&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Reusing Cleaned Up
Superfund Sites:
Golf Facilities Where
Waste is Left on Site
-------
EPA-540-R-03-003
OSWER 9230.0-109
PB2003 104263
October 2003
vwwv.epa.gov/superfund
Reusing Cleaned Up
Superfund Sites:
Golf Facilities Where
Waste is Left on Site
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
-------
Notice
This document is intended for information purposes and does not create new or alter existing
Agency policy or guidance. The document does not impose any requirements or obligations on
EPA, states, or other federal agencies, or the regulated community. The sources of authority and
requirements described in this document are the relevant statutes and regulations (e.g., the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act). EPA welcomes
public comments on this document at any time and may consider such comments in future
revisions of this document. EPA and state personnel may use and accept technically sound
approaches different from those described in this document, either on their own initiative, or at
the suggestion of potentially responsible parties or other interested parties. Therefore, interested
parties are free to raise questions and objections about the information in this document and the
appropriateness of the application of the information in this document to a particular situation.
This document is not intended, nor can it be relied upon, to create any rights, substantive or
procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States.
For More Information
For more information on the Superfund Redevelopment Program, including information about
current developments, pilot programs, tools and resources, and case studies, visit the Program's
web site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/index.htm or contact the
following numbers:
Outside the Washington, DC area: 800-424-9346;
TDD for the hearing impaired outside the Washington, D.C. area: 800-533-7672
In the Washington, D.C. local area: 703-412-9810; or
TDD for the hearing impaired in the Washington, D.C. local area: 800-412-3323.
Hours: 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
Closed on federal holidays.
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Preface
As of August 2002, more than 300 cleaned up Superfund sites have been returned to productive
use. Many of these sites have been developed into recreational facilities, such as sports fields,
hiking trails, parks, playgrounds, and golf courses. Many other Superfund sites may potentially
be used for similar purposes after they are cleaned up. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), through efforts such as the Superfund Redevelopment Program, promotes the
productive reuse of Superfund sites. EPA's overriding objective for any Superfund site is to
ensure protection of human health and the environment. With forethought and effective
planning, communities can return sites to productive use without jeopardizing the effectiveness
of the remedy put into place to protect human health and the environment.
This report provides technical information useful in planning, designing, and building golf
facilities on sites where the remedy calls for on-site containment of contaminated material or
post-construction monitoring or treatment. This information may be useful when considering
golf facility reuse options during EPA's process of selecting, designing, and implementing a
cleanup plan for a Superfund site or non-time-critical removal action. The report draws from
experiences at completed redevelopment projects, EPA technical guidance, and other sources to
describe remedy approaches and golf facility design features that have been used to
accommodate golf courses at remediated Superfund sites where waste has been left on site.
This document is intended for information purposes only and does not create new or alter
existing Agency policy or guidance. It is one of a series being developed under EPA's Superfund
Redevelopment Program to inform stakeholders at hazardous waste sites about technical and
planning issues that may arise during the remediation process when reuse of a site is intended
following cleanup. Other reports in this series provide technical information on the reuse of
Superfund sites with waste containment areas for recreational facilities, commercial and
industrial facilities, and ecological resources.
This report was a collaborative effort between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and an
advisory committee headed by Paul Parker of The Center for Resource Management in Salt Lake
City, Utah. The remainder of the advisory committee consisted of the following individuals: Ken
Dixon of Texas Tech University, Ed Hopkins of the Sierra Club, Bill Love of W.R. Love Golf
Course Architecture, John Olenoski of Nicklaus Design, Fred E. "Derf' Seller of Breckenridge
Golf Club, and Paul Thomas of U.S. EPA Region 5.
Preface Page i
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Contents
Page
Preface i
Contents ii
Section 1. Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Who Should Read the Report and Why 2
Superfund Redevelopment Program 3
Integrating Reuse Plans With Cleanup Remedies 3
Consideration of Future Land Uses 4
Timing 5
Enhancements 6
The Game of Golf in the United States 7
Opportunities for Golf Course Development on Degraded Lands 7
Organization of Report 8
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses on Superfund Sites .. 9
Components of a Golf Facility 9
Coordinating Golf Course Planning with the Superfund Process 10
Determining Golf Course Feasibility 13
Health, Safety and Environmental Impacts 13
Economic Viability and Community Support 14
Local Infrastructure and Resources 15
Suitability of Site 16
Restrictions Resulting from the Remediation 17
Golf Facility Conceptual Plan 18
Golf Facility Design and Construction Considerations 19
Course Configuration and Topography 19
Golf Course Features 20
Irrigation Systems 21
Utilities 22
Vegetation 22
Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat 23
Vehicle and Pedestrian Traffic 24
Table of Contents Page ii
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Page
Section 3. Remedial Design Considerations for Golf Facility Reuse 25
Remedial Technologies 25
Containment System Covers 25
Other Containment System Components 27
Associated Remedial Technologies 27
Remedial Design and Site Issues 29
Presumptive Remedy 29
Grading and Drainage 29
Settlement 30
Cover Component Stability 32
Foundation Systems 32
Gas Management 34
Utilities 36
Institutional Controls 37
Section 4. Operation and Maintenance 38
Cleanup Remedy 38
Golf Course O&M 39
Institutional Controls 41
Section 5. Golf Facility Case Studies 44
Old Works Golf Facility - Anaconda, Montana 45
Harborside International Golf Center, Chicago, Illinois 48
McColl Superfund Site, Fullerton, California 52
Widow's Walk Golf Course, Scituate, Massachusetts 54
Bibliography 57
Appendix A. Information Sources for Golf Facility Development 65
Appendix B. Superfund Golf Facility Reuse Sites and EPA Contacts 66
Appendix C. Acronyms 67
Table of Contents Page ill
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Section 1. Introduction
Across the country, EPA is working with communities to safely return Superfund sites to
productive use consistent with protection of human health and the environment. Former landfills,
abandoned hazardous waste dumps, and other contaminated properties throughout the United
States, once thought to be of limited or no value, are being transformed into viable commercial
and industrial developments, parks and other recreational facilities, and wildlife areas. Golf
courses and driving ranges have been built on a number of the more than 300 former Superfund
sites that are in use. These golfing facilities provide positive social, economic, and
environmental outcomes for their communities.
Remedies at some Superfund sites where wastes or treatment and monitoring systems remain on
site after construction of the remedy reduce or control risks without completely eliminating
them. Therefore, redevelopment planners must take into account the vital need to prevent
long-term risks to human health and the environment by integrating into their plans any aspects
of a remedy that are designed to monitor and maintain its effectiveness. Several sections of this
report include information on design considerations, operation and maintenance (O&M)
measures, and regulatory requirements vital to ensuring that remedies remain protective of
human health and the environment.
EPA's experience suggests that sites where the cleanup involves containing the wastes on site are
often well suited for recreational uses such as a golf facility. For example, the on-site
containment of wastes often requires vegetated cover systems that, with minor modifications,
can be made highly compatible with golf facility use.
This report provides techniques for ensuring that containment systems or waste treatment
equipment can accommodate golf facilities, while ensuring that golf facility operations do not
reduce the effectiveness of the remedy. The successful and safe use of a Superfund site for golf
facilities requires careful planning, the involvement of the community and other interested
parties, and appropriate design, construction, and post-construction operation and maintenance
practices.
Purpose
This report was developed for site managers, communities, property owners, developers, golf
course designers and operators, and others who might have an interest in building a golf course
on a remediated Superfund site. It provides information useful for planning, designing and
implementing site cleanups that will safely support golf facilities. The information could also be
applied at certain non-time-critical removal sites. The report describes how redevelopment and
remediation efforts can be coordinated to ensure successful golf facility projects at sites where
some or all of the hazardous wastes will be, or have been, left on site. It focuses on the planning-
level issues, not detailed design information. This document does not address how communities
and property owners plan for the reuse of these cleaned up sites. It is generally their
Section 1. Introduction Page 1
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
responsibility to decide how they will use these properties, although the remedy may limit some
future uses.
The information in this document is based on the combined experiences of successful Superfund
remediation and reuse projects, previous EPA technical guidance, and other sources. It includes
considerations for determining whether or not a golf facility is appropriate for a site; remedy
design, construction, and maintenance issues important for a site; and references to completed
projects. This information may be useful in supporting remedy selection, design, construction,
long-term monitoring and maintenance, and general reuse and community planning.
This report in no way alters established EPA policies on remedy selection for Superfund sites.
The national program goal of the Superfund remedy selection process is to select remedies that
are protective of human health and the environment, that maintain protection over time, and that
minimize untreated waste left on site. (40 CFR 300.430). In many instances, Superfund remedies
will include combinations of treatment for "principal threat wastes" (high concentration or
mobile wastes), engineering controls to contain lower concentration wastes, and institutional
controls (i.e., restrictions on the use of a property that may be implemented through legal or
administrative mechanisms such as easements or deed notices) to supplement the engineering
controls and minimize the potential of exposure to waste remaining on site.
This report is one of several being developed under the EPA Superfund Redevelopment Program
to inform stakeholders at hazardous waste sites about how EPA may take identified and potential
reuse into account when it selects, designs, and implements remedies. Other reports in this series
address the reuse of sites for other kinds of recreational facilities, for commercial facilities, and
as ecological resources.
Who Should Read the Report and Why
Many entities or stakeholders have a substantial interest in the redevelopment of a Superfund
site. The potentially responsible parties (PRPs) or the owner could gain revenues from the
operations of a golf facility. Local governments may benefit from increased tax revenues, and
may need to consider whether the proposed facility is compatible with their land use plans.
Local citizen groups and individuals may be concerned with employment and recreational
opportunities and the character of their neighborhood. Environmental organizations might be
consulted because the redevelopment project may provide the opportunity to protect or improve
local and regional habitats EPA remedial project managers (RPMs) and the state regulators
need to coordinate remediation and reuse efforts at Superfund sites. Golf facility designers and
operators should be aware of the technical aspects of developing a golf facility on a remediated
Superfund site. Consulting engineers representing the PRPs or owner should be able to assure
the regulators that the redevelopment project does not compromise the effectiveness of the
remedy. To ensure that the perspectives of all interested parties are considered and that the
remediation and reuse of the site complies with all state and federal regulations, coordination
with the stakeholders should be initiated early in the planning process and continue frequently
throughout the process.
Section 1. Introduction Page 2
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Superfund Redevelopment Program
EPA prepared this report as part of the Agency's Superfund Redevelopment Program. This
Program reflects EPA's commitment to consider reasonably anticipated future land uses when
making remedy decisions at Superfund sites, and to ensure that, when possible, the cleanup of
Superfund sites allows for safe reuse for ecological, commercial, recreational, or other purposes.
Through this Program and other efforts, the Agency works with communities to determine
remedial action objectives that will allow for reasonably anticipated future land uses. Land use is
a local matter, and EPA does not favor one type of reuse over another. EPA's primary
responsibility is to ensure that the remedy is effective in protecting human health and the
environment.
The safe and appropriate redevelopment of sites can provide significant benefits to communities
and help ensure that remedies will be maintained. These potential benefits include:
New employment opportunities, increased property values, and catalysts for additional
redevelopment;
New recreational and open-space areas in communities where land available for such uses is
scarce;
Better day-to-day property management, which can result in improved maintenance of the
remedy; and
Improved aesthetic quality of the area through the creation of well-maintained properties
and discouragement of illegal waste disposal and similar unwanted activities.
For more information on the Program, including current developments, pilot programs, tools,
resources, and case studies, visit the Superfund Redevelopment Program web site at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/index.htm or call the following numbers:
Outside the Washington, DC area: 800-424-9346;
TDD for the hearing impaired outside the Washington, D.C. area: 800-533-7672;
In the Washington, D.C. local area: 703-412-9810; or
TDD for the hearing impaired in the Washington, D.C. local area: 800-412-3323.
Hours: 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
Closed on federal holidays.
Integrating Reuse Plans With Cleanup Remedies
Assumptions about the future use of a Superfund site can affect all aspects of the removal and
cleanup processes, from the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) through remedy
selection, design, and implementation. The RPM should consider the proposed reuse in the
design of the response actions, consistent with OSWER's land-use guidance, and adjust them
Section 1. Introduction Page 3
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
when cost and protectiveness are not affected.1 It is important to understand when and how
future land use considerations are incorporated into EPA's site management process and the
scope of EPA's authority to accommodate future land use throughout the remedial process.
Consideration of Future Land Uses
The anticipated future uses of land is an important factor that EPA considers in determining the
appropriate response action. The process for identifying the reasonably anticipated future land
use begins during the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) or Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) stage of the EPA site management process. Assumptions
about reasonably anticipated future land use can be considered as part of:
The baseline risk assessment when estimating potential future risk;
The development and evaluation of remedial or removal action objectives and response
action alternatives; and
The selection of appropriate response action required for the protection of human health and
the environment.
A useful way to develop reasonable assumptions about future land use is to conduct a reuse
assessment. The reuse assessment typically identifies broad categories of potential reuse (e.g.,
residential, recreational, commercial and industrial, agricultural, ecological). This assessment
may also initiate the reuse planning process and lay the groundwork for integrating reuse into the
cleanup plan. In general, the reuse assessment can be done by the entity conducting the RI/FS or
EE/CA. As with other activities performed under the RI/FS or EE/CA, EPA can determine the
appropriate level of oversight when PRPs perform this work. While EPA does not expect to be
involved in detailed analyses of golf course feasibility, the Agency should ensure that reasonable
assumptions regarding future land use are considered in the selection of a response action. This
determination should be coordinated with the state.
In some cases, property owners, PRPs, and communities may have initiated a reuse planning
process. Information from a reuse plan may also be useful for the reuse assessment. As part of
the reuse assessment process, EPA holds discussions with local land-use planning authorities,
local officials, property owners, PRPs, and the public to understand the reasonably anticipated
future uses of the land on which the Superfund site is located. Based on these discussions, EPA
develops remedial action objectives and identifies remedial alternatives that are consistent with
the anticipated future land uses. If there is substantial agreement on the future use of a site, EPA
may be able to select a remedy that is consistent with that use and take measures to
accommodate it when designing the remedy.
EPA must balance this preference for future land use with other technical and legal provisions in
the Superfund law and its implementing regulations (National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan, known as the NCP). For example, the Agency's decisions must
^U.S. EPA. 2001. Reuse Assessments: A Tool to Implement The Superfund Land Use Directive,
OSWER 9355.7-06P. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/reusefmal.pdf
Section 1. Introduction Page 4
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
conform with NCP preferences for using one or more of a number of approaches, such as
treating principal-threat wastes, engineering controls such as containment for low-level threats,
institutional controls to supplement engineering controls, and innovative technologies. EPA
generally complies with other laws when they are "applicable or relevant and appropriate"
(ARAR).
After considering these factors, EPA selects a remedy. In this process, two general land-use
situations could result from EPA's remedy selection decision:
If the remedy achieves cleanup levels that allow the site to be available for the reasonably
anticipated future land use, EPA will work within its authorities to accommodate that reuse;
or
If the remedy achieves cleanup levels that require a more restricted land use than the
reasonably anticipated future land use, the site will probably not support the community's
reuse preferences and the interested parties will have to discuss other reuse alternatives.
For additional information on how EPA considers land use in the remedy selection process, see
EPA's Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process, EPA OSWER Directive No.
9355.7-04; and Reuse Assessments: A Tool to Implement the Superfund Land Use Directive.,
OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-06P, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/reusefinal.pdf
Timing
To allow for evaluations of a variety of remediation and reuse options, reuse planning should be
initiated as early in the cleanup process as possible. The longer reuse planning is delayed, the
greater the possibility that some reuse options will be foreclosed by decisions already made.
There are two major components of the reuse planning process: making reuse assessments and
creating reuse plans. A reuse assessment, which typically identifies broad categories of potential
reuse (e.g., recreational, industrial), should be developed at the RI/FS stage. This assessment
initiates the reuse planning process and lays the groundwork for additional planning. Because the
land-use categories employed in making the assessment are broad, they may not provide
sufficient detail to ensure that the remedy being considered will allow for a specific use or to
guide the detailed remedy design. When communities need more specific and detailed land-use
proposals, they may initiate the second component of the planning processthe creation of reuse
plans.
Reuse plans are often developed after the RI/FS and may not be available until later stages of the
site management process, such as during remedy design or construction. When the EPA receives
the reuse plans prior to remedy selection, the site manager should evaluate them in the course of
developing the remediation alternatives. When reuse information is received after the remedy is
selected, the site manager evaluates it to determine whether the response action is consistent with
the proposed reuse and whether design modification might be easily made to accommodate it. If
the reuse project plan calls for changes in schedule or other aspects of the remedy, these plans
should be evaluated in light of their effect on potential risk to human health and the environment.
Section 1. Introduction Page 5
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Development of a reuse project can sometimes begin on parts of a site before construction of a
remedy is completed. This can be done by segmenting the site into different operable units
(OUs) which proceed on different schedules according to the nature of the cleanup approaches,
location, and expected completion time; deleting portions of the site from the NPL while cleanup
continues elsewhere; and sequencing the cleanup work to coordinate with development needs.
For example, at the Ohio River Park Superfund site in Neville Island, Pennsylvania, remedial
activities were interrupted when EPA agreed to make part of the site available for replacing the
old, unusable Coraopolis Bridge, which was important to the community.
In many cases, a completed remedy may not be able to accommodate the planned use without
modification because of technical, legal, or other factors. If, in the future, landowners or others
decide to change the land uses in a way that makes further cleanup necessary, EPA does not
prohibit them from conducting such a cleanup, so long as the effectiveness of the remedy is not
compromised. It would be necessary to evaluate the implications of that change for the
protectiveness of the selected remedy. Retrofitting an existing remedy to support reuse requires
careful planning, design, coordination with, and approval by, EPA and other regulatory agencies.
