforcement authorities have  been  actively
conducting cleanup programs.  In 1991, only 29 of
39 such programs were actively performing removal
or remedial actions at waste sites.[5]  The 10 states
with limited cleanup activities were inactive because
 their   programs  were   recently   established,
understaffed, or underfunded.   In  addition, most
 states with inactive  programs had a relatively low
 fund  balance with  which  to clean  up  hazardous
 waste sites.

 In states with mature, active programs,  funding is
 the  biggest  factor   affecting   program  activity.
                                                  94

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
Increases and decreases in state cleanup funds will
affect  the  number and complexity  of remedial
actions   undertaken   by   the   states.      State
"Superfunds" may be  impacted by economic and
political conditions that influence state  revenues.
The recent recession has led to less cleanup activity
in several states. For example, in 1991 New Jersey
transferred $153.8 million from one of its cleanup
funds to the state treasury to help balance the state
budget.[5]

Except for the largest  state programs, most state
Superfunds  possess  limited  money  to  finance
cleanups.  Consequently, in many states the cleanup
of  contaminated  state  sites  is,  in  great part,
dependent upon finding responsible parties willing
to clean up the waste sites.  According to the GAO
report, responsible parties completely financed about
60% of state  sites, while states completely financed
only 24%, primarily  through  state Superfunds or
general operating funds. [6]

Many  years, if not decades,  will be required to
clean up contaminated  state sites.  GAO reported
that six states estimated they would require five to
ten years to complete their sites; eight estimated 11
to 20 years;  nine estimated 21 to 50 years; and
seven expected cleanup would take more than 50
years.[6]  In short, remediation of state hazardous
waste sites will continue well into the next century.

8.2.3    Number of State Hazardous  Waste Sites

Published estimates of the number of state sites vary
substantially, depending upon the source.  The most
current published estimate is from the 1991 Update
of  the 50 State  Report*   The  50  State  Report
presents the results of a survey in which each state
was asked to identify the total number of "Known
and Suspected Sites"  and  the "Total Number of
Sites Needing Attention."  "Known and Suspected
Sites" are those the states have identified that may
be contaminated  with hazardous chemicals.  The
category 'Total Number of Sites Needing Attention"
are known and  suspected sites  that have been
evaluated, screened to some extent, and determined
to require  some  further level of investigation or
action.   The  50  State Report  does not  present
estimates of the number of sites that definitely will
require remedial action.  Exhibit 8-4 presents each
state's estimate for both categories of sites.  The
total  number  of  known and  suspected sites  is
69,808. The total number of sites needing attention
is 19,226. Neither category includes UST cleanups.

Aggregate   information is  not   available  that
characterizes   the  types   and   quantities  of
contaminants found at state sites.  However, some
states with established, well-funded programs are
able to produce this  type  of information.   Many
state  environmental departments  publish   annual
reports that include site-specific information about
sites listed on state hazardous  waste site registries or
priority lists.  For example, New York publishes  a
ten-volume  report,  Inactive Hazardous   Waste
Disposal Sites in  New York State—Annual Report,
and  New  Jersey issues an annual report,  Site
Remediation Program Site  Status Report.[l][8]
In addition, seven states maintain a database of
known  sites; however, the level of detail  in the
databases  varies.[5]    A  national  database of
aggregate state data does not exist.

The types of contaminants present at state sites can
be inferred from  sites listed  on CERCLIS, EPA's
database of potentially contaminated sites. EPA has
performed preliminary assessments at these sites to
screen them for the federal NPL. The majority of
these sites  (those not  listed  on  the  NPL)  are
deferred to the states  for action.  CERCLIS data
show that the most prevalent wastes at these sites
are organic chemicals, metals, solvents, and oily
waste. [9]

8.2.4   Estimated Dollar  Value of States' Site
        Cleanup

Data are not  available to estimate the  aggregate
dollar value of the market  for cleaning up  state
sites. Most states rely extensively on RPs to clean
a   Other recent publications that provided estimates of the number of state sites include: EPA's An Analysis of State
Superfund Programs: 50 State Study, the 1989 and 1990 versions; GAO's Hazardous Waste Sites: State Cleanup Status
and Its Implications for Federal Policy; and a University of Tennessee at Knoxville publication, State and Private Sector
Cleanups. See Appendix C, Bibliography, for a full citation of these documents.  The estimates in these documents for
known and suspected sites ranged from 50,560 to 62,792.  Estimates for sites needing attention varied from 18,942 to
43,616.
                                                  95

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
       Exhibit 8-4:  Number of State Hazardous Waste Sites
States
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Known 8i
suspected Sites"
400
900
800+
351
26,000
420
1,150
250
0
980
753+
140
164
1,325
1,500
454
412
600
637
373
531
5,137
=4,300
447
599
1,250
Sites Needing
AttBfrtten*
400
900*
500
101
400
—
520*
70
0
708
67
—
164
224
39
155
412
100*
180*
160
393
2,226*
2,844*
178
170
600

,,,.;/:';^£;;--v;.
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
V'7'Kiiidwi*'&'';:;':':;
swM#*1 ,000
210
959d
531
950
431
4,000
120
69,808
Sites Needing
r*w^foab'.V-
204*
38
40
150
600
220
946
672
3
700
—
114
1,067
—
—
88
—
161*
<500
195
959d
100
262*
—
650
86
19,266
Notes:
a 'Known and Suspected" sites are those that states have identified as being potentially contaminated. Most of these
sites will not require action beyond a preliminary assessment.
b 'Sites Needing Attention" are those of the "Known and Suspected" list that have been evaluated and determined to
require some level of action. Most of these sites will not require remedial action. Site numbers are derived from one
of two categories from Table V-3 of the 50 State Report "Sites Identified as Needing Attention" or "Priority List or
Registry." If a number was not provided in the "Sites Identified as Needing Attention" category, a number from
"Priority List or Registry" was used. If numbers were provided in both categories, the most appropriate number was
selected based on information provided in Chapter VI (State Summaries) of the 50 State Report. Some numbers may
have been adjusted to reflect the additional information. Adjusted numbers are noted with an asterisk (*).
c New Jersey has not completed an inventory of sites; however, it expects the inventory to number in the thousands.
Thus, the number of "Known and Suspected Sites" is the same as the number listed in "Inventory or Registry."
d Since Vermont includes all contaminated sites in one list, the total of 959 includes petroleum and non-petroleum sites.
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50 State
Study, 1991 Update, December 1991.
                               96

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
up contaminated sites, and no data are available on
projected  RP  costs.   Information is  available on
annual  state  expenditures  for  hazardous  waste
activities  and on balances of  state Superfunds.
Although  these values probably represent a small
portion of the total cost of remediating  state sites,
they indicate the current level of state hazardous
waste activity.

Exhibit 8-5 provides the total 1991 expenditures for
each state for hazardous waste activities and the
state Superfund balance as  of  December 1991. In
1991, states spent or encumbered (site work  was
authorized, but not paid) a total of $427.7 million
on hazardous  waste  activities.  The  three largest
states were California  with expenditures of  $57
million, New Jersey with $48.9 million, and Alaska
with $47 million.  The states used these funds for
nine  basic  activities:     emergency   response,
removals, site investigation,  study  and design,
remedial  actions,  operation   and  maintenance,
matching CERCLA funds to pay the state share for
NPL sites, grants to  cities  and local governments,
and  victim  compensation. [5]    How funds were
distributed among these activities is unknown.

The current balance of state "Superfunds" indicates
that  states plan  to spend  substantial money  for
hazardous waste remediation in the future.  By the
end  of 1991, 49  states  and  Puerto  Rico  had
established cleanup funds to pay  for some or all
types of remedial and removal activities. The total
of  these  funds'  unobligated  balances  equalled
$586.2  million.   In  addition,  six  states  have
authorized, but not issued, a total of $1.6 billion in
bonds.[5]   The total of unobligated balances  and
unissued,  authorized bonds  equals  $2.2 billion.
8.2.5    Remedial Technologies

According  to  the  GAO,  both  treatment  and
containment remedies  are used to clean up state
hazardous waste  sites. [6]  Thirty states indicated
that they have used treatment technologies at least
once at hazardous waste sites,  and as many as 17
states reported using innovative treatment technolo-
gies, including biodegradation  (17 states) and soil
washing/flushing  (9 states).  Off-site disposal was
used  at least  once by  35 states,  while on-site
containment was used by 26 states. To treat ground
water, 26 states used pump-and-treat technologies
while 24 used alternate water supplies.  GAO noted
that  there  was no obvious relationship between
states  with  large  cleanup  funds  and  the use of
treatment technologies  versus containment  and
disposal.  Similarly, no relationship exists between
the number of sites needing attention in a state and
the use of cleanup technologies  versus containment.

8.3     Market for Private Party Sites

In addition  to  state and federal agency sites, an
unknown number of private party sites may require
remediation of hazardous chemicals. These sites are
located on  private property and have  not  been
reported to either federal or state authorities.  The
owners of these sites may decide to clean up  the
property  without  federal  or  state  intervention.
Although no data are available on the  number of
private party sites needing cleanup or on the total
cost to remediate these sites, the market for private
party remediation is estimated to be quite large. A
consulting firm recently estimated  that the  1991
market for private party remediation was about $1
                                                 97

-------
           Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends





Exhibit 8-5: State Hazardous Waste Funds: 1991 Expenditures/Encumbrances and Balances
States
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Expenditures &
Encumbrances*
$10,000
$47,000,000
•=$3,500,000
$156,000
$57,000,000
$10,000,000
$2,350,000
=$200,000
No Fund
$8,1 00,000
$0
$117,000
$8,000
$9,600,000
$1,800,000
$95,700
N/A
$100,000
$1 ,200,000
$11,000,000
$1 ,200,000
$18,300,000
$29,900,000
$7,000,000
$21 1 ,000
$684,000
Fund
Balance"
$147,000
$28,700,000
$11,600,000
$3,246,000
$3,000,000
$11,000,000
$20,550,000
$2,500,000
—
$13,667,000
$2,800,000
$120,000
$524,000
$7,700,000
$16,600,000
$314,000
$672,000
=$5,000,000
$2,200,000
$20,700,000
$8,250,000
$37,000,000C
$398,000,000d
$19,100,000
$200,000
$5,300,000
• :•.:*••:• - •:'-:•; •• ] '''"] '..."' .'!.'." '. f""" """-T " """•. ••••^'^:- '•• ^- -. i
States
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Expenditures &
Encumbrances*
$790,000
No Fund
$800,000
$2,570,000
$48,900,000
$215,000
$20,200,000
$165,000
$0
$7,700,000
$25,000
$6,500,000
$38,000,000
$1,100,000
N/A
$3,500,000
$92,000
$1 ,800,000
$41 ,000,000
$335,000
$4,315,000
$111,000
$35,600,000
$395,000
$4,000,000
$150,000
$427,794,700
Fund
Balance*
$11,000,000°
—
$3,000,000
$3,400.000
$410,100,000'
$191,000
$976,500,0009
$680,000
$59,000
$34,600,000
$60,000
$3,900,000
$21,800,000
$2,900,000
$800,000
$10,000,000
$976,000
$4,600,000
$29,800,000
$1,500,000
$4,100,000
$73,000
$68,900,000
$1,220,000
$8,500,000h
$1 ,000,000
$2,218,549,000
Notes:
a Includes both expended, obligated, and encumbered funds.
b Includes unobligated funds and bonds that have been authorized to be issued. Approximately, $1,614,800,000 in
bonds have been authorized by six states.
0 All $37,000,000 is in authorized bonds.
d Includes $387,300,000 in authorized bonds.
9 Includes $10,000,000 in authorized bonds.
f Includes $200,000,000 in authorized bonds.
9 Includes $973,000,000 in authorized bonds.
h Includes $7,500,000 in authorized bonds.
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, An Analysis of State Supertund Programs: 50 State
Study, 1991 Update, December 1991.
                                         98

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends


8.4 References

1.  U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, "Federal Liabilities Under Hazardous Waste Laws," May
    1990.

2.  U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, "Federal Agency Summaries:  A Supplement to Federal
    Liabilities Under Hazardous Waste Laws," May 1990.

3.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
    Plan; Lender Liability Under CERCLA," 57 Federal Register, No. 83, p. 18344, April 29, 1992.

4.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket," 58
    Federal Register, pp. 7297-7327, February 5, 1993.

5.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "An Analysis of
    State Superfund Programs:  50 State Study, 1991 Update," Pub. 9375.6-08B, September 1991.

6.  U.S. General Accounting Office, "Hazardous Waste Sites: State Cleanup Status and Its Implications for
    Federal Policy," GAO/RCED-89-164, August 1989.

7.  New York State Department of  Environmental Conservation, New York State Department of Health,
    "Inactive  Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in New York State—Annual Report," April 1992.

8.  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, "1992 Site Remediation Program Site
    Status Report," Fall 1992.

9.  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,  "Superfund
    CERCLIS Characterization Project:  National Results," EPA/540/8-91/080, November  1991.

10. "Steady Growth in Remediation," Environmental Business Journal Vol. 3, March 1992.
                                               99

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
                 APPENDICES
                         101

-------
 Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
                       APPENDIX A
    SUPPORTING DATA FOR MARKET ANALYSIS
Exhibit A-1: Number of Superfund Source Control RODs Through Fiscal Year 1991
Fiscal Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Totals
Some
Treatment
1
0
6
19
27
27
69
77
87
105
418
Disposal
3
7
17
37
33
26
28
29
36
34
250
Other
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
2
2
8
Total Source
Control RODS
4
7
23
57
60
53
100
106
125
141
676
Notes:
• RODs denote Records of Decision.
• "Other" includes institutional controls, monitoring, and relocation remedies.
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, 1992.
                             103

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
          Exhibit A-2:  Representative Hazardous Chemicals by Contaminant Group
The hazardous chemicals listed below are representative of those found at National Priorities List (NPL) sites.
The list is developed from site assessment information for NPL sites without Records of Decision (RODs),
based on the Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Volume 1A:  Laboratory Manual, Physical/Chemical
Methods. These chemicals represent many, but not all, of the contaminants found at NPL sites.
                              Volatile organic Compounds (VOCs)
      1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
      1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
      1,1,2-Trichloroethane
      1,1-Dichloroethane
      1,1-Dichloroethene
      1,1 -Dichloropropylene
      1,2,3-Trichloropropane
      1,2-Dichloroethane
      1,2-Dichloroethene
      1,2-Dichloropropane
      1,2-Transdichloroethene
      1,3-Dichloropropane
      1,3-Trichloropropene
      1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
      2-Butanone (MEK)
      2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether
      2-Chloropropane
      2-Hexanone
      3-Hexanone
      4-Methyl-2-pentanone
      Acetone
      Acrolein
      Acrylonitrile
      Benzene
      Bromodichloromethane
      Bromodichloroethane
      Bromoform
      Bromomethane
      Carbon Disulfide
      Carbon Tetrachloride
      Chlorobenzene
      Chloroethane
      Chloroform
      Chloromethane
      Cis-1,2-Dichloroethane
      Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
      Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP)
Dibromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Dichlorpropene
Ethyl Ether
Ethyl Methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
lodomethane
Isopropanol
M-PSA
M-Xylene
Methane
Methanethiol
Methylene
Methylene Chloride
O-Xylene
P-PSA
P-Xylene
Polyvinyl Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Trans-1, 2-dichloroethene
Trans-1,3-dichloropropene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyllidene Chloride
Volatile Organics
                                                104

-------
    Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
Exhibit A-2:  Representative Hazardous Chemicals by Contaminant Group (Continued)
                             Vojatlie Orjjanjo Compounds {SYOCs)
  (Lindane) Gamma-BHC
  1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
  1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
  1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
  1,2-Dichlorobenzene
  1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
  1,3-Dichlorobenzene
  1,4-Dichlorobenzene
  1-Chloroaniline
  1-Naphthylamine
  2,2-Dichlorobenzidine
  2,3,4,5-Tetrachlorophenol
  2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
  2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
  2,4-Dichlorophenol
  2,4-Dichlorotoluene
  2,4-Dimethylphenol
  2,4-Dinitrophenol
  2,4-Dinitrotoluene
  2,6-Dichlorophenol
  2,6-Dinitrotoluene
  2-Chioronaphthalene
  2-Chlorophenol
  2-Mercaptan-Benzothiazole
  2-Methyi-4,6-Dinitrophenol
  2-Methylnaphthalene
  2-Methylphenol
  2-Napthylamine
  2-Nitroaniline
  2-Nitrophenol
  2-Picoline
  3-Methylcholanthrene
  3-Methylphenol
  3-Nitroanilin6
  4,4-DDD
  4,4-DDE
  4,4-DDT
  4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
  4-Aminobiphenyl
  4-Bromophenyl  Phenyl Ether
  4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
  4-Chloroaniline
  4-Chlorophenyl  Phenyl Ether
  4-Methylphenol
  4-Nitroaniline
  4-Nitrophenol
  7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
  A,A-Dimethyl-b-phenylethlamine
  Acenanthrene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
Aldrin
Alpha-BHC
Amiben
Aniline
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluorathene
Benzo (ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)flouranthene
Benzo(j)flourathene
Benzo(k)pyrene
Benzoic Acid
Benzothiazole
Benzyl Alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bis-2-chloroethoxyphthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Chlordane
Chrysene
Cresote
Delta-BHC
DHD
Di-n-octyl Phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Dibutyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Dinitrophenol
Dinoseb
Diphenylamine
DNB
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
EPIC
Ethyl  Methanesulfonate
Ethylamylketone (EAK)
Ethylene Dibromide
Fluoranethene
Fluorene
                                            105

