United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/625/R-98/006
March 1999
Technical Approaches to
Characterizing and
Cleaning Up Metal
Finishing Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative
-------
EPA/625/R-98/006
March 1999
Technical Approaches to Characterizing and
Cleaning Up Metal Finishing Sites
Under the Brownfields Initiative
Technology Transfer and Support Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
Contents
Foreword iii
Contents v
Acknowledgments viii
1. Introduction 1
Background 1
Purpose 1
2. Industrial Processes and Contaminants at Metal Finishing Sites 3
Surface Preparation Operations 3
Metal Finishing Operations 3
Anodizing Operations 3
Chemical Conversion Coating 5
Electroplating 5
Electroless and Immersion Plating 5
Painting 5
Other Metal Finishing Techniques 6
Auxiliary Activity Areas and Potential Contaminants 6
Wastewater Treatment 6
Sunken Wastewater Treatment Tank 6
Chemical Storage Area 6
Disposal Area 6
Other Considerations 6
3. Site Assessment 7
The Central Role of the State Agencies 7
State Voluntary Cleanup Programs 7
Levels of Contaminant Screening and Cleanup 7
Performing a Phase I Site Assessment: Obtaining Facility Background Information from
Existing Data 8
Facility Records 8
Other Sources of Recorded Information 8
Identifying Migration Pathways and Potentially Exposed Populations 9
Gathering Topographic Information 9
Gathering Soil and Subsurface Information 10
Gathering Groundwater Information 10
Identifying Potential Environmental and Human Health Concerns 10
Involving the Community 11
Conducting a Site Visit 11
Conducting Interviews 11
Developing a Report 12
Performing a Phase II Site Assessment: Sampling the Site 12
Setting Data Quality Objectives 13
Screening Levels 15
Environmental Sampling and Data Analysis 16
Levels of Sampling and Analysis 16
Increasing the Certainty of Sampling Results 16
-------
Contents (continued)
Site Assessment Technologies 16
Field versus Laboratory Analysis 18
Sample Collection and Analysis Technologies 18
Additional Considerations for Assessing Metal Finishing Sites 20
Where to Sample 20
How Many Samples to Collect 23
What Types of Analysis to Perform 23
General Sampling Costs 23
Soil Collection Costs 23
Groundwater Sampling Costs 23
Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Costs 24
Sample Analysis Costs 24
4. Site Cleanup 25
Developing a Cleanup Plan 25
Institutional Controls 26
Containment Technologies 26
Types of Cleanup Technologies 26
Cleanup Technology Options for Metal Finishing Sites 27
Post-Construction Care 27
5. Conclusion 35
Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations 36
Appendix B: Glossary of Key Terms 37
Appendix C: Bibliography 46
VI
-------
Tables
1 Common Contaminants at Metal Finishing Site 5
2 Non-Invasive Assessment Technologies 17
3 Soil and Subsurface Sampling Tools 19
4 Groundwater Sampling Tools 20
5 Sample Analysis Technologies 21
6 Cleanup Technologies for Metal Finishing Brownfields Sites 28
Figure
1 Typical metal finishing facility
VII
-------
Acknowledgments
This document was prepared by Eastern Research Group (ERG) for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency's Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI) in the
Office of Research and Development. Linda Stein served as Project Manager for ERG.
Joan Colson of CERI served as Work Assignment Manager. Special thanks is given to Ann
White and Jean Dye of EPA's Office of Research and Development for editing support.
Reviewers of the document included Douglas Grosse and Kenneth Brown of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's National Risk Management Research Laboratory and
National Exposure Research Laboratory, respectively. Appreciation is given to EPA's
Office of Special Programs for guidance on the Brownfields Initiative.
VH!
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background
Many communities across the country contain brown-
fields sites, which are abandoned, idle, and under-used
industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or
redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived envi-
ronmental contamination. Concerns about liability, cost,
and potential health risks associated with brownfields sites
often prompt businesses to migrate to "greenfields" out-
side the city. Left behind are communities burdened with
environmental contamination, declining property values,
and increased unemployment. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Brownfields Economic Re-
development Initiative was established to enable states,
site planners, and other community stakeholders to work
together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely clean
up, and sustainably reuse brownfields sites. (U.S. EPA
Brownfields Home Page, http://www.epa.gov/brown-
fields).
The cornerstone of EPA's Brownfields Initiative is the
Pilot Program. Under this program, EPA is funding more
than 200 brownfields assessment pilot projects in states,
cities, towns, counties, and tribes across the country. The
pilots, each funded at up to $200,000 over two years, are
bringing together community groups, investors, lenders,
developers, and other affected parties to address the is-
sues associated with assessing and cleaning up contami-
nated brownfields sites and returning them to appropriate,
productive use. Information about the Brownfields Ini-
tiative may be obtained from the EPA's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Outreach/Special
Projects Staff or any of EPA's regional brownfields coor-
dinators. These regional coordinators can provide com-
munities with technical assistance such as targeted
brownfields assessments. A description of these assistance
activities is contained on the brownfields web page. In
addition to the hundreds of brownfields sites being ad-
dressed by these pilots, over 40 states have established
brownfields or voluntary cleanup programs to encourage
municipalities and private sector organizations to assess,
clean up, and redevelop brownfields sites.
Purpose
EPA has developed a set of technical guides, including
this document, to assist communities, states, municipali-
ties, and the private sector to more effectively address
brownfields sites. Each guide in this series contains in-
formation on a different type of brownfields site (classi-
fied according to former industrial use). In addition, a
supplementary guide contains information on cost-esti-
mating tools and resources for brownfields sites. EPA has
developed this "Metal Finishing" guide to provide city
planners, private sector developers, and other participants
in the brownfields decision-making process with a better
understanding of the technical issues involved in assess-
ing and cleaning up metal finishing sites so that they can
make the most informed decisions possible.' Through-
out the guide, the term "planner" is used; this term is
intended to be descriptive of the many different people
who are referenced above and may use the information
contained herein. It is assumed that planners will use the
services of an environmental professional for some as-
pects of site characterization and cleanup.
The overview presented in this guide of the technical pro-
cess involved in assessing and cleaning up brownfields
sites can assist planners in making decisions at various
stages of the project. An understanding of land use and
industrial processes conducted in the past at a site can
help the planner to conceptualize the site and identify
1 Because parts of this document are technical in nature, planners may want
to refer to additional EPA guides for further information. The Tool Kit of
Technology Information Resources for Brownfields Sites, published by
EPA's Technology Innovation Office (TIO), contains a comprehensive list
of relevant technical guidance documents (available from NTIS, No.
PB97144828). EPA's Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology
Optionsfor Broumfields Investigation and Cleanup, also by EPA's TIO,
provides an introduction to site assessment and cleanup (EPA Order No.
EPA 542-B-97-002).
-------
likely areas of contamination that may require cleanup.
Numerous resources are suggested to facilitate charac-
terization of the site and consideration of cleanup tech-
nologies .
Specifically, the objective of this document is to provide
decision-makers with:
An understanding of common industrial processes at
metal finishing facilities and the relationship between
such processes and potential releases of contaminants
to the environment.
Information on the types of contaminants likely to
be present at a metal finishing site.
A discussion of site assessment (also known as site
characterization), screening and cleanup levels, and
cleanup technologies that can be used to assess and
cleanup the types of contaminants likely to be present
at metal finishing sites.
A conceptual framework for identifying potentialcon-
taminants at the site, pathways by which coniimi-
nants may migrate off site, and environmentaland
human health concerns.
Information on developing an appropriate cleinup
plan for metal finishing sites where contamination
levels must be reduced to allow a site's reuse.
A discussion of pertinent issues and factors ttiat
should be considered when developing a site ase ss-
ment and cleanup plan and selecting appropriate tech-
nologies for brownfields, given time and budget
constraints.
A list of acronyms is provided in Appendix A, Appeidix
B provides a glossary of key terms, and Appendix Cli sts
an extensive bibliography.
-------
Chapter 2
Industrial Processes and Contaminants at Metal Finishing Sites
Understanding the industrial processes used during a
metal finishing facility's active life and the types of con-
taminants that may be present provides important infor-
mation to guide planners in the assessment, cleanup, and
restoration of the site to an acceptable condition for sale
or reuse. This section provides a general overview of the
processes, chemicals, and contaminants used or found at
metal finishing sites. Specific metal finishing brownfields
sites may have had a different combination of these pro-
cesses, chemicals, and contaminants. Therefore, this in-
formation can be used only to develop a framework of
likely past activities. Planners should obtain facility spe-
cific information on industrial processes at their site when-
ever possible. Site-specific information is also important
to obtain because the site may have been used for other
industrial purposes at other times in the past.
This section describes waste-generating surface prepara-
tion operations; metal finishing operations and the types
of waste streams and specific contaminants associated
with each process; auxiliary areas at metal finishing sites
that may produce contaminants and nonprocess-related
contamination problems associated with metal finishing
sites. Figure 1 presents typical metal finishing processes
and land areas, along with the types of waste streams as-
sociated with each area. Table 1 lists the specific con-
taminants associated with each waste stream.
Surface Preparation Operations
Metal finishing processes are typically housed within one
structure. The surface of metal products generally requires
preparation (i.e., cleaning) prior to applying a finish. An
initial set of degreasing tanks ([A] in Figure 1) are used
to remove oils, grease, and other foreign matter from the
surface of the metal so that a coating can be applied. Metal
finishing facilities may use solvents or emulsion solu-
tions (i.e., solvents dispersed in an aqueous medium with
the aid of an emulsifying agent) in the degreasing tanks
to clean and prepare the surfaces of metal parts. Waste-
waters generated from cleaning operations are primarily
rinse waters, which are usually combined with other metal
finishing wastewaters and treated on site by conventional
chemical precipitation. These wastewaters may contain
solvents, as listed in Table 1. Solid wastes such as waste-
water treatment sludges, still bottoms, and cleaning tank
residues may also be generated.
Metal Finishing Operations
Metal finishing operations are typically performed in a
series of tanks (baths) followed by rinsing cycles. Acid
or alkaline baths "pickle" the surface of the steel to im-
prove the adherence of the coating. After the pickling
baths, the metal products are moved to plating tanks,
where the final coat is applied. Wastes generated during
finishing operations derive from the solvents and cleans-
ers applied to the surface and the metal-ion-bearing aque-
ous solutions used in acid/alkaline rinsing and bathing
operations. Common metal finishing operations include
anodizing, chemical conversion coating, electroplating,
electroless plating, and painting. Common waste streams
include metals and acids in the wastewater; metals in slud-
ges and solid waste; and solvents from painting opera-
tions, as listed in Table 1. If these wastes were managed
or disposed of on site, it is possible that pollutants were
released into the environment. Even at facilities where
wastes were not stored on site, releases may have oc-
cur-red during the handling and use of chemicals. Refer-
ences are provided in Appendix C for more in-depth
information on metal finishing operations and associated
environmental considerations. Metal finishing operations
are described below.
Anodizing Operations
Anodizing is an electrolytic process that uses acids from
the combined electrolytic solution/acid bath tank to con-
vert the metal surface into an insoluble oxide coating ([B]
-------
Alkalines
Acids
Emulsifying
Agents
Solvents
Metal Cleaning
(Degreasing Tanks [A])
- Rinsing ancf Bathfrrg
Operations
VOCs and Acids
in Wastewater
Acids
I
Anodizimsj
[B]
Cyanide?
Acid:
Metals
Alkalines
Electroplating
[D]
Metals and Cyanide
in Wastewate
Scaling and/or
Conversion Cortina
Rinsing
Metals
Acids
Other Metal
Finishing
Techniques
Rinsing-
Metals and Acids
in Wastewater-
Metals
i.
Acids
I Chemical I
Conversion [version
Coating [C] Ming [C]
Metals and Acids
in Wastewater
Metals in
Solid Wastes
Electroless
Plating
[E]
Metals and Cyanide
in Sludges
Complexing
Agents
Metals and Cyani
in Wastewate
Paints
-
VOC Emissions
Painting
[F]
Metals VOCs
in Solid Wastes
VOCs in
Wastewater
Auxiliary Areas:
Wastewater Treatment System (VOCs, Acid/Bas
Compounds, Metals)
Sunken Treatment Tanks (VOCs, Metals)
Chemical Storage Area (VOCs)
Disposal Area (VOCs)
Figure 1. Typical metal finishing facility.
(Source: Adapted from Profile of the Fabricated Metal Products Industry (U.S. EPA, 1995).
-------
in Figure 1). After anodizing, metal parts are typically
rinsed and then sealed. Anodizing operations produce
contaminated wastewaters and solid wastes.
Table 1. Common Contaminants at Metal Finishing Sites
Contaminant Group
Contaminant Name
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Metals/Inorganics
Acids
Acetone, benzene, isopropyl alcohol, 2-
dichlorobenzene, 4-trimethylbenzene,
dichloromethane, ethyl benzene, freon
113, methanol, methyl isobutyl ketone,
methyl ethyl ketone, phenol, tetrachlo-
roethylene, toluene, trichloroethylene,
xylene (mixed isomers).
Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, asbestos
(friable), barium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, copper, lead, cyanide, manga-
nese, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc.
Hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, phospho-
ric acid, sulfuric acid.
Chemical Conversion Coating
Chemical conversion coating ([C] in Figure 1) includes
the following processes:
. Chromating. Chromate conversion coatings are pro-
duced on various metals by chemical or electrochemi-
cal treatment. Acid solutions react with the metal
surface to form a layer of a complex mixture of the
constituent compounds, including chromium and the
base metal.
. Phosphating. Phosphate conversion coating involves
the immersion of steel, iron, or zinc plated steel into
a dilute solution of phosphate salts, phosphoric acid,
and other reagents to condition the surfaces for fur-
ther processing.
. Metal Coloring. Metal coloring involves chemically
converting the metal surface into an oxide or similar
metallic compound to produce a decorative finish.
Passivating. Passivating is the process of forming a
protective film on metals by immersing them in an
acid solution (usually nitric acid or nitric acid with
sodium dichromate).
Pollutants associated with chemical conversion processes
enter the wastestream through rinsing and batch dump-
ing of process baths. Wastewaters containing chromium
are usually pretreated; this process generates a sludge that
is sent offsite for metals reclamation and/or disposal.
Electroplating
Electroplating is the production of a surface coating of
one metal upon another by electrodeposition ([D] in Fig-
ure 1). In electroplating, metal ions (in either acid, alka-
line, or neutral solutions) are reduced on the cathodic
surfaces of the work pieces being plated. Electroplating
operations produce contaminated wastewaters and solid
wastes. Contaminated wastewaters result from work piece
rinsing and process cleanup waters. Rinse waters from
electroplating are usually combined with other metal fin-
ishing wastewaters and treated onsite by conventional
chemical precipitation, which results in wastewater treat-
ment sludges. Other wastes generated from electroplat-
ing include spent process solutions and quench baths that
may be discarded periodically when the concentrations
of contaminants inhibit their proper functions.
Electroless and Immersion Plating
Electroless plating involves chemically depositing a metal
coating onto a plastic object by immersing the object in a
plating solution ([E] in Figure 1). Immersion plating pro-
duces a thin metal deposit, commonly zinc or silver, by
chemical displacement. Both produce contaminated
wastewater and solid wastes. Facilities generally treat
spent plating solutions and rinse waters chemically to
precipitate the toxic metals; however, some plating solu-
tions can be difficult to treat because of the presence of
chelates. Most waste sludges resulting from electroless
and immersion plating contain significant concentrations
of toxic metals.
Painting
Painting is the application of predominantly organic coat-
ings for protective and/or decorative purposes ([F] in Fig-
ure 1). Paint is applied in various forms, including dry
powder, solvent diluted formulations, and waterbome
formulations, most commonly via spray painting and elec-
trodeposition. Painting operations may result in solvent-
containing waste and the direct release of solvents, paint
sludge wastes, and paint-bearing wastewaters. Paint
cleanup operations also may contribute to the release of
chlorinated solvents. Discharge from water curtain booths
generates the most wastewater. Onsite wastewater treat-
ment processes generate a sludge that is taken off site for
disposal. Other sources of wastes include emission con-
trol devices (e.g., paint booth collection systems, venti-
lation filters) and discarded paints. Sandblasting may be
performed to remove paint and to clean metal surfaces
for painting or resurfacing; this practice may be of par-
ticular concern if the paint being removed contains lead.
-------
Other Metal Finishing Techniques
Polishing, hot dip coating, and etching are other processes
used to finish metal. Wastewaters are often generated
during these processes. For example, after polishing op-
erations, area cleaning and washdown can produce metal-
bearing wastewaters. Hot dip coating techniques, such as
galvanizing, use water for rinses following pre-cleaning
and for quenching after coating. Hot dip coatings also
generate a solid waste, anoxide dross, that is periodically
skimmed off the heated tank. Etching solutions are com-
posed of strong acids or bases which may result in etch-
ing solution wastes that contain metals and acids.
Auxiliary Activity Areas and Potential
Contaminants
Wastewater Treatment
Many of the operations involved in metal finishing pro-
duce wastewaters, which usually are combined and treated
onsite, often by conventional chemical precipitation. Even
though the facility would have been required to meet state
wastewater discharge standards before releasing wastes,
spills of process wastewater may have occurred in the
area. At abandoned sites, any remaining wastewater left
in tanks or floor drains could contain solvents, metals,
and acids, such as those listed in Table 1. In addition, it is
possible that wastewater sludges, which can contain met-
als, were left at the site in baths or tanks.
Sunken Wastewater Treatment Tank
Some metal finishing facilities have wastewater treatment
tanks sunk into the concrete slab to rest on the underly-
ing soils. This is done by design to aid facility operators
in accessing the tanks. If these tanks develop leaks, the
lost material, which may contain VOCs and metals, may
be released directly to the soils beneath the building.
Chemical Storage Area
At most metal finishing sites an area for storing chemi-
cals used in the various operations was designated. Bulk
containers stored in these areas may have leaked or spilled,
resulting in discharges to floor drains or cracks in the
floor. VOCs such as those listed in Table 1 may be found
in such areas. Acids and alkaline reagents may also be
found in this area.
Disposal Area
Materials, both liquid and solid, from process baths may
have been disposed of at a designated area at the site.
Such areas may be identified by stained soils or a lack of
vegetation. These areas may contain VOCs, such as those
listed in Table 1.
Other Considerations
Not all releases are related to the industrial processes
described above. Some releases result from the associ-
ated services required to maintain the industrial processes.
For example, electroplating facilities are large COISUEII-
ers of electricity, which requires a number of transforam-
ers. At older facilities, these transformers may havebe^en
disposed of in unmarked areas of the facility, which makes
it difficult to know where leaks of polychlorinated fci-
phenyl (PCB)-laden oils used as coolants may have oc-
curred. Similarly, large machinery used to move ne tal
pieces requires periodic maintenance. In the past, cbnni-
cals used for maintenance operations, such as sohenats,
oils, and grease, may have been flushed down drains and
sumps after use. Stormwater runoff from paved areassisch
as parking lots may contain petroleum hydrocarbons and
oils, which can contaminate areas located downgrade nt.
When conducting initial site evaluations, planners should
expand their investigations to include these types of ac-
tivities.
In addition, metal finishing facilities may have been lo-
cated in older buildings that contain lead paint and as-
bestos insulation and tiling. Any structure built before
1970 should be assessed for the presence of these materi-
als. They can cause significant problems during demoli-
tion or renovation of the structures for reuse. Special
handling and disposal requirements under state and fed-
eral laws can significantly increase the cost of construc-
tion.
-------
Chapter 3
Site Assessment
The purposes of a site assessment are to determine
whether or not contamination is present and to assess the
nature and extent of possible contamination and the risks
to people and the environment that the contamination may
pose. The elements of a site assessment are designed to
help planners build a conceptual framework of the facil-
ity, which will aid site characterization efforts. The con-
ceptual framework should identify:
. Potential contaminants that remain in and around the
facility.
. Pathways along which contaminants may move.
. Potential risks to the environment and human health
that exist along the migration pathways.
This section highlights the key role that state environ-
mental agencies usually play in brownfields projects. The
types of information that planners should attempt to col-
lect to characterize the site in a Phase I site assessment
(i.e., the facility's history) are discussed. Information is
presented about where to find and how to use this infor-
mation to determine whether or not contamination is
likely. Additionally this section provides information to
assist planners in conducting a Phase II site assessment,
including sampling the site and determining the magni-
tude of contamination. Other considerations in assessing
iron and steel sites are also discussed, and general sam-
pling costs are included. This guide provides only a gen-
eral approach to site evaluation; planners should expand
and refine this approach for site-specific use at their own
facilities.
The Central Role of the State Agencies
A brownfields redevelopment project involves partner-
ships among site planners (whether private or public sec-
tor), state and local officials, and the local community.
State environmental agencies often are key decision-mak-
ers and a primary source of information for brownfields
projects. Brownfields sites are generally cleaned up un-
der state programs, particularly state voluntary cleanup
or Brownfields programs; thus, planners will need to work
closely with state program managers to determine their
particular state's requirements for brownfields develop-
ment. Planners may also need to meet additional federal
requirements. Key state functions include:
. Overseeing brownfields site assessment and cleanup
processes, including the management of voluntary
cleanup programs.
. Providing guidance on contaminant screening lev-
els.
