technical approaches to characterizing and cleaning up metal
TRANSCRIPT
United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgency
Office of Research andDevelopmentWashington DC 20460
EPAf625/R-961006March 1999
&EPA Technical Approa.ches toCharacterizing andCleaning Up MetalFinishing Sites Under theBrownfields Initiative
EPA/625/R-981006March 1999
Technical Approaches to Characterizing andCleaning Up Metal Finishing Sites
Under the Brownfields Initiative
Technology Transfer and Support DivisionNational Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and DevelopmentU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
@ Prhted on Recycled Paper
c
Conterits
Foreword...
........................................................................................................................................................ 111
Contents .......................................................................................................................................................... V
Acknowledgments...
........................................................................................................................................ Vlll
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1Background .............................................................................................................................................. 1Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Industrial Processes and Contaminants at Metal Finishing Sites ............................................................ 3Surface Preparation Operations ............................................................................................................... 3Metal Finishing Operations ..................................................................................................................... 3
Anodizing Operations .......................................................................................................................Chemical Conversion Coating .......................................................................................................... zElectroplating .................................................................................................................................... 5Electroless and Immersion Plating ................................................................................................... 5Painting ............................................................................................................................................. 5Other Metal Finishing Techniques ................................................................................................... 6
Auxiliary Activity Areas and Potential Contaminants ............................................................................ 6Wastewater Treatment ...................................................................................................................... 6Sunken Wastewater Treatment Tank ............................................................................................... 6Chemical Storage Area ..................................................................................................................... 6Disposal Area ................................................................................................................................... 6
Other Considerations ............................................................................................................................... 6
3. Site Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 7The Central Role of the State Agencies .................................................................................................. 7
State Voluntary Cleanup Programs .................................................................................................. 7Levels of Contaminant Screening and Cleanup ............................................................................... 7
Performing a Phase I Site Assessment: Obtaining Facility Background Information fromExisting Data ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Facility Records ................................................................................................................................ 8Other Sources of Recorded Information .......................................................................................... 8Identifying Migration Pathways and Potentially Exposed Populations ........................................... 9
Gathering Topographic Information ......................................................................................... 9Gathering Soil and Subsurface Information............................................................................ 10Gathering Groundwater Information ....................................................................................... 10
Identifying Potential Environmental and Human Health Concerns ............................................... 10Involving the Community ..................... . ......................................................................................... 11Conducting a Site Visit ................................................................................................................... 11Conducting Interviews .................................................................................................................... 11Developing a Report ....................................................................................................................... 12
Performing a Phase II Site Assessment: Sampling the Site .................................................................. 12Setting Data Quality Objectives ..................................................................................................... 13Screening Levels.. ........................................................................................................................... 15Environmental Sampling and Data Analysis ................................................................................. 16Levels of Sampling and Analysis ................................................................................................... 16
Increasing the Certainty of Sampling Results ......................................................................... 16
V
Contents (continued)
Site Assessment Technologies ............................................................................................................... 16Field versus Laboratory Analysis ...................................................................................................18Sample Collection and Analysis Technologies ..............................................................................18
Additional Considerations for Assessing Metal Finishing Sites ........................................................... 20Where to Sample ............................................................................................................................ 20How Many Samples to Collect.. ..................................................................................................... 23What Types of Analysis to Perform ............................................................................................... 23
General Sampling Costs ........................................................................................................................ 23Soil Collection Costs ...................................................................................................................... 23Groundwater Sampling Costs ......................................................................................................... 23Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Costs ................................................................................ 24Sample Analysis Costs ................................................................................................................... 24
4. Site Cleanup ........................................................................................................................................... 25Developing a Cleanup Plan ................................................................................................................... 25
Institutional Controls ...................................................................................................................... 26Containment Technologies ............................................................................................................. 26Types of Cleanup Technologies ..................................................................................................... 26
Cleanup Technology Options for Metal Finishing Sites ....................................................................... 27Post-Construction Care .......................................................................................................................... 27
5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................. 36Appendix B: Glossary of Key Terms ........................................................................................................... 37Appendix C: Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 46
vi
Tables1 Common Contaminants at Metal Finishing Site ..................................................................................... 5
2 Non-Invasive Assessment Technologies ...............................................................................................I7
3 Soil and Subsurface Sampling Tools ..................................................................................................... 19
4 Groundwater Sampling Tools ................................................................................................................ 20
5 Sample Analysis Technologies .............................................................................................................. 21
6 Cleanup Technologies for Metal Finishing Brownfields Sites ............................................................. 28
Figure1 Typical metal finishing facility ..,......,...................................,.,..................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . 4
vii
Acknowledgments
This document was prepared by Eastern Research Group (ERG) for the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency’s Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI) in the .Office of Research and Development. Linda Stein served as Project Manager for ERG.Joan Colson of CERI served as Work Assignment Manager. Special thanks is given to AnnWhite and Jean Dye of EPA’s Office of Research and Development for editing support.
Reviewers of the document included Douglas Grosse and Kenneth Brown of the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory andNational Exposure Research Laboratory, respectively. Appreciation is given to EPA’sOffice of Special Programs for guidance on the Brownfields Initiative.
. . .Vlil
Chapter 1Introduction
BackgroundMany communities across the country contain brown-fields sites, which are abandoned, idle, and under-usedindustrial and commercial facilities where expansion orredevelopment is complicated by real or perceived envi-ronmental contamination. Concerns about liability, cost,and potential health risks associated with brownfields sitesoften prompt businesses to migrate to “greenfields” out-side the city. Left behind are communities burdened withenvironmental contamination, declining property values,and increased unemployment. The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s (EPA’s) Brownfields Economic Re-development Initiative was established to enable states,site planners, and other community stakeholders to worktogether in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely cleanup, and sustainably reuse brownfields sites. (U.S. EPABrownfields Home Page, http://www.epa.gov/brown-f i e l d s ) .
The cornerstone of EPA’s Brownfields Initiative is thePilot Program. Under this program, EPA is funding morethan 200 brownfields assessment pilot projects in states,cities, towns, counties, and tribes across the country. Thepilots, each funded at up to $200,000 over two years, arebringing together community groups, investors, lenders,developers, and other affected parties to address the is-sues associated with assessing and cleaning up contami-nated brownfields sites and returning them to appropriate,productive use. Information about the Brownfields Ini-tiative may be obtained from the EPA’s Office of SolidWaste and Emergency Response, Outreach/SpecialProjects Staff or any of EPA’s regional brownfields coor-dinators. These regional coordinators can provide com-munities with technical assistance such as targetedbrownfields assessments. A description of these assistanceactivities is contained on the brownfields web page. Inaddition to the hundreds of brownfields sites being ad-dressed by these pilots, over 40 states have establishedbrownfields or voluntary cleanup programs to encourage
municipalities and private sector organizations to assess,clean up, and redevelop brownfields sites.
PurposeEPA has developed a set of technical guides, includingthis document, to assist communities, states, municipali-ties, and the private sector to more effectively addressbrownfields sites. Each guide in this series contains in-formation on a different type of brownfields site (classi-fied according to former industrial use). In addition, asupplementary guide contains information on cost-esti-mating tools and resources for brownfields sites. EPA hasdeveloped this “Metal Finishing” guide to provide cityplanners, private sector developers, and other participantsin the brownfields decision-making process with a betterunderstanding of the technical issues involved in assess-ing and cleaning up metal finishing sites so that they canmake the most informed decisions possible.’ Through-out the guide, the term “planner” is used; this term isintended to be descriptive of the many different peoplewho are referenced above and may use the informationcontained herein. It is assumed that planners will use theservices of an environmental professional for some as-pects of site characterization and cleanup.
The overview presented in this guide of the technical pro-cess involved in assessing and cleaning up brownfieldssites can assist planners in making decisions at variousstages of the project. An understanding of land use andindustrial processes conducted in the past at a site canhelp the planner to conceptualize the site and identify
’ Because parts of this document are technical in nature, planners may wantto refer to additional EPA guides for further information. 77~ Tool Kit ofTecht~ology Ir~ormation Resources for BrownJields Sites, published byEPA’s Technology Innovation Office (TIO), contains a comprehensive listof relevant technical guidance documents (available from NTIS, No.PB97144828). EPA’s Road Map 10 Understanding Innovative TechnologyOptionsfor Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup, also by EPA’s TIO,provides an introduction to site assessment and cleanup (EPA Order No.EPA 542-B-97-002).
likely areas of contamination that may require cleanup.Numerous resources are suggested to facilitate charac-terization of the site and consideration of cleanup tech-nologies . .
Specifically, the objective of this document is to providedecision-makers with:
.
. An understanding of common industrial processes atmetal finishing facilities and the relationship betweensuch processes and potential releases of contaminantsto the environment.
.
l Information on the types of contaminants likely tobe present at a metal finishing site.
cleanup the types of contaminants likely to be presentat metal finishing sites.
A conceptual frametiork for identifying potentialcon-taminants at the site, pathways by which contarrni-nants may migrate off site, and environmentalandhuman health concerns.
Information on developing an appropriate clerrnupplan for metal finishing sites where contaminationlevels must be reduced to allow a site’s reuse.
A discussion of pertinent issues and factorstlhatshould be considered when developing a site ase ss-ment and cleanup plan and selecting appropriatetech-nologies for brownfields, given time and budgetconstraints.
l A discussion of site assessment (also known as site A list of acronyms is provided in Appendix A, Appendixcharacterization), screening and cleanup levels, and B provides a glossary of key terms, and Appendix Cli stscleanup technologies that can be used to assess and an extensive bibliography.
Industrial Processes and Contaminants at Metal Finishing Sites
Understanding the industrial processes used during ametal finishing facility’s active life and the types of con-taminants that may be present provides important infor-mation to guide planners in the assessment, cleanup, andrestoration of the site to an acceptable condition for saleor reuse. This section provides a general overview of theprocesses, chemicals, and contaminants used or found atmetal finishing sites. Specific metal finishing brownfieldssites may have had a different combination of these pro-cesses, chemicals, and contaminants. Therefore, this in-formation can be used only to develop a framework oflikely past activities. Planners should obtain facility spe-cific information on industrial processes at their site when-ever possible. Site-specific information is also importantto obtain because the site may have been used for otherindustrial purposes at other times in the past.
This section describes waste-generating surface prepara-tion operations; metal finishing operations and the typesof waste streams and specific contaminants associatedwith each process; auxiliary areas at metal finishing sitesthat may produce contaminants and nonprocess-relatedcontamination problems associated with metal finishingsites. Figure 1 presents typical metal finishing processesand land areas, along with the types of waste streams as-sociated with each area. Table 1 lists the specific con-taminants associated with each waste stream.
Surface Preparation OperationsMetal finishing processes are typically housed within onestructure. The surface of metal products generally requirespreparation (i.e., cleaning) prior to applying a finish. Aninitial set of degreasing tanks ([A] in Figure 1) are usedto remove oils, grease, and other foreign matter from thesurface of the metal so that a coating can be applied. Metalfinishing facilities may use solvents or emulsion solu-tions (i.e., solvents dispersed in an aqueous medium withthe aid of an emulsifying agent) in the degreasing tanks
to clean and prepare the surfaces of metal parts. Waste-waters generated from cleaning operations are primarilyrinse waters, which are usually combined with other metalfinishing wastewaters and treated on site by conventionalchemical precipitation. These wastewaters may containsolvents, as listed in Table 1. Solid wastes such as waste-water treatment sludges, still bottoms, and cleaning tankresidues may also be generated.
Metal Finishing OperationsMetal finishing operations are typically performed in aseries of tanks (baths) followed by rinsing cycles. Acidor alkaline baths “pickle” the surface of the steel to im-prove the adherence of the coating. After the picklingbaths, the metal products are moved to plating tanks,where the final coat is applied. Wastes generated duringfinishing operations derive from the solvents and cleans-ers applied to the surface and the metal-ion-bearing aque-ous solutions used in acid/alkaline rinsing and bathingoperations. Common metal finishing operations includeanodizing, chemical conversion coating, electroplating,electroless plating, and painting. Common waste streamsinclude metals and acids in the wastewater; metals in slud-ges and solid waste; and solvents from painting opera-tions, as listed in Table 1. If these wastes were managedor disposed of on site, it is possible that pollutants werereleased into the environment. Even at facilities wherewastes were not stored on site, releases may have occur-red during the handling and use of chemicals. Refer-ences are provided in Appendix C for more in-depthinformation on metal finishing operations and associatedenvironmental considerations. Metal finishing operationsare described below.
Anodizing OperationsAnodizing is an electrolytic process that uses acids fromthe combined electrolytic solution/acid bath tank to con-vert the metal surface into an insoluble oxide coating ([B]
Alkalines
Acids
Solvents
- - - - - - - - Rinsing and BathingOperations
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -
Acids
--+EzAnodizina
Cyanide?
ConversionCoating [C]Ls
Rinsing&ii
Acids
*I!- IElectroDlatina&etaI and AC
Stalin; and/orConversion Coatina - I
----
Qolid Waste%/
Agents - 1 IA
Solvet-?- -Paints
,inn
IIFI
\/ Metals in \
Rinsrng+* -CEig
Auxiliary Areas:Wastewater Treatment System (VOCs, Acid/BasCompounds, Metals)
Sunken Treatment Tanks (VOCs, Metals)Chemical Storage Area (VOCs)Disposal Area (VOCs)
Figure 1. Typical metal finishing facility.(Source: Adapted from Profile of the Fabricated Metal Products Industry (U.S. EPA, 1995).
4
in Figure 1). After anodizing, metal parts are typicallyrinsed and then sealed. Anodizing operations producecontaminated wastewaters and solid wastes.
Table 1. Common Contaminants at Metal Finishing Sites
Contaminant Group Contaminant Name
Volatile Organic Acetone, benzene, isopropyl alcohol, 2-Compounds (VOCs) dichlorobenzene, C-trimethylbenzene,
dichloromethane, ethyl benzene, freon113, methanol, methyl isobutyl ketone,methyl ethyl ketone, phenol, tetrachio-roethylene, toluene, trichloroethylene,xylene (mixed isomers).
MetalsJnorganics Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, asbestos(friable), barium, cadmium, chromium,cobalt, copper, lead, cyanide, manga-nese, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc.
Acids Hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, phospho-ric acid, sulfuric acid.
Chemical Conversion CoatingChemical conversion coating ([Cl in Figure 1) includesthe following processes:
l Chromating. Chromate conversion coatings are pro-duced on various metals by chemical or electrochemi-cal treatment. Acid solutions react with the metalsurface to form a layer of a complex mixture of theconstituent compounds, including chromium and thebase metal.
l Phosphating. Phosphate conversion coating involvesthe immersion of steel, iron, or zinc plated steel intoa dilute solution of phosphate salts, phosphoric acid,and other reagents to condition the surfaces for fur-ther processing.
l Metal Coloring. Metal coloring involves chemicallyconverting the metal surface into an oxide or similarmetahic compound to produce a decorative finish.
9 Passivating. Passivating is the process of forming aprotective film on metals by immersing them in anacid solution (usually nitric acid or nitric acid withsodium dichromate).
Pollutants associated with chemical conversion processesenter the wastestream through rinsing and batch dump-ing of process baths. Wastewaters containing chromiumare usually pretreated; this process generates a sludge thatis sent offsite for metals reclamation and/or disposal.
ElectroplatingElectroplating is the production of a surface coating ofone metal upon another by electrodeposition ([D] in Fig-ure 1). In electroplating, metal ions (in either acid, alka-line, or neutral solutions) are reduced on the cathodicsurfaces of the work pieces being plated. Electroplatingoperations produce contaminated wastewaters and solidwastes. Contaminated wastewaters result from work piecerinsing and process cleanup waters. Rinse waters fromelectroplating are usually combined with other metal fin-ishing wastewaters and treated onsite by conventionalchemical precipitation, which results in wastewater treat-ment sludges. Other wastes generated from electroplat-ing include spent process solutions and quench baths thatmay be discarded periodically when the concentrationsof contaminants inhibit their proper functions.
Electroless and Immersion PlatingElectroless plating involves chemically depositing a metalcoating onto a plastic object by immersing the object in aplating solution ([El in Figure 1). Immersion plating pro-duces a thin metal deposit, commonly zinc or silver, bychemical displacement. Both produce contaminatedwastewater and solid wastes. Facilities generally treatspent plating solutions and rinse waters chemically toprecipitate the toxic metals; however, some plating solu-tions can be difficult to treat because of the presence ofchelates. Most waste sludges resulting from electrolessand immersion plating contain significant concentrationsof toxic metals.
PaintingPainting is the application of predominantly organic coat-ings for protective and/or decorative purposes ([F] in Fig-ure 1). Paint is applied in various forms, including drypowder, solvent diluted formulations, and waterborneformulations, most commonly via spray painting and elec-trodeposition. Painting operations may result in solvent-containing waste and the direct release of solvents, paintsludge wastes, and paint-bearing wastewaters. Paintcleanup operations also may contribute to the release ofchlorinated solvents. Discharge from water curtain boothsgenerates the most wastewater. Onsite wastewater treat-ment processes generate a sludge that is taken off site fordisposal. Other sources of wastes include emission con-trol devices (e.g., paint booth collection systems, venti-lation filters) and discarded paints. Sandblasting may beperformed to remove paint and to clean metal surfacesfor painting or resurfacing; this practice may be of par-ticular concern if the paint being removed contains lead.
5
Other Metal Finishing TechniquesPolishing, hot dip coating, and etching are other processesused to finish metal. Wastewaters are often generatedduring these processes. For example, after polishing op-erations, area cleaning and washdown can produce metal-bearing wastewaters. Hot dip coating techniques, such asgalvanizing, use water for rinses following pre-cleaningand for quenching after coating. Hot dip coatings alsogenerate a solid waste, anoxide dross, that is periodicallyskimmed off the heated tank. Etching solutions are com-posed of strong acids or bases which may result in etch-ing solution wastes that contain metals and acids.
Auxiliary Activity Areas and PotentialContaminants
Wastewater TreatmentMany of the operations involved in metal finishing pro-duce wastewaters, which usually are combined and treatedonsite, often by conventional chemical precipitation. Eventhough the facility would have been required to meet statewastewater discharge standards before releasing wastes,spills of process wastewater may have occurred in thearea. At abandoned sites, any remaining wastewater leftin tanks or floor drains could contain solvents, metals,and acids, such as those listed in Table 1. In addition, it ispossible that wastewater sludges, which can contain met-als, were left at the site in baths or tanks.
Sunken Wastewater Treatment TankSome metal finishing facilities have wastewater treatmenttanks sunk into the concrete slab to rest on the underly-ing soils. This is done by design to aid facility operatorsin accessing the tanks. If these tanks develop leaks, thelost material, which may contain VOCs and metals, maybe released directly to the soils beneath the building.
Chemical Storage AreaAt most metal fmishing sites an area for storing chemi-cals used in the various operations was designated. Bulkcontainers stored in these areas may have leaked or spilled,
resulting in discharges to floor drains or cracks in tlhefloor. VOCs such as those listed in Table 1 may be foundin such areas. Acids and alkaline reagents may also befound in this area.
Disposal AreaMaterials, both liquid and solid, from process baths mayhave been disposed of at a designated area at the site.Such areas may be identified by stained soils or a lack ofvegetation. These areas may contain VOCs, such as thoselisted in Table 1.
Other ConsiderationsNot all releases are related to the industrial processesdescribed above. Some releases result from the assoc=i-ated services required to maintain the industrial processes.For example, electroplating facilities are large consusrn-ers of electricity, which requires a number of transforman-ers. At older facilities, these transformers may havebeendisposed of in unmarked areas of the facility, which makesit difficult to know where leaks of polychlorinated bi-phenyl (PCB)-laden oils used as coolants may have oc-curred. Similarly, large machinery used to move ne talpieces requires periodic maintenance. In the past, ctrmi-cals used for maintenance operations, such as solerats,oils, and grease, may have been flushed down drain andsumps after use. Stormwater runoff from paved areassmchas parking lots may contain petroleum hydrocarbons andoils, which can contaminate areas located downgradie nt.When conducting initial site evaluations, planners shouldexpand their investigations to include these types of ac-tivities.
In addition, metal finishing facilities may have been lo-cated in older buildings that contain lead paint and as-bestos insulation and tiling. Any structure built before1970 should be assessed for the presence of these materi-als. They can cause significant problems during demoli-tion or renovation of the structures for reuse. Specialhandling and disposal requirements under state and fed-eral laws can significantly increase the cost of constr~c-tion.
Chapter 3Site Assessment
The purposes of a site assessment are to determinewhether or not contamination is present and to assess thenature and extent of possible contamination and the risksto people and the environment that the contamination maypose. The elements of a site assessment are designed tohelp planners build a conceptual framework of the facil-ity, which will aid site characterization efforts. The con-ceptual framework should identify:
l Potential contaminants that remain in and around thef a c i l i t y .
l Pathways along which contaminants may move.
l Potential risks to the environment and human healththat exist along the migration pathways.
This section highlights the key role that state environ-mental agencies usually play in brownfields projects. Thetypes of information that planners should attempt to col-lect to characterize the site in a Phase I site assessment(i.e., the facility’s history) are discussed. Information ispresented about where to find and how to use this infor-mation to determine whether or not contamination islikely. Additionally this section provides information toassist planners in conducting a Phase II site assessment,including sampling the site and determining the magni-tude of contamination. Other considerations in assessingiron and steel sites are also discussed, and general sam-pling costs are included. This guide provides only a gen-eral approach to site evaluation; planners should expandand refine this approach for site-specific use at their ownfacilities.
