OSWER Models Management Initiative
Phase II
Results of
the Census of Model Users in
Regional Hazardous Waste /
Superfund Offices
December, 1990
Information Management Staff
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Table off Contents
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Purpose 1-1
1.2 Background 1-1
2.0 Census of Model Use 2-1
2.1 Census Objectives 2-1
2.2 Highlights of Census Results 2-3
2.3 Detailed Results 2-6
Appendices
A. Census Questionnaire A-l
B. Detailed Census Results B-l
C. Table of Models C-l
-------
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This report presents the results of a nation-wide census of users of computerized
environmental models. It provides an opportunity for those who responded to the
Census to review the complete set of data collected from their counterparts in other
EPA Regions and programs.
The Census was conducted as part of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response's (OSWER) Models Management Initiative. It was a key element in the
information collection strategy for Phase II of the initiative. The history of the
Models Management Initiative and the objectives for Phases I and II are outlined
below.
1.2 Background
OSWER is conducting the Models Management Initiative in response to
management's concern about the ways in which models are used to support
hazardous waste / Superfund decision-making and the levels of OSWER resources
expended to support modeling and the collection of data for model inputs. The
primary focus is on computerized models that predict environmental effects by
performing computations and making estimates based on physical laws,
probabilities, and statistics.
Phase I of the initiative began in early FY '89. The original emphasis was on
describing various characteristics of the modeling environment, such as: key EPA
organizations involved in model development, common model development
procedures, types of computer hardware and software used for modeling, and
available user support mechanisms. Phase I also included a collection of descriptive
information on over 300 models of potential interest to OSWER programs.
The final product of Phase I was a report entitled "Promoting Appropriate Use of
Models in Hazardous Waste / Superfund Programs." It included the following
recommendations for improving future management of OSWER's computerized
models: briefing OSWER Headquarters and Regional managers and ORD managers
on the results of the study and clarifying roles and responsibilities for future efforts;
conducting additional management studies; focusing on model usage in the EPA
Regional offices and identifying the most widely used models; preparing guidelines
for model development, calibration, verification, and peer review; developing a
manual on alternative computing technologies for models; developing a selection
and application guide for models; establishing user support networks and modeling
support groups; and defining working relationships with ORD modeling centers.
In Phase II, OSWER began to focus on the needs identified in Phase I. In
particular, emphasis was placed on assessing patterns of model usage in the EPA
1-1
-------
Chapter 1. Introduction
Regional offices. The primary methods for collecting the required Phase II
information were:
¦ distributing and collecting a modeling questionnaire (i.e., Census) from
hazardous waste / Superfund staff in all Regional Offices and Headquarters
¦ interviewing hazardous waste / Superfund staff in three selected Regional
Offices.
This report presents the results of the first method, the Census of model users. The
Census results are also included in the final Phase II report, entitled "Report on the
Usage of Computer Models in Hazardous Waste / Superfund Programs," along
with other Phase II findings. Copies of the final Phase II report are being distributed
to the Regional Waste Management Divisions and in OSWER and ORD at EPA
Headquarters.
1-2
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
2.0 Census of Model Use
2.1. Census Objectives
One of the primary Phase II objectives was to report on RCRA and CERCLA model
usage, based on a nationally representative set of information. There were two
major challenges for achieving this objective. First, the chosen information
collection method had to be relatively easy to administer and ensure an acceptable
response rate, from a target audience of model users that is geographically disperse,
has limited discretionary time for responding, and has widely varying levels of
knowledge about modeling. Second, the information collected had to be sufficiently
standardized to ensure that the key Phase n questions would be answered, and it
would be possible to make comparisons across Regions and across programs.
The project team developed and distributed a Census of Model Usage designed to
meet these challenges. The Census questionnaire was designed as a two-page, fill-
in-the-blank form that could be completed in approximately fifteen minutes. The
Census focused on the key Phase II questions:
¦ Who is using models?
¦ Which models are being used?
¦ What are models being used for?
Other supplementary questions/topics were also covered, such as:
¦ What is the profile of modeling experience for Regional Office staff?
¦ What is the quality and availability of documentation?
¦ Is modeling expertise available?
¦ Who is providing technical support?
¦ Are models being used appropriately?
¦ Is there a need for better management of models?
¦ Are models a valuable tool for supporting decision-making?
The Census was distributed nation-wide to staff in the RCRA and CERCLA
programs. The target population for the RCRA program consisted of Permitting and
Enforcement staffs in all ten Regions; the target population for the CERCLA
program was Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), Enforcement RPMs, and On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs). In addition to Regional staff, Headquarters staff involved with
RCRA and CERCLA modeling were also included in the distribution.
2-1
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
Specifically, staff in the following Headquarters branches received questionnaires:
¦ Information Management and Support Staff, OCEPP
¦ Toxics Integration Branch, OERR
¦ Site Policy and Guidance Branch, OERR
¦ Environmental Response Branch, OERR
¦ Technical Assessment Branch, OSW
¦ Permits Branch, OSW
¦ Special Wastes Branch, OSW
¦ Technical Assistance and Training Branch, OWPE.
¦ Technical Support Branch, OWPE
In this chapter, we present the findings from the Census. The first section
provides highlights that answer the questions cited above. The remainder of
this chapter follows the organization of the Census questionnaire itself (See
Appendix A). For each topic, the highlights of the findings are followed by a
more detailed discussion of the Census results, where appropriate.
2-2
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
2.2. Highlights of the Census Results
Who Responded to the Census?
¦ A total of 283 responses were received, with all ten EPA Regions
responding to the Census.
¦ RCRA enforcement and permitting branches/sections from every
Region are represented in the Census.
¦ Approximately forty-two percent of the Superfund RPMs and OSCs
who were sent the Census questionnaire responded.
¦ Most respondents identified themselves as Environmental Engineers,
Environmental Scientists, Geologists, and Chemical Engineers.
¦ A vast majority of the respondents identified themselves as having
little or no expertise in modeling.
O Most respondents (over 60 percent) have limited or no
experience with modeling.
© About a third of all Census respondents said that they had some
academic or other coursework related to modeling, and/or have
some hands-on experience with models.
© Only 11 people (out of 283 respondents) identified themselves as
modeling experts.
Who is Using Models?
¦ A majority of respondents (144) use modeling results to help them
prepare recommendations or make decisions.
¦ A large percentage of respondents (64.3%) either review (181
respondents) or manage the review (62 respondents) of modeling
applications developed by EPA or by PRPs.
¦ Almost a third of the people (76 in all) responding to this question
have no involvement in models.
¦ Nearly a fifth of all respondents (54 in all) collect data for use in models
and/or actually run the models themselves.
¦ There were no significant differences in modeling involvement
between the RCRA and CERCLA programs.
¦ Over 50 percent of those who use modeling results (77 in all) classified
themselves as having little or no experience with models.
2-3
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
Who is Providing Technical Support?
¦ Overall, respondents mentioned contractors as their most common
source of technical support.
¦ Respondents from the RCRA Program rely on staff in their own
division more frequently than they consult with their contractors.
¦ Respondents from the CERCLA Program rely on their own contractors
more frequently than the technical staff in their own divisions.
¦ Respondents rely on EPA technical staff in their own or a related
division more frequently than modeling experts in ORD's Regional
Labs.
Are Models Being Used Appropriately?
¦ Census respondents are equally split on the issue of whether models
are being used appropriately. Many comments were received from
those who felt models were not being used appropriately. One Census
respondent commented, "Models can be are useful when applied
appropriately and when assumptions and errors are clearly identified. I
have often seen models applied inappropriately." Another expressed
concern that "models used in the NPL soil clean-up process are
misused and unrealistic for field application".
Is There a Better Need for the Management of Models?