. Serving as a source of site information, as well as
legal and technical guidance.
State Voluntary Cleanup Programs (VCPs)
State VCPs are designed to streamline brownfields rede-
velopment, reduce transaction costs, and provide state
liability protection for past contamination. Planners
should be aware that state cleanup requirements vary sig-
nificantly and should contact the state brownfield man-
ager; brownfields managers from state agencies will be
able to identify their state requirements for planners and
will clarify how their state requirements relate to federal
requirements.
Levels of Contaminant Screening and
Cleanup
Identifying the level of site contamination and determin-
ing the risk, if any, associated with that contamination
level is a crucial step in determining whether cleanup is
needed. Some state environmental agencies, as well as
federal and regional EPA offices, have developed screen-
ing levels for certain contaminants, which are incorpo-
rated into some brownfields programs. Screening levels
represent breakpoints in risk-based concentrations of
chemicals in soil, air, or water. If contaminant concentra-
-------
tions are below the screening level, no action is required;
above the level, further investigation is needed.
In addition to screening levels, EPA regional offices and
some states have developed cleanup standards; if con-
taminant concentrations are above cleanup standards,
cleanup must be pursued. The section on "Performing a
Phase II Site Assessment" in this document provides more
information on screening levels, and the section on "Site
Cleanup" provides more information on cleanup stan-
dards .
Performing a Phase I Site Assessment:
Obtaining Facility Background Information
from Existing Data
Planners should compile a history of the iron and steel
manufacturing facility to identify likely site contaminants
and their probable locations. Financial institutions typi-
cally require a Phase I site assessment prior to lending
money to potential property buyers to protect the
institution's role as mortgage holder (Geo-Environmen-
tal Solutions, n.d.). In addition, parties involved in the
transfer, foreclosure, leasing, or marketing of properties
recommend some form of site evaluation (The Whitman
Companies, 1996). The site history should include?
A review of readily available records (e.g., former
site use, building plans, records of any prior contami-
nation events).
A site visit to observe the areas used for various in-
dustrial processes and the condition of the property.
Interviews with knowledgeable people (e.g., site own-
ers, operators, and occupants; neighbors; local gov-
ernment officials).
A report that includes an assessment of the likelihood
that contaminants are present at the site.
The Phase I site assessment should be conducted by an
environmental professional, and may take three to four
weeks to complete. Site evaluations are required in part
as a response to concerns over environmental liabilities
associated with property ownership. A property owner
needs to perform "due diligence," i.e. fully inquire into
the previous ownership and uses of a property to demon-
strate that all reasonable efforts to find site contamina-
tion have been made. Because brownfields sites often
contain low levels of contamination and pose low risks,
2 The elements of a Phase I site assessment presented here are based in part
on ASTM Standards 1527 and 1528.
due diligence through a Phase I site assessment willhelp
to answer key questions about the levels of contamina-
tion. Several federal and state programs exist to mini-
mize owner liability at brownfields sites and facilitate
cleanup and redevelopment; planners should contactthieir
state environmental or regional EPA office for further in-
formation.
Information on how to review records, conduct site vi sits
and interviews, and develop a report during a Phase 1 site
assessment is provided below.
Facility Records
Facility records are often the best source of information
on former site activities. If past owners are not initially
known, a local records office should have deed books
that contain ownership history. Generally, records per-
taining specifically to the site in question are adqo_ate
for review purposes. In some cases, however, records of
adjacent properties may also need to be reviewed to as-
sess the possibility of contaminants migrating fromoa" to
the site, based on geologic or hydrogeologic conditions.
If the brownfields property resides in a low-lying arta_, in
close proximity to other industrial facilities or formerly
industrialized sites, or downgradient from current or
former industrialized sites, an investigation of adjioent
properties is warranted.
Other Sources of Recorded Information
Planners may need to use other sources in additions to
facility records to develop a complete history. ASTM
Standard 1527 identifies standard sources such as his-
torical aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, property
tax files, recorded land title records, topographic maps,
local street directories, building department records, z; on-
ing/land use records, and newspaper archives (ASTM,
1997).
Some metal finishing site managers may have worked
with state environmental regulators; these offices may
be key sources of information. Federal (e.g., EPA) records
may also be useful. The types of information provided
by regulators may include facility maps that identify ac-
tivities and disposal areas, lists of stored pollutants, and
the types and levels of pollutants released. State offices
and other sources where planners can search for site-spe-
cific information are presented below:
. The state offices responsible for industrial waste man-
agement and hazardous waste should have a record
of any emergency removal actions at the site (e.g.,
the removal of leaking drums that posed an "iromi-
-------
nent threat" to local residents); any Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permits issued
at the site; notices of violations issued; and any envi-
ronmental investigations.
The state office responsible for discharges of waste-
water to water bodies under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program
will have a record of any permits issued for discharges
into surface water at or near the site. The local pub-
licly owned treatment works (POTW) will have,
records for permits issued for indirect discharges into
sewers (e.g., floor drain discharges to a sanitary
sewer).
The state office responsible for underground storage
tanks may also have records of tanks located at the
site, as well as records of any past releases.
The state office responsible for air emissions may be
able to provide information on air pollutants associ-
ated with particular types of onsite contamination.
EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) of potentially contaminated sites should
have a record of any previously reported contamina-
tion at or near the site. For information, contact the
Superfund Hotline (800-424-9346).
EPA Regional Offices can provide records of sites
that have hazardous substances. Information is avail-
able from the Federal National Priorities List (NPL)
and lists of treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD)
facilities subject to corrective action under RCRA.
RCRA non-TSD facilities, RCRA generators, and
Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)
information on contaminated or potentially contami-
nated sites can help to determine if neighboring fa-
cilities are recorded as having released hazardous
substances into the immediate environment. Contact
EPA Regional Offices for more information.
State and local records may indicate any permit vio-
lations or significant contaminant releases from or
near the site'.
Residents and former employees may be able to pro-
vide useful information on waste management prac-
tices, but these reports should be substantiated.
halls may have fire insurance maps3 or other histori-
cal maps or data that indicate the location of hazard-
ous waste storage areas at the site.
. Local waste haulers may have records of the facility's
disposal of hazardous or other waste materials.
. Utility records.
. Local building permits.
Requests for federal regulatory information are governed
by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and the ful-
filling of such requests generally takes a minimum of four
to eight weeks. Similar freedom of information legisla-
tion does not uniformly exist on the state level; one can
expect a minimum waiting period of four weeks to re-
ceive requested information (ASTM, 1997).
Iden tifying Migration Path ways and
Potentially Exposed Populations
Offsite migration of contaminants may pose a risk to hu-
man health and the environment; planners should gather
as much readily available information on the physical
characteristics of the site as possible. Migration pathways,
i.e., soil, groundwater, and air, will depend on site-spe-
cific characteristics such as geology and the physical char-
acteristics of the individual contaminants (e.g., mobility).
Information on the physical characteristics of the general
area can play an important role in identifying potential
migration pathways and focusing environmental sampling
activities, if needed. Planners should collect three types
of information to obtain a better understanding of migra-
tion pathways, including topographic, soil and subsur-
face, and groundwater data, as described below.
Gathering Topographic Information
In this preliminary investigation, topographic informa-
tion will be helpful in determining whether the site may
be subject to contamination by adjoining properties or
may be the source of contamination of other properties.
Topographic information will help planners identify low-
lying areas of the facility where rain and snowmelt (and
any contaminants in them) may collect and contribute
both water and contaminants to the underlying aquifer or
surface runoff to nearby areas. The US. Geological Sur-
vey (USGS) of the Department of the Interior has topo-
graphic maps for nearly every part of the country. These
. . . . . 3 Fire insurance maps show, for a specific property, the locations of such
Local fire departments may have responded to emer- items K USTS] buildings, and areas where chemicals have been used for
gency events at the facility. Fire departments or city certain industrial processes.
-------
maps are inexpensive and available through the follow-
ing address:
USGS Information Services
Box 25286
Denver, CO 80225
[http://www.mapping.usgs.gov/esic/to_order.hmtl]
Gathering Soil and Subsurface Information
Planners should know about the types of soils at the site
from the ground surface extending down to the water table
because soil characteristics play a large role in how con-
taminants move in the environment. For example, clay
soils limit downward movement of pollutants into un-
derlying groundwater but facilitate surface runoff. Sandy
soils, on the other hand, can promote rapid infiltration
into the water table while inhibiting surface runoff. Soil
information can be obtained through a number of sources:
Local planning agencies should have soil maps to
support land use planning activities. These maps pro-
vide a general description of the soil types present
within a county (or sometimes a smaller administra-
tive unit, such as a township).
The Natural Resource Conservation Service and Co-
operative Extension Service offices of the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture (USDA) are also likely to
have soil maps.
Well-water companies are likely to be familiar with
local subsurface conditions, and local water districts
and state water divisions may have well-logging in-
formation.
Local health departments may be familiar with sub-
surface conditions because of their interest in septic
drain fields.
Local construction contractors are likely to be famil-
iar with subsurface conditions from their work with
foundations.
Soil characteristics can vary widely within a relatively
small area, and it is common to find that the top layer of
soil in urban areas is composed of fill materials, not na-
tive soils. While local soil maps and other general soil
information can be used for screening purposes such as
in a Phase I assessment, site-specific information will be
needed in the event that cleanup is necessary.
Gathering Groundwater Information
Planners should obtain general groundwater information
about the site area, including:
State classifications of underlying aquifers
Depth to the groundwater tables
Groundwater flow direction and rate
This information can be obtained by contacting state en-
vironmental agencies or from several local sources, in-
cluding water authorities, well drilling companies, health
departments, and Agricultural Extension and Natural
Resource Conservation Service offices.
Iden tifying Potential Environmental and
Human Health Concerns
Identifying possible environmental and human health
risks early in the process can influence decisions regard-
ing the viability of a site for cleanup and the choice of
cleanup methods used. A visual inspection of the area
will usually suffice to identify onsite or nearby wetlands
and water bodies that may be particularly sensitive tore-
leases of contaminants during characterization or cleanup
activities Planners should also review available infor-
mation (e.g., from state and local environmental agen-
cies) to ascertain the proximity of residential dwelling s,
nearby industrial/commercial activities, and wetlands/
water bodies, and to identify people, animals, or plants
that might receive migrating contamination; any particu-
larly sensitive populations in the area (e.g., children; en-
dangered species); and whether any major contamination
events have occurred previously in the area (e.g., drink-
ing water problems; groundwater contamination).
For environmental information, planners can contact the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, state environmental agen-
cies, local planning and conservation authorities, the U.S.
Geological Survey, and the USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service. State and local agencies and orga-
nizations can usually provide information on local fauna
and the habitats of any sensitive and/or endangered spe-
cies.
For human health information, planners can contact:
State and local health assessment organizations. Or-
ganizations such as health departments, should have
data on the quality of local well water used as a drink-
10
-------
ing water source, as well as any human health risk
studies that have been conducted. In addition, these
groups may have other relevant information, such as
how certain types of contaminants (e.g., volatile or-
ganics, such as benzene and phenols) might pose a
health risk (e.g., dermal exposure to volatile organ-
ics during site characterization); information on ex-
posures to particular contaminants and potential
associated health risks can also be found in health
profile documents developed by the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). In addi-
tion, ATSDR may have conducted a health consulta-
tion or health assessment in the area if an
environmental contamination event that may have
posed a health risk occurred in the past; such an event
and assessment should have been identified in the
Phase I records review of prior contamination inci-
dents at the site if any occurred. For information,
contact ATSDR's Division of Toxicology (404-639-
6300).
Local water and health departments. During the site
visit (described below), when visually inspecting the
area around the facility, planners should identify any
residential dwellings or commercial activities near
the facility and evaluate whether people there may
come into contact with contamination along one of
the migration pathways. Where groundwater contami-
nation may pose a problem, planners should identify
any nearby waterways or aquifers that may be im-
pacted by groundwater discharge of contaminated
water, including any drinking water wells that may
be downgradient of the site, such as a municipal well
field. Local water departments will have a count of
well connections to the public water supply. Plan-
ners should also pay particular attention to informa-
tion on private wells in the area downgradient of the
facility, since, depending on their location, they may
be vulnerable to contaminants migrating offsite even
when the public municipal drinking water supply is
not vulnerable. Local health departments often have
information on the locations of private wells.
In addition to groundwater sources and migration path-
ways, surface water sources and pathways should be
evaluated since groundwater and surface waters can in-
terface at some (or several) point(s) in the region. Con-
taminants in groundwater can eventually migrate to
surface waters, and contaminants in surface waters can
migrate to groundwater.
Involving the Community
Community-based organizations represent a wide range
of issues, from environmental concerns to housing issues
to economic development. These groups can often be
helpful in educating planners and others in the commu-
nity about local brownfields sites, which can contribute
to successful brownfields site assessment and cleanup ac-
'tivities. In addition, most state voluntary cleanup pro-
grams require that local communities be adequately
informed about brownfields cleanup activities. Planners
can contact the local Chamber of Commerce, local phil-
anthropic organizations, local service organizations, and
neighborhood committees for community input. State and
local environmental groups may be able to supply rel-
evant information and identify other appropriate commu-
nity organizations. Local community involvement in
brownfields projects is a key component in the success
of such projects.
Conducting a Site Visit
In addition to collecting and reviewing available records,
planners need to conduct a site visit to visually and physi-
cally observe the uses and conditions of the property, in-
cluding both outdoor areas and the interior of any
stracUu'ca uiru'rc property. Current and past uses involv-
ing the use, treatment; storage, disposal, or generation of
hazardous substances or petroleum products should be
noted. Current or past uses of abutting properties that can
be observed readily while conducting the site visit also
should be noted. In addition, readily observable geologic,
hydrologic, and topographic conditions should be identi-
fied, including any possibility of hazardous substances
migrating on- or offsite.
Roads, water supplies, and sewage systems should be
identified, as well as any storage tanks, whether above or
below ground. If any hazardous substances or petroleum
products are found, their type, quantity, and storage con-
ditions should be noted. Any odors, pools of liquids,
drums or other containers, and equipment likely to con-
tain PCBs should be noted. Additionally, indoors, heat-
ing and cooling systems should be noted, as well as any
stains, corrosion, drains, or sumps. Outdoors, any pits,
ponds, lagoons, stained soil or pavement, stressed veg-
etation, solid waste, wastewater, and wells should be noted
(ASTM, 1997).
Conducting Interviews
In addition to reviewing available records and visiting
the site, conducting interviews with the site owner and/
-------
or site manager, site occupants, and local officials is highly
recommended to obtain information about the prior and/
or current uses and conditions of the property, and to in-
quire about any useful documents that exist regarding the
property. Such documents include environmental audit
reports, environmental permits, registrations for storage
tanks, material safety data sheets, community right-to-
know plans, safety plans, government agency notices or
correspondence, hazardous waste generator reports or no-
tices, geoteclmical studies, or any proceedings involving
the property (ASTM, 1997). Interviews with at least one
staff person from the following local government agen-
cies are recommended: the fire department, health agency,
and the agency with authority for hazardous waste dis-
posal or other environmental matters. Interviews can be
conducted in person, by telephone, or in writing.
ASTM Standard 1528 provides a questionnaire that may
be appropriate for use in interviews for certain sites.
ASTM suggests that this questionnaire be posed to the
current property owner, any major occupant of the prop-
erty (or at least 10 percent of the occupants of the prop-
erty if no major occupant exists), or "any occupant likely
to be using, treating, generating, storing, or disposing of
hazardous substances or petroleum products on or from
the property." A user's guide accompanies the ASTM
questionnaire to assist the investigator in conducting in-
terviews, as well as researching records and making site
visits.
Developing a Report
Toward the end of the Phase I assessment, planners should
develop a report that includes all of the important infor-
mation obtained during record reviews, the site visit, and
interviews. Documentation, such as references and im-
portant exhibits, should be included, as well as the cre-
dentials of the environmental professional that conducted
the Phase I environmental site assessment. The report
should include all information regarding the presence or
likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum
products on the property and any conditions that indicate
an existing, past, or potential release of such substances
into property structures or into the ground, groundwater,
or surface water of the property (ASTM, 1997). The re-
port should include the environmental professional's opin-
ion of the impact of the presence or likely presence of
any contaminants, and a findings and conclusion section
that either indicates that the Phase I environmental site
assessment revealed no evidence of contaminants in con-
nection with the property, or discusses what evidence of
contamination was found (ASTM, 1997).
Additional sections of the report might include a recom-
mendations section (e.g., for a Phase n site assessment,
if appropriate); and sections on the presence or absence
of asbestos, lead paint, lead in drinking water, radon, and
wetlands. Some states or financial institutions may re-
quire information on these substances.
If the Phase I site assessment adequately informs state
and local officials, planners, community representatives,
and other stakeholders that no contamination exists at the
site, or that contamination is so minimal that it does mot
pose a health or environmental risk, then those involved
may decide that adequate site assessment has been tc-
complished and the process of redevelopment may pro-
ceed. In some cases where evidence of contamination
exists, stakeholders may decide that enough information
is available from the Phase I site assessment to charac-
terize the site and determine an appropriate approach For
site cleanup of the contamination. In other cases, state-
holders may decide that additional site assessment is
warranted, and a Phase II site assessment would be con-
ducted, as described below.
Performing a Phase II Site Assessment:
Sampling the Site
A Phase II site assessment typically involves taking soil,
water, and air samples to identify the types, quantity, and
extent of contamination in these various environmental
media. The types of data used in a Phase II site assess-
ment can vary from existing site data (if adequate), to
limited sampling of the site, to more extensive contami-
nant-specific or site-specific sampling data. Planners
should use knowledge of past facility operations when-
ever possible to focus the site evaluation on those pro-
cess areas where pollutants were stored; handled, used,
or disposed. These will be the areas where potential con-
tamination will be most readily identified. Generally, to
minimize costs, a Phase II site assessment will begin with
limited sampling (assuming readily available data do not
exist that adequately characterize the type and extent of
contamination on the site) and will proceed to more com-
prehensive sampling if needed (e.g., if the initial sam-
pling could not identify the geographical limits of
contamination).
This section explains the importance of setting Data Qual-
ity Objectives (DQOs) and provides brief guidance for
doing so; describes screening levels to which sampling
results can be compared; and provides an overview of
environmental sampling and data analysis, including sam-
pling methods and ways to increase data certainty.
12
-------
Setting Data Quality Objectives
EPA has developed a guidance document that describes
key principals and best practices for brownfields site as-
sessment quality assurance and quality control based on
program experience. The document, Quality Assurance
Guidance for Conducting Brownfields Site Assessments
(EPA 540-R-98-038), is intended as a reference for people
involved in the brownfields site assessment process and
serves to inform managers of important quality assurance
concepts.
EPA has adopted the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Pro-
cess (EPA 540-R-93-071) as a framework for making
decisions. The DQO Process is common-sense, system-
atic planning tool based on the scientific method. Using
a systematic planning approach, such as the DQO Pro-
cess, ensures that the data collected to support defensible
site decision making will be of sufficient quality and quan-
tity, as well as be generated through the most cost-effec-
tive means possible. DQOs, themselves, are statements
that unambiguously communicate the following:
The study objective
The most appropriate type of data to collect.
The most appropriate conditions under which to col-
lect the data.
The amount of uncertainty that will be tolerated when
making decisions.
It is important to understand the concept of uncertainty
and its relationship to site decision making. Regulatory
agencies, and the public they represent, want to be as
confident as possible about the safety of reusing brown-
fields sites. Public acceptance of site decisions may de-
pend on the site manager's being able to scientifically
document the adequacy of site decisions. During nego-
tiations with stakeholders, effective communication about
the tradeoffs between project costs and confidence in the
site decision can help set the stage for a project's suc-
cessful completion. When the limits on uncertainty (e.g.,
only a 5,10, or 20 percent chance of a particular decision
error is permitted) are clearly defined in the project, sub-
sequent activities can be planned so that data collection
efforts will be able to support those confidence goals in a
resource-effective manner. On the one hand, a manager
would like to reduce the chance of making a decision
error as much as possible, but on the other hand, reduc-
ing the chance of making that decision error requires col-
lecting more data, which is, in itself, a costly process.
Striking a balance between these two competing goals
more scientific certainty versus less cost-requires care-
ful thought and planning, as well as the application of
professional expertise.
The following steps are involved in systematic planting:
1. Agree on intended land reuse. All parties should agree
early in the process on the intended reuse for the prop-
erty because the type of use may strongly influence
the choice of assessment and cleanup approaches. For
example, if the area is to be a park, removal of all
contamination will most likely be needed. If the land
will be used for a shopping center, with most of the
land covered by buildings and parking lots, it may be
appropriate to reduce, rather than totally remove, con-
taminants to specified levels (e.g., state cleanup lev-
els; see "Site Cleanup" later in this document).
2. Clarify the objective of the site assessment. What is
the overall decision(s) that must be made for the site?
Parties should agree on the purpose of the assess-
ment. Is the objective to confirm that no contamina-
tion is present? Or is the goal lo identify the type,
level, and distribution of contamination above the
levels which are specified, based on the intended land
use. These are two fundamentally different goals that
suggest different strategies. The costs associated with
each approach will also vary.
