United States
Environmental Protection
Office of the Administrator
Science Advisory Board (A-101)
401 M Street, SW
Washington DC 20460
July 1985
Review of the EPA
Ground Water Research

by the

Ground Water Research
Review Committee
Science Advisory Board

                             WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460

                               July 31,  1985
                                                                      OFFICE OF
                                                                  THE ADMINISTRATOR
 Hon.  Lee M.  Thomas
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
 401 M Street, S.  W.
 Washington,  D. C.-   20460

 Dear  Mr. Thomas:

 The Science  Advisory Board  has completed  its  review, which began on  December
 19, 1984,  of the  Agency's ground water  research program.  We are pleased  to
 forward  to you our report,  which has  been reviewed and approved by the SAB
 Executive  Committee.   We  find  that  the  research program as a whole is sound,
 but have also made a number of recommendations for improvement.  While these
 are not  listed in priority  order, the most important include:

      1.  The  need  for centralized direction and management of the ground water
         research  program.

      2.  The  need  for increased technology transfer and training.

      3.  The  need  for increased resources  (together with a recommendation  that
         Superfund monies  be authorized  for such research ).

 We would be  pleased to brief you .on the report's contents.

 Our job  was  greatly aided by the cooperation  and assistance we received from
 the Office of Research and  Development  and from the Office of Ground Water
 Protection,  and it has been a  pleasure  to work with them.

 If we  can  answer  any  questions, or  should you wish further review, please
 call upon  us.
                                               John Quarles, Chairman
                                           (/ Ground Water Research
                                                Review Committee
cc:  Dr. B. Goldstein
     Mr. Erich Bretthauer
     Mr. H. Longest
     Ms. M. Mlay
Norton Nelson, Chairman
Executive Committee
Science Advisory Board


           on the review of


                by the
Ground Water Research Review Committee
        Science Advisory Board
U. S. Environmental Protection.Agency
              July 1985

                              EPA NOTICE
This report has been written as a part of the activities of the Science
Advisory Board, a public advisory group providing extramural scientific
information and advice to the Administrator and other officials of the
Environmental Protection Agency*  The Board is structured to provide a
balanced expert assessment of scientific matters related to problems
facing the Agency.  This report has not been reviewed for approval by
the Agency, and hence the contents of this report do not necessarily
represent the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute en-
dorsement or recommendation for use*

                                Table of Contents
  I.  Principal Findings and Recommendations	    1

 II.  Introduction	    6

          The Nature of the Ground Water Problem	    6

          EPA's Authorities and Responsibilities to Protect  Ground Water  .    6

          Current EPA Activities	    7

          Committee Review Procedures	    8

III.  Description/Evaluation of EPA Ground Water Research
        Program	•	   10

          Source Control	   10

          Monitoring	   15

          Transport and Fate	   20

          Remedial Action/Aquifer Cleanup	   24

 IV.  technology Transfer and Training	   23

  V.  Policy Aspects  of Ground Water Research	   31

 VI.  Appendices

        A.   List of Committee Members

        B.   EPA Ground  Water Research Program  Summary

        C.   Summary of  Federal Agency Ground Water  Research  Programs

        D.   References

                                   SECTION I
      The Science Advisory Board was asked by the Deputy Administrator, Alvin
 L. Aim,'on July 10,  1984, to review the Agency's ground water  research pro-
. gram, particularly as it supports t;he EPA Ground Water Strategy  (EPA, .1984).
 This review was to cover the transport, fate and effects of  contaminants,
 abatement and control technologies, modeling,  monitoring and analytical
 methods, and quality assurance.  The Executive Committee of  the  Science
 Advisory Board (SAB) established a Ground Water Research Review  Committee  to
 conduct this review, which, has now been completed.

      The Environmental Protection Agency has no single authority under which
 it is charged with the protection of ground water quality.   Rather,  there^are
 a number- of different legislative authorities  (with varying  requirements)
 under which the Agency operates.   These have all been enacted  within the.last
 ten years,  and include .the Resource Conservation and Recovery  Act (RCRA),  the
 Comprehensive Environmental-Response Compensation and Liability  Act  (CERCLA),
 the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
 Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),  the Toxic.Substances.Control Act (TSCA) and the
 Clean Water Act (CWA).   Much .of this fragmentation  is mirrored in the re-
 search program.

      EPA conducts considerable research in ground water.   EPA  laboratories
 with major  responsibilities are the Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab-
 oratory-Las Vegas (EMSL-LV),  the Robert S.  Kerr .Environmental  Research
 Laboratory  (RSKERL)  ;at. Ada, Oklahoma,  and the  Hazardous Waste  Engineering
 Research Laboratory  (HWERL) in Cincinnati.   Resources in the President's
 1985 budget dedicated to  ground water research in these laboratories are as
 follows  (see Appendix B):

          Research Area              Total Dollars         Person Years
                                      (in  1000's)

     Monitoring                        1,763.0                  9.4

     Prediction                        6,307.1                 31.0

     Aquifer Cleanup or
       Restoration                      853.6                  6.7

     Hazardous Waste
       Engineering                     9,272.0

                          Totals      18,195.7
     Even though there are substantial resources committed to ground water
research, there is no clearly identifiable ground water research  "program."

 While the research performed is generally sound and responsive  to  the Agency's
 current regulatory needs,  it is inadequate to support  the  Ground Water  Stra-
 tegy or future regulatory  and policy needs.                    :

      The Committee's principal recommendations and  the supporting  rationale
 are highlighted in the following summary.


      A.  The Committee recommends that  the Office of Research and  Develop-
          ment establish a  strong central  direction  for its  ground  water re-
          search program, with appropriate  authority for the program director.

 Even though there  is a "Ground Water Research Manager" in  the Office of En-
 vironmental Processes and  Effects Research,  the position is not officially
 established;  it has  no authority across ORD  lines and  deals only with part
 of  the  ground water-related  research programs.   Centralized program direction
 will also improve  interlaboratory coordination and  linkages to other Federal

 A major responsibility of  this manager would be to  develop  an integrated,
 comprehensive ground water research  plan.  There are presently many research
 projects  supported throughout  EPA, primarily associated  with hazardous  wastes,
 which have  a  significant ground water component.  These  projects for the most
 part  are  not  coordinated.  The EPA Ground  Water Strategy is aimed  specifically
 at  the  protection of ground water from any and  all  sources  of contamination.
 To  support  the  Strategy, the ground  water  components of  research programs
 directed  at meeting  regulatory and enforcement  needs must be identified and
 coordinated within a broader framework.  In  recognition  of  the rapidly  ad-
 vancing developments in ground  water science  and technology in the private
 sector  and  in other  agencies,  as  well as the  rapidly proliferating and  in-
 creasingly  complex regulatory  requirements,  the ground water research plan
 should  be amended annually or  as  needed.   The  plan  should provide  for feed-
 back  to Headquarters  offices,  Regions and  States each  year  when the planning
 process is complete,  so that they may have some  idea of  how their needs are
 being met, and  better  understand  their influence on the  process.

     B.  The  Committee recommends that CERCLA  (Superfund) be amended to
         authorize research and  that a portion  of the  Superfund budget
         be made available to  support ground water  research.

 In light of the enormous expenditures projected for the  Superfund program,
 there are substantial  benefits  to be gained  from having  a comprehensive data
base to support future remedial action decisions.   In  particular, projects
 could be designed to  allow evaluation of the  effectiveness  of remedial  ac-
 tions and monitoring  systems.   Superfund, unlike other statutes, does not
authorize research.  Research  at  individual sites should be  authorized  and
encouraged.  An amount equal to 1.5  percent of  the annual Superfund expendi-
 tures should  be made available  for ground water research to  support Superfund
activities.  Funding for research throughout the ground water program is

      C.  The Committee recommends that EPA develop and implement a plan
          to identify information required for sound ground water policy
          decisions arising under the statutory programs for which it  is
          responsible, and that it devote substantial resources to the col-
          lection' and dissemination of such information.

 This plan should incorporate an itemized list of major policy decisions
 affecting all aspects of ground wafer protection which are now pending
 before the Agency or which will arise in the foreseeable future.  It
 should specify in a comprehensive manner the types of information relevant
 to such policy decisions, evaluate the adequacy of available information
 in each category,  and define the studies necessary to address deficiencies.

      D.  The Committee recommends that EPA initiate research on contamination
          sources that are not addressed by specific Congressional mandates.

 There is a critical need for research that would allow conclusions to be
 drawn concerning the relative magnitude and importance of ground water con-
 taminants from sources other than hazardous wastes.  While the potential
 ground water impacts of land disposal of wastes defined as hazardous  under
 RCRA are being studied, other types of wastes may be very important contribu-
 tors to ground water contamination.  These include septic tanks, sanitary
 landfills,  municipal wastewater treatment operations, accidental releases,
 chemicals applied  to the land such as agricultural chemicals and road salt,
 and salt water intrusion.
      E.   The  Committee  recommends  that the Office of Research and Develop-
          ment establish a  formal and thorough coordination system with other
          Federal  agencies  to  take  maximum advantage  of  work being done by
          others,  to  expand the  level of expertise available to the research
          program,  and to prevent unnecessary duplication.

The Committee finds  that there  is  inadequate research coordination among
Federal  agencies,  even  though researchers  themselves are often aware  of
their peers'  activities.   This  situation results  in  a lack of effective
utilization of results,  confusion  and unnecessary duplication.

The Research  Program

      F.   The  Committee  recommends  that EPA accelerate research to deter-
          mine the  applicability  of  land treatment as a  source control option.

While the reauthorization  of  RCRA may eliminate land disposal of  certain  hazard-
ous wastes, the land will  continue  to be used  for the degradation and immo-
bilization of  many wastes.  A major effort  should be established  to determine
the land  treatability of all  classes  of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.

     G.   The Committee finds  that the funding  for research on monitoring  is
          inadequate, and should  be  increased.

Funding for monitoring research  (see  Appendix  B)  is  now at about  10 percent
of the entire ground water research program, and  yet monitoring is  crucial
to results in programs such as RCRA and  Superfund.   The monitoring  share  of
the research funding should be increased, but  not  at the expense  of other

      H.  The Agency should emphasize and expedite the development of ground
          water sampling and analytical methods which have proper performance
          and validation data and proper QA/QC procedures.

 The Agency's current sampling and analytical methods for ground water are
 often deficient in data on accuracy and precision,  proper validation and
 adequate QA/QC, including the lack of reliable QA samples and standards.

      I.  The Committee recommends that EPA increase its program of field
          evaluation of prediction techniques0

 While the USGS has a modest program of field investigations  underway,  the
 EPA has specific needs for field-evaluating processes,  models,  and assumptions
 used by its regulatory programso   To increase the confidence in the state-of-
 the-art in prediction, EPA should accelerate its field  evaluation program.
 In addition,  statistical tools  should be  developed  that provide a means  of
 assessing the heterogeneity,  range and uncertainty  in basic  data and in
 predicted impacts on ground water contamination, particularly where local
 data for deterministic model use  may be poor or nonexistent,

      J.   The  Committee recommends that EPA increase research in the basic
          processes that govern  the transport and fate of contaminants  in
          ground water,  including  the necessary data bases for field appli-
          cation o

 Data are needed for the application of prediction techniques  to specific
 chemicals or  combinations  of  chemicals within the hydrogeologic environment.
 The  understanding of  basic processes in ground water transport  remains as
 one  of  the  top-priority items in  any fate  and transport  research program.

     K.   The  Committee  recommends  that EPA continue to  assess field appli-
          cation of available  containment techniques (i<>e.  caps,  liners,
          barriers  and  hydrodynamic  controls)  for containment  of wastes and
          polluted  ground water„

 A wide variety  of  containment techniques such as  caps,  liners,  walls and
 hydrodynamic  controls are  being utilized at  disposal facilities and Superfund
 sites.   Controlled test data  relating  to their effectiveness  is lacking.  A
 controlled study program should be  instituted at  RCRA and Superfund sites,
which will serve as. excellent field laboratories,

     L.   The  Committee  recommends  that  EPA develop  methods for  remedial  action
          in geologic regions  characterized  by fractured  formations  or karst

Monitoring procedures and  remedial  activities  are commonly based on the  assump-
tion that the ground water  system or aquifer  is  made  up  of homogeneous,
isotropic materials.  This  assumption  is frequently incorrect,  rendering
useless  the conventional techniques  utilized  in  monitoring and  remediation.

      M.  The Committee recommends that EPA initiate research to identify
          suitable geologic environments for isolating hazardous wastes  by
          means of injection wells,  including methodologies  for monitoring
          the integrity of the confining layer.

 Injection wells are already receiving a significant portion of difficult-to-
 treat industrial wastewater effluent.  Therefore,  efforts  to help choose
 favorable geologic environments for injection wells and to  solve problems  of
 monitoring the integrity of the geologic containment should be expanded.

 Technology Transfer and Training

      N.  The Committee finds that a greatly expanded ground water technology
          transfer and training program is a critical Agency need.

 This  need was expressed by virtually all of the  individuals and organizations
 interviewed by the Committee,  and applies both to  the large in-house  staff
 working on ground water-related issues without adequate experience or train-
 ing,  and to State and local governments on whom  EPA ultimately depends  for
 proper ground water management.  This includes the transfer of information
 generated by and within EPA,  as well as that generated by other Federal
 agencies,  the States,  consultants,  and other countries.

      0.   The Committee recommends that EPA establish an in-house training
          center in ground water science for the  technical training of EPA
          staff,  as well as State and local officials.

 A critical  shortage of trained ground water personnel  exists within EPA and
 State governments.  The problem is  particularly  acute  for EPA,  because  the
 Agency has  a large pool of undertrained professionals  who are forced  by cur-
 rent  operational requirements  to make ground water decisions on a daily basis.
 An in-house  training center could provide training tailored to regulatory
 program requirements which would greatly ameliorate the training problem.
 This  training should be not only for Headquarters  and  Regional staff,  but
 also  for State and local personnel  upon whom EPA will  depend when the Ground
 Water Strategy is  implemented.

      P.   The  Committee recommends increased technology transfer among EPA
          laboratories,  Regional offices and State  regulatory agencies.

 The Committee recommends  an annual  combined presentation at each Regional
 office by laboratory personnel from each ground  water  research facility.
 The audience  should include  those involved in such ground water-related
 programs as  Underground Injection Control (UIC), Superfund,  RCRA,  Leaking
 Underground  Storage Tanks  (LUST)  and the implementation of  the  Ground Water
 Strategy.  State and local personnel should also be  encouraged to attend.
 This  series  of presentations would  not  only provide  a  means  for updating
 Federal  and  State  field personnel on advances in ground water research,  but
 would also be  the  basis  for  input to the  research  laboratories.   The  Commit-
 tee also recommends  expanding  programs  to make existing scientific informa-
 tion^ such as computerized  data  at  the  National  Ground  Water Information
Center  (NGWIC),  readily available to .the  States  and  to EPA  Regional offices.