-------
   Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
Exhibit A-2: Representative Hazardous Chemicals by Contaminant Group (Continued)
                Semi«vo|atJie Organic Compounds (SvoCs) (Continued)
  Heptachlor
  Heptachlorepoxide
  Herbicides
  Hexachlorobenzene
  Hexachlorobutadiene
  Hexachlorocyclohexan
  Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
  Hexachloroethane
  Hexadecanoic Acid
  lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
  Isophorone
  Kepone
  Malathion
  Methoxychlor
  Methyl Ethyl Benzene
  Methylmethanesulfonate
  N-Methylpyrrolidene
  N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine
  N-Nitrosodimethylamine
  N-Nitrosopiperidine
  Naphthalene
  Nitrobenzene
  Oxazolidone
Parathion
PCB
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pesticides
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phenothiazine
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Pronamid
Pyrene
P-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Resorcinol
Shell Sol 140
TDX
Tertbutylmethylether
Tetrahydrofuran
TNB 1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
Toxaphene
Vernolate
                                         Metals
  Aluminum
  Antimony
  Arsenic
  Barium
  Beryllium
  Boron
  Cadmium
  Calcium
  Cesium
  Chrome
  Chromite
  Chromium
  Cobalt
  Copper
  Iron
  Lead
  Magnesium
  Manganese
  Mercury
   Metals
Molybdenum
Nickel
Plutonium
Potassium
Radium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Technetium
Thallium
Thorium
Tin
Titanium
Tritium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
                                           106

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
           Exhibit A-3:  Summary of 523 NPL Sites Without RODs
NPL Sites Without RODs3
(By State)
ALABAMA
Olin/Mclntosh
Redwing Carriers/Saraland
T.H. Agriculture Nutrition
USA Alabama Army Ammunition
ALASKA
Alaska Battery Enterprises
Arctic Surplus

Eielson Air Force Base
Elmendorf Air Force Base
Fort Wainwright
Standard Steel & Metals Salvage Yard
(US DOT)
ARIZONA
Apache Powder
H assay am pa
Luke Air Force Base

Williams Air Force Base
Yuma Marine Corps Air Station
ARKANSAS
Frit Industries
Monroe Auto Parts
CALIFORNIA
Advanced Micro Devices
Aerojet General
Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base
Brown & Bryant Arvin Facility
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base

Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill
Edwards Air Force Base
El Toro Marine Corps Air Station
Fort Ord
Fresno Sanitary Landfill
George Air Force Base
Hewlett Packard 1 Palo Alto
Industrial Waste Processing
Jasco Chemical
Lawrence Livermore Lab (US DOE)
Lawrence Livermore Nat Lab Site 300
Liquid Gold Oil
Liquid Gold Oil
March Air Force Base
Mather Air Force Base
McClellan AFB
Micro Storage/Intel Magnetics
Modesto Ground water Contamination
Moffett Naval Air Station
Montrose Chemical
Newmark Ground water Contamination
Norton Air Force Base (Landfill #2)
Pacific Coast Pipe Lines
Plating
ROD Date

93/3
93/1
93/3
92/4

93/2
95/2

94/2
94/3
95/4
95/1


94/3
92/4
94/1

94/2
96/4

NP
94/2

91/2
94/4
96/1
93/4
95/1

95/2
96/3
96/2
94/2
93/3
93/4
94/2
94/1
94/4
92/4
92/4
94/3
93/3
94/4
93/2
95/1
91/4
94/2
94/1
93/4
93/3
93/3
92/2

Matrices0

GW, Soil
Soil
GW
GW

Soil
GW, Soil

GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Sediment


GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil

GW, Soil
Soil

NP
GW, Sludge, Soil

GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
Soil

GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
Soil
GW, Soil
GW
GW, Sludge, Soil
GW, Soil
GW
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW
GW, Soil
GW, Soil

Contaminant Group*0

Metal
SVOC (PAH, other)
SVOC (pest)
SVOC (other), Metal

Metal
SVOC (PAH, PCB, pest, other),
Metal
VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (chlor), Metal
SVOC (other), Metal
VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB), Metal


Metal
VOC (chlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor, nonchlor),
SVOC (pest, other)
VOC (BTEX), Metal
VOC (chlor, nonchlor)

NP
VOC (chlor), Metal

VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor), SVOC (pest)
VOC (BTEX, chlor, nonchlor),
SVOC (pest), Metal
VOC (BTEX)
VOC (chlor), SVOC (pest), Metal
VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor, nonchlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor, nonchlor)
VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (chlor), SVOC (other)
VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (chlor), Metal
SVOC (other), Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (not specified)
SVOC (pest)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB), Metal
VOC (BTEX), SVOC (other). Metal
                                  107

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
     Exhibit A-3: Summary of 523 NPL Sites Without RODs (Continued)
NPL Sites Without RODsa
m •*&•)' ''>k*^7~-
CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Riverbank Army Ammunition Depot
San Fernando Valley (Area 2)
San Fernando Valley (Area 3)
San Fernando Valley (Area 4)
San Gabriel Valley (Area 3)
Sharpe Army Depot
Southern Cal Edison (Visalia Pole Yard)
Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition
Tracy Defense Depot
Travis Air Force Base

Treasure Island Naval Station Annex
United Heckathorn
Waste Disposal
Western Pacific Railroad Oroville
Westinghouse (Sunnyvale Plant)
COLORADO
Air Force Plants PJKS Property
Lowry
CONNECTICUT
Barkhamsted-New Hartford

Cheshire Associates Property
Durham Meadows
Gallup's Quarry

Linemaster Switch
Nutmeg Valley Road
Old Southington
Precision Plating
Revere Textile Prints
US Naval Submarine Base, New London
DELAWARE
Chem-Solv
Dover Gas Light
E.I. Du Pont, Newport
Kent City

Koppers Co Facilities
Standard Chlorine
Sussex #5
Tyler Refrigeration Pit
FLORIDA
Agrico Chemical
Airco Plating
Anaconda/Milgo (N. Miami)
Anodyne
B&B Chemical Company
Beulah

Vlannadk
ROD Date

93/3
93/2
95/1
94/4
94/2
94/3
93/3
94/3
94/1
93/4
94/2

94/1
94/3
93/4
95/2
92/1

93/1
94/1

95/1

97/1
96/1
95/4

93/3
96/1
93/4
96/3
92/4
94/3

92/2
93/3
93/2
NP

94/4
94/1
94/2
94/1

93/3
93/3
96/2
93/2
94/2
93/3


Matrices0

GW, Sludge, Soil
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW, Sludge, Soil
GW, Soil
Sediment
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil

GW, Sed, Soil
Sediment, Soil
Soil
GW, Sludge, Soil
GW, Soil

GW, Sludge
GW, Soil

GW, Sludge

GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil

GW, Sed, Soil
Soil
GW, Soil
GW
GW, Soil
Sediment

GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil

Sediment, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil

GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil


Contaminant Ora«p«5

VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)
SVOC (PAH, other)
Metal
SVOC (pest)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor), SVOC (pest),
Metal
VOC (BTEX), SVOC (PCB), Metal
VOC (BTEX), SVOC (pest)
VOC (BTEX), SVOC (PAH, other)
VOC (chlor, BTEX), Metal
SVOC (PCB, other)

VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor)

VOC (BTEX, chlor, nonchlor),
Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor, nonchlor),
Metal
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (chlor)
Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor), Metal
SVOC (pest), Metal

VOC (chlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor), Metal
VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (nonchlor), SVOC (other),
Metal
SVOC (PAH, other)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor), Metal

Metal
Metal
Metal
SVOC (PCB), Metal
VOC (chlor), SVOC (other), Metal
SVOC (PAH, PCB, pest, other),
Metal
                                   108

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
     Exhibit A-3:  Summary of 523 NPL Sites Without RODs (Continued)
NPL Sftes Without RODS*
(By State)
FLORIDA (Continued)
BMI Textron
Cecil Field Naval Air Station
Chem-Form
Florida Steel
Homestead Air Force Base
Jacksonville Naval Air Station
Madison County Sanitary
Peak Oil

Pensacola Naval Air Station
Piper Aircraft Vero Beach Division
Reeves Southeastern Galvanizing
Standard Auto Bumper
Taylor Rd
Wilson Concepts of Florida
Wingate Rd. Municipal Incinerator Dump
Woodbury Chemical
GEORGIA
Cedartown Industries
Cedartown Municipal

Diamond Shamrock
Firestone Tire & Rubber
Marine Corps Logistics Base

Marzone/Chevron Chemical
Mathis Bros (S. Marble Top Rd)
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition
Woolfolk Chemical Works
HAWAII
Schofield Barracks
IDAHO
Arrcom (Drexler Enterprise)
Eastern Michaud Flats Contamination
Idaho National Engineering Lab (US
DOE)
Kerr-McGee
Monsanto - Soda Springs
Mountain Home Air Force Base
ILLINOIS
Adams County Quincy #2 & #3
Amoco
Beloit
Central Illinois Public Service
Dupage County Blackwell Forest
HOD
llada Energy
Interstate Pollution Control
Joliet Army Ammo Plant Lap Area
Joliet my Ammo Plant Mfg.
Kerr-McGee Kress Creek & West Branch
fianhodfc
ROD D0te

95/1
93/4
94/2
93/4
92/3
95/4
92/4
93/2

94/1
95/2
93/2
93/4
95/4
92/4
94/2
92/3

93/2
93/2

94/2
93/2
94/2

93/3
93/2
93/2
93/3

95/2

92/3
94/3
93/3

94/4
94/4
93/3

93/2
94/2
94/2
92/4
93/4
95/1
93/1
95/3
94/1
94/1
95/3

Matrices0

GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
NP
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Sed, Sludge,
Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Sludge, Soil
GW
GW, Soil
Sediment, Soil
Soil

Sludge, Soil
GW, Soil

NP
GW, Soil
GW, Sed, Sludge,
Soil
GW, Soil
Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil

GW, Soil

Soil
GW, Sediment, Soil
GW. Soil

GW, Soil
GW, Sediment, Soil
GW, Sediment, Soil

GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Sediment, Soil
GW, Sediment, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
NP

Contaminant Qroyps0

Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
VOC (nonchlor), Metal
VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB), Metal
VOC (chlor)
SVOC (PCB, pest, other), Metal

VOC (BTEX), SVOC (PCB, pest)
VOC (chlor)
Metal
Metal
VOC (not specified)
VOC (chlor)
SVOC (pest)
SVOC (pest)

Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor), SVOC
(PAH, other), Metal
SVOC (pest), Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor). Metal
VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB, pest)

SVOC (pest)
SVOC (pest, other), Metal
SVOC (pest)
SVOC (pest), Metal

VOC (chlor)

VOC (chlor)
Metal
VOC (chlor), Metal

Metal
Metal
VOC (BTEX, nonchlor), Metal

VOC (BTEX, chlor), Metal
VOC (BTEX), SVOC (other), Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor)
VOC (BTEX), SVOC (PAH, other)
VOC (chlor)
SVOC (PCB), Metal
SVOC (PCB), Metal
VOC (chlor)
Metal
Others
Metal
                                  109

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
     Exhibit A-3: Summary of 523 NPL Sites Without RODs (Continued)
NPL Sites Without RODS«

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
     Exhibit A-3: Summary of 523 NPL Sites Without RODs (Continued)
NPL Sites Without RODsa
(8y State)
KENTUCKY
Brantley
Caldwell Lace Leather
Fort Hartford Coal Stone Quarry
General Tire & Rubber
Green River Disposal
Red-Penn Sanitation

LOUISIANA
Combustion
D.L Mud
Dutchtown Treatment
Gulf Coast Vacuum
Pab Oil & Chemical Services
Petro-Processors of Louisiana
MAINE
Brunswick Naval Air Station
Loring Air Force Base
Saco Municipal
MARYLAND
Anne Arundel
Bush Valley
Woodlawn

MASSACHUSETTS
Atlas Tack
Fort Devens - Sudbury Training Annex
Ft. Devens
Haverhill Municipal
Otis Air National Guard/Camp Edwards
PSC Resources
Salem Acres
Shpack
MICHIGAN
Adams Plating
Albion Sheridan Twp.
Allied Corp. Kalamazoo Plant
American Anodco
Avenue "E" Ground Water Contamination
Barrels
Bendix Corp/Allied Automotive
Butterworth #2
Cannelton Industries
Duell & Gardner
Electrovoice
Grand Traverse Overall Supply
Gratiot County
H. Brown
J&L
Kaydon
Kent City Mobile Home Park
McGraw-Edison
Flannel
BOD Date

94/1
93/4
94/2
93/2
93/3
93/4


94/2
93/2
93/4
92/4
93/4
NP

93/4
93/4
97/4

94/1
94/1
93/4


94/2
95/1
94/3
96/2
93/2
92/4
92/2
95/2

94/2
94/2
95/1
93/3
NP
NP
94/1
92/4
92/4
93/4
93/4
92/2
NP
92/4
93/2
NP
NP
NP

Matrices0

NP
GW, Sludge, Soil
NP
NP
GW, Soil
Soil


GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Sludge, Soil
Sludge, Soil
Sludge, Soil
GW

NP
GW, Soil
GW, Sediment, Soil

GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Sediment, Soil


GW, Sediment, Soil
GW, Soil
GW
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
Soil
Soil
GW, Soil

Soil
Sludge
GW, Sediment
NP
GW
GW
GW, Soil
NP
GW, Sediment, Soil
Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW
Soil
Soil
GW, Sludge, Soil
GW
GW

Contaminant Groups0

Metal
Metal
Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor), Metal
SVOC (PCB, other). Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor), SVOC (PAH,
PCB, other), Metal

Metal
Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor)
VOC (BTEX), Metal
VOC (BTEX, nonchlor) Metal
Others

SVOC (pest)
VOC (chlor), Metal
Metal

VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (chlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor, nonchlor),
Metal

VOC (BTEX), Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor), SVOC (other)
Metal
VOC (BTEX)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB)
VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB), Metal
VOC (chlor), Metal

VOC (chlor), Metal
Metal
SVOC (PCB)
Metal
VOC (BTEX, nonchlor)
Metal
VOC (chlor)
Metal
Metal
SVOC (PCB)
VOC (BTEX, chlor)
VOC (chlor)
Metal
Metal
Metal
VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor)
VOC (chlor)
                                  111

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
     Exhibit A-3: Summary of 523 NPL Sites Without RODs (Continued)
NPL sit<*$ without: ROD** i ;
X\/'i;i;v'A(|*y!''«^);!:^;!;tT''"4
MICHIGAN (Continued)
Metal Working Shop
Muskegon Chemical
North Branson Industrial Area
Packaging Chemical Works
Parsons Chemical Works
Peerless Plating
Petoskey Municipal Well Field
Rockwell Intl. Allegan Plant
Roto-Finish
SCA Independent

Shiawessee River
Southwest Ottawa County
Sparta
Spartan Chemical
State Disposal
Tar Lake
Torch Lake
Velsicol Chemical Mich.
Wash King Laundry
Waste Mgmt of Michigan Holland
MINNESOTA
Agate Lake Scrap Yard
Boise Cascade/Onan/Medtronics
East Bethel Demolition Landfill
Freeway Sanitary
General Mills/Henkel
Joslyn Mfg. and Supply
Koch Ref. Co/N-Ren
Koppers Coke
Kurt Mfg.
Lagrand Sanitary Landfill
Nutting Truck and Caster
Olmsted County Sanitary Landfill
Perham Arsenic
Ritari Post & Pole
St. Augusta Landfill/Engen Dump