The Central Role of the State AgenciesA brownfields redevelopment project involves partner-ships among site planners (whether private or public sec-tor), state and local officials, and the local community.State en+ronmental agencies often are key decision-mak-ers and a primary source of information for brownfields
projects. Brownfields sites are generally cleaned up un-der state programs, particularly state voluntary cleanupor Brownfields programs; thus, planners will need to workclosely with state program managers to determine theirparticular state’s requirements for brownfields develop-ment. Planners may also need to meet additional federalrequirements. Key state functions include:
l Overseeing brownfields site assessment and cleanupprocesses, including the management of voluntarycleanup programs.
l Providing guidance on contaminant screening lev-els.
l Serving as a source of site information, as well aslegal and technical guidance.
State Voluntary Cleanup Programs (VCPs)State VCPs are designed to streamline brownfields rede-velopment, reduce transaction costs, and provide stateliability protection for past contamination. Plannersshould be aware that state cleanup requirements vary sig-nificantly and should contact the state brownfield man-ager; brownfields managers from state agencies will beable to identify their state requirements for planners andwill clarify how their state requirements relate to federalrequirements.
Levels of Contaminant Screening andCleanupIdentifying the level of site contamination and determin-ing the risk, if any, associated with that contaminationIevel is a crucial step in determining whether cleanup isneeded. Some state environmental agencies, as well asfederal and regional EPA offices, have developed screen-ing levels for certain contaminants, which are incorpo-rated into some brownfields programs. Screening levelsrepresent breakpoints in risk-based concentrations ofchemicals in soil, air, or water. If contaminant concentra-
7
tions are below the screening level, no action is required; due diligence through a Phase I site assessment willhelpabove the level, further investigation is needed. to answer key questions about the levels of contanina-
tion. Several federal and state programs exist to tini-In addition to screening levels, EPA regional offices and mize owner liability at brownfields sites and facilitatesome states have developed cleanup standards; if con- cleanup and redevelopment; planners should contacttheirtaminant concentrations are above cleanup standards,cleanup must be pursued. The section on “Performing aPhase II Site Assessment” in this document provides moreinformation on screening levels, and the section on “SiteCleanup” provides more information on cleanup stan-dards .
Performing a Phase I Site Assessment:Obtaining Facility Background Informationfrom Existing DataPlanners should compile a history of the iron and steelmanufacturing facility to identify likely site contaminantsand their probable locations. Financial institutions typi-cally require a Phase I site assessment prior to lendingmoney to potential property buyers to protect theinstitution’s role as mortgage holder (Geo-Environmen-tal Solutions, n.d.). In addition, parties involved in thetransfer, foreclosure, leasing, or marketing of propertiesrecommend some form of site evaluation (The WhitmanCompanies, 1996). The site history should include?
A review of readily available records (e.g., formersite use, building plans, records of any prior contami-nation events).
A site visit to observe the areas used for various in-dustrial processes and the condition of the property.
Interviews with knowledgeable people (e.g., site own-ers, operators, and occupants; neighbors; local gov-ernment officials).
A report that includes an assessment of the likelihoodthat contaminants are present at the site.
The Phase I site assessment should be conducted by anenvironmental professional, and may take three to fourweeks to complete. Site evaluations are required in partas a response to concerns over environmental liabilitiesassociated with property ownership. A property ownerneeds to perform “due diligence,” i.e. fully inquire intothe previous ownership and uses of a property to demon-strate that all reasonable efforts to find site contamina-tion have been made. Because brownfields sites oftencontain low levels of contamination and pose low risks,
z The elements of a Phase I site assessment presented here are based in parton ASTM Standards 1527 and 1528.
state environmental or regional EPA office for further in-formation.
Information on how to review records, conduct site vi sitsand interviews, and develop a report during a Phase1 siteassessment is provided below.
Facility RecordsFacility records are often the best source of inforrn&Zonon former site activities. If past owners are not inhiasllyknown, a local records office should have deed boksthat contain ownership history. Generally, records per-taining specifically to the site in question are adegu-atefor review purposes. In some cases, however, records ofadjacent properties may also need to be reviewed to as-sess the possibility of contaminants migrating fromoa tothe site, based on geologic or hydrogeologic conditicsns.If the brownfields property resides in a low-lying a~&, inclose proximity to other industrial facilities or formerlyindustrialized sites, or downgradient from current orformer industrialized sites, an investigation of adjac-entproperties is warranted.
Other Sources of Recorded InformationPlanners may need to use other sources in addition tofacility records to develop a complete history. ASTMStandard 1527 identifies standard sources such as his-torical aerial photographs, fiie insurance maps, propertytax files, recorded land title records, topographic maps,local street directories, building department records,2 on-ing/land use records, and newspaper archives (ASTM,1997).
Some metal finishing site managers may have workedwith state environmental regulators; these offices maybe key sources of information. Federal (e.g., EPA) recordsmay also be useful. The types of information providedby regulators may include facility maps that identify ac-tivities and disposal areas, lists of stored pollutants, andthe types and levels of pollutants released. State officesand other sources where planners can search for site-spe-cific information are presented below:
l The state offices responsible for industrial wasternan-agement and hazardous waste should have a recordof any emergency removal actions at the site (e.g.,the removal of leaking drums that posed an “immi-
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
nent threat” to local residents); any Resource Con-servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permits issuedat the site; notices of violations issued; and any envi-ronmental investigations.
The state office responsible for discharges of waste-water to water bodies under the National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) programwill have a record of any permits issued for dischargesinto surface water at or near the site. The local pub-licly owned treatment works (POTW) will have,records for permits issued for indirect discharges intosewers (e.g., floor drain discharges to a sanitarysewer).
The state office responsible for underground storagetanks may also have records of tanks located at thesite, as well as records of any past releases.
The state office responsible for air emissions may beable to provide information on air pollutants associ-ated with particular types of onsite contamination.
EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Information System(CERCLIS) of potentially contaminated sites shouldhave a record of any previously reported contamina-tion at or near the site. For information, contact theSuperfund Hotline (800-424-9346).
EPA Regional Offices can provide records of sitesthat have hazardous substances. Information is avail-able from the Federal National Priorities List (NPL)and lists of treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD)facilities subject to corrective action under RCRA.RCRA non-TSD facilities, RCRA generators, andEmergency Response Notification System (ERNS)information on contaminated or potentially contami-nated sites can help to determine if neighboring fa-cilities are recorded as having released hazardoussubstances into the immediate environment. ContactEPA Regional Offices for more information.
State and local records may indicate any permit vio-lations or significant contaminant releases from ornear the site’.
Residents and former employees may be able to pro-vide useful information on waste management prac-tices, but these reports should be substantiated.
Local fire departments may have responded to emer-gency events at the facility. Fire departments or city
halls may have fire insurance maps3 or other histori-cal maps or data that indicate the location of hazard-ous waste storage areas at the site.
l Local waste haulers may have records of the facility’sdisposal of hazardous or other waste materials.
l Utility records.
l Local building permits.
Requests for federal regulatory information are governedby the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and the ful-filling of such requests generally takes a minimum of fourto eight weeks. Similar freedom of information legisla-tion does not uniformly exist on the state level; one canexpect a minimum waiting period of four weeks to re-ceive requested information (ASTM, 1997).
/den tifying Migration Path ways andPotentially Exposed PopulationsOffsite migration of contaminants may pose a risk to hu-man health and the environment; planners should gatheras much readily available information on the physicalcharacteristics of the site as possible. Migration pathways,i.e., soil, groundwater, and air, will depend on site-spe-cific characteristics such as geology and the physical char-acteristics of the individual contaminants (e.g., mobility).Information on the physical characteristics of the generalarea can play an important role in identifying potentialmigration pathways and focusing environmental samplingactivities, if needed. Planners should collect three typesof information to obtain a better understanding of migra-tion pathways, including topographic, soil and subsur-face, and groundwater data, as described below.
Gathering Topographic InformationIn this preliminary investigation, topographic informa-tion will be helpful in determining whether the site maybe subject to contamination by adjoining properties ormay be the source of contamination of other properties.Topographic information will help planners identify low-lying areas of the facility where rain and snowmelt (andany contaminants in them) may collect and contributeboth water and contaminants to the underlying aquifer orsurface runoff to nearby areas. The US. Geological Sur-vey (USGS) of the Department of the Interior has topo-graphic maps for nearly every part of the country. These
’ Fire insurance maps show, for a specific property, the locations of suchitems as USTs, buildings, and areas where chemicals have been used forcertain industrial processes.
9
maps are inexpensive and available through the follow-ing address:
USGS Information ServicesBox 25286Denver, CO 80225[http://www.mapping.usgs.gov/esic/to-orderhmtl]
Gathering Soil and Subsurface InformationPlanners should know about the types of soils at the sitefrom the ground surface extending down to the water tablebecause soil characteristics play a large role in how con-taminants move in the environment. For example, claysoils limit downward movement of pollutants into un-derlying groundwater but facilitate surface runoff. Sandysoils, on the other hand, can promote rapid infiltrationinto the water table while inhibiting surface runoff. Soilinformation can be obtained through a number of sources:
l Local planning agencies should have soil maps tosupport land use planning activities. These maps pro-vide a general description of the soil types presentwithin a county (or sometimes a smaller administra-tive unit, such as a township).
. The Naturai Resource Conservation Service and Co-operative Extension Service offices of the U.S. De-partment of Agriculture (USDA) are also likely tohave soil maps.
l Well-water companies are likely to be familiar withlocal subsurface conditions, and local water districtsand state water divisions may have well-logging in-formation.
l Local health departments may be familiar with sub-surface conditions because of their interest in septicdrain fields.
l Local construction contractors are likely to be famil-iar with subsurface conditions from their work withfoundations.
Soil characteristics can vary widely within a relativelysmall area, and it is common to find that the top layer ofsoil in urban areas is composed of fill materials, not na-tive soils. While local soil maps and other general soilinformation can be used for screening purposes such asin a Phase I assessment, site-specific information will beneeded in the event that cleanup is necessary.
Gathering Groundwater InformationPlanners should obtain general groundwater informationabout the site area, including:
l State classifications of underlying aquifers
l Depth to the groundwater tables
l Groundwater flow direction and rate
This information can be obtained by contacting state en-vironmental agencies or from several local sources, in-cluding water authorities, well drilling companies, healthdepartments, and Agricultural Extension and NaturalResource Conservation Service offices.
/den tifying Potential Environmental andHuman Health ConcernsIdentifying possible environmental and human healthrisks early in the process can influence decisions regard-ing the viability of a site for cleanup and the choice ofcleanup methods used. A visual inspection of the areawill usually suffice to identify onsite or nearby wetlandsand water bodies that may be particularly sensitive tore-leases of contaminants during characterization or cleanupgtivip;es P!=,,?=ers &4&.dd also reyie.,: at,failfxble infer-
mation (e.g., from state and local environmental agen-cies) to ascertain the proximity of residential dwelling s,nearby industrial/commercial activities, and wetlands/water bodies, and to identify people, animals, or plantsthat might receive migrating contamination; any particu-larly sensitive populations in the area (e.g., children; en-dangered species); and whether any major contaminationevents have occurred previously in the area (e.g., drink-ing water problems; groundwater contamination).
For environmental information, planners can contact theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, state environmental agen-cies, local planning and conservation authorities, the U.S.Geological Survey, and the USDA Natural ResourceConservation Service. State and local agencies and orga-nizations can usually provide information on local faunaand the habitats of any sensitive and/or endangered spe-cies.
For human health information, planners can contact:
l State and local health assessment organizations. Or-ganizations such as health departments, should havedata on the quality of local well water used as a drink-
IO
ing water source, as well as any human health riskstudies that have been conducted. In addition, thesegroups may have other relevant information, such ashow certain types of contaminants (e.g., volatile or-ganics, such as benzene and phenols) might pose ahealth risk (e.g., dermal exposure to volatile organ-its during site characterization); information on ex-posures to particular contaminants and potentialassociated health risks can also be found in healthprofile documents developed by the Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). In addi-tion, ATSDR may have conducted a health consulta-tion or health assessment in the area if anenvironmental contamination event that may haveposed a health risk occurred in the past; such an eventand assessment should have been identified in thePhase I records review of prior contamination inci-dents at the site if any occurred. For information,contact ATSDR’s Division of Toxicology (404-639-6300).
. Local water and health departments. During the sitevisit (described below), when visually inspecting thearea around the facility, planners should identify anyresidential dwellings or commercial activities nearthe facility and evaluate whether people there maycome into contact with contamination along one ofthe migration pathways. Where groundwater contami-nation may pose a problem, planners should identifyany nearby waterways or aquifers that may be im-pacted by groundwater discharge of contaminatedwater, including any drinking water wells that maybe downgradient of the site, such as a municipal wellfield. Local water departments will have a count ofwell connections to the public water supply. Plan-ners should also pay particular attention to informa-tion on private wells in the area downgradient of thefacility, since, depending on their location, they maybe vulnerable to contaminants migrating offsite evenwhen the public municipal drinking water supply isnot vulnerable. Local health departments often haveinformation on the locations of private wells.
In addition to groundwater sources and migration path-ways, surface water sources and pathways should beevaluated since groundwater and surface waters can in-terface at some (or several) point(s) in the region. Con-taminants in groundwater can eventually migrate tosurface waters, and contaminants in surface waters canmigrate to groundwater.
Involving the CommunityCommunity-based organizations represent a wide rangeof issues, from environmental concerns to housing issuesto economic development. These groups can often behelpful in educating planners and others in the commu-nity about local brownfields sites, which can contributeto successful brownfields site assessment and cleanup ac-‘tivities. In addition, most state voluntary cleanup pro-grams require that local communities be adequatelyinformed about brownfields cleanup activities. Plannerscan contact the local Chamber of Commerce, local phil-anthropic organizations, local service organizations, andneighborhood committees for community input. State andlocal environmental groups may be able to supply rel-evant information and identify other appropriate commu-nity organizations. Local community involvement inbrownfields projects is a key component in the successof such projects.
Conducting a Site VisitIn addition to collecting and reviewing available records,planners need to conduct a site visit to visually and physi-cally observe the uses and conditions of the property, in-cluding both outdoor areas and the interior of any^d..._.-L_ ---- - -__ LL- -..~UULLUIC~ vu UIG poperiy. Curreni slrd past uses invoiv-ing the use, treatment; storage, disposal, or generation ofhazardous substances or petroleum products should benoted. Current or past uses of abutting properties that canbe observed readily while conducting the site visit alsoshould be noted. In addition, readily observable geologic,hydrologic, and topographic conditions should be identi-fied, including any possibility of hazardous substancesmigrating on- or offsite.
Roads, water supplies, and sewage systems should beidentified, as well as any storage tanks, whether above orbelow ground. If any hazardous substances or petroleumproducts are found, their type, quantity, and storage con-ditions should be noted. Any odors, pools of liquids,drums or other containers, and equipment likely to con-tain PCBs should be noted. Additionally, indoors, heat-ing and cooling systems should be noted, as well as anystains, corrosion, drains, or sumps. Outdoors, any pits,ponds, lagoons, stained soil or pavement, stressed veg-etation, solid waste, wastewater, and wells should be noted(ASTM, 1997).
Conducting InterviewsIn addition to reviewing available records and visitingthe site, conducting interviews with the site owner and/
11
or site manager, site occupants, and local officials is highlyrecommended to obtain information about the prior and/or current uses and conditions of the property, and to in-quire about any useful documents that exist regarding theproperty. Such documents include environmental auditreports, environmental permits, registrations for storagetanks, material safety data sheets, community right-to-know plans, safety plans, government agency notices orcorrespondence, hazardous waste generator reports or no-tices, geoteclmical studies, or any proceedings involvingthe property (ASTM, 1997). Interviews with at least onestaff person from the following local government agen-cies are recommended: the fire pepartment, health agency,and the agency with authority for hazardous waste dis-posal or other environmental matters. Interviews can beconducted in person, by telephone, or in writing.
Additional sections of the report might include a recom-mendations section (e.g., for a Phase II site assessment,if appropriate); and sections on the presence or absenceof asbestos, lead paint, lead in drinking water, radon, andwetlands. Some states or financial institutions may re-quire information on these substances.
ASTM Standard 1528 provides a questionnaire that maybe appropriate for use in interviews for certain sites.ASTM suggests that this questionnaire be posed to thecurrent property owner, any major occupant of the prop-erty (or at least 10 percent of the occupants of the prop-erty if no major occupant exists), or “any occupant likelyto be using, treating, generating, storing, or disposing ofhazardous substances or petroleum products on or fromthe property.” A user’s guide accompanies the ASTMquestionnaire to assist the investigator in conducting in-terviews, as well as researching records and making sitevisits.
If the Phase I site assessment adequately informs stateand local officials, planners, community representatives,and other stakeholders that no contamination exists at thesite, or that contamination is so minimal that it does motpose a health or environmental risk, then those involvedmay decide that adequate site assessment has been LC-complished and the process of redevelopment may pro-ceed. In some cases where evidence of contaminationexists, stakeholders may decide that enough informationis available from the Phase I site assessment to charirc-terize the site and determine an appropriate approach Forsite cleanup of the contamination. In other cases, stake-holders may decide that additional site assessment iswarranted, and a Phase II site assessment would be ten-ducted, as described below.
Performing a Phase II Site Assessment:Sampling the Site
Developing a ReportToward the end of the Phase I assessment, planners shoulddevelop a report that includes all of the important infor-mation obtained during record reviews, the site visit, andinterviews. Documentation, such as references and im-portant exhibits, should be included, as well as the cre-dentials of the environmental professional that conductedthe Phase I environmental site assessment. The reportshould include all information regarding the presence orlikely presence of hazardous substances or petroleumproducts on the property and any conditions that indicatean existing, past, or potential release of such substancesinto property structures or into the ground, groundwater,or surface water of the property (ASTM, 1997). The re-port should include the environmental professional’s opin-ion of the impact of the presence or likely presence ofany contaminants, and a findings and conclusion sectionthat either indicates that the Phase I environmental siteassessment revealed no evidence of contaminants in con-nection with the property, or discusses what evidence ofcontamination was found (ASTM, 1997).
12
A piiase ii site assessdieni typically iiivoivej ta~lig jirii,
water, and air samples to identify the types, quantity, andextent of contamination in these various environmentalmedia. The types of data used in a Phase II site assess-ment can vary from existing site data (if adequate), tolimited sampling of the site, to more extensive contarni-nant-specific or site-specific sampling data. Plannersshould use knowledge of past facility operations when-ever possible to focus the site evaluation on those pro-cess areas where pollutants were stored; handled, used,or disposed. These will be the areas where potential con-tamination will be most readily identified. Generally, tominimize costs, a Phase II site assessment will begin withlimited sampling (assuming readily available data do notexist that adequately characterize the type and extent ofcontamination on the site) and will proceed to more com-prehensive sampling if needed (e.g., if the initial sam-pling could not identify the geographical limits ofcontamination).
This section explains the importance of setting Data Qual-ity Objectives (DQOs) and provides brief guidance fordoing so; describes screening levels to which samplingresults can be compared; and provides an overview ofenvironmental sampling and data analysis, including sam-pling methods and ways to increase data certainty.
Setting Data Quality Objectives Striking a balance between these two competing goals-EPA has developed a guidance document that describes more scientific certainty versus less cost-requires care-key principals and best practices for brownfields site as- ful thought and planning, as well as the application ofsessment quality assurance and quality control based on professional expertise.program experience. The document, Quality AssuranceGuidance for Conducting Brownfields Site Assessments(EPA 540-R-98-038), is intended as a reference for people The following steps me involved in systematic planting:involved in the brownfields site assessment process andserves to inform managers of important quality assurance 1.concepts.
Agree on intended land reuse. All parties should agreeearly in the process on the intended reuse for the prop-erty because the type of use may strongly influencethe choice of assessment and cleanup approaches. Forexample, if the area is to be a park, removal of allcontamination will most likely be needed. If the landwill be used for a shopping center, with most of theland covered by buildings and parking lots, it may beappropriate to reduce, rather than totally remove, con-taminants to specified levels (e.g., state cleanup lev-els; see “Site Cleanup” later in this document).
EPA has adopted the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Pro-cess (EPA 540-R-93-071) as a framework for makingdecisions. The DQO Process is common-sense, system-atic planning tool based on the scientific method. Usinga systematic planning approach, such as the DQO Pro-cess, ensures that the data collected to support defensiblesite decision making will be of sufficient quality and quan-tity, as well as be generated through the most cost-effec-tive means possible. DQOs, themselves, are statementsthat unambiguously communicate the following: 2.
l The study objective
l The most appropriate type of data to collect.
l The most appropriate conditions under which to col-lect the data.
. The amount of uncertainty that will be tolerated whenmaking decisions.
It is important to understand the concept of uncertaintyand its relationship to site decision making. Regulatoryagencies, and the public they represent, want to be asconfident as possible about the safety of reusing brown-fields sites. Public acceptance of site decisions may de-pend on the site manager’s being able to scientificallydocument the adequacy of site decisions. During nego-tiations with stakeholders, effective communication aboutthe tradeoffs between project costs and confidence in thesite decision can help set the stage for a project’s suc-cessful completion. When the limits on uncertainty (e.g.,only a 5,10, or 20 percent chance of a particular decisionerror is permitted) are clearly defined in the project, sub-sequent activities can be planned so that data collectionefforts will be able to support those confidence goals in aresource-effective manner. On the one hand, a managerwould like to reduce the chance of making a decisionerror as much as possible, but on the other hand, reduc-ing the chance of making that decision error requires col-
letting more data, which is, in itself, a costly process.
