vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/625/R-98/008
February 1999
Technical Approaches to
Characterizing and
Cleaning Up Automotive
Repair Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative
-------
-------
EPA/625/R-98/008
February 1999
Technical Approaches to
Characterizing and Cleaning up
Automotive Repair Sites under the
Brownfields initiative
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
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
-------
-------
Contents
Foreword '. iii
Contents v
Acknowledgments vii
1. Introduction 1
Background .-. 1
Purpose '. 1
2. Industrial Processes and Contaminants at Automotive Repair Sites 3
General Site Characteristics 3
Other Considerations 4
3. Site Assessment '. 5
The Central Role of State Agencies 5
State Voluntary Cleanup Programs , 5
Levels of Contaminant Screening and Cleanup 5
Performing a Phase I Site Assessment: Obtaining Facility Background Information from
Existing Data ';. 6
Facility Records ; 6
Other Sources of Recorded Information 6
Identifying Migration Pathways and Potentially Exposed Populations 7
Gathering Topographic Information 7
Gathering Soil and Subsurface Information 8
Gathering Groundwater Information 8
Identifying Potential Environmental and Human Health Concerns 8
Involving the Community 9
Conducting a Site Visit 9
Conducting Interviews 9
Developing a Report 10
Performing a Phase n Site Assessment 10
Setting Data Quality Objectives 10
Screening Levels 13
Environmental Sampling and Data Analysis 13
Levels of Sampling and Analysis 13
Increasing Certainty of Sampling Results 14
Site Assessment Technologies 14
Field vs. Laboratory Analysis 14
Sample Collection and Analysis Technologies 15
Additional Considerations for Assessing Automotive Repair Sites 16
Indoor Sampling 16
Outdoor Sampling : 18
Underground Screening 21
Groundwater Screening.. 21
General Sampling Costs 21
Soil Collection Costs : 21
Groundwater Sampling Costs 21
Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Costs 22
Sample Analysis Costs 22
-------
Contents (continued)
4. Site Cleanup
Developing a Cleanup Plan
Institutional Controls
Containment Technologies
Types of Cleanup Technologies
Cleanup Technologies for Automotive Repair Sites ....
Cleanup Options for Contaminated Soils
Cleanup Options for Contaminated Groundwater.
Post-Construction Care
5. Conclusion
Appendix A: Acronymns
Appendix B: Glossary
Appendix C: Powers Junction Example
Appendix D: Bibliography
.23
.23
.24
.24
.24
.25
.25
.25
.25
.31
.32
.33
.42
54
Tables
1. Common Contaminants at Automotive Repair Shops
2. Non-Invasive Assessment Technologies
3. Soil and Subsurface Sampling Tools
4. Groundwater Sampling Tools '.
5. Sample Analysis Technologies ,
6. Cleanup Technologies for Automotive Repair Brownfields Sites .
...4
. 15
. 17
. 18
. 19
.26
Figure
1. Typical automotive repair shop 4
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 Tom Holdsworth 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 Staff or 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 "Automotive Repair" guide to provide
decision-makers, such as city planners, private sector
developers, and others who are involved in redeveloping
brownfields, with a better understanding of the technical
issues involved in assessing and cleaning up automotive
repair sites so that they can make the most informed de-
cisions possible.1 Throughout the guide, the term "plan-
ner" is used; the term is intended be descriptive of the
many different people who are referenced above and may
use the information contained herein.
The overview presented in this guide of the technical pro-
cess involved in assessing and cleaning up brownfields
sites can assist planners 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 contamination that may require cleanup.
Numerous resources may be available to provide infor-
mation that facilitates the characterization of the site, such
as federal, state, and local agencies that provide soil, to-
pographic, or groundwater maps or retain site-specific
records (e.g., of prior contamination, discharges, under-
ground storage tanks).
1 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 InformationResourcesforBrownfields Sites, published by EPA's
Technology Innovation Office (TIO), contains a comprehensive list of rel-
evant technical guidance documents (available fromNTIS, 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).
1
-------
Specifically, the objective of this document is to provide
decision-makers with:
An understanding of common activities at automo-
tive repair shops and the relationship between such
activities and potential releases of contaminants to
the environment.
Information on the types of contaminants likely to
be present at an automotive repair site.
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 automotive repair 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 automotive repair sites where contamination
levels must be reduced to ensure the reuse of the site.
• A discussion of the pertinent issues and factors that
should be considered when developing such an as-
sessment and cleanup plan and selecting appropriate
technologies, given time and budget constraints.
Appendix A contains a list of relevant acronyms, and
Appendix B is a glossary of key terms. Appendix C is a
case study that illustrates some of the guidance provided
hi this document. Appendix D contains a bibliography.
-------
Chapter 2
Industrial Processes and Contaminants at Automotive Repair Sites
Understanding the activities that occur during an auto-
motive repair facility's active life, and therefore the types
of contaminants that may be present, provides important
information to guide planners in the assessment, cleanup,
and restoration of the site to an acceptable condition for
sale or reuse. This section provides a general overview
of the activities performed and the chemicals and poten-
tial contaminants used or found at typical automotive re-
pair sites. The specific activities and contaminants found
at a particular automotive repair site may be different from
those described here. Planners should obtain facility-
specific information on activities at their site when-
ever possible. Repair shops may also have been used for
other industrial/commercial activities in the past.
General Site Characteristics
Automotive repair shops tend to be geographically small,
consisting of one or two buildings on one to two acres of
land. While there are many possible automotive repair-
related activities that could have taken place at the site,
the most likely include:
• Automotive repair, using solvents for cleaning en-
gine parts and metals from body works.
• Automotive maintenance, including the changing of
automotive fluids such as oil, antifreeze, and trans-
mission fluids.
• Recycling activities, including those involving auto-
motive parts, solvents, and battery breaking.
The main building typically houses the automotive re-
pair and maintenance operations ([A] in Figure 1). Com-
mon chemical wastes from automotive repair and
maintenance operations include oil and grease, solvents
from parts cleaning and repair work, volatile organics and
semivolatile organics .from automotive fluids, and met-
als from automotive body work, as listed in Table 1. An-
other common chemical may be ethylene glycol,
associated with antifreeze. If the shop performed paint-
ing operations, they may have taken place in the same
building or in another building on the site ([B] in Figure
1). It is also possible that painting operations were per-
formed in a temporary or outdoor structure. Volatile or-
ganics, such as toluene and methylene chloride, are typical
contaminants associated with painting operations.
An area of the site may have been used as a drum dis-
posal area ([C] in Figure 1), which may contain old leak-
ing drums, battery casings, and other containers used to
store petroleum, paint products, and waste oil and slud-
ges. These areas may contain chemicals such as petro-
leum hydrocarbons; metals, particularly lead, and
cadmium, which have commonly been used in batteries;
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene and
xylenes; and oil and grease.
Underground storage tanks (USTs) ([D] in Figure 1) were
often used at automotive shops that had gas pumps. The
UST was used to store the gasoline, diesel fuel, and/or
fuel oil in bulk volume on the site, and the fuel may have
leaked into the underlying soils and groundwater. Paved
areas, such as parking areas and outside service bays, may
have contributed to runoff of petroleum contaminants to
nearby areas. Pump islands may be a secondary source
of contamination from spilled gasoline. Additional areas
might include scrap and used car storage areas, and tire
storage areas. These areas generally are not sources of
contaminants. Table 1 identifies the most common con-
taminants associated with automotive repair sites.
-------
Drum disposal
area (C)
C
TPH,
Automotive
painting area (B)
—(^VOCs, metals^)
Fuel island
Underground storage tanks (D) - Diesel
Automotive repair area (A)
Undergroud storage
Figure 1. Typical automotive repair shop.
Table 1. Common Contaminants at Automotive Repair Shops
Contaminant Class Contaminant
Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs)
Semivolatile organics
(SVOCs)
Metals
Benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene,
xylene, trichloroethylene, methylene
chloride, freon-1 13, methyl ethyl
ketone, total petroleum hydrocarbons
SVOCs in oil and grease, ethylene
glycol, total petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPH).
Lead, cadmium, chromium, aluminum.
Other Considerations
Many older structures contain lead paint and asbestos
insulation and tiling. Any structure built before 1970
should be assessed for the presence of these materials.
They can cause significant problems during demolition
or renovation of the structures for reuse. Special handling
and disposal requirements under state and local laws can
increase significantly the cost of construction. Core or
wipe samples can be analyzed for asbestos using polar-
ized light microscopy (PLM). Laws pertaining to lead
and asbestos may also affect the selection of data quality
objectives (discussed later in this document), sampling,
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 requked;
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 n 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
1 The elements of a Phase I site assessment presented here are based in part on
ASTM Standards 1527 and 1528.
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-
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.
• 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
Off site 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 hi 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 hi 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:
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.
-------
USGS Information Services
Box 25286
Denver, CO 80225
[http://www.mapping.usgs.gov/esic/to_order.hmtl]
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 hi 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 hi septic
drain fields.
• Local construction contractors are likely to be famil-
iar with subsurface conditions from then: 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.
Identifying 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 hi 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-
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 in-
formed about brownfields cleanup activities. Planners can
contact the local Chamber of Commerce, local philan-
thropic 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 conditions should be
noted:
- current or past uses of abutting property that may
affect the property being evaluated
- evidence of hazardous substances migrating on or
off the site
-odors
- wells
- pits, ponds or lagoons
- pooling of liquids on the surface
- drums or storage containers
- stained soil or pavement
- corrosion
- stressed vegetation
- solid waste
- drains, sewers, sumps or other pathways for offsite
migrations
Conducting Interviews
Conducting interviews with the site owner and/or site
manager, site occupants, and local officials is highly rec-
ommended to obtain information about the prior and/or
current uses and conditions of the property and to inquire
about any useful documents that might exist regarding
the property. During inverviews, the interviewer should
ask about environmental audit reports, environmental per-
mits, registrations for storage tanks, material safety data
sheets, community right-to-know plans, safety plans, gov-
ernment agency notices or correspondence, hazardous
waste generator reports or notices, geotechnical studies,
or any proceedings involving the property) (ASTM,
1997). Interviews with at least one staff person from the
following local government agencies are recommended:
the fire department, health agency, and the agency with
-------
authority for hazardous waste disposal or other environ-
mental 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." A user's guide accompanies the ASTM
questionnaire to assist the investigator in conducting in-
terviews, as well as researching records and making site
visits.
Developing a Report
Towards the end of the Phase I assessment, planners
should develop a report that includes all of the important
information obtained during record reviews, the site visit,
and interviews. Documentation, such as references and
important exhibits, should be included, as well as the 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-
mendation for a Phase n site assessment, if appropriate.
Some states or financial institutions may require infor-
mation on asbestos, lead paint, lead in drinking water,
radon and wetlands.
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, then those involved
may decide that adequate site assessment has been ac-
complished and the process of redevelopment may pro-
ceed. In some cases where evidence of contamination
exists, stakeholders may decide that enough information
is available from the Phase I site assessment to charac-
terize the site and determine an appropriate approach for
site cleanup of the contamination. In other cases, stake-
holders may decide that additional site assessment is
warranted, and a Phase n site assessment would be con-
ducted, as described below.
Performing a Phase II Site Assessment
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 collected hi a Phase II site as-
sessment can vary from already existing site data (if ad-
equate), to limited sampling of the site, to more extensive
contaminant-specific or site-specific sampling data. Plan-
ners should use knowledge of past facility operations
whenever possible to focus the site evaluation on those
process areas where pollutants were stored, handled, used,
or disposed. These will be the areas where potential con-
tamination will be most readily identified. Generally, to
minimize costs, a Phase n 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).
This section explains the importance of setting data quality
objectives (DQOs) and provides brief guidance for do-
ing so; describes screening levels to which sampling re-
sults can be compared; and provides an overview of
environmental sampling and data analysis, including sam-
pling methods and ways to increase data certainty.
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
(EPA540-R-98-038), is intended as a reference for people
involved in the brownfields site assessment process and
10
-------
serves to inform managers of important quality assurance 1.
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
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:
• 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
professional expertise.
The following steps are involved in systematic planning:
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 hi 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-
11
-------
don 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
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-
12
-------
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.
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 n 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 for
industrial and residential use. These levels may not ac-
count for site-specific factors that affect the concentra-
tion or migration of contaminants. Alternatively, screening
levels can be developed using site-specific factors. While
site-specific screening levels can more effectively incor-
porate elements unique to the site, developing site-spe-
cific standards is a time- and resource-intensive process.
Planners should contact their state environmental offices
and/or EPA regional offices for assistance in using screen-
ing levels and in developing site-specific screening lev-
els.
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.
4 For example, EPA Region 6 Human Health Media-Specific Screening Levels
include air and groundwater levels based on soil screening levels for some
chemicals.
13
-------
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-
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 necessary
to analyze samples for specific contaminants. With
contaminant-specific sampling and analysis, the num-
ber of parameters analyzed is much greater than for
screening-level sampling, and analysis includes more
accurate, higher-cost field and laboratory methods.
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 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
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
or 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,
although these technologies lack a long history of full-
scale use. In many cases, innovative technologies may
cost less than conventional techniques and can success-
fully provide the needed data. Operating conditions may
affect the cost and effectiveness of individual technolo-
gies.
Field vs. 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
14
-------
Table 2. Non-Invasive Assessment Technologies
Applications
Strengths
Weaknesses
Typical Costs1
Infrared Thermography (IR/T)
• Locates buried USTs.
• Locates buried leaks from
USTs.
• Locates buried sludge
pits.
• Locates buried nuclear
and nonnuclear waste.
• Locates buried oil, gas,
chemical and sewer
pipelines.
• Locates buried oil, gas,
chemical and sewer
pipeline leaks.
• Locates water pipelines.
• Locates water pipeline
leaks.
• Locates seepage from
waste dumps.
• Locates subsurface 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 efficiently
(hundreds of acres per
flight).
• Able to collect data on long
cross country pipelines very
efficiently (300-500 miles
per day).
• Low cost for analyzed data
per acre unit.
• Able to prescreen and
eliminate clean areas from
further costly testing and
unneeded rehabilitation.
• Able to fuse data with other
techniques for even greater
accuracy in more situations.
• Able to locate large and
small leaks in pipelines and
USTs. (Ultrasonic devices
can only locate small, high
pressure leaks containing
ultrasonic noise.)
• No direct contact with
objects under test is
required. (Ultrasonic devices
must be in contact with
buried pipelines or USTs.)
• Has confirmed anomalies to
depths greater than 38 feet
with an accuracy of better
than 80%.
•. Tests can be performed
during both daytime and
nighttime hours.
• Normally no inconvenience to the public.
« 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.
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:
$1,000-$3,500.
Large areas > 1,000
acres: $10 - $200 per
acre.
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.
laboratory analysis. The choice of sampling and analyti-
cal procedures should be based on DQOs established ear-
lier in the process, which determine the quality (e.g.,
precision, level of detection) of the data needed to ad-
equately evaluate site conditions and identify appropri-
ate cleanup technologies.