Twin Cities AFB (Small Arms Range
Landfill)
MISSOURI
Bee Cee Manufacturing
Lake City Army Ammunition
North U Drive Well Contamination
Oronogo Duenwig Mining Belt
Quality Plating
St. Louis Airport/His/Futura Coating
Valley Park TCE
Weldon Springs Ordnance Works
(Former)
Westlake
Pi*r»ii«id&
ROI? Pitt

92/3
94/1
94/2
93/4
94/4
92/4
95/1
95/1
94/1
96/4

93/4
NP
94/4
95/3
94/2
92/4
92/4
NP
93/2
93/4

93/2
NP
93/1
93/3
NP
NP
91/4
93/3
NP
92/4
NP
93/4
94/2
93/3
93/3

92/2


93/3
94/1
93/2
94/2
93/3
95/2
94/1
95/2

95/2

:::.•••• :Mitr|CW».^:-::.:::"

Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Sediment, Soil
GW, Soil
GW
GW, Sediment, Soil
GW, Soil
GW

GW, Sediment, Soil
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW, Sludge, Soil
Sediment
Soil
GW
GW

Soil
GW, Sludge, Soil
GW
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Sludge, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Sludge, Soil
GW, Soil

GW, Sludge, Soil


Soil
GW
GW
GW. Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW
GW, Soil

NP

' Cont?irn.inia(r«t:"'Oroy|>«^vS"":

Metal
VOC (chlor), SVOC (other)
VOC (chlor), Metal
Metal
SVOC (pest)
VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (chlor)
VOC (nonchlor), Metal
Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor, nonchlor),
SVOC (other)
SVOC (PCB)
Metal
VOC (BTEX)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor), Metal
Metal
Metal
SVOC (not specified)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)

VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB)
SVOC (PAH, other)
VOC (chlor), Metal
Metal
VOC (not specified)
SVOC (PAH, other), Metal
SVOC (chlor)
Metal
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor), SVOC (other)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor, nonchlor), Metal
Metal
SVOC (other)
VOC (BTEX, chlor), SVOC
(other), Metal
VOC (chlor), Metal


Metal
Metal
VOC (not specified)
Metal
Metal
Metal
VOC (chlor)
SVOC (other)

Metal
                                   112

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
     Exhibit A-3:  Summary of 523 NPL Sites Without RODs (Continued)
NPL Sit** Without ftOD**
(By State)
MONTANA
Idaho Pole
Montana Pole and Treating
Mouat Industries
NEBRASKA
1 0th Street Site
Cornhusker Army Ammunition
Nebraska Army Ordnance
NEVADA
Carson River Mercury
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Fletcher's Paint Works

Holton Circle
Pease Air Force Base
Tibbetts Road
NEW JERSEY
American Cyanamid
Brick Twp. Landfill
Brook Industrial Park
Cosden Chemical Coatings
CPS/Madison Industries

Dayco Corp/L.E. Carpenter
Delilah Road
Denzer & Schafer X-Ray
Dover Municipal Well 4
Ellis Property
Evor Phillips Leasing
Fair Lawn Fields
Fried Industries
Hercules
Higgins Disposal Service
Hopkins Farm
Industrial Latex
Jackson Twp. Landfill
JIS Landfill
Kauffman & Minteer

Landfill & Development
Lodi Municipal Wells
Maywood Chemical
Monitor Devices/lntercircuits
Monroe Township Landfill
Naval Weapons Station Earle - Site A
PJP Landfill
Pohatcong Valley Ground Water
Contamination
Radiation Technology
Rockaway Twp. Wells
Shield Alloy
Universal Oil Prod
Plannedb
HOP Date

92/4
93/3
95/4

93/2
95/1
93/4

94/4

94/3

92/4
93/2
92/4

93/3
94/1
93/3
92/4
95/3

93/2
NP
94/1
95/3
92/4
95/2
95/4
93/4
93/3
95/2
94/2
95/4
94/1
94/1
93/3

94/3
93/3
95/1
95/2
94/1
94/2
93/4
95/2

94/1
93/3
93/4
94/1

mww9c

Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil

GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil

Sediment

Sediment, Soil

GW, Soil
GW, Sediment, Soil
GW, Soil

GW, Sediment, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil

GW, Sludge, Soil
GW, Sludge, Soil
GW, Soil
GW
GW
NP
GW
Soil
GW, Soil
Soil
GW, Soil
Soil
GW
GW
Soil

GW
GW, Soil
Soil
GW, Soil
NP
Sediment
GW
GW

GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW
GW, Soil
; • .;;,;«:£:':.
Contaminant Qrowpstpr

SVOC (other)
SVOC (other)
Metal

VOC (chlor)
Others
VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB)

Metal

VOC (BTEX, chlor), SVOC (PCB),
Metal
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor), SVOC (pest), Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor, nonchlor)

SVOC (other)
VOC (not specified)
SVOC (pest), Metal
VOC (BTEX), SVOC (PCB)
VOC (BTEX, chlor, nonchlor),
Metal
VOC (nonchlor)
VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (not specified)
VOC (not specified)
Others
Others
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (BTEX)
VOC (chlor), SVOC
Metal
VOC (BTEX)
SVOC (other)
VOC (not specified)
VOC (BTEX, chlor, nonchlor),
SVOC (PAH, pest, other)
VOC (not specified)
Metal
Others
Metal
Others
Others
VOC (not specified)
VOC (chlor)

VOC (not specified)
VOC (not specified)
Metal
VOC (not specified)
                                  113

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
     Exhibit A-3: Summary of 523 NPL Sites Without RODs (Continued)
NPL Sites without RODsa
(8y State)
NEW JERSEY (Continued)
U.S. Radium
Ventron/Velsicol
W. R. Grace/Wayne Interim Storage Site
(US DOE)
Wilson Farm
Witco Chemical
NEW MEXICO
Cal West Metals (SBA)
Cleveland Mill
Lee Acres Landfill (US DOI)
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
NEW YORK
Action Anodizing & Plating
Anchor Chemicals
Batavia
Bioclinical Laboratories
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Carrol & Dubies

Cortese
Facet Enterprises
FMC - Dublin Rd.
Goldisc Recordings
Griffiss Air Force Base
Islip SLF
Johnstown City
Jones Chemical
Jones Sanitation

Kenmark Textile
Liberty Ind. Finishing
Mercury Refining
Nepera Chemical

Niagara City Refuse
Niagara Mohawk/Operations HQ
Pasley Solvents & Chemicals
Pittsburgh Air Force Base
Ramapo
Richardson Hill Site
Robintech/National Pipe
Rocket Fuel
Rosen

Rowe Industries Ground Water
Contamination
Seneca Army Depot
Sidney

Tri-City Barrel

Putanadk
ROD Data

93/3
95/2
94/4

93/3
92/4

92/4
93/3
94/2
92/4

92/3
94/1
93/2
92/4
96/1
93/4

94/4
92/4
93/2
95/1
94/2
92/4
93/2
95/1
94/4

94/4
93/4
NP
94/2

93/4
94/1
92/3
92/4
92/2
94/1
93/2
94/3
94/3

92/4

94/4
94/3

95/1


Matrte*9c

NP
GW
Soil

NP
Soil

GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil

Soil
GW
Sludge
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil

GW, Soil
GW, Sludge, Soil
GW, Soil
Sludge
GW
GW, Soil
GW, Sludge, Soil
GW, Soil
GW

GW, Soil
Sludge, Soil
Sediment
GW, Sludge, Soil

Sediment, Soil
NP
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
Soil
GW
GW

GW

GW, Soil
GW, Sediment, Soil

GW, Soil


Contaminant {groups6

Others
Metal
Others

VOC (not specified)
VOC (not specified)

Metal
Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor)
VOC (BTEX)

Metal
VOC (not specified)
Metal
VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor, BTEX), SVOC
(other), Metal
Metal
VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB), Metal
SVOC (pest), Metal
Metal
VOC (BTEX)
VOC (chlor)
Metal
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor, nonchlor), SVOC
(PAH, other), Metal
Metal
Metal
SVOC (PCB), Metal
VOC (chlor), SVOC (other, PCB),
Metal
NP
SVOC (other)
VOC (BTEX. chlor, nonchlor)
SVOC (PCB, other)
VOC (BTEX, chlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor), SVOC (PCB)
VOC (BTEX), Metal
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor), SVOC (PAH, other),
Metal
SVOC (other)

VOC (chlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor, nonchlor),
SVOC (PCB, other), Metal
VOC (BTEX, nonchlor), SVOC
(PCB, pest)
                                  114

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
     Exhibit A-3: Summary of 523 NPL Sites Without RODs (Continued)
NPL Sites Without BOD**
C8y st«t*)
NEW YORK (Continued)
Tronic Plating Company
Vestal Water Supply 4-2
NORTH CAROLINA
ABC One Hour Cleaning
Benfield Industries
PCX, Inc. (Washington Plant)

PCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant)
Geigy Chemical
Hevi Duty Electric/General Signal
JFD Electronics/Channel Master
Koppers Co., Inc. (Morrisville Plant)
NC State U (Lot 86 Farm Unit #1 )

New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit

Potter's Septic Tank Svs. Pits
USMC Camp Lejeune Military
Reservation
NORTH DAKOTA
Minot

OHIO
Feed Materials Production Ctr.

Mound Plant (US DOE)
Nease Chemical
Ormet
Powell Road
Reilly Tar & Chemical
Sanitary Landfill Co. Ind. Waste
Skinner
South Point
TRW Inc. Minerva
Van Dale Junkyard
Wright Patterson Air Force Base
OKLAHOMA
Double Eagle
Fourth Street Abandoned
Mosely Road
Oklahoma
OREGON
Allied Plating
Joseph Forest Products
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons)
Union Pacific RR/Kerr McGee Tie Point
PENNSYLVANIA
AIW Frank
AMP - Glen Rock
Bell
Berkely Prod. Co. Dump
Berks
FlAtthadk
ROD Date

93/2
NP

94/1
92/4
93/3

93/4
92/4
95/1
92/4
93/1
94/4

92/4

92/4
93/4


93/3


94/1

95/1
94/2
93/3
93/2
94/1
93/1
93/2
93/3
NP
93/2
93/2

93/4
93/4
92/3
92/3

93/3
92/4
93/2
93/3

94/1
94/4
93/4
93/4
94/2

M«Nc*9c

Soil
GW

GW, Soil
Soil
Soil

GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW
GW, Sludge, Soil
GW, Sediment, Soil
GW, Soil

Sludge, Soil

GW, Soil
Soil


GW, Soil


GW, Soil

GW, Soil
GW
GW, Sludge, Soil
Sludge, Soil
GW, Soil
NP
NP
GW, Soil
GW, Sediment, Soil
Sediment
GW, Soil

Soil
Soil
Sludge, Soil
GW, Soil

GW, Soil
Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil

GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW
GW, Soil
GW, Soil

Contaminant Groups0

Metal
VOC (chlor)

VOC (BTEX, chlor)
VOC (chlor), SVOC (other)
VOC (nonchlor), SVOC (PAH,
pest, other), Metal
SVOC (pest)
VOC (BTEX), SVOC (pest), Metal
SVOC (PCB)
VOC (chlor), Metal
SVOC (other)
VOC (chlor, nonchlor), SVOC
(pest), Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor, nonchlor),
SVOC (PAH, other). Metal
VOC (BTEX, nonchlor). Metal
SVOC (pest)


VOC (BTEX, chlor, nonchlor),
SVOC (other), Metal

VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB, other),
Metal
Metal
SVOC (pest, other)
Metal
SVOC (other), Metal
SVOC (PAH, other)
SVOC (other)
SVOC (other), Metal
Others
VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB)
SVOC (other), Metal
VOC (chlor), Metal

Metal
SVOC (pest), Metal
SVOC (pest, other)
VOC (BTEX), Metal

Metal
Metal
VOC (chlor), SVOC (pest)
SVOC (PAH, other), Metal

VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (BTEX), SVOC (other), Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor), Metal
                                  115

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
     Exhibit A-3: Summary of 523 NPL Sites Without RODs (Continued)
mi sit** without ftoo$*
..•••"«••:• .".:•: .' .{)?K,Stl«.f)::''"-':- •;;;".:.••.:.."...
PENNSYLVANIA (Continued)
Boarhead Farms
Butler Mine Tunnel
C&D Recycling
Centre County Kepone
Commodore Semiconductor Group
Dublin Water Supply
Elizabethtown
Hunterstown Road
Jack's Creek/Sitkin Smelting
Lindane Dump
Malvern Ice
Metal Banks
North Penn-Area 1
North Penn-Area 2
North Penn-Area 5
North Penn-Area 6
North Penn-Area 7
Novak Sanitary
Occidental Chem/Firestone
Ohio River Park Nevell Island
Old City of York
Paoli Rail Yard
Recticon/Allied Steel
Revere Chemical
River Road Landfill-Waste Mgmt

Route 940 Drum Dump
Saegertown Industrial Area

Salford Quarry
Shriver's Corner
Stanley Kassler
Tonolli .
Tranisicoil
USA Tobyhanna Army Depot
USA Naval Air Dev. Center
Westinghouse Elevator Co. Plant
Westinghouse, Sharon
York County Solid Waste
PUERTO RICO
Barceloneta
Naval Security Group Activity
RCA Del Caribe
RHODE ISLAND
Central
Davis (GSR)
Davisville Naval Construct, Battalion
Center
Newport Naval Education/Training
Center
Peterson/Puritan
Rose Hill Regional
Pldnried^
ROD Date

94/1
93/2
92/4
94/1
92/4
94/2
94/4
93/3
93/4
92/2
94/1
94/1
93/4
94/2
95/1
95/1
95/3
93/2
93/3
93/2
91/4
92/4
NP
93/3
94/2

92/4
93/1

94/4
93/3
93/4
92/4
94/2
93/2
93/3
94/1
93/1
93/3

94/3
95/4
94/1

94/1
94/2
93/4

93/4

93/4
94/3

^Matrices6

GW, Soil
Soil
GW, Soil
GW
GW, Soil
GW
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
Soil
GW, Soil
GW
GW
GW
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
NP
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
Soil
GW, Soil
Sludge
GW, Sed, Sludge,
Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Sed, Sludge,
Soil
GW
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Sludge, Soil
GW
GW
GW, Sediment, Soil
GW, Soil

NP
Soil
GW, Sediment

GW, Soil
GW, Soil
Sediment, Soil

GW, Sediment, Soil

GW
GW, Soil

Containrtlnarft Groups0

VOC (chlor), Metal
SVOC (other)
Metal
SVOC (pest)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor), Metal
VOC (chlor)
SVOC (PCB), Metal
SVOC (pest)
VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB)
SVOC (PCB)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor), Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor), Metal
NP
VOC (BTEX), SVOC (pest, other)
VOC (chlor)
Metal
VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB)

VOC (BTEX, chlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor), SVOC
(other), Metal
Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor)
VOC (chlor)
Metal
VOC (chlor)
VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (chlor)
SVOC (PCB, other)
VOC (chlor, nonchlor)

NP
SVOC (pest), Metal
Metal

NP
VOC (BTEX, chlor)
Metal

Metal

SVOC (other)
VOC (BTEX, chlor)
                                   116

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
     Exhibit A-3: Summary of 523 NPL Sites Without RODs (Continued)
NPL Sites Without RODsa
: (By State)
SOUTH CAROLINA
Beaunit Corp/Circular Knit & Dyeing
Elmore Waste Disposal
Helena Chemical
Kalama Specialty Chemicals
Koppers
Leonard Chemical
Lexington County
Para Chem Southern
Rochester Property
Rock Hill Chemical Company/Rutledge
Prop.
Savannah River Site (US DOE)
Townsend Saw Chain
SOUTH DAKOTA
Ellsworth Air Force Base
Williams Pipe Line Co. Disposal Pit
TENNESSEE
Carrier Air Conditioning
Murray Ohio Mfg. (Horseshoe Bend)
Murray-Ohio Dump
USA Milan Army Ammo Pit
TEXAS
Air Force Plant #4 (General Dynamics)
Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant
Longhorn Ammunition Plant
Tex-Tin
UTAH
Midvale Slag
Rose Park Sludge Pit
Tooele Army Depot (North Area)
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel
VERMONT
Bennington Municipal
BFI/Rockingham
Burgess Brothers
Darling Hill Dump
Parker
Pine Street Canal
Tanistor Electronics
VIRGINIA
Abex
Atlantic Wood Industries
Buckingham County
Culpeper Wood Preservers
H&H Inc. - Burn Pit
Rentokil Inc. VA Wood Preserving
Suffolk City Landfill
U.S. Defense General Supply Center
*Mann0
-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
     Exhibit A-3: Summary of 523 NPL Sites Without RODs (Continued)

