EPA/625/R-02/002
January 2002
Technical Approaches to
Characterizing and
Redeveloping Brownfields Sites:
Municipal Landfills and Illegal Dumps
Site Profile
Technology Transfer and Support Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development funded
and managed the research described here under Contract No. 68-C7-0011 to Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC). It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review
and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the
ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants af-
fect our health, and prevent or reduce risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation of
technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the
environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and
control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public
water systems, remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and control of in-
door air pollution. The goal of this research is to catalyze development and implementation of innovative,
cost-effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by
EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and information transfer to
ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It
is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user com-
munity and to link researchers with their clients.
E.Timothy Oppelt, Director
-------
Acknowledgments
This document was prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's National Risk Management Research Laboratory Technology Trans-
fer and Support Division (TTSD) in the Office of Research and Development. Susan Schock of TTSD
served as Work Assignment Manager. Tena Meadows O'Rear served as SAIC's Project Manager. Par-
ticipating in this effort were Arvin Wu, Joel Wolf, and Karyn Sper. Reviewers of this document include
Eletha Brady-Roberts - NCEA Cincinnati, Emery Bayley - ECOSS Seattle, Washington, Jan Brodmerkl
of the Army Corps of Engineers, Alison Benjamin - Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision, Michigan.,
and Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Mangerment Officials (ASTSWMO).
Appreciation is given to ERA'S Office of Special Programs for guidance on the Brownfields Initiative.
IV
-------
Contents
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Acknowledgments iv
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Chapter 2. Municipal Landfills & Illegal Dumps
Leachate 5
Landfill Gases 6
Chapters. Site Assessment 8
Role of EPA and State Government 8
Performing A Phase I Site Assessment 10
Due Diligence 16
Conclusion 20
Chapter 4. Phase II Site Investigation 21
Background 21
Setting Data Quality Objectives 23
Establish Screening Levels 23
Conduct Environmental Sampling and Data Analysis 24
Chapter 5. Site Cleanup 27
Background 28
Evaluate Remedial Alternatives 28
Screening and Selection of Best Remedial Option 31
Develop Remedy Implementation Plan 31
Remedy Implementation 32
Chapters. Conclusion 34
Appendix A. Acronyms 35
Appendix B. Glossary 36
Appendix C. Testing Technologies 45
Appendix D. Cleanup Technologies 53
Appendix E. Works Cited 68
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
EPA has developed a set of technical guides,
including this document, to assist communities,
states, municipalities, and the private sector to
better address brownfields sites. Currently, these
three guides in the series are available:
^" Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Cleaning up Iron and Steel Mill Sites under
the Brownfields Initiative, EPA/625/R-98/007,
December 1998.
^" Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Cleaning up Automotive Repair Sites under
the Brownfields Initiative, EPA/625/R-98/008,
December 1999.
^ Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Cleaning Metal Finishing Sites under the
Brownfields Initiative, EPA/625/R-98/006,
December, 1999.
A supplementary guide contains information on
cost-estimating tools and resources for
brownfields sites (Cost Estimating Tools and
Resources for Addressing Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative, EPA/625/R-99-001,
January 1999).
EPA has since developed a general guide to
provide decision-makers, such as city planners,
private sector developers, and others, with a better
understanding of the common technical issues
involved in assessing and cleaning up brownfield
sites.1 The general guide will be supplemented
Because parts of this document are technical in
nature, planners may want to refer to additional EPA guides
for further information. The Tool Kit of Technology
Information Resources for Brownfields Sites, published by
EPA's Technology Innovation Office (TIO), contains a
comprehensive list of relevant technical guidance documents
(available from NTIS, No. PB97144828). EPA's Road Map
to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for
Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup, also by EPA's TIO,
provides an introduction to site assessment and cleanup (EPA
Order No. EPA/542/B-97/002).
with site specific profiles that provide further
information on specific types of brownfields sites.
An understanding of key industrial processes once
used at a brownfields site can help the planner
identify likely areas of contamination and
management approaches. This overview also
points to information sources on specific
processes or technologies.
The purpose of this guide is to provide decision-
makers with:
>- An background understanding of common
industrial processes formerly used at this type
of brownfields site and the general
relationship between such processes and
potential releases of contaminants to the
environment.
>- Information on the types of contaminants
likely to be present at landfill and illegal dump
brownfields sites.
^" A discussion of the common steps involved in
brownfields redevelopment: Phase I site
assessment, due diligence, Phase n site
investigation, remedial alternative evaluation,
remedy implementation plan development, and
remedy implementation.
Background
Many communities across the country have
brownfields sites, which the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) defines as abandoned,
idle, and under-used industrial and commercial
facilities where expansion or redevelopment is
complicated by real or perceived environmental
contamination. Concerns about liability, cost, and
potential health risks associated with brownfields
sites may prompt businesses to migrate to
"greenfields" outside the city. Left behind are
communities burdened with environmental
contamination, declining property values, and
increased unemployment.
-------
Select Brownfield Site
|
Phase I Site Assessment and Due Diligence
Obtain background information of site to determine extent of contamination and
legal and financial risks
> If there appears to be no contamination, begin redevelopment activities
> If there is high level of contamination, reassess the viability of project
/
Phase II Site Investigation
Sample the site to identify the type, quantity, and extent of the contamination
> If the contamination does not pose health or environmental risk, begin
redevelopment activities
> If there is high level of contamination, reassess the viability of project
m
Evaluate Remedial Options
Compile and assess possible remedial alternatives
> If the remedial alternatives do not appear to be feasible, determine
whether redevelopment is a viable option
11 1
Develop Remedy Implementation Plan
Coordinate with stakeholders to design a remedy implementation plan
j|
Remedy Implementation
> If additional contamination is discovered during the remedy
implementation process, return to the site assessment phase to determine
the extent of the contamination
in
Begin Redevelopment Activities
//
I
I
Exhibit 1-1. Flow Chart of the Brownfields Redevelopment Process
-------
The EPA established the Brownfields Economic
Redevelopment Initiative to enable states, site
planners, and other community stakeholders to
work together in a timely manner to prevent,
assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse
brownfields sites.
The cornerstone of EPA's Brownfields Initiative
is the Brownfields Pilot Program. Under this
program, EPA has funded more than 200
brownfields assessment pilot projects in states,
cities, towns, counties, and tribal lands across
the country. The pilots, each funded at up to
$200,000 over two years, are bringing together
community groups, investors, lenders,
developers, and other affected parties to address
the issues associated with assessing and
cleaning up contaminated brownfields sites and
returning them to appropriate, productive use. In
addition to the hundreds of brownfields sites
being addressed by these pilots, many states
have established voluntary cleanup programs to
encourage municipalities and private sector
organizations to assess, clean up, and redevelop
brownfields sites.
Typical Brownfield Redevelopment
Process
The typical brownfields redevelopment process
begins with a Phase I site assessment and due
diligence, as shown in Exhibit 1-1. The site
assessment and due diligence process provides
an initial screening to determine the extent of
the contamination and possible legal and
financial risks. If the site assessment and due
diligence process reveals no apparent
contamination and no significant health or
environmental risks, redevelopment activities
may begin immediately. If the site seems to
contain unacceptably high levels of
contamination, a reassessment of the project's
viability may be appropriate.
A Phase II site investigation samples the site to
provide a comprehensive understanding of the
contamination. If this investigation reveals no
significant sources of contamination,
redevelopment activities may commence.
Again, if the sampling reveals unacceptably
high levels of contamination, the viability of the
project should be reassessed. Should the Phase
II site investigation reveal a manageable level of
contamination, the next step is to evaluate
possible remedial alternatives. If no feasible
remedial alternatives are found, the project
viability would have to be reassessed.
Otherwise, the next step would be to select an
appropriate remedy and develop a remedy
implementation plan. Following remedy
implementation, if additional contamination is
discovered, the entire process is repeated.
This document is organized as follows:
^" Chapter 2 - Municipal Landfills and Illegal
Dumps
^" Chapter 3 - Phase I Site Assessment and
Due Diligence
^" Chapter 4 - Phase n Site Investigation
^" Chapter 5 - Contaminant Management
^" Chapter 6 - Conclusion
^" Appendix A - Acronyms
^" Appendix B - Glossary
^" Appendix C - Testing Technologies
^" Appendix D - Cleanup Technologies
^" Appendix E - Works Cited
-------
Chapter 2
Municipal Landfills & Illegal Dumps
Introduction
By definition, a municipal solid waste landfill is a
discrete area of land or an excavation that receives
household waste, and that is not a land application
unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or
waste pile, as those terms are defined in law.
Household waste includes any solid waste,
including garbage, trash, and septic tank waste,
derived from houses, apartments, hotels, motels,
campgrounds, and picnic grounds. Subtitle D of
RCRA defines other types of wastes a municipal
solid waste landfill may accept, such as
commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge,
small quantity generator waste, and industrial
solid waste. (EPA ,1993)
Landfills come in all shapes and sizes and can
impact the environment in many different ways.
Some dump sites may be as small as a few barrels
of waste oil, while the largest industrial waste
landfill may cover 100 acres or more. The range
of effects that dump sites and landfills can
manifest upon the environment are just as diverse
as the various forms the sites may take. This
chapter will frequently characterize solid waste
contaminated brownfields and outline typical
remediation strategies that can be used to
redevelop these sites.
Landfills and Open Dumps in America
The modern day American landfill was preceded
by the open and unregulated town dump. In these
dumps wastes were left uncovered and untreated,
leaving the refuse open to the full effects of the
elements. Often, neither the existence nor the use
of the dump was authorized, and there was no
supervision. There was little or no effort made to
compact or cover the waste and no regard was
given to pollution control measures or aesthetics.
Frequently, these open dumps were also burning
dumps. Fire could occur spontaneously, but more
often, the fire was purposely set in an attempt to
reduce the volume at a dump or destroy the food
that attracts rodents and insects. The most
common air pollution resulting from burning
dumps was highly visible clouds of particulate
matter and incompletely burned gases, as well as
the smell of smoldering garbage (EPA, 1971).
Sanitary landfills began to emerge in the 1930s
with systematic deposition, compaction, and
burial of refuse, but open dumps still persisted
into the 1960s and 1970s (US Army, 1978). The
primary difference between a dump and a sanitary
landfill was that a sanitary landfill was covered
with several inches of soil every evening. The
purpose of the soil was to reduce odors and reduce
the access of vermin to the waste. It was not until
1993 and Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) that there were federal
regulations governing the construction and
operation of sanitary landfills.
Cape Charles, Virginia
A Brownfields Success Story:
Cape Charles' Sustainable Technology Park
Authority in conjunction with a grant from
EPA's Brownfield Assessment Pilot assessed
an abandoned 25-acre town dump in the
middle of a planned eco-industrial park in the
heart of Cape Charles. The overall site will
contain a conference and training center. Two
businesses are locating on the site: Energy to
Recovery, a research and development
company that plans to hire 50 local residents
and Solar Building Systems, Inc., a company
that assembles solar panels and has already
hired 30 local residents. One half of the land
is natural habitat and will eventually have
walkways and trails.
-------
In the example just given, and in many other
examples from Brownfields Pilot sites, it has been
shown that the redevelopment of a dump site can
be very positive for the community. The
developer must consider however, the variety of
situations which may be encountered when such a
site is under redevelopment. II
Landfill and Dump Site Characteristics
There are two major sources of contaminants in
municipal landfills and dumpsites; leachate and
landfill gas (LFG). Each is composed of different
contaminants and each poses its own set of
management burdens for the development of a
brownfield. Taken together, they can affect the
soils, ground and surface waters, and air in and
around the sites of the landfills, many times years
after the landfill has been closed. In addition to
these, there are buried materials which may also
contribute to contamination.
Leachate
Leachate is the liquid that results from rain, snow,
dew, and natural moisture which percolates
through the waste in a landfill or dump. While
migrating through the waste, the liquid dissolves
salts, picks up organic constituents, and leaches
heavy metals, such as iron, mercury, lead, and zinc
from cans, batteries, paints, pesticides, cleaning
fluids, and inks. The organic strength of landfill
leachate can be greater than 20 to 100 times the
strength of raw sewage. This "landfill liquor" is
potentially a potent polluter of soil and
groundwater. The majority of open dumps and
old sanitary landfills do not have liners or proper
drainage systems to divert the leachate. Both pose
the problem that the leached material could be
absorbed into the ground and then possibly move
into groundwater, surface water, or aquifer
systems. (Heimlich, Undated)
A 1977 EPA study looked at three municipal
landfill sites to determine the effects of the
disposal facilities on surrounding soils and
groundwater. Groundwater samples from up and
down the groundwater flow gradient and below
the landfill were taken. At all three of the sites,
changes in chemical composition of the
groundwater could be related to the position of the
borings with respect to the landfill. Water quality
below and down the groundwater flow gradients
from the landfills showed elevated nitrate, total
organic carbon, and cyanide levels. The
percolation of the leachate did not alter the
permeability of the soil beneath the refuse, nor
was there evidence that the sub-landfill soils
sealed themselves. Borings directly below the
landfill showed decreasing constituents as sample
depth increased; therefore, the source of the
contamination may be the refuse and leachate
from the landfill.
Landfill Gases
Methane (CH4) is the principal gas produced from
the decomposition of the organic solid waste
(about 50% by volume) with carbon dioxide,
nitrogen, andoxygen, and "non-methane organic
compounds" (NMOCs) making up the remainder.
(Ewall, 1999) Landfill gases are released either
by aerobic and anaerobic decomposition of refuse
or by the volatilization of existing compounds.
Initially, there is a high percentage of carbon
dioxide as a result of aerobic decomposition.
Aerobic decomposition continues to occur until
the oxygen in the air initially present in the
compacted waste is depleted. From that point on,
anaerobic decomposition will occur.
Methane emissions result from the anaerobic
decomposition of organic landfill materials such
as yard waste, household garbage, food waste, and
paper. Landfills are the largest anthropogenic
source of methane, and municipal solid waste
landfills account for approximately 93 percent of
total landfill emissions. (EPA 1999) Methane
production typically begins one or two years after
waste placement in a landfill and may last from
ten to sixty years. Explosions and fires at old
dumps and landfills are often the result of methane
build-up at a building on or adjacent to the landfill
-------
property. (Heimlich, Undated) In many cases, the
use of landfill gas as an energy source is not
economically feasible because of the low quality
of the methane gas and its rate of production when
compared with natural pipeline gas. (Lee and
Jones-Lee, Undated)
The "landfill smell" that many people recognize
from older dump sites is the result of landfill
gases. Emissions of potentially carcinogenic
organic chemicals have been detected from
landfills. Benzene and vinyl chloride have been
detected at landfills sites in California, Wisconsin,
and New Jersey. Problems in sampling
procedures make it difficult to determine if there
is evidence of migration of the VOCs off-site into
the ambient air. (Tchobanoglous et al, 1977)
Landfill and Dump Site Remediation
Strategies
Site Investigation
The first step in any successful brownfield
remediation is an accurate assessment of the
character and scope of the problem. The following
technologies are ones typically used to assess the
state of contamination in and around landfills and
dump sites:
* Direct Push and Drilling Techniques
This sampling technique involves the use
of drills and hydraulic presses to remove
core samples of soil in and around
landfills and dump sites. These samples
are then brought to off-site laboratories
for analysis. Labs can test for the presence
of contaminants in the soil. This
technique, whereby soil is analyzed off-
site rather than on, provides much greater
accuracy and provides managers with
much more accurate information on the
extent of site contamination.
Groundwater Sampling
Groundwater sampling is a very important
aspect of the initial site investigation. The
large majority of compliance and
pollution problems associated with
landfill brownfields have to do with
contaminated groundwater. Contaminated
groundwater is an especially dangerous
problem in rural areas where most people
rely on wells for their drinking water. Site
managers should plan on carrying out
extensive groundwater sampling before
any development can commence.
Fugitive Gas Sampling
This investigative technique involves the
use of gas sampling devices to determine
the volume and type of landfill gas
emissions at potential brownfields. This is
very important for sites where building of
any significance is to take place, as
fugitive gas emissions are most dangerous
in situations where the former landfill will
be disturbed by excavation.
Site Remediation
Remediation of former landfill sites is somewhat
different from remediation at other contaminated
brownfields. For one, landfills differ from other
brownfields in the sheer volume of contamination.
No other brownfield has as much TOTAL
contamination as a former landfill does, whether
measured by volume or area. Also, site
contamination is almost always spread throughout
the entire site and cannot be remediated
economically with most treatment technologies
(i.e., you cannot possibly treat all of the
contaminated soil at a municipal landfill). The
final remediation strategy for a site will depend
mostly then on the size of the landfill or dump site
and the costs of the proposed remediation
strategies.
-------
* Landfill Capping
Landfill capping is by far the most
common method of site remediation.
There are many types of landfill caps on
the market, ranging from the ultra-
sophisticated, ultra-expensive to the
simplest coverings of plastic and canvas.
Landfill caps are designed to do just what
their name says, they 'cap' the landfill so
that contaminants contained within are not
released into the environment. They are
most effective when the landfill or dump
site in question has a viable bedliner that
is still functioning and where most of the
waste is above the water table.(CPEO,
2000) In these situations, a cap functions
to keep water from entering the waste
matrix, thus reducing leachate
contamination. Caps usually are formed of
a combination of compacted clay and soil
in combination with a semi-permeable
membrane (either plastic or some other
composite). The most sophisticated caps
are called RCRA "C" or "D" caps, but
caps of all types can be created by
contractors with the unique needs of each
site in mind. It is estimated that C-type
caps cost around 175 thousand dollars per
acre while D-type caps cost as much as
225 thousand dollars per acre. (FRTR,
2000)
* Landfill Gas Collection
This type of pollution control actually evolved as
a means to make money off of omnipresent
landfill gas. Scientists learned early on that LFG
was over 50% methane, the main component of
natural gas. Today, the technology exists to
'harvest' the gas and (after filtering and cleaning
it) burn that gas to make electricity. A side effect
of this process is that landfill gas that once was
released directly into the atmosphere, can now be
collected, lessening the environmental and
aesthetic impact of the gas.(EREN, 2000) A
number of successful electric utilities have already
been constructed on retired and active landfills
throughout the US. (Ewall, 1999)
Conclusion
Landfills and illegal dump sites pose a significant
risk to human and environmental health. Simply
based on the number of sites throughout the
country, landfills are one of the largest sources of
potential pollution in communities of all types.
Yet as pressure for new land rises, especially in
urban and suburban areas, these landfill
'brownfields' are becoming valuable parcels of
land and cost-effective and safe remediation of
any contaminants on-site becomes a first priority.
This chapter outlines the history of landfills and
illegal dump sites, describes probable
contaminants associated with these sites, and
offers suggestions for successful remediation
programs, with the ultimate purpose being to
educate developers and community planners on
the most important aspects of brownfield
redevelopment.
-------
Chapter 3
Site Assessment
Site assessment and due diligence provide initial
information regarding the feasibility of a
brownfields redevelopment project. A site
assessment evaluates the health and environmental
risks of a site and the due diligence process
examines the legal and financial risks. These two
assessments help the planner build a conceptual
framework of the site, which will develop into the
foundation for the next steps in the redevelopment
process.
Site assessment and due diligence are necessary to
fully address issues regarding the environmental
liabilities associated with property ownership.
Several federal and state programs exist to
minimize owner liability at brownfields sites and
facilitate cleanup and redevelopment. Planners
and decision-makers should contact their state
environmental or regional EPA office for further
information.
The Phase I site assessment is generally performed
by an environmental professional. Cost for this
service depends upon size and location of the site,
and. A site assessment typically identifies:
» Potential contaminants that remain in and
around a site;
» Likely pathways that the contaminants may
move; and
» Potential risks to the environment and human
health that exist along the migration pathways.
Due diligence typically identifies:
» Potential legal and regulatory requirements
and risks;
» Preliminary cost estimates for property
purchase, engineering, taxation and risk
management; and
* Market viability of redevelopment proj ect.
This chapter begins with background information
on the role of the EPA and state government in
Perform Phase I
Site Assessment
and Due Diligence
Perform
Phase II Site
Investigation
Evaluate
Remedial
Options
Develop
Remedy
Implementation
Plan
Remedy
Implementation
brownfields redevelopment. The remainder of the
chapter provides a description of the components
of site assessment and the due diligence process.
Role of EPA and State Government
A brownfields redevelopment project is a
partnership between planners and decision-makers
(both in the private and public sector), state and
local officials, and the local community. State
environmental agencies are often key decision-
makers and a primary source of information
for brownfields projects. In most cases, planners
and decision-makers need to work closely with
state program managers to determine their
-------
particular state's requirements for brownfields
development. Planners may also need to meet
additional federal requirements. While state roles
in brownfields programs vary widely, key state
functions include:
* Overseeing the brownfields site assessment
and cleanup process, including the
management of voluntary cleanup programs;
* Providing guidance on contaminant screening
levels; and
* Serving as a source of site information, as
well as legal and technical guidance.
The EPA works closely with state and local
governments to develop state Voluntary Cleanup
Programs (VCP) to encourage, assist, and expedite
brownfields redevelopment. The purpose of a state
VCP is to streamline brownfields redevelopment,
reduce transaction costs, and provide liability
protection for past contamination. Planners and
decision-makers should be aware that state
cleanup requirements vary significantly;
brownfields managers from state agencies should
be able to clarify how their state requirements
relate to federal requirements.
EPA encourages all states to have their VCPs
approved via a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA), whereby EPA transfers control over a
brownfields site to that state (Federal Register
97-23831). Under such an arrangement, the EPA
does not anticipate becoming involved with
private cleanup efforts that are approved by
federally recognized state VCPs (unless the
agency determines that a given cleanup poses an
imminent and substantial threat to public health,
welfare or the environment). EPA may, however,
provide states with technical assistance to support
state VCP efforts.
To receive federal certification, state VCPs must:
> Provide for meaningful community
involvement. This requirement is intended to
ensure that the public is informed of and, if
interested, involved in brownfields planning.