As noted above, parties should also agree on the to-
tal amount of uncertainty allowable in the overall
decision(s). Conducting a risk assessment involves
identifying the levels of uncertainty associated with
characterization and cleanup decisions. A risk as-
sessment involves identifying potential contaminants
and analyzing the pathways through which people,
other species of concern, or the environment can be-
come exposed to those contaminants (see EPA 600-
R-93-039 and EPA 540-R095-132). Such an
assessment can help identify the risks associated with
varying the levels of acceptable uncertainty in the
site decision and can provide decision-makers with
greater confidence about their choice of land use de-
cisions and the objective of the site assessment. If
cleanup is required, a risk assessment can also help
determine how clean the site needs to be, based on
expected reuse (e.g., residential or industrial), to safe-
guard people from exposure to contaminants. For
more information, see the section Increasing the Cer-
13
-------
tainty of Sampling Results and the section Site
Cleanup.
3. Define the appropriate type(s) of data that will be
needed to make an infomzed decision at the desired
confidence level Parties should agree on the type of
data to be collected by defining a preliminary list of
suspected analytes, media, and analyte-specific ac-
tion levels (screening levels). Define how the data
will be used to make site decisions. For example,
data values for a particular analyte may or may not
be averaged across the site for the purposes of reach-
ing a decision to proceed with work. Are there maxi-
mum values which a contaminant(s) cannot exceed?
If found, will concentrations of contaminants above
a certain action level (hotspots) be characterized and
treated separately? These discussions should also
address the types of analyses to be performed at dif-
ferent stages of the project. Planners and regulators
can reach an agreement to focus initial characteriza-
tion efforts in those areas where the preliminary in-
formation indicates potential sources of
contamination may be located. It may be appropri-
ate to analyze for a broad class of contaminants by
less expensive screening methods in the early stages
of the project in order to limit the n-umber of samples
needing analysis by higher quality, more expensive
methods later. Different types of data may be used at
different stages of the project to support interim de-
cisions that efficiently direct the course of the project
as it moves forward.
4. Determine the most appropriate conditions under
which to collect the data. Parties should agree on
the timing of sampling activities, since weather con-
ditions can influence how representative the samples
are of actual conditions.
5. Identify appropriate contingency plans/actions. Cer-
tain aspects of the project may not develop as planned.
Early recognition of this possibility can be a useful
part of the DQO Process. For example, planners,
regulators, and other stakeholders can acknowledge
that screening-level sampling may lead to the dis-
covery of other contaminants on the site than were
originally anticipated. During the DQO Process,
stakeholders may specify appropriate contingency ac-
tions to be taken in the event that contamination is
found. Identifying contingency actions early in the
project can help ensure that the project will proceed
even in light of new developments. The use of a dy-
namic workplan combined with the use of rapicftum-
around field analytical methods can enable the pj ect
to move forward with a minium of time delays and
wasted effort.
6. Develop a sampling and analysis plan that canmeet
the goals and permissible uncertainties descrikd in
the proceeding steps. The overall uncertainty in a
site decision is a function of several factors: theiurn-
ber of samples across the site (the density of sample
coverage), the heterogeneity of analytes from sample
to sample (spatial variability of contaminant concen-
trations), and the accuracy of the analytical methdC s).
Studies have demonstrated that analytical variaiility
tends to contribute much less to the uncertainly of
site decisions than does sample variability de to
matrix heterogeneity. Therefore, spending mousy to
increase the sample density across the site willusu-
ally (for most contaminants) make a larger conlit>u-
tion to confidence in the site decision, and ths be
more cost-effective, than will spending mony to
achieve the highest data quality possible, butit a
lower sampling density.
Examples of important consideration for developing; a
sampling and analysis plan include:
Determine the sampling location placemen! that
can provide an estimate of the matrix heteoge-
neity and thus address the desired certain!. Is
locating hotspots of a certain size impoitant?
Can composite sampling be used to inciea.se
coverage of the site (and decrease overall un-
certainty due to sample heterogeneity) vhile
lowering analytical costs?
Evaluate the available pool of analytical lech-
nologies/methods (both field methods and labo-
ratory methods, which might be implemented in
either a fixed or mobile laboratory) forihose
methods that can address the desired action lev-
els (the analytical methods quantificationlimit
should be well below the action level). Account
for possible or expected matrix interferences
when considering appropriate methods. Can
field analytical methods produce data thai will
meet all of the desired goals when sampling un-
certainty is also taken into account? Evaluate
whether a combination of screening and defini-
tive methods may produce a more cost-effective
means to generate data. Can economy ofscale
be used? For example, the expense of a mobile
14
-------
laboratory is seldom cost-effective for a single
small site, but might be cost-effective if several
sites can be characterized sequentially by a single
mobile laboratory.
When the sampling procedures, sample prepa-
ration and analytical methods have been selected,
design a quality control protocol for each proce-
dure and method that ensures that the data gen-
erated will be of known, defensible quality.
7. Through a number of iterations, refine the sampling
and analysis plan to one that can most cost-effec-
tively address the decision-making needs of the site
planner.
8. Review agreements often. As more information be-
comes available, some decisions that were based on
earlier, limited information should be reviewed to see
if they are still valid. If they are not, the parties can
again use the DQO framework to revise and refine
site assessment and cleanup goals and activities.
The data needed to support decision-making for brown-
fields sites generally are not complicated and are less
extensive than those required for more heavily contami-
nated, higher-risk sites (e.g., Superfund sites). But data
uncertainty may still be a concern at brownfields sites
because knowledge of past activities at a site may be less
than comprehensive, resulting in limited site character-
ization. Establishing DQOs can help address the issue of
data uncertainty in such cases. Examples of DQOs in-
clude verifying the presence of soil contaminants, and
assessing whether contaminant concentrations exceed
screening levels.
Screening Levels
In the initial stages of a Phase II site assessment an ap-
propriate set of screening levels for contaminants in soil,
water, and/or air should be established. Screening levels
are risk-based benchmarks which represent concentra-
tions of chemicals in environmental media that do not
pose an unacceptable risk. Sample analyses of soils, wa-
ter, and air at the facility can be compared with these
benchmarks. If onsite contaminant levels exceed the
screening levels, further investigation will be needed to
determine if and to what extent cleanup is appropriate.
Some states have developed generic screening levels (e.g.,
for industrial and residential use). These levels may not
account for site-specific factors that affect the concentra-
tion or migration of contaminants. Alternatively, screen-
ing levels can be developed using site-specific factors.
While site-specific screening levels can more effectively
incorporate elements unique to the site, developing site-
specific standards is a time- and resource-intensive pro-
cess. Planners should contact their state environmental
offices and/or EPA regional offices for assistance in us-
ing screening levels and in developing site-specific
screening levels.
Risk-based screening levels are based on calculations/
models that determine the likelihood that exposure of a
particular organism or plant to a particular level of a con-
taminant would result in a certain adverse effect. Risk-
based screening levels have been developed for tap water,
ambient air, fish, and soil. Some states or EPA regions
also use regional background levels (or ranges) of con-
taminants in soil and Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) in water established under the Safe Drinking
Water Act as screening levels for some chemicals. In ad-
dition, some states and/or EPA regional offices4 have de-
veloped equations for converting soil screening levels to
comparative levels for the analysis of air and groundwater.
When a contaminant concentration exceeds a screening
level, further site assessment (such as sampling the site
at strategic locations and/or performing more detailed
analysis) is needed to determine that: (1) the concentra-
tion of the contaminant is relatively low and/or the ex-
tent of contamination is small and does not warrant
cleanup for that particular chemical, or (2) the concen-
tration or extent of contamination is high, and that site
cleanup is needed (see the section "Site Cleanup" for a
discussion on cleanup levels).
Using state cleanup standards for an initial brownfields
assessment may be beneficial if no industrial screening
levels are available or if the site may be used for residen-
tial purposes. EPA's soil screening guidance is a tool de-
veloped by EPA to help standarize and accelerate the
evaluation and cleanup of contaminated soils at sites on
the NPL where future residential land use is anticipated.
This guidance may be useful at corrective action or VCP
sites where site conditions are similar. However, use of
this guidance for sites where residential land use assump-
tions do not apply could result in overly conservative
screening levels.
Tor example, EPA Region 6 Human Health Media-Specific Screening
Levels include air and groundwater levels based on soil screening levels
for some chemicals.
15
-------
Environmental Sampling and Data
Analysis
Environmental sampling and data analysis are integral
parts of a Phase II site assessment process. Many differ-
ent technologies are available to perform these activities,
as discussed below.
Levels of Sampling and Analysis
There are two levels of sampling and analysis: screening
and contaminant-specific. Planners are likely to use both
at different stages of the site assessment.
Screening. Screening sampling and analysis use rela-
tively low-cost technologies to take a limited num-
ber of samples at the most likely points of
contamination and analyze them for a limited num-
ber of parameters. Screening analyses often test only
for broad classes of contaminants, such as total pe-
troleum hydrocarbons, rather than for specific con-
taminants, such as benzene or toluene. Screening is
used to narrow the range of areas of potential con-
tamination and reduce thenumber of samples requir-
ing further, more costly, analysis. Screening is
generally performed on site, with a small percentage
of samples (e.g., generally 10 percent) submitted to
a state-approved laboratory for a fuii organic and in-
organic screening analysis to validate or clarify the
results obtained.
Some geophysical methods are used in site assess-
ments because they are noninvasive (i.e., do not dis-
turb environmental media as sampling does).
Geophysical methods are commonly used to detect
underground objects that might exist at a site, such
as USTs, dry wells, and drums. The two most com-
mon and cost-effective technologies used in geophysi-
cal surveys are ground-penetrating radar and
electromagnetics. An overview of geophysical meth-
ods is presented in Table 2. Geophysical methods are
discussed in Subsurface Characterization and Moni-
toring Techniques: A Desk Reference Guide (EPA/
625/R-93003a).
Contaminant-specific. For a more in-depth under-
standing of contamination at a site (e.g., when screen-
ing data are not detailed enough), it may be necessary
to analyze samples for specific contaminants. With
contaminant-specific sampling and analysis, the num-
ber of parameters analyzed is much greater than for
screening-level sampling, and analysis includes more
accurate, higher-cost field and laboratory methods.
Such analyses may take several weeks.
Computerization, microfabrication and biotechnology
have permitted the recent development of analytical
equipment that can be generated in the field, on-site k a
mobile laboratory and off-site in a laboratory. The same
kind of equipment might be used in two or more loca-
tions
Increasing the Certainty of Sampling
Results
One approach to reducing the level of uncertainty asso-
ciated with site data is to implement a statistical sam-
pling plan. Statistical sampling plans use statistic al
principles to determine the number of samples needed to
accurately represent the contamination present. With the
statistical sampling method, samples are usually analyzed
with highly accurate laboratory or field teclmologies,
which increase costs and take additional time. Using this
approach, planners can negotiate with regulators and de-
termine in advance specific measures of allowable un-
certainty (e.g., an 80 percent level of confidence with a
25 percent allowable error).
Another approach to increasing the certainty of sampling
results is to use lower-cost technologies with higher de-
tection limits to collect a greater number of samples. This
approach would provide a more comprehensive picture
of contamination at the site, but with less detail regard-
ing the specific contamination. Such an approach would
not be recommended to identify the extent of contamina-
tion by a specific contaminant, such as benzene, but may
be an excellent approach for defining the extent of con-
tamination by total organic compounds with a strong de-
gree of certainty. Planners will find that there is a trade-off
between scope and detail. Performing a limited number
of detailed analyses provides good detail but less cer-
tainty about overall contamination, while performing a
larger number of general analyses provides less detail but
improves the understanding and certainty of the scope of
contamination.
Site Assessment Technologies
This section discusses the differences between using field
and laboratory technologies and provides an overview of
applicable site assessment technologies. In recent years,
several innovative technologies that have been field-tested
and applied to hazardous waste problems have emerged.
In many cases, innovative technologies may cost less than
conventional techniques and can successfully provide the
needed data. Operating conditions may affect the cost and
effectiveness of individual technologies.
16
-------
Table 2. Non-Invasive Assessment Technologies
Applications
Strengths
Weaknesses
Typical Costs'
Infrared Thermography (IR/T)
Locates buried USTs.
Locates buried leaks from
USTs.
Locates burled sludge
pits.
Locates buried nuclear
and nonnuclear waste.
Locates buried oil, gas,
chemical and sewer
pipelines.
Locates buried oil, gas,
chemical and sewer
pipeline leaks,
Locates water pipelines.
Locates water pipeline
leaks.
Locates seepage from
waste dumps.
Locates subsurface smol-
dering fires in waste dumps.
Locates unexploded
ordinance on hundreds or
thousands of acres.
Locates buried landmines.
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
. Locates buried USTs.
. Locates buried leaks from
USTs.
. Locates burled sludge
pits.
. Locates burled nuclear
and nonnuclear waste.
. Locates buried oil, gas,
chemical and sewer
pipelines.
. Locates buried oil and
chemical pipeline leaks.
. Locates water pipelines.
. Locates water pipeline
leaks.
. Locates seepage from
waste dumps.
. Locates cracks in
subsurface strata such as
limestone.
Able to collect data on large
areas very efficiently.
(Hundreds of acres per
flight)
Able to collect data on long
cross country pipelines very
efficiently (300500 miles
per day.)
Low cost for analyzed data
per acre unit.
Able to prescreen and
eliminate clean areas from
further costly testing and
unneeded rehabilitation.
Able to fuse data with other
techniques for even greater
accuracy in more situations.
Able to locate larae and
small leaks in pipelines and
USTs. (Ultrasonic devices
can only locate small, high
pressure leaks containing
ultrasonic noise.)
No direct contact with
objects under test is
required. (Ultrasonic devices
must be in contact with
buried pipelines or USTs.)
Has confirmed anomalies to
depths greater than 38 feet
with an accuracy of better
than 80%.
Tests can be performed
during both daytime and
nighttime hours.
, Normally no inconvenience to the public.
, Can Investige depths from 1
centimeter to 100 meters+
depending upon soil or
water conditions.
, Can locate small voids
capable of holding
contamination wastes.
, Can determine different
types of materials such as
steel, fiberglass or concrete.
, Can be trailed behind a
vehicle and travel at hioh
speeds.
Cannot be used In rainy
conditions.
Cannot be used to
determine'depth or
thickness of anomalies.
Cannot determine what
specific anomalies are
detected.
Cannot be used to detect a
specific fluid or
contaminant, but all items
not native to the area will
be detected.
Depends upon
volume of data
collected and type of
targets looked for.
, Small areas <1 acre:
$1 ,ooo-$3,500
Large areas >1,000
acres: $10 - $200 per
acre
Cannot be used in highly
conductive environments
such as salt water.
Cannot be used in heavy
clay soils.
Data are difficult to
Interpret and require a
lot of experience.
Depends upon
volume of data
collected and type of
targets looked for.
Small areas <1 acre:
$3,500 - $5.000
Large areas > 10
acres: $2,500 -
$3,500 per acre
' Cost- based on case study data in 1997 dollars.
17
-------
Table 2. Continued
Applications
Electromagnetic Offset Logging
. Locates buried
hydrocarbon pipelines
. Locates buried
hydrocarbon USTs.
. Locates hydrocarbon
tanks.
. Locates hydrocarbon
barrels.
. Locates perched
hydrocarbons.
. Locates free floating
hydrocarbons.
. Locates dissolved
hydrocarbons.
. Locates sinker
hydrocarbons.
. Locates buried well
casings.
Magnetometer (MG)
. Locates buried ferrous
materials such as barrels,
pipelines, USTs, and
buckets.
Strengths
(EOL)
. Produces 3D images of
hydrocarbon plumes.
. Data can be collected to
depth of 100 meters.
. Data can be collected from a
single, unlined or nonmetal
lined well hole.
. Data can be collected within
a 100 meter radius of a
single well hole.
. 3D images can be sliced in
horizontal and vertical planes.
. DNAPLs can be imaged.
. Low cost instruments can be
used that produce results by
audio signal strengths.
. High cost instruments can
Weaknesses
. Small dead area around
well hole of
approximately 8 meters.
This can be eliminated by
using 2 complementary
well holes from which to
collect data.
. Non-relevant artifacts can
be confusing to data
analyzers.
. Depth limited to 3 meters.
Typical Costs'
. Depends upon
volume of data
collected and typ
targets looked fa
off
. Small areas < 1ere:
$1 0,000 -$20,09
. Large areas > 11
acres: $5,000
$10,000 per acre
. Depends upon
volume of data
collected and typ
targets looked In
of
be used that produce hard
copy printed maps of
targets.
Depths to 3 meters. 1 acre
per day typical efficiency in
data collection.
, Small areas < Icr <
$2,500 - $5,000
' Large areas > II
acres: $1,500.
$2,500 per acre
1 Cost based on case study data in 1997 dollars.
Field versus Laboratory Analysis
The principal advantages of performing field sampling
and field analysis are that results are immediately avail-
able and more samples can be taken during the same sam-
pling event; also, sampling locations can be adjusted
immediately to clarify the first round of sampling results
if warranted. This approach may reduce costs associated
with conducting additional sampling events after receipt
of laboratory analysis. Field assessment methods have
improved significantly over recent years; however, while
many field technologies may be comparable to labora-
tory technologies, some field technologies may not de-
tect contamination at levels as low as laboratory methods,
and may not be contaminant-specific. To validate the field
results or to gain more information on specific contami-
nants, a small percentage of the samples can be sent for
laboratory analysis. The choice of sampling and analyti-
cal procedures should be based on DQOs established ear-
lier in the process, which determine the quality (e.g.,
precision, level of detection) of the data needed to ad-
equately evaluate site conditions and identify appropri-
ate cleanup technologies.
Sample Collection and Analysis
Technologies
Tables 3 and 4 list sample collection technologies fofioil/
subsurface and groundwater that may be appropriate for
metal finishing brownfields sites. Technology selection
depends on the medium being sampled and the typ of
analysis required, based on DQOs (see the section outbids
subject earlier in this document). Soil samples aregineT-
ally collected using spoons, scoops, and shovels. Tfc se-
lection of a subsurface sample collection technology
depends on the subsurface conditions (e.g., consolidated
materials, bedrock), the required sampling depth andbv-el
of analysis, and the extent of sampling Anticipated For
example, if subsequent sampling efforts are liketyttien
installing semi-permanent well casings with a well-drill-
ing rig may be appropriate. If limited sampling is ex-
pected, direct push methods, such as cone penetromters,
may be more 'cost-effective. The types of contamiaants
will also play a key role in the selection of sampling meth-
ods, devices, containers, and preservation techniques.
Table 5 lists analytical technologies that may be appro-
priate for assessing metal finishing sites, the types of ccra-
tamination they can measure, applicable environmental
media, and the relative cost of each. The final two col-
18
-------
Table 3. Soil and Subsurface Sampling Tools
Media
Technique/ Ground
Instrumentation Soil Water
Drilling Methods
Cable Tool
Casing Advancement
Direct Air Rotary with Rotary Bit/
Downhole Hammer
Direct Mud Rotary
Directional Drilling
Hollow-Stem Auger
Jetting Methods
Rotary Diamond Drilling
Rotating Core
Solid Flight and Bucket Augers
Sonic Drilling
Split and Solid Barrel
Thin-Wall Open Tube
Thin-Wall Piston/
Specialized Thin Wall
Direct Push Methods
Cone Penetrometer
Driven Wells
Hand-Held Methods
Augers
Rotating Core
Scoop, Spoons, and Shovels
Split and Solid Barrel
Thin-Wall Open Tube
Thin-Wall Piston/
Specialized Thin Wall
Tubes
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Relative Cost
per Sample
Mid-range
expensive
Most expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Most expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Least expensive
Most expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Most expensive
Least expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Least expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Least expensive
Sample Quality
Soil properties will most likely
be altered
Soil properties will likely be
altered
Soil properties will most likely
be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties will likely be
altered
Soil properties will most likely
not be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties will most likely
not be altered
Soil properties will most likely
not be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties will most likely
not be altered
Soil properties will most likely
not be altered
Soil properties will most likely
not be altered
Bold - Most commonly used field techniques
19
-------
Table 4. Groundwater Sampling Tools
Contaminants'
Technique/
Instrumentation
Relative Cost
per Sample
Sample Quality
Portable Grab Samplers
Bailers
Pneumatic Depth-Specific
Samplers
VOCs, metals
VOCs, metals
Portable In Situ Groundwater Samplers/Sensors
Cone Penetrometer VOCs, metals
Samplers
Direct Drive Samplers
Hyclropunch
Fixed In Situ Samplers
Multilevel Capsule
Samplers
Multiple-Port Casings
Passive Multilayer Samplers
VOCs, metals
VOCs, metals
VOCs, metals
VOCs, metals
VOCs
Least expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Liquid properties may be
altered
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered
Liquid properties will most likety
not be altered
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered
Liquid properties will most likely
not be altered
Bold Most commonly used field techniques
VOCs Volatile Organic Carbons
1 See Figure 1 for an overview of site locations where these contaminants may typically be found.
umns of the table contain the applicability (e.g., field and/
or laboratory) of analytical methods and the technology's
ability to generate quantitative versus qualitative results.
Less expensive technologies that have rapid turnaround
times and produce only qualitative results generally
should be sufficient for many brownfields sites.
