United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
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
Program
by the
Ground Water Research
Review Committee
Science Advisory Board
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
July 31, 1985
OFFICE OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Hon. Lee M. Thomas
.Administrator
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.
Sincerely,
i
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
-------
REPORT
on the review of
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
GROUND WATER RESEARCH PROGRAM
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
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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."
-------
-2-
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.
General
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
agencies.
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
inadequate.
-------
-3-
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
components.
-------
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
topography.
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.
-------
-5-
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.
-------
-6-
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
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-
search.
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
use.
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.
-------
-8-
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
government.
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.
-------
-9-
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.
-------
-10-
SECTION III
DESCRIPTION/EVALUATION OF THE EPA GROUND WATER RESEARCH PROGRAM
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.
-------
-11-
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
RCRA.
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
-------
-12-
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
wastes.
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.
-------
-13-
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
wastes.
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
drawn.
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.
Recommendations
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
-------
-14-
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
wastes.
2. Continue the program on alternatives to land disposal for
controlling sources of hazardous wastes. These alternatives
include thermal destruction and chemical and biological
detoxification.
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
EPA:
-------
-15-
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
water.
3. Develop techniques to treat wastes to reduce their hazard and
increase technology-transfer efforts on existing methods of
waste minimization.
Monitoring
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;
and
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
-------
-16-
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.
-------
-17-
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
focused.
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.
-------
-18-
Recommendations
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
made.
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.
-------
-19-
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
analysis.
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.
s-
When a class of compounds can be easily eliminated as contaminants
of concern, the efficiency of monitoring increases and the cost of
analysis decreases.
-------
-20-
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
compliance.
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
pollutants.
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
-------
-21-
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.
-------
-22-
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
accuracy.
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
-------
-23-
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.
Recommendations
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.
-------
-24-
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
-------
-25-
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.
-------
-26-
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.
-------
-27-
Recotnmendations
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
rehabilitation.
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
techniques.
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
topography.
E. Initiate research on construction of underground injection wells
and identification of suitable geologic environments for isolating
hazardous wastes.
-------
-28-
SECTION IV
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND TRAINING
Introduction
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.
-------
-29-
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,
Recommendations
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
area.
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.
-------
-30-
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).
-------
-31-
SECTION V
POLICY ASPECTS OF GROUND WATER RESEARCH
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.
-------
-32-
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
employ.
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.
-------
-33-
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
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
GROUND WATER RESEARCH REVIEW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN
Mr. John Quarles
Morgan Lewis & Bockius
Washington, D.C.
Dr. James Davidson
University of Florida
Gainesville, PL
VICE-CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS
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
CIBA-Geigy
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
GROUND-WATER RESEARCH PROGRAMS
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JANUARY 15, 1985
(Prepared by the Office of Environmental Processes and Effects Research)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
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
-------
INTRODUCTION
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.
SCOPE
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.
-------
B-2
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
described.
MANAGEMENT
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
-------
B-3
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.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
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
Engineering
TOTALS 18,195.7 93.3
MONITORING
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
-------
B-4
application of surface and downhole geophysics to subsurface characterization,
and data interpretation and analysis. Quality assurance is addressed in all
areas.
GROUND-WATER SAMPLING
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. .
GEOPHYSICS
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.
DATA ANALYSIS
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.
-------
B-5
PREDICTION
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.
HYDROLOGIC 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.
-------
B-6
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.
ABIOTIC PROCESSES
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,
-------
B-7
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.
BIOTIC PROCESSES
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
areas.
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
-------
B-8
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.
-------
B-9
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
compounds.
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.
LAND' DISPOSAL
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.
-------
B-10
Landfills
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.
-------
B-ll
UNCONTROLLED SITE CLEANUP
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
Offices.
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.
-------
B-12
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
conditions.
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
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AGENCY, ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND
AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE GROUND WATER RESEARCH PROGRAMS
(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
Council.
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
-------
C-2
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..
-------
C-3
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
-------
C-4
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
control/cleanup.
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.
-------
C-5
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.
Summary
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:
FEDERAL AGENCY GROUND-WATER RESEARCH PROGRAMS
RESEARCH AREAS
AGENCY SOURCE PREDICTION MONITORING CLEANUP
CONTROL
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
REFERENCES
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,
1984.
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.
------- |