':'-"'^'kpL-:--stt(»i-:::iWithout''BODs^::::i:'
•^:' •;; ;;£;:;;: • pjfc'$ftpw)f •' •' ? ".'s^
WASHINGTON
Aluminum Co. of America (Vancouver
Smelter)
American Crossarm & Conduct
Bangor Ordinance Disposal (USN Sub
Rocft\
OtAOVf
Bonneville Power Admin. Ross Complex
(US DOE)
Centralia Municipal
Fairchild Air Force Base (4 Areas)
Fort Lewis (Landfill No. 5)

General Electric (Spokane Apparatus)
Greenacres
Hanford 1 00-Area
Hanford 1 1 00-Area (US DOE)
Hanford 200-Area (US DOE)
Hanford 300-Area (US DOE)
Harbor Island - Lead
Hidden Valley San. LF/Thun Field
Kaiser Aluminum Mead Works
McChord AFB (Wash Rack/Treatment)
Mica
Midway
N.A.S. Whidbey Island (Ault Field)

N.A.S. Whidbey Island (Seaplane BS)
Naval Undersea Warfare Engineer
Station 4 Areas
Northwest Transformer (S. Harkness St.)
Old Inland Pit

Pacific Ca, & Foundry
Pasco Sanitary
Pesticide Lab - Yakima
Seattle Municipal Landfill (Kent Highlan)
Tosco (Spokane Terminal)
Wyckoff Co/Eagle Harbor
WEST VIRGINIA
Follansbee
WISCONSIN
City Disposal Sanitary Landfill
Delevan Municipal Well #4
Hechimovich
Kohler
Lauer I Sanitary Landfill
Madison Metro Sewage Sludge Lagoon
Mauthe NW
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
Omega Hills North
Sauk County

Scrap Processing
^•-
Planned?
ROP Date

92/2

93/2
92/2
93/2

95/1
93/2
92/4

93/1
93/1
95/3
93/4
94/1
95/2
93/4
93/1
93/3
92/4
94/4
93/2
93/4

93/3
94/2

94/1
NP

91/4
NP
92/4
92/2
93/4
93/2

97/1

92/4
94/1
94/1
94/3
94/2
94/3
93/4
93/2
NP
94/3

94/1

••••', • :.:. .'.....I'.,.. '. •
••.-•Hirt&K**-

GW, Soil

GW
GW, Soil
GW, Soil

NP
NP
GW. Soil

GW, Soil
GW
GW, Soil
NP
GW, Soil
GW
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
NP

NP
Sediment

GW, Soil
NP

GW, Soil
GW
Soil
GW, Soil
Soil
Sed, Sludge, Soil

GW

GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
NP
GW, Sludge
GW, Soil
GW, Soil
NP
GW, Soil

GW, Soil


C«amarn(nB|p(t 0roup«°

Metal

SVOC (PAH, other)
Metal
VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB)

Metal
VOC (chlor), Metal
VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB, pest),
Metal
VOC (chlor), SVOC (PCB)
VOC (not specified)
Metal
Others
VOC (chlor), Metal
Metal
Metal
VOC (chlor), SVOC (other), Metal
Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor), Metal
VOC (chlor, nonchlor)
VOC (BTEX), Metal
VOC (BTEX. chlor, nonchlor),
SVOC (other), Metal
Metal
VOC (chlor, nonchlor) Metal

SVOC (PCB)
VOC (BTEX, chlor, nonchlor),
Metal
Metal
VOC (chlor), SVOC (pest), Metal
SVOC (pest)
VOC (chlor), Metal
Metal
SVOC (PAH, other)

SVOC (other)

Others
VOC (chlor)
VOC (BTEX, chlor), Metal
Metal
NP
SVOC (PCB)
Metal
Metal
NP
VOC (BTEX, chlor, nonchlor),
Metal
Metal
                                   118

-------
      Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
            Exhibit A-3: Summary of 523 NPL Sites Without RODs (Continued)
NPL Sites Without RODsa
&y Sfate)
WISCONSIN (Continued)
Sheboygan Harbor & River
Spickler
Tomah Armory
Tomah Fairground Area
Tomah Municipal Sanitary Landfill
Waste Management of Wisconsin-
Brookfield
Waste Research & Reclamation
WYOMING
F.E. Warren Air Force Base
PlanruKjk
ROC Date
94/2
99/1
NP
NP
NP
95/1
NP
94/3
Matrices0
Sediment
GW, Sludge
NP
NP
GW, Sediment
GW
GW
GW, Soil
Contaminant Groups'*
SVOC (PCB)
VOC (BTEX), Metal
VOC (chlor), Metal
Metal
VOC (BTEX, chlor, nonchlor),
Metal
Metal
Others
VOC (chlor), Metal
Notes:
 a The list reflects the 523 sites without Records of Decision (RODs) as of September 30,1991. RODs were
   signed for approximately 80 of these sites during the fiscal year ending September 30,1992.
 b ROD dates are given in fiscal year/quarter format (i.e., 93/1 = October-December of fiscal year 1993).  NP
   reflects those sites listed in CERCLIS that do not have a planned ROD date.  Some sites will have multiple
   RODs. Only first ROD date has been set.
 c Based on data gathered during site assessments prior to site listing on the NPL. Actual matrices and
   contaminants that require remediation are determined during later stages of the site evaluation. GW = ground
   water; VOC = volatile organic compound; BTEX = benzene, toluene; ethylbenzene, and/or xylene; Chlor =
   chlorinated VOCs;  SVOC = Semi-volatile organic compound; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl; PAH =
   polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon; Nonchlor = Non-chlorinated VOCs; NP = Not provided; Pest = pesticide; and
   Sed = Sediment.
                                               119

-------
  Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
Exhibit A-4:  Distribution of Quantities of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Sludge
                           at NPL Sites With RODs
Quantity Estimate
{Guble Yawls)
<1 ,000
1,000-5,000
5,001 - 10,000
10,001 -30,000
30,001 - 50,000
50,001 - 100,000
>1 00,000
Total Number of Sites
Number of NPL Sites
with Data By Matrix ;
Soil
34
49
33
55
32
19
29
251
Sediment
12
10
7
8
4
5
3
49
Sludge
5
6
3
5
9
8
6
42
lotalS«es
51
65
43
68
45
32
38
342
Note: Data are derived from 342 Records of Decisions (RODs) for 310 sites that have RODs.
Source: U.S. EPA, RODs, fiscal years 1982-1991.
                                     120

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
 Exhibit A-5:  Estimated Quantity of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Sludge
         for Major Contaminant Groups at NPL Sites Without RODsa
{1)
Contaminant
Subgroup
Single:
Metals
VOCs
SVOCs
Others
Double:
VOCs & Metals
SVOCs & Metals
VOCs & SVOCs
VOCs, SVOCs, &
Metals
(2)
Number of NPL
sites with
Available Datab

47
27
38
8

10
22
23
84
(3)
Average Based
on Available
Data
(Cubic Yards)"

75,400
13,700
27,600
55,300

67,000
49,200
23,500
102,400
#>'
NPL sites
Without

110
139
52
18

107
20
31
40
(6)
Projected
Total Quantity
(Cubic Yardsf

8,290,000
1 ,900,000
1 ,440,000
990,000

7,170,000
980,000
730,000
4,100,000
TOTALS 517 25,600,000
Notes:
a Site-specific data are not available for quantities of material to be remediated at sites without Records
of Decision (RODs); these values are derived from estimates contained in the RODs for sites
containing similar contaminants.
b Source of quantity data is U.S. EPA, RODs, fiscal years 1982-1991. Statistical outliers are not
included.
c Each site is placed in one subgroup only. Contaminant data are not available for 6 of the 523 sites
without RODs through fiscal year 1991.
d The total for each subgroup is calculated by multiplying columns (3) and (4). Projected quantities are
rounded.
                                  121

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
 Exhibit A-6:  Estimated Quantity of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Sludge
          by Sources of Contamination at NPL Sites Without RODsa
(1)

industrial Sources of
Waste" •
Primary Metal Products
Manufacturing
Metal Plating
Agricultural Production
and Services
Fabricated Metal
Products Manufacturing
Petroleum Refining
Inorganic Chemical
Manufacturing
Organic Chemical
Manufacturing
Wood Preserving
Processes
Electronic/Electrical
Equipment
Manufacturing
Used Oil Reclamation
<2> ',

Number of N>1
Sites With
Available Data0
4

14
11

19

16
22

64

23

16


15
(3)
Average Based
on Available
Data
(Cubic Yards)0
578,400

217,000
217,000

64,900

159,400
77,500

31,300

78,600

26,500


44,500
: (4);

Number of
Sites Without
RODS*
23

41
27

65

16
32

71

20

41


15
-v " >
-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
               Exhibit A-7:  RCRA Facilities by State/Territory
1 f .•,,;:.;•• Number of RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities; by StliJte(fBrr|tOry- :; •
*"*"'-.'.' State *>- /^Nurnb'er .''••''•'' '" State ' ••-••. "" Number'./ ' .;;;;;v'.:..;,istaie.. ;;;K'- \: ^rnb^r'?:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
113
19
39
34
333
67
222
20
1
157
104
3
19
19
234
212
168
51
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
138
86
38
52
162
194
54
59
106
13
49
13
8
170
32
157
122
9
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
349
59
51
353
57
19
87
2
86
381
43
5
1
102
100
51
62
19
Source: Adapted from RCRIS National Oversight Database, September 5, 1992.
                                    123

-------
     Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
  Exhibit A-8:  Most Prevalent Wastes Managed at RCRA Solid Waste Management Units
                       Estimated to Need Corrective Action in 1986
                    Waste Types by Solid Waste Management unit Type
                                      LAND DISPOSAL
                                          Landfills
Ignitable waste                                  Tank bottoms (leaded) from petroleum refining
Corrosive waste                                 Chromium
Lead                                           Spent halogenated solvents'3
Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating3     Spent nonhalogenated solvents0
Waste containing asbestos                        Reactive waste
                                        Waste Piles
Lead                                           Cadmium
Barium                                         Emission control dust/sludge from steel production
Ignitable waste                                  Chromium
Corrosive waste                                 Reactive waste
Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating3     API separator sludge from petroleum refining
                                   Surface Impoundments
Corrosive waste                                 Chromium
Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating3     API separator sludge from petroleum refining
Ignitable waste                                  Spent halogenated solvents6
Waste oil                                       Reactive waste
Lead                                           Dissolved air flotation float from petroleum refining
                                    Land Treatment Units
Spent nonhalogenated solvents0                   Silver
API separator sludge from petroleum refining        Waste oil
Ignitable waste                                  Corrosive waste
Tank bottoms (leaded) from petroleum refining       Slop oil emulsion solids from petroleum refining
Spent halogenated solvents'"                      Dissolved air flotation float from petroleum refining
                                 TREATMENT AND STORAGE
                          Container Storage and Accumulation Areas
Ignitable waste                                  Spent nonhalogenated solvents0'8
Waste oil                                       Chromium
Corrosive waste                                 Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating3
Spent halogenated solventsb|d                     Lead
                                 Tanks and Tank Connections
Waste oil                                       Spent nonhalogenated solvents0'6
Ignitable waste                                  Lead
Corrosive waste                                 Chromium
Spent halogenated solventsb>d                     Reactive waste
                                       INCINERATION
Ignitable waste                                  Reactive waste
Spent nonhalogenated solvents0-6                  Hydrocyanic acid
Corrosive waste                                 Phenol
Waste oil                                       Benzene
Spent halogenated solvents'^
                                             124

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

                                     Exhibit A-8 (Continued)
                       Waste Types by Solid Waste Management Unit Type
                                         MISCELLANEOUS
                                               Boilers
Waste oil                                           Waste containing 50-500 ppm polychlorinated
Ignitable waste                                      biphenyls
Spent nonhalogenated solvents0'8                    Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating3
Spent halogenated solvents'5                         Electroplating residues where cyanides are used
Formaldehyde                                      Methylene oxide
                                              Furnaces
Mercury                                            Propylene dichloride
Waste oil                                           1,2-Dichloropropane
Ignitable waste                                      Cresylic acid
Decanter tank tar sludge from coking operations      Cresols
Propane,2,2'-oxybis(2-chloro-)                        Reactive waste
Bis(2-chloroisopropy!) ether                          Lead
                                     Other Miscellaneous Units
Ignitable waste                                      Reactive waste
Corrosive waste                                     Chromium
Spent halogenated solventsbid                        Cadmium
Waste oil                                           Lead
Spent nonhalogenated solvents0
                                             UNKNOWN
Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating3     Phenol
Lead                                               Benzene
Corrosive waste                                     Waste containing asbestos
Ignitable waste                                      Hazardous Wastewater treatment liquid
Notes:
8 RCRA Waste Code F006:  Wastewater treatment sludges from certain electroplating operations except from the
  following processes: (1) Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc plating
  (segregated basis) on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum plating on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping
  associated with tin,  zinc, and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and  milling of
  aluminum.
b RCRA Waste Code F001:  The following spent halogenated solvents used in degreasing: tetrachloroethylene,
  trichloroethylene, methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride  and chlorinated fluorocarbons
  and all spent solvent mixtures/blends used in degreasing containing before use a total of 10% or more (by
  volume) of one or more of the above halogenated solvents or those solvents listed in F002, F004,  and F005, and
  still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and spent solvent mixtures.
c RCRA Waste Code F003:  The following spent nonhalogenated solvents:  xylene, acetone,  ethyl acetate, ethyl
  benzene, ethyl ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, n-butyl alcohol, cyclohexanone, and methanol; all spent solvent
  mixtures/blends containing, before use, only the above spent nonhalogenated solvents; and all spent solvent
  mixtures/blends containing before use one or more of the above nonhalogenated solvents, and a total of 10% or
  more (by volume) of one or more of those solvents listed in F001,  F002, F004, and F005; and still bottoms from
  the recovery of these spent solvents and spent solvent mixtures.
d RCRA Waste Code F002:  The following spent halogenated solvents: tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride,
  trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane, ortho-
  dichlorobenzene, trichlorofluoromethane, and 1,1,2-trichloroethane, ortho-dichlorobenzene, and
  trichlorofluoromethane; all  spent solvent mixtures/blends containing before use a total of 10% or more (by
  volume) of one or more of those solvents listed in  F001, F002, F004, and  F005; and still bottoms from the
  recovery of these spent solvents and spent solvent mixtures.
6 RCRA Waste Code F005:  The following spent nonhalogenated solvents:  cresols and cresylic acid, and
  nitrobenzene; and the still  bottoms from the recovery of  these solvents; all spent solvent mixtures/blends
  containing before use a total of 10% or more (by volume) of one or more of the  above nonhalogenated solvents
  or those solvents listed in  F001, F002, or F004; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and
  spent solvent mixtures.

Source: Adapted from 1986 TSDR/GENSUR data.