¦ Most respondents (153 in all) believe that there is a need for better
management of models. Conversely, a relatively small number (10 in
all) of respondents disagree or strongly disagree that there is such a
need.
Are Models a Valuable Tool for Supporting Decision-Making?
¦ Most respondents (147 in all) believe that models are valuable tools for
supporting decision-making; there was widespread agreement among
respondents with the statement that, "Models are valuable tools for
supporting decision-making".
2-4
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
Which RCRA and CERCLA Phases and Activities are Most
Heavily Supported by Models?
¦ Models are used most heavily in support of six RCRA and CERCLA
Phases in the following order:
¦ Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
¦ Remedial Design
¦ Remedial Action
¦ Permitting
¦ "Other" Superfund Phases
¦ "Other" RCRA Phases
¦ The most common modeling activity identified by Census respondents
was the use of models for assessing groundwater transport and fate.
Which Models Are Being Used?
¦ Many different models are used to support many different RCRA and
CERCLA phases and activities. In all, 115 distinct models were
identified by Census respondents. The most frequently mentioned
models were:
¦ MODFLOW
¦ HELP
¦ RANDOM WALK
¦ VHS
¦ MINTEQ
¦ ISC LT
¦ PUFF
¦ USGS 2D TRANSPORT
¦ USGS 2D
¦ DYNFLOW.
2-5
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
2.3. Detailed Results
This section describes the Census results in more detail. The information is
organized according to the five questions/topics addressed by the Census
Questionnaire (see Appendix A).
2.3.1. Question #1 - Respondent Profile
A following profile of Census respondents was developed using information
on respondents' organizational affiliation, address, program (RCRA vs.
CERCLA), and job classification.1 Table 2.3.1-1, Census Response By Region,
presents the number of responses received from each Region and from EPA
Headquarters.
Respondents were also asked to place themselves into one of the following
three categories in terms of modeling education and/or experience:
¦ Modeling Expert. I have studied models extensively and/or have
multiple years of hands-on experience with models.
¦ Knowledgeable Modeler. I have some academic or other coursework
related to modeling, and/or have some hands-on experience with
models.
¦ Novice/Inexperienced Modeler. I have completed little or no
coursework on modeling and/or have had little or no hands-on
experience with models.
Table 2.3.1-1 Census Response by Region
Region I:
20
Region VI:
30
Region II:
44
Region VII:
31
Region IE:
25
Region VIII:
17
Region IV:
19
Region IX:
21
Region V:
44
Region X:
12
Headquarters: 20
Total Responses: 283
1 These issues were addressed in Question 1 of the Census Questionnaire (see Appendix A).
2-6
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
Highlights for Question #1
¦ A total of 283 responses were received, with all ten EPA Regions
responding to the Census.
¦ RCRA enforcement and permitting branches/sections from every
Region are represented in the Census.
¦ Approximately forty-two percent of the Superfund RPMs and OSCs
who were sent Census questionnaires responded.
¦ Most people responding to the Census identified themselves as
Environmental Engineers, Environmental Scientists, Geologists, and
Chemical Engineers.
¦ A vast majority of the people who responded to the Census identified
themselves as having little or no expertise in modeling.
O Most respondents (over 60 percent) have limited or no
experience with modeling.
© About a third of all Census respondents said that they had some
academic or other coursework related to modeling, and/or have
some hands-on experience with models.
® Only 11 people (out of 283 respondents) identified themselves as
modeling experts.
Discussion of Results for Question #1
Response By Region. More responses were received from Regions II and V
than from any other Region. Regions III, VI, and VII also had relatively large
numbers of people responding. Regions I, IV, VIII, IX, and Headquarters
ranged from a low of only 12 people responding to a high of 21.
Response By Program (RCRA Vs. CERCLA). More responses were received
from CERCLA personnel than from the RCRA program. Of the 283 total
Census forms received, 202 came from the CERCLA program; 76 were
received from RCRA. The remaining five respondents did not assign
themselves to either program. A total of 484 Census forms were distributed
to Superfund personnel across the country. This represents a 41.7% response
rate for the CERCLA program (202 Census forms returned/484 Census forms
sent). For the RCRA program, there were 49 Census packages mailed to 49
different section or branch chiefs across the Regions and at Headquarters. It
was left to the discretion of these section and branch chiefs to distribute the
Census forms to the appropriate persons in their sections and branches. The
Census forms were returned by one or more staff members from RCRA
enforcement and permitting branches/sections in every Region. Figure 2.3.1-
1 provides a Region-by-Region and program-by-program comparison of
responses.
lob Classifications. Census respondents were given an opportunity to include
a job classification in their profile. Given the open ended nature of this
question, a wide variety of responses were given. Table 2.3.1-2 presents the
most popular responses.
2-7
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
Figure 2.3.1*1. Response to the Census (By Region and Program)
I
I II III IV
VI VII VIII IX
Other
(HQ)
Regions
RCRA S3 Superfund
2-8
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
Table 2.3.1-2 Job Classifications
Job Classification
Number of
Times
Mentioned
¦ Environmental Engineer
¦ Environmental Scientist
¦ Geologist
¦ Chemical Engineer
100
51
16
15
Other job classifications mentioned were Environmental Protection Specialist
(11), Remedial Program Manager (11), On-Scene Coordinator (11), Civil
Engineer (6), Supervisory Environmental Scientist (5), Hydrologist (4),
Hydrogeologist (4), Section Chief (3), and Geological Engineer (3).
Level of Modeling Education/Experience. Census respondents were asked to
place themselves in a category based on their respective experiences with
modeling.2 These results are presented in Figure 2.3.1-2, Modeling Education
& Experience, on the following page and highlighted below. Appendix B
contains more detail by modeling involvement in each program - Figure B-3
Modeling Involvement for the RCRA Program (By Experience), and Figure
B-4 Modeling Involvement for the CERCLA Program (By Experience) depict
this information.
¦ Modeling Experts. A vast majority of the people who responded to the
Census do not consider themselves to be experts in modeling. In fact,
only 11 people across the country identified themselves as modeling
experts. This is less than 4 percent of all Census respondents.3
¦ Knowledgeable Modelers. About a third of all Census respondents said
that they had some academic or other coursework related to modeling,
and/or have some hands-on experience with models.4 A total of 86
respondents said they have had some modeling experience.
¦ Novice/Inexperienced Modelers. Most respondents (over 60 percent)
have limited or no experience with modeling - a total of 165 people.5
2These issues were presented in Question 1 of the Census. See Appendix A for details. Of the
283 census forms returned, only 257 persons had identified themselves with either the RCRA or
Superfund programs and had classified themselves according to their modeling experience. 16
forms were received with one or both of these sets of information incomplete.
311 out of 283 respondents identified themselves as being modeling experts. (11/283=3.89%).
486 out of 283 respondents identified themselves as having experience with modeling.
(86/283=30.39%).
^169 out of 283 respondents identified themselves as having limited or no experience with
modeling. (169/283 = 59.72%).
2-9
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Uae
Figure 2.3.1*2 Modeling Education/Experience
=a
¦ ¦
a
4i
I III IV
V VI VII VIII IX X
Regions
HQ
~ Novice/Inexperienced S Knowledgeable Modeler H Expert
2-10
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
2.3.2. Question #2 •• Involvement With Modeling in
RCRA/CERCLA Programs
Census respondents were asked to describe their involvement with modeling
in the RCRA and CERCLA programs.6 There were a total of 598 responses
given for this question by 283 separate respondents. Specifically, they were
asked to place themselves in any of the following categories7:
¦ a. I select models to be used for RCRA/CERCLA analyses.
¦ b. I run models.
¦ c. I review model applications by EPA technical staff, or EPA
contractors/consultants.