As discussed below, EPA is prohibited from funding, nor can it require others to fund, activities
that are considered "enhancements" to the remedy.
Enhancements
EPA is prohibited from funding, and cannot require potentially responsible parties (PRPs) or
others to fund "betterments"or "enhancements" of a remedy. Generally, an enhancement is a
facility or an activity that is not necessary to support the effectiveness of a remedy, including its
continuing effectiveness under the anticipated future use of the land. For example, installation of
lights for a parking lot would, typically, be considered an enhancement. Other examples of
enhancements would be compaction of a protective cap beyond what might be needed to keep it
from settling under anticipated future use, or the addition of clean fill beyond that required to
make a remedy protective under the anticipated future use.
Some cleanup activities may be necessary to accommodate the anticipated future use of a site.
These are not enhancements because they support the remedy by implementing it in a manner
consistent with future use. The effectiveness of a remedy can be compromised if it is not
consistent with the eventual use. Therefore, EPA to the extent possible and without
compromising protectiveness to human health or the environment, chooses remedies that are
consistent with anticipated use, and implements them, insofar as it can, in ways that
accommodate that use. For example, the Agency has a preference for not leaving a site with no
means, short of modifying the remedy, to support structures that will be required for the
anticipated use. The remedy should generally allow reasonable areas for them. As a part of the
remedy, EPA may provide corridors of clean soil or other material for future utility access when
anticipated use makes the need likely. EPA may also, for example, place wastes in a location
where they will not block access that will be needed for the anticipated future use of a site, even
though it might have cost less to place them elsewhere. Likewise, EPA may take future use into
account in deciding on the placement of monitoring or extraction wells, air-stripping towers, or
other treatment units, so that they do not interfere with the placement of structures needed for
redevelopment of a site. Such actions would generally not be enhancements.
Section 1. Introduction Page 6
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
EPA determines case-by-case whether an activity or feature constitutes an enhancement. Actions
like those above may often not be considered enhancements because they accommodate the
anticipated future use and thereby support the remedy by helping to ensure its long-term
integrity. EPA may fund such actions, or require a PRP to fund them.
The Game of Golf in the United States
Golf was introduced to the United States in the late 1700's, but did not become established until
around 1900, when there were approximately 1,000 golf courses in the country. Since that time
there have been several periods of substantial growth of the game and many new facilities
opened. In the early 1950's, there were an estimated 3 million golfers in the U.S. playing on
5,000 courses. By the end of the 1960's, the number of golfers had grown to over 4 million and
the number of courses to about 6,000. By the late 1990's the number of golfers had reached 24
million. These golfers played over 500 million rounds of golf on about 16,000 courses.
According to golf industry sources, the sport's popularity is still growing. Within the next few
years the number of golfers is expected to exceed 30 million and the number of rounds played is
anticipated to reach 650 million annually. During the late 1990s, between 400 and 500 new
courses were being built annually. Based on the projected number of golfers, the demand for new
facilities is expected to continue well into the future.
The development of the earliest golf facilities often occurred on sites that were specifically
selected for their physical characteristics and ability to produce exciting golf. Since then, other
considerations besides the physical qualities of a site have become the deciding factors. Golf
course developers evaluate demographic and economic factors. The growth of the game has
required that new facilities be more accessible to a greater number of people. New facilities are
often being developed in locations that will meet an identified demand, whether or not they offer
significant land forms, water features, trees, scenery or other natural features or physical
characteristics. A positive outcome of these trends is that a golf course can offer the opportunity
to enhance the visual and environmental quality of a featureless site and provide attractive green
space and recreation for a community.
Opportunities for Golf Course Development on Degraded Lands
A number of these new courses are being built on degraded lands that no longer support wildlife
habitat and may have been previously been rejected for human use because of past
contamination. Many of these sites require significant rehabilitation to prepare them for
productive reuse of any type. Surrounding communities are usually anxious to have these sites
reclaimed and returned to a positive reuse to eliminate visual blight and prevent further water
contamination or physical injury from possible accidents. Degraded lands include a variety of
sites such as closed landfills, abandoned mines, Superfund sites, brownfields, and portions of
closed military installations.
For decades, golf courses have been developed on degraded lands. These include some
prestigious and award winning courses, such as the Links at Spanish Bay in Pebble Beach,
Section 1. Introduction Page 7
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
California; Old Works Golf Course in Anaconda, Montana; and Harborside International
Courses in Chicago, Illinois. Although this phenomenon is not new, its importance and
acceptance is growing in view of the continued expansion of the game and the need to clean up
and rehabilitate contaminated sites. In some urban and suburban areas, where the demand for
golf is greatest, degraded sites may be the only properties large enough for golf development. In
areas with sensitive wildlife habitats, such as wetlands, extensive environmental permitting
requirements or local opposition has sometimes made development difficult. Golf facilities can
provide a viable alternative for these properties. In these situations, golf course developers
usually gain broad community support for transforming waste sites into attractive and profitable
amenities.
Organization of Report
The remainder of this report describes key planning and technical factors to be addressed when
golf facilities are to be developed on properties where hazardous waste has been left on site.
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Bibliography
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Planning and design issues associated with developing a golf course on a
Superfund site including key questions for the golf facility reuse decision-
making process.
Common remediation methods and design factors to be considered when a
golf facility is to be placed on a Superfund site. The key issues include site
remedy components, settlement, gases, utilities, surface vegetation, storm-
water management, construction techniques, groundwater extraction and
treatment, operations and maintenance, and institutional controls.
Operation and maintenance activities that are required to protect the integrity
of the selected remedy for a Superfund site.
Four projects where golf courses have been built on degraded lands. The
discussion for each site includes its history, contamination problems, and key
factors considered during remediation and reuse planning. These case studies
demonstrate how remediation and reuse efforts may complement each other.
The references are grouped by technical subjects in order to allow the reader
easy access to the many sources that are available for hazardous waste
remediation and golf course design.
Golf industry information sources for golf facility reuse.
A list of Superfund sites that include golf facilities, along with contact
information.
Defines acronym's used in this report.
Section 1. Introduction
Page 8
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning
and Designing Golf Courses on Superfund Sites
A thorough understanding of the physical conditions of the site and the economic characteristics
of the area is necessary to determine the feasibility of a proposed golf course and provide
information required for the planning and design process. This chapter discusses factors
addressed in determining golf facility feasibility, coordinating a golf course project with the
Superfund remediation process, and the planning and designing a golf facility. Remediation
design and planning issues are discussed in Section 3.
Typically, a golf development project will use a team of professionals including a feasibility and
market analyst, an environmental specialist familiar with local issues, an engineer for
remediation issues, and an experienced golf course architect. The golf course architect and initial
team members are often joined by other qualified experts, such as a land planner, civil and
hydrologic engineer, traffic specialist, facilities architect, landscape architect, and golf course
superintendent for the planning and design of the golf course.
Components of a Golf Facility
Golf facilities consist of golf courses, driving ranges, other practice facilities, miniature golf
structures, or a combination of these. A course requires items such as tees, greens, fairways, and
sand bunkers. A clubhouse or operations building typically contains a pro shop, food service,
restrooms, offices, storage areas for supplies and equipment, and space to house golf carts. A
maintenance building provides areas for offices, employees, equipment storage and repair. A
separate building may be required for the storage of pesticides and fertilizers. Other buildings are
necessary to house the irrigation pump station, on-course shelters and restrooms. These buildings
generally require space for parking, deliveries, and waste removal. To accommodate these
requirements, a golf facility needs land with appropriate topography and access to utilities and
other infrastructure.
Land Requirements. Because there are no
established standards for the size and
configuration of golf facilities, they may be
built on a wide variety of remediated
Superfund sites. Depending upon the
, ~.u , .. , only require 1 to a few acres.
topography of the proposed site and J ^
A regulation golf course requires between
150 and 300 acres. Smaller courses and
driving ranges require less land, some as
little as 10 acres. Miniature golf facilities
environmental or other constraints, an
18-hole regulation golf course typically
requires between 150 and 230 acres of land. In some cases, a championship-length course can
occupy as much as 300 acres. Executive length golf courses containing mostly par 3 holes, short
par 4s and an occasional short par 5 require between 60 and 125 acres. Par 3 chip and putt
courses require between 25 to 50 acres.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 9
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
A driving range with 35 to 40 tee stations requires an area approximately 240 yards wide by 300
yards in length (about 15 acres). Additional length is required if another teeing area is provided
at the back end of the range for instructional purposes or if the topography, predominant winds,
or elevation of the site is a consideration. The teeing area, fairway and surrounding rough areas
of a driving range require from 15 to 25 acres or more, including the operational facilities and
parking area. A driving range can be constructed on a smaller area by reducing the number of
tees or by using netting to contain errant golf balls.
Miniature golf facilities may be constructed either indoors or outdoors. An 18-hole course may
require between 1 and several acres. Miniature golf facilities may include water and sand
hazards, windmills, and moving obstacles.
Topography. The topography can have a substantial influence on the design of the facility and
the cost of maintenance. The topographic elevations and slopes of the site should be conducive
to the playability and maintenance of the golf facility. Most golf course designers seek to avoid
extreme changes in elevation and severe slopes, to create a facility that offers all players a fair
and enjoyable experience and facilitates efficient maintenance. The role of topography in
remediation and construction of the golf course is discussed later in this section.
Local Infrastructure. The critical infrastructure needs for a golf course include roads and
utilities, such as water, electricity, natural gas, sewers, and telecommunications. A golf course
cannot exist unless the water source is reliable and of a quality that is compatible with turfgrass.
Potential sources include groundwater, surface water, municipal water, and recycled on-site
water.
Coordinating Golf Course Planning with
the Superfund Process
As discussed in Chapter 1, the future use of a property can affect all aspects of the removal and
cleanup processes. Likewise, the requirements of the remedy will affect many aspects of golf
facility design and operation. The objectives and requirements of golf course development and
those of remediation are best accomplished if they are carefully coordinated. Thus, it is
imperative that the remediation team understand the golf course development process, and that
the golf course planners work within the Superfund site management process. The process begins
with bringing together the golf facility development team with the cleanup team.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 10
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Golf Development Process Time
Line. The development of a golf
facility is a complex process that
begins with site analysis, planning,
and design and progresses to
construction, establishment, and
operation. Planning includes
evaluating alternatives for a project,
a feasibility study and market
analysis, a review of all
environmental constraints and
regulatory requirements, and the
development of a conceptual plan.
Once the design of the facility has
been reviewed and approved by the
appropriate regulatory agencies,
construction drawings are prepared
and implemented. The facility will
then undergo a grow-in period to
establish the turf grass and produce
the proper playing conditions prior
to opening for play. The golf facility
development process typically
involves the steps shown in the box.
Typical Golf Facility Development Process
Feasibility Stage
Site analysis for physical and environmental constraints
and opportunities
Conceptual Planning Stage
Conceptual planning for the golf course
Planning for environmental issues, improvement, and
mitigation
Pre-application regulatory review
Preliminary estimating for construction and operation costs
Planning, Design, and Construction Stage
Master planning and detailed design for the golf course
and operation and maintenance facilities
Construction documentation for the golf course
Regulatory and permit review and approval
Construction of the golf course and maintenance facilities
Establishment of the golf course and construction of
ancillary facilities
Opening the golf course for play
Operation and Maintenance
Monitor, repair and maintain turf and other vegetation,
greens, fairways, buildings and roads
Superfund Process and Time Line
Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation (PA/SI),
which involves an initial review of the site
Hazard Ranking System (MRS) Scoring, which is a
screening mechanism used to decide whether to place
sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
NPL Site Listing Process, which allows for public
comment prior to listing a site on the NPL, after which it
is considered a Superfund site
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS),
determines the nature and extent of contamination and
its fate and transport; and identifies risks and cleanup
alternatives
Record of Decision (ROD), which describes the
selected remediation approach
Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA), or
preparation and implementation of the remedy
Construction Completion, or completion of the
construction phase of the remediation
Operation and Maintenance (O&M), which are activities
to ensure that the remedy is effective and operating
properly after remedy construction is completed
NPL Site Deletion, removal of sites from the NPL
Superfund Process
and Time Line. The
Superfund cleanup
process begins with the
discovery of hazardous
waste or notification to
EPA of possible
releases of hazardous
substances. Once
discovered, EPA
investigates the
potential for a release
of hazardous
substances and, if
necessary, conducts or
oversees a remedy. The
steps are shown in the
box.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses
Page 11
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
The table below compares the typical times for each phase of the Superfund cleanup process,
with the critical phases of a golf facility development project. These times can vary widely from
one site to another.
Exhibit 1. Comparison of Superfund
Process and Golf Facility Development Time Lines
Phase
Identification
Investigation
and
Alternatives
Evaluation
Decision
Design
Cleanup
Operations
Approximate
Time (years)
1/2 tO 1
1 to 2
'/2 to 1
I to 2
I to 2
30
CERCLA Task
Preliminary
Assessment/Site
Inspection (PA/SI)
Remedial
Investigation/
Feasibility Study
(RI/FS)
EPA conducts
Reuse
Assessment
(includes
"recreation" as an
alternative)
EPA conducts
human health and
ecological risk
Assessments
Record of Decision (ROD)
Remedial Design (RD)
Remedial Action (RA)
Operation and Maintenance
(O&M)
Golf Facility Input
Feasibility Stage
Complete site analysis for
physical and environmental
constraints and opportunities
Conceptual Planning Stage
Team Created (includes all
stakeholders)*
Coordination meetings held
Planning for environmental
issues, improvement, and
mitigation
Pre-application regulatory
review
Golf designers plan for environmental
issues, enhancement, and mitigation
Conceptual planning for the golf course
layout and budget
Remedy Decision
EPA selects a remedy, including
consideration of the reuse alternative
Planning, Design, and Construction Stage
Selected remedy is designed, include golf
facility features agreed upon
Master planning for the golf course
Selected remedy is built
Golf facility is designed and built
Golf facility undergoes establishment
Golf operations begin
* Stakeholders typically include potentially responsible parties, property owners, local government, local citizens and groups,
EPA and other federal regulatory agencies, state and local regulatory agencies, environmental organizations, consulting
engineers and environmental specialists, and golf facility designers and operators.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses
Page 12
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
As discussed in Section 1, the earlier the redevelopment planning begins, the more likely it is
that the project will be a success. Throughout the process, all stakeholders should be involved to
allow the planners to identify and address all concerns in the facility design and to develop
innovative designs that result in enjoyable play and an efficient golf facility.
Determining Golf Course Feasibility
Golf course projects typically begin with
an evaluation of the feasibility of success
of the project. The feasibility analysis
provides investors and communities with
an early indication of whether or not it is
worthwhile to pursue this land use. It will
also indicate to the RPM and other
remediation planners whether it is
reasonable to anticipate that the future
land use will be as a golf course.
Feasibility of the golf course depends on
economic, demographic, physical, and
environmental factors. Planners typically
address such questions as the level of
potential risk to golfers from
contaminants remaining at the site, the
ability of the local economy to support
the facility, the availability of utilities
and other infrastructure, and the size and
configuration of the site.
Key Questions Addressed in the Feasibility
Analysis:
What are the risks to golfers or workers if a
golf facility were placed on the waste site?
Is the location economically viable for a golf
facility and will the community support the
development of a golf facility?
Is the current local infrastructure sufficient to
support the location of a golf facility?
Is the land (areal size and grade) suitable for
a golf facility?
What restrictions are presented by the site
remediation and subsurface conditions?
What environmental or other physical
considerations should be taken into account?
Health, Safety and Environmental Impacts
Golf course developers and operators need assurance that their customers and employees will not
be subject to adverse health and safety conditions and that the facility will not adversely impact
local or regional ecosystems. The most obvious risks relate to direct exposure to wastes,
contaminated groundwater, and containment system gases.
For the most part, the developer may rely on information generated during the Superfund site
management process. The evaluation of these risks will usually require information similar to
that collected in the risk analysis done during the RI/FS. However, the role of the analysis in the
overall development process will differ according to whether the feasibility study is conducted
after the remedy design and construction is completed or whether it is begun earlier in the
Superfund process.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses
Page 13
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Remedy Construction Completed. At sites where the remedy is already built, golf course
planners can review as-built drawings of the remedy and consult with EPA to ensure that the
remedy will safely support a golf facility. Key issues of concern include the anticipated
settlement, type and location of systems used to collect and treat gas and groundwater, and
restrictions on the use of irrigation systems and chemicals. Generally, if the site is
considered safe for recreational use, the site agreements would not preclude a golf course.
However, the golf course designers will have to consider the location of, and access to,
remedy components such as monitoring wells and treatment systems; the need to restrict
public access to certain areas; and any site restrictions agreed to during the remediation.
Early-Stage Feasibility Analysis. When the feasibility study is conducted early in the
remediation process, such as during the RI/FS stage, golf facility planners may have more
flexibility in ensuring that the remedy is built to minimize any potential adverse impacts. A
risk assessment that will determine if the site is suitable for recreational development is
conducted as part of the RI/FS. Golf course planners can evaluate information from EPA's
risk assessment to determine whether the alternatives would leave the site safe for golfing.
They can work with the remediation design team to ensure that future infrastructure needs
are considered when remediation features are developed. For example, extra fill, land
contouring, or gas monitoring can be planned as part of the remediation to provide adequate
protection to golfers and workers.
Environmental risks include the impact of the proposed course on wetlands, surface waters,
groundwater, areas of significant wildlife habitat, and migration routes or access corridors.