                                   SECTION II

 The Nature of the Ground Water Problem

      Ground water is relied  upon for approximately  one-half of  the Nation's
 drinking water,  and  supplies a wide  variety  of  industrial and agricultural
 needs.   At the same  time,  evidence abounds that the contamination of ground
 water is being detected  with increasing  frequency,  affecting every state
 in the  Nation.   Today it is  a subject  of intense  and widespread interest and
 debate.   A solid foundation  of knowledge about  this problem is  lacking;
 there is significant historical contrast between  interest in ground water
 and interest in  similar  environmental  concerns  such as surface water protec-
 tion (first Federal  legislation in 1899)  and air  quality protection (first
 Federal  legislation  in the early 1940fs).

      Studies of  ground water contamination emphasize the large number and
 extreme  diversity  of contaminant sources.  The  benchmark Office of Technology
 Assessment  report  (1984)  identifies  33 types of sources covering a broad
 range of  activities  (Vol.  I,  pp.  43-46).  The same  observation stands forth
 clearly  in  the Pye,  Patrick  and Quarles  monograph (1984).  This contamination
 has  been  linked  to adverse health, economic, environmental, and social impacts.

      A major component of  the  ground water protection issue concerns toxic
 substances.  Toxic and hazardous  compounds are  being introduced into the sub-
 surface environment  with increasing  frequency.  The concern with hazardous
 chemicals,  however,  is a relatively new  frontier  in the area of environmental
 protection.  This  is  true  not  only in ground water  but in all areas of environ-
 mental protection.   It is  important, therefore, that any program to address
 the ground water problem look  at  the existing contamination (and potential
 contamination due to materials  already in the subsurface) and also at the
 minimization of future releases  to the subsurface environment.

EPA's Authorities and Responsibilities to Protect Ground Water

     The Environmental Protection Agency has no single authority under
which it is  charged with the protection of ground water quality.  Rather,
 there are a  number of different legislative authorities (with varying re-
quirements) under which the Agency operates.   Virtually all of these have
been enacted within the last ten years.  They include the following:

     A.  CERCLA (Superfund) - This act provides for remedial cleanup actions
         at existing waste disposal sites no longer being actively operated.
         A major criterion for cleanup is the threat of ground water contami-
         nation.  This act is also unique in that it does not authorize re-

     B.  RCRA - This law provides for the management of currently-operating
         (or new) hazardous waste disposal facilities,  and establishes prin-
         cipal ground water protection policies.

      C.   SDWA - Under this law,  the UIC  and  sole-source  aquifer programs
          provide for water supply protection,  and  the  Act  also provides for
          establishment of drinking water standards.

      D.   CWA - This law provides a management  structure  for State water
          quality programs, including ground  water  programs.

      E.   FIFRA - This Act provides the authority to  the  Agency to control the
          use of pesticides which may adversely affect  ground water.

      F.   TSCA - This law provides broad  authority  to the Agency to  regulate
          new and existing chemicals,  including their manufacture and ultimate

      Even statutes  of such enormous importance as  RCRA and Superfund, however,
 have  little  in their legislative histories to  suggest  that ground water pro-
 tection was  a principal focus, or that there was adequate data available
 about ground water  on which to base legislative decisions.

      Unlike  surface water or air pollution problems, EPA knows relatively
 little about ground water problems.   Given the emphasis  implied in  the list
 of  laws above,  it should be clear that there is a  critical need for adequate
 research  into  all aspects of  ground water if the Agency  is to fulfill its
 many  responsibilities.

      Despite the enormous expenditures planned under the Superfund  program,
 the law prohibits use  of  Superfund  monies for  research projects (even for
 documenting,  in a research sense,  the experiences  on specific Superfund
 cleanups, which could  provide a  very  useful  data base  for the future).  It
 is not surprising that,  within the  Federal government, little progress has
 been  made to date to pull together  the fragmented  and disparate programs
 pertaining to ground water.  Even within EPA itself, which holds the predomi-
 nant  responsibility,  efforts  to  coordinate the management of numerous ground
 water-related programs  are  just  beginning.

Current EPA  Activities

      During  the  past  few  years EPA  has undertaken  a  number of major initia-
 tives  to strengthen  its ground water  protection programs.  A Ground Water
Task Force was  established  to:

     A.  Identify the areas of serious inconsistencies among programs and
         institutions at  the State, local and  Federal levels.

     B.  Assess  the  need  for greater program coordination within EPA.

     C.  Help strengthen  the States'  capabilities  to protect ground water
         resources as they themselves define the need.

 The Ground Water Task Force  produced  a  draft  report in  1983 which, after
 extensive internal deliberation,  together with  extensive  comments from the
 full range of outside interests,  became the Agency's Ground Water Protection
 Strategy (EPA, 1984).  The Strategy has four  major components, which are:

      A.   Short-term buildup  of  institutions at  the State  level.

      B.   Assessing the problems that  may exist  from unaddressed sources of
          contamination,  including leaking storage tanks,  surface impoundments
          and landfills.

      C.   Issuing guidelines  for EPA decisions affecting ground water pro-
          tection and cleanup.

      D.   Strengthening EPA's organization for ground water management at the
          Headquarters and  Regional levels, and  strengthening EPA's cooper-
          ation with Federal and State agencies.

 Following the recommendations of  the  Task Force, the Agency established an
 Office, of Ground Water Protection which, for  the first  time, delegated to a
 single office the responsibility  to establish policy and  coordinate the wide
 range of  EPA programs and  activities  related  to ground water.

 Because ground water research was a key  element of the  Strategy, the Deputy
 Administrator asked  the  Science Advisory Board, on July 10, 1984, to review
 the Agency's  ground  water  research program.   Included in the review were the
 transport,  fate  and  effects of  contaminants, abatement  and control techno-
 logies, modeling, monitoring and analytical methods, and quality assurance.
 (The  SAB  was  not  asked to  review  the  health effects research related to
 ground water.) The Executive Committee of the SAB accepted the charge, and
 formed a  Ground Water Research  Review Committee, chaired  by Mr. John Quarles,
 former Deputy Administrator of  EPA, to complete the review, which commenced
 in December  1984.

 Committee Review  Procedures

     The  Committee consisted of fourteen individuals (see Committee Roster,
 Appendix  A) selected  by  the Administrator based on recommendations from SAB
 staff, EPA program offices, and outside experts in the field.  They were
 chosen for their  expertise in the ground water field, or their experience in
 administering ground  water programs at various levels of State and Federal

     The  Committee was provided a substantial amount of documentary material
 about  the EPA ground water policy and regulatory programs and the ongoing and
 planned ground water  research in EPA  and in other Federal agencies.  The
 Committee held six meetings in Washington, D.C. from December 1984 to July
 1985.  At four of these meetings it heard presentations from EPA staff,
 other  Federal agency staff, and other groups having an interest in the ground
water  research program.  Included were a number of presentations by "users"
 of ground water research, representing EPA regional offices, the National
Governor's Association, the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollu-
 tion Control Administrators and the Environmental Defense Fund.

These presentations detailed ground water research programs and perceived
research needs. .  In addition to oral presentations, the Committee also
reviewed written  summaries of research conducted under the auspices of the
American Petroleum Institute and the Electric Power Research Institute.  The
last two meetings were devoted exclusively to finalizing the Committee's
report.  Minutes  of all meetings, which include copies of reference documents
and summarized information on each presentation, are available in the offices
of the Science Advisory Board.

     The Committee divided itself into four Subgroups to conduct detailed
portions of the review.  These Subgroups were oriented around four major sub-
ject areas: Monitoring, Source Control, Transport and Fate, and Remedial
Action/ Aquifer Cleanup.  Members of these Subgroups attended the RSKERL
ground water program review in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on March 24-25, 1985,
and visited HWERL in Cincinnati, Ohio on April 12, 1985.

     The Committee's report was drafted by Committee members and Mr.  Harry
Torno, Executive Secretary to the Committee.   In its final form it represents
the views of the Committee as a whole.

                                SECTION  III

 Source Control

      Source  control is  defined  here  as  technical  and  managerial  approaches
 for insuring that  pollutants  which may  be  released  to the  terrestrial surface
 and subsurface are sufficiently attenuated before reaching a  critical recep-
 tor so there will  be no adverse effect  to  human health and the environment.
 The technical and  managerial  approaches include specifically:

      A.  Reducing  or eliminating the problem material (e.g.,  controlling
         application of certain toxic organic  chemicals, minimizing waste
         generation and banning certain untreated wastes from land disposal).

    .  B.  Treating  wastes  to remove,  transform  or  immobilize hazardous consti-
         tuents prior to  land disposal  (e.g.,  incineration or physical/
         chemical/biological  treatment).

      C.  Effective  containment  of impounded or land-filled wastes, (e.g.,
         multiple-liner systems,  leachate  collection  systems  and covers).

      D.  Physical  removal of  sources of  ground water  contamination, e.g.,
         excavation of  contaminated soil.

      E.  In-situ and  land treatment processes  to  increase  the degradation,
         immobilization and other losses of pollutants and decrease the amount
         available  for  transport  to the  subsurface.

      Source  control must be a key component of any ground  water  research pro-
gram  because prevention is more  cost-effective and more protective of human
health and the environment than  clean-up.  Prevention of additional contami-
nation through source control while continuing clean-up efforts is the only
way net progress can  be made  to  reduce  current and future  ground water conta-
mination.  Typical  sources requiring control by these  strategies are:

     A.  Chemicals  applied to the land for beneficial  purposes (e.g., pesti-
         cides, deicers and fertilizers).

     B.  Accidental releases  (.e.g., transportation accidents  and leaking
         underground storage tanks).

     C.  Hazardous  industrial wastes disposed of  on land (e.g.,  landfills,
         impoundments, waste piles and injection wells).

     D.  Domestic wastes stored or disposed of using  sanitary landfills,
         land application of wastewater and wastewater treatment plant
         sludges,  and septic tank effluents.

      Only some of these sources are currently regulated at the Federal  level.
 Such regulation does not necessarily reflect their relative importance,  but
 rather reflects a series of legislative responses to perceived critical  needs.
 At the present time, the major source control research efforts are concerned
 only with the control of specified hazardous wastes and are in support  of

      New information about source control must be based on good science  and
 technology.   Reliable information is needed to define the magnitude and  im-
 portance of  each type of source in order to guide legislation and regulation
 and to set research priorities.  Cost-effective approaches to prevent new
 releases from each potential source must be developed.  The mandated clean-
 up of certain existing sources is proceeding at an enormous cost and is
 based on a scanty information base regarding which problems are important
 and which clean-up techniques are effective.

 Summary of Current Research

      Current EPA research on source control for protection of ground water is
 limited almost entirely to hazardous wastes as potential sources of ground
 water contamination.  Sources addressed in research programs carried out by
 other Federal Agencies include agricultural chemicals (USDA) and deicing
 salts (Federal Highway Administration).

      HWERL specifically addresses source control research.   This research
 focuses on clay liners, flexible  membranes, waste modification such as  soli-
 dification,  and suitable covers for landfills and units such as ponds and
 impoundments that require closure.   This research emphasizes barriers to the
 movement of  pollutants placed in  landfills, barriers to water penetration
 (thus reducing potential mobility),  and methods to render wastes less mobile
 when placed  in landfills.

      HWERL is also doing research on alternatives to land disposal in the
 management of hazardous wastes.   The research encompasses thermal destruction
 (conventional incineration,  at-sea  incineration,  burning in cement kilns,
 non-flame systems,  burning in industrial boilers,  supercritical water oxida-
 tion,  and catalyzed wet air  oxidation),  and chemical and biological detoxifi-
 cation methods.

      The research program  at  RSKERL  has a component that focuses on land
 treatment  of  hazardous  wastes.  RSKERL  has  had research efforts related  to
 land  treatment  of municipal wastes,  but  those efforts have  ceased.   The  goal
 of  land treatment is  to degrade,  immobilize,  or transform contaminants.

      USDA  research  activities  are somewhat  related to source control.  They
 focus  on  better use,  timing and rate  of  application of  agricultural chemicals
 (fertilizers  and  pesticides)  to soils and are related to more efficient  use
 of  the  chemicals  and  indirectly to  source control.

     The Department  of  Energy  (DOE)  has  a research program  related to the
 treatment and disposal  of wastes  from energy-producing  facilities.   Much of
 this effort is related  to understanding  the basic  transformations  and trans-
port and fate of  pollutants from  these  sites.   A  comprehensive source control

 program, as identified for EPA, does not appear to be included in the DOE
 effort.  The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has a similar general
 research effort.

      The Federal Highway Administration has conducted research on the control
 of deicing salt applications as a source of ground water contamination.   The
 research efforts include development of substitute deicing chemicals and non-
 chemical deicing systems.

      The U.S.  Geological Survey (USGS)  has been the primary agency in the
 United States  for ground water research as it relates to water supply.
 Efforts to monitor and understand the transport and fate of organics and
 inorganics in  the subsurface have been  increasing.   This work is  fundamental
 to developing  and evaluating source control methods.

 Gaps and Deficiencies in the Current Source Control Program

      The Committee reviewed the source  control research activities in EPA
 and found that the current  source control research for protection of ground
 water resources addresses only a limited number of  contaminant sources.
 There are strong research programs (not all at EPA) on landfill of industrial
 hazardous waste,  use  of surface impoundments for treatment or storage of
 hazardous waste,  hazardous  waste piles, above ground  storage tanks for
 hazardous wastes,  hazardous waste containers,  radioactive disposal sites,
 materials transport and transfer operations,  deicing  salt applications,  and
 urban runoff.

      The  review found that,  with respect to the source control research
 related  to hazardous  waste  land disposal conducted  at HWERL,  the  EPA research
 program  is adequate and appropriate both in funding and direction.   This
 source control technology program should be continued,  including  research on
 alternative technologies  to  land disposal  and  improved land-disposal techno-
 logies.   These technologies  should emphasize methods  to immobilize organic

      The  program  at RSKERL,  while  not directed  at  control of  specific sources
 of ground water contamination,  is  developing  scientific principles  affecting
 the sorption,  chemical  and  biological transformation  and migration of pollu-
 tants in  the subsurface.  This  research provides the  scientific basis for
 much  of the research  on technological controls  for  specific  sources  of ground
water contamination.