                                                 125

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
   Exhibit A-9: Location of Registered USTs in the United States
Re$| ton
Ofl6
Two
Thfee
Four
Fiv<9
State
CT
MA
ME
NH
Rl
VT
Subtotal
NJ
NY
PR
VI
Subtotal
DC
DE
MD
PA
VA
WV
Subtotal
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
Subtotal
IL
IN
Ml
MN
OH
Wl
Subtotal
Number of
Tanks
34,792
24,825
17,134
13,366
6,264
4,236
100,617
51,558
51,006
6,555
280
109,399
5,041
6,492
21,659
66,289
52,648
17,939
170,068
31,271
57,615
51 ,233
34,133
17,181
60,309
26,295
44,243
322,280
63,922
29,227
69,133
33,033
74,959
67,281
337,555
i;. Number of ;; ;
Confirmed Releases
1,287
3,406
924
575
345
907
7,444
4,094
7,807
125
13
12,039
356
1,229
9,798
2,988
3,467
803
18,641
1,547
11,020
2,002
2,642
521
13,272
2,870
5,050
38,924
8,422
2,963
7,296
3,739
10,406
6,719
39,545
Cleanup! Inflated
or Competed i :
1,258
2,883
896
575
345
907
6,864
2,981
7,737
124
12
10,854
269
939
7,965
2,231
1,777
446
13,627
963
4,515
1,421
2,608
427
12,575
414
4,344
27,267
7,110
1,364
6,944
2,978
9,144
6,074
33,614
                                126

-------
   Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
Exhibit A-9: Location of Registered USTs in the United States (Continued)
Region
Six
Seven
Eight
Nirte
Ten
Nation-Wide
• '•". ::::i&ato'J"V.
AR
LA
NM
OK
TX
Subtotal
IA
KS
MO
NE
Subtotal
CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
Subtotal
AZ
CA
HI
NV
CQ
GU
SA
Subtotal
AK
ID
OR
WA
Subtotal
TOTAL
Number of
Tanks
16,030
25,265
8,411
29,384
104,366
183,456
15,904
15,331
20,443
10,859
62,537
22,246
12,828
8,030
8,325
10,299
8,217
69,945
18,540
124,872
5,618
5,986
89
433
53
155,591
5,847
8,493
16,105
23,720
54,165
1,565,613
Number of
Confirmed Releases
296
1,407
1,147
1,246
12,473
16,569
4,325
2,806
2,121
1,837
11,089
2,425
1,118
474
1,226
1,558
1,038
7,839
2,270
21,127
464
1,131
2
70
2
25,066
611
561
3,535
2,594
7,301
184,457
Cleanups Initiated
or Completed
236
650
690
408
7,907
9,891
815
2,508
1,812
260
5,395
1,562
904
426
1,015
1,089
478
5,474
1,679
7,923
205
863
2
70
2
10,744
417
460
2,071
2,396
5,344
129,074
Source: EPA, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Fourth Quarter 1992.
                                  127

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                Exhibit A-10: Types of DOD Sites
Site Category
Aboveground Storage
Tank
Burn Area
Contaminated Buildings
Contaminated Ground
Water
Contaminated
Sediments
Disposal Pit/Dry Well
Explosive Ordnance
Disposal
Fire/Crash Training
Area
Landfill
Oil-Water Separator
POL (petroleum, oil, &
lubricants) Line
Radioactive Waste
Spill Area
Storage Area
Surface Disposal Area
Surface Impoundment/
Lagoon
Underground Storage
Tank Area
Unexploded Munitions/
Ordnance Area
Waste Line
Waste Treatment Plant
• ••' v, .-• * •• ••• Definition • ' '•':• .•• ""•-
Liquid storage tanks and connected piping, from which a release has occurred
and which can be inspected on all sides.
Area consisting of pits or on the surface where combustible materials have been
burned. Areas used to burn material for the purpose of fire fighting training or to
burn ordnance are not included in this type. Contaminants often found include:
volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Buildings or structures contaminated with substances including, but not limited to:
asbestos, dioxins, explosives, heavy metals, low-level radioactive waste, organic
solvents, pesticides, PCBs, and other chemicals.
Ground water for which the source of contamination cannot be identified or for
which there is more than one source of contamination.
Sediments of bodies of water (except surface impoundments) that have been
contaminated by surface runoff, sub-surface migration, or direct discharge of
contaminants. Typical soil contaminants are: oil, grease, phenols, and toluene.
Unlined pit or dry well where uncontained wastes have been discharged for
disposal.
Area used to burn, detonate, bury, or dispose of explosive ordnance.
Area used for fire fighting training where waste oils, fuels, and other flammable
liquids have been burned and extinguished with water and/or fire fighting
chemicals.
Lined or unlined trench, pit, or other excavation area into which wastes have been
placed and periodically covered with soil and which may or may not include
leachate collection systems.
Oil-water separator, associated piping, and adjacent area.
Distribution lines used to transport POL products from storage to dispensing
facilities; not including piping connected directly to tanks or dispensing facility.
Site used for storage or disposal of low-level radioactive waste.
Site at which accidental or sporadic releases of hazardous wastes have occurred.
Site used to store containerized waste.
Area of limited or no excavation where wastes have been placed but have not
been covered with soil.
Lined pit or lagoon where uncontained liquid wastes have been discharged for
disposal.
Liquid storage tanks that cannot be inspected on all sides and from which a
release has occurred. Includes connected piping.
Area, primarily firing ranges, that contains unexploded ordnance.
Pipeline used to transport sanitary or industrial wastes.
Municipal or industrial waste water treatment plant.
Sources:
DOD, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Environment), Installation Restoration Program
Cost Estimate, September 1991.
DOD, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Environment), Defense Environmental Restoration
Program Management Information System (DERPMIS): Information Paper, (CETHA-IR-P), March 1992.
                               128

-------
     Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
£•
o
V
.§?
V)  <2
§1
o  S
*i
w
  d>
M
£*
c  c
11
Is
II
_  w
l|
£§
£?
l;
  J2
vS
<^
4—
'.5


§

         8

            OinCDCDCDCOCOCO
            CO CM
                      IS
                       -°
              CD
              O)
              •D
                    .1
            in in in o
            oo     ••-
              j»


              CD
                ^
              3 §

              l 8
            P "2 2
            Q. .£ OL
            2
            o
            55

            |

            2

            > JS
                                      pcococococoeoco
                                      C\JT-T-1-T-T-'»-C«5
                            8.

                            IjsS
                            0 « 0
                            00 O) O) O)
                            CO T- T— 1—
§

o
                            o e « o
                            a! o. cc w
                                            ^ 3
                                        15 W _
                                       CA
                                       1

                                         22 O
                                        Q. CL
                                       CD
                                       I?
                                       S

                                       CO
                                                      w -I
                                                      -J <2
                                                      p «
                                                      Q. CQ ±
                                                        c^c^
                       CD

                       8   -^
                       E   E
                       o   jc
                       O   O
                                                      C
                      O <
                      CO CO CO CO CO
                      co co co co co
                                                        -i2 M

                                                          «
                        I
                       E -§>
                      5 I
                      O Q
                                                           >N'3
                                                      C§
                                 129

-------
         Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
o
o

&•
o
S?
^
I*
.,.r. I
: <£
' - • E
 '-
~O jjr
^ (/> £
-a 30
11.1
lit!
0 X UJ O
o o o o
CD CM CM CM

"c
•Q
CO
1
(0 J2
to "g co ~
26c?5
h_
45

ro
^^
-Q
c
I
O
1
.c
"g
s
DO CO T- -i- CD
irt CO CM CM CO
1
i !
* (o W
lilii
co co in i-
CO CO CM CO

W
fO
.0
5z
0 JK
2 O
5 "w "a- J:
s§«?



_ij *" t? CD
2#2§


w
c

E
T3
?
1
C
"g:
<§
M CO CO 00
*
li
LU <
r- rj- O) O) CD
3> CO

1
(^ ^»^
^^ .^ CO *•" r—
J O O 03 "*'J
O O O O
OJ CO CO CM






CD
O)
li
CM o •* in
1^ CO CM


w
c
0)
O)
co ns
c -^
J3 S ^ CD
L CO 6 O


CO
0)
£1
CD
1

CO
ni
O
£
LL
^j- •* en •*
CO CO CM CM


(/)
ilSI
oo co CM r-
T- 1- T- 00
42
c
^- ^»
o 5
Q.-1-
E "5
« o ^
Heavy Meta
Ordnance C
Refuse withi
Other
0> T- 00 0
CM CM r- •*!•

>
> 4-*
1 0
S 'I
0) 0
c/) yj (A ^
"^ —j j Q)
QJ Q) ^J ^"^









	
cO
Q
O
Q

*
£
s
i
2
oc

t
o
 X
 UJ
                                         130

-------
           Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
'•I

'p^
.«•


€
|
,

^
2*
c
iij
^flC 4*
j
£
s
10"
uu
i.f
(0
i
c
£




1
Jr
i**
i


o co co
0 CO CO
T —
k-
(0
5
1

"m w
"fc_ £-
o-p o
CL S CO
00 Is" T- i— r- i—

^-
42 4B
C Of

> S
w "I 7| 5
J3 I 1 1 I* CB
O o -c "D J5 £
Q. CO O S CL O
2m in in CM
CO
CD
15
S
4S
w S
CO >
"5
>>•£ c ^

P o "o "5 £
QL I £ CO O





1
2
H
CD
CO
1
O
o
o






2
o
o






CD
O)
"B
CO
2
o
o






Jj
2








10
Q>
I]
2
8
c
o
To
1
CC
>
1
88


C
o
•P
(C
ii
cc
L
Ic5
CD •<*•
•* in

o
"rrt
1
CC
1
» CD
"> ^





0
S2
1
CD
I
O
1
kO 00 CO O>





42
oSl^
Tf Tj- i- CM
co CM CM in
42
c
CD
C
o
Q.
Heavy Metals
POLs
Ordnance Com
Other
o in •* in
co co





42
c
J3 ?c8 «
O o 0 £
CL CO CL O







cfl
£
45
CO
I
• O) CO 00
CO i- CM





42 1
c •%
to 5 .0 v_
O "o a> +*
CL co CL O




CO
d


15
CO
CO O) C7> O
CO T- T- CO



W
75
"3
2 uj
2 III
»***8
42
^
CD —
c (0
o o
O-'c
Heavy Metals
Ordnance Com
Explosive Chen
Pesticides
Other
CD CO ^ CD
CO CM CM i-
42

^
1
5
T£ s
J3 CD g|
2cSlc5
c
o
o
I?
c
0)
•o
c
1
E
1
N CO O CO
U) T- T- T-
42
c
8
0
CO
1
42 ra
2 co 6 o
in in o co






CO
CD (0
f 1
2 ill
o -sr CM CM CD
in •*



tn o

|l|
J3 > ^-ii CD
2 co £ a. O

(/)
y»
CO
0)
c?
o
1
1
S>
CD
1
2
i
oc
>>
U.
1
.o

1
                                           131

-------
     Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
o
o
3
        -•*

ss
              O -52
              C 03


              Q-'c
             r>» o in
             00 •* CO
     o
     CM
              §
co
CO CM CM
                          h- h» co
                             = O
CM in o> co
CD CO T- CM
                        6
                         a
                         I
in o in in in
    CM CM CM
o
in
                                    '= '= S
                                    "uj ~w .y to
to
CM
  en o> o
       ID
ls
                        8

                       s

                   1   t
                   a   5
                   ^ w to

                   Is!
Compo
Ordna

Other
                   CO CM CD 1^-
                   CM CM   CO
                                     (O
                   -o   o£
                   = Ifil O
                                   co
                                   0)


                                   •8
                   I
                                               T- to in M- in in T-
                                        5
                                               CM
                                                 o en
                            I
                            0)

                                                      a>
                        26
                                |




                                08


                                CD
                                 •S § E  S  1
                                                                     8  5 it

                                                                     "in
                                                                       ff\ 0) w
                                                                       C/3 x •»-•
                                                                   =  O
                                                                          o -S
                                                                    U *3 ^^ ._ p'

                                                                    is HP
                                                        IT
                                                        111
                                                        Q
                                                                8f
                                                                                0)
                                                                               1
                                                                                E

                                                        3*
                                                                                o
                                            I
                                                                 E

                                                                 B

                                                                 CO
                                                                 "w
                                                        Q


                                                        g
                                                                                V.
                                      132

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
3? » '*"*
i^s ^J ^ *****
2 fcjg,
SS o>
Jyf **i v •*j|jj>
O Sr 'Fl
1gl~ S:|
4jf W JK W-
i|i|
in >
*•"•«* 4§
|f ^
E S S
H*J

•5 S H
*.
••' ' ie
S *T*
2 «
flL J5- ••

1
; . c .
': p£ '•
' 1
*Jfl
':',.-;•
.']".:••• j"
•••:•".••..'.'"
.O

O
O
co
8
o>



o
"S'e
CC 
1
Q.
C
1
O
commissi
0)
Q
1
Q
S
(0
0
1
>
O
"5 -2
(J) ^-
General E
Nuclear Cc

°














5
Q.
o
o
c
O
- Remedi
1
D.
FUSRA

(0
"c
£
n>
O
'b
University






























"o
•Q.
I
c
g
Remedia




<
cc
D












o
O)
§
Q
*

c
0

E
CJ
in


c
o
^ g
CC Q)
§f
cc P
, Ground
ter, Masonry
31



CC
D




c
o
•Q
c
-5
JD

O
o
o
o
CM
/^.



O
CC CD
f— -~^
"M
cc P

'5
CO



cc






Gunnison
X)

c
o
—
E
00
CO


c
o
•8V
cc o
If
cc P
S
c?§



cc






cc
o
O




























1
Q.
I
g
a
1




<.
CC
D












Lowman


a
o
C\J
C


-*



r^
2
•S
2
.c
0
c
o
S
'o
CO




0
k_
o
jj
^^
m
o
Fermi Nati
Laboratory














I
_g
- Remedi
1
Q.
FUSRA

o
^
^^
I
3
C5
15
o
13




















O)
c
o
O)
0
8
and Maintenan
8
a
1

1
CO
Q
§
c
o
O
0
(_
1
*;


0
0.
3
CO














1
Q-
I
.0
"(5
- Remedi
1
Q.
FUSRA

o
o

0
o
University
d
                               133

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
j-|f
.'I;;;; Si

J55 C> '' '"
*™, &£ Sj Jz£*
5 K;:S.. g
jag , ^ W •*£J
jjjf

' • 
a.
o
o
c
.0
.sH
£
CD
CC
1
Q_
^
CO
LL





Chupadera Mesa



















;ompleted
u
o
••§
TJ
CD
E
o
1
cc
r™~
1





£
.c




1
$
.9
ffi
1
CD
>
O
13

O)
>
"5
c
C~
1
Q.
"E
(U
anagemi
E
M\
gj
1
'o
O)
c
o


"c
CO
CL
Waste Isolation Pilot


§»
Q.
i
^
o
o
'+5
JO

1
LLJ
O
Q
ci
5
                                        134

-------
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
« ••»»
2 *> 4 .0
to fr E
|jy , U. J5.
•S2.. S

•' ' e"^ «
iii
11
":"°, -r-
.Vv >•".-
1 ' ; C •*•*
2 1 :;:
••'• • B ' E ''•''' '
"':.-'.'. 'ff ,jf ' '
•'•' •;-,..



&
*J
'"'" 4fl'
;/
:::v:f1::':;;.
	 * ::.

^













0
i


Q.
^
CO
LL


0
CO
o
.c
1 Baker-Williams Ware

Z















5
Q.
I
0
75
E
CD
CC
i
|
CL
g
CO
LL



-2
CO
0
I5
& CO
CO c
II
a &
S5--
n) u
Z>





^
5
CD
-^
o
o
1
$
_co
.D)
_c
"o

c
o
'TJ D)
^-^ ' —
(0 O
o E*
C Q
"O JO
n co
If
c rt
O Q
CD Q
^ O
!l

'w ^
51


c
g
rd
i?
CO
o
1
CD
"SJ
w .|.
§£
















U)
CO
£
Q.
C
O>
O
"to
CO
'E
E
o
CD
1
1
O
S
w
0)
^^
5
2
-9
| Battelle Columbus Lc
I
O













O)
'5
D)
o
8
and maintenan
ns
1
3
CO
1
1
Q
08
Q

>,
—
'£
LL

CD
I
(5
J)
OS
.1"
CL

















Q.
1
0
73
E

1
CL
oc
CO
LL

|
03
CD
CO
CD
CC
Albany Metallurgical
Center
cc
0















tion completed
_

OD_



CL

I—
co" co
CC CD
=>£
o
1
3


CL
^
CO
LL






ffi
ns
e>
w
ED

h

-



c
o
=
'E
00
in

c
0

QC CD
i!
cc P
T3
1
11


<
CC
t-
2






o
U)
LL

•-















tion completed
.™
1
I
1
cc
H-
D






CD
ir
c
o>
£
O

^

-



c
o
==
'E
c\i

c
0
•o « .
crt CO
fvl ^~
CC CD
si
IP
C
13
s
si


<
cc
H-
ID






Mexican Hat


                               135

-------
        Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
1
Q.



_

U
I


1
o
UJ

o
Q

• •
CM
5

x
UJ
         &
              CO
ed
*
                         .  .
                         '

                            a
                            "
                       lii
                                 I  I

                                 s  s
                                 O)  05

                                    .
                                    ii.
                                 I



                            !  !
                                 "
                        5

                        %
                        s
                        LO
                        CM
                                         |T




                                         CM <3>
                                  .22 co

                                  %£
                                  o> a

                                  \ .^
                                                     w E

                                                     « ®
                                                     Q) g5

                                                     >• 2
                                                     "« w
                                                          \w


                                                          V)
                                                          _C3

                                                          Q.

                                                          c
                                                          I
                                  P .Q  v.