Potential threats to the environment can include chemicals used at the course, contaminants
released from containment systems, and the withdrawal of water for golf course irrigation. An
ecological risk assessment is prepared during the remedial investigation to assess impacts to
natural resources. The ecological risk assessment identifies ecological receptors of concern, such
as threatened and endangered species, critical habitats, and wildlife migration corridors. It also
identifies contaminants of ecological concern and ecotoxicity values for the receptors of concern.
Ecological resources include surface and groundwater quality, aquatic species, flora, and fauna.
Information from these assessment can be used by golf course planners to help identify
environmental resources and potential environmental impacts that need to be considered in the
golf course feasibility analysis and design.
Economic Viability and Community Support
The economic viability of a golf facility is determined by the demand for golf in the area and
construction and operating costs. Prospective developers or other stakeholders conduct a market
study to estimate the likely revenues from the facility. A market study typically provides data on
the location and types of competing existing and planned facilities, the geographic area likely to
be served by the proposed golf course, area population and demographics, percentage of golf
participation, and average household income. The existing infrastructure of the area and other
resources are examined to develop a preliminary estimate of a range of costs for the golf course
construction and operation. These data are combined to assess the potential for economic success
of the project and alternative financing methods.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 14
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
The stakeholders also typically
investigate whether the golf
course is compatible with long-
range plans for the area, current
and anticipated zoning,
community goals, and features of
historic or archeological
significance. Local political and
community groups should be
consulted regarding their
perspectives about the proposed
project. The development of a golf
facility at a Superfund site
location requires the support of the
local community.
At the McColl Superfund site in Fullerton California,
meetings with residents and community groups were held
to ensure agreement that a golf course was the preferred
land use.
Local Infrastructure and
Resources
The critical infrastructure needs for a golf course include roads and utilities, such as water,
electricity, natural gas, sewers, and telecommunications. The feasibility analysis generally
includes an assessment of the availability and cost of these items and an assessment of whether
the increased demands on the infrastructure would be acceptable to the community.
A golf course cannot exist unless it has a reliable source of water that is of a quality compatible
with turfgrass. The study team will need to assess its availability, quantity, flow rate, cost,
(commodity and pumping), and quality. Potential sources include groundwater, surface water,
municipal water, and recycled on-site water. Water quality can be classified by its characteristics
(physical, chemical, biological) or by its suitability for a particular use.
Groundwater from an aquifer may be used if the supply is not seriously curtailed by seasonal
events and withdrawal does not adversely affect the supply for adjacent properties. Surface water
rights, quality, and flow quantity should be determined. Surface water may contain sediment,
which must be removed before pumping through an irrigation system since it could foul the
system. A pump inlet can be located within a stilling well to minimize sediment intake.
Municipal water is an option if available at a reasonable cost. Non-potable water (treated sewage
and other wastewater effluent) has been used to irrigate golf and other similar areas, particularly
where water supplies are limited and prices are high. Usually, discharged effluent is treated to a
level acceptable for golf course use. Nevertheless, it is prudent for the golf facility operator to
test it to verify the chemical content, identify any potential risks, and determine whether it can
support turfgrass. Although effluent can be a reliable irrigation-water source, it may pose
additional design and maintenance considerations.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses
Page 15
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Suitability of Site
Golf facilities may consist of a golf course, a driving range and other practice facilities,
miniature golf facilities, or a combination of these, as well as structures to support member
services and operations and maintenance. The key factors that will determine the suitability of
the site for a golf facility include the property size and topography, the need for facilities such as
club houses and maintenance areas, existing drainage patterns, and the type of vegetation
suitable for the area.
Land Requirements. The feasibility study should determine whether or not the site is large
enough to support the contemplated facility. Because golf facilities can range from a few acres to
several hundred acres, many Superfund sites might be candidates for this type of use. The
acreage requirements of different types of golf facilities is discussed earlier in this section.
Ability to Support Structures. As discussed earlier in this section, a golf course will include
structures for club houses and maintenance and paved areas. The feasibility study should address
the site's ability to support the required structures. Concerns with placing structures on
Superfund sites include settlement, adequate support for building foundations, gas management,
utilities, and site access. These topics are addressed in section 3 of this report.
Topography. While golf courses have been built on a wide variety of topographies, there may
be some sites where designers cannot develop a workable golf course. The feasibility study
should evaluate the likelihood that topography will preclude a golf facility. The role of
topography in golf course design and construction is addressed later in this section (under
Design and Construction Factors). However, the feasibility study need not be restricted to the
existing site topography. It is often possible to create different site contours during the
remediation process. Planners may develop a conceptual design and work with the remediation
team to consider contouring options that support the intended future use.
Site Drainage. The site should have drainage that is adequate to prevent storm water from
damaging remediation and golf facility features and off-site areas. Storm-water management
systems generally must also maintain water quality and possibly improve aquatic and terrestrial
habitats. Storm water can be routed to support aquatic habitat, function as an irrigation supply, or
be drained quickly to detention facilities on site. Storm-water management measures are often
incorporated into the golf courses as design features, such as steep slopes or swales to direct
runoff, tall grass or other vegetation to minimize soil loss, and water detention ponds. The golf
course architect and engineer at Harbor International collaborated in the design of an elaborate
drainage system where all site drainage is collected and stored at seven dry detention locations
within the site and routed back to a sewage treatment plant for processing. This arrangement
allowed for extra retention capacity so that the golf center runoff would not overwhelm the
sewage treatment plant after unusually heavy precipitation.
Design storm event specifications (duration and intensity) are chosen to provide protection
against all events likely to occur within a determined interval. Discharge estimates are typically
determined for a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. State and local agency requirements should also
be incorporated.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 16
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Conditions for Golf Course Vegetation. During the feasibility study, golf course planners
determine whether or not turfgrass and other plants suitable for a golf facility can be successfully
established on the site. They typically make this determination by examining climate,
precipitation patterns, soil characteristics, geology, and other site-specific factors that affect
vegetation. Sometimes it is necessary to consider restrictions on the use of irrigation, fertilizer
and herbicides, or other factors that result from the remedy. The consideration of vegetation in
designing and building golf courses is discussed later in this section.
Geology. Geological information, such as depth to bedrock and presence of groundwater and
surface water is used for evaluating construction needs, estimating costs, and determining the
availability of irrigation and potable water. Soil and geology maps are available from the USGS.
Geotechnical information may also be available from local well logs and the Remedial
Investigation.
Vegetative Cover. A map of the existing vegetative cover in the area is prepared to identify the
location and predominant type of plant material on the site. The information pertains mostly to
trees and understory vegetation. However, plant communities and areas of environmentally
sensitive habitat should also be inventoried. Information on threatened or endangered species
must also be collected to identify any special actions that may be needed. This effort usually
requires field reconnaissance to locate specimen quality trees and other sensitive plant material.
Existing trees, understory, and other naturally occurring vegetation are often incorporated into
the design of the golf course as features and natural resource conservation areas.
Adjacent Land Use. The golf course operation should not conflict with adjacent land use. For
example, if nearby highways or sidewalks cannot be shielded from flying golf balls, the site may
not be suitable. Similarly, the area's land-use plans may indicate potential problems in the future.
For example, if the plans call for schools, playgrounds, commercial facilities or transportation
facilities too close to the course, alternative plans will be necessary.
Restrictions Resulting from the Remediation
The remedy may preclude or limit the design options for a golf facility. For a site where the
remedy has already been built, a golf course designer must consider the requirements of the
existing remedy. These requirements may include restrictions on the types of activities allowed
on the site. If the remedy is not yet built, course designers can work with the remediation team to
develop the facility. In either case, the following are the primary factors that must be considered.
Final Grades. The final grades of a closed site are influenced by the site topography and
regulatory and design considerations. Many landfills and other containment areas have a
relatively flat top surface with steep side slopes which may not be desirable for golf facility
reuse. Side slopes may be flattened by regrading the existing contours or increasing the
foundation layer or topsoil/vegetative layer thickness. When possible, the features and grading
requirements of the golf course should be considered in the design of the closure contours for the
containment area, providing EPA does not incur extra costs, nor require a PRP to incur extra
costs, beyond those
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 17
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment, as explained in the
discussion on "enhancements" on page 6.
A minimum gradient of two percent is normally required to facilitate surface drainage. Where
differential settlement is anticipated, minimum slopes of 3 to 5 percent are often used to improve
surface drainage and the operation of the internal drainage system. Internal drainage systems can
be designed with the appropriate pipes and couplings to withstand minor settling.
Soil Type and Depth. The soil type and depth of protective covers used at closed sites are
typically based upon locally available materials and the remedy design. Soil selected for use on
the surface should be tested for its ability to support turfgrass. Cover depth can vary from 1 foot
to several feet, depending on the waste characteristics, climate, and regulatory requirements. For
golf reuse, the minimum depth of the protective cover should be 2.5 to 3 feet to accommodate
the installation of an irrigation system.
Containment System. Containment systems may include features such as protective covers,
drainage systems, subsurface barrier walls, and monitoring equipment. Some systems may be
subject to settling or produce gases from decomposing subsurface materials. Section 3 includes
descriptions of containment system types and components and discusses settlement, managing
gases, and related matters. Golf course designers generally consider these issues, as well as the
specifications of the containment systems to ensure that a golf facility can be built without
hindering the effectiveness of these systems.
On-Site Treatment and Monitoring Systems. The final remedy may include measures to
extract and treat groundwater above ground, treat groundwater and soil in the subsurface, collect
and treat potentially harmful gas, and monitor groundwater. Some of these activities may need to
continue for many years.
Institutional Controls. The remedy may include post-cleanup restrictions on the type of
activities allowed on the site, such as drilling wells or using heavy vehicles. There may also be
requirements to minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. Such restrictions and
requirements are referred to as "institutional controls."
The considerations involved in developing the initial conceptual plan and the planning, design,
and construction of golf courses on remediated areas are discussed in the following section.
Golf Facility Conceptual Plan
A conceptual plan outlines, in general terms, the proposed golf facility configuration, the
approximate location of major features, the source for irrigation and potable water, how it would
fit in with the surrounding area, how it would address any ecological and other issues raised
during the feasibility study, and how it would relate to a proposed remediation. This plan is used
to communicate to the remediation team and other stakeholders the general specifications and
resource requirements of the golf facility. EPA and other remediation team members can
consider this information in the course of conducting the reuse assessment, RI/FS, and remedial
design.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 18
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
The concept plan builds upon the information and analyses assembled during the feasibility
study. It addresses many of the issues that would be faced in the course of designing, building,
and operating a golf facility, but at a less detailed level.
Golf Facility Design and Construction Considerations
Containment systems are generally designed and built in accordance with accepted remediation
design principles. Because there are no rigid specifications for golf course layout and design,
designers can be creative in developing facilities that are compatible with the area and the
remedy. To ensure that the facility does not hamper the effectiveness of the remedy there are
several additional design and performance issues to be addressed. The case histories in Section 5
provide some examples of creative design and engineering approaches to building golf facilities
on degraded land. The key design and construction factors to consider developing golf facilities
on containment areas are:
Course Configuration and Topography
The configuration of a golf facility, such as a core or linear type, is determined by the
characteristics of the site and design objectives. A linear-type course contains ribbons of grass
running through a landscape, sometimes stretched out over considerable distances. A core type
course is designed as a big, open-space core area of green space in which the holes play toward
internal points on the property. The holes often border each other, although they are often hidden
by a variety of creative features. A core-type course is more of a contained environment than a
linear type course. Houses or roads are generally not visible from most of the course. Housing
may be along one or more sides of the facility, but would not surround each fairway as may be
true of a linear course.
Because there are no rigid specifications for golf course layout and design, designers can be
creative in developing facilities that are compatible with the area and the remedy. For example,
the course could be laid out so areas frequented by golfers, such as greens and fairways, are not
located in areas where monitoring wells are to be placed. If a detention pond is needed, it can be
used as an attractive landscape feature. Golf courses have been built with wetlands and other
natural or man-made features on the property.
In designing golf courses, designers generally seek to take advantage of topographical features to
route the course and create interesting and pleasant landscape features that enhance the play.
Many designers avoid severe slopes so that power-riding equipment can be used for efficient
maintenance and all players can negotiate the course in a reasonable amount of time. Extreme
changes in elevation resulting in long uphill climbs may discourage players from electing to
walk the facility. However, the design of the course need not be restricted to the existing site
contours.
Consideration of these factors can also influence the remediation design. Using a conceptual
design of the golf facility, remediation engineers can often contour the site during the
remediation to make it suitable for play and golf-course maintenance, providing EPA does not
incur any costs, nor require a PRP to incur extra costs, beyond those necessary to ensure
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 19
-------
At the Harbor International Golf Center in Chicago, fairways, greens,
and bunkers were crafted with the use of wastewater biosolids
blended with other locally available materials, to form a contoured golf
course out of the previously flat topography.
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
protection of human
health and the
environment, as
explained in the
discussion on
"enhancements" on
page 6. Appropriately
designed elevations
and slopes can be
beneficial for
protecting
containment
systems, managing
storm water, and
facilitating
enjoyable golf. It is
sometimes possible
to create different
site contours during or after the remediation. For example, at the Harbor International Golf
Center in Chicago, the site was re-contoured during the remediation to adapt it for a golf course,
at no cost to EPA.
Golf Course Features
The major features of a golf facility, such as tee and green complexes, ponds, and golf cart paths
must be designed and built to not interfere with the protectiveness of the containment system.
To the extent possible, the course features are typically designed to be compatible with the
existing landscape. The key golf course features are discussed below.
Tee and green complexes are designed to support very specific types of turfgrass and
require explicit maintenance practices. These features, especially green complexes, utilize
special materials and sub-surface drainage systems. In areas of landfill or remedial activity,
tee and green complexes should be elevated above the cover components.
The features of the individual golf holes are typically elevated above the existing grades to
provide visibility from or to the features and define the intended golfing strategy and
challenge. The elevation of the features can also facilitate the surface drainage required for
maintenance purposes. It is important to consider the potential impact of additional fill
material on the cover system or other remedy components.
Sand bunkers require special construction techniques and sub-surface drainage systems to
limit water infiltration. Bunkers create a natural catch basin for precipitation that quickly
infiltrates through the sand in the bunker. Typically, subgrades of bunker cavities are
compacted and often treated or lined. The Internal drainage system is installed beneath the
bunker cavity to remove water and prevent infiltration.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses
Page 20
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Ponds add to the golfing experience and can provide habitat for wildlife. When used as part
of the storm-water management system, ponds allow sedimentation and flow equalization.
Ponds can be incorporated into irrigation systems to provide storage basins, thereby
allowing for a smaller pumping capacity, offpeak water storage, and possibly less demand
from the aquifer or other source.
When ponds are located over uncontaminated material, they can also serve as groundwater
recharge areas. Recharge areas can help to contain contaminated groundwater or serve to
direct groundwater flow to enhance capture and treatment systems. When ponds are located
over contaminated material, they generally must be lined with a hydraulic barrier system to
prevent leachate generation and contamination of the groundwater.
Irrigation Systems
Depending on climate, soil, size of the facility, and turf grass selection, an 18-hole course may
require as much as 1 million gallons of water per day in an arid region or as little as 100,000
gallons per day for a water conserving course in a region with ample precipitation. On average,
fairways require approximately 1 inch of water per week, while greens and tees require
approximately 1.5 inches per week. Thus, the irrigation system is an important aspect of a golf
course and it is not easily modified once installed.
Irrigation systems must be designed and installed to prevent penetration of the hydraulic barrier
layer, and not reduce the effectiveness of the remedy. The system may require specialized
materials and hardware to counteract the effects of minor settlement. Some systems may require
installation of an internal drainage layer. Irrigation piping may be installed in utility corridors
with a secondary containment system and possibly leak detection systems. Maintenance and
inspection of irrigation systems is required to ensure detection and repair of leakage, breaks and
malfunctions.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 21
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Water from Rainfall,
Sprinklers and
Runoff
Irrigation
Sprinklers
Water Storage
Lagoon
Perforated Pipeline System
At the Old Works golf facility built on the Anaconda Smelter Superfund site, Anaconda, Montana, infiltration from
irrigation and rainfall is recycled to support the vegetation on the fairways. The clay and limestone cap prevents
the recycled water from coming into contact with any remaining contaminants.
Utilities
Operation and maintenance facilities for a golf course will require utilities such as water or well
systems, electrical power for buildings and the irrigation pump station, natural gas, storm drains,
and sewer or septic systems. Locations and any right-of-ways for existing utilities on site are
generally identified in the initial site reviews. Engineering and installation of new utilities should
be coordinated with the golf facility design and remediation activities. There are a number of
techniques for installing utilities above, near, or in containment systems. These techniques are
discussed in Chapter 3.
Vegetation
Vegetation at golf courses can be grouped into two types: turf grass and landscaping plants.
Turfgrass. Turfgrass should be selected from locally compatible species that do not require
excessive water or chemicals to maintain a good stand. Golf course quality can be enhanced and
maintenance minimized if the selected turfgrass is disease and insect resistant and tolerant of
environmental stresses such as drought, heat, cold, and shade. Sometimes, the remediation
design will influence decisions on vegetation types. For example, if the remediation requires
limitations on irrigation or the use of fertilizers, landscapers can use grass species that require
less water and fertilizer. Sometimes, there is a trade-off between a more lush grass and a less
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses
Page 22
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
lush species that requires less of these ingredients. Designers of the Widow's Walk Golf Course,
Scituate, Massachusetts selected drought- and disease-resistant grasses that require little
fertilizer. This decision involved the trade-off of using a less lush turfgrass that is not green all
year long.