     The  efforts  at RSKERL also  include  research on the land  treatability of
 certain hazardous wastes.  These efforts are not extensive and will  be able
 to cover  only a small fraction  of  the hazardous wastes  that  require  evalua-
tion.  Furthermore, these efforts  are directed only toward hazardous wastes.
Wastes not listed as hazardous  but which,  when  land-applied,  can  and have
contaminated ground water, also  are not  included in the EPA  land  treatability
 research program.

      It is clear that the land disposal of certain hazardous  wastes will be
 prohibited by regulations being developed by EPA.   However, there  are  only
 three ultimate disposal sites for wastes the atmosphere,  the  surface waters,
 and the land.  Certainly, the land will continue to be used for the treatment
 and disposal of many wastes,  including some listed hazardous  wastes.   There-
 fore, it is important that the land continue to be considered as a waste man-
 agement and disposal alternative and that research be accelerated  to determine
 the applicability of land treatment as a source control option for many

      The Committee also notes that EPA has done very little research empha-
 sizing generic approaches to  the treatment of wastes to render them less
 hazardous.   Also, reducing the generation of hazardous waste, especially
 the type that will be land-applied,  organic and inorganic sludges  and  re-
 siduals, is an important source control method that will reduce the subse-
 quent contamination of ground water.

      Other potential sources  of ground water contamination that are not ade-
 quately addressed by current  research programs include septic tanks, munici-
 pal wastewater treatment operations  such as sludge disposal,  injection wells,
 land disposal of  non-hazardous wastes,  underground storage tanks,  salt dome
 storage, mining activities, agricultural chemical  usage,  and  multimedia
 transfers (e.g.,  atmospheric  pollutants as a source of ground water contamin-
 ation and ground  water surface water  interactions).   Information on the char-
 acter of these sources  is scattered throughout the literature,  but conclusions
 about the importance of  their impact  on ground water quality  have  not  been

      Because  many sources of  ground water contamination are not  being  ad-
 dressed by  current  research programs,  one objective  of the EPA ground  water
 research program  should  be  to develop  reliable information about the impor-
 tance  of each type  of  source  (for which EPA already  has regulatory authority),
 and  to  establish  research priorities.   Nekt,  cost-effective approaches to
 prevent  new releases from each potential  source  need to be developed.  Final-
 ly,  the  scientific  and technological  information base  to  support the clean-up
 of certain  existing  sources needs to  be  expanded to  assess which sites are.
 important and  which  clean-up  methods  are  effective.


     A.   Sources  of  ground water contamination.

     The current EPA source control research efforts focus almost entirely
     on hazardous wastes  as a  result of urgent legislative mandates.   As a
     result, the impacts  of land applied  non-hazardous wastes  on ground
     water quality are not clear and it  is difficult  to know  what other
     sources should be controlled and what  level of  research  should be

 devoted to these other ("non-hazardous") waste sources.  Therefore,  the
 Committee recommends that EPA:

      1.  Determine the magnitude and importance of ground water contami-
          nation from "non-hazardous" waste disposal operations, such as
          sanitary landfills, septic tanks, wastewater collection
          systems, wastewater treatment facilities, and wastewater/and
          sludge land treatment operations.

      2.  For any important "non-hazardous" waste sources, specify the
          technical and economic feasibility of source control options.

      3.  In conjunction with USDA,  develop more effective application
          practices that reduce migration of agricultural chemicals to
          the ground water.

 B.   Source Control

 The current source control research effort related to hazardous
 waste land disposal technologies  appears adequate except for  the mini-
 mum effort related to  the use of  land treatment as as source  control
 technology for  both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.   The  Committee
 recommends that the current land  disposal source control research be
 continued  and that additional research be instigated.   Specifically,
 the Committee recommends  that EPA:

      1.  Continue the  program on  reducing migration from landfill opera-
         tions,  but emphasize new techniques  to immobilize organic

      2.  Continue the  program on  alternatives  to land disposal for
         controlling sources  of hazardous wastes.   These alternatives
         include  thermal  destruction and chemical and biological

      3.  Accelerate research  to determine the  applicability of land
         treatment  as  a source control  option  for all classes  for hazard-
         ous  and  non-hazardous wastes.

C.   Source Minimization

As  noted in the previous  section, little research is  focused  on reducing
the  quantity  of hazardous  wastes  being  generated,  a portion of which
will be managed by  land treatment or disposal  options  and could conta-
minate ground water.  There also  needs  to be additional  emphasis on
methods to contain  spilled  materials  and treat  contaminated soils before
contamination reaches ground  water.   These  are  two source control methods
that  have  broad application.  Therefore,  the Committee recommends that

           1.   Continue current research on in-situ treatment  of  contami-
               nated soils to prevent or reduce migration.

           2.   Develop more effective emergency-response techniques  to  con-
               tain or treat spilled materials  before they  can reach ground

           3.   Develop techniques to treat wastes to reduce their hazard and
               increase technology-transfer efforts on existing methods of
               waste minimization.


      Monitoring is defined to include specific protocols for  collecting
 samples of ground water in the field and protocols for analyzing the charac-
 teristics of  those samples in the  laboratory.   Ground water monitoring is
 conducted to  determine water quality or water  quantity.  EPA  requires  ground
 water monitoring for determining the quality of the resource  in  order  to
 enforce the regulatory programs which it administers.   Because of the  impor-
 tance and magnitude of EPA's ground water program and its  implications for
 American society,  it is imperative that the data gathering which guides the
 program be reliable.  Consequently,  it is important that sufficient resources
 be  committed  to assure this reliability.

      Sample collection encompasses all regulatory programs and all  phases
 of  evaluation.   Data collected are used to:

      A.   Determine background and/or existing  ground water quality;

      B.   Determine the physical, chemical, or  biological processes  that
          define a  ground  water system;

      C.   Calibrate and validate  predictive computer models;

      D.   Identify  appropriate designs  for pollution control technologies;

      E.   Verify  the  adequacy  of  those  technologies.

Proper collection  and  analytical protocols are  essential to the  Agency's
ground water protection programs.

      Sampling is defined  as procedures  for extracting  significant portions
of ground water  for  chemical  analyses and for ground water  quality  character-
ization.  Sampling is  also used to define the characteristics  of  the geologic
media from which the sample is extracted.  These  samples may  be  obtained
from either a hole (well) made in  the media or  by a  remote-sensing  technique.

     Analysis is defined as a  test procedure for qualitatively and  quantita-
tively determining the  physical or chemical characteristics of a  sample with

 known precision and accuracy.   Limits of detection and quantitation,  as  well
 as competent quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), are a part  of analytical
 methods development.

 Summary of Current Research

      The current research emphasis is difficult to quantify because the  pro-
 grams are fragmented.   While many of the broader topics related  to  monitoring
 are being addressed, the more  complex questions that accompany the  use of  new
 techniques,  methodologies and  equipment  have  not been answered.

      Ongoing or planned research at EPA  relating to sample  collection appears
 to focus on  refining the sensitivity and economy of particular equipment
 for locating unknown sources of  pollution and on materials  development for
 on-site monitoring.

      The primary sample collection research is located at EMSL-LV.  That
 laboratory produces  state-of-the-art techniques and equipment  designed to
 facilitate identifying  problem locations.  One example of such a technique
 is remote-sensing.

      Analysis conducted in support of  ground  water systems  characterization
 and evaluation is  presently the  focus  of substantial activity  both  within
 and outside  EPA.

      The extent of current  EPA research  in ground water analytical  methods
 development  is exemplified  below:

          EPA LAB                                    R & D
     EMSL/Las Vegas           -Validity, performance of indicator parameters
                              -Field aspects, monitoring

     EMSL/Cincinnati          -QA/QC For SW-846 (QA Samples) methods
                              -Evaluation, improvement of SW-846 methods

Gaps and Deficiencies in the Monitoring Research Program

     The Committee finds that the program is underfunded and recommends that
funding be increased in all aspects of the ground water monitoring program.
In addition, the program suffers from management fragmentation, and the
results of the program do not always meet the standards of good science.

     Specifically, the presently available sample collection and analysis
methods are deficient in defined precision and accuracy, in proper validation,
and in adequate QA/QC.

     When such deficient methods are promulgated, problems often become
greater than if there were no approved methods.  The regulated community
and the regulators must deal with these problems.

      EPA's present research effort to validate SW-846 methods by retrofitting
 the performance/validation/QA-QC requirements (including the preparation  of
 standard analyte solutions) is commendable.  This effort, however,  is not
 needed for those 129 Appendix VIII compounds which are also Priority Pollu-
 tants under the Clean Water Act.  The applicable 304(h) methods have already
 been developed complete with performance data, QA/QC and standards.   These
 304(h) methods could and should be referenced as equivalent methods  in SW-846.
 In contrast, there are another 250 Appendix VIII compounds for which there
 are generally no proven methods, standards, QA/QC, validation or performance
 data.  It is on this latter group that EPA's research efforts should be

      Sampling protocols are needed which are correct for both the compounds
 being tested and the type of geologic media being sampled.  For example,
 protocols for extracting water from fractured rock will differ from  those
 for more homogeneous aquifers,  which will also differ from those for rocks
 of low permeability.

      The development of monitoring techniques for anisotropic,  nonhomogeneous
 media including karst,  zones of fracture, and fine-grained unconsolidated
 materials is needed.

      The mathematical correlations between the in-situ physical,  chemical and
 biological characteristics  of a ground water system and their variation under
 laboratory conditions must  not  be overlooked.  This is especially important
 in the development  of models.

      Sampling  points must be sufficient in number to describe statistically
 the media or define the variations of the geologic medium.  The anisotropic
 and nonhomogeneous  nature of the medium must be  described in order to extract
 statistically  significant samples of  ground water.

      Finally,  faster and more accurate measuring equipment for  in-situ  moni-
 toring needs  to be  developed.   This  is another area where a significant
 increase  in research is needed  by the Agency.

      Even with  ideal analytical tools,  the  analysis of  some 375 compounds in
 ground water is tedious and  expensive.   A deficiency in the program,  therefore
 is  the lack of  a workable screening test which could eliminate  or identify
 the  presence of clusters  of  contaminants.   While EPA has  begun  this  process,
 there  is  a great deal of work yet  to  be  done.  A similarly deficient  area
 is  the use of  indicator compounds  (water-mobile  compounds whose presence
 could  be  used as a  "trigger"  for  more  detailed groundwater analysis).

     Alternate  concentration limits (ACL) for RCRA Appendix VIII  compounds
 (based on unit  cancer risks,  etc.) are  being  proposed.  Most  of these ACL's
 are  far below the working limits  of detection for any known analytical
method.   Here,  too,  research  to define  practical, measurable, physically
 significant numbers  is  necessary.


     A.  Sample Collection

          1.   Establish quality assurance procedures  for all  sample  collec-
              tion techniques,  including the development of protocols which
              will maintain sample integrity.

          Quality assurance is  a tool  which makes  a method both  reliable and
          consistent.   This is  a long-term program need.  As  sampling tech-
          niques  and materials  continue  to be  refined,  the protocols need  to
          be  refined and revalidated.

          2.   Continue  support  for the development of monitoring techniques
              for quickly locating  and  characterizing  sources and contamina-
              tion plumes.

          This is a critical research  need Nationwide.   The faster and more
          reliably a pollution  source  can be located, the sooner it  can be
          addressed in  the  regulatory  framework.   The geometric  shape, size,
          biological and chemical  composition  and  transient characteristics
          of  a contaminant  plume are critically needed  to define the problem
          and its  solution.

          3.   Develop and implement  a  research plan designed  to  identify the
              physical  and  chemical  characteristics of  anistropic, nonhomo-
              geneous media  such as  fracture zones.

          Most monitoring systems  are  designed with the assumption that the
          ground water  system or aquifer is  made up of  homogeneous isotropic
          materials.  In most areas  of the country, the assumption is not
          correct,  but  due  to a  lack of  information,  that assumption must  be

          4.   Develop  mathematical  correlations between  laboratory  results
              and  in—situ physical  characteristics (i.e. effective porosity,
              permeability, transmissivity) to improve the simulation of
              ground water  systems.

         With these correlations, predictive  computer  models could  be much
         more reliable.

         5.   Develop matrices  for  locating and constructing monitoring
              networks  that are statistically significant in relation to
              the  system characteristics  (i.e., the  physical and chemical
              properties of the ground water  system).

         This is needed  to  increase the  reliability of data  collected, in-
         crease the efficiency of monitoring  networks  and decrease the cost
         of network installation.

     6.   Focus the Agency's ground water monitoring equipment re-
          search on instruments for field and in-situ measurements.

     These instruments should measure physical,  chemical and bio-
     logical characteristics on-site.  Monitoring RCRA and
     Superfund sites requi-res timely and accurate information
     on the extent of ground water contamination.  These data, if
     continuous or frequent, may also assist in  establishing long-
     term trends.

B.  Analytical Procedures

     1.   Establish quality assurance procedures, performance and vali-
          dation data for all analytical methods, existing and new.

     Quality assurance allows both the regulator and the regulated com-
     munity to produce analytical results in which there is confidence.

     The methods for detecting RCRA Appendix VIII compounds are the
     most critical in terms of immediate needs.   The performance and
     validation data should include determining  the accuracy of each
     method, the precision for each method,  the  limits of quantitation
     and detection, the confidence interval  for  those detection limits,
     and appropriate QA/QC for each method.

     2.   Emphasize the development of methods for ground water quality

     Responsibility for the entire water quality analysis program should
     be placed where the greatest expertise  in that field is available.

     3.   Coordinate methods development for water quality analyses
          between Agency programs.   .

     When an analytical method has  been proven and the necessary perfor-
     mance data developed for one program, the work should not be dupli-
     cated.   Such duplication occurred in listing the priority pollutants
     for the Clean Water Act,  and then again for RCRA ground water analy-
     ses.   The programs are different, but the medium being analyzed is
     the same

     4.    Improve  or refine screening methods for classes of compounds
          that  are  chemically similar.
    When  a  class  of  compounds  can  be easily eliminated as contaminants
     of concern,  the  efficiency of  monitoring increases and the cost of
     analysis decreases.