¦ d. I review model applications by Superfund PRPs, RCRA
facility owners, or their contractors/consultants.
¦ e. I manage the review of model applications.
¦ f. I use modeling results for preparing recommendations or
making decisions.
¦ g. I collect data used to support model applications.
¦ h. I have no involvement with models in RCRA and Superfund.
¦ i. other.
On average, each respondent provided responses in about 2 of the 9 possible
categories. Table 2.3.2-1, Responses to Modeling Involvement Questions,
ranks the responses about modeling involvement from the most to least
popular.
Table 2.3.2-1. Responses to Modeling Involvement Questions
Rank Question Responses Percent of
Respondents
1
f.
I use modeling results.
144
50.88%
2
c.
I review models used by EPA.
91
32.15%
3
d.
I review models used by PRPs.
91
32.15%
4
h.
I have no involvement.
76
26.85%
5
e.
I manage model review.
62
21.91%
6
g-
I collect data for models.
54
19.08%
7
b.
I run models.
31
10.95%
8
i.
other.
25
8.83%
9
a.
I select models.
24
8.48%
6These issues are addressed in Question 2 on the Census Questionnaire. See Appendix A for
details.
^Respondents could check as many categories as appropriate.
2-11
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
Highlights for Question #2
¦ A majority of respondents (144 in all) use modeling results to help
them prepare recommendations or make decisions.
¦ A large percentage of respondents (64.3%) also review (181
respondents) or manage the review (62 respondents) of modeling
applications developed by EPA or by PRPs.
¦ Almost a third of the people (76 in all) responding to this question
have no involvement in models.
¦ Nearly a fifth of all respondents (54 in all) collect data for use in models
and/or actually run the models themselves.
¦ There were no significant differences in modeling involvement
between the RCRA and CERCLA programs.
¦ Over 50 percent of those who use modeling results (77 in all) classified
themselves as having little or no experience with models.
Figure 2.3.2-1 presents a breakdown of the various response categories according to
the respondents' level of modeling experience.
Discussion of Results for Question #2
I Use Modeling Results. Of all of the statements considered by the Census
respondents, this one received the largest response. Users of modeling results
are equally distributed across all three levels of modeling experience.
Seventy-seven inexperienced modelers said that they used modeling results.
I Review Model Applications by EPA Technical Staff. Almost half of the
responses received from the census are from those who participate in the
review of model applications in one way or another. Almost one-third of all
respondents said that they review model applications by EPA technical staff or
EPA contractors/consultants.8 In total, 91 respondents said that they conduct
this type of review. A few experts as well as some of the inexperienced
modelers review these applications in the RCRA and CERCLA programs.
I Review Model Applications Used by Superfund PRPs/RCRA Facility
Owners. Etc. Almost a third of the people responding to the Census said that
they review model applications developed outside of EPA9. These may
include models developed by Superfund PRPs, RCRA facility owners, and
their contractors and/or consultants. In the RCRA program, people with all
levels of experience appear to be reviewing these model applications. A large
number of knowledgeable and novice modelers associated with the CERCLA
program said that they review models developed by their technical staff or
contractors. Twenty-eight of the 53 people who said that they conduct this
review for the CERCLA program have little or no modeling experience.
832.15% of all respondents said that they conduct reviews of model applications developed by
EPA technical staff or EPA contractors and/or consultants. (91/283=32.15%).
^91/283=32.15%.
2-12
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
Figure 2.3.2*1 Modeling Involvement (By Experience)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
a. I select models.
b. I run models.
c. I review EPA models.
d. I review Superlund PRP
models.
e. I manage the review of
models.
f. I use modeling results.
g. I collect data for models.
h. I have no involvement
with models.
i. other. M
Number of Responses
~ Expert
S Knowledgeable Modeler ¦ Novice/Inexperienced
2-13
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
I Manage the Review of Model Applications. Almost one-quarter of all
persons responding (69 in all) said they they manage the review of models.10
I Select Models for Use in RCRA/Superfund Analyses. A little more than 8
percent of all respondents said that they select models to be used for
RCRA/Superfund analyses.11 Models are selected mostly by experts and
knowledgeable modelers. There are, however, three people selecting models
who identified themselves as having little or no modeling experience.
2.3.3. Question #3- Sources of Technical Support for Modeling
Question 3 of the Census Questionnaire asked respondents to rank their
sources of technical support.12 For those that apply, they were asked to rank
different sources of technical support in the order of frequency in which they
are used. Table 2.3.3-1, Most Common Sources of Technical Support, and
Figure 2.3.3-1, Sources of Technical Support (Totals), present the number of
responses for the first most common, second most common, and third most
common rankings. The first, second, and third rankings for each source of
technical support is provided.
Table 2.3.3-1. Most Common Sources of Technical Support
Sources of Technical Support most next next most rank totals weighted
common
common
common
totals
(1)
(2)
(3)
a. your own Division
50
46
10
2
106
252
b. another Division in your Region/Office 21
26
23
3
70
138
c. EPA's ORD Labs
9
16
17
4
42
76
d. OSWER at EPA Headquarters
6
6
4
6
16
34
e. ORD at EPA Headquarters
3
6
1
7
10
22
f. contractors or consultants
69
37
15
1
121
296
g. other
11
7
9
5
27
56
1062/283=21.91%.
1123/270=8.52%.
12The completeness of the responses to this question varied considerably. Many of the people
who responded to this question did so correctly and completely - they ranked all of the sources
of technical support that they use. Many others, however, used "X's" to mark their choices.
The number of responses for each source of technical support varies.
13These weighted totals were calculated by assigning values to each ranking (either 1, 2 or 3),
multiplying that ranking by the number of responses received, and then adding all values for
each source of technical support. For example, for "a. your own division", the weighted total of
252 was calculated in the following way: (50 x 3) + (46 x 2) + (10 x 1) = 252.
2-14
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
Figure 2.3.3-1 Sources of Technical Support (Totals)
140
120
a. your own b. another c. EPA's d OSWER e. ORDat f. contractors g. other
Division Division in ORD Labs at EPA EPA or
your Headquarters Headquarters consultants
Region/Office
I most common (1) 0 next common (2) 0 next common (3)
2-15
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
Highlights for Question #3
¦ Overall, respondents mentioned contractors as their most common
source of technical support.
¦ Respondents from the RCRA Program rely on staff in their own
division more frequently than they consult with their contractors.
¦ Respondents from the CERCLA Program rely on contractors more
frequently than the technical staff in their own divisions.
¦ Respondents rely on EPA technical staff in their own or a related
division more frequently than modeling experts in ORD's Regional
Labs.
¦ Among the comments received concerning technical support were:
¦ "I seek an appropriate EPA expert."
¦ "I have never asked for technical support."
¦ "I use other Federal agencies (e.g., NOAA)."
¦ "I use my Environmental Response Team for technical
support."
¦ "I have no involvement in modeling therefore I have never
used technical support."
2.3.4. Question #4 -- Opinions on Assorted Modeling Issues
Census respondents were asked to express their opinions on the following
issues related to modeling:
¦ I am satisfied with the model documentation I have used.
¦ Model documentation is available to me.
¦ There are modeling experts in my Regional office.
¦ Technical expertise in modeling is readily available to me.
¦ In general, models are being used appropriately.
¦ There is a need for better management of models.
¦ Models are valuable tools for supporting decision-making.
For each of these statements, Census respondents were asked to strongly
agree, agree, agree/disagree, disagree, strongly disagree, or have no opinion
(don't know). The percentages presented in the discussions and charts to
follow do not account for those respondents who who chose "don't know/no
opinion". The responses to each of these statements are discussed below and
presented in Table 2.3.4-1, Opinions on Modeling.
