vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/625/R-98/007
December 1998
Technical Approaches to
Characterizing and
Cleaning Up Iron and Steel
Mill Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative
-------
EPA/625/R-98/007
November 1998
Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Cleaning up Iron and Steel Mill
Sites under the Brownfields Initiative
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-D7-
0001 to the Eastern Research Group (ERG). 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 neces-
sary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our
health, and prevent or reduce environmental 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 contami-
nated sites and groundwater; and prevention and control of indoor air pollution. The goal of
this research effort 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
-------
I
-------
Contents
Foreword iii
Contents v
Acknowledgments vii
1. Introduction 1
Background 1
Purpose 1
2. Industrial Processes and Contaminants at Iron and Steel Sites 3
Types of Iron and Steel Mills 3
Activities and Land Use 3
Manufacturing and Potential Contaminants 4
Cokemaking 4
Ironmaking 4
Steelmaking and Refining 4
Sintering 6
Forming Operations (Casting and Rolling) 6
Finishing Operations 6
Maintenance Operations 6
Power Generation and Transformer Units 6
Other Considerations 7
3. Site Assessment 8
The Central Role of the State Agencies 8
State Voluntary Cleanup Programs 8
Levels of Contaminant Screening and Cleanup 8
Performing a Phase I Site Assessment: Obtaining Facility Background Information
from Existing Data 9
Facility Records 9
Other Sources of Recorded Information 9
Identifying Migration Pathways and Potentially Exposed Populations 10
Gathering Topographic Information 10
Gathering Soil and Subsurface Information 11
Gathering Groundwater Information 11
Identifying Potential Environmental and Human Health Concerns 11
Involving the Community 12
Conducting a Site Visit 12
Conducting Interviews 12
Developing a Report 13
Performing a Phase II Site Assessment: Sampling the Site 13
Setting Data Quality Objectives 13
Screening Levels 16
Environmental Sampling and Data Analysis 16
Levels of Sampling and Analysis 16
Increasing the Certainly of Sampling Results 18
Site Assessment Technologies 19
Field versus Laboratory Analysis 19
Sample Collection and Analysis Technologies 19
-------
I
Contents (continued)
Additional Considerations for Assessing Iron and Steel Sites 19
Ranking Mill Operations 19
Cokemaking 23
Power Generation 24
Finishing Operations 24
Maintenance Operations 24
Ironmaking Operations 24
Steelmaking Operations 25
Groundwater Contamination 2.5
General Sampling Costs 25
Soil Collection Costs 25
Groundwater Sampling Costs 25
Costs for Surface Water and Sediment Sampling 25
Sample Analysis Costs 26
4. Site Cleanup 27
Developing a Cleanup Plan 27
Institutional Controls 28
Containment Technologies 28
Types of Cleanup Technologies 28
Cleanup Technology Options 29
Additional Cleanup Considerations 29
Post-Construction Care 30
5. Conclusion 40
Appendix A: Acronyms 41
Appendix B: Glossary 42
Appendix C: Bibliography 52
Tables
1 Common Contaminants Found at Iron and Steel Facilities 4
2 Non-Invasive Assessment Technologies 17
3 Soil and Subsurface Sampling Tools 20
4 Groundwater Sampling Tools 21
5 Sample Analysis Technologies 22
6 Cleanup Technologies for Iron and Steel Brownfields Sites 31
Figure
1 Typical iron and steel facility
VI
-------
Acknowledgments
This document was prepared by Eastern Research Group (ERG) for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency's Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI) in the
Office of Research and Development. Linda Stein served as Project Manager for ERG.
Joan Colson of CERI served as Work Assignment Manger. Special thanks is given to Carol
Legg and Jean Dye of EPA's Office of Research and Development for editing support.
Reviewers of the document included Mark Maloney and Kenneth Brown of the U.S.
Environmental's Region IV Office and National Exposure Research Laboratory respec-
tively. Appreciation is given to EPA's Office of Special Programs for guidance on the
Brownfields Initiative.
VII
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background
Many communities across the country contain brown-
fields sites, which are abandoned, idle, and under-used
industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or
redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived envi-
ronmental contamination. Concerns about liability, cost,
and potential health risks associated with brownfields sites
often prompt businesses to migrate to "greenfields" out-
side the city. Left behind are communities burdened with
environmental contamination, declining property values,
and increased unemployment. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Brownfields Economic Re-
development Initiative was established 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. (U.S. EPA
Brownfields Home Page, http://www.epa.gov/brown-
fields).
The cornerstone of EPA's Brownfields Initiative is the
Pilot Program. Under this program, EPA is funding more
than 200 brownfields assessment pilot projects in states,
cities, towns, counties, and tribes 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 is-
sues associated with assessing and cleaning up contami-
nated brownfields sites and returning them to appropriate,
productive use. Information about the Brownfields Ini-
tiative may be obtained from the EPA's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Outreach/Special
Projects Staffer any of EPA's regional brownfields coor-
dinators. These regional coordinators can provide com-
munities with technical assistance as targeted brownfields
assessments. A description of these assistance activities
is contained on the brownfields web page. In addition to
the hundreds of brownfields sites being addressed by these
pilots, over 40 states have established brownfields or
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, municipali-
ties, and the private sector to more effectively address
brownfields sites. Each guide in this series contains in-
formation on a different type of brownfields site (classi-
fied according to former industrial use). In addition, a
supplementary guide contains information on cost-esti-
mating tools and resources for brownfields sites. EPA has
developed this "Iron and Steel" guide to provide deci-
sion-makers, such as city planners, private sector devel-
opers, and others involved in redeveloping brownfields,
with a better understanding of the technical issues in-
volved in assessing and cleaning up iron and steel mill
sites so they can make the most informed decisions pos-
sible.1 Throughout the guide, the term, "planner" is used;
this term is intended to be descriptive of the many differ-
ent people referenced above who may use the informa-
tion contained herein.
This overview of the technical process involved in as-
sessing and cleaning up brownfields sites can assist plan-
ners in making decisions at various stages of the project.
An understanding of land use and industrial processes
conducted in the past at a site can help the planner to
conceptualize the site and identify likely areas of con-
tamination that may require cleanup. Numerous resources
are suggested to facilitate characterization of the site and
consideration of cleanup technologies.
' Because parts of this document are technical in nature, planners may want
to refer to additional EPA guides for further information. The Tool Kit of
Technology Information Resources for Brownfields Sites, published by
EPA's Technology Innovation Office (TIO), contains a comprehensive list
of relevant technical guidance documents (available from NTIS, No.
PB97144828). EPA's Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology
Options for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup, also by EPA's TIO,
provides an introduction to site assessment and cleanup (EPA Order No.
EPA 542-B-97-002).
-------
Specifically, the objective of this document is to provide
decision-makers with:
An understanding of common industrial processes at
iron and steel mills and the relationship between such
processes and potential releases of contaminants to
the environment.
Information on the types of contaminants likely to
be present at an iron and steel mill.
A discussion of site assessment (also known as site
characterization), screening and cleanup levels, and
cleanup technologies that can be used to assess and
clean up the types of contaminants likely to be present
at iron and steel mill sites.
A conceptual framework for identifying potential
contaminants at the site, pathways by which contami-
nants may migrate off site, and environmental and
human health concerns.
Information on developing an appropriate cleanup
plan for iron and steel sites where contamination lev-
els must be reduced to allow a site's reuse.
A discussion of pertinent issues and factors that
should be considered when developing a site assess-
ment and cleanup plan and selecting appropriate tech-
nologies for brownfields, given time and budget
constraints.
Appendix A contains a list of relevant acronyms, and
Appendix B is a glossary of key terms. Appendix C
lists an extensive bibliography.
-------
Chapter 2
Industrial Processes and Contaminants at Iron and Steel Sites
Understanding the industrial processes used during an iron
and steel mill's active life and the types of contaminants
that may be present provides important information to
guide planners in the assessment, cleanup, and restora-
tion of the site to an acceptable condition for sale and
reuse. This section describes a generic integrated iron and
steel mill and the processes typically performed at such
facilities. Planners should obtain facility-specific infor-
mation on industrial processes at the site in question when-
ever possible. Different mills may have used various
combinations of processes and the site may have been
used for more than one industrial activity in the past.
Not all iron and, steel mills are appropriate candidates for
brownfields redevelopment because of high levels of con-
tamination and their large size; however, a number of iron
and steel mills have been redeveloped in their entirety.
Often, part of these sites have been assessed, cleaned up,
and redeveloped.
This section provides a brief overview of different types
of iron and steel mills; summarizes the activities and land
uses at a typical iron and steel mill; describes the waste-
generating processes at a mill and the waste streams as-
sociated with each process; and highlights potential
nonprocess-related contamination problems associated
with iron and steel mill sites.
Types of Iron and Steel Mills
Common types of iron and steel mills are:
Integrated Mills These mills use iron ore as a basic
raw material and perform all operations from
cokemaking to finishing.
Specialty or Mini-Mills These mills use scrap metal
as a basic raw material and perform only certain op-
erations (e.g., rolling, but not finishing).
Stand Alone Coke Mills These mills produce coke
for use at other facilities.
Stand Alone Finishing Mills These mills take steel
products such as sheets, billets, or rods and conduct
forming and finishing operations.
Integrated mills are typical of older iron and steel facili-
ties that could become brownfields sites. For example,
two EPA pilot brownfields projects, in Birmingham, Ala-
bama, and Gary, Indiana, are integrated mills. It is pos-
sible to redevelop certain portions of integrated mills first,
with other areas redeveloped later in a phased approach.
Newer mills generally focus on specific products and
processes. Specialty or mini-mills are often good candi-
dates for brownfields redevelopment.
Activities and Land Use
Some iron and steel mills, such as integrated mills, tend
to be very large, consisting of several buildings sited on
tens or even hundreds of acres. These buildings house
coke ovens, sinter plants, furnaces, rolling mills, finish-
ing operations, wastewater treatment plants, chemical
storage units, and maintenance operations. Some build-
ings may have been used for different operations over
the life of the facility; however, the furnaces will most
likely have stayed in the same location.
The land surrounding the buildings at an iron and steel
mill is generally used for:
Bulk product storage
Scrap metal storage
. Slag pits
Iron ore storage
Under- and above-ground storage tanks
Rail lines and parking lots
. Cooling towers
-------
Storm water collection
. Loading areas
. Landfills
. Wastewater lagoons
Manufacturing and Potential Contaminants
Generally, iron and steel manufacturing involves a series
of separate processes that produce a variety of interme-
diate products; these products are then used as inputs to
the next stage. This section provides a brief overview of
an iron and steel process, based on EPA's Profile of the
Iron and Steel Industry (EPA, 1995), and describes the
types of contaminants that might be produced at each stage
even though each of the stages usually takes place in a
geographically distinct part of the mill. Therefore, the
types of contaminants related to each stage can be found
in and around the area of the mill. Figure 1 provides a
schematic of a hypothetical iron and steel mill, showing
the specific areas where the different stages of the manu-
facturing process take place and the types of contami-
nants that might be detected in each area. Table 1 identifies
the most common contaminants associated with each of
the stages, which are described below.
fcn&;iii.ossfe;XB^
The fuel and carbon source for the ironmaking process is
called coke, which is produced in coke ovens or batteries
(a series of ovens) (see [A] in Figure 1). Coke is pro-
duced by heating coal in the absence of oxygen at high
temperatures in a coke oven. At the end of the heating
cycle, the coke is moved to a quench tower, where it is
Table 1. Common Contaminants Found at Iron and Steel Facilities
Contaminant Class
Contaminant
Metals/Inorganics
Acids
Toxic compounds
Semivolatile organics
(SVOCs), including those
in oil and grease
Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs)
Manganese, zinc, chromium, copper,
lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium,
aluminum, cyanide, barium.
Sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen
sulfide, phosphoric acid.
Ammonia.
Ethylene glycol, polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
1 ,1,1 -trichloroethane, ethylene,
benzene, toluene, trichloroethylene,
phenol, xylene (mixed isomers), ethyl
benzene, chlorine, tetrachloroethylene.
cooled with a water spray, and then sent to storage or to a
blast furnace, where it is mixed with iron ore and lime-
stone to form pig iron.
The byproducts of the cokemaking operation include a
number of potentially hazardous wastes, some of which
are regulated under the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act (RCRA), such as coal tars that contain poly-
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and light oils. Semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOCs), such as benzo(a) pyrene,
benzo(a) anthracene, chrysene, creosols, naphthalene,
pyrene, and phenol, are commonly found near coke bat-
tery areas. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as
benzene, toluene, and xylenes, are commonly found in
the cokemaking area. Ammonia and cyanide are also as-
sociated with these operations.
Ironmaking
The coke is mixed with lime and heated in a blast fur-
nace, where the carbon monoxide produced from the burn-
ing reduces the iron ore to iron (see [B] in Figure 1).
Acids in the iron ore react with limestone to produce slag,
which is removed as a byproduct. The molten iron is used
in steelmaking furnaces, and the slag is moved to another
area of the mill for storage (for possible later use for con-
struction purposes).
Many of the contaminants that may be found near the
ironmaking operations are similar to those described for
cokemaking above. Semivolatiles may be limited to
phenols and those associated with oil and grease. In ad-
dition, heavy metals and inorganic compounds such as
iron, lead, zinc, and cyanide are commonly found in the
vicinity of these operations. VOCs are not likely to be
found.
Steelmaking and Refining
Two types of steelmaking operations ([C] in Figure 1)
form raw steel at the mills. One type is called a basic
oxygen furnace (BOF), in which the molten iron from
the ironmaking process is combined with flux, alloy ma-
terials, and scrap to form various types of steel. The sec-
ond type of operation, which may be used in place of, or
in conjunction with, BOF operations, is an electric arc
furnace (EAF), which is commonly used at mini-mills.
Steel is usually cast as billets, slabs, or beams.
Common contaminants associated with either BOF or
EAF operations are metals, such as iron, lead, zinc, chro-
mium, and nickel. Also, the particulate matter removed
by air pollution control systems on EAFs, known as EAF
-------
r
VOC and SVOC
Emissions
Cyanide, PAHs
SVOCs, Cyanide,
Metals
COLD FORMING
Metals, VOCs,
SVOCs, Acids
SVOCs, Metals
Metals
VOCs,Acids.1
Bases, Metals
Finishing Processes+ FINISHED
[Gl which may PRODUCT
-include:
cold forming,
annealing,
cleaning,
pickling,
electrocoating,
electroplating,
galvanizing,
tin plating
AUXILIARY AREAS:
Maintenance Area (VOCs, SVOCs)
Underground Storage Tank (VOCs)
Power Generation (PCBs)
Figure 1. Typical iron and steel facility (Source: Adapted from Profile of the Iron and Steel Industry [U.S. EPA, 19951).
-------
dust, is regulated under RCRA and will likely contain
lead and cadmium.
Steel-refining operations are extensions of the steelmak-
ing process and include ladle metallurgy and vacuum
degassing ([D] in Figure 1). These operations may pro-
duce the same contaminants as steelmaking processes,
including metals (iron, lead, zinc, chromium, nickel) and
particulate matter containing lead and cadmium although
the level of contamination may not be as significant.