While states have discretion regarding how
they provide such opportunities, at a minimum
they must notify the public of a proposed
contaminant management plan by directly
contacting local governments and community
groups and publishing or airing legal notices
in local media.
Ensure that voluntary response actions
protect human health and the environment.
Examples of ways to determine protectiveness
include: conducting site-specific risk
assessments to determine background
contaminant concentrations; determining
maximum contaminant levels for
groundwater; and determining the human
health risk range for known or suspected
carcinogens. Even if the state VCP does not
require the state to monitor a site after
approving the final voluntary contaminant
management plan, the state may still reserve
the right to revoke the cleanup certification if
there is an unsatisfactory change in the site's
use or additional contamination is discovered.
Houston, Texas
A Brownfields Success Story:
Browning Ferris Industries, the site
owner, has partnered with EnCap Golf
LLC to develop a 450-acre golf course on
a former landfill located near the
Astrodome. The facility will include two
18-hole golf courses, a full-service
clubhouse, a well-equipped practice &
training facility, and a pitch & putt area.
The new golf course is slated to open for
business in late 2000.
Houston Mayor's Office of Environmental Policy.
Brownfields Redevelopment Program.
www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf/pdffiles/houston.pdf
Provide resources needed to ensure that
voluntary response actions are conducted in
an appropriate and timely manner. State VCPs
must have adequate financial, legal, and
technical resources to ensure that voluntary
cleanups meet these goals. Most state VCPs
-------
are intended to be self-sustaining. Generally, state
VCPs obtain their funding in one of two ways:
planners pay an hourly oversight charge to the
state environmental agency, in addition to all
cleanup costs; or planners pay an application fee
that can be applied against oversight costs.
* Provide mechanisms for the written approval
of voluntary response action plans and certify
the completion of the response in writing for
submission to the EPA and the voluntary
party.
* Ensure safe completion of voluntary response
actions through oversight and enforcement of
the cleanup process.
* Oversee the completion of the cleanup and
long-term site monitoring. In the event that the
use of the site changes or is found to have
additional contamination, states must
demonstrate their ability to enforce cleanup
efforts via the removal of cleanup certification
or other means.
Performing A Phase I Site Assessment
The purpose of a Phase I site assessment is to
identify the type, quantity, and extent of potential
contamination at a brownfields site. Financial
institutions typically require a site assessment
prior to lending money to potential property
buyers to protect the institution's role as mortgage
holder. In addition, parties involved in the
transfer, foreclosure, leasing, or marketing of
properties recommend some form of site
evaluation. A site investigation should include:2
* A review of readily available records, such as
former site use, building plans, records of any
prior contamination events;
* A site visit to observe the areas used for
various industrial processes and the condition
of the property;
* Interviews with knowledgeable people, such
as site owners, operators, and occupants;
neighbors; local government officials; and
* A report that includes an assessment of the
likelihood that contaminants are present at the
site.
A site assessment should be conducted by an
environmental professional, and may take three to
four weeks to complete. Information on how to
review records, conduct site visits and interviews,
and develop a report during a site assessment is
provided below. Exhibit 3-1 shows a flow chart
representing the site assessment process.
Review Records
A review of readily available records helps
identify likely contaminants and their locations.
This review provides a general overview of the
brownfields site, likely contaminant pathways, and
related health and environmental concerns.
Facility Information
Facility records are often the best source of
information on former site activities. If past
owners are not initially known, a local records
office should have deed books that contain
ownership history. Generally, records pertaining
specifically to the site in question are adequate for
site assessment review purposes. In some cases,
however, records of adjacent properties may also
need to be reviewed to assess the possibility of
contaminants migrating from or to the site, based
on geologic or hydrogeologic conditions. If the
brownfields property resides in a low-lying area,
in close proximity to other industrial facilities or
formerly industrialized sites, or downgradient
from current or former industrialized sites, an
investigation of adjacent properties is warranted.
The elements of a site assessment presented here
are based in part on ASTM Standards 1527 and 1528.
10
-------
Review Records
Review readily available records to help identify likely
contaminants and locations, such as:
> Facility Information - e.g., building plans, deed
books, state and federal permitting records, prior
audits/assessments, compliance records
> Contaminant Migration Pathways - e.g.,
topographic information, soil and subsurface data,
groundwater information
> Environmental and Health Record Databases and
Public Records, e.g., state and local health
departments, ATSDR health assessments, aerial
photographs, deed and title records
Conduct Site Visit
Conduct a site visit to observe use and condition of the
property and to identify areas that may warrant further
investigation. Note features such as:
> Odors
« Wells
> Pits, ponds, and lagoons
> Drums or storage containers
> Stained soil or pavement, distressed vegetation
» Waste storage areas, tank piping
Conduct Interviews
Conduct interviews to obtain additional information on
prior and/or current uses and conditions of the
property. Interview individuals such as:
> Site owner and/or site manager
> Site occupants
> Government officials
> Neighbors
Write Report
Write report to document findings from record reviews,
site visits, and interviews. The report should discuss:
> Presence and potential impact of contaminants
> Necessity for site investigation or no further action
recommendation
Exhibit 3-1. Flow Chart of the Site Assessment Process.
11
-------
In addition to facility records, American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard 1527
identifies other useful sources of information such
as historical aerial photographs, fire insurance
maps, property tax files, recorded land title
records, topographic maps, local street directories,
building department records, zoning/land use
records, maps and newspaper archives (ASTM,
1997).
State and federal environmental offices are also
potential sources of information. These offices
may provide information such as facility maps that
identify activities and disposal areas, lists of
stored pollutants, and the types and levels of
pollutants released. State and federal offices can
provide the following types of facility level data:
» The state offices responsible for industrial
waste management and hazardous waste
should have a record of any emergency
removal actions at the site (e.g., the removal
of leaking drums that posed an "imminent
threat" to local residents); any Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
permits issued at the site; notices of violations
issued; and any environmental investigations.
» The state office responsible for discharges of
wastewater to water bodies under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program will have a record of any
permits issued for discharges into surface
water at or near the site. The local publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) will have
records for permits issued for indirect
discharges into sewers (e.g., floor drain
discharges into sanitary drains).
» The state office responsible for underground
storage tanks may also have records of tanks
located at the site, as well as records of any
past releases.
» The state office responsible for air emissions
may be able to provide information on
potential air pollutants associated with
particular types of onsite contamination.
EPA's Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) of potentially
contaminated sites should have a record of
any previously reported contamination at or
near the site. For information, contact the
Superfund Hotline (800-424-9346).
EPA Regional Offices can provide records of
sites that have released hazardous substances.
Information is available from the Federal
National Priorities List (NPL); lists of
treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD)
facilities subject to corrective action under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA); RCRA generators; and the
Emergency Response Notification System
(ERNS). Contact EPA Regional Offices for
more information.
State environmental records and local library
archives may indicate permit violations or
significant contamination releases from or
near the site.
Residents who were former employees may be
able to provide information on waste
management practices. These reports should
be substantiated.
Local fire departments may have responded to
emergency events at the facility. Fire
departments or city halls may have fire
insurance maps3 or other historical maps or
data that indicate the location of hazardous
waste storage areas at the site.
Fire insurance maps show, for a specific
property, the locations of such items as UST's, buildings, and
areas where chemicals have been used for certain industrial
processes.
12
-------
* Local waste haulers may have records of the
facility's disposal of hazardous or other
wastes.
» Utility records.
» Local building permits.
Requests for federal regulatory information are
governed by the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), and the fulfilling of such requests
generally takes a minimum of four to eight weeks.
Similar freedom of information legislation does
not uniformly exist on the state level; one can
expect a minimum waiting period of four weeks to
receive requested information (ASTM, 1997).
Identifying Contaminant Migration Pathways
Offsite migration of contaminants may pose a risk
to human health and the environment. A site
assessment should gather as much readily
available information on the physical
characteristics of the site as possible. Migration
pathways, such as through soil, groundwater, and
air, depend on site-specific characteristics such as
geology and the physical characteristics of the
individual contaminants (e.g., mobility, solubility,
and density). Information on the physical
characteristics of the general area can play an
important role in identifying potential migration
pathways and focusing environmental sampling
activities, if needed.
Topographic, soil and subsurface, and
groundwater data are particularly important:
Topographic Data. Topographic information
helps determine whether the site may be subject to
contamination from or the source of
contamination to adjoining properties.
Topographic information will help identify
low-lying areas of the facility where rain and
snowmelt (and any contaminants in them) may
collect and contribute both water and
contaminants to the underlying aquifer or surface
runoff to nearby areas. The U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) of the Department of the Interior
has topographic maps for nearly every part of the
country. These maps are inexpensive and available
through the following address:
USGS Information Services
Box 25286
Denver, CO 80225
[http://www.mapping.usgs.gov/esic/to order.hmtll
Soil and Subsurface Data. Soil and subsurface soil
characteristics determine how contaminants move
in the environment. For example, clay soils limit
downward movement of pollutants into underlying
groundwater but facilitate surface runoff. Sandy
soils, on the other hand, can promote rapid
infiltration into the water table while inhibiting
surface runoff. Soil information can be obtained
through a number of sources:
* The Natural Resource Conservation Service
and Cooperative Extension Service offices of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
are also likely to have soil maps.
* Local planning agencies should have soil
maps to support land use planning activities.
These maps provide a general description of
the soil types present within a county (or
sometimes a smaller administrative unit, such
as a township).
* Well-water companies are likely to be familiar
with local subsurface conditions, and local
water districts and state water divisions may
have well-logging and water testing
information.
* Local health departments may be familiar with
subsurface conditions because of their interest
in septic drain fields.
* Local construction contractors are likely to be
familiar with subsurface conditions from their
work with foundations.
Soil characteristics can vary widely within a
relatively small area, and it is common to find that
the top layer of soil in urban areas is composed of
fill materials, not native soils. Geotechnical
survey reports are often required by local
authorities prior to construction. While the
purpose of such surveys is to test soils for
compaction, bedrock, and water table, general
13
-------
information gleaned from such reports can support
the environmental site assessment process.
Though local soil maps and other general soil
information can be used for screening purposes
such as in a site assessment, site-specific
information will be needed in the event that
cleanup is necessary.
Groundwater Data. Planners should obtain
general groundwater information about the site
area, including:
* State classifications of underlying aquifers;
* Depth to the groundwater tables;
* Groundwater flow direction and rate;
» Location of nearby drinking water and
agricultural wells; and
* Groundwater recharge zones in the vicinity of
the site.
This information can be obtained from several
local sources, including water authorities, well
drilling companies, health departments, and
Agricultural Extension and Natural Resource
Conservation Service offices.
Identifying Potential Environmental and Human
Health Concerns
Identifying possible environmental and human
health risks early in the process can influence
decisions regarding the viability of a site for
cleanup and the choice of cleanup methods used.
A visual inspection of the area will usually suffice
to identify onsite or nearby wetlands and water
bodies that may be particularly sensitive to
releases of contaminants during characterization
or cleanup activities. Planners should also review
available information from state and local
environmental agencies to ascertain the proximity
of residential dwellings, industrial/commercial
activities, or wetlands/water bodies, and to
identify people, animals, or plants that might
receive migrating contamination; any particularly
sensitive populations in the area (e.g., children;
endangered species); and whether any major
contamination events have occurred previously in
the area (e.g., drinking water problems;
groundwater contamination).
Such general environmental information may be
obtained by contacting the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, state environmental agencies, local
planning and conservation authorities, the U.S.
Geological Survey, and the USDA Natural
Resource Conservation Service. State and local
agencies and organizations can usually provide
information on local fauna and the habitats of any
sensitive and/or endangered species.
For human health information, planners can
contact:
* State and local health assessment
organizations. Organizations such as health
departments, should have data on the quality
of local well water used as a drinking water
source as well as any human health risk
studies that have been conducted. In addition,
these groups may have other relevant
information, such as how certain types of
contaminants might pose a health risk during
site characterization. Information on
exposures to particular contaminants and
associated health risks can also be found in
health profile documents developed by the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR). In addition, ATSDR may
have conducted a health consultation or health
assessment in the area if an environmental
contamination event occurred in the past.
Such an event and assessment should have
been identified in the site assessment records
review of prior contamination incidents at the
site. For information, contact ATSDR's
Division of Toxicology (404-639-6300).
* Local water and health departments. During
the site visit (described below), when visually
inspecting the area around the facility,
planners should identify any residential
dwellings or commercial activities near the
facility and evaluate whether people there may
come into contact with contamination along
one of the migration pathways. Where
groundwater contamination may pose a
problem, planners should identify any nearby
waterways or aquifers that may be impacted
14
-------
by groundwater discharge of contaminated water,
including any drinking water wells downgradient
of the site, such as a municipal well field. Local
water departments will have a count of well
connections to the public water supply. Planners
should also pay particular attention to information
on private wells in the area downgradient of the
facility because they may be vulnerable to
contaminants migrating offsite even when the
public municipal drinking water supply is not
vulnerable. Local health departments often have
information on the locations of private wells.
Both groundwater pathways and surface water
pathways should be evaluated because
contaminants in groundwater can eventually
migrate to surface waters and contaminants in
surface waters can migrate to groundwater.
Conducting a Site Visit
In addition to collecting and reviewing available
records, a site visit can provide important
information about the uses and conditions of the
property and identify areas that warrant further
investigation (ASTM, 1997). During a visual
inspection, the following should be noted:
* Current or past uses of abutting properties that
may affect the property being evaluated;
* Evidence of hazardous substances migrating
on- or off-site;
* Odors;
- Wells;
* Pits, ponds, or lagoons;
* Surface pools of liquids;
* Drums or storage containers;
* Stained soil or pavements;
* Corrosion;
* Stressed vegetation;
* Solid waste;
» Drains, sewers, sumps, or pathways for off-
site migration; and
* Roads, water supplies, and sewage systems.
Interviewing the site owner, site occupants, and
local officials can help identify and clarify the
prior and current uses and conditions of the
property. They may also provide information on
other documents or references regarding the
property. Such documents include environmental
audit reports, environmental permits, registrations
for storage tanks, material safety data sheets,
community right-to-know plans, safety plans,
government agency notices or correspondence,
hazardous waste generator reports or notices,
geotechnical studies, or any proceedings involving
the property (ASTM, 1997). Personnel from the
following local government agencies should be
interviewed: the fire department, health agency,
and the agency with authority for hazardous waste
disposal or other environmental matters.
Interviews can be conducted in person, by
telephone, or in writing.
ASTM Standard 1528 provides a questionnaire
that may be appropriate for use in interviews for
certain sites. ASTM suggests that this
questionnaire be posed to the current property
owner, any major occupant of the property (or at
least 10 percent of the occupants of the property if
no major occupant exists), or "any occupant likely
to be using, treating, generating, storing, or
disposing of hazardous substances or petroleum
products on or from the property" (ASTM, 1996).
A user's guide accompanies the ASTM
questionnaire to assist the investigator in
conducting interviews, as well as researching
records and making site visits.
Conducting Interviews
15
-------
Developing a Report
Toward the end of the site assessment, planners
should develop a report that includes all of the
important information obtained during record
reviews, the site visit, and interviews.
Documentation, such as references and important
exhibits, should be included, as well as the
credentials of the environmental professional who
conducted the environmental site assessment. The
report should include all information regarding the
presence or likely presence of hazardous
substances or petroleum products on the property
and any conditions that indicate an existing, past,
or potential release of such substances into
property structures or into the ground,
groundwater, or surface water of the property
(ASTM, 1997). The report should include the
environmental professional's opinion of the impact
of the presence or likely presence of any
contaminants, and a findings and conclusion
section that either indicates that the environmental
site assessment revealed no evidence of
contaminants in connection with the property, or
discusses what evidence of contamination was
found (ASTM, 1997).
Additional sections of the report might include a
recommendations section for a site investigation,
if appropriate. Some states or financial institutions
may require information on specific substances
such as lead in drinking water or asbestos.
Due Diligence
The purpose of the due diligence process is to
determine the financial viability and extent of
legal risk related to a particular brownfields
project. The concept of financial viability can be
explored from two perspectives, the marketability
of the intended redevelopment use and the
accuracy of the financial analysis for
redevelopment work. Legal risk is determined
through a legal liability analysis. Exhibit 3-3
represents the three-stage due diligence process.
Market Analysis
To gain an understanding of the marketability of
any given project, it is critical to relate envisioned
use(s) of a redeveloped brownfields site to the
state and local communities in which it is located.
Knowing the role of the projected use of the
redevelopment project in the larger picture of
economic and social trends helps the planner
determine the likelihood of the project's success.
For example, many metropolitan areas are
adopting a profile of economic activity that
parallels the profile of the Detroit area dominated
by the auto manufacturing industry. New York,
Northern Virginia and Washington, for example,
are becoming known as telecommunications hubs.
(Brownfields Redevelopment: A Guidebook for
Local Governments & Communities, International
City/County Management Association, 1997)
Ohio is asserting itself as a plastics research and
development center, and even smaller
communities, such as Frederick, Maryland, a
growing center for biomedical research and
technology are marketing themselves with a
specific economic niche in mind.
The benefits of co-locating similar and/or
complementary business activities can be seen in
business and industrial parks, where collaboration
occurs in such areas as facility use, joint business
ventures, employee support services such as on-
site childcare, waste recycling and disposal, and
others. For the brownfields redevelopment
planner, this contextual information provides
opportunities for creative thinking and direction
for collaborative planning related to various
possible uses for a particular site and their
likelihood of success.
The long-term zoning plan of the jurisdiction in
which the brownfields site is located provides an
important source of information. Location of
existing and planned transportation systems is a
key question for any redevelopment activity.
Observing the site's proximity to other amenities
will flesh out the picture of the attraction potential
for any given use.
16
-------
Market Analysis
Determine the market viability of the project by:
> Developing and analyzing the community profile to assess
public consensus for the market viability of the project
> Identifying economic trends that may influence the project
at various levels or scales
+ Determining possible marketting strategies
> Defining the target market
* Observing proximity to amenities for location attractions
and value
> Assessing historic characteristics of the site that may
influence the project
Financial Analysis
Assess the financial risks of the prooject by:
* Estimating cost of engineering, zoning, environmental
consultant, legal ownership, taxation, and risk management
> Estimating property values before and after project
» Determining affordability, financing potential and services
* Identifying lending institutions and other funding
mechanisms
> Understanding projected investment return and strategy
Legal Liability Analysis
Minimize the legal liability of the project by:
> Reviewing the municipal planning and zoning ordinances to
determine requirements, options, limitations on uses, and
need for variances
> Clarifying property ownership and owner cooperation
> Assessing the political climate of the community and the
political context of the stakeholders
* Reviewing federal and local environmental requirements to
assess not only risks, but ongoing regulatory/permitting
requirements
> Evaluating need and availability for environmental insurance
policies that can be streamlined to satisfy a wide range of
issues
> Ensuring that historical liability insurance policies have been
retained
> Evaluating federal and local financial and/or tax incentives
> Understanding tax implications (deducibility or
capitalization) of environmental remediation costs
Exhibit 3-2. Flow Chart of the Due Diligence Process
17
-------
Assessing the historic characteristics of the site
that may influence the project is an important
consideration at the neighborhood level. Gaining
an understanding of the historic significance of a
particular building might lead the community
developer toward rehabilitation, rather than new
construction on the site. Sensitivity regarding
local affinities toward existing structures can go
far to win a community's support of a
redevelopment project.
Understanding what exists and what is planned
provides part of the marketability picture.
Particularly for smaller brownfields projects,
knowing what is missing from the local
community fabric can be an equally important
aspect of the market analysis. Whether the "hub"
of the area's economic life is light industry or an
office complex or a recreational facility, numerous
other services are needed to support the fabric of
community. Restaurants and delicatessens, for
instance, complement many larger, more central
attractions, as do many other retail, service and
recreational endeavors. A survey of local
residents will inform the planner of local needs.
Financial Analysis
The goal of a financial analysis is to assess the
financial risks of the redevelopment project. A
Phase I Site Assessment will give the planner
some indication of the possible extent of
environmental contamination to the site.
Financial information continues to unfold with a
Phase II Site Investigation. The process of
establishing remedial goals and screening
remedial alternatives requires an understanding of
associated costs. Throughout these processes
increasingly specific cost information informs the
planner's decision-making process. The planner's
financial analysis should, therefore, serve as an
ongoing "conversation" with development plans,
providing an informed basis for the planner to
determine whether or not to pursue the project.
Ultimately the plan for remediation and use
should contain as few financial unknowns as
possible.
While costs related to the environmental aspects
of the project need to be considered throughout
the process, other cost information is also critical,
including the price of purchase and establishment
of legal ownership of the site, planning costs,
engineering and architectural costs, hurdling
zoning issues, environmental consultation,
taxation, infrastructure upgrades, and legal
consultation and insurance to help mitigate and
manage associated risks.
In a property development initiative, where "time
is money," scheduling is a critical factor
influencing the financial feasibility of any
development project. The timeframe over which
to project costs, the expected turnaround time for
attaining necessary permit approvals, and the
schedule for site assessment, site investigation and
actual cleanup of the site, are some aspects of the
overall schedule of the project. Throughout the
life of the project, the questions of, "how much
will it cost," and, "how long will it take," must be
tracked as key interacting variables.
Financing brownfields redevelopment projects
presents unique difficulties. Many property
purchase transactions use the proposed purchase
as collateral for financing, depending upon an
appraiser's estimate of the property's current and
projected value. In the case of a brownfields site,
however, a lending institution is likely to hesitate
or simply close the door on such an arrangement
due to the uncertain value and limited resale
potential of the property. Another problem that
the developer may face in seeking financing is that
banks fear the risk of additional contamination
that might be discovered later in the development
process, such as an underground plume of
groundwater contamination that travels
unexpectedly into a neighboring property.
Finally, though recent legislative changes may
soften these concerns, many banks fear that their
connection with a brownfields project will put
them in the "chain of title" and make them
potentially liable for cleanup costs (Brownfields
Redevelopment: A Guidebook for Local
Governments & Communities, International
City/County Management Association, 1997).