                                  S.TS  Q
«



                                       1
                               85  5   S
                                        g
             IS   2
             « 8   8
             J CC   DC
             c to   co

             ll   *
                            I!
                                        1
                                                   I

                               -Q co  i-'
                               S S  S
             l
                                                             0) CO

                                                             CO S



                                                             Is
                                                             !|
                                                             to en
                                                             co co
                                           en TJ
                                           CD c
                                                             1!
                                                               t
                           .--
                     1^.^.188 ||ii§l   Jig
                            "
                                     !
                       .
                       III!
                      Q) 2 oO Q_ —) o

                      Q ^ Q Z U. Zn
                                 136

-------
      Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
                                 APPENDIX B
           FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY PROGRAMS
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                                    U.S. Air Force
Air Combat Command
HQ ACC/CEV
Langley AFB, VA 23665-5001
Col. John Mogge
804-764-2801

Air Force Reserve
HQ AFRES/CEPV
Robins AFB, GA 31098-6001
Mr. Robert Akridge
912-327-1072

Air Training Command
HQ ATC/DEV
Randolph AFB, TX 7815-5001
Col. Richard Kochanek
512-652-2321

U.S. Air Force Academy
HQ USAFA/DEP
Colorado Springs, CO 80840-5546
Maj. Douglas Sherwood
719-472-4483

Air Force District of Washington
HQ AFDW/CEV
Boiling AFB, DC 20332
Capt. William Buckingham
202-767-1160

Air Force Space Command
HQ AFSPACECOM/CEV
Peterson AFB, CO 80914-5001
Mr. Gary Maher
719-554-5187

Air University
HQ AU/CEV
Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-5001
Mr. James Rumbley
205-293-5260
U.S. Air Forces Europe
HQ USAFE/DEP
Ramstein AB, GE
APO NY 09012-5041
Lt. Col. Jay Carson

Air Force Material Command
HQ AFMC/CEV
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-5000
Col. Tom Walker
513-257-5873

Air Mobility Command
HQ AMC/CEV
Scott AFB, IL 62225-5001
Col. Jacob Dustin
618-256-5764

Pacific Air Force
HQ PACAF/DEV
Hickam AFB ffl 96853-5001
Col. Russ Marshall
808^49-5151

National Guard Bureau
HQ ANGRC/CEV
Andrews AFB, MD 20331-6008
Mr. Ron Watson
301-981-8134

Air Force Human Systems Center
HSC/EN
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
Col. Charles Harvin
904-283-6231

HQ Naval Facilities Engineering Command
200 Stoval St.
Alexandria, VA 22332-2300
Mr. William A. Quade
703-325-0295
                                         137

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
Air Force Base Disposal Agency
AFBDA/BD
Washington, DC 20330
Col. David Carman
703-694-9689

Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency
AFCES/EN
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
Mr. Dennis Firman
904-283-6341
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
AFCEE/ES, Bldg. 1160
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5000
Col. Jose Saenz
210-536-3383

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Missouri River Division/HTRW-MCX,
  CEMRD-ED-H
12565 West Center Rd.
Omaha, NE 68144-3869
Mr. Gary Erikson
402-691-4530
                                         U.S. Army
Huntsville Division  (CEHND-PA)
P.O. Box 1600
Huntsville, AL 358074301
205-955-4757
205-955-1063 Fax

Lower Mississippi Valley Division
(CELMVD-PA)
P.O. Box 80
Vicksburg, MS 39181-0080
601-634-5757
601-634-7110 Fax

Missouri River Division (CEMRD-PA)
P.O. Box 103, Downtown Station
Omaha, NE  68101-0103
402-221-7208
402-221-7437 Fax

New England Division  (CENED-PA)
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254-9149
617-647-8237
617-647-8850 Fax

North Atlantic Division (CENAD-PA)
90 Church Street
New York, NY 10007-2979
212-264-7500/7478
212-264-6404 Fax

 North Central Division  (CENCD-PA)
 111 North Canal Street, 12th Floor
 Chicago, IL  60606-7205
 312-353-6319
 312-886-5680 Fax
North Pacific Division  (CENPD-PA)
P.O. Box 2870
Portland, OR  97208-2870
503-326-3768
503-326-5523 Fax

Ohio River Division    (CEORD-PA)
P.O. Box 1159
Cincinnati, OH 45201-1159
513-684-3010
513-684-2265 Fax
Pacific Ocean Division  (CEPOD-PA)
Building 230
Fort Shafter, ffl 96858-5440
808438-9862
808-438-8318 Fax

South Atlantic Division  (CESAD-PA)
Room 494, 77 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30335-6801
404-331-6715
404-331-1043 Fax
 South Pacific Division  (CESPD-PA)
 630 Sansome Street, Room 1232
 San Francisco, CA  94111-2206
 415-705-2405
 415-705-1596 Fax

 Southwestern Division  (CESWD-PA)
 1114 Commerce Street
 Dallas, TX  75242-0216
 214-767-2510
 214-767-2870 Fax
                                             138

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
Transatlantic Division   (CETAD PA)
P.O. Box 2250
Winchester, VA  22601-1450
703-665-3935
703-665-3621 Fax
Northern Division (18)
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
10 Industrial Hwy., Mail Stop 82
Lester, PA  19113-2090
Mr. Con Mayer
215-595-0567  DSN 443 FAX-0555

Chesapeake Division (18)
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Washington Navy Yard
Washington, DC  20374-2121
Mr. Joe DeLasho
202^33-3760  DSN 288 FAX-6193

Atlantic Division (18)
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
1510 Gilbert St.
Norfolk, VA 23511-6287
Mr. Bill Russel
804-445-7336  DSN 565 FAX-6662

Southern Division (18)
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
1255 Eagle Dr.
P.O. Box 10068
Charleston.SC 29411
Mr. Sid Aylson
803-743-0600  DSN 563 FAX-0465

Pacific Division (18)
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Pearl Harbor, m  96860
Mr. Mel Waki
808-471-3948  FAX 808-474-4519
                                         U.S. Navy
Western Division (18)
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
P.O. Box 727
San Bruno, CA 94066-0720
CDR L.A. Michlin (Lee)
415-244-2500 DSN 859 FAX-2006

Southwest Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
1220 Pacific Highway, Bldg. 130
San Diego, CA 92132-5190
Mr. Jim Pawlisch
619-532-2591 DSN 522 FAX-2469

Engineering  Field Activity, Northwest (09E)
3505 NW Anderson Hill Road
Silverdale, WA 98383-9130
Mr. Leo Vaisitis
206-396-5981/2/3 DSN 744  FAX-5995
Naval  Energy  And Environmental  Support
Activity (112E)
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5014
Mr. Stephen Eikenberry
805-982-4839  DSN 551 FAX ^832
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (L70MP)
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Mr. Bill Powers
805-982-1347 DSN 551
                                            139

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
                    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OPERATIONS OFFICES
U.S. Dept. of Energy
Chicago Operations Office
9800 South Case Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
708-252-2428

U.S. Dept. of Energy
Oak Ridge Operations Office
200 Administrative Road
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
615-576-0715

U.S. Dept. of Energy
Fernald Operations Office
P.O. Box 398705
Cincinnati, OH 45239-8705
513-648-3101

U.S. Dept. of Energy
Savannah River Operations Office
P.O. Box A
Aiken, SC  29802
803-725-3966

U.S. Dept. of Energy
Idaho Operations Office
785 DOE Place
Idaho Falls, ID  83402
208-526-1148
U.S. Dept. of Energy
Richland Operations Office
P.O. Box 550
Richland, WA  99352
509-376-7277

U.S. Dept. of Energy
Nevada Operations Office
P.O. Box 98518
Las Vegas, NV  89193-8518
702-295-0844

U.S. Dept. of Energy
Rocky Flats Operations Office
P.O. Box 928
Golden, CO  80402
303-966-4888

U.S. Dept. of Energy
San Francisco Operations Office
1301 Play Street
Oakland, CA 94612
510-637-1809

U.S. Dept. of Energy
Albuquerque Operations Office
P.O. Box 5400
Albuquerque, NM 87115
505-845-6307
                                              140

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
U.S. EPA - Region 1
One Congress Street
Boston, Massachusetts
617-565-3420
                         ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                       Regional Offices
02203
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas   75270
214-655-6444
U.S. EPA - Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York
212-264-2657
10278
U.S. EPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas   66101
913-551-7000
U.S. EPA - Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
215-597-9800
    19107
U.S. EPA - Region 8
1 Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 1300
Denver, Colorado  80202
303-293-1603
U.S. EPA - Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia  30365
404-347-4727
                             U.S. EPA - Region 9
                             75 Hawthorne Street
                             San Francisco, California
                             415-744-1305
                        94105
U.S. EPA - Region 5
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
312-353-2000
                             U.S. EPA - Region 10
                             1200 6th Avenue
                             Seattle, Washington   98101
                             206-553-4973
                                      ARCS Contractors
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Acorn Park
Cambridge, MA 02140-2390
Contact: Ms. Renee Wong
617-864-5770

NUS Corp.
187 Ballard Vale St.
Wilmington, MA 01887
Contact: George Gardner
508-658-7889

Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1 Vande Graffe Dr.
Burlington, MA 01803
Contact: Rick Keller
617-229-2050
                                          Region 1
                             EBASCO Services, Inc.
                             211 Congress St.
                             Boston, MA 02110
                             Contact: Pete Gaffney
                             617^51-1201

                             TRC Companies, Inc.
                             Boot Mills South
                             Foot of John Street
                             Lowell, MA 01852
                             508-970-5600

                             CDM Federal Programs Corp.
                             98 N. Washington St., Suite 200
                             Boston, MA 02114
                             Contact: Mr. Fred Babin
                             617-742-2659
                                             141

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.
10 Harvard Mill Square
Wakefield, MA 01880
Contact:  William J. Farino
617-246-5200
EBASCO Services, Inc.
160 Chubb Ave.
Lyndhurst, NJ 07071
Contact:  Mr. Dev. R. Sachdev
201-460-6434

COM Federal Programs Corp.
40 Rector St.
New York, NY 10006
Contact: Charles W. Robinson
212-693-0370

ICF Technology, Inc.
379 Thornall St., 5th floor
Edison, NJ 08837-0001
Contact:  William  Colvin
201-603- 3755
John Bachmann
212-264-2702
 Black and Veatch, Inc.
 Public Ledger Building, Suite 272
 Independence Square
 Philadelphia, PA 19106
 Contact: Steve Hooper
 215-627-1443

 CH2M Hill, Mid-Atlantic Office
 P.O. Box 4400
 Reston, VA 22090
 Contact: Debbie Reif
 703-471-1441

 Ecology & Environment, Inc.
 1528 Walnut St., Suite 1603
 Philadelphia, PA 19102
 Contact:  Mr. Joseph Pearson
 215-875-7370
                                           Region 2
TAMS
655 Third Ave.
New York, NY 10067
Contact:  Brian Styler
212-867-1777

Roy F. Weston, Inc.
355 Main St.
Armonk, NY 10504
Contact:  Thomas Stevenson
913-273-9840

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
2 Corporate Park Dr., Box 751
White Plains, NY 10602
Contact:  Ralph Sarnelli
914-694-2100
                                           Region 3
 NUS Corp.
 One Devon Square, Suite 222
 724 W. Lancaster Ave.
 Wayne, PA 19087
  Headquarters:
 910 Clopper Road
 Gaithersburg, MD 20878
 Contact: Meg Price
 215-971-0900

 Tetra Tech, Inc.
 10306 Eaton Plaza, Suite 340
 Fairfax, VA 22030
 Contact: Steve Pollak
 703-385-6000
                                               142

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                                           Region 4
CDM Federal Programs Corp.
2100 River Edge Parkway, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30328
Contact: Richard C. Johnson
404-952-8643
Abe Dunning, 404-952-7393

Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
P.O.  Box 350
800 Oak Ridge Turnpike
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Contact: G. Phillip Crotwell
615-482-0440

EBASCO Services, Inc.
145 Technology Park
Norcross, GA 30092-2979
Contact: David Knapp
404-662-2378
Black and Veatch Architects and Engineers
230 West Monroe, Suite 2250
Chicago, IL 60606
Contact:  William Bruce
312-346- 3775

CH2M Hill, Inc.
310 West Wisconsin Avenue
P.O. Box 2090
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Contact:  John T. Fleissner
414-272-2426

Donohue and Associates
111 North Canal St., Suite 305
Chicago, IL 60606
Contact:  Roman Gau
312-902-7100

Ecology & Environment
111 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Contact:  Tom Yeates
312-663-9415
CH2M Hill, SE
229 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30303
Contact:  David Ellison
404-523-0300
Black & Veatch, Inc.
Perimeter Center West, Suite 212
Atlanta, GA 30338
Contact:  Kendall M. Jacob
404-392-9227
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
6021 Live Oak Parkway
Norcross, GA 30093
Contact:  Michael Foulke
404-448-0644
                                           Region 5
PRC Corporation
233 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1621
Chicago, IL 60601
Contact: Majid Chaudhry
312-856-8700

Roy F. Weston, Inc.
3 Hawthorne Parkway, Suite 400
Veraon Hills, IL 60061
Contact: John  W. Thorsen
708-918-4000
WW Engineering and Science
5555 Glenwood Hills Parkway, S.E.
P.O. Box 874
Grand Rapids, MI 49508-0874
Contact:  Robert Phillips
616-940-4263
616-942-9600
                                              143

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                                      Regions 6, 7, and 8
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
251 South Lake Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91101-3603
Contact:  Steve Houser
913-492-9218
CH2M Hill Central, Inc.
6060 South Willow Drive
Englewood, CO 80111
Contact:  Don Ulrich
303-771-0900

Fluor Daniel, Inc.
12790 Merit  Drive, Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75251
Contact:  Mark DeLorimer
214450-4100

Roy F. Weston, Inc.
5599 San Felipe, Suite 700
Houston, TX 77056
Contact:  John DiFilippo
713-621-1620
Ecology & Environment
101 Yesler Way, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98104
Contact:  Ronald Karpowitz
206-624-9537

CH2M Hill
6425 Christie Ave., Suite 500
Emeryville, CA 94608
Contact:  Stephen Hahn
415-652-2426
 Roy F. Weston, Inc.
 201 Elliot Ave. West, Suite 500
 Seattle, WA 98119
 Contact:  Frank Monahan
 206-286-6000
CDM Federal Programs Corp.
7 Pine Ridge Plaza
8215 Melrose Dr., Suite 100
Lenexa, KS 66214
Contact:  Michael Malloy
913-492-8181

Sverdrup Corp.
801 North Eleventh St.
St. Louis, MO 63101
Contact:  Arl Altaian
314-436-7600

Morrison Knudsen
7100 E. Belleview Avenue, Suite 300
Englewood, CO 80111
Contact:  Ed Baker
303-793-5000

URS Consultants, Inc.
5251 DTC Parkway, Suite 800
Englewood, CO 80111
Contact:  John Coats
303-796-9700
                                       Regions 9 and 10
URS Consultants, Inc.
2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 250
Sacramento, CA 95834
Contact:  Gary Jandgian
916-929-2346

Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
P.O. Box 3965
50 Beale St.
San Francisco, CA 94119
Contact: Peter R. Nunn
415-768-2797

ICF Technology, Inc
 160 Spear St., Suite 1380
 San Francisco, CA  94105-1535
 Contact:  Earle Krivanic
 415-957-0110
                                              144

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                                OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
Department of Agriculture

Forest Service
Environmental Issues
201 14th Street, SW
Washington, DC  20250
202-205-0957

Agricultural Research Services
Facilities Division
Safety, Health, and Environmental Management
  Branch
6303 Ivy Lane
Greenbelt, MD  20770-1433
301-344-0218

Commodity Credit Corporation
Conservation and Environmental Protection
  Division
Post Office Box 2415
Washington, DC  20013
202-720-3467

Farmers Home Administration/Rural Development
  Administration
Program Support  Staff
Environmental Support Branch
14th & Independence, Room 6309
Washington, DC  20250
202-720-9619

Department of Commerce

U.S. Department of Commerce
Office of Management Support
Environmental Safety & Compliance Division
Room 6020
14th & Constitution Ave, NW
Washington, DC  20230
202482-4115

General Services Administration

General Services  Administration
Safety & Environmental Management Division
Environmental Branch (PMS)
18th and F Streets, NW, Room 4046
Washington, DC  20405
202-708-5236
Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management
Public Affairs
Main Interior Building, Room 5600
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC  20240
202-208-3435

Bureau of Mines
Division of Environmental Technology
810 7th Street, NW, Mail Stop 6205
Washington, DC  20241
202-501-9271

Bureau of Reclamation
Public Affairs Office
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC  20240-9000
202-208-4662

National Park Service
Environmental Quality Division
1849 C Street, NW, Room 1210
Washington, DC  20240
202-208-3163

Fish & Wildlife Service
1849 C Street, NW, Room 3447
Washington, DC  20240
202-208-5634

Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice
Public Affairs, Room 1216
10th & Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20530
202-514-2007

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Headquarters
Environmental Affairs
Washington, DC  20546
202-358-1090
                                             145