           5.    Continue to improve the sensitivity of  analytical  methods
                for organics.

           Analytical methods  that can accurately measure the  low  levels
           defined by the Agency's programs  must  be available.   An example
           of  this need is the the ACL's in  RCRA.   There  must  be reliable
           analytical methods  complete with  quality assurance, quality con-
           trol, and performance and validation data in order  to determine

 Transport  and Fate

      Transport refers  to the  movement of  a  contaminant (solute) in the ground
 water,  while  fate refers to chemicals  physical and biological transformations
 that result in changes in the original structure of the  contaminants.  The
 processes  that govern  the transport and fate  of  pollutants  in the subsurface
 can be  divided into three major areas:   (1) hydrologic,  (2) abiotic, and (3)
 biotic.  Hydrologic processes include convection and hydrodynamic dispersion;
 abiotic processes include sorption/partitioning  and chemical  degradation;
 and biotic processes include  biodegradation and  biotic transformation of

      The goal  of  transport and  fate prediction is achieved  by using the sci-
 entific process to understand physical,  chemical,  and  biological  processes
 through field  and laboratory  observations,,  This  understanding  is used to
 formulate  theories which are  translated into  mathematical terms.   The mathe-
 matical expressions  require a solution which  is  often  achieved  with the aid
 of  a  computer.  The  resulting numerical model is  used  in an attempt to pre-
 dict  the transport and  fate of  pollutants in  the  subsurface.  A final re-
 quirement  for  effective modeling is  site-specific data.  This requirement is
 often the  limiting factor in  achieving the  goal  of accurate ground water
 flow  and quality  predictions.

 Prediction of  transport  and fate of  pollutants (i.e.,,  understanding all of
 the above  processes) is  important  to  every  program within EPA concerned with
 ground  water contamination,,   It  is  especially important  to  recent legislation
 such  as  RCRA,  the  Superfund law, UIC  regulations,  and  the CWA.  To license a
 new facility under RCRA,  one  must  be  able to  predict accurately the transport
 and fate of potential  contaminants.   Such prediction becomes even more criti-
 cal if ACL's are  considered,,   It  is  necessary to  predict contaminant fate at
 existing sites  under Superfund  to  establish effective  remediation and to
 assess  natural  resource  damage.

    Furthermore,  some  hazardous wastes  are  also  being  injected  into deep
wells.  This type  of waste disposal  is  regulated  under UIC  regulations.  As
 land  disposal  becomes more restrictive, deep-well injection will  become even
more  important.  Drilling monitoring wells at these  depths  is an  expensive
undertaking.  Therefore,  monitoring  is  limited, and  the  need for  predictive

 capabilities for these sites is important.   The  ability  to  predict accurately
 the transport and fate of potential contaminants is  critical  to  the  success
 of most regulations concerning ground water.

 Current Research

      Research in transport and fate prediction is currently occurring at  the
 Department of the Interior (USGS),  Department  of Agriculture,  Department  of
 Defense, Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission  (NRC),  National
 Science Foundation, Tennessee Valley Authority,  and  the  Environmental Protec-
 tion Agency (See Appendix C).  Even though  each  of these agencies is interested
 in different ground water problems, the processes in all contamination problems
 are similar, and therefore,  there is considerable transfer  value.  For example,
 the NRC is researching flow and transport in fractured media.  Although
 the emphasis is on radionuclide transport,  an  improved understanding of  the
 transport processes applies  equally well to other solutes.

      Of the above agencies,  EPA officially  coordinates research  projects  with
 the USGS,  U.S.  Air Force,  U.S.  Army,  DOE, and  the National  Research  Council.
 Within EPA,  much research on hydrologic processes is conducted at RSKERL,
 although some research is  performed at  other laboratories,  particularly  the
 Environmental Research Laboratory in Athens, Georgia.

     Additional fate and  transport  research is being conducted in other  coun-
 tries,  as  well as by private institutions within the United States.  Perhaps
 the major  private source  is  the Electric Power Research  Institute, which  has
 a  comprehensive program in the area of  transport  and fate prediction.

     Focusing on RSKERL,  research in  the three process categories (hydro-
 logic,  abiotic,  and  biotic)  may be  summarized  as  follows.   Research  in
 hydrologic processes  is directed in three areas:   (1) physics  of flow through
 porous  media,  (2) methodologies  for evaluating the degree of  spatial and
 temporal heterogeneity (biological,  chemical and  physical)  in  the subsurface,
 and  (3) mathematical  techniques  for predicting the distribution  of fluids  and
 chemicals  in  the subsurface.  Much  of the current  research  in  ground water
 focuses on the  theory  of  hydrodynaraic dispersion.  Several  field studies  now
 in  progress are  designed  to  test  this theory,  at  least one  of  which  is funded
 by EPA.

     The abiotic processes of  primary concern  to  RSKERL  are sorption
and chemical degradation.  Emphasis  to  date has been on  expanding
our knowledge of  the sorption process.   A major effort is being made to
quantify and develop the theory of  phase interactions in  complex, but
realistic, environmental systems.   In terms of chemical  or  abiotic
transformation of pollutants, the current effort  is  in developing tools and
procedures for measuring in-situ  chemistry  in  the  subsurface.  There are
few comprehensive studies of chemical transformation processes currently
in progress.

      The RSKERL research efforts  in the biotic processes  category are focused
 on developing necessary information about  subsurface  biotic  processes to
 predict the transport,  fate,  and  impact of pollutants in  the subsurface and
 to develop control and  remedial technology for ground water  quality.  Much
 effort to date has focused on obtaining new techniques and procedures for
 characterizing subsurface biota.

 Gaps and Deficiencies in Transport  and  Fate Research  Program

      More emphasis should be  placed on  stochastic models  than on deterministic
 models.   Because there  is a great deal  of  uncertainty associated with the sub-
 surface, deterministic  results alone are difficult  to interpret.  Stochastic
 results  help to increase the  level  of confidence for  specific model applica-
 tions.   In some cases,  unfortunately, the  stochostic  approach may require
 more data.   Finally,  because  there  are  so  many models available—more than
 400 models of  subsurface fluid flow,  for instance (van der Heijde et al.,
 1985)—it is important  for EPA to screen computer models  and test them for

      Another research need concerns the processes which govern contaminant
 fate and transport, particularly  the  abiotic and biotic processes.  Because
 ground water movement can be  extremely  slow, transformations  with half-lives
 in  the order of years may be  the  most significant attenuating process.  Frag-
 mentary  information available  on  chemical  transformations suggests that
 hydrolysis,  reduction and possibly  nucleophilic substitution are potentially
 important  processes in  ground  water.  Most chemical transport and fate models
 assume that  sorption  is  instantaneous even though sorption,  in reality, is a
 rate-controlled process.

     Regardless of the  type of model  chosen, increased emphasis should be
 given to field  testing  and  field  validation  of  the models.   Data generated in
 association  with remedial  action  and  monitoring of Superfund sites may be
 used  to fulfill model validation  requirements.   These data  should be made
 available for use by  other  investigators.

     Current information  indicates  that  the  deeper subsurface environment
 contains significant  populations  of microorganisms.   Additional information
 about the distribution,  density,  and nature  of  these  organisms in the subsur-
 face is needed.  At present, little is  known about biodegradation of organic
pollutants in the deeper subsurface.  Limited  results  indicate that the poten-
tial exists  for significant biodegradation of  a number of compounds.  It is
not known whether the limiting factor for  biodegradation  is  nutritional,
thermodynamic (energy-limited) or kinetic  (rate-limited), nor has the extent
of adaptation, physico-chemical environment, and cometabolism been investi-
gated.  Very little is known concerning  degradation byproducts or whether
degradation processes can be manipulated.

     There is a major need to educate the  users of predictive tools.  EPA is
faced with examining many potential sites with  a small staff,  most of whom
have limited hydrogeologic training.  For  these reasons,  the  potential exists
to use inappropriate models to evaluate  sites.  It is  also important to note

that some aspects of ground water hydrology are imprecise, and will always
be so.  Prediction via modeling is one of our best tools for understanding
and describing these complex systems.  It is important for policy makers to
utilize models, but at the same time, recognize their limitations.  Addition-
ally, it is important to realize that the model is only as good as the avail-
able data and the experience of- the model user.


     Ground water research is a long-term effort essential to many different
EPA regulations.  Recognizing this, the Committee encourages the development
of projects that bring together the many disciplines for the transport and
fate prediction effort, and integrates and interfaces the work of chemists,
microbiologists, and hydrologists.  The Committee developed a number of
recommendations which are listed below:

     A.  Continue to develop process-oriented studies in the areas of biology
         and chemistry in addition to fostering projects related to under-
         standing heterogeneous and multiphase fluid flows in both the
         saturated and unsaturated regimes.

     This is particularly important for biotransformation, sorption phenomena,
     and chemical reactions.

     B.  Develop numerical models that support process characterization with
         emphasis on modeling as an aid to understanding transport and fate
         of solutes.

     Efforts to quantify chemical, biological and physical processes influ-
     encing the transport and fate of pollutants in the subsurface should be
     increased.  Because of the spatial variability of the subsurface and
     the uncertainty of underground regimes, a stochastic model would esta-
     blish more confidence in model validity.

     C.   Integrate model use  and development projects with both field and
         laboratory activities.

     EPA project  descriptions and work scopes should include instructions
     to  this effect  to produce relevant research products.

     D.   Make  data bases  from field research projects available in a timely
         fashion  to  other groups.

     In  all  cases  we recommend that all project conclusions be supported
     by  publicly  available  published data.   Surprisingly,  many publicly funded
     research  efforts  have  conclusions based upon data not  available for
     peer  review.

      E.  Establish a set of standards  for code testing and  documentation  to
          be followed for all codes developed by EPA.

      Adequate user manuals should be generated and  mass balance  routines
      should be made part of all codes.

 Remedial Action/Aquifer Cleanup'

      Remedial Action encompasses those  activities described in Chapter 8  of
 a recent Office of Technology Assessment  report (OTA,  1984) which groups
 fifteen corrective action technologies  into  four major categories:  contain-
 ment,  withdrawal,  treatment and in-situ rehabilitation.   Two of  these major
 categories,  withdrawal and treatment, have been combined  in this report.

      Containment technologies are physical or geohydrologic measures designed
 to contain contaminants at their source in order to prevent or minimize fur-
 ther migration.   Containment methods include the emplacment of cover mater-
 ials,  liners or vertical barriers as well as the addition of chemicals to
 stabilize or solidify wastes.   Containment technologies are frequently com-
 bined  with withdrawal and treatment  of  contaminated ground  water or in-situ
 rehabilitation  of  the aquifer.

     Withdrawal  and  treatment  deal with aquifer restoration where water is
 withdrawn from  the aquifer and is  treated prior to  recharge,  use, or discharge
 to surface drainage.   Aquifer restoration of this type  depends upon the pro-
 per location of  pumping wells  or  gravity  collection systems.  After water
 collection,  the  problem becomes  one  of  treatment of ground  water with gener-
 ally low concentration  contamination.   The technology  for water  renovation
 falls  outside the  field of ground water research except in  those situations
 where  special attention must  be given to  prevent clogging from particulate
 matter or biological  growth.

     In-situ aquifer  rehabilitation  involves  in-situ treatment of contaminated
 soils,  buried wastes, and  contaminated  ground water.  Methods range from
 physical  modification of  soils  to stimulation  of naturally-occurring bacteria
 that biodegrade organic  chemicals.

 Summary of Current Research

     EPA's containment  research is managed primarily by the HWERL in Cin-
 cinnati  (and its sister  laboratory in Edison, NJ).  Most of  the  projects
 are designed to meet  the urgent, short-term  and  practical needs  of  RCRA and
CERCLA at headquarters,  in  the Regions  and the  States.  The  containment
 research  at HWERL is  almostly exclusively extramural,  and deals  with the
properties of materials, as well as  the interactions between  cover, liner or
 barrier materials and the wastes, waste degradation products  or  leachate  to
be contained.  Investigations of waste  stabilization are also in progress.
EPA is currently sponsoring research on the  effectiveness of  various soil
materials and alternatives  (such as  flexible membranes, fly  ash  or  paper-mill

 sludges) to contain contaminants under different  conditions.   The  effect  of
 subsidence on cover integrity is being tested.  Vegetative  covers  are  being
 evaluated.  Much of the originality and creativity in adapting established
 ground water containment technologies  (or in combining them),  appears  to
 originate in the private sector.

      Current research on liners  focuses on their  effectiveness to  contain or
 minimize the migration of pollutants into ground  water,  particularly the  or-
 ganic solvents.   Laboratory and  field  research  projects  are underway to as-
 sess the effects of inorganic salts and organic solvents on clay soils (liners),
 Field studies of sites where clay liners have failed are in progress to
 determine causes of failure.   EPA is also conducting active research to
 evaluate the effectiveness of synthetic membranes or flexible  membrane
 liners (FML's) as alternatives to soil-based materials.

      EPA has recently sponsored  extensive research on barriers such as slurry
 walls, grout curtains and sheet  piling cutoff walls, some in combination  with
 flexible membranes.   This research has focused  on the reactivity of these
 materials with the wastes to  be  contained,  particularly  organics.  EPA is now
 sponsoring full-scale evaluations of containment  technologies  at three sites,
 two  of which are Superfund sites.

       EPA has sponsored little work on hydrodynamic barriers.   Efforts to
 date have concentrated on pumping in connection with treatment.  EPA research
 program managers plan future  research  directed  toward reducing operating  and
 maintenance costs for hydrodynamic barrier  systems.

       The EPA research program on remedial  action is fragmented and the
 investigators and contractors  at the laboratories appear to have little
 contact  with each other.   This isolation retards  the translation of new
 knowledge gained from basic research on processes,  fate  and transport  into
 engineering applications.

       Current research on withdrawal and  treatment  at HWERL deals with tech-
 nology which includes  the  use  of  activated  carbon,  air stripping, and  the
 application of ozone  for  the  removal of  organic chemicals.  Research on
 technology  for recharging  water  after  it  has  been withdrawn has been going
 on for many years, and  has  dealt  primarily  with well clogging  due  to silts
 or particulate matter  or  from  biological  growths  within  the screened area of
 the aquifer.  This work has traditionally been  carried out  by  the USGS and
 the USDA.   The technology  for  locating withdrawal wells  and determining the
 proper pumping rate and the design  and  construction  of gravity collection
 systems has  also  been advanced and  research is  ongoing.   Little effort has
 been made in  the  utilization of withdrawn and treated  recharge water to
flush contaminants through  the unsaturated  zone.

      Current in-situ aquifer rehabilitation research on the  part  of  both EPA
 and the private sector involves treatment by physical modification of  soils
 and biological methods.   Enrichment of indigenous  biodegrading  microflora
 and inoculation with biotransforming raicroflora are being  tested.

 Research Needs

      The current research program on containment technology  is  mature.
 It deals with adaptation, refinement,  selection and performance;  with
 testing new permutations  and combinations of materials and methods;  and  with
 long-term performance evaluation and documentation.   Continued  emphasis
 should be placed on the  shift in emphasis from laboratory  or bench-scale
 experiments to field validation,  application assessment and  long-term  perfor-
 mance monitoring of covers,  liners and barriers.   These research  projects
 should be long-term to provide continuity and consistency  in data collection.
 Superfund sites should be used,  whenever  possible,  for research on long-range
 effectiveness of containment and remedial actions.   Real data on  which to
 base  costly decisions on  closing landfills and stabilized  surface impoundments
 is lacking.   With the closing of  many  of  these facilities  now underway,
 there is an ideal opportunity to collect  this critical information.