18
-------
A local appraiser can assist with estimation of
property values before and after completion of the
project, as well as evaluation of resale potential.
Some of the more notable brownfields
redevelopment successes have been financed
through consortiums of lenders who agree to
spread the risk. Public/private financing
partnerships may also be organized to finance
brownfields redevelopment through grants, loans,
loan guarantees, or bonds. Examples of projects
employing unique revenue streams, financing
avenues, and tax incentives related to brownfields
redevelopment are available in Lessons from the
Field, Unlocking Economic Potential with an
Environmental Key, by Edith Perrer, Northeast
Midwest Institute, 1997. Certain states, such as
New Jersey, have placed a high priority on
brownfields redevelopment, and are dedicating
significant state funding to support such
initiatives. By contacting the appropriate state
department of environmental protection,
developers can learn about opportunities related to
their particular proposal.
Legal Liability Analysis
The purpose of legal analysis is to minimize the
legal liability associated with the redevelopment
process. The application and parameters of
zoning ordinances, as well as options and
limitations on use need to be clear to the
developer. The need for a zoning variance and the
political climate regarding granting of variances
can be generally ascertained through discussions
with the local real estate community. Legal
counsel can help the developer clarify property
ownership, and any legal encumbrances on the
property, e.g. rights-of-way, easements. An
environmental attorney can also assist the
planner/developer to identify applicable regulatory
and permitting requirements, as well as offer
general predictions regarding the time frames for
attaining these milestones throughout the
development process. All of the above legal
concerns are relevant to any land purchase.
Special legal concerns arise from the process of
redeveloping a brownfields site. Those concerns
include reviewing federal and local environmental
requirements to assess not only risks, but ongoing
regulatory/permitting requirements. In recent
years, several changes have occurred in the law
defining liability related to brownfields site
contamination and cleanup. New legislation has
generally been directed to mitigating the strict
assignment of liability established by the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or
"Superfund"), enacted by Congress in 1980.
While CERCLA has had numerous positive
effects, it also represents barriers to redeveloping
brownfields, most importantly the unknown
liability costs related to uncertainty over the extent
of contamination present at a site. Several
successful CERCLA liability defenses have
evolved and the EPA has reformed its
administrative policy in support of increased
brownfields redevelopment. In addition to
legislative attempts to deal with the disincentives
created by CERCLA, most states have developed
Voluntary Cleanup or similar Programs with
liability assurances documented in agreements
with the EPA (Brownfields Redevelopment: A
Guidebook for Local Governments &
Communities, International City/County
Management Association, 1997).
Another opportunity for risk protection for the
developer is environmental insurance. Evaluation
of the need and availability of environmental
insurance policies that can be streamlined to
satisfy a wide range of issues should be part of the
analysis of legal liability. Understanding whether
historical insurance policies have been retained, as
well as the applicability of such policies, is also a
dimension of the legal analysis.
Understanding tax implications, including
deductibility or capitalization of environmental
remediation costs, is a feature of legal liability
analysis. Also, federal, state or local tax or other
financial incentives may be available to support
the developer's financing capacity.
19
-------
Understanding the appropriateness of institutional
controls is important in process of Brownfields
Redevelopment. The use of zoning restrictions,
deed restrictions may be important to ensure the
future uses of the land are planned with full
knowledge of the history of the site.
Conclusion
If the Phase I site assessment and due diligence
adequately informs state and local officials,
planners, community representatives, and other
stakeholders that no contamination exists at the
site, or that contamination is so minimal that it
does not pose a health or environmental risk, those
involved may decide that adequate site assessment
has been accomplished and the process of
redevelopment may proceed.
In some cases where evidence of contamination
exists, stakeholders may decide that enough
information is available from the site assessment
and due diligence to characterize the site and
determine an appropriate approach for site
cleanup of the contamination. In other cases,
stakeholders may decide that additional testing is
warranted, and a Phase n site investigation should
be conducted, as described in the next chapter.
20
-------
Chapter 4
Phase II Site Investigation
Background
Data collected during the Phase I site assessment
may conclude that contaminant(s) exist at the site
and/or that further study is necessary to determine
the extent of contaminants. The purpose of a
Phase II site investigation is to give planners and
decision-makers objective and credible data about
the contamination at a brownfields site to help
them develop an appropriate contaminant
management strategy. A site investigation is
typically conducted by an environmental
professional. This process evaluates the following
types of data:
* Types of contamination present;
» Cleanup and reuse goals;
* Length of time required to reach cleanup
goals;
» Post-treatment care needed; and
Costs.
A site investigation involves setting appropriate
data quality goals based upon brownfields
redevelopment goals, using appropriate screening
levels for the contaminants, and conducting
environmental sampling and analysis.
Data gathering in a site investigation may
typically include soil, water, and air sampling to
identify the types, quantity, and extent of
contamination in these various environmental
media. The types of data used in a site
investigation can vary from compiling existing site
data (if adequate), to conducting limited sampling
of the site, to mounting an extensive
contaminant-specific or site-specific sampling
effort. Planners should use knowledge of past
facility operations whenever possible to focus the
site evaluation on those process areas where
pollutants were stored, handled, used, or disposed.
These will be the areas where potential
contamination will be most readily identified.
Generally, to minimize costs, a site investigation
begins with limited sampling (assuming readily
Perform Phase I
Site Assessment
and Due Diligence
Perform
Phase II Site
Investigation
Evaluate
Remedial
Alternatives
Develop
Remedy
Implementation
Plan
Remedy
Implementation
available data does not adequately characterize the
type and extent of contamination on the site) and
proceed to more comprehensive sampling if
needed (e.g., if the initial sampling could not
identify the geographical limits of contamination).
Exhibit 4-1 shows a flow chart of the site
investigation process.
Various environmental companies provide site
investigation services. Additional information
regarding selection of a site investigation service
can be found in Assessing Contractor Capabilities
for Streamlined Site Investigations (EPA/542-R-
00-001, January 2000).
21
-------
Set Data Quality Objectives (DQO)
DQOs are qualitative and quantitative statements
specified to ensure that data of known and appropriate
quality are obtained. The DQO process is a series of
planning steps, typically as follows:
* State the problem
> Identify the decision
> Identify inputs to the decision
> Define the study boundaries
> Develop a decision rule
> Specify limits on decision errors
Establish Screening Levels
Establish an appropriate set of screening levels for
contaminants in soil, water, and/or air using an
appropriate risk-based method, such as:
» EPA Soil Screening Guidance (EPA/R-96/128)
> Generic screening levels developed by states for
industrial and residential use
Conduct Environmental Sampling and
Analysis
Conduct environmental sampling and analysis.
Typically Site Investigation begins with limited
sampling, leading to a more comprehensive effort.
Sampling and analysis considerations include:
> A screening analysis tests for broad classes of
contaminants, while a contaminant-specific analysis
provides a more accurate, but more expensive,
assessment
> A field analysis provides immediate results and
increased sampling flexibility, while laboratory
analysis provides greater accuracy and specificity
Write Report
Write report to document sampling findings. The report
should discuss the DQOs, methodologies, limitations,
and possible cleanup technologies and goals
Exhibit 4-1. Flow Chart of the Site Investigation Process
22
-------
This chapter provides a general approach to site
evaluation; planners and decision-makers should
expand and refine this approach for site-specific
use at their own facilities.
Setting Data Quality Objectives
While it is not easy, and probably impossible, to
completely characterize the contamination at a
site, decisions still have to be made. EPA's Data
Quality Objectives (DQO) process provides a
framework to make decisions under circumstances
of data uncertainty. The DQO process uses a
systematic approach that defines the purpose,
scope, and quality requirements for the data
collection effort. The DQO process consists of
the following seven steps (EPA 2000):
* State the problem. Summarize the
contamination problem that will require new
environmental data, and identify the resources
available to resolve the problem and to
develop the conceptual site model.
* Identify the decision that requires new
environmental data to address the
contamination problem.
* Identify the inputs to the decision. Identify the
information needed to support the decision
and specify which inputs require new
environmental measurements.
* Define the study boundaries. Specify the
spatial and temporal aspect of the
environmental media that the data must
represent to support the decision.
* Develop a decision rule. Develop a logical "if
...then ..." statement that defines the
conditions that would cause the decision-
maker to choose among alternative actions.
* Specify limits on decision errors. Specify the
decision maker's acceptable limits on decision
errors, which are used to establish
performance goals for limiting uncertainty in
the data.
* Optimize the design for obtaining data.
Identify the most resource-effective sampling
and analysis design for generating data that
are expected to satisfy the DQOs.
Please refer to Data Quality Objectives Process
for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations (EPA
2000) for more detailed information on the DQO
process.
Establish Screening Levels
During the initial stages of a site investigation,
planners should establish an appropriate set of
screening levels for contaminants in soil, water,
and/or air. Screening levels are risk-based
benchmarks that represent concentrations of
chemicals in environmental media that do not pose
an unacceptable risk. Sample analyses of soils,
water, and air at the facility can be compared with
these benchmarks. If onsite contaminant levels
exceed the screening levels, further investigation
will be needed to determine if and to what extent
cleanup is appropriate. If contaminant
concentrations are below the screening level, for
the intended use, no action is required.
Some states have developed generic screening
levels (e.g., for industrial and residential use), and
EPA's Soil Screening Guidance
(EPA/540/R-96/128) includes generic screening
levels for many contaminants. Generic screening
levels may not account for site-specific factors
that affect the concentration or migration of
contaminants. Alternatively, screening levels can
be developed using site-specific factors. While
site-specific screening levels can more effectively
incorporate elements unique to the site,
developing site-specific standards is a time- and
resource-intensive process. Planners should
contact their state environmental offices and/or
EPA regional offices for assistance in using
screening levels and in developing site-specific
screening levels.
Risk-based screening levels are based on
calculations and models that determine the
likelihood that exposure of a particular organism
or plant to a particular level of a contaminant
would result in a certain adverse effect.
Risk-based screening levels have been developed
for tap water, ambient air, fish, and soil. Some
states or EPA regions also use regional
background levels (or ranges) of contaminants in
23
-------
soil and Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in
water established under the Safe Drinking Water
Act as screening levels for some chemicals. In
addition, some states and/or EPA regional offices
have developed equations for converting soil
screening levels to comparative levels for the
analysis of air and groundwater.
When a contaminant concentration exceeds a
screening level, further site assessment activities
(such as sampling the site at strategic locations
and/or performing more detailed analysis) are
needed to determine whether: (1) the
concentration of the contaminant is relatively low
and/or the extent of contamination is small and
does not warrant cleanup for that particular
chemical, or (2) the concentration or extent of
contamination is high, and that site cleanup is
needed (See Chapter 5, Contaminant
Management, for more information.)
Using EPA's soil screening guidance for an initial
brownfields investigation may be beneficial if no
industrial screening levels are available or if the
site may be used for residential purposes.
However, it should be noted that EPA's soil
screening guidance was designed for high-risk,
Tier I sites, rather than brownfields, and
conservatively assumes that future reuse will be
residential. Using this guidance for a non-
residential land use project could result in overly
conservative screening levels.
In addition to screening levels, EPA regional
offices and some states have developed cleanup
levels, known as corrective action levels. If
contaminant concentrations are above corrective
action levels, a cleanup action must be pursued.
Screening levels should not be confused with
corrective action levels; Chapter 5, Contaminant
Management, provides more information on
corrective action levels.
Conduct Environmental Sampling and
Data Analysis
Environmental sampling and data analysis are
integral parts of a site investigation process. Many
different technologies are available to perform
these activities, as discussed below.
Levels of Sampling and Analysis
There are two levels of sampling and analysis:
screening and contaminant-specific. Planners are
likely to use both levels at different stages of the
site investigation.
* Screening. Screening sampling and analysis
use relatively low-cost technologies to take a
limited number of samples at the most likely
points of contamination and analyze them for
a limited number of parameters. Screening
analyses often test only for broad classes of
contaminants, such as total petroleum
hydrocarbons, rather than for specific
contaminants, such as benzene or toluene.
Screening is used to narrow the range of areas
of potential contamination and reduce the
number of samples requiring further, more
costly, analysis. Screening is generally
performed on site, with a small percentage of
samples (e.g., generally 10 percent) submitted
to a state-approved laboratory for a full
organic and inorganic screening analysis to
validate or clarify the results obtained.
Some geophysical methods are used in site
assessments because they are noninvasive
(i.e., do not disturb environmental media as
sampling does). Geophysical methods are
commonly used to detect underground objects
that might exist at a site, such as USTs, dry
wells, and drums. The two most common and
cost-effective technologies used in
geophysical surveys are ground-penetrating
radar and electromagnetics. Table C-l in
Appendix C contains an overview of
geophysical methods. For more information
on screening (including geophysical) methods,
please refer to Subsurface Characterization
and Monitoring Techniques: A Desk
Reference Guide (EPA/625/R-93003a).
* Contaminant-specific. For a more in-depth
understanding of contamination at a site (e.g.,
when screening data are not detailed enough),
24
-------
it may be necessary to analyze samples for
specific contaminants. With contaminant-specific
sampling and analysis, the number of parameters
analyzed is much greater than for screening-level
sampling, and analysis includes more accurate,
higher-cost field and laboratory methods. Samples
are sent to a state-approved laboratory to be tested
under rigorous protocols to ensure high-quality
results. Such analyses may take several weeks. For
some contaminants, innovative field technologies
are as capable, or nearly as capable, of achieving
the accuracy of laboratory technologies, which
allows for a rapid turnaround of the results. The
principal benefit of contaminant-specific analysis
is the high quality and specificity of the analytical
results.
Elizabeth, New Jersey
A Brownfields Success Story:
ONEJ Corporation, the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection,
and the New Jersey Economic Developmenl
Authority worked together to cleanup a 166-
acre landfill site that is now the Jersey
Gardens Mall. The mall has resulted in $21S
million in private investments and an
estimated $4 to $5 million in new annual tax
revenues. The mall can also be credited
with creating
New Jersey Brownfields Program. Office of State
Planning. New Jersey Brownfields A New Opportunity,
June 2000.
Increasing the Certainty of Sampling Results
Statistical Sampling Plan. Statistical sampling
plans use statistical principles to determine the
number of samples needed to accurately represent
the contamination present. With the statistical
sampling method, samples are usually analyzed
with highly accurate laboratory or field
technologies, which increase costs and take
additional time. Using this approach, planners can
consult with regulators and determine in advance
specific measures of allowable uncertainty (e.g.,
an 80 percent level of confidence with a 25
percent allowable error).
Use of Lower-cost Technologies with Higher
Detection Limits to Collect a Greater Number of
Samples. This approach provides a more
comprehensive picture of contamination at the
site, but with less detail regarding the specific
contamination. Such an approach would not be
recommended to identify the extent of
contamination by a specific contaminant, such as
benzene, but may be an excellent approach for
defining the extent of contamination by total
organic compounds with a strong degree of
certainty.
Site Investigation Technologies
This section discusses the differences between
using field and laboratory technologies and
provides an overview of applicable site
investigation technologies. In recent years, several
innovative technologies that have been field-tested
and applied to hazardous waste problems have
emerged. In many cases, innovative technologies
may cost less than conventional techniques and
can successfully provide the needed data.
Operating conditions may affect the cost and
effectiveness of individual technologies.
Field versus Laboratory Analysis
The principal advantages of performing field
sampling and field analysis are that results are
immediately available and more samples can be
taken during the same sampling event; also,
sampling locations can be adjusted immediately to
clarify the first round of sampling results, if
warranted. This approach may reduce costs
associated with conducting additional sampling
events after receipt of laboratory analysis. Field
assessment methods have improved significantly
over recent years; however, while many field
technologies may be comparable to laboratory
technologies, some field technologies may not
detect contamination at levels as low as laboratory
methods, and may not be contaminant-specific. To
validate the field results or to gain more
information on specific contaminants, a small
percentage of the samples can be sent for
25
-------
laboratory analysis. The choice of sampling and
analytical procedures should be based on Data
Quality Objectives established earlier in the
process, which determine the quality (e.g.,
precision, level of detection) of the data needed to
adequately evaluate site conditions and identify
appropriate cleanup technologies.
Sample Collection Technologies
Sample collection technologies vary widely,
depending on the medium being sampled and the
type of analysis required, based on the Data
Quality Objectives (see the section on this subject
earlier in this document). For example, soil
samples are generally collected using spoons,
scoops, and shovels, while subsurface sampling is
more complex. The selection of a subsurface
sample collection technology depends on the
subsurface conditions (e.g., consolidated
materials, bedrock), the required sampling depth
and level of analysis, and the extent of sampling
anticipated. If subsequent sampling efforts are
likely, installing semipermanent well casings with
a well-drilling rig may be appropriate. If limited
sampling is expected, direct push methods, such as
cone penetrometers, may be more cost-effective.
The types of contaminants will also play a key
role in the selection of sampling methods, devices,
containers, and preservation techniques.
Groundwater contamination should be assessed in
all areas, particularly where solvents or acids have
been used. Solvents can be very mobile in
subsurface soils; and acids, such as those used in
finishing operations, increase the mobility of
metal compounds. Groundwater samples should
be taken at and below the water table in the
surficial aquifer. Cone penetrometer technology
is a cost-effective approach for collecting these
samples. The samples then can be screened for
contaminants using field methods such as:
* pH meters to screen for the presence of
acids;
» Colormetric tubes to screen for volatile
organics; and
» X-ray fluorescence to screen for metals.
Tables C-2 through C-4 in Appendix C list more
information on various sample collection
technologies, including a comparison of detection
limits and costs.
The following chapter describes various
contaminant management strategies that are
available to the developer.
26
-------
Chapter 5
Site Cleanup
Background
The purpose of this chapter is to help planners
and decision-makers select an appropriate
remedial alternative. This section contains
information on developing a contaminant
management plan and discusses various
contaminant management options, from
institutional controls and containment strategies,
through cleanup technologies. Finally, this
chapter provides an overview of
post-construction issues that planners and
decision-makers need to consider when selecting
alternatives.
The principal factors that will influence the
selection of a cleanup technology include:
* Types of contamination present;
* Cleanup and reuse goals;
* Length of time required to reach cleanup
goals;
* Post-treatment care needed; and
* Budget.
The selection of appropriate remedy options often
involves tradeoffs, particularly between time and
cost. A companion document, Cost Estimating
Tools and Resources for Addressing Sites Under
the Brownfields Initiative (EPA/625/R-99/001
April 1999), provides information on cost factors
and developing cost estimates. In general, the
more intensive the cleanup approach, the more
quickly the contamination will be mitigated and
the more costly the effort. In the case of
brownfields cleanup, both time and cost can be
major concerns, considering the planner's desire
to return the facility to reuse as quickly as
possible. Thus, the planner may wish to explore a
number of options and weigh carefully the costs
and benefits of each.
Selection of remedial alternatives is also likely to
involve the input of remediation professionals.
Perform Phase I
Site Assessment
and Due Diligence
Perform
Phase II Site
Investigation
Evaluate
Remedial
Alternatives
Develop
Remedy
Implementation
Plan
Remedy
Implementation
The overview of technologies cited in this chapter
provides the planner with a framework for
seeking, interpreting, and evaluating professional
input.
The intended use of the brownfields site will drive
the level of cleanup needed to make the site safe
for redevelopment and reuse. Brownfields sites
are by definition not Superfund sites; that is,
brownfields sites usually have lower levels of
contamination present and, therefore, generally
require less extensive cleanup efforts than
27
-------
Superfund sites. Nevertheless, all potential
pathways of exposure, based on the intended reuse
of the site, must be addressed in the site
assessment and cleanup; if no pathways of
exposure exist, less cleanup (or possibly none)
may be required.
Some regional EPA and state offices have
developed corrective action levels (CALs) for
different chemicals, which may serve as
guidelines or legal requirements for cleanups. It is
important to understand that screening levels
(discussed in "Performing a Phase n Site
Assessment" above) are different from cleanup (or
corrective action) levels. Screening levels
indicate whether further site investigation is
warranted for a particular contaminant. CALs
indicate whether cleanup action is needed and
how extensive it needs to be. Planners should
check with their state environmental office for
guidance and/or requirements for CALs.
Evaluate Remedial Alternatives
If the site investigation shows that there is an
unacceptable level of contamination, the problem
will have to be remedied. Exhibit 5-1 shows a
flow chart of the remedial alternative evaluation
process.
Establishing Remedial Goals
The first step in evaluating remedial alternatives is
to articulate the remedial goals. Remedial goals
relate very specifically to the intended use of the
redeveloped site. A property to be used for a
plastics factory may not need to be cleaned up to
the same level as a site that will be used a school.
Future land use holds the key to practical
brownfields redevelopment plans. Knowledge of
federal, state, local or tribal requirements helps to
ensure realistic assumptions. Community
surroundings, as seen through a visual inspection
will help provide a context for future land uses,
though many large brownfields redevelopment
projects have provided the catalyst to overall
neighborhood refurbishment. Available funding
and timeframe for the project are also very
significant factors in defining remedial goals.
Developing a List of Options
Developing a list of remedial options may begin
with a literature search of existing technologies,
many of which are listed in Exhibit D-l of this
document. Analysis of technical information on
technology applicability requires a professional
remediation specialist. However, general
information is provided below for the community
planner/developer in order to support informed
interaction with the remediation professional.
Remedial alternatives fall under three categories,
institutional controls, containment technologies,
and cleanup technologies. In many cases, the final
remedial strategy will involve aspects of all three
approaches.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls are mechanisms that help
control the current and future use of, and access
to, a site. They are established, in the case of
brownfields, to protect people from possible
contamination. Institutional controls can range
from a security fence prohibiting access to certain
portions of the site to deed restrictions imposed on
the future use of the facility. If the overall
management approach does not include the
complete cleanup of the facility (i.e., the complete
removal or destruction of onsite contamination), a
deed restriction will likely be required that clearly
states that hazardous waste is being left in place
within the site boundaries. Many state
brownfields programs include institutional
controls.
Containment Technologies
The purpose of containment is to reduce the
potential for offsite migration of contaminants and
possible subsequent exposure to people and the
environment. Containment technologies include
engineered barriers such as caps and liners for
landfills, slurry walls, and hydraulic containment.
