f/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency '
Technical Approaches to
Characterizing and Cleaning up
Brownf ields Sites:
Pulp and Paper Mills
Site Profile
-------
EPA/625/R-02/006
June 2002
Technical Approaches to
Characterizing and Cleaning up
Brownfields Sites:Pulp and Paper
Mills
Site Profile
6/04/02
Technology Transfer and Support Division
National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 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 affect 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 indoor 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 community and to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
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 Transfer 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. Participating in this effort were Arvin Wu, Joel Wolf, Adam Lynch,
and Karyn Sper. Reviewers of this document include Margaret Aycock of the Gulf Coast
Hazardous Substance Research Center at Lamar University, Jan Brodmerkl of the US Army
Corps of Engineers in Wilmington, North Carolina, and the Association of State and Territorial
Waste Management Officials (ASTWMO).
Appreciation is given to EPA's Office of Special Programs for guidance on the Brownfields
Initiative.
IV
-------
Contents
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Acknowledgments iv
Contents v
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
Background 1
Purpose 1
Chapter 2. Industrial Processes and Contaminants at Pulp and Paper Mill Sites 4
Introduction 4
Pulp and Paper Mills in America 4
Pulp and Paper Mill Pollution 5
Typical Remediation Strategies for Pulp and Paper Mill Sites 7
Contaminated Water 8
Conclusion 8
Chapter 3. Phase I Site Assessment and Due Diligence 9
Role of EPA and State Government 9
Performing A Phase I Site Assessment 11
Due Diligence 15
Conclusion 19
Chapter 4. Phase II Site Investigation 20
Background 20
Setting Data Quality Objectives 22
Establish Screening Levels 23
Conduct Environmental Sampling and Data Analysis 24
Chapter 5. Contaminant Management 28
Background 28
Evaluate Remedial Alternatives 29
Screening and Selection of Best Remedial Option 33
Develop Remedy Implementation Plan 33
Remedy Implementation 34
Chapter 6. Conclusion 37
Appendix A. Acronyms 39
Appendix B. Glossary 41
Appendix C. Testing Technologies 51
Appendix D. Cleanup Technologies 57
Appendix E. Works Cited 71
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
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. 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 is funding 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.
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
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.
^ Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Cleaning up Brownfields Sites, EPA/625/R-
00/009, December 2000.
^ Technical Approaches to Characterization
and Cleanup of Automotive Recycling
Brownfields, EPA/625/R-02/001. January
2001.
^ Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Redeveloping Brownfields: Municipal
Landfills and Illegal Dumps, EPA/625/R-
02/002,January 2002.
^ Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Cleaning up Brownfields Sites: Railroad
Yards, EPA/625/R-02/007, May 2002.
5^
These guides are comprehensive documents that
cover the key steps to redeveloping brownfields
sites for their respective industrial sector. In
addition, 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).
-------
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
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
Develop Remedy Implementation Plan
Coordinate with stakeholders to design a remedy implementation plan
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
Begin Redevelopment Activities
Exhibit 1-1. Flow Chart of the Brownfields Redevelopment Process
-------
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 - Industrial Processes and
Contaminants at Pulp and Paper Mill Sites
>~ Chapter 3 - Phase I Site Assessment and
Due Diligence
>~ Chapter 4 - Phase II Site Investigation
>~ Chapter 5 - Contaminant Management
>~ Chapter 6 - Conclusion
5s* Appendix A - Acronyms
>~ Appendix B - Glossary
>~ Appendix C - Testing Technologies
>~ Appendix D - Cleanup Technologies
5s* Appendix E - Works Cited
-------
Chapter 2
Industrial Processes and Contaminants at Pulp and Paper Mill Sites
Introduction
The pulp and paper industry in the United States is
one of the largest fully integrated industries in the
world. Each year, mills in every part of the
country produce millions of tons of paper and
paper products for domestic and foreign use. The
Environmental Protection Agency estimates the
total value of shipments from the pulp and paper
industry as close to $135 billion, as much as the
petroleum refining industry. Yet despite this
success, as with most other modern industries, the
pulp and paper industry has seen an unprecedented
wave of mergers in recent years, concentrating the
production of the country's paper into a few mega-
corporations. As a result, many small pulp and
paper mills close each year. When they do,
communities have the opportunity to redevelop
these industrial "brownfields" and incorporate
them into the community at large.
This section provides a brief overview of the
different types of pulp and paper mills;
summarizes the activities and land uses at a typical
pulp and paper mill; describes the contaminants
likely present on the sites of former pulp and paper
mills; and outlines remediation strategies typically
used in the redevelopment of pulp and paper mill
brownfields.
Pulp and Paper Mills in America
The first paper mill in the United States was
located in Philadelphia and opened around 1690.
The first continuous papermaking machine (the
first modern mill) was patented in 1798.
Improved designs were patented in the early 1800s
and were being used in the United States before
1830 (Smook, 1992).
approximately 555 manufacturing pulp and paper
mills in the U.S. Of these 555 mills, an estimated
55 are market pulp facilities, 300 are non-
integrated facilities, and 200 are integrated
facilities. The Sector Notebook did not provide an
estimate on the number of converting facilities and
de-inked pulp mills in the U.S.
These mills are for the most part evenly spread
throughout the US, though they are concentrated
in rural regions in close proximity to large
standing crops of timber, such as Northern New
England and the Upper Midwest.