Sin tering
Sintering (see [E] in Figure 1) was introduced into
ironmaking operations as a method of recycling usable
byproducts from other operations into a fuel source for
the blast furnace. In this process, fine materials, such as
iron ore dust, coke dust, and sludge from the wastewater
treatment plant, are melted together into a mass that can
be used to charge the blast furnace.
Because of the materials involved in sintering, this pro-
cess produces contaminants similar to those associated
with the cokemaking operation (described above). SVOC
wastes from sintering may include phenols, oil, and
grease. Waste metals and inorganic compounds may in-
clude iron, lead, zinc, and cyanide.
Forming Operations (Casting and Rolling)
Forming operations include casting and rolling processes
(see [F] Figure 1) in which molten steel is poured into
ingots to cool and later formed into slabs, strips, bars, or
plates. Large volumes of water are used to cool the mol-
ten steel, and the process wastewater is collected in ba-
sins. Water is also used in rolling operations to keep the
surface of the steel clean.
and other materials in processes known as finishing op-
erations (see [G] in Figure 1). Solvent cleaners, pressur-
ized air or water, abrasives, alkaline agents, and acids
may be used to clean the surface so that a coating will
adhere. The steel generally passes through a pickling bath
and then through a series of rinses that remove any re-
maining materials before receiving a coating designed to
extend the life of the steel.
Contaminants commonly found in the vicinity of finish-
ing operations include VOCs, such as tetrachloroethene,
trichloroethene, 1,1 -dichloroethane, and 1,2-
dichloroethene. The acid pickling and alkaline cleaning
processes often produce wastewaters containing high lev-
els of metals, including iron, zinc, lead, cadmium, chro-
mium, and aluminum.
Maintenance Operations
All iron and steel mills have significant maintenance op-
erations to support the heavy machinery used in the pro-
cesses and to service the vehicles needed to move
materials around these sites. Heavy machinery used at an
iron and steel site will likely include cranes to move ladles
from the blast furnace to the BOF/EAF, and from the BOF/
EAF to the ingots in the forming operations and to roll-
ing machines to form the steel into semifinished prod-
ucts. Many iron and steel mills have railways that are
used to transport raw materials from one place to another,
as well as numerous cars and trucks to support the opera-
tion. All of this machinery requires ongoing maintenance.
Underground storage tanks (USTs) are often used in the
maintenance area to store gasoline for the vehicles.
Water used in forming operations contains a number of
potentially hazardous materials, particularly metals such
as zinc, lead, cadmium, and chromium. SVOCs in oils
and greases may also be found in the area of rolling op-
erations. Liquids used to remove scale from the steel,
known as pickling liquors, may include hydrochloric,
nitric, hydrofluoric, and sulfuric acids. In addition to the
contaminants directly associated with forming operations,
solvents and oils are used in significant volumes to main-
tain the rolling machines. Many of the solvents contain
VOCs, and the oils generally contain SVOCs.
Finishing Operations
Before a final coating can be placed on the formed steel,
the steel must be cleaned of scale, rust, oil and grease,
The types of contaminants that may be found in the vi-
cinity of maintenance areas, USTs, and rolling machines
are either VOCs or SVOCs. The VOCs that are likely to
be found in these areas include chlorinated solvents, such
as tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, 1,1 -dichloroethane,
and 1,2-dichloroethene, as well as compounds associated
with gasoline products, such as benzene, ethyl benzene,
toluene, and xylenes. SVOCs in these areas are likely to
include those in oils, grease, and fuel oils, and ethyl glycols.
Power Generation and Transformer Units
Iron and steel mills require large quantities of electrical
power or steam to run the furnaces and to power cranes,
rolling mills, and other electrical machinery. Large inte-
-------
grated iron and steel mills may have a power-generating
plant on site, generally located in an area of the mill away
from the manufacturing operations. A facility may also
have additional ancillary electrical power equipment (e.g.,
small substations) throughout. Transformer units may be
located throughout an iron and steel plant in the various
process areas. Polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs) may be
found in hydraulic systems in process areas around the
mill.
The principal contaminants associated with power gen-
eration are SVOCs, primarily PCBs. These were widely
used in the past and are still used to a lesser degree as
cooling oils in power generation and transmission trans-
formers. Often transformer oils containing PCBs were
spilled or dumped on the ground during routine mainte-
nance or discarded in waste disposal areas at the mill. At
older facilities, PCB-laden oil from hydraulic systems in
process areas throughout the mill might also be found.
Other Considerations
Integrated mills also have substantial operations to re-
pair and maintain process- and transportation-related
equipment; chemicals used for maintenance operations
may have been flushed down drains and sumps after use.
In addition, iron and steel facilities are often housed in
older buildings that may contain lead paint and asbestos
insulation and tiling. Any structure built before 1970
should be assessed for the presence of these materials,
which can cause significant problems during demolition
or renovation of structures; special handling and disposal
requirements for lead and asbestos under state and local
laws can significantly increase the cost of construction.
Core or wipe samples can be analyzed for asbestos using
polarized light microscopy (PLM). Laws pertaining to
lead and asbestos may also affect the selection of data
quality objectives (discussed later in this document), sam-
pling, and analysis.
-------
Chapter 3
Site Assessment
The purposes of a site assessment are to determine
whether or not contamination is present and to assess the
nature and extent of possible contamination and the risks
to people and the environment that the contamination may
pose. The elements of a site assessment are designed to
help planners build a conceptual framework of the facil-
ity, which will aid site characterization efforts. The con-
ceptual framework should identify:
Potential contaminants that remain in and around the
facility.
Pathways along which contaminants may move.
Potential risks to the environment and human health
that exist along the migration pathways.
This section highlights the key role that state environ-
mental agencies usually play in brownfields projects. The
types of information that planners should attempt to col-
lect to characterize the site in a Phase I site assessment
(i.e., the facility's history) are discussed. Information is
presented about where to find and how to use this infor-
mation to determine whether or not contamination is
likely. Additionally this section provides information to
assist planners in conducting a Phase II site assessment,
including sampling the site and determining the magni-
tude of contamination. Other considerations in assessing
iron and steel sites are also discussed, and general sam-
pling costs are included. This guide provides only a gen-
eral approach to site evaluation; planners should expand
and refine this approach for site-specific use at their own
facilities.
The Central Role of the State Agencies
A brownfields redevelopment project involves partner-
ships among site planners (whether private or public sec-
tor), state and local officials, and the local community.
State environmental agencies often are key decision-mak-
ers and a primary source of information for brownfields
projects. Brownfields sites are generally cleaned up un-
der state programs, particularly state voluntary cleanup
or Brownfields programs; thus, planners will need to work
closely with state program managers to determine their
particular state's requirements for brownfields develop-
ment. Planners may also need to meet additional federal
requirements. Key state functions include:
Overseeing brownfields site assessment and cleanup
processes, including the management of voluntary
cleanup programs.
Providing guidance on contaminant screening lev-
els.
Serving as a source of site information, as well as
legal and technical guidance.
State Voluntary Cleanup Programs (VCPs)
State VCPs are designed to streamline brownfields rede-
velopment, reduce transaction costs, and provide state
liability protection for past contamination. Planners
should be aware that state cleanup requirements vary sig-
nificantly and should contact the state brownfield man-
ager; brownfields managers from state agencies will be
able to identify their state requirements for planners and
will clarify how their state requirements relate to federal
requirements.
Levels of Contaminant Screening and
Cleanup
Identifying the level of site contamination and determin-
ing the risk, if any, associated with that contamination
level is a crucial step in determining whether cleanup is
needed. Some state environmental agencies, as well as
federal and regional EPA offices, have developed screen-
ing levels for certain contaminants, which are incorpo-
rated into some brownfields programs. Screening levels
represent breakpoints in risk-based concentrations of
chemicals in soil, air, or water. If contaminant concentra-
tions are below the screening level, no action is required;
above the level, further investigation is needed.
-------
In addition to screening levels, EPA regional offices and
some states have developed cleanup standards; if con-
taminant concentrations are above cleanup standards,
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 cleanup stan-
dards.
Performing a Phase I Site Assessment:
Obtaining Facility Background Information
from Existing Data
Planners should compile a history of the iron and steel
manufacturing facility to identify likely site contaminants
and their probable locations. Financial institutions typi-
cally require a Phase I site assessment prior to lending
money to potential property buyers to protect the
institution's role as mortgage holder (Geo-Environmen-
tal Solutions, n.d.). In addition, parties involved in the
transfer, foreclosure, leasing, or marketing of properties
recommend some form of site evaluation (The Whitman
Companies, 1996). The site history should include2:
A review of readily available records (e.g., former
site use, building plans, records of any prior contami-
nation events).
A site visit to observe the areas used for various in-
dustrial processes and the condition of the property.
Interviews with knowledgeable people (e.g., site own-
ers, operators, and occupants; neighbors; local gov-
ernment officials).
A report that includes an assessment of the likelihood
that contaminants are present at the site.
The Phase I site assessment should be conducted by an
environmental professional, and may take three to four
weeks to complete. Site evaluations are required in part
as a response to concerns over environmental liabilities
associated with property ownership. A property owner
needs to perform "due diligence," i.e. fully inquire into
the previous ownership and uses of a property to demon-
strate that all reasonable efforts to find site contamina-
tion have been made. Because brownfields sites often
contain low levels of contamination and pose low risks,
due diligence through a Phase I site assessment will help
to answer key questions about the levels of contamina-
tion. Several federal and state programs exist to mini-
* The elements of a Phase I site assessment presented here are based in part
on ASTM Standards 1527 and 1528.
mize owner liability at brownfields sites and facilitate
cleanup and redevelopment; planners should contact their
state environmental or regional EPA office for further in-
formation.
Information on how to review records, conduct site visits
and interviews, and develop a report during a Phase I site
assessment is provided below.
Facility Records
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 per-
taining specifically to the site in question are adequate
for Phase I review purposes. In some cases, however,
records of adjacent properties may also need to be re-
viewed to assess the possibility of contaminants migrat-
ing 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.
Other Sources of Recorded Information
Planners may need to use other sources in addition to
facility records to develop a complete history. ASTM
Standard 1527 identifies standard sources such as his-
torical aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, property
tax files, recorded land title records, topographic maps,
local street directories, building department records, zon-
ing/land use records, maps and newspaper archives.
(ASTM, 1997).
Some iron and steel site managers have worked with state
environmental regulators; these offices may be key
sources of information. Federal (e.g., EPA) records may
also be useful. The types of information provided by regu-
lators include facility maps that identify activities and
disposal areas, lists of stored pollutants, and the types
and levels of pollutants released. State offices and other
sources where planners can search for site-specific infor-
mation:
The state offices responsible for industrial waste man-
agement 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 "immi-
nent threat" to local residents); any Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permits issued
-------
at the site; notices of violations issued; and any envi-
ronmental investigations.
The state office responsible for discharges of waste-
water 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 pub-
licly 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 pollut-
ants associated with particular types of onsite con-
tamination.
EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) of potentially contaminated sites should
have a record of any previously reported contamina-
tion 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 Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);
RCRA generators; and the Emergency Response No-
tification System (ERNS). Contact EPA Regional
Offices for more information.
State environmental records and local library archives
may indicate permit violations or significant contami-
nation releases from or near the site.
Residents who were former employees may be able
to provide information on waste management prac-
tices, but these reports should be substantiated.
Local fire departments may have responded to emer-
gency events at the facility. Fire departments or city
halls may have fire insurance maps3 or other histori-
cal maps or data that indicate the location of hazard-
ous waste storage areas at the site.
3 Fire insurance maps show, for a specific property, the locations of such
items as USTs, buildings, and areas where chemicals have been used for
certain industrial processes.
Local waste haulers may have records of the shop's
disposal of hazardous or other waste materials.
. Utility records.
Local building permits.
Requests for federal regulatory information are governed
by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and the ful-
filling of such requests generally takes a minimum of four
to eight weeks. Similar freedom of information legisla-
tion does not uniformly exist on the state level; one can
expect a minimum waiting period of four weeks to re-
ceive requested information (ASTM, 1997).
Identifying Migration Pathways and
Potentially Exposed Populations
Offsite migration of contaminants may pose a risk to hu-
man health and the environment; planners should gather
as much readily available information on the physical
characteristics of the site as possible. Migration pathways,
i.e., soil, groundwater, and air, will depend on site-spe-
cific characteristics such as geology and the physical char-
acteristics of the individual contaminants (e.g., mobility).
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. Planners should collect three types
of information to obtain a better understanding of migra-
tion pathways, including topographic, soil and subsur-
face, and groundwater data, as described below.
Gathering Topographic Information
In this preliminary investigation, topographic informa-
tion will be helpful in determining whether the site may
be subject to or the source of contamination by adjoining
properties. Topographic information will help planners
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 under-
lying aquifer or surface runoff to nearby areas. The U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) of the Department of the In-
terior 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.hmtl]
10
-------
Gathering Soil and Subsurface Information
Planners should know about the types of soils and sub-
surface soils at the site from the ground surface extend-
ing down to the water table because soil characteristics
play a large role in how contaminants move in the envi-
ronment. For example, clay soils limit downward move-
ment 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.
Local planning agencies should have soil maps to
support land use planning activities. These maps pro-
vide a general description of the soil types present
within a county (or sometimes a smaller administra-
tive unit, such as a township).
The Natural Resource Conservation Service and Co-
operative Extension Service offices of the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture (USDA) are also likely to
have soil maps.
Well-water companies are likely to be familiar with
local subsurface conditions, and local water districts
and state water divisions may have well-logging in-
formation.
Local health departments may be familiar with sub-
surface conditions because of their interest in septic
drain fields.
Local construction contractors are likely to be famil-
iar 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 na-
tive soils. While local soil maps and other general soil
information can be used for screening purposes such as
in a Phase I assessment, site-specific information will be
needed in the event that cleanup is necessary.
Gathering Groundwater Information
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
This information can be obtained by contacting state en-
vironmental agencies or from several local sources, in-
cluding water authorities, well drilling companies, health
departments, and Agricultural Extension and Natural
Resource Conservation Service offices.
Iden tifying Potential Environmental and
Human Health Concerns
Identifying possible environmental and human health
risks early in the process can influence decisions regard-
ing 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 re-
leases of contaminants during characterization or cleanup
activities. Planners should also review available infor-
mation from state and local environmental agencies to
ascertain the proximity of residential dwellings, indus-
trial/commercial activities, or wetlands/water bodies, and
to identify people, animals, or plants that might receive
migrating contamination; any particularly sensitive popu-
lations in the area (e.g., children; endangered species);
and whether any major contamination events have oc-
curred previously in the area (e.g., drinking water prob-
lems; groundwater contamination).
For environmental information, planners can contact the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, state environmental agen-
cies, local planning and conservation authorities, the U.S.
Geological Survey, and the USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service. State and local agencies and orga-
nizations can usually provide information on local fauna
and the habitats of any sensitive and/or endangered spe-
cies.
For human health information, planners can contact:
State and local health assessment organizations. Or-
ganizations such as health departments, should have
data on the quality of local well water used as a drink-
ing 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 ex-
posures to particular contaminants and associated
health risks can also be found in health profile docu-
ments 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 contami-
11
-------
nation event occurred in the past. Such an event and
assessment should have been identified in the Phase
I 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 contami-
nation may pose a problem, planners should identify
any nearby waterways or aquifers that may be im-
pacted by groundwater discharge of contaminated
water, including any drinking water wells downgra-
dient of the site, such as a municipal well field. Lo-
cal 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 fa-
cility because they may be vulnerable to contami-
nants 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 groundwa-
ter can eventually migrate to surface waters and contami-
nants in surface waters can migrate to groundwater.