(Continued)
Sample Collection and Analysis Technologies
Tables 3 and 4 list sample collection technologies for soil/.
subsurface and groundwater that are appropriate for au-
tomotive repair brownfields sites. Technology selection
depends on the medium being sampled and the type of
analysis required, based on DQOs (see the section on this
15
-------
Table 2. Continued
Applications
Strengths
Weaknesses
Typical Costs1
Electromagnetic Offset Logging (EOL)
* Locates buried
hydrocarbon pipelines.
• Locates buried
hydrocarbon USTs.
* Locates hydrocarbon
tanks.
• Locates hydrocarbon
barrels.
• Locates perched
hydrocarbons.
• Locates free floating
hydrocarbons.
• Locates dissolved
hydrocarbons.
• Locates sinker
hydrocarbons.
• Locates buried well
casings.
Magnetometer (MG)
• Locates buried ferrous
materials such as barrels,
pipelines, USTs, and
buckets.
• Produces 3D images of
hydrocarbon plumes.
• Data can be collected to
depth of 100 meters.
• Data can be collected from a
single, unlined or nonmetal
lined well hole.
• Data can be collected within
a 100 meter radius of a
single well hole.
• 3D images can be sliced in
horizontal and vertical planes.
• DNAPLs can be imaged.
• Low cost instruments can be
used that produce results by
audio signal strengths.
• High cost instruments can
• 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.
• Depends upon
volume of data
collected and type of
targets looked for.
• Small areas < 1 acre:
$10,000 -$20,000.
• Large areas > 10
acres: $5,000 -
$10,000 per acre.
• 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.
subject earlier in this document). Soil samples are gener-
ally collected using spoons, scoops, and shovels. The se-
lection of a subsurface sample collection technology
depends on the subsurface conditions (i.e., consolidated
materials and bedrock), the required sampling depth and
level of analysis, and the extent of sampling anticipated.
For example, if subsequent sampling efforts are likely,
then installing semipermanent well casings with a well-
drilling rig may be appropriate. If limited sampling is
expected, direct push methods may be more cost-effec-
tive. The types of contaminants will also play a key role
in the selection of sampling methods, devices, contain-
ers, and preservation techniques.
Table 5 lists analytical technologies that are appropriate
for automotive 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 should be suf-
ficient for many brownfields sites.
Additional Considerations for Assessing
Automotive Repair Sites
Decisions regarding where to collect samples at automo-
tive repair brownfields sites should be based on the con-
ceptual framework developed for the site (discussed
previously in "Site Assessment"), the activities that were
conducted at the site (identified in the Phase I site assess-
ment), and the chemicals used in those activities (identi-
fied in the Phase I assessment and in any screening
sampling conducted). Using this information, the plan-
ner can focus sampling collection on the areas where past
releases of contaminants are most likely. This section
provides some general guidelines for planners to follow
regarding the selection of the most likely areas of con-
tamination. Samples should be taken both inside the shop
and around the property, as described below.
Indoor Sampling
Inside the shop, samples should be collected from drains
and sumps and analyzed for volatile organics. Photo ion-
ization detectors (PID) or colorimetric detectors can of-
ten be used with sufficient accuracy to support a
brownfields Phase II site assessment. Samples from shop
areas used for paint operations should also be screened
16
-------
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/
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.
for metals, particularly chromium and lead. Some cost-
effective analytical technologies for these analyses in-
clude x-ray fluorescence (XRF) and chemical
reaction-based test papers. If there is evidence that sol-
vents were used in significant amounts in the repair shop,
taking samples of the concrete floor may be appropriate;
consult a professional engineer when making this deci-
sion. Planners may also consider collecting wipe samples
from the walls. These samples should be screened for
organic and inorganic compounds. Samples should also
17
-------
Tablo4. Groundwater Sampling Tools
Technique/
Instrumentation
Contaminants'
Relative Cost
per Sample
Sample Quality
Portable Groundwater Sampling Pumps
Bladder Pump SVOCs, metals, TPH
Mid-range
expensive
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered
Gas-Driven Piston Pump
SVOCs, metals, TPH
Most expensive
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered by sampling
Gas-Driven Displacement
Pumps
Gear Pump
SVOCs, metals, TPH
SVOCs, metals, TPH
Least expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered by sampling
Liquid properties may be
altered
Inertial-Lift Pumps
SVOCs, metals, TPH
Least expensive
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered
Submersible Centrifugal
Pumps
Submersible Helical-Rotor
Pump
Suction-Lift Pumps
(peristaltic)
SVOCs, metals, TPH
SVOCs, metals, TPH
SVOCs, metals, TPH
Most expensive
Most expensive
Least expensive
Liquid properties may be
altered
Liquid properties may be
altered
Liquid properties may be
altered
Portable Grab Samplers
Bailers
Pneumatic Depth-Specific
Samplers
VOCs, SVOCs, metals, TPH
VOCs, SVOCs, metals, TPH
Least expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Liquid properties may be
altered
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered
Cona Penetrometer
Samplers
Direct Drive Samplers
Portable In Situ Groundwater Samplers/Sensors
VOCs, SVOCs, metals, TPH
VOCs, SVOCs, metals, TPH
Hydropunch VOCs, SVOCs, metals, TPH
Fixed In Situ Samplers
VOCs, SVOCs, metals, TPH
VOCs, SVOCs, metals, TPH
Multilevel Capsule
Samplers
Multiple-Port Casings
Passive Multilayer Samplers
VOCs
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
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 Compounds
SVOCs Semivolatile Organic Compounds (may be present in oil and grease)
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
1 See Rgure 1 for an overview of site locations where these contaminants may typically be found.
be taken from the insulation in the ceiling and around Outdoor Sampling
pipes and analyzed for asbestos if the shop was built be- Outdoor sampling activities will depend on the specific
fore 1970. characteristics of each automotive repair brownfields site,
18
-------
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 — Atom ic
Emission
Spectroscopy
Field Bioassessment
X-Ray Fluorescence
TPH, VOCs, and SVOCs
Laser-Induced
Fluorescence (LIF)
Solid/Porous Fiber
Optic
Free Product
Sensor
Chemical Calorimetric
Kits
VOCs and SVOCs
Flame lonization
Detector (hand-held)
Explosimeter
Photo lonization
Detector (hand-held)
Catalytic Surface
Oxidation
Near IR
Reflectance/Trans
Spectroscopy
Ground-
Analytes Soil water
Metals X
Metals X X
Metals X X
Metals X* X
Metals X* X
Metals X X
Metals X X
TPH X X
VOCs
TPH X* X
VOCs
TPH X
VOCs
VOCs, X X
SVOCs,
TPH
VOCs X* X*
VOCs X* X*
VOCs, X* X*
SVOCs
VOCs X* X*
VOCs X
Relative
Gas Detection
ppb
ppm
ppm
X ppb
X ppb
X ppm
ppm
X ppm
100-1,000
ppm
ppm
X ppm
X ppm
X ppm
X ppm
100-1,000
ppm
Relative
Cost per
Analysis
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Most
expensive
Most
expensive
Most
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Produces
Application** Quantitative Data
Usually used
in field
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in field
Laboratory
and field
Usually used
infield
Immediate,
can be used
in field
Usually used
in field
Can be used
in field,
usually used
in laboratory
Immediate,
can be used
infield
Immediate,
can be used
in field
Immediate,
can be used
infield
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
Yes
Yes
No
Yes (limited)
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
No
Additional
effort
required
No
No
No
No
Additional
effort
required
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
SVOCs Semivolatile Organic Compounds (may be present in oil and grease)
TPH Total Petroleum 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.
(Continued)
19
-------
Table 5. Continued
Technique/
Instrumentation
Ion Mobility
Spectrometer
Raman
Spectroscopy/SERS
Infrared Spectroscopy
Scattering/Absorption
Udar
FTIR Spectroscopy
Synchronous
Luminescence/
Fluorescence
Gas Chromatography
(GC) (can be used
with numerous
detectors)
UV-Visib!e
Spectrophotometry
UV Fluorescence
Ion Trap
Other
Chemical Reaction-
Based Test Papers
Immunoassay and
Colorimetric Kits
Polarized Light
Microscopy
Analytes Soil
VOCs, X*
SVOCs
VOCs, X
SVOCs
VOCs, X
SVOCs
VOCs X*
VOCs X*
VOCs, X*
SVOCs
VOCs, X*
SVOCs
VOCs X*
VOCs X
VOCs, X*
SVOCs
VOCs, X
SVOCs,
Metals
VOCs, X
SVOCs,
Metals
Asbestos X
Media
Ground- Relative
water Gas Detection
X* X 100-1,000
PPb
X X* ppb
X X 100-1,000
ppm
X* X 100-1,000
ppm
X* X ppm
X ppb
X X ppb
X X ppb
X X ppb
X* X ppb
X ppm
X ppm
Under Under Not
Structure Structure applicable
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
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Most
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Produces
Application** Quantitative Data
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
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
Always in
laboratory
Yes
Additional
effort '
required
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
Yes
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
Yes
Yes
Additional
effort
required
Not
applicable
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
SVOCs Semivolatile Organic Compounds (may be present in oil and grease)
TPH Total Petroleum 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.
but should be directed at assessing both onsite soil con-
tamination and contamination along surface water run-
off pathways. Onsite samples should be taken in areas
where soils are visibly stained, including outdoor main-
tenance bays and painting booths. Offsite samples should
be taken around paved areas to detect petroleum contami-
nation that may have accumulated from rainwater and
snowmelt runoff. Samples should then be taken along
surface water runoff pathways to assess potential con-
taminant migration offsite. If wetlands or other water-
20
-------
ways are downgradient from the facility, all logical points
of entry should be sampled, including points where wastes
may have been discharged from the shop. All outdoor
samples should be screened for TPH and solvents using
field screening technologies such as PID, colorimetric
kits, or portable gas chromatography.
Underground Screening
Geophysical methods can be used to detect the presence
of USTs or other buried objects. If such objects are found,
planners must determine if they contain contaminants,
and if those contaminants have entered the environment.
USTs should be excavated and removed. Several tech-
nologies can sample soil gas around the USTs before their
removal to determine if they have leaked. To obtain these
samples, soil borings can be collected at and below the
tanks' depths and screened for TPH using technologies
such as PID, colorimetric kits, or portable gas chroma-
tography. Old drums and battery casings often are found
hi unpermitted disposal areas at automotive repair sites.
These may have been buried many years ago, and any
potential contaminants that they contained are likely to
have leaked into the underlying soils. As with USTs, soil
borings should be taken in and around these disposal ar-
eas and screened for TPH, lead, nickel, and cadmium.
It is also important to determine the depth to the water
table and the composition of subsurface soils at the site,
which will be key factors regarding whether contaminants
have migrated off site and possibly contaminated ground-
water. The more shallow the water table, the more likely
that contaminants may have reached groundwater. Sub-
surface soils that are clayey in nature or relatively non-
porous may prevent contaminants from reaching the water
table; more porous subsurface soils, such as sand, allows
water and contaminants to migrate more quickly into
groundwater.
Groundwater Screening
In some instances, contaminants from soils, USTs, or dis-
posal areas at the automotive repair site may have mi-
grated into groundwater. In addition, waste oils and
solvents may have been disposed of in dry wells, from
which they may have entered the groundwater table. At
sites where soils and subsoils are relatively porous (i.e.,
sandy or gravelly soils) or where the water table is near
the surface, planners should have groundwater samples
screened for TPH and solvents. The costs associated with
collecting groundwater samples has declined substantially
since the development of cone penetrometer technology
(GPT), which does not depend on drilling and installing
well casings but instead uses a steel rod that is driven
into the ground. Several-types of detectors can be used in
conjunction with CPT to collect information on soil and
groundwater conditions and analyze them for contami-
nation; one such innovative technology, Rapid Optical
Sensing Tool (ROST™) uses laser-induced fluorescence
technology to screen for TPH in subsurface soils and
groundwater. Table 4 discusses groundwater sampling
technologies.
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.
Soil 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 hi soft soil for as low as
$10 per sample (assuming that a field technician can col-
lect 10 samples per hour). When soils are hard, or deeper
samples are required, a hammer-driven split spoon sam-
pler 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 increase 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 di-
rect push methods. Typical quality assurance protocols
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 direct push
sampling method, a probe is either hydraulically pressed
or vibrated into the ground, and groundwater percolates
into a sampling container attached to the probe. The di-
21
-------
rect push method costs are contingent upon the hardness
of the subsurface, depth to the water table, and perme-
ability of the aquifer. Costs for both conventional and
direct push techniques are generally more than $40 per
sample (assuming that a field technician can collect 1
sample per hour); well installation costs must be added
to that number.
Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Costs
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 hi deep
water or sampling a deep level of surface water, how-
ever, requires the use of larger equipment, which drives
up the cost. Also, if surface water presents a hazard dur-
ing sampling and protective measures are required, costs
will increase greatly.
Sample Analysis Costs
Costs for analyzing samples hi 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.
22
-------
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. A companion
EPA document to this guide, entitled Cost Estimating
Tools and Resources for Addressing Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative, provides information on cost fac-
tors and developing cost estimates. In general, the more
intensive the cleanup approach, the more quickly the con-
tamination will be mitigated and the more costly the ef-
fort. 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 pos-
sible. Thus, the planner may wish to explore a number of
options and weigh carefully the costs and benefits of each.
One effective method of comparison is the cleanup plan,
as discussed below; planners should involve stakehold-
ers 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 pathways of
exposure, based on the intended reuse of the site, must
be addressed in the site assessment and cleanup; if no
pathways of exposure exist, less cleanup (or possibly
none) may be required.
Some regional EPA and state offices have developed
cleanup standards for different chemicals, which may
serve as guidelines or legal requirements for cleanups. It
is important to understand that screening levels (discussed
previously in "Performing a Phase II Site Assessment:
Sampling the Site") are different from cleanup (or cor-
rective action) levels. Whereas screening levels indicate
whether further site investigation is warranted for a par-
ticular contaminant, cleanup levels indicate whether
cleanup action is needed and how extensive it needs to
be. Planners should check with their state environmental
office for guidance and/or requirements for cleanup stan-
dards.
This section contains information on developing a cleanup
plan and discusses various alternatives for addressing
contamination at the automotive repair site (i.e., institu-
tional controls; containment and cleanup technologies).
A table that summarizes cleanup technologies applicable
to automotive repair sites is presented, followed by a dis-
cussion of post-construction care issues that planners need
to consider when selecting cleanup 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 possibly cleanup contamina-
tion. In developing this plan, planners and their engineers
should consider a range of possible options, with the in-
tent of identifying the most cost-effective approaches for
cleaning 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 from that
for other areas of the site. Clear documentation of
existing conditions at the site and a summarized as-
sessment of the nature and scope of contamination
should be included.