Pulp and paper mills are typically classified into
the following categories:
>~ Market Pulp Mills These mills produce pulp
which is shipped to other facilities for the
production of paper and paper products.
>~ Non-integrated-Mills These mills
manufacture paper from pulp, but do not
produce either the pulp or the final paper
goods.
>~ Integrated Mills These mills produce pulp for
use in producing paper at the same facility
(pulp and paper mills).
>~ Converting Facilities These facilities use
paper and paperboard stock to manufacture
products such as envelopes and stationery,
corrugated and paperboard boxes, bags, fiber
cans and drums, napkins, tissues, and paper
towels.
>~ De-inked Pulp Mills These facilities remove
ink from recycled paper and produce pulp that
is blended with virgin pulp to form paper.
The 1995 EPA Sector Notebook on the Pulp and
Paper Industry estimated that there are
-------
Pulp and Paper Mill Pollution
Pulp and paper manufacturing involves a series of
steps, each producing one or more characteristic
wastes. These wastes can contain contaminants
that can remain on site for years, and mangers and
developers interested in pursuing a brownfields
project need to know what those contaminants
could possibly be. This section will briefly
describe the major steps of the pulp and paper
process and outline the potential contaminants
produced during each one. All information was
taken from "Handbook for Pulp & Paper
Technologists" (Smook, 1992).
Pulping
Pulp making involves the steps from preparation
of the paper fiber source (typically wood) through
final pulp stock preparation before pulp is sent to
the papermaking process.
Pulp is prepared by primarily physical processes.
Typically, an integrated pulp and paper mill will
have an on site wood/log pile that the raw
materials are taken from. These logs are debarked
and chipped, with the waste bark being burned for
energy.
The actual process of pulping (whereby the
woodchips are transformed into pulp) can be
accomplished in a few different ways, the primary
two being mechanical or chemical pulping.
Mechanical pulping involves using huge kettles to
cook the chips under high pressure, but since
chemical pulping is more likely to produce
contaminants, we will focus on that type of
pulping.
The first type of chemical pulping is called the
kraft/soda process. This process uses a sodium-
based alkaline solution (white liquor), consisting
of sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide, to digest
the wood chips and produce pulp.
The second type of chemical pulping is sulfite
process. In this process, an acidic solution of
sulfurous acid and bisulfate ion is used to degrade
the lignin. Sulfite processing only accounted for 4
percent of total pulp production in 1993 (Smook,
1992).
After producing the raw pulp, it must be processed
to remove impurities, and this step also introduces
a distinct set of contaminants to the process. The
pulp is first screened and defibered to create a
more homogeneous mixture. It is then chemically
treated to recover residual white liquor for reuse.
Typically, heavy metals are also removed here
though chemical treatment. Waste products such
as excess sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfite are
also removed.
PULPING CONTAMINANTS:
Sodium Hydroxide Residues
Sulfuric/Sulfurous Acid
Hydrochloric Acid
Hydrogen Sulfide
Ammonia
Lead
Cyanide
Zinc
Chromium
Resin
Unnatural Fatty Acids and Chlorinated Analogs
Bleaching
It is in the bleaching process that the most
problematic contaminant for pulp and paper mills
is produced: dioxins. Dioxins (and also furans) are
a class of chemicals of the highest toxicity to all
life. They are extremely persistent and cannot be
broken down by bacteria. Dioxins bioaccumulate,
that is to say its concentration in the tissues of
animals increases as you move higher up the food
chain. Dioxins are a byproduct of the use of
elemental chlorine and, to a lesser extent, other
chlorinated substances.
In bleaching, the processed and refined pulp is
chemically altered to increase brightness. Besides
chlorine, hydrogen peroxide and sodium
-------
hydrosulfate can also be used in the bleaching
process. Waste is produced when water is used to
flush the chlorine and other substances from the
paper. It is estimated that over 28,000 gallons of
water are used (mostly in bleaching) to produce
one ton of paper. When this water is released, it
can only be treated so well, and many
contaminants are released into the environment.
BLEACHING CONTAMINANTS
Hydrogen Peroxide
Elemental Chlorine
Chlorinated Compounds
Sodium Hydrosulfite
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Dioxins and Furans
In dry end operations, the paper is driven through
steam heated rollers to further compress the sheets
and to bind the paper fibers together. The sheet is
then sent through machines which apply coatings
to the paper, depending on its ultimate use. These
coatings can be released into the environment
when the coating machines are cleaned.
In addition, after the dry end operations are
completed, the process water that remains is
filtered to remove particulate matter and then
recycled back into the process. The filtered solids
have high concentrations of dioxins and
chlorinated substances and this "sludge" poses a
large compliance burden. Many older plants
disposed of this hazardous waste on site in
landfills, and brownfield development at these
mills should investigate to determine if there was a
solid waste landfill on the site.
Paper Manufacture
The actual papermaking process consists of two
primary processes: dry end operations and wet end
operations. In wet end operations, the cleaned and
bleached pulp is formed into wet paper sheets. In
the dry end operations, those wet sheets are dried
and various surface treatments are applied to the
paper. Each operations regime has its own
characteristic waste stream.