      The regular and systematic  integration of new research  results  or field
 validation and performance data  into the  data base  is necessary for  maximum
 utility of user-friendly  computer programs being developed to assist permit
 writers and remedial action  plan reviewers.   Extensive training is needed
 for appropriate use of these computer  programs.

      In light of  the success achieved  in  this type  of containment  technology,
 however,  it  should  be recognized  that  it  has  now reached a mature  state  and
 will  require lower  relative  funding  levels in the  future.  This contrasts
 with  increasing financial needs  for  monitoring,  prediction,  and aquifer
 restoration if we are to  increase effectiveness  and  economic efficiency  of
 these management  techniques  in the  future.

     Except  for high-level radioactive waste  disposal,  there seems to  be
 little  or  no work under way,  basic or  applied,  addressing  the problems asso-
 ciated  with  contamination, fate,  transport or containment  and rehabilitation
 of ground water in  fractured  formations and/or karst  regions.   The acute
 need for research in this  area was  expressed  by  several  users.

     Deep well  injection  could play  an important role in the safe  disposal
 of contaminated liquids and high  fluid sludges being  removed from closed
RCRA facilities and  Superfund sites. Because  of  the  heavy  use of  injection
wells and  concern regarding  their long-term safety,  research is needed for
 improving monitoring  and  construction  technology.


     A.  Continue to test, assess and improve the application of available
         containment technologies (e.g.,  caps,  liners,  barriers  and hydro-
         dynamic control) for containment of wastes and polluted ground water.

     EPA's present program of examining the efficiency  and durability of caps,
     liners and underground walls should be expanded to provide  realistic
     data on susceptibility of materials  to typical chemical contaminants.
     Various techniques currently being used for installing containment
     barriers .should be tested in detail  for their long-term efficiency.  A
     major step up in analyzing the economic effectiveness of hydrodynamic
     control systems is dictated.

     B.  Expand the use of RCRA facilities and  Superfund sites as field
         laboratories for the verification of predictive models, performance
         evaluation of new (or adapted) containment methods, documentation
         of installation and maintenance  costs,  and assessment of aquifer

     Containment walls of various types are presently being planned at a
     large number of RCRA or Superfund sites; this is an excellent opportunity
     to collect first-hand field information on the usefulness of these

     C.   Place major research emphasis on in-situ chemical and biological
         contaminant reduction as a restoration  or clean-up technique.

     EPA should continue research on the  role that indigenous or introduced
     soil microorganisms play in reducing the concentration of chemical
     contaminants.   EPA should also strengthen  its investigations into
     the stimulation and acceleration  of  abiotic processes as a  means of
     in-situ  aquifer rehabilitation.

    D.   Develop  remedial methods for  contaminated ground water  for use in
         geologic regions characterized by  fractured  formations  or karst

    E.   Initiate research on  construction  of underground injection wells
         and  identification  of  suitable geologic environments for isolating
         hazardous wastes.

                                   SECTION IV

      With the passage of RCRA and CERCLA and  the corresponding  increased
 regulatory control over ground water resources  on the  State  and local  level,
 the need for trained and well informed ground water professionals  has  risen
 dramatically over the past decade.   Investigations of  ground water conditions
 at sites of known or suspected ground water contamination can be complex and
 require a wide range of scientific disciplines.   The design  of  such investi-
 gations and the interpretation of data obtained call for  specialized training.
 Where new sites are proposed  for  land disposal  of wastes  or  where  RCRA/Super-
 fund facilities are to be closed  or remediated,  public agency personnel
 must be equipped with enough  knowledge of  the ground water field to enable
 them to make proper decisions.

      Regulatory agencies on all levels of  government have been  forced  to meet
 the growing need for ground water professionals  by using  existing  staff with
 little,  if any,  formal training or experience in ground water technology.
 The need to train such personnel  and to provide  up-to-date technology  to
 them is immediate and critical.   In the absence  of such training and informa-
 tion,  uninformed decisions  are  being made  which  could  have significant
 adverse impact  on public health and the environment.

     This  critical need was echoed  by virtually  all of the individuals and
 organizations  interviewed by  the  Committee (and  in many of the  references
 reviewed by the  Committee as well).   This  is  a major concern, because  the
 Agency Ground Water Strategy  assumes  that  the States bear the brunt of tech-
 nical  activity.

     EPA has some strong technology transfer'components it currently supports.
 The  International Ground Water Modeling Center at  the Holcomb Research Insti-
 tute in  Indianapolis,  Indiana is  funded in part  by EPA and provides exten-
 sive training and support of  ground water  models,  information on model selec-
 tion and application,  and software  distribution.   The National Water Well
 Association  (NWWA), under the sponsorship  of  EPA,  operates a National Ground
Water  Information Center which  provides information and training to thousands
 of ground water  professionals each  year, including some short courses  for
 EPA personnel.   RSKERL  has  a program  of disseminating  research  results,
 through the existing mechanism at the Center  for Environmental Research
 Information  (CERI)  at Cincinnati, Ohio  through workshops,  seminars, and
various manuals  related  to ground water monitoring and protection.

 Technology Transfer and Training Needs

     The most  critical need is  for an Agency commitment to provide the in-
 creased technical support, recognizing that existing efforts are inadequate.
 In  this regard, the Agency must first look to its own house, and increase
 the  numbers of its staff trained in ground water hydrology and pollutant
 transport and  fate.  This does  not mean only hiring new staff, but also
 making a concerted effort to provide current staff with the training they
 need to do their job properly.  Career development training such as this
 typically takes a back seat to  day-to-day operational needs; this is a short-
 sighted policy.

     Another urgent need is for much wider dissemination and accessibility
 of available technology and results of research projects to ground water
 professionals  and managers throughout the Nation.  Many of EPA's research pro-
 jects, for instance, though published at the National Technical Information
 Service (NTIS), a slow, poor-quality source, are never entered in one of
 the standard library reference  systems.  Therefore, they are not accessed by
 broad-based computer searches and, in effect, are lost to many potential users.
We recognize that ORD has greatly increased the emphasis on publishing re-
 search results in the peer-reviewed literature, and that their project sum-
maries are well done, but the audience remains limited.  This accessibility
 and dissemination applies not only to in-house projects, but also to those
done by EPA program offices (which can have significant impact), consultants
and other outside organizations.

     Another critical need is for improved interlaboratory coordination with-
in EPA.  As the ground water programs in EPA are fragmented, so is the re-
search that supports these programs.  There must be frequent and extensive
interchanges of information,  both formal and informal, to remedy this situation,

     A.  EPA must increase by an order of magnitude its emphasis on and
         support for technology transfer and training.

     The number of trained ground water specialists has not kept up with the
     demand created by recent legislation.

     B.  EPA should thoroughly reexamine its current approach and metho-
         dology for technology transfer and training in the ground water

     While this activity should be centered in the Office of Research and
     Development, the responsibility should be shared by the EPA program
     offices.   The Committee encourages the use of information specialists
     in achieving the goal of effective communication of available tech-
     nology,  research results and data to ground water professionals and
     managers  throughout the Nation.

 C.  The Committee recommends that EPA establish a National Center
     for Ground Water Training.

 This should be an in-house center for technical training,  staffed by as
 few as two or three full-time employees,  supplemented by  scientists
 from EPA and elsewhere.   A possible solution could be the  resurrection
 of the training facility that once existed at RSKERL.   Training  should
 be aimed primarily at EPA in-house staff,  and available to government
 employees at the State and local level.   Taped TV courses  about  regula-
 tory issues such as RCRA permits, Superfund site clean-up  or ACL deter-
 minations could also be  included in the curriculum.

 D.  The Committee recommends broader availability of  research reports
     and guidance documents.

 This would include a stronger effort in selection and publication of
 more research reports and  guidance documents  rather than just research
 summaries,  and availability  through EPA sources rather than just through
 NTIS,  which does not provide quality service.   Such documents are  cata-
 logued by NWWA;  training should  be provided to EPA personnel in  accessing
 such a computerized information  base.

 Also included would be the establishment  of formal linkages  to informa-
 tion available at  other Federal  agencies,  such as the  USGS Ground  Water
 Site Inventory.

 E.   The Committee  recommends  increased technology transfer among EPA
     laboratories,  Regional offices and State  regulatory agencies.

 The  Committee recommends an  annual combined presentation at  each Regional
 office  by  laboratory personnel from each ground water  research facility.
 The  audience  should include  those  involved  in such ground  water-related
 programs as UIC, CERCLA, RCRA, LUST and', the implementation of the  ground
 water strategy.  State and local  personnel  should be  encouraged  to
 attend.  This  series of presentations would not  only provide a means
 of updating Federal  and State field personnel  on advances  in ground
water research,  but  would  also be  the basis for input  to the research
 laboratories.  Although these conferences would require a  considerable
amount of staff  time,  cross-fertilization and  training  would make  this
 time highly productive.

F.  As described more  fully  in the  transport  and  fate  section of this
    report, the Committee  recommends that EPA  continue  technology  trans-
    fer activities on  information  cataloging  and  retrieval (now  via
    NWWA) and on transport/transformation models  (now via  Holcomb  Re-
    search Institute).

                                   SECTION V
      This report has concentrated  on  evaluating  the  nature  and adequacy of
 the current research program,  applying the term  "research"  in its  traditional
 sense to support EPA's  regulatory  responsibilities in  the protection of
 ground water quality.   The basic conclusion of the Committee  is  that such
 research should be substantially increased.   In  addition to reviewing these
 research issues, however,  the  Committee was asked by the Deputy  Administrator
 to make recommendations on information needs  for policy development.  Because
 both the efforts and the expertise of the  Committee  have been focused predom-
 inantly on the  research program itself, our review of  prospective  policy
 issues and related information needs  has been limited.  Nonetheless, the
 Committee believes that EPA faces  substantial needs  to collect factual data
 and conduct studies to  strengthen  the informational  foundation on  which
 future policy decisions will be made.

      The many statutes  which authorize EPA to protect  ground  water have been
 listed already  in Section  II of this  report.  An undesirable  feature of this
 regulatory framework is that it is a  patchwork of disconnected programs.
 Nearly all of the statutes  originally were written,  and subsequently have
 been implemented,  with  little  explicit focus  on  the  objective of ground water
 protection.   Although these laws all  pertain  to  ground water, they have no
 theme of consistency linking them  together.   They also rest on a shallow
 knowledge base.

      As  governmental efforts to protect ground water gather momentum,
 increasing numbers  of decisions on major policy  issues must be made.
 Such decisions  should rest  on  a solid foundation of  knowledge concerning
 many basic questions.   These include:  Which  sources of ground water
 contamination warrant greater  emphasis?  Which technologies promise the
 best  results  for protection or  remediation?  What levels of protection or
 remediation are  technologically feasible?  To what extent can sources of
 contamination be  reduced?   Can  exposure of humans to ground water  contam-
 inants be  accurately determined or predicted?  Can present  and potential
 health effects be quantified, and  what are they?  Can  institutional controls
 be developed  to  safeguard against  human exposure?  Does a scientific basis
 exist to  conclude .that  compliance with proposed  laws and regulations is
 feasible? What will  such compliance cost?  What  is the dependence  of different
 localities on ground water,  and what alternatives exist to meet  such needs?
How much difference will protective controls .and clean-up efforts  make on
 the actual supply of clean ground water to meet  those needs? More  detailed
questions arise with respect to  individual policy issues.

      Any review of the current regulatory framework must  highlight dispar-
 aties in the intensity and nature of  efforts  directed  at  different compo-
 nents of the ground water quality problem.  More  stringent  requirements
 generally are applied to selected point  sources than to other  categories,
 as noted in the 1984 OTA report,  and  industrial hazardous waste units
 receive much more emphasis (at far greater  cost)  than  municipal landfills,
 even though the latter may present equally  serious  problems.   Efforts
 directed at petroleum residues and pesticides in  ground water  are in
 their infancy.

      A major reason for the confusion and disparaties  which envelop the
 subject of ground water protection is the speed with which concern over
 ground water quality has emerged  as an urgent public priority.  Intense
 publicity of individual situations such  as  the contamination at Love
 Canal has combined with public anxieties  over the effects of hazardous
 chemicals.   These have produced vigorous  demands  through  our political
 process for the rapid establishment of ground water protection controls.
 The  speed of this process  has  exceeded the  ability  of  existing institu-
 tional capacities to provide supporting  data  and  analyses for  the complex
 policy decisions  which are  required.

      Basic  questions concerning the goals of  controls  arise under both
 Superfund and RCRA.   The current  raging  debate over "how  clean is clean"
 under Superfund illustrates  the need  for  more data  on  all the  basic
 issues  of risks,  costs,  and  feasibilities.  Under RCRA, EPA in its permit
 regulations  has essentially  mandated  an  absolutist  approach of clean-up to
 background  levels,  unless a  permit  establishes an Alternate Concentration
 Limit.   Confusion exists, however,  as to  what standards will be applied
 to determine when ACLs will  be  granted and what criteria  they  will
     A more specific example of the information needs for Policy guidance
is presented .by the requirement in the 1984 amendments to RCRA that EPA
must examine every listed hazardous waste to determine whether land
disposal of each waste should not be prohibited.  The statute establishes
a series of tight deadlines for the completion of these decisions by EPA.
In order to complete this decision making in a manner that wisely fulfills
the public interest, EPA not only needs detailed knowledge concerning the
hazardous characteristics of each waste but also must have extensive
information concerning all practicable alternatives for the handling and
disposal of these wastes.  That includes vast quantities of data concern-
ing the different circumstances under which such wastes might be handled,
the technologies available for treatment or disposal of such wastes, and
the costs, energy implications, and other environmental impacts which may
attach to each possible alternative.

      The EPA Ground Water Protection Strategy  also  raises  a  host  of
 information needs.   A principal feature of  the strategy  is to  encourage
 the classification  of ground  water.   The needs for  hydrogeologic  data  on
 the location, nature, and condition  of  aquifers throughout the Country are
 obvious.   Systems for the collection of such data must be  developed, and
 numerous supportive technical capabilities  must be  developed or refined to
 complete a physical evaluation of  existing  aquifers.  A  thorough  review
 of  all  information  requirements implicit in EPA's proposed classification
 strategy should be  undertaken promptly.

      Underlying all of the policy  information  needs suggested  by  a review
 of  pending regulatory decisions, statutory  requirements, and legislative
 proposals, is the basic  and fundamental need to develop  a  more thorough
 understanding of the ground water  resource  itself.   A serious  limitation
 on  prospects for the successful development of ground water  policy is  the
 weakness  of  general understanding  concerning this resource.  An urgent
 need  is  to transmit such knowledge as is possessed  among technical experts
 to  policy officials and  the general  public.