23
-------
• 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 "Site Assessment" section)
and the controls and technologies described below to
compare the effectiveness of the least costly approaches
for meeting the required cleanup goals established in the
DQOs. These goals should be established at levels that
are consistent with the expected 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 automotive repair shop brownfields site to a
marketable condition. Institutional controls are mecha-
nisms that help control the current and future use of, and
access to, a site. They are established, in the case of
brownfields, to protect people from possible contamina-
tion. Institutional controls range from a security fence
prohibiting access to certain portions of the site to deed
restrictions imposed on the future use of the facility. If
the overall cleanup approach does not include the com-
plete cleanup of the facility (i.e., the complete removal
or destruction of onsite contamination), a deed restric-
tion will likely be required that clearly states that hazard-
ous waste is being left in place within the site boundaries.
Many state brownfields programs include institutional
controls.
The exclusive use of institutional controls at automotive
repair brownfields sites may be insufficient because of
the mobile and toxic nature of the common contaminants
(i.e., TPH and solvents). Nonetheless, planners and regu-
lators should determine if such controls could play a lim-
ited role, thereby reducing the amount of cleanup
necessary. Even if regulators do accept some application
of institutional controls, they will most likely require long-
term groundwater monitoring to ensure that contaminants
are not migrating from the site if full cleanup is not con-
ducted. The cost of such monitoring may be greater than
the cost of full cleanup if cleanup activities are relatively
limited in scope.
Containment Technologies
Containment technologies are designed to prevent con-
taminants from moving off the site. Containment tech-
nologies include engineered barriers such as caps for
contaminated soils, sheet piles, slurry walls, and hydrau-
lic containment. Like institutional controls, containment
technologies do not remove or destroy contamination, but
mitigate potential risk by limiting contaminant migration
and contact by people and the environment.
A cleanup approach using containment technologies may
be appropriate at an automotive repair brownfields site,
particularly if assessment activities show the disposal of
large volumes of batteries and drums. If soil contamina-
tion in these areas is limited to metals and small amounts
of TPH or solvents, a cost-effective approach may be to
excavate the drums and battery casings, and then seal the
area with an engineered cap made of asphalt or soil ma-
terial. Both drums and batteries should be disposed of at
an EPA-approved facility. Planners should be aware that
engineered caps require periodic maintenance to ensure
their effectiveness. In addition, if the levels of TPH or
solvents in the capped material are moderate or high, regu-
lators may require periodic groundwater monitoring to
ensure that contaminants are not migrating underneath
the cap. The cost of the maintenance and monitoring as-
sociated with a cap should be weighed against the cost of
excavating the soils and disposing of them in an EPA-
approved landfill.
Types of Cleanup Technologies
Cleanup may be required to remove or destroy onsite
contamination if regulators are unwilling to accept the
level of contamination present or if the types of contami-
nation prevent the use of institutional controls or con-
tainment technologies. Cleanup technologies fall broadly
into two categories—ex situ and in situ, as described be-
low.
• 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,
they can be returned to the site. If the residuals do
not yet meet cleanup goals, they can be subjected to
.24
-------
further treatment, contained on site, or moved to an-
other location for storage or further treatment.
in more detail, including technology limitations. Tech-
nologies to consider include:
• 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 automotive repair sites. Planners, however, do need
to be aware that cleanup with in situ technologies is
likely to take longer than with ex situ technologies.
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
systems will require varying levels of post-cleanup care.
If an ex situ system is in use at the site, it will require
regular operations support and periodic maintenance to
ensure that the system is operating as designed.
Cleanup Technologies for Automotive
Repair Sites
Table 6 presents cleanup technologies that may be ap-
propriate, based on their capital and operating costs, for
use at automotive repair sites. In addition to more con-
ventional technologies, a number of innovative technol-
ogy options are listed. Many cleanup approaches use
institutional controls and one or a combination of the tech-
nologies described in Table 6. Whatever cleanup approach
is ultimately chosen, planners should explore a number
of cost-effective options. This section discusses some
cleanup alternatives for automotive repair sites based on
the technologies described in Table 6.
Cleanup Options for Contaminated Soils
For areas where contamination is primarily composed of
TPH and low levels of solvents, several innovative tech-
nologies may be cost-effective options, including soil
vapor extraction (SVE), augmented bioremediation, and
oxygen-releasing compounds. All these technologies treat
contaminants in place, require no excavation, and may
reinforce the natural processes that lead to the breakdown
of volatile organics in soils, known as bioremediation.
Table 6 describes these and other cleanup technologies
• SVE: SVE is widely used to remove volatile organ-
ics, including TPH, from subsurface soils. SVE uses
vacuum pressure to extract volatile organics from
soils and collects the gas with carbon filters.
• Augmented Bioremediation: Augmented bioremedia-
tion uses nutrient treatments to enhance the activity
of native microorganisms hi the soils that break down
organic contamination. This approach is slow rela-
tive to other cleanup approaches.
• Oxygen-Releasing Compounds (ORC): ORC tech-
nologies inject nontoxic compounds into subsurface
contamination areas, where they react with the con-
tamination, releasing oxygen that enhances natural
bioremediation. ORC has shown dramatic results in
pilot and full-scale :projects nationwide in cleaning
up the types of contaminants associated with petro-
leum products.
Cleanup Options for Contaminated
Groundwater
If groundwater at the automotive repair site is contami-
nated, several approaches may be taken to achieve cleanup
goals. The choice of technology will depend on many
site-specific factors, such as hydraulic conductivity of
soils, the mass of contamination, and the size of the
groundwater plume. The most conventional groundwa-
ter cleanup technology is pump-and-treat; however, it is
also likely to be an expensive approach.; Some innova-
tive technologies, such as air sparging, have also been
used successfully to cleanup benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) in groundwater.
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 on site, regulators will likely require long-
term monitoring of applicable media (i.e., soil, water, or
air) to ensure that the cleanup approach selected is con-
tinuing to function as planned (e.g., residual contamina-
tion, 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.
25
-------
to
o
O
CO
1
1
•n
ll
.i1^
'EE
o •*"
°
CD
^ To
O CD
T5.Z
5-8
S§
||
xj
LU
Description
<5 IE
CO
3
CD
£
±3
•o ,_
§ &
1 g"
8-Sg
111
— S- m
C8.S2 a.
a. -o o
a ». «
S •" >- .8 2 c
!i til 1 «! !i
iLlllgl.li^ilf
f
o
c
1
1
C 0)
1 1
3 <3
1".
^•§
U5- o
o
i &£
c 2 .0^
8 S §
CO £ CD
"5 "g1!.
CD c j:
1 -2S1
CD o O
1 i*
— J S
i .2 if
O "g CO CD
llol
1
1
C 0
O s:
o '5
O Q_
E
|
CO'H
IS
§8
Q. £-
O W
Q. S
• Steel or iron sheets are
driven into the ground to
form a subsurface barriei
• Low-cost containment
O)
_c
CL
to
CD
CO
•^
method.
• Used primarily for shallov
aquifers.
Q. T3
S
• Grout curtains injected in
subsurface soils and
bedrock.
• Forms an impermeable
barrier in the subsurface.
_c
•§
o
1
a
1
_c
c
o
~
26
-------
o
gg
P
s.
b
CO
CD
Q
o
o
CD
0>
A
He?
3 d
CM CD
<& Q.
W-Q.D)(OO
Conti
CO
CD
_Q
>.
18 iBlt^il
- CO „ i: Q. .a D) -fc.« E
°f 8-8
£-0*
.§ = oES = £^S
g'JfiS^i-St-g
9 T~S« «~ »>2.f
jgijSfit.3
?i * Q.S g« 2
CD.S3 >>o^»iE^£
rfBilS'l*-
S 2 c
co m •- 8 M •- ci c " ^ -d
If^llllililil
o
1
£
co
c
S
l-i JB S
•5 S.f *= » S «
sMfslif'
.CO
I
•1§^
'•§ -
Is
Q. »—
O w
»= o
C Q.
CO."
Q_ ^3
CO
£
le
.
ir
27
-------
2
-------
^
T3
a.
C
I
(O
0)
S
P
« ra
si i
3
^ „
o-S
51
££
13 •&*
II
fc-i1
f^ •—:
s *
B"°.<
CD
CO-S .
15 £«
3
I
8
O)
CO . £
>/l 1 =2 . =5 ,_• -o
= 1M »!!§§.
sii^l^ts*
' ffl O 8g 3 |« 0)0:
^i si"- o |§2^-
f^^^Sf*is|
^j t8 ._ ^~ >\ o
1 2 §-"5 g-olo 2w£J
;°2§£^|"Sl|-
5'5a3c3£ — -5
sjascoo-aCfOH
-5=o'-5™>>S-7-i-
5.S C* O CBOJ^Jj
°|gr
§ .9? cd"10
3x> 2.
S
E o
3 3 .
•o cs'g
CO I-TJ5
5§f
'•g ®
£ cd a
® Q) .
c S *
is S-l
•g to g.
£=52
O)
l-o^'-S
.•S E
-------
8s
CD
il-1
> O <0
C
gj co CD (—
Illl-st
•«-• C £ .S3 ° 9
8 2 8-1 S°
oocLhqu.DiCM-Et:
CCOcauioOcocooa.0.
o
CD
E 5
I £
W"H cs
c a. o c
'« « 3-2
D. -o cO .2
! fS
I 221
U 5g.t
x c - -a « '" „;
>,*= en 5 -a H- " to y i
iWC~_O^ f. £ <
ili|lg§ 111
ssa»|| -^«|
2 g o g g§ CIS ffi| ,
?|l|S??||al
5> o E O £ co £ o.<
Occo
d5'
o
"*• «-l f»
0.0
> co
a.
30
-------
Chapters
Conclusion
Brownfields redevelopment contributes to the revitaliza-
tion of communities across the United States Reuse of
these abandoned, contaminated sites spurs economic
growth, builds community pride, protects public health,
and helps maintain our nation's "greenfields," often at a
relatively low cost. This document provides brownfields
planners with an overview of the technical methods that
can be used to achieve successful site assessment and
cleanup, which are two key components in the brown-
fields redevelopment 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, hydrogeologic conditions, and state and lo-
cal regulatory requirements. Based on these factors, as
well as financial resources and desired time-frames, 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 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
requke 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.
31
-------
Appendix A
Acronyms
ACM Asbestos Contaminated Media
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
CDM CDM Federal Programs Corporation
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CERI Center for Environmental Research Informa-
tion
CPT Cone Penetrometer Technology
DQO Data Quality Objective
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
MCL Maximum Contaminant Levels
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
NPL National Priorities List
O&M Operations and Maintenance
ORC Oxygen-Releasing Compounds
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Re-
sponse
PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PCP Pentachlorophenol
PID Photoionization Detector
PLM Polarized Light Microscopy
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SVE Soil Vapor Extraction
SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compound
TCE Trichloroethylene
TIO Technology Innovation Office
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
XRF X-ray Fluorescence
32
-------
Appendix B1
Glossary
The following is a list of specialized terms used during
the assessment and cleanup of brownfields sites.
Air Sparging—In air sparging, air is injected into the
ground below a contaminated area, forming bubbles that
rise and carry trapped and dissolved contaminants to the
surface where they are captured by a soil vapor extrac-
tion system. Air sparging may be a good choice of treat-
ment technology at sites contaminated with solvents and
other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). See also Soil
Vapor Extraction and Volatile Organic Compound.
Air Stripping—Air stripping is a treatment method that
removes or "strips" VOCs from contaminated ground-
water 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, toluene,
and phenol, that often are found at dry cleaning and elec-
tronic assembly sites.
Baseline Risk Assessment—A baseline risk assessment is
an assessment conducted before cleanup activities begin
at a site to identify and evaluate the threat to human health
and the environment. After cleanup has been completed,
the information obtained during a baseline risk assess-
ment can be used to determine whether the cleanup lev-
els were reached.
'Adapted from EPA's Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology
Options for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup (EPA, 1997).
Bedrock—Bedrock is the rock that underlies the soil; it
can be permeable or non-permeable. See also Confining
Layer.
Bioremediation—Bioremediation refers to treatment pro-
cesses that use microorganisms (usually naturally occur-
ring) such as bacteria, yeast, or fungi to break down
hazardous substances into less toxic or nontoxic sub-
stances. Bioremediation can be used to clean up con-
taminated soil and water. In situ bioremediation treats
the contaminated soil or groundwater in the location in
which it is found. For ex situ bioremediation processes,
contaminated soil must be excavated or groundwater
pumped before they can be treated.
Bioventing—Bioventing is an in situ cleanup technology
that combines soil vapor extraction methods with biore-
mediation. It uses vapor extraction wells that induce air
flow in the subsurface through air injection or through
the use of a vacuum. Bioventing can be effective in clean-
ing up releases of petroleum products, such as gasoline,
jet fuels, kerosene, and diesel fuel. See also Bioremedia-
tion and Soil Vapor Extraction.
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 char-
acteristics of geologic formations that are intersected by
a borehole.
Brownfields—Brownfields sites are abandoned, idled, or
under-used industrial and commercial facilities where ex-
pansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or per-
ceived environmental contamination.
BTEX-^-BTEX is the term used for benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene—volatile aromatic compounds
typically found in petroleum products, such as gasoline
and diesel fuel.
33
-------
Cadmium—Cadmium is a heavy metal that accumulates
in the environment. See also Heavy Metal.
Carbon Adsorption—Carbon adsorption is a treatment
method that removes contaminants from groundwater or
surface water as the water is forced through tanks con-
taining activated carbon.
Chemical Dehalogenation—Chemical dehalogenation is
a chemical process that removes halogens (usually chlo-
rine) from a chemical contaminant, rendering the con-
taminant less hazardous. The chemical dehalogenation
process can be applied to common halogenated contami-
nants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins
(DDT), and certain chlorinated pesticides, which may be
present in soil and oils. The treatment time is short, en-
ergy requirements are moderate, and operation and main-
tenance costs are relatively low. This technology can be
brought to the site, eliminating the need to transport haz-
ardous wastes.
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 environ-
ment.
Colorimetric—Colorimetric refers to chemical reaction-
based indicators that are used to produce compound re-
actions to individual compounds, or classes of
compounds. The reactions, such as visible color changes
or other easily noted indications, are used to detect and
quantify contaminants.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)—CERCLIS
is a database that serves as the official inventory of
Superfund hazardous waste sites. CERCLIS also con-
tains information about all aspects of hazardous waste
sites, from initial discovery to deletion from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The database also maintains infor-
mation about planned and actual site activities and finan-
cial information entered by EPA regional offices.
CERCLIS records the targets and accomplishments of
the Superfund program and is used to report that infor-
mation to the EPA Administrator, Congress, and the pub-
lic. See also National Priorities List and Superfund.
Confining Layer—A "confining layer" is a geological for-
mation characterized by low permeability that inhibits
the flow of water. See also Bedrock and Permeability.
Contaminant—A contaminant is any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological substance or matter present in
any media at concentrations that may result in adverse
effects on air, water, or soil.