Figure B-7 Modeling Opinions (Totals) in Appendix B, presents the opinions
provided by Census respondents on various issues relating to modeling.
2-16
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
Table 2.3.4-1 Opinions on Modeling
strongly agree
agree
1
ree agree/
disagree
2 3
disagree strongly don't know/ Totals Without Ave. Response
disagree no opinion "Don't knows" Without
"Don't knows"
I am satisfied with the model documentation I have used.
0 51 56 35 15 118 157 3.09
Model documentation is readily available to me.
2 57 45 62 27 82 193 3.28
There are modeling experts in my Regional office.
12 83 43 29 31 77 198 2.92
Technical expertise in modeling is readily available to me.
13 82 55 46 25 54 221 2.95
In general, models are being used appropriately.
0 38 63 39 25 110 165 3.31
There is a need for better management of models.
57 96 30 9 1 82 193 1.97
Models are valuable tools for supporting decision-making.
49 98 53 13 7 55 220 2.23
Highlights for Question #4
¦ Most respondents (153 in all) believe that there is a need for better
management of models. Conversely, a relatively small number of
respondents (10 in all) disagree or strongly disagree that there is such a
need.
¦ Most respondents (147 in all) believe that models are valuable tools for
supporting decision-making; there was widespread agreement among
respondents with the statement that, "Models are valuable tools for
supporting decision-making."
¦ Respondents were split on issues concerning:
¦ Their satisfaction with modeling documentation,
¦ The availability of modeling documentation,
¦ The existence of Regional modeling experts,
¦ The availability of technical expertise, and
¦ Whether or not models were being used appropriately.
2-17
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
2.3.5. Question #5 -- Use of Models in RCRA and CERCLA
Programs
Census respondents were asked to identify the models used in RCRA and
CERCLA. Among those phases they could choose were:
CERCLA Phases
¦ Preliminary Assessment
¦ Site Inspection
¦ Remedial Investigation or Removal Site Evaluation and
Feasibility Study
¦ Remedial Design or Removal Design
¦ Remedial Action or Removal Action
¦ Operation and Maintenance
¦ Closure and Post-Closure
¦ Enforcement
¦ Other
RCRA Phases
¦ Permitting
¦ Corrective Action Design
¦ Corrective Action
¦ Corrective Action Operation and Maintenance
¦ Enforcement
¦ Other
Census respondents were also asked to identify those activities where they
used models. Among the activities they could choose from were:
¦ Estimating Groundwater Contamination Levels
¦ Setting Target Groundwater Clean-up Levels
¦ Assessing Groundwater Transport
¦ Assessing Migration in the Unsaturated Zone
¦ Assessing Surface Water Transport
¦ Assessing Volatilization Into Air
¦ Assessing Air Dispersion
¦ Designing Monitoring Networks (e.g., wells, caps)
¦ As a Substitute for Leaching Tests
¦ Design of Liners
¦ Design of Landfills
¦ Design of Incinerators
¦ Estimating Exposures (ecosystem)
¦ Estimating Exposures (human)
¦ Risk Assessment
¦ Other Applications
2-18
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
A total of 115 different models were identified by Census respondents. Table
2.3.5-1 lists those models most frequently mentioned. Appendix C contains a
detailed listing of the models identified by each Region, for each program as
well as listings of models mentioned by Region, program, and activity.
Table 2.3.5*1. Models Most Frequently Mentioned
Model Name Number of Times
Another way to view the models mentioned is to identify those models that
were mentioned to support various RCRA and Superfund phases and
activities. Tables 2.3.5-2 and 2.3.5-3 present the models mentioned by phase
and by activity.
Table 2.3.5*2. Models Mentioned By Phase
Phase Number of
Mentioned
MODFLOW
HELP
RANDOM WALK
VHS
MINTEQ
ISC LT
PUFF
USGS 2D TRANSPORT
USGS 2D
DYNFLOW
29
24
21
17
18
16
13
12
12
12
Models Mentioned
RI/FS (Superfund)
Remedial/Removal Design (Superfund)
Other Phase (RCRA)
Permitting (RCRA)
Other Phase (Superfund)
Corrective Action (RCRA)
Remedial Action (Superfund)
67
32
25
21
17
14
14
2-19
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
Table 2.3.5-3. Models Mentioned By Activity
Activity Number of
Models Mentioned
Other Applications 48
Assessing Groundwater Transport 39
Estimating Groundwater Contamination Levels 30
Risk Assessment 21
Estimating Human Exposures 18
Assessing Migration 17
Assessing Air Dispersion 17
Highlights for Question #5
¦ Many different models are used to support various RCRA and
CERCLA phases and activities mentioned above. In all, 115 distinct
models were mentioned to support various RCRA and CERCLA
phases and activities. The most frequently mentioned models are:
¦ MODFLOW
¦ HELP
¦ RANDOM WALK
¦ VHS
¦ MINTEQ
¦ ISC LT
¦ PUFF
¦ USGS 2D TRANSPORT
¦ USGS 2D
¦ DYNFLOW
¦ Models are used most heavily in support of the following six RCRA
and CERCLA Phases:
¦ Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
¦ Remedial Design
¦ Remedial Action
¦ Permitting
¦ "Other" Superfund Phases
¦ "Other" RCRA Phases
¦ The most common modeling activity identified by Census respondents
was the use of models for assessing groundwater transport and fate.
2-20
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
¦ There were many models mentioned only one time to support a
specific phase, activity or in a single Region.
Discussion off Results ffor Question #5
Models Used By Phase. Many different models were mentioned by Census
respondents in support of many different phases. Figure 2.3.5-1, Model Use
(By Activity), shows the number of times models were mentioned to support
activities in the various phases of the RCRA and CERCLA programs.
Model Use By Activity. Models were mentioned in association with the
process of assessing of groundwater transport more times than any other
single Superfund or RCRA activity. Figure 2.3.5-2, Model Use (By Activity)
shows the number of times models were mentioned to support various
activities in the RCRA and CERCLA programs. Other activities where model
use was frequently mentioned were estimating groundwater contamination
levels, assessing migration in the unsaturated zone, assessing air dispersion,
and other. Among those other activities mentioned were:
¦ River Sediment Transport
¦ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
¦ Budgeting, Planning and Projecting
¦ Evaluating Options
¦ Predicting the Size of Retention Area
¦ Estimating Groundwater Levels and Flow
¦ Designing Extraction Systems
¦ Assessing Potential Remediation
¦ Assessing Economic Impacts
¦ Conducting a Vertical Conduit Evaluation, and
¦ Writing a Waste Analysis Plan.
2-21
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
Figure 2.3.5-1 Model Use (By Phase)
50 100 150 200 250
300
A. Prelim. Assess. £$310
B. Site Inspection
C. Rl/FS
D. Remedial Design
E. Remedial Action
F. Op & Main | 3
Q. Closure & Post. B 5
H. Enforcement
I. Other Superfund
J. Permitting
K. Corr. Act. Design
L. Corrective Action
19
M. Corr. Act. Op/Main |5
N. Enforcement 1.0
O. Other RCRA
Number of Times a Model Was Mentioned for This Phase
RCRA S3 Superfund
2-22
-------
Chapter 2. Census of Model Use
Figure 2.3.5-2 Model Use (By Activity)
0 20 40 60 80 100
120
A
c
t
I
V
I
t
I
*
Estimating Groundwater
Setting Target Groundwater
Assessing Groundwater
Transport
Assessing Migration
Assessing Surface Water
Transport
Assessing Air Volatilization
Assessing Air Dispersion
Designing Monitoring
Networks
Substitute for Leaching
Liner Design
Landfill Design
Incinerator Design
Estimating Ecosystem
Exposures
Estimating Human
Exposures
Risk Assessment
Other
¦
Number of Times a Model Was Mentioned for This Activity
2-23
-------
Appendix A. Census Questionnaire
Census Questionnaire
A-1
-------
OSWER Models Management Initiative
Questionnaire Instruction Sheet
The enclosed questionnaire consists of five questions and an open
comment area. In order to limit the scope of your responses, we ask that you: (1)
consider only your modeling activities in the last four years; and (2) define
models as "mathematical, computer-based models which help predict
environmental effects." The questionnaire uses multiple choice and fill-in-the-
blank questions, and should take less than 15 minutes to complete.