Involving the Community
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 others in the commu-
nity about local brownfields sites, which can contribute
to successful brownfields site assessment and cleanup ac-
tivities. In addition, most state voluntary cleanup pro-
grams require that local communities be adequately
informed about brownfields cleanup activities. Planners
can contact the local Chamber of Commerce, local phil-
anthropic organizations, local service organizations, and
neighborhood committees for community input. State and
local environmental groups may be able to supply rel-
evant information and identify other appropriate commu-
nity organizations. Local community involvement in
brownfields projects is a key component in the success
of such projects.
Conducting a Site Visit
In addition to collecting and reviewing available records,
a site visit can provide important information about the
uses and conditions of the property and identify areas
that warrant further investigation (ASTM, 1997). During
a visual inspection, the following should be noted:
Current or past uses of abutting properties that may
affect the property being evaluated
Evidence of hazardous substances migrating on- or
off-site
Odors
Wells
Pits, ponds or lagoons
Surface pools of liquids
Drums or storage containers
Stained soil or pavements
Corrosion
Stressed vegetation
Solid waste
Drains, sewers, sumps or pathways for off site mi-
gration
Roads, water supplies, and sewage systems
Conducting Interviews
In addition to reviewing available records and visiting
the site, conducting interviews with the site owner and/
or site manager, site occupants, and local officials is highly
recommended to obtain information about the prior and/
or current uses and conditions of the property, and to in-
quire about any useful documents that might exist regard-
ing the property. Such documents include environmental
audit reports, environmental permits, registrations for stor-
age 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 involv-
ing the property (ASTM, 1997). Interviews with at least
one staff person from the following local government
12
-------
agencies are recommended: 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 prop-
erty (or at least 10 percent of the occupants of the prop-
erty 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 accompa-
nies 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 Phase I assessment, planners should
develop a report that includes all of the important infor-
mation obtained during record reviews, the site visit, and
interviews. Documentation, such as references and im-
portant exhibits, should be included, as well as the cre-
dentials of the environmental professional that conducted
the Phase I 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 re-
port should include the environmental professional's opin-
ion of the impact of the presence or likely presence of
any contaminants, and a findings and conclusion section
that either indicates that the Phase I environmental site
assessment revealed no evidence of contaminants in con-
nection with the property, or discusses what evidence of
contamination was found (ASTM, 1997).
Additional sections of the report might include a recom-
mendations section for a Phase II site assessment, if ap-
propriate. Some states or financial institutions may require
information on specific substances such as lead in drink-
ing water or asbestos.
If the Phase I site assessment 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 accom-
plished and the process of redevelopment may proceed.
In some cases where evidence of contamination exists,
stakeholders may decide that enough information is avail-
able from the Phase I site assessment to characterize the
site and determine an appropriate approach for site
cleanup of the contamination. In other cases, stakehold-
ers may decide that additional site assessment is war-
ranted, and a Phase II site assessment would be conducted,
as described below.
Performing a Phase II Site Assessment:
Sampling the Site
A Phase II site assessment typically involves taking soil,
water, and air samples to identify the types, quantity, and
extent of contamination in these various environmental
media. The types of data used in a Phase II site assess-
ment can vary from existing site data (if adequate), to
limited sampling of the site, to more extensive contami-
nant-specific or site-specific sampling data. Planners
should use knowledge of past facility operations when-
ever possible to focus the site evaluation on those pro-
cess areas where pollutants were stored, handled, used,
or disposed. These will be the areas where potential con-
tamination will be most readily identified. Generally, to
minimize costs, a Phase II site assessment will begin with
limited sampling (assuming readily available data do not
exist that adequately characterize the type and extent of
contamination on the site) and will proceed to more com-
prehensive sampling if needed (e.g., if the initial sam-
pling could not identify the geographical limits of
contamination).
Setting Data Quality Objectives
EPA has developed a guidance document that describes
key principals and best practices for brownfields site as-
sessment quality assurance and quality control based on
program experience. The document, Quality Assurance
Guidance for Conducting Brownfields Site Assessments
(EPA 540-R-98-038), is intended as a reference for people
involved in the brownfields site assessment process and
serves to inform managers of important quality assurance
concepts.
EPA has adopted the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Pro-
cess (EPA 540-R-93-071) as a framework for making
decisions. The DQO Process is common-sense, system-
atic planning tool based on the scientific method. Using
a systematic planning approach, such as the DQO Pro-
cess, ensures that the data collected to support defensible
13
-------
site decision making will be of sufficient quality and quan-
tity, as well as be generated through the most cost-effec-
tive means possible. DQOs, themselves, are statements
that unambiguously communicate the following: 2.
What is the study objective?
Define the most appropriate type of data to collect.
Determine the most appropriate conditions under
which to collect the data.
Specify the amount of uncertainty that will be toler-
ated when making decisions.
It is important to understand the concept of uncertainty
and its relationship to site decision making. Regulatory
agencies, and the public they represent, want to be as
confident as possible about the safety of reusing brown-
fields sites. Public acceptance of site decisions may de-
pend on the site manager's being able to scientifically
document the adequacy of site decisions. During nego-
tiations with stakeholders, effective communication about
the tradeoffs between project costs and confidence in the
site decision can help set the stage for a project's suc-
cessful completion. When the limits on uncertainty (e.g.,
only a 5, 10, or 20 percent chance of a particular decision
error is permitted) are clearly defined in the project, sub-
sequent activities can be planned so that data collection
efforts will be able to support those confidence goals in a
resource-effective manner. On the one hand, a manager
would like to reduce the chance of making a decision
error as much as possible, but on the other hand, reduc-
ing the chance of making that decision error requires col-
lecting more data, which is, in itself, a costly process.
Striking a balance between these two competing goals
more scientific certainty versus less cost-requires care-
ful thought and planning, as well as the application of 3.
professional expertise.
The following steps are involved in systematic planning:
I. Agree on intended land reuse. All parties should agree
early in the process on the intended reuse for the prop-
erty because the type of use may strongly influence
the choice of assessment and cleanup approaches. For
example, if the area is to be a park, removal of all
contamination will most likely be needed. If the land
will be used for a shopping center, with most of the
land covered by buildings and parking lots, it may be
appropriate to reduce, rather than totally remove, con-
taminants to specified levels (e.g., state cleanup lev-
els; see "Site Cleanup" later in this document).
Clarify the objective of the site assessment. What is
the overall decision(s) that must be made for the site?
Parties should agree on the purpose of the assess-
ment. Is the objective to confirm that no contamina-
tion is present? Or is the goal to identify the type,
level, and distribution of contamination above the
levels which are specified, based on the intended land
use. These are two fundamentally different goals that
suggest different strategies. The costs associated with
each approach will also vary.
As noted above, parties should also agree on the to-
tal amount of uncertainty allowable in the overall
decision(s). Conducting a risk assessment involves
identifying the levels of uncertainty associated with
characterization and cleanup decisions. A risk as-
sessment involves identifying potential contaminants
and analyzing the pathways through which people,
other species of concern, or the environment can be-
come exposed to those contaminants (see EPA 600-
R-93-039 and EPA 540-R095-132). Such an
assessment can help identify the risks associated with
varying the levels of acceptable uncertainty in the
site decision and can provide decision-makers with
greater confidence about their choice of land use de-
cisions and the objective of the site assessment. If
cleanup is required, a risk assessment can also help
determine how clean the site needs to be, based on
expected reuse (e.g., residential or industrial), to safe-
guard people from exposure to contaminants. For
more information, see the section Increasing the Cer-
tainty of Sampling Results and the section Site
Cleanup.
Define the appropriate type(s) of data that will be
needed to make an informed decision at the desired
confidence level. Parties should agree on the type of
data to be collected by defining a preliminary list of
suspected analytes, media, and analyte-specific ac-
tion levels (screening levels). Define how the data
will be used to make site decisions. For example,
data values for a particular analyte may or may not
be averaged across the site for the purposes of reach-
ing a decision to proceed with work. Are there maxi-
mum values which a contaminant(s) cannot exceed?
If found, will concentrations of contaminants above
a certain action level (hotspots) be characterized and
treated separately? These discussions should also
14
-------
address the types of analyses to be performed at dif-
ferent stages of the project. Planners and regulators
can reach an agreement to focus initial characteriza-
tion efforts in those areas where the preliminary in-
formation indicates potential sources of
contamination may be located. It may be appropri-
ate to analyze for a broad class of contaminants by
less expensive screening methods in the early stages
of the project in order to limit the number of samples
needing analysis by higher quality, more expensive
methods later. Different types of data may be used at
different stages of the project to support interim de-
cisions that efficiently direct the course of the project
as it moves forward.
4. Determine the most appropriate conditions under
which to collect the data. Parties should agree on
the timing of sampling activities, since weather con-
ditions can influence how representative the samples
are of actual conditions.
5. Identify appropriate contingency plans/actions. Cer-
tain aspects of the project may not develop as planned.
Early recognition of this possibility can be a useful
part of the DQO Process. For example, planners,
regulators, and other stakeholders can acknowledge
that screening-level sampling may lead to the dis-
covery of other contaminants on the site than were
originally anticipated. During the DQO Process,
stakeholders may specify appropriate contingency ac-
tions to be taken in the event that contamination is
found. Identifying contingency actions early in the
project can help ensure that the project will proceed
even in light of new developments. The use of a dy-
namic workplan combined with the use of rapid turn-
around field analytical methods can enable the project
to move forward with a minium of time delays and
wasted effort.
6. Develop a sampling and analysis plan that can meet
the goals and permissible uncertainties described in
the proceeding steps. The overall uncertainty in a
site decision is a function of several factors: the num-
ber of samples across the site (the density of sample
coverage), the heterogeneity of analytes from sample
to sample (spatial variability of contaminant concen-
trations), and the accuracy of the analytical method(s).
Studies have demonstrated that analytical variability
tends to contribute much less to the uncertainty of
site decisions than does sample variability due to
matrix heterogeneity. Therefore, spending money to
increase the sample density across the site will usu-
ally (for most contaminants) make a larger contribu-
tion to confidence in the site decision, and thus be
more cost-effective, than will spending money to
achieve the highest data quality possible, but at a
lower sampling density.
Examples of important consideration for developing a
sampling and analysis plan include:
Determine the sampling location placement that
can provide an estimate of the matrix heteroge-
neity and thus address the desired certainty. Is
locating hotspots of a certain size important?
Can composite sampling be used to increase
coverage of the site (and decrease overall un-
certainty due to sample heterogeneity) while
lowering analytical costs?
Evaluate the available pool of analytical tech-
nologies/methods (both field methods and labo-
ratory methods, which might be implemented in
either a fixed or mobile laboratory) for those
methods that can address the desired action lev-
els (the analytical methods quantification limit
should be well below the action level). Account
for possible or expected matrix interferences
when considering appropriate methods. Can
field analytical methods produce data that will
meet all of the desired goals when sampling un-
certainty is also taken into account? Evaluate
whether a combination of screening and defini-
tive methods may produce a more cost-effective
means to generate data. Can economy of scale
be used? For example, the expense of a mobile
laboratory is seldom cost-effective for a single
small site, but might be cost-effective if several
sites can be characterized sequentially by a single
mobile laboratory.
When the sampling procedures, sample prepa-
ration and analytical methods have been selected,
design a quality control protocol for each proce-
dure and method that ensures that the data gen-
erated will be of known, defensible quality.
7. Through a number of iterations, refine the sampling
and analysis plan to one that can most cost-effec-
tively address the decision-making needs of the site
planner
15
-------
8. Review agreements often. As more information be-
comes available, some decisions that were based on
earlier, limited information should be reviewed to see
if they are still valid. If they are not, the parties can
again use the DQO framework to revise and refine
site assessment and cleanup goals and activities.
The data needed to support decision-making for brown-
fields sites generally are not complicated and are less
extensive than those required for more heavily contami-
nated, higher-risk sites (e.g., Superfund sites). But data
uncertainty may still be a concern at brownfields sites
because knowledge of past activities at a site may be less
than comprehensive, resulting in limited site character-
ization. Establishing DQOs can help address the issue of
data uncertainty in such cases. Examples of DQOs in-
clude verifying the presence of soil contaminants, and
assessing whether contaminant concentrations exceed
screening levels.
Screening Levels
In the initial stages of a Phase II site assessment an ap-
propriate set of screening levels for contaminants in soil,
water, and/or air should be established. Screening levels
are risk-based benchmarks which represent concentra-
tions of chemicals in environmental media that do not
pose an unacceptable risk. Sample analyses of soils, wa-
ter, 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.
Some states have developed generic screening levels (e.g.,
for industrial and residential use). These levels may not
account for site-specific factors that affect the concentra-
tion or migration of contaminants. Alternatively, screen-
ing 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 pro-
cess. Planners should contact their state environmental
offices and/or EPA regional offices for assistance in us-
ing screening levels and in developing site-specific
screening levels.
Risk-based screening levels are based on calculations/
models that determine the likelihood that exposure of a
particular organism or plant to a particular level of a con-
taminant 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 con-
taminants in soil and Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) in water established under the Safe Drinking
Water Act as screening levels for some chemicals. In ad-
dition, some states and/or EPA regional offices4 have de-
veloped 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 (such as sampling the site
at strategic locations and/or performing more detailed
analysis) is needed to determine that: (1) the concentra-
tion of the contaminant is relatively low and/or the ex-
tent of contamination is small and does not warrant
cleanup for that particular chemical, or (2) the concen-
tration or extent of contamination is high, and that site
cleanup is needed (see the section "Site Cleanup" for a
discussion on cleanup levels).
Using state cleanup standards for an initial brownfields
assessment may be beneficial if no industrial screening
levels are available or if the site may be used for residen-
tial purposes. EPA's soil screening guidance is a tool de-
veloped by EPA to help standarize and accelerate the
evaluation and cleanup of contaminated soils at sites on
the NPL where future residential land use is anticipated.
This guidance may be useful at corrective action or VCP
sites where site conditions are similar. However, use of
this guidance for sites where residential land use assump-
tions do not apply could result in overly conservative
screening levels.
Environmental Sampling and Data
Analysis
Environmental sampling and data analysis are integral
parts of a Phase II site assessment process. Many differ-
ent 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
at different stages of the site assessment.
Screening. Screening sampling and analysis use rela-
tively low-cost technologies to take a limited num-
ber of samples at the most likely points of
contamination and analyze them for a limited num-
ber of parameters. Screening analyses often test only
for broad classes of contaminants, such as total pe-
troleum hydrocarbons, rather than for specific con-
16
-------
Table 2. Non-Invasive Assessment Technologies
Applications
Strengths
Weaknesses
Typical Costs'
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 smol-
dering fires in waste dumps.
. Locates unexploded
ordinance on hundreds or
thousands of acres.
. Locates buried landmines.
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.
Able to collect data on large
areas very eff iciently.
(Hundreds of acres per
flight)
Able to collect data on long
cross country pipelines very
efficiently (300500 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 putDlic.