Data Quality Objective (DQO)—DQOs are qualitative
and quantitative statements specified to ensure that data
of known and appropriate quality are obtained. The DQO
process is a series of planning steps, typically conducted
during site assessment and investigation, that is designed
to ensure that the type, quantity, and quality of environ-
mental data used in decision making are appropriate. The
DQO process involves a logical, step-by-step procedure
for determining which of the complex issues affecting a
site are the most relevant to planning a site investigation
before any data are collected.
Disposal—Disposal is the final placement or destruction
of toxic, radioactive or other wastes; surplus or banned
pesticides or other chemicals; polluted soils; and drums
containing hazardous materials from removal actions or
accidental release. Disposal may be accomplished
through the use of approved secure landfills, surface im-
poundments, 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 applying soil
vapor extraction techniques to contaminants trapped in
saturated zone soils. See also Soil Vapor Extraction.
Electromagnetic (EM) Geophysics—EM geophysics re-
fers to technologies used to detect spatial (lateral and
vertical) 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 be-
neath the earth's surface, which in turn causes a secondary
magnetic field to form around nearby objects that have
conductive properties, such as ferrous and nonferrous
metals. The secondary magnetic field is then used to de-
tect and measure buried debris.
Emergency Removal—An emergency removal is an ac-
tion initiated in response to a release of a hazardous sub-
stance that requires onsite activity within hours of a
determination that action is appropriate.
Emerging Technology—An emerging technology is an
innovative technology that currently is undergoing bench-
scale testing. During bench-scale testing, a small ver-
sion of the technology is built and tested in a laboratory.
34
-------
If the technology is successful during bench-scale test-
ing, it is demonstrated on a small scale at field sites. If
the technology is successful at the field demonstrations,
it often will be used full scale at contaminated waste sites.
The technology is continually improved as it is used and
evaluated at different sites. See also Established Tech-
nology 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 path-
ways.
Established Technology—An established technology is a
technology for which cost and performance information
is readily available. Only after a technology has been
used at many different sites and the results fully docu-
mented is that technology considered established. The
most frequently used established technologies are incin-
eration, solidification and stabilization, and pump-and-
treat technologies for groundwater. See also Emerging
Technology and Innovative Technology.
Exposure Pathway—An exposure pathway is the route
of contaminants from the source of contamination to po-
tential contact with a medium (air, soil, surface water, or
groundwater) that represents a potential threat to human
health or the environment. Determining whether expo-
sure pathways exist is an essential step in conducting a
baseline risk assessment. See also Baseline Risk Assess-
ment.
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 chromatography
to measure the change of signal as analytes are ionized
by a hydrogen-air flame. It also is used to detect phenols,
phthalates, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), VOCs, and
petroleum hydrocarbons. See also Volatile Organic Com-
pounds.
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy—A fourier
transform 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.
Furan—Furan is a colorless, volatile liquid compound
used in the synthesis of organic compounds, especially
nylon.
Gas Chromatography—Gas chromatography is a tech-
nology used for investigating and assessing soil, water,
and soil gas contamination at a site. It is used for the
analysis of VOCs and semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOC). The technique identifies and quantifies organic
compounds on the basis of molecular weight, character-
istic fragmentation patterns, and retention time. Recent
advances in gas chromatography considered innovative
are portable, weatherproof units that have self-contained
power supplies. See also Semivolatile Organic Com-
pound.
Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR)—GPR is a technology
that emits pulses of electromagnetic energy into the
ground to measure its reflection and refraction by sub-
surface layers and other features, such as buried debris.
Groundwater— Groundwater is the water found beneath
the earth's surface that fills pores between such materials
as sand, soil, or gravel and that often supplies wells and
springs. See also Aquifer.
Hazardous Substance—A hazardous substance is any ma-
terial that poses a threat to public health or the environ-
ment. Typical hazardous substances are materials that
are toxic, corrosive, ignitable, explosive, or chemically
reactive. If a certain quantity of a hazardous substance,
as established by EPA, is spilled into the water or other-
wise emitted into the environment, the release must be
reported. Under certain federal legislation, the term ex-
cludes petroleum, crude oil, natural gas, natural gas liq-
uids, or synthetic gas usable for fuel.
Heavy Metal—The term heavy metal refers to a group of
toxic metals including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead,
mercury, silver, and zinc. Heavy metals often are present
at industrial sites at which operations have included bat-
tery recycling and metal plating.
High-Frequency Electromagnetic (EM) Sounding—^High-
frequency EM sounding, the technology used for non-
intrusive geophysical exploration, projects
high-frequency electromagnetic radiation into subsurface
35
-------
layers to detect the reflection and refraction of the radia-
tion by various layers of soil. Unlike ground-penetrating
radar, which uses pulses, the technology uses continuous
waves of radiation. See also Ground-Penetrating Radar.
Hydrocarbon—A hydrocarbon is an organic compound
containing only hydrogen and carbon, often occurring in
petroleum, natural gas, and coal.
Hydrogeology—Hydrogeology is the study of groundwa-
ter, including its origin, occurrence, movement, and qual-
ity.
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 sol-
vents that readily catch fire, and friction-sensitive
substances.
Immunoassay—Immunoassay is an innovative technol-
ogy used to measure compound-specific reactions (gen-
erally colorimetric) to individual compounds or classes
of compounds. The reactions are used to detect and quan-
tify 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 (al-
though 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. Ex-
amples of inorganic compounds include various acids,
potassium hydroxide, and metals.
Innovative Technology—An innovative technology is a
process that has been tested and used as a treatment for
hazardous waste or other contaminated materials but lacks
a long history of full-scale use, information about its cost,
and how well it works sufficient to support prediction of
its performance under a variety of operating conditions.
An innovative technology is one that is undergoing pi-
lot-scale treatability studies that are usually conducted in
the field or the laboratory; they requke installation of the
technology and provide performance, cost, and design
objectives for the technology. Innovative technologies
are being used under many federal and state cleanup pro-
grams to treat hazardous wastes that have been improp-
erly released. For example, innovative technologies are
being selected to manage contamination (primarily pe-
troleum) 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 flush-
ing and natural attenuation are examples of in situ
treatment methods by which contaminated sites are treated
without digging up or removing the contaminants.
In Situ Oxidation —In situ oxidation is an innovative treat-
ment technology that oxidizes contaminants that are dis-
solved in groundwater and converts them into insoluble
compounds.
In Situ Soil Flushing —In situ soil flushing is an innova-
tive treatment technology that floods contaminated soils
beneath the ground surface with a solution that moves
the contaminants to an area from which they can be re-
moved. The technology requires the drilling of injection
and extraction wells on site and reduces the need for ex-
cavation, handling, or transportation of hazardous sub-
stances. Contaminants considered for treatment by in
situ soil flushing include heavy metals (such as lead, cop-
per, and zinc), aromatics, and PCBs. See also Aromatics
and Heavy Metal.
In Situ Vitrification —In situ vitrification is a soil treat-
ment technology that stabilizes metal and other inorganic
contaminants hi place at temperatures of approximately
3000° F. Soils and sludges are fused to form a stable
glass and crystalline structure with very low leaching char-
acteristics.
Institutional Controls —An institutional control is a le-
gal or institutional measure which subjects a property
owner to limit activities at or access to a particular prop-
erty. They are used to ensure protection of human health
and the environment, and to expedite property reuse.
Fences, posting or warning signs, and zoning and deed
restrictions are examples of institutional controls.
36
-------
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)—IRIS is an
electronic database that contains EPA's latest descriptive
and quantitative regulatory information about chemical
constituents. Files on chemicals maintained in IRIS con-
tain information related to both noncarcinogenic and car-
cinogenic health effects.
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.
Land/arming—Landfarming is the spreading and incor- Methane—Methane is a colorless, nonpoisonous, flam-
poration of wastes into the soil to initiate biological treat- mable gas created by anaerobic decomposition of organic
ment. compounds.
Landfill—A sanitary landfill is a land disposal site for
nonhazardous solid wastes at which the waste is spread
in layers compacted to the smallest practical volume.
Laser-Induced Fluorescence/Cone Penetrometer—Laser-
induced fluorescence/cone penetrometer is a field screen-
ing 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 assess-
ing soil and water contamination.
Lead—Lead is a heavy metal that is hazardous to health
if breathed or swallowed. Its use hi gasoline, paints, and
plumbing compounds has been sharply restricted or elimi-
nated 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 tech-
nology 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 ratio of the
fragments. Innovative mass spectroscopy units, devel-
oped through modification of large laboratory instru-
ments, are sometimes portable, weatherproof units with
self-contained power supplies.
Medium—A medium is a specific environment—air, wa-
ter, or soil—which is the subject of regulatory concern
and activities.
Mercury—Mercury is a heavy metal that can accumulate
in the environment and is highly toxic if breathed or swal-
lowed. Mercury is found in thermometers, measuring
devices, pharmaceutical and agricultural chemicals,
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 en-
vironment. Migration pathways include air, surface water,
groundwater, and land surface. The existence and iden-
tification of all potential migration pathways must be
considered during assessment and characterization of a
waste site.
Mixed Waste—Mixed waste is low-level radioactive waste
contaminated with hazardous waste that is regulated un-
der the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Mixed waste can be disposed only in compli-
ance with the requirements under RCRA that govern dis-
posal of hazardous waste and with the RCRA land
disposal restrictions, which require that waste be treated
before it is disposed of in appropriate landfills.
Monitored Natural Attenuation—Natural attenuation is
an approach to cleanup that uses natural processes to con-
tain the spread of contamination from chemical spills and
reduce the concentrations and amounts of pollutants in
contaminated soil and groundwater. Natural subsurface
processes, such as dilution, volatilization, biodegradation,
adsorption, and chemical reactions with subsurface ma-
terials, reduce concentrations of contaminants to accept-
able levels. An in situ treatment method that leaves the
contaminants in place while those processes occur, natu-
ral attenuation is being used to clean up petroleum con-
tamination from leaking underground storage tanks
(LUST) across the country.
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 stud-
ied to determine the direction of groundwater flow and
the types and quantities of contaminants present hi the
groundwater.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)—NPDES is the primary permitting program
37
-------
under the Clean Water Act, which regulates all discharges
to surface water. It prohibits discharge of pollutants into
waters of the United States unless EPA, a state, or a tribal
government issues a special permit to do so.
National Priorities List (NPL)—The NPL is EPA's list of
the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites identified for possible long-term cleanup un-
der 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.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)—NPDES is the primary permitting program
under the Clean Water Act, which regulates all discharges
to surface water. It prohibits discharge of pollutants into
waters of the United States unless EPA, a state, or a tribal
government issues a special permit to do so.
National Priorities List (NPL)—The NPL is EPA's list of
the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites identified for possible long-term cleanup un-
der 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.
Non-Point Source^-The term non-point source is used to
identify sources of pollution that are diffuse and do not
have a point of origin or that are not introduced into a
receiving stream from a specific outlet. Common non-
point sources are rain water, runoff from agricultural
lands, industrial sites, parking lots, and timber operations,
as well as escaping gases from pipes and fittings.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)—O&M refers to the
activities conducted at a site, following remedial actions,
to ensure that the cleanup methods are working properly.
O&M activities are conducted to maintain the effective-
ness of the cleanup and to ensure that no new threat to
human health or the environment arises. O&M may in-
clude such activities as groundwater and air monitoring,
inspection and maintenance of the treatment equipment
remaining on site, and maintenance of any security mea-
sures or institutional controls.
Organic Chemical or Compound—An organic chemical
or compound is a substance produced by animals or plants
that contains mainly carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
Permeability—Permeability is a characteristic that rep-
resents 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 accumulate in
the food chain and/or contaminate the environment if
misused.
Phase I Site Assessment—A Phase I site assessment is an
initial environmental investigation that is limited to a his-
torical records search to determine ownership of a site
and to identify the kinds of chemical processes that were
carried out at the site. A Phase I assessment includes a
site visit but does not include any sampling. If such an
assessment identifies no significant concerns, a Phase n
assessment is not necessary.
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 of environmental haz-
ards. The assessment includes preparation of a report
that includes recommendations for cleanup alternatives.
Phenols—A phenol is one of a group of organic com-
pounds that are byproducts of petroleum refining, tan-
ning, and textile, dye, and resin manufacturing. Low
concentrations of phenols cause taste and odor problems
in water; higher concentrations may be harmful to hu-
man health or the environment.
Photoionization Detector (PID)—A PID is a nondestruc-
tive detector, often used in conjunction with gas chroma-
tography, that measures the change of signal as analytes
are ionized by an ultraviolet lamp. The PID is also used
to detect VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons.
Phytoremediation—Phytoremediation is an innovative
treatment technology that uses plants and trees to clean
up contaminated soil and water. Plants can break down,
or degrade, organic pollutants or stabilize metal contami-
nants by acting as filters or traps. Phytoremediation can
be used to clean up metals, pesticides, solvents, explo-
sives, crude oil, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and landfill
leachates. Its use generally is limited to sites at which
concentrations of contaminants are relatively low and
contamination is found in shallow soils, streams, and
groundwater.
Plasma High-Temperature Metals Recovery—Plasma
high-temperature metals recovery is a thermal treatment
38
-------
process that purges contaminants from solids and soils
such as metal fumes and organic vapors. The vapors can
be burned as fuel, and the metal fumes can be recovered
and recycled. This innovative treatment technology is
used to treat contaminated soil and groundwater.
Plume—A plume is a visible or measurable emission or
discharge of a contaminant from a given point of origin
into any medium. The term also is used to refer to mea-
surable and potentially harmful radiation leaking from a
damaged reactor.
Point Source—A point source is a stationary location or
fixed facility from which pollutants are discharged or
emitted; or any single, identifiable discharge point of
pollution, such as a pipe, ditch, or smokestack.
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 par-
ticles. Sources of such wastes include nuclear reactors,
research institutions, and hospitals.
Radionuclide—A radionuclide is a radioactive element
characterized according to its atomic mass and atomic
number, which can be artificial or naturally occurring.
Radionuclides have a long life as soil or water pollut-
ants. Radionuclides cannot be destroyed or degraded;
therefore, applicable technologies involve separation,
concentration and volume reduction, immobilization, or
vitrification. See also Solidification and Stabilization.
Radon—Radon is a colorless, naturally occurring, radio-
active, inert gaseous element formed by radioactive de-
cay of radium atoms. See also Radioactive Waste and
Radionuclide.
Release—A release is any spilling, leaking, pumping,
pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, leach-
ing, dumping, or disposing into the environment of a haz-
ardous or toxic chemical or extremely hazardous
substance, as defined under RCRA. See also Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)—
RCRA is a federal law enacted in 1976 that established a
regulatory system to track hazardous substances from their
generation to their disposal. The law requires the use of
safe and secure procedures in treating, transporting, stor-
ing, and disposing of hazardous substances. RCRA is
designed to prevent the creation of new, uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites.
Risk Communication—Risk communication, the ex-
change of information about health or environmental risks
among risk assessors, risk managers, the local commu-
nity, news media and interest groups, is the process of
informing members of the local community about envi-
ronmental 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, bur-
ied channels, and other features.