1. Fill out information about yourself. Data will be recorded and analyzed
with respect to location, program, and job classification, not by an
individual's name.
2. Describe your involvement with modeling in the RCRA and
Superfund programs. Check as many options as apply to you.
3. Identify the organizations which provide modeling technical support.
This question will give insight to who is currently providing the
majority of technical support.
4. Evaluate seven statements regarding model documentation, Regional
expertise, and model use.
5. Identify which models you have used or reviewed in the last four
years. Name as many specific models as you can. Relate the models to
the phase of your program, and the activity within the program.
Space is provided for additional comments on modeling. Topics relevant
to the Models Management Initiative include the selection, application,
validation, review, and support of computer models. Please include any
comments or opinions you would like to express. If needed, attach additional
pages to the questionnaire.
Return the questionnaire in the enclosed, pre-addressed envelope to Mary
Lou Melley of the OSWER Information Management Staff, Mail Code OS-110,
401 M St., SW, Washington, DC, 20460; phone, 382-5760; EPA Email, M.MELLEY.
Please return the completed questionnaire in the enclosed envelope via
EPA pouch mail by March 30, 1990.
-------
f. Beanonrfgnf Profile
Hamm: Mail Cod*:
Program ~ RCRA Q Suporfimtd
Rmaion/OfHem: Divimion:
Branch:
Job ClaaaiflcMtlon:(e 9 Chem Eng.)
Please describe yourself in terms of modeling education/experience:
~ a. Modeling expert (i.e extensive study, multiple years of hands-on experience)
~ b. Knowledgeable modeler (i.e. some academic/other coursework. some hands-on experience)
~ c. Novice/inexperienced modeler (i.e little or no coursework, little or no hands-on experience)
2. Which of the following best describe your involvement with modeling in the RCRA and Superfund programs?
(check all that apply)
~ a. I select models to be used for RCRA/Superfund analyses
~ b. I run models
CI c. 1 review model aoolications bv EPA technical staff, or EPA contractors/consultants
~ d. 1 igil£ttm°del applications by Superfund PRPs, RCRA facility owners, or their contractors/consultants
~ e 1 manage the review of model aoolications
~ f. 1 use modelina results for oreDarina recommendations or makina decisions
~ a 1 collect data uspri to suDOort model aoolications
~ h 1 have no involvement with models in RCRA and Suoerfund
~ i. other (Dlease SDecifvl
3. When you need assistance in using a model or reviewing a model application, who supplies technical support?
(for those that apply, rank from most common to least common -
1 e , 1 = mosf common, 2 = next most common, etc.)
a. your own Division
b another Division in your Region/Office
c. EPA's Office of Research and Development laboratories
d OSWER at EPA Headquarters
e. ORD at EPA Headquarters
f contractors/consultants
— a other (Dlease snecifvi
4 Please circle the number corresponding to your opinion on the following statements.
strongly
agree/ strongly don't know/
agree agree
disagree disagree disagree no opinion
a. 1 am satisfied with the model 1 2
3 4 5 6
documentation I have used.
b. Model documentation is readily 1 2
3 4 5 6
available to me
c. There are modeling experts in my 1 2
3 4 5 6
Regional office.
d. Technical expertise in modeling is 1 2
3 4 5 6
readily available to me.
e- In general, models are being used 1 2
3 4 5 6
appropriately in the the RCRA and
Superfund programs.
1. There is a need 1 or better management * 2
3 4 S 6
of models.
9- Models are valuable tools for 1 2
3 4 5 6
supporting decision-making in the
RCRA and Superfund programs.
Other comments related to computer model use in the RCRA and Superfund programs:
Return to: Mary Lou Meiley. Mail Code OS-1 JO. OSWER IM Staff, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460
-------
5. Consider your RCHA/Sjperlund experience in the last four years. In the first column ol the table below, enter the codes for
the Superfund or RCRA phases in which you have used or reviewed models. For each phase, enter the codes for the
activities or applications which were supported bylhe model. For each activity, entenhe model which was used. For
models, use either the acronyms listed on the right or other acronyms as needed. Identify the names of as many mocete as
possible but include phases and activities even i1 you cannot recall the specific name of tne model If you need additional
space, copy this page and continue.
Phasf
(use codes
A-P)
Activities.
Applicationa
(use codes
1-16}
Modela
(use model
acronymns)
Exampla:
CD
USGS2
-------
Appendix B. Detailed Census Results
Detailed Census Results
Figure B-1. Census Response (By Region)
Figure B-2. Education and Experience
(By Program in Percentages)
Figure B-3. Modeling Involvement for the RCRA Program
(By Experience)
Figure B-4. Modeling Involvement for the CERCLA Program
(By Experience)
Figure B-5. Sources of Technical Support
(RCRA Program)
Figure B-6. Sources of Technical Support
(Superfund Program)
Figure B-7. Modeling Opinions (Totals)
B-1
-------
45
40
35
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
R
e
s
P
o
n
s
e
s
30
25
20
15
10
0
-------
Figure B-2.
Education & Experience (By Program in Percentages)
70.00%
68.42%
60.00%
50.68%
50.00%
41.10°/
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
8.22%
2.63%
0.00%
RCRA
Superfund
Modeling Expert
Knowledgable Novice/Inexperienced
Modeler
Level of Experience/Education
-------
Figure B-3. Modeling Involvement for the RCRA Program (By
Experience)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
a. I select models.
b. I run models.
c. I review EPA models.
d. I review Superfund PRP
models.
e. I manage the review of
models.
f. I use modeling results.
g. I collect data lor models.
h. I have no involvement
with models.
i. other.
Number of Responses
~ Expert
S Knowledgeable Modeler ¦ Novice/Inexperienced
-------
Figure B-4. Modeling Involvement for the CERCLA Program (By
Experience}
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
a. I selecl models.
b. I run models.
c. I review EPA models.
d. I review Superfund PRP
models.
e. I manage the review ol
models.
1. I use modeling results.
g. I collect data for models.
h. I have no involvement
with models.
i. olher.
Number of Responses
~ Expert
S Knowledgeable Modeler H Novice/Inexperienced
-------
Figure B-5. Sources of Technical Support (RCRA Program)
u
8 ~r
I
a. your own
Division
b. another
Division in
your
Region/Office
c. EPA's d. OSWERat e. ORDat f. contractors
ORD Labs EPA EPA or consultants
Headquarters Headquarters
g. other
most common (1) § next common (2) ~ next common (3)
-------
Figure IMS. Sources of Technical Support (Superfund Program)
60
50
N
u 40
m
b
e
r
30 -H
o
f
R
e
s
P
o
n
s
e 20
s
10 -j-
0 -r
a. your own
Division
b. another
Division in
your
Region/Oft ice
c. EPA's d. OSWER at e. ORD at 1. contractors
ORD Labs EPA EPA or consultants
Headquarters Headquarters
g. other
most common (1) S next common (2) ~ next common (3)
-------
Figure B-7. Modeling Opinions (Totals)
~ij L
Hbt
11
in
I am satisfied Model docs Modeling Technical
with model are available, experts are in expertise is
docs. my Reqional readily
office. available.
