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
------- |