Additional Considerations for Assessing
Metal Finishing Sites
When assessing a metal finishing brownfields site, plan-
ners should focus on the most likely areas of contamina-
tion. Although the specific locations vary from site to site,
this section provides some general guidelines.
Where to Sample
Most metal finishing facilities perform all operations in-
doors. Consequently, most site assessment activities
should focus on contamination inside and underneath the
facility. Outdoor assessment activities should evaluate
points where drain pipes may have carried contaminated
wastewater or spilled materials.
The typical metal finishing facility is comprised of one
or more large, warehouse-type buildings that contain the
bath tanks, chemical storage areas, and wastewater treat-
ment system. The floors are likely to be a continuous
concrete slab containing several drains leading to a cen-
tral storm drain or sewer access. In most older facilities,
the feed lines from bath to wastewater tanks are under-
neath the floor slab. In newer facilities, the bath tanks
and/or the wastewater tanks will likely be partially sub-
merged in the floor slab and positioned directly on the
ground.
A visual inspection of the site should identify the most
likely points of potential contaminant releases. These in-
clude the areas surrounding:
Floor drains in chemical storage and process bath
areas
Sludges left in process bath and wastewater treatment
tanks
Pipes underneath the floor slab
Tanks set through the floor slab
Cracks in floor or stains in low spots in the floor
Solvents can be highly mobile on release, and can seep
into and through the concrete flooring, which is porous.
The inspection of the facility floor should look not only
20
-------
Table 5. Sample Analysis Technologies
Media
Technique/ Ground
Instrumentation Analytes Soil Water
Metals
Laser-Induced Metals X
Breakdown
Spectrometry
Titrimetry Kits Metals X X
Particle-Induced X-ray Metals X X
Emissions
Atomic Adsorption Metals X* X
Spectrometry
Inductively Coupled Metals X X
Plasma-Atomic
Emission
Spectroscopy
Field Bioassessment Metals X X
X-Ray Fluorescence Metals X X
VOCs
Chemical Calorimetric VOCs X X
Kits
Flame lonization VOCs X X
Detector (hand-held)
Explosimeter VOCs X X*
Photo lonization VOCs, X X
Detector (hand-held)
Catalytic Surface VOCs X* X
Oxidation
NearlR VOCs X
Reflectance/Trans
Spectroscopy
ion Mobility VOCs X* X
Spectrometer
Raman VOCs X X
Spectroscopy/SERS
Relative
Gas Detection
ppb
ppm
ppm
X ppb
X ppb
X ppm
ppm
X ppm
X ppm
X ppm
X ppm
100-1 ,000
ppm
X 100-1 ,000
ppb
X* ppb
Relative
Cost per
Analysis
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Most
expensive
Most
expensive
Most
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Produces
Application" Quantitative Data
Usually used
in field
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in field
Laboratory
and field
Can be used
Infield,
usually used
In laboratory
Immediate,
can be used
in field
Immediate,
can be used
in field
Immediate,
can be used
in field
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
In laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
Yes
Yes
No
Yes (limited)
Additional
effort
required
No
No
No
No
Additional
effort
required
Yes
Additional
effort
required
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
X* Indicates there must be extraction of the sample to gas or liquid phase
Samples sent to laboratory require shipping time and usually 14 to 35 days turnaround time for analysis. Rush orders cost an additional amount per sample.
(continued)
-------
Table 5. Continued
Media
Technique/ Ground
Instrumentation Analytes Soil Water
Infrared Spectroscopy VOCs X X
Scattering/Absorption VOCs X* X
Lidar
FTIR Spectroscopy VOCs X X
Synchronous VOCs X X
Luminescence/
Fluorescence
Gas Chromatography VOCs X* X
(GC) (can be used
with numerous
detectors)
UV-Visible VOCs X X
Spectrophotometty
UV Fluorescence VOCs X X
Ion Trap VOCs X X*
Other
Chemical Reaction- VOCs, X X
Based Test Papers Metals
immunoassay and VOCs, X X
Calorimetric Kits Metals
Relative
Gas Detection
X 100-1 ,000
ppm
X 100-i ,000
ppm
X ppm
ppb
X ppb
X ppb
X ppb
X ppb
ppm
ppm
Relative
Cost per
Analysis
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Mid-range
expensive
Most
expensive
Least
expensive
Least
expensive
Produces
Application" Quantitative Data
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
Laboratory
and field
Usually
used in
laboratory,
can be used
in field
Usually
used in
laboratory,
can be used
in field
Usually used
in laboratory
Usually used
in laboratory
Laboratory
and field
Usually used
In field
Usually used
in
laboratory,
can be used
in field
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
Yes
Additional
effort
required
Additional
effort
required
Yes
Yes
Additional
effort
required
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
SVOCs Semivolatile Organic Compounds (may be present in oil and grease)
PAHs Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
X* Indicates there must be extraction of the sample to gas or liquid phase
" Samples sent to laboratory require shipping time and usually 14 to 35 days turnaround time for analysis, Rush orders cost an additional
amount per sample.
for cracks through which solvents could migrate, but also
for stained areas where spilled solvents may have pooled.
Wipe samples should be taken along the walls of the fa-
cility, as solvent vapors may have penetrated wall mate-
rials.
Since metal finishing operations are typically conducted
inside the facility, outside points of potential release are
likely to be limited to:
* Points of discharge from effluent pipes
Waterways, canals, and ditches at points of pipe dis-
charge
* Areas where process bath materials may have been
dumped
While discharge points may be visually obvious, areas of
dumping may be less apparent. Often these areas are
marked by stained soils and a lack of vegetation. Low-
lying areas should also be investigated, as they make natu-
22
-------
ral dumping areas and contaminants may drain to these
points.
How Many Samples to Collect
Samples should be taken in and around the areas of po-
tential release mentioned above. Planners should expect
that two to three samples will be required in each area,
depending on DQOs. A cost-effective approach is to per-
form screening analyses using field methods on all
samples and then to submit one sample to a laboratory
for analysis by an accepted EPA method. Although the
screening analyses can be conducted for broad contami-
nant groups, such as total organics, a contaminant-spe-
cific analysis should be conducted as a full screen for
organic and inorganic contaminants and to validate the
screening analyses. Contaminant-specific analyses may
be conducted either in the field using appropriate tech-
nologies and protocols or in a laboratory.
What Types of Analysis to Perform
The selection of analytical procedures will be based on
the DQOs established. Generally, the following analyses
may be appropriate at metal finishing sites:
Residuals taken from drain sumps in storage areas
should be screened for total organics and acids.
Screening analyses for these contaminants can be per-
formed inexpensively using a photo ionization de-
tector (PID) or flame ionization detector (FID) for
total organics.
Residuals taken from drains in the process and waste-
water treatment areas should be screened for a simi-
lar range of organic contaminants, but additional
analyses should be performed to screen for the pres-
ence of inorganic contaminants, such as the metals
used in the metal finishing process. Immunoassays
are an inexpensive field technology that can be used
to perform the screening analyses for organic con-
taminants and mercury. X-ray fluorescence (XRF) is
another innovative technology that can be used to
perform either field or laboratory analyses.
Soil gas should be collected at points underneath the
floor slab, particularly near any tanks that are set
through the floor slab, to detect the presence of sol-
vents and other organic contaminants. These samples
can be analyzed with the PID/FID technology de-
scribed above. Corings of the floor slab may need to
be taken and sent to a laboratory to determine if con-
taminants have penetrated floor slabs.
Wipe samples taken from walls should be analyzed
for organic compounds. These analyses can be per-
formed using the same technologies that are used to
analyze residuals samples.
Soils and sediments at points of pipe discharge should
be screened for both organic and inorganic contami-
nants using the PID/FID technology. XRF can be used
for field or laboratory analyses.
Water samples collected in swales, canals, and ditches
should be screened for organics. Inorganic contami-
nation can sometimes be detected in water samples,
but conditions do not always allow it.
In addition, as discussed earlier, many older structures
contain lead paint and asbestos insulation and tiling. Nu-
merous kits are readily available to test for lead paint.
Experienced professionals may be able to visually iden-
tify asbestos insulation, but specialized equipment may
be needed to confirm the presence of asbestos in other
areas. Core or wipe samples can be analyzed for asbestos
using polarized light microscopy (PLM). Local and state
laws regarding lead and asbestos should be consulted to
determine how they may affect the selection of DQOs,
sampling, and analysis.
General Sampling Costs
Site assessment costs vary widely, depending on the na-
ture and extent of the contamination and the size of the
sampling area. The sample collection costs discussed
below are based on an assumed labor rate of $35 per hour
plus $10 per sample for shipping and handling.
So/7 Collection Costs
Surface soil samples can be collected with tools as simple
as a stainless steel spoon, shovel, or hand auger. Samples
can be collected using hand tools in soft soil for as low as
$10 per sample (assuming that a field technician can col-
lect 10 samples per hour). When soils are hard, or deeper
samples are required, a hammer-driven split spoon sam-
pler or a direct push rig is needed. Using a drill rig
equipped with a split spoon sampler or a direct push rig
typically costs more than $600 per day for rig operation
(Geoprobe, 1998), with the cost per sample exceeding
$30 (assuming that a field technician can collect 2 samples
per hour). Labor costs generally increase when heavy ma-
chinery is needed.
Groundwater Sampling Costs
Groundwater samples can be extracted through conven-
tional drilling of a permanent monitoring well or using
23
-------
the direct push methods listed in Table 3. The conven-
tional, hollow stem auger-drilled monitoring well is more
widely accepted but generally takes more time than di-
rect push methods. Typical quality assurance protocols
for the conventional monitoring well require the well to
be drilled, developed, and allowed to achieve equilibrium
for 24 to 48 hours. After the development period, a
ground-water sample is extracted. With the direct push
sampling method, a probe is either hydraulically pressed
or vibrated into the ground, and groundwater percolates
into a sampling container attached to the probe. The di-
rect push method costs are contingent upon the hardness
of the subsurface, depth to the water table, and perme-
ability of the aquifer. Costs for both conventional and
direct push techniques are generally more than $40 per
sample (assuming that a field technician can collect 1
sample per hour); well installation costs must be added
to that number.
Surface Wafer and Sediment Sampling
costs
Surface water and sediment sampling costs depend on
the location and depth of the required samples. Obtain-
ing surface water and sediment samples can cost as little
as $30 per sample (assuming that a field technician cam
collect 2 samples per hour). Sampling sediment in deep
water or sampling a deep level of surface water, how-
ever, requires the use of larger equipment, which drives
up the cost. Also, if surface water presents a hazard dur-
ing sampling and protective measures are required, costs
will increase greatly.
Sample Analysis Costs
Costs for analyzing samples in any medium can range
from as little as $27 per sample for a relatively simple
test (e.g., an immunoassay test for metals) to greater than
$400 per sample for a more extensive analysis (e.g., for
semivolatiles) and up to $1,200 per sample for dioxims
(Robbat, 1997). Major factors that affect the cost of
sample analysis include the type of analytical technol-
ogy used, the level of expertise needed to interpret the
results, and the number of samples to be analyzed. Plan-
ners should make sure that laboratories that have been
certified by state programs are used; contact your state
environmental agency for a list of state certified labora-
tories.
24
-------
Chapter 4
Site Cleanup
The purpose of this section is to guide planners in the
selection of appropriate cleanup technologies, the prin-
cipal factors that will influence the selection of a cleanup
technology include:
Types of contamination present
Cleanup and reuse goals
Length of time required to reach cleanup goals
Post-treatment care needed
. Budget
The selection of appropriate cleanup technologies often
involves a trade-off between time and cost. A companion
EPA document, entitled Cost Estimating Tools and Re-
sources for Addressing Sites Under the Brownfields Ini-
tiative, provides information on cost factors and
developing cost estimates. In general, the more intensive
the cleanup approach, the more quickly the contamina-
tion will be mitigated and the more costly the effort. In
the case of brownfields cleanup, this can be a major point
of concern, considering the planner's desire to return the
facility to the point of reuse as quickly as possible. Thus,
the planner may wish to explore a number of options and
weigh carefully the costs and benefits of each. One ef-
fective method of comparison is the cleanup plan, as dis-
cussed below. Planners should involve stakeholders in
the community in the development of the cleanup plan.
The intended future use of a brownfields site will drive
the level of cleanup needed to make the site safe for re-
development and reuse. Brownfields sites are by defini-
tion not Superfund NPL sites; that is, brownfields sites
usually have lower levels of contamination present and
therefore generally require less extensive cleanup efforts
than Superfund NPL sites. Nevertheless, all potential
pathways of exposure, based on the intended reuse of the
site, must be addressed in the site assessment and cleanup;
if no pathways of exposure exist, less cleanup (or possi-
bly none) may be required.
Some regional EPA and state offices have developed
cleanup standards for different chemicals, which may
serve as guidelines or legal requirements for cleanups. It
is important to understand that screening levels (discussed
in the section on "Performing a Phase II Site Assessment"
above) are different from cleanup levels. Screening lev-
els indicate whether further site investigation is warranted
for a particular contaminant. Cleanup levels indicate
whether cleanup action is needed and how extensive it
needs to be. Planners should check with their state envi-
ronmental office for guidance and/or requirements for
cleanup standards.
This section contains information on developing a cleanup
plan; various alternatives for addressing contamination
at the site (i.e., institutional controls and containment and
cleanup technologies); using different technologies for
cleaning up metal finishing sites, including a summary
table of technologies; and post-construction issues that
planners need to consider when considering alternatives.
Developing a Cleanup Plan
If the results of the site evaluation indicate the presence
of contamination above acceptable levels, planners will
need to have a cleanup plan developed by a professional
environmental engineer that describes the approach that
will be used to contain and possibly cleanup the contami-
nation present at the site. In developing this plan, plan-
ners and their engineers should consider a range of
possible options, with the intent of identifying the most
cost-effective approaches for cleaning up the site, given
time and cost concerns. The cleanup plan can include the
following elements:
A clear delineation of environmental concerns at the
site. Areas should be discussed separately if the
cleanup approach for an area is different than that for
other areas of the site. Clear documentation of exist-
ing conditions at the site and a summarized assess-
ment of the nature and scope of contamination should
be included.
25
-------
A recommended cleanup approach for each environ-
mental concern that takes into account expected land
reuse plans and the adequacy of the technology se-
lected.
A cost estimate that reflects both expected capital and
operating/maintenance costs.
Post-construction maintenance requirements for the
recommended approach.
A discussion of the assumptions made to support the
recommended cleanup approach, as well as the limi-
tations of the approach.
Planners can use the framework developed during the
initial site evaluation (see the section on "Site Assess-
ment" above) and the controls and technologies described
below to compare the effectiveness of the least costly
approaches for meeting the required cleanup goals estab-
lished in the DQOs. These goals should be established at
levels that are consistent with the expected reuse plans.
A final cleanup plan may include a combination of ac-
tions, such as institutional controls, containment technolo-
gies, and cleanup technologies, as discussed below.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls may play an important role in re-
turning a metal finishing brownfields site to a market-
able condition. Institutional controls are mechanisms that
control the current and future use of, and access to, a site.
They are established, in the case of brownfields, to pro-
tect people from possible contamination. Institutional
controls can range from a security fence prohibiting ac-
cess to a certain portion of the site to deed restrictions
imposed on the future use of the site. If the overall cleanup
approach does not include the complete cleanup of the
facility (i.e., the complete removal or destruction of onsite
contamination), a deed restriction will likely be required
that clearly states that hazardous waste is being left in
place within the site boundaries. Many state brownfields
programs include institutional controls.
Containment Technologies
Containment technologies, in many instances, will be the
likely cleanup approach for landfilled waste and waste-
water lagoons (after contaminated wastewaters have been
removed) at metal finishing facilities. The purpose of
containment is to reduce the potential for offsite migra-
tion of contaminants and, possible subsequent exposure.
Containment technologies include engineered barriers
such as caps for contaminated soils, slurry walls, and
hydraulic containment. Often, soils contaminated with
metals can be solidified by mixing them with cement-
like materials, and the resulting stabilized material can
be stored onsite in a landfill. Like institutional controls,
containment technologies do not remove or destroy con-
tamination, but mitigate potential risk by limiting access
to it.
If contamination is found underneath the floor slab at
metal finishing facilities, leaving the contaminated ma-
terials in place and repairing any damage to the floor slab
may be justified. The likelihood that such an approach
will be acceptable to regulators will depend on whether
potential risk can be mitigated and managed effectively
over the long term. In determining whether containment
is feasible, planners should consider:
Depth to groundwater. Planners should be prepared
to prove to regulators that groundwater levels will
not rise, due to seasonal conditions, and come into
contact with contaminated soils.
Soil types. If contaminants are left in place, the na-
tive soils should not be highly porous, as are sandy
or gravelly soils, which enable contaminants to mi-
grate easily. Clay and fine silty soils provide a much
better barrier.
Surface water control. Planners should be prepared
to prove to regulators that rainwater and snowmelt
cannot infiltrate under the floor slab and flush the
contaminants downward.
Volatilization of organic contaminants. Regulators are
likely to require that air monitors be placed inside
the building to monitor the level of organics that may
be escaping upward through the floor and drains.
Types of Cleanup Technologies
Cleanup may be required to remove or destroy onsite
contamination if regulators are unwilling to accept the
level of contamination present or if the types of contami-
nation are not conducive to the use of institutional con-
trols or containment technologies. Cleanup technologies
fall broadly into two categories-ex situ and in situ, as
described below.
Ex Situ. An ex situ technology treats contaminated
materials after they have been removed and trans-
ported to another location. After treatment, if the re-
maining materials, or residuals, meet cleanup goals,
they can be returned to the site. If the residuals do
not yet meet cleanup goals, they can be subjected to
further treatment, contained onsite, or moved to an-
other location for storage or further treatment. A cost-
effective approach to cleaning up a metal finishing
26
-------
brownfields site may be the partial treatment of con-
taminated soils or groundwater, followed by contain-
ment, storage, or further treatment offsite. For
example, it is common practice for operating metal
finishing facilities to treat wastewaters to an inter-
mediate level and then send the treated water to the
local POTW.
In Situ. The use of in situ technologies has increased
dramatically in recent years. In situ technologies
treatontamination in place and are often innovative
technologies. Examples of in situ technologies in-
clude bioremediation, soil flushing, oxygen releas-
ing compounds, air sparging, and treatment walls. In
some cases, in situ technologies are feasible, cost-
effective choices for the types of contamination that
are likely at metal finishing sites. Planners, however,
do need to be aware that cleanup with in situ tech-
nologies is likely to take longer than with ex situ tech-
nologies.
Maintenance requirements associated with in situ tech-
nologies depend on the technology used and vary widely
in both effort and cost. For example, containment tech-
nologies such as caps and liners will require regular main-
tenance, such as maintaining the vegetative cover and
performing periodic inspections to ensure the long-term
integrity of the cover system. Groundwater treatment
systems will require varying levels of post-cleanup care.
If an ex situ system is in use at the site, it will require
regular operations support and periodic maintenance to
ensure that the system is operating as designed.
Cleanup Technology Options for Metal
Finishing Sites
Table 6 presents the technologies that may be appropri-
ate for use at metal finishing sites, depending on their
capital and operating costs. In addition to more conven-
tional technologies, a number of innovative technology
options are listed. Many possible cleanup approaches use
institutional controls and one or a combination of the tech-
nologies described in Table 6. Whatever cleanup approach
is ultimately chosen, planners should explore a number
of cost-effective options.
Cleanup at metal finishing facilities will most likely en-
tail removing a complex mix of contaminants, primarily
organic solvents and metals. The cleanup will usually
require more than one technology, or treatment train, be-
cause single technologies tend not to address both metal
and organic contaminants. Solidification/stabilization can
address metal contamination by limiting mobility (solu-
bility) and thereby limit risk. Approaches at metal finish-
ing sites depend on local conditions. At larger metal
finishing sites, one approach may be to excavate and sta-
bilize the contaminated material with either onsite or off-
site disposal or treatment of material. Access to
contaminated soils may be limited at smaller sites requir-
ing excavation and offsite treatment or disposal. The sta-
bilized material can be placed onsite or sent to an
EPA-approved landfill (Subtitle C for hazardous materi-
als, otherwise, Subtitle D).
Post-Construction Care
Many of the cleanup technologies that leave contamina-
tion onsite, either in containment systems or because of
the long periods required to reach cleanup goals, will re-
quire long-term maintenance and possibly operation. If
waste is left onsite, regulators will likely require long-
termmonitoring of applicable media (i.e., soil, water, and/
or air) to ensure that the cleanup approach selected is
continuing to function as planned (e.g., residual contami-
nation, if any, remains at acceptable levels and is not
migrating). If long-term monitoring is required (e.g., by
the state), periodic sampling, analysis, and reporting re-
quirements will also be involved. Planners should be
aware of these requirements and provide for them in
cleanup budgets. Post-construction sampling, analysis,
and reporting costs in their cleanup budgets can be a sig-
nificant problem as these costs can be substantial.
27
-------
Table 6. Cleanup Technologies for Metal Finishing Brownfields Sites
Applicable
Technology
Description
Examples of Applicable
Land/Process Areas'
Contaminants Treated
by This Technology
Limitations
cost
Containment Technologies
Sheet Piling . Steel or iron sheets are driven into
the ground to form a subsurface
barrier.
. Low-cost containment method.
. Used primarily for shallow aquifers.