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
Small Business Administration

Small Business Administration
Office of Litigation, 7th Floor
409 3rd Street, SW
Washington, DC  20416
202-205-6643

Tennessee Valley Authority

Tennessee Valley Authority
Environmental Quality Staff
400 W. Summit Hill Dr., Mail Stop WT 8B
Knoxville, TN 37902
615-632-6578
U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration
Office of Environment and Energy (AEE-20)
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC  20591
202-267-3554

U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Affairs
2100 2nd Street, SW
Washington, DC  20593
202-267-1587
                                              146

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                     STATE SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE AGENCIES
Alabama
Land Division
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
1751 Congressman W.L. Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
205-271-7730

Alaska
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Section
Division of Environmental Quality
Department of Environmental Conservation
P.O. Box 0
Juneau, AK 99811-1800
907-465-2671
Delaware
Division of Air and Water Management Department
Natural Resources and Environmental Control
89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
302-739-4764

District of Columbia
Pesticides and Hazardous Materials Division
Office of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
2100 Martin Luther King Highway, SE, Suite 203
Washington, DC 20032
202-404-1167 or 727^821
Arizona
Office of Waste Programs
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
2005 North Central Avenue, 7th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602-257-2305

Arkansas
Hazardous Waste Division
Arkansas DepL of Pollution Control and Ecology
P.O. Box 9583
Little Rock, AR 72219
501-562-7444
California
Solid Waste
California Integrated Waste Management Board
1020 Ninth Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-327-1550
Colorado
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
303-331-4830
Connecticut
Bureau of Waste Management
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
203-566-8476
Florida
Division of Waste Management
Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399
904-487-3299

Georgia
Land Protection Branch
Environmental Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources
205 Butler Street, SE
Floyd Towers East, Room 1154
Atlanta, GA 30334
404-656-2833

Hawaii
Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch
Hawaii Department of Health
5 Waterfront Plaza
500 Ala Moana, Suite 250
Honolulu, ffl  96813
808-543-8225

Idaho
Hazardous Materials Bureau
Water Quality Bureau
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton Street
Boise, ID 83706
208-334-5860

Illinois
Division of Land Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
217-785-8604
                                               147

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
Indiana
Hazardous Waste Management
Department of Environmental Management
105 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
317-232-3292
Massachusetts
Hazardous Waste Permitting
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
  Engineering
One Winter Street, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02108
617-292-5832
Iowa
Air Quality and Solid Waste Section
Department of Natural Resources
900 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
515-281-8852

Kansas
Bureau of Air and Waste Management
Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620
913-296-1593

Kentucky
Division of Waste Management
Department of Environmental Protection
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
502-564-6716

Louisiana
Hazardous Waste Division
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 82178/7290 Bluebonnet
Baton Rouge, LA 70884
504-765-0355
Maine
Bureau of Hazardous Materials and Solid
  Waste Control
Department of Environmental Protection
State House Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
207-289-2651 or 582-8740

Maryland
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management
   Administration
Maryland Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
301-631-3304
Michigan
Waste Management
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30241
Lansing, MI 48909
517-373-2730 or 373-9837

Minnesota
Hazardous Waste Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road, North
St. Paul, MN 55155
612-297-8502 or 296-7333

Mississippi
Division of Hazardous Waste Management
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 10383
Jackson, MS 39209
601-961-5171

Missouri
Hazardous Waste Program
Department of Natural Resources
Jefferson Building
205 Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
314-751-3176

Montana
Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau
Department of Health and Environmental Science
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
406-444-2821
 Nebraska
 Land Division
 Department of Environmental Control
 P.O. Box 98922
 301 Centennial Mall Blvd.
 Lincoln, NE 68509
 402-471-4210
                                                148

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
Nevada
Waste Management Program
Division of Environmental Protection
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Capitol Complex, 123 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
702-687-5872

New Hampshire
Waste Management Division
Department of Environmental Services
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301-6509
603-271-2901
New Jersey
Hazardous Waste Management
Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street, CN 028
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-292-1250

New Mexico
Hazardous and Radioactive Waste Bureau
Environment Department
1190 St. Francis Drive, P.O. Box 26110
Sante Fe, NM 87502
505-827-2922

New York
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation
Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
518-457-6934

North Carolina
Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management
  Branch
Division of Health Services
Department of Human Resources
P.O. Box 2091
Raleigh, NC 27002
919-733-2178

North Dakota
Division of Waste  Management and Special
  Studies
Department of Health
1200 Missouri Avenue, Room 302
Bismark, ND 58502-5520
701-221-5166
Ohio
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
1800 Watermark Drive
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43266-0149
614-644-2958

Oklahoma
Hazardous Waste Management Service
State Dept. of Health
Environmental Health Administration
1000 N.E. 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1299
405-271-7052

Oregon
Hazardous and Solid Waste Division
Department of Environmental Quality
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-1390
503-229-5193

Environmental Cleanup Division
Department of Environmental Quality
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-1390
503-229-5254
Pennsylvania
Bureau of Waste Management
Department of Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 2063, Fulton Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
717-787-9870

Rhode Island
Air and Hazardous Materials Program
Department of Environmental Management
291 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908-5767
401-277-2797
South Carolina
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Department ol Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803-734-5200
                                               149

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
South Dakota
Environmental Regulation
Department of Water and Natural Resources
Room 416, Foss Building
523 East Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501
605-773-3153

Tennessee
Division of Solid Waste Management
Tennessee Department of Public Health
701 Broadway, Customs House, 4th Floor
Nashville, TN 37219-5403
615-741-3424
Virginia
Department of Waste Management
Monroe Bldg., llth Floor,
101 North 14th Street
Richmond, VA 23219
804-225-2667
Washington
Solid and Hazardous Waste Program
Department of Ecology
4224 6th Ave., SW
Lacey.WA 98504-8711
206-459-6316
Texas
Hazardous and Solid Waste Division
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087, Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711-3087
512-463-7760
Utah
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
Department of Environmental Quality
288 North 1460 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
801-536-6170
Vermont
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Agency of Environmental Conservation
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05761-0404
802-244-8702
West Virginia
Natural Resources Division
Department of Commerce, Labor and Environmental
  Resources
1356 Hansford Street
Charleston, WV 25301
304-348-5929

Wisconsin
Hazardous Waste Management Section
Department of Natural Resources
101  S. Webster
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
608-266-0833

Wyoming
Solid Waste Management Program
Department of Environmental Quality
122  West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
307-777-7752
                                                150

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                                    APPENDIX C
                                  BIBLIOGRAPHY
National Priorities List (NPL) Sites

U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, "Federal Liabilities Under Hazardous Waste Laws," May 1990.

U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, "An Evaluation of Vapor Extraction of Vadose
Zone Contamination," ORNL/TM-12117, May 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Analysis of Revisions to the Hazard Ranking System," Presentation
by Suzanne Wells at the Air & Waste Management Association, 85th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Kansas
City, MO, June 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,  Volume 1A: Laboratory
Manual, Physical/Chemical Methods," Third Edition,  Proposal Update Package, NTIS No. PB89-148076,
November 1987.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al, "Federal  Publications on Alternative and Innovative Treatment
Technologies for Corrective Action and Site Remediation," Second Edition, prepared by the member agencies
of the Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable, 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "CERCLA Information
System (CERCLIS)," 1992.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "Contracting and
Subcontracting Guide to the Superfund Program," Publication 9200.5-402A, NTIS  No.  PB92-963274, May
1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "Evaluation of Ground
Water Extraction Remedies: Phase n," Volume 1, November 1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "Final Rule, National
Priority List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites," 57 Federal Register, pg. 47180, October 14, 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "Fourth Quarter FY 92
Superfund Management Report,"  December 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "National Priority List
Sites:  1991."

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "Record of Decision
Information System," 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "ROD Annual Report
Fiscal Year 1991," PB92-963359, April 1992.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "Superfund NPL
Characterization Project: National Results," EPA/540/8-91/069, November 1991.

                                             151

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, "Report to the Office of Management and
Budget: Pollution Abatement and Prevention at Federal  Installations, Fiscal Year 1991," September 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, "The Superfund Technology
Innovation Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles," Fifth Edition, EPA/540/R-92/077, December 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of  Solid Waste and  Emergency Response,  "CERCLIS
Characterization Project: National Report," June 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "Furthering the Use
of Innovative Treatment Technologies in OSWER Programs," OSWER Directive 9380.0-17, June 10, 1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of  Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
Innovation Office, "Innovative  Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report," EPA/542/R-92/011,
October 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of  Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
Innovation Office, "In Situ. Treatment of Contaminated Ground Water: An Inventory of Research and Field
Demonstrations and Strategies for Improving Ground-Water Remediation Technologies," Presented at the Air
and Waste Management Association/U.S. EPA Symposium on Site Treatment of Contaminated Soil and Water,
February 4-6, 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of  Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology
Innovation Office, "Selected Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and Site
Remediation (A Bibliography of Information Sources)," EPA/542/B-93/001, January 1993.

U.S. General Accounting Office, National Security and International Affairs Division, "Hazardous Waste: DOD
Estimates for Cleaning Up Contaminated Sites Improved but Still Constrained," GAO/NSIAD-92-37, October
1991.

U.S. General Accounting Office, National Security and International Affairs Division, "Hazardous Waste: EPA
Cleanup Requirements — DOD Versus Private  Entities," GAO/NSIAD/-89-144, July 1989.


Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Sites

ICF, Inc., Fairfax, VA, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, "Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the Proposed Rulemaking on Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units," RCRA
Docket No. CASP-S0062, 1990.

Tonn,  B., M. Russell, H.L. Hwang, R. Goeltz,  and J. Warren, "Costs of RCRA Corrective Action: Interim
Report," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, ORNI/TM-11864, December 1991 (Available from
University of Tennessee, Waste Management Research and Education Institute, Knoxville, TN, Print No. R01-
2533-33-005-92).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Hazardous Waste Management System; Definition of Solid Waste;
Final Rule (40 CFR Parts 260,  261, 264, 265, and 266)," 50 Federal Register, No. 3, pps. 614-668, January
4, 1985.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Hazardous Waste  Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste;  Toxicity Characteristics Revisions;  Final Rule (40 CFR Parts  261 et al.),"  55 Federal
Register, No. 61, pps. 11798-11877, March 29, 1990.
                                               152

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "HWFMS, CARS, RCRIS, National Oversight Database."

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Title 40," Code of Federal Regulations, 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, "Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management
Units (SWMUs) at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities; Proposed Rule (40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 270, and
271)," 55 Federal Register, No. 145, pps. 30798-30884, July 27, 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, "Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final
Rulemaking on Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units: Proposed Methodology for Analysis,"
March 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, "RCRA Implementation Factors, FY 1992
Progress Report," April 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office  of Solid Waste, "RCRA Orientation Manual, 1990 Edition,"
EPA/530-SW-90-036, 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office  of Solid Waste, "RCRA Stabilization Strategy," October 25,
1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, "Solving the Hazardous Waste Problem: EPA's
RCRA Program," EPA/530-SW-86-037, 1986.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid  Waste, "State Solid and Hazardous Waste Agencies,"
July 8, 1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office  of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "FY 1992 RCRA
Implementation Plan," OSWER Directive 9420.00-07, 1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office  of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "FY 1993 RCRA
Implementation Plan," OSWER Directive 9420.00-08, 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "National Biennial
RCRA Hazardous Waste Report Based on 1989 Data," EPA 530/R-92/027, NTIS No: PB93-148245, February
1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "National RCRA
Corrective Action Strategy," EPA/530-SW-86-045, 1986.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "RCRA Corrective
Action Plan, Interim Final," EPA/530-SW-88-028, 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "RCRA Corrective
Interim Measures Guidance, Interim Final," EPA/530-SW-88-029, 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "Regional Guide to
Issuing  Site Specific  Treatability Variance for  Contaminated Soils  and Debris From  Land Disposal
Restrictions," OSWER Directive 9389.3-08FS,  January 1992.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste  and Emergency Response, "The Nation's
Hazardous Waste Management Program at a Crossroads: The RCRA Implementation Study," EPA/530-SW-90-
069, 1990.

                                              153

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency  Response,  Technology
Innovation Office, "Summary of SWMUs at Facilities Needing Corrective Action, Revised," Research Triangle
Institute Project No. 5100-11-01, 1992.

U.S. General Accounting Office, "Hazardous Waste:   Corrective  Action  Cleanups Will  Take Years to
Complete," GAO/RCED-88-48, 1987.

U.S. General Accounting Office, "Hazardous Waste: Much Work Remains to Accelerate Facility Cleanups,"
GAO/RCED-93-15, 1993.

U.S. General Accounting Office, "Hazardous Waste:   Status and Resources of EPA's Corrective Action
Program," GAO/RCED-90-144, 1990.
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Sites

Bueckman, D.S., S. Kumar, and M.  Russell,  "Underground Storage  Tanks:  Resource  Requirements  for
Corrective Action," University of Tennessee, Waste Management Research and Education Institute, Knoxville,
TN, December 1991.

Casana, J.G., "Contractors' Underground Storage Tank Information Guide," Associated General Contractors
of America, Washington, D.C., March 26, 1991.

The Jennings Group, Inc., "Underground Storage Tank Markets 1991-1995," June 1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Underground  Storage Tanks Containing  Petroleum; Financial
Responsibility Requirements, Proposed Rule," 55 Federal Register, No. 117, June 18, 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Engineering Laboratory, "Underground Storage Tank
Corrective Action Technologies," 625/6-87-015, January  1987.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of  Solid Waste and  Emergency Response, Technology
Innovation Office and Office of Underground Storage Tanks, "Technologies and Options for UST Corrective
Actions: Overview  and Current Practice," EPA/542/R-92/010, August 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, "Background Document for a
Report to Congress Concerning Underground Heating Oil and Motor Fuel Tanks Exempt from Regulation
Under Subtitle I of RCRA," May 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, "Compendium of State LUST
Priority-Setting Systems," June 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage  Tanks,  "Here  Lies the Problem:
Leaking Underground Storage Systems," March 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, "Leak Lookout," 530/UST-
88/006, August 1988.

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage  Tanks,  "Musts for  USTs,"
EPA/530/UST-88/008, July 1990.

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground  Storage  Tanks,  "National  Survey of
Underground Storage Tanks," Spring  1992.

                                               154

-------
             Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, "Quarterly Activity Reports,"
Fourth Quarter 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, "Regulatory Impact Analysis
for Financial Responsibility Requirements for Petroleum Underground Storage Tanks," October 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, "Regulatory Impact Analysis
for Proposed Technical Requirements for Underground Storage Tanks," April 1987.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, "Technical Requirements and
State Program Approval, Final Rule," 52 Federal Register, No. 185, September 23, 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, "TC [Toxicity Characteristic]
Study of Petroleum Contaminated Media," Draft, July 1992.
Department of Defense Sites (DOD)

Bowers, S., "Defense Contracts for Hazardous Waste Cleanup," Contract Management, April 1992.

DiGregorio, R.C., "1992 Guide to Defense Cleanup," Pasha Publications, Arlington, VA, 1992.

Hunter, P.M., "The Installation Restoration Program Information Management System (IRPIMS)™ and an
Overview of the Air Force Hazardous Waste Investigations," Military Activities, December 1990.

U.S. Department of Defense, "Defense Environmental Restoration Program: Annual Report to Congress For
Fiscal Year 1991," February 1992.

U.S. Department of Defense, Internal documents from DOD services/offices.

U.S. Department of  Defense, Office  of the  Assistant  Secretary of Defense (Environment), "Installation
Restoration Program Cost Estimate," September 1991.

U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Army Toxics and Hazardous Materials Agency, Army Corps of Engineers,
"Installation Restoration and Hazardous  Waste Control Technologies," CETHA-TS-CR-90067,  Aberdeen
Proving Ground, MD, November 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  et al., "Synopses of Federal Demonstrations  of  Innovative Site
Remediation Technologies," Second Edition, prepared by the member agencies of the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable, EPA/542/B-92/003, August 1992.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office  of Solid  Waste and Emergency  Response,  Technology
Innovation Office, "Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report," EPA/542/R-92/011,
October 1992.

U.S. General Accounting Office, National Security and International Affairs Division, "Hazardous Waste: DOD
Estimates for Cleaning Up Contaminated Sites Improved but Still Constrained," GAO/NSIAD/-929-37, October
1991.

U.S. General Accounting Office, National Security and International Affairs Division, "Hazardous Waste: EPA
Cleanup Requirements — DOD Versus Private Entities," GAO/NSIAD/-89-144, July  1989.
                                               155

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends


Department of Energy Sites (DOE)

"GE Oak Ridge Lab. to Cooperate on PCB Bioremediation Research," HazTECH News, October 3, 1991.