Can investigate depths from 1
centimeter to 100 meters+
depending upon soil or
water conditions.
Can locate small voids
capable of holding
contamination wastes.
Can determine different
types of materials such as
steel, fiberglass or concrete.
Can be trailed behind a
vehicle and travel at high
speeds.
Cannot be used in 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 cl acre:
$1 ,ooo-$3,500
Large areas>1,000
acres: $10 - $200 per
acre
Cannot be used in highly
conductive environments
such as salt water.
Cannot be used in heavy
clay soils.
Data are difficult to
interpret and require a
lot of experience.
Depends upon
volume of data
collected and type of
targets looked for.
Small areas <1 acre:
$3,500 - $5,000
Large areas > 10
acres: $2,500 -
$3,500 per acre
(Continued)
17
-------
Table 2. Continued
Applications
Electromagnetic Offset Logging
. 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.
Strengths
(EOL)
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 1 00 meter radius of a
single well hole.
3D images can be sliced in
horizontal and vertical planes.
DNAPLs can be imaged.
Low cost instruments can be
used that produce results by
audio signal strengths.
High cost instruments can
Weaknesses
. 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.
. Non-relevant artifacts can
be confusing to data
analyzers.
. Depth limited to 3 meters.
Typical Costs'
. Depends upon
volume of data
collected and type of
targets looked for.
. Small areas < 1 acre:
$10,000 -$20,000
. Large areas > 1 0
acres: $5,000 -
$1 0,000 per acre
. Depends upon
volume of data
collected and type of
targets looked for.
be used that produce hard
copy printed maps of
targets.
Depths to 3 meters. 1 acre
per day typical efficiency in
data collection.
Small areas < 1 acre:
$2,500 - $5,000
Large areas > 10
acres: $1,500 -
$2,500 per acre
1 Cost based on case study data in 1997 dollars.
taminants, such as benzene or toluene. Screening is
used to narrow the range of areas of potential con-
tamination and reduce the number of samples requir-
ing 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 in-
organic screening analysis to validate or clarify the
results obtained.
Some geophysical methods are used in site assess-
ments because they are noninvasive (i.e., do not dis-
turb 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 com-
mon and cost-effective technologies used in geophysi-
cal surveys are ground-penetrating radar and
electromagnetics. An overview of geophysical meth-
ods is presented in Table 2. Geophysical methods are
discussed in Subsurface Characterization and Moni-
toring Techniques: A Desk Reference Guide (EPA/
625/R-93003a).
Contaminant-specific. For a more in-depth under-
standing of contamination at a site (e.g., when screen-
ing data are not detailed enough), it may be neces-
sary 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 meth-
ods. Such analyses may take several weeks.
Computerization, microfabrication and biotechnology
have permitted the recent development of analytical
equipment that can be generated in the field, on-site in a
mobile laboratory and off-site in a laboratory. The same
kind of equipment might be used in two or more loca-
tions
Increasing the Certainty of Sampling
Results
One approach to reducing the level of uncertainty asso-
ciated with site data is to implement a statistical sam-
pling 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
18
-------
approach, planners can consult with regulators and de-
termine in advance specific measures of allowable un-
certainty (e.g., an 80 percent level of confidence with a
25 percent allowable error).
Another approach to increasing the certainty of sampling
results is to use lower-cost technologies with higher de-
tection limits to collect a greater number of samples. This
approach would provide a more comprehensive picture
of contamination at the site, but with less detail regard-
ing the specific contamination. Such an approach would
not be recommended to identify the extent of contamina-
tion by a specific contaminant, such as benzene, but may
be an excellent approach for defining the extent of con-
tamination by total organic compounds with a strong de-
gree of certainty.
Site Assessment Technologies
This section discusses the differences between using field
and laboratory technologies and provides an overview of
applicable site assessment 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 avail-
able and more samples can be taken during the same sam-
pling 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 labora-
tory technologies, some field technologies may not de-
tect 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 contami-
nants, a small percentage of the samples can be sent for
laboratory analysis. The choice of sampling and analyti-
cal procedures should be based on Data Quality Objec-
tives 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 iden-
tify appropriate cleanup technologies.
Sample Collection and Analysis
Technologies
Tables 3 and 4 list sample collection technologies for soil/
subsurface and groundwater that are appropriate for iron
and steel brownfields sites. Technology selection depends
on the medium being sampled and the type of analysis
required, based on Data Quality Objectives (see the sec-
tion on this subject earlier in this document). Soil samples
are generally collected using spoons, scoops, and shov-
els. The selection of a subsurface sample collection tech-
nology depends on the subsurface conditions (e.g.,
consolidated materials, bedrock), the required sampling
depth and level of analysis, and the extent of sampling
anticipated. For example, 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 penetrom-
eters, may be more cost-effective. The types of contami-
nants will also play a key role in the selection of sampling
methods, devices, containers, and preservation tech-
niques.
Table 5 lists analytical technologies that are appropriate
for iron and steel brownfields sites, the types of contami-
nation they can measure, applicable environmental me-
dia, and the relative cost of each. The final two columns
of the table contain the applicability (e.g., field and/or
laboratory) of the analytical method, and the technology's
ability to generate quantitative versus qualitative results.
Less-expensive technologies that have rapid turnaround
times and produce only qualitative results would be ap-
propriate for many brownfields sites.
Additional Considerations for Assessing
Iron and Steel Sites
The extent of aerial contamination may be large at iron
and steel sites; therefore, planners will want to consider
potential cleanup costs when designing a cost-effective
sampling and analysis plan. Planners may want to screen
contamination in discrete areas of the mill site, one at a
time, because some site areas may trigger expensive
cleanup requirements while others may require minimal
cleanup. Specific factors to consider when planning a site
assessment at an iron and steel site are discussed below.
Ranking Mill Operations
If planners are interested in the entire site, they should
assess the top ranking areas first because these are the
19
-------
Table 3. Soil and Subsurface Sampling Tools
Media
Technique/
Instrumentation
Drilling Methods
Cable Tool
Casing Advancement
Direct Air Rotary with Rotary Bit!
Downhole Hammer
Direct Mud Rotary
Directional Drilling
Hollow-Stem Auger
Jetting Methods
Rotary Diamond Drilling
Rotating Core
Solid Flight and Bucket Augers
Sonic Drilling
Split and Solid Barrel
Thin-Wall Open Tube
Thin-Wall Piston/I
Specialized Thin Wall
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
Soil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ground
Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Relative Cost
per Sample
Mid-range
expensive
Most expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Most expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Least expensive
Most expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Most expensive
Least expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Least expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Least expensive
Sample Quality
Soil properties will most likely
be altered
Soil properties will likely be
altered
Soil properties will most likely
be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties will likely be
altered
Soil properties will 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
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 most likely
not be altered
Soil properties will most likely
not be altered
Soil properties will most likely
not be altered
Bold - Most commonly used field techniques
20
-------
Table 4. Groundwater Sampling Tools
Technique/
Instrumentation
Contaminants'
Relative Cost
per Sample
Sample Quality
Portable Groundwater Sampling Pumps
Bladder Pump SVOCs, PAHs, metals
Gas-Driven Piston Pump
SVOCs, PAHs, metals
Gas-Driven Displacement SVOCs, PAHs, metals
Pumps
Gear Pump
Inertial-Lift Pumps
Submersible Centrifugal
Pumps
Submersible Helical-Rotor
Pump
Suction-Lift Pumps
(peristaltic)
Portable Grab Samplers
Bailers
Pneumatic Depth-Specific
Samplers
SVOCs, PAHs, metals
SVOCs, PAHs, metals
SVOCs, PAHs, metals
SVOCs, PAHs, metals
SVOCs, PAHs, metals
VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, metals
VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, metals
Cone Penetrometer
Samplers
Direct Drive Samplers
Portable In Situ Groundwater Samplers/Sensors
VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, metals
VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, metals
Hydropunch VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, metals
Fixed In Situ Samplers
VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, metals
VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, metals
Multilevel Capsule
Samplers
Multiple-Port Casings
Passive Multilayer Samplers
VOCs
Mid-range
expensive
Most Expensive
Least expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Least expensive
Most expensive
Most expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered by sampling
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered by sampling
Liquid properties may be
altered
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
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altere
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered
Bold Most commonly used field techniques
VOCs Volatile Organic Carbons
SVOCs Semivolatile Organic Carbons
PAHs Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
1 See Figure 1 for an overview of site locations where these contaminants may typically be found.
areas that are likely to have higher levels of contamina-
tion and require greater cleanup effort.
Cokemaking operations
Iron making operations
Power-generation operations
Finishing shops
Maintenance operations
Steelmaking operations
21
-------
Table 5. Sample Analysis Technologies
Media
Technique/
Instrumentation
Metals
Laser-Induced
Breakdown
Spectrometry
Titrimetry Kits
Particle-Induced X-ray
Emissions
Atomic Adsorption
Spectrometry
Inductively Coupled
Plasma-Atomic
Emission
Spectroscopy
Field Bioassessment
X-Ray Fluorescence
Ground
Analvtes Soil Water Gas
Metals X
Metals X
Metals X X
Metals X* X X
Metals XXX
Metals X X
Metals XXX
Relative
Detection
ppb
ppm
ppm
ppb
ppb
ppm
Relative
Cost per
Analysis
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Most
expensive
Most
expensive
Most
expensive
Least
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
Produces
Quantitative Data
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
Yes
Yes
No
Yes (limited)
PAHs, VOCs, and SVOCs
Laser-Induced
Fluorescence (LIF)
Solid/Porous Fiber
Optic
Chemical Calorimetric
Kits
Flame lonization
Detector (hand-held)
Explosi meter
Photo lonization
Detector (hand-held)
Catalytic Surface
Oxidation
Near IR
Reflectance/Trans
Spectroscopy
Ion Mobility
Spectrometer
Raman
Spectroscopy/SERS
VOCs Volatile Organic
PAHs X X
VOCs X* X X
VOCs, X X
SVOCS,
PAHs
VOCs X X* X
VOCs X* X X
VOCs, X X* X
SVOCS
VOCs X* X X
VOCs X
VOCs, X X* X
SVOCS
VOCs, XXX
SVOCS
Compounds
Ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
Ppm
ppm
1 0O-I ,000
Ppm
1 0O-I ,000
ppb
ppb
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Usually used
in field
Immediate,
can be used
in field
Can be used
in field,
usually used
in laboratory
Immediate,
can be used
in field
Immediate,
can be used
in field
Immediate,
can be used
in field
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
No
No
No
No
Additional
effort
required
Yes
Additional
effort
required
(Continued)
SVOCS Semivolatile Organic Compounds (may be present in oil and grease)
PAHs Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
X* Indicates there must be extraction of the sample to gas or liquid phase
** Samples sent to laboratory require shipping time and usually 14 to 35 days turnaround time for
analysis, Rush orders cost an additional amount per sample.
22
-------
Table 5. Continued
Technique/
Instrumentation
Metals (continued)
Infrared Spectroscopy
Scattering/Absorption
Lidar
FTI R Spectroscopy
Synchronous
Luminescence/
Fluorescence
Gas Chromatography
(GC) (can be used
with numerous
detectors)
UV-Visible
Spectrophotometry
UV Fluorescence
Ion Trap
Other
Chemical Reaction-
Based Test Papers
Immunoassay and
Calorimetric Kits
Media
Ground
Analytes Soil Water
VOCs, X X
svocs
VOCs X* X
VOCs X* X*
VOCs, X X
svocs
VOCs, X X
svocs
VOCs X* X
VOCs X X
VOCs, X* X
svocs
VOCs, X X
svocs,
Metals
VOCs, X X
svocs,
Metals
Relative
Gas Detection
X 100-1 ,000
ppm
X 100-1 ,000
ppm
X ppm
ppb
X ppb
X ppb
X ppb
X ppb
ppm
ppm
Relative
Cost per
Analysis
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Most
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Produces
Application** Quantitative Data
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
Laboratory
and field
Usually
used in
laboratory,
can be used
in field
Usually
used in
laboratory,
can be used
in field
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
Laboratory
and field
Usually used
in field
Usually used
in
laboratory,
can be used
in field
Additional
effort
required
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
SVOCs Semivolatile Organic Compounds (may be present in oil and grease)
PAHs Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
X* Indicates there must be extraction of the sample to gas or liquid phase
** Samples sent to laboratory require shipping time and usually 14 to 3.5 days turnaround time for analysis. Rush orders cost an additional
amount per sample.
Cokemaking
Any significant contamination found in the cokemaking
area, even at low levels, will trigger significant cleanup
requirements. Cokemaking operations often produce coal
tars containing carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), such as benzo(a)pyrene and anthracene. These
coal tars were often used to suppress dust throughout
mills; consequently, they may be present in many differ-
ent areas of the facility. To assess contamination in the
cokemaking area:
Soil samples should be collected around the blast
furnace (where the coal is converted into coke).
Surface soil samples should be taken in unpaved ar-
eas near the cokemaking area that appear to have
stained soils.
Samples can be screened using chemical reaction-based
test papers or immunoassay kits that are specifically de-
signed to detect low levels of PAHs. Some samples should
23
-------
be submitted for laboratory analysis using gas chroma-
tography (GC)/mass spectrometry (MS) to validate the
field results.
Power Generation
If the initial evaluation indicates that PCB transformers
were used, planners should investigate the power-gen-
eration facility. Many mills have onsite power-genera-
tion operations. In the past, transformers were commonly
filled with PCBs, which may have been released during
maintenance and replacement operations. To assess the
power-generation area, soil samples should be collected:
In and around the power-generation facility
In the area used for transformer maintenance
From any transformer disposal areas
Samples can be screened using immunoassay kits that
are specifically designed to detect low levels of PCBs.
Some of the samples should also be submitted for labo-
ratory analysis using GC and high-pressure liquid chro-
matography (HPLC) to validate the field results.
If planners are interested in the entire site and PAHs or
PCBs are present in soil samples from the cokemaking
or power-generation areas, they should talk with regula-
tors to get a preliminary indication of cleanup options.
Based on the outcome of these discussions, planners may
want to develop a qualitative "order-of-magnitude" cost
estimate for cleanup that includes the expected cost of
full-scale characterization of the area. Planners can then
compare the cost with expected revenues from future land
reuse options and make an interim decision whether to
proceed with further screening of additional areas at the
mill.
Finishing Operations
Although finishing operations are usually well contained
within a single, large building, wastewaters from these
operations containing inorganics including chromium and
solvents are often carried through pipes underneath the
floor slab. Over time, these pipes can develop leaks that
release contaminants into underlying soils. Solvents are
mobile in most soils, and metals become mobile when
combined with the acidic wastewaters usually present in
these areas.
Soil samples should be collected in drains and sumps in
the chemical storage, process, and wastewater treatment
areas of the finishing facility, as described below:
Residuals from drain sumps in storage areas should
be screened for total organics and acids using a photo
ionization detector (PID) or a flame ionization de-
tector (FID), both of which are relatively inexpen-
sive.
Residuals taken from drains in the process and waste-
water treatment areas should be screened for a simi-
lar range of organic contaminants as well as inorganic
contaminants such as metals. Immunoassays are an
inexpensive field technology that can be used to per-
form the screening analysis for organic contaminants
and for mercury. X-ray fluorescence (XRF) is another
innovative technology that can be used to perform
either field or laboratory analyses.