Models are
being used
We need
better
appropriately, management
of models.
¦ strongly agree S agree
S strongly disagree ~ don't know/no
opinion
§3 agree/disagree [1 disagree
Models are
valuable
tools.
-------
Appendix C. Table & Lists of Models
Table of Models (By Region &
Program)
List of Models Mentioned
List of Model Names By Phase
List of Model Names by Activity
List of Model Names by Region
Note: Some inconsistencies exist in the way Census respondents identified
various models. Because there are no conventions for model names,
respondents may have provided different names for the same model. For
example, in one case a model was identified by its common name, "PLASM,"
whereas another person named the model by its developers' names,
"PRICKETT-LONNQUIST." Also, some questions have been raised about
how respondents assigned Activity Types for a particular model. For
example, a groundwater model is listed under the activity of "assessing
volatilization into air." While this may be an incorrect entry, it is also
possible that a groundwater model was used as part of a larger modeling
project dealing with volatilization. Obvious errors have been corrected to the
greatest extent possible, but in order to preserve the integrity of the data,
ambiguous responses have not been altered. It is our belief that the existence
of a few anomalies does not affect the overall conclusions of this study.
C-1
-------
Model Names by Region & Program
Region
REGION
I
REGION
1 1
REGION
1 1 1
REGION
1 V
REGION
V
REGION
V 1
REGION
VII
REGION
VIII
REGION
1 X
REGION
X
Superfund/RCRA
s
R
S
R
s
R
S
R
s
R
S
R
S
R
s
R
S
R
S
R
3D ADVECTION-
DISPERSION
X
ABEL
X
X
ADMIN REC. DATA
BASE
X
ALOHA
X
X
X
AQUA FEM
X
AT123D
X
X
BALANCE
X
X
X
X
BEN
X
X
BIOKINETIC UPTAKE
X
BOX MODEL
X
BUDGET
CAPGRAPH
X
CAPTURE
X
X
X
CFEST
X
CHARM
X
X
CHEMFLOW
X
CHEMPLUS
X
CHEMRANK
X
COM
X
X
CONTRACTOR DEVEL
MODEL
X
CORA
X
X
X
X
CYNTRAK
X
DESIGN AIR
STRIPPER
X
(1) Model Names by Region & Program
-------
Model Names by Region & Program
Region
REGION
I
REGION
1 1
REGION
1 1 1
REGION
1 V
REGION
V
REGION
V 1
REGION
V 1 1
REGION
VIII
REGION
1 X
REGION
X
Superlund/RCRA
S
R
s
R
S
R
S
R
S
R
S
R
S
R
S
R
S
R
S
R
DISP. MODELING-OIL
SPILLS
X
DOE.EIA ENERGY
MODEL
DRI MACRO MODEL
DYNFLOW
X
X
X
DYNTRACK
X
X
EPACML
X
EPACMS
EXAMS
X
EXPERT-CES
X
FDM
FEMSEEP
X
FGETS
X
FLEX
X
X
GARDS
X
GEOEASE
X
GEOPHYSICAL
SURVEY
X
GPTRAC
X
GROUNDWATER
X
GSTARS
X
HASP/ERT
X
HEC-6
X
HELP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HWANG SOIL
VOLATILIZATION
X
ICF COPYRIGHTED
MODEL
IMPACT
X
(2) Model Names by Region & Program
-------
Model Names by Region A Program
Region
REGION
1
REGION
1 1
REGION
1 1 1
REGION
1 V
REGION
V
REGION
V 1
REGION
VII
REGION
VIII
REGION
1 X
REGION
X
Superfund/RCRA
S
R
S
R
S
R
S
R
S
R
s
R
s
R
s
R
S
R
S
R
INTERP GEO-
PHYSICAL DATA
X
ISC
X
X
X
ISC LT
X
X
X
X
X
X
ISC ST
X
X
X
KRIGLING (GEOSTO)
X
LINER LOCATION
MODEL
LLM
LOTUS SPREAD-
SHEET MODEL
X
MINTEQ
X
X
X
MMSOILS
MOC
X
X
X
X
X
X
MODFLOW
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MYGRT
X
X
ONEDI
X
X
OTHER PROPRIE-
TARY MODELS
X
PC GEMS
X
PC TRANSPORT
X
X
PESSQ
PLASM
X
X
X
X
PLUME 2D
X
X
PRESTO
X
PRICKELL &
LONQUIST
X
PRZM
X
X
PUFF
X
X
RANDOM WALK
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(3) Model Names by Region & Program
-------
Model Names by Region & Program
Region
REGION
1
REGION
1 1
REGION
1 1 1
REGION
1 V
REGION
V
REGION
V 1
REGION
V 1 1
REGION
VIII
REGION
1 X
REGION
X
Superfund/RCRA
S
R
s
R
s
R
S
R
s
R
s
R
s
R
S
R
s
R
S
R
RCMS COST
ACCOUNTING
X
RCRA RISK-COST
ANAL. MODEL
RESOURCE
RESSQ
X
X
X
X
REVENUE
RISK MODELING
X
RITZ
X
X
X
X
RPM
RPR DATA BASE
X
SAFER
X
SAFTMOD
X
SARAH
SCREEN
X
SEDCAM
X
SEDQUAZ
X
SESOIL
X
X
SIMS
X
SLUGTEST
X
SOIL CONS. SERVICE
SOILINER
X
SOLUTE
X
X
X
X
X
SUPERTREE
SURFACE MINING
MODEL
X
SURFER
X
X
SUTRA
X
X
SWIFT
X
TARGET
1 "
(4) Model Names by Region & Program
-------
Model Names by Region & Program
Region
REGION
1
REGION
1 1
REGION
1 1 1
REGION
1 V
REGION
V
REGION
V 1
REGION
VII
REGION
VIII
REGION
1 X
REGION
X
Superfund/RCRA
S
R
S
R
S
R
S
R
S
R
S
R
S
R
S
R
S
R
S
R
TEM8
X
USGS 2, 3D
TRANSPORT
X
USGS 2D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
USGS 2D FLOW
X
USGS 2D TRANSPORT
X
X
X
USGS 3D
X
X
USGS 3D FLOW
X
X
X
X
USLE, MUSLE
X
UST MODEL
(CUSTOM DESIGN)
X
UTIL DATA INSTITUTE
MODEL
VALLEY
VHS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VIP
VOIS TRIP
X
WAP
X
WASP
X
WATEQ
X
X
X
X
WATEVAL
X
WETLANDS MODEL
X
WHAZAM
X
(5) Model Names by Region & Program
-------
Models Mentioned
Model Name Number of Mentions
3D ADVECTION-DISPERSION 1
ABEL 2
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS DATABASE 2