13
Clarify the objective of the site assessment. What isthe overall decision(s) that must be made for the site?Parties should agree on the purpose of the assess-ment. Is the objective to confirm that no contamina-iion is preseni? Or is Lilt: gOiii iri ideliiifji ihe type,level, and distribution of contamination above thelevels which are specified, based on the intended landuse. These are two fundamentally different goals thatsuggest different strategies. The costs associated witheach approach will also vary.
As noted above, parties should also agree on the to-tal amount of uncertainty allowable in the overalldecision(s). Conducting a risk assessment involvesidentifying the levels of uncertainty associated withcharacterization and cleanup decisions. A risk as-sessment involves identifying potential contaminantsand analyzing the pathways through which people,other species of concern, or the environment can be-come exposed to those contaminants (see EPA 600-R-93-039 and EPA 540-R095-132). Such anassessment can help identify the risks associated withvarying the levels of acceptable uncertainty in thesite decision and can provide decision-makers withgreater confidence about their choice of land use de-cisions and the objective of the site assessment. Ifcleanup is required, a risk assessment can also helpdetermine how clean the site needs to be, based onexpected reuse (e.g., residential or industrial), to safe-guard people from exposure to contaminants. Formore information, see the section Increasing the Cer-
tainty of Sampling Results and the section SiteCleanup.
3. Dejne the appropriate type(s) of data that will beneeded to make an infomzed decision at the desiredconfidence level. Parties should agree on the type ofdata to be collected by defining a preliminary list ofsuspected analytes, media, and analyte-specific ac-tion levels (screening levels). Define how the datawill be used to make site decisions. For example,data values for a particular analyte may or may notbe averaged across the site for the purposes of reach-ing a decision to proceed with work. Are there maxi-mum values which a contaminant(s) cannot exceed?If found, will concentrations of contaminants abovea certain action level (hotspots) be characterized andtreated separately? These discussions should alsoaddress the types of analyses to be performed at dif-ferent stages of the project. Planners and regulatorscan reach an agreement to focus initial characteriza-tion efforts in those areas where the preliminary in-formation indicates potential sources ofcontamination may be located. It may be appropri-ate to analyze for a broad class of contaminants byless expensive screening methods in the early stagesof the project in order to limit the n-umber of samplesneeding analysis by higher quality, more expensivemethods later. Different types of data may be used atdifferent stages of the project to support interim de-cisions that efficiently direct the course of the projectas it moves forward.
4. Determine the most appropriate conditions underwhich to collect the data. Parties should agree onthe timing of sampling activities, since weather con-ditions can influence how representative the samplesare of actual conditions.
5. Identify appropriate contingency plans/actions. Cer-tain aspects of the project may not develop as planned.Early recognition of this possibility can be a usefulpart of the DQO Process. For example, planners,regulators, and other stakeholders can acknowledgethat screening-level sampling may lead to the dis-covery of other contaminants on the site than wereoriginally anticipated. During the DQO Process,stakeholders may specify appropriate contingency ac-tions to be taken in the event that contamination isfound. Identifying contingency actions early in theproject can help ensure that the project will proceedeven in light of new developments. The use of a dy-namic workplan combined with the use of rapidtum-
around field analytical methods can enable the pj ectto move forward with a minium of time delay! andwasted effort.
6. Develop a sampling and analysis plan that canmeetthe goals and permissible uncertainties descrit& inthe proceeding steps. The overall uncertainty in asite decision is a function of several factors: thenxm-ber of samples across the site (the density of smplecoverage), the heterogeneity of analytes from smpleto sample (spatial variability of contaminant c(yocen-trations), and the accuracy of the analytical metM( s).Studies have demonstrated that analytical variakillitytends to contribute much less to the uncertain!y ofsite decisions than does sample variability dre tomatrix heterogeneity. Therefore, spending moky toincrease the sample density across the site willusu-ally (for most contaminants) make a larger conibu-tion to confidence in the site decision, and this bemore cost-effective, than will spending tnorf toachieve the highest data quality possible, buta* alower sampling density.
Examples of important consideration for develofig asampling and analysis plan include:
- Detemnne the sampling location placernerd thatcan provide an estimate of the matrix hetoge-neity and thus address the desired certain!. Islocating hotspots of a certain size impoimnt?Can composite sampling be used to imeasecoverage of the site (and decrease overall un-certainty due to sample heterogeneity) vhilelowering analytical costs?
- Evaluate the available pool of analyticallech-nologies/methods (both field methods andlabo-ratory methods, which might be implementcdl ineither a fixed or mobile laboratory) forihosemethods that can address the desired action kv-els (the analytical methods quantificationlimitshould be well below the action level). Accountfor possible or expected matrix interferenceswhen considering appropriate methods. Canfield analytical methods produce data tha willmeet all of the desired goals when sampling un-certainty is also taken into account? Evaluatewhether a combination of screening and defini-tive methods may produce a more cost-effective %means to generate data. Can economy ofscalebe used? For example, the expense of a mobile
14
laboratory is seldom cost-effective for a singlesmall site, but might be cost-effective if severalsites can be characterized sequentially by a singlemobile laboratory.
- When the sampling procedures, sample prepa-ration and analytical methods have been selected,design a quality control protocol for each proce-dure and method that ensures that the data gen-erated will be of known, defensible quality.
7. Through a number of iterations, refine the samplingand analysis plan to one that can most cost-e#ec-tively address the decision-making needs of the siteplanner:
8. Review agreements often. As more information be-comes available, some decisions that were based onearlier, limited information should be reviewed to seeif they are still valid. If they are not, the parties canagain use the DQO framework to revise and refinesite assessment and cleanup goals and activities.
The data needed to support decision-making for brown-fields sites generally are not complicated and are lessextensive than those required for more heavily contami-nated, higher-risk sites (e.g., Superfund sites). But datauncertainty may still be a concern at brownfields sitesbecause knowledge of past activities at a site may be lessthan comprehensive, resulting in limited site character-ization. Establishing DQOs can help address the issue ofdata uncertainty in such cases. Examples of DQOs in-clude verifying the presence of soil contaminants, andassessing whether contaminant concentrations exceedscreening levels.
Screening LevelsIn the initial stages of a Phase II site assessment an ap-propriate set of screening levels for contaminants in soil,water, and/or air should be established. Screening levelsare risk-based benchmarks which represent concentra-tions of chemicals in environmental media that do notpose an unacceptable risk. Sample analyses of soils, wa-ter, and air at the facility can be compared with thesebenchmarks. If onsite contaminant levels exceed thescreening levels, further investigation will be needed todetermine if and to what extent cleanup is appropriate.
Some states have developed generic screening levels (e.g.,for industrial and residential use). These levels may notaccount for site-specific factors that affect the concentra-tion or migration of contaminants. Alternatively, screen-
ing levels can be developed using site-specific factors.While site-specific screening levels can more effectivelyincorporate elements unique to the site, developing site-specific standards is a time- and resource-intensive pro-cess. Planners should contact their state environmentaloffices and/or EPA regional offices for assistance in us-ing screening levels and in developing site-specificscreening levels.
Risk-based screening levels are based on calculations/models that determine the likelihood that exposure of aparticular organism or plant to a particular level of a con-taminant would result in a certain adverse effect. Risk-based screening levels have been developed for tap water,ambient air, fish, and soil. Some states or EPA regionsalso use regional background levels (or ranges) of con-taminants in soil and Maximum Contaminant Levels(MCLs) in water established under the Safe DrinkingWater Act as screening levels for some chemicals. In ad-dition, some states and/or EPAregional offices4 have de-veloped equations for converting soil screening levels tocomparative levels for the analysis of air and groundwater.
When a contaminant concentration exceeds a screeninglevel, further site assessment (such as sampling the siteat strategic locations and/or performing more detailedanalysis) is needed to determine that: (1) the concentra-tion of the contaminant is relatively low and/or the ex-tent of contamination is small and does not warrantcleanup for that particular chemical, or (2) the concen-tration or extent of contamination is high, and that sitecleanup is needed (see the section “Site Cleanup” for adiscussion on cleanup levels).
Using state cleanup standards for an initial brownfieldsassessment may be beneficial if no industrial screeninglevels are available or if the site may be used for residen-tial purposes. EPA’s soil screening guidance is a tool de-veloped by EPA to help standarize and accelerate theevaluation and cleanup of contaminated soils at sites onthe NPL where future residential land use is anticipated.This guidance may be useful at corrective action or VCPsites where site conditions are similar. However, use ofthis guidance for sites where residential land use assump-tions do not apply could result in overly conservativescreening levels.
‘For example, EPA Region 6 Human Health Media-Specific ScreeningLevels include air and groundwater levels based on soil screening levelsfor some chemicals.
15
Environmental Sampling and DataAnalysisEnvironmental sampling and data analysis are integralparts of a Phase II site assessment process. Many differ-ent technologies are available to perform these activities,as discussed below.
Levels of Sampling and AnalysisThere are two levels of sampling and analysis: screeningand contaminant-specific. Planners are likely to use bothat different stages of the site assessment.
Screening. Screening sampling and analysis use rela-tively low-cost technologies to take a limited num-ber of samples at the most likely points ofcontamination and analyze them for a limited num-ber of parameters. Screening analyses often test onlyfor broad classes of contaminants, such as total pe-troleum hydrocarbons, rather than for specific con-taminants, such as benzene or toluene. Screening isused to narrow the range of areas of potential con-tamination and reduce thenumber of samples requir-ing further, more costly, analysis. Screening isgenerally performed on site, with a small percentageof samples (e.g., generally 10 percent) submitted toa state-approved iaboratory for a fuii organic and in-organic screening analysis to validate or clarify theresults obtained.
Some geophysical methods are used in site assess-ments because they are noninvasive (i.e., do not dis-turb environmental media as sampling does).Geophysical methods are commonly used to detectunderground objects that might exist at a site, suchas USTs, dry wells, and drums. The two most com-mon and cost-effective technologies used in geophysi-cal surveys are ground-penetrating radar andelectromagnetics. An overview of geophysical meth-ods is presented in Table 2. Geophysical methods arediscussed in Subsurface Characterization and Moni-toring Techniques: A Desk Reference Guide (EPA/625/R-93003a).
Contaminant-specific. For a more in-depth under-standing of contamination at a site (e.g., when screen-ing data are not detailed enough), it may be necessaryto analyze samples for specific contaminants. Withcontaminant-specific sampling and analysis, the num-ber of parameters analyzed is much greater than forscreening-level sampling, and analysis includes moreaccurate, higher-cost field and laboratory methods.Such analyses may take several weeks.
Computerization, microfabrication and biotechnologyhave permitted the recent development of analyticalequipment that can be generated in the field, on-site ik amobile laboratory and off-site in a laboratory. The samekind of equipment might be used in two or more loca-tions
Increasing the Certainty of SamplingResultsOne approach to reducing the level of uncertainty asso-ciated with site data is to implement a statistical sam-pling plan. Statistical sampling plans use statistic alprinciples to determine the number of samples needed toaccurately represent the contamination present. With thestatistical sampling method, samples are usually analyzedwith highly accurate laboratory or field teclmologies,which increase costs and take additional time. Using thisapproach, planners can negotiate with regulators and de-termine in advance specific measures of allowable un-certainty (e.g., an 80 percent level of confidence with a25 percent allowable error).
Another approach to increasing the certainty of samplingresults is to use lower-cost technologies with higher de-tection limits to collect a greater number of samples. Thisapproach would provide a more comprehensive pictureof contamination at the site, but with less detail regard-ing the specific contamination. Such an approach wolldnot be recommended to identify the extent of contamina-tion by a specific contaminant, such as benzene, but maybe an excellent approach for defining the extent of con-tamination by total organic compounds with a strong de-gree of certainty. Planners will find that there is a trade-offbetween scope and detail. Performing a limited numberof detailed analyses provides good detail but less cer-tainty about overall contamination, while performing alarger number of general analyses provides less detail butimproves the understanding and certainty of the scope ofcontamination.
Site Assessment TechnologiesThis section discusses the differences between using fieldand laboratory technologies and provides an overview ofapplicable site assessment technologies. In recent years,several innovative technologies that have been field-testedand applied to hazardous waste problems have emerged.In many cases, innovative technologies may cost less thanconventional techniques and can successfully provide theneeded data. Operating conditions may affect the cost andeffectiveness of individual technologies.
16
Table 2. Non-Invasive Assessment Technologies
Aljplications
Infrared Thermography (HUT)Locates buried USTs..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Locates buried leaks fromUSTs.Locates burled sludgepits.Locates buried nuclearand nonnuclear waste.Locates buried oil, gas,chemical and sewerpipelines.Locates buried oil, gas,chemical and sewerpipeline leaks,Locates water pipelines.Locates water pipelineleaks.Locates seepage fromwaste dumps.Locates subsurface smol-dering fires in waste dumps.Locates unexplodedordinance on hundreds orthousands of acres.Locates buried landmines.
Strengths
l Able to collect data on largeareas very efficiently.(Hundreds of acres perflight)
Weaknesses Typical Costs’
l Able to collect data on longcross country pipelines veryefficiently (300500 milesper day.)
.
l Low cost for analyzed dataper acre unit.
.
l Depends uponvolume of datacollected and type oftargets looked for.
l Small areas 4 acre:$1 ,ooo-$3,500
. Large areas ~1,000acres: $10 - $200 peracre
l Able to prescreen andeliminate clean areas fromfurther costly testing andunneeded rehabilitation.
l Able to fuse data with othertechniques for even greateraccuracy in more situations.
l Able to locate large andsmall leaks in pipelines andUSTs. (Ultrasonic devicescan only locate small, highpressure leaks containingultrasonic noise.)
l No direct contact withobjects under test isrequired. (Ultrasonic devicesmust be in contact withburied pipelines or USTs.)
l Has confirmed anomalies todepths greater than 38 feetwith an accuracy of betterthan 80%.
l Tests can be performedduring both daytime andnighttime hours.
Cannot be used In rainyconditions.Cannot be used todetermine’depth orthickness of anomalies.Cannot determine whatspecific anomalies aredetected.Cannot be used to detect aspecific fluid orcontaminant, but all itemsnot native to the area willbe detected.
l Normally no inconvenience to the public.Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)l Locates buried USTs. l Can Investige depths from 1l Locates buried leaks from centimeter to 100 meters+
USTs.l Locates burled sludge
depending upon soil orwater conditions.
pits. l Can locate small voidsl Locates burled nuclear capable of holding
and nonnuclear waste. contamination wastes.l Locates buried oil, gas, l Can determine different
chemical and sewer types of materials such aspipelines. steel, fiberglass or concrete.
l Locates buried oil and l Can be trailed behind achemical pipeline leaks. vehicle and travel at hiah
l Locates water pipelines. speeds.l Locates water pipeline
leaks.l Locates seepage from
waste dumps.l Locates cracks in
subsurface strata such aslimestone.
.
.
Cannot be used in highlyconductive environmentssuch as salt water.Cannot be used in heavyclay soils.Data are difficult toInterpret and require alot of experience.
l Depends uponvolume of datacollected and type oftargets looked for.
l Small areas 4 acre:$3.500 - $5.000
l iarge areas 5 10acres: $2,500 -$3,500 per acre
’ Cost- based on case study data in 1997 dollars.
17
Table 2. Continued
Applications Strengths
Electromagnetic Offset Logging (EOL)l Locates buried l Produces 3D images of
hydrocarbon pipelines hydrocarbon plumes.l Locates buried l Data can be collected to
hvdrocarbon USTs. deDth of 100 meters.
Weaknesses Typical Costs’
l Small dead area around l Depends uponwell hole of volume of dataapproximately 8 meters. collected and typ offThis can be eliminated bv taraets looked lu
l Lbcates hydrocarbontanks.
l Locates hydrocarbonbarrels.
. Locates perchedhydrocarbons.
l Locates free floatinghydrocarbons.
l Locates dissolvedhydrocarbons.
l Locates sinkerhydrocarbons.
l Locates buried wellcasings.
Magnetometer (MG)l Locates buried ferrous
materials such as barrels,pipelines, USTs, andbuckets.
l D&a can be collected from asingle, unlined or nonmetallined well hole.
l Data can be collected withina 100 meter radius of asingle well hole.
l 3D images can be sliced inhorizontal and vertical planes.
l DNAPLs can be imaged.
l Low cost instruments can beused that produce results byaudio signal strengths.
l High cost instruments canbe used that produce hardcopy printed maps oftargets.
l Depths to 3 meters. 1 acreper day typical efficiency indata collection.
1 Cost based on case study data in 1997 dollars.
Field versus Laboratory AnalysisThe principal advantages of performing field samplingand field analysis are that results are immediately avail-able and more samples can be taken during the same sam-pling event; also, sampling locations can be adjustedimmediately to clarify the first round of sampling resultsif warranted. This approach may reduce costs associatedwith conducting additional sampling events after receiptof laboratory analysis. Field assessment methods haveimproved significantly over recent years; however, whilemany field technologies may be comparable to labora-tory technologies, some field technologies may not de-tect contamination at levels as low as laboratory methods,and may not be contaminant-specific. To validate the fieldresults or to gain more information on specific contami-nants, a small percentage of the samples can be sent forlaboratory analysis. The choice of sampling and analyti-cal procedures should be based on DQQs established ear-lier in the process, which determine the quality (e.g.,precision, level of detection) of the data needed to ad-equately evaluate site conditions and identify appropri-ate cleanup technologies.
using 2 complementary -well holes from which tocollect data.
l SnYall areas < Icre:$10,000 - $2O,oN
l Large areas > 10acres: $5,000 -$10,000 per acre
l Non-relevant artifacts canbe confusing to dataanalyzers.
l Depth limited to 3 meters.
l Depends upqnvolume of datacollected and $ o ftargets looked h
l Small areas < Icr e:$2,500 - $5,000
* Large areas > IIacres: $1,500.$2,500 per acre
Sample Collection and AnalysisTechnologiesTables 3 and 4 list sample collection technologies fwr0i.Vsubsurface and groundwater that may be appropriak formetal finishing brownfields sites. Technology selertiondepends on the medium being sampled and the tp ofanalysis required, based on DQOs (see the sectioncathissubject earlier in this document). Soil samples areper-ally collected using spoons, scoops, and shovels. % se-lection of a subsurface sample collection technologydepends on the subsurface conditions (e.g., consolidatedmaterials, bedrock), the required sampling depth andlevelof analysis, and the extent of sampling Anticipated Forexample, if subsequent sampling efforts are likely,theninstalling semi-permanent well casings with a welldri81-ing rig may be appropriate. If limited sampling is ex-pected, direct push methods, such as cone penetrometers,may be more ‘cost-effective. The types of contarninamtswill also play a key role in the selection of samplingmeth-ods, devices, containers, and preservation techniques.
Table 5 lists analytical technologies that may beappro-priate for assessing metal finishing sites, the typesofcon-tamination they can measure, applicable environmentalmedia, and the relative cost of each. The final two col-
18
Table 3. Soil and Subsurface Sampling Tools
Technique/Instrumentation
Drilling MethodsCable Tool
MediaGround Relative Cost
Soil Water per Sample Sample Quality
Casing Advancement
Direct Air Rotary with Rotary Bit/Downhole Hammer
Direct Mud Rotary
Directional Drilling
Hollow-Stem Auger
Jetting Methods
Rotary Diamond Drilling
Rotating Core
Solid Flight and Bucket Augers
Sonic Drilling 1
Split and Solid Barrel
Thin-Wall Open Tube
Thin-Wall Piston/Specialized Thin Wall
Direct Push MethodsCone Penetrometer
Driven Wells
Hand-Held MethodsAugers
Rotating Core
Scoop, Spoons, and Shovels
Split and Solid Barrel
Thln-Wall Open Tube
Thin-Wall Piston/Specialized Thin Wall
Tubes
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X Mid-rangeexpensive
Most expensive
Soil properties will most likelybe altered
X
X
Soil properties will likely bealtered
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mid-rangeexpensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Most expensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Least expensive
Most expensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Most expensive
Least expensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Least expensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Least expensive
Least expensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Least expensive
Soil properties will most likelybe altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties will likely bealtered
Soil properties will most likelynot be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties will most likelynot be altered
Soil properties will most likelynot be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties may be altered
Soil properties will most likelynot be altered
Soil properties will most likelynot be altered
Soil properties will most likelynot be altered
Bold - Most commonly used field techniques
19
Table 4. Groundwater Sampling Tools
Technique/Instrumentation Contaminants’
Portable Grab Samplers
Bailers VOCs, metals
Relative Costper Sample
Least expensive
Sample Quality
Liquid properties may bealtered
Pneumatic Depth-SpecificSamplers
VOCs, metals Mid-rangeexpensive
Liquid properties will most likelynot be altered
Portable In Situ Groundwater Samplers/Sensors
Cone PenetrometerSamplers
Direct Drive Samplers
VOCs, metals
VOCs, metals
Least expensive
Least expensive
Liquid properties will most liketynot be altered
Liquid properties will most likelynot be altered
Hyclropunch
Fixed In Situ Samplers
VOCs, metals Mid-rangeexpensive
Liquid properties will most likelynot be altered
Multilevel CapsuleSamplers
Multiple-Port Casings
VOCs, metals
VOCs, metals
Mid-rangeexpensive
Least expensive
Liquid properties will most likelynot be altered
Liquid properties will most likelynot be altered
Passive Multilayer Samplers vocs Least expensive Liquid properties will most likelynot be altered
Bold Most commonly used field techniquesVOCs Volatile Organic Carbons’ See Figure 1 for an ovewiew of site locations where these contaminants may typically be found.
umns of the table contain the applicability (e.g., field and/ concrete slab containing several drains leading to a cen-or laboratory) of analytical methods and the technology’s tral storm drain or sewer access. In most older facilities,ability to generate quantitative versus qualitative results. the feed lines from bath to wastewater,tanks are under-Less expensive technologies that have rapid turnaround neath the floor slab. In newer facilities, the bath tankstimes and produce only qualitative results generally and/or the wastewater tanks will likely be partially sub-should be sufficient for many brownfields sites. merged in the floor slab and positioned directly on the
Additional Considerations for Assessingground.