Landscaping Plant Selection and Placement. Landscaping plants, such as trees, understory
plants, and native or ornamental grasses are used as integral features of the golf facility to
provide visual quality, pleasant surroundings, and a more natural setting. Landscaping also
serves to emphasize the intended golfing strategy and challenge of the individual golf holes.
The placement of the landscaping elements is critical to the operation and maintenance of the
individual golf holes. Trees and other landscaping elements are usually located around tee and
green complexes to prevent excessive shade and lack of air circulation, which could adversely
affect turfgrass. The selection and location of plants should allow for their growth. Landscaping
located in proximity to the golf holes, while attractive and unobtrusive at a smaller, installed
size, will often have an undesirable effect when plants reach full size. Deep-rooted vegetation is
typically not planted on a cover system where roots might penetrate an internal drainage or
hydraulic barrier layer. An ecologist or landscape architect may be consulted to select
appropriate vegetation varieties. Vegetation can also be used to enhance wildlife habitat.
Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat
As discussed earlier in this chapter, a golf course should be built to minimize adverse impacts on
nearby habitats. The primary considerations in protecting habitats include controlling runoff and
the use of chemicals to avoid degrading groundwater and surface water resources. Golf courses
can also be designed to enhance natural areas and wildlife habitats. For example, vegetation
buffers adjacent to water features can serve as filters to reduce the sediment, nutrient, and
pesticide loadings to nearby surface water.
A wildlife habitat requires food, water, shelter, and living space. Food requirements vary by
species and may include plants, insects or other animals. Water requirements also vary. Some
wildlife require running water, some require stagnant water, and some can get water from dew.
Shelter is needed to provide protection from predators and the weather. Shelter also provides
areas for feeding, breeding, nesting, and resting. Living space varies by species, from a few
square yards to many square miles. Generally, the larger the area, the greater the diversity of
species, and the healthier the ecosystem.
Vegetation on and near a golf facility may be combined with other features to enhance wildlife
habitat and prevent adverse impacts on nearby areas. The type of vegetation should be chosen to
reestablish native habitat or to encourage a particular type of wildlife habitat. For example,
woodlands with shrubs and smaller trees interspersed among taller trees support a variety of
wildlife. Examples of other useful features are bird nest boxes, artificial water sources, bird
feeders, dead trees, brush or rock piles, cliffs, and cut banks. Tree planting and other landscaping
can also be used to shape and divide areas, create natural barriers, buffer noise and improve the
aesthetics of a site. A landscaping plan should be developed to encourage wildlife populations to
flourish. In developing the landscaping plan, the designers should consider the following:
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 23
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
To protect an underlying aquifer, designers at the Widow's Walk Golf Course selected
drought- and disease-resistant grasses that require little fertilizer. The site also included a
number of wildlife enhancement areas which also added to the course's attractiveness.
How do wildlife use the site and what is the desired wildlife use?
How does the site fit into the surrounding area's wildlife habitat?
What native vegetation exists and what mix of vegetation supports the desired wildlife?
How can large areas of native vegetation be incorporated into the design?
How can smaller areas be included and linked to each other and to larger areas?
What vegetation transition zones are required?
What vertical vegetation structure is desired?
Are food supplies for animals, including year around supplies, adequately addressed by the
vegetation?
Is the intensity of land use compatible with the wildlife?
Are there wildlife refuges adjacent to the site or can any be created?
Vehicle and Pedestrian Traffic
Traffic systems can be designed to provide for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles and
pedestrians into and through the golf facility. Guidance for the geometric design of roads is
available from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) in the document, "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets."
Pedestrian systems include sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic control features, curb cuts and ramps.
Pedestrian activity that is not related to the golf facility should be avoided within or immediately
adjacent to all playing areas of the golf course. When pedestrian systems such as trails are to be
incorporated in the site, consideration should be given to appropriate setbacks and distances from
all playing areas for safety purposes. To prevent conflicts and safety issues, access to golf cart
path systems should be limited to the patrons of the golf facility and maintenance staff.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses
Page 24
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Section 3. Remedial Design
Considerations for Golf Facility Reuse
At most sites, remedies and golf facilities can be structured to safely accommodate each other
and meet all the federal and state regulatory requirements for containment systems. To
accomplish these goals, the site managers and other stakeholders consider the types of remedial
approaches that are available and site-specific remedial design issues.
Remedial Technologies
Numerous remedial technologies can be used to clean up a Superfund site. The remedy that is
appropriate for a given site depends on waste or contaminant characteristics, ability to
implement, effectiveness, cost, anticipated future land use, and other factors. Several remedial
technologies are often utilized at the same site. For example, remediation of a site may include a
cover system, groundwater collection and treatment system, and diversion wall.
Containment System Covers
Cover systems at containment sites are used to minimize the infiltration of water into the
contaminated material and serve as protective barriers to isolate contaminants from the public
and the environment. Regulations under CERCLA and SARA generally require that cover
systems at Superfund sites attain, at a minimum, applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). Common ARARs for containment systems at Superfund sites are
Subtitle C and Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and state
regulations. Although cover systems at Superfund sites are not necessarily based on RCRA
closure regulations, RCRA requirements are the prevalent basis for cover system design. RCRA
and state regulations usually require that the cover be built to:
minimize the migration of liquids through the system over the long term,
function with minimum maintenance,
promote drainage and minimize erosion, and
accommodate settling and subsidence.
EPA encourages flexibility in the design of waste site covers. They can range from a simple soil
or asphalt layer to protect people from contact with the contaminants, to multi-layered composite
caps recommended for more demanding situations. General design requirements are based on
federal or state criteria.2 Cover systems can use one or more of the following types of barriers:
2 For example, RCRA Subtitle C closure requirements for hazardous waste management facilities (40CFR 264.310).
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 25
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Hydraulic barriers, the most common of the five barrier types, use low-permeability
material to impede the downward migration of water. They are usually multi-layered cover
systems that typically incorporate geomembranes, geosynthetic clay liners, compacted clay
liners, or a combination of these as the hydraulic barrier or barriers. These systems may also
include features such as a gas venting layer, biota layer to prevent burrowing animals or
plant roots from damaging the cover systems, drainage layer, and soil and vegetative or
other top layer. In some cases, asphalt or other materials may also be used as a barrier.
Currently, multi-layered hydraulic barriers are the most common type of cover system, and
are typically used at RCRA "Subtitle C" and "Subtitle D" facilities that require covers.
Capillary barriers are intended for use in arid to semi-arid climates where unsaturated soil
conditions prevail. This type of cover exploits the differences in pore water pressure
potential between fine and coarse-grained soils to limit the downward movement of water. A
simple configuration of this type of cover system consists of a fine-grained soil (clay)
located over a coarser-grained soil (sand). Under unsaturated conditions the fine-grained
clay holds water, preventing its movement to the lower coarse-grained sand. However, when
the entire fine-grained layer becomes saturated, it will release water to the lower coarse
layer.
Evapotranspiration barriers are also used predominantly in arid and semi-arid
environments. This type of cover typically consists of a thick layer of relatively fine-grained
soil, which is capable of supporting vegetation. It provides sufficient water storage capacity
to prevent water from moving into the waste area. The water subsequently becomes
available for uptake and transpiration by vegetation. Evapotranspiration barriers are built to
have a greater storage capacity than that needed for the maximum anticipated rainfall.
Direct contact barriers provide a physical barrier against contaminants that are contact and
ingestion hazards. These covers are typically 1 to3 feet thick, but can be thicker. In addition
to functioning as a contact barrier they also provide some protection against erosion and
shallow digging. Soil covers are often economical because they typically consist of low-cost
fill materials covered with a few inches of topsoil to support vegetation. These types of
covers are commonly used in areas with low-solubility metal or asbestos contamination,
because these contaminants are less likely to migrate and contaminate the local
environment.
Surface soil covers also provide a physical barrier against contaminants that are contact and
ingestion hazards. These types of covers are often up to 1 foot thick and constructed over
contaminated soil that has been stabilized and is unlikely to migrate. Surface soil cover
systems are usually vegetated to prevent erosion and restrictions on disturbing them are
normally imposed to prevent exposure of contaminated materials.
Depending on site-specific conditions, cover systems may be composed of multiple layers of
natural and/or synthetic materials, each designed for one or more specific purposes, such as gas
control, internal drainage, and to support vegetation. The Bibliography lists a number of EPA
guidance documents that address cover system function and design, beginning on page 59.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 26
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Other Containment System Components
Liner systems are barriers that are typically constructed at the bottom of landfill cells to
prevent the migration of contaminants to the environment. Liner systems prevent leachate
and gases produced by the landfill from contaminating adjacent soil and groundwater.
Liners usually consist of hydraulic barriers fabricated with clay or geomembranes,
depending on local geology and environmental requirements. Most old landfills and other
waste depositories in the Superfund program do not have liners.
Leachate collection systems control the movement and prevent the buildup of leachate
within a containment system. Leachate is produced when water percolates through wastes
and carries biological and chemical constituents into the water. These systems typically
consist of high hydraulically conductive soil (e.g., sands and gravels) and perforated pipes
located between the waste and the bottom liner. Leachate collection systems are typically
sloped 1 to 5 percent toward a sump. A pump is used to extract the leachate from the sump.
Most old containment systems at Superfund sites do not have leachate collection systems.
Gas collection systems are incorporated into the cover system to control the movement and
prevent the buildup of harmful gases within a containment system. Two common types are
passive systems and active systems. Passive gas collection systems include a series of vents
that extend vertically through the cover. As gas pressure builds within the landfill, gas is
forced outward through the vents. Active collection systems use a pump to create negative
pressure within the landfill to collect and move gases either vertically or horizontally to a
discharge or treatment point. Collection systems can also be designed to recover energy
from gases for use in other applications.
Associated Remedial Technologies
Several remedial technologies can be used at a site in conjunction with a cover system remedy.
Because groundwater contamination is present at most Superfund sites, the majority of these
technologies are for groundwater remediation. The following are some of the more common
types of technologies associated with containment systems.
Groundwater pump-and-treat systems typically consist of a number of extraction wells or
french drains that collect contaminated groundwater for subsequent treatment above ground.
There are a number of additions and variations to a typical groundwater treatment system
that can enhance performance or target other media such as soil. These variations can use in
situ technologies, such as dual phase extraction, soil vapor extraction, and air sparging, and
some ex situ technologies, such as air stripping, carbon adsorption, metals removal, and
biological treatment. Whatever the specific groundwater treatment system and media, all
collection and treatment systems require piping, utilities, and on-site or off-site treatment
systems, in addition to wells and drains.
The need for and location of such facilities must be considered when developing reuse plans
and laying out the golf facility, in order to ensure that the golf facility does not reduce the
effectiveness of the remedy. To facilitate operation and maintenance of the remedy
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 27
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
components, it is preferable for the golf facility layout to allow for access, which may be
needed throughout the life of the systems. Placement of the components should also
consider their proximity to public areas, affect on facility aesthetics, and the potential for
attracting vandals.
Diversion walls are below-grade structures designed to divert uncontaminated groundwater
away from contaminated material or to channel contaminated groundwater. Diversion walls
can be grouped into three types: sheet pile, grout, and slurry. Of the three types, slurry walls
are used most frequently. They are less costly and have lower permeability than grouted
barriers. They are often used in combination with hydraulic controls or extraction and
treatment technologies to channel groundwater into a particular area or to enhance
containment measures. These structures are also used in conjunction with covers to fully
confine a waste area and to prevent water from leaching through the wastes. Groundwater
wells are generally used to monitor the effectiveness of the remedy.
Since diversion walls are below-ground features, they typically will not interfere with golf
facility use. However, should a wall or well need repair, it would be preferable if workers
are able to access them without significantly hindering the operation of the planned golf
facility or damaging the flora, fauna, and water resources in the area. Thus, the EPA project
manager should consider the potential impact of the location of these walls on the golf
facility. For example, barrier walls can be placed near the edge of a property, or under areas
with little or no vegetation. Nevertheless, the implementation of the remedy is EPA's first
priority. Although every reasonable attempt should be made to accommodate reuse, it may
sometimes be necessary to revise reuse designs to accommodate remedies.
Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) are both containment and treatment systems for
contaminated groundwater. Reactive material is placed in the subsurface in the path of a
plume to intercept it. As the groundwater flows through the media, contaminants are
destroyed or made insoluble by the reactive material, and treated water flows out the other
side of the barrier. PRBs generally have monitoring wells behind them and may also have
monitoring wells placed within them to evaluate changes in physical and chemical
characteristics over time. Because of sampling activities and the potential need to replace or
repair the reactive materials, access to the wall is required until the cleanup is complete.
Solidification and stabilization (S/S) involves modifying the physical or chemical
properties of the waste to improve its engineering properties or leaching characteristics, or
to decrease its toxicity. Solidification encapsulates contaminants into a solid material of high
structural integrity. Stabilization converts waste contaminants into a less soluble, mobile, or
toxic form. S/S reagents are typically Portland cement, fly ash, lime, and slag. Some types of
waste require solidification or stabilization before being placed in a landfill or covered by an
engineered cover system.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 28
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
S/S can be done either ex situ or in situ. Ex situ processing involves (1) excavation of the
contaminated waste; (2) sorting to remove large pieces of debris; (3) mixing with a S/S
reagent; and (4) placing the treated material in a permanent disposal location where it is
allowed to cure. In situ S/S entails mixing the contaminated material in place using a large
mixing auger that injects reagents. Once cured, a protective cover is generally placed over
the treated material.
Vitrification, a special type of S/S, is the application of high temperature treatment aimed
primarily at reducing the mobility of metals by incorporating them into a vitreous mass. The
temperatures required to vitrify soil will also result in the pyrolysis and combustion of
organic contaminants. As with most S/S operations, vitrification can be performed both ex
situ and in situ.
Remedial Design and Site Issues
This section describes key factors considered during remediation that will influence the
effectiveness of the remedy and the redevelopment of a property that has contaminated material
or operating waste treatment systems left on site. These factors include managing surface
drainage, settlement, stability, the design of foundations and platforms, the provision for utilities,
managing gas, and institutional controls.
Presumptive Remedy
The remediation of sites with similar characteristics may be accelerated by using a "presumptive
remedy." A presumptive remedy is based on EPA's experience, which demonstrates that where
sites have similar characteristics, those characteristics result in the selection of similar remedies
in their RODs. EPA's approach to presumptive remedies is provided by EPA's Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model, (SACM). See http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/presump/
for additional information concerning presumptive remedies.
EPA's presumptive remedies allow for containment of waste, where treatment is impracticable,
such as at sites with large quantities of heterogenous wastes. For example, the presumptive
remedy for source containment at landfill sites includes the following components: a protective
cover; source area groundwater control to contain a plume; leachate collection and treatment;
landfill gas collection and treatment; and/or institutional controls to supplement engineering
controls. An EPA report, "Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites," EPA
540-F-93-035, presents source containment components for municipal landfill sites.
Various types of containment systems are used for the presumptive remedy, depending on the
type of contaminants present and other factors. Some of the key factors that affect the design and
implementation of the remedies are discussed below.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 29
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Grading and Drainage
Water runon and runoff from precipitation can erode the surface layer of a cover system as well
as percolate into the cap. Examples of techniques used to manage water flow on cover systems
include grading the cap to establish an effective slope, and building drainage channels and
swales. Rain water management measures are often incorporated into golf courses as design
features. Examples of such measures include steep slopes or swales to direct runoff, tall grass or
other vegetation to minimize soil loss, and water detention ponds. A minimum gradient or slope
of 2 percent is normally required to facilitate surface drainage. Where differential settlement is
anticipated, minimum slopes of 3 to 5 percent are often used to improve storm-water drainage
and the operation of the internal drainage system.
In addition to helping to maintain the cover system, surface runon and runoff controls can also
be used to maintain water quality and, where possible, protect or enhance aquatic and terrestrial
habitats. Storm water can be routed to support aquatic habitat, provide irrigation, or be drained
quickly to retention facilities on site. Surface runoff controls may also be used to collect and
direct storm water to on-site facilities prior to off-site discharge locations such as wetlands,
ponds, lakes, streams, or rivers. On-site storage areas, such as wetlands and ponds may also
enhance the aesthetic appeal of the golf course.
Several regulatory programs generally must be complied with when designing runoff controls.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) outlines the requirements for dredging and filling
activities in waters of the U.S., which includes wetlands, streams, and lakes. Development
restrictions and zoning of floodplains are typically the responsibility of local authorities; and the
state may have state erosion control and storm-water detention requirements.
The storm-water quality provisions of Sections 402 of the CWA may also apply in some
circumstances. These provisions are intended to minimize non-point source pollution.
Settlement
Settlement of a containment system cover is the result of consolidation of both the waste material
and the soil underlying the waste. Settlement is attributable to consolidation of soil particles and
landfill debris, physical chemical changes from corrosion, and bio-chemical decomposition.
Protective covers are subject to general and differential settlement. General settlement occurs
when large areas of a site settle at a more-or-less uniform rate. Differential settlement occurs
when adjacent areas of a landfill experience large differences in the rate of settlement. The
magnitude of settlement depends on a number of factors, including the following:
Thickness and density of the waste,
Type of wastes (e.g., construction debris
and municipal waste),
Amount of decomposable materials,
Leachate, moisture content, and
groundwater conditions,
Weight of the final cover,
Type of soils located beneath the waste,
and
Stress history (landfill operational history).