Pasternak, D. and P. Gary, "A $200 Billion Scandal," U.S. News and World Report, pps 34-47, December 14,
1992.

Russell, M.,  E.W. Colglazier, and M.R. English, "Hazardous Waste Remediation:  The Task Ahead," Waste
Management Research and Education Institute, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, December 1991.

Sink, C. and W.E. Noel, "Industry Integration into the Department of Energy's Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management Technology Development Programs, Program Paper," 1991.

Sink,  C.,  "Technology Integration for Waste Cleanup:   Roles of EPA,  DOD,  and DOE in Successful
Technology Commercialization," Presented at ETEX 1992, Washington, D.C., April 9, 1992.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, "Complex Cleanup: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear
Weapons Production," U.S. Government Printing Office, OTA-0-484, Washington, D.C., 1991.

U.S Department of Energy, Data from UMTRA  and FUSRAP Project Offices as of March 1992.

U.S. Department of  Energy, "Environmental Restoration  and Waste  Management  (EM) Program:   An
Introduction," DOE/EM-0013P,  1991.

U.S. Department of Energy, "Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Five-Year Plan: Fiscal Years
1994-1998," Volume I, DOE/S-00097P, 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,  et  al.,  "Synopses  of Federal  Demonstrations of Innovative Site
Remediation Technologies, Second Edition," Prepared by the member agencies of the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable, EPA/542/B-92/003, August 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid  Waste and  Emergency Response, Technology
Innovation Office, "Innovative Treatment Technologies:  Semi-Annual  Status Report," EPA/542/R-92/011,
October 1992.
Civilian Federal Agency Sites

U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, "Federal Agency Summaries: A Supplement to Federal Liabilities
Under Hazardous Waste Laws," 1990.

U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, "Federal Liabilities Under Hazardous Waste Laws," May 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket," 58 Federal
Register, pp. 7297-7327, February 5, 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
Lender Liability Under CERCLA," 57 Federal Register No. 83, p.  18344, April 29, 1992.

U.S. General Accounting Office, "Status  of Civilian Federal Agencies' Efforts To Address Hazardous Waste
Problems On Their Lands," GAO/RCED-84-188, September 1984.
                                               156

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends


U.S. General Accounting Office, "Superfund, Civilian Federal Agencies Slow to Clean Up Hazardous Waste,"
GAO/RCED-87-153, July 1987.


States and Private Party Sites

Goeltz, J.W., "State and Private Sector Cleanups," Waste Management Research and Education Institute,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, Print No. R01-2533-33-005-92, December 1991.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Department of Health, "Inactive
Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in New York State—Annual Report," April 1992.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, "1992 Site Remediation Program Site Status
Report," Fall 1992.

"Steady Growth in Remediation," Environmental Business Journal, Vol. 3,  March 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "An Analysis of State
Superfund Programs:  50-State Study," EPA/540/8-89/011, September 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "An Analysis of State
Superfund Programs:  50-State Study, 1990 Update, " EPA/540/8-91/002, September 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "An Analysis of State
Superfund Programs:  50 State Study, 1991 Update," Pub. 9375.6-08B, September 1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "Superfund CERCLJS
Characterization Project: National Results," EPA/540/8-91/080, November 1991.

U.S. General Accounting Office, "Hazardous Waste  Sites:  State Cleanup Status and Its Implications for
Federal Policy," GAO/RCED-89-164, August 1989.

U.S. General Accounting Office, "Superfund, Extent of Nation's Potential Hazardous Waste Problem Still
Unknown," Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO/RCED-88-44, December 1987.
General

Colglazier, E.W., T. Cox, and K. Davis, "Estimating Resource Requirements for NPL Sites," University of
Tennessee, Waste Management Research and Education Institute, Knoxville, TN, December 1991.

Goldstein, M.I., "Toxic Waste," Government Executive, pps 16-18, November 1991.

Hoffman, A.,  "Risky  Business:   Commercializing Remediation  Technologies  Fraught with Incentives,
Obstacles," Hazmat World, pps 47-53, February 1992.

Russell, M., E.W. Cloglazier, and M.R. English, "Hazardous Waste Remediation: The Task Ahead," Waste
Management Research and Education Institute, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, December 1991.

Stamps, D., "Who's Funding Environmental Technology? There's More Talk Than Action These Days in the
Investment Community," Environmental Information Digest, pps 35-38, November 1991.
                                              157

-------
            Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends


U.S Environmental Protection Agency, "Environmental Investments:  The Cost of a Clean Environment,"
Report of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Congress of the United States,
EPA/230/11-90/083, December 1990.

U.S Environmental Protection Agency. "Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment:  A
Summary," EPA/230/12-90/084, December 1990.
                                              158

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
                                     APPENDIX D
             DEFINITIONS OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS
  DEFINITIONS OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES SELECTED FOR NPL SITE CLEANUPS
Ex Situ
Bioremediation
In Situ Bioremediation
Chemical Treatment
Dechlorination


In Situ Flushing
In Situ Vitrification
Soil Washing
Solvent Extraction
This technology uses microorganisms to  degrade  organic  contaminants in
excavated  soil,  sludge,  and  solids.   The  microorganisms break down the
contaminants by using them as a food source.  The end products are typically CO2
and H2O. Ex situ bioremediation includes slurry-phase bioremediation, in which
the soils are mixed in water to form a slurry, and solid-phase bioremediation,
where the soils are placed in an enclosure, aerated, and periodically mixed with
water and  nutrients.   Variations  of the  latter  are  called land farming or
composting.

With in situ bioremediation, nutrients, an oxygen source, and sometimes microbes
are pumped into the soil or aquifer under pressure through wells or spread on the
surface for infiltration to  the contaminated material.

In chemical treatment, contaminants are converted to less hazardous compounds
through chemical reactions. Chemical treatment has been used five times in the
Superfund program, usually to reduce a contaminant (hexavalent chromium to the
trivalent form) or oxidize a contaminant (cyanide, for example).  Neutralization
is considered to be an available technology and is not included in this report.

Dechlorination results in the removal or replacement of chlorine atoms bonded to
hazardous compounds.

For in situ flushing, large volumes of water at times supplemented with treatment
compounds, are introduced to the soil, waste, or ground water to flush hazardous
contaminants from a site.  This technology is predicated on the assumption that
the injected water can be effectively isolated within the aquifer and recovered.

This technology treats contaminated soil in place at temperatures of approximately
3000°F (1600°C).  Metals are encapsulated in the glass-like structure of the
melted silicate compounds. Organics may be treated by combustion.

Soil washing is used for two  purposes.  First, the mechanical action and water
(sometimes with additives) physically remove contaminants from soil particles.
Second, the agitation of the soil particles allows the smaller diameter, more highly
contaminated fines  to separate from the larger soil particles, thus  reducing the
volume of material for subsequent treatment.

Solvent  extraction operates on the principle that organic contaminants can be
preferentially solubilized and removed from  the waste using the correct solvent.
The solvent to be used will vary depending on the waste to be treated.
                                              159

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends


Thermal Desorption       For thermal desorption, the waste is heated in a controlled environment to cause
                          organic compounds to volatilize from the waste.  The operating temperature for
                          thermal desorption is less than 1000°F (550°C). The volatilized contaminants will
                          usually require further control or treatment.

Soil Vapor Extraction     This technology removes volatile organic constituents from the subsurface through
                          the use of vapor extraction wells, sometimes combined with air injection wells,
                          to  strip and flush the contaminants into the air stream for further treatment.

Other Technologies       Other technologies include air sparging and the contained recovery of oily wastes
                          (CROW) technologies. Air sparging involves injecting gas into the aquifer to
                          draw off contaminants as they  percolate  up through  the ground water and
                          capturing them with a vapor extraction system. The CROW process displaces oily
                          wastes with steam and hot water.  The contaminated oils and ground water move
                          into a more permeable area and are pumped out of the aquifer.
                                                160

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
          DESCRIPTIONS OF CATEGORIES OF INDUSTRIAL SOURCES OF WASTE
Section 3.4.2 describes the most prevalent industrial activities that contributed to the contamination at the 523
NPL sites without RODs. The following are descriptions of the general types of activities that typically occur
within each industry group.   These descriptions are based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Manual,  1987, published  by the  U.S.  Department of Commerce,  Bureau of the Census.  Each industry
described is a broad group, only part of which may pertain to a particular NPL site.
Agriculture
Electronic/Electrical
Equipment
Manufacture
Fabricated Metal
Products
Inorganic Chemicals
Organic Chemicals
Other Manufacturing
Others

Paints and Coatings
Establishments primarily engaged in agricultural production, forestry, commercial
fishing, hunting, and trapping, and related services.  Specifically, the agriculture
component includes:

 •  Agricultural production, crops:  grains, fruits, nuts, vegetables.
 •  Agricultural production, livestock: livestock, poultry, eggs.
 •  Agricultural services:  soil preparation, crop services.

Establishments engaged in manufacturing machinery, apparatus, and supplies for
the generation, storage, transmission, transformation, and use of electrical energy.
Specifically,  electric  transmission  and  distribution  equipment;  household
appliances; electrical industrial apparatus; electric lighting and wiring equipment;
household audio and video equipment;  communications  equipment; electronic
components and accessories; and miscellaneous electrical machinery, equipment,
and supplies.

Establishments  engaged in fabricating ferrous and nonferrous metal products.
This includes metal cans and shipping containers;  cutlery, hand tools, general
hardware; nonelectric heating apparatus; fabricated structural  metal products;
screws, nuts, bolt;  metal forgings and stampings; coating and engraving; and
miscellaneous fabricated metal products.

Establishments  primarily engaged in manufacturing basic inorganic chemicals,
including alkalies and chlorine, industrial gases, inorganic pigments, and industrial
inorganic chemicals (not elsewhere classified), but  does not include pesticides,
medicines, soaps, or drugs.

Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing industrial organic chemicals,
including gum  and wood chemicals; cyclic organic crudes and  intermediates,
organic dyes and  pigments;  and industrial  organic chemicals (not elsewhere
classified).

Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing products not classified in any
other major manufacturing group, including jewelry, silverware, and plated ware;
musical instruments; dolls, toys, games, and sporting and athletic goods; pens,
pencils, and other  artists' materials; costume  jewelry, novelties, buttons, and
miscellaneous notions; and miscellaneous manufacturing industries.

Establishments  that do not fall under other categories.

Establishments  primarily engaged in manufacturing paints; varnishes;  lacquers;
enamels and shellac; putties, wood fillers, and sealers; paint and varnish removers;
paint brush cleaners; and allied paint products.
                                                161

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
Petroleum Refining
Plating
Primary Metal
Products
Rubber and Plastics
Products
Solvent Reclamation


Used Oil Reclamation



Wood Preserving
Establishments primarily engaged in petroleum refining, manufacturing paving and
roofing materials, and compounding lubricating oils and greases from purchased
materials.  Specifically,  those establishments  engaged in petroleum  refining,
asphalt paving and roofing materials, and miscellaneous products of petroleum and
coal.  Does not include establishments engaged in manufacturing and distributing
gas to consumers, or those engaged in producing coke and coke byproducts.

Establishments primarily engaged in all types of electroplating, plating, anodizing,
coloring, and finishing of metals and formed products for the trade.  Also included
are establishments that perform these types of activities, on their own account, on
purchased metals or formed products.

Establishments engaged in  smelting  and refining ferrous and nonferrous metals
from ore, pig, or scrap; in rolling, drawing, and alloying metals; in manufacturing
castings and other basic metal products; and in manufacturing nails, spikes, and
insulated wire and  cable, including steel works, blast furnaces, and rolling and
finishing mills;  iron and  steel foundries;  primary smelting and refining  of
nonferrous metals; secondary smelting and refining of nonferrous metals; rolling,
drawing, and extruding of nonferrous metals; nonferrous foundries (castings); and
miscellaneous primary metal products.

Establishments manufacturing products, not elsewhere classified, from plastics and
resins, and from natural, synthetic, or reclaimed rubber, gutta percha, balata, or
gutta siak.  Does not include recapping and retreading of automobile tires, or
manufacturing of synthetic rubber or synthetic plastics resins, including tires and
inner tubes; rubber and plastics footwear; gaskets, packing, and sealing devices
and rubber and plastics hose  and belting, fabricated rubber  products  (not
elsewhere classified); and miscellaneous plastics products.

Establishments engaged  in  chlorinated and/or nonchlorinated solvent recovery
services  on a contract or fee basis.

Establishments primarily engaged in blending, compounding, and re-refining
lubricating oils  and  greases from  purchased mineral,  animal,  and  vegetable
materials.

Establishments primarily engaged in treating wood, sawed or planed in  other
establishments,  with  creosote or  other preservatives  to prevent decay and to
protect against fire  and insects. Also includes the cutting, treating, and selling of
poles, posts, and piling.
                                                  162

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
                                       ACRONYMS
ATTIC        Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
BLM          Bureau of Land Management
BTEX         Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene
CA           Cooperative Agreement
CA           RCRA Corrective Action
CAMU        RCRA Corrective Action Management Unit
CBO          Congressional Budget Office
CERCLA      Comprehensive  Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
               (Superfund)
CERCLIS      Comprehensive  Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
CFR          Code of Federal Regulations
CMI          RCRA Corrective Measures Implementation
CMS          RCRA Corrective Measures Study
CORA        Cost of Remedial Action Computer Model
CRDA        Cooperative Research and Development Agreement [DOE]
D&D          Decontamination and Decommissioning
DERA        Defense Environmental Restoration Account
DERP         Defense Environmental Restoration Program
DERPMIS     Defense Environmental Restoration Program  Management Information System
DLA          Defense Logistics Agency
DOD          U.S. Department of Defense
DOE          U.S. Department of Energy
DOI          Department of Interior
DOJ          U.S. Department of Justice
DOT          U.S. Department of Transportation
EPA          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERCS         Emergency Remedial Contracting Strategy
ERMC        Environmental Restoration Management Contractor [DOE]
FR           Federal Register
FUDS         Formerly Used Defense  Sites
FUSRAP      Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
FY           Fiscal Year
GAO          U.S. Government Accounting Office
GENSUR      National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
HRS          Superfund Hazard Ranking  System
HSWA        Hazardous  and Solid Waste Amendments of  1984
IAG          Interagency Agreement
ERP           Defense Installation Restoration Program
LDR          RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
NAPL         Nonaqueous Phase Liquid
NAVFAC      Navy Facilities  Engineering Command
NCAPS       National Corrective Action Priority Ranking  System
NCEPI        National Center for Environmental Publications and Information
NCP          National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
NPL          Superfund National Priorities List of Hazardous Waste Sites
O&M         Operation and Maintenance
ORD          Office of Research and Development
OSW          Office of Solid  Waste
OSWER       Office of Solid  Waste and Emergency Response
OTA          Office of Technology Assessment

                                            163

-------
       Cleaning Up the Nation's Hazardous Waste Sites:  Markets and Technology Trends
PA           Preliminary Site Assessment
PAH          Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCB          Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCE          Perchloroethylene
PRDA         Program Research and Development Announcement [DOE]
PEIS          Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement [DOE]
POL          Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants
POTW        Publicly Owned [wastewater] Treatment Works
PRP          Potentially Responsible Party
RA           Remedial Action
RAC          Remedial Action Contractor
RACS         Remedial Action Contracting Strategy
RCRA         Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RCRIS        Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System National Oversight Database
RD           Remedial Design
RD&D        Research, Development, and Demonstration
RFA          RCRA Facility Assessment
RFI          RCRA Facility Investigation
RI/FS         Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RIA          Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIS          RCRA Implementation Study
ROD          Record of Decision
RP           Responsible Party
RTC          Resolution Trust Corporation
RU           RCRA Regulated Unit
SACM        Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
SARA         Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SBA          Small Business Administration
SBIR         Small Business Innovative Research Program
SI            Site Inspection
SITE          Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program
SVE          Soil Vapor Extraction
SVOC         Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
SWMU       Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE          Trichloroethylene
T1O          Technology Innovation Office
TPS          Third Party Site [DOD]
TSD          Treatment,  Storage, or Disposal
TSDF         Treatment,  Storage, or Disposal Facility
TSDR         Treatment,  Storage, Disposal, or Recycling Facility
UIC          Underground Injection Control
UMTRA      Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project
USAGE       U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USAEC       U.S. Army Environmental Center
USATHAMA  U.S. Army Toxics and Hazardous Materials Agency
UST          Underground Storage  Tank
VISITT       Vendor Information System on Innovative Treatment Technologies
VOC         Volatile Organic Compound
WPB         War Production Board
                                             164

-------