Semivolatile Organic Compound (SVOC)—SVOCs, com-
posed primarily of carbon and hydrogen atoms, have boil-
ing points greater than 200°C. Common SVOCs include
pentachlorophenols (PCPs) and phenol. See also Phe-
nol.
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 bottom of
a waste lagoon are examples of sludge, which can be a
hazardous waste.
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation—Slurry-phase bioremedia-
tion, a treatment technology that can be used alone or in
conjunction with other biological, chemical, and physi-
cal treatments, is a process through which organic con-
taminants are converted to innocuous compounds..
Slurry-phase bioremediation can be effective in treating
various SVOCs and nonvolatile organic compounds, as
well as fuels, creosote, pentachlorophenols (PCPs), and
polychlorinated bephenyls (PCBs). See also Semivola-
tile Organic Compound.
Soil Boring—Soil boring is a process by which a soil
sample is extracted from the ground for chemical, bio-
logical, and analytical testing to determine the level of
contamination present.
39
-------
Soil Gas—Soil gas consists of gaseous elements and com-
pounds that occur in the small spaces between particles
of the earth and soil. Such gases can move through or
leave the soil or rock, depending on changes in pressure.
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)-SVE, the most frequently
selected innovative treatment at Superfund sites, is a pro-
cess that physically separates contaminants from soil in
a vapor form by exerting a vacuum through the soil for-
mation. Soil vapor extraction removes VOCs and some
SVOCs from soil beneath the ground surface. See also
Semlvolatile Organic Compound and Volatile Organic
Carbon.
Soil Washing—Soil washing is an innovative treatment
technology that uses liquids (usually water, sometimes
combined with chemical additives) and a mechanical pro-
cess to scrub soils, removes hazardous contaminants, and
concentrates the contaminants into a smaller volume. The
technology is used to treat a wide range of contaminants,
such as metals, gasoline, fuel oils, and pesticides. Soil
washing is a relatively low-cost alternative for separat-
ing waste and minimizing volume as necessary to facili-
tate subsequent treatment. It is often used in combination
with other treatment technologies. The technology can
be brought to the site, thereby eliminating the need to
transport hazardous wastes.
Solidification and Stabilization—Solidification and sta-
bilization 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. Solidi-
fication and stabilization technologies can immobilize
many heavy metals, certain radionuclides, and selected
organic compounds, while decreasing the surface area
and permeability of many types of sludge, contaminated
soils, and solid wastes.
Solvent—A solvent is a substance, usually liquid, that is
capable of dissolving or dispersing one or more other
substances.
Solvent Extraction—Solvent extraction is an innovative
treatment technology that uses a solvent to separate or
remove hazardous organic contaminants from oily-type
wastes, soils, sludges, and sediments. The technology
does not destroy contaminants, but concentrates them so
they can be recycled or destroyed more easily by another
technology. Solvent extraction has been shown to be ef-
fective in treating sediments, sludges, and soils that con-
tain primarily organic contaminants, such as PCBs, VOCs,
halogenated organic compounds, and petroleum wastes.
Such contaminants typically are generated from metal
degreasing, printed circuit board cleaning, gasoline, and
wood preserving processes. Solvent extraction is a trans-
portable technology that can be brought to the site. See
also Volatile Organic Compound.
Surfactant Flushing—Surfactant flushing is an innova-
tive treatment technology used to treat contaminated
groundwater. Surfactant flushing of NAPLs increases
the solubility and mobility of the contaminants in water
so that the NAPLs can be biodegraded more easily in an
aquifer or recovered for treatment above-ground.
Surface Water—Surface water is all water naturally open
to the atmosphere, such as rivers, lakes, reservoirs,
streams, and seas.
Superfund—Superfund is the trust fund that provides for
the cleanup of significantly hazardous substances released
into the environment, regardless of fault. The Superfund
was established under Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
and subsequent amendments to CERCLA. The term
Superfund is also used to refer to cleanup programs de-
signed and conducted under CERCLA and its subsequent
amendments.
Superfund Amendment andReauthorizationAct (SARA)—
SARA is the 1986 act amending Comprehensive Envi-
ronmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) that increased the size of the Superfund trust
fund and established a preference for the development
and use of permanent remedies, and provided new en-
forcement and settlement tools.
Thermal Desorption—Thermal desorption is an innova-
tive treatment technology that heats soils contaminated
with hazardous wastes to temperatures from 200 to 1,000°
F so that contaminants that have low boiling points will
vaporize and separate from the soil. The vaporized con-
taminants are then collected for further treatment or de-
struction, typically by an air emissions treatment system.
The technology is most effective at treating VOCs,
SVOCs, and other organic contaminants, such as PCBs,
PAHs, and pesticides. It is effective in separating organ-
ics from refining wastes, coal tar wastes, waste from wood
treatment, and paint wastes. It also can separate solvents,
pesticides, PCBs, dioxins, and fuel oils from contami-
nated soil. See also Semivolatile Organic Compound and
Volatile Organic Compound.
40
-------
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH)—TPH refers to a
measure of concentration or mass of petroleum hydro-
carbon 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 toxicity
of wastes and is the most commonly used test for deter-
mining the degree of mobilization offered by a solidifi-
cation and stabilization process. Under this procedure,,a
waste is subjected to a process designed to model the
leaching effects that would occur if the waste was dis-
posed of in an RCRA Subtitle D municipal landfill. See
also Solidification and Stabilization.
Toxic Substance—Atoxic 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 materials carefully selected for
the ability to clean up specific types of contaminants. As
the contaminated groundwater passes through the treat-
ment 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 con-
taminants in place so the property can be put to produc-
tive use while it is being cleaned up. Treatment walls are
useful at some sites contaminated with chlorinated sol-
vents, metals, or radioactive contaminants.
Underground Storage Tank (UST)—A UST is a tank lo-
cated entirely or partially underground that is designed
to hold gasoline or other petroleum products or chemical
solutions.
Unsaturated Zone—The unsaturated zone is the area be-
tween the land surface and the uppermost aquifer (or satu-
rated zone). The soils in an unsaturated zone may contain
air and water.
Vadose Zone—The vadose zone is the area between the
surface of the land and the aquifer water table in which
the moisture content is less than the saturation point and
the pressure is less than atmospheric. The openings (pore
spaces) also typically contain air or other gases.
Vapor—Vapor is the gaseous phase of any substance that
is liquid or solid at atmospheric temperatures and pres-
sures. Steam is an example of a vapor.
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)-AVOC is one of a
group of carbon-containing compounds that evaporate
readily at room temperature. Examples of volatile or-
ganic compounds include trichloroethane, trichloroeth-
ylene, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
(BTEX). These contaminants typically are generated
from metal degreasing, printed circuit board cleaning,
gasoline, and wood preserving processes.
Volatilization—Volatilization is the process of transfer of
a chemical from the aqueous or liquid phase to the gas
phase. Solubility, molecular weight, and vapor pressure
of the liquid and the nature of the gas-liquid affect the
rate of volatilization.
Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP)—AVCP is a formal
means established by many states to facilitate assessment,
cleanup, and redevelopment of brownfields sites. VCPs
typically address the identification and cleanup of poten-
tially contaminated sites that are not on the National Pri-
orities List (NPL). Under VCPs, owners or developers
of a site are encouraged to approach the state voluntarily
to work out a process by which the site can be readied for
development. Many state VCPs provide technical assis-
tance, liability assurances, and funding support for such
efforts.
Waste-water—Wastewater is spent or used water from an
individual home, a community, a farm, or an industry that
contains dissolved or suspended matter.
Water Table—A water table is the boundary between the
saturated and unsaturated zones beneath the surface of
the earth, the level of groundwater, and generally is the
level to which water will rise in a well. See also Aquifer
and Groundwater.
X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzer—An x-ray fluorescence
analyzer is a self-contained, field-portable instrument,
consisting of an energy dispersive x-ray source, a detec-
tor, and a data processing system that detects and quanti-
fies individual metals or groups of metals.
41
-------
Appendix C
Powers Junction Example
Introduction
The information in this appendix is excerpted from the
report 'Technical Assistance for Sampling and Analyti-
cal Support; Powers Junction Brownfield Site, New Or-
leans, Louisiana; Brownfield Assessment and
Recommendations Report" prepared for the Region 6
office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
in Dallas, Texas, by PRC Environmental Management,
Inc. received under Work Assignment No. 008-AN-SP-
0600, under Response Action Contract (RAC) No. 68-
W6-0037. Some of the information was edited for the
purposes of this guide. While not explicitly based on the
information presented in this guide, this case study shows
how a site assessment and comparison of cleanup alter-
natives were done. Tables Cl through C4 itemize costs
for the cleanup options. Figure C1 is a map of the Powers
Junction site that shows sampling locations. References
for Appendix C are listed at the end of this example.
A) Site Description And History
The Powers Junction site was designated as a pilot project
under the EPA Brownfields Economic Redevelopment
Initiative. The Powers Junction site is located at 19001
Chef Menteur Highway, New Orleans, Louisiana. The
3-acre site is composed of several parcels, with the larg-
est parcel having dimensions of 388 feet by 350 feet by
624 feet. The privately owned site is surrounded by the
Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge. Until the early
1970s, a truck stop and service station operated at the
site. From the early 1970s to 1995, a truck repair facility
operated at the site. According to local U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) representatives, some mainte-
nance activities associated with the former truck repair
facility were conducted in the northeast sector of the site,
next to a former motel.
PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (PRC) served as
the environmental contractor on the site. PRC performed
sampling and analytical services at the Powers Junction
brownfield site during February 1997. The purposes of
the sampling and analytical work were to (1) determine
whether contaminants are present at the site, and (2) if
they are present, determine the locations, levels, and ex-
tent of contamination.
Current site conditions
The former truck stop and service station building (which
is the only remaining permanent structure onsite) and a
small inhabited mobile trailer are on the site. A concrete
foundation is all that remains of a recently demolished
motel. Seven underground storage tanks (USTs) are lo-
cated at the site. Four gasoline USTs are located in the
fueling area in front of, and south of, the existing build-
ing. A 4-inch-thick concrete pad covers the surface of
the front fueling area. Three diesel fuel USTs are located
behind, and north of, the existing building. Gravel and
shell cover the surface of the rear fueling area. Surface
soil (0 to 2 feet below ground surface [bgs]) characteris-
tics varied horizontally and vertically at the site. The
southern half of the site, where most of the fueling op-
erations were conducted, consisted of (1) gravelly fill
mixed with sand, shell, and some asphalt from 0 to 1 foot
bgs, and (2) a grey silty clay mixed with sand and gravel
from 1 to 2 feet bgs. The northern half of the site con-
sisted of (1) a grey sandy clay mixed with shell and or-
ganic material near the surface, and (2) an olive brown to
gray clay from 1 to 2 feet bgs. According to local FWS
officials, the water table is at about 4 feet bgs at the site,
and local shallow groundwater flow is to the south and
southeast. A surface water body, identified as a borrow
canal, is located next to the site to the north.
B) Field Sampling Investigation
During the sampling investigation, PRC collected samples
from the following: (1) surface and subsurface soil, (2)
shallow water table, (3) USTs, (4) borrow canal sediments,
and (5) building materials from the existing building.
(1) Surface and Subsurface Soil
Investigation
PRC conducted soil sampling at 28 of 30 probe locations
for field analyses by using a sampling grid layout. A
42
-------
Table C1. Cost Estimate for Cleanup Option 1: Excavation and Offsite Treatment and Disposal (Risk-Based Approach)
Item/Description
Site Preparation
Demolish reinforced concrete
Demolish existing building
Load and haul debris
Fertilize, seed, and sprig surface soil
Preparation Subtotal
LIST Decomissioning
Excavate and load on trailer, 3000-gallon
Remove sludge
.Dispose of sludge
Known leaking LIST excavation
Haul tank to salvage dump, 100-mile RT
UST Subtotal
Site Earthwork
1 CY hydraulic excavator
Loading into truck
Backfill, unclassified fill, 6-inch lift, offsite
Earthwork Subtotal
Sampling, Testing, and Analysis
Soil lab analysis: TCLP metals
Soil lab analysis: BTEX
Soil lab analysis: PAHs
Soil lab analysis: metals, each (8)
Analytical Subtotal
Disposal
Transportation 100-mile RT, 20-CY loads
Waste stream evaluation fee
Low-temperature thermal desorption
Dump charges for construction debris
Landfill nonhazardous waste disposal
Disposal Subtotal
Total Cost
Unit
CY
CF
CY
SY
Each
Each
Gallon
Each
Each
CY
CY
CY
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Mile
Each
Ton
CY
CY
Unit Cost
51.06
0.06
3.57
1.10
465.00
172.00
2.45
465.00
525.00
3.14
1.55
7.35
693.81
123.69
298.37
148.41
3.38
494.71
69.41
18.42
44.00
Industrial
Quantity
100
60,000
1,000
1,350
7
7
200
1
7
600
600
675
5
10
10
5
3,000
1
810
1,000
600
Industrial
Cost ($)
5,106
3,600
3,570
1,485
$13,761
3,255
1 ,204
490
465
3,675
$9,089
1,884
930
4,961
$7,775
3,469
1,237
2,984
742
$8,432
10,140
495
56,222
18,420
26 ,400
$111,677
$150,734
Notes
Unit costs were obtained from the ECHOS Environmental Restoration Unit Cost Book and vendor price quotes.
Hazardous waste disposal at Class I Landfill.
Soil density is assumed to be 100 pounds/CF.
BTEX Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes.
CF Cubic foot.
CY Cubic yard.
ECHOS Environmental cost handling options and solutions.
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
RT Round trip.
SY Square yard.
TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure.
UST Underground storage tank.
Geoprobe was used to probe at each intersection of the
sampling grid. PRC conducted field analyses of each
soil increment for the following parameters:
• Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
- Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX)
- Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE)
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene and 1,3,5-trimethylben-
zene
Total petroleum hydrocarbons for gasoline (TPH-
gasoline)
• Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs)
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
- TPH for diesel fuel (TPH-diesel)
• Total metals
Field analysis for organics was conducted by using gas
chromatography (GC). Field analysis for total metals was
conducted by using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrom-
etry. Nine confirmatory split samples including one du-
plicate sample were collected at eight soil probe locations
and shipped to Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) labo-
ratories to compare field analytical results to CLP labo-
ratory analytical results.
43
-------
Table C2. Cost Estimate for Cleanup Option 2: Excavation and Offsite Treatment and Disposal
Item/Description
Site Preparation
Demolish reinforced concrete
Demolish existing building
Load and haul debris
Fertilize, seed, and sprig surface soil
Preparation Subtotal
Unit
CY
CF
CY
SY
Unit Cost
51.06
0.06
3.57
1.10
Industrial
Quantity
100
60,000
1,000
450
Industrial
Cost ($)
5,106
3,600
3,570
495
$12,771
Residential
Quantity
100
60,000
1,000
0
Residential
Cost ($) .