Metal Finishing Sites A visual inspection of the site should identify the mostWhen assessing a metal finishing brownfields site, plan- likely points of potential contaminant releases. These in-ners should focus on the most likely areas of contamina- elude the areas surrounding:tion. Although the specific locations vary from site to site,this section provides some general guidelines.
. Floor drains in chemical storage and process bathareas
Where to Sample l Sludges left in process bath and wastewater treatmentMost metal finishing facilities perform all operations in- tanksdoors. Consequently, most site assessment activitiesshould focus on contamination inside and underneath the l Pipes underneath the floor slabfacility. Outdoor assessment activities should evaluatepoints where drain pipes may have carried contaminated l Tanks set through the floor slabwastewater or spilled materials.
. Cracks in floor or stains in low spots in the floor
The typical metal finishing facility is comprised of oneor more large, warehouse-type buildings that contain the Solvents can be highly mobile on release, and can seep
bath tanks, chemical storage areas, and wastewater treat- into and through the concrete flooring, which is porous.
ment system. The floors are likely to be a continuous The inspection of the facility floor should look not only
20
Table 5. Sample Analysis Technologies
Media RelativeTechnique/ Ground Relative Cost per ProducesInstrumentation Analytes Soil Water Gas Detection Analysis Application” Quantitative Data
MetalsLaser-InducedBreakdownSpectrometry
Titrimetry Kits
Particle-Induced X-rayEmissions
Atomic AdsorptionSpectrometry
Inductively CoupledPlasma-AtomicEmissionSpectroscopy
Field Bioassessment
X-Ray Fluorescence
vocsChemical CalorimetricKits
Flame IonizationDetector (hand-held)
Explosimeter
Photo IonizationDetector (hand-held)
Catalytic SurfaceOxidation
Near IRReflectancemransSpectroscopy
ion MobilitySpectrometer
RamanSpectroscopylSERS
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
vocs
vocs
vocs
vocs,
vocs
vocs
vocs
vocs
X
X
X
X’
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X’
X
X’
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X’
X
X
X’
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X’
wb
wm
pm
W
ppb
wm
fvm
mm
wm
wm
100-l ,000wm
100-l ,000ppb
ppb
Leastexpensive
Leastexpensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Mostexpensive
Mostexpensive
Mostexpensive
Leastexpensive
Leastexpensive
Leastexpensive
Leastexpensive
Leastexpensive
Leastexpensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Usually usedin field
Usually usedin laboratory
Usually usedin laboratory
Usually usedin laboratory
Usually usedin laboratory
Usually usedin field
Laboratoryand field
Can be usedIn field,
usually usedIn laboratory
Immediate,can be used
in field
Immediate,can be used
in field
Immediate,can be used
in field
Usually usedin laboratory
Usually usedIn laboratory
Usually usedin laboratory
Usually usedin laboratory
Additionale f f o r t
required
Additionaleffort
required
Additionaleffort
required
Yes
Yes
No
Yes (limited)
Additionaleffort
required
No
No
No
No
Additionaleffort
required
Yes
Additionaleffort
required
VOCs Volatile Organic CompoundsX’ Indicates there must be extraction of the sample to gas or liquid phasel * Samples sent to laboratory require shipping time and usually 14 to 35 days turnaround time for analysis. Rush orders cost an additional amount per sample.
(continued)
21
Table 5. Continued
Technique/Instrumentation Analytes Soil
MediaGroundWater Gas
RelativeDetection
RelativeCost perAnalysis
ProducesApplication” Quantitative Data
Infrared Spectroscopy vocs
Scattering/AbsorptionLidar
vocs
FTIR Spectroscopy vocs
SynchronousLuminescence/Fluorescence
vocs
Gas Chromatography(GC) (can be usedwith numerousdetectors)
vocs
UV-VisibleSpectrophotometty
UV Fluorescence
Ion Trap
OtherChemical Reaction-Based Test Papers
immunoassay andCalorimetric Kits
vocs
vocs
vocs
vocs,Metals
vocs,Metals
X
X’
X
X
X’
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X*
X
X
100-l ,000wm
100-i ,000mm
wm
ppb
ppb
wb
wb
wb
wm
wm
Mid-rangeexpensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Mid-rangeexpensive
Mostexpensive
Leastexpensive
Leastexpensive
Usually usedin laboratory
Usually usedin laboratory
Laboratoryand field
Usuallyused in
laboratory,can be used
in field
Usuallyused in
laboratory,can be used
in field
Usually usedin laboratory
Usually usedin laboratory
Laboratoryand field
Usually usedIn field
Usually usedin
laboratory,can be used
in field
Additionaleffort
required
Additionaleffort
required
Additionaleffort
required
Additionaleffort
required
Yes
Additionaleffort
required
Additionaleffort
required
Yes
Yes
Additionaleffort
required
VOCs Volatile Organic CompoundsSVOCs Semivolatile Organic Compounds (may be present in oil and grease)PAHs Polyaromatic HydrocarbonsX’ Indicates there must be extraction of the sample to gas or liquid phasel * Samples sent to laboratory require shipping time and usually 14 to 35 days turnaround time for analysis, Rush orders cost an additional
amount per sample.
for cracks through which solvents could migrate, but also l Waterways, canals, and ditches at points of pipe dis-for stained areas where spilled solvents may have pooled. chargeWipe samples should be taken along the walls of the fa-cility, as solvent vapors may have penetrated wall mate- * Areas where process bath materials may have beenrials. dumped
Since metal finishing operations are typically conductedinside the facility, outside points of potential release are While discharge points may be visually obvious, areas of
likely to be limited to: dumping may be less apparent. Often these areas aremarked by stained soils and a lack of vegetation. Low-
* Points of discharge from effluent pipes lying areas should also be investigated, as they make natu-
22
I -ral dumping areas and contaminants may drain to thesepoints.
How Many Samples to CollectSamples should be taken in and around the areas of po-tential release mentioned above. Planners should expectthat two to three samples will be required in each area,depending on DQOs. A cost-effective approach is to per-form screening analyses using field methods on allsamples and then to submit one sample to a laboratoryfor analysis by an accepted EPA method. Although thescreening analyses can be conducted for broad contami-nant groups, such as total organics, a contaminant-spe-cific analysis should be conducted as a full screen fororganic and inorganic contaminants and to validate thescreening analyses. Contaminant-specific analyses maybe conducted either in the field using appropriate tech-nologies and protocols or in a laboratory.
What Types of Analysis to PerformThe selection of analytical procedures will be based onthe DQOs established. Generally, the following analysesmay be appropriate at metal finishing sites:
l Residuals taken from drain sumps in storage areasshould be screened for total organics and acids.Screening analyses for these contaminants can be per-formed inexpensively using a photo ionization de-tector (PID) or flame ionization detector (FID) fortotal organics.
* Residuals taken from drains in the process and waste-water treatment areas should be screened for a simi-lar range of organic contaminants, but additionalanalyses should be performed to screen for the pres-ence of inorganic contaminants, such as the metalsused in the metal finishing process. Immunoassaysare an inexpensive field technology that can be usedto perform the screening analyses for organic con-taminants and mercury. X-ray fluorescence (XRF) isanother innovative technology that can be used toperform either field or laboratory analyses.
0 Soil gas should be collected at points underneath thefloor slab, particularly near any tanks that are setthrough the floor slab, to detect the presence of sol-vents and other organic contaminants. These samplescan be analyzed with the PIDFJD technology de-scribed above. Corings of the floor slab may need tobe taken and sent to a laboratory to determine if con-taminants have penetrated floor slabs.
Wipe samples taken from walls should be analyzedfor organic compounds. These analyses can be per-formed using the same technologies that are used toanalyze residuals samples.
Soils and sediments at points of pipe discharge shouldbe screened for both organic and inorganic contami-nants using the PID/FID technology. XRF can be usedfor field or laboratory analyses.
Water samples collected in swales, canals, and ditchesshould be screened for organics. Inorganic contami-nation can sometimes be detected in water samples,but conditions do not always allow it.
In addition, as discussed earlier, many older structurescontain lead paint and asbestos insulation and tiling. Nu-merous kits are readily available to test for lead paint.Experienced professionals may be able to visually iden-tify asbestos insulation, but specialized equipment maybe needed to confirm the presence of asbestos in otherareas. Core or wipe samples can be analyzed for asbestosusing polarized light microscopy (PLM). Local and statelaws regarding lead and asbestos should be consulted todetermine how they may affect the selection of DQOs,sampling, and analysis.
General Sampling CostsSite assessment costs vary widely, depending on the na-ture and extent of the contamination and the size of thesampling area. The sample collection costs discussedbelow are based on an assumed labor rate of $35 per hourplus $10 per sample for shipping and handling.
Soil Collection CostsSurface soil samples can be collected with tools as simpleas a stainless steel spoon, shovel, or hand auger. Samplescan be collected using hand tools in soft soil for as low as$10 per sample (assuming that a field technician can col-lect 10 samples per hour). When soils are hard, or deepersamples are required, a hammer-driven split spoon sam-pler or a direct push rig is needed. Using a drill rigequipped with a split spoon sampler or a direct push rigtypically costs more than $600 per day for rig operation(Geoprobe, 1998), with the cost per sample exceeding$30 (assuming that a field technician can collect 2 samplesper hour). Labor costs generally increase when heavy ma-chinery is needed.
Groundwater Sampling CostsGroundwater samples can be extracted through conven-tional drilling of a permanent monitoring well or using
23
the direct push methods listed in Table 3. The conven-tional, hollow stem auger-drilled monitoring well is morewidely accepted but generally takes more time than di-rect push methods. Typical quality assurance protocolsfor the conventional monitoring well require the well tobe drilled, developed, and allowed to achieve equilibriumfor 24 to 48 hours. After the development period, agroundwater sample is extracted. With the direct pushsampling method, a probe is either hydraulically pressedor vibrated into the ground, and groundwater percolatesinto a sampling container attached to the probe. The di-rect push method costs are contingent upon the hardnessof the subsurface, depth to the water table, and perme-ability of the aquifer. Costs for both conventional anddirect push techniques are generally more than $40 persample (assuming that a field technician can collect 1sample per hour); well installation costs must be addedto that number.
Surface Wafer and Sediment SamplingcostsSurface water and sediment sampling costs depend onthe location and depth of the required samples. Obtain-
ing surface water and sediment samples can cost as littleas $30 per sample (assuming that a field technician camcollect 2 samples per hour). Sampling sediment in deelpwater or sampling a deep level of surface water, how-ever, requires the use of larger equipment, which drivesup the cost. Also, if surface water presents a hazard dur-ing sampling and protective measures are required, costswill increase greatly.
Sample Analysis Costs .Costs for analyzing samples in any medium can rangefrom as little as $27 per sample for a relatively simpletest (e.g., an immunoassay test for metals) to greater than$400 per sample for a more extensive analysis (e.g., forsemivolatiles) and up to $1,200 per sample for diotis(Robbat, 1997). Major factors that affect the cost ofsample analysis include the type of analytical technol-ogy used, the level of expertise needed to interpret theresults, and the number of samples to be analyzed. Plan-ners should make sure that laboratories that have beencertified by state programs are used; contact your stateenvironmental agency for a list of state certified labora-tories.
24
Chapter 4Site Cleanup
The purpose of this section is to guide planners in theselection of appropriate cleanup technologies. the prin-cipal factors that will influence the selection of a cleanuptechnology include:
l Types of contamination presentl Cleanup and reuse goalsl Length of time required to reach cleanup goals; Post-treatment care neededl Budget
The selection of appropriate cleanup technologies ofteninvolves a trade-off between time and cost. A companionEPA document, entitled Cost Estimating Tools and Re-sources for Addressing Sites Under the Brownfields Ini-tiative, provides information on cost factors anddeveloping cost estimates. In general, the more intensivethe cleanup approach, the more quickly the contamina-tion will be mitigated and the more costly the effort. Inthe case of brownfields cleanup, this can be a major pointof concern, considering the planner’s desire to return thefacility to the point of reuse as quickly as possible. Thus,the planner may wish to explore a number of options andweigh carefully the costs and benefits of each. One ef-fective method of comparison is the cleanup plan, as dis-cussed below. Planners should involve stakeholders inthe community in the development of the cleanup plan.
The intended future use of a brownfields site will drivethe level of cleanup needed to make the site safe for re-development and reuse. Brownfields sites are by defmi-tion not Superfund NPL sites; that is, brownfields sitesusually have lower levels of contamination present andtherefore generally require less extensive cleanup effortsthan Superfund NPL sites. Nevertheless, all potentialpathways of exposure, based on the intended reuse of thesite, must be addressed in the site assessment and cleanup;if no pathways of exposure exist, less cleanup (or possi-bly none) may be required.
Some regional EPA and state offices have developedcleanup standards for different chemicals, which mayserve as guidelines or legal requirements for cleanups. Itis important to understand that screening levels (discussedin the section on “Performing a Phase II Site Assessment”above) are different from cleanup levels. Screening lev-els indicate whether further site investigation is warrantedfor a particular contaminant. Cleanup levels indicatewhether cleanup action is needed and how extensive itneeds to be. Planners should check with their state envi-ronmental office for guidance and/or requirements forcleanup standards.
This section contains information on developing a cleanupplan; various alternatives for addressing contaminationat the site (i.e., institutional controls and containment andcleanup technologies); using different technologies forcleaning up metal finishing sites, including a summarytable of technologies; and post-construction issues thatplanners need to consider when considering alternatives.
Devdoping a Cleanup PlanIf the results of the site evaluation indicate the presenceof contamination above acceptable levels, planners willneed to have a cleanup plan developed by a professionalenvironmental engineer that describes the approach thatwill be used to contain and possibly cleanup the contami-nation present at the site. In developing this plan, plan-ners and their engineers should consider a range ofpossible options, with the intent of identifying the mostcost-effective approaches for cleaning up the site, giventime and cost concerns. The cleanup plan can include thefollowing elements:
l A clear delineation of’environmental concerns at thesite. Areas should be discussed separately if thecleanup approach for an area is different than that forother areas of the site. Clear documentation of exist-ing conditions at the site and a summarized assess-ment of the nature and scope of contamination shouldbe included.
25
l A recommended cleanup approach for each environ-mental concern that takes into account expected land
reuse plans and the adequacy of the technology se-lected.
9 A cost estimate that reflects both expected capital andoperating/maintenance costs.
l Post-construction maintenance requirements for therecommended approach.
. A discussion of the assumptions made to support therecommended cleanup approach, as well as the limi-tations of the approach.
Planners can use the framework developed during theinitial site evaluation (see the section on “Site Assess-ment” above) and the controls and technologies describedbelow to compare the effectiveness of the least costlyapproaches for meeting the required cleanup goals estab-lished in the DQOs. These goals should be established atlevels that are consistent with the expected reuse plans.A final cleanup plan may include a combination of ac-tions, such as institutional controls, containment technolo-gies, and cleanup technologies, as discussed below.
Institutional ControIsInstitutional controls may play an important role in re-
turning a metal finishing brownfields site to a market-able condition. Institutional controls are mechanisms thatcontrol the current and future use of, and access to, a site.They are established, in the case of brownfields, to pro-tect people from possible contamination. Institutionalcontrols can range from a security fence prohibiting ac-cess to a certain portion of the site to deed restrictionsimposed on the future use of the site. If the overall cleanupapproach does not include the complete cleanup of thefacility (i.e., the complete removal or destruction of onsitecontamination), a deed restriction will likely be requiredthat clearly states that hazardous waste is being left inplace within the site boundaries. Many state brownfieldsprograms include institutional controls.
Confainment TechnologiesContainment technologies, in many instances, will be thelikely cleanup approach for landfilled waste and waste-water lagoons (after contaminated wastewaters have beenremoved) at metal finishing facilities. The purpose ofcontainment is to reduce the potential for offsite migra-tion of contaminants and, possible subsequent exposure.Containment technologies include engineered barrierssuch as caps for contaminated soils, slurry walls, andhydraulic containment. Often, soils contaminated with
metals can be solidified by mixing them with cement-like materials, and the resulting stabilized material canbe stored onsite in a landfill. Like institutional controls,containment technologies do not remove or destroy con-tamination, but mitigate potential risk by limiting accessto it.
If contamination is found underneath the floor slab atmetal finishing facilities, leaving the contaminated ma-terials in place and repairing any damage to the floor slabmay be justified. The likelihood that such an approachwill be acceptable to regulators will depend on whetherpotential risk can be mitigated and managed effectivelyover the long term. In determining whether containmentis feasible, planners should consider:
Depth to groundwater. Planners should be preparedto prove to regulators that groundwater levels willnot rise, due to seasonal conditions, and come intocontact with contaminated soils.
Soil types. If contaminants are left in place, the na-tive soils should not be highly porous, as are sandyor gravelly soils, which enable contaminants to rni-grate easily. Clay and fine silty soils provide a muchbetter barrier.
Szzlface water control. Planners should be preparedto prove to regulators that rainwater and snowmeltcannot infiltrate under the floor slab and flush thecontaminants downward.
Volatilization of organic contaminants. Regulators arelikely to require that air monitors be placed insidethe building to monitor the level of organics that maybe escaping upward through the floor and drains.
Types of Cleanup TechnologiesCleanup may be required to remove or destroy onsitecontamination if regulators are unwilling to accept thelevel of contamination present or if the types of contami-nation are not conducive to the use of institutional con-trols or containment technologies. Cleanup technologiesfall broadly into two categories-ex sitzz and in situ, asdescribed below.
* Ex Situ. An ex situ technology treats contaminatedmaterials after they have been removed and trans-ported to another location. After treatment, if the re-maining materials, or residuals, meet cleanup goals,they can be returned to the site. If the residuals donot yet meet cleanup goals, they can be subjected tofurther treatment, contained onsite, or moved to an-other location for storage or further treatment. Acost-effective approach to cleaning up a metal finishing
26
brownfields site may be the partial treatment of con-taminated soils or groundwater, followed by contain-ment, storage, or further treatment offsite. Forexample, it is common practice for operating metalfinishing facilities to treat wastewaters to an inter-mediate level and then send the treated water to thelocal POTW.
l In Situ. The use of in situ technologies has increaseddramatically in recent years. In situ technologiestreatontamination in place and are often innovativetechnologies. Examples of in situ technologies in-clude bioremediation, soil flushing, oxygen releas-ing compounds, air sparging, and treatment walls. Insome cases, in situ technologies are feasible, cost-effective choices for the types of contamination thatare likely at metal finishing sites. Planners, however,do need to be aware that cleanup with in situ tech-nologies is likely to take longer than with ex situ tech-nologies.
Maintenance requirements associated with in situ tech-nologies depend on the technology used and vary widelyin both effort and cost. For example, containment tech-nologies such as caps and liners will require regular main-tenance, such as maintaining the vegetative cover andperforming periodic inspections to ensure the long-termintegrity of the cover system. Groundwater treatmentsystems will require varying levels of post-cleanup care.If an ex situ system is in use at the site, it will requireregular operations support and periodic maintenance toensure that the system is operating as designed.
Cleanup Technology Options for MetalFinishing SitesTable 6 presents the technologies that may be appropri-ate for use at metal finishing sites, depending on theircapital and operating costs. In addition to more conven-tional technologies, a number of innovative technologyoptions are listed. Many possible cleanup approaches useinstitutional controls and one or a combination of the tech-
nologies described in Table 6. Whatever cleanup approachis ultimately chosen, planners should explore a numberof cost-effective options.
Cleanup at metal finishing facilities will most likely en-tail removing a complex mix of contaminants, primarilyorganic solvents and metals. The cleanup will usuallyrequire more than one technology, or treatment train, be-cause single technologies tend not to address both metaland organic contaminants. Solidification/stabilization canaddress metal contamination by limiting mobility (solu-bility) and thereby limit risk. Approaches at metal finish-ing sites depend on local conditions. At larger metalfinishing sites, one approach may be to excavate and sta-bilize the contaminated material with either onsite or off-site disposal or treatment of material. Access tocontaminated soils may be limited at smaller sites requir-ing excavation and offsite treatment or disposal. The sta-bilized material can be placed onsite or sent to anEPA-approved landfill (Subtitle C for hazardous materi-als, otherwise, Subtitle D).
Post-Construction CareMany of the cleanup technologies that leave contamina-tion onsite, either in containment systems or because ofthe long periods required to reach cleanup goals, will re-quire long-term maintenance and possibly operation. Ifwaste is left onsite, regulators will likely require long-termmonitoring of applicable media (i.e., soil, water, and/or air) to ensure that the cleanup approach selected iscontinuing to function as planned (e.g., residual contami-nation, if any, remains at acceptable levels and is notmigrating). If long-term monitoring is required (e.g., bythe state), periodic sampling, analysis, and reporting re-quirements will also be involved. Planners should beaware of these requirements and provide for them incleanup budgets. Post-construction sampling, analysis,and reporting costs in their cleanup budgets can be a sig-nificant problem as these costs can be substantial.
27
Table 6. Cleanup Technologies for Metal Finishing Brownfields Sites
ApplicableTechnology Description
Containment TechnologiesSheet Pilina l Steel or iron sheets are driven into
the ground to form a subsurfacebarrier.
l Low-cost containment method.l Used primarily for shallow aquifers.