ALOHA 8
AQUA FEM 2
ATI 23 D 4
BALANCE 4
BEN 2
BIOKINETIC UPTAKE 1
BOX 1
BUDGET
CAPGRAPH 1
CAPTURE 3
CFEST 1
CHARM 4
CHEMFLOW 3
CHEMPLUS 1
CHEMRANK 3
COM 2
CONTRACTOR DEVEL MODEL 1
CORA 4
CYNTRAK 1
DESIGN AIR STRIPPER 1
DISP MODELING OF OIL SPILLS 1
DOE EIA ENERGY MODEL 1
DRI MACRO 1
DYNFLOW 12
DYNTRAK 8
EPACML 3
EXAMS I
EXPERT CES 1
FDM 2
FEMSEEP 2
FGETS 2
FLEX 2
GARDS 1
GEOEASE 1
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY 1
GPTRAC 2
GROUNDWATER 1
GSTARS 1
(1) Models Mentioned
-------
Models Mentioned
Model Name
HASP/ERT
HEC/6
HELP
HWANG SOIL MODEL
ICF COPYRIGHTED MODEL
IMPACT
INTERP GEOPHYSICAL DATA
ISC LT
ISC
ISC-ST
KRIGLING (GEOSTO)
LINER LOCATION MODEL
LOTUS SPREADSHEET MODEL
MINTEQ
MM SOILS
MOC
MODFLOW
MYGRT
ONEDI
OTHER PROPRIETARY MODEL
PC GEMS
PC TRANSPORT
PESSQ
PLASM
PLUME 2D
PRICKELL/LONQUIST
PRZM
PUFF
RANDOM WALK
RCMS COST ACCOUNTING
RCRA RISK COST ANAL MODEL
RESOURCE
RESSQ
REVENUE
RISK MODELING
RITZ
RPM
SAFER
SAFTMOD
Number of Mentions
6
1
24
1
1
1
1
16
2
9
1
9
2
18
3
7
29
6
1
3
2
1
1
7
3
1
2
13
21
1
5
1
5
1
1
7
2
2
1
(2) Models Mentioned
-------
Models Mentioned
Model Name
SARAH
SCREEN
SEDCAM
SEDQUAZ
SESOIL
SIMS
SLUGTEST
SOIL CONS SERVICE
SOILINER
SOLUTE
SUPERTREE
SURFACE MINING
SURFER
SUTRA
SWIFT
TARGET
TEM8
USGS 2D FLOW
USGS 2D TRANSPORT
USGS2D
USGS 3D
USGS 3D FLOW
USLE,MUSLE
UST MODEL (CUSTOM DESIGN)
UTIL DATA INSTITUTE MODEL
VALLEY
VHS
VIP
VOIS TRIP
WAP
WASP
WATEQ
WATFVAT
WETLANDS MODEL
WHAZAM
Number of Mentions
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
2
9
1
1
2
2
4
3
2
8
12
12
2
1
1
5
2
2
17
1
1
1
5
5
3
1
2
(3) Models Mentioned
-------
Model Names by Phase
A. Preliminary Assessment (Superfund) - 4
ALOHA
PLASM
PLUME 2D
PUFF
B. Site Inspection (Superfund) -1
RITZ
C. Remedial Investigation (Superfund) - 67
3-D ADVECTION-DISPERSION
ALOHA
AQUA FEM
AT123D
BALANCE
BIOKINETIC UPTAKE
CAPTURE
CFEST
CHEMFLOW
CHEMRANK
CONTRACTOR DEVEL MODEL
CORA
DYNFLOW
DYNTRAK
EXAMS
FEDM
FEMSEEP
FGETS
GEOEASE
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
GSTARS
HEC-6
HELP
HWANG SOIL VOLATILIZATION
IMPACT
INTERN GEOPHYSICAL DATA
ISC
ISC LT
ISC ST
MINTEQ
MOC
MODFLOW
MYGRT
ONEDI
(1) Model Names By Phase
-------
Model Names by Phase
OTHER PROPRIETARY MODELS
PESSQ
PLASM
PLUME 2D
PRESTO
PRZM
RANDOM WALK
RESSQ
RISK MODELING
RITZ
SEDCAM
SEDQUAZ
SESOIL
SIMS
SLUGTEST
SOIL CONS. SERVICE
SOILINER
SOLUTE
SUTRA
SWIFT
TARGET
TEM8
USGS 2D
USGS 2D FLOW
USGS 2D TRANSPORT
USGS 3D
USLE, MUSLE
VALLEY
VHS
WASP
WATEQ
WATEVAL
WETLANDS MODEL
D. Remedial Design (Superfund) - 32
BALANCE
BOX MODEL
CAPTURE
CHEMFLOW
CHEMPLUS
CHEMRANK
DESIGN AIR STRIPPER
HASP/ERT
HELP
KRIGLING (GEOSTO)'
MINTEQ
MOC
(2) Model Names By Phase
-------
Model Names by Phase
MODFLOW
OTHER PROPRIETARY MODELS
PC TRANSPORT
PUFF
RANDOM WALK
RESSQ
RITZ
SCREEN
SESOIL
SOLUTE
SURFER
TARGET
USGS 2D
USGS 2D FLOW
USGS 2D TRANSPORT
USGS 3D
USGS 3D FLOW
VHS
VOIS TRIP
WATEVAL
E. Remedial Action (Superfund) -14
ALOHA
BALANCE
CHARM
CHEMFLOW
CHEMRANK
CORA
MOC
PUFF
RCMS COST ACCOUNTING
RITZ
SAFER
VHS
WATEVAL
WHAZAM
F. Operation and Maintenance (Superfund) -1
HELP
G. Closure and Post Closure (Superfund) -1
HELP
(3) Model Names By Phase
-------
Model Names by Phase
H. Enforcement (Superfund) -12
COM
CYNTRAK
DYNFLOW
DYNTRAK
LOTUS SPREADSHEET MODEL
MODFLOW
MYGRT
RANDOM WALK
RESSQ
RPM
SOLUTE
SUPERTREE
I. Other Superfund Phase - 17
ADMIN REC. DATA BASE
ALOHA
BUDGET
CHARM
CORA
DISP. MODELING-OIL SPILLS
EPACML
GPTRAC
HASP/ERT
ISC LT
MODFLOW
RESOURCE
REVENUE
RPR DATA BASE
SAFTMOD
VHS
VIP
J. Permitting (RCRA) - 21
BALANCE
EXPERT-CES
FLEX
GARDS
GROUNDWATER
HELP
ISC LT
ISC ST
MODFLOW
(4) Model Names By Phase
-------
Model Names by Phase
PLASM
PRICKELL & LONQUIST
PUFF
RANDOM WALK
SOILINER
SOLUTE
SURFACE MINING MODEL
USGS 2, 3D TRANSPORT
USGS 2D
USGS 3D FLOW
VHS
WAP
K. Corrective Action Design (RCRA) - 9
CAPTURE
MINTEQ
MODFLOW
PRZM
RANDOM WALK
SOLUTE
USGS 3D FLOW
VHS
WATEQ
L. Corrective Action (RCRA) -14
CAPGRAPH
COM
DYNFLOW
DYNTRACK
ISC ST
MINTEQ
MODFLOW
PC GEMS
PLASM
RANDOM WALK
RITZ
SOLUTE
USGS 3D FLOW
VHS
M. Corrective Action Operation (RCRA) - 3
MODFLOW
RANDOM WALK
SOLUTE
(5) Model Names By Phase
-------
Model Names by Phase
N. Enforcement (RCRA) - 7
ABEL
BEN
MODFLOW
PLUME 2D
USGS 2D
USGS 2D TRANSPORT
VHS
O. Other RCRA Phases - 25
DOE, EIA ENERGY MODEL
DRI MACRO MODEL
EPACML
EPACMS
HELP
ICF COPYRIGHTED MODEL
ISC LT
LINER LOCATION MODEL
LLM
MINTEQ
MMSOILS
MODFLOW
PC GEMS
PUFF
RANDOM WALK
RCRA RISK-COST ANAL MODEL
RITZ
SARAH
SURFER
SUTRA
UST MODEL (CUSTOM DESIGN)
UTIL DATA INSTITUTE MODEL
VALLEY
VHS
WATEQ
(6) Model Names By Phase
-------
Model Names by Activity
1. Estimating Groundwater Contamination Levels (30)