Grout Curtain
Slurry Walls
IV)
00
Capping
Grout curtains are injected into
subsurface soils and bedrock.
Forms an impermeable barrier in the
subsurface.
Consist of a vertically excavated
slurry-filled trench.
The slurry hydraulically shores the trench
to prevent collapse and forms a filtercake
to reduce groundwater flow.
Often used where the waste mass is too
large for treatment and where soluble
and mobile constituents pose an imminent
threat to a source of drinking water.
Often constructed of a soil, bentonite,
and water mixture.
. Used to cover buried waste
materials to prevent migration.
. Made of a relatively
impermeable material that will
minimize rainwater infiltration.
, Waste materials can be left in place.
, Requires periodic inspections and
routine monitoring.
. Contaminant migration must be
monitored periodically.
Metal cleaning, rinsing and
bathing operations, chemical.
storage, wastewater treatment.
Metal cleaning, rinsing and
bathing operations, chemical
storage, wastewater treatment.
Metal cleaning, rinsing and
bathing operations, chemical
storage, wastewater treatment.
Not contaminant-
specific.
Not contaminant-
specific.
Not contaminant-
specific.
Anodizing, solid wastes from
anodizing, electroplating, electro-
plating wastewaters and solid wastes,
finishing wastewaters, chemical
conversion coating wastewaters and
solid wastes, electroless plating,
electroless plating wastewaters, solid
wastes from painting, wastewater
treatment system, sunken treatment
tank.
Metals.
' Not effective in the absence of
a continuous aquitard.
Can leak at the intersection of
the sheets and the aquitard
or through pile wall joints.
Difficult to ensure a complete
curtain without gaps through
which the plume can escape:
howeveiynew techniques have
improved continuity of curtain.
Contains contaminants only
within a specified area.
Soil-bentonite backfills are
not able to withstand attack
by strong acids, bases, salt
solutions, and some organic
chemicals.
Potential for the slurry walls
to degrade or deteriorate over
time.
. Costs associated with
routine sampling and analysis
may be high.
. Long-term maintenance may
be required to ensure
impermeability.
. May have to be replaced after
20 to 30 years of operation.
. May not be effective if ground
water table is high.
$8 to $17 per
square foot.2
$6 to $14 per
square foot.2
, Design and
installation costs
of $5 to $7 per
square foot (1991
dollars) for a
standard soil-
bentonite wall in
soft to medium
soil.3
Above costs do
not include vari-
able costs rer
quired for
chemical analy-
ses, feasibility, or
compatibility
testing.
$11 to $40 per
square yard.4
i The cleanup of any one area is likely to affect the cleanup of other areas in close proximity; cleanup decisions are often made for larger areas than those presented here, and combinations of
technologies may be selected.
2 Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable. http://www.frtr.gov/matrix/top_page.html
3 Costs of Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Wastes Sites, U.S. EPA, 1986.
4 Interagency Cost Workgroup, 1994.
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
(Continued)
-------
Table 6. Continued
Applicable
Technology
Description
Examples of Applicable
Land/Process Areasi
Contaminants Treated
by This Technology
Limitations
cost
Ex Situ Technologies
Excavation/
Offsite
Disposal
Chemical
Oxidation/
Reduction
Removes contaminated material
to an EPA-approved landfill.
Reduction/oxidation (Redox) reactions
chemically convert hazardous
contaminants to nonhazardous or less
toxic compounds that are more stable,
less mobile, or inert.
Redox reactions involve the transfer of
electrons from one compound to another.
The oxidizing agents commonly used are
ozone, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorite,
chlorine, and chlorine dioxide.
Wastes from painting,
wastewater treatment
system, sunken treatment
tanks, chemical storage,
disposal.
Not contaminant-
specific.
Wastes from anodizing,
electroplating, finishing,
chemical conversion coating,
electroless plating, painting,
rinsing operations, wastewater
treatment system, sunken
treatment tank.
Metals.
Cyanide.
= Generation of fugitive
emissions may be a
problem during operations.
The distance from the
contaminated site to the
nearest disposal facility
will affect cost.
Depth and composition of the
media requiring excavation
must be considered.
Transportation of the soil
through populated areas may
affect community acceptability.
Disposal options for certain waste
(e.g., mixed waste or transuranic
waste) may be limited. There is
currently only one licensed disposal
facility for radioactive and mixed
waste in the United States.
Not cost-effective for high
contaminant concentrations
because of the large amounts of
oxidizing agent required.
Oil and grease in the media
should be minimized to optimize
process efficiency.
$270 to $460
p e r ton.3
$190 to $660 per
cubic meter of
soil.3
(Continued)
-------
Table 6. Continued
Applicable
Technology
Description
Examples of Applicable
Land/Process Areasi
Contaminants Treated
by This Technology
Limitations
cost
UV Oxidation
Precipitation
Liquid Phase
Carbon
Adsorption
Destruction process that oxidizes
constituents in wastewater by the
addition of strong oxidizers and
irradiation with UV light.
Practically any organic contaminant
that is reactive with the hydroxyl radical
can potentially be treated.
The oxidation reactions are achieved
through the synergistic action of UV
light in combination with ozone or
hydrogen peroxide.
Can be configured in batch or
continuous flow models, depending
on the throughput rate under consideration.
Involves the conversion of soluble heavy .
metal salts to insoluble salts that will
precipitate.
Precipitate can be removed from the
treated water by physical methods such as
clarification or filtration.
Often used as a pretreatment for other
treatment technologies where the presence
of metals would interfere with the
treatment processes.
. Primary method for treating metal-laden
industrial wastewater.
Wastes from metal cleaning,
painting, rinsing operations,
wastewater treatment system,
sunken treatment tank,
chemical storage area,
disposal area.
. VOCs
Wastes from
anodizing, electroplating,
finishing, chemical
conversion coating,
electroless plating,
painting, rinsing operations,
wastewater treatment system,
sunken treatment tank.
. Metals.
Groundwater is pumped through a series . Wastes from metal cleaning,
VOCs.
of vessels containing activated carbon, to
which dissolved contaminants adsorb.
Effective for polishing water discharges
from other remedial technologies to attain
regulatory compliance.
Can be quickly installed.
High contaminant-removal efficiencies.
painting, rinsing operations,
wastewater treatment system,
sunken treatment tank,
chemical storage area,
disposal area.
, The aaueous stream beina treated . $0.10 to $10 per
must provide for good transmission 1,000 gallons
of UV light (high turbidity causes treated.3
interference).
Metal ions in the wastewater
may limit effectiveness.
1 VOCs may volatilize
before oxidation can occur.
Off-gas may require treatment.
Costs may be higher than competing
technologies because of energy requirements.
Handling and storage of oxidizers
require special safety precautions.
Contamination source is not
removed.
The presence of multiple metal
species may lead to removal
difficulties.
Discharge standard may
necessitate further treatment of
effluent.
Metal hydroxide sludges must
pass TCLP criteria prior to land
disposal.
Treated water will often require
pH adjustment.
The presence of multiple
contaminants can affect process
performance.
Metals can foul the system.
Costs are high if used as the
primary treatment on waste
streams with high contaminant
concentration levels.
Type and pore size of the carbon
and operating temperature will
impact process performance.
Transport and disposal of spent
carbon can be expensive.
Water soluble compounds and
small molecules are not adsorbed
well.
Capital costs are
$85,000 to
$115,000 for 20
to 65 gpm
precipitation
systems.
. Primary capital
cost factor is
design flow rate.
Operating costs
are $0.30 to
$0.70 per 1,000
gallons treated.
Sludge disposal
may be esti-
mated to
increase operat-
ing costs by
$0.50 per 1,000
gallons treated.3
$1.20 to $6.30
per 1,000 gallons
treated at flow
rates of 0.1 mgd.
Costs decrease
with increasing
flow rates and
decreasing
concentrations.
Costs are
dependent on
waste stream
flow rates, type of
contaminant,
concentration,
and timing
requirements.3
(Continued)
-------
Table 6. Continued
Applicable
Technology
Description
Examples of Applicable
Land/Process Areasi
Contaminants Treated
by This Technology
Limitations
cost
Air Striping . Contaminants are partitioned from
groundwater by greatly increasing
the surface area of the contaminated
water exposed to air.
. Aeration methods include packed
towers.diffused aeration, tray aeration,
and spray aeration.
. Can be operated continuously or in a
batch mode, where the air stripper is
intermittently fed from a collection tank.
. The batch mode ensures consistent air
stripper performance and greater efficiency
than continuously operated units because
mixing in the storage tank eliminates any
inconsistencies in feed water composition.
In Situ Technologies
Natural
Attenuation
CO
Natural subsurface processes such as
dilution, volatilization, biodegradation,
adsorption, and chemical reactions with
subsurface media can reduce contaminant
concentrations to acceptable levels.
Consideration of this option requires
modeling and evaluation of contaminant
degradation rates and pathways.
Sampling and analyses must be conducted
throughout the process to confirm that
degradation is proceeding at sufficient rates
to meet cleanup objectives.
Wastes from metal cleanina.
painting, rinsing operations,.
wastewater treatment system,
sunken treatment tank,
chemical storage area,
disposal area.
. VOCs. « Potential for inorqanic (iron
greater than 5 ppm, hardness
greater than 800 ppm) or
biological fouling of the
equipment, requiring
pretreatment of groundwater or
periodic column cleaning.
. Consideration should be given to
the Henry's law constant of the
VOCs in the water stream and
the type and amount of packing
used in the tower.
. Compounds with low volatility
at ambient temperature may
require preheating of the groundwater.
. Off-gases may require treatment
based on mass emission rate and
state and federal air pollution laws.
Metal cleaning, metal cleaning,
wastewaters, painting, painting
wastewaters and solid wastes,
wastewater treatment system,
sunken treatment tank,
chemical storage area,
disposal area.
$0.04 to $0.20
per 1,000 gallonsa.
A major operating
cost of air strippers is
the electricity required
for the groundwater
pump, the sump
discharge pump,
and the air blower.
VOCs. . Intermediate degradation
products may be more mobile
and more toxic than original
contaminants.
. Contaminants may migrate
before they degrade.
. The site may have to be fenced
and may not be available for
reuse until hazard levels are
reduced.
. Source areas may require
removal for natural attenuation
to be effective.
. Modeling contaminant
degradation rates, and sampling
and analysis to confirm modeled
predictions extremely expensive.
Not available.
(Continued)
-------
Table 6. Continued
Applicable
Technology
Description
Examples of Applicable
Land/Process Areasi
Contaminants Treated
by This Technology
Limitations
'cost
Soil Vapor
Extraction
A vacuum is applied to the soil to induce
controlled air flow and remove
contaminants from the unsaturated
(vadose) zone of the soil.
The gas leaving the soil may be treated to
recover or destroy the contaminants.
The continuous air flow promotes in situ
biodegradation of low-volatility organic
compounds that may be present.
Metal cleaning, metal cleaning . VOCs.
wastewaters, painting, painting
wastewaters and solid wastes,
wastewater treatment system,
sunken treatment tank, chemical
storage area, disposal area.
Tight or extremely moist content
(>50%) has a reduced
permeability to air, requiring
higher vacuums.
Large screened intervals are
required in extraction wells for
soil with highly variable
permeabilities.
Air emissions may require
treatment to eliminate possible
harm to the public or environment.
Off-gas treatment residual liquids
and spent activated carbon may
require treatment or disposal.
Not effective in the saturated zone.
$10 to $60 per cubic
meter of soil.3
Cost is site specific
depending on the
size of the site, the
nature and amount
of contamination,
and the hydro-
geological setting,
which affect the
number of wells,
the blower capacity
and vacuum level
required, and length
of time required to
remediate the site.
Off-gas treatment
significantly adds to
the cost.
w
10
Soil Flushing . Extraction of contaminants from the soil
with water or other aqueous solutions.
. Accomplished by passing the extraction
fluid through in-place soils using injection
or Infiltration processes.
. Extraction fluids must be recovered with
extraction wells from the underlying
aquifer and recycled when possible.
Anodizing, solid wastes from
anodizing, electroplating,
electroplating wastewaters and
solid wastes, finishing waste-
waters, chemical conversion
coating wastewaters and solid
wastes, electroless plating,
electroless plating wastewaters,
solid wastes from painting,
wastewater treatment system,
sunken treatment tank.
Metals. . Low-permeability soils are
difficult to treat.
. Surfactants can adhere to soil
and reduce effective soil
porosity.
. Reactions of flushing fluids with
soil can reduce contaminant
mobility.
. Potential of washing the
contaminant beyond the capture
zone and the introduction of
surfactants to the subsurface.
The major factor
affecting cost is the
separation of
surfactants from
recovered flushing
fluid.3
(Continued)
-------
Table 6. Continued
Applicable
Technology
Description
Examples of Applicable
Land/Process Areas'!
Contaminants Treated
by This Technology
Limitations
cost
Air Sparging
CO
CO
Passive
Treatment
Walls
1 In situ technology in which air is injected
under pressure below the water table to
increase groundwater oxygen
concentrations and enhance the rate of
biological degradation of contaminants by
naturally occurring microbes.
Increases the mixing in the saturated zone,
which increases the contact between
groundwater and soil.
Air bubbles traverse horizontally and
vertically through the soil column, creating
an underground stripper that volatilizes
contaminants.
Air bubbles travel to a soil vapor
extraction system.
Air sparging is effective for facilitating
extraction of deep contamination,
contamination in low-permeability soils,
and contamination in the saturated zone.
A permeable reaction wall is installed
inground, across the flow path of a
contaminant plume, allowing the water
portion of the plume to passively move
through the wall.
Allows the passage of water while
prohibiting the movement of contaminants
by employing such agents as iron, chelators
(ligands selected for their specificity for a
given metal), sorbents, microbes, and
others.
Contaminants are typically completely
degraded by the treatment wall.
Metal cleaning, metal cleaning
wastewaters, painting, painting
wastewaters and solid wastes,
wastewater treatment system,
sunken treatment tank, chemical
storage area, disposal area.
Appropriately selected
location for wall.
VOCs. . Depth of contaminants and
specific site geology must be
considered.
. Air flow through the saturated
zone may not be uniform.
. A permeability differential such
as a clay layer above the air
injection zone can reduce the
effectiveness.
. Vapors may rise through the
vadose zone and be released into
the atmosphere.
. Increased pressure in the vadose
zone can build up vapors in
basements, which are generally
low-pressure areas.
VOCs. . The system requires control of
Metals. pH levels. When pH levels
within the passive treatment wall
rise, it reduces the reaction rate
and can inhibit the effectiveness
of the wall.
. Depth and width of the plume.
For large-scale plumes,
installation cost may be high.
. Cost of treatment medium
(iron).
. Biological activity may reduce
the permeability of the wall.
. Walls may lose their reactive
capacity, requiring replacement
of the reactive medium.
$50 to $100 per
1,000 gallons of
groundwater treated.3
Capital costs for these
projects range from
$250,000 to
$1,000,000.3
Operations and
maintenance costs
approximately 5 to 10
times less than capital
costs.
(Continued)
-------
Table 6. Continued
Applicable
Technology
Description
Examples of Applicable
Land/Process Areasi
Contaminants Treated
by This Technology
Limitations
cost
to
Biodegradation . Indigenous or introduced microorganisms ,
degrade organic contaminants found in
soil and groundwater.
. Used successfully to remediate soils,
sludges, and groundwater.
. Especially effective for remediating low-
level residual contamination in conjunction
with source removal.
Metal cleaning, metal cleaning ,
wastewaters, painting, painting
wastewaters and solid wastes,
wastewater treatment system,
sunken treatment tank, chemical
storage area, disposal area.
VOCs. Cleanup goals may not be attained
if the soil matrix prevents
sufficient mixing.
. Circulation of water-based
solutions through the soil may
increase contaminant mobility
and necessitate treatment of
underlying groundwater.
. Injection wells may clog and
prevent adequate flow rates.
. Preferential flow paths may result
in nonuniform distribution of
injected fluids.
. Should not be used for clay,
highly layered, or heterogeneous
subsurface environments.
» High concentrations of heavy
metals, highly chlorinated
organics, long chain
hydrocarbons, or inorganic salts
are likely to be toxic to
microorganisms.
. Low temperatures slow
bioremediation.
Chlorinated solvents may not
degrade fully under certain
subsurface conditions.
$30 to $100 per cubic
meter of soil.3
Cost affected by the
nature and depth of
the contaminants,
use of bioaugmenta-
tion or hydrogen
peroxide addition,
and groundwater
pumping rates.
1 The cleanup of any one area is likely to affect the cleanup of other areas in close proximity; cleanup decisions are often made for larger areas than those presented here, and
combinations of technologies may be selected.
2 Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable. http://www.frtr.gov/rnatrix/top_page.html
3 Costs of Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Wastes Sites, U.S. EPA, 1986.
4 Interagency Cost Workgroup, 1994.
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
-------
Chapter 5
Conclusion
Brownfields redevelopment contributes to the revitaliza-
tion of communities across the U.S. Reuse of these aban-
doned, contaminated sites spurs economic growth, builds
community pride, protects public health, and helps main-
tain our nation's "greenfields," often at a relatively low
cost. This document provides brownfields planners with
an overview of the technical methods that can be used to
achieve successful site assessment and cleanup, which
are two key components in the brownfields redevelop-
ment process.
While the general guidance provided in this document
will be applicable to many brownfields projects, it is im-
portant to recognize the heterogeneous nature of
brownfields work. That is, no two brownfields sites will
be identical, and planners will need to base site assess-
ment and cleanup activities on the conditions at their par-
ticular site. Some of the conditions that may vary by site
include the type of contaminants present, the geographic
location and extent of contamination, the availability of
site records, hydrogeological conditions, and state and
local regulatory requirements. Based on these factors, as
well as financial resources and desired timeframes, plan-
ners will find different assessment and cleanup approaches
appropriate.
Consultation with state and local environmental officials
and community leaders, as well as careful planning early
in the project, will assist planners in developing the most
appropriate site assessment and cleanup approaches. Plan-
ners should also determine early on if they are likely to
require the assistance of environmental engineers. A site
assessment strategy should be agreeable to all stakehold-
ers and should address:
. The type and extent of contamination, if any, present
at the site
The types of data needed to adequately assess the
site
. Appropriate sampling and analytical methods for
characterizing contamination
. An acceptable level of data uncertainty
When used appropriately, the site assessment methods
described in this document will help to ensure that a good
strategy is developed and implemented effectively.
Once the site has been assessed and stakeholders agree
that cleanup is needed, planners will need to consider
cleanup options. Many different types of cleanup tech-
nologies are available. The guidance provided in this
document on selecting appropriate methods directs plan-
ners to base cleanup initiatives on site- and project-spe-
cific conditions. The type and extent of cleanup will
depend in large part on the type and level of contamina-
tion present, reuse goals, and the budget available. Cer-
tain cleanup technologies are used onsite, while others
require offsite treatment. Also, in certain circumstances,
containment of contamination onsite and the use of insti-
tutional controls may be important components of the
cleanup effort. Finally, planners will need to include bud-
getary provisions and plans for post-cleanup and post-
construction care if it is required at the brownfields site.
By developing a technically sound site assessment and
cleanup approach that is based on site-specific conditions
and addresses the concerns of all project stakeholders,
planners can achieve brownfields redevelopment and re-
use goals effectively and safely.
35
-------
Appendix A
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
B T E X Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
DQO Data Quality Objective
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
FID Flame lonization Detector
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
O&M Operations and Maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PID Photoionization Detector
PCP Pentachlorophenol
PLM Polarized Light Microscopy
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SVE Soil Vapor Extraction
s v o c Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
TCE Trichloroethylene
TIO Technology Innovation Office
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program
v o c Volatile Organic Compound
XRF X-ray Fluorescence
36
-------
Appendix B
Glossary of Key Terms
The following is a list of specialized terms used during
the assessment and cleanup of brownfields sites.
Air Sparging - In air sparging, air is injected into the
ground below a contaminated area, forming bubbles that
rise and carry trapped and dissolved contaminants to the
surface where they are captured by a soil vapor extrac-
tion system. Air sparging may be a good choice of treat-
ment technology at sites contaminated with solvents and
other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). See also Soil
Vapor Extraction and Volatile Organic Compound.
Air Stripping - Air stripping is a treatment method that
removes or "strips" VOCs from contaminated ground-
water or surface water as air is forced through the water,
causing the compounds to evaporate. See also Volatile
Organic Compound.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) -
The ASTM sets standards for many services, including
methods of sampling and testing of hazardous waste, and
media contaminated with hazardous waste.
Aquifer - An aquifer is an underground rock formation
composed of such materials as sand, soil, or gravel that
can store groundwater and supply it to wells and springs.
Aromatics - Aromatics are organic compounds that con-
tain 6-carbon ring structures, such as creosote, toluene,
and phenol, that often are found at dry cleaning and elec-
tronic assembly sites.
Baseline Risk Assessment - A baseline risk assessment
is an assessment conducted before cleanup activities be-
gin at a site to identify and evaluate the threat to human
health and the environment. After cleanup has been com-
pleted, the information obtained during a baseline risk
assessment can be used to determine whether the cleanup
levels were reached.
Bedrock - Bedrock is the rock that underlies the soil; it
can be permeable or non-permeable. See also Confining
Layer and Creosote.