Examples of ApplicableLand/Process Areas1
9 Metal cleaning, rinsing and
Contaminants Treatedby This Technology
l Not contaminant-bathing operations, chemical.storage, wastewater treatment.
specific.
Limitations cost
* Not effective in the absence of l $8 to $17 persquare foot.2a continuous aquitard.
l Can leak at the intersection ofthe sheets and the aquitardor through pile wall joints.
l Difficult to ensure a completecurtain without gaps throughwhich the plume can escape:however;new techniques haveimproved continuity of curtain.
9 $6 to $14 persquare foot.2
Grout Curtain l Grout curtains are injected into l Metal cleaning, rinsing and l Not contaminant-subsurface soils and bedrock. bathing operations, chemical specific.
- Forms an impermeable barrier in the storage, wastewater treatment.subsurface.
Slurry Walls
Capping
l Consist of a vertically excavated l Metal cleaning, rinsing and l Not contaminant-slurry-filled trench. bathing operations, chemical specific.
l The slurry hydraulically shores the trench storage, wastewater treatment.to prevent collapse and forms a filtercaketo reduce groundwater flow.
l Often used where the waste mass is toolarge for treatment and where solubleand mobile constituents pose an imminentthreat to a source of drinking water.
l Often constructed of a soil, bentonite,and water mixture.
l Used to cover buried wastematerials to prevent migration.
l Made of a relativelyimpermeable material that willminimize rainwater infiltration.
l Waste materials can be left in place.l Requires periodic inspections and
routine monitoring.l Contaminant migration must be
monitored periodically.
. Anodizing, solid wastes from l Metals.anodizing, electroplating, electro-plating wastewaters and solid wastes,finishing wastewaters, chemicalconversion coating wastewaters andsolid wastes, electroless plating,electroless plating wastewaters, solidwastes from painting, wastewatertreatment system, sunken treatmenttank.
0 Contains contaminants onlywithin a specified area.
9 Soil-bentonite backfills arenot able to withstand attackby strong acids, bases, saltsolutions, and some organicchemicals.
l Potential for the slurry wallsto degrade or deteriorate overtime.
l Costs associated withroutine sampling and analysismay be high.
l Long-term maintenance maybe required to ensureimpermeability.
l May have to be replaced after20 to 30 years of operation.
l May not be effective if groundwater table is high.
l Design andinstallation costsof $5 to $7 persquare foot (1991dollars) for astandard soil-bentonite wall insoft to mediumsoil.3
l Above costs donot include vari-able costs re:quired forchemical analy-ses, feasibility, orcompatibilitytesting.
l $11 to $40 persquare yard.4
-
1 The cleanup of any one area is likely to affect the cleanup of other areas in close proximity; cleanup decisions are often made for larger areas than those presented here, and combinations oftechnoloaies mav be selected.
2 Federal fiemedi&ion Technology Roundtable. http://www.frtr.gov/matrix/top_page.html3 Costs of Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Wastes Sites, U.S. EPA, 1986.4 Interagency Cost Workgroup, 1994.VOCs = volatile organic compounds
,
(Continued)
Table 6. Continued
ApplicableTechnology Description
Examples of Applicable Contaminants TreatedLand/Process Areas1 by This Technology Limitations cost
Ex SItoTechnologiesExcavation/ l Removes contaminated materialOffsite to an EPA-approved landfill.Disposal
l Wastes from painting,wastewater treatmentsystem, sunken treatmenttanks, chemical storage,disposal.
l Not contaminant-specific.
= Generation of fugitiveemissions may be aproblem during operations.
l The distance from thecontaminated site to thenearest disposal facility
l $270 to $460p e r ton.3
. will affect cost.l Depth and composition of the
media requiring excavationmust be considered.
l Transportation of the soilthrough populated areas mayaffect community acceptability.
l Disposal options for certain waste(e.g., mixed waste or transuranicwaste) may be limited. There iscurrently only one licensed disposalfacility for radioactive and mixedwaste in the United States.
ChemicalOxidation/Reduction
l Reduction/oxidation (Redox) reactionschemically convert hazardouscontaminants to nonhazardous or lesstoxic compounds that are more stable,less mobile, or inert.
l Redox reactions involve the transfer ofelectrons from one compound to another.
l The oxidizing agents commonly used areozone, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorite,chlorine, and chlorine dioxide.
l Wastes from anodizing, l Metals.electroplating, finishing, l Cyanide.chemical conversion coating,electroless plating, painting,rinsing operations, wastewatertreatment system, sunkentreatment tank.
l Not cost-effective for highcontaminant concentrationsbecause of the large amounts ofoxidizing agent required.
l Oil and grease in the mediashould be minimized to optimizeprocess efficiency.
l $190 to $660 percubic meter ofsoil.3
(Continued)
Table 6. Continued
ApplicableTechnology
UV Oxidation
Description
l Destruction process that oxidizes
Examples of Applicable Contaminants TreatedLand/Process Areas.1 by This Technology Limitations cost
l Wastes from metal cleaning, l vocs l The aaueous stream beina treated l $0.10 to $10 perconstituents in wastewater by theaddition of strong oxidizers andirradiation with UV light.
l Practically any organic contaminantthat is reactive with the hydroxyl radicalcan potentially be treated.
l The oxidation reactions are achievedthrough the synergistic action of UVlight in combination with ozone orhydrogen peroxide.
painting, rinsing operations,wastewater treatment system,sunken treatment tank,chemical storage area,disposal area.
must provide for good transmissionof UV light (high turbidity causes
interference).
1,000 gallonstreated.3
l Can be configured in batch orcontinuous flow models, dependingon the throughput rate under consideration.
Precipitation - Involves the conversion of soluble heavy l
metal salts to insoluble salts that willprecipitate.
l Precipitate can be removed from thetreated water by physical methods such asclarification or filtration.
l Often used as a pretreatment for othertreatment technologies where the presenceof metals would interfere with thetreatment processes.
l Primary method for treating metal-ladenindustrial wastewater.
Liquid PhaseCarbonAdsorption
l Groundwater is pumped through a series l
of vessels containing activated carbon, towhich dissolved contaminants adsorb.
9 Effective for polishing water dischargesfrom other remedial technologies to attainregulatory compliance.
l Can be quickly installed.l High contaminant-removal efficiencies.
Wastes fromanodizing, electroplating,finishing, chemicalconversion coating,electroless plating,painting, rinsing operations,wastewater treatment system,sunken treatment tank.
Wastes from metal cleaning,painting, rinsing operations,wastewater treatment system,sunken treatment tank,chemical storage area,disposal area.
l Metal ions in the wastewatermay limit effectiveness.
9 VOCs may volatilizebefore oxidation can occur.
l Off-gas may require treatment.l Costs may be higher than competing
technologies because of energy requirements.l Handling and storage of oxidizers
require special safety precautions.
l Metals. l Contamination source is notremoved.
l The presence of multiple metalspecies may lead to removaldifficulties.
l Discharge standard maynecessitate further treatment ofeffluent.
l Metal hydroxide sludges mustpass TCLP criteria prior to landdisposal.
l Treated water will often requirepH adjustment.
. vocs. l The presence of multiplecontaminants can affect processperformance.
l Metals can foul the system.l Costs are high if used as the
primary treatment on wastestreams with high contaminantconcentration levels.
l Type and pore size of the carbonand operating temperature willimpact process performance.
l Transport and disposal of spentcarbon can be expensive.
l Water soluble compounds andsmall molecules are not adsorbedwell.
l Capital costs are$85,000 to$115,000 for 20to 65 gpm
. precipitationsystems.
l Primary capitalcost factor isdesign flow rate.
l Operating costsare $0.30 to$0.70 per 1,000gallons treated.
l Sludge disposalmay be esti-mated toincrease operat-ing costs by$0.50 per 1,000gallons treated.3
l $1.20 to $6.30per 1,000 gallonstreated at flowrates of 0.1 mgd.
l Costs decreasewith increasingflow rates anddecreasingconcentrations.
l Costs aredependent onwaste streamflow rates, type ofcontaminant,concentration,and timingrequirements.3
(Continued)
-
Table 6. Continued
w
ApplicableTechnology
Air Striooina
Description
l Contaminants are oartitioned from
Examples of Applicable Contaminants TreatedLand/Process Areas1 by This Technology Limitations cost
l Wastes from metal cleanina. l vocs. * Potential for inorganic (iron l $0.04 to $0.20groundwater by greatly increasingthe surface area of the contaminatedwater exposed to air.
l Aeration methods include packedtowersdiffused aeration, tray aeration,and spray aeration.
l Can be operated continuously or in abatch mode, where the air stripper isintermittently fed from a collection tank.
l The batch mode ensures consistent airstripper performance and greater efficiencythan continuously operated units becausemixing in the storage tank eliminates anyinconsistencies in feed water composition.
In Situ TechnologiesNatural l Natural subsurface processes such as l
Attenuation dilution, volatilization, biodegradation,adsorption, and chemical reactions withsubsurface media can reduce contaminantconcentrations to acceptable levels.
l Consideration of this option requiresmodeling and evaluation of contaminantdegradation rates and pathways.
l Sampling and analyses must be conductedthroughout the process to confirm thatdegradation is proceeding at sufficient ratesto meet cleanup objectives.
painting, rinsing operations,.wastewater treatment system,sunken treatment tank,chemical storage area,disposal area.
Metal cleaning, metal cleaning l VOCs.wastewaters, painting, paintingwastewaters and solid wastes,wastewater treatment system,sunken treatment tank,chemical storage area,disposal area.
greater than 5 ppm, hardnessgreater than 800 ppm) orbiological fouling of theequipment, requiringpretreatment of groundwater orperiodic column cleaning.
l Consideration should be given tothe Henry’s law constant of theVOCs in the water stream andthe type and amount of packingused In the tower.
l Compounds with low volatilityat ambient temperature mayrequire preheating of the groundwater.
l Off-gases may require treatmentbased on mass emission rate andstate and federal air pollution laws.
l Intermediate degradationproducts may be more mobileand more toxic than originalcontaminants.
l Contaminants may migratebefore they degrade.
l The site may have to be fencedand may not be available forreuse until hazard levels arereduced.
l Source areas may requireremoval for natural attenuationto be effective.
l Modeling contaminantdegradation rates, and samplingand analysis to confirm modeledpredictions extremely expensive.
per 1,000 gallonsa.l A major operating
cost of air strippers isthe electricity requiredfor the groundwaterpump, the sumpdischarge pump,and the air blower.
l Not available.
(Continued)
Table 6. Continued
ApplicableTechnology
Soil VaporExtraction
Examples of Applicable Contaminants TreatedDescription Land/Process Areas? by This Technology Limitations ‘cost
l A vacuum is applied to the soil to induce l Metal cleaning, metal cleaning l VOCs. l Tight or extremely moist content l $10 to $60 per cubiccontrolled air flow and remove wastewaters, painting, painting (~50%) has a reduced meter of soil.3contaminants from the unsaturated wastewaters and solid wastes, pemeability to air, requiring l Cost is site specific(vadose) zone of the soil. wastewater treatment system, higher vacuums. depending on the
l The gas leaving the soil may be treated to sunken treatment tank, chemical l Large screened intervals are size of the site, therecover or destroy the contaminants. storage area, disposal area. required in extraction wells for nature and amount
l The continuous air flow promotes in sifu soil with highly variable of contamination,biodegradation of low-volatility organic permeabilities. . and the hydro-compounds that may be present. l Air emissions may require geological setting,
treatment to eliminate possible which affect theharm to the public or environment. number of wells,
l Off-gas treatment residual liquids the blower capacityand spent activated carbon may and vacuum levelrequire treatment or disposal. required, and length
l Not effective in the saturated zone. of time required toremediate the site.
l Off-gas treatmentsignificantly adds tothe cost.
k? Soil Flushing l Extraction of contaminants from the soil l
with water or other aqueous solutions.l Accomplished by passing the extraction
fluid through in-place soils using injectionor Infiltration processes.
l Extraction fluids must be recovered withextraction wells from the underlyingaquifer and recycled when possible.
Anodizing, solid wastes fromanodizing, electroplating,electroplating wastewaters andsolid wastes, finishing waste-waters, chemical conversioncoating wastewaters and solidwastes, electroless plating,electroless plating wastewaters,solid wastes from painting,wastewater treatment system,sunken treatment tank.
l Metals. l Low-permeability soils aredifficult to treat.
l Surfactants can adhere to soiland reduce effective soilporosity.
l Reactions of flushing fluids withsoil can reduce contaminantmobility.
l Potential of washing thecontaminant beyond the capturezone and the introduction ofsurfactants to the subsurface.
l The major factoraffecting cost is theseparation ofsurfactants fromrecovered flushingfluid.3
(Continued)
Table 6. Continued
ApplicableTechnology Description
Examples of Applicable Contaminants TreatedLand/Process Areas1 by This Technology Limitations cost
Air Sparging - In situ technology in which air is injected l
under pressure below the water table toincrease groundwater oxygenconcentrations and enhance the rate ofbiological degradation of contaminants bynaturally occurring microbes.
l Increases the mixing in the saturated zone,which increases the contact betweengroundwater and soil.
l Air bubbles traverse horizontally andvertically through the soil column, creatingan underground stripper that volatilizescontaminants.
l Air bubbles travel to a soil vaporextraction system.
l Air sparging is effective for facilitatingextraction of deep contamination,contamination in low-permeability soils,and contamination in the saturated zone.
Metal cleaning, metal cleaning l VOCs. l Depth of contaminants andwastewaters, painting, painting specific site geology must bewastewaters and solid wastes, considered.wastewater treatment system, . Air flow through the saturatedsunken treatment tank, chemical zone may not be uniform.storage area, disposal area. l A permeability differential such
as a clay layer above the airinjection zone can reduce theeffectiveness.
l Vapors may rise through thevadose zone and be released intothe atmosphere.
l Increased pressure in the vadosezone can build up vapors inbasements, which are generallylow-pressure areas.
l $50 to $100 per1,000 gallons ofgroundwater treated.3
Passive
%TreatmentWalls
l A permeable reaction wall is installed l Approprfately selectedinground, across the flow path of a location for wall.contaminant plume, allowing the waterportion of the plume to passively movethrough the wall.
l Allows the passage of water whileprohibiting the movement of contaminantsby employing such agents as iron, chelators(ligands selected for their specificity for agiven metal), sorbents, microbes, andothers.
l Contaminants are typically completelydegraded by the treatment wall.
l vocs.
l Metals.l The system requires control of
pH levels. When pH levelswithin the pas&e treatment wallrise, it reduces the reaction rateand can inhibit the effectivenessof the wall.
l Depth and width of the plume.For large-scale plumes,installation cost may be high.
l Cost of treatment medium(iron).
l Biological activity may reducethe permeability of the wall.
l Walls may lose their reactivecapacity, requiring replacementof the reactive medium.
l Capital costs for theseprojects range from$250,000 to$1,000,000.3
l Operations andmaintenance costsapproximately 5 to 10times less than capitalcosts.
(Continued)
Table 6. Continued
Applicable Examples of Applicable Contaminants TreatedTechnology Description Land/Process Areas1 by This Technology Limitations cost
Biodegradation l Indigenous or introduced microorganisms l Metal cleaning, metal cleaning l VOCs. l Cleanup goals may not be attained l $30 to $100 per cubicdegrade organic contaminants found in wastewaters, painting, painting if the soil matrix prevents meter of soil.3soil and groundwater. wastewaters and solid wastes, sufficient mixing. l Cost affected by the
l Used successfully to remediate soils, wastewater treatment system, l Circulation of water-based nature and depth ofsludges, and groundwater. sunken treatment tank, chemical solutions through the soil may the contaminants,
l Especially effective for remediating low- storage area, disposal area. increase contaminant mobility use of bioaugmenta-level residual contamination in conjunction and necessitate treatment of tion or hydrogenwith source removal. underlying groundwater. peroxide addition,
l Injection wells may clog and and groundwaterprevent adequate flow rates. pumping rates.
l Preferential flow paths may resultin nonuniform distribution ofinjected fluids.
l Should not be used for clay,highly layered, or heterogeneoussubsurface environments.
- High concentrations of heavymetals, highly chlorinatedorganics, long chainhydrocarbons, or inorganic saltsare likely to be toxic tomicroorganisms.
l Low temperatures slowbioremediation.
- Chlorinated solvents may notdegrade fully under certainsubsurface conditions.
1 The cleanup of any one area is likely to affect the cleanup of other areas in close proximity; cleanup decisions are often made for larger areas than those presented here, andcombinations of technologies may be selected.
2 Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable. http’~/www.frtr.gov/matrix/top_page.html3 Costs of Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Wastes Sites, U.S. EPA, 1986.4 Interagency Cost Workgroup, 1994.VOCs = volatile organic compounds
Chapter 5Conclusion
Brownfields redevelopment contributes to the revitaliza-tion of communities across the U.S. Reuse of these aban-doned, contaminated sites spurs economic growth, buildscommunity pride, protects public health, and helps main-tain our nation’s “greenfields,” often at a relatively lowcost. This document provides brownfields planners withan overview of the technical methods that can be used toachieve successful site assessment and cleanup, whichare two key components in the brownfields redevelop-ment process.
While the general guidance provided in this documentwill be applicable to many brownfields projects, it is im-portant to recognize the heterogeneous nature ofbrownfields work. That is, no two brownfields sites willbe identical, and planners will need to base site assess-ment and cleanup activities on the conditions at their par-ticular site.Some of the conditions that may vary by siteinclude the type of contaminants present, the geographiclocation and extent of contamination, the availability ofsite records, hydrogeological conditions, and state andlocal regulatory requirements. Based on these factors, aswell as financial resources and desired timeframes, plan-ners will find different assessment and cleanup approachesappropriate.
Consultation with state and local environmental officialsand community leaders, as well as careful planning earlyin the project, will assist planners in developing the mostappropriate site assessment and cleanup approaches. Plan-ners should also determine early on if they are likely torequire the assistance of environmental engineers. A siteassessment strategy should be agreeable to all stakehold-ers and should address:
l The type and extent of contamination, if any, presentat the site
. The types of data needed to adequately assess thesite
l Appropriate sampling and analytical methods forcharacterizing contamination
l An acceptable level of data uncertainty
When used appropriately, the site assessment methodsdescribed in this document will help to ensure that a goodstrategy is developed and implemented effectively.
Once the site has been assessed and stakeholders agreethat cleanup is needed, planners will need to considercleanup options. Many different types of cleanup tech-nologies are available. The guidance provided in thisdocument on selecting appropriate methods directs plan-ners to base cleanup initiatives on site- and project-spe-cific conditions. The type and extent of cleanup willdepend in large part on the type and level of contamina-tion present, reuse goals, and the budget available. Cer-tain cleanup technologies are used onsite, while othersrequire offsite treatment. Also, in certain circumstances,containment of contamination onsite and the use of insti-tutional controls may be important components of thecleanup effort. Finally, planners will need to include bud-getary provisions and plans for post-cleanup and post-construction care if it is required at the brownfields site.By developing a technically sound site assessment andcleanup approach that is based on site-specific conditionsand addresses the concerns of all project stakeholders,planners can achieve brownfields redevelopment and re-use goals effectively and safely.
35
ASTMATSDRB T E XCERCLIS
DQOEPAERNSFIDFOIANPDESNPLO&MORDOSWERPAHPCBPIDPCPPLMPOTW
ppbPPmRCRASVEs v o cTCETIOTPHTSDUSDAUSGSUSTVCPv o c
Appendix AAcronyms and Abbreviations
American Society for Testing and MaterialsAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and XyleneComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and LiabilityInformation SystemData Quality ObjectiveU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEmergency Response Notification System
Flame Ionization Detector
Freedom of Information Act
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemNational Priorities ListOperations and MaintenanceOffice of Research and DevelopmentOffice of Solid Waste and Emergency ResponsePolyaromatic HydrocarbonPolychlorinated BiphenylPhotoionization Detector
PentachlorophenolPolarized Light .Microscopy
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
parts per billionparts per millionResource Conservation and Recovery ActSoil Vapor ExtractionSemi-Volatile Organic CompoundTrichloroethyleneTechnology Innovation OfficeTotal Petroleum HydrocarbonTreatment, Storage, and Disposal
US. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Geological Survey
Underground Storage TankVoluntary Cleanup Program
Volatile Organic Compound
X-ray Fluorescence
36
Appendix BGlossary of Key Terms
The following is a list of specialized terms used duringthe assessment and cleanup of brownfields sites.
Air Sparging - In air sparging, air is injected into theground below a contaminated area, forming bubbles thatrise and carry trapped and dissolved contaminants to thesurface where they are captured by a soil vapor extrac-tion system. Air sparging may be a good choice of treat-ment technology at sites contaminated with solvents andother volatile organic compounds (VOCs). See also SoilVapor Extraction and Volatile Organic Compound.
Air Stripping - Air stripping is a treatment method thatremoves or “strips” VOCs from contaminated ground-water or surface water as air is forced through tile water,causing the compounds to evaporate. See also VolatileOrganic Compound.
American society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) -The ASTM sets standards for many services, includingmethods of sampling and testing of hazardous waste, andmedia contaminated with hazardous waste.
Aquifer - An aquifer is an underground rock formationcomposed of such materials as sand, soil, or gravel thatcan store groundwater and supply it to wells and springs.
Aromatics - Aromatics are organic compounds that con-tain 6-carbon ring structures, such as creosote, toluene,and phenol, that often are found at dry cleaning and elec-tronic assembly sites.
Baseline Rkk Assessment - A baseline risk assessmentis an assessment conducted before cleanup activities be-gin at a,site to identify and evaluate the threat to humanhealth and the environment. After cleanup has been com-pleted, the information obtained during a baseline riskassessment can be used to determine whether the cleanuplevels were reached.