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses
Page 30
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Excessive general or differential settlement of the cover system can have the following effects:
Disruption of surface and internal drainage layers, or gas or leachate collection systems,
resulting from changes in the slopes,
Damage to irrigation systems,
Pooling of surface water,
Disruption and damage to golf course features, such as tee and green complexes,
Slope instability resulting from steepened side slopes,
Increased permeability of a compacted clay hydraulic barrier layer due to cracking,
Failure of a geomembrane or other geosynthetic material because of tensile stresses, and
Failure of cover penetration connections (e.g., gas vent pipe boots).
If pump-and-treat systems are part of the remedy, or if irrigation systems are to be installed, the
effect of lowering the water table needs to be considered in the settlement analysis. Lowering the
water table will create higher effective stresses in the previously saturated strata. This may result
in a greater degree of consolidation of these soils and larger settlement of the landfill cover.
When golf reuse has been selected for a site, it is advantageous to determine the conceptual
design and layout of the golf facility prior to the design of closure contours and the completion
of the cover layer. The locations of the tee and green complexes will require special
consideration because additional fill material will be necessary to elevate these features.
Settlement below or immediately adjacent to tee and green complexes can cause severe damage
and necessitate costly reconstruction. In some cases, with the proper planning and design, the
cover layer can be adjusted during the remediation to accommodate the fill and construction
requirements of tee and green complexes or other features of the golf facility, providing EPA
does not incur any costs, nor require a PRP to incur extra costs, beyond those necessary to
ensure protection of human health and the environment, as explained in the discussion on
"enhancements" on page 6.
Waste Settlement Analysis. Geotechnical engineers typically estimate settlement potential
based on the type, age, and thickness of waste, and the thickness of the landfill cover. However,
where there is significant variability of waste placed in a containment system, settlement is often
difficult to estimate and should be determined across several sections that are considered
representative of the site. These analyses help to determine whether or not adverse impacts are
expected as a result of general or differential settlement. If the material underlying the waste is
fine-grained soil, such as soft clay, its consolidation will contribute to the overall settlement of
the final cover. Traditional settlement analyses, based upon site-specific soil characteristics and
loading conditions are used to estimate their settlement.
Settlement Design Considerations. Prior to the placement of a landfill cover, the surface may
be cleared of vegetation and compacted with heavy equipment to reduce settlement. Compaction
affects only the upper few feet of waste. Resilient materials, such as old tires, will not compact
under any amount of rolling. When excessive settlement of either the waste fill or the underlying
soil is expected, preloading or dewatering can be used to minimize post-construction settlement.
For golf reuse, areas of expected settlement should be identified and avoided or otherwise
addressed in the design of the golf course. Consideration should be given to the location of major
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 31
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
features, such as tee and green complexes, bunkers, ponds and the irrigation system to avoid
damage that would affect the operation and maintenance of the facility, and to construction
techniques that can accommodate settlement.
Cover Component Stability
The stability of a landfill cover is controlled by the following factors:
Properties of the soil underlying the waste,
Strength characteristics and weight of waste,
Slope inclination,
Leachate levels and movements within the landfill,
Frictional resistance of cover material interfaces, and
Ability of the cover to freely drain infiltration.
The stability of the interfaces between the various cover system layers normally controls the
design of side slopes of a cover system. The stability of these interfaces is assessed by analyzing
the frictional resistance between each adjacent layer. Typical interface friction angles between
adjacent geosynthetics or between the geosynthetics and adjacent soil range from 8 to 25
degrees. Reinforcement layers can be incorporated into the cover system to help prevent stability
problems. Typically, geotextiles or geogrids are used for reinforcement purposes.
The overall stability of the waste fill mass and underlying soil is generally considered. The
geotechnical characteristics of waste materials are generally difficult to determine and are highly
variable. These characteristics are usually estimated based on experience with actual cases of
failure or cases where large deformations in waste have occurred. They can also be
conservatively estimated by observing existing waste slopes to determine the strength
parameters. Strength parameters used for the soil underlying the waste are usually determined
through field sampling and laboratory testing. Seismic considerations should also be addressed
where applicable.
Foundation Systems
Foundation systems support
the walls, floors, and roof of
structures. Ideally, planners
should avoid placing
significant structures such as
clubhouses or large
maintenance buildings directly
on a landfill or other waste
containment area. If a building
is to be placed on a landfill
surface, it is important to
consider the protection of the
final cover system and the
Construction of the foundation for the golf tees for the driving range built on top of
the Kane & Lombard Street Superfund site in Baltimore, Maryland.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses
Page 32
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
prevention of damage to the building or creation of unsafe conditions that may result from
general or differential settlement. Although the foundation systems used at sites containing
contaminated waste are similar to those used in general construction, their use on a containment
system require special considerations.
Foundation systems can be classified as either deep or shallow. Deep foundations are generally
used when the ground immediately below the surface does not have sufficient strength to support
the proposed structure, and it would be too costly to increase its strength. Deep foundations
typically consist of pilings that are driven or drilled into the subsurface in order to reach a
geologic material capable of supporting the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^
proposed structure. Pilings may be made of
steel I-beams, precast reinforced concrete,
poured in place concrete, and caissons
(metal casings set at the appropriate depth
and subsequently filled with concrete).
Deep Foundations are Useful in the
Following Situations:
The site has the potential for extensive
settlement, which makes a shallow
foundation inappropriate
The containment system has an unlined
bottom
The waste material can be driven or
drilled through
There is no potential of intercepting an
uncontaminated aquifer
Because many closed-in-place containment
areas are expected to undergo settlement,
deep foundations are an effective way of
protecting structures placed on them. Pilings
may be driven or drilled into a containment
system that has an unlined bottom. Deep
foundation systems should be placed prior to
construction of a landfill cover system. If
deep foundation systems are used over a
containment area, they will have to be engineered into the cover system. This process involves
the installation of engineered seals (sometimes called boots) where the foundation penetrates the
cover. The boots need to be attached to both the cover system's hydraulic barrier layer and the
piling to prevent water from infiltrating into the contaminated material.
Shallow foundations can be divided into two broad categoriesfooting and slab. A footing
foundation is one designed to support the outside walls or vertical support columns of a building.
While they can be placed directly into some contaminated materials, this practice is generally
avoided out of concerns for the health and safety of the construction crew and future
maintenance workers. More commonly, footing foundations are placed in clean fill above the
cover of the containment system. When differential settlement is a concern, one design
alternative for one and two story buildings is tilt-up wall construction. In this type of
construction both the wall and the footing are broken up into discrete sections that allow for
some differential settlement without putting stresses across the entire building. Control and
leveling joints are used to offset the settlement of individual wall sections.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses
Page 33
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Slab foundations are usually reinforced concrete placed directly on the ground. One approach to
using slabs on a site that has potential for differential settlement is to build the slab in separate
sections and install cable linkages between
them and precast ports near each section
for pressure grouting. This arrangement
allows for differential settlement of each
Built Up Grades Can Provide the
Following:
An uncontaminated space for
foundations, utility corridors, and
piping for irrigation or gas
ventilation systems
Protection of the cover and utilities
from freeze/thaw cycles
Protection of the cover and utilities
fAr°mtfloods t. . t regular slabs. Slab foundations can be
Additional compaction of waste °
materials
slab, and gives the building owner the
ability to separately level each section by
pressure grouting into the areas that have
settled. Slab foundations can also be
stiffened by incorporating beams into their
construction. This technique allows the
slabs to bear more differential settling than
engineered to accommodate a variety of
situations, depending upon the type of
waste containment system and budget.
Gas Management
Depending on the waste composition, containment sites have the potential to generate gas,
which, if not properly controlled, could damage the cover system, create fire or explosion
hazards within buildings, stress vegetation, cause odors, and pose other health or safety hazards.
Although gas management is important for all sites, added emphasis and caution are required at
sites containing structures with enclosed spaces that will be used by the public.
The quantity, rate, and type of gas generated are primarily dependent on the composition, age,
volume, and moisture conditions of the waste. Gases from municipal landfills generally contain
approximately 50 percent methane, 40 percent carbon monoxide and 10 percent other
substances, including nitrogen and sulfur compounds. Gases from mixed waste municipal
landfills and industrial landfills may also contain volatile organic compounds.
There are two aspects to gas control: a gas collection system that is usually built into the
containment system and gas protection incorporated into the buildings developed on or near the
containment system.
Gas collection systems. Constructed as part of the cover system, gas collection systems are
designed to be either passive or active. A passive system allows the gas to exit the collection
system without mechanical assistance, whereas an active system uses blowers to create a vacuum
within the landfill and extract gases. Depending on the potential impacts of the landfill gas and
local regulatory criteria, gases are either dispersed into the atmosphere or collected and treated.
Some closed landfills will have a well system that was installed during the operation of the
landfill. Well systems typically consist of a series of gas extraction wells that penetrate to near
the bottom of the waste. Well systems are recommended for landfills or portions of landfills that
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 34
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
exceed 12 meters (40 feet) in depth. The vent borehole diameter may range from 0.3 to 1 meter
(1 to 3 feet). The components of extraction wells are usually similar to those of standard
groundwater monitoring wells (i.e., riser, screen, gravel pack). If a containment system does not
include a well or gas collection system, the following are some options for gas control:
Continuous Blanket Systems. EPA recommends that a continuous blanket system to
collect gas have a minimum of 300 mm (12 inches) of granular fill or an equivalent
geosynthetic material located below the hydraulic barrier layer. Vertical outlet pipes
transport the collected gases from beneath the landfill cover system to the atmosphere or to a
treatment facility.
Shallow Trench Systems. For landfills where the waste materials are relatively shallow
(less than 12m [40 feet] deep), collection trenches may be used. The trenches are usually
excavated about 0.5 to 1 m (1.5 to 3 feet) into the waste and lined with a geotextile.
Perforated pipe is then installed and the trenches are filled with gravel.
Monitoring Probes. Gas monitoring probes are used in conjunction with both active and
passive collection systems to detect landfill gases that may migrate off-site. Usually, the
regulatory compliance point is located at the property boundary. Probes are typically placed
around the landfill perimeter. A typical monitoring probe consists of a small-diameter
slotted pipe in a borehole that extends to an elevation corresponding with the bottom of the
waste or to the water table, whichever is shallower.
When designing a gas collection system in an area that will be used by the public, particular
attention should be given to the types and concentration levels of the gases and their potential
impacts on health and safety. Vents, collection wells, piping, discharge points, and treatment
systems can be placed in areas that will not interfere with planned or prospective uses, where the
effects of noise and odor are minimized, and where they are less likely to be accessible to
potential trespassers and vandals. For golf reuse, the engineering of the collection systems, vent
locations and other components should be coordinated with the design of the golf course to avoid
the playing areas of the course or other locations frequented by workers and golfers.
Structures. If structures are to be placed over containment areas that generate gas, they should
be designed with their own gas management systems and not depend solely on the cover's gas
management system. The following are examples of gas protection techniques for buildings:
Engineer an air space to allow for gas detection and venting, as well as to facilitate
inspection and maintenance of the cover.
Place gas detectors in closed structures to warn of potential gas buildup.
Install vent fans to remove methane from below structures and in crawl spaces.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 35
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Place an impermeable (gas resistant) geomembrane or other hydraulic/gas barrier under the
structure or within the building's floors. This is especially important for sites likely to
experience settlement that may disrupt the cover. Construct floor slabs with convex
bottoms to prevent methane from pooling below the structure.
Ensure that the design of utilities does not allow for gas migration along utility conduits.
One approach is to attach utility service entrances to the outside wall of the structure so
they do not penetrate the floor slab, which may create a pathway for gas entry.
Utilities
Most ancillary facilities require utilities, such as sanitary sewers, potable water, natural gas,
electricity, and telecommunications. Although most utilities are installed underground, some,
such as electricity and telecommunication lines can be above ground. When overhead facilities
are used, they should be not be routed through or adjacent to the playing areas. Utilities can
impact the effectiveness of the containment system in the following ways:
A utility line can become a conduit for gas migration.
A utility structure that penetrates the cover system can serve as a conduit for water
infiltration into the waste.
If the utility is located within or below the cover system, repair or upgrade work would also
require excavation into the cover and contaminated material.
If the utility is located within or below the cover system, liquids leaked from a sewer or
water supply line can increase the quantity of leachate generated. Leakage from a sanitary
sewer located above a cover system's hydraulic barrier layer might be captured by the
internal drainage system and cause excessive bio-fouling of drainage media.
Differential settlement of the waste can result in damage to the utility.
The EPA site manager may have a great deal of discretion in deciding how containment systems
are built and where they are placed on the site. For example, clean "utility corridors" can be
created by placing the piping and other components into oversized trenches which are then
backfilled with uncontaminated, or "clean" soil. The additional width and depth of the trenches
limits the possibility that waste will be encountered or the cover system will be damaged during
future excavations.
Utility corridors can often be placed in uncontaminated materials by adding sufficient clean fill
above the contaminated material. When this technique is used, a good safety measure is to place
visible barriers, such as colored soil or brightly colored synthetic materials between the
contaminated material and the clean fill to act as permanent markers for future workers.
However, with proper precautions, such as using a contractor who is certified to work with
hazardous waste, the utilities can be installed directly in the contaminated area. A contractor or
property owner who does this type of installation is required to obtain authorization from EPA to
excavate into the materials, as well as obtain EPA approval of the plan for the proper
management of any contaminated material.
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 36
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
When used in areas that will experience differential settlement, piping should be designed to
accommodate some movement by using features such as ductile materials and flexible
connections. For pressurized water and gas systems, automatic monitoring devices and shut-offs
may be used to prevent large uncontrolled releases. Gravity sewers and other non-pressurized
systems should also be designed for easy monitoring. For example, double-walled piping
equipped with an integrated leak detection system may be used. Another monitoring technique is
to line the utility trench with a geomembrane prior to installing the piping and sloping the trench
to direct the flow to monitoring sumps. The sumps could be periodically checked for liquids. The
need for and type of monitoring system would be determined based on cost, implementability,
performance, maintenance, and the perceived risk of leaks.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls are non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal controls,
that help to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the
integrity of the remedy. Institutional controls are often used to supplement engineering controls
when residual contamination prevents the site from supporting unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. Institutional controls can be used to accomplish objectives such as restricting the use
of a property, preventing or limiting drilling of wells or extracting groundwater, or restricting
access. A number of administrative or legal mechanisms can be employed to implement the
necessary restrictions, such as easements, zoning rules, deed notices, permits and orders.
Institutional controls are implemented during or immediately following construction of the
engineered remedy and should be maintained as long as needed to prevent exposure or protect
the remedy.
Golf course designers should be aware of the need for institutional controls as early in the
development process as possible, such as during the feasibility study stage. Site managers and
golf course designers should work closely with state officials, tribal leaders, PRPs, other federal
agencies, and local governments, as appropriate, to ensure that institutional controls are
implemented, maintained, and enforced. Section 4 contains a more detailed discussion of the role
of institutional controls at golf courses.
For an explanation of EPA's policy on the proper use of institutional controls at Superfund sites,
see Institutional controls: A Site Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating, and Selecting
Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups, EPA OSWER
Directive No. 9355.0-74S-P, EPA-540-F-00-005, September 2000.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/ic/index.htm
Section 2. Factors Affecting Planning and Designing Golf Courses Page 37
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Section 4. Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance (O&M) activities can be divided into those related to the golf facility
and those related to O&M of the hazardous waste containment and control systems. The golf
facility developer or property owner is responsible for O&M of the golf facility. Once the O&M
period for the remedy begins, the state or PRP is responsible for O&M related to the
remediation. For Fund-financed remedial actions involving treatment or other measures to
restore groundwater or surface water quality, the Fund will continue to pay for the operation of
such treatment or measures for a period up to ten years.
Regardless of who is responsible for O&M, the necessary activities related to the remedy may be
conducted by the operator through an agreement, although the state, PRP, or EPA may remain
responsible for ensuring that the remedy continues to protect human health and the environment.
Usually, when a golf facility operator performs O&M, the overall costs will be lower, since golf
facility personnel are already on-site. However, some training may be necessary.
O&M measures related to waste containment and control are initiated after the remedy has been
constructed in accordance with the ROD and is determined to be operational and functional
(O&F) based on state and Federal agreement. For Superfund-lead sites, remedies are considered
operational and functional either one year after construction is complete or when the remedy is
functioning properly and performing as designed, whichever is earlier. Additional information
on O&M for a Superfund site is available in EPA publication EPA 540-F-01-004, "Operation
and Maintenance in the Superfund Program."
Cleanup Remedy O&M
Typical remedy components requiring long-term O&M measures include landfill covers and
liners; gas extraction, treatment, and monitoring systems; water collection, treatment, and
monitoring systems; and permeable reactive barriers. It is preferable for the remedy and reuse
plans to allow for continual access necessary for inspection and repair of these components and
sampling. O&M monitoring includes five activities.
Inspection. Routine inspections are performed on a regular basis, with the frequency of
inspections dependent on the complexity of the remedial measures. Non-routine inspections are
performed after unusual events such as earthquakes or large storms. Typically, inspectors check
for pooling water, erosion, settling, and burrowing animals, dead or dying vegetation (which
may be caused by methane), among other items. They also conduct periodic topographic surveys
to measure the rate of movement or settlement.
Sampling and analysis. Sampling and analysis is conducted to monitor groundwater and surface
water quality, leachate formation, and gas release concentrations. Sampling and analysis will
typically include the collection and chemical analysis of gas, air, and water samples from wells,
probes and other means. The frequency of sample collection may vary from daily to annually.
Section 4. Operation and Maintenance Page 38
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Routine maintenance and small repairs. Routine maintenance may consist of simple activities
such as mowing of a cover or the repair of perimeter fencing. On sites that have operating
treatment plants, routine maintenance will be more complex and may require a full- or part-time
plant operator. Typical activities include operating groundwater and gas treatment systems;
repair of rainwater collection and diversion systems; repair of erosion scarps; mowing and
maintenance of landfill cover systems; and repairs due to vandalism.