Soil gas collected underneath the floor slab should
be analyzed for solvents and other organic contami-
nants using PID or FID. Corings of the floor slab
itself may need to be taken and sent to a laboratory
for analysis to determine whether contaminants have
penetrated floor slabs.
Maintenance Operations
Maintenance operations may have released significant
amounts of oil, grease, and solvents into the environment.
Some products used to maintain heavy machinery, par-
ticularly oils and grease, can form liquids that float on
top of groundwater and are difficult to remove. While
the cleanup of some of these contaminants can be rela-
tively inexpensive, the cost can become significant if the
contamination is widespread.
Several soil samples should be collected in and around
each maintenance area. These samples should be screened
for total organics using PID/FID and for solvents, oils
and grease, glycol ethers, and petroleum hydrocarbons.
Some samples should be sent to a laboratory for a full
organic and inorganic screening.
Planners should also assess maintenance areas to deter-
mine if any USTs are present. Noninvasive geophysical
methods (e.g., ground-penetrating radar, electromagnet-
ics) can be used to detect the presence of these tanks. If
any USTs are found, subsurface soil samples should be
taken next to and underneath the tanks to determine if
they have leaked contaminants.
Ironmaking Operations
Solvents used as cutting oils during ironmaking opera-
tions can be difficult to cleanup; however, some facilities
24
-------
capture and reuse them, making cleanup of ironmaking
areas less problematic. Soil samples should be collected
around the ironmaking area and inside drain sumps. If
the floor of the ironmaking area is dirt, soil samples should
also be taken from the floor materials. All ironmaking
soil samples should be screened for the types of metals
formed at the mill. Screening can be performed using
chemical reaction-based test papers. X-ray fluorescence
(XRF) can be used for field or laboratory analyses.
Steelmaking Operations
Steelmaking operations generally produce fewer contami-
nants than cokemaking, finishing, or ironmaking opera-
tions. Planners should ensure that two types of
contamination are evaluated in Steelmaking areas-po-
tential contamination from the air pollution control sys-
tem (APCS) and contamination spread around the ground
near furnaces. The APCS collects the dusts and gases
produced by the Steelmaking process. Planners should
be aware that APCS byproducts are RCRA listed wastes
that may contain toxic materials such as iron, lead, and
chromium (if stainless steel was produced). Contamina-
tion around furnaces may result from the slag that is
formed as a byproduct of the iron and Steelmaking pro-
cess. This slag may contain semivolatile compounds as-
sociated with the coke used in ironmaking and will likely
contain metals that were used in Steelmaking. Screening
for contaminants in this area can be performed using XRF
or chemical reaction-based test papers for metals, and
GC/MS or PID for organics.
Groundwater Contamination
Groundwater contamination should be assessed in all ar-
eas, particularly where solvents or acids have been used.
Solvents can be very mobile in subsurface soils; and ac-
ids, 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-effec-
tive approach for collecting these samples. The samples
then can be screened for contaminants using field meth-
ods such as:
pH meters to screen for the presence of acids
Colorimetric tubes to screen for volatile organics
X-ray fluorescence to screen for metals
General Sampling Costs
Site assessment costs vary widely, depending on the na-
ture and extent of the contamination and the size of the
sampling area. The sample collection costs discussed
below are based on an assumed labor rate of $35 per
hour plus $10 per sample for shipping and handling.
So/7 Collection Costs
Surface soil samples can be collected with tools as simple
as a stainless steel spoon, shovel, or hand auger. Samples
can be collected using hand tools in soft soil for as low
as $10 per sample (assuming that a field technician can
collect 10 samples per hour). When soils are hard, or
deeper samples are required, a hammer-driven split
spoon sampler or a direct push rig is needed. Using a
drill rig equipped with a split spoon sampler or a direct
push rig typically costs more than $600 per day for rig
operation (Geoprobe, 1998), with the cost per sample
exceeding $30 (assuming that a field technician can
collect 2 samples per hour). Labor costs generally in-
crease when heavy machinery is needed.
Groundwater Sampling Costs
Groundwater samples can be extracted through conven-
tional drilling of a permanent monitoring well or using
the direct push methods listed in Table 3. The conven-
tional, hollow-stem auger-drilled monitoring well is
more widely accepted but generally takes more time than
direct push methods. Typical quality assurance proto-
cols for the conventional monitoring well require the
well to be drilled, developed, and allowed to achieve
equilibrium for 24 to 48 hours. After the development
period, a groundwater sample is extracted. With the di-
rect push sampling method, a probe is either hydrauli-
cally pressed or vibrated into the ground, and
groundwater percolates into a sampling container at-
tached to the probe. The direct push method costs are
contingent upon the hardness of the subsurface, depth
to the water table, and permeability of the aquifer. Costs
for both conventional and direct push techniques are gen-
erally more than $40 per sample (assuming that a field
technician can collect 1 sample per hour); well installa-
tion costs must be added to that number.
Costs for Surface Water and Sediment
Sampling
Surface water and sediment sampling costs depend on
the location and depth of the required samples. Obtain-
ing surface water and sediment samples can cost as little
as $30 per sample (assuming that a field technician can
collect 2 samples per hour). Sampling sediment in deep
water or sampling a deep level of surface water, how-
ever, requires the use of larger equipment, which in-
25
-------
creases the cost. Also, if surface water presents a hazard
during sampling and protective measures are required,
costs will increase greatly.
Sample Analysis Costs
Costs for analyzing samples in any medium can range
from as little as $27 per sample for a relatively simple
test (e.g., an immunoassay test for metals) to greater than
$400 per sample for a more extensive analysis (e.g., for
semivolatiles) and up to $1,200 per sample for dioxins
(Robbat, 1997). Major factors that affect the cost of
sample analysis include the type of analytical technol-
ogy used, the level of expertise needed to interpret the
results, and the number of samples to be analyzed. Plan-
ners should make sure that laboratories that have been
certified by state programs are used; contact your state
environmental agency for a list of state-certified labora-
tories.
26
-------
Chapter 4
Site Cleanup
The purpose of this section is to guide planners in the
selection of appropriate cleanup technologies. The prin-
cipal 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
. Budget
The selection of appropriate cleanup technologies often
involves a trade-off between time and cost. Acompanion
document to this guide, entitled Cost Estimating Tools
and Resources for Addressing Sites Under the Brown-
fields Initiative, provides information on cost factors and
developing cost estimates. In general, the more intensive
the cleanup approach, the more quickly the contamina-
tion 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. One ef-
fective method of comparison is through the use of a
cleanup plan, as discussed below; planners should involve
stakeholders in the community in the development of the
plan.
The intended future use of a brownfields site will drive
the level of cleanup needed to make the site safe for re-
development and reuse. Brownfields sites are by defini-
tion not Superfund NPL sites; that is, brownfields sites
usually have lower levels of contamination present and
therefore generally require less extensive cleanup efforts
than Superfund NPL 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 possi-
bly none) may be required.
Some regional EPA and state offices have developed
cleanup standards for different chemicals, which may
serve as guidelines or legal requirements for cleanups. It
is important to understand that screening levels (discussed
in the section on "Performing a Phase II Site Assessment"
above) are different from cleanup levels. Screening lev-
els indicate whether further site investigation is warranted
for a particular contaminant. Cleanup levels indicate
whether cleanup action is needed and how extensive it
needs to be. Planners should check with their state envi-
ronmental office for guidance and/or requirements for
cleanup standards.
This section contains information on developing a cleanup
plan and discusses various alternatives for addressing
contamination at the site (i.e., institutional controls and
containment and cleanup technologies); a table that sum-
marizes cleanup technologies applicable to iron and steel
mill sites; a discussion of additional considerations for
cleaning up iron and steel sites; and an overview of post-
construction issues that planners need to consider when
selecting alternatives.
Developing a Cleanup Plan
If the results of the site evaluation indicate the presence
of contamination above acceptable levels, planners will
need to have a cleanup plan developed by a professional
environmental engineer that describes the approach that
will be used to contain and clean up contamination. In
developing this plan, planners and their engineers should
consider a range of possible options, with the intent of
identifying the most cost-effective approaches for clean-
ing up the site, considering time and cost concerns. The
cleanup plan can include the following elements:
A clear delineation of environmental concerns at the
site. Areas should be discussed separately if the
cleanup 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 as-
27
-------
sessment of the nature and scope of contamination
should be included.
A recommended cleanup approach for each environ-
mental concern that takes into account expected land
reuse plans and the adequacy of the technology se-
lected.
A cost estimate that reflects both expected capital and
operating/maintenance costs.
Post-construction maintenance requirements for the
recommended approach.
A discussion of the assumptions made to support the
recommended cleanup approach, as well as the limi-
tations of the approach.
Planners can use the framework developed during the
initial site evaluation (see the section on "Site Assess-
ment") and the controls and technologies described be-
low to compare the effectiveness of the least costly
approaches for meeting the required cleanup goals estab-
lished in the Data Quality Objectives. These goals should
be established at levels that are consistent with the ex-
pected reuse plans. A final cleanup plan may include a
combination of actions, such as institutional controls,
containment technologies, and cleanup technologies, as
discussed below.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls may play an important role in re-
turning an iron and steel brownfields site to a marketable
condition. 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 pro-
tect people from possible contamination. Institutional
controls can range from a security fence prohibiting ac-
cess to certain portions of the site to deed restrictions
imposed on the future use of the facility. If the overall
cleanup 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 brown-
fields programs include institutional controls.
Containment Technologies
Containment technologies, in many instances, will be the
likely cleanup approach for landfilled waste and waste-
water lagoons (after contaminated wastewaters have been
removed) at iron and steel sites. The purpose of contain-
ment is to reduce the potential for offsite migration of
contaminants and possible subsequent exposure to people
and the environment. Containment technologies include
engineered barriers such as caps and liners for landfills,
slurry walls, and hydraulic containment. Often, soils con-
taminated 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 institu-
tional controls, containment technologies do not remove
or destroy contamination, but rather mitigate potential
risk by limiting access to it.
If contamination is found underneath the floor slab at an
iron and steel facility, leaving the contaminated materi-
als 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 po-
tential risk can be mitigated and managed effectively over
the long term. In determining whether containment is fea-
sible, planners should consider:
Depth to groundwctter. 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 con-
taminants to migrate easily. Clay and fine silty soils
provide a much better barrier.
Surface water control. Planners should be prepared
to prove to regulators that rainwater and snowmelt
cannot infiltrate the floor slab and flush the contami-
nants downward.
Volatilization of organic contaminants. Regulators are
likely to require that air monitors be placed inside
the building to monitor the level of organics that may
be escaping upward through the floor and drains.
Types of Cleanup Technologies
Cleanup 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 con-
tamination are not conducive to the use of institutional
controls or containment technologies. Cleanup technolo-
gies 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 trans-
ported to another location. After treatment, if the re-
maining materials, or residuals, meet cleanup goals,
28
-------
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 an-
other location for storage or further treatment. A cost-
effective approach to cleaning up an iron and steel
site may be the partial treatment of contaminated soils
or ground-water, followed by containment, storage,
or further treatment off site.
In Situ. The use of in situ technologies has increased
dramatically in recent years. In situ technologies treat
contamination in place and are often innovative tech-
nologies. Examples of in situ technologies include
bioremediation, soil flushing, oxygen-releasing com-
pounds, 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 iron and steel 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 ad-
dress soils and groundwater contaminated with or-
ganics, such as solvents and some PAHs, which are
common problems at iron and steel sites.
Maintenance requirements associated with in situ tech-
nologies depend on the technology used and vary widely
in both effort and cost. For example, containment tech-
nologies such as caps and liners will require regular main-
tenance, such as maintaining the vegetative cover and
performing periodic inspections to ensure the long-term
integrity of the cover system. Groundwater treatment sys-
tems will require varying levels of post-cleanup care. If
an ex situ system is in use at the site, it will require regu-
lar operations support and periodic maintenance to en-
sure that the system is operating as designed.
Cleanup Technology Options
Table 6 presents cleanup technologies that may be ap-
propriate, based on their capital and operating costs, for
use at iron and steel sites. In addition to more conven-
tional technologies, a number of innovative technology
options are listed. Many cleanup approaches use institu-
tional controls and one or a combination of the technolo-
gies described in Table 6. Whatever cleanup approach is
ultimately chosen, planners should explore a number of
cost-effective options.
Additional Cleanup Considerations
When selecting cleanup approaches at iron and steel sites,
planners should consider the following:
Cleanup approaches can be formulated for specific
contaminant types; however, different contaminant
types are likely to be found together at iron and steel
sites, and some contaminants can interfere with cer-
tain cleanup techniques directed at other contaminant
types.
The large site areas typical of some iron and steel
mills 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
mill. For example, metals contamination from the
blast furnace, the ironmaking area, and the finishing
shops can be consolidated and cleaned up using so-
lidification/stabilization techniques, with the residual
placed in an appropriately designed landfill with an
engineered cap. Planners should investigate the like-
lihood that such consolidation may require prior regu-
latory approval.
Some mixed contamination may require multicorn-
ponent treatment trains for cleanup. A cost-effective
solution might be to combine consolidation and treat-
ment technologies with containment where appropri-
ate. For example, soil washing techniques can be used
to treat a mixed soil matrix contaminated with met-
als compounds (which may need further stabiliza-
tion) and PAHs; the soil can then be placed in a
landfill. Any remaining contaminated soils may be
subjected to chemical dehalogenation to destroy the
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 ex-
tracted 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. Depending on the types of
organic contaminants, their levels in the groundwa-
29
-------
ter, and the cleanup goals, it may be necessary to in-
stall a carbon filter after the air stripper.
Post-Construction Care
Many of the cleanup technologies that leave contamina-
tion onsite, either in containment systems or because of
the long periods required to reach cleanup goals, will re-
quire 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 cleanup approach selected
is continuing to function as planned (e.g., residual con-
tamination, 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 re-
quirements will also be involved. Planners 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.
30
-------
Table 6. Cleanup Technologies for Iron and Steel Brownfields Sites
Applicable
Technology
Description
Examples of Applicable
Land/Process Areas'!
Contaminants Treated
by This Technology
Limitations
cost
Containment Technologies
Capping . Used to cover buried waste
materials to prevent migration.
. Consist of a relatively
impermeable material that will
minimize rainwater infiltration.
. Waste materials can be left in place.
. Requires periodic inspections and
routine monitoring.
. Contaminant migration must be
monitored periodically.
Sheet Piling
Grout Curtain
£ Slurry Walls
Steel or iron sheets are driven into
the ground to form a subsurface
barrier.
Low-cost containment method.
Used primarily for shallow aquifers.
Grout curtains are injected into
subsurface soils and bedrock.
Forms an impermeable barrier in the
subsurface.
Ironmaking, cokemaking,
sintering, casting,
steelmaking, acid pickling.
Metals.
Cyanide.
Cokemaking, maintenance
areas, LIST.
Cokemaking, maintenance
areas, LIST.
Used to contain contaminated ground . Cokemaking,
water, landfill leachate, divert UST.
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.
maintenance areas,
Not contaminant-
specific.
Not contaminant-
specific.
Not contaminant-
specific.
. Costs associated with
routine sampling and analysis
may be high.
. Long-term maintenance may
be required to ensure
. May have to be replaced after
20 to 30 years of operation.