Often, soils contaminated with metals can be
solidified by mixing them with cement-like
materials, and the resulting stabilized material can
be stored on site in a landfill. Like institutional
controls, containment technologies do not remove
the contamination! but rather mitigate potential
risk by limiting access to it.
28
-------
L
fisf
1
'
Establish Remedial Goals
Determine an appropriate and feasible remedy level
and compile preliminary list of potential contaminant
management strategies, based on:
> Federal, state, local, or tribal requirements
* Community surroundings
> Available funding
> Timeframe
|
Develop List of Options
Compile list of potential remedial alternatives by:
> Conducting literature search of existing technologies
> Analyzing technical information on technology
applicability
1
Initial Screening of Options
Narrow the list of potential remedial alternatives by:
> Networking with other brownfields stakeholders
> Identifying the data needed to support evaluation of
options
> Evaluating the options by assessing toxicity levels,
exposure pathways, risk, future land use, and
financial considerations
» Analyzing the applicability of an option to the
contamination.
|
Select Best Remedial Option
Select appropriate remedial option by:
* Integrating management alternatives with reuse
alternatives to identify potential constraints on
reuse, considering time schedules, cost, and risk
factors
> Balancing risk minimization with redevelopment
goals, future uses, and community needs
* Communicating information about the proposed
option to brownfields stakeholders
Exhibit 5-1. Flow Chart of the Remedial Alternative Evaluation Process
29
-------
For example, if contamination is found underneath
the floor slab at a facility, leaving the
contaminated materials in place and repairing any
damage to the floor slab may be justified. The
likelihood that such an approach will be
acceptable to regulators depends on whether
potential risk can be mitigated and managed
effectively over the long term. In determining
whether containment is feasible, planners should
consider:
^" Depth to groundwater. Planners should be
prepared to prove to regulators that
groundwater levels will not rise and contact
contaminated soils.
^" Soil types. If contaminants are left in place,
native soils will be an important
consideration. Sandy or gravelly soils are
highly porous, which enable contaminants to
migrate easily. Clay and fine silty soils
provide a much better barrier.
^" Surface water control. Planners should be
prepared to prove to regulators that
stormwater cannot infiltrate the floor slab and
flush the contaminants downward.
^ Volatilization of organic contaminants.
Regulators are likely to require that air
monitors be placed inside the building to
monitor the level of organics that may be
escaping upward through the floor and drains.
Cleanup Technologies
Cleanup technologies may be required to remove
or destroy onsite contamination if regulators are
unwilling to accept the levels of contamination
present or if the types of contamination are not
conducive to the use of institutional controls or
containment technologies. Cleanup technologies
fall broadly into two categoriesex situ and in
situ, as described below.
^" Ex Situ. An ex situ technology treats
contaminated materials after they have been
removed and transported to another location.
After treatment, if the remaining materials, or
residuals, meet cleanup goals, they can be
returned to the site. If the residuals do not yet
meet cleanup goals, they can be subjected to
further treatment, contained on site, or moved
to another location for storage or further
treatment. A cost-effective approach to
cleaning up a brownfields site may be the
partial treatment of contaminated soils or
groundwater, followed by containment,
storage, or further treatment off site.
^" In Situ. In situ technologies treat
contamination in place and are often
innovative technologies. Examples of in situ
technologies include bioremediation, soil
flushing, oxygen-releasing compounds, air
sparging, and treatment walls. In some cases,
in situ technologies are feasible, cost-effective
choices for the types of contamination that are
likely at brownfields sites. Planners, however,
do need to be aware that cleanup with in situ
technologies is likely to take longer than with
ex situ technologies. Several innovative
technologies are available to address soils and
groundwater contaminated with organics, such
as solvents and some PAHs, which are
common problems at brownfields sites.
Maintenance requirements associated with in situ
technologies depend on the technology used and
vary widely in both effort and cost. For example,
containment technologies such as caps and liners
will require regular maintenance, such as
maintaining the vegetative cover and performing
periodic inspections to ensure the long-term
integrity of the cover system. Groundwater
treatment systems will require varying levels of
post-cleanup care and verification testing. If an in
situ system is in use at the site, it will require
regular operations support and periodic
maintenance to ensure that the system is operating
as designed.
Table D-l in Appendix D presents a
comprehensive list of various cleanup
technologies that may be appropriate, based on
their capital and operating costs, for use at
brownfields sites. In addition to more
conventional technologies, a number of innovative
technology options are listed.
30
-------
Screening and Selection of Best Remedial
Option
When screening management approaches at
brownfields sites, planners and decision-makers
should consider the following:
>- Cleanup approaches can be formulated for
specific contaminant types; however, different
contaminant types are likely to be found
together at brownfields sites, and some
contaminants can interfere with certain
cleanup techniques directed at other
contaminant types.
>- The large site areas typical of some
brownfields can be a great asset during
cleanup because they facilitate the use of
land-based cleanup techniques such as
landfilling, landfarming, solidification, and
composting.
^" Consolidating similar contaminant materials at
one location and implementing a single,
large-volume cleanup approach is often more
effective than using several similar
approaches in different areas of the site. At
iron and steel sites for example, metals
contamination from the blast furnace, the
ironmaking area, and the finishing shops can
be consolidated and cleaned up using
solidification/stabilization techniques, with
the residual placed in an appropriately
designed landfill with an engineered cap.
Planners should investigate the likelihood that
such consolidation may require prior
regulatory approval.
^" Some mixed contamination may require
multicomponent treatment trains for cleanup.
A cost-effective solution might be to combine
consolidation and treatment technologies with
containment where appropriate. For example,
soil washing techniques can be used to treat a
mixed soil matrix contaminated with metals
compounds (which may need further
stabilization) and PAHs; the soil can then be
placed in a landfill. Any remaining
contaminated soils may be subjected to
chemical dehalogenation to destroy the
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
contamination.
^" Groundwater contamination may contain
multiple constituents, including solvents,
metals, and PAHs. If this is the case, no in situ
technologies can address all contaminants;
instead, groundwater must be extracted and
treated. The treatment train is likely to be
comprised of a chemical precipitation unit to
remove the metals compounds and an air
stripper to remove the organic contaminants.
Selection of the best remedial option results from
integrating management alternatives with reuse
alternatives to identify potential constraints on
reuse. Time schedules, cost, and risk factors must
be considered. Risk minimization is balanced
against redevelopment goals, future uses, and
community needs. The process of weighing
alternatives rarely results in a plan without
compromises in one or several directions.
Components of the Presumptive Remedy:
Source Containment
Landfill cap;
Source area ground-water control to
obtain plume;
Leachate collection and treatment;
and/or
Institutional controls to supplement
engineering
USEPA, 1993.
Develop Remedy Implementation Plan
The remedy implementation plan, as developed by
a professional environmental engineer, describes
the approach that will be used to contain and clean
up contamination. In developing this plan,
planners and decision-makers should incorporate
stakeholder concerns and consider a range of
possible options, with the intent of identifying the
most cost-effective approaches for cleaning up the
site, considering time and cost concerns. The
31
-------
remedy implementation plan should include the
following elements:
>- A clear delineation of environmental concerns
at the site. Areas should be discussed
separately if the management approach for
one area is different than that for other areas
of the site. Clear documentation of existing
conditions at the site and a summarized
assessment of the nature and scope of
contamination should be included.
>- A recommended management approach for
each environmental concern that takes into
account expected land reuse plans and the
adequacy of the technology selected.
^" A cost estimate that reflects both expected
capital and operating/maintenance costs.
^" Post-construction maintenance requirements
for the recommended approach.
^" A discussion of the assumptions made to
support the recommended management
approach, as well as the limitations of the
approach.
Planners and decision-makers can use the
framework developed during the initial site
evaluation (see the section on "Site Assessment")
and the controls and technologies described below
to compare the effectiveness of the least costly
approaches for meeting the required management
goals established in the Data Quality Objectives.
These goals should be established at levels that
are consistent with the expected reuse plans.
Exhibit 5-2 shows the remedy implementation
plan development process.
A remedy implementation plan should involve
stakeholders in the community in the development
of the plan. Some examples of various
stakeholders are:
^" Industry;
^" City, county, state and federal governments;
>- Community groups, residents and leaders;
>- Developers and other private businesses;
>- Banks and lenders;
>- Environmental groups;
^" Educational institutes;
>- Community development organizations;
>- Environmental justice advocates;
>- Communities of color and low-income; and
>- Environmental regulatory agencies.
Community-based organizations represent a wide
range of issues, from environmental concerns to
housing issues to economic development. These
groups can often be helpful in educating planners
and decision-makers in the community about local
brownfields sites, which can contribute to
successful brownfields site assessment and
cleanup activities. In addition, state voluntary
cleanup programs require that local communities
be adequately informed about brownfields cleanup
activities. Planners can contact the local Chamber
of Commerce, local philanthropic organizations,
local service organizations, and neighborhood
committees for community input. Representatives
from EPA regional offices and state and local
environmental groups may be able to supply
relevant information and identify other
appropriate community organizations. Involving
the local community in brownfields projects is a
key component in the success of such projects.
Remedy Implementation
Many of the management technologies that leave
contamination onsite, either in containment
systems or because of the long periods required to
reach management goals, will require long-term
maintenance and possibly operation. If waste is
left onsite, regulators will likely require long-term
monitoring of applicable media (e.g., soil, water,
and/or air) to ensure that the management
approach selected is continuing to function as
planned (e.g., residual contamination, if any,
remains at acceptable levels and is not migrating).
If long-term monitoring is required (e.g., by the
state) periodic sampling, analysis, and reporting
requirements will also be involved. Planners and
decision-makers should be aware of these
requirements and provide for them in cleanup
budgets. Post-construction sampling, analysis,
and reporting costs can be substantial and
therefore need to be addressed in cleanup budgets.
32
-------
\
1 11
1
Review Records
Ensure compliance with applicable Federal, state, and
tribal regulatory guidelines by:
> Consulting with appropriate state, local, and tribal
regulatory agencies and including them in the
decisionmaking process as early as possible
> Contacting the EPA regional Brownfields
coordinator to identify and determine the
availability of EPA support Programs
> Identifying all environmental requirements that
must be met
mi
Develop Plan
Develop plan incorporating the selected remedial
alternative. Include the following considerations:
> Schedule for completion of project
> Available funds
> Developers, financiers, construction firms, and local
community concerns
* Procedures for community participation, such as
community advisory boards
> Contingency plans for possible discovery of
additional contaminants
> Implementation of selected management option
Exhibit 5-2. Flow Chart of the Remedy Implementation Plan Development Process
33
-------
Chapter 6
Conclusion
Brownfields redevelopment contributes to the
revitalization of communities across the U.S.
Reuse of these abandoned, contaminated sites
spurs economic growth, builds community pride,
protects public health, and helps maintain our
nation's "greenfields," often at a relatively low
cost. This document in conjunction with the
Generic Guide provide an overview of the
technical methods that can be used to achieve
successful site assessment and cleanup, which are
two key components in the brownfields
redevelopment process.
This landfill site profile provides the technical
information necessary to conduct a successful
brownfields redevelopment. However, each site is
unique and the specific cleanup activities will be
dictated by the site assessment, future use of the
site, budget and time frame.
To avoid problems throughout the process it is
important that stakeholders are involved from the
beginning. Consultation with state and local
environmental officials and community leaders, as
well as careful planning early in the project, will
allow planners to develop the most appropriate
site assessment and cleanup approaches. Planners
should also determine early on if they are likely to
require the assistance of environmental engineers.
A site assessment strategy should be agreeable to
all stakeholders and should address:
>- The type and extent of any contamination
present at the site;
>- The types of data needed to adequately assess
the site;
^" Appropriate sampling and analytical methods
for characterizing contamination; and
>- An acceptable level of data uncertainty .
When used appropriately, the process described in
this document will help to ensure that a good
strategy is developed and implemented effectively.
Once the site has been assessed and stakeholders
agree that cleanup is needed, planners will need to
consider the cleanup options. Many different types
of cleanup technologies are available. The
guidance provided in this document on selecting
appropriate methods directs planners to base
cleanup initiatives on site- and project-specific
conditions. The type and extent of cleanup will
depend in large part on the type and level of
contamination present, reuse goals, and the budget
available. Certain cleanup technologies are used
onsite, while others require offsite treatment.
Also, in certain circumstances, containment of
contamination onsite and the use of institutional
controls may be important components of the
cleanup effort. Finally, planners will need to
include budgetary provisions and plans for
post-cleanup and post-construction care if it is
required at the brownfields site. By developing a
technically sound site assessment and cleanup
approach that is based on site-specific conditions
and addresses the concerns of all project
stakeholders, planners can achieve brownfield
redevelopment and reuse goals effectively and
safely.
34
-------
Appendix A
Acronyms
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
DQO Data Quality Objective
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M Operations and Maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PCP Pentachlorophenol
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SVE Soil Vapor Extraction
SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
TCE Trichloroethylene
TIO Technology Innovation Office
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
UST Underground Storage Tank
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
35
-------
Appendix B
Glossary
Air Sparging In air sparging, air is injected into the
ground below a contaminated area, forming bubbles that
rise and carry trapped and dissolved contaminants to the
surface where they are captured by a soil vapor
extraction system. Air sparging may be a good choice of
treatment technology at sites contaminated with solvents
and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). See also
Volatile Organic Compound.
Air Stripping Air stripping is a treatment method that
removes or "strips" VOCs from contaminated
groundwater or surface water as air is forced through
the water, causing the compounds to evaporate. See also
Volatile Organic Compound.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
The ASTM sets standards for many services, including
methods of sampling and testing of hazardous waste,
and media contaminated with hazardous waste.
Aquifer An aquifer is an underground rock formation
composed of such materials as sand, soil, or gravel that
can store groundwater and supply it to wells and
springs.
Aromatics Aromatics are organic compounds that
contain 6-carbon ring structures, such as creosote,
toluene, and phenol, that often are found at dry cleaning
and electronic assembly sites.
Baseline Risk Assessment A baseline risk assessment
is an assessment conducted before cleanup activities
begin at a site to identify and evaluate the threat to
human health and the environment. After cleanup has
been completed, the information obtained during a
baseline risk assessment can be used to determine
whether the cleanup levels were reached.
Bedrock Bedrock is the rock that underlies the soil; it
can be permeable or non-permeable. See also Confining
Layer and Creosote.
Bioremediation Bioremediation refers to treatment
processes that use microorganisms (usually naturally
occurring) such as bacteria, yeast, or fungi to break
down hazardous substances into less toxic or nontoxic
substances. Bioremediation can be used to clean up
contaminated soil and water, hi situ bioremediation
treats the contaminated soil or groundwater in the
location in which it is found. For ex situ bioremediation
processes, contaminated soil must be excavated or
groundwater pumped before they can be treated.
Bioventing Bioventing is an in situ cleanup technology
that combines soil vapor extraction methods with
bioremediation. It uses vapor extraction wells that
induce air flow in the subsurface through air injection or
through the use of a vacuum. Bioventing can be
effective in cleaning up releases of petroleum products,
such as gasoline, jet fuels, kerosene, and diesel fuel. See
also Bioremediation.
Borehole A borehole is a hole cut into the ground by
means of a drilling rig.
Borehole Geophysics Borehole geophysics are nuclear
or electric technologies used to identify the physical
characteristics of geologic formations that are
intersected by a borehole.
Brownfields Brownfields sites are abandoned, idled, or
under-used industrial and commercial facilities where
expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or
perceived environmental contamination.
BTEX BTEX is the term used for benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene--volatile aromatic compounds
typically found in petroleum products, such as gasoline
and diesel fuel.
Cadmium Cadmium is a heavy metal that accumulates
in the environment. See also Heavy Metal.
Carbon Adsorption Carbon adsorption is a treatment
method that removes contaminants from groundwater or
surface water as the water is forced through tanks
containing activated carbon.
Chemical Dehalogenation Chemical dehalogenation is
a chemical process that removes halogens (usually
chlorine) from a chemical contaminant, rendering the
contaminant less hazardous. The chemical
dehalogenation process can be applied to common
halogenated contaminants such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins (DDT), and certain
chlorinated pesticides, which may be present in soil and
oils. The treatment time is short, energy requirements
are moderate, and operation and maintenance costs are
relatively low. This technology can be brought to the
site, eliminating the need to transport hazardous wastes.
See also Polychlorinated Biphenyl.
Cleanup Cleanup is the term used for actions taken to
deal with a release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance that could affect humans and/or the
37
-------
environment.
Colorimetric Colorimetric refers to chemical
reaction-based indicators that are used to produce
compound reactions to individual compounds, or
classes of compounds. The reactions, such as visible
color changes or other easily noted indications, are used
to detect and quantify contaminants.
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) CERCLIS is a database that serves as the
official inventory of Superfund hazardous waste sites.
CERCLIS also contains information about all aspects of
hazardous waste sites, from initial discovery to deletion
from the National Priorities List (NPL). The database
also maintains information about planned and actual site
activities and financial information entered by EPA
regional offices. CERCLIS records the targets and
accomplishments of the Superfund program and is used
to report that information to the EPA Administrator,
Congress, and the public. See also National Priorities
List and Superfund.
Confining Layer A confining layer is a geological
formation characterized by low permeability that
inhibits the flow of water. See also Bedrock and
Permeability.
Contaminant A contaminant is any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological substance or matter present
in any media at concentrations that may result in
adverse effects on air, water, or soil.
Data Quality Objective (DQO) DQOs are qualitative
and quantitative statements specified to ensure that data
of known and appropriate quality are obtained. The
DQO process is a series of planning steps, typically
conducted during site assessment and investigation, that
is designed to ensure that the type, quantity, and quality
of environmental data used in decision-making are
appropriate. The DQO process involves a logical,
step-by-step procedure for determining which of the
complex issues affecting a site are the most relevant to
planning a site investigation before any data are
collected.
Disposal Disposal is the final placement or destruction
of toxic, radioactive or other wastes; surplus or banned
pesticides or other chemicals; polluted soils; and drums
containing hazardous materials from removal actions or
accidental release. Disposal may be accomplished
through the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land farming, deep well injection, ocean
dumping, or incineration.
Dual-Phase Extraction Dual-phase extraction is a
technology that extracts contaminants simultaneously
from soils in saturated and unsaturated zones by
applying soil vapor extraction techniques to
contaminants trapped in saturated zone soils.
Electromagnetic (EM) Geophysics EM geophysics
refers to technologies used to detect spatial (lateral and
vertical) differences in subsurface electromagnetic
characteristics. The data collected provide information
about subsurface environments.
Electromagnetic (EM) Induction EM induction is a
geophysical technology used to induce a magnetic field
beneath the earth's surface, which in turn causes a
secondary magnetic field to form around nearby objects
that have conductive properties, such as ferrous and
nonferrous metals. The secondary magnetic field is then
used to detect and measure buried debris.
Emergency Removal An emergency removal is an
action initiated in response to a release of a hazardous
substance that requires on-site activity within hours of a
determination that action is appropriate.
Emerging Technology An emerging technology is an
innovative technology that currently is undergoing
bench-scale testing. During bench-scale testing, a small
version of the technology is built and tested in a
laboratory. If the technology is successful during
bench-scale testing, it is demonstrated on a small scale
at field sites. If the technology is successful at the field
demonstrations, it often will be used full scale at
contaminated waste sites. The technology is continually
improved as it is used and evaluated at different sites.
See also Established Technology and Innovative
Technology.
Engineered Control An engineered control, such as
barriers placed between contamination and the rest of a
site, is a method of managing environmental and health
risks. Engineered controls can be used to limit exposure
pathways.
Established Technology An established technology is
a technology for which cost and performance
information is readily available. Only after a technology
has been used at many different sites and the results
fully documented is that technology considered
established. The most frequently used established
technologies are incineration, solidification and
stabilization, and pump-and-treat technologies for
groundwater. See also Emerging Technology and
Innovative Technology.
Exposure Pathway An exposure pathway is the route
38
-------
of contaminants from the source of contamination to
potential contact with a medium (air, soil, surface water,
or groundwater) that represents a potential threat to
human health or the environment. Determining whether
exposure pathways exist is an essential step in
conducting a baseline risk assessment. See also Baseline
Risk Assessment.
Ex Situ The term ex situ or "moved from its original
place," means excavated or removed.
Filtration Filtration is a treatment process that removes
solid matter from water by passing the water through a
porous medium, such as sand or a manufactured filter.
Flame lonization Detector (FID) An FID is an
instrument often used in conjunction with gas
chromatography to measure the change of signal as
analytes are ionized by a hydrogen-air flame. It also is
used to detect phenols, phthalates, polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH), VOCs, and petroleum
hydrocarbons. See also Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons and
Volatile Organic Compounds.
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy A Fourier
transform infrared spectroscope is an analytical air
monitoring tool that uses a laser system chemically to
identify contaminants.
Fumigant A fumigant is a pesticide that is vaporized to
kill pests. They often are used in buildings and
greenhouses.
Furan Furan is a colorless, volatile liquid compound
used in the synthesis of organic compounds, especially
nylon.
Gas Chromatography Gas chromatography is a
technology used for investigating and assessing soil,
water, and soil gas contamination at a site. It is used for
the analysis of VOCs and semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOC). The technique identifies and
quantifies organic compounds on the basis of molecular
weight, characteristic fragmentation patterns, and
retention time. Recent advances in gas chromatography
considered innovative are portable, weather-proof units
that have self-contained power supplies.
Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) GPR is a
technology that emits pulses of electromagnetic energy
into the ground to measure its reflection and refraction
by subsurface layers and other features, such as buried
debris.
Groundwater Groundwater is the water found beneath
the earth's surface that fills pores between such
materials as sand, soil, or gravel and that often supplies
wells and springs. See also Aquifer.