      Sound policy decisions require  an  understanding of  such features  of
 the ground water resource as  its rates  of flow under differing circum-
 stances,  its quantities,  its  recharge rates, the rates of  dispersion and
 attenuation  of  contaminants within the  ground  water system,  and its
 current quality.  Although there is  widespread recognition of  the general
 dependence of  society on ground water,  a more  sophisticated  and detailed
 knowledge  is required as to the extent  and  nature of that  dependence in
 differing  localities.

     The  research described in earlier  portions of  this  report should
 address many of  these information  needs.  Such research  should be planned
 not only  to  support  the  implementation  of current programs but also to
 provide guidance for  future policy decisions.  Many essential  ingredients
 to  the policy decisions,  however,  lie outside  the limits of  the technical
 ground water research  program.  To a limited"extent, these needs  may be
 met by studies conducted  by the Office  of Technology Assessment,  EPA's
Office of Policy Analysis,  or  others.   In the  view  of the Committee, the
 current level of attention  to  these  needs for  policy information  is
inadequate when matched against the dynamic state of policy  formulation
 in this field.

                                                                 APPENDIX  A

                           SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD


 Mr. John Quarles
 Morgan Lewis & Bockius
 Washington, D.C.
 Dr. James Davidson
 University of Florida
 Gainesville,  PL
 Dr.  Joan Berkowitz
 Arthur D. Little,  Inc.
 Cambridge,  MA

 Dr.  Lenore Clesceri
 Biology Department
 Rensselaer Polytechnical  Institute
 Troy,  NY

 Ms.  Mary Gearhart
 Colorado Department  of  Health
 Denver,  CO

 Dr.  Raymond C.  Loehr
 University  of Texas
 Austin,  TX

 Mr.  David Miller
 Geraghty and Miller
 Syosset,  NY
Dr. James Norris
Mclntosh, AL
Dr. Keros Cartwright
Illinois State Geological Survey
Champaign, IL

Mr. Richard A. Conway
Corporate Development Fellow
Union Carbide Corporation
Charleston, WV

Dr. Jay Lehr
National Water Well Association
Worthington, OH

Dr. James Mercer
GeoTrans, Inc.
Herndon, VA

Dr. Ruth Neff
Safe Growth Team
State of Tennessee
Nashville, TN

Mr. Thomas Prickett
Thomas Prickett, Inc.
Urbana,  IL
                             EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Mr. Harry C. Torno
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

                                                            APPENDLX B



                            JANUARY 15,  1985

(Prepared by the Office of Environmental Processes and Effects Research)

                    TABLE OF CONTENTS


 Introduction	     B-l

      Scope 	     B-l

      Management	     B-2

      Coordination with Other Federal Agencies 	     B-3

      Resources	     B-3

Monitoring	     B-3

      Ground-Water Sampling	     B-4

      Geophysics	     B-4

      Data Analysis	     B-4

Prediction 	     B-5

      Hydrologic Processes	     B-6

      Abiotic Processes	     B-6

      Biotic Processes 	     B-7

Aquifer Cleanup 	     B-9

Hazardous Waste Engineering	     B-9

      Land Disposal	     B-9

      Uncontrolled  Site Cleanup 	     B-ll

      Many kinds of information are needed by the Environmental Protection
 Agency and the States for developing,  implementing,  and evaluating  the
 progress of ground-water protection programs.   In general,  ground-water
 protection programs need to:

   -  determine the number and types of sources

   -  assess the extent and nature of current and potential  contamination

   -  predict and/or measure the resulting concentrations of contaminants
        in water supplies

   -  ascertain the health implications of those concentrations

   -  compare the capabilities and costs of alternative  prevention measures
         (source control and management)

   -  determine the capabilities and costs of cleanup  measures

   -  evaluate program effectiveness

 This  is  a description of research carried out  by the  Office of Research and
 Development (ORD)  to meet these needs.


      Our science for assessing  and predicting  the impacts of ground-water
 pollution is  growing.   In the past few years important  gains have been
 made  by  the EPA Ground Water  Research  Program  in technology for accessing
 the subsurface and taking samples  that  are uncontaminated by the sampling
 process.   Further,  we know reasonably  well how a few  organic chemicals
 of  concern behave  in a few geological materials.   However,  the state-of-
 the-art  for ground-water monitoring is  cumbersome, expensive,  and insuff-
 iciently  precise.   Our capability  for predicting the  behavior  of organic
 and microbiological contaminants  is limited.   Finally,  there is  little
 information available  on the  effectiveness  or  the  costs  of  methods  for
 in-situ  cleanup of  already polluted aquifers.   The EPA  Ground-Water
 Research  Program consists  of  research addressing the  needs  in  these
 three areas: monitoring,  prediction, and  cleanup.

     Other  ORD  research  programs are also  contributing  towards decision-
making on ground-water problems.   In particular,  our  hazardous waste
engineering research  is  developing and  evaluating  technology for control
 of  some of  the  most  important sources of  ground-water contamination.
This program also provides ways to  clean up sites  already contaminated
with hazardous wastes.

      A significant portion of the research on the  health  effects and
 removal of drinking water contaminants  is  directed towards  chemicals
 found in ground water.   Since many contaminants  occur  in  both surface and
 ground water, and since technology and  health research needs are the same
 for both, it does not make sense  to develop a separate ground-water
 health and technology research program.  Consequently,  this description of
 the EPA ground-water-related research does not include these programs.
 Likewise, the major research activities under way  to improve our capability
 to analyze a water sample for its contaminant concentrations are independent
 of whether the water is surface or ground  water, so these are also not


      Ground-water research has many clients.  The  EPA  Program Offices
 with responsibilities in ground water include the  Office of Water (Safe
 Drinking Water Act;  Clean Water Act), the  Office of Pesticides and Toxic
 Substances  (Federal Insecticide,  Fungicide,  and Rodenticide Act; Toxic
 Substances  Control Act),  and the  Office of Solid Waste and  Emergency
 Response (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;  Comprehensive Environmental
 Response, Compensation  and Liability Act).   The EPA Regional Offices
 complete the list  of EPA clients.   As emphasized by the EPA Ground-Water
 Protection  Strategy,  however,  perhaps the  even more important clients
 are  the  State and  local officials  who must  make their  own decisions about
 ground water protection,  management,  and cleanup.   Our research is providing
 tools for decision-making at all  levels  to enhance  assessment and management
 of ground-water problems.

     To  ensure that  our research  programs  are designed to meet the needs
 of our EPA  clients,  the Office  of  Research  and Development  has established
 Research Committees.  There  is  one for  each Program Office, and each has
 Regional representatives.  We have also established a  Cooperative Agreement
 with the National  Governor's Association to  provide a  mechanism for
 interactions  with  the States on research needs.

     Since  the  major funding for  ground-water research comes from the
 Safe Drinking Water  Act and  the Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act,
 we have  established  in  addition a  Ground-Water Research Planning Group
 which reports  to both the Water Research Committee  and the  Hazardous
 Waste/Superfund Research Committee.  This  group advises ORD on the planning
 of ground-water monitoring,  prediction, and  cleanup research.  We have
 made sure that  all interested EPA  clients  are represented.  In addition
 to ORD personnel,  participants  are  included  from:

 Office of Ground-Water Protection
 Office of Drinking Water
 Office of Solid Waste
 Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Office of Pesticide Programs
 Office of Toxic Substances
Office of Policy, Planning,  and Evaluation
 Regions  I,  IV, VI, and X

      The Office of Research and Development conducts  its  programs  via
 fourteen laboratories and several field stations.   Each laboratory conducts
 its own research as well as funds research at  other institutions,  including
 universities and colleges, consulting and engineering firms,  State and
 other Federal laboratories, associations, and  private industry.  The
 laboratories whose ground-water related programs  are  described here are
 the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas,  the
 Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory-Ada, and the Hazardous
 Waste Engineering Research Laboratory-Cincinnati.


      In addition to designing a research program  to satisfy multiple
 client needs,.ORD works with other Federal Agencies concerned with ground-
 water problems.   The major funding of Federal  ground-water research is
 through the U.S.  Geological Survey (USGS).  A Memorandum of  Understanding
 between EPA and  USGS was completed in August,  1981, and provides an
 umbrella under which each Agency's programs are formally  coordinated.
 Ground water,  of course., is a major element of that coordination.   We
 conduct joint  research projects with several other  agencies,  including
 the U.S.  Air Force,  the U.S.  Army,  Department  of Energy,  and  the National
 Research Council.

 RESOURCES (Fiscal  Year 1985,  President's Budget)

    Research Area               Total Dollars           Man-Years
                                (in thousands)

    Monitoring                        1763.0                 9.4

    Prediction                        6307.1                31.0

    Aquifer  Cleanup                   853.6                 6.7

    Hazardous Waste                  9272.0                46.2

    TOTALS                          18,195.7               93.3

     The Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas is
conducting ground-water monitoring research to support the Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Regulations of the Safe Drinking Water Act and
the Ground-Water Protection Regulations of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.  Spin-off from these programs has established a geophysical
technical support program to assist Superfund hazardous waste site
investigations.  This research may also offer techniques to detect leaks
from underground storage tanks.

     The program includes research in three primary areas:  ground-water moni-
toring and sampling methods in both the unsaturated and saturated zones, the

 application of surface and downhole  geophysics  to  subsurface  characterization,
 and data interpretation and analysis.   Quality  assurance  is addressed in all


      Research in this area is  directed  towards  the development  and evaluation
 of ground-water sampling and monitoring methods and providing operating
 guidance to program office,  regional office  and state  agencies.  The program
 includes research in:

      0  Sources of variance of  ground-water data

      0  The  validity and performance  of  indicator parameters

      0  Monitoring well construction  methods

      0  Vadose zone monitoring  techniques

      0  Advanced monitoring techniques such as laser .fiber optics

      0  Ground-water flow measurement.                 .


      This program includes research  into the geophysical  and  geochemical
 detection and  mapping  of  shallow contaminant plumes with  both surface-based
 and  downhole  methods,  the more difficult problem of mapping deeply-buried
 contaminant plumes  associated with injection wells, and the location of
 abandoned wells.

      In  the area of  surface-based geophysical techniques,  research will demon-
 strate and evaluate  geophysical and  geochemical methods for detection and map-
 ping  of  subsurface  leachate  and ground-water contaminant  plumes.  In the area
 of downhole sensing, the  research objectives are to survey, develop, test,
 and  evaluate  downhole  sensors and methods which can be used for hazardous
waste site monitoring  and  for preconstruction hydrogeologic investigations,
 principally using small-diameter, shallow-depth boreholes.  In  the area of
mapping  fluids  from  injection wells, several techniques are being evaluated
 for use  on deeply buried  contaminant plumes.  In the area of locating abandoned
wells, magnetometers along with aerial  photography  are being evaluated for
locating abandoned wells  in  the vicinity of proposed new  injection wells.


     Research  in  this  area primarily involves the development and evaluation
of statistical methods  for data analysis and monitoring network design,
including:      .       '-:'                      .

     0 Appropriate applications of elementary statistics

     0 Improved techniques for probabilistic.kriging

     0 Optimum sample  size estimation

     0 Methods for data presentation.

      The Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory (RSKERL)  has  the
 responsibility for developing the scientific knowledge of pollutant
 behavior in the subsurface that permits intelligent  management  of ground
 water resources.  Management considerations  include  the ability to  identify,
 evaluate, and control potential sources of ground-water contamination;  to
 assess the risks and impacts associated with emergency spill situations
 and other contamination events; and to take  remedial action in  the
 restoration of ground water quality.

      The processes that govern the transport and  fate of pollutants in  the
 subsurface can be divided for research purposes into three major areas:  (1)
 hydrologic, (2) abiotic,  and (3)  biotic.   These processes will  act  to influence
 the movement of water, the primary vehicle for subsurface pollutant movement;
 the physical and chemical interactions that  will  cause pollutants to move at
 rates different from those of the water;  and the  decomposition,  chemical or
 microbial, that will transform the pollutants in  the subsurface to  nontoxic
 substances.  The elucidation of the magnitude of  the various  mechanisms
 functioning in the three  process  areas will  ultimately provide  the  knowledge
 to integrate the influences of these  processes into  a singular  understanding
 of pollutant behavior in  the subsurface.   Research under each of these  process
 areas is organized into a series  of tasks  focusing on methods development,
 subsurface characterization,  pollutant attenuation,  process kinetics, field
 application and mathematical  model development and application.

      It  must be realized  that the division of subsurface processes  into three
 types (i.e.,  hydrologic,  abiotic,  biotic)  is an arbitrary division  primarily
 for organizational purposes.   An  effective research  program must address the
 interdependency of and interaction between these  processes.


      Research at RSKERL in hydrologic  processes is directed in  three areas:
 (1)  expanding our understanding of the physics of fluid flow  through porous
 media, (2)  developing  methodology  for  evaluating  the degree of  heterogeneity
 (spatial variability)  both physically  and  chemically in the subsurface and
 (3)  advancing the mathematical  techniques  for forecasting the spatial and
 temporal distibution of chemicals  in the subsurface  as  well as  fluid fluxes
 in the subsurface environment.

      During the  past two  decades,  considerable research has been conducted on
 the movement  of water  through subsurface porous media.   The physics  of water
 flow  is reasonably  well understood  for homogeneous media.   Environmental
 problems, however,  must be analyzed where  there are  many  discontinuities in
 porous media  as well as the fluid  phases,  these discontinuities can result
 in strong accelerating  influences  on ground water recharge  as well  as chemical
 transport  flow counter  to  the mass movement  of the water.   Current  RSKERL
 research is trying  to improve our  understanding of how  immiscible fluids will
move  through  porous media  and the  impact of  the immiscible  fluids on the
physical properties of  the porous media.

      To analyze the  magnitude  and  importance  of  spatial  variability  in  the
 subsurface environment  requires:   the  development  of  methodology  for obtaining
 unaltered samples  of subsurface material  for  physical, chemical and  biological
 analysis; the evaluation  of  the impact  of spatial  variability on  the transport
 processes and chemical  and biological  reactions; and  evaluation of statistical
 techniques for determining how many  samples are  required to  describe a
 hydrologic system  and where  the next sample should be taken  to obtain the
 maximum refinement in an  understanding  of the overall system.  This whole area
 of research is just  beginning  to  receive  RSKERL  funding  and  the full significance
 to describing and  predicting pollutant  movement, remains to  be defined.  The
 complexity of the  subsurface and the difficulty  of obtaining representative
 samples have hindered progress in  this  area.