Reporting. Operation and maintenance reports are typically written and submitted to regulatory
authorities after both routine and non-routine inspections. The reports contain information on the
general condition of the remedial measures, test results from samples collected, and operational
data from treatment processes (e.g., groundwater extraction rate, gas flow rate, etc.).
Five-year reviews. In addition to the requirements for annual and special inspections, EPA
conducts an in-depth review of the remedy at least every 5 years for any site where the remedial
action resulted in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining on site above
action levels that would allow for unlimited and unrestricted use. The five-year review generally
consists of two components: an analysis of whether the remedy is still protecting human health
and the environment, and a list of additional maintenance activities that need to be performed to
ensure continued protectiveness, including the identity of the parties responsible for those
activities.
The results of these reviews can be used to modify operating plans and golf facility operating
plans as needed. On occasion, the results of a five-year review may indicate the need for
significant revisions to the remedy, such as the placement of additional monitoring wells, or the
replacement of a passive gas venting system with an active one.
Five-year reviews can be performed by EPA or the lead agency for a site, but EPA remains
responsible for determining the protectiveness of the remedy. For additional information
concerning five-year reviews, see EPA Publication 540/R-98/050, "Comprehensive Five-year
Review Guidance."
Golf Course O&M
Golf courses generally establish a comprehensive and thorough O&M plan that specifies the
necessary tasks and identifies the party responsible for them. The following is a list of typical
O&M tasks performed at a golf facility:
Regularly scheduled mowing, irrigation, fertilization, and weed control of tee and green
complexes, fairway and rough areas, and out-of-play vegetation;
Maintenance of parking lots, golf cart paths, clubhouse and O&M facilities;
Repair, replacement, or upgrading of irrigation equipment;
Periodic, specialized maintenance or renovation of tee and green complexes, and fairway
and rough areas;
Maintenance of storm-water drainage features and facilities; and
Planting trees, turfgrass, and other vegetation, and improving their environment.
Section 4. Operation and Maintenance Page 39
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
At locations where the golf facility will be placed on a containment area, the O&M plan may
also address special considerations related to the hazardous waste. Often, the O&M activities for
some remedy components will overlap with typical golf course O&M. For example, mowing a
containment system cover, maintaining perimeter fencing, and maintenance of storm-water
drainage features and facilities may be common to both activities. Other O&M activities will be
specific to a remedy and are not likely to be found at most golf courses in the U.S. For example,
groundwater sampling or operating gas or water collection and treatment systems. The developer
and remedial teams need to agree on a plan to do this work and have it paid for. Some of the
special consideration are listed below.
Monitoring for explosive gases. As discussed in Section 3, containment areas can produce
harmful gases. Nearby structures should be monitored to ensure that gas is not present.
Increased monitoring of subsurface moisture conditions. The cover design may require
restrictions on the amount of irrigation that can take place. Monitoring of subsurface moisture
conditions may be required to detect the infiltration of water into the underlying hazardous
waste.
More frequent repairs due to settling. Because some sites tend to settle with time, as described
in Section 3, extra monitoring of parking and playing areas is needed, and special precautions
should be taken for buildings, and other structures placed on containment areas.
Repair of irrigation systems. Special procedures may be required for replacing sprinkler heads
and other subsurface equipment to ensure containment system drainage and barrier layers are not
disturbed. Automatic monitoring and shut-off devices should be used to prevent large
uncontrolled releases of water due to unforeseen damage to the system.
Repair of golf course features. Special procedures may be required for the repair of tee and
green complexes, bunkers and other golf course features to ensure landfill drainage and barrier
layers are not disturbed.
Fertilization and pest control. Because of the heightened sensitivity to protection of the
environment, the use of environmentally friendly methods of fertilization and pest control (IPM)
may be encouraged to prevent the use of undesirable chemicals on the site.
Erosion repairs. To prevent damage to protective covers and other remediation components,
rapid repair of eroded areas must be performed. Erosion repairs will typically consist of
backfilling erosion scarps and reseeding. Temporary, degradable rolled erosion control products
are sometimes used to protect repaired areas until vegetation has been reestablished. Areas with
persistent erosion problems may need to be redesigned to eliminate the erosion problem.
Renovations. The O&M plan for the course should address the need for the following types of
activities: rebuilding greens, bunkers, and tees; replacement or addition of trees and vegetation;
expansion, repair, and maintenance of irrigation systems; installation of subsurface drainage
structures; construction of buildings and other facilities; planting of trees and other deep rooted
vegetation; and installation and maintenance of underground utility lines.
Section 4. Operation and Maintenance Page 40
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Worker Safety. The Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazardous Waste
Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard (29 CFR 1910.120/29 CFR
1926.65) regulates worker safety and training requirements at hazardous waste sites during
construction and operation when there is potential contact with the hazardous waste. These
regulations do not apply to golf facility workers who do not perform O&M activities specifically
related to the remediation process that would cause them to have direct contact with the
hazardous waste. However, the O&M plan for the golf facility should alert workers to potential
dangers associated with the remediation controls that have been implemented at the site and
inform them about what response measures would be appropriate in the event a dangerous
situation related to the hazardous waste arises. The HAZWOPER regulations do apply to O&M
workers responsible for operation of the remediation activities associated with the hazardous
waste cleanup activities.
While golf facility maintenance workers not directly exposed to hazardous waste may not be
required to have the formalized training described in the HAZWOPER regulations, other
regulations pertaining to worker safety outlined in 29 CFR 1910 related to activities such as
pesticide and fertilizer application, and operation of equipment will apply. Applicable training in
these areas must be provided to golf facility workers, in order to ensure worker safety and to
comply with the regulations.
The developer/owner will be responsible for O&M of the golf facility. O&M costs will probably
be higher than for a typical golf facility because of the above precautions. The O&M plan should
outline an approval process for renovation projects such as those outlined above. Regulatory
approval will likely be required for significant renovations.
Although many of these activities may be conducted by the golf course operator, the O&M
related to the remedy will ultimately be the responsibility of the state or PRP, regardless of
whether a business venture succeeds or fails. The state or PRP is legally responsible to ensure
that contamination does not escape from the site and endanger human health or the environment.
To assist the state or PRP in exercising this responsibility, they may develop contingency plans
for ensuring that hazardous waste remediation and control measures continue to be effective in
the event the golf facility fails as a business venture. Continuing maintenance of the remedy may
require the removal of some or all of the golf facility components.
Institutional Controls
Remedies often incorporate institutional controls to prohibit or restrict certain activities and land
uses that may jeopardize the protectiveness of the remedy. Restricted activities can include the
drilling of wells, limiting the use of groundwater, excavating below a specified depth, and
restricting the placement of buildings on a site. Public access to certain parts of a site, such as
areas containing gas vents, may also be restricted to authorized personnel. These controls are
implemented through land-use regulations imposed by local governments; property law
measures such as easements and covenants that restrict future land or resource use; enforcement
devices such as permits, orders, and consent decrees; and informational devices such as deed
notices that inform prospective purchasers of residual on-site contamination.
Section 4. Operation and Maintenance Page 41
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Because of their importance in restricting future land uses to ensure the protectiveness and
integrity of the remedy and in defining long-term compliance needs, any institutional controls
needed should be identified and evaluated as early in the remedy selection process as possible.
Institutional controls should be evaluated as rigorously as other remedial alternatives; their
objectives clearly identified in the decision documents; and developed through early
coordination with state and local governments and other stakeholders. If revisions or additions to
institutional controls constitute a substantial change to the remedy documented in the ROD,
stakeholders must be informed.
During remedy selection and design a PRP can address how to accommodate a potential future
need to excavate into contaminated materials and how to ensure that institutional controls are
maintained well into the future, especially when properties change hands. The following are
three common considerations for the effective use of institutional controls at sites being reused
as golf courses.
Excavating into Contaminated Materials. A site owner who intends to excavate into a
containment system generally must obtain prior written approval from the EPA Region and
use a contractor certified to handle hazardous materials if the materials are classified as a
RCRA hazardous waste, or if the requirement is specified in the remedy. This requirement
could mean costly delays for the developer. The process can be simplified by including
excavation procedures in the institutional controls and other site agreements. This approach
could preclude the need for special approvals, as long as the contractor follows the
established procedures and notifies EPA or a state regulatory authority. Another useful
approach to ensuring that future excavations at a site do not disturb the containment system
is to require the PRP or property owner to file a survey plot recording the type, location, and
quantity of contained waste, and as-built drawings with the clerk of the local court and with
the local recorder's office.
Long-Term Compliance with Institutional Controls. Institutional controls are often
incorporated into consent decrees and other negotiated enforcement documents. One
potential pitfall of this approach is that certain enforcement documents may only be binding
on the signatories and may not "run with the land." Although the responsible parties are still
ultimately responsible for compliance with the institutional controls, future owners of the
property may not be bound to the terms of the consent decree nor have notice of the
restrictions. It may be possible to avoid this potential problem by requiring signatories of an
enforcement document to implement more long-term institutional controls, such as
information devices or proprietary controls, and to record the relevant documents with the
appropriate local officials.
Adequate Monitoring of Institutional Controls. One of the most critical post-
implementation aspects of ensuring the long-term effectiveness of institutional controls is
rigorous periodic monitoring. It is essential for there to be a process that routinely and
critically evaluates the institutional controls to determine (a) whether the mechanism
remains in place, and (b) whether the institutional controls are providing the protection
required by the remedy.
Section 4. Operation and Maintenance Page 42
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
In developing remedial alternatives that include institutional controls, EPA may also consider the
capability and resolve of local authorities or private sector interests to implement the institutional
control program. At the Bunker Hill site in Kellogg, Idaho, a system of flexible institutional
controls is operated by existing local administrative structures and programs that are consistent
across all jurisdictions affected by the site. Using this strategy, the Idaho Legislature amended
the Environmental Health Code to include specific containment management regulations and
performance standards. With the state legislature's approval, the local jurisdictions were given
the authority to govern all excavation, building, development, grading, and renovation at the site.
Furthermore, the local jurisdiction was made responsible for educating the community about the
redevelopment program.
Section 4. Operation and Maintenance Page 43
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Section 5. Golf Facility Case Studies
This Section describes four projects where golf courses have been developed on remediated
properties. Although these projects represent a wide range of sites, pollution problems, and golf
facility configurations, they are not exhaustive of all circumstances that occur at Superfund sites.
Nevertheless, they demonstrate how remediation and redevelopment efforts may complement
each other. The discussion for each site includes a brief background of the site and its
contamination, key factors considered during remediation that were important to the
redevelopment, and the redevelopment plan. The four projects are listed below.
Old Works Golf Facility, Anaconda, Montana: This 250-acre, altitude-adjusted par 72
course is one of two JackNicklaus Signature courses in Montana. The course's irrigation
and drainage system is designed to prevent water infiltration into subsurface contaminated
materials. The golf course layout takes advantage of the natural landscape and features left
from the old smelter. The course's bunkers contain tons of inert black slag material left by
the copper smelting process.
Harborside International Golf Center, Chicago, Illinois: This center features a matched
pair of 7,150 yard, 18 hole championship golf courses, a 58-acre practice facility, and a Golf
Academy. It is situated on a 450-acre former municipal landfill that contains sanitary and
construction debris. The development of the facility contributed to other environmental and
community goals, such as the development or protection of wetlands. Developers took
advantage of available materials, such as treated sludge, for use as fill and for the growing
medium for turf grass.
McColl Superfund Site, Fullerton, California: This 22-acre site has been integrated into
an adjacent golf course. It was built over 12 unlined pits containing refinery wastes and is
adjacent to residences and a regional park. The project involved building subsurface barrier
walls, a multi-layered cap over the pits, a gas collection and treatment system, and
groundwater monitoring equipment.
Widow's Walk Golf Course, Scituate, Massachusetts: This 120-acre site is both a golf
course and a corridor of mixed habitats for plants and animals. Prior to remediation, the site
included a mined-out sand and gravel quarry used as an illegal dump. To support a variety
of plants and animals, the golf course design incorporated a combination of diverse habitats,
such as open water ponds, wetlands, vegetated streams, wooded areas, open grassy areas,
and vernal pools. The design also incorporated environmentally-friendly golf course
management features that minimize the use of fertilizers and herbicides, conserve water, and
protect groundwater quality.
Additional information on these sites is contained in publications listed in the Bibliography.
Section 5. Case Studies Page 44
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Anaconda site at the early stages of the remediation
Old Works Golf Facility - Anaconda, Montana
Site History:
Almost 100 years of
mining and smelting .
activity left behind
hundreds of acres of
waste. Mine tailings,
slag piles, and rubble
piles from the long
abandoned Old
Works buildings lay
scattered around the
site. In 1977, the
Atlantic Richfield
Company (ARCO)
purchased the
Anaconda Company with the intention of continuing mining operations, but shortly thereafter
ceased operations at the site. Nevertheless, ARCO inherited the responsibility of cleaning up
more than 100 years of pollution. In 1983, the property was added to the National Priorities List,
(NPL), EPA's list of sites needing cleanup.
As a result of the mining operations, the soil contained elevated concentrations of arsenic, lead,
and copper. Scattered throughout the site were piles of rubble and garbage. The mining
operations had virtually decimated all natural vegetation and wildlife, and the site looked like a
moonscape. Furnace slag and tailings were left in the flood plain of Warm Springs Creek, which
runs through the course site. One of the major concerns was erosion of contaminated soil into the
nearby Warm Springs Creek during storm runoff. The contaminated soil also was a potential
source of contamination of groundwater and air pollution. The small particulate matter from the
contaminated soil could become airborne, thereby spreading the contaminants.
Remedy and Reuse:
ARCO faced the choice of either removing tons of waste materials from the property or taking
other remedial actions. ARCO conducted studies and consulted with the community to develop
the most appropriate solution. ARCO also consulted with EPA, Montana Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Anaconda/Deer Lodge Golf Course Authority, and Montana Department of Natural Resources.
The plan was to transform the Superfund site into a top-notch golfing facility for the town of
Anaconda and Deer Lodge County. Many features of the golf course were designed in light of
the requirements to minimize potential exposure to materials left on site; to protect Warm Spring
Creek by controlling runoff from the golf course and surrounding areas; to preserve historic
Love, Bill. 1999. An Environmental Approach to Golf Course Development. American Society of Golf
Course Architects.
Section 5. Case Studies
Page 45
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
features of the Old Works Historic District; and to implement long term monitoring and
maintenance of the remedy and O&M of the golf facility.
Construction began in 1994 and the Old Works Golf Course opened in 1997. During
construction, the contractors moved and graded about 600,000 cubic yards of material, built
three sedimentation ponds to control runoff from north of the course, and built two golf course
lakes which collect and control storm-water runoff from the sedimentation ponds. The lakes also
serves as a water storage reservoir for the irrigation system.
Black slag was used in the bottoms of the bunkers and 70 acres of grass was planted
Initially, Old Works was to be a desert links-style course with green ribbons of grass flowing
through the badlands. However, EPA believed that more of the property needed to be capped and
planted with grass. Approximately 70 acres were planted with grass and other native vegetation.
Other key features of the project include:
Some of the fairway areas were routed over contaminated soil. These areas were covered
with 2 inches of lime rock and 16 inches of clay soil. This cover was then covered with 6 to 8
inches of a loamy sand soil, which is the growth medium for the turfgrass. The total cap is 18
to 23 inches thick.
EPA standards required that the capped areas be irrigated and drained. The irrigation system
was designed to provide water and keep the clay cap moist so that it would not dry out and
crack. A subsurface drainage system was installed to prevent contamination of the
groundwater. The system captures the excess irrigation and storm water and returns it to one
of two irrigation ponds lined with a protective neoprene material.
To prevent storm and irrigation water from making contact with the capped waste materials,
a complex subsurface drainage system is connected to all the irrigation mainline drains and
blow-offs. This arrangement protects the clay cap in the event of an irrigation pipeline break.
To protect Warm Springs Creek from excessive water flows resulting from potential
irrigation failures at the four holes that border the creek, all lateral lines along these holes
were fitted with flow sensors and shut-off valves that automatically shut valves in the event
of a break.
Section 5. Case Studies
Page 46
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Special Golf Course Features:
The Old Works Golf Course in Anaconda, Montana is one of two Jack Nicklaus Signature
courses in Montana. The altitude adjusted par 72 course plays through 250 acres and can be
stretched to 7,581 yards. The complete practice facility includes a range and three practice holes.
The golf course routing took advantage of the natural landscape and features left from the old
smelter.
Several holes on the front nine play along stone smelting ovens, flues, and brick walls. Four
holes are routed to take strategic advantage of Warm Springs Creek.
The course's bunkers are unique. Tons of inert black slag left by the copper smelting process
were used in the bottoms of the bunkers. The slag met all requirements for drainage and
playability and provided visually stunning effects.
Native area trees and other plants were planted on what had been a virtual moonscape for
nearly 100 years. In addition to the 400 trees planted during construction, the course adds
new plant material every year.
A historic hiking trail now winds its way around the course. The trail highlights Anaconda's
smelting heritage and gives hikers an insight into copper mining techniques of years past.
,; 4. v.W ' -
* --w -"-' * v-^g&HSiifficE
Hikers walk along a trail that showcases artifacts from the former smelting operations. The
trail was built on the Superfund site and surrounds a golf course designed by golf great
Jack Nicklaus.
Lessons:
Golf course design and construction can be completely integrated with remediation efforts.