Hazardous Substance A hazardous substance is any
material that poses a threat to public health or the
environment. Typical hazardous substances are
materials that are toxic, corrosive, ignitable, explosive,
or chemically reactive. If a certain quantity of a
hazardous substance, as established by EPA, is spilled
into the water or otherwise emitted into the
environment, the release must be reported. Under
certain federal legislation, the term excludes petroleum,
crude oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids, or synthetic
gas usable for fuel.
Heavy Metal Heavy metal refers to a group of toxic
metals including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead,
mercury, silver, and zinc. Heavy metals often are
present at industrial sites at which operations have
included battery recycling and metal plating.
High-Frequency Electromagnetic (EM) Sounding
High-frequency EM sounding, the technology used for
non-intrusive geophysical exploration, projects
high-frequency electromagnetic radiation into
subsurface layers to detect the reflection and refraction
of the radiation by various layers of soil. Unlike
ground-penetrating radar, which uses pulses, the
technology uses continuous waves of radiation. See also
Ground-Penetrating Radar.
Hydrocarbon A hydrocarbon is an organic compound
containing only hydrogen and carbon, often occurring in
petroleum, natural gas, and coal.
Hydrogeology Hydrogeology is the study of
groundwater, including its origin, occurrence,
movement, and quality.
Hydrology Hydrology is the science that deals with the
properties, movement, and effects of water found on the
earth's surface, in the soil and rocks beneath the surface,
and in the atmosphere.
Ignitability Ignitable wastes can create fires under
certain conditions. Examples include liquids, such as
solvents that readily catch fire, and friction-sensitive
substances.
Immunoassay Immunoassay is an innovative
technology used to measure compound-specific
reactions (generally colorimetric) to individual
compounds or classes of compounds. The reactions are
used to detect and quantify contaminants. The
technology is available in field-portable test kits.
Incineration Incineration is a treatment technology that
involves the burning of certain types of solid, liquid, or
39
-------
gaseous materials under controlled conditions to destroy
hazardous waste.
Infrared Monitor An infrared monitor is a device used
to monitor the heat signature of an object, as well as to
sample air. It may be used to detect buried objects in
soil.
Inorganic Compound An inorganic compound is a
compound that generally does not contain carbon atoms
(although carbonate and bicarbonate compounds are
notable exceptions), tends to be soluble in water, and
tends to react on an ionic rather than on a molecular
basis. Examples of inorganic compounds include
various acids, potassium hydroxide, and metals.
Innovative Technology An innovative technology is a
process that has been tested and used as a treatment for
hazardous waste or other contaminated materials, but
lacks a long history of full-scale use and information
about its cost and how well it works sufficient to
support prediction of its performance under a variety of
operating conditions. An innovative technology is one
that is undergoing pilot-scale treatability studies that are
usually conducted in the field or the laboratory; require
installation of the technology; and provide performance,
cost, and design objectives for the technology.
Innovative technologies are being used under many
Federal and state cleanup programs to treat hazardous
wastes that have been improperly released. For
example, innovative technologies are being selected to
manage contamination (primarily petroleum) at some
leaking underground storage sites. See also Emerging
Technology and Established Technology.
In Situ The term in situ, "in its original place," or
"on-site", means unexcavated and unmoved. In situ soil
flushing and natural attenuation are examples of in situ
treatment methods by which contaminated sites are
treated without digging up or removing the
contaminants.
In Situ Oxidation In situ oxidation is an innovative
treatment technology that oxidizes contaminants that are
dissolved in groundwater and converts them into
insoluble compounds.
In Situ Soil Flushing In situ soil flushing is an
innovative treatment technology that floods
contaminated soils beneath the ground surface with a
solution that moves the contaminants to an area from
which they can be removed. The technology requires
the drilling of injection and extraction wells on site and
reduces the need for excavation, handling, or
transportation of hazardous substances. Contaminants
considered for treatment by in situ soil flushing include
heavy metals (such as lead, copper, and zinc),
aromatics, and PCBs. See also Aromatics, Heavy Metal,
and Polychlorinated Biphenyl.
In Situ Vitrification In situ vitrification is a soil
treatment technology that stabilizes metal and other
inorganic contaminants in place at temperatures of
approximately 3000' F. Soils and sludges are fused to
form a stable glass and crystalline structure with very
low leaching characteristics.
Institutional Controls An institutional control is a legal
or institutional measure which subjects a property
owner to limit activities at or access to a particular
property. They are used to ensure protection of human
health and the environment, and to expedite property
reuse. Fences, posting or warning signs, and zoning and
deed restrictions are examples of institutional controls.
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) IRIS is an
electronic database that contains EPA's latest
descriptive and quantitative regulatory information
about chemical constituents. Files on chemicals
maintained in IRIS contain information related to both
non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic health effects.
Landfarming Landfarming is the spreading and
incorporation of wastes into the soil to initiate
biological treatment.
Landfill A sanitary landfill is a land disposal site for
nonhazardous solid wastes at which the waste is spread
in layers compacted to the smallest practical volume.
Laser-Induced Fluorescence/Cone Penetrometer
Laser-induced fluorescence/cone penetrometer is a field
screening method that couples a fiber optic-based
chemical sensor system to a cone penetrometer mounted
on a truck. The technology can be used for investigating
and assessing soil and water contamination.
Lead Lead is a heavy metal that is hazardous to health
if breathed or swallowed. Its use in gasoline, paints, and
plumbing compounds has been sharply restricted or
eliminated by Federal laws and regulations. See also
Heavy Metal.
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) LUST
is the acronym for "leaking underground storage tank."
See also Underground Storage Tank.
Magnetrometry Magnetrometry is a geophysical
technology used to detect disruptions that metal objects
cause in the earth's localized magnetic field.
Mass Spectrometry Mass spectrometry is an analytical
40
-------
process by which molecules are broken into fragments
to determine the concentrations and mass/charge ratio
of the fragments. Innovative mass spectroscopy units,
developed through modification of large laboratory
instruments, are sometimes portable, weatherproof units
with self-contained power supplies.
Medium A medium is a specific environment -- air,
water, or soil -- which is the subject of regulatory
concern and activities.
Mercury Mercury is a heavy metal that can accumulate
in the environment and is highly toxic if breathed or
swallowed. Mercury is found in thermometers,
measuring devices, pharmaceutical and agricultural
chemicals, chemical manufacturing, and electrical
equipment. See also Heavy Metal.
Mercury Vapor Analyzer A mercury vapor analyzer is
an instrument that provides real-time measurements of
concentrations of mercury in the air.
Methane Methane is a colorless, nonpoisonous,
flammable gas created by anaerobic decomposition of
organic compounds.
Migration Pathway A migration pathway is a potential
path or route of contaminants from the source of
contamination to contact with human populations or the
environment. Migration pathways include air, surface
water, groundwater, and land surface. The existence and
identification of all potential migration pathways must
be considered during assessment and characterization of
a waste site.
Mixed Waste Mixed waste is low-level radioactive
waste contaminated with hazardous waste that is
regulated under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Mixed waste can be disposed
only in compliance with the requirements under RCRA
that govern disposal of hazardous waste and with the
RCRA land disposal restrictions, which require that
waste be treated before it is disposed of in appropriate
landfills.
Monitoring Well A monitoring well is a well drilled at
a specific location on or off a hazardous waste site at
which groundwater can be sampled at selected depths
and studied to determine the direction of groundwater
flow and the types and quantities of contaminants
present in the groundwater.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) NPDES is the primary permitting program
under the Clean Water Act, which regulates all
discharges to surface water. It prohibits discharge of
pollutants into waters of the United States unless EPA, a
state, or a tribal government issues a special permit to
do so.
National Priorities List (NPL) The NPL is EPA's list
of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term
cleanup under Superfund. Inclusion of a site on the list
is based primarily on the score the site receives under
the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). Money from
Superfund can be used for cleanup only at sites that are
on the NPL. EPA is required to update the NPL at least
once a year.
Natural Attenuation Natural attenuation is an
approach to cleanup that uses natural processes to
contain the spread of contamination from chemical
spills and reduce the concentrations and amounts of
pollutants in contaminated soil and groundwater.
Natural subsurface processes, such as dilution,
volatilization, biodegradation, adsorption, and chemical
reactions with subsurface materials, reduce
concentrations of contaminants to acceptable levels. An
in situ treatment method that leaves the contaminants in
place while those processes occur, natural attenuation is
being used to clean up petroleum contamination from
leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) across the
country.
Non-Point Source The term non-point source is used to
identify sources of pollution that are diffuse and do not
have a point of origin or that are not introduced into a
receiving stream from a specific outlet. Common
non-point sources are rain water, runoff from
agricultural lands, industrial sites, parking lots, and
timber operations, as well as escaping gases from pipes
and fittings.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) O&M refers to
the activities conducted at a site, following remedial
actions, to ensure that the cleanup methods are working
properly. O&M activities are conducted to maintain the
effectiveness of the cleanup and to ensure that no new
threat to human health or the environment arises. O&M
may include such activities as groundwater and air
monitoring, inspection and maintenance of the treatment
equipment remaining on site, and maintenance of any
security measures or institutional controls.
Organic Chemical or Compound An organic chemical
or compound is a substance produced by animals or
plants that contains mainly carbon, hydrogen, and
oxygen.
Permeability Permeability is a characteristic that
41
-------
represents a qualitative description of the relative ease
with which rock, soil, or sediment will transmit a fluid
(liquid or gas).
Pesticide A pesticide is a substance or mixture of
substances intended to prevent or mitigate infestation
by, or destroy or repel, any pest. Pesticides can
accumulate in the food chain and/or contaminate the
environment if misused.
Phenols A phenol is one of a group of organic
compounds that are byproducts of petroleum refining,
tanning, and textile, dye, and resin manufacturing. Low
concentrations of phenols cause taste and odor
problems in water; higher concentrations may be
harmful to human health or the environment.
Photoionization Detector (PID) A PID is a
nondestructive detector, often used in conjunction with
gas chromatography, that measures the change of signal
as analytes are ionized by an ultraviolet lamp. The PID
is also used to detect VOCs and petroleum
hydrocarbons.
Phytoremediation Phytoremediation is an innovative
treatment technology that uses plants and trees to clean
up contaminated soil and water. Plants can break down,
or degrade, organic pollutants or stabilize metal
contaminants by acting as filters or traps.
Phytoremediation can be used to clean up metals,
pesticides, solvents, explosives, crude oil, polyaromatic
hydrocarbons, and landfill leachates. Its use generally is
limited to sites at which concentrations of contaminants
are relatively low and contamination is found in shallow
soils, streams, and groundwater.
Plasma High-Temperature Metals Recovery Plasma
high-temperature metals recovery is a thermal treatment
process that purges contaminants from solids and soils
such as metal fumes and organic vapors. The vapors can
be burned as fuel, and the metal fumes can be recovered
and recycled. This innovative treatment technology is
used to treat contaminated soil and groundwater.
Plume A plume is a visible or measurable emission or
discharge of a contaminant from a given point of origin
into any medium. The term also is used to refer to
measurable and potentially harmful radiation leaking
from a damaged reactor.
Point Source A point source is a stationary location or
fixed facility from which pollutants are discharged or
emitted; or any single, identifiable discharge point of
pollution, such as a pipe, ditch, or smokestack.
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) PCBs are a group of
toxic, persistent chemicals, produced by chlorination of
biphenyl, that once were used in high voltage electrical
transformers because they conducted heat well while
being fire resistant and good electrical insulators. These
contaminants typically are generated from metal
degreasing, printed circuit board cleaning, gasoline, and
wood preserving processes. Further sale or use of PCBs
was banned in 1979.
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) A PAH is a
chemical compound that contains more than one fused
benzene ring. They are commonly found in petroleum
fuels, coal products, and tar.
Pump and Treat Pump and treat is a general term used
to describe cleanup methods that involve the pumping
of groundwater to the surface for treatment. It is one of
the most common methods of treating polluted aquifers
and groundwater.
Radioactive Waste Radioactive waste is any waste that
emits energy as rays, waves, or streams of energetic
particles. Sources of such wastes include nuclear
reactors, research institutions, and hospitals.
Radionuclide A radionuclide is a radioactive element
characterized according to its atomic mass and atomic
number, which can be artificial or naturally occurring.
Radionuclides have a long life as soil or water
pollutants. Radionuclides cannot be destroyed or
degraded; therefore, applicable technologies involve
separation, concentration and volume reduction,
immobilization, or vitrification. See also Solidification
and Stabilization.
Radon Radon is a colorless, naturally occurring,
radioactive, inert gaseous element formed by
radioactive decay of radium atoms. See also
Radioactive Waste and Radionuclide.
Release A release is any spilling, leaking, pumping,
pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting,
leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment of
a hazardous or toxic chemical or extremely hazardous
substance, as defined under RCRA. See also Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA is a Federal law enacted in 1976 that established
a regulatory system to track hazardous substances from
their generation to their disposal. The law requires the
use of safe and secure procedures in treating,
transporting, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent the creation of
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
42
-------
Risk Communication Risk communication, the
exchange of information about health or environmental
risks among risk assessors, risk managers, the local
community, news media and interest groups, is the
process of informing members of the local community
about environmental risks associated with a site and the
steps that are being taken to manage those risks.
Saturated Zone The saturated zone is the area beneath
the surface of the land in which all openings are filled
with water at greater than atmospheric pressure.
Seismic Reflection and Refraction Seismic reflection
and refraction is a technology used to examine the
geophysical features of soil and bedrock, such as debris,
buried channels, and other features.
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (SVOC) SVOCs,
composed primarily of carbon and hydrogen atoms,
have boiling points greater than 200' C. Common
SVOCs include PCBs and phenol. See also
Polychlorinated Biphenyl.
Site Assessment A site assessment is an initial
environmental investigation that is limited to a historical
records search to determine ownership of a site and to
identify the kinds of chemical processes that were
carried out at the site. A site assessment includes a site
visit, but does not include any sampling. If such an
assessment identifies no significant concerns, a site
investigation is not necessary.
Site Investigation A site investigation is an
investigation that includes tests performed at the site to
confirm the location and identity environmental
hazards. The assessment includes preparation of a
report that includes recommendations for cleanup
alternatives.
Sludge Sludge is a semisolid residue from air or water
treatment processes. Residues from treatment of metal
wastes and the mixture of waste and soil at the bottom
of a waste lagoon are examples of sludge, which can be
a hazardous waste.
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation Slurry-phase
bio-remediation, a treatment technology that can be
used alone or in conjunction with other biological,
chemical, and physical treatments, is a process through
which organic contaminants are converted to innocuous
compounds. Slurry-phase bioremediation can be
effective in treating various semi-volatile organic
carbons (SVOCs) and nonvolatile organic compounds,
as well as fuels, creosote, pentachlorophenols (PCP),
and PCBs. See also Polychlorinated Biphenyl and
Semi-Volatile Organic Carbon.
Soil Boring Soil boring is a process by which a soil
sample is extracted from the ground for chemical,
biological, and analytical testing to determine the level
of contamination present.
Soil Gas Soil gas consists of gaseous elements and
compounds that occur in the small spaces between
particles of the earth and soil. Such gases can move
through or leave the soil or rock, depending on changes
in pressure.
Soil Washing Soil washing is an innovative treatment
technology that uses liquids (usually water, sometimes
combined with chemical additives) and a mechanical
process to scrub soils, removes hazardous contaminants,
and concentrates the contaminants into a smaller
volume. The technology is used to treat a wide range of
contaminants, such as metals, gasoline, fuel oils, and
pesticides. Soil washing is a relatively low-cost
alternative for separating waste and minimizing volume
as necessary to facilitate subsequent treatment. It is
often used in combination with other treatment
technologies. The technology can be brought to the site,
thereby eliminating the need to transport hazardous
wastes.
Solidification and Stabilization Solidification and
stabilization are the processes of removing wastewater
from a waste or changing it chemically to make the
waste less permeable and susceptible to transport by
water. Solidification and stabilization technologies can
immobilize many heavy metals, certain radionuclides,
and selected organic compounds, while decreasing the
surface area and permeability of many types of sludge,
contaminated soils, and solid wastes.
Solvent A solvent is a substance, usually liquid, that is
capable of dissolving or dispersing one or more other
substances.
Solvent Extraction Solvent extraction is an innovative
treatment technology that uses a solvent to separate or
remove hazardous organic contaminants from oily-type
wastes, soils, sludges, and sediments. The technology
does not destroy contaminants, but concentrates them so
they can be recycled or destroyed more easily by
another technology. Solvent extraction has been shown
to be effective in treating sediments, sludges, and soils
that contain primarily organic contaminants, such as
PCBs, VOCs, halogenated organic compounds, and
petroleum wastes. Such contaminants typically are
generated from metal degreasing, printed circuit board
cleaning, gasoline, and wood preserving processes.
Solvent extraction is a transportable technology that can
be brought to the site. See also Polychlorinated
43
-------
Biphenyl and Volatile Organic Compound.
Surfactant Flushing Surfactant flushing is an
innovative treatment technology used to treat
contaminated groundwater. Surfactant flushing of
NAPLs increases the solubility and mobility of the
contaminants in water so that the NAPLs can be
biodegraded more easily in an aquifer or recovered for
treatment aboveground.
Surface Water Surface water is all water naturally
open to the atmosphere, such as rivers, lakes, reservoirs,
streams, and seas.
Superfund Superfund is the trust fund that provides for
the cleanup of significantly hazardous substances
released into the environment, regardless of fault. The
Superfund was established under Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) and subsequent amendments to
CERCLA. The term Superfund is also used to refer to
cleanup programs designed and conducted under
CERCLA and its subsequent amendments.
Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) SARA is the 1986 act amending
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) that
increased the size of the Superfund trust fund and
established a preference for the development and use of
permanent remedies, and provided new enforcement
and settlement tools.
Thermal Desorption Thermal desorption is an
innovative treatment technology that heats soils
contaminated with hazardous wastes to temperatures
from 200' to 1,000' F so that contaminants that have
low boiling points will vaporize and separate from the
soil. The vaporized contaminants are then collected for
further treatment or destruction, typically by an air
emissions treatment system. The technology is most
effective at treating VOCs, SVOCs and other organic
contaminants, such as PCBs, polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and pesticides. It is effective in
separating organics from refining wastes, coal tar
wastes, waste from wood treatment, and paint wastes. It
also can separate solvents, pesticides, PCBs, dioxins,
and fuel oils from contaminated soil. See also
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon, Poly chlorinated Biphenyl,
Semivolatile Organic Compound, and Volatile Organic
Compound.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) TPH refers to a
measure of concentration or mass of petroleum
hydrocarbon constituents present in a given amount of
air, soil, or water.
Toxicity Toxicity is a quantification of the degree of
danger posed by a substance to animal or plant life.
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
The TCLP is a testing procedure used to identify the
toxicity of wastes and is the most commonly used test
for determining the degree of mobilization offered by a
solidification and stabilization process. Under this
procedure, a waste is subjected to a process designed to
model the leaching effects that would occur if the waste
was disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle D municipal
landfill. See also Solidification and Stabilization.
Toxic Substance A toxic substance is a chemical or
mixture that may present an unreasonable risk of injury
to health or the environment.
Treatment Wall (also Passive Treatment Wall) A
treatment wall is a structure installed underground to
treat contaminated groundwater found at hazardous
waste sites. Treatment walls, also called passive
treatment walls, are put in place by constructing a giant
trench across the flow path of contaminated
groundwater and filling the trench with one of a variety
of materials carefully selected for the ability to clean up
specific types of contaminants. As the contaminated
groundwater passes through the treatment wall, the
contaminants are trapped by the treatment wall or
transformed into harmless substances that flow out of
the wall. The major advantage of using treatment walls
is that they are passive systems that treat the
contaminants in place so the property can be put to
productive use while it is being cleaned up. Treatment
walls are useful at some sites contaminated with
chlorinated solvents, metals, or radioactive
contaminants.
Underground Storage Tank (UST) A UST is a tank
located entirely or partially underground that is
designed to hold gasoline or other petroleum products
or chemical solutions.
Unsaturated Zone The unsaturated zone is the area
between the land surface and the uppermost aquifer (or
saturated zone). The soils in an unsaturated zone may
contain air and water.
Vadose Zone The vadose zone is the area between the
surface of the land and the aquifer water table in which
the moisture content is less than the saturation point and
the pressure is less than atmospheric. The openings
(pore spaces) also typically contain air or other gases.
Vapor Vapor is the gaseous phase of any substance that
44
-------
is liquid or solid at atmospheric temperatures and
pressures. Steam is an example of a vapor.
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) A VOC is one of
a group of carbon-containing compounds that evaporate
readily at room temperature. Examples of volatile
organic compounds include trichloroethane,
trichloroethylene, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and
xylene (BTEX). These contaminants typically are
generated from metal degreasing, printed circuit board
cleaning, gasoline, and wood preserving processes.
Volatilization Volatilization is the process of transfer
of a chemical from the aqueous or liquid phase to the
gas phase. Solubility, molecular weight, and vapor
pressure of the liquid and the nature of the gas- liquid
affect the rate of volatilization.
Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) A VCP is a
formal means established by many states to facilitate
assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of brownfields
sites. VCPs typically address the identification and
cleanup of potentially contaminated sites that are not on
the National Priorities List (NPL). Under VCPs, owners
or developers of a site are encouraged to approach the
state voluntarily to work out a process by which the site
can be readied for development. Many state VCPs
provide technical assistance, liability assurances, and
funding support for such efforts.
Wastewater Wastewater is spent or used water from an
individual home, a community, a farm, or an industry
that contains dissolved or suspended matter.
Water Table A water table is the boundary between the
saturated and unsaturated zones beneath the surface of
the earth, the level of groundwater, and generally is the
level to which water will rise in a well. See also Aquifer
and Groundwater.
X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzer An x-ray fluorescence
analyzer is a self-contained, field-portable instrument,
consisting of an energy dispersive x-ray source, a
detector, and a data processing system that detects and
quantifies individual metals or groups of metals.
(This page is intentionally left blank.)
45
-------
Table C-1. Non-Invasive Assessment Technologies
Appendix C
Testing Technologies
Applications
Strengths
Weaknesses
Typical Costs1
Infrared Thermography (IR/T)
Locates buried USTs.