5,106
3,600
3,570
0
$12,276
UST Decomlssioning
Excavate and load on trailer, 3000-gallon Each 465.00 7 3,255 7 3,255
Remove sludge Each 172.00 7 1,204 7 1,204
Dispose of sludge ' Gallon 2.45 200 490 200 490
Known leaking UST excavation Each 465.00 1 465 1 465
Haul tank to salvage dump, 100-mile RT Each 525.00 7 3,675 7 3,675
UST Subtotal $9,089 $9,089
Site Earthwork
1-CY hydraulic excavator CY 3.14 1,200 3,768 3,600 11,304
Loading into truck CY 1.55 1,200 1,860 3,600 5,580
Backfill, unclassified fill, 6-inch lift, offsite CY 7.35 1,425 10,474 4,450 32,708
Earthwork Subtotal $16,102 $49,592
Sampling, Testing, and Analysis
Soil lab analysis: TCLP metals Sample 693.81 5 3,469 5 3,469
Soil lab analysis: BTEX Sample 123.69 10 1,237 10 1,237
SoB lab analysis: PAHs Sample 298.37 10 2,984 10 2,984
So« lab analysis: metals, each (8) Sample 148.41 5 742 5 742
Total petroleum hydrocarbons Sample 116.67 0 0 10 1,167
Analytical Subtotal $ 9,598
Disposal
Transportation 100-mile RT.20-CY loads Mile 3.38 6,000 20,280 16,000 54,080
Waste stream evaluation fee Each 494.71 1 495 2 989
Low-temperature thermal desorption Ton 69.41 1,620 112,444 2,025 140,555
Dump charges for construction debris CY 18.42 1,000 18,420 1,000 18,420
Landfill nonhazardous waste disposal CY 44.00 1,200 52,800 1,500 66,000
Landfill hazardous waste disposal Ton 233.32 0 0 2,835 661,462
Disposal Subtotal $204,439 $941,507
Total Cost $250,832 $1,022,062
Notes
Unit cosls were obtained from the ECHOS Environmental Restoration Unit Cost Book and vendor price quotes.
Hazardous waste disposal at Class I Landfill.
Soil density h assumed to be 100 pounds/CF.
BTEX Benzene, cthylbenzene, toluene, and xylencs.
CF Cubic foot
CY Cubic yard.
ECHOS Environmental cost handling options and solutions.
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
RT Round trip.
SY Square yard.
TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure.
UST Underground storage tank.
(2) Shallow water table investigation
PRC collected a groundwater grab sample for field analy-
sis to determine whether TPH fuels were present in the
shallow water table.
(3) Borrow canal investigation
On February 21, 1997, PRC collected a sediment grab
sample designated C6-Sediment from the shoreline of the
borrow canal at a location east-northeast of Probe C6,
for field analysis to determine whether site runoff had
impacted the surface water body and potentially contami-
nated the sediments (Figure 3). Section 4.3 discusses the
analytical results.
(4) Underground Storage Tanks
Investigation
PRC inspected the seven USTs through their fill ports
(access ports) by using a water level indicator, Kolor
Kut™ colorimetric fuel gauging paste, and Sludge
Judges™. PRC determined that each of the four gaso-
line USTs was a 3000-gallon horizontal tank, 18 feet long
and 64 inches hi diameter. PRC collected a grab sample
from one of the gasoline USTs for field GC analysis to
confirm the presence of TPH fuels.
The three diesel fuel USTs were not labeled; however,
based on the location of the USTs (behind the store) and
44
-------
Table C3. Cost Estimate for Cleanup Option 3: Excavation, Onsite Bioremediation (Landfarming) and Offsite Disposal
Item/Description
Site Preparation
Demolish reinforced concrete
Demolish existing building
Load and haul debris
Fertilize, seed, and sprig surface soil
Preparation Subtotal
UST Decomissioning
Excavate and load on trailer, SOOOrgallon
Remove sludge
Dispose of sludge
Known leaking UST excavation
Haul tank to salvage dump, 100-mile RT
UST Subtotal
Site Earthwork
1-GY hydraulic excavator
Loading into truck
Backfill, unclassified fill, 6-inch lift, offsite
Earthwork Subtotal
Sampling, Testing, and Analysis
Soil lab analysis: TCLP metals
Soil lab analysis: BTEX
Soil lab analysis: PAHs
Soil lab analysis: metals, (8)
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
Analytical Subtotal
Disposal
Transportation 100-mile RT, 20-CY loads
Waste stream evaluation fee
Dump charges for construction debris
Landfill hazardous waste disposal
Disposal Subtotal
Onsite Bioremediation
Land treatment, 2 feet deep
Backfill, unclassified fill, 6-inch lift, onsite
Onsite Bioremediation Subtotal
Total Cost
Unit
CY
CF
CY
SY
Each
Each
Gallon
Each
Each
CY
CY
CY
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Mile
Each
CY
Ton
Acre
CY
Unit Cost
51.06
0.06
3.57
1.10
465.00
172.00
2.45
465.00
525.00
3.14
1.55
7.35
693.81
123.69
298.37
148.41
116.67
3.38
494.71
.18.42
233.32
8,762.22
4.78
Industrial
Quantity
100
60,000
1,000
450
7
7
200
1
7
1,200
1,200
0
5
10
10
5
0
0
0
1,000
0
0.40
1,500
Industrial
Cost ($)
5,106
3,600
3,570
495
$12,276
3,255
1,204
490
465
3,675
$9,089
3,768
1860
0
$5,628
3,469
1,237
2,984
742
0
$8,432
0
0
18,420
0
$18,420
3,505
7,170
$10,675
$64,520
Residential
Quantity
100
60,000
1,000
0
7
7
200
1
7
3,600
3,600
2,600
5
10
10
5
10
10,500
1
1,000
2,835
0.50
1,800
Residential
Cost ($)
5,106
3,600
3,570
0
$12,276
3,255
1,204
490
465
3,675
$9,089
11,304
5,580
19,110
$35,994
3,469
1,237
2,984
742
1,167
$9,598
35,490
495
18,420
661,462
$715,867
1,752
8,604
$10,356
$793,181
Notes
Unit costs were obtained from the ECHOS Environmental Restoration Unit Cost Book and vendor price quotes.
Hazardous waste disposal at Class I Landfill.
Soil density is assumed to be 100 pounds/CF.
BTEX Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes.
CF Cubic foot.
CY Cubic yard.
ECHOS Environmental cost handling options and solutions.
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
RT Round trip.
SY Square yard.
TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure.
UST Underground storage tank.
the nature of their contents (diesel fuel odor), PRC as-
sumed that the USTs stored diesel fuel. Based on field
measurements and industry standards, PRC determined
that two of the three diesel USTs were 3000-gallon hori-
zontal tanks, measuring 18 feet long and 64 inches in
diameter. PRC could not determine the dimensions of
UST No. 7 on the basis of field measurements.
(5) Existing Truck Stop and Service
Station Building Investigation
CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM) assisted the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ)
in collecting 14 asbestos samples from uniform areas
within, and outside of, the existing building. CDM also
tested 18 different areas within the existing building for
lead-based paint.
C) Investigation Results
This section summarizes the analytical results for the
samples collected at the Powers Junction site. PRC fol-
lowed analytical guidelines outlined in the site-specific
quality assurance project plan. Analytical data were com-
pared to EPA screening levels and LDEQ risk-based cor-
45
-------
Table C4. Cost Estimate for Cleanup Option 4: Excavation, In situ Bioremediation (Bioventing) and Offsite Disposal
Item/Description
Unit
Unit Cost
Industrial
Quantity
Industrial
Cost ($)
Residential
Quantity
Residential
Cost ($)
Site Preparation
Demolish reinforced concrete
Demolish existing building
Load and haul debris
Fertilize, seed, and sprig surface soil
Preparation Subtotal
UST Decomissloning
Excavate and load on trailer, 3000-gallon
Remove sludge
Dispose of sludge
Known leaking UST excavation
Haul tank to salvage dump, 100-mile RT
UST Subtotal
Site Earthwork
1-CY hydraulic excavator
Loading into truck
Backfill, unclassified fill, 6-inch lift, offsite
Earthwork Subtotal
Sampling, Testing, and Analysis
Soil lab analysis: TCLP metals
Soil lab analysis: BTEX
SoM lab analysis: PAHs
Son lab analysis: metals, (8)
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
Analytical Subtotal
Disposal
Transportation 100-mile RT, 20-CY loads
Waste stream evaluation fee
Low-temperature thermal desorption
Dump charges for construction debris
Landfill nonhazardous waste disposal
Landfill hazardous waste disposal
Disposal Subtotal
In situ Bioremediation
Bioventing, 5 feet deep
In situ Bioremediation Subtotal
Total Cost
CY
Cubic foot
CY
SY
Each
Each
Gallon
Each
Each
CY
CY
CY
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Mile
Each
Ton
CY
CY
Ton
51.06
0.06
3.57
1.10
465.00
172.00
2.45
465.00
525.00
3.14
1.55
7.35
693.81
123.69
298.37
148.41
116.67
3.38
494.71
69.41
18.42
44.00
233.32
100
60,000
1,000
450
7
7
200
1
7
600
600
750
5
10
10
5
0
3,000
1
810
1,000
600
0
Lump sum 12,163.08
1.00
5,106
3,600
3,570
495
$12,771
3,255
1,204
490
465
3,675
$9,089
1,884
930
5,513
$8,327
3,469
1,237
2,984
742
0
$8,432
10,140
495
56,222
18,420
26,400
0
$111,677
12,163
$12,163
$162,458
100
60,000
1,000
0
7
7
200
1
7
2,700
2,700
3,370
5
10
10
5
10
13,500
2
810
1,000
0
3,645
1.00
5,106
3,600
3,570
0
$12,276
3,255
1,204
490
465
3,675
$9,089
8,478
4,185
24,770
$37,433
3,469
1,237
2,984
742
1,167
$9,598
45,630
989
56,222
18,420
0
850,451
$971,713
12,163
$12,163
$1,052,272
Notes
Unit costs were obtained from the ECHOS Environmental Restoration Unit Cost Book and vendor price quotes.
Hazardous waste disposal at Class I Landfill.
Soil density is assumed to be 100 pounds/CF.
BTEX Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes.
CY Cubic yard.
ECHOS Environmental cost handling options and solutions.
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
RT Round trip.
SY Square yard.
TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure.
UST Underground storage tank.
rective action levels (CAL) to determine areas of con-
cern.
(1) Surface and Subsurface Soil
Investigation Results
Analytical results indicate that there are three distinct
areas of soil contamination: (1) the gasoline fueling area
in the vicinity of the gasoline USTs, which is contami-
nated with benzene and TPH gasoline; (2) the diesel fu-
eling area, in the vicinity of the diesel USTs, which is
contaminated with TPH-diesel, PAHs, and lead; and (3)
the former truck repair area in the northeast sector of the
site, which is contaminated with metals.
Analytical results indicated that one or more of the four
gasoline USTs were leaking into the shallow water table.
Contamination appeared to be vertically limited to the
water table (4 feet bgs) and top 4 feet of soil, and hori-
zontally limited to the gasoline fueling area. In the vi-
cinity of the diesel fueling area, several PAHs were
46
-------
Former Truck
Repair Area
Former Motel Foundation i
Existing Building
(See Figure 4)
Legend:
UST - Underground Storage Tank
+ Soil Probe Location
Gasoline UST and Fill Port
Diesel UST and Fill Port
Sediment Sample Location
Ground Water Sample Location
Fuel Island
No Recovery Soil
/
0 25 50
Scale in Feet
Figured. Soil probe location map.
47
-------
detected at (1) concentrations exceeding the EPA Region
6 Human Health Media-Specific Screening Levels for
residential, and in some cases industrial, soil from 0 to 1
foot bgs, and (2) decreasing concentrations from 1 to 2
feetbgs. No PAHs were detected at 4 feet bgs. Field and
CLP analysis indicated that the diesel USTs were not leak-
ing. Surface PAH and TPH-diesel contamination may be
attributable to historical diesel fuel spillage, overflow
from one of the tanks, or proximity to a highway. Analy-
sis of soil samples in the vicinity of the former truck re-
pair area detected chromium and lead at concentrations
exceeding the EPA Region 6 Human Health Media Spe-
cific Screening Levels for residential soil.
(2) Shallow Water Table Investigation
Results
Analysis of a groundwater sample collected from the area
immediately south of the gasoline USTs, detected ben-
zene, ethylbenzene, and TPH-gasoline. Benzene and
ethylbenzene concentrations exceeded EPA drinking
water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for these
VOCs. The TPH gasoline concentration exceeded the
proposed LDEQ CAL for groundwater. The shallow
groundwater is not used locally as a drinking water source;
therefore the MCLs may not apply to the shallow water
table. Analytical results indicated that one or more of the
four gasoline USTs are leaking into the shallow water
table.
(3) Borrow Canal Investigation Results
Analysis of a sediment sample collected from the south-
em shore of the borrow canal did not detect organic con-
taminants at concentrations above EPA Region 6 Human
Health Media-Specific Screening Levels for soil. No
metals analysis was conducted.
(4) Underground Storage Tanks
Investigation Results
Analysis of the contents of the USTs confirmed that: (1)
the four USTs in front of the existing building contained
gasoline or a mixture of gasoline and water, and (2) the
three USTs behind the existing building contained diesel
fuel or a mixture of diesel fuel and water.
(5) Existing Truck Stop and Service
Station Building Investigation
Results
Asbestos was detected in five of 14 building material
samples. Lead was detected in three of 18 paint surfaces
tested.
D) Analytical Results
Analytical results were compared to (1) EPA Region 6
Human Health Media-Specific Screening Levels for in-
dustrial and residential soil and (2) proposed LDEQ risk-
based CALs for petroleum hydrocarbons in industrial and
non-industrial soil, in order to establish remedial action
levels for the Powers Junction site.
Analytical results indicate that the contents of one or more
of the four gasoline USTs are leaking into the shallow
water table. Contamination appears to be (1) vertically
limited to the water table (4 feet bgs) and top 4 feet of
soil, and (2) horizontally limited to the gasoline fueling
area. The data indicated the following exceedances in
soils within the gasoline fueling area:
• EPA Region 6 screening levels and LDEQ CALs for
industrial soil
Benzene at Probe A1B1
• EPA Region 6 screening levels and LDEQ CALs for
residential or nonindustrial soil
Benzene at Probes Al and A2
- TPH-gasoline at Probe A1B1
Analytical data indicate that the diesel USTs are not leak-
ing. Diesel fuel contamination appears to be limited to
the top 2 feet of soil and to the area defined by Probes
A3, A4, and B3. Analyses of soil from Probes B2 and Cl
revealed no diesel-related contamination. The data indi-
cated the following exceedances in soils within the die-
sel fueling area:
• EPA Region 6 screening levels and LDEQ CALs for
industrial soil
- PAHs at Probes A3 and A4
• EPA Region 6 screening levels and LDEQ CALs for
residential or nonindustrial soil
- PAHs at Probes A3 and A4
- TPH-diesel at Probe B3
Lead at Probe A4
Surface PAH and diesel fuel contamination within the
diesel fueling area may be attributable to (1) historical
diesel fuel spillage from the nearby fueling island, (2)
48
-------
overflow from diesel UST No. 7, which has an open fill
port, and/or (3) the proximity of U.S. Highway 11 and its
associated roadway paving activities, including asphalt
resurfacing and road surface runoff.