The use of indigenous materials can save substantial sums of money as well as provide
unique features for a golf facility.
Historic features at a site can provide unique attractions that make the play more exciting.
Section 5. Case Studies
Page 47
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Harborside International Golf Center, Chicago, Illinois 4
Site History:
The site was originally used for disposal of the City of Chicago's municipal solid waste. Later it
was used to dispose of incinerator ash and wastewater sludge. In 1991, the Illinois International
Port District was faced with a requirement calling for the closing of a 450-acre solid waste
landfill that could not be used for industrial, commercial, or residential development. About 200
acres of the site contained a partially-closed sanitary landfill and a 250-acre parcel was being
used as a construction debris landfill. EPA required that the sanitary landfill portion be covered
with an impervious clay cap and vegetated.
The Port District, seeking a productive use for the site, elected to establish a golf center. Because
the site is in the industrial south side of Chicago, the local economy would not support the
expense of converting it into a golf facility. However, it was thought that if the center was a
"world-class" facility it would attract enough golfers to make the project worthwhile.
Fortunately, the site is near 1-94,1-57, and 1-80, which carry approximately 300,000 cars per day.
The planners anticipated that the combination of good access and a good facility would attract
sufficient business to make the golf facility economically viable.
Completed Course at the Harbor International Golf Center
The Harborside International Golf Center features a matched pair of 7,150-yard, 18-hole
championship golf courses and a 58-acre practice facility, including a Golf Academy situated on
450 acres of sanitary and construction debris landfills. Provisions were made for a three-hole
practice course. The golf course, which was built between 1992 and 1995, is a daily-fee facility.
Although the final cost approached $30 million, the Port District does not have any taxing or
bonding authority and had to finance the project through conventional means.
Love, Bill. 1999. An Environmental Approach to Golf Course Development. American Society of Golf
Course Architects.
Section 5. Case Studies
Page 48
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Construction of the Harbor International Golf Center
Remedy and Reuse:
Several factors complicated the redevelopment of the site. First, it was devoid of topsoil. The
treated sludge, which was the only available cover material, had to be brought to the site at a rate
of 250,000 cubic yards per year for 3 years until an alternate disposal site could be found. The
deliveries were incorporated into the delivery schedule for the construction site. Second, the 250-
acre construction debris portion of the site was about 30 feet lower than the rest of the site and
wrapped around the northern and western sides of Lake Calumet, an 800-acre lake which
connects to Lake Michigan via the Calumet River. Because this area contained non-organic,
non-hazardous material, such as broken concrete and demolished buildings, an impervious cap
was not required. Third, sludge could not be placed within a 300-foot buffer zone around the
Lake Calumet shoreline. Fourth, three low-grade wetlands that had been formed in depressions
of old fill operations were relocated to the upper section of Lake Calumet and upgraded. Several
unique design features were used to address these issues.
Special Golf Course Features:
Clay Cover. Over 550,000 cubic yards of stiff blue clay for the cap was excavated with
backhoes and large off-road trucks from the shallow north end of Lake Calumet. The excavation
cleared the way for a future marina. Sections of the lake were sealed off and drained. Fish were
caught in nets and returned to the open water. The clay was placed in three compacted 8-inch
lifts over the shaped sludge to form the 2-foot landfill cap. The design specified that a 2-foot
layer of sludge be placed over the clay cap of the 200-acre landfill.
Fairways, greens, and contoured bunkers. These features were crafted in a pioneering use of
wastewater biosolids carefully blended with other locally available materials. The solids were
installed in a complex layering process to form a golf course on the previously flat topography.
The result is a sweeping links-style facility reminiscent of Scottish seaside courses with trees
that have shallow roots not likely to interfere with the underlying clay cap.
Section 5. Case Studies
Page 49
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Irrigation system. Though extensive, the golf course irrigation system makes frugal use of
water. The irrigation water is drawn from Lake Michigan in quantities that are regulated by a
multi-state commission. Drainage and irrigation systems were carefully designed to protect the
integrity of the clay cap. They include sensors and controls to manage storm-water runoff and a
special pump station to draw irrigation water from the lake while protecting against Zebra
Mussel infestation.
Lake Excavation. The first consideration in excavating the lake was protection and
improvement of wildlife habitats. Chicago and Cook County have set aside vast tracts of land for
parks and forest preserves. Since the area is part of the northern flyway, lake excavation was
suspended during migration periods. The Illinois Department of Fish and Wildlife staff culled
the desirable game fish from the undesirable rough fish when the sections were drained.
Rainwater Management. The design called for containing all water runoff within the site. The
water was discharged to sanitary inlets into the Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation District's
sewer system. However, the sewer system inlet could only accept amounts less than that
resulting from a 5-year storm event. The golf course architect and the engineer collaborated in
the design of an elaborate drainage and collection system that collects all site drainage and stores
it at seven dry retention locations within the site, until it can be released at a deliberate rate back
to a sewage treatment plant for processing.
Wetland Mitigation. While the relocation and upgrading of the three small, low-grade wetlands
was not necessary for the construction of the golf course, it was done to improve the overall
ecosystem of the area. An 8.5-acre peninsula was created in the lake. To offset the filling of this
section of the lake, an equal area was excavated in another section to a depth sufficient for fish to
survive through the winter.
Protecting Existing Wetlands. The existing wetland sections in the northern-most reach of the
lake was adjacent to hole numbers 16, 17, and 18 on one of the courses. Because these wetland
areas are emergent, it was especially important to protect them. Several features were
incorporated into the golf course to protect them while maintaining an aesthetic landscape. For
example, a buffer was created at some points between the course and the shoreline, and some
portions of the fairway were raised 8 to 10 feet to allow the incorporation of drainage basins to
prevent storm water from flowing into the lake.
Turfgrass Growing Medium. Perhaps the biggest dilemma from the outset was to grow
turfgrass on a 450-acre site that is completely devoid of topsoil or other adequate growing
medium. The solution was found in the very item that was being disposed of on the site. Every
year the Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation District trucked 250,000 cubic yards of sludge to
the site. Although sludge, the end product of the sewage treatment process, is very organic in
nature, it is not by itself, a good growing medium because it has high levels of fats and salts.
Because of these properties, sludge draws water out of plants and will not readily saturate. To
help remedy this, a 6- to 8-inch layer of sand was placed over the fairway. This tapered to 4
inches in the roughs and 2 inches on the mounds in the outer roughs. During the construction of
the trenches for the extensive underground irrigation network and drain tiles, enough sludge was
excavated to ensure that an adequate amount of organic material was present in the sand layer
after final raking. In fact, the grass flourished with virtually no additional fertilizer.
Section 5. Case Studies Page 50
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Lessons:
The development of a golf facility can be integrated with other environmental and
community goals, such as the development or protection of wetlands.
Features of a golf course can be designed to protect nearby surface waters from runoff.
Cooperation and consultation with other state, federal and local agencies helped to define the
ecological issues and to formulate creative solutions that improve the overall ecosystem in
the area . (The Illinois Department of Fish and Wildlife, Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were especially helpful).
Through creative engineering, materials available on site can be used to create a medium in
which to grow turfgrass and to develop golf course design features.
Section 5. Case Studies Page 51
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
McColl Superfund Site, Fullerton, California
Site History:
From 1942 to 1946, petroleum
companies dumped refinery waste
into 12 unlined pits on the 22-acre
site. During the expansion of
Orange County communities in the
1960s and 1970s, homes were built
adjacent to the area of the site
containing the waste pits. The
waste created odors and seeped
into the soil and groundwater,
creating a hazard for the
neighbors. In 1983, EPA added the
site to its list of sites needing
cleanup, the National Priorities
List (NPL).
Local officials and stakeholders celebrate opening day in Fullerton
California
The site consisted of two distinct areas: the Ramparts area, which is in the eastern portion of the
site and surrounded by developed property and residences; and the Los Coyotes area, which is in
the south-western portion and once had a portion of the Los Coyotes Country Club Golf Course
overlying it (holes 6, 7, and 8). The site is adjacent to the golf course to the south and a regional
park to the west. The Ramparts and Los Coyotes Areas each contained 6 waste sumps with
depths up to 55 feet. The waste sumps contain approximately 97,100 cubic yards of
contaminated material (72,600 cubic yards of solid waste and 24,500 cubic yards of
contaminated soil). The waste was primarily an acidic sludge waste generated during the refining
process for high octane aviation fuel. Drilling muds were placed over a few of the Ramparts
sumps in the early 1950s.
The Los Coyotes area was covered with soil in 1960 to build part of Los Coyotes Golf Course. In
the 1960s and 1970s, homes were built in the area. Subsequently, complaints about odors and
health problems from residents near
BS3^ ^^tJflt*« ^e s*te ^to mvesti§ati°ns by local,
state, and Federal agencies. In 1983,
the Ramparts area was covered by a
temporary liner. However, tar-like
waste continued to seep to the surface
of the dirt cap. Access to the site was
restricted by a fence and a security
| guard. At the time most of the
remediation work was done, in the
mid-1990s, more than 6,700 people
lived within 3 miles of the site. The
distance from the site to the nearest
Tar-like substances seeped out of the ground in the early 1980s residence is less than 100 feet
Section 5. Case Studies
Page 52
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Remedy and Reuse:
The remedy, built between 1996 and 1998, consisted of the following elements: (a) subsurface
barrier walls were built around the pits; (b) a multi-layered cap was placed over the pits; (c) a
network of piping was installed under the cover to collect gases, which are then routed to a
carbon treatment plant; and (d) equipment was installed to monitor the groundwater in the area.
During the construction of the remedy, efforts were made to protect nearby residences from
disruption and runoff from the site. These included protective fencing, sandbags, and site work.
The site is now used as a portion
of the adjacent golf course. Some
of its acreage is newly added to
the course, and some was already
being used by the golf course
prior to the remediation. In
addition to the familiar golf-
course features, such as fairways,
greens, and trees, the design of
the course incorporates the
requirement to direct rainwater
away from the old pit areas and
into specified drainage paths.
This design is intended to prevent
water from pooling over the pits.
Monitoring includes inspections
of the entire site on a regular
schedule and after major rainfalls,
and periodic sampling of the
groundwater.
At the McColl site, designers included landscaped areas as part of a
golf course built over a cover system. Designers omitted a layer of
cobbles for covers over landscaped areas to minimize settlement
caused by the weight of the cap.
The site is operated by the Los Coyotes Country Club through agreements among the McColl
Site Group Oil Companies, McAauley LCX Corporation, which owns the country club, and
EPA. The agreements call for the country club to perform the routine inspection in the course of
its management of the golf course. Additional inspections, operations and maintenance will be
performed by contractors working for the McColl Site Group Oil Companies, and EPA will
continue to oversee the work.
Lessons:
Careful planning and cooperation with the local community and nearby golf course owner
were essential to the acceptance of the remedy and reuse plans.
It is feasible to develop a golf facility, even if a containment system does not have a bottom
liner, so long as the appropriate engineering controls are used to protect people and the
environment from potential contamination.
Creative engineering based on knowledge of the existing waste deposits and hydrogeology
can lead to useful remedy and reuse designs.
Golf reuse can be compatible with groundwater and gas collection and treatment systems.
Section 5. Case Studies
Page 53
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Widow's Walk Golf Course, Scituate, Massachusetts 5
Boston Sand & 6revel'Co.,
Scituate. Mass.
The golf course was built on an abandoned gravel quarry that had
been scared by many years of gravel mining
Site History:
This 120-acre site had been a sand
and gravel quarry. After it was
mined out it became an illegal
dumping ground and a very
impoverished habitat for wildlife.
The site had several high ridges and
mining spoil piles that offered scenic
views of the Atlantic Ocean, Cape
Cod Bay, and the tidal North River.
Remedy and Reuse:
In addition to allowing for golf play,
this course is designed to
demonstrate that a variety of habitats
can be integrated with and thrive
within or alongside a golf facility.
The golf facility includes a corridor
of mixed habitats such as ponds,
wetlands, vegetated streams, wooded areas, open grassy areas, vernal pools, and other habitats,
to support a great variety of plants and animals. It was planned, built and operated with the
guidance of various environmental experts who evaluated wetland and habitat issues, planned
land reclamation efforts, and developed an approach to protect a town water supply. All these
activities were undertaken while ensuring that the site remained accessible and affordable for
public golf.
The first step in the project was to assemble a team of environmental experts to assess and map
the site for environmental resource areas such as endangered plants and animals, regulated lands,
and serious environmental threats. Then, the golf course architects developed a golf course
layout that was designed to avoid all of the identified resource areas. Since these areas of special
concern took up over 50 percent of the site, avoidance was impossible. A compromise was
reached to establish priorities for the environmental resource areas and balance the needs of the
golf course with those of the habitat areas.
Special Golf Course Features:
Protecting Drinking Water Supplies. Because a town drinking water well was located in the
center of the very sandy site, groundwater protection was paramount. Zones of contribution were
established around the well, corresponding to varying degrees of permissible impact. Zone I
allowed absolutely no fertilization or pesticide of any kind, and included monitoring wells to
Love, Bill. 1999. An Environmental Approach to Golf Course Development. American Society of Golf
Course Architects, and Widows Walk Golf Course web site.
http://www.widowswalkgolf.com/home.asp?courseid=57
Section 5. Case Studies
Page 54
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
ensure this protection. Zone II allowed reduced levels of fertilizers and pesticides and included
water quality monitoring. Zone III, outside the well recharge areas, was unregulated.
Golf Course Irrigation. Water for irrigating the golf course came from reopened and previously
abandoned drinking water wells that no longer met EPA purity standards. The water quality was
sufficient for irrigating the golf course turfgrass. In addition, when applied to the turf, the
irrigation water became sufficiently filtered to become an acceptable contributor to the town
well. In essence, the golf course became a bio-filter to improve the quality of the groundwater.
Fertilizer, Pesticide, and Water use. A key goal of the development team was to use only 50
percent of the water, fertilizer, pesticide, and fossil fuel required at other golf courses in the area.
To reach this goal, the developer selected drought and disease resistant grasses that require little
fertilizer. The golf course has met those reduced input goals, but only with the understanding and
support of golfers who do not demand lush green turfgrass all year long. The golf course turns
more brown than green during drought years, but still provides an exciting round of golf.
Recycling. During construction, efforts were made to recycle on-site materials and minimize
water use. Wood chips and sawdust were made into compost to compensate for the lack of
topsoil, ground up asphalt debris was used for cart paths, and carpet scraps were used to fabricate
bunker faces. Meters for measuring water use, soil moisture, and temperature were also installed.
Widow's Walk is a municipally owned 18-hole layout adjacent to the historic North River and within sight of the
Atlantic Ocean.
Section 5. Case Studies
Page 55
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Ecosystem Research. After the course was opened, the management team worked closely with
universities to encourage research on the facility, and with the Massachusetts Audubon Society to
better manage habitat areas. Both activities are continuing with great success. Several research
projects have been started, many habitat areas have been given nesting supplies, and more than 75
species of birds have been sighted on the golf course.
Education. A golfer guidebook was written to inform golfers about the wildlife value of each hole
and the special management practices used. Each sale of the book produces a dollar for the golf
course and a dollar for the Massachusetts Audubon Society.
Widow's Walk, designed, built, and maintained under the watchful eyes of experts in golf and the
environment, provides valuable habitats for plants and animals, environmental educational and
research opportunities, and a pleasant golfing area.
Lessons:
Golf courses can be compatible with habitat enhancement areas.
Drought- and disease-resistant grasses that require fewer chemicals are available for golf
course use.
On-site materials can be used to reduce costs and ecological impacts of golf course
construction and maintenance.
Section 5. Case Studies Page 56
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Bibliography
Visit http://www.epa.gov/epahotne/publications.httn for information on how to obtain EPA
publications. Many EPA documents are available online and may be located using EPA's online
search engine at www.epa.gov/epahome/search.html. Superfund publications available online can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/pubs.htm.
Best Management Practices
Audubon International, Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System 1996. A Guide to Environmental
Stewardship on the Golf Course. Selkirk, NY (Tel. 518-767- 9051).
Balogh, James C. and Walker, WJ. 1992. Golf Course Management & Construction: Environmental
Issues., Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers.
King County Water and Land Resources Division, 1993. Best Management Practices for Golf Course
Development and Operation. Seattle, WA (Attn: Bonni Thompson, Tel. 206-296-8332.).
McCarty, L. B. 2001. Best Golf Course Management Practices, Prentice Hall.
http://vig.prenhall.com/catalog/academic/product/l,4096,013088359X,OO.html
Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, 7995. Natural Resource Protection Strategy for Michigan Golf
Courses. Surface Water Quality Division, Lansing, MI 48909.
Peacock, Charles H., Smart, Miles M. (Bud), and Warren-Hicks, William. 1996. Best Management
Practices and Integrated Pest Management Strategies for Protection of Natural Resources on Golf
Course Watersheds, Watershed 96 proceedings, June 8-12, 1996, Baltimore - Maryland.
http ://www. epa. gov/OWOW/watershed/Proceed
U.S. EPA. 1996. Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to Stormwater Best Management Practices,
EPA843/B-96/001.
http ://www. epa. gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/protecti .pdf
Clay Liners/Alternative Barriers
U. S. EPA. 1991. Compilation of Information on Alternative Barriers for Liner and Cover Systems, EPA
600/2-91/002.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Report of Workshop on Geosynthetic Clay Liners, EPA 600/R-93/171.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Report of 1995 Workshop on Geosynthetic Clay Liners, EPA 600/R-96/149.