Locates buried leaks from USTs.
Locates buried sludge pits.
Locates buried nuclear and nonnuclear
waste.
Locates buried oil, gas, chemical and sewer
pipelines.
Locates buried oil, gas, chemical and sewer
pipeline leaks.
Locates water pipelines.
Locates water pipeline leaks.
Locates seepage from waste dumps.
Locates subsurface smoldering fires in
waste du mps.
Locates unexploded ordinance on
hundreds or thousands of acres.
Locates buried landmines.
Able to collect data on large areas very
efficiently. (Hundreds of acres per flight)
Able to collect data on long cross cou ntry
pipelines very efficiently (300-500 miles per
day.)
Low cost for analyzed data per acre unit.
Able to prescreen and eliminate clean areas
from further costly testing and unneeded
rehabilitation.
Able to fuse data with other techniques for
even greater accuracy in more situations.
Able to locate large and sm all leaks in
pipelines and USTs. (Ultrasonic devices can
only locate small, high pressure leaks
containing ultrasonic noise.)
No direct contact with objects under test is
required. (Ultrasonic devices must be in
contact with buried pipe lines or USTs.)
Has confirmed anomalies to depths greater
than 38 feet with an accuracy of better than
80%.
Tests can be performed during both daytime
and nighttime hours.
Normally no inconvenience to the public.
Cannot be used in rainy conditions.
Cannot be used to determine depth or thickness
of anomalies.
Cannot determ ine what specific anom alies are
detected.
Cannot be used to detect a specific fluid or
contaminant, but all items not native to the area
will be detected.
Depends upon volume of data collected
and type of targets looked for.
Small areas <1 acre: $1,000-13,500.
Large areas>1,000 acres: $10 - $200 per acre.
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
Locates buried USTs.
Locates buried leaks from USTs.
Locates buried sludge pits.
Locates buried nuclear and
nonnuclear waste.
Locates buried oil, gas, chemical and
sewer pipelines.
Locates buried oil and chemical
pipeline leaks.
Locates water pipelines.
Locates water pipeline leaks.
Locates seepage from waste dumps.
Locates cracks in subsurface strata
such as limestone.
Can investigate depths from 1
centimeter to 100 meters+ depending
upon soil or water conditions.
Can locate small voids capable of
holding contamination wastes.
Can determine different types of
materials such as steel, fiberglass or
concrete.
Can be trailed behind a vehicle and
travel at high speeds.
Cannot be used in highly conductive
environments such as salt water.
Cannot be used in heavy clay soils.
Data are difficult to interpret and require a
lot of experience.
Depends upon volume of datacollected
and type of targets looked for.
Small areas <1 acre: $3,500 - $5,000
Large areas > 10 acres: $2,500 - $3,500
per acre
46
-------
Non-Invasive Assessment Technologies Continued
Electromagnetic Offset Logging (EOL)
Locates buried hydrocarbon pipelines
Locates buried hydrocarbon USTs.
Locates hydrocarbon tanks.
Locates hydrocarbon barrels.
Locates perched hydrocarbons.
Locates free floating hydrocarbons.
Locates dissolved hydrocarbons.
Locates sinker hydrocarbons.
Locates buried well casings.
Produces 3D images of hydrocarbon
plumes.
Data can be collected to depth of 100
meters.
Data can be collected from a single,
unlined ornonmetal lined well hole.
Data can be collected within a 100
meter radius of a single well hole.
3D images can be sliced in horizontal
and vertical planes.
DNAPLs can be imaged.
Small dead area around well hole of
approximately 8 meters.
This can be eliminated by using 2
complementary well holes from which to
collect data.
Depends upon volume of data collected
and type of targets looked for.
Small areas < 1 acre: $10,000 - $20,000
Large areas > 10 acres: $5,000 -
$10,000 per acre
Magnetometer (MG)
Locates buried ferrous materials such
as barrels, pipelines, USTs, and
buckets.
Low cost instruments can be be used
that produce results by audio signal
strengths.
High cost instruments can be used
that produce hard copy printed maps
of targets.
Depths to 3 meters. 1 acre per day
typical efficiency in data collection.
Non-relevant artifacts can be confusing to
data analyzers.
Depth limited to 3 meters.
Depends upon volume of data collected
and type of targets looked for.
Small areas < 1 acre: $2,500 - $5,000
Large areas > 10 acres: $1 ,500 -$2,500
per acre
Cost based on case study data in 1997 dollars.
47
-------
Table C-2.
Soil and Subsurface Sampling Tools
Tech nique/lnstru mentation
Media
Soil
Grou nd
Water
Relative Cost per Sample
Sa m pie Qua 1 ity
Drilling Methods
Cable Tool
Casing Advancement
Direct Air Rotary with Rotary Bit
Downhole Hammer
Direct Mud Rotary
Directional Drilling
Hollow-Stem Auger
Jetting Methods
Rotary Diamond Drilling
Rotating Core
Solid Flight and Bucket
Augers
Sonic Drilling
Split and Solid Barrel
Thin-Wall Open Tube
Thin-Wall Piston/I
Specialized Thin Wall
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mid-range expensive
Most expensive
Mid-range expensive
Mid-range expensive
Most expensive
Mid-range expensive
Least expensive
Most expensive
Mid-range expensive
Mid-range expensive
Most expensive
Least expensive
Mid-range expensive
Mid-range expensive
Soil properties will probably be altered
Soil properties will likely be altered
Soil properties will probably be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties will likely be altered
Soil properties will probably be unaltered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties will probably be unaltered
Soil properties will probably be unaltered
Direct Push Methods
Cone Penetrometer
Driven Wells
X
X
X
Mid-range expensive
Mid-range expensive
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Hand-Held Methods
Augers
Rotating Core
Scoop, Spoons, and Shovels
Split and Solid Barrel
Thin-Wall Open Tube
Thin-Wall Piston
Specialized Thin Wall
Tubes
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Least expensive
Mid-range expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Mid-range expensive
Mid-range expensive
Least expensive
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties will probably be unaltered
Soil properties will probably be unaltered
Soil properties will probably be unaltered
48
-------
Table C-3. Groundwater Sampling Tools
Technique/Instrumentation
Co ntam inants1
Relative Cost perSample
Sample Quality
Portable Groundwater Sampling Pumps
Bladder Pump
Gas-Driven Piston Pump
Gas-Driven Displacement Pumps
Gear Pump
Inertial-Lift Pumps
Submersible Centrifugal Pumps
Submersible Helical-Rotor Pump
Suction-Lift Pumps (peristaltic)
SVOCs, PAHs,
metals
SVOCs, PAHs,
metals
SVOCs, PAHs,
metals
SVOCs, PAHs,
metals
SVOCs, PAHs,
metals
SVOCs, PAHs,
metals
SVOCs, PAHs,
metals
SVOCs, PAHs,
m eta Is
Mid-range expensive
Most Expensive
Least expensive
Mid-range expensive
Least expensive
Most expensive
Most expensive
Least expensive
Liquid properties will probably be unaltered
Liquid properties will probably be unaltered by sampling
Liquid properties will probably be unaltered by sampling
Liquid properties may be altered
Liquid properties will probably be unaltered
Liquid properties may be altered
Liquid properties may be altered
Liquid properties may be altered
Portable Grab Samplers
Bailers
Pneumatic Depth-Specific
Sam piers
VOCs, SVOCs,
PAHs, metals
VOCs, SVOCs,
PAHs, metals
Least expensive
Mid-range expensive
Liquid properties may be altered
Liquid properties will probably be unaltered
Portable In Situ Groundwater Samplers/Sensors
Cone Penetrom eter Sam piers
Direct Drive Samplers
Hydropunch
VOCs, SVOCs,
PAHs, metals
VOCs, SVOCs,
PAHs, metals
VOCs, SVOCs,
PAHs, metals
Least expensive
Least expensive
Mid-range expensive
Liquid properties will probably be unaltered
Liquid properties will probably be unaltered
Liquid properties will probably be unaltered
Fixed In Situ Samplers
Multilevel Capsule Samplers
Multiple-Port Casings
Passive Multilayer Samplers
VOCs, SVOCs,
PAHs, metals
VOCs, SVOCs,
PAHs, metals
VOCs
Mid-range expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Liquid properties will probably be
unaltered
Liquid properties will probably be unaltered
Liquid properties will probably be unaltered
Bold Most commonly used field techniques
VOCs Volatile Organic Carbons
SVOCsSemivolatile Organic Carbons
PAHs Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
49
-------
Table C-4. Sample Analysis Technologies
Technique/
Instrumentation
Analytes
Media
Soil
Ground
Water
Gas
Relative
Detection
Relative
Cost per
Analysis
Application**
Produces
Quantitative
Data
Metals
Laser-Induced Breakdown
Spectrometry
Titrimetry Kits
Particle-Induced X-ray
Emissions
Atomic Adsorption
Spectrometry
Inductively Coupled
PlasmaAtomic Emission
Spectroscopy
Field Bioassessment
X-Ray Fluorescence
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
X
X
X
X"
X'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ppb
ppm
ppm
ppb
ppb
ppm
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Most
expensive
Most
expensive
Most
expensive
Least
expensive
Usually used in field
Usually used in
laboratory
Usually used in
laboratory
Usually used in
laboratory
Usually used in
laboratory
Usually used in field
Laboratory and field
Additional effort required
Additional effort required
Additional effort required
Yes
Yes
No
Yes (limited)
PAHs.VOCs.andSVOCs
Laser-Induced Fluorescence
(LIF)
Solid/Porous FiberOptic
Chemical Calorimetric Kits
Flame lonization Detector
(hand-held)
Explosimeter
Photo lonization Detector
(hand-held)
Catalytic Surface Oxidation
Near IR Reflectance/Trans
Spectroscopy
Ion Mobility Spectrometer
PAHs
VOCs
VOCs,
SVOCs,
PAHs
VOCs
VOCs
VOCs,
SVOCs
VOCs
VOCs
VOCs,
SVOCs
X
X"
X
X'
X'
X'
X'
X
X"
X
X
X
X'
X'
X'
X'
X"
X
X
X
X
X
X
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
100-1,000
ppm
100-1,000
ppb
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Usually used in field
Immediate, can be used
in field
Can be used in field,
usually used in laboratory
Immediate, can be used
in field
Immediate, can be used
in field
Immediate, can be used
in field
Usually used in
laboratory
Usually used in
laboratory
Usually used in
laboratory
Additional effort required
Additional effort required
Additional effort required
No
No
No
No
Additional effort required
Yes
50
-------
Sample Analysis Technologies (continued)
Technique/
Instrumentation
Infrared Spectroscopy
Scattering/Absorption Lidar
FTIR Spectroscopy
Synchronous Luminescence/
Fluorescence
Gas Chromatography (GC)
(can be used with numerous
detectors)
UV-Visible Spectrophotometry
UV Fluorescence
Ion Trap
Analytes
VOCs,
SVOCs
VOCs
VOCs
VOCs,
SVOCs
VOCs,
SVOCs
VOCs
VOCs
VOCs,
SVOCs
Media
Soil
X
X"
X"
X'
X"
X'
X
X"
Ground
Water
X
X"
X"
X
X
X
X
X"
Gas
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Relative
Detection
100-1,000
ppm
100-1,000
ppm
ppm
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
Relative
Cost per
Analysis
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Most
expensive
Application**
Usually used in
laboratory
Usually used in
laboratory
Laboratory and field
Usually used in
laboratory, can be used
in field
Usually used in
laboratory, can be used
in field
Usually used in
laboratory
Usually used in
laboratory
Laboratory and field
Produces
Quantitative
Data
Additional effort required
Additional effort required
Additional effort required
Additional effort required
Yes
Additional effort required
Additional effort required
Yes
Other
Chemical Reaction- Based
Test Papers
Immunoassay and Calorimetric
Kits
VOCs,
SVOCs,
Metals
VOCs,
SVOCs,
Metals
X
X
X
X
ppm
ppm
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Usually used in field
Usually used in
laboratory, can be used
in field
Yes
Additional effort required
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
SVOCs Semivolatile Organic Compounds (may be present in oil and grease)
PAHs Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
X* Indicates there must be extraction of the sample to gas or liquid phase
** Samplessentto laboratory require shipping time and usually 14 to 35 days turnaround time for analysis. Rush orders cost an additional amount per sample.
51
-------
Appendix D
Cleanup Technologies
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies
Applicable
Technology
Technology Description
Contaminants
Treated by this
Technology
Limi
Cost
Containment
Technologies
Capping
Used to cover buried waste materials to prevent
migration.Consist of a relatively impermeable
material that will minimize rainfall infiltration.Waste
materials can be left in place.Requires periodic
inspections and routine monitoring.Contaminant
migration must be monitored periodically.
MetalsCyanide
Costs associated with routine sampling and
analysis may be high.Long-term maintenance
may be required to ensure impermeability.May
have to be replaced after 20 to 30 years of
operation.May not be effective if groundwater
table is high.
$11 to $40 per
square foot.1
Sheet Piling
Steel or iron sheets are driven into the ground to form
a subsurface barrier.Low-cost containment
method.Used primarily for shallow aquifers.
Not
contaminant-
specific
Not effective in the absence of a continuous
aquitard.Can leak at the intersection of the
sheets and the aquitard or through pile wall
joints.
$8 to $17 per
square foot.
Grout Curtain
Grout curtains are injected into subsurface soils and
bedrock.Forms an impermeable barrier in the
subsurface.
Not
contaminant-
specific
Difficult to ensure a complete curtain without $6 to $14 per
gaps through which the plume can escape; square foot.
however new techniques have improved
continuity of curtain.
52
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Applicable
Technology
Technology Description
Contaminants
Treated by this
Technology
Limi
Cost
Slurry Walls
Used to contain contaminated ground water, landfill
leachate, divert contaminated groundwater from
drinking water intake, divert uncontaminated
groundwater flow, or provide a barrier for the
groundwater treatment system.Consist of a vertically
excavated slurry-filled trench.The slurry hydraulically
shores the trench to prevent collapse and forms a
filtercake to reduce groundwater flow.Often used
where the waste mass is too large for treatment and
where soluble and mobile constituents pose an
imminent threat to a source of drinking threat to a
source of drinking water.Often constructed of a soil,
bentonite, and water mixture.
Not
contaminant-
specific
Contains contaminants only within a specified
area.Soil-bentonite backfills are not able to
withstand attack by strong acids, bases, salt
solutions, and some organic chemicals.Potential
for the slurry walls to degrade or deteriorate
over time.
Design and
installation costs
of $5 to $7 per
square foot (1991
dollars) for a
standard soil-
bentonite wall in
soft to medium
soil.3Above costs
do not include
variable costs
required for
chemical
analyses,
feasibility, or
compatibility
testing.
Ex Situ
Technologies
Exc avation/Offsit
e Disposal
Removes contaminated material to an EPA approved
landfill.
Not
contaminant-
specific
Generation of fugitive emissions may be a
problem during operations.The distance from
the contaminated site to the nearest disposal
facility will affect cost.Depth and composition
of the media requiring excavation must be
considered.Transportation of the soil through
populated areas may affect community
acceptability.Disposal options for certain waste
(e.g., mixed waste or transuranic waste) maybe
limted. There is currently only one licensed
disposal facility for radioactive and mixed
waste in the United States.
$270 to $460 per
ton.
53
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Applicable
Technology
Technology Description
Contaminants
Treated by this
Technology
Limi
Cost
Composting
Controlled microbiological process by which
biodegradable hazardous materials in soils are
converted to innocuous, stabilized
byproducts.Typically occurs at temperatures ranging
from 50° to 55°C (120° to 130°F).May be applied to
soils and lagoon sediments.Maximum degradation
efficiency is achieved by maintaining moisture
content, pH, oxygenation, temperature, and the
carbon-nitrogen ratio.
SVOCs.
Substantial space is required. Excavation of
contaminated soils is required and may cause
the uncontrolled release of VOCs.Composting
results in a volumetric increase in material and
space required for treatment .Metals are not
treated by this method and can be toxic to the
microorganisms.The distance from the
contaminated site to the nearest disposal facility
will affect cost.
$190 or greater
per cubic yard for
soil volumes of
approximately
20,000 cubic
yards.3Costs will
vary with the
amount of soil to
be treated, the soil
fraction of the
com post,
availability of
amendments, the
type of
contaminant and
the type of
process design
employed.
Chemical
Oxidation/
Reduction
Reduction/oxidation (Redox) reactions chemically
convert hazardous contaminants to nonhazardous or
less toxic compounds that are more stable, less
mobile, or inert.Redox reactions involve the transfer
of electrons from one compound to another.The
oxidizing agents commonly used are ozone, hydrogen
peroxide, hypochlorite, chlorine, and chlorine
dioxide.
MetalsCyanide
Not cost-effective for high contaminant
concentrations because of the large amounts of
oxidizing agent required.Oil and grease in the
media should be minimized to optimize process
efficiency.
$190 to $660 per
cubic meter of
soil.3
Soil Washing
A water-based process for scrubbing excavated soils
ex situ to remove contaminants.Removes
contaminants by dissolving or suspending them in the
wash solution, or by concentrating them into a smaller
volume of soil through particle size separation,
gravity separation, and attrition scrubbing.Systems
incorporating most of the removal techniques offer
the greatest promise for application to soils
contaminated with a wide variety of metals and
organic contaminants.
SVOCsMetals
Fine soil particles may require the addition of a
polymer to remove them from the washing
fluid.Complex waste mixtures make
formulating washing fluid difficult.High humic
content in soil may require pretreatment.The
washing fluid produces an aqueous stream that
requires treatment.
$120 to $200 per
ton of soil.3Cost is
dependent upon
the target waste
quantity and
concentration.
54
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Applicable
Technology
Technology Description
Contaminants
Treated by this
Technology
Limi
Cost
Thermal
Desorption
Low temperatures (200°F to 900°F) are used to
remove organic contaminants from soils and
sludges.Off-gases are collected and treated. Requires
treatment system after heating chamber.Can be
performed on site or off site.
VOCsPCBsPA
Hs
Cannot be used to treat heavy metals, with
exception of mercury.Contaminants of concern
must have a low boiling point.Transportation
costs to off-site facilities can be expensive.
$50 to $300 per
ton of
soil.3Transportati
on charges are
additional.
Incineration
High temperatures 870° to 1,200° C (1400°F to
2,200°F) are used to volatilize and combust hazardous
wastes.The destruction and removal efficiency for
properly operated incinerators exceeds the 99.99%
requirement for hazardous waste and can be operated
to meet the 99.9999% requirement for PCBs and
dioxins.Commercial incinerator designs are rotary
kilns, equipped with an afterburner, a quench, and an
air pollution control system.
VOCsPCBsdio
Only one off-site incinerator is permitted to
burn PCBs and dioxins. Specific feed size and
materials handling requirements that can affect
applicability or cost at specific sites.Metals can
produce a bottom ash that requires stabilization
prior to disposal.Volatile metals, including
lead, cadmium, mercury, and arsenic, leave the
combustion unit with the flue gases and require
the installation of gas cleaning systems for
removal.Metals can react with other elements in
the feed stream, such as chlorine or sulfur,
forming more volatile and toxic compounds
than the original species.
$200 to $1,000
per ton of soil at
off-site
incinerators.$1,50
0 to $6,000 per
ton of soil for
soils
contaminated with
PCBs or
dioxins.3Mobile
units that can
operate onsite
reduce soil
transportation
costs.
UV Oxidation
Destruction process that oxidizes constituents in
wastewater by the addition of strong oxidizers and
irradiation with UV light.Practically any organic
contaminant that is reactive with the hydroxyl radical
can potentially be treated. The oxidation reactions are
achieved through the synergistic action of UV light in
combination with ozone or hydrogen peroxide.Can be
configured in batch or continuous flow models,
depending on the throughput rate under consideration.
VOCs
The aqueous stream being treated must provide
for good transmission of UV light (high
turbidity causes interference).Metal ions in the
wastewater may limit effectiveness.VOCs may
volatilize before oxidation can occur. Off-gas
may require treatment.Costs may be higher than
competing technologies because of energy
requirements.Handling and storage of oxidizers
require special safety precautions.Off-gas may
require treatment.
$0.10 to $10 per
1,000 gallons are
treated.3
55
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Applicable
Technology
Technology Description
Contaminants
Treated by this
Technology
Limi
Cost
Pyro lysis
A thermal treatment technology that uses chemical
decomposition induced in organic materials by heat in
the absence of oxygen. Pyro lysis transforms
hazardous organic materials into gaseous
components, small amounts of liquid, and a solid
residue (coke) containing fixed carbon and ash.
MetalsCyanide.
PAHs
Specific feed size and materials handling
requirements affect applicability or cost at
specific sites. Re quires drying of the soil to
achieve a low soil moisture content
(<1%).Highly abrasive feed can potentially
damage the processor unit.High moisture
content increases treatment costs.Treated media
containing heavy metals may require
stabilization.May produce combustible gases,
including carbon monoxide, hydrogen and
methane, and other hydro carbons.If the off-
gases are cooled, liquids condense, producing
an oil/tar residue and contaminated water.
Capital and
operating costs
are expected to be
approximately
$330 per metric
ton ($300 per
ton).3
Precipitation
Involves the conversion of soluble heavy metal salts
to insoluble salts that will precipitate.Precipitate can
be physical methods such as clarification or
filtration. Often used as a pretreatment for other
treatment technologies where the presence of metals
would interfere with the treatment processes.Primary
method for treating metal-laden industrial wastewater.
Metals.
Contamination source is not removed.The
presence of multiple metal species may lead to
removal difficulties.Discharge standard may
necessitate further treatment of effluent .Metal
hydroxide sludges must pass TCLP criteria
prior to land disposal.Treated water will often
require pH adjustment.