Analytical results indicate the presence of chromium, lead,
and TPH-diesel from 0 to 1 foot bgs in the vicinity of the
former truck repair area. No organic constituents were
detected at concentrations above the EPA Region 6 Hu-
man Health Media-Specific Screening Levels for indus-
trial and residential soil. The data indicated the following
exceedances in soils within the former truck repair area:
• No exceedances in soils of EPA Region 6 screening
levels and LDEQ CALs for industrial soil
• EPA Region 6 screening levels and LDEQ CALs for
residential or nonindustrial soil
Chromium at Probes E2 and E3
- Lead at Probe El
Analytical results indicate chromium at Probes A6, B6,
and Dl which are not associated with the gasoline and
diesel fueling areas, or the former truck repair area at
concentrations exceeding EPA Region 6 screening level
for residential soil. At Probe Dl, the chromium concen-
tration also exceeds the EPA Region 6 screening level
for industrial soil.
Lead-based paint and asbestos contaminated media
(ACMs) are in the existing building.
Before remedial activities can begin, additional sampling
and subsurface investigation may be required at the site,
including the following:
• Determine the extent of contamination, hi the shal-
low water table and subsurface soil, resulting from
one or more leaking gasoline USTs.
• Determine the orientation of the diesel fuel USTs to
facilitate removal, and evaluate surrounding soils for
any potential contamination resulting from leaks.
• Before the existing building is demolished, conduct
a thorough assessment for asbestos and lead-based
paint.
• If the site is to be developed for residential use, col-
lect and analyze additional confirmatory samples
from hot spot locations, such as Probes A6 and B6,
to confirm these areas of potential remedial concern,
which are not associated with historical fueling and
truck repair activities.
• For remedial options other than excavation and offsite
disposal, characterize the soil matrices to determine
their compatibility with remedial processes.
• In the case of excavation and offsite disposal, the dis-
posal facility may require that soils be analyzed for
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP)
metals or other offsite disposal requirements.
E) Cleanup Alternatives and
Associated Costs
FWS is interested in redeveloping the site as an environ-
mental education center (industrial use) for the Bayou
Sauvage Wildlife Refuge area. However, as directed by
EPA Region 6, PRC evaluated cleanup options for the
site on the basis of both industrial and residential soil
screening levels.
Based on current site conditions, and analytical results
from the field investigation, PRC proposes the following
four cleanup alternatives:
• Cleanup Option 1: Excavation and Offsite Treatment
and Disposal (Risk-Based approach)
UST removal and decommissioning
- Demolition of existing building
Excavation and offsite treatment and disposal of
soils contaminated with benzene and TPH-gaso-
line
Risk-based cleanup approach to remaining sur-
face soil contaminated with TPH-diesel, PAHs,
and chromium (industrial use scenario)
• Cleanup Option 2: Excavation and Offsite Treatment
and Disposal
UST removal and decommissioning
Demolition of existing building
Excavation and offsite treatment and disposal of
soils contaminated with benzene and PAHs
Excavation and offsite disposal of soils contami-
nated with metals (residential use scenario); for
49
-------
the industrial use scenario, surface soil areas con-
taminated with chromium will be revegetated.
• Cleanup Option 3: Excavation, Onsite Bioremedia-
tion (Landfarming) and Offsite Disposal
UST removal and decommissioning
Demolition of existing building
Excavation and onsite bioremediation
(landfarming) of soils contaminated with TPH
fuels and PAHs; for the industrial use scenario,
chromium contaminated soils will be revegetated.
Excavation and offsite disposal of soils contami-
nated with metals (residential use scenario)
• Cleanup Option 4: Excavation, In situ Bioremedia-
tion (Bioventing) and Offsite Disposal
UST removal and decommissioning
Demolition of existing building
In situ bioremediation (bioventing) of soils con-
taminated with TPH-gasoline and benzene
Revegetation of surface areas of soil contami-
nated with chromium (industrial use scenario)
Excavation and offsite disposal of soils contami-
nated with TPH-diesel, PAHs, and metals (resi-
dential use scenario)
PRC estimated preliminary costs for the proposed cleanup
options by using (1) the Environmental Cost Handling
Options Solution (ECHOS) Cost Data Book (Delta Tech-
nologies Group 1995), and (2) vendor price quotes. Tables
1, 2, 3, and 4 present the cost estimate for each of the
proposed cleanup options.
The following assumptions apply to all of the proposed
remedial options:
• Concrete to be removed is nonhazardous.
• All remedial options include demolition of the exist-
ing building (120 feet long by 50 feet wide by 10 feet
high) and concrete (about 100 cubic yards [yd3]), and
removal of the seven 3000-gallon USTs.
• Radius of influence (about 4,000 square feet [ft2])
for contamination at a probe location is one-half the
distance between probe locations.
• Areas requiring remediation were estimated on the
basis of EPARegion 6 Human Health Screening Lev-
els for industrial and residential soils; TPH gasoline,
TPH-diesel, and PAH cleanup levels are based on
proposed LDEQ risk based CALs for industrial and
nonindustrial soil.
• There is natural attenuation of contaminated shallow
water table (4 feet bgs); therefore, groundwater
remediation will not be considered in any of the pro-
posed remedial options.
• The existing building will be demolished and dis-
posed of as nonhazardous solid waste (construction.
debris); however, special precautions will be taken
to minimize airborne distribution of lead-based paint
and ACMs during the demolition.
• The treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for
hazardous and nonhazardous waste are within a 100-
mile round trip of the Powers Junction site.
Cleanup Option 1: Excavation and Offsite Treatment and
Disposal (Risk-Based Approach)
Cleanup Option 1 involves the following task's for indus-
trial cleanup requirements:
• Demolish and dispose of the existing building and
concrete (Site Preparation).
• Excavate and decommission the seven 3000-gallon
USTs, including at least one leaking gasoline UST
(UST Decommissioning).
• Excavate an estimated 600 yd3 of benzene-contami-
nated soil (0 to 4 feet bgs) associated with the leak-
ing gasoline UST(s) (Probe A1B1) (Site Earthwork).
• Treat the 600 yd3 of benzene-contaminated soil offsite
by using low-temperature thermal desorption, fol-
lowed by offsite landfill disposal as nonhazardous
waste (Disposal).
• Backfill the excavated area with of unclassified fill
from an offsite source (Site Earthwork).
50
-------
A risk-based industrial cleanup approach including reveg-
etation of contaminated surface soils will be applied to
the remaining areas of soil contaminated with PAHs and
chromium from 0 to 2 feet bgs (surface contamination)
(Probes A3, A4, and Dl), which will consider the fol-
lowing factors:
• Proposed LDEQ Risk-Based Corrective Action Plan
approach
• Natural attenuation of surface soil contamination with
consideration of any potential migration to receptors
• Future land use and proximity of receptors
Cleanup under Option 1 would require about 1 to 2 months
to complete.
Cleanup Option 2: Excavation and Offsite Treatment and
Disposal
Cleanup Option 2 involves the following tasks for nidus-
trial cleanup levels:
• Demolish and dispose of the existing building and
concrete (Site Preparation).
• Excavate and decommission the seven 3000-gallon
USTs, including at least one leaking gasoline UST
(UST Decommissioning).
• Excavate an estimated 1,200 yd3 of PAH- and ben-
zene-contaminated soil associated with the fueling
areas (Probes A3, A4, and A1B1) (Site Earthwork).
• Treat the 1,200 yd3 of PAH- and benzene-contami-
nated soil offsite by using low temperature thermal
desorption, followed by offsite landfill disposal as
nonhazardous waste (Disposal).
• Fertilize, seed, and sprig the 4000-square foot (ft2)
area of chromium-contaminated soil (0-2 feet bgs)
(Probe Dl) (Site Preparation).
• Backfill the excavated area with unclassified fill from
an offsite source (Site Earthwork).
Costs will increase considerably to meet residential
cleanup levels, based on the following variations:
• Excavate an estimated 1,500 yd3 of TPH-, PAH-, and
benzene-contaminated soil associated with the fuel-
ing areas (Probes A3, A1B1, and B3) (Site
Earthwork).
• Treat the 1,500 yd3 of TPH-, PAH-, and benzene-con-
taminated soil offsite by using low-temperature ther-
mal desorption, followed by offsite landfill disposal
as nonhazardous waste (Disposal).
• Excavate an estimated 2,100 yd3 of soil (0 to 2 feet
bgs) contaminated with PAHs, chromium, and lead
(Probes A4, A6, B6, Dl, El, E2, and E3) (Site
Earthwork).
• Dispose of the 2,100 yd3 metals-contaminated soil
offsite, in a Class I hazardous waste landfill (Dis-
posal).
• Backfill the excavated area with unclassified fill from
an offsite source (Site Earthwork).
If the metals-contaminated soil passes TCLP analysis for
barium, chromium, and lead, disposal costs will be sub-
stantially lower, based on offsite treatment for TPH-die-
sel and PAHs, followed by disposal as nonhazardous
waste.
Cleanup under Option 2 would require about 1 to 2 months
to complete.
Cleanup Option 3: Excavation, Onsite Bioremediation and
Offsite Disposal
Cleanup Option 3 involves the following tasks for indus-
trial cleanup levels:
• Demolish and dispose of the existing building and
concrete (Site Preparation).
• Excavate and decommission the seven 3000-gallon
USTs, including at least one leaking gasoline UST
(UST Decommissioning).
• Excavate an estimated 1,200 .yd3 of PAH- and ben-
zene-contaminated soil associated with the fueling
areas (Probes A3, A4, and A1B1) (Site Earthwork).
• Fertilize, seed, and sprig the 4000 ft2 area of chro-
mium-contaminated soil (0 to 2 feet bgs) (Probe Dl)
(Site Preparation).
• Treat the 1,200 yd3 of PAH- and benzene-contami-
nated soil onsite by using bioremediation (land treat-
ment 2 feet deep by 0.4 acre) (Onsite Bioremediation).
• Backfill the excavated areas with 1,500 yd3 of
bioremediated soil (soil volume increases 20 percent
51
-------
[+300 yd3] after land treatment) (Onsite Bioremedia-
tion).
Costs will increase considerably to meet residential
cleanup levels, based on the following variations:
• Excavate an estimated 1,500 yd3 of TPH-, PAH-, and
benzene-contaminated soil associated with the fuel-
ing areas (Probes A3, A1B1, and B3) (Site
Earthwork).
• Treat the TPH-, PAH-, and benzene-contaminated soil
onsite by using bioremediation (landfarming) (Onsite
Bioremediation).
• Excavate an estimated 2,100 yd3 of soil (0 to 2 feet
bgs) contaminated with PAHs, chromium, and lead
(Probes A4, A6, B6, Dl, El, E2, and E3) (Site Earth-
work).
• Dispose of the 2,100 yd3 of metals-contaminated soil
offsite in a Class I hazardous waste landfill (Disposal).
• Backfill the excavated areas with the 1,800 yd3 of
bioremediated soil (soil volume increases 20 percent
[+300 yd3] after land treatment) (Site Earthwork).
• Use offsite unclassified fill to supplement backfill-
ing any remaining areas (Site Earthwork).
Chromium concentrations are not reduced by using this
method; however, mixing with soils not contaminated
with chromium may reduce the metals concentration by
dilution. Treated soils are returned to the excavation from
where they originated. Duration of treatment can last
from 6 to 18 months, depending on the degradation rates
of the contaminants that are being treated.
Cleanup Option 4: Excavation, In Situ Bioremediation
and Offsite Disposal
Cleanup Option 4 involves the following tasks for indus-
trial cleanup levels:
• Demolish and dispose of the existing building and
concrete (Site Preparation).
• Excavate and decommission the seven 3000-gallon
USTs, including at least one leaking gasoline UST
(UST Decommissioning).
• Excavate an estimated 600 yd3 of PAH-contaminated
soil from the diesel fueling area (Probes A3 and A4)
(Site Earthwork).
• Treat the 600 yd3 of PAH-contaminated soil offsite
by using low-temperature thermal desorption, fol-
lowed by disposal as nonhazardous waste (Disposal).
• Fertilize, seed, and sprig the 4,000 ft2 area of chro-
mium-contaminated soil (0-2 feet bgs) (Probe Dl)
(Site Preparation).
• Treat the area contaminated with TPH-gasoline and
benzene (Probe A1B1) by using in situ bioremediation
(bioventing) (In Situ Bioremediation).
As an alternative, land treatment may be used to treat, on
site, the soil contaminated with PAHs.
Costs will increase considerably to meet residential
cleanup levels, based on the following variations:
• Excavate an estimated 600 yd3 of soil contaminated
with TPH-diesel and PAHs from the diesel fueling
area (Probes A3 and B3) (Site Earthwork).
• Treat the 600 yd3 of TPH- and PAH-contaminated
soil offsite by using low temperature thermal des-
orption, followed by disposal as nonhazardous waste
(Disposal).
• Excavate an estimated 2,100 yd3 of soil (0 to 2 feet
bgs) contaminated with TPH diesel, PAHs, chro-
mium, and lead (Probes A4, A6, B6, Dl, El, E2, and
E3) (Site Earthwork).
• Dispose of the 2,100 yd3 of metals-contaminated soil
offsite in a Class I hazardous waste landfill (Disposal).
• Treat the area contaminated with TPH-gasoline and
benzene (Probe A1B1) by using in situ bioremedia-
tion (bioventing) (In Situ Bioremediation).
• Backfill excavated area with of unclassified fill from
an offsite source (Site Earthwork).
If the metals-contaminated soil passes TCLP analysis for
barium, chromium, and lead, disposal costs will be sub-
stantially lower, based on disposal as nonhazardous waste.
As an alternative, land treatment may be used, on site, to
bioremediate the soil contaminated with TPH-diesel,
PAHs, and metals; this will eliminate the costs of trans-
portation, offsite disposal, and offsite backfill. Metals
52
-------
concentrations are not reduced by using this method;
however, mixing with soils not contaminated with chro-
mium may reduce the metals concentration by dilution.
Duration of treatment can last from 6 to 18 months, de-
pending on the degradation rates of the contaminants that
are being treated.
Appendix C References
Delta Technologies Group.. 1995. Environmental Cost
Handling Options and Solutions (ECHOS) Cost Data
Book.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ).
1997. Proposed LDEQ Risk-Based Corrective Action
Program (Draft). March 14.
PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (PRC). 1997a.
Field Sampling Plan for Powers Junction Brownfield Site,
New Orleans, Louisiana. February 4.
PRC Environmental Management. 1997b. Quality Assur-
ance Project Plan for Powers Junction Brownfield Site,
New Orleans, Louisiana, February 14.