Bedrock - Bedrock is the rock that underlies the soil; itcan be permeable or non-permeable. See also ConfiningLayer and Creosote.
Bioremediution - Bioremediation refers to treatment pro-cesses that use microorganisms (usually naturally occur-ring) such as bacteria, yeast, or fungi to break downhazardous substances into less toxic or nontoxic sub-stances. Bioremediation can be used to clean up contami-nated soil and water. In situ bioremediation treats thecontaminated soil or groundwater in the location in whichit is found. For ex situ bioremediation processes, con-taminated soil must be excavated or groundwaterpumped before they can be treated.
Bioventing - Bioventing is an in situ cleanup technologythat combines soil vapor extraction methods withbioremediation. It uses vapor extraction wells that induceair flow in the subsurface through air injection or throughthe use of a vacuum. Bioventing can be effective in clean-ing up releases of petroleum products, such as gasoline,jet fuels, kerosene, and diesel fuel. See alsoBioremediation and Soil Vapor Extraction.
Borehole - A borehole is a hole cut into the ground bymeans of a drilling rig.
Borehole Geophysics - Borehole geophysics are nuclearor electric technologies used to identify the physical char-acteristics of geologic formations that are intersected bya borehole.
Brownfields - Brownfields sites are abandoned, idled, orunder-used industrial and commercial facilities whereexpansion or redevelopment is complicated by real orperceived environmental contamination.
BTEX - BTEX is the term used for benzene, toluene,ethylbenzene, and xylene-volatile aromatic compoundstypically found in petroleum products, such as gasolineand diesel fuel.
37
Cadmium - Cadmium is a heavy metal that accumulatesin the environment. See also Heavy Metal.,
Carbon Adsorption - Carbon adsorption is a treatmentmethod that removes contaminants from groundwater orsurface water as the water is forced through tanks con-taming activated carbon.
Chemical Dehalogenation - Chemical dehalogenation isa chemical process that removes halogens (usually chlo-rine) from a chemical contaminant, rendering the con-taminant less hazardous. The chemical dehalogenationprocess can be applied to common halogenated contami-nants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins(DDT), and certain chlorinated pesticides, which may bepresent in soil and oils. The treatment time is short, en-ergy requirements are moderate, and operation and main-tenance costs are relatively low. This technology can bebrought to the site, eliminating the need to transport haz-ardous wastes. See also Polychlorinated Biphenyl.
Cleanup - Cleanup is the term used for actions taken todeal with a release or threat of release of a hazardoussubstance that could affect humans and/or the environ-ment.
Calorimetric - Calorimetric refers to chemical reaction-based indicators that are used to produce compound re-actions to individual compounds, or classes ofcompounds. The reactions, such as visible color changesor other easily noted indications, are used to detect andquantify contaminants.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-tion, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) -CERCLIS is a database that serves as the official inven-tory of Superfund hazardous waste sites. CERCLIS alsocontains information about all aspects of hazardous wastesites, from initial discovery to deletion from the NationalPriorities List (NPL). The database also maintains infor-mation about planned and actual site activities and finan-cial information entered by EPA regional offices.CERCLIS records the targets and accomplishments ofthe Superfund program and is used to report that infor-mation to the EPAAdministrator, Congress, and the pub-lic. See also National Priorities List and Super-fund.
Confining Layer - A “confining layer” is a geologicalformation characterized by low permeability that inhib-its the flow of water. See also Bedrock and Permeability.
Contaminant - A contaminant is any physical, chemical,biological, or radiological substance or matter present inany media at concentrations that may result in adverseeffects on air, water, or soil.
Data Quality Objective (DQO) - DQOs are qualitativeand quantitative statements specified to ensure that dataof known and appropriate quality are obtained. The DQOprocess is a series of planning steps, typically conductedduring site assessment and investigation, that is designedto ensure that the type, quantity, and quality of environ-mental data used in decision making are appropriate. TheDQO process involves a logical, step-by-step procedurefor determining which of the complex issues affecting asite are the most relevant to planning a site investigationbefore any data are collected.
Disposal - Disposal is the final placement or destructionof toxic, radioactive or other wastes; surplus or bannedpesticides or other chemicals; polluted soils; and drumscontaining hazardous materials from removal actions oraccidental release. Disposal may be accomplished throughthe use of approved secure landfills, surface impound-ments, land farming, deep well injection, ocean dump-ing, or incineration.
Dual-Phase Extraction - Dual-phase extraction is a tech-nology that extracts contaminants simultaneously fromsoils in saturated and unsaturated zones by applying soilvapor extraction techniques to contaminants trapped insaturated zone soils. See also Soil Vapor Extraction.
Electromagnetic (EM) Geophysics - EM geophysics re-fers to technologies used to detect spatial (lateral andvertical) differences in subsurface electromagnetic char-acteristics. The data collected provide information aboutsubsurface environments.
Electromagnetic (EM) Znduction - EM induction is ageophysical technology used to induce a magnetic fieldbeneath the earth’s surface, which in turn causes a sec-ondary magnetic field to form around nearby objects thathave conductive properties, such as ferrous and nonfer-rous metals. The secondary magnetic field is then used todetect and measure buried debris.
Emergency Removal - An emergency removal is an ac-tion initiated in response to a release of a hazardous sub-stance that requires onsite activity within hours of adetermination that action is appropriate.
38
Emerging Technology - An emerging technology is aninnovative technology that currently is undergoing bench-scale testing. During bench-scale testing, a small versionof the technology is built and tested in a laboratory. If thetechnology is successful during bench-scale testing, it isdemonstrated on a small scale at field sites. If the tech-nology is successful at the field demonstrations, it oftenwill be used full scale at contaminated waste sites. Thetechnology is continually improved as it is used and evalu-ated at different sites. See also Established Technologyand Innovative Technology.
Engineered Control -An engineered control, such as bar-riers placed between contamination and the rest of a site,is a method of managing environmental and health risks.Engineered controls can be used to limit exposure path-ways.
Established Technology -An established technology is atechnology for which cost and performance informationis readily available. Only after a technology has been usedat many different sites and the results fully documentedis that technology considered established. The most fre-quently used established technologies are incineration,solidification and stabilization, and pump-and-treat tech-nologies for groundwater. See also Emerging Technol-ogy and Innovative Technology.
Exposure Pathway - An exposure pathway is the routeof contaminants from the source of contamination to po-tential contact with a medium (air, soil, surface water, orgroundwater) that represents a potential threat to humanhealth or the environment. Determining whether expo-sure pathways exist is an essential step in conducting abaseline risk assessment. See also Baseline RiskAssess-ment.
Ex Situ - The term ex sihc or “moved from its originalplace,” means excavated or removed.
Filtration -Filtration is a treatment process that removessolid matter from water by passing the water through aporous medium, such as sand or a manufactured filter.
Flame Ionization Detector (FZD) - An FlD is an instru-ment often used in conjunction with gas chromatographyto measure the change of signal as analytes are ionizedby a hydrogen-air flame. It also is used to detect phenols,phthalates, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), VOCs, andpetroleum hydrocarbons. See also Volatile Organic Com-pounds.
Fourier Transform. Infrared Spectroscopy - A fouriertransform infrared spectroscope is an analytical air moni-toring tool that uses a laser system chemically to identifycontaminants.
Fumigant - A fumigant is a pesticide that is vaporized tokill pests. They often are used in buildings and green-houses.
Furan - Furan is a colorless, volatile liquid compoundused in the synthesis of organic compounds, especiallynylon.
Gas Chromatography - Gas chromatography is a tech-nology used for investigating and assessing soil, water,and soil gas contamination at a site. It is used for theanalysis of VOCs and semi-volatile organic compounds(SVOCs). The technique identifies and quantifies organiccompounds on the basis of molecular weight, character-istic fragmentation patterns, and retention time. Recentadvances in gas chromatography considered innovativeare portable, weatherproof units that have self-containedpower supplies.
Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) - GPR is a technol-ogy that emits pulses of electromagnetic energy into theground to measure its reflection and refraction by sub-surface layers and other features, such as buried debris.
Groundwater - Groundwater is the water found beneaththe earth’s surface that fills pores between such materialsas sand, soil, or gravel and that often supplies wells andsprings. See also Aquifer.
Hazardous Substance - A hazardous substance is any ma-terial that poses a threat to public health or the environ-ment. Typical hazardous substances are materials that aretoxic, corrosive, ignitable, explosive, or chemically re-active. If a certain quantity of a hazardous substance, asestablished by EPA, is spilled into the water or otherwiseemitted into the environment, the release must be reported.Under certain federal legislation, the term excludes pe-troleum, crude oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids, or syn-thetic gas usable for fuel.
Heavy Metal - The term heavy metal refers to a group oftoxic metals including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead,mercury, silver, and zinc. Heavy metals often are presentat industrial sites at which operations have included bat-tery recycling and metal plating.
High-Frequency Electromagnetic (EM) Sounding -High-frequency EM sounding, the technology used for
39
non-intrusive geophysical exploration, projects high-fre-quency electromagnetic radiation into subsurface layersto detect the reflection and refraction of the radiation byvarious layers of soil. Unlike ground-penetrating radar,which uses pulses, the technology uses continuous wavesof radiation. See also Ground-Penetrating Radar.
Hydrocarbon - A hydrocarbon is an organic compoundcontaining only hydrogen and carbon, often occurring inpetroleum, natural gas, and coal.
Hydrogeology - Hydrogeology is the study of ground-water, including its origin, occurrence, movement, andquality.
Hydrology - Hydrology is the science that deals with theproperties, movement, and effects of water found on theearth’s surface, in the soil and rocks beneath the surface,.and in the atmosphere.
Zgnitability - Ignitable wastes can create fires under cer-tain conditions. Examples include liquids, such as sol-vents that readily catch fire, and friction-sensitivesubstances.
Zmmunoassay - Immunoassay is an innovative technol-ogy used to measure compound-specific reactions (gen-erally calorimetric) to individual compounds or classesof compounds. The reactions are used to detect and quan-tify contaminants. The technology is available in field-portable test kits.
Incineration - Incineration is a treatment technology thatinvolves the burning of certain types of solid, liquid, orgaseous materials under controlled conditions to destroyhazardous waste.
Znfrared Monitor -An infrared monitor is a device usedto monitor the heat signature of an object, as well as tosample air. It may be used to detect buried objects in soil.
Inorganic Compound -An inorganic compound is a com-pound that generally does not contain carbon atoms (al-though carbonate and bicarbonate compounds are notableexceptions), tends to be soluble in water, and tends toreact on an ionic rather than on a molecular basis. Ex-amples of inorganic compounds include various acids,potassium hydroxide, and metals.
Innovative Technology - An innovative technology is aprocess that has been tested and used as a treatment forhazardous waste or other contaminated materials, butlacks a long history of full-scale use and information about
its cost and how well it works sufficient to support pre-diction of its performance under a variety of operatingconditions. An innovative technology is one that is un-dergoing pilot-scale treatability studies that are usuallyconducted in the field or the laboratory; require installa-tion of the technology; and provide performance, cost,and design objectives for the technology. Innovative tech-nologies are being used under many Federal and statecleanup programs to treat hazardous wastes that have beenimproperly released. For example, innovative technolo-gies are being selected to manage contamination (prima-rily petroleum) at some leaking underground storage sites.See also Emerging Technology and Established Technol-ogy*
In Situ - The term in situ, “in its original place,” or “on-site,” means unexcavated and unmoved. In situ soil flush-ing and natural attenuation are examples of in situtreatment methods by which contaminated sites are treatedwithout digging up or removing the contaminants.
In Situ Oxidation - In situ oxidation is an innovativetreatment technology that oxidizes contaminants that aredissolved in groundwater and converts them into insolublecompounds.
In Situ Soil Flushing - In situ soil flushing is an innova-tive treatment technology that floods contaminated soilsbeneath the ground surface with a solution that movesthe contaminants to an area from which they can be re-moved. The technology requires the drilling of injectionand extraction wells onsite and reduces the need for ex-cavation, handling, or transportation of hazardous sub-stances. Contaminants considered for treatment by in situsoil flushing include heavy metals (such as lead, copper,and zinc), aromatics, and PCBs. See also Aromatics,Heavy Metal, and Polychlorinated Biphenyl.
In Situ Vitrification - In situ vitrification is a soil treat-ment technology that stabilizes metal and other inorganiccontaminants in place at temperatures of approximately3000 F. Soils and sludges are fused to form a stable glassand crystalline structure with very low leaching charac-teristics.
Institutional Controls -An institutional control is a legalor institutional measure which subjects a property ownerto limit activities at or access to a particular property.They are used to ensure protection of human health andthe environment, and to expedite property reuse. Fences,
40
posting or warning signs, and zoning and deed restric-tions are examples of institutional controls.
Zntegrated Risk Information System (IRIS) - IRIS is anelectronic database that contains EPA’s latest descriptiveand quantitative regulatory information about chemicalconstituents. Files on chemicals maintained in IRIS con-tain information related to both noncarcinogenic and car-cinogenic health effects.
Landfarming - Landfarming is the spreading and incor-poration of wastes into the soil to initiate biological treat-ment.
Landfill - A sanitary landfill is a land disposal site fornonhazardous solid wastes at which the waste is spreadin layers compacted to the smallest practical volume.
Laser-Znduced Fluorescence/Cone Penetrometer - La-ser-induced fluorescence/cone penetrometer is a fieldscreening method that couples a fiber optic-based chemi-cal sensor system to a cone penetrometer mounted on atruck. The technology can be used for investigating andassessing soil and water contamination.
Lead - Lead is a heavy metal that is hazardous to healthif breathed or swallowed. Its use in gasoline, paints, andplumbing compounds has been sharply restricted or elirni-nated by Federal laws and regulations. See also HeavyMetal.
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) - LUST isthe acronym for “leaking underground storage tank.”
Magnetrometry - Magnetrometry is a geophysical tech-nology used to detect disruptions that metal objects causein the earth’s localized magnetic field.
Mass Spectrometty - Mass spectrometry is an analyticalprocess by which molecules are broken into fragments todetermine the concentrations and mass/charge ratio of thefragments. Innovative mass spectroscopy units, developedthrough modification of large laboratory instruments, aresometimes portable, weatherproof units with self-con-tained power supplies.
Medium - A medium is a specific environment -- air, wa-ter, or soil -- which is the subject of regulatory concernand activities.
Mercury - Mercury is a heavy metal that can accumulatein the environment and is highly toxic if breathed or swal-lowed. Mercury is found in thermometers, measuringdevices, pharmaceutical and agricultural chemicals,chemical manufacturing, and electrical equipment. Seealso Heavy Metal.
Mercury VQpor Analyzer - A mercury vapor analyzer isan instrument that provides real-time measurements ofconcentrations of mercury in the air.
Methane - Methane is a colorless, nonpoisonous, flam-mable gas created by anaerobic decomposition of organiccompounds.
Migration Pathway -A migration pathway is a potentialpath or route of contaminants from the source of con-tamination to contact with human populations or the en-vironment. Migration pathways include air, surface water,groundwater, and land surface. The existence and identi-fication of all potential migration pathways must be con-sidered during assessment and characterization of a wastesite.
Mixed Waste - Mixed waste is low-level radioactive wastecontaminated with hazardous waste that is regulated un-der the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). Mixed waste can be disposed only in compli-ance with the requirements under RCRA that govern dis-posal of hazardous waste and with the RCRA landdisposal restrictions, which require that waste be treatedbefore it is disposed of in appropriate landfills.
Monitoring WeZZ - A monitoring well is a well drilled at aspecific location on or off a hazardous waste site at whichgroundwater can be sampled at selected depths and stud-ied to determine the direction of groundwater flow andthe types and quantities of contaminants present in thegroundwater.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) - NPDES is the primary permitting programunder the Clean Water Act, which regulates all dischargesto surface water. It prohibits discharge of pollutants intowaters of the United States unless EPA, a state, or a tribalgovernment issues a special permit to do so.
National Priorities List (NPL) - The NPL is EPA’s list ofthe most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardouswaste sites identified for possible long-term cleanup un-der Superfund. Inclusion of a site on the list is based pri-marily on the score the site receives under the Hazard
41
Ranking System (FIRS). Money from Superfund,can beused for cleanup only at sites that are on the NPL. EPA isrequired to update the NPL at least once a year.
NaturalAttenuation - Natural attenuation is an approachto cleanup that uses natural processes to contain the spreadof contamination from chemical spills and reduce theconcentrations and amounts of pollutants in contaminatedsoil and groundwater. Natural subsurface processes, suchas dilution, volatilization, biodegradation, adsorption, andchemical reactions with subsurface materials, reduce con-centrations of contaminants to acceptable levels. An insitu treatment method that leaves the contaminants inplace while those processes occur, natural attenuation isbeing used to clean up petroleum contamination fromleaking underground storage tanks (LUST) across thecountry.
Non-Point Source - The term non-point source is usedto identify sources of pollution that are diffuse and donot have a point of origin or that are not introduced into areceiving stream from a specific outlet. Common non-point sources are rain water, runoff from agriculturallands, industrial sites, parking lots, and timber operations,as well as escaping gases from pipes and fittings.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) - O&M refers tothe activities conducted at a site, following remedial ac-tions, to ensure that the cleanup methods are workingproperly. O&M activities are conducted to maintain theeffectiveness of the cleanup and to ensure that no newthreat to human health or the environment arises. O&Mmay include such activities as groundwater and air moni-toring, inspection and maintenance of the treatment equip-ment remaining onsite, and maintenance of any securitymeasures or institutional controls.
Organic Chemical or Compound -An organic chemicalor compound is a substance produced by animals or plantsthat contains mainly carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
Permeability - Permeability is a characteristic that repre-sents a qualitative description of the relative ease withwhich rock, soil, or sediment will transmit a fluid (liquidor gas).
Pesticide - A pesticide is a substance or mixture of sub-stances intended to prevent or mitigate infestation by, ordestroy or repel, any pest. Pesticides can accumulate in
the food chain and/or contaminate the environment ifmisused.
Phase ISite Assessment -A Phase I site assessment is aninitial environmental investigation that is limited to a his-torical records search to determine ownership of a siteand to identify the kinds of chemical processes that werecarried out at the site. A Phase I assessment includes asite visit, but does not include any sampling. If such anassessment identifies no significant concerns, a Phase Ilassessment is not necessary.
Phase II Site Assessment - A Phase II site assessment isan investigation that includes tests performed at the siteto confirm the location and to identify environmental haz-ards. The assessment includes preparation of a report thatincludes recommendations for cleanup alternatives.
Phenols - A phenol is one of a group of organic com-pounds that are byproducts of petroleum refining, tan-ning, and textile, dye, and resin manufacturing. Lowconcentrations of phenols cause taste and odor problemsin water; higher concentrations may be harmful to hu-man health or the environment.
Photoionization Detector (PID) -A PID is a nondestruc-tive detector, often used in conjunction with gas chroma-tography, that measures the change of signal as analytesare ionized by an ultraviolet lamp. The PID is also usedto detect VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons.
Phytoremediation - Phytoremediation is an innovativetreatment technology that uses plants and trees to cleanup contaminated soil and water. Plants can break down,or degrade, organic pollutants or stabilize metal contami-nants by acting as filters or traps. Phytoremediation canbe used to clean up metals, pesticides, solvents, explo-sives, crude oil, PAHs, and landfill leachates. Its use gen-erally is limited to sites at which concentrations ofcontaminants are relatively low and contamination isfound in shallow soils, streams, and groundwater.
Plusma High-Temperature Metals Recovery - Plasmahigh-temperature metals recovery is a thermal treatmentprocess that purges contaminants from solids and soilssuch as metal fumes and organic vapors. The vapors canbe burned as fuel, and the metal fumes can be recoveredand recycled. This innovative treatment technology isused to treat contaminated soil and groundwater.
Plume - A plume is a visible or measurable emission ordischarge of a contaminant from a given point of origininto any medium. The term also is used to refer to mea-
42
surable and potentially harmful radiation leaking from adamaged reactor.
Point Source - A point source is a stationary location orfixed facility from which pollutants are discharged oremitted; or any single, identifiable discharge point ofpollution, such as a pipe, ditch, or smokestack.
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) - PCBs are a group oftoxic, persistent chemicals, produced by chlorination ofbiphenyl, that once were used in high voltage electricaltransformers because they conducted heat well while be-ing fire resistant and good electrical insulators. Thesecontaminants typically are generated from metaldegreasing, printed circuit board cleaning, gasoline, andwood preserving processes. Further sale or use of PCBswas banned in 1979.
Pump and Treat - Pump and treat is a general term usedto describe cleanup methods that involve the pumping ofgroundwater to the surface for treatment. It is one of themost common methods of treating polluted aquifers andgroundwater.
Radioactive Waste - Radioactive waste is any waste thatemits energy as rays, waves, or streams of energetic par-ticles. Sources of such wastes include nuclear reactors,research institutions, and hospitals.
Radionuclide - A radionuclide is a radioactive elementcharacterized according to its atomic mass and atomicnumber, which can be artificial or naturally occurring.Radionuclides have a long life as soil or water pollut-ants. Radionuclides cannot be destroyed or degraded;therefore, applicable technologies involve separation,concentration and volume reduction, immobilization, orvitrification. See also Solidification and Stabilization.
Radon - Radon is a colorless, naturally occurring, radio-active, inert gaseous element formed by radioactive de-cay of radium atoms. See also Radioactive Waste andRadionuclide.