> Wet End Operations
This step begins with the spreading of the wet pulp
onto a moving screen. That screen is sent through
a series of vacuums to remove water from it. It is
then passed through high speed rollers to press it
into firmer sheets and remove more water. This
product is then sent to dry end operations.
The only true waste stream produced in the wet
end operations is the wastewater that is collected
from the pulp. This wastewater has the same
contaminants, in much smaller concentrations, that
the pulping process produces.
>* Dry End Operations
PAPERMAKING CONTAMINANTS
Waste sludge
Bleaching and pulping contaminants
SVOCs (in coatings)
VOCs (in coatings)
Slimicides
Chlorinated phenols
Some aminos, and quaternary ammonium
compounds
Some organosulfur compounds
Some silver compounds
Titanium residues
Oil and grease discharges collected in sediments
Polychlorinated biphenyls (from carbonless paper)
pesticides, dyes , asbestos fibers from
agricultural residues
All three major steps in the pulp and paper process
produce contaminants of some kind. Managers
should remember that each pulp and paper
operation is unique in scale and character.
Integrated mills, for example, participate in all
three of these steps in one location, while market
pulp mills only participate in the first. Also, mills
differ in what final product they produce. Some
-------
papers produce less hazardous waste per ton than
others. Developers wishing to pursue brownfields
projects should investigate the mill that operated
on site to determine what contaminants they will
have to deal with, and on what scale these
contaminants may be present.
Typical Remediation Strategies for Pulp
and Paper Mill Sites
There are two separate but related media that any
remediation of a pulp and paper mill brownfield
must treat: the soil and the water. Each media can
be contaminated by the same chemicals, but the
ways that developers and managers reduce or
eliminate contamination in these media can vary.
Soil Remediation
By far the largest remediation burden for
contaminated soils is the removal of dioxins.
These toxins have especially high residence times
in the soil, and many times cannot be broken down
by conventional biological or physical treatment
techniques. In fact, many times, dioxin
contaminated soils must be excavated and shipped
off site for disposal in a hazardous waste landfill.
Other contaminants that are typically found in the
soil, such as VOCs and SVOCs and chlorinated
compounds, can be treated effectively with more
conventional soil treatment techniques.
Some of these techniques include:
5s" Bioremediation (ex situ)
This technology offers permanent destruction
of chlorinated and other organic compounds
through use of the white rot fungus. This
technique requires sufficient resources to
excavate and transport the affected soil, as
well as an EPA registered landfill or
hazardous waste dump to carry out the
treatment at. (IRM, 2000)
This process is very popular with pulp and
paper mill remediations. It is based on the
principles of hydrodynamics, physics, and
chemical and biological principles. It allows
for the efficient and homogeneous treatment of
a wide variety of contaminants (very valuable
with pulp and paper mills because of the
diversity of contaminants). The process
involves the use of a surfactant (a component
of detergent) to "wash" soil of its
contaminants. These contaminants can then be
collected and moved or further treated off site.
This technology is especially useful treating
heavy metals and halogenated volatiles. (IRM,
2000)
Oxidation/Reduction
This treatment process uses chemical reagents
to destroy contaminants in the soil matrix.
Theoretically, contaminants should be broken
down into carbon dioxide and water.
Practically, managers can use oxidation and
reduction to at the very least break down
contaminants into less harmful, biologically
available compounds. This treatment process
can sometimes be used to treat dioxins and
furans, with the added component of UV light
to help in the breakdown of the chemicals.
(IRM, 2000)
In situ vitrification (ISV)
ISV is a commercially available mobile,
thermal treatment process that involves the
electric melting of contaminated soils, sludges,
or other earthen materials, for the purposes of
permanently destroying, removing, and/or
immobilising hazardous substances. It is used
primarily for the degradation and collection of
organics (both volatile and non-volatile) but it
can also be used for chlorinated compounds. A
typical site set-up diagram is shown below.
(IRM, 2000)
Surfactant Flushing
-------
Contaminated Water
Both surface and groundwater can be
contaminated with pulp and paper mill wastes. In
general, surface water contamination tends to be
short term, especially if the contaminated body of
water is a river. Only in rare instances will
significant treatment programs be necessary to
deal with surface water contamination, and for that
reason, this document will not address such
programs. On the other hand, groundwater
contamination is a very long term problem, where
contamination can persist in aquifers for years
without treatment. In addition, groundwater is the
source of significant amounts of our drinking
water, especially in rural areas where it is widely
used in homes with wells.
5s* Treatment Walls
This treatment technique is a very affordable
way to treat contaminated groundwater. After
determining the direction of groundwater flow
and ascertaining the source of the
contamination, a trench is dug perpendicular
to the direction of water flow, and a wall is
constructed in the trench. The wall can be
made from a variety of different materials,
depending on the contaminants that are
present. The walls are constructed such that
water can flow through, while contaminants
bond with chemicals in the wall. Activated
carbon is typically used to remove
contaminants.
^ Groundwater Extraction/Injection
This groundwater treatment technique requires
the drilling of treatment wells into the
contaminated aquifer. These wells are then
used either as injection or extraction wells.
With an injection well, uncontaminated water
(either surface water or water from an
uncontaminated region of the aquifer) is
injected into the contaminated region of the
aquifer, with the purpose being to 'dilute' the
pollution to the point that it is not hazardous.