3-D ADVECTION-DISPERSION
AQUA FEM
BALANCE
DYNFLOW
EPACML
FEMSEEP
GPTRAC
LINER LOCATION MODEL
MOC
MODFLOW
MYGRT
ONEDI
OTHER PROPRIETARY MODELS
PC GEMS
PLASM
PLUME 2D
PRICKELL & LONQUIST
RANDOM WALK
RITZ
SESOIL
SOILINER
SOLUTE
SURFACE MINING MODEL
SWIFT
TARGET
USGS 2D
USGS 2D TRANSPORT
VHS
WATEQ
WATEVAL
2. Setting Groundwater Clean-Up Levels (12)
AT123D
CONTRACTOR DEVEL MODEL
EPACMS
LINER LOCATION MODEL
LOTUS SPREADSHEET MODEL
MINTEQ
MODFLOW
OTHER PROPRIETARY MODELS
RCRA RISK-COST ANAL MODEL
SWIFT
USGS 2D FLOW
USGS 2D TRANSPORT
(1) Model Names By Activity
-------
Model Names by Activity
3. Assessing Groundwater Transport (39)
AQUA FEM
AT123D
BALANCE
CAPTURE
CFEST
DYNFLOW
DYNTRACK
FEMSEEP
GPTRAC
HELP
LINER LOCATION MODEL
LOTUS SPREADSHEET MODEL
MINTEQ
MOC
MODFLOW
MYGRT
PC TRANSPORT
PESSQ
PLASM
PLUME 2D
RANDOM WALK
RCRA RISK-COST ANAL MODEL
RESSQ
SAFTMOD
SESOIL
SLUGTEST
SOLUTE
SWIFT
TARGET
USGS 2, 3D TRANSPORT
USGS 2D
USGS 2D FLOW
USGS 2D TRANSPORT
USGS 3D
USGS 3D FLOW
UST MODEL (CUSTOM DESIGN)
VHS
WATEQ
WATEVAL
(2) Model Names By Activity
-------
Model Names by Activity
4. Assessing Migration in the Unsaturated Zone (17)
CHEMFLOW
CHEMRANK
EPACML
HELP
LINER LOCATION MODEL
MINTEQ
PRZM
RCRA RISK-COST ANAL MODEL
RESSQ
RITZ
SESOIL
SOLUTE
SURFER
SUTRA
UST MODEL (CUSTOM DESIGN)
VHS
VIP
5. Assessing Surface Water Transport (6)
EXAMS
HELP
MODFLOW
USLE, MUSLE
UST MODEL (CUSTOM DESIGN)
WASP
6. Assessing Volatilization Into Air (12)
ALOHA
DESIGN AIR STRIPPER
HWANG SOIL VOLATILIZATION
ISC LT
MODFLOW
PLASM
PUFF
SARA
SIMS
TEM8
UST MODEL (CUSTOM DESIGN)
VOIS TRIP
(3) Model Names By Activity
-------
Model Names by Activity
7. Assessing Air Dispersion (17)
ALOHA
BOX MODEL
CAMEO
CHARM
CHEMPLUS
DYNFLOW
FDM
ISC
ISC LT
ISC ST
PUFF
RANDOM WALK
RITZ
SAFER
SCREEN
TEM8
VALLEY
WHAZAM
8. Designing Monitoring Networks (6)
CAPTURE
HELP
HELP
MOD FLOW
OTHER PROPRIETARY MODELS
RANDOM WALK
USGS 2D
9. As a Substitute for Leaching Tests (2)
HELP
MINTEQ
10. Design of Liners (4)
EXPERT-CES
FLEX
HELP
SOILINER
(4) Model Names By Activity
-------
Model Names by Activity
11. Design of Landfills (2)
GROUNDWATER
HELP
12. Design of Incinerators (3)
BALANCE
ISC LT
ISC ST
13. Estimating Exposures [Ecosystem] (11)
DYNFLOW
DYNTRACK
FGETS
HASP/ERT
LLM
MINTEQ
MMSOILS
USGS 2D FLOW
USGS 2D TRANSPORT
UTIL DATA INSTITUTE MODEL
WASP
14. Estimating Exposures [Human] (18)
CHARM
DYNFLOW
DYNTRACK
FDM
HASP/ERT
ISC LT
ISC ST
LLM
MINTEQ
MMSOILS
MYGRT
PUFF
SAFER
USGS 2D FLOW
USGS 2D TRANSPORT
UTIL DATA INSTITUTE MODEL
WASP
WHAZAM
(5) Model Names By Activity
-------
Model Names by Activity
15. Risk Assessment (21)
BIOKINETIC UPTAKE
COM
CYNTRAK
DOE, EIA ENERGY MODEL
DYNTRACK
DYNTRAK
FGETS
ICF COPYRIGHTED MODEL
ISC
ISC LT
ISC ST
LINER LOCATION MODEL
LLM
MINTEQ
MMSOILS
MYGRT
PUFF
RCRA RISK-COST ANAL MODEL
RISK MODELING
VHS
WASP
16. Other Applications (48)
ABEL
ALOHA
BEN
BUDGET
CAPGRAPH
CAPTURE
CORA
DISP. MODELING-OIL SPILLS
DRI MACRO MODEL
DYNFLOW
DYNTRACK
DYNTRAK
GARDS
GEOEASE
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
GSTARS
HASP/ERT
HEC-6
HELP
IMPACT
INTERP GEOPHYSICAL DATA
ISC ST
(6) Model Names By Activity
-------
Model Names by Activity
KRIGLING (GEOSTO)
MINTEQ
MODFLOW
MYGRT
PRESTO
RANDOM WALK
RCMS COST ACCOUNTING
RESOURCE
RESSQ
REVENUE
RPM
SEDCAM
SEDQUAZ
SOIL CONS. SERVICE
SUPERTREE
SURFER
SUTRA
USGS 2D
USGS 3D
USGS 3D FLOW
UST MODEL (CUSTOM DESIGN)
VHS
WAP
WASP
WATEQ
WETLANDS MODEL
(7) Model Names By Activity
-------
Model Names by Region
EPA Headquarters - (3)
ICF COPYRIGHTED MODEL
BUDGET
RCRA RISK-COST ANALYSIS MODEL
Region I - (6)
ISC LT
ISC ST
MODFLOW
WATEQ
PC TRANSPORT
HELP
Region II - (13)
WATEVAL
ISC LT
WETLANDS MODEL
ATI 23 D
MYGRT
FEMSEEP
MODFLOW
ALOHA
CFEST
UST MODEL
FLEX
CORA
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
Region III - (9)
HELP
VHS
GROUNDWATER
DYNFLOW
SWIFT
CHARM
RANDOM WALK
USGS 2, 3D TRANSPORT
USGS 2D
(1) Model Names By Region
-------
Model Names by Region
Region IV - (8)
SOLUTE
MINTEQ
ALOHA
DISPERSION MODELING-OIL SPILLS
MODFLOW
MOC
RANDOM WALK
PLASM
Region V - (8)
HELP
AT123D
ALOHA
USGS 2D
USGS 2D FLOW
SLUGTEST
AQUA FEM
VHS
Region VI - (4)
RPR DATA BASE
RANDOM WALK
USGS 2D
USGS 2D TRANSPORT
Region VII - (13)
MODFLOW
SAFTMOD
VHS
ISC LT
ISC ST
RANDOM WALK
HASP-ERT
HWANG SOIL VOLATILIZATION
CHARM
MYGRT
CORA
INTERP GEOPHYSICAL DATA
FGETS
(2) Model Names By Region
-------
Model Names by Region
Region VIII - (4)
BOX MODELS
ALOHA
USGS 2D
USGS 2D TRANSPORT
Region IX - (9)
MODFLOW
RANDOM WALK
SESOIL
OTHER PROPRIETARY MODELS
DYNTRAK
PUFF
USLE,MUSLE
CFEST
TARGET
Region X - (6)
SEDCAM
BIOKINETIC UPDATE
GEOEASE
USGS 2D
MOC
MINTEQ
(3) Model Names By Region
------- |