Bioremediution - Bioremediation refers to treatment pro-
cesses that use microorganisms (usually naturally occur-
ring) such as bacteria, yeast, or fungi to break down
hazardous substances into less toxic or nontoxic sub-
stances. Bioremediation can be used to clean up contami-
nated soil and water. In situ bioremediation treats the
contaminated soil or groundwater in the location in which
it is found. For ex situ bioremediation processes, con-
taminated soil must be excavated or groundwater
pumped before they can be treated.
Bioventing - Bioventing is an in situ cleanup technology
that combines soil vapor extraction methods with
bioremediation. It uses vapor extraction wells that induce
air flow in the subsurface through air injection or through
the use of a vacuum. Bioventing can be effective in clean-
ing up releases of petroleum products, such as gasoline,
jet fuels, kerosene, and diesel fuel. See also
Bioremediation and Soil Vapor Extraction.
Borehole - A borehole is a hole cut into the ground by
means of a drilling rig.
Borehole Geophysics - Borehole geophysics are nuclear
or electric technologies used to identify the physical char-
acteristics of geologic formations that are intersected by
a borehole.
Brownfields - Brownfields sites are abandoned, idled, or
under-used industrial and commercial facilities where
expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or
perceived environmental contamination.
BTEX - BTEX is the term used for benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene-volatile aromatic compounds
typically found in petroleum products, such as gasoline
and diesel fuel.
37
-------
Cadmium - Cadmium is a heavy metal that accumulates
in the environment. See also Heavy Metal.,
Carbon Adsorption - Carbon adsorption is a treatment
method that removes contaminants from groundwater or
surface water as the water is forced through tanks con-
taming activated carbon.
Chemical Dehalogenation - Chemical dehalogenation is
a chemical process that removes halogens (usually chlo-
rine) from a chemical contaminant, rendering the con-
taminant less hazardous. The chemical dehalogenation
process can be applied to common halogenated contami-
nants such as poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins
(DDT), and certain chlorinated pesticides, which may be
present in soil and oils. The treatment time is short, en-
ergy requirements are moderate, and operation and main-
tenance costs are relatively low. This technology can be
brought to the site, eliminating the need to transport haz-
ardous wastes. See also Polychlorinated Biphenyl.
Cleanup - Cleanup is the term used for actions taken to
deal with a release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance that could affect humans and/or the environ-
ment.
Colorimetric - Colorimetric refers to chemical reaction-
based indicators that are used to produce compound re-
actions to individual compounds, or classes of
compounds. The reactions, such as visible color changes
or other easily noted indications, are used to detect and
quantify contaminants.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) -
CERCLIS is a database that serves as the official inven-
tory of Superfund hazardous waste sites. CERCLIS also
contains information about all aspects of hazardous waste
sites, from initial discovery to deletion from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The database also maintains infor-
mation about planned and actual site activities and finan-
cial information entered by EPA regional offices.
CERCLIS records the targets and accomplishments of
the Superfund program and is used to report that infor-
mation to the EPAAdministrator, Congress, and the pub-
lic. See also National Priorities List and Super-fund.
Confining Layer - A "confining layer" is a geological
formation characterized by low permeability that inhib-
its the flow of water. See also Bedrock and Permeability.
Contaminant - A contaminant is any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological substance or matter present in
any media at concentrations that may result in adverse
effects on air, water, or soil.
Data Quality Objective (DQO) - DQOs are qualitative
and quantitative statements specified to ensure that data
of known and appropriate quality are obtained. The DQO
process is a series of planning steps, typically conducted
during site assessment and investigation, that is designed
to ensure that the type, quantity, and quality of environ-
mental data used in decision making are appropriate. The
DQO process involves a logical, step-by-step procedure
for determining which of the complex issues affecting a
site are the most relevant to planning a site investigation
before any data are collected.
Disposal - Disposal is the final placement or destruction
of toxic, radioactive or other wastes; surplus or banned
pesticides or other chemicals; polluted soils; and drums
containing hazardous materials from removal actions or
accidental release. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface impound-
ments, land farming, deep well injection, ocean dump-
ing, or incineration.
Dual-Phase Extraction - Dual-phase extraction is a tech-
nology that extracts contaminants simultaneously from
soils in saturated and unsaturated zones by applying soil
vapor extraction techniques to contaminants trapped in
saturated zone soils. See also Soil Vapor Extraction.
Electromagnetic (EM) Geophysics - EM geophysics re-
fers to technologies used to detect spatial (lateral and
vertical) differences in subsurface electromagnetic char-
acteristics. The data collected provide information about
subsurface environments.
Electromagnetic (EM) Induction - EM induction is a
geophysical technology used to induce a magnetic field
beneath the earth's surface, which in rum causes a sec-
ondary magnetic field to form around nearby objects that
have conductive properties, such as ferrous and nonfer-
rous metals. The secondary magnetic field is then used to
detect and measure buried debris.
Emergency Removal - An emergency removal is an ac-
tion initiated in response to a release of a hazardous sub-
stance that requires onsite activity within hours of a
determination that action is appropriate.
38
-------
Emerging Technology - An emerging technology is an
innovative technology that currently is undergoing bench-
scale testing. During bench-scale testing, a small version
of the technology is built and tested in a laboratory. If the
technology is successful during bench-scale testing, it is
demonstrated on a small scale at field sites. If the tech-
nology is successful at the field demonstrations, it often
will be used full scale at contaminated waste sites. The
technology is continually improved as it is used and evalu-
ated at different sites. See also Established Technology
and Innovative Technology.
Engineered Control -An engineered control, such as bar-
riers placed between contamination and the rest of a site,
is a method of managing environmental and health risks.
Engineered controls can be used to limit exposure path-
ways.
Established Technology -An established technology is a
technology for which cost and performance information
is readily available. Only after a technology has been used
at many different sites and the results fully documented
is that technology considered established. The most fre-
quently used established technologies are incineration,
solidification and stabilization, and pump-and-treat tech-
nologies for groundwater. See also Emerging Technol-
ogy and Innovative Technology.
Exposure Pathway - An exposure pathway is the route
of contaminants from the source of contamination to po-
tential contact with a medium (air, soil, surface water, or
groundwater) that represents a potential threat to human
health or the environment. Determining whether expo-
sure pathways exist is an essential step in conducting a
baseline risk assessment. See also Baseline Risk Assess-
ment.
Ex Situ The term ex situ or "moved from its original
place," means excavated or removed.
Filtration -Filtration is a treatment process that removes
solid matter from water by passing the water through a
porous medium, such as sand or a manufactured filter.
Flame lonization Detector (FZD) - An FID is an instru-
ment often used in conjunction with gas chromatography
to measure the change of signal as analytes are ionized
by a hydrogen-air flame. It also is used to detect phenols,
phthalates, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), VOCs, and
petroleum hydrocarbons. See also Volatile Organic Com-
pounds.
Fourier Transform. Infrared Spectroscopy - A fourier
transform infrared spectroscope is an analytical air moni-
toring tool that uses a laser system chemically to identify
contaminants.
Fumigant - A fumigant is a pesticide that is vaporized to
kill pests. They often are used in buildings and green-
houses.
Furan - Furan is a colorless, volatile liquid compound
used in the synthesis of organic compounds, especially
nylon.
Gas Chromatography - Gas chromatography is a tech-
nology used for investigating and assessing soil, water,
and soil gas contamination at a site. It is used for the
analysis of VOCs and semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs). The technique identifies and quantifies organic
compounds on the basis of molecular weight, character-
istic fragmentation patterns, and retention time. Recent
advances in gas chromatography considered innovative
are portable, weatherproof units that have self-contained
power supplies.
Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) - GPR is a technol-
ogy that emits pulses of electromagnetic energy into the
ground to measure its reflection and refraction by sub-
surface layers and other features, such as buried debris.
Groundwater - Groundwater is the water found beneath
the earth's surface that fills pores between such materials
as sand, soil, or gravel and that often supplies wells and
springs. See also Aquifer.
Hazardous Substance - A hazardous substance is any ma-
terial that poses a threat to public health or the environ-
ment. Typical hazardous substances are materials that are
toxic, corrosive, ignitable, explosive, or chemically re-
active. If a certain quantity of a hazardous substance, as
established by EPA, is spilled into the water or otherwise
emitted into the environment, the release must be reported.
Under certain federal legislation, the term excludes pe-
troleum, crude oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids, or syn-
thetic gas usable for fuel.
Heavy Metal - The term heavy metal refers to a group of
toxic metals including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead,
mercury, silver, and zinc. Heavy metals often are present
at industrial sites at which operations have included bat-
tery recycling and metal plating.
High-Frequency Electromagnetic (EM) Sounding -
High-frequency EM sounding, the technology used for
39
-------
non-intrusive geophysical exploration, projects high-fre-
quency electromagnetic radiation into subsurface layers
to detect the reflection and refraction of the radiation by
various layers of soil. Unlike ground-penetrating radar,
which uses pulses, the technology uses continuous waves
of radiation. See also Ground-Penetrating Radar.
Hydrocarbon - A hydrocarbon is an organic compound
containing only hydrogen and carbon, often occurring in
petroleum, natural gas, and coal.
Hydrogeology - Hydrogeology is the study of ground-
water, including its origin, occurrence, movement, and
quality.
Hydrology - Hydrology is the science that deals with the
properties, movement, and effects of water found on the
earth's surface, in the soil and rocks beneath the surface,
.and in the atmosphere.
Ignitability - Ignitable wastes can create fires under cer-
tain conditions. Examples include liquids, such as sol-
vents that readily catch fire, and friction-sensitive
substances.
Zmmunoassay - Immunoassay is an innovative technol-
ogy used to measure compound-specific reactions (gen-
erally colorimetric) to individual compounds or classes
of compounds. The reactions are used to detect and quan-
tify contaminants. The technology is available in field-
portable test kits.
Incineration - Incineration is a treatment technology that
involves the burning of certain types of solid, liquid, or
gaseous materials under controlled conditions to destroy
hazardous waste.
Znfrared Monitor -An infrared monitor is a device used
to monitor the heat signature of an object, as well as to
sample air. It may be used to detect buried objects in soil.
Inorganic Compound -An inorganic compound is a com-
pound that generally does not contain carbon atoms (al-
though carbonate and bicarbonate compounds are notable
exceptions), tends to be soluble in water, and tends to
react on an ionic rather than on a molecular basis. Ex-
amples of inorganic compounds include various acids,
potassium hydroxide, and metals.
Innovative Technology - An innovative technology is a
process that has been tested and used as a treatment for
hazardous waste or other contaminated materials, but
lacks a long history of full-scale use and information about
its cost and how well it works sufficient to support pre-
diction of its performance under a variety of operating
conditions. An innovative technology is one that is un-
dergoing pilot-scale treatability studies that are usually
conducted in the field or the laboratory; require installa-
tion of the technology; and provide performance, cost,
and design objectives for the technology. Innovative tech-
nologies are being used under many Federal and state
cleanup programs to treat hazardous wastes that have been
improperly released. For example, innovative technolo-
gies are being selected to manage contamination (prima-
rily petroleum) at some leaking underground storage sites.
See also Emerging Technology and Established Technol-
ogy*
In Situ - The term in situ, "in its original place," or "on-
site," means unexcavated and unmoved. In situ soil flush-
ing and natural attenuation are examples of in situ
treatment methods by which contaminated sites are treated
without digging up or removing the contaminants.
In Situ Oxidation - In situ oxidation is an innovative
treatment technology that oxidizes contaminants that are
dissolved in groundwater and converts them into insoluble
compounds.
In Situ Soil Flushing - In situ soil flushing is an innova-
tive treatment technology that floods contaminated soils
beneath the ground surface with a solution that moves
the contaminants to an area from which they can be re-
moved. The technology requires the drilling of injection
and extraction wells onsite and reduces the need for ex-
cavation, handling, or transportation of hazardous sub-
stances. Contaminants considered for treatment by in situ
soil flushing include heavy metals (such as lead, copper,
and zinc), aromatics, and PCBs. See also Aromatics,
Heavy Metal, and Polychlorinated Biphenyl.
In Situ Vitrification - In situ vitrification is a soil treat-
ment technology that stabilizes metal and other inorganic
contaminants in place at temperatures of approximately
3000 F. Soils and sludges are fused to form a stable glass
and crystalline structure with very low leaching charac-
teristics.
Institutional Controls -An institutional control is a legal
or institutional measure which subjects a property owner
to limit activities at or access to a particular property.
They are used to ensure protection of human health and
the environment, and to expedite property reuse. Fences,
40
-------
posting or warning signs, and zoning and deed restric-
tions are examples of institutional controls.
Zntegrated Risk Information System (IRIS) - IRIS is an
electronic database that contains EPA's latest descriptive
and quantitative regulatory information about chemical
constituents. Files on chemicals maintained in IRIS con-
tain information related to both noncarcinogenic and car-
cinogenic health effects.
Land/arming - Landfarming is the spreading and incor-
poration of wastes into the soil to initiate biological treat-
ment.
Landfill - A sanitary landfill is a land disposal site for
nonhazardous solid wastes at which the waste is spread
in layers compacted to the smallest practical volume.
Laser-Induced Fluorescence/Cone Penetrometer - La-
ser-induced fluorescence/cone penetrometer is a field
screening method that couples a fiber optic-based chemi-
cal sensor system to a cone penetrometer mounted on a
truck. The technology can be used for investigating and
assessing soil and water contamination.
Lead - Lead is a heavy metal that is hazardous to health
if breathed or swallowed. Its use in gasoline, paints, and
plumbing compounds has been sharply restricted or elimi-
nated by Federal laws and regulations. See also Heavy
Metal.
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) - LUST is
the acronym for "leaking underground storage tank."
Magnetrometry - Magnetrometry is a geophysical tech-
nology used to detect disruptions that metal objects cause
in the earth's localized magnetic field.
Mass Spectrometty - Mass spectrometry is an analytical
process by which molecules are broken into fragments to
determine the concentrations and mass/charge ratio of the
fragments. Innovative mass spectroscopy units, developed
through modification of large laboratory instruments, are
sometimes portable, weatherproof units with self-con-
tained power supplies.
Medium - A medium is a specific environment ~ air, wa-
ter, or soil ~ which is the subject of regulatory concern
and activities.
Mercury - Mercury is a heavy metal that can accumulate
in the environment and is highly toxic if breathed or swal-
lowed. Mercury is found in thermometers, measuring
devices, pharmaceutical and agricultural chemicals,
chemical manufacturing, and electrical equipment. See
also Heavy Metal.
Mercury Vapor Analyzer - A mercury vapor analyzer is
an instrument that provides real-time measurements of
concentrations of mercury in the air.
Methane - Methane is a colorless, nonpoisonous, flam-
mable gas created by anaerobic decomposition of organic
compounds.
Migration Pathway -A migration pathway is a potential
path or route of contaminants from the source of con-
tamination to contact with human populations or the en-
vironment. Migration pathways include air, surface water,
groundwater, and land surface. The existence and identi-
fication of all potential migration pathways must be con-
sidered during assessment and characterization of a waste
site.
Mixed Waste - Mixed waste is low-level radioactive waste
contaminated with hazardous waste that is regulated un-
der the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Mixed waste can be disposed only in compli-
ance with the requirements under RCRA that govern dis-
posal of hazardous waste and with the RCRA land
disposal restrictions, which require that waste be treated
before it is disposed of in appropriate landfills.
Monitoring Well - A monitoring well is a well drilled at a
specific location on or off a hazardous waste site at which
groundwater can be sampled at selected depths and stud-
ied to determine the direction of groundwater flow and
the types and quantities of contaminants present in the
groundwater.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) NPDES is the primary permitting program
under the Clean Water Act, which regulates all discharges
to surface water. It prohibits discharge of pollutants into
waters of the United States unless EPA, a state, or a tribal
government issues a special permit to do so.
National Priorities List (NPL) - The NPL is EPA's list of
the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites identified for possible long-term cleanup un-
der Superfund. Inclusion of a site on the list is based pri-
marily on the score the site receives under the Hazard
41
-------
Ranking System (HRS). Money from Superfund can be
used for cleanup only at sites that are on the NPL. EPA is
required to update the NPL at least once a year.
NaturalAttenuation - Natural attenuation is an approach
to cleanup that uses natural processes to contain the spread
of contamination from chemical spills and reduce the
concentrations and amounts of pollutants in contaminated
soil and groundwater. Natural subsurface processes, such
as dilution, volatilization, biodegradation, adsorption, and
chemical reactions with subsurface materials, reduce con-
centrations of contaminants to acceptable levels. An in
situ treatment method that leaves the contaminants in
place while those processes occur, natural attenuation is
being used to clean up petroleum contamination from
leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) across the
country.
Non-Point Source - The term non-point source is used
to identify sources of pollution that are diffuse and do
not have a point of origin or that are not introduced into a
receiving stream from a specific outlet. Common non-
point sources are rain water, runoff from agricultural
lands, industrial sites, parking lots, and timber operations,
as well as escaping gases from pipes and fittings.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) - O&M refers to
the activities conducted at a site, following remedial ac-
tions, to ensure that the cleanup methods are working
properly. O&M activities are conducted to maintain the
effectiveness of the cleanup and to ensure that no new
threat to human health or the environment arises. O&M
may include such activities as groundwater and air moni-
toring, inspection and maintenance of the treatment equip-
ment remaining onsite, and maintenance of any security
measures or institutional controls.
Organic Chemical or Compound -An organic chemical
or compound is a substance produced by animals or plants
that contains mainly carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
Permeability - Permeability is a characteristic that repre-
sents a qualitative description of the relative ease with
which rock, soil, or sediment will transmit a fluid (liquid
or gas).
Pesticide - A pesticide is a substance or mixture of sub-
stances intended to prevent or mitigate infestation by, or
destroy or repel, any pest. Pesticides can accumulate in
the food chain and/or contaminate the environment if
misused.
Phase I Site Assessment -A Phase I site assessment is an
initial environmental investigation that is limited to a his-
torical records search to determine ownership of a site
and to identify the kinds of chemical processes that were
carried out at the site. A Phase I assessment includes a
site visit, but does not include any sampling. If such an
assessment identifies no significant concerns, a Phase II
assessment is not necessary.
Phase II Site Assessment - A Phase II site assessment is
an investigation that includes tests performed at the site
to confirm the location and to identify environmental haz-
ards. The assessment includes preparation of a report that
includes recommendations for cleanup alternatives.
Phenols - A phenol is one of a group of organic com-
pounds that are byproducts of petroleum refining, tan-
ning, and textile, dye, and resin manufacturing. Low
concentrations of phenols cause taste and odor problems
in water; higher concentrations may be harmful to hu-
man health or the environment.
Photoionization Detector (PID) -A PID is a nondestruc-
tive detector, often used in conjunction with gas chroma-
tography, that measures the change of signal as analytes
are ionized by an ultraviolet lamp. The PID is also used
to detect VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons.
Phytoremediation - Phytoremediation is an innovative
treatment technology that uses plants and trees to clean
up contaminated soil and water. Plants can break down,
or degrade, organic pollutants or stabilize metal contami-
nants by acting as filters or traps. Phytoremediation can
be used to clean up metals, pesticides, solvents, explo-
sives, crude oil, PAHs, and landfill leachates. Its use gen-
erally is limited to sites at which concentrations of
contaminants are relatively low and contamination is
found in shallow soils, streams, and groundwater.
Plasma High-Temperature Metals Recovery - Plasma
high-temperature metals recovery is a thermal treatment
process that purges contaminants from solids and soils
such as metal fumes and organic vapors. The vapors can
be burned as fuel, and the metal fumes can be recovered
and recycled. This innovative treatment technology is
used to treat contaminated soil and groundwater.
Plume - A plume is a visible or measurable emission or
discharge of a contaminant from a given point of origin
into any medium. The term also is used to refer to mea-
42
-------
surable and potentially harmful radiation leaking from a
damaged reactor.
Point Source - A point source is a stationary location or
fixed facility from which pollutants are discharged or
emitted; or any single, identifiable discharge point of
pollution, such as a pipe, ditch, or smokestack.
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) - PCBs are a group of
toxic, persistent chemicals, produced by chlorination of
biphenyl, that once were used in high voltage electrical
transformers because they conducted heat well while be-
ing fire resistant and good electrical insulators. These
contaminants typically are generated from metal
degreasing, printed circuit board cleaning, gasoline, and
wood preserving processes. Further sale or use of PCBs
was banned in 1979.
Pump and Treat - Pump and treat is a general term used
to describe cleanup methods that involve the pumping of
groundwater to the surface for treatment. It is one of the
most common methods of treating polluted aquifers and
groundwater.
Radioactive Waste - Radioactive waste is any waste that
emits energy as rays, waves, or streams of energetic par-
ticles. Sources of such wastes include nuclear reactors,
research institutions, and hospitals.
Radionuclide - A radionuclide is a radioactive element
characterized according to its atomic mass and atomic
number, which can be artificial or naturally occurring.
Radionuclides have a long life as soil or water pollut-
ants. Radionuclides cannot be destroyed or degraded;
therefore, applicable technologies involve separation,
concentration and volume reduction, immobilization, or
vitrification. See also Solidification and Stabilization.
Radon - Radon is a colorless, naturally occurring, radio-
active, inert gaseous element formed by radioactive de-
cay of radium atoms. See also Radioactive Waste and
Radionuclide.