Not effective in the absence of
a continuous aquitard.
Can leak at the intersection of
the sheets and the aquitard
or through pile wall joints.
Difficult to ensure a complete
curtain without gaps through
which the plume can escape;
however new techniques have
improved continuity of curtain.
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.
$11 to $40 per
square foot.2
impermeability.
$8 to $17 per
square foot.3
$6 to $14 per
square foot.3
Design and
installation costs
of $5 to $7 per
square foot (1991
dollars) for a
standard soil-
bentonite wall in
soft to medium
soil.4
Above costs do
not include vari-
able costs re-
quired for
chemical analy-
ses, feasibility, or
compatibility
testing.
(Continued)
-------
Table 6. Continued
Applicable
Technology
Description
Examples of Applicable
Land/Process Areas'
Contaminants Treated
by This Technology
Limitations
cost
Ex Situ Technoloaies
Excavation/ . Removes contaminated material
Offsite to an EPA approved landfill.
Disposal
Composting
CO
N>
Chemical
Oxidation/
Reduction
Wastes from steelmaking,
cokemaking, sintering,
casting, finishing operations,
maintenance areas. UST
Not contaminant-
specific.
Controlled biological process by which
biodegradable hazardous materials in
soils are converted by microorganisms
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.
Wastes from ironmakina
cokemaking, sintering,
casting, acid pickling,
maintenance.
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.
Wastes from cokemaking,
ironmaking, sintering, casting,
steelmaking, acid pickling,
finishing operations.
Metals.
Cyanide.
Generation of fugitive
emissions may be a
problem during operations.
The distance from the
contaminated site to the
nearest disposal facility
will affect cost.
Depth and composition of the
media requiring excavation
must be considered.
Transportation of the soil
through populated areas may
affect community acceptability.
Disposal options for certain waste
(e.g., mixed waste or transuranic
waste) may be limited. There is
currently only one licensed disposal
facility for radioactive and mixed
waste in the United States.
Substantial space is reauired.
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.
Emissions from pile may be
regulated.
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.
$270 to $460
per ton.
$190 or greater
per cubic yard for
soil volumes of
approximately
20,000 cubic
yards.4
Cost will vary
with the amount
of soil to be
treated, the soil
fraction of the
compost, availa-
bility of amend-
ments, the type
of contaminant
and the type of
process design
employed.
$190 to $660 per
cubic meter of
soil.4
(Continued)
-------
Table 6. Continued
Applicable
Technology
Description
Examples of Applicable
Land/Process Areas'!
Contaminants Treated
by This Technology
Limitations
cost
03
CO
Soil Washina . 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.
Thermal . Low temperatures (200°F to 900°F) are
Desorption used to remove organic contaminants
from soils and sludges.
. Does not incinerate vapors. Off-
gases are collected and treated.
. Requires treatment system after
heating chamber.
. Can be performed on site or off site.
Incineration . High temperatures, 870" to 1,200°C .
(1,400" 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.
Wastes from maintenance
operations, cokemaking,
steelmaking, ironmaking,
sintering, casting, acid
pickling, finishing operations.
Metals.
Wastes from power
generation, maintenance
operations, UST, casting,
cokemaking, acid pickling,
finishing operations.
Wastes from maintenance
operations, UST, acid
pickling, cokemaking,
casting, finishing operations.
VOCs.
PCBs.
PAHs.
VOCs.
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.
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, waste
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.
$120 to $200 per
ton of soil.4
Cost is
dependent upon
the target waste
quantity and
concentration
$50 to $300
per ton of soil.4
Transportation
charges are
additional.
$200 to $1,000
per ton of soil at
off-site
incinerators.
$1,500 to
$6,000 per ton
of soil for soils
contaminated
with PCBs or
dioxins.4
Mobile units that
can operate
onsite reduce
soil transporta-
tion costs.
(Continued)
-------
Table 6. Continued
Applicable
Technology
Description
Examples of Applicable
Land/Process Areas'
Contaminants Treated
by This Technology
Limitations
cost
UV Oxidation
Pyro lysis
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.
A thermal treatment technology that uses .
chemical decomposition induced in organic
materials by heat in the absence of oxygen.
Pyrolysis transforms hazardous organic
materials into gaseous components, small
quantities of liquid, and a solid residue
(coke) containing fixed carbon and ash.
Wastes from maintenance
operations, UST, acid
pickling, cokemaking,
casting, finishing operations.
VOCs.
Wastes from sintering,
ironmaking, cokemaking,
steelmaking, casting, acid
pickling, finishing operations.
Metals
Cyanide.
PAHs.
. 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.
Specific feed size and materials
handling requirements affect
applicability or cost at specific
sites.
Requires 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.
$0.10 to $10 per
1,000 gallons
treated.4
Capital and
operating costs
are expected to
be approximately
$330 per metric
ton ($300 per
ton).4
(Continued)
-------
Table 6. Continued
Applicable
Technology
Description
Examples of Applicable
Land/Process Areas'!
Contaminants Treated
by This Technology
Limitations
cost
Precipitation
CO
01
Liquid Phase
Carbon
Adsorption
Involves the conversion of soluble heavy «
metal salts to insoluble salts that will
precipitate.
Precipitate can be removed from the
treated water by 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.
Wastes from sintering,
ironmaking, steelmaking,
casting, acid pickling,
finishing operations.
Metals.
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.
Wastes from ironmaking,
cokemaking, sintering,
casting, acid pickling,
maintenance, finishing
operations, steelmaking,
UST.
Low levels of
metals.
: n t &i
VOCs.
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.
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.
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
gallons treated.4
Sludge disposal
may be esti-
mated to
increase operat-
ing costs by
$0.50 per 1,000
gallons treated.*
$1.20 to $6.30
per 1,000 gallons
treated at flow
rates of 0.1 mgd.
Costs decrease
with increasing
flow rates and
concentrations.4
Costs are
dependent on
waste stream
flow rates, type of
contaminant,
concentration,
and timing
requirements.
(Continued)
-------
Table 6. Continued
Applicable
Technology
Description
Examples of Applicable
Land/Process Areas'!
Contaminants Treated
by This Technology
Limitations
cost
Air Stripping . Contaminants are partitioned from ground .
water 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.
u
en
In Situ Technologies
Natural
Attenuation
Wastes from maintenance
operations, LIST, acid
pickling, cokemaking,
casting, finishing operations.
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.
Maintenance operations,
LIST, acid pickling,
cokemaking, casting,
finishing operations.
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.
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.
$0.04,n $0.20
per 1,000
gallons'*.
A major operating
cost of air strippers is
the electricity required
for the groundwater
pump, the sump
discharge pump,
the air blower.
Not available.
(Continued)
-------
Table 6. Continued
Applicable
Technology
Soil Vaoor
Extraction
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 qas leavina 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.
Examples of Applicable
Land/Process Areas'!
. Maintenance operations,
UST, acid pickling,
cokemaking, casting,
finishing operations.
Contaminants Treated
by This Technology Limitations
. VOCs. . Tight or very moist content
(>50%) has a reduced
permeability to air, requiring
higher vacuums.
. Large screened intervals are
required in extraction wells for
soil with highly variable
permeabilities.
. Air emissions may require
treatment to eliminate possible
harm to the public or environment.
cost
. $10 to $50 per cubic
meter of soil. 4
. Cost 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.
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 .
Stabilization 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.
Ironmaking, sintering,
casting, steelmaking, acid
pickling, finishing.
Ironmaking, cokemaking,
sintering, casting, acid
pickling, maintenance,
finishing operations,
steelmaking, UST.
Metals. . Low-permeability soils are
difficult to treat.
. Surfactants can adhere to soil
and reduce effective soil
porosity.
. Reactions of flushing fluids with
soil can reduce contaminant
mobility.
. Potential of washing the
contaminant beyond the capture
zone and the introduction of
surfactants to the subsurface.
Metals. . Depth of contaminants may limit
Limited effectiveness.
effective- . Future use of site may affect
ness for containment materials, which
VOCs and could alter the ability to maintain
svocs. 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.
The major factor
affecting cost is the
separation of
surfactants from
recovered flushing
fluid.4
$50 to $80 per cubic
meter for shallow
applications.
$190 to $330 per
cubic meter for deeper
applications.4
Costs for cement-
based stabilization
techniques vary
according to materials
or reagents used,
their availability,
project size, and the
chemical nature of
the contaminant.
(Continued)
-------
Table 6. Continued
Applicable
Technology
Description
Examples of Applicable
Land/Process Areas'!
Contaminants Treated
by This Technology
Limitations
Cost
Air Sparging
u
00
Passive
Treatment
Walls
Chemical
Oxidation
. 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.
i 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.
, 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.
i 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.
Maintenance operations,
UST, acid pickling,
cokemaking, casting,
finishing operations.
Appropriately selected
location for wall.
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.
Maintenance operations,
UST, acid pickling,
cokemaking, casting,
finishing operations.
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.
VOCs. . The system requires control of
Metals. 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.
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.
$50 to $100 per
1,000 gallons of
groundwater treated.4
Capital costs for these
projects range from
$250,000 to
$1,000,000.4
Operations and
maintenance costs
approximately 5 to 10
times less than capital
costs.
Depends on mass
present and
hydrogeologic
conditions.4
(Continued)
-------
Table 6. Continued
Applicable
Technology
Description
Examples of Applicable
Land/Process Areas'
Contaminants Treated
by This Technology
Limitations
cost
Bioventina
Biodegradation
CO
CD
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.
Indigenous or introduced microorganisms
degrade organic contaminants found in
soil and groundwater.
Used successfully to remediate soils,
sludges, and groundwater.
Especially effective for remediating low-
level residual contamination in conjunction
with source removal.
Maintenance operations,
UST, acid pickling,
cokemaking, casting,
finishing operations.
Maintenance operations,
UST, acid pickling,
cokemaking, casting,
finishing operations.
VOCs. . Low soil-oas 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.
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.
$10 to $70 per cubic
meter of soil.4
Cost affected by
contaminant type and
concentration, soil
permeability, well
spacing and number,
pumping rate, and off-
gas treatment.
$30 to $100 per cubic
meter of soil.4
Cost affected by the
nature and depth of
the contaminants,
use of bioaugmenta-
tion or hydrogen
peroxide addition,
and groundwater
pumping rates.
1 The cleanup of any one area is likely to affect the cleanup of other areas in close proximity; cleanup decisions are often made for larger areas than those presented here, and
combinations of technologies may be selected.
2 Interagency Cost Workgroup, 1994.
3 Costs of Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Wastes Sites, U.S. EPA, 1986.
4 Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable. http://www.frtr.gov/matrix/top_page.html
UST = underground storage tank.
SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compounds
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
PAHs = polyaromatic hydrocarbons
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls
-------
Chapter 5
Conclusion
Brownfields redevelopment contributes to the revitaliza-
tion of communities across the U.S. Reuse of these aban-
doned, contaminated sites spurs economic growth, builds
community pride, protects public health, and helps main-
tain 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 redevelop-
ment process.
While the general guidance provided in this document
will be applicable to many brownfields projects, it is im-
portant 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 particu-
lar site. Some of the conditions that may vary by site in-
clude: 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, plan-
ners 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. Plan-
ners 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 stakehold-
ers 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
An acceptable level of data uncertainty
When used appropriately, the site assessment methods
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 tech-
nologies are available. The guidance provided in this
document on selecting appropriate methods directs plan-
ners to base cleanup initiatives on site- and project-spe-
cific conditions. The type and extent of cleanup will
depend in large part on the type and level of contamina-
tion present, reuse goals, and the budget available. Cer-
tain cleanup technologies are used onsite, while others
require offsite treatment. Also, in certain circumstances,
containment of contamination onsite and the use of insti-
tutional controls may be important components of the
cleanup effort. Finally, planners will need to include bud-
getary 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 re-
use goals effectively and safely.
40
-------
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
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
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
s v o c Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
TCE Trichloroethylene
TIO Technology Innovation Office
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
UST Underground Storage Tank
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program
v o c Volatile Organic Compound
41
-------
Appendix B1
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 contami-
nants 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 con-
taminated with solvents and other volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). See also Volatile Organic Com-
pound.
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 con-
tain 6-carbon ring structures, such as creosote, tolu-
ene, 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 dur-
ing a baseline risk assessment can be used to deter-
mine 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 pro-
cesses that use microorganisms (usually naturally
occurring) such as bacteria, yeast, or fungi to break
down hazardous substances into less toxic or non-
toxic substances. Bioremediation can be used to clean
up contaminated soil and water. In situ bioremedia-
tion treats the contaminated soil or groundwater in
the location in which it is found. For ex situ bioreme-
diation processes, contaminated soil must be exca-
vated 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 injec-
tion or through the use of a vacuum. Bioventing can
be effective in cleaning up releases of petroleum prod-
ucts, 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 inter-
sected by a borehole.
1 Adapted from EPA's Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology
Options for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup (EPA, 1997).
Brownfields Brownfields sites are abandoned, idled, or
under-used industrial and commercial facilities where
42
-------
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 com-
pounds 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 groundwa-
ter 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 chlo-
rinated 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 envi-
ronment.
Colorimetric Colorimetric refers to chemical reaction-
based indicators that are used to produce compound
reactions to individual compounds, or classes of com-
pounds. 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 in-
ventory 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 forma-
tion characterized by low permeability that inhibits
the flow of water. See also Bedrock and Permeabil-
ity.
Contaminant A contaminant is any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological substance or matter present
in any media at concentrations that may result in ad-
verse 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 mak-
ing are appropriate. The DQO process involves a logi-
cal, step-by-step procedure for determining which of
the complex issues affecting a site are the most rel-
evant 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 re-
moval 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 tech-
nology that extracts contaminants simultaneously
from soils in saturated and unsaturated zones by ap-
plying soil vapor extraction techniques to contami-
nants trapped in saturated zone soils.
Electromagnetic (EM) Geophysics EM geophysics refers
to technologies used to detect spatial (lateral and ver-
tical) differences in subsurface electromagnetic char-
acteristics. The data collected provide information
about subsurface environments.
Electromagnetic (EM) Induction EM induction is a geo-
physical technology used to induce a magnetic field
beneath the earth's surface, which in turn causes a
43
-------
secondary magnetic field to form around nearby ob-
jects 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 sub-
stance that requires on-site activity within hours of a
determination that action is appropriate.
Emerging Technology An emerging technology is an in-
novative 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 con-
tinually improved as it is used and evaluated at dif-
ferent sites. See also Established Technology and
Innovative Technology.
Engineered Control An engineered control, such as bar-
riers 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 informa-
tion is readily available. Only after a technology has
been used at many different sites and the results fully
documented is that technology considered estab-
lished. The most frequently used established tech-
nologies are incineration, solidification and
stabilization, and pump-and-treat technologies for
groundwater. See also Emerging Technology and In-
novative Technology.
Exposure Pathway An exposure pathway is the route 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. Deter-
mining whether exposure pathways exist is an es-
sential 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 instru-
ment often used in conjunction with gas chromatog-
raphy to measure the change of signal as analytes are
ionized by a hydrogen-air flame. It also is used to
detect phenols, phthalates, polyaromatic hydrocar-
bons (PAH), VOCs, and petroleum hydrocarbons. See
also Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons and Volatile Organic
Compounds.