      There are presently  over  400  documented  mathematical models  describing
 movement of fluids in the subsurface.   These  range from  very simple analytical
 solutions compatible with hand-held  calculators  to highly complex numerical
 models  that require  large main-frame computers to  operate.   The majority of
 these models are for the  movement  of water and the transport of chemicals
 miscible with water.  Current  activities  of RSKERL to advance the capabilities
 for modeling fluid transport are devoted  principally  to  development  of  techniques
 to describe the transport of immiscible fluids.  The  principal avenue of
 model information  transfer is  the  International  Ground Water Modeling Center
 (IGWMC)  at  Butler  University.  The Center maintains annotated data bases of
 mathematical models  used  to  simulate fluid movement and  contaminant  transport,
 offers  hands-on training  courses and conducts research to develop benchmark
 methods  for the intercomparison and  validation of  existing models.


      The  abiotic processes of  primary concern to RSKERL  are  sorption/
 partitioning and chemical degradation.  Emphasis to date has been on enlarging
 our knowledge  of the  sorption process.  Knowledge  of  the sorbate, sorbent, and
 solvent  characteristics that affect  the rate  and degree  of sorption will
 permit  refinement  of  models  describing  transport and  fate of pollutants in
 the subsurface.  Empirical and semi-empirical relationships  developed to
 estimate  the  sorption of  hydrophobic organic  pollutants  from aqueous solutions
 onto  surface  soils and sediments are being evaluated  to  determine their
 efficacy  for  predicting the  sorptive interactions  of  these compounds on deeper
 subsurface  soils and  geologic materials.   Several  investigations  have observed
 that  currently available  theory and  models often fail to describe the sorption
 of hydrophobic organic solutes on  soils having very low  organic carbon content or
 where the clay mineral to organic  carbon  ratio is  very large.  Various  techniques
 are being used to  determine  the relative  contributions of mineral and organic
 soil  components.   These techniques involve the use  of  state-of-the-art
 instrumentation such  as Laser Raman  and Fourier Transform Infrared spectrometer
 equipment,  and include application of High Pressure Liquid Chromatographic
methods for investigating sorption in dynamic, flow-through  systems as well
 as conventional laboratory procedures for measuring sorption in static systems.

     Because of the complex nature of many environmental  contaminants, it is
 important to understand the  contributions  of  various  phase interactions to
 the behavior of chemicals in subsurface environments.  Interactions which
must be considered are sorbate-sorbent, solvent-sorbent,  sorbate-sorbate,

 solvent-solvent, and sorbate-solvent.  The sorbate-sorbent interaction, or
 sorption, has been intensively studied; however, most of the work has been
 done in relatively simple systems consisting of an aqueous solution of a
 single solute.  Little is known about the influence of solvent or sorbate
 mixtures on the sorption process.  Thus, a major effort of the abiotic research
 program is to quantify the phase interactions in complex, but realistic,
 environmental systems; to develop theories to describe sorption in light of
 these interactions; and to incorporate this knowledge into predictive models.

      Another important aspect of the sorption process is the rate at which it
 occurs.  Most chemical transport and fate models in use assume that the
 sorption process is instantaneous.   Laboratory and field experiments have
 clearly shown the fallacy of this assumption for many solute-soil combinations.
 Two basic hypotheses have been prepared to explain non-equilibrium sorption
 in dynamic porous media systems.  The first of these is that the kinetics of
 the reaction are slow relative to the rate of movement of the chemical through
 the system.   The second hypothesis  is that the rate of approach to equilibrium
 is controlled by the diffusion of the sorbate from the solution to the site
 of adsorption.  To date, neither theory adequately describes the observed
 behavior of  many environmentally significant chemicals.

      The chemical or abiotic transformation of pollutants is an important
 process which must be addressed in  any comprehensive subsurface transport and
 fate research program.   However, almost no comprehensive studies of chemical
 transformation processes are currently in progress.   Fragmentary information
 available  in this area suggests that hydrolysis, reduction,  and possibly
 nucleophilic substitution are potentially important  process  es in ground water.
 Movement of  ground water can be ex.tremely slow,  therefore,  transformations
 which have half-lives in the order  of years may  be the most  significant
 attenuating  processes in these systems.

      The greatest impediment to the study of abiotic transformation is the
 lack of  techniques  for  adequately measuring the  in-situ chemistry of the
 subsurface.   Tools  and  procedures must be developed  for assessing the potential
 for and measuring the extent  of chemical  reactions in this remote environment.


      The RSKERL  research  efforts  in the  biotic processes  category are
 focused on developing necessary information on subsurface biotic processes
 to  predict the transport,  fate,  and  impact  of  pollutants  in  the subsurface
 and to develop control  and remedial  technology for ground water quality.
 Considerable progress has been made  in recent  years  by RSKERL and associated
 grantees in developing  methods  for  obtaining uncontaminated  samples,  in
 developing new techniques  and  procedures  for characterizing  subsurface biota,
 and in developing technology  for  determining how biological  processes  affect
 pollutant transport and fate.   However, improvement  is needed in all of these

     Current information indicates  that the deeper subsurface environment  is
 not  sterile but harbors significant  populations  of microorganisms  and  that there
may  be considerable spatial variation  in  these populations both from a qualitative
and quantitative standpoint.  These  conclusions,  however, are based  on a
very limited number of  studies  and far more information on the  distribution,
density, and nature of organisms in  the subsurface, both above  and below the

 water table,  is needed.   Future  studies  should  emphasize  correlating  the
 occurrence and activities of  organisms with  the geological  and mineralogical
 properties and the environmental conditions  of  the  subsurface regions where
 the organisms exist.

      At  present little  is known  about biodegradation  of organic pollutants in
 the deeper subsurface.  A limited amount  of  pollutant  biodegradation  research
 has been done using the indigenous  flora of  the subsurface  and foreign
 pollutants; virtually no  work has been accomplished in situ.  These results
 have indicated that the potential for significant biodegradation of a number
 of  compounds .exists.  However, the  question  remains unanswered as to  the
 degree to which these reactions  will proceed in the subsurface.  The  limitations
 have not  been clearly defined to be either thermodynamic  (energy-limited) or
 kinetic  (rate-limited) nor has the  extent of adaptation and co-metabolism been
 investigated  in detail.   Very little is known concerning  degradation  byproducts
 or  whether degradation processes can be manipulated.

      Little is  known concerning  environmental conditions  in subsurface habitats
 and the  effect  such conditions have on biological activity and the biotic
 transformation  of  pollutants.  Important  factors governing the extent and/or
 nature of biological activity include (1) the concentration and utility of
 electron  acceptors; (2) the concentration and availability of essential
 nutrients;  (3)  the  oxidation-reduction potential; (4)  the pH; (5) the ionic
 composition;  (6) the availability of water;  (7) the temperature; (8)  the
 hydrostatic pressure; (9)  the nature of  the  solid phase;  and (10) the nature
 of  the pore space.  All of the above factors interact with each other to
 influence the activity of organisms in the subsurface.

     Biodegradability and the associated  kinetic relationships should be
 determined prior to development  and use of mathematical models for predicting
 the movement and fate of pollutants in the subsurface environment.  Vola-
 tilization and  sorption should be determined to predict biodegradation, since
 a mass balance  is required.  Reaction kinetics should be determined for
 modeling.  Studies  are required  to  determine: (1) the effect of concentration
 of pollutant on the rate law  for  transformation; (2) the effect of concentration
 of  pollutant on the density of microbes active  against that pollutant; and
 (3)  the correlation between the  rate of transformation of the pollutant and
 the density of viable microbes,  or  the concentration of some biochemical
 constituent of the microbes used  as an indicator of biomass or nutritional
 state.  Current information is scant.

     To use laboratory and field  information about  subsurface biotic  reactions
 to predict the  fate of pollutants requires the development of mathematical
 submodels that describe the kinetics of biological  transformations in the sub-
surface,  and which can be incorporated into more sophisticated mass transport
models describing water movement  and abiotic attenuation of pollutants.

                              AQUIFER CLEANUP
      RSKERL1s research dealing specifically with aquifer restoration supports
 six inhouse and extramural projects in FY '85.  The National Water Well
 Association is preparing a report, which is due in May 1985, to assist
 decision makers in dealing with contaminated ground water which is a
 public water supply.  The report will discuss'various alternatives available,
 their cost effectiveness, and the institutional problems associated with
 the implementation of various options.  Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory is
 developing a report, also due in the spring of 1985, to assist agencies
 involved in cleanup of contaminated ground water in evaluating "how clean
 is clean."  The report will evaluate the incremental benefits versus
 incremental costs of cleaning up a waste site.  The University of Tennessee
 is evaluating the feasibility of enhancing the in-situ biological degradation
 of contaminants in ground water by the use of genetically-engineered
 organisms.  A project with Florida State University is being initiated to
 study the occurrence and ecology of organisms necessary for the in-situ
 cleanup of contaminated aquifers.  An inhouse project at RSKERL is underway
 to evaluate the use of simulated aquifers for developing in-situ biological
 cleanup methods for such contaminants as nitrates and synthetic chemicals.
 A major inhouse and extramural effort is underway at RSKERL and Stanford
 University to develop an in-situ biological process for restoration of
 ground water contaminated with trichloroethylene and related organic
                        HAZARDOUS WASTE ENGINEERING
     A major source of ground-water pollution is  the  disposal  of  hazardous
 waste.  The Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory (HWERL)  in
 Cincinnatti, Ohio has two programmatic areas that support  research and
 development of hazardous waste source control.   The  first  program is in
 support  of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  (RCRA)  and is
 concerned with the disposal of hazardous waste  in landfills,  surface
 impoundments,  and other geologic storage facilities.   The  second program
 is in support  of  the Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation
 and Liability  Act (Superfund)  and is concerned with  the  development  of
 technology for the cleanup of  uncontrolled  hazardous waste  sites.


     The  hazardous waste land disposal research  program is collecting data
 necessary to support implementation of disposal  guidelines  mandated  by the
 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976  (RCRA), PL 94-580.  This
 program  relating  to  landfills,  surface impoundments, and geologic  storage
 encompasses  state-of-the-art documents,  laboratory analysis,  economic
 assessment,  bench and pilot  studies,  and full-scale field verification
 studies.   The  results of  this  research are  reported as Technical Resource
 Documents (TRD's)  in support of  the RCRA Guidance Documents.  These
 documents will be  used to provide  guidance  for conducting the review and
 evaluation of  land disposal  permit  applications.   The  work  can be  divided
 into  the  following areas:   (1)  Landfills:   cover systems, waste  leaching,
 liners, and waste  modification;  (2)  Surface  Impoundments: assessment  of
 design and containment systems;  (3)  Geologic Storage,  e.g., underground
mines and  salt domes.


     Cover Systems—The objective  of  this  activity  is  to  develop  and  evaluate
 the effectiveness of various cover systems  in  relation to  their  functional
 requirements for actual field application.  Validation efforts are being
 performed in the laboratory and field with  model work development being
 pursued for eventual incorporation into a TRD.

     Waste Leaching—The objective of this activity is to develop and evaluate
 laboratory techniques for working with a  sample of a  waste or a mixture of
 wastes  to predict the composition of actual leachates obtained under field
 conditions.   Results from laboratory and  model predictions  are being compared
 with results from pilot scale and field scale work to develop better
 procedures, and  an updated TRD on waste leaching.
     Clay Soil Liners—The objective of this activity  is  to  evaluate  the
 effectiveness of clay soils as liners and surface  caps to  contain or minimize
 leachate movement and infiltration and to predict  performance with time.
 Laboratory and  field studies  are being performed to develop tools for
 predicting and  evaluating performance of  soil liners.

     Flexible Membrane Liners—The objective of this activity is  to evaluate
 the  effectiveness of synthetic membranes  or flexible  membranes as liners and
 caps to  contain leachates/moisture infiltration and to predict their
 performance  with time.  Both  laboratory and field  efforts are developing
 tools to establish flexible membrane liner  performance criteria.

     Waste  Modification—The objective of  this activity is  to evaluate the
 effectiveness of chemical stabilization and encapsulation processes  relating
 to improving handling;  reducing surface area; limiting solubility; detoxifying
 pollutants;  and  predicting  performance with time.  Validation efforts in
 the  laboratory and  field  will  correlate compatibility of the individual
 processes  to specific  waste types and predict durability and leaching
 performance  with time.  Information produced will  be  published in a TRD.

 Surface  Impoundments

     The  surface  impoundment research program has been developed to provide a
 comprehensive understanding.of the design,  operation, and maintenance of
 surface  impoundments as options for hazardous waste disposal.  Information is
 being developed  on  the use  of natural soils as liners and dikes.  Also, the
 correlation  of laboratory measurements with the construction standards
 achievable in the field is  being investigated.  Of particular interest is the
 degree to which  specification  of construction techniques and inspection
 practice can influence uniformity and performance  of  the finished impoundment.

Geologic Storage

    The objective of this activity is to update the state-of-the-art
 technology on the use of underground mines  for emplacement  of hazardous
waste.  Efforts  are  being pursued both by literature  review and planned field
demonstration.  An evaluation of other geologic storage options are also being
 investigated, e.g., salt domes.


     The Land Pollution Control Division (LPCD),  HWERL,  has the responsibility
 for the control development program in support of Superfund.   The LPCD
 research and development program has been organized to  correspond with the
 Superfund legislation, i.e., the Releases Control Branch deals with  removal
 actions (emergencies), and the Containment Branch deals with remedial
 actions.  The program is one of technology development  and asessment to
 determine cost and effectiveness, adaptation of  technologies  to the
 uncontrolled waste site problem, field evaluation of technologies that show
 promise, development of guidance material for the EPA Office  of Emergency and
 Remedial Response (OERR), technical assistance to OERR, and EPA Regional

 Removal (Emergency) Action

     This program has been divided into three major areas of activity:
 (1) Personnel Health and Safety; (2) Evaluation  of Equipment;  and
 (3) Chemical Countermeasures.   The goal of the personnel health and
 safety activity is to develop  protective equipment and  procedures for
 personnel working on land or underwater in environments which  are known
 or suspected to be immediately dangerous to life or health, so that
 personnel can conduct operations related to investigating, monitoring, or
 cleaning up hazardous substances.

     The goal of the equipment  evaluation activity is to modify,  adapt, and
 field  test hazardous substances spill control equipment for appropriate
 utilization for removal action at uncontrolled dump sites. Examples of this
 equipment are the mobile incinerator, modular transportable incinerator,
 carbon regenerator,  and soils  washer.

     The goal of the chemical countermeasures activity is to evaluate the
 efficiency of in-situ physical/chemical/biological treatment of  large  volumes
 of subsurface soils  and large  relatively, quiescent waterbodies for the purpose
 of controlling the hazardous contaminants  within those  media.   Technical
 criteria for the  use of chemicals and other additives to control hazardous
 release situations are being developed.