Release -A release is any spilling, leaking, pumping, pour-
ing, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, leaching,
dumping, or disposing into the environment of a hazard-
ous or toxic chemical or extremely hazardous substance,
as defined under RCRA. See also Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) -
RCRA is a Federal law enacted in 1976 that established a
regulatory system to track hazardous substances from their
generation to their disposal. The law requires the use of
safe and secure procedures in treating, transporting, stor-
ing, and disposing of hazardous substances. RCRA is
designed to prevent the creation of new, uncontrolled haz-
ardous waste sites.
Risk Communication - Risk communication, the ex-
change of information about health or environmental risks
among risk assessors, risk managers, the local commu-
nity, news media and interest groups, is the process of
informing members of the local community about envi-
ronmental risks associated with a site and the steps that
are being taken to manage those risks.
Saturated Zone - The saturated zone is the area beneath
the surface of the land in which all openings are filled
with water at greater than atmospheric pressure.
Seismic Reflection and Refraction - Seismic reflection
and refraction is a technology used to examine the geo-
physical features of soil and bedrock, such as debris, bur-
ied channels, and other features.
Site Assessment - A site assessment is the process by
which it is determined whether contamination is present
on a site.
Sludge - Sludge is a semisolid residue from air or water
treatment processes. Residues from treatment of metal
wastes and the mixture of waste and soil at the bottom of
a waste lagoon are examples of sludge, which can be a
hazardous waste.
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation - Slurry-phase
bioremediation, a treatment technology that can be used
alone or in conjunction with other biological, chemical,
and physical treatments, is a process through which or-
ganic contaminants are converted to innocuous com-
pounds. Slurry-phase bioremediation can be effective in
treating various SVOCs and nonvolatile organic com-
pounds, as well as fuels, creosote, pentachlorophenols
(PCP), and PCBs. See also Polychlorinated Biphenyl.
Soil Boring- Soil boring is a process by which a soil
sample is extracted from the ground for chemical, bio-
logical, and analytical testing to determine the level of
contamination present.
Soil Gas - Soil gas consists of gaseous elements and com-
pounds that occur in the small spaces between particles
of the earth and soil. Such gases can move through or
leave the soil or rock, depending on changes in pressure.
43
-------
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) - SVE, the most frequently
selected innovative treatment at Super-fund sites, is a pro-
cess that physically separates contaminants from soil in
a vapor form by exerting a vacuum through the soil for-
mation. Soil vapor extraction removes VOCs and some
SVOCs from soil beneath the ground surface. See also
Volatile Organic Carbon.
Soil Washing - Soil washing is an innovative treatment
technology that uses liquids (usually water, sometimes
combined with chemical additives) and a mechanical pro-
cess to scrub soils, removes hazardous contaminants, and
concentrates the contaminants into a smaller volume. The
technology is used to treat a wide range of contaminants,
such as metals, gasoline, fuel oils, and pesticides. Soil
washing is a relatively low-cost alternative for separat-
ing waste and minimizing volume as necessary to facili-
tate subsequent treatment. It is often used in combination
with other treatment technologies. The technology can
be brought to the site, thereby eliminating the need to
transport hazardous wastes.
Solidification and Stabilization - Solidification and sta-
bilization are the processes of removing wastewater from
a waste or changing it chemically to make the waste less
permeable and susceptible to transport by water. Solidi-
fication and stabilization technologies can immobilize
many heavy metals, certain radionuclides, and selected
organic compounds, while decreasing the surface area
and permeability of many types of sludge, contaminated
soils, and solid wastes.
Solvent - A solvent is a substance, usually liquid, that is
capable of dissolving or dispersing one or more other
substances.
Solvent Extraction - Solvent extraction is an innovative
treatment technology that uses a solvent to separate or
remove hazardous organic contaminants from oily-type
wastes, soils, sludges, and sediments. The technology does
not destroy contaminants, but concentrates them so they
can be recycled or destroyed more easily by another tech-
nology. Solvent extraction has been shown to be effec-
tive in treating sediments, sludges, and soils that contain
primarily organic contaminants, such as PCBs, VOCs,
halogenated organic compounds, and petroleum wastes.
Such contaminants typically are generated from metal
degreasing, printed circuit board cleaning, gasoline, and
wood preserving processes. Solvent extraction is a trans-
portable technology that can be brought to the site. See
also Polychlorinated Biphenyl and Volatile Organic Com-
pound.
Surfactant Flushing - Surfactant flushing is an innova-
tive treatment technology used to treat contaminated
groundwater. Surfactant flushing of NAPLs increases the
solubility and mobility of the contaminants in water so
that the NAPLs can be biodegraded more easily in an
aquifer or recovered for treatment aboveground.
Surface Water - Surface water is all water naturally open
to the atmosphere, such as rivers, lakes, reservoirs,
streams, and seas.
Superfund - Super-fund is the trust fund that provides for
the cleanup of significantly hazardous substances released
into the environment, regardless of fault. The Superfund
was established under Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
and subsequent amendments to CERCLA. The term
Super-fund is also used to refer to cleanup programs de-
signed and conducted under CERCLA and its subsequent
amendments.
Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) - SARA is the 1986 act amending Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act (CERCLA) that increased the size of the Super-fund
trust fund and established a preference for the develop-
ment and use of permanent remedies, and provided new
enforcement and settlement tools.
Thermal Desorption - Thermal desorption is an innova-
tive treatment technology that heats soils contaminated
with hazardous wastes to temperatures from 200 to 1,000
F so that contaminants that have low boiling points will
vaporize and separate from the soil. The vaporized con-
taminants are then collected for further treatment or de-
struction, typically by an air emissions treatment system.
The technology is most effective at treating VOCs,
SVOCs and other organic contaminants, such as PCBs,
PAHs, and pesticides. It is effective in separating organ-
ics from refining wastes, coal tar wastes, waste from wood
treatment, and paint wastes. It also can separate solvents,
pesticides, PCBs, dioxins, and fuel oils from contami-
nated soil. See also Polychlorinated Biphenyl and Vola-
tile Organic Compound.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) - TPH refers to a
measure of concentration or mass of petroleum hydro-
carbon constituents present in a given amount of air, soil,
or water.
Toxicity - Toxicity is a quantification of the degree of
danger posed by a substance to animal or plant life.
44
-------
Toxidty Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) -
The TCLP is a testing procedure used to identify the tox-
icity of wastes and is the most commonly used test for
determining the degree of mobilization offered by a so-
lidification and stabilization process. Under this proce-
dure, a waste is subjected to a process designed to model
the leaching effects that would occur if the waste was
disposed of in an RCRA Subtitle D municipal landfill.
See also Solidification and Stabilization.
Toxic Substance -A toxic substance is a chemical or mix-
ture that may present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment.
Treatment Wall (also Passive Treatment Wall) -A treat-
ment wall is a structure installed underground to treat
contaminated groundwater found at hazardous waste sites.
Treatment walls, also called passive treatment walls, are
put in place by constructing a giant trench across the flow
path of contaminated groundwater and filling the trench
with one of a variety of materials carefully selected for
the ability to clean up specific types of contaminants. As
the contaminated groundwater passes through the treat-
ment wall, the contaminants are trapped by the treatment
wall or transformed into harmless substances that flow
out of the wall. The major advantage of using treatment
walls is that they are passive systems that treat the con-
taminants in place so the property can be put to produc-
tive use while it is being cleaned up. Treatment walls are
useful at some sites contaminated with chlorinated sol-
vents, metals, or radioactive contaminants.
Unsaturated Zone - The unsaturated zone is the area be-
tween the land surface and the uppermost aquifer (or satu-
rated zone). The soils in an unsaturated zone may contain
air and water.
Vadose Zone - The vadose zone is the area between the
surface of the land and the aquifer water table in which
the moisture content is less than the saturation point and
the pressure is less than atmospheric. The openings (pore
spaces) also typically contain air or other gases.
Vapor - Vapor is the gaseous phase of any substance that
is liquid or solid at atmospheric temperatures and pres-
sures. Steam is an example of a vapor.
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) - AVOC is one of a
group of carbon-containing compounds that evaporate
readily at room temperature. Examples of volatile organic
compounds include trichloroethane, trichloroethylene,
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX).
These contaminants typically are generated from metal
degreasing, printed circuit board cleaning, gasoline, and
wood preserving processes.
Volatilization -Volatilization is the process of transfer of
a chemical from the aqueous or liquid phase to the gas
phase. Solubility, molecular weight, and vapor pressure
of the liquid and the nature of the gas-liquid affect the
rate of volatilization.
Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) - AVCP is a formal
means established by many states to facilitate assessment,
cleanup, and redevelopment of brownfields sites. VCPs
typically address the identification and cleanup of poten-
tially contaminated sites that are not on the National Pri-
orities List (NPL). Under VCPs, owners or developers of
a site are encouraged to approach the state voluntarily to
work out a process by which the site can be readied for
development. Many state VCPs provide technical assis-
tance, liability assurances, and funding support for such
efforts.
Wastewater - Wastewater is spent or used water from an
individual home, a community, a farm, or an industry that
contains dissolved or suspended matter.
Water Table -A water table is the boundary between the
saturated and unsaturated zones beneath the surface of
the earth, the level of groundwater, and generally is the
level to which water will rise in a well. See also Aquifer
and Groundwater.
X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzer - An x-ray fluorescence
analyzer is a self-contained, field-portable instrument,
consisting of an energy dispersive x-ray source, a detec-
tor, and a data processing system that detects and quanti-
fies individual metals or groups of metals.
45
-------
Appendix C
Bibliography
A "PB" publication number in parentheses indicates that
the document is available from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161, (703-605-6000).
Site Assessment
ASTM. 1997. Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Process. American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM
E1527-97).
ASTM. 1996. Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Transaction Screen Process. American So-
ciety for Testing Materials (ASTM E1528-96).
ASTM. 1995. Guide for Developing Conceptual Site
Models for Contaminated Sites. American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM E1689-95).
ASTM. 1995. Provisional Standard Guide for Acceler-
ated Site Characterization for Confirmed or Suspected
Petroleum Releases. American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM PS3 95).
Geo-Environmental Solutions, n.d. http://
www.gesolutions.com/assess.htm.
Geoprobe Systems, Inc. 1998. Rental Rate Sheet. Sep-
tember 15.
Robbat, Albert, Jr. 1997. Dynamic Workplans and Field
Analytics: The Keys to Cost Effective Site Characteriza-
tion and Cleanup. Tufts University under Cooperative
Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. October.
US. EPA. 1998 Quality Assurance Guidance for Con-
ducting Brownfields Site Assessments (EPA 540-R-98-
038) September.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Expedited Site Assessment Tools for
Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regula-
tors and Consultants (EPA 5 10-B-97-001).
U.S. EPA. 1997. Field Analytical and Site Characteriza-
tion Technologies: Summary of Applications (EPA 542-
R-97-011).
U.S. EPA. 1997. Road Map to Understanding Innovative
Technology Options for Brownfields Investigation and
Cleanup. OSWER (PB97-144810).
U.S. EPA. 1997. The Tool Kit of Technology Informa-
tion Resources for Brownfields Sites. OSWER. (PB97-
144828).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Consortium for Site Characterization
Technology: Fact Sheet (EPA 542-F 96-012).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Field Portable X-Ray Fluorescence
(FPXRF), Technology Verification Program: Fact Sheet
(EPA542-F-96-009a).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Portable Gas Chromatograph/Mass
Spectrometers (GC/MS), Technology Verification Pro-
gram: Fact Sheet (EPA 542-F-96-009c).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Site Characterization Analysis Penetrom-
eter System (SCAPS) LIF Sensor (EPA 540-MR-95-520,
EPA 540 R-95-520).
US. EPA. 1996. Site Characterization and Monitoring:
A Bibliography of EPA Information Resources (EPA 542-
B-96-001).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Soil Screening Guidance (540/R-96/
128).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Clor-N-Soil PCB Test Kit L2000 PCB/
Chloride Analyzer (EPA 540-MR 95-518, EPA 540-R-
95-5 18).
46
-------
U.S. EPA. 1995. Contract Laboratory Program: Volatile
Organics Analysis of Ambient Air in Canisters Revision
VCAA01.0 (PB95-963524).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Contract Lab Program: Draft Statement
of Work for Quick Turnaround Analysis (PB95-963523).
U.S. EPA. 1995. EnviroGard PCB Test Kit (EPA 540-
MR-95-5 17, EPA 540-R-95-517).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Field Analytical Screening Program:
PCB Method (EPA540-MR-95-521, EPA540-R-95-521).
U.S. EPA. 1995. PCB Method, Field Analytical Screen-
ing Program (Innovative Technology Evaluation Report)
(EPA 540-R-95-521, PB96-130026); Demonstration Bul-
letin (EPA 540 MR-95-521).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Profile of the Fabncated Metal Prod-
ucts Industry (EPA 3 10-R-95-007).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Rapid Optical Screen Tool (ROSTTM)
(EPA 540-MR-95-519, EPA 540-R 95-519).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund. http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/Catalog/
EPA540R95132.html.
U.S; EPA. 1994. Assessment and Remediation of Con-
taminated Sediments (ARCS) Program (EPA 905-R-94-
003).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Characterization of Chromium-Contami-
nated Soils Using Field-Portable X-ray Fluorescence
(PB94-210457).
US. EPA. 1994. Development of a Battery-Operated
Portable Synchronous Luminescence Spectrofluorometer
(PB94-170032).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Engineering Forum Issue: Consider-
ations in Deciding to Treat Contaminated Unsaturated
Soils In Situ (EPA 540-S-94-500, PB94-177771).
U.S. EPA. 1994. SITE Program: An Engineering Analy-
sis of the Demonstration Program (EPA 540-R-94-530).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Data Quality Objectives Process for
Superfund (EPA 540-R-93-071).
US. EPA. 1993. Conference on the Risk Assessment
Paradigm After 10 Years: Policy and Practice, Then, Now,
and in the Future, http://www.epa.gov/ncepihorn/Catalog/
EPA600R93039.html.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Guidance for Evaluating the Technical
Impracticability of Ground Water Restoration. OSWER
directive (9234.2-25).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Guide for Conducting Treatabihty Stud-
ies Under CERCLA: Biodegradation Remedy Selection
(EPA 540-R-93-519a, PB94-117470).
US. EPA. 1993. Subsurface Characterization and Moni-
toring Techniques (EPA 625-R-93 003a&b).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Characterizing Heterogeneous Wastes:
Methods and Recommendations (March 26-28,1991)
(PB92-216894).
US. EPA. 1992. Conducting Treatabihty Studies Under
RCRA (OSWER Directive 9380.3 09FS, PB92-963501)
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guidance for Data Useability in Risk
Assessment (Part A) (9285.7-09A).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatabihty Stud-
ies Under CERCLA: Final (EPA 540-R-92-071A, PB93-
126787).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatabihty Stud-
ies Under CERCLA: Soil Vapor Extraction (EPA 540-2-
91-019a&b, PB92-227271 & PB92-224401).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatabihty Stud-
ies Under CERCLA: Soil Washing (EPA 540-2-91-
020a&b, PB92-170570 & PB92-170588).
US. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatabihty Stud-
ies Under CERCLA: Solvent Extraction (EPA 540-R-92-
016a,PB92-239581).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide to Site and Soil Description for
Hazardous Waste Site Characterization, Volume 1: Met-
als (PB92-146158).
U.S. EPA. 1992. International Symposium on Field
Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic
Chemicals (2nd), Proceedings. Held in Las Vegas, Ne-
vada on February 12-14,1991 (PB92-125764).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Sampling of Contaminated Sites (PB92-
110436).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Ground Water Issue: Charactenzmg Soils
for Hazardous Waste Site Assessment (PB-91-921294).
47
-------
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guide for Conducting Treatability Stud-
ies Under CERCLA: Aerobic Biodegradation Remedy
Screening (EPA 540-2-9l-013a&b, PB92-109065 &
PB92-109073).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Interim Guidance for Dermal Exposure
Assessment (EPA 600-8-91-011A).
U.S. EPA. 1990. A New Approach and Methodologies
for Characterizing the Hydrogeologic Properties of Aqui-
fers (EPA 600-2-90-002).
U.S. EPA. 1986. Super-fund Public Health Evaluation
Manual (EPA 540-1-86-060).
US. EPA. ad. Status Report on Field Analytical Tech-
nologies Utilization: Fact Sheet (no publication number
available).
U. S. G. S. http://www.mapping.usgs.gov/esic/to_order.hmtl.
Vendor Field Analytical and Characterization Technolo-
gies System (Vendor FACTS), Version 1.0 (Vendor
FACTS can be downloaded from the Internet at
www.prcemi.com/visitt or from the CLU-IN Web site at
http://clu-in.com).
The Whitman Companies. Last modified October 4,
1996. Environmental Due Diligence, http://
www. whitmanco.com/dilgnce 1. html.
Cleanup
ASTM. n.d. New Standard Guide for Remediation by
Natural Attenuation at Petroleum Release Sites (ASTM
E50.01).
Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable. http://
www.frtr.gov/matrix/top_page.html.
Interagency Cost Workgroup. 1994. Historical Cost
Analysis System. Version 2.0.
Los Alamos National Laboratory. 1996. A Compendium
of Cost Data for Environmental Remediation Technolo-
gies (LA-UR-96-2205).
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, n.d. Treatability of Haz-
ardous Chemicals in Soils: Volatile and Semi-Volatile
Orgatiics(ORNL-6451).
Robbat, Albert, Jr. 1997. Dynamic Workplans and Field
Analytics: The Keys to Cost Effective Site Characteriza-
tion and Cleanup. Tufts University under Cooperative
Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. October.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Self-Audit and Inspection Guide for Fa-
cilities Conducting Cleaning, Preparation, and Organic
Coating of Metal Parts. (EPA 305-B-95-002).
U.S. EPA. 1997. Road Map to Understanding Innovative
Technology Options for Brownfields Investigation and
Cleanup. OSWER PB97-144810).
U.S. EPA. 1997. The Tool Kit of Technology Informa-
tion Resources for Brownfields Sites. OSWER. (PB97-
144828).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Bioremediation Field Evaluation: Cham-
pion International Super-fund Site, Libby, Montana (EPA
540-R-96-500).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Bibliography for Innovative Site Clean-
Up Technologies (EPA 542-B-96 003).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Bioremediation of Hazardous Wastes:
Research, Development, and Field Evaluations (EPA 540-
R-95-532, PB96-130729).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Citizen's Guides to Understanding In-
novative Treatment Technologies (EPA 542-F-96-013):
Bioremediation (EPA 542-F-96-007, EPA 542-F-96-
023)
Chemical Dehalogenation (EPA 542-F-96-004, EPA
542-F-96-020)
In Situ Soil Flushing (EPA 542-F-96-006, EPA 542-
F-96-022)
Innovative Treatment Technologies for Contaminated
Soils, Sludges, Sediments, and Debris (EPA 542-F-
96-001, EPA 542-F-96-017)
Phytoremediation (EPA 542-F-96-014, EPA 542-F-
96-025)
Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging (EPA 542-F-
96-008, EPA 542-F-96-024)
Soil Washing (EPA 542-F-96-002, EPA 542-F-96-
018)
Solvent Extraction (EPA 542-F-96-003, EPA 542-F-
96-019)
48
-------
. Thermal Desorption (EPA 542-F-96-005, EPA 542-
F-96-021)
. Treatment Walls (EPA 542-F-96-0 16, EPA 542-F-96-
027)
U.S. EPA. 1996. Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites:
Markets and Technology Trends (1996 Edition) (EPA 542-
R-96-005, PB96-178041).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Completed North American Innovative
Technology Demonstration Projects (EPA 542-B-96-002,
PB96-153127).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Cone Penetrometer/Laser Induced Fluo-
rescence (LIF) Technology Verification Program: Fact
Sheet (EPA542-F-96-009b).
U.S. EPA. 1996. EPA Directive: Initiatives to Promote
Innovative Technologies in Waste Management Programs
(EPA 540-F-96-012).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Errata To Guide To EPA materials on
Underground Storage Tanks (EPA 5 10-F-96-002)
U.S. EPA. 1996. How to Effectively Recover Free Prod-
uct at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide
for State Regulators (EPA 5 10-F-96-001; Fact Sheet: EPA
5 10-F-96005).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Innovative Treatment Technologies:
Annual Status Report Database (ITT Database).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Introducing TANK Racer (EPA 5 10-F96-
001).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Market Opportunities for Innovative Site
Cleanup Technologies: Southeastern States (EPA 542-R-
96-007,PB96-199518).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Recent Developments for In Situ Treat-
ment of Metal-Contaminated Soils (EPA 542-R-96-008,
PB96-153135).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Review of Intrinsic Bioremediation of
TCE in Groundwater at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey
and St. Joseph, Michigan (EPA 600-A-95-096, PB95-
252995).