ReZease -A release is any spilling, leaking, pumping, pour-ing, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, leaching,dumping, or disposing into the environment of a hazard-ous or toxic chemical or extremely hazardous substance,as defined under RCRA. See also Resource Conserva-tion and Recovery Act.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) -RCRA is a Federal law enacted in 1976 that established aregulatory system to track hazardous substances from their
generation to their disposal. The law requires the use ofsafe and secure procedures in treating, transporting, stor-ing, and disposing of hazardous substances. RCRA isdesigned to prevent the creation of new, uncontrolled haz-ardous waste sites.
Risk Communication - Risk communication, the ex-change of information about health or environmental risksamong risk assessors, risk managers, the local commu-nity, news media and interest groups, is the process ofinforming members of the local community about envi-ronmental risks associated with a site and the steps thatare being taken to manage those risks.
Saturated Zone - The saturated zone is the area beneaththe surface of the land in which all openings are filledwith water at greater than atmospheric pressure.
Seismic Reflection and Refraction - Seismic reflectionand refraction is a technology used to examine the geo-physical features of soil and bedrock, such as debris, bur-ied channels, and other features.
Site Assessment - A site assessment is the process bywhich it is determined whether contamination is presenton a site.
Sludge - Sludge is a semisolid residue from air or watertreatment processes. Residues from treatment of metalwastes and the mixture of waste and soil at the bottom ofa waste lagoon are examples of sludge, which can be ahazardous waste.
Slurry-Phase Bioremediation - Slurry-phasebioremediation, a treatment technology that can be usedalone or in conjunction with other biological, chemical,and physical treatments, is a process through which or-ganic contaminants are converted to innocuous com-pounds. Slurry-phase bioremediation can be effective intreating various SVOCs and nonvolatile organic com-pounds, as well as fuels, creosote, pentachlorophenols(PCP), and PCBs. See also Polychlorinated Biphenyl.
Soil Boring - Soil boring is a pr%ocess by which a soilsample is extracted from the ground for chemical, bio-logical, and analytical testing to determine the level ofcontamination present.
Soil Gas - Soil gas consists of gaseous elements and’com-pounds that occur in the small spaces between particlesof the earth and soil. Such gases can move through orleave the soil or rock, depending on changes in pressure.
43
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) - WE, the most frequentlyselected innovative treatment at Super-fund sites, is a pro-cess that physically separates contaminants from soil ina vapor form by exerting a vacuum through the soil for-mation. Soil vapor extraction removes VOCs and someSVOCs from soil beneath the ground surface. See alsoVolatile Organic Carbon.
Soil Washing - Soil .washing is an innovative treatmenttechnology that uses liquids (usually water, sometimescombined with chemical additives) and a mechanical pro-cess to scrub soils, removes hazardous contaminants, andconcentrates the contaminants into a smaller volume. Thetechnology is used to treat a wide range of contaminants,such as metals, gasoline, fuel oils, and pesticides. Soilwashing is a relatively low-cost alternative for separat-ing waste and minimizing volume as necessary to facili-tate subsequent treatment. It is often used in combinationwith other treatment technologies. The technology canbe brought to the site, thereby eliminating the need totransport hazardous wastes.
Solidification and Stabilization - Solidification and sta-bilization are the processes of removing wastewater froma waste or changing it chemically to make the waste lesspermeable and susceptible to transport by water. Solidi-fication and stabilization technologies can immobilizemany heavy metals, certain radionuclides, and selectedorganic compounds, while decreasing the surface areaand permeability of many types of sludge, contaminatedsoils, and solid wastes.
Solvent - A solvent is a substance, usually liquid, that iscapable of dissolving or dispersing one or more othersubstances.
Solvent Extraction - Solvent extraction is an innovativetreatment technology that uses a solvent to separate orremove hazardous organic contaminants from oily-typewastes, soils, sludges, and sediments. The technology doesnot destroy contaminants, but concentrates them so theycan be recycled or destroyed more easily by another tech-nology. Solvent extraction has been shown to be effec-tive in treating sediments, sludges, and soils that containprimarily organic contaminants, such as PCBs, VOCs,halogenated organic compounds, and petroleum wastes.Such contaminants typically are generated from metaldegreasing, printed circuit board cleaning, gasoline, andwood preserving processes. Solvent extraction is a trans-portable technology that can be brought to the site. Seealso Polychlorinated Biphenyl and Volatile Organic Com-pound.
Surfactant Flushing - Surfactant flushing is an innova-tive treatment technology used to treat contaminatedgroundwater. Surfactant flushing of NA.PLs increases thesolubility and mobility of the contaminants in water sothat the NAPLs can be biodegraded more easily in anaquifer or recovered for treatment aboveground.
Surface Water - Surface water is all water naturally opento the atmosphere, such as rivers, lakes, reservoirs,streams, and seas.
Superfund - Super-fund is the trust fund that provides forthe cleanup of significantly hazardous substances releasedinto the environment, regardless of fault. The Superfundwas established under Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)and subsequent amendments to CERCLA. The termSuper-fund is also used to refer to cleanup programs de-signed and conducted under CERCLA and its subsequentamendments.
44
Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act(SARA) - SARA is the 1986 act amending Comprehen-sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-ity Act (CERCLA) that increased the size of the Super-fundtrust fund and established a preference for the develop-ment and use of permanent remedies, and provided newenforcement and settlement tools.
Thermal Desorption - Thermal desorption is an innova-tive treatment technology that heats soils contaminatedwith hazardous wastes to temperatures from 200 to 1,000F so that contaminants that have low boiling points willvaporize and separate from the soil. The vaporized con-taminants are then collected for further treatment or de-struction, typically by an air emissions treatment system.The technology is most effective at treating VOCs,SVOCs and other organic contaminants, such as PCBs,PAHs, and pesticides. It is effective in separating organ-its from refining wastes, coal tar wastes, waste from woodtreatment, and paint wastes. It also can separate solvent.s,pesticides, PCBs, dioxins, and fuel oils from contami-nated soil. See also Polychlorinated Biphenyl and Vola-tile Organic Compound.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) - TPH refers to ameasure of concentration or mass of petroleum hydro-carbon constituents present in a given amount of air, soil,or water.
Toxicity - Toxicity is a quantification of the degree ofdanger posed by a substance to animal or plant life.
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) -The TCLP is a testing procedure used to identify the tox-icity of wastes and is the most commonly used test fordetermining the degree of mobilization offered by a so-lidification and stabilization process. Under this proce-dure, a waste is subjected to a process designed to modelthe leaching effects that would occur if the waste wasdisposed of in an RCRA Subtitle D municipal landfill.See also Solidification and Stabilization.
Toxic Substance -A toxic substance is a chemical or mix-ture that may present an unreasonable risk of injury tohealth or the environment.
Treatment Wall (also Passive Treatment Wall) -A treat-ment wall is a structure installed underground to treatcontaminated groundwater found at hazardous waste sites.Treatment walls, also called passive treatment walls, areput in place by constructing a giant trench across the flowpath of contaminated groundwater and filling the trenchwith one of a variety of materials carefully selected forthe ability to clean up specific types of contaminants. Asthe contaminated groundwater passes through the treat-ment wall, the contaminants are trapped by the treatmentwall or transformed into harmless substances that flowout of the wall. The major advantage of using treatmentwalls is that they are passive systems that treat the con-taminants in place so the property can be put to produc-tive use while it is being cleaned up. Treatment walls areuseful at some sites contaminated with chlorinated sol-vents, metals, or radioactive contaminants.
Unsaturated Zone - The unsaturated zone is the area be-tween the land surface and the uppermost aquifer (or satu-rated zone). The soils in an unsaturated zone may containair and water.
Vadose Zone - The vadose zone is the area between thesurface of the land and the aquifer water table in whichthe moisture content is less than the saturation point andthe pressure is less than atmospheric. The openings (porespaces) also typically contain air or other gases.
Vapor - Vapor is the gaseous phase of any substance thatis liquid or solid at atmospheric temperatures and pres-sures. Steam is an example of a vapor.
Voi’utile Organic Compound (VOC) - AVOC is one of agroup of carbon-containing compounds that evaporatereadily at room temperature. Examples of volatile organiccompounds include trichloroethane, trichloroethylene,benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX).These contaminants typicaily are generated from metaldegreasing, printed circuit board cleaning, gasoline, andwood preserving processes.
VoZatiZization -Volatilization is the process of transfer ofa chemical from the aqueous or liquid phase to the gasphase. Solubility, molecular weight, and vapor pressureof the liquid and the nature of the gas-liquid affect therate of volatilization.
Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) - AVCP is a formalmeans established by many states to facilitate assessment,cleanup, and redevelopment of brownfields sites. VCPstypically address the identification and cleanup of poten-tially contaminated sites that are not on the National Pri-orities List (NPL). Under VCPs, owners or developers ofa site are encouraged to approach the state voluntarily towork out a process by which the site can be readied fordevelopment. Many state VCPs provide technical assis-tance, liability assurances, and funding support for suchefforts.
Wastewater - Wastewater is spent or used water from anindividual home, a community, a farm, or an industry thatcontains dissolved or suspended matter.
Water Table -A water table is the boundary between thesaturated and unsaturated zones beneath the surface ofthe earth, the level of groundwater, and generally is thelevel to which water will rise in a well. See also Aquiferand Groundwater.
X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzer - An x-ray fluorescenceanalyzer is a self-contained, field-portable instrument,consisting of an energy dispersive x-ray source, a detec-tor, and a data processing system that detects and quanti-fies individual metals or groups of metals.
45
Appendix CBibliography
A “PB” publication number in parentheses indicates thatthe document is available from the National TechnicalInformation Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,Springfield, VA22161, (703-605-6000).
Site Assessment
ASTM. 1997. Standard Practice for Environmental SiteAssessments: Phase I Environmental Site AssessmentProcess. American Society for Testing Materials (ASTME1527-97).
ASTM. 1996. Standard Practice for Environmental SiteAssessments: Transaction Screen Process. American So-ciety for Testing Materials (ASTM El52896).
ASTM. 1995. Guide for Developing Conceptual SiteModels for Contaminated Sites. American Society forTesting and Materials (ASTM El689-95).
ASTM. 1995. Provisional Standard Guide for Acceler-ated Site Characterization for Confirmed or SuspectedPetroleum Releases. American Society for Testing andMaterials (ASTM PS3 95).
Geo-Environmental Solutions. n.d. http://www.gesolutions.com/assess.htm.
Geoprobe Systems, Inc. 1998. Rental Rate Sheet. Sep-tember 15.
Robbat, Albert, Jr. 1997. Dynamic Workplans and FieldAnalytics: The Keys to Cost Effective Site Characteriza-tion and Cleanup. Tufts University under CooperativeAgreement with the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. October.
US. EPA. 1998 Quality Assurance Guidance for Con-ducting Brownfields Site Assessments ,(EPA 540-R-98-038) September.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Expedited Site -4ssessment Tools forUnderground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regula-tors and Consultants (EPA 5 10-B-97-001).
U.S. EPA. 1997. Field Analytical and Site Characteriza-tion Technologies: Summary of Applications (EPA 542-R-97-011).
U.S. EPA. 1997. Road Map to Understanding InnovativeTechnology Options for Brownfields Investigation andCleanup. OSWER. (PB97-144810).
U.S. EPA. 1997. The Tool Kit of Technology Informa-tion Resources for Brownfields Sites. OSWER. (PB97-144828).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Consortium for Site CharacterizationTechnology: Fact Sheet (EPA 542-F 96-012).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Field Portable X-Ray Fluorescence(FPXRF), Technology Verification Program: Fact Sheet(EPA 542-F-96-009a).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Portable Gas Chromatograph/MassSpectrometers (GC/MS), Technology Verification Pro-gram: Fact Sheet (EPA 542-F-96-009c).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Site Characterization Analysis Penetrom-eter System (SCAPS) LIF Sensor (EPA 540~MR-95-520,EPA 540 R-95-520).
US. EPA. 1996. Site Characterization and Monitoring:A Bibliography of EPA Information Resources (EPA 542-B-96-001).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Soil Screening Guidance (540/R-96/128).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Clor-N-Soil PCB Test Kit L2000 PCB/Chloride Analyzer (EPA 540-MR 95-518, EPA 540-R-95-5 18).
46
U.S. EPA. 1995. Contract Laboratory Program: VolatileOrganics Analysis of Ambient Air in Canisters RevisionVCAAOl.0 (PB95-963524).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Contract Lab Program: Draft Statementof Work for QuickTurnaround Analysis (Pl395-963523).
U.S. EPA. 1995. EnviroGard PCB Test Kit (EPA 540-MR-95-5 17, EPA 540-R-95-517).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Field Analytical Screening Program:PCB Method(EPA540-MR-95-521, EPA540-R-95-521).
U.S. EPA. 1995. PCB Method, Field Analytical Screen-ing Program (Innovative Technology Evaluation Report)(EPA 540-R-95-521, PB96-130026); Demonstration Bul-letin (EPA 540 MR-95-521).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Profile of the Fabricated Metal Prod-ucts Industry (EPA 3 10-R-95-007).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Rapid Optical Screen Tool (ROSTTM)(EPA 540~MR-95-519, EPA 540-R 95-519).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Risk Assessment Guidance forSuperfund. http://www.epa.gov/ncepihornlCataloglEPA540R95 132.html.
U.S; EPA. 1994. Assessment and Remediation of Con-taminated Sediments (ARCS) Program (EPA 905-R-94-003).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Characterization of Chromium-Contami-nated Soils Using Field-Portable X-ray Fluorescence(PB94-210457).
US. EPA. 1994. Development of a Battery-OperatedPortable Synchronous Luminescence Spectrofluorometer(PB94-170032).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Engineering Forum Issue: Consider-ations in Deciding to Treat Contaminated UnsaturatedSoils In Situ (EPA 540-S-94-500, PB94-177771).
U.S. EPA. 1994. SITE Program: An Engineering Analy-sis of the Demonstration Program (EPA 540-R-94-530).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Data Quality Objectives Process forSuperfund (EPA 540-R-93-071).
US. EPA. 1993. Conference on the Risk AssessmentParadigmAfter lOYears: Policy and Practice, Then, Now,and in the Future, http:Nwww.epa.gov/ncepihom/Catalog/EPA600R93039.html.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Guidance for Evaluating the TechnicalImpracticability of Ground Water Restoration. OSWERdirective (9234.2-25).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Guide for Conducting Treatability Stud-ies Under CERCLA: Biodegradation Remedy Selection(EPA 540-R-93-519a, PB94-117470).
US. EPA. 1993. Subsurface Characterization and Moni-toring Techniques (EPA 625-R-93 003a&b).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Characterizing Heterogeneous Wastes:Methods and Recommendations (March 26-28,1991)(PB92-216894).
US. EPA. 1992. Conducting Treatability Studies UnderRCRA (OSWER Directive 9380.3 09FS, PB92-963501)
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guidance for Data Useability in RiskAssessment (Part A) (9285.7-09A).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatability Stud-ies Under CERCLA: Final (EPA 540-R-92-071A, PB93-126787).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatability Stud-ies Under CERCLA: Soil Vapor Extraction (EPA 540-2-91-019a&b, PB92-227271 & PB92-224401).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatability Stud-ies Under CERCLA: Soil Washing (EPA 540-2-91-020a&b, PB92-170570 & PB92-170588).
US. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatability Stud-ies Under CERCLA: Solvent Extraction (EPA 540-R-92-016a, PB92-239581).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide to Site and Soil Description forHazardous Waste Site Characterization, Volume 1: Met-als (PB92-146158).
U.S. EPA. 1992. International Symposium on FieldScreening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and ToxicChemicals (2nd), Proceedings. Held in Las Vegas, Ne-vada on February 12-14,1991 (PB92-125764).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Sampling of Contaminated Sites (PB92-110436).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Ground Water Issue: Characterizing Soilsfor Hazardous Waste Site Assessment (PB-91-921294).
47
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guide for Conducting Treatability Stud-ies Under CERCLA: Aerobic Biodegradation RemedyScreening (EPA 540-2-91-013a&b, PB92-109065 &PB92-109073).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Interim Guidance for Dermal ExposureAssessment (EPA 600-8-91-OllA).
U.S. EPA. 1990. A New Approach and Methodologiesfor Characterizing the Hydrogeologic Properties of Aqui-fers (EPA 600-2-90-002).
U.S. EPA. 1986. Super-fund Public Health EvaluationManual (EPA 540-l-86-060).
US. EPA. n.d. Status Report on Field Analytical Tech-nologies Utilization: Fact Sheet (no publication numberavailable).
U.S.G.S. http://www.mapping.usgs.gov/esic/to~order.hmtl.
Vendor Field Analytical and Characterization Technolo-gies System (Vendor FACTS), Version 1.0 (VendorFACTS can be downloaded from the Internet atwww.prcemi.com/visitt or from the CLU-IN Web site athttp://clu-incorn).
The Whitman Companies. Last modified October 4,1996. Environmental Due Diligence. http://www. whitmanco.com/dilgnce 1. html.
Cleanup
ASTM. n.d. New Standard Guide for Remediation byNatural Attenuation at Petroleum Release Sites (ASTME50.01).
Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable. http://www.frtr.gov/matrix/top~page.html.
Interagency Cost Workgroup. 1994. Historical CostAnalysis System. Version 2.0.
Los Alamos National Laboratory. 1996. A Compendiumof Cost Data for Environmental Remediation Technolo-gies (LA-UR-96-2205).
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. n.d. Treatability of Haz-ardous Chemicals in Soils: Volatile and Semi-VolatileOrganics (ORNL-6451).
Robbat, Albert, Jr. 1997. Dynamic Workplans and FieldAnalytics: The Keys to Cost Effective Site Characteriza-
tion and Cleanup. Tufts University under CooperativeAgreement with the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. October.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Self-Audit and Inspection Guide for Fa-cilities Conducting Cleaning, Preparation, and OrganicCoating of Metal Parts. (EPA 305-B-95-002).
U.S. EPA. 1997. Road Map to Understanding InnovativeTechnology Options for Brownfields Investigation andCleanup. OSWER. PB97-144810).
U.S. EPA. 1997. The Tool Kit of Technology Informa-tion Resources for Brownfields Sites. OSWER. (PB97-144828).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Bioremediation Field Evaluation: Cham-pion International Super-fund Site, Libby, Montana (EPA540-R-96-500).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Bibliography for Innovative Site Clean-Up Technologies (EPA 542-B-96 003).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Bioremediation of Hazardous Wastes:Research, Development, and Field Evaluations (EPA 540-R-95-532, PB96-130729).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Citizen’s Guides to Understanding In-novative Treatment Technologies (EPA 542-F-96-013):
Bioremediation (EPA 542-F-96-007, EPA 542-F-96-023)
Chemical Dehalogenation (EPA 542-F-96-004, EPA542-F-96-020)
In Situ Soil Flushing (EPA 542-F-96-006, EPA 542-F-96-022)
Innovative Treatment Technologies for ContaminatedSoils, Sludges, Sediments, and Debris (EPA 542-F-96-001, EPA 542-F-96-017)
Phytoremediation (EPA 542-F-96-014, EPA 542-F-96-025)
Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging (EPA 542-F-96-008, EPA 542-F-96-024)
Soil Washing (EPA 542-F-96-002, EPA 542-F-96-018)
Solvent Extraction (EPA 542-F-96-003, EPA 542-F-96-019)
48
. Thermal Desorption (EPA 542-F-96-005, EPA 542-F-96-021)
l Treatment Walls (EPA 542-F-96-O 16, EPA 542-F-96-027)
U.S. EPA. 1996. Cleaning Up the Nation’s Waste Sites:Markets and Technology Trends (1996 Edition) (EPA 542-R-96-005, PB96-178041).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Completed North American InnovativeTechnology Demonstration Projects (EPA 542-B-96-002,PB96-153127).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Cone Penetrometer/Laser Induced Fluo-rescence (LB?) Technology Verification Program: FactSheet (EPA 542-F-96-009b).
U.S. EPA. 1996. EPA Directive: Initiatives to PromoteInnovative Technologies in Waste Management Programs(EPA 540-F-96-012).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Errata To Guide To EPA materials onUnderground Storage Tanks (EPA 5 10-F-96-002)
U.S. EPA. 1996. How to Effectively Recover Free Prod-uct at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guidefor State Regulators (EPA 5 10-F-96-001; Fact Sheet: EPA5 10-F-96 005).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Innovative Treatment Technologies:Annual Status Report Database (ITT Database).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Introducing TANK Racer (EPA 5 lo-F96-001).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Market Opportunities for Innovative SiteCleanup Technologies: Southeastern States (EPA 542-R-96-007, PB96-199518).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Recent Developments for In Sitzz Treat-ment of Metal-Contaminated Soils (EPA 542-R-96-008,PB96-153135).
U.S. EPA. 1996. Review of Intrinsic Bioremediation ofTCE in Groundwater at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jerseyand St. Joseph, Michigan (EPA 600-A-95-096, PB95-252995).
U.S. EPA. 1996. State Policies Concerning the Use ofInjectants for bz Situ Groundwater Remediation (EPA 542-R-96-001, PB96-164538).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies(EPA542-R-95-001, PB95 201711).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Accessing Federal Data Bases for Con-taminated Site Clean-Up Technologies, Fourth Edition(EPA 542-B-95-005, PB96-141601).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation Field Evaluation:Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska (EPA 540-R-95-533).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation Field Initiative Site Pro-files:
l Champion Site, Libby, MT (EPA 540-F-95-506a)
l Eielson Air Force Base, AK (EPA 540-F-95-506b)
0 Hill Air Force Base Super-fund Site, UT (EPA 540-F-95-506c)
l Public Service Company of Colorado (EPA 540-F-95-506d)
l Escambia Wood Preserving Site, FL (EPA 540-F-95-50%)
l Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation , MN (EPA 540-F-95-506h)
U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation Final PerformanceEvaluation of the Prepared Bed Land Treatment System,Champion International Superfund Site, Libby, Montana:Volume I, Text (EPA 600-R-95-156a); Volume II, Fig-ures and Tables (EPA 600-R-95-156b)
U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation of Petroleum Hydro-carbons: A Flexible, Variable Speed Technology (EPA600-A-95-140, PB96-139035):
U.S. EPA. 1995. Contaminants and Remedial Options atSelected Metal Contaminated Sites (EPA 540-R-95-5 12,PB95-271961).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Development of a Photothermal Detoxi-fication Unit: Emerging Technology Summary (EPA 540-SR-95-526); Emerging Technology Bulletin (EPA540-F-95-505).