 Remedial Action

     This program  is  designed to assist the Office of Emergency and Remedial
 Response,  Regional Offices,  States,  and  industry to meet the challenge of
 protecting  the  public from  the environmental effects of uncontrolled hazardous
 waste  sites.  The  major emphasis  of  the  program  is  to take "off-the-shelf"
 technology  and  adapt  it to  the uncontrolled hazardous waste site situation.
 Many existing technologies,  such  as  those  used in the construction industry,
 wastewater  treatment,  and spill cleanup,  can be  applied to uncontrolled waste
 sites.   However,  their application must  be tested,  cost and effectiveness
 determined,  and limitations  understood so  that they may be effectively and
 economically  utilized.   It  is  a major function of this  program to evaluate
 these  techniques and  combine them into cost-effective remedial actions for  the
various  situations found at  uncontrolled waste sites.

    This program has been divided into four areas of activity:  (1)  Survey
and Assessment of Current Technologies; (2) Laboratory and Site Design
Analysis;  (3) Field Evaluation and Verification of Techniques; and (4)
Technical Handbooks.

    Survey and Assessment of Current Technologies—The goal of this activity
is to review and evaluate the effectiveness of remedial action long-term
control techniques that are being used and have been used to contain
pollutants at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.  Analyses include defining
the site specific problem, determining the problems associated with
implementing the techniques, determining the effectiveness, and identifying
costs.  This activity also includes the development and use of models.

    Laboratory and Site Design Analysis—The goal of this activity is to
perform laboratory studies to simulate field conditions and evaluate the
adequacy of adapting the lab control technology schemes to actual field

    Field Evaluation and Verification of Techniques—The goal of this activity
is to field test control technology techniques that look very promising and/or
test the technique being installed to determine performance with time and to
validate promising control techniques being developed by lab and pilot studies.

                                                                  APPENDIX C

                        (Prepared by  Dr. James Davidson)

      Although no Federal laws  and  few state laws have ground water contamina-
 tion as their major focus,  there are many Federal  and State statutes that can
 control or mitigate ground  water contamination.  The legal framework for
 Federal agencies to protect ground water is a group of statutes aimed primar-
 ily at other environmental  problems  that focus  indirectly  on ground water.
 Because of this lack of focus  and  the diversity of sources for ground water
 contamination,  numerous Federal and  state agencies are involved in ground
 water research.   Agencies which support ground water research internally
 and/or extramurally are as  follows:

 Environmental Protection Agency

      Most ground water  research programs in the Environmental Protection
 Agency are under the responsibility  of the  Office  of Research and Development.
 Funds to support this program  come from the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of
 1974 and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976.  Two
 internal research committees advise  the Office of  Research and Development
 (ORD)  regarding  ground  water research needs.  These committees are (i) the
 Hazardous Waste  Research Committee and (ii)  the Water Research Committee.  The
 Office of Research and  Development directs  programs in fourteen laboratories
 and  at several  field stations.  In addition to designing a research program
 to  satisfy multiple  client  needs,  ORD works with other Federal agencies
 concerned with ground water.   A Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and
 the  US Geological Survey (USGS) was  established in August 1981, and provides
 an umbrella under which the agencies  programs are  formally coordinated.  EPA
 also  conducts joint  research projects with  several  other agencies, including
 the US Air Force,  the US  Department  of Energy, and  the National Research

     EPA laboratories with  major responsibilities  in the area of ground water
 quality are  the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas (EMSL),
 the Robert  S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory-Ada (RSKERL), and the
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory-Cincinnati (HWERL).  Resources
 dedicated  to  research underway in  these laboratories are as follows:

           Research Area        Total Dollars         Man-Years
                                   (in 1000's)*

            Monitoring              1,763.0                 9.4

            Prediction              6,307.1                31

            Aquifer Cleanup or
              Restoration             853.6                 6.7

            Hazardous Waste
              Engineering           9.272.0                46.2

               Totals              18,195.7                93.3

      The Environmental Monitoring Systems  Laboratory (EMSL)  conducts
 ground water monitoring research  to  support  the  underground injection
 control regulations for the Safe Drinking  Water Act  and  the  Ground Water
 Protection Regulation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
 Spin-off from these programs has established  geophysical technical support
 to assist Superfund hazardous waste site investigations.   This research
 also offers techniques to detect leaks from underground  storage tanks.
 The program supports research in three primary areas: ground water mon-
 itoring and sampling methods in  both  unsaturated  and saturated zones,
 application of surface and downhole geophysics for subsurface character-
 ization and data interpretation  and analysis.  Quality assurance is
 addressed in all areas.

      The Robert  S.  Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory (RSKERL) has
 the responsibility  for conducting investigations  to  provide  technical
 information for  those ground water issues  which are  addressed in a number
 of environmental laws.    Management considerations include the ability to
 identify,  evaluate,  and  control  potential  sources  of ground  water contam-
 ination;  assess  the  risk and impacts  associated with emergency spill
 situations  and other contamination events; and to  take remedial action in
 the restoration  of  ground water  quality.   Research at RSKERL in hydrologic
 processes  is  directed toward three areas:  (i) expanding  the understanding
 of the  physics of fluid  flow through  porous media, (ii) developing metho-
 dology  for  evaluating the degree of heterogeneity  (spatial variability)
 both physically  and  chemically in the  subsurface and (iii) advancing the
 techniques  for forecasting the spatial  and temporal  distribution of
 chemicals in  the subsurface  as well as  fluid fluxes  in the subsurface
 environment.   Land treatment as  a source reduction technique also is
 studied  at  RSKERL.

      The Hazardous  Waste Engineering  Research  Laboratory   (HWERL)  has
 two programmatic areas that  support research and development  of hazardous
 waste source  control.  The first program is in the support of Resource
 Conservation  and Recovery Act  (RCRA) and is concerned with the disposal
 of  hazardous waste in landfills,  surface impoundments, and other geologi-
 cal  storage facilities;  alternatives  to land disposal are  also developed.
 The  second  program is  in the  support  of the Comprehensive  Environmental
 Response, Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund) and  is  concerned
 with the development  of  technology  for  the cleanup of uncontrolled
 hazardous waste  sites.

      In  addition' to  the  in-house  programs conducted  in the above three
 laboratories,  EPA also provides  extramural support for research programs
 outside  the Agency. Among  these  is  the National Center for Ground Water
Research, a consortium between Oklahoma University,  Oklahoma  State Uni-
versity and Rice University.   In  addition  to the National  Ground Water
Center, numerous grants  and  contracts support research in  other univer-
 sities.  Some  pertinent work is  done at ERL-Athens,  e.g. hydrolysis,
adsorption, etc..

 US Geological Survey

      Ground water activities in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)  are
 multidisciplinary in nature and are related to many program elements  in
 the Environmental Protection Agency.  Ground water activities include
 geology, hydraulics, water chemistry, hydrology,  biology,  geochemistry,
 and ground water/surface water interactions.  In FY 1984 the total amount
 of funding available to the Water Resources Division was approximately
 $225  million (including appropriated funds, reimbursable  funds,  and
 matching funds from the States) — of this amount approximately $90
 million was expended for the collection of ground water quantity,  and to
 a lesser extent, quality, data and for conducting ground water investiga-
 tions.  USGS Programs are intended to improve the understanding of the
 hydrologic, geologic, geochemical and microbiologic processes that control
 the movement, alteration and fate of toxic substances in ground water.
 These programs  receive approximately $8.5 million to support basic and
 applied research in the preceeding areas.   The dollars are used for both
 in-house and extramural funding.

 US Department of Agriculture

      The current water quality research commitment in the  Agricultural
 Research Service (ARS)  exceeds $6 million,  but about ninety percent is
 devoted to the development  of techniques for assessing and enhancing  the
 quality of surface  water.   The current ARS  Program on ground water quality
 can be described under four major categories:   (i) nutrients;  (ii) pesti-
 cides;  (iii)  salinity;  and  (iv) modeling.   Recent progress in ground
 water quality is based  on advances in agricultural chemical technology
 and soil water chemistry in eight  areas:  (i)  efficiency of use; (ii)
 integrated pest management;  (iii)  improved  chemical disposal practices;
 (iv)  environmental  modeling.,  (v)  soil chemistry;  (vi) salinity;  (vii)
 nutrients.,  and (viii)  process models.  ARS has  proposed a plan to expand
 their ground  water  quality  research.   The plan involves an estimated
 increase of  25 man-years at a cost of $5 million  annually.

      The Cooperative  State  Research Service (CSRS)  involves the State
 Agricultural  Experiment  Stations  at Land-Grant Universities in the United
 States.   This  program has approximately 250 projects  with  a ground water
 research emphasis.  These projects are primarily  concerned with water and
 contaminant  transport in the  unsaturated zone  and the modeling of  these
 processes.  Approximately $1.75 million in  state,  Hatch and grant  funds
 are spent  for  ground water  research.

 US Department  of Energy

     The US Department of Energy (DOE)  is conducting  a major ground water
 research program.  They  are spending  approximately  $20 million per year
 on source  control, $20 million per  year on  aquifer  clean up and $10 mil-
 lion per year  on monitoring.  Objectives of the program are  to provide  a
 base of  fundamental scientific information  so  that  the geochemical,
hydrological and biophysical mechanisms that contribute  to  the transport

 and long-term fate of energy-related contaminants in natural systems can
 be understood and described.  Areas of emphasis include the understanding
 of geochemical processes and transport of energy-related organic compounds
 and mixtures in the subsurface environment.   A proposed ten year program
 to develop a "new generation" prediction model is being studied by the
 agency.  The program involves the application of supercomputers, labora-
 tory/university consortia and control field-scale experiments.   This
 program proposal has been reviewed by the National Research Council's
 Ground Water Committee and their recommendations returned to the Depart-
 ment of Energy for consideration.

 US Air Force

      The major thrust of this program is to  develop methods for predicting
 the impact of various Air Force activities including the fate of solvents,
 waste disposal and accidental spills which may result in ground water
 contamination.   Delineation of the extent and impacts of dioxin contamina-
 tion resulting primarily from the use,  storage,  and disposal of agent
 orange is also a major thrust.   Procedures for the restoration  of ground
 water quality are also being investigated.   Topics under investigation
 include sorption and degradation of trichloroethylene (TCE),  other chlori-
 nated compounds, and aromatic hydrocarbons in subsurface environments,
 assessment of heavy  metal mobility at several Air Force  bases,  incinera-
 tion of dioxin-contaminated soils,  feasibility of applied genetic  engi-
 neering techniques to achieve dioxin biodegradation,  and evaluation of
 methods to enhance in situ biodegradation of TCE and  other organic com-
 pounds in contaminated soils  and ground  water.

 US  Army

      The  objective of  this program is to develop cost-effective pollution
 control monitoring systems,  provide environmental and health  effects  data
 on  Army-unique  pollutants,  and  promote  efficient management of  environ-
 mental quality  programs  through the develppment  of  management systems and
 information data bases.   Areas  receiving emphasis include:  (i)  treatment
 methods for ground water and  soil  contamination;  (ii)  environmental early
 warning systems;  (iii)  landfill leachate control methods;  (iv)  hazardous
 waste  management  techniques., and  (v) advanced technology  for contaminant

 Tennessee  Valley Authority

     The  objectives  in  this  program are  to provide  the information and
 tools needed  for assessing  the  significance  of potential  pollutant  sour-
 ces, preventing  contamination and isolating  the  sources  of  contamination.
Ongoing activities include  the  assessment of  potential problems  resulting
 from the disposal  of power plant wastes,  development  and  demonstration of
methods for disposal or  utilization  of fly ash,  flue  gas  desulfurization/
 sludge, coal  cleaning waste and  fluidized  bed  combustion waste  and  devel-
opment of a comprehensive data  base  and  management  method  for land  appli-
 cation of waste water treatment  sludge.

 Electric Power Research Institute

      The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) initiated the Solid
 Waste Environmental Studies (SWES) program in order to assist in the de-
 velopment of data and methods for predicting the fate of constituents in
 solid waste at utility disposal sites. The ultimate goal of the SWES
 project is to improve (develop) and validate geohydrochemical models for
 predicting the release, transport, transformation and environmental fate
 of chemicals associated with utility solid waste.  The goals of the SWES
 project are divided into near-term and long-term objectives.

 American Petroleum Institute

      Research related to ground water largely concerns cleanup of immi-
 scible liquids in the subsurface.


      In addition to the above programs there are numerous research pro-
 grams underway in state and private universities.  These programs are
 funded by Federal,  state and private agencies or companies, and frequently
 work cooperatively with the above agencies as well as independently.
 In general,  the quality  of this research is excellent and  is addressing
 major issues surrounding the potential for ground water contamination
 and the cleanup of  ground water.  The area which does not appear to be
 receiving appropriate attention is the transfer of this technology into
 the user community  whether that be state or private.

      A summary of the research areas or topics being  studied in federal
 agencies is  provided  in the following table:

                                  RESEARCH AREAS

 AGENCY                          SOURCE     PREDICTION       MONITORING      CLEANUP

 US  Department  of  Agriculture      XX                X

 US  Army                           X                                           X

 US  Air Force                      XX                XX

 US  Department of  Energy           XX                X

US Geological Survey                          X                X

US  Environmental  Protection
  Agency                          XX                XX

Tennessee Valley Authority       XX                X

                                                                 APPENDIX D

 1.   Carlson, Carmen, American Petroleum Institute, Information on API Ground
     Water Research, Letter dated May 15, 1985, Washington, D.C.

 2.   Males, Rene, Electric Power Research Institute, Summary of Ground Water
     Studies, Letter dated February 20, 1985, Palo Alto, California.

 3.   Pye, Veronica, Patrick, R. and Quarles, J., "Ground Water Contamination
     in the United States," University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.

 4.   U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, "Protecting the Nation's
     Groundwater from Contamination,"  OTA-0-233, Washington, D.C., October,

 5.   U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Utilization of EPA Technology for
     the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980," (biennial Report
     to the Department of Commerce, covering the period October 1,  1982 to
     September 30, 1984).

 6.   U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Ground Water Protection Strategy,"
    Office of Ground Water Protection,  Washington, D.C., August,  1984.

 7.  van der Heijde, Paul, Bachmat, Y.,  Bredehoeft, J., Andrews, B.,  Holtz,
    D. and Sebastian, S., "Groundwater Management: the Use of Numerical
    Models," American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., 1985.

8.  Whitehurst, Charles, "State Research Needs," Internal EPA Memorandum,
    Office of Ground Water Protection,  Washington, D.C., February  20,  1985.