Capital costs are
$85,000 to
$115,000 for 20
to 65 gpm
precipitation
systems .Primary
capital cost factor
is design flow
rate.Operating
costs are $0.30 to
$0.70 per 1,000.3
Sludge disposal
may be estimated
to increase
operating costs by
$0.50 per 1,000
gallons treated.3
56
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Applicable
Technology
Technology Description
Contaminants
Treated by this
Technology
Limi
Cost
Liquid Phase
Carbon
Adsorption
Groundwater is pumped through a series of vessels
containing activated carbon, to which dissolved
contaminants adsorb.Effective for polishing water
discharges from other remedial technologies to attain
regulatory compliance.Can be quickly installed.High
contaminant-removal efficiencies.
Low levels of
metals. VOCs.S
VOCs.
The presence of multiple contaminants can
affect process performance.Metals can foul the
system.Costs are high if used as the primary
treatment on waste streams with high
contaminant concentration levels.Type and pore
size of the carbon and operating temperature
will impact process performance.Transport and
disposal of spent carbon can be
expensive.Water soluble compounds and small
molecules are not adsorbed well.
$1.20 to $6.30 per
1,000 gallons
treated at flow
rates of 0.1
mgd.Costs
decrease with
increasing low
rates and
concentrations.3C
osts are
dependent on
waste stream flow
rates, type of
contaminant,
concentration, and
timing
requirements.3
Air Stripping
In Situ
Technologies
Contaminants are partitioned from groundwater by
greatly increasing the surface area of the
contaminated water exposed to air.Aeration methods
include packed towers, diffused aeration, tray
aeration, and spray aeration.Can be operated
continuously or in a batch mode, where the air
stripper is intermittently fed from a collection
tank.The batch mode ensures consistent air stripper
performance and greater efficiency than continuously
operated units because mixing in the storage tank
eliminates any inconsistencies in feed water
composition.
VOCs.
Potential for inorganic (iron greater than 5 ppm,
hardness greater than 800 ppm) or biological
fouling of the equipment, requiring
pretreatment of groundwater or periodic
column cleaning.Consideration should be given
to the Henry's law constant of the VOCs in the
water stream and the type and amount of
packing used in the tower.Compounds with low
volatility at ambient temperature may require
preheating of the groundwater.Off-gases may
require treatment based on mass emission rate
and state and federal air pollution laws.
$0.04 to $0.20 per
1,000 gallons.3A
major operating
cost of air
strippers is the
electricity
required for the
groundwater
pump, the sump
discharge pump,
and the air
blower.
57
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Applicable
Technology
Technology Description
Contaminants
Treated by this
Technology
Limi
Cost
Natural
Attenuation
Natural subsurface processes such as dilution,
volatilization, biodegradation, adsorption, and
chemical reactions with subsurface media can reduce
contaminant concentrations to acceptable
levels.Consideration of this option requires modeling
and evaluation of contaminant degradation rates and
pathways.Sampling and analyses must be conducted
throughout the process to confirm that degradation is
proceeding at sufficient rates to meet cleanup
objectives.Nonhalogenated volatile and semivolatile
organic compounds.
VOCs
Intermediate degradation products may be more
mobile and more toxic than original
contaminants.Contaminants may migrate before
they degrade.The site may have to be fenced
and may not be available for reuse until hazard
levels are reduced.Source areas may require
removal for natural attenuation to be
effective.Modeling contaminant degradation
rates, and sampling and analysis to confirm
modeled predictions extremely expensive.
Not available
Soil Vapor
Extraction
A vacuum is applied to the soil to induce controlled
air flow and remove contaminants from the
unsaturated (vadose) zone of the soil.The gas leaving
the soil may be treated to recover or destroy the
contaminants.The continuous air flow promotes in
situ biodegradation of low-volatility organic
compounds that may be present.
VOCs
Tight or very moist content (>50%) has a
reduced permeability to air, requiring higher
vacuums.Large screened intervals are required
in extraction wells for soil with highly variable
permeabilities.Air emissions may require
treatment to eliminate possible harm to the
public or environment.Off-gas treatment
residual liquids and spent activated carbon may
require treatment or disposal.Not effective in
the saturated zone.
$10 to $50 per
cubic meter of
soil.3Cost is site
specific
depending on the
size of the site,
the nature and
amount of
contamination,
and the hydro-
geological setting,
which affect the
number of wells,
the blower
capacity and
vacuum level
required, and
length of time
required to
remediate the
site.Off-gas
treatment
significantly adds
to the cost.
58
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Applicable
Technology
Technology Description
Contaminants
Treated by this
Technology
Limi
Cost
Soil Flushing
Extraction of contaminants from the soil with water or
other aqueous solutions.Accomplished by passing the
extraction fluid through in-place soils using injection
or infiltration processes.Extraction fluids must be
recovered with extraction wells from the underlying
aquifer and recycled when possible.
Metals
Low-permeability soils are difficult to
treat.Surfactants can adhere to soil and reduce
effective soil porosity.Reactions of flushing
fluids with soil can reduce contaminant
mobility .Potential of washing the contaminant
beyond the capture zone and the introduction of
surfactants to the subsurface.
The major factor
affecting cost is
the separation of
surfactants from
recovered
flushing fluid.3
Solidification/
Stabilization
Reduces the mobility of hazardous substances and
contaminants through chemical and physical
means.Seeks to trap or immobilize contaminants
within their "host" medium, instead of removing them
through chemical or physical treatment.Can be used
alone or combined with other treatment and disposal
methods.
MetalsLimited
effectiveness
for VOC sand
SVOCs.
Depth of contaminants may limit
effectiveness.Future use of site may affect
containment materials, which could alter the
ability to maintain immobilization of
contaminants.Some processes result in a
significant increase in volume.Effective mixing
is more difficult than for ex situ
applications.Confirmatory sampling can be
difficult.
$50 to $80 per
cubic meter for
shallow
applications.$190
to $330 per cubic
meter for deeper
applications. 3Cost
s for cement-
based
stabilization
techniques vary
according to
materials or
reagents used,
their availability,
project size, and
the chemical
nature of the
contaminant.
59
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Applicable
Technology
Technology Description
Contaminants
Treated by this
Technology
Limi
Cost
Air Sparging
In situ technology in which air is injected under
pressure below the water table to increase
groundwater oxygen concentrations and enhance the
rate of biological degradation of contaminants by
naturally occurring microbes.Increases the mixing in
the saturated zone, which increases the contact
between groundwater and soil. Air bubbles traverse
horizontally and vertically through the soil column,
creating an underground stripper that removes
contaminants by volatilization.Air bubbles travel to a
soil vapor extraction system.Air sparging is effective
for facilitating extraction of deep contamination,
contamination in low-permeability soils, and
contamination in the saturated zone.
VOCs
Depth of contaminants and specific site geology
must be considered.Air flow through the
saturated zone may not be uniform.A
permeability differential such as a clay layer
above the air injection zone can reduce the
effectiveness.Vapors may rise through the
vadose zone and be released into the
atmosphere.Increased pressure in the vadose
zone can build up vapors in basements, which
are generally low-pressure areas.
$50 to $100 per
1,000 gallons of
groundwater
treated.3
Passive
Treatment Walls
A permeable reaction wall is installed inground,
across the flow path of a contaminant plume, allowing
the water portion of the plume to passively move
through the wall.Allows the passage of water while
prohibiting the movement of contaminants by
employing such agents as iron, chelators (ligands
selected for their specificity for a given metal),
sorbents, microbes, and others .Contaminants are
typically completely degraded by the treatment wall.
MetalsVOCs
The system requires control of pH levels.
When pH levels within the passive treatment
wall rise, it reduces the reaction rate and can
inhibit the effectiveness of the wall.Depth and
width of the plume. For large-scale plumes,
installation cost may be high.Cost of treatment
medium (iron).Biological activity may reduce
the permeability of the wall.Walls may lose
their reactive capacity, requiring replacement of
the reactive medium.
Capital costs for
these projects
range from
$250,000 to
$1,000,000.3Oper
aliens and
maintenance costs
approximately 5
to 10 times less
than capital costs.
Chemical
Oxidation
Destruction process that oxidizes constituents in
groundwater by the addition of strong
oxidizers.Practically any organic contaminant that is
reactive with the hydroxyl radical can potentially be
treated.
VOCs
The addition of oxidizing compounds must be
hydraulically controlled and closely
monitored.Metal additives will precipitate out
of solution and remain in the aquifer.Handling
and storage of oxidizers require special safety
precautions.
Depends on mass
present and
hydro geologic
conditions.
60
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Applicable
Technology
Technology Description
Contaminants
Treated by this
Technology
Limi
Cost
Bioventing
Stimulates the natural in-situ biodegradation of
volatile organics in soil by providing oxygen to
existing soil microorganisms.Oxygen commonly
supplied through direct air injection.Uses low air flow
rates to provide only enough oxygen to sustain
microbial activity.Volatile compounds are
biodegraded as vapors and move slowly through the
biologically active soil.
VOCs.
Low soil-gas permeability.High water table or
saturated soil layers.Vapors can build up in
basements within the radius of influence of air
injection wells.Low soil moisture content may
limit biodegradation by drying out the
soils.Low temperatures slow
remediation.Chlorinated solvents may not
degrade fully under certain subsurface
conditions .Vapors may need treatment,
depending on emission level and state
regulations.
$10 to $70 per
cubic meter of
soil.3Cost affected
by contaminant
type and
concentration, soil
permeability, well
spacing and
number, pumping
rate, and off-gas
treatment.
Biodegradation
Indigenous or introduced microorganisms degrade
organic contaminants found in soil and
groundwater.Used successfully to remediate soils,
sludges, and groundwater.Especially effective for
remediating low-level residual contamination in
conjunction with source removal.
VOCs.
Cleanup goals may not be attained if the soil
matrix prevents sufficient mixing.Circulation of
water-based solutions through the soil may
increase contaminant mobility and necessitate
treatment of underlying groundwater.
Injection wells may clog and prevent adequate
flow rates.Preferential flow paths may result in
nonuniform distribution of injected
fluids.Should not be used for clay, highly
layered, or heterogeneous subsurface
environments.High concentrations of heavy
metals, highly chlorinated organics, long chain
hydrocarbons, or inorganic salts are likely to be
toxic to microorganisms.Low temperatures
slow bioremediation.Chlorinated solvents may
not degrade fully under certain subsurface
conditions.
$30 to $100 per
cubic meter of
soil.3Cost affected
by the nature and
depth of the
contaminants, use
of
bioaugmentation
or hydrogen
peroxide addition,
and groundwater
pumping rates.
61
-------
Applicable
Technology
Oxygen
Releasing
Compounds
Technology Description
Based on Fenton's Reagent Chemistry .Stimulates the
natural in situ biodegradation of petroleum
hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater by providing
oxygen to existing microorganisms. Oxygen supplied
through the controlled dispersion and diffusion of
active reagents, such as hydrogen peroxide. Active
reagents are injected into the affected area using
semi-permanent injection wells.
Contaminants
Treated by this
Technology
TPHsVOCs
Limi
Low soil permeability limits dispersion. Low
soil moisture limits reaction time.Low
temperatures slow reaction. Not cost-effective in
the presence of unusually thick layers of free
product.
Cost
Relatively low
cost in
applications on
small areas of
contamination.
Cost depends on
size of treatment
area and amount
of contaminant
present as free
product.
1. Interagency Cost Workgroup, 1994.
2. Costs of Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, U.S. EPA, 1986.
3. Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable. Http://www.frtr.gov/matrix/top page.html
UST = underground storage tank
SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compounds
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
PAHs = polyaromatic hydrocarbons
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls
TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbons
62
-------
Appendix E
Works Cited
A "PB" publication number in parentheses indicates that the
document is available from the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161,
(703-487-4650).
Landfill and Illegal Dump Sources
Center for Public Environmental Oversight. 1998. Landfill
Caps and Enhancements.
http://www.cpeo .org/techtree/ttdescript/lancap .htm
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network. 2000. How
Landfill Gas to Electricity Works.
http://www.eren.doe.gov/citie counties/landfill .html
Ewall, Mike. 1999. Primer on Landfill Gas as "Green" Energy.
Pennsylvania Environmental Network.
http://www.penweb.org/issues/energy/green4.html
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. 2000.
Landfill Cap. http://www.frtr.gOV/matrix2/section4/4 30.html
Site Assessment
ASTM. 1997. Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM E1527-97).
ASTM. 1996. Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Transaction Screen Process. American Society for
Testing Materials (ASTM E1528-96).
ASTM. 1995. Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models
for Contaminated Sites. American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM E1689-95).
ASTM. 1995. Provisional Standard Guide for Accelerated Site
Characterization for Confirmed or Suspected Petroleum
Releases. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM
PS3-95).
Data Quality Objectives Process for Hazardous Waste Site
Investigations (EPA 2000)
Go-Environmental Solutions. N.D. http://www.
gesolutions.com/assess.htm.
Geoprobe Systems, Inc. 1998. Rental Rate Sheet. September
15.
Robbat, Albert, Jr. 1997. Dynamic Workplans and Field
Analytics: The Keys to Cost Effective Site Characterization and
Cleanup. Tufts University under Cooperative Agreement with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October.
U.S. EPA. 2000. Assessing Contractor Capabilities for
Streamlined Site Investigations (EPA/542-R-00-001)
U.S. EPA. 1999. Cost Estimating Tools and Resources for
Addressing Sites Under the Brownfields Initiative (EPA/625/R-
99-001)
U.S. EPA. 1997. Expedited Site Assessment Tools for
Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regulators and
Consultants (EPA 510-B-97-001).
U.S. EPA. 1997. Field Analytical and Site Characterization
Technologies, Summary of Applications (EPA-542-R-97-011).
U.S. EPA. 1997. Road Map to Understanding Innovative
Technology Options for Brownfields Investigation and
Cleanup. OSWER. (PB97-144810).
U.S. EPA. 1997. The Tool Kit of Technology Information
Resources for Brownfields Sites. OSWER. (PB97-144828).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Consortium for Site Characterization
Technology: Fact Sheet (EPA 542-F-96-012).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Field Portable X-Ray Fluorescence (FPXRF),
Technology Verification Program: Fact Sheet (EPA
542-F-96-009a).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Portable Gas Chromatograph/Mass
Spectrometers (GC/MS), Technology Verification Program:
Fact Sheet (EPA 542-F-96-009c).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Site Characterization Analysis Penetrometer
System (SCAPS) LIF Sensor (EPA 540-MR-95-520, EPA 540
R-95-520).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Site Characterization and Monitoring: A
Bibliography of EPA Information Resources (EPA
542-B-96-001).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Soil Screening Guidance (540/R-96/128).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Clor-N-Soil PCB Test Kit L2000
PCB/Chloride Analyzer (EPA 540-MR-95-518, EPA
540-R-95-518).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Contract Laboratory Program: Volatile
Organics Analysis of Ambient Air in Canisters Revision
VCAA01.0 (PB95-963524).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Contract Lab Program: Draft Statement of
Work for Quick Turnaround Analysis (PB95-963523).
U.S. EPA. 1995. EnviroGard PCB Test Kit (EPA
540-MR-95-517, EPA 540-R-95-517).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Field Analytical Screening Program: PCB
Method (EPA 540-MR-95-521, EPA 540-R-95-521).
U.S. EPA. 1995. PCB Method, Field Analytical Screening
Program (Innovative Technology Evaluation Report) (EPA
540-R-95-521, PB96-130026); Demonstration Bulletin (EPA
540-MR-95-521).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Profile of the Iron and Steel Industry (EPA
310-R-95-005).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Rapid Optical Screen Tool (ROST) (EPA
540-MR-95-519, EPA 540-R-95-519).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund.
63
-------
http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/
Catalog/EPA540R95132.html.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments (ARCS) Program (EPA 905-R-94-003).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Characterization of Chromium-Contaminated
Soils Using Field-Portable X-ray Fluorescence (PB94-210457).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Development of a Battery-Opera ted Portable
Synchronous Luminescence Spectrofluorometer
(PB94-170032).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Engineering Forum Issue: Considerations in
Deciding to Treat Contaminated Unsaturated Soils In Situ (EPA
540-S-94-500, PB94-177771).
U.S. EPA. 1994. SITE Program: An Engineering Analysis of
the Demonstration Program (EPA 540-R-94-530).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Data Quality Objectives Process for
Superfund (EPA 540-R-93-071).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Conference on the Risk Assessment Paradigm
After 10 Years: Policy and Practice, Then, Now, and in the
Future.
http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/Catalog/EPA600R93039.html.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Guidance for Evaluating the Technical
Impracticability of Ground Water Restoration. OSWER
directive (9234.2-25).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA: Biodegradation Remedy Selection (EPA
540-R-93-519a, PB94-117470).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Subsurface Characterization and Monitoring
Techniques (EPA 625-R-93-003a&b).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Characterizing Heterogeneous Wastes:
Methods and Recommendations (March 26-28,1991)
(PB92-216894).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Conducting Treatability Studies Under RCRA
(OSWER Directive 9380.3-09FS, PB92-963501)
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guidance for Data Useability in Risk
Assessment (Part A) (9285.7-09A).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA: Final (EPA 540-R-92-071A, PB93-126787).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA: Soil Vapor Extraction (EPA
540-2-91-019a&b, PB92-227271 & PB92-224401).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA: Soil Washing (EPA 540-2-9l-020a&b,
PB92-170570 & PB92-170588).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA: Solvent Extraction (EPA 540-R-92-016a,
PB92-239581).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide to Site and Soil Description for
Hazardous Waste Site Characterization, Volume 1: Metals
(PB92-146158).
U.S. EPA. 1992. International Symposium on Field Screening
Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals (2nd),
Proceedings. Held in Las Vegas, Nevada on February 12-14,
1991 (PB92-125764).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Sampling of Contaminated Sites
(PB92-110436).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Ground Water Issue: Characterizing Soils for
Hazardous Waste Site Assessment (PB-91-921294).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA: Aerobic Biodegradation Remedy Screening
(EPA 540-2-91-013a&b, PB92-109065 & PB92-109073).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Interim Guidance for Dermal Exposure
Assessment (EPA 600-8-91-011A).
U.S. EPA. 1990. A New Approach and Methodologies for
Characterizing the Hydrogeologic Properties of Aquifers (EPA
600-2-90-002).
U.S. EPA. 1986. Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual
(EPA 540-1-86-060).
U.S. EPA. N.D. Status Report on Field Analytical Technologies
Utilization: Fact Sheet (no publication number available).
U.S.G.S. http://www.mapping.usgs.go v/esic/to_order.hmtl.
Vendor Field Analytical and Characterization Technologies
System (Vendor FACTS), Version 1.0 (Vendor FACTS can be
downloaded from the Internet at www.prcemi.com/visitt or
from the CLU-IN Web site at http://clu-in.com).
The Whitman Companies. Last modified October 4, 1996.
Environmental Due Diligence. http://www.whitmanco.
com/dilgnce 1 .html.
Site Cleanup
ASTM. N.D. New Standard Guide for Remediation by Natural
Attenuation at Petroleum Release Sites (ASTM E50.01).
Brownfields Redevelopment: A Guidebook for Local
Governments & Communities, International City/County
Management Association, 1997
Federal Register. September 9, 1997. www.access.
gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces!40.html, vol.62, no.174, p.
47495-47506.
Federal Remediation Technology
http://www.frtr.gov/matrix/top_page.html.
Roundtable.
Interagency Cost Workgroup. 1994. Historical Cost Analysis
System. Version 2.0.
Los Alamos National Laboratory. 1996. A Compendium of
Cost Data for Environmental Remediation Technologies
(LA-UR-96-2205).
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. N.D. Treatability of Hazardous
Chemicals in Soils: Volatile and Semi-Volatile Organics
(ORNL-6451).
Robbat, Albert, Jr. 1997. Dynamic Workplans and Field
Analytics: The Keys to Cost Effective Site Characterization and
Cleanup. Tufts University under Cooperative Agreement with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October.
64
-------
U.S. EPA. 1999. Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Cleaning Up Metal Finishing Sites under the Brownfields
Initiative. (EPA/625/R-98/006)
U.S. EPA. 1997. Road Map to Understanding Innovative
Technology Options for Brownfields Investigation and
Cleanup. OSWER. PB97-144810).
U.S. EPA. 1997. The Tool Kit of Technology Information
Resources for Brownfields Sites. OSWER. (PB97-144828).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Bioremediation Field Evaluation: Champion
International Superfund Site, Libby, Montana (EPA
540-R-96-500).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Bibliography for Innovative Site Clean-Up
Technologies (EPA 542-B-96-003).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Bioremediation of Hazardous Wastes:
Research, Development, and Field Evaluations (EPA
540-R-95-532, PB96-130729).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Citizen's Guides to Understanding Innovative
Treatment Technologies (EPA 542-F-96-013):
Bioremediation (EPA 542-F-96-007, EPA 542-F-96-023) In
addition to screening levels, EPA regional offices and some
states have developed cleanup levels, known as corrective
action levels; if contaminant concentrations are above
corrective action levels, cleanup must be pursued. The section
on "Performing a Phase II Site Assessment" in this document
provides more information on screening levels, and the section
on "Site Cleanup" provides more information on corrective
action levels.
Chemical Dehalogenation (EPA 542-F-96-004, EPA
542-F-96-020)
In Situ Soil Flushing (EPA 542-F-96-006, EPA 542-F-96-022)
Innovative Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Soils,
Sludges, Sediments, and Debris (EPA 542-F-96-001, EPA
542-F-96-017)
Phytoremediation (EPA 542-F-96-014, EPA 542-F-96-025)
Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging (EPA 542-F-96-008,
EPA 542-F-96-024)
Soil Washing (EPA 542-F-96-002, EPA 542-F-96-018)
Solvent Extraction (EPA 542-F-96-003, EPA 542-F-96-019)
Thermal Desorption (EPA 542-F-96-005, EPA 542-F-96-021)
Treatment Walls (EPA 542-F-96-016, EPA 542-F-96-027)
U.S. EPA. 1996. Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:
Markets and Technology Trends (1996 Edition) (EPA
542-R-96-005, PB96-178041).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Completed North American Innovative
Technology Demonstration Projects (EPA 542-B-96-002,
PB96-153127).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Cone Penetrometer/Laser Induced
Fluorescence (LIF) Technology Verification Program: Fact
Sheet (EPA 542-F-96-009b).