The alternative is to use the well as an
extraction well, where contaminated water is
drawn from the aquifer and treated on the
surface. In most remediation situations, both
of these techniques are used in tandem.
Contaminated groundwater is removed from
the aquifer, treated, and then returned via an
injection well. These treatment techniques are
typically very expensive and can take years to
effectively treat contamination, as withdrawal
and injection rates must be low to avoid
surface subsidence.
Conclusion
Contamination from pulp and paper mills can pose
a very real danger to human and environmental
health. The contaminants released span the full
spectrum of toxicity, from suspended solids to
carcinogens like dioxins. Remediation of sites
contaminated by these chemicals can be costly and
time consuming, but it can be done. The
contaminants and remediation techniques listed in
this chapter are ones typically used at pulp and
paper mill brownfields, yet every site is unique,
and developers will need to develop a remediation
plan based upon the contamination actually
present on-site.
On site Vitrification Process
.,*rf.
-------
Chapter 3 - Phase I Site Assessment and Due Diligence
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 is usually around $2,500. A site assessment
typically identifies:
>~ Potential contaminants that remain in and
around a site;
>~ Likely pathways that the contaminants may
move through; 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 project.
Perform Phase I
Site Assessment
and Due Diligence
Perform
Phase II Site
Investigation
Evaluate
Remedial
Options
Develop
Remedy
Implementation
Plan
Remedy
Implementation
This chapter begins with background information
on the role of the EPA and state government in
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;
5s* 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.
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
10
-------
submission to the EPA and the voluntary
party.
5s* Ensure safe completion of voluntary
response actions through oversight and
enforcement of the cleanup process.
5s* 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:1
>~ 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;
5s* 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,
The elements of a site assessment presented here
are based in part on ASTM Standards 1527 and 1528.
and develop a report during a site assessment is
provided below.
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.
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). Other sources of information might include
company patents, shareholder reports, and library
archives.
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 may
provide the following types of facility level data:
11
-------
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 maps2 or other historical maps or
data that indicate the location of hazardous
waste storage areas at the site.
>~ 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
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
-------
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
Local USGS offices may also have topographic
maps.
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
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.
13
-------
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:
5s* 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
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.
14
-------
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;
5s* Evidence of hazardous substances migrating
on- or off-site;
>~ Odors;
> Wells;
5s* Pits, ponds, or lagoons;
>~ Surface pools of liquids;
>* Drums or storage containers;
>~ Stained soil or pavements;
5s* Corrosion;
>~ Stressed vegetation;
>~ Solid waste;
>~ Drains, sewers, sumps, or pathways for off-
site migration; and
>~ Roads, water supplies, and sewage systems.
Conducting Interviews
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.
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
15
-------
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.
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, DC, 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.
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-
16
-------
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).
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 Ferrer, 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
17
-------
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.
18
-------
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 II site investigation should be
conducted, as described in the next chapter.
19
-------
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
contamination. 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
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.
20
-------
Phase II Site Investigation
Sample the Site to Identify the Type, Quantity, and
Extent of the Contamination
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
21
-------
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).
This chapter provides a general approach to site
investigation; 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.
22
-------
>~ 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 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
23
-------
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),
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.
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,
24
-------
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
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.
25
-------
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;
5s* 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
-------
Case Study
Oxford Paper
Lawrence Massachusetts
The city of Lawrence, Massachusetts, has targeted the North Canal Industrial Corridor
through the EPA Brownfields Pilot for redevelopment. This area is almost entirely industrial
and commercial in nature and is situated around the Merrimack and Spickett Rivers and a
series of canals that serviced the original textile and paper mills. The three specific sites
that are intended for redevelopment are Oxford Paper, Everett Mill, and West Island. The
Oxford Paper plant is located at the entrance or "gateway" to the city's historical district.
Part of the Oxford Paper site was sold to General Tire which they have since cleaned up.
Each of these sites has a component that focuses on transportation improvements that will
be adventitious to the business climate for the city's industrial core. The City of Lawrence
gained control of the land when it was seized for back taxes.
In 1994, officials launched an initiative to redevelop the Oxford site by ingeniously "piggy-
backing" the project onto a nearby highway project, thus enabling the city to draw on the
Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) fund. MHD and GenCorp, a neighboring
corporation are partners in this site's cleanup and redevelopment. GenCorp has contributed
more than $900,000 towards assessment and cleanup of the site. The MHD intends to
construct a suspension bridge that will span the Spickett River, highway improvements, and
the City plans on instituting a park on part of the area.
The six acre Oxford Paper site had long been suspected by the City to be contaminated,
and a Phase I environmental assessment was conducted. This confirmed that the site was
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) due to a process used to produce
glossy pages for magazines. Kevin Sculley of Stone & Webster, the City's contractor, has
also found asbetos, lead, PAHs, TPH, and potential dioxin contamination on site.
The contaminated soil will be excavated and deposited off-site. No clay or synthetic liners
will be used due to the excavation. Residential levels are targeted (2 ppm PCBs) which
should also reduce risk calculations to acceptable levels for the other contaminants.
Demolition of existing buildings was undertaken in the Spring of 1999, under the supervision
of the Brownfields Pilot. Construction on site is expected in the year 2000.
27
-------
Chapter 5
Contaminant Management
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
5^ 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
28
-------
require less extensive cleanup efforts than
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 II 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.