U.S. EPA. 1996. State Policies Concerning the Use of
Injectants for In Situ Groundwater Remediation (EPA 542-
R-96-001,PB96-164538).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies
(EPA542-R-95-001, PB95 201711).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Accessing Federal Data Bases for Con-
taminated Site Clean-Up Technologies, Fourth Edition
(EPA 542-B-95-005,PB96-141601).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation Field Evaluation:
Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska (EPA 540-R-95-533).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation Field Initiative Site Pro-
files:
. Champion Site, Libby, MT (EPA 540-F-95-506a)
. Eielson Air Force Base, AK (EPA 540-F-95-506b)
Hill Air Force Base Super-fund Site, UT (EPA 540-F-
95-506c)
Public Service Company of Colorado (EPA 540-F-
95-506d)
. Escambia Wood Preserving Site, FL (EPA 540-F-95-
. Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation , MN (EPA 540-
F-95-506h)
U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation Final Performance
Evaluation of the Prepared Bed Land Treatment System,
Champion International Superfund Site, Libby, Montana:
Volume I, Text (EPA 600-R-95-156a); Volume II, Fig-
ures and Tables (EPA 600-R-95-156b)
U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation of Petroleum Hydro-
carbons: A Flexible, Variable Speed Technology (EPA
600-A-95-140, PB96-139035).S
U.S. EPA. 1995. Contaminants and Remedial Options at
Selected Metal Contaminated Sites (EPA 540-R-95-5 12,
PB95-271961).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Development of a Photothermal Detoxi-
fication Unit: Emerging Technology Summary (EPA 540-
SR-95-526); Emerging Technology Bulletin (EPA
540-F-95-505).
US. EPA. 1995. Electrokinetic Soil Processing: Emerg-
ing Technology Bulletin (EPA540-F 95-504); ET Project
Summary (EPA540-SR-93-515).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Emerging Abiotic In Situ Remediation
Technologies for Groundwater and Soil: Summary Re-
port (EPA 542-S-95-001, PB95-239299).
49
-------
U.S. EPA. 1995. Emerging Technology Program (EPA
540-F-95-502).
U.S. EPA. 1995. ETI: Environmental Technology Initia-
tive (document order form) (EPA 542-F-95-007).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Federal Publications on Alternative and
Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action
and Site Remediation, Fifth Edition (EPA 542-B-95-004,
PB96 145099).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable: 5 Years of Cooperation (EPA 542-F-95-007).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Guide to Documenting Cost and Perfor-
mance for Remediation Projects (EPA 542-B-95-002,
PB95-182960).
U.S. EPA. 1995. In Situ Metal-Enhanced Abiotic Degra-
dation Process Technology, Environmental Technologies,
Inc.: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-95-510).
U.S. EPA. 1995. In Situ Vitrification Treatment: Engi-
neering Bulletin (EPA 540-S-94-504, PB95-125499).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Intrinsic Bioattenuation for Subsurface
Restoration (book chapter) (EPA 600-A-95-112, PB95-
274213).
U.S. EPA. 1995. J.R. Simplot Ex Situ Bioremediation
Technology for Treatment of TNT Contaminated Soils:
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 540-R-
95-529); Site Technology Capsule (EPA 540-R-95-529a).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Lessons Learned About In Situ Air
Sparging at the Denison Avenue Site, Cleveland, Ohio
(Project Report), Assessing UST Corrective Action Tech-
nologies (EPA 600 R-95-040, PB95-188082).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Microbial Activity in Subsurface
Samples Before and During Nitrate Enhanced
Bioremediation (EPA 600-A-95-109, PB95-274239).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Musts For USTS: A Summary of the
Regulations for Underground Tank Systems (EPA 510-
K-95-002).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Natural Attenuation of Trichloroethene
at the St. Joseph, Michigan, Super-fund Site (EPA 600-
sv-95-001).
U.S. EPA. 1995. New York State Multi-Vendor Biore-
mediation: En Situ Biovault, ENSR Consulting and En-
gineering/Larson Engineers: Demonstration Bulletin
(EPA540-MR-95525).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Process for the Treatment of Volatile
Organic Carbon and Heavy-Metal Contaminated Soil,
International Technology Corp.: Emerging Technology
Bulletin (EPA 540-F-95-509).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Progress In Reducing Impediments to
the Use of Innovative Remediation Technology (EPA 542-
F-95-008, PB95-262556).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remedial Design/Remedial Action
Handbook (PB95-963307-ND2).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remedial Design/Remedial Action
Handbook Fact Sheet (PB95-9633 12 NDZ).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies:
Bioremediation (EPA 542-R-95-002, PB95 182911).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Fact Sheet
and Order Form (EPA 542-F-95 003); Four Document
Set (PB95-182903).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Ground wa-
ter Treatment (EPA 542-R-95-003, PB95-182929).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor
Extraction (EPA 542-R-95-004, PB95-182937).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Thermal
Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ Vitrification (EPA
542-R-95-005, PB95-182945).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Technologies Screening
Matrix and Reference Guide, Second Edition (PB95-
104782; Fact Sheet: EPA 542-F-95-002). Federal
Remediation Technology Roundtable. Also see Internet:
http://www.frtr.gov/matrix/top-page.html.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Review of Mathematical Modeling for
Evaluating Soil Vapor Extraction Systems (EPA 540-R-
95-513,PB95-243051).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Selected Alternative and Innovative
Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and Site
Remediation: A Bibliography of EPA Information Re-
sources (EPA 542-B-95 001).
US. EPA. 1995. SITE Emerging Technology Program
(EPA 540-F-95-502).
50
-------
U.S. EPA. 1995. Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Enhance-
ment Technology Resource Guide Air Sparging,
Bioventing, Fracturing, Thermal Enhancements (EPA
542-B-95-003).
US. EPA. 1995. Soil Vapor Extraction Implementation
Experiences (OSWER Publication 9200.5-223FS, EPA
540-F-95-030, PB95-9633 15).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Surfactant Injection for Ground Water
Remediation: State Regulators' Perspectives and Experi-
ences (EPA 542-R-95-011, PB 96-164546).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Symposium on Bioremediation of Haz-
ardous Wastes: Research, Development, and Field Evalu-
ations, Abstracts: Rye Town Hilton, Rye Brook, New
York, August 8-10, 1995 (EPA 600-R-95-078).
U.S. EPA. 1993-1995. Technology Resource Guides:.
. Bioremediation Resource Guide (EPA542-B-93-004)
. Groundwater Treatment Technology Resource Guide
(EPA 542-B-94-009, PB95 138657)
. Physical/Chemical Treatment Technology Resource
Guide (EPA 542-B-94-008, PB95-138665)
. Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Enhancement Technol-
ogy Resource Guide: Air Sparging, Bioventing, Frac-
turing, and Thermal Enhancements (EPA 542-B-95
003)
. Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Treatment Technology
Resource Guide (EPA 542-B 94-007)
U.S. EPA. 1995. Waste Vitrification Through Electric
Melting, Ferro Corporation: Emerging Technology Bul-
letin (EPA 540-F-95-503).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Accessing EPA's Environmental Tech-
nology Programs (EPA 542-F-94 005).
US. EPA. 1994. Bioremediation: AVideo Primer (video)
(EPA 5 10-V-94-001).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Bioremediation in the Field Search Sys-
tem (EPA 540-F-95-507; Fact Sheet: EPA 540-F-94-506).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Contaminants and Remedial Options at
Solvent-Contaminated Sites (EPA 600-R-94-203, PB95-
177200).
U.S. EPA. 1990-1994. EPA Engineering Bulletins:.
Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: APEG Treat-
ment (EPA 540-2-90-015, PB91-228031)
Chemical Oxidation Treatment (EPA 540-2-g 1-025)
In Situ Biodegradation Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-
502, PB94- 190469)
In Situ Soil Flushing (EPA 540-2-g 1-02 1)
In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment (EPA 540-2-
91-006, PB91-228072)
In Situ Steam Extraction Treatment (EPA 540-2-91-
005, PB91-2228064)
In Situ Vitrification Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-504,
PB95-125499)
Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment (EPA
540-2-90-014)
Pyrolysis Treatment (EPA 540-S-92-010)
Rotating Biological Contactors (EPA 540-S-92-007)
Slurry Biodegradation (EPA 540-2-90-016, PB91-
228049)
Soil Washing Treatment (EPA 540-2-90-017, PB91-
228056)
Solidification/Stabilization of Organics and
Inorganics (EPA 540-S-92-015)
Solvent Extraction Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-503,
PB94-190477)
Supercritical Water Oxidation (EPA 540-S-92-006)
Technology Preselection Data Requirements (EPA
540-S-92-009)
Thermal Desorption Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-501,
PB94-160603)
U.S. EPA. 1994. Field Investigation of Effectiveness of
Soil Vapor Extraction Technology (Final Project Report)
(EPA 600-R-94-142, PB94-205531).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Ground Water Treatment Technologies
Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-94 009, PB95-138657).
U.S. EPA. 1994. How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup
Technologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A
Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers (EPA 510-
B-94-003, S/N 055-000-00499-4); Pamphlet (EPA 510-
F-95-003).
U.S. EPA. 1994. In Situ Steam Enhanced Recovery Pro-
cess, Hughes Environmental Systems, Inc.: Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report (EPA540-R-94-510, PB95
51
-------
271854); Site Technology Capsule (EPA 540-R-94-5 lOa,
PB95-270476).
U.S. EPA. 1994. In Situ Vitrification, Geosafe Corpora-
tion: Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 540-
R-94-520, PB95-213245); Demonstration Bulletin (EPA
540 MR-94-520).
U.S. EPA. 1994. J.R. Simplot Ex-Situ Bioremediation
Technology for Treatment of Dinoseb-Contaminated
Soils: Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (EPA
540-R-94-508); Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-
94-508).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Literature Review Summary of Metals
Extraction Processes Used to Remove Lead From Soils,
Project Summary (EPA 600-SR-94-006).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Northeast Remediation Marketplace:
Business Opportunities For Innovative Technologies
(Summary Proceedings) (EPA 542-R-94-001, PB94-
154770).
US. EPA. 1994. Physical/Chemical Treatment Technol-
ogy Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-94 008, PB95-138665).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Profile of Innovative Technologies and
Vendors For Waste Site Remediation (EPA 542-R-94-002,
PB95-138418).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Radio Frequency Heating, KAI Tech-
nologies, Inc.: Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
(EPA540-R-94-528); Site Technology Capsule (EPA 540-
R-94-528a, PB95-249454).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Regional Market Opportunities For In-
novative Site Clean-up Technologies: Middle Atlantic
States (EPA 542-R-95-010, PB96-121637).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Rocky Mountain Remediation Market-
place: Business Opportunities For Innovative Technolo-
gies (Summary Proceedings) (EPA 542-R-94-006,
PB95-173738).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Selected EPA Products and Assistance
On Alternative Cleanup Technologies (Includes
Remediation Guidance Documents Produced By The
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) (EPA 510-
E-94-001).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment Tech-
nology Resource Guide (EPA 542-B 94-007).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Solid Oxygen Source for Bioremedia-
tion Subsurface Soils (revised) (EPA600-J-94-495, PB95-
155149).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Solvent Extraction: Engineering Bulle-
tin (EPA 540-S-94-503, PB94 190477).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Solvent Extraction Treatment System,
Terra-Keen Response Group, Inc. (EPA540-MR-94-521).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Status Reports on In Situ Treatment Tech-
nology Demonstration and Applications:.
. 'Altering Chemical Conditions (EPA 542-K-94-008)
. Cosolvents (EPA 542-K-94-006)
. Electrokinetics (EPA 542-K-94-007)
. Hydraulic and Pneumatic Fracturing (EPA 542-K-94-
005)
. Surfactant Enhancements (EPA 542-K-94-003)
. Thermal Enhancements (EPA 542-K-94-009)
. Treatment Walls (EPA 542-K-94-004)
U.S. EPA. 1994. Subsurface Volatilization and Ventila-
tion System (SWS): Innovative Technology Report (EPA
540-R-94-529, PB96-116488); Site Technology Capsule
(EPA 540-R-94-529a, PB95-256111).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Superfund Innovative Technology Evalu-
ation (SITE) Program: Technology Profiles, Seventh
Edition (EPA 540-R-94-526, PB95-183919).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Desorption System,
Maxymillian Technologies, Inc.: Site Technology Cap-
sule (EPA 540-R94-507a, PB95-122800).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Desorption Treatment: Engi-
neering Bulletin (EPA 540-S-94-501, PB94-160603).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Desorption Unit, Eco Logic
International, Inc.: Application Analysis Report (EPA540-
AR-94-504).
US. EPA. 1994. Thermal Enhancements: Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 542-K-94-009).
U.S. EPA. 1994. The Use of Cationic Surfactants to
Modify Aquifer Materials to Reduce the Mobility of
Hydrophobic Organic Compounds (EPA 600-S-94-002,
PB95-111951).
52
-------
U.S. EPA. 1994. West Coast Remediation Marketplace:
Business Opportunities For Innovative Technologies
(Summary Proceedings) (EPA 542-R-94-008, PB95-
143319).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Accutech Pneumatic Fracturing Extrac-
tion and Hot Gas Injection, Phase I: Technology Evalua-
tion Report (EPA 540-R-93-509, PB93-216596).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Augmented In Situ Subsurface
Bioremediation Process, Bio-Rem, Inc.: Demonstration
Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-527).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Biogenesis Soil Washing Technology:
Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540 MR-93-5 10).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Bioremediation Resource Guide and
Matrix (EPA 542-B-93-004, PB94 112307).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Bioremediation: Using the Land Treat-
ment Concept (EPA 600-R-93-164, PB94-107927).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Fungal Treatment Technology: Demon-
stration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93 5 14).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction Process,
Eco Logic International Inc. (EPA 540-R-93-522, PB95-
10025 l,EPA540-MR-93-522).
US. EPA. 1993. HRUBOUT, Hrubetz Environmental
Services: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-524).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Hydraulic Fracturing of Contaminated
Soil, US. EPA: Innovative Technology Evaluation Re-
port (EPA540-R-93-505, PB94-100161); Demonstration
Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-505).
US. EPA. 1993. HYPERVENTILATE: A software Guid-
ance System Created for Vapor Extraction Systems for
Apple Macintosh and IBM PC-Compatible Computers
(UST #107) (EPA 510-F-93-001); User's Manual
(Macintosh disk included) (UST#102) (EPA 500-CB 92-
001).
U.S. EPA. 1993. In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated
Ground Water (EPA 540-S-92 003, PB92-224336).
US. EPA. 1993. In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated
Unsaturated Subsurface Soils (EPA -S-93-501, PB93-
234565).
US. EPA. 1993. In Situ Bioremediation of Ground Wa-
ter and Geological Material: A Review of Technologies
(EPA600-SR-93-124, PB93-215564).
U.S. EPA. 1993. In Situ Treatments of Contaminated
Groundwater: An Inventory of Research and Field Dem-
onstrations and Strategies for Improving Groundwater
Remediation Technologies (EPA 500-K-93-001, PB93-
193720).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Laboratory Story on the Use of Hot Water
to Recover Light Oily Wastes from Sands (EPA 600-R-
93-021, PB93-167906).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Low Temperature Thermal Aeration
(LTTA) System, Smith Environmental Technologies
Corp.: Applications Analysis Report' (EPA 540-AR-93-
504); Site Demonstration Bulletin (EPA540-MR-93-504).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Mission Statement: Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable (EPA 542-F-93-006).
US. EPA. 1993. Mobile Volume Reduction Unit, US.
EPA: Applications Analysis Report (EPA 540-AR-93-508,
PB94-130275).
US. EPA. 1993. Overview of UST Remediation Options
(EPA 5 10-F-93-029).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Soil Recycling Treatment, Toronto
Harbour Commissioners (EPA 540-AR 93-517, PB94-
124674).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of
Innovative Site Remediation Technologies, Third Edition
(EPA 542-B-93-009, PB94-144565).
U.S. EPA. 1993. XTRAX Model 200 Thermal Desorp-
tion System, OHM Remediation Services Corp.: Site
Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-502).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Aostra Soil-tech Anaerobic Thermal
Process, Soiltech ATP Systems: Demonstration Bulletin
(EPA540-MR-92-008).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Basic Extractive Sludge Treatment
(B.E.S.T.) Solvent Extraction System, Ionics/Resources
Conservation Co.: Applications Analysis Report (EPA
540-AR-92-079, PB94-105434); Demonstration Sum-
mary (EPA540-SR-92-079).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Bioremediation Case Studies: AnAnaly-
sis of Vendor Supplied Data (EPA 600-R-92-043, PB92-
232339).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Bioremediation Field Initiative (EPA
540-F-92-012).
53
-------
U.S. EPA. 1992. Carver Greenfield Process, Dehydrotech
Corporation: Applications Analysis Report (EPA 540-AR-
92-002, PB93-101152); Demonstration Summary (EPA
540 SR-92-002).
US. EPA. 1992. Chemical Enhancements to Pump-and-
Treat Remediation (EPA 540-S-92 001, PB92-180074).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Cyclone Furnace Vitrification Technol-
ogy, Babcock and Wilcox: Applications Analysis Report
(EPA540-AR-92-017,PB93-122315).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Evaluation of Soil Venting Application
(EPA 540-S-92-004, PB92 235605).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Excavation Techniques and Foam Sup-
pression Methods, McColl Superfund Site, U.S. EPA:
Applications Analysis Report (EPA 540-AR-92-015,
PB93 100121).
U.S. EPA. 1992. In Situ Biodegradation Treatment: En-
gineering Bulletin (EPA 540-S-94 502, PB94-190469).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Low Temperature Thermal Treatment
System, Roy F. Weston, Inc.: Applications Analysis Re-
port (EPA 540-AR-92-019, PB94-124047).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Proceedings of the Symposium on Soil
Venting (EPA 600-R-92-174, PB93-122323).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Soil/Sediment Washing System,
Bergman USA: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-
92-075).
US. EPA. 1992. TCE Removal From Contaminated Soil
and Groundwater (EPA 540-S-92 002, PB92-224104).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Technology Alternatives for the
Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
(EPA 540-S-93-506).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Workshop on Removal, Recovery, Treat-
ment, and Disposal of Arsenic and Mercury (EPA 600-
R-92-105,PB92-216944).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Biological Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments, With Special Emphasis on the Great Lakes:
Report of a Workshop (EPA 600-9-91-001).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Debris Washing System, RREL. Tech-
nology Evaluation Report (EPA 540 5-91-006, PB91-
23 1456).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guide to Discharging CERCLA Aque-
ous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (9330.2-
13FS).
U.S. EPA. 1991. In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction: Engineer-
ing Bulletin (EPA 540-2-91-006, PB91-228072).
U.S. EPA. 1991. In Situ Steam Extraction: Engineering
Bulletin (EPA 540-2-91-005, PB91 228064).
U.S. EPA. 1991. In Situ Vapor Extraction and Steam
Vacuum Stripping, AWD Technologies (EPA 540-A5-91-
002, PB 92-218379).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Pilot-Scale Demonstration of Slurry-
Phase Biological Reactor for Creosote Contaminated Soil
(EPA540-A5-91-009,PB94-124039).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Slurry Biodegradation, International
Technology Corporation (EPA 540 MR-9 1-009).
U.S. EPA. 199 1. Understanding Bioremediation: AGuide-
book for Citizens (EPA 540-2-91 002, PB93-205870).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Anaerobic Biotransformation of Con-
taminants in the Subsurface (EPA 600 M-90-024, PB91-
240549).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment,
APEG Treatment: Engineering Bulletin (EPA 540-2-90-
015,PB91-228031).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Enhanced Bioremediation Utilizing
Hydrogen Peroxide as a Supplemental Source of Oxy-
gen: A Laboratory and Field Study (EPA.600-2-90-006,
PB90-183435).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Guide to Selecting Superfund Remedial
Actions (9355.0-27FS).
US. EPA. 1990. Slurry Biodegradation: Engineering
Bulletin (EPA 540-2-90-016, PB91 228049).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Soil Washing Treatment: Engineering
Bulletin (EPA 540-2-90-017, PB91 228056).
U.S. EPA. 1989. Facilitated Transport (EPA 540-4-89-
003,PB91-133256).
U.S. EPA. 1989. Guide on Remedial Actions for Con-
taminated Ground Water (9283.1 02FS).
U.S. EPA. 1987. Compendium of Costs of Remedial Tech-
nologies at Hazardous Waste Sites (EPA 600-2-87-087).
54
-------
U.S. EPA. 1987. Data Quality Objectives for Remedial U.S. EPA. ad. Initiatives to Promote Innovative Tech-
Response Activities: Development Process (9355.0-07B). nology in Waste Management Programs (OSWER Di-
rective 9308.0-25).
U.S. EPA. 1986. Costs of Remedial Actions at Uncon-
trolled Hazardous Waste Sites (EPA/640/2-86/037). U.S. EPA and University of Pittsburgh, n.d. Ground Wa-
ter Remediation Technologies Analysis Center. Internet
U.S. EPA. n.d. Alternative Treatment Technology Infor- address: http://www.gwrtac.org
mation Center (ATTIC) (The ATTIC data base can be
accessed by modem at (703) 908-2138). Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment
Technologies (VISITT), Version 4.0 (VISITT can be
U.S. EPA. Clean-Up Information (CLU-IN) Bulletin downloaded from the Internet at http://www.prcemi.com/
Board System. (CLU-IN can be accessed by modem at yisitt or from the CLU-IN Web site at http://clu-in.com).
(301) 589-8366 or by the Internet at http://clu-in.com).
55 &V.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1999 - 750-101/00045
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental
Research Information, G-74
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA/625/R-98/006
BULK RATE
POSTAGES FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
------- |