US. EPA. 1995. Electrokinetic Soil Processing: Emerg-ing Technology Bulletin (EPA540-F 95-504); ET ProjectSummary (EPA 540~SR-93-515).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Emerging Abiotic Zrz Situ RemediationTechnologies for Groundwater and Soil: Summary Re-port (EPA 542-S-95-001, PB95-239299).
49
U.S. EPA. 1995. Emerging Technology Program (EPA540-F-95-502).
U.S. EPA. 1995. ETI: Environmental Technology Initia-tive (document order form) (EPA 542-F-95-007).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Federal Publications on Alternative andInnovativeTreatment Technologies for Corrective Actionand Site Remediation, Fifth Edition (EPA 542-B-95-004,PB96 145099).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Federal Remediation TechnologiesRoundtable: 5 Years of Cooperation (EPA 542-F-95-007).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Guide to Documenting Cost and Perfor-mance for Remediation Projects (EPA 542-B-95-002,PB95-182960).
U.S. EPA. 1995. In Situ Metal-Enhanced Abiotic Degra-dation Process Technology, Environmental Technologies,Inc.: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540~MR-95-510).
U.S. EPA. 1995. In Situ Vitrification Treatment: Engi-neering Bulletin (EPA 540-S-94-504, PB95-125499).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Intrinsic Bioattenuation for SubsurfaceRestoration (book chapter) (EPA 600-A-95-112, PB95-274213).
U.S. EPA. 1995. J.R. Simplot Ex Situ BioremediationTechnology for Treatment of TNT Contaminated Soils:Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 540-R-95-529); Site Technology Capsule (EPA 540-R-95-529aj.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Lessons Learned About In Situ AirSparging at the Denison Avenue Site, Cleveland, Ohio(Project Report), Assessing UST Corrective Action Tech-nologies (EPA 600 R-95-040, PB95-188082).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Microbial Activity in SubsurfaceSamples Before and During Nitrate EnhancedBioremediation (EPA 600-A-95-109, PB95-274239).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Musts For USTS: A Summary of theRegulations for Underground Tank Systems (EPA 510-K-95-002).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Natural Attenuation of Trichloroetheneat the St. Joseph, Michigan, Super-fund Site (EPA 600-sv-95-001).
U.S. EPA. 1995. New York State Multi-Vendor Biore-mediation: En Situ Biovault, ENSR Consulting and En-
gineering/Larson Engineers: Demonstration Bulletin(EPA 540~MR-95 525).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Process for the Treatment of VolatileOrganic Carbon and Heavy-Metal Contaminated Soil,International Technology Corp.: Emerging TechnologyBulletin (EPA 540-F-95-509).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Progress In Reducing Impediments tothe Use of Innovative Remediation Technology (EPA 542-F-95-008, PB95-262556).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remedial Design/Remedial ActionHandbook (PB95-963307ND2).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remedial Design/Remedial ActionHandbook Fact Sheet (PB95-9633 12 NDZ).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies:Bioremediation (EPA 542-R-95-002, PB95 182911).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Fact Sheetand Order Form (EPA 542-F-95 003); Four DocumentSet (PB95-182903).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Groundwa-ter Treatment (EPA 542-R-95-003, PB95-182929).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Soil VaporExtraction (EPA 542-R-95-004, PB95-182937).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: ThermalDesorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ Vitrification (EPA542-R-95-005, PB95-182945).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Technologies ScreeningMatrix and Reference Guide, Second Edition (PB95-104782; Fact Sheet: EPA 542-F-95-002). FederalRemediation Technology Roundtable. Also see Internet:http://www.frtr.gov/matrixZtop-page.html.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Review of Mathematical Modeling forEvaluating Soil Vapor Extraction Systems (EPA 540-R-95-5 13, PB95-24305 1).
U.S. EPA. 1995. Selected Alternative and InnovativeTreatment Technologies for Corrective Action and SiteRemediation: A Bibliography of EPA Information Re-sources (EPA 542-B-95 001).
US. EPA. 1995. SITE Emerging Technology Program(EPA 540-F-95-502).
50
U.S. EPA. 1995. Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Enhance- l
ment Technology Resource Guide Air Sparging,Bioventing, Fracturing, Thermal Enhancements (EPA .542-B-95-003). .
US. EPA. 1995. Soil Vapor Extraction ImplementationExperiences (OSWER Publication 9200.5-223FS, EPA .540-F-95-030, PB95-9633 15). .
U.S. EPA. 1995. Surfactant Injection for Ground WaterRemediation: State Regulators’ Perspectives and Experi- l
ences (EPA 542-R-95-011, PB96-164546).
’
Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: APEG Treat-ment (EPA 540-2-90-015, PB91-228031)
Chemical Oxidation Treatment (EPA 540-2-g l-025)
In Situ Biodegradation Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-502, PB94- 190469)
In Sitzz Soil Flushing (EPA 540-2-g l-02 1)
In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment (EPA 540-2-91-006, PB91-228072)
In Sitzr Steam Extraction Treatment (EPA 540-2-91-005, PB91-2228064)
U.S. EPA. 1995. Symposium on Bioremediation of Haz-ardous Wastes: Research, Development, and Field Evalu-ations, Abstracts: Rye Town Hilton, Rye Brook, New ’York, August 8-10, 1995 (EPA 600-R-95-078).
.
In Sitzl Vitrification Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-504,PB95-125499)
Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment (EPA540-2-90-014)
U.S. EPA. 1993-1995. Technology Resource Guides:. *
. Bioremediation Resource Guide (EPA542-B-93-004) l
l Groundwater Treatment Technology Resource Guide(EPA 542-B-94-009, PB95 138657) .
l Physical/Chemical Treatment Technology ResourceGuide (EPA 542-B-94-008, PB95-138665)
.
Pyrolysis Treatment (EPA 540-S-92-010)
Rotating Biological Contactors (EPA 540-S-92-007)
Slurry Biodegradation (EPA 540-2-90-016, PB91-228049)
Soil Washing Treatment (EPA 540-2-90-017, PB91-228056)
l Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Enhancement Technol- .ogy Resource Guide: Air Sparging, Bioventing, Frac-turing, and Thermal Enhancements (EPA 542-B-95003) .
’l Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Treatment TechnologyResource Guide (EPA 542-B 94-007)
.
Solidification/Stabilization of Organics andInorganics (EPA 540-S-92-015)
Solvent Extraction Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-503,PB94-190477)
Supercritical Water Oxidation (EPA 540-S-92-006)
Technology Preselection Data Requirements (EPA540-S-92-009)
U.S. EPA. 1995. Waste Vitrification Through ElectricMelting, Ferro Corporation: Emerging Technology Bul-
Thermal Desorption Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-501,PB94-160603)
letin (EPA 540-F-95-503). U.S. EPA. 1994. Field Investigation of Effectiveness ofSoil Vapor Extraction Technology (Final Project Report)(EPA 600-R-94-142, PB94-205531).U.S. EPA. 1994. Accessing EPA’s Environmental Tech-
nology Programs (EPA 542-F-94 005).
US. EPA. 1994. Bioremediation: AVideo Primer (video)(EPA 5 10-V-94-001).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Bioremediation in the Field Search Sys-tem (EPA 540-F-95-507; Fact Sheet: EPA 540-F-94-506).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Contaminants and Remedial Options atSolvent-Contaminated Sites (EPA 600-R-94-203, PB95-177200).
U.S. EPA. 1990-1994. EPAEngineering Bulletins:.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Ground Water Treatment TechnologiesResource Guide (EPA 542-B-94 009, PB95-138657).
U.S. EPA. 1994. How to Evaluate Alternative CleanupTechnologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites: AGuide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers (EPA 510-B-94-003, S/N 055-000-00499-4); Pamphlet (EPA 510-F-95-003).
U.S. EPA. 1994. In Situ Steam Enhanced Recovery Pro-cess, Hughes Environmental Systems, Inc.: InnovativeTechnology Evaluation Report (EPA540-R-94-510, PB95
51
271854); Site Technology Capsule (EPA 540-R-94-5 lOa,PB95-270476).
U.S. EPA. 1994. In Situ Vitrification, Geosafe Corpora-tion: Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 540-R-94-520, PB95-213245); Demonstration Bulletin (EPA540 MR-94-520).
U.S. EPA. 1994. J.R. Simplot &-Situ BioremediationTechnology for Treatment of Dinoseb-ContaminatedSoils: Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (EPA540-R-94-508); Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 54OMR-9 4 - 5 0 8 ) .
U.S. EPA. 1994. Literature Review Summary of MetalsExtraction Processes Used to Remove Lead From Soils,Project Summary (EPA 600-SR-94-006).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Northeast Remediation Marketplace:Business Opportunities For Innovative Technologies(Summary Proceedings) (EPA 542-R-94-001, PB94-154770).
US. EPA. 1994. Physical/Chemical Treatment Technol-ogy Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-94 008, PB95-138665).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Profile of Innovative Technologies andVendors For Waste Site Remediation (EPA 542-R-94-002,PB95-138418).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Radio Frequency Heating, KAI Tech-nologies, Inc.: Innovative Technology Evaluation Report(EPA540-R-94-528); Site Technology Capsule (EPA 540-R-94-528a, PB95-249454).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Regional Market Opportunities For In-novative Site Clean-up Technologies: Middle AtlanticStates (EPA 542-R-95-010, PB96-121637).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Rocky Mountain Remediation Market-place: Business Opportunities For Innovative Technolo-gies (Summary Proceedings) (EPA 542-R-94-006,PB95-173738).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Selected EPA Products and AssistanceOn Alternative Cleanup Technologies (IncludesRemediation Guidance Documents Produced By TheWisconsin Department of Natural Resources) (EPA 510-E-94-001).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment Tech-nology Resource Guide (EPA 542-B 94-007).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Solid Oxygen Source for Bioremedia-tion Subsurface Soils (revised) (EPA600-J-94-495, PB95-155149).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Solvent Extraction: Engineering Bulle-tin (EPA 540-S-94-503, PB94 190477).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Solvent Extraction Treatment System,Terra-Keen Response Group, Inc. (EPA540-MR-94-521).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Status Reports on In Siti Treatment Tech-nology Demonstration and Applications:.
l ‘Altering Chemical Conditions (EPA 542-K-94-008)
. Cosolvents (EPA 542-K-94-006)
l Electrokinetics (EPA 542-K-94-007)
l Hydraulic and Pneumatic Fracturing (EPA 542-K-94-005)
. Surfactant Enhancements (EPA 542-K-94-003)
l Thermal Enhancements (EPA 542-K-94-009)
l Treatment Walls (EPA 542-K-94-004)
U.S. EPA. 1994. Subsurface Volatilization and Ventila-tion System (SWS): Innovative Technology Report (EPA540-R-94-529, PB96-116488); Site Technology Capsule(EPA 540-R-94-529a, PB95-256111).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Superfund Innovative TechnologyEvalu-ation (SITE) Program: Technology Profiles, SeventhEdition (EPA 540-R-94-526, PB95-183919).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Desorption System,Maxymillian Technologies, Inc.: Site Technology Cap-sule (EPA 540-R94-507a, PB95-122800).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Desorption Treatment: Engi-neering Bulletin (EPA 540-S-94-501, PB94-160603).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Desorption Unit, Eco LogicJntemational, Inc.: Application Analysis Report (EPA540-AR-94-504).
US. EPA. 1994. Thermal Enhancements: InnovativeTechnology Evaluation Report (EPA 542-K-94-009).
U.S. EPA. 1994. The Use of Cationic Surfactants toModify Aquifer Materials to Reduce the Mobility ofHydrophobic Organic Compounds (EPA 600-S-94-002,PB95-111951).
52
U.S. EPA. 1994. West Coast Remediation Marketplace:Business Opportunities For Innovative Technologies(Summary Proceedings) (EPA 542-R-94-008, PB95-143319).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Accutech Pneumatic Fracturing Extrac-tion and Hot Gas Injection, Phase I: Technology Evalua-tion Report (EPA 540-R-93-509, PB93-216596).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Augmented In Situ SubsurfaceBioremediation Process, Bio-Rem, Inc.: DemonstrationBulletin (EPA 540~MR-93-527).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Biogenesis Soil Washing Technology:Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540 MR-93-5 10).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Bioremediation Resource Guide andMatrix (EPA 542-B-93-004, PB94 112307).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Bioremediation: Using the Land Treat-ment Concept (EPA 600-R-93-164, PB94-107927).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Fungal Treatment Technology: Demon-stration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93 5 14).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction Process,Eco Logic International Inc. (EPA 540-R-93-522, PB95-10025 1, EPA 540~MR-93-522).
US. EPA. 1993. HRUBOUT, Hrnbetz EnvironmentalServices: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540~MR-93-524).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Hydraulic Fracturing of ContaminatedSoil, US. EPA: Innovative Technology Evaluation Re-port (EPA540-R-93-505, PB94-100161); DemonstrationBulletin (EPA 540~MR-93-505).
US. EPA. 1993. HYPERVENTILATE: A software Guid-ance System Created for Vapor Extraction Systems forApple Macintosh and IBM PC-Compatible Computers(UST #107) (EPA 510-F-93-001); User’s Manual(Macintosh disk included) (UST#102) (EPA 500-CB 92-001).
U.S. EPA. 1993. In Situ Bioremediation of ContaminatedGround Water (EPA 540-S-92 003, PB92-224336).
US. EPA. 1993. In Situ Bioremediation of ContaminatedUnsaturated Subsurface Soils (EPA -S-93-501, PB93-234565).
US. EPA. 1993. In Situ Bioremediation of Ground Wa-ter and Geological Material: A Review of Technologies(EPA 600~SR-93-124, PB93-215564).
U.S. EPA. 1993. In Situ Treatments of ContaminatedGroundwater: An Inventory of Research and Field Dem-onstrations and Strategies for Improving GroundwaterRemediation Technologies (EPA 500-K-93-001, PB93-193720).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Laboratory Story on the Use of Hot Waterto Recover Light Oily Wastes from Sands (EPA 600-R-93-021, PB93-167906).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Low Temperature Thermal Aeration(LTTA) System, Smith Environmental TechnologiesCorp.: Applications Analysis Report’ (EPA 540~AR-93-504); Site Demonstration Bulletin (EPA540-MR-93-504).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Mission Statement: Federal RemediationTechnologies Roundtable (EPA 542-F-93-006).
US. EPA. 1993. Mobile Volume Reduction Unit, US.EPA: Applications Analysis Report (EPA 540-AR-93-508,PB94-130275).
US. EPA. 1993. Overview of USTRemediation Options(EPA 5 10-F-93-029).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Soil Recycling Treatment, TorontoHarbour Commissioners (EPA 540~AR 93-517, PB94-124674).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Synopses of Federal Demonstrations ofInnovative Site Remediation Technologies, Third Edition(EPA 542-B-93-009, PB94-144565).
U.S. EPA. 1993. XTRAX Model 200 Thermal Desorp-tion System, OHM Remediation Services Corp.: SiteDemonstration Bulletin (EPA 540~MR-93-502).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Aostra Soil-tech Anaerobic ThermalProcess, Soiltech ATP Systems: Demonstration Bulletin(EPA 540~MR-92-008).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Basic Extractive Sludge Treatment(B.E.S.T.) Solvent Extraction System, Ionics/ResourcesConservation Co.: Applications Analysis Report (EPA540-AR-92-079, PB94-105434); Demonstration Sum-mary (EPA 540-SR-92-079).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Bioremediation Case Studies: AnAnaly-sis of Vendor Supplied Data (EPA 600-R-92-043, PB92-232339).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Bioremediation Field Initiative (EPA540-F-92-012).
53
U.S. EPA. 1992. Carver Greenfield Process, DehydrotechCorporation: Applications Analysis Report (EPA 540~AR-92-002, PB93-101152); Demonstration Summary (EPA540 SR-92-002).
US. EPA. 1992. Chemical Enhancements to Pump-and-Treat Remediation (EPA 540-S-92 001, PB92-180074).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Cyclone Furnace Vitrification Technol-ogy, Babcock and Wilcox: Applications Analysis Report(EPA 540~AR-92-017, PB93-122315).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Evaluation of Soil Venting Application(EPA 540-S-92-004, PB92 235605).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Excavation Techniques and Foam Sup-pression Methods, McCall Superfund Site, U.S. EPA:Applications Analysis Report (EPA 540-AR-92-015,PB93 100121).
U.S. EPA. 1992. In Situ Biodegradation Treatment: En-gineering Bulletin (EPA 540-S-94 502, PB94-190469).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Low Temperature Thermal TreatmentSystem, Roy F. Weston, Inc.: Applications Analysis Re-port (EPA 540~AR-92-019, PB94-124047).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Proceedings of the Symposium on SoilVenting (EPA 600-R-92-174, PB93-122323).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Soil/Sediment Washing System,Bergman USA: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540~MR-92-075).
US. EPA. 1992. TCE Removal From Contaminated Soiland Groundwater (EPA 540-S-92 002, PB92-224104).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Technology Alternatives for theRemediation of PC%-Contaminated Soil and Sediment(EPA 540-S-93-506).
U.S. EPA. 1992. Workshop on Removal, Recovery, Treat-ment, and Disposal of Arsenic and Mercury (EPA 600-R-92-105, PB92-216944).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Biological Remediation of ContaminatedSediments, With Special Emphasis on the Great Lakes:Report of a Workshop (EPA 600-9-91-001).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Debris Washing System, RREL. Tech-nology Evaluation Report (EPA 540 5-91-006, PB91-23 1456).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guide to Discharging CERCLAAque-ous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (9330.2-13FS).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Zn Situ Soil Vapor Extraction: Engineer-ing Bulletin (EPA 540-2-91-006, PB91-228072).
U.S. EPA. 1991. In Situ Steam Extraction: EngineeringBulletin (EPA 540-2-91-005, PB91 228064).
U.S. EPA. 1991. In Situ Vapor Extraction and SteamVacuum Stripping, AWD Technologies (EPA 540-A5-91-002, PB92-218379).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Pilot-Scale Demonstration of Slurry-Phase Biological Reactor for Creosote Contaminated Soil(EPA 540-A5-91-009, PB94-124039).
U.S. EPA. 1991. Slurry Biodegradation, InternationalTechnology Corporation (EPA 540 MR-9 l-009).
U.S. EPA. 199 1. Understanding Bioremediation: AGuide-book for Citizens (EPA 540-2-91 002, PB93-205870).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Anaerobic Biotransformation of Con-taminants in the Subsurface (EPA 600 M-90-024, PB91-240549).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment,APEG Treatment: Engineering Bulletin (EPA 540-2-90-015, PB91-228031).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Enhanced Bioremediation UtilizingHydrogen Peroxide as a Supplemental Source of Oxy-gen: A Laboratory and Field Study (EPA.600-2-90-006,PB90-183435).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Guide to Selecting Superfund RemedialActions (9355.0-27FS).
US. EPA. 1990. Slurry Biodegradation: EngineeringBulletin (EPA 540-2-90-016, PB91 228049).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Soil Washing Treatment: EngineeringBulletin (EPA 540-2-90-017, PB91 228056).
U.S. EPA. 1989. Facilitated Transport (EPA 540-4-89-003, PB91-133256).
U.S. EPA. 1989. Guide on Remedial Actions for Con-taminated Ground Water (9283.1 02FS).
U.S. EPA. 1987. Compendium of Costs of Remedial Tech-nologies at Hazardous Waste Sites (EPA 600-2-87-087).
54
U.S. EPA. 1987. Data Quality Objectives for RemedialResponse Activities: Development Process (9355.0-07B).
U.S. EPA. 1986. Costs of Remedial Actions at Uncon-trolled Hazardous Waste Sites (EPA$40/2-86/037).
U.S. EPA. n.d. Alternative Treatment Technology Infor-mation Center (AmIC) (The ATTIC data base can beaccessed by modem at (703) 908-2138).
U.S. EPA. Clean-Up Information (CLU-IN) BulletinBoard System. (CLU-IN can be accessed by modem at(301) 589-8366 or by the Internet at http://clu-incorn).
U.S. EPA. n.d. Initiatives to Promote Innovative Tech-nology in Waste Management Programs (OSWBR Di-rective 9308.0-25).
U.S. EPA and University of Pittsburgh. n.d. Ground Wa-ter Remediation Technologies Analysis Center. Internetaddress: http://www.gwrtac.org
Vendor Information System for Innovative TreatmentTechnologies (VISITT), Version 4.0 (VISITT can bedownloaded from the Internet at http://www.prcemi.com/visitt or from the CLU-IN Web site at http://clu-in.com).
55 *us. GOVERNMEN T pRn.rm.JG OFFICE: 1999 - 750.lOYOw45
United StatesEnvironmental Protection AgencyCenter for EnvironmentalResearch Information, G-74Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use$300
I BULK RATEPOSTAGE & FEES PAID I
EPAPERMIT No. G-35
I
EPAl625!R-981006