29
-------
Evaluate Remedial Alternatives
Compile and Assess Possible Remedial Alternatives
for the Brownfields Site
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
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
30
-------
31
-------
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.
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.
5s* Surface water control. Planners should be
prepared to prove to regulators that
stormwater cannot infiltrate the floor slab and
flush the contaminants downward.
5s* 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 categories-ex 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
32
-------
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.
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.
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
remedy implementation plan should include the
following elements:
33
-------
>* 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.
5s* 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:
5s* Industry;
>~ City, county, state and federal governments;
>~ Community groups, residents and leaders;
>~ Developers and other private businesses;
5s* Banks and lenders;
>~ Environmental groups;
>~ Educational institutes;
>~ Community development organizations;
5s* 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.
34
-------
Develop Remedy Implementation Plan
Coordinate with Stakeholders to Design a Remedy
Implementation Plan
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
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
35
-------
Exhibit 5-3. Cleanup Technologies for Pulp and Paper Brownfields Sites
Applicable
Technology
Technology
Description
Containment Technologies
Capping Relatively impermeable material
used to cover buried waste
materials to minimize rainfall
infiltration and resultant
contaminant migration.
Sheet Piling Steel or iron sheets are driven
into the ground to form a
subsurface barrier. Used
primarily for shallow aquifers.
Grout Curtain Grout curtains are injected into
subsurface soils and bedrock.
forming an impermeable barrier.
Slurry Walls Vertically excavated trench
filled with a slurry of bentonite,
soil, and water to contain or
divert contaminated groundwater
and landfill leachate.
Examples of
Applicable
Process Areas
De-inking,
digestion of
recycle paper
Contaminants
Treated by
This Technology
Metals.
Not contaminant
-specific.
Not contaminant
-specific.
Not contaminant
-specific.
Ex Situ Technologies
Excavation/
Offsite
Disposal
Composting
Chemical
Oxidation/
Reduction
Removes contaminated material
to an EPA approved landfill.
Controlled microbiological process
that converts biodegradable
hazardous materials in soils
to innocuous, stabilized byproducts.
Reduction/oxidation (Redox) reactions Metals.
chemically convert hazardous
contaminants to nonhazardous or less
toxic compounds that are more
stable, less mobile, or inert.
Common oxidizing agents are
ozone, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorite,
chlorine, and chlorine dioxide.
Maintenance and
process areas,
USTs.
Maintenance.
Not contaminant-
specific.
SVOCs, VOCs.
36
-------
Exhibit 5-3. Continued
Applicable
Technology
Technology
Description
Soil Washing A water-based process for scrubbing
excavated soils 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.
Thermal Low temperatures (200°F to 900°F)
Desorption used to remove organic contaminants
from soils and sludges. Off gases
are collected and treated. Can be
performed on site or off site.
Incineration High temperatures (HOOT to
to 2,200°F) are used to volatilize
and combust hazardous wastes.
UV Oxidation Destruction process that oxidizes
constituents in water using
strong oxidizers and irradiation
with UV light.
Pyrolysis A thermal treatment technology
that induces chemical
decomposition of organic
materials in the absence of oxygen.
Collected vapors, small amounts
of liquid, and a solid residue result.
Precipitation Conversion of soluble heavy
metal salts to insoluble salts that
precipitate. Often used as a
pretreatment for other treatment
technologies where the presence
of metals would interfere with the
treatment processes.
Liquid Phase Groundwater is pumped through a
series of vessels containing
Examples of
Applicable
Process Areas
Wastes from
maintenance
Contaminants
Treated by
This Technology
SVOCs.
Metals.
Power generation VOCs.
and maintenance PCBs.
operations, UST. PAHs.
Maintenance VOCs, PCBs,
operations, USTs, dioxins.
and bleaching.
Maintenance VOCs.
operations, USTs.
Wastes from
recycling and
de-inking
operations.
Metals.
Low levels of Carbon
metals, VOCs
37
-------
Exhibit 5-3. Continued
Applicable
Technology
Technology
Description
Examples of
Applicable
Process Areas
Adsorption activated carbon, to which
dissolved contaminants adsorb.
Air Stripping Contaminants are partitioned from
groundwater by greatly increasing
the surface area of the contaminated
water exposed to air.
Maintenance
operations,
USTs.
Contaminants
Treated by
This Technology
SVOCs.
VOCs.
In Situ Technologies
Natural Natural subsurface processes such as Maintenance
dilution, volatilization, biodegradation,
adsorption, and chemical reactions with
subsurface media can reduce contaminant
concentrations to acceptable levels.
Soil Vapor A vacuum is applied to the soil to induce Maintenance
Extraction 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.
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.
Solidification/ Reduces the mobility of hazardous
substances and contaminants through
chemical and physical means.
VOCs. Attenuation
VOCs.
Metals.
Air Sparging In situ technology in which air is
injected under pressure below the
water table to increase groundwater
oxygen concentrations and enhance
natural biological degradation.
Maintenance
UST,
Metals. Stabilization
VOCs.
(Continued)
38
-------
Exhibit 5-3. Continued
Applicable Technology
Technology Description
Passive A permeable reaction wall is installed
Treatment inground, across the flow path of a
Walls contaminant plume, allowing the water
portion of the plume to passively move
through the wall.