Bibliography Page 57
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Civil and Environmental Engineering
AASHTO. 1994. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials
Balogh, J.C. and Walker, W. J. 1994. Golf Course Management & Construction, Environmental Issues.,
Lewis Publishers
Corbitt, Robert A. 1998. Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering, McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Emberton, J. R. and Parker, A. 1987. The Problems Associated with Building on Landfill Sites, Waste
Management & Research, vol. 5, 473-482.
Keech, Max. 1995. A. Design of Civil Infrastructure Over Landfills, in Dunn, R. Jeffrey and Udai P.
Singh (Eds.). Landfill Closures-Environmental Protection and Land Recovery. American Society of
Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 53.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, 1993. Guidance Manual for Design
and Maintenance of Environmentally Sensitive Golf Courses in New Jersey. Office of Environmental
Planning, Trenton, NJ 08625.
Patch, J. et al. 1996. Foundation Engineering on Contaminated Land Sites, Polluted & Marginal Land -
96, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Re-use of Contaminated Land and
Landfills.
Sincere, A. P. and Sincere, G. A. 1996. Environmental Engineering, A Design Approach, Prentice Hall
"Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers", 4th ed. F. S. Merritt, et. al., McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Tchobanoglous, George and Schroeder, Edward D. 7955. Water Quality, Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, ASIN: 0201054345.
United States Golf Association, 1996. Turfgrass and Environmental Research Summary. Far Hills, NJ
07931.
Covers and Landfills
Koerner, R. M. and Daniel, D. E. 1997. Final Covers for Solid Waste Landfills and Abandoned Dumps,
Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Mackey, R. E. 1996. Three End-Uses for Closed Landfills and Their Impact on the Geosynthetic Design,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 14, 409-424.
U.S. EPA. 1979. Design and Construction of Covers for Solid Waste Landfills, EPA 600/2-79/165.
U.S. EPA. 1980. Evaluating Cover Systems for Solid and Hazardous Waste, EPA 530/SW-867c.
Bibliography Page 58
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
U.S. EPA. 1985. Covers for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, EPA 540/2-85/002.
U.S. EPA. 1987. Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Cover Systems for Hazardous Waste,
EPA 600/2-87/039.
U.S. EPA. 1989. Final Covers on Hazardous Waste Landfills and Surface Impoundments.,
EPA 530-SW-89-047
U.S. EPA. 1989. Requirements for Hazardous Waste Landfill Design, Construction, and Closure,
EPA 625/4-89/002.
U.S. EPA. 1989. Technical Guidance Document: Final Covers on Hazardous Waste Landfills and
Surface Impoundments, EPA 530/SW-89/047
U.S. EPA. 1991. Seminar Publication: Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers,
EPA 625/4-91/025.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Presumptive Remedies: CERCLA Landfill Caps RI/FSData Collection Guide,
EPA 540/F-95/009.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/presutnp/caps.httn
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/presump/finalpdf/caps.pdf
U.S. EPA. 1999. Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites, EPA 540-F-99-15.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/presump/finalpdf/reuse.pdf
U.S. EPA. 2001. Comprehensive Five-year Review Guidance, EPA 540-R-01-007.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/5year/index.htm
Effluent Irrigation
Harivandi, All. 1991. Effluent Water for Turfgrass Irrigation, University of California Cooperative
Extension. Leaflet 21500.
Kopec, David, Mancino, C. and Nelson, D. 1993. Using Effluent Water onyour Golf Course, USGA
Green Section Record. Vol. 33(4): pp. 9-12.
Phelps, Richard M. 1985. Effluents for Irrigation: the Wave of the Future?, Golf Course Management,
April 1985: pp. 106.
Snow, J.T. (ed.), et al. 1994. Wastewater Reuse for Golf Course Irrigation, Lewis Publishers.
Van Bavel, C.H.M., Long, T and Sanders, J.H. 1996. Maximizing the Safe Application of Reclaimed
Water on the Golf Course Turf, Golf Course Management, April 1996. Vol. 64(4): pp. 52-55.
Bibliography Page 59
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Erosion and Sediment Control
Renard, K. G., Foster, G. R., Weesies, G A., Porter, J. P., 1991.RUSLE, Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 46.
Gas Management
EMCON Associates. 1980. Methane Generation and Recovery from Landfills, Ann Arbor Science, Ann
Arbor, MI.
Spreull, W. J. and Cullum, S. 1986. Landfill Gas Venting for Agricultural Restoration, Waste
Management & Research, vol. 5, pp 1-12.
U.S. EPA. 1986. Critical Review and Summary ofLeachate and Gas Production from Landfills,
EPA 600/2-86/073.
U. S. EPA. 1990. Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills - Background Information for
Proposed Standards and Guidelines, EPA 450/3-90-01 la.
Golf
Beard, James B. 1999. Turf Management for Golf Courses, 2nd Ed,. Ann Arbor Press. Chelsea, MI.
Dodson, R.G. 2000. Managing Wildlife Habitat on Golf Courses, Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI.
Love, Bill. 1999. An Environmental Approach to Golf Facility Development, American Society of Golf
Course Architects, Chicago, 111.
National Golf Foundation. \999.DevelopingGolfCoursesonLandfills, Strip-Mines and Other Unusual
Locations, 2nd Edition, 1150 South U. S. Highway One, Suite 401, Jupiter, FL 33477 (collection of 61
articles), 109 pages.
Saunders, Doug. 1996. Fulfillment, Golf Course Management, March, 4 pages.
The Center for Resource Management. 1996. Environmental Principles for Golf Facilities in the United
States, Salt Lake City, UT.
The Center for Resource Management. 2001. Environmental Siting Guide for Golf Course Development,
Salt Lake City, UT.
Trusty, Steve and Sun. 1996. From Eyesore to Eye-Opener, Golf Course Management, April.
United States Golf Association. 1992. Golf Course Management and Construction: Environmental
Issues, Far Hills, New Jersey.
United States Golf Association. 1994. Golf and the Environment, Far Hills, New Jersey.
Bibliography Page 60
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
United States Golf Association. 1995. Golf and Wildlife, Far Hills, New Jersey.
Ward, Janet. 2000. From Tee To Green space, American City & County, October 1.
Hydrology/Storm Water Management
American Society of Civil Engineers, Design and Construction of Urban Stormwater Management
Systems, ASCE Manual and Reports of Engineering Practice No. 77.
Dodson, Roy D. 1998. Storm Water Pollution Control, Industry & Construction NPDES Compliance,
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Madmen, David R. 1993. Handbook of Hydrology, McGraw-Hill, Inc.
U.S. EPA. 1996. Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to Stormwater Best Management Practices,
EPA 843/B-96/001. http ://www. epa. gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/protecti .pdf
Hydrometeorology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, June 1977. NOAA Technical Memorandum NEWS
Hydro-35, 5 to 60-minute Precipitation Frequency for the Eastern and Central United States, National
Weather Service, Silver Spring, MD.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1973. NOAA Atlas 2, Precipitation-Frequency Atlas
of the Western United States.
U.S. Weather Bureau, 1961. Technical Paper No. 40, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for
Durations from 30Min. to 24 Hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years, Washington D.C.
Integrated Pest Management
Baird, J.H. 1998. Reducing Pesticide and Nutrient Runoff Using Buffers, Golf Course Management, Vol.
66(9): pp.57-61.
Bohomont, Burt L. 1990. The Standard Pesticide Users Guide, Prentice Hall.
Foy, J.H. IntegratedPest Management-A Different Approach to the Same Old Problems, USGA Green
Section Record, Vol. 26(5): pp. 9-11.
Grant, Z. 1994 Integrated Pest Management in the Golf Course Industry, In Leslie, A.R. and Metcalf,
R.L. (Eds.), Handbook of Integrated Pest Management for Turf and Ornamental, Lewis Publishers, Inc.,
ISBN: 0873713508. June 23.
Kenna, Michael P. 1995. What Happens to Pesticides Applied to Golf Courses?, USGA Green Section
Record, January/February 1995. Vol. 33(1): pp. 1-9.
Bibliography Page 61
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Leslie, Anne R. (ed.). 1994. Handbook of Integrated Pest Management for Turf and Ornamentals, Boca
Raton, Florida: Lewis Publishers.
Peacock, Charles H. and Smart, M.M. 1995. IPM Monitoring and Management Plans-A Mandate for
the Future, USGA Green Section Record, Vol. 33(3): pp. 10-14.
Peacock, Charles H. and Smart, Miles M. 1999. Protecting Natural Resources on the Golf Course, Ann
Arbor Press.
Schumann, Dr. Gail, et. Al. 1998. IPM Handbook for Golf Courses in Michigan. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. http://www.wiley.com.
U.S. EPA. 1989. Integrated Pest Management for Turfgrass and Ornamentals, Washington, DC:
Office of Pesticide Programs, 1989-625-030, pp. 315-318
Watchke, Thomas L. and Mumma, Ralph O. 1989. The Effects of Nutrients and Pesticides Applied to
Turf on the Quality of Run-Off and Percolating Water: A Final Report to the US Department of Interior,
Environmental Resources Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University.
Post Construction Completion
U.S. EPA. 2000. Institutional Controls: a Site Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating and Selecting
Institutional Controls at Superfund andRCRA Corrective Action Cleanups, EPA 540-F-00-005.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/institut/guide.pdf
U.S. EPA. 2001. Superfund Post Construction Completion: An Overview, EPA/540/F/01/009.
http ://www. epa. gov/superfund/action/postconstruction/index.htm
U.S. EPA. 2001. Operation and Maintenance in the Superfund Program, EPA 540-F-01-004.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/sheet.pdf
Reuse
Crowcroft, P. H. 1996. Promoting Landfill Stabilisation and Controlling the Cosequences, Polluted &
Marginal Land - 96, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Re-use of Contaminated
Land and Landfills.
Dunn, R. J. and Singh. 1995. U. P. Landfill Closures, Environmental Protection and Land Recovery,
American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 53.
Hall, R., et al. 1996. Re-use of Landfills, Polluted & Marginal Land - 96, Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on the Re-use of Contaminated Land and Landfills.
Mackey, R. E. 1996. Three End-Uses for Closed Landfills and Their Impact on the Geosynthetic Design,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 14, 409-424.
Bibliography Page 62
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
U.S. EPA. 1983. Standardized Procedures for Planting Vegetation on Completed Sanitary Landfills,
EPA 600/2-83/055.
U.S. EPA. 1999. Reuse o/CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites, EPA 540-F-99-015.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/presutnp/finalpdf/reuse.pdf
U. S. EPA. 2001. Reuse Assessments: A Tool to Implement The Superfund Land Use Directive, OSWER
9355.7-06P. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/reusefmal.pdf
U. S. EPA. 2001. Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous
Waste Containment Areas, EPA 540/K-01/002
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/overview/recreuse.pdf
U.S. EPA. 2001. Reusing Superfund Sites, EPA 540/K-00/004
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/overview/sribroch.pdf
U.S. EPA. 2002. Reusing Superfund Sites: Commercial Use Where Waste is Left On Site, EPA 540-K-
01008. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/overview/c_reuse.pdf
U.S. EPA. Planned 2002. Reusing Superfund Sites: Ecological Use Where Waste is Left On Site.
Risk
U.S. EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Part A, Interim Final, EPA/540/1-89/002.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/ragsa/index.htm
U.S. EPA. 1991. Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions,
OSWER Directive 9355.0-30. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/baseline.pdf
U.S. EPA. 1998. Handbookof Tools for Managing Federal Superfund Liability Risks atBrownfields
and Other Sites, EPA 330-B-98-001. http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/liab.htm
Settlement
Morris, Derek V., and Woods, Calvin E. 1994. Settlement and Engineering Considerations in Landfill
Final Cover Design, ASTM STP 1070 - Geotechnics of Waste Fills.
Ranguette, Valeri 1, and Wvellner, William W. 1994. Settlement of Municipal Waste, ASTM STP 1070
- Geotechnics of Waste Fills.
Sowers, G. F. 1973. Settlement of Waste Disposal Fills, Proceedings 8th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow.
U.S. EPA. 1985. Covers for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, EPA 540/2-85/002.
Bibliography Page 63
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
U.S. EPA. 1985. Settlement and Cover Subsidence in Hazardous Waste Landfills, EPA 600/2-85/035.
U.S. EPA. 1987. Prediction/Mitigation of Subsidence Damage to Hazardous Waste Landfill Covers,
EPA 600/2-87/025.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Seminar Publication: Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers,
EPA 625/4-91/025.
Yen, B. C. and Scanlon B. Sanitary Landfill Settlement Rates, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, May 1975, pp. 475-487.
Site Investigation and Remedy Selection
U.S. EPA. 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA; Interim Final, EPA 9355.3-01.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments Under CERCLA, EPA 9345.0-01A.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA; Interim Final,
EPA 9345.1-05.
U.S. EPA. 1992. The Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual; Interim Final, EPA 9345.1-07.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Rules of Thumb for Superfund Remedy Selection, EPA 540-R-97-013.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/rules/rulesthm.pdf
U.S. EPA. 1999. A Sustainable Brownfields Model Framework, EPA 500-R-99-001
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pdf/susmodel.pdf
U.S. EPA. 1999. Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields
Investigation and Cleanup, Second Edition, EPA 542-B-99-009.
http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/misc/roadmap99.pdf
Bibliography Page 64
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Appendix A. Information Sources
for Golf Facility Development
American Society of Golf Course Architects
221 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60601
312-372-7090
http://www.golfdesign.org/
Audubon International
Headquarters
46 Rarick Road
Selkirk, NY 12158
518-767-9051
http ://www. audubonintl.org/
Center for Resource Management
500 East 8th Avenue, Suite 100
Denver, CO 80203
303-832-6855
1104 East Ashton Avenue, Suite 210
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
801-466-3600
http ://www. crm.org/index.html
Environmental Engineering Consultants
(See local listings.)
Golf Course Builders Association of America
Executive Office
727 "O" Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
402-476-4444
http ://www.gcbaa. org/_
Golf Course Superintendents Association of
America
1421 Research Park Drive
Lawrence, KS 66049-3859
800-472-7878 or 785-841-2240
http://www.gcsaa.org/
National Golf Course Owners Association
1470 Ben Sawyer Boulevard, Suite 18
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
800-933-4262 or 843-881-9956
http ://www. ngcoa. org/
National Golf Foundation
1150 South US Highway One, Suite 401
Jupiter, FL 33477
561-744-6006
http ://www.ngf. org/
United States Golf Association
PO Box 708
Far Hills, NJ 07931
908-234-2300
http ://www.usga. org/
United States Environmental Protection
Agency
Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-2090
http ://www. epa. gov/
Appendix A. Information Sources for Golf Facility Development
Page 65
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Appendix B. Superfund Golf Facility
Reuse Sites and EPA Contacts
Site Name and
Location
Anaconda
Company Smelter
Anaconda, MT
Kane and Lombard
Streets Drum
Baltimore, MD
Lexington County
Landfill
Cayce, SC
McColl
Fullerton, CA
Mill Creek Dump
Erie, PA
PAB Oil and
Chemical Services,
Inc.
Abbeville, LA
South Weymouth
Naval Air Station
(SWNAS)
Weymouth, MA
Stauffer Chemical
Tarpon Springs, FL
Reuse
Golf
course
Golf
driving
range
Golf
driving
range
and putt-
putt
Golf
course
Golf
course
Golf
driving
range
Golf
course,
recreation
al, and
open
space
Golf
course
Primary
Contaminants
Arsenic, metals
including
copper,
cadmium, lead,
and zinc
VOCs and metals
including cadmium,
lead, magnesium, and
nickel
Benzene, bis(2-
ethylhexyi) phthalat.e,
bromodichlorome-
thane, and
chlorobenzene
Sulfur dioxide, VOCs,
SVOCs, and metals
Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, PCBs,
and heavy metals
Arsenic, barium,
chromium, lead,
manganese, and
acetone
Battery acid, lead,
VOCs, and heavy
metals
Phosphorous, arsenic,
radium-226, berylium,
and heavy metals
Remedial Activities
Relocated residents
Removal of
contaminated soil and
placement of clean
soil
Constructed a surface
barrier wall
Constructed a
geosynthetic cap
Consolidation and
capping the waste
piles with clay and
soil
Control the venting of
the methane gas
Removal of wastes
Temporary caps
placed
Removal of material
Soil cap
Flood retention basin
Remove top layer of
soil
Install a clay cap
Removal of drums
and containers
Removal of soil
Place soil cap on
surface
Removal of hazardous
material and soil
Consolidation and
capping of the site
Establish land use
ordinances
Construct physical
barriers
EPA Contact
Charles Coleman
406-296-7813
coleman.charles@epa
.gov
Chris Corbett
215-814-3220
corbett.chris@epa.gov
Terry Tanner
404-562-8797
tanner.terry@epa.gov
David Seter
415-972-3250
seter.david@epa.gov
Romuald A. Roman
215-814-3212
roman.romuald@epa
.gov
Ursula Lennox
214-665-6743
lennox.ursula@epa
gov
Patty Whittemore
617-918-1382
whittemore.patty@epa
gov
Nestor Young
404-562-8812
young.nestor@epa.gov
Appendix B. Superfund Golf Facility Reuse Sites
Page 66
-------
Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Golf Facilities Where Waste is Left On Site
Appendix C. Acronyms
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official
BMP Best Management Practice
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWA Clean Water Act
EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
FS Feasibility Study
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response
HRS Hazard Ranking System
IPM Integrated Pest Management
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NEWS National Weather Service
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PA Preliminary Assessment
PPA Prospective Purchaser Agreement
PRB Permeable Reactive Barriers
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
RI Remedial Investigation
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SI Site Inspection
S/S Solidification and Stabilization
SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
USWB U. S. Weather Bureau
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
Appendix C. Acronyms
Page 67
------- |