U.S. EPA. 1996. EPA Directive: Initiatives to Promote
Innovative Technologies in Waste Management Programs (EPA
540-F-96-012).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Errata to Guide to EPA materials on
Underground Storage Tanks (EPA 510-F-96-002).
U.S. EPA. 1996. How to Effectively Recover Free Product at
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for State
Regulators (EPA 510-F-96-001; Fact Sheet: EPA
510-F-96-005).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual
Status Report Database (ITT Database).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Introducing TANK Racer (EPA
510-F96-001).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Market Opportunities for Innovative Site
Cleanup Technologies: Southeastern States (EPA
542-R-96-007, PB96-199518).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Recent Developments for In situ Treatment of
Metal-Contaminated Soils (EPA 542-R-96-008, PB96-153135).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Review of Intrinsic Bioremediation of TCE in
Groundwater at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey and St. Joseph,
Michigan (EPA 600-A-95-096, PB95-252995).
U.S. EPA. 1996. State Policies Concerning the Use of
Injectants for In Situ Groundwater Remediation (EPA
542-R-96-001, PB96-164538).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies (EPA
542-R-95-001, PB95-201711).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Accessing Federal Data Bases for
Contaminated Site Clean-Up Technologies, Fourth Edition
(EPA 542-B-95-005, PB96-141601).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation Field Evaluation: Eielson Air
Force Base, Alaska (EPA 540-R-95-533).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation Field Initiative Site Profiles:
Champion Site, Libby, MT (EPA 540-F-95-506a)
Eielson Air Force Base, AK (EPA 540-F-95-506b)
Hill Air Force Base Superfund Site, UT (EPA 540-F-95-506c)
Public Service Company of Colorado (EPA 540-F-95-506d)
Escambia Wood Preserving Site, FL (EPA 540-F-95-506g)
Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation , MN (EPA
540-F-95-506h)
U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation Final Performance Evaluation
of the Prepared Bed Land Treatment System, Champion
International Superfund Site, Libby, Montana: Volume I, Text
(EPA 600-R-95-156a); Volume II, Figures and Tables (EPA
600-R-95-156b).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons:
A Flexible, Variable Speed Technology (EPA 600-A-95-140,
PB96-139035).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Combined Chemical and Biological Oxidation
of Slurry Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (EPA
600-A-95-065, PB95-217642).
65
-------
U.S. EPA. 1995. Contaminants and Remedial Options at
Selected Metal Contaminated Sites (EPA 540-R-95-512,
PB95-271961).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Development of a Photothermal
Detoxification Unit: Emerging Technology Summary (EPA
540-SR-95-526); Emerging Technology Bulletin (EPA
540-F-95-505).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Electrokinetic Soil Processing: Emerging
Technology Bulletin (EPA 540-F-95-504); ET Project
Summary (EPA 540-SR-93-515).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Emerging Abiotic In Situ Remediation
Technologies for Groundwater and Soil: Summary Report (EPA
542-S-95-001, PB95-239299).
U.S. EPA. 1995.
540-F-95-502).
Emerging Technology Program (EPA
U.S. EPA. 1995. ETI: Environmental Technology Initiative
(document order form) (EPA 542-F-95-007).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Federal Publications on Alternative and
Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and
Site Remediation, Fifth Edition (EPA 542-B-95-004,
PB96-145099).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable: 5 Years of Cooperation (EPA 542-F-95-007).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance
for Remediation Projects (EPA 542-B-95-002, PB95-182960).
U.S. EPA. 1995. In Situ Metal-Enhanced Abiotic Degradation
Process Technology, Environmental Technologies, Inc.:
Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-95-510).
U.S. EPA. 1995. In Situ Vitrification Treatment: Engineering
Bulletin (EPA 540-S-94-504, PB95-125499).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Intrinsic Bioattenuation for Subsurface
Restoration (book chapter) (EPA 600-A-95-1 12,
PB95-274213).
U.S. EPA. 1995. J.R. Simplot Ex-Situ Bioremediation
Technology for Treatment of TNT-Contaminated Soils:
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (EPA
540-R-95-529); Site Technology Capsule (EPA
540-R-95-529a).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Lessons Learned About In Situ Air Sparging
at the Denison Avenue Site, Cleveland, Ohio (Project Report),
Assessing UST Corrective Action Technologies (EPA
600-R-95-040, PB95-188082).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Microbial Activity in Subsurface Samples
Before and During Nitrate-Enhanced Bioremediation (EPA
600-A-95-109, PB95-274239).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Musts for USTS: A Summary of the
Regulations for Underground Tank Systems (EPA
510-K-95-002).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Natural Attenuation of Trichloroethene at the
St. Joseph, Michigan, Superfund Site (EPA 600-SV-95-001).
U.S. EPA. 1995. New York State Multi-Vendor
Bioremediation: Ex-Situ Biovault, ENSR Consulting and
Engineering/Larson Engineers: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA
540-MR-95-525).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Process for the Treatment of Volatile Organic
Carbon and Heavy-Metal-Contaminated Soil, International
Technology Corp.: Emerging Technology Bulletin (EPA
540-F-95-509).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Progress in Reducing Impediments to the Use
of Innovative Remediation Technology (EPA 542-F-95-008,
PB95-262556).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remedial Design/Remedial Action Handbook
(PB95-963307-ND2).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remedial Design/Remedial Action Handbook
Fact Sheet (PB95-963312-NDZ).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation
(EPA 542-R-95-002, PB95-182911).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Fact Sheet and
Order Form (EPA 542-F-95-003); Four Document Set
(PB95-182903).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater
Treatment (EPA 542-R-95-003, PB95-182929).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor
Extraction (EPA 542-R-95-004, PB95-182937).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Thermal
Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ Vitrification (EPA
542-R-95-005, PB95-182945).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
and Reference Guide, Second Edition (PB95-104782; Fact
Sheet: EPA 542-F-95-002). Federal Remediation Technology
Roundtable. Also see Internet:
http: //www .frtr. go v/m atrix/top -page .html.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Removal of PCBs from Contaminated Soil
Using the Cf Systems (trade name) Solvent Extraction Process:
A Treatability Study (EPA 540-R-95-505, PB95-199030);
Project Summary (EPA 540-SR-95-505).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Review of Mathematical Modeling for
Evaluating Soil Vapor Extraction Systems (EPA 540-R-95-513,
PB95-243051).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Selected Alternative and Innovative Treatment
Technologies for Corrective Action and Site Remediation: A
Bibliography of EPA Information Resources (EPA
542-B-95-001).
U.S. EPA. 1995. SITE Emerging Technology Program (EPA
540-F-95-502).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Enhancement
Technology Resource Guide Air Sparging, Bioventing,
Fracturing, Thermal Enhancements (EPA 542-B-95-003).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Soil Vapor Extraction Implementation
Experiences (OSWER Publication 9200.5-223FS, EPA
540-F-95-030, PB95-963315).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Surfactant Injection for Ground Water
Remediation: State Regulators' Perspectives and Experiences
(EPA 542-R-95-011, PB96-164546).
66
-------
U.S. EPA. 1995. Symposium on Bioremediation of Hazardous
Wastes: Research, Development, and Field Evaluations,
Abstracts: Rye Town Hilton, Rye Brook, New York, August
8-10, 1995 (EPA 600-R-95-078).
U.S. EPA. 1993-1995. Technology Resource Guides:.
Bioremediation Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-93-004)
Groundwater Treatment Technology Resource Guide (EPA
542-B-94-009, PB95-138657)
Physical/Chemical Treatment Technology Resource Guide
(EPA 542-B-94-008, PB95-138665)
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Enhancement Technology
Resource Guide: Air Sparging, Bioventing, Fracturing, and
Thermal Enhancements (EPA 542-B-95-003)
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Treatment Technology Resource
Guide (EPA 542-B-94-007)
U.S. EPA. 1995. Waste Vitrification Through Electric Melting,
Ferro Corporation: Emerging Technology Bulletin (EPA
540-F-95-503).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Accessing EPA's Environmental Technology
Programs (EPA 542-F-94-005).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Bioremediation: A Video Primer (video)
(EPA 510-V-94-001).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Bioremediation in the Field Search System
(EPA 540-F-95-507; Fact Sheet: EPA 540-F-94-506).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Contaminants and Remedial Options at
Solvent-Contaminated Sites (EPA 600-R-94-203,
PB95-177200).
U.S. EPA. 1990-1994. EPA Engineering Bulletins:.
Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: APEG Treatment (EPA
540-2-90-015, PB91-228031)
Chemical Oxidation Treatment (EPA 540-2-91-025)
In Situ Biodegradation Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-502,
PB94-190469)
In Situ Soil Flushing (EPA 540-2-91-021)
In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment (EPA 540-2-91-006,
PB91-228072)
In Situ Steam Extraction Treatment (EPA 540-2-91-005,
PB91-228064)
In Situ Vitrification Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-504,
PB95-125499)
Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment (EPA
540-2-90-014)
Pyrolysis Treatment (EPA 540-S-92-010)
Rotating Biological Contactors (EPA 540-S-92-007)
Slurry Biodegradation (EPA 540-2-90-016, PB91-228049)
Soil Washing Treatment (EPA 540-2-90-017, PB91-228056)
Solidification/Stabilization of Organics and Inorganics (EPA
540-S-92-015)
Solvent Extraction Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-503,
PB94-190477)
Supercritical Water Oxidation (EPA 540-S-92-006)
Technology Preselection Data Requirements (EPA
540-S-92-009)
Thermal Desorption Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-501,
PB94-160603)
U.S. EPA. 1994. Field Investigation of Effectiveness of Soil
Vapor Extraction Technology (Final Project Report) (EPA
600-R-94-142, PB94-205531).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Ground Water Treatment Technologies
Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-94-009, PB95-138657).
U.S. EPA. 1994. How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup
Technologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for
Corrective Action Plan Reviewers (EPA 510-B-94-003, S/N
055-000-00499-4); Pamphlet (EPA 510-F-95-003).
U.S. EPA. 1994. In Situ Steam Enhanced Recovery Process,
Hughes Environmental Systems, Inc.: Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report (EPA 540-R-94-510, PB95-271854); Site
Technology Capsule (EPA 540-R-94-510a, PB95-270476).
U.S. EPA. 1994. In Situ Vitrification, Geosafe Corporation:
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 540-R-94-520,
PB95-21 324 5); Demonstration Bulletin (EPA
540-MR-94-520).
U.S. EPA. 1994. J.R. Simplot Ex-Situ Bioremediation
Technology for Treatment of Dinoseb-Contaminated Soils:
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (EPA
540-R-94-508); Demonstration Bulletin (EPA
540-MR-94-508).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Literature Review Summary of Metals
Extraction Processes Used to Remove Lead From Soils, Project
Summary (EPA 600-SR-94-006).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Northeast Remediation Marketplace: Business
Opportunities for Innovative Technologies (Summary
Proceedings) (EPA 542-R-94-001, PB94-154770).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Physical/Chemical Treatment Technology
Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-94-008, PB95-138665).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Profile of Innovative Technologies and
Vendors for Waste Site Remediation (EPA 542-R-94-002,
PB95-138418).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Radio Frequency Heating, KAI Technologies,
Inc.: Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (EPA
540-R-94-528); Site Technology Capsule (EPA 540-R-94-528a,
PB95-249454).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Regional Market Opportunities for Innovative
Site Clean-up Technologies: Middle Atlantic States (EPA
542-R-95-010, PB96-121637).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Rocky Mountain Remediation Marketplace:
Business Opportunities for Innovative Technologies (Summary
Proceedings) (EPA 542-R-94-006, PB95-173738).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Selected EPA Products and Assistance On
Alternative Cleanup Technologies (Includes Remediation
67
-------
Guidance Documents Produced By The Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources) (EPA 510-E-94-001).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment Technology
Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-94-007).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Solid Oxygen Source for Bioremediation
Subsurface Soils (revised) (EPA 600-J-94-495, PB95-155149).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Solvent Extraction: Engineering Bulletin
(EPA 540-S-94-503, PB94-190477).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Solvent Extraction Treatment System,
Terra-Kleen Response Group, Inc. (EPA 540-MR-94-521).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Status Reports on In Situ Treatment
Technology Demonstration and Applications:.
Altering Chemical Conditions (EPA 542-K-94-008)
Cosolvents (EPA 542-K-94-006)
Electrokinetics (EPA 542-K-94-007)
Hydraulic and Pneumatic Fracturing (EPA 542-K-94-005)
Surfactant Enhancements (EPA 542-K-94-003)
Thermal Enhancements (EPA 542-K-94-009)
Treatment Walls (EPA 542-K-94-004)
U.S. EPA. 1994. Subsurface Volatization and Ventilation
System (SVVS): Innovative Technology Report (EPA
540-R-94-529, PB96-116488); Site Technology Capsule (EPA
540-R-94-529a, PB95-256111).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program: Technology Profiles, Seventh Edition (EPA
540-R-94-526, PB95-183919).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Desorption System, Maxymillian
Technologies, Inc.: Site Technology Capsule (EPA
540-R94-507a, PB95-122800).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Desorption Treatment: Engineering
Bulletin (EPA 540-S-94-501, PB94-160603).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Desorption Unit, Eco Logic
International, Inc.: Application Analysis Report (EPA
540-AR-94-504).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Enhancements: Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 542-K-94-009).
U.S. EPA. 1994. The Use of Cationic Surfactants to Modify
Aquifer Materials to Reduce the Mobility of Hydrophobic
Organic Compounds (EPA 600-S-94-002, PB95-111951).
U.S. EPA. 1994. West Coast Remediation Marketplace:
Business Opportunities for Innovative Technologies (Summary
Proceedings) (EPA 542-R-94-008, PB95-1433 19).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Accutech Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction and
Hot Gas Injection, Phase I: Technology Evaluation Report
(EPA 540-R-93-509, PB93-216596).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Augmented In Situ Subsurface Bioremediation
Process, Bio-Rem, Inc.: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA
540-MR-93-527).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Biogenesis Soil Washing Technology:
Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-510).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Bioremediation Resource Guide and Matrix
(EPA 542-B-93-004, PB94-112307).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Bioremediation: Using the Land Treatment
Concept (EPA 600-R-93-164, PB94-107927).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Fungal Treatment Technology: Demonstration
Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-514).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction Process, Eco
Logic International Inc. (EPA 540-R-93-522, PB95-100251,
EPA 540-MR-93-522).
U.S. EPA. 1993. HRUBOUT, Hrubetz Environmental Services:
Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-524).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Hydraulic Fracturing of Contaminated Soil,
U.S. EPA: Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (EPA
540-R-93-505, PB94-100161); Demonstration Bulletin (EPA
540-MR-93-505).
U.S. EPA. 1993. HYPERVENTILATE: A software Guidance
System Created for Vapor Extraction Systems for Apple
Macintosh and IBM PC-Compatible Computers (UST #107)
(EPA 510-F-93-001); User's Manual (Macintosh disk included)
(UST #102) (EPA 500-CB-92-001).
U.S. EPA. 1993. In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated
Ground Water (EPA 540-S-92-003, PB92-224336).
U.S. EPA. 1993. In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated
Unsaturated Subsurface Soils (EPA-S-93-501, PB93-234565).
U.S. EPA. 1993. In Situ Bioremediation of Ground Water and
Geological Material: A Review of Technologies (EPA
600-SR-93-124, PB93-215564).
U.S. EPA. 1993. In Situ Treatments of Contaminated
Groundwater: An Inventory of Research and Field
Demonstrations and Strategies for Improving Groundwater
Remediation Technologies (EPA 500-K-93-001,
PB93-193720).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Laboratory Story on the Use of Hot Water to
Recover Light Oily Wastes from Sands (EPA 600-R-93-021,
PB93-167906).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Low Temperature Thermal Aeration (LTTA)
System, Smith Environmental Technologies Corp.: Applications
Analysis Report (EPA 540-AR-93-504); Site Demonstration
Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-504).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Mission Statement: Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable (EPA 542-F-93-006).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Mobile Volume Reduction Unit, U.S. EPA:
Applications Analysis Report (EPA 540-AR-93-508,
PB94-130275).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Overview of UST Remediation Options (EPA
510-F-93-029).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Soil Recycling Treatment, Toronto Harbour
Commissioners (EPA 540-AR-93-517, PB94-124674).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of
Innovative Site Remediation Technologies, Third Edition (EPA
68
-------
542-B-93-009, PB94-144565).
U.S. EPA. 1993. XTRAX Model 200 Thermal Desorption
System, OHM Remediation Services Corp.: Site Demonstration
Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-502).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Aostra Soil-tech Anaerobic Thermal Process,
Soiltech ATP Systems: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA
540-MR-92-008).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Basic Extractive Sludge Treatment (B.E.S.T.)
Solvent Extraction System, Ionics/Resources Conservation Co.:
Applications Analysis Report (EPA 540-AR-92-079,
PB94-10543 4); Demonstration Summary (EPA
540-SR-92-079).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Bioremediation Case Studies: An Analysis of
Vendor Supplied Data (EPA 600-R-92-043, PB92-232339).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Bioremediation Field Initiative (EPA
540-F-92-012).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Carver Greenfield Process, Dehydrotech
Corporation: Applications Analysis Report (EPA
540-AR-92-002, PB93-101152); Demonstration Summary
(EPA 540-SR-92-002).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Chemical Enhancements to Pump-and-Treat
Remediation (EPA 540-S-92-001, PB92-180074).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Cyclone Furnace Vitrification Technology,
Babcock and Wilcox: Applications Analysis Report (EPA
540-AR-92-017, PB93-1223 15).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Evaluation of Soil Venting Application (EPA
540-S-92-004, PB92-235605).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Excavation Techniques and Foam Suppression
Methods, McColl Superfund Site, U.S. EPA: Applications
Analysis Report (EPA 540-AR-92-015, PB93-100121).
U.S. EPA. 1992. In Situ Biodegradation Treatment:
Engineering Bulletin (EPA 540-S-94-502, PB94-190469).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Low Temperature Thermal Treatment System,
Roy F. Weston, Inc.: Applications Analysis Report (EPA
540-AR-92-019, PB94-124047).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Proceedings of the Symposium on Soil
Venting (EPA 600-R-92-174, PB93-122323).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Soil/Sediment Washing System, Bergman
USA: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-92-075).
U.S. EPA. 1992. TCE Removal From Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater (EPA 540-S-92-002, PB92-224104).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Technology Alternatives for the Remediation
of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment (EPA 540-S-93-506).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Workshop on Removal, Recovery, Treatment,
and Disposal of Arsenic and Mercury (EPA 600-R-92-105,
PB92-216944).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Biological Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments, With Special Emphasis on the Great Lakes: Report
of a Workshop (EPA 600-9-91-001).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Debris Washing System, RREL. Technology
Evaluation Report (EPA 540-5-91-006, PB91-231456).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guide to Discharging CERCLA Aqueous
Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (9330.2-13FS).
U.S. EPA. 1991. In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction: Engineering
Bulletin (EPA 540-2-91-006, PB91-228072).
U.S. EPA. 1991. In Situ Steam Extraction: Engineering Bulletin
(EPA 540-2-91-005, PB91-228064).
U.S. EPA. 1991. In Situ Vapor Extraction and Steam Vacuum
Stripping, AWD Technologies (EPA 540-A5-91-002,
PB92-218379).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Pilot-Scale Demonstration of Slurry-Phase
Biological Reactor for Creosote-Contaminated Soil (EPA
540-A5-91-009, PB94-124039).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Slurry Biodegradation, International
Technology Corporation (EPA 540-MR-91-009).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Understanding Bioremediation: A Guidebook
for Citizens (EPA 540-2-91-002, PB93-205870).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Anaerobic Bio transformation of Contaminants
in the Subsurface (EPA 600-M-90-024, PB91-240549).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment, APEG
Treatment: Engineering Bulletin (EPA 540-2-90-015,
PB91-228031).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Enhanced Bioremediation Utilizing Hydrogen
Peroxide as a Supplemental Source of Oxygen: A Laboratory
and Field Study (EPA 600-2-90-006, PB90-183435).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Guide to Selecting Superfund Remedial
Actions (9355.0-27FS).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Slurry Biodegradation: Engineering Bulletin
(EPA 540-2-90-016, PB91-228049).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Soil Washing Treatment: Engineering Bulletin
(EPA 540-2-90-017, PB91-228056).
U.S. EPA. 1989. Facilitated Transport (EPA 540-4-89-003,
PB91-133256).
U.S. EPA. 1989. Guide on Remedial Actions for Contaminated
Ground Water (9283.1-02FS).
U.S. EPA. 1987. Compendium of Costs of Remedial
Technologies at Hazardous Waste Sites (EPA 600-2-87-087).
U.S. EPA. 1987. Data Quality Objectives for Remedial
Response Activities: Development Process (9355.0-07B).
U.S. EPA. 1986. Costs of Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites (EPA/640/2-86/037).
U.S. EPA. N.D. Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Center (ATTIC) (The ATTIC data base can be accessed by
modem at (703) 908-2138).
U.S. EPA. N.D. Clean Up Information (CLU-IN) Bulletin
Board System. (CLU-IN can be accessed by modem at (301)
589-8366 or by the Internet at http://clu-in.com).
U.S. EPA. N.D. Initiatives to Promote Innovative Technology
in Waste Management Programs (OSWER Directive
9308.0-25).
U.S. EPA and University of Pittsburgh. N.D. Ground Water
69
-------
Remediation Technologies Analysis Center. Internet address:
http: //www. g wrtac. org
Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment
Technologies (VISITT), Version 4.0 (VISIT! can be
downloaded from the Internet at http://www.prcemi.com/visitt
or from the CLU-IN Web site at http://clu-in.com).
1. Interagency Cost Workgroup, 1994.
2. Costs of Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous
Wastes Sites, U.S. EPA, 1986.
3. Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable.
http://www.frtr.gov/matrix/top page.html
UST = underground storage tank
SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compounds
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
PAHs = polyaromatic hydrocarbons
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls
TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbons
70
------- |