Chemical Destruction process that oxidizes
Oxidation constituents in groundwater by the
addition of strong oxidizers.
Bioventing Stimulates the natural in-situ
biodegradation of volatile
organics in soil by
providing oxygen to existing soil
Biodegradation Indigenous or introduced
microorganisms degrade organic
contaminants found in
soil and groundwater.
Examples of
Applicable
Process Areas
Contaminants
Treated by
This Technology
Appropriately selected Metals.
location for wall. VOCs
Maintenance operations, VOCs.
UST, acid pickling,
cokemaking, casting,
finishing operations.
Maintenance operations, VOCs.
UST, acid pickling,
cokemaking, casting,
finishing operations, microorganisms.
Maintenance operations,
UST, acid pickling,
cokemaking, casting,
VOCs
39
-------
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 provides brownfields planners
with 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.
While the general guidance provided in this
document will be applicable to many brownfields
projects, it is important to recognize that no two
brownfields sites will be identical, and planners
will need to base site assessment and cleanup
activities on the conditions at their particular site.
Some of the conditions that may vary by site
include: the type of contaminants present, the
geographic location and extent of contamination,
the availability of site records, hydrogeological
conditions, and state and local regulatory
requirements. Based on these factors, as well as
financial resources and desired timeframes,
planners will find different assessment and
cleanup approaches appropriate.
Consultation with state and local environmental
officials and community leaders, as well as careful
planning early in the project, will assist planners in
developing 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, 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 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 brownfields
redevelopment and reuse goals effectively and
safely.
37
-------
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
39
-------
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. In 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
41
-------
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
42
-------
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
43
-------
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 obj ect, 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 Poly chlorinated 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
44
-------
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
45
-------
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.
46
-------
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
Poly chlorinated 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 Poly chlorinated 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
47
-------
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
48
-------
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.
49
-------
/Appendix V^
1 esting 1 echnologies
Table C-1. Non-Invasive Assessment 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
dumps.
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 country 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 small
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 pipelines 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 determine
what specific
anomalies 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-$3,500.
Large areas>1,000 acres: $1 0 - $200 per
acre.
51
-------
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.
Electromagnetic Offset Logging (EOL)
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.
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.
Magnetometer (MG)
Locates buried ferrous
materials such as barrels,
pipelines, USTs, and buckets.
Produces 3D images of
hydrocarbon plumes.
Data can be collected to depth
of 1 00 meters.
Data can be collected from a
single, unlined or nonmetal
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.
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.
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 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
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
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.
52
-------
Table C-2.
Soil and Subsurface Sampling Tools
Media
Tech n iq ue/ln strum en ta
tion
Soil Groun
d
Water
Relative Cost per
Sample
Sample Quality
Drilling Methods
Cable Tool
Casing Advancement
Direct Air Rotary with Rotary X
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
Direct Push Methods
Cone Penetrometer
Driven Wells
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
X
X
X
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 Soil properties will most likely be altered
Most expensive Soil properties will likely be altered
Mid-range expensive Soil properties will most likely be altered
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 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 most likely not be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties will most likely not be altered
Soil properties will most likely not be altered
Mid-range expensive Soil properties may be altered
Mid-range expensive Soil properties may be altered
Least expensive Soil properties may be altered
Mid-range expensive Soil properties may be altered
Least expensive Soil properties may be altered
Least expensive Soil properties may be altered
Mid-range expensive Soil properties will most likely not be altered
Mid-range expensive Soil properties will most likely not be altered
Least expensive
Soil properties will most likely not be altered
Bold - Most commonly used field techniques
53
-------
Table C-3. Groundwater Sampling Tools
Technique/Instrumentation Contaminants1
Relative Cost per
Sample
Sample Quality
Portable Groundwater Sampling Pumps
Bladder Pump
Gas-Driven Piston Pump
SVOCs, PAHs,
metals
SVOCs, PAHs,
metals
Gas-Driven Displacement Pumps SVOCs, PAHs,
metals
Gear Pump
Inertial-Lift Pumps
SVOCs, PAHs,
metals
SVOCs, PAHs,
metals
Submersible Centrifugal Pumps SVOCs, PAHs,
metals
Submersible Helical-Rotor Pump SVOCs, PAHs,
metals
Suction-Lift Pumps (peristaltic) SVOCs, PAHs,
metals
Portable Grab Samplers
Bailers
VOCs, SVOCs,
PAHs, metals
Pneumatic Depth-Specific Samplers/OCs, SVOCs,
PAHs, metals