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy A fourier trans-
form infrared spectroscope is an analytical air moni-
toring 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 green-
houses.
Fur-an Furan is a colorless, volatile liquid compound used
in the synthesis of organic compounds, especially
nylon.
Gas Chromatography Gas chromatography is a technol-
ogy 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 com-
pounds (SVOC). The technique identifies and quan-
tifies organic compounds on the basis of molecular
weight, characteristic fragmentation patterns, and
retention time. Recent advances in gas chromatogra-
phy 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 ma-
terials as sand, soil, or gravel and that often supplies
wells and springs. See also Aquifer.
44
-------
Hazardous Substance A hazardous substance is any ma-
terial that poses a threat to public health or the envi-
ronment. Typical hazardous substances are materials
that are toxic, corrosive, ignitable, explosive, or
chemically reactive. If a certain quantity of a hazard-
ous 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 us-
able for fuel.
Heavy Metal Heavy metal refers to a group of toxic met-
als including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, mer-
cury, 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 sub-
surface layers to detect the reflection and refraction
of the radiation by various layers of soil. Unlike
ground-penetrating radar, which uses pulses, the tech-
nology uses continuous waves of radiation. See also
Ground-Penetrating Radar.
Hydrocarbon A hydrocarbon is an organic compound
containing only hydrogen and carbon, often occur-
ring in petroleum, natural gas, and coal.
Hydrogeology Hydrogeology is the study of groundwa-
ter, 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 cer-
tain 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 (gen-
erally colorimetric) to individual compounds or
classes of compounds. The reactions are used to de-
tect 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 gaseous materials under controlled conditions to
destroy hazardous waste.
Infrared Monitor An infrared monitor is a device used to
monitor the heat signature of an object, as well as to
sample air. It may be used to detect buried objects in
soil.
Inorganic Compound An inorganic compound is a com-
pound 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 pro-
cess 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 sup-
port 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 tech-
nology. Innovative technologies are being used un-
der many Federal and state cleanup programs to treat
hazardous wastes that have been improperly released.
For example, innovative technologies are being se-
lected 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 con-
taminants.
In Situ Oxidation In situ oxidation is an innovative treat-
ment technology that oxidizes contaminants that are
dissolved in groundwater and converts them into in-
soluble 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
45
-------
the contaminants to an area from which they can be
removed. The technology requires the drilling of in-
jection 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 met-
als (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 approxi-
mately 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 hu-
man health and the environment, and to expedite
property reuse. Fences, posting or warning signs, and
zoning and deed restrictions are examples of institu-
tional controls.
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) IRIS is an elec-
tronic database that contains EPA's latest descriptive
and quantitative regulatory information about chemi-
cal constituents. Files on chemicals maintained in
IRIS contain information related to both non-carci-
nogenic and carcinogenic health effects.
Landfarming Landfarming is the spreading and incorpo-
ration of wastes into the soil to initiate biological treat-
ment.
Landfill A sanitary landfill is a land disposal site for non-
hazardous solid wastes at which the waste is spread
in layers compacted to the smallest practical volume.
Laser-Znduced 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 contami-
nation.
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 technol-
ogy used to detect disruptions that metal objects cause
in the earth's localized magnetic field.
Mass Spectrometry Mass spectrometry is an analytical
process by which molecules are broken into fragments
to determine the concentrations and mass/charge ra-
tio of the fragments. Innovative mass spectroscopy
units, developed through modification of large labo-
ratory instruments, are sometimes portable, weath-
erproof units with self-contained power supplies.
Medium A medium is a specific environment air, wa-
ter, or soil which is the subject of regulatory con-
cern 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, mea-
suring 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, flam-
mable 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 con-
tamination 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 charac-
terization 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
46
-------
(RCRA). Mixed waste can be disposed only in com-
pliance with the requirements under RCRA that gov-
ern disposal of hazardous waste and with the RCRA
land disposal restrictions, which require that waste
be treated before it is disposed of in appropriate land-
fills.
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 groundwa-
ter 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 dis-
charges 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 hazard-
ous 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 sub-
surface processes, such as dilution, volatilization,
biodegradation, adsorption, and chemical reactions
with subsurface materials, reduce concentrations of
contaminants to acceptable levels. An in situ treat-
ment 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. Com-
mon 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 ac-
tions, to ensure that the cleanup methods are work-
ing properly. O&M activities are conducted to
maintain the effectiveness of the cleanup and to en-
sure that no new threat to human health or the envi-
ronment arises. O&M may include such activities as
groundwater and air monitoring, inspection and main-
tenance of the treatment equipment remaining on site,
and maintenance of any security measures or institu-
tional 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 repre-
sents 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 sub-
stances intended to prevent or mitigate infestation by,
or destroy or repel, any pest. Pesticides can accumu-
late in the food chain and/or contaminate the envi-
ronment if misused.
Phase I Site Assessment A Phase I 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 pro-
cesses that were carried out at the site. A Phase I as-
sessment includes a site visit, but does not include
any sampling. If such an assessment identifies no sig-
nificant concerns, a Phase II assessment is not nec-
essary.
Phase II Site Assessment A Phase II site assessment 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.
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 con-
47
-------
centrations of phenols cause taste and odor problems
in water; higher concentrations may be harmful to
human health or the environment.
Photoionization Detector (PZD) A PID is a nondestruc-
tive detector, often used in conjunction with gas chro-
matography, that measures the change of signal as
analytes are ionized by an ultraviolet lamp. The PID
is also used to detect VOCs and petroleum hydrocar-
bons.
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. Phytore-
mediation can be used to clean up metals, pesticides,
solvents, explosives, crude oil, polyaromatic hydro-
carbons, and landfill leachates. Its use generally is
limited to sites at which concentrations of contami-
nants 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 ori-
gin into any medium. The term also is used to refer
to measurable and potentially harmful radiation leak-
ing 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 elec-
trical transformers because they conducted heat well
while being fire resistant and good electrical insula-
tors. These contaminants typically are generated from
metal degreasing, printed circuit board cleaning, gaso-
line, 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 ben-
zene 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 re-
actors, research institutions, and hospitals.
Radionudide A radionuclide is a radioactive element char-
acterized according to its atomic mass and atomic
number, which can be artificial or naturally occur-
ring. Radionuclides have a long life as soil or water
pollutants. Radionuclides cannot be destroyed or de-
graded; therefore, applicable technologies involve
separation, concentration and volume reduction, im-
mobilization, or vitrification. See also Solidification
and Stabilization.
Radon Radon is a colorless, naturally occurring, radioac-
tive, inert gaseous element formed by radioactive
decay of radium atoms. See also Radioactive Waste
and Radionuclide.
Release A release is any spilling, leaking, pumping, pour-
ing, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, leach-
ing, 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, trans-
porting, storing, and disposing of hazardous sub-
stances. RCRA is designed to prevent the creation of
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Risk Communication Risk communication, the exchange
of information about health or environmental risks
among risk assessors, risk managers, the local com-
munity, news media and interest groups, is the pro-
cess of informing members of the local community
48
-------
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 geo-
physical features of soil and bedrock, such as debris,
buried channels, and other features.
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (SVOC) SVOCs, com-
posed 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 the process by which
it is determined whether contamination is present on
a site.
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 bot-
tom 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, chemi-
cal, and physical treatments, is a process through
which organic contaminants are converted to innocu-
ous compounds. Slurry-phase bioremediation can be
effective in treating various semi-volatile organic
carbons (SVOCs) and nonvolatile organic com-
pounds, as well as fuels, creosote, pentachlorophenols
(PCP), and PCBs. See also Polychlorinated Biphe-
nyl and Semi-Volatile Organic Carbon.
Soil Boring Soil boring is a process by which a soil sample
is extracted from the ground for chemical, biologi-
cal, and analytical testing to determine the level of
contamination present.
Soil Gas Soil gas consists of gaseous elements and com-
pounds that occur in the small spaces between par-
ticles 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 tech-
nology that uses liquids (usually water, sometimes
combined with chemical additives) and a mechani-
cal process to scrub soils, removes hazardous con-
taminants, 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 treat-
ment. It is often used in combination with other treat-
ment technologies. The technology can be brought
to the site, thereby eliminating the need to transport
hazardous wastes.
Solidification and Stabilization Solidification and stabi-
lization 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 radionu-
clides, and selected organic compounds, while de-
creasing 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 tech-
nology does not destroy contaminants, but
concentrates them so they can be recycled or de-
stroyed 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, haloge-
nated 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 Biphenyl and Vola-
tile 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
49
-------
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.
Super-fund Super-fund is the trust fund that provides for
the cleanup of significantly hazardous substances
released into the environment, regardless of fault. The
Super-fund was established under Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act (CERCLA) and subsequent amendments to
CERCLA. The term Super-fund 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 Liabil-
ity Act (CERCLA) that increased the size of the Su-
pet-fund 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 innova-
tive treatment technology that heats soils contami-
nated 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, poly aromatic
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, diox-
ins, and fuel oils from contaminated soil. See also
Poly aromatic Hydrocarbon, Poly chlorinated Biphe-
nyl, Semivolatile Organic Compound, and Volatile
Organic Compound.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) TPH refers to a
measure of concentration or mass of petroleum hy-
drocarbon constituents present in a given amount of
air, soil, or water.
Toxicity Toxicity is a quantification of the degree of dan-
ger posed by a substance to animal or plant life.
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) The
TCLP is a testing procedure used to identify the tox-
icity 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 de-
signed to model the leaching effects that would oc-
cur if the waste was disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle
D municipal landfill. See also Solidification and Sta-
bilization.
Toxic Substance A toxic substance is a chemical or mix-
ture that may present an unreasonable risk of injury
to health or the environment.
Treatment Wall (also Passive Treatment Wall) A treat-
ment 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 materi-
als carefully selected for the ability to clean up spe-
cific 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. Treat-
ment walls are useful at some sites contaminated with
chlorinated solvents, metals, or radioactive contami-
nants.
Underground Storage Tank (UST) A UST is a tank lo-
cated entirely or partially underground that is de-
signed to hold gasoline or other petroleum products
or chemical solutions.
Unsaturated Zone The unsaturated zone is the area be-
tween 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 open-
ings (porespaces) also typically contain air or other
gases.
-------
Vapor Vapor is the gaseous phase of any substance that is
liquid or solid at atmospheric temperatures and pres-
sures. Steam is an example of a vapor.
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) A VOC is one of a
group of carbon-containing compounds that evapo-
rate readily at room temperature. Examples of vola-
tile 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 pro-
cesses.
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 pres-
sure 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 assess-
ment, 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 ap-
proach the state voluntarily to work out a process by
which the site can be readied for development. Many
state VCPs provide technical assistance, liability as-
surances, and funding support for such efforts.
Wastewater Wastewater is spent or used water from an
individual home, a community, a farm, or an indus-
try 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 ana-
lyzer 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.
51
-------
Appendix C
Bibliography
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 22 16 1, (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 So-
ciety 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 Acceler-
ated Site Characterization for Confirmed or Suspected
Petroleum Releases. American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM PS3-95).
Geo-Environmental Solutions, n.d. http://www.
gesolutions.com/assess.htm.
Geoprobe Systems, Inc. 1998. Rental Rate Sheet. Sep-
tember 15.
Robbat, Albert, Jr. 1997. Dynamic Workplans and Field
Analytics: The Keys to Cost Effective Site Characteriza-
tion and Cleanup. Tufts University under Cooperative
Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. October.
U.S. EPA. 1998 Quality Assurance Guidance for Con-
ducting Brownfields Site Assessments (EPA 540-R-98-
038) September.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Expedited Site Assessment Tools for
Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regula-
tors and Consultants (EPA 5 10-B-97-001).
U.S. EPA. 1997. Field Analytical and Site Characteriza-
tion Technologies, Summary of Applications (EPA-542-
R-97-01 1).
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 Informa-
tion 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 Pro-
gram: Fact Sheet (EPA 542-F-96-009c).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Site Characterization Analysis Penetrom-
eter System (SCAPS) LIF Sensor (EPA540-MR-95-520,
EPA 540 R-95-520).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Site Characterization and Monitoring:
A Bibliography of EPA Information Resources (EPA 542-
B-96-001).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Soil Screening Guidance (540/R-96/
128).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Clor-N-Soil PCB Test Kit L2000 PCB/
Chloride Analyzer (EPA 540-MR-95-5 18, EPA 540-R-
95-5 18).
52
-------
U.S. EPA. 1995. Contract Laboratory Program: Volatile
Organics Analysis of Ambient Air in Canisters Revision
VCAA01.0 (PB95-963524).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Contract Lab Program: Draft Statement
of Work for Quick Turnaround Analysis (PB95-963523).
U.S. EPA. 1995. EnviroGard PCB Test Kit (EPA 540-
MR-95-517, EPA 540-R-95-5 17).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Field Analytical Screening Program:
PCB Method (EPA540-MR-95-521, EPA540-R-95-521).
U.S. EPA. 1995. PCB Method, Field Analytical Screen-
ing Program (Innovative Technology Evaluation Report)
(EPA540-R-95-521, PB96-130026); Demonstration Bul-
letin (EPA 540-MR-95-521).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Profile of the Iron and Steel Industry
(EPA 3 10-R-95-005).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Rapid Optical Screen Tool (ROST)
(EPA 540-MR-95-5 19, EPA 540-R-95-5 19).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Risk Assessment Guidance for Super-
fund. http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/Catalog/EPA 540-R-
95-132.html.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Assessment and Remediation of Con-
taminated Sediments (ARCS) Program (EPA 905-R-94-
003).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Characterization of Chromium-Contami-
nated 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: Consider-
ations in Deciding to Treat Contaminated Unsaturated
Soils In Situ (EPA 540-S-94-500, PB94-177771).
U.S. EPA. 1994. SITE Program: An Engineering Analy-
sis of the Demonstration Program (EPA 540-R-94-530).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Data Quality Objectives Process for
Superfund (EPA 540-R-93-071).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Conference on the Risk Assessment
Paradigm After 10 Years: Policy and Practice, Then, Now,
and in the Future. http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/Catalog/
EPA600R93039.html.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Guidance for Evaluating the Technical
Impracticability of Ground Water Restoration. OSWER
directive (9234.2-25).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Guide for Conducting Treatability Stud-
ies Under CERCLA: Biodegradation Remedy Selection
(EPA 540-R-93-519a, PB94-117470).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Subsurface Characterization and Moni-
toring Techniques (EPA 625-R-93-003a&b).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Characterizing Heterogeneous Wastes:
Methods and Recommendations (March 26-28,199 1)
(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 Stud-
ies Under CERCLA: Final (EPA540-R-92-071A, PB93-
126787).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatability Stud-
ies Under CERCLA: Soil Vapor Extraction (EPA 540-2-
91-019a&b, PB92-227271 & PB92-224401).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatability Stud-
ies Under CERCLA: Soil Washing (EPA 540-2-91-
020a&b, PB92-170570 & PB92-170588).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatability Stud-
ies 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: Met-
als (PB92-146158).
U.S. EPA. 1992. International Symposium on Field
Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic
Chemicals (2nd), Proceedings. Held in Las Vegas, Ne-
vada 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).
53
-------
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guide for Conducting Treatability Stud-
ies Under CERCLA: Aerobic Biodegradation Remedy
Screening (EPA 540-2-9 l-O 13a&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 Aqui-
fers (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 Tech-
nologies 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 Technolo-
gies 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.