53
-------
Appendix D
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 22161, (703-605-6000).
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 Assessment (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 510-B-97-001).
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
(EPA542-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 (EPA 540-MR-95-520,
EPA540R-95-520).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Site Characterization and Monitoring:
ABibliography of EPA Information Resources (EPA542-
B-96-001).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Soil Screening Guidance (540/R-96/
128).
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).
54
-------
U.S. EPA. 1995. Rapid Optical Screen Tool (ROST™)
(EPA 540-MR-95-519, EPA 540-R-95-519).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Risk Assessment Guidance for Super-
fund. http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/Catalog/
EPA540R95132.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 hi the Future. http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/Catalog/
EPA600-R-93-039.html.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Guidance for Evaluating the Technical
Impracticability of Groundwater 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 26-28,1991)
(PB92-216894).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Conducting Treatability Studies Under
RCRA (OSWER Directive 9380.3-09FS, PB92-963501)
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guidance for Data Useability in Risk
Assessment (Part A) (9285.7-09A).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatability 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).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guide for Conducting Treatability Stud-
ies Under CERCLA: Aerobic Biodegradation Remedy
Screening (EPA 540-2-9l-013a&b, PB92-109065 &
PB92-109073).
US. EPA. 1991. Interim Guidance for Dermal Exposure
Assessment (EPA 600-8-91-011A).
U.S. EPA. 1990. A New Approach and Methodologies
for Characterizing the Hydrogeologic Properties of 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).
55
-------
U.S.G.S. http://www.mapping.usgs.gov/esic/to_
order.hmtl.
Vendor Field Analytical and Characterization Technolo-
gies System (VendorFACTS), Version 1.0 (Vendor FACTS
can be downloadedfrom 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. 1995. Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective
Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites. American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM E1739-95).
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 Semivolatile Or-
ganics (ORNL-6451).
Robbat, Albert, Jr. 1997. Dynamic Workplans and Field
Analytics: Tlie Keys to Cost Effective Site Characteriza-
tion and Cleanup. Tufts University under Cooperative
Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. October 1997.
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 Superfund Site, Libby, Montana (EPA
540-R-96-500).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Bibliography for Innovative Site Clean-
Up Technologies (EPA 542-B-96-003).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Bioremediation of Hazardous Wastes:
Research, Development, and Field Evaluations (EPA 540-
R-95-532, PB96-130729).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Citizen's Guides to Understanding In-
novative Treatment Technologies (EPA542-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 Technologies for Contami-
nated Soils, Sludges, Sediments, and Debris (EPA
542-F-96-001, EPA 542-F-96-017)
• Phytoremediation (EPA 542-F-96-014, EPA 542-
F-96-025)
• Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging (EPA
542-F-96-008, EPA 542-F-96-024)
• Soil Washing (EPA 542-F-96-002, EPA 542-F-
96-018)
• Solvent Extraction (EPA 542-F-96-003, EPA 542-
F-96-019)
• Thermal Desorption (EPA 542-F-96-005, EPA
542-F-96-021)
• Treatment Walls (EPA 542-F-96-016, EPA 542-
F-96-027)
U.S. EPA. 1996. Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:
Markets and Technology Trends (1996 Edition) (EPA 542-
R-96-005, PB96-178041).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Completed North American Innovative
Technology Demonstration Projects (EPA542-B-96-002,
PB96-153127).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Cone Penetrometer/Laser Induced Fluo-
rescence (LIF) Technology Verification Program: Fact
Sheet (EPA542-F-96-009b).
56
-------
U.S. EPA. 1996. EPA Directive: Initiatives to Promote
Innovative Technologies in Waste Management Programs
(EPA540-F-96-012).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Errata to Guide to EPA Materials on
Underground Storage Tanks (EPA 510-F-96-002)
U.S. EPA. 1996. How to Effectively Recover Free Prod-
uct at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide
for State Regulators (EPA510-F-96-001; Fact Sheet: EPA
510-F-96-005).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Innovative Treatment Technologies:
Annual Status Report Database (ITT Database).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Introducing TANK Racer (EPA 510-F96-
001).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Market Opportunities for Innovative Site
Cleanup Technologies: Southeastern States (EPA 542-R-
96-007, PB96-199518).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Recent Developments for In Situ 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, PB96-164538).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies
(EPA542-R-95-001, PB95-201711).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Accessing Federal Data Bases for Con-
taminated Site Clean-Up Technologies, Fourth Edition
(EPA542-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:
• Public Service Company of Colorado (EPA 540-
F-95-506d) .
• Escambia Wood Preserving Site, FL (EPA 540-
F-95-506g)
• Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation, MN (EPA
540-F-95-506h)
U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation Final Performance
Evaluation of the Prepared Bed Land Treatment System,
Champion International Superfund Site, Libby, Montana:
Volume I, Text (EPA 600-R-95-156a); Volume H, 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. Contaminants and Remedial Options at
Selected Metal Contaminated Sites (EPA 540-R-95-512,
PB95-271961).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Development of aPhotothermal Detoxi-
fication Unit: Emerging Technology Summary (EPA 540-
SR-95-526); Emerging Technology Bulletin (EPA
540-F-95-505).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Electrokinetic Soil Processing: Emerg-
ing Technology Bulletin (EPA540-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 (EPA542-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 (EPA542-B-95-004,
PB96-145099).
Champion Site, Libby, MT(EPA 540-F-95-506a) U.S. EPA. 1995. Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable: 5 Years of Cooperation (EPA542-F-95-007).
Eielson Air Force Base, AK(EPA 540-F-95-506b)
U.S. EPA. 1995. Guide to Documenting Cost and Perfor-
Hill AirForce Base Superfund Site, UT (EPA 540- mance for Remediation Projects (EPA 542-B-95-002,
F-95-506c) PB95-182960).
57
-------
U.S. EPA. 1995. In Situ Metal-Enhanced Abiotic Degra-
dation Process Technology, Environmental Technologies,
Inc.: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA540-MR-95-510).
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. Intrinsic Bioremediation of Fuel Con-
tamination in Ground Water at a Field Site (EPA 600-A-
95-141, PB96-139084).
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 (EPA540-R-95-529a).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Lessons Learned About In Situ Air
Sparging at the Denison Avenue Site, Cleveland, Ohio
(Project Report), Assessing UST Corrective Action Tech-
nologies (EPA 600-R-95-040, PB95-188082).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Microbial Activity in Subsurface
Samples Before and During Nitrate-Enhanced
Bioremediation (EPA 600-A-95-109, PB95-274239).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Musts for USTS: A Summary of the
Regulations for Underground Tank Systems (EPA 510-
K-95-002).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Natural Attenuation of Trichloroethene
at the St. Joseph, Michigan, Superfund Site (EPA 600-
SV-95-001).
U.S. EPA. 1995. New York State Multi-Vendor
Bioremediation: Ex Situ Biovault, ENSR Consulting and
Engineering/Larson Engineers: Demonstration Bulletin
(EPA540-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 hi Reducing Impediments to
the Use of Innovative Remediation Technology (EPA542-
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. 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 (EPA542-B-95-001).
U.S. EPA. 1995. SITE Emerging Technology Program
(EPA540-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, PB95-963315).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Surfactant Injection for Ground Water
Remediation: State Regulators' Perspectives and Experi-
ences (EPA542-R-95-011, PB96-164546).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Symposium on Bioremediation of Haz-
ardous Wastes: Research, Development, and Field Evalu-
58
-------
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)
• Ground-water Treatment Technology Resource
Guide (EPA 542-B-94-009, PB95-138657)
• Physical/Chemical Treatment Technology Re-
source Guide (EPA 542-B-94-008, PB95-138665)
• Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Enhancement Tech-
nology Resource Guide: Air Sparging,
Bioventing, Fracturing, and Thermal Enhance-
ments (EPA 542-B-95-003)
• Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Treatment Technol-
ogy Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-94-007)
U.S. EPA. 1995. Waste Vitrification Through Electric
Melting, Ferro Corporation: Emerging Technology Bul-
letin (EPA540-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)
(EPA510-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
Treatment (EPA 540-2-90-015, PB91-228031)
• Chemical Oxidation Treatment (EPA 540-2-91-
025)
• In Situ Biodegradation Treatment (EPA 540-S-
94-502, PB94-190469)
• In Situ Soil Flushing (EPA 540-2-91-021)
• In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment (EPA
540-2-91-006, PB91-228072)
• In Situ Steam Extraction Treatment (EPA 540-2-
91-005, PB91-2228064)
• 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)
• Selection of Control Technologies for
Remediation of Lead Battery Recycling Sites
(EPA 540-S-92-011, PB93-121333)
• Slurry Biodegradation (EPA 540-2-90-016,
PB91-228049)
• Soil Washing Treatment (EPA 540-2-90-017,
PB91-228056)
• Solidification/Stabilization of Organics and In-
organics (EPA 540-S-92-015)
• Solvent Extraction Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-
503, PB94-190477)
• Supercritical Water Oxidation (EPA 540-S-92-
006)
• Technology Preselection Data Requirements
(EPA 540-S-92-009)
• Thermal Desorption Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-
501, PB94-160603)
U.S. EPA. 1994. Field Investigation of Effectiveness of
Soil Vapor Extraction Technology (Final Project Report)
(EPA600-R-94-142, PB94-205531).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Ground Water Treatment Technologies
Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-94-009, PB95-138657).
U.S. EPA. 1994. How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup
Technologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A
Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers (EPA 510-
B-94-003, S/N 055-000-00499-4); Pamphlet (EPA 510-
F-95-003).
U.S. EPA. 1994. In Situ Steam Enhanced Recovery Pro-
cess, Hughes Environmental Systems, Inc.: Innovative
59
-------
Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 540-R-94-510,
PB95-271854); Site Technology Capsule (EPA 540-R-
94-510a, PB95-270476).
U.S. EPA. 1994. In Situ Vitrification, Geosafe 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 (EPA542-R-94-002,
PB95-138418).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Radio Frequency Heating, KAI Tech-
nologies, Inc.: Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
(EPA540-R-94-528); Site Technology Capsule (EPA 540-
R-94-52Sa, PB95-249454).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Regional Market Opportunities for In-
novative Site Clean-up Technologies: Middle Atlantic
States (EPA542-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 (EPA542-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 (EPA540-S-94-503, PB94-190477).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Solvent Extraction Treatment System,
Terra-Keen Response Group, Inc. (EPA540-MR-94-521).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Status Reports on InSitu Treatment Tech-
nology Demonstration and Applications:.
• Altering Chemical Conditions (EPA 542-K-94-
008)
• Cosolvents (EPA 542-K-94-006)
• Electrokinetics (EPA 542-K-94-007)
• Hydraulic and Pneumatic Fracturing (EPA 542-
K-94-005)
• Surfactant Enhancements (EPA 542-K-94-003)
• Thermal Enhancements (EPA 542-K-94-009)
• Treatment Walls (EPA 542-K-94-004)
U.S. EPA. 1994. Subsurface Volatization and Ventilation
System (SWS): Innovative Technology Report (EPA
540-R-94-529, PB96-116488); Site Technology Capsule
(EPA540-R-94-529a, PB95-256111).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Superfund 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 (EPA540-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 (EPA 540-
AR-94-504).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Enhancements: Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 542-K-94-009).
U.S. EPA. 1994. The Use of Cationic Surfactants to
Modify Aquifer Materials to Reduce the Mobility of
60
-------
Hydrophobia Organic Compounds (EPA 600-S-94-002,
PB95-111951).
U.S. EPA. 1994. West Coast Remediation Marketplace;
Business Opportunities for Innovative Technologies
(Summary Proceedings) (EPA 542-R-94-008, PB95-
143319).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Accutech Pneumatic Fracturing 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
Bioremediation Process, Bio-Rem, Inc.: Demonstration
Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-527).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Bescorp Soil Washing System for Lead
Battery Site Treatment: Applications Analysis Report
(EPA 540-AR-93-503, PB95-1997841); Demonstration
Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-503).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Biogenesis Soil Washing Technology:
Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-510).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Bioremediation Resource Guide and
Matrix (EPA542-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-
100251, 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, U.S. EPA: Innovative Technology Evaluation Re-
port (EPA540-R-93-505, PB94-100161); Demonstration
Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-505).
U.S. EPA. 1993. HYPERVENTILATE: A Software 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
(EPA600-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).
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 (EPA540-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 (EPA540-AR-93-508,
PB94-130275).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Overview of UST Remediation Options
(EPA510-F-93-029).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Soil Recycling Treatment, Toronto
Harbour Commissioners (EPA 540-AR-93-517, PB94-
124674).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of
Innovative Site Remediation Technologies, Third Edition
(EPA542-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).
61
-------
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: An Analy-
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 (EPA540-AR-
92-002, PB93-101152); Demonstration Summary (EPA
540-SR-92-002).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Chemical Enhancements to Pump-and-
Treat Remediation (EPA540-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
(EPA540-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 (EPA600-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. Workshop on Removal, Recovery, Treat-
ment, and Disposal of Arsenic and Mercury (EPA 600-
R-92-105.PB92-216944).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Biological Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments, with Special Emphasis on the Great Lakes:
Report of a Workshop (EPA 600-9-91-001).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Debris Washing System, RREL. Tech-
nology Evaluation Report (EPA 540-5-91-006, PB91-
231456).
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 540-2-91-006, PB91-228072).
U.S. EPA. 1991. In Situ Steam Extraction: Engineering
Bulletin (EPA 540-2-91-005, PB91-228064).
U.S. EPA. 1991. In Situ Vapor Extraction and Steam
Vacuum Stripping, AWD Technologies (EPA 540-A5-91-
002, PB92-218379).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Pilot-Scale Demonstration of Slurry-
Phase Biological Reactor for Creosote-Contaminated Soil
(EPA 540-A5-91-009, PB94-124039).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Selection of Control Technologies for
Remediation of Lead Battery Recycling Sites (EPA 540-
2-91-014).
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 (EPA600-M-90-024, PB91-
240549).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment,
APEG Treatment: Engineering Bulletin (EPA 540-2-90-
015,PB91-228031).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Enhanced Bioremediation Utilizing
Hydrogen Peroxide as a Supplemental Source of Oxy-
gen: A Laboratory and Field Study (EPA 600-2-90-006,
PB90-183435).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Guide to Selecting Superfund Remedial
Actions (9355.0-27FS).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Slurry Biodegradation: Engineering
Bulletin (EPA 540-2-90-016, PB91-228049).
62
-------
U.S. EPA. 1990. Soil Washing Treatment: Engineering
Bulletin (EPA 540-2-90-017, PB91-228056).
U.S. EPA. 1989. Facilitated Transport (EPA 540-4-89-
003, PB91-133256).
U.S. EPA. 1989. Guide on Remedial Actions for 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. 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) Bulle-
tin 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
Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment
Technologies (VISITT), Version 4.0 (VISITT can be
downloaded from the Internet at http://www.prcemi. com/
visitt or from the CLU-IN Web site at http://clu-in.com).
63 "&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1999 - 750-101/00044
-------
------- |