Portable In Situ Groundwater Samplers/Sensors
Cone Penetrometer Samplers
Direct Drive Samplers
Hydropunch
Fixed In Situ Samplers
Multilevel Capsule Samplers
Multiple-Port Casings
Passive Multilayer Samplers
VOCs, SVOCs,
PAHs, metals
VOCs, SVOCs,
PAHs, metals
VOCs, SVOCs,
PAHs, metals
VOCs, SVOCs,
PAHs, metals
VOCs, SVOCs,
PAHs, metals
VOCs
Mid-range expensive Liquid properties will most likely not be altered
Most Expensive
Least expensive
Liquid properties will most likely not be altered b'
sampling
Liquid properties will most likely not be altered b'
sampling
Mid-range expensive Liquid properties may be altered
Least expensive
Most expensive
Most expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Liquid properties will most likely not be altered
Liquid properties may be altered
Liquid properties may be altered
Liquid properties may be altered
Liquid properties may be altered
Mid-range expensive Liquid properties will most likely not be altered
Least expensive
Least expensive
Liquid properties will most likely not be altered
Liquid properties will most likely not be altered
Mid-range expensive Liquid properties will most likely not be altered
Mid-range expensive Liquid properties will most likely not be altered
Least expensive
Least expensive
Liquid properties will most likely not be altered
Liquid properties will most likely not be altered
Bold Most commonly used field techniques
VOCs Volatile Organic Carbons
SVOCsSemivolatile Organic Carbons
PAHs Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
54
-------
Table C-4. Sample Analysis Technologies
Media
Technique/ Analyt Soi Groun Ga
Instrumentation es 1 d s
Water
Metals
Laser-Induced BreakdoWciletals X
Spectrometry
TitrimetryKits Metals X X
Particle-Induced X-ray Metals X X
Emissions
Atomic Adsorption Metals X* X X
Spectrometry
Inductively Coupled Metals X* X X
Plasma Atomic Emission
Spectroscopy
FieldBioassessment Metals X X
X-RayFluorescence Metals XXX
PAHs, VOCs, and SVOCs
Laser-Induced PAHs X X
Fluorescence (LIF)
Solid/PorousFiber Optic VOCs X* X X
Chemical Calorimetric Kif^OCs, X X
SVOCs,
PAHs
Flame lonization Detectoft/OCs X* X* X
(hand-held)
Explosimeter VOCs X* X* X
Photo lonization DetectoVOCs, X* X* X
(hand-held) SVOCs
Catalytic Surface VOCs X* X* X
Oxidation
Near IR ReflectancefTrans/OCs X
Spectroscopy
Ion Mobility Spectromete/OCs, X* X* X
SVOCs
Raman VOCs, XXX*
Spectroscopy/SERS SVOCs
Infrared Spectroscopy VOCs, XXX
SVOCs
Relative
Detect!
on
ppb
ppm
ppm
ppb
ppb
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
100-1,00
0
ppm
100-1,00
0
ppb
ppb
100-1,00
0 ppm
Relative
Cost per
Analysis
Least expensive
Least expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Most expensive
Most expensive
Most expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Application*
*
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
Usually used in
field
Immediate, can
be used infield
Can be used in
field,
usually used in
laboratory
Immediate, can
be used infield
Immediate, can
be used in field
Immediate, can
be used infield
Usually used in
laboratory
Usually used in
laboratory
Usually used in
laboratory
Usually used in
laboratory
Usually used in
laboratory
Produces
Quantitative
Data
Additional effort
required
Additional effort
required
Additional effort
required
Yes
Yes
No
Yes (limited)
Additional effort
required
Additional effort
required
Additional effort
required
No
No
No
No
Additional effort
required
Yes
Additional effort
required
Additional effort
required
55
-------
Scattering/Absorption
Lidar
FTIR Spectroscopy
Synchronous
Luminescence/
Fluorescence
Gas Chromatography
(can be used with
numerous detectors)
UV-Visible
Spectrophotom etry
UV Fluorescence
Ion Trap
Other
VOCs X* X*
VOCs X* X*
VOCs, X* X
SVOCs
(GG/pCs, X* X
SVOCs
VOCs X* X
VOCs X X
VOCs, X* X*
SVOCs
Chemical Reaction- Base\zlOCs, X X
Test Papers SVOCs,
Metals
Immunoassay and
Calorimetric Kits
VOCs, X X
SVOCs,
Metals
X 100-1,00
0
ppm
X ppm
ppb
X ppb
X ppb
X ppb
X ppb
ppm
ppm
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Most expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
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
Usually used in
field
Usually used in
laboratory, can
be used in field
Additional effort
required
Additional effort
required
Additional effort
required
Yes
Additional effort
required
Additional effort
required
Yes
Yes
Additional effort
required
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
SVOCsSemivolatile 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
** Samples sent to laboratory require shipping time and usually 14 to 35 days turnaround time for analysis. Rush or
cost an additional amount per sample.
56
-------
/\ppendix 1J
Cleanup 1 echnologi*
JlLxhibit J_J~1 1 able of L^leanup 1 echnologie
Ap plica ble
1 echnology
1 echnology JJescripti'
Conta minants
Ire ated by th is
1 echnology
1 echnologies
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 $8 to $17 per
aquitard.Can leak at the intersection of the square foot.
sheets and the aquitard or through pile wall
joints.
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 gaps through which the plume can
escape; however new techniques have
improved continuity of curtain.
$6 to $14 per
square foot.2
57
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Ap plica b le
lech nology
1 ech nc
ology Description
v^onta minants
1 reated by this
lech nology
Lim i
Cc
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.
Kx Situ
1 echnologies
Excavation/Offs
ite 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
compo sition 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) may be limted. There is
currently only one licensed disposal facility
for radioactive and mixed waste in the
United States.
$270 to $460
per ton.2
58
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Ap plica b le
lech nology
1 ech nc
ology Description
v^onta minants
1 reated by this
lech nology
Lim i
Cc
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 co st.
$190 or greater
per cubic yard
for soil volumes
of
approximately
20,000 cubic
yards. Costs 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
59
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Ap plica b le
lech nology
1 ech nc
ology Description
v^onta minants
1 reated by this
lech nology
Lim i
Cc
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.