Cleanup
ASTM. n.d. New Standard Guide for Remediation by
Natural Attenuation at Petroleum Release Sites (ASTM
E50.01).
Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable. http://
www.frtr.gov/matrix/top_page.html.
Interagency Cost Workgroup. 1994. Historical Cost
Analysis System. Version 2.0.
Los Alamos National Laboratory. 1996. A Compendium
of Cost Data for Environmental Remediation Technolo-
gies (LA-UR-96-2205).
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, n.d. Treatability of Haz-
ardous Chemicals in Soils: Volatile and Semi-Volatile
Organics (ORNL-645 1).
Robbat, Albert, Jr. 1997. Dynamic Workplans and Field
Analytics: The Keys to Cost Effective Site Characteriza-
tion 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 Informa-
tion Resources for Brownfields Sites. OSWER. (PB97-
144828).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Bioremediation Field Evaluation: Cham-
pion International Super-fund 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 In-
novative Treatment Technologies (EPA 542-F-96-013):
Bioremediation (EPA 542-F-96-007, EPA 542-F-96-
023)
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 Technologiesfor Contaminated
Soils, Sludges, Sediments, and Debris (EPA 542-F-
96-001, EPA 542-F-96-01 7)
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)
54
-------
Thermal Desorption (EPA 542-F-96-005, EPA 542-
F-96-021)
. Treatment Walls (EPA 542-F-96-016, EPA 542-F-96-
027)
U.S. EPA. 1996. Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:
Markets and Technology Trends (1996 Edition) (EPA 542-
R-96-005, PB96-178041).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Completed North American Innovative
Technology Demonstration Projects (EPA 542-B-96-002,
PB96-153127).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Cone Penetrometer/Laser Induced Fluo-
rescence (LIE) 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 5 10-F-96-002).
U.S. EPA. 1996. How to Effectively Recover Free Prod-
uct at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide
for State Regulators (EPA 5 10-F-96-001; Fact Sheet: EPA
5 10-F-96-005).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Innovative Treatment Technologies:
Annual Status Report Database (ITT Database).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Introducing TANK Racer (EPA5 10-F96-
001).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Market Opportunities for Innovative Site
Cleanup Technologies: Southeastern States (EPA 542-R-
96-007, PB96- 1995 18).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Recent Developments for In situ Treat-
ment 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,FB96-164538).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies
(EPA 542-R-95-001, PB95-201711).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Accessing Federal Data Bases for Con-
taminated 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 Pro-
files:
. Champion Site, Libby, MT (EPA 540-F-95-506a)
. Eielson Air Force Base, AK (EPA 540-F-95-506b)
. Hill Air Force Base Super-fund 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 Super-fund Site, Libby, Montana:
Volume I, Text (EPA 600-R-95-156a); Volume II, Fig-
ures and Tables (EPA 600-R-95-156b).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation of Petroleum Hydro-
carbons: 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 Hydro-
carbons (EPA 600-A-95-065, PB95-217642).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Contaminants and Remedial Options at
Selected Metal Contaminated Sites (EPA 540-R-95-5 12,
PB95-271961).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Development of a Photothermal Detoxi-
fication Unit: Emerging Technology Summary (EPA 540-
SR-95-526); Emerging Technology Bulletin (EPA
540-F-95-505).
55
-------
U.S. EPA. 1995. Electrokinetic Soil Processing: Emerg-
ing 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 Re-
port (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 Initia-
tive (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 Perfor-
mance for Remediation Projects (EPA 542-B-95-002,
PB95-182960).
U.S. EPA. 1995. In Situ Metal-Enhanced Abiotic Degra-
dation Process Technology, Environmental Technologies,
Inc.: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-95-5 10).
U.S. EPA. 1995. In Situ Vitrification Treatment: Engi-
neering 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 Sparg-
ing 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 Bioreme-
diation (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 Biore-
mediation: Ex-Situ Biovault, ENSR Consulting and En-
gineering/Larson Engineers: Demonstration Bulletin
(EPA 540-MR-95-525).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Process for the Treatment of Volatile
Organic Carbon and Heavy-Metal-Contaminated Soil,
International Technology Corp.: Emerging Technology
Bulletin (EPA 540-F-95-509).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Progress in Reducing Impediments to
the Use of Innovative Remediation Technology (EPA 542-
F-95-008, PB95-262556).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remedial Design/Remedial Action
Handbook (PB95-963307-ND2).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remedial Design/Remedial Action
Handbook Fact Sheet (PB95-963312-NDZ).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Bioreme-
diation (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: Groundwa-
ter 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 Extrac-
56
-------
tion 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 Re-
sources (EPA 542-B-95-001).
U.S. EPA. 1995. SITE Emerging Technology Program
(EPA 540-F-95-502).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Enhance-
ment 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, PB95-9633 15).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Surfactant Injection for Ground Water
Remediation: State Regulators' Perspectives and Experi-
ences (EPA 542-R-95-0 11, PB96- 164546).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Symposium on Bioremediation of Haz-
ardous Wastes: Research, Development, and Field Evalu-
ations, 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 Technol-
ogy Resource Guide: Air Sparging, Bioventing, Frac-
turing, 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 Bul-
letin (EPA 540-F-95-503).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Accessing EPA's Environmental Tech-
nology Programs (EPA 542-F-94-005).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Bioremediation: A Video Primer (video)
(EPA 510-V-94-001).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Bioremediation in the Field Search Sys-
tem (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 Treat-
ment (EPA 540-2-90-015, PB91-228031)
Chemical Oxidation Treatment (EPA 540-2-91-025)
In Situ Biodegradation Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-
502, PB94-190469)
In Situ Soil Flushing (EPA 540-2-91 -021)
In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment (EPA .540-2-
91 -006, PB91-228072)
In Situ Steam Extraction Treatment (EPA 540-2-91-
005, PB91-228064)
In Situ Vitrification Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-504,
PB95-125499)
Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment (EPA
540-2-90-014)
Pyrolysis Treatment (EPA 540-S-92-010)
Rotating Biological Contactors (EPA 540-S-92-007)
Slurry Biodegradation (EPA 540-2-90-016, PB91-
228049)
Soil Washing Treatment (EPA 540-2-90-017, PB91-
228056)
57
-------
Solidification/Stabilization ofOrganics and Inorgan-
ics (EPA 540-S-92-015)
Solvent Extraction Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-503,
PB94-190477)
Supercritical Water Oxidation (EPA 540-S-92-006)
Technology Preselection Data Requirements (EPA
540-S-92-009)
Thermal Desorption Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-501,
PB94-1 60603)
U.S. EPA. 1994. Field Investigation of Effectiveness of
Soil Vapor Extraction Technology (Final Project Report)
(EPA 600-R-94-142, PB94-205531).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Ground Water Treatment Technologies
Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-94-009, PB95-138657).
U.S. EPA. 1994. How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup
Technologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A
Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers (EPA 5 10-
B-94-003, S/N 055-000-00499-4); Pamphlet (EPA 5 10-
F-95-003).
U.S. EPA. 1994. In Situ Steam Enhanced Recovery Pro-
cess, Hughes Environmental Systems, Inc.: Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 540-R-94-5 10,
PB95-27 1854); Site Technology Capsule (EPA 540-R-
94-5 lOa, PB95-270476).
U.S. EPA. 1994. In Situ Vitrification, Geosafe Corpora-
tion: 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 Technol-
ogy Resource Guide (EPA542-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 Tech-
nologies, 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 In-
novative Site Clean-up Technologies: Middle Atlantic
States (EPA 542-R-95-010, PB96-121637).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Rocky Mountain Remediation Market-
place: Business Opportunities for Innovative Technolo-
gies (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 Wis-
consin Department of Natural Resources) (EPA 510-E-
94-001).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment Tech-
nology Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-94-007).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Solid Oxygen Source for Bioremedia-
tion Subsurface Soils (revised) (EPA600-J-94-495, PB95-
155149).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Solvent Extraction: Engineering Bulle-
tin (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 Tech-
nology Demonstration and Applications:.
. Altering Chemical Conditions (EPA 542-K-94-008)
. Cosolvents (EPA 542-K-94-006)
58
-------
. Electrokinetics (EPA 542-K-94-007)
Hydraulic and Pneumatic Fracturing (EPA 542-K-
94-005)
. Surfactant Enhancements (EPA 542-K-94-003)
Thermal Enhancements (EPA 542-K-94-009)
. Treatment Walls (EPA 542-K-94-004)
U.S. EPA. 1994. Subsurface Volatization and Ventilation
System (SVVS): Innovative Technology Report (EPA
540-R-94-529, PB96-116488); Site Technology Capsule
(EPA 540-R-94-529a, PB95-256111).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Super-fund Innovative Technology Evalu-
ation (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 Cap-
sule (EPA 540-R94-507a, PB95-122800).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Desorption Treatment: Engi-
neering Bulletin (EPA 540-S-94-501, PB94-160603).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Desorption Unit, Eco Logic
International, Inc.: Application Analysis Report (EPA540-
AR-94-504).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Enhancements: Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 542-K-94-009).
U.S. EPA. 1994. The Use of Cationic Surfactants to
Modify Aquifer Materials to Reduce the Mobility of
Hydrophobic Organic Compounds (EPA 600-S-94-002,
PB95-111951).
U.S. EPA. 1994. West Coast Remediation Marketplace:
Business Opportunities for Innovative Technologies
(Summary Proceedings) (EPA 542-R-94-008, PB95-
1433 19).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Accutech Pneumatic Fracturing Extrac-
tion and Hot Gas Injection, Phase I: Technology Evalua-
tion Report (EPA 540-R-93-509, PB93-216596).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Augmented In Situ Subsurface Biore-
mediation Process, Bio-Rem, Inc.: Demonstration Bul-
letin (EPA 540-MR-93-527).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Biogenesis Soil Washing Technology:
Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-5 10).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Bioremediation Resource Guide and
Matrix (EPA 542-B-93-004, PB94-112307).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Bioremediation: Using the Land Treat-
ment Concept (EPA 600-R-93-164, PB94-107927).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Fungal Treatment Technology: Demon-
stration 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-
10025 1, EPA 540-MR-93-522).
U.S. EPA. 1993. HRUBOUT, Hrubetz Environmental
Services: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA540-MR-93-524).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Hydraulic Fracturing of Contaminated
Soil, US. EPA: Innovative Technology Evaluation Re-
port (EPA 540-R-93-505, PB94-100161); Demonstration
Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-505).
U.S. EPA. 1993. HYPERVENTILATE: Asoftware Guid-
ance System Created for Vapor Extraction Systems for
Apple Macintosh and IBM PC-Compatible Computers
(UST #107) (EPA 510-F-93-001); User's Manual
(Macintosh disk included) (UST #102) (EPA 500-CB-92-
001).
U.S. EPA. 1993. In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated
Ground Water (EPA 540-S-92-003, PB92-224336).
U.S. EPA. 1993. In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated
Unsaturated Subsurface Soils (EPA-S-93-501, PB93-
234565).
U.S. EPA. 1993. In Situ Bioremediation of Ground Wa-
ter 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 Dem-
onstrations and Strategies for Improving Groundwater
Remediation Technologies (EPA 500-K-93-001, PB93-
193720).
59
-------
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 5 10-F-93-029).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Soil Recycling Treatment, Toronto
Harbour Commissioners (EPA 540-AR-93-5 17, 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 Desorp-
tion System, OHM Remediation Services Corp.: Site
Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-502).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Aostra Soil-tech Anaerobic Thermal
Process, Soiltech ATP Systems: Demonstration Bulletin
(EPA 540-MR-92-008).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Basic Extractive Sludge Treatment
(B.E.S.T.) Solvent Extraction System, Ionics/Resources
Conservation Co.: Applications Analysis Report (EPA
540-AR-92-079, PB94-105434); Demonstration Sum-
mary (EPA 540-SR-92-079).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Bioremediation Case Studies: AnAnaly-
sis 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 Technol-
ogy, 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 Sup-
pression 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: En-
gineering Bulletin (EPA 540-S-94-502, PB94-190469).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Low Temperature Thermal Treatment
System, Roy F. Weston, Inc.: Applications Analysis Re-
port (EPA 540-AR-92-019, PB94-124047).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Proceedings of the Symposium on Soil
Venting (EPA 600-R-92-174, PB93-122323).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Soil/Sediment Washing System,
Bergman USA: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-
92-075).
U.S. EPA. 1992. TCE Removal From Contaminated Soil
and Groundwater (EPA 540-S-92-002, PB92-224104).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Technology Alternatives for the
Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
(EPA 540-S-93-506).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Workshop on Removal, Recovery, Treat-
ment, and Disposal of Arsenic and Mercury (EPA 600-
R-92-105, PB92-216944).
U.S. EPA. 199 1. Biological Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments, With Special Emphasis on the Great Lakes:
Report of a Workshop (EPA 600-9-g 1-00 1).
60
-------
U.S. EPA. 1991. Debris Washing System, RREL. Tech-
nology Evaluation Report (EPA 540-5-9 1-006, PB9 1-
23 1456).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guide to Discharging CERCLAAque-
ous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (9330.2-
13FS).
U.S. EPA. 1991. In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction: Engineer-
ing Bulletin (EPA 540-2-g 1-006, PB9 1-228072).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Guide to Selecting Superfund Remedial
Actions (9355.0-27FS).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Slurry Biodegradation: Engineering
Bulletin (EPA 540-2-90-016, PB91-228049).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Soil Washing Treatment: Engineering
Bulletin (EPA 540-2-90-017, PB91-228056).
U.S. EPA. 1989. Facilitated Transport (EPA 540-4-89-
003,PB91-133256).
U.S. EPA. 1991. In Situ Steam Extraction: Engineering
Bulletin (EPA 540-2-g 1-005, PB9 1-228064).
U.S. EPA. 1991. In Situ Vapor Extraction and Steam
Vacuum Stripping, AWD Technologies (EPA 540-A5-9 1-
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. 1989. Guide on Remedial Actions for Con-
taminated Ground Water (9283.1-02FS).
U.S. EPA. 1987. Compendium of Costs of Remedial Tech-
nologies 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 Uncon-
trolled Hazardous Waste Sites (EPA/640/2-86/037).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Slurry Biodegradation, International
Technology Corporation (EPA 540-MR-91-009).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Understanding Bioremediation: A Guide-
book for Citizens (EPA 540-2-91-002, PB93-205870).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Anaerobic Biotransformation of Con-
taminants 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. n.d. Alternative Treatment Technology Infor-
mation 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 Tech-
nology in Waste Management Programs (OSWER Di-
rective 9308.0-25).
U.S. EPA and University of Pittsburgh, n.d. Ground Wa-
ter Remediation Technologies Analysis Center. Internet
address: http://www.gwrtac.org
U.S. EPA. 1990. Enhanced Bioremediation Utilizing
Hydrogen Peroxide as a Supplemental Source of Oxy-
gen: A Laboratory and Field Study (EPA 600-2-90-006,
PB90-183435).
Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment
Technologies (VISITT), Version 4.0 (VISITT can be
downloadedfrom the Internet at http://www.prcemi.com/
visitt or from the CLU-IN Web site at http://clu-in.com)
61
------- |