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.
VOCsPCBs
PAHs
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, transporta-
tion 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.
VOCsPCBs
dioxins
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. $1,5
00 to $6,000 per
ton of soil for
soils
contaminated
with PCBs or
dioxins. 3Mobile
units that can
operate onsite
reduce soil
transportation
costs.
60
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Ap plica b le
lech nology
1 ech nc
ology Description
v^onta minants
1 reated by this
lech nology
Lim i
Cc
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
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.
Metals
Cyanide.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 hydrocarbons.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
61
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Ap plica b le
lech nology
Precipitation
lechnology Description
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.
Conta minants
1 reated by this
lech nology
Metals.
Lim i
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.
Cost
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 maybe
estimated to
increase
operating costs
by $0.50 per
1,000 gallons
treated.3
62
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Ap plica b le
lech nology
1 ech nc
ology Description
v^onta minants
1 reated by this
lech nology
Lim i
Cc
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.
SVOCs.
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.3
Costs are
dependent on
waste stream
flow rates, type
of contaminant,
concentration,
and timing
requirements.
Air Stripping
In Sltu
1 echnologies
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.
63
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Ap plica b le
lech nology
1 ech nc
ology Description
v^onta minants
1 reated by this
lech nology
Lim i
Cc
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
64
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Ap plica b le
lech nology
Soil Vapor
Extraction
Soil Flushing
lechnology Description
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.
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.
Conta minants
1 reated by this
lech nology
VOCs
Metals
Lim i
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.
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.
Cost
$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.
The major factor
affecting cost is
the separation of
surfactants from
recovered
flushing fluid.3
65
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Ap plica b le
lech nology
1 ech nc
ology Description
v^onta minants
1 reated by this
lech nology
Lim i
Cc
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.$19
0 to $330 per
cubic meter for
deeper
applications. 3Co
sts for cement-
based
stabilization
techniques vary
according to
materials or
reagents used,
their
availability,
project size, and
the chemical
nature of the
contaminant.
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
66
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Ap plica b le
lech nology
1 ech nc
ology Description
v^onta minants
1 reated by this
lech nology
Lim i
Cc
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.
Metals VOCs
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.Op-
erations 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.3
Bio venting
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.
67
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
Ap plica b le
lech nology
1 ech nc
ology Description
v^onta minants
1 reated by this
lech nology
Lim i
Cc
Biodegradation
Indigenous or introduced microorganisms degrade
organic contaminants found in soil and
ground water.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.
Oxygen
Releasing
Compounds
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.
TPHsVOCs
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.
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
68
-------
Exhibit D-l Table of Cleanup Technologies (continued)
UST = underground storage tank
SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compounds
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
PAHs = polyaromatic hydrocarbons
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls
TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbons
69
-------
Appendix E
Works Cited and Other Useful Resources
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).
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).
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. 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.
(540/R-96/128).
Soil Screening Guidance
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 VCAAO 1.0 (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
(EPA310-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. 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).
71
-------
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-Operated
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/EPA600R9303
9.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
540-2-91-020a&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 540-2-9 l-013a&b,
PB92-109065 & PB92-109073).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Interim Guidance for Dermal
Exposure Assessment (EPA 600-8-91-011 A).
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.gov/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/dilgncel.html.
Site Cleanup
ASTM. N.D. New Standard Guide for Remediation by
Natural Attenuation at Petroleum Release Sites
(ASTM E50.01).
Federal Register. September 9, 1997. www.access.
gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces 140.html, vol.62, no. 174, p.
47495-47506.
Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable.
http://www.frtr.gov/matrix/top_page.html.
Interagency Cost Workgroup. 1994. Historical Cost
Analysis System. Version 2.0.
72
-------
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.
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
542-F-96-027)
(EPA 542-F-96-016, EPA
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).
73
-------
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).
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
(EPA540-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. Emerging Technology Program (EPA
540-F-95-502).
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-95-112, 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).
74
-------
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.gov/matrix/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
(EPA540-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).
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) (EPA510-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)
75
-------
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
(EPA540-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) (EPA600-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
(EPA510-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, PB95-213245);
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 Guidance Documents Produced
By The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)
(EPA510-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).
76
-------
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, PB95-143319).
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
540-MR-93-505).
Bulletin (EPA
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
Contaminated Unsaturated
(EPA-S-93-501, PB93-234565).
Bioremediation of
Subsurface Soils
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 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).
77
-------
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,
PB94-105434); 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,
PB93-122315).
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
(EPA540-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 Biotransformation 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).
78
-------
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 Remediation Technologies Analysis Center.
Internet address: http://www.gwrtac.org
Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment
Technologies (VISITT), Version 4.0 (VISITT can be
downloaded from the Internet at
http://www.prcemi.com/visitt or from the CLU-IN
Web site at http://clu-in.com).
Smook, G.A. Handbook for Pulp and Paper
Technologists. 2nd edition. Vancouver, Canada.
Angus Wilde Publications. 1992, 419 p.
Springer, Allan M. Industrial Environmental
Control: Pulp and Paper Industry. 2nd edition.
Atlanta, GA: Tappi c!993. 699 p.
The Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper
Industry, http://www.